Thursday, October 13, 2011

If Anti-Racism were in practice more than just anti-white, what would 'Hate Crimes' laws look like in action?

Imagine, for a second, that the anti-racists who control mainstream media and politics were actually something more than just an anti-white group...imagine that they were bona fide universalists rather than the glib hypocrites that we've come to know and loathe.  So what would one of their favorite causes, the 'Hate Crimes' law, look like?

Such seems pretty obvious to me---it would be a sentencing enhancement that kicked in any time the victim and offender were on different sides of an accredited line of potential hatred.  For instance, if the offender was white and the victim black, or vice versa, it'd kick in.  If the offender was Jewish and the victim non-Jewish, it'd kick in.  No determination of whether particular, as opposed to general, hatred was involved would be made, the sentence would just get the enhancement if a conviction was made.  The theoretical justification would be that such crimes, in addition to being unpleasant to the victims, also increase the level of tension on both sides of the accredited line of potential hatred.  Someone who is actually anti-racist, as opposed to anti-white, wouldn't lose any sleep over the fact that the number of black offender sentences thus enhanced would be much greater than the number of white offender sentences similarly augmented. 

But obviously, this isn't what we see.  Hate crime statutes are applied with much much greater frequency as a fraction of interracial crimes when the white person is the offender.  It takes a massive hue and cry to even get such considered when the offender is black, and it is rarely applied even then.

The take away here for any honest anti-racists or universalists---assuming any such even exist, is that you're in a bootleggers/baptists alliance with anti-whites, and they outnumber you so incredibly massively in that alliance that it makes no sense to call it a Baptist concern.  Some years ago, when I was in college, I proposed exactly such a hate crime law to many bootleggers from the first and second sigma.  Needless to say, they weren't enthusiastic at all about it.


Hail said...

The danger in Hate Crime laws--


It's not a very big jump from criminalizing private opinions. (BNP leader Nick Griffin was charged with a crime, and convicted IIRC, for expressing opinions in a private conversation to a friend...he was unaware a government microphone was nearby).

If you must have 'Hate Crime' laws, your system would work better than the present system. But if you keep pulling on that string, it all becomes absurd. How about a 'Class Hate Crime' provision? If the perpetrator is from the bottom-20% and victimizes someone from the top-20%, he may be motivated be class-hatred. Religion, Gender, Sexuality, Politics, Region, Neighborhood, You could think up dozens of potential 'hate' fault lines. Before you know it, everyone has an enhanced sentence because of potential hatred-motivation.

Jehu said...

Hail, I'm not in favor of 'hate crime' laws in general, but I appreciate the opportunity to display the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of that political and media mainstream in such a clear manner. My goal is to destroy any pretense that they possess the 'moral high ground' and allow the battle to proceed on the basis of raw power and such power alone.

Steve N. said...

Consistent hate crime enforcement would undoubtedly have a "disparate impact" on communities of color. Hate crime enforcement would thus become part of the edifice of hate, which the hate crime designation was designed to bring down. It really would make for an excellent Onion piece (if they haven't already done so... Onion is verbooten at work). In practice, consistent enforcement of hate crime laws would quickly result in their being dismantled and quietly forgotten.