La Shawn has announced that she has purchased the domain name FakeHate.com to start up a group blog to document a pernicious form of the “noble lie”: people who manufacture crises by fabricating hate crimes against themselves for attention.

>>>The good news is this decision aroused Clarence Thomas into action with a “blistering” judicial dissent. He asserted, and rightfully so, that “cross burning has almost invariably meant lawlessness and understandably instills in its victims well-grounded fear of physical violence.” Certainly, cross burnings were, in many instances, a prelude to lynching in the Deep South. With the apparent resurgence of cross burnings across America, Thomas, the only black justice on the Supreme Court, took a stand by refusing to sign O’Connor’s opinion and by challenging the core of her brief that cross burnings should be protected as a First Amendment (free speech) right.

Additionally, in the 1998 James and Susan Jubilee’s (he’s black and she’s white) cross-burning incident, the Supreme Court on Monday, April 8, threw out the conviction of their neighbors who were the cross burners, and instructed the Virginia Supreme Court to determine if “the men intended to intimidate their neighbors.” The Virginia Supreme Court had already struck down the lower court ruling in favor of the Jubilees by relying on a 1992 U. S. Supreme Court ruling which struck down a law banning “cross burning intended to arouse anger in people based on race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” Interestingly, the crux of this case is that the 25-foot cross was burned in the Jubilee’s yard in full view of their three children. In other words, the neighbors did not burn the cross in their yard! The cross burners, then, challenged the Virginia lower court ban on cross burning and won that decision on Monday, April 8.”
http://www.aces.edu/urban/metronews/vol2no3/cross.html

I cite this case not only for the irony of a man like Thomas breaking ranks with the conservative anti-hate crime agenda, but the case itself. Here we have an INTERRACIAL COUPLE being on the receiving end of the hate crime episode, which presents both a Black AND White victim.

Now, I’m sure there are some conservative African Americans out there like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Jesse Lee Peterson or Gerald Reynolds who may find nothing unsettling about the prospect of neighbors burning a 25 foot high cross near their home. Hell, some of them might enjoy the extra reading light it might provide. But as for me, and most CONSCIOUS African-Americans, I would be aghast at the blatant, naked display of hate and intolerance. Since the USSC decided AGAINST Thomas on this one, the point is moot.

–Cobra

Excerpt: Head of Spanish survivor’s group faked his story Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 11, 2005

The head of a group of Spanish World War II concentration camp survivors has admitted after decades that he faked his story, saying he was never in any Nazi concentration camp.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1115777944886&p=1078113566627

The piece of human debris who killed 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford is someone who should never have been on the street. 24 arrests for such things as burglary, carrying a concealed weapon, disorderly conduct, drunk driving, drug possession, and larceny. Arrested for assaulting a young girl in the bedroom of the home he was burlarizing. Convicted of indecent exposure. Convicted of felony sex abuse against a child. Convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a 5-year-old child. Served only 4 years. As I understand it, he was in voilation of his parole when he killed Jessica.

Not familiar with the case. How was he released? Was it something extraordinary to the system or was he being treated normally?

Who’s expending all your efforts doing this?

Oh, I know, that’s just so mean spirited of me. Sorry.

I am not making excuses for disgusting behavior of hateful individuals, however I fail to see the logic of some that argue that without hate crime legislation, we are destined to return to the days of Kluckers, burning crosses, bombed churches, attack dogs and fire hoses.

And to return to my earlier post, I want to state that I agree with Eugene Volokh and others who make the case for retributive sentencing/punishment being morally just. Maybe on that one point alone, hate crime legislation has some validity to it. I could accept arguments in favor more if those groups would come out and admit that retribution does play a part in their desire for hate crime legislation.

“Gang violence is a problem in some areas and in fact, in California there are specific laws much like hate crime legislation that impose penal consequences for gang activity”

Oh, and has this ended the Gang problem in California, or even had a significant impact? I’d wager not, but that is the whole problem with the mentality that all of these social ills (real or imagined) can be solved through additional legislation. Legislation which only serves to weaken free association and free speech — and I’m beginning to believe that this is what the power-brokers are after all along, the diminution of criticism of themselves or of anything that is of the unpopular kind.

I know. Just hate crimes are different than others. you assume the conclusion when you say that its “the same crime”

“If the moral repugnance of the crime requires harsh punishment, there already existed means to exact that punishment.”

Ya. The law that says that morally repugnant hate crimes are punished that way.

“The reality is that these “Hate Crimes” are for the protection (and a dubious protection, at that) of ONLY certain groups; and, in essence, hateful in itself in the people who are the intended TARGET of hate-crime legislation.”

I’d really love to see some statistics on this. The FBI keeps track of reported incidents, but not indictments or convictions.

First Chris – Gang violence is a problem in some areas and in fact, in California there are specific laws much like hate crime legislation that impose penal consequences for gang activity and specific crime enhancements when crimes are committed as part of gang activity. I would imagine, many other states and jurisdictions have the same type of statutes on the books. In fact, I would be surprised if they did not.

Mark: I would be interested in seeing where you get your information since the data I am aware of shows that hate crimes have been increasing. I know there is always a controversy on how such such data is collected and what it really means. Be that as it may, the implications for hate crimes as set forth by Mr. Neiwert suggests to me that passing such legislation is worth it in the long run.

That may have some validity if in fact there was an abiding spate of violence against certain groups (Blacks, Jews, what have you), when in fact, in this nation, there is not. Nor, in fact, has there ever been in this nation (the truth).

The reality is that these “Hate Crimes” are for the protection (and a dubious protection, at that) of ONLY certain groups; and, in essence, hateful in itself in the people who are the intended TARGET of hate-crime legislation.

Far more obvious is the effect on real liberty (free speech and free association) inasmuch as these things tend to creep upwards in size and scope. I direct the gentle reader to Canada, where church pastors have been prosecuted under the self-same “hate crimes” statutes in that nation.

While it may not speak to Jews, Gays, etc., am I wrong in suggesting that there are potentially greater issues to be addressed than this within those two communities?

I know the kids at my school are terrorized more by the stray bullet of a gang members AK-47 than any white man with hate in his heart. And I definitely know kids at my school fear being oppressed for not joining a gang than they are of any white man, anywhere, anytime.