“I can think of nothing in the plethora of diktats about racial, sexist, ageist, religious or homophobic language that could not equally well be covered by a two-line ruling that all these — if serious — constitute insulting behaviour or harassment.”

In Seattle recently, there were three separate murders and the perpetrators were all black. None of them were charged with hate crime.

“”Kristopher Kime, a 20-year-old white man who worked in construction and attended Highline Community College, came to the aid of a lone, petite, white woman on the ground being stomped by blacks. One of them, 18-year-old Jerell Thomas, came up behind him and smashed a bottle on the back of Kime’s head. Kime went down, and the pack stomped him.

Seattle’s Finest were assembled nearby, some on the ground, and some on rooftops, and could see the savagery, but were ordered to stand down because Chief Gil Kerlikowske didn’t want to stir up the rioters. When Kime’s friends telephoned 911 for help, the dispatchers refused to send officers into the riot to rescue him. He died that night in the hospital as his grief-stricken father looked on.

…. Seattle police eventually recommended that the Kime murder and other black-on-white attacks be treated as hate crimes, but the King County prosecutor made no hate crime charges.

Black Seattle preachers and community leaders were outraged–not by the racist violence–but because the media had dared to show that the perpetrators were black. Black preachers and the president of the Urban League, James Kelly, met with Mayor Paul Schell to demand that the media stop mentioning the riot’s racial character, calling complaints about black racism a “vilification of African Americans.” Chief Kerlikowske dutifully announced that race had had nothing to do with the race riot, and the media took the same line. Eventually, in a rare show of honesty, Chief Kerlikowske did admit that the attacks were racially motivated.”"

Hate crime legislation is ONLY targeting European males. It is not for Africans or Mexicans. Hate crime legislation is only targeting Christians. Christian preachers in Canada are being hauled into court for a hate crime when they preach the biblical injunction against homosexuality. Now, throughout Christendom, homosexuality was condemned, sermons preached against it. Now, under Marxist cultural hegemony of political correctness, Christians who speak out are arrested and charged with hate crimes. But socialists and homosexuals who charge into Catholic Churches in San Francisco while mass is going on to disrupt them are NOT charged with hate crimes.

Hate crimes are being used to protect Marxist pet victims and club their resistors. See, who gets to define “hate” is what matters. Hatred of Christianity and of Christians is not a crime. But when Christians preach against homosexuality, it is a crime.

For the rest of the article of the Seattle murders is here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013099.html CWCID Lawerence Auster at View from the Right

If there is a hate, there must be love in applying the laws equally, but not by creating two-tiers: one for the elites, the rulers and majority without the will power to research about the power of the grand jury to correct official crime masked by the ‘color’ of law, a situation where you or me loses our rights to speak freely and question corruption, that is wrong.

That is not “hate.” It is a love of the truth.

Red Beckman exposes the truth of real power of love of country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnkQ0H0xodk&feature=related

Okay, If I pushed someone. Pushing someone is not a crime. (I know in our supersilly society, modern law codes call that assault but in the old days it wasn’t.)

But If I use a racial epithat, while doing that it is a hate crime. Using a racial epithat is Hate Crime.

Racial epithats have always been used by every nation on earth since time immemorial. It was never a crime.

Now it is.

Now Jesus in the New Testament in the meeting with the Syro-Phonecian woman uses the term “dog” to obliquely refer to her. “Dog” is what Semitic people used to refer to Indo-Europeans who kept dogs. Was that a Hate crime?

English call French “frogs”, Germans “Krauts” and Japanese “Japs” or “Slant eyes”. And forever in European and American culture, Africans were referred as “n******”. Now, nobody was charged with a hate crime for some 200 years but after 1960, it is a hate crime to use the term “N*****’ .

What changed? This is preferential treatment? Was this Racialism? No.

It is about Marxists criminalizing racial prejudice and criminalizing human behavior that created metaphysical boundaries.

I am not talking about Turkish Law, or Chinese Law, but strictly Western Law. It is not in the Bible. Many things categorized as Hate crime is throughout the Bible and many times it is God who is doing it. If Western Law is partly based on Biblical injunctions, where did Hate Law come from?

What Hate Crime legislation is all about is social re-engineering for globalization. It is foreign. It is unjust and it attacks the Laws of Nature. Racial epithats have always been used, everywhere, at all times and now that is criminalized? No. It is not right.

If I had my say, the law would have far less influence over our lives, and far more would be up to ordinary, decent people to work things out among themselves.

The others of you, leave the Jews out of it.

What do hate crime laws have to do with the “violent Mexicans assaulting crass gays” example you provide? Your spiral of increasing hatred is triggered by the seemingly accurate assessment of a journalist who publishes that the attacks were motivated by hate.

How would the result have been any different if the Mexicans had been charged with assault rather than hate crimes?

I abhor injustice and reject the underlying premise of hate crime law, but let’s be realistic: this kind of preferential treatment is far from a recent innovation that suddenly appeared with Jews.

If anything, it is an ancient form of supremacism carried over from the old country. One can find similar legislation in Yuan China, the Ottoman Empire, and, yes, even ancient Germanic law.

We are all familiar with the weregild, no? Under Anglo Saxon law murdering a Welshman only required half the blood money of an English freeman. Was this any more just than discriminately applied hate crime laws?

If a certain class of people, Jew or gentile, demands preferential treatment, they should be resisted. If you find that it is predominately one group or another demanding this, feel free to expose them, but rather than demanding revenge I think we ought to work toward a radical kind of equality under the law. Perhaps that has grown to be a foreign concept today, but I find it worth fighting for all the same.