Hate crime victims - Young, poor, white

Posted by Bo Sears on February 23, 2006, 01:19 AM | #

Hate Crimes

Because heavy promotion by the dominant media culture at least since 1994 has silenced European Americans with an inaccurate portrait of their being the principal perpetrators of hate crimes, this study is very welcome, overturning media assumptions at least for the period A.D.2000 to A.D.2003.

We don’t seek to paint others as perps, but we bitterly resent the use of false analyses of hate crimes in the campaign of defamation that we see on a daily basis in the USA against European Americans.

We have enough problems: the highest rate of youth tobacco smoking, the absence of genuine and humane intervention in white gangs, the absence of genuine treatment facilities for meth addiction, etc.

But, oh, how the fallacious hate crime stats we have suffered with have silenced us over and over again.

See “Hate Crime” in the “Glossary” of our web site.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 23, 2006, 04:27 AM | #

“See ‘Hate Crime’ in the ‘Glossary’ of our web site” (—Bo Sears)

The Resisting Defamation hate-crimes section which Bo Sears refers to is well-done.  Here’s an excerpt:
______

“Hate crime is the theme in the first decade of the 21st century used by the dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture to defame European Americans, and in particular to defame young European American men between nineteen and twenty-six years of age.

“To understand the callously vicious attitude of FBI toward European Americans, reflect on the fact that FBI refuses to classify the violent hate crime against Reginald Denny in May 1992 in Los Angeles as a hate crime in the White victim category.”

Posted by ben tillman on February 23, 2006, 05:12 AM | #

Let’s face it - outside of Southern California, virtually all victims of “hate crimes” in the USA are white, targeted either because of their race or because of their sexual orientation.  White-on-white hate crimes in the form of “fag-bashing” are all too common, but hate crimes by whites against members of other races are almost as rare as white-on-black rapes.  Which is to say, for all intents and purposes, they don’t exist outside the propasphere.

Posted by ben tillman on February 23, 2006, 05:14 AM | #

[...] Another example of how FBI statistical manipulation works is to be found in Los Angeles County hate crime records for 1997. There were two murders and seven attempted murders that were considered hate crimes in that calendar year. All nine of the perpetrators were Latino (or Hispanic), so FBI recorded those nine perpetrators in the White perpetrator category....

That’s a powerful anecdote.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 23, 2006, 06:17 AM | #

So glad we locking up and deporting those damn holocaust deniers! Whew, I feel safer now.

Posted by Voice on February 23, 2006, 03:08 PM | #

Hey Guys,

this was on Vdare via a Multicultural Czar from a college in St Paul..http://www.paulgorski.efoliomn2.com/

You won’t believe this crap he links to.

http://www.cafepress.com/edchange

this is what our kids are going to be wearing at university...still want to go into debt to give them this opportunity?

BTW, the US is so far advanced at the self hating white student level compared to UK and Australia etc..this is what you have to look forward to..Although I am not sure because americans are a special type of simple

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 23, 2006, 03:40 PM | #

I had a look at the Paul Gorski home page whose URL is given in Voice’s comment, and at the link to Gorski’s multi-culti site, also provided in Voice’s comment.  My reaction is to ask, is this Paul Gorski character Jewish?

It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that this multi-culti stuff of exactly the type Gorski spouts is, when spouted by Jews, simply Jewish nationalism (if it turns out he’s Catholic, he’s an extreme exception, given the stuff on his web-pages).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 23, 2006, 03:44 PM | #

In other words, Gorski might as well have put an announcement like the following at his site:

“The material at this site is not really a way of showing my humanitarianism, but is instead a way of trying to destroy white Christian society, which I loathe because it’s not Jewish, and it’s my way of expressing my Jewish nationalism as long as I’m stuck here in the Jewish Diaspora.”

Posted by Voice on February 23, 2006, 04:31 PM | #

Fred

I think we are in the stage that someone at MR coined-advanced liberalism.

This religion of PC and Multiculturalisim is so advanced stage that the race replacers, male effeminate leftists, useful idiots(every grade school female teacher level), respectable conservatives, militant feminists and general “right” thinking people are in a gatekeeper position in every aspect of society.  This could be the HR department at work, hiring and teaching positions at Elementary, Secondary and univesity level academia-from the NEA to the Marxist led university faculty all the through through our legal system.

Although, we all know the communist and cultural marxist jewish origins of the revolution, it is now maintained by a no doubt Jewish maintained MSM and Motion picture industry but it is a sickness that transcends beyond organized Jewry to white gentile and secular populations worldwide.

It is endemic in our society and western civilization.  It exists in countries that have very little Jewish MSM control.  The UK is moving at breakneck speed without the same level of jewish control as the US.

Otherwise, how do we explain the overwhelming Palestinian support and the many anti-Zionist positions and equating Zionism as racism in our Universities?

Although the neocons want to spread democracy to the middle east and put Israel before the US, many are against many of the leftist political movements we despise on MR.  The problem we have with the neocons is they still believe in equality of man coincides with long term survival of Jewish interests-we all know this is incorrect and it has a negative impact on Jewish and White survival interests.

I don’t follow David Horowitz daily, but he has started a student group for academic freedom in the universities that is applying pressure to marxists in academia.  Granted, part of this movement is to stop a critique of Zionism by positioning with impressionable students a “blame america first"(implying Israel and America are part of same team) platform ,but the student groug tackles the range of all anti-white behaviour.

Jewish and white interests coincide because we are both threatened populations from a long term survival perspective.  If we keep fighting eachother, we are both going to have savages dancing on our graves as a people in a couple of hundred years.  It is tough thing to reconcile knowing what has gone on in the past(although when I focus on Jewish fault I still have to consider their position), but I think it is the only way to a solution. 

We see a lot of the nationalists groups(like BNP in UK), dropping “anti-semitic” rhetoric and focussing on Muslim issue.

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 23, 2006, 05:41 PM | #

“Jewish and white interests coincide because we are both threatened populations from a long term survival perspective.”

Maybe, but there isn’t much indication the other side recognises this.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 23, 2006, 05:58 PM | #

virtually all victims of “hate crimes” in the USA are white, targeted either because of their race or because of their sexual orientation.

...a fact ironically admitted by Tim Wise, tribal ninja; he freely admits that blacks choose whites as victims because whites are rich.

Funny, Wise’s cotribalists in France just ran amok a few days ago, beating a black man, among other craziness, because Muslim kidnappers killed a jew and targeted him because “a jew is rich.”

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 23, 2006, 06:12 PM | #

Jewish and white interests coincide because we are both threatened populations from a long term survival perspective.  If we keep fighting eachother, we are both going to have savages dancing on our graves as a people in a couple of hundred years.  It is tough thing to reconcile knowing what has gone on in the past(although when I focus on Jewish fault I still have to consider their position), but I think it is the only way to a solution.

We see a lot of the nationalists groups(like BNP in UK), dropping “anti-semitic” rhetoric and focussing on Muslim issue.

I see little possibility for white/jewish cooperation.  Leopards don’t change their spots.  On the other hand I do see the value of dropping “anti-Semitic” rhetoric; that carries benefits of its own independent of a white/jewish alliance (i.e., it allows whites to sidestep the Gordian Knot of jewish propaganda and get on with waking up their race).

Posted by Bo Sears on February 23, 2006, 06:36 PM | #

Two Respectful Questions To Voice:

These two questions are based on your comments above, “Jewish and white interests coincide because we are both threatened populations from a long term survival perspective.  If we keep fighting each other, we are both going to have savages dancing on our graves as a people in a couple of hundred years.”

1) Can you describe any society, state, or nation from Elephantine days to today in which Jews and whites or European Americans were able to construct some kind of positive, mutually advanageous relaitonship? I’m not saying it is impossible, but can you provide such a real-world model in which this was done? This is a very critical issue—selecting a model for such two-way cooperation.

2) Who would speak for European American or white interests in such a two-way cooperative endeavor? European Americans and whites possess no self-consciously EA or white organization that are focused on their own overall interests.

When such organizations arise, even the most innocuous and benign sort, they are immediately slapped down in the most vicious way possible. Even our organization, designed to speak out about a very tiny slice of white or European American interests, that is, the interest of not having our children defamed, has been bashed and trashed unmercifully.

Whites and European Americans are not allowed to have organizations that they can speak through about their interests. Just who would those representing Jewish interests speak and cooperate with?

I earnestly wish the possibility you describe were a reality, but I’d need to see answers to these two questions before agreeing with the proposition.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 23, 2006, 07:45 PM | #

Voice,

If you are a Frontpage reader you will doubtless know of this fine article by Larry Auster.  If not, I commend it to you.  These are the money quotes:-

First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism.

... Jews’ risible obsession with non-existent evangelical Protestant anti-Semites, combined with their obliviousness to actual mass murdering Islamist anti-Semites (whom, moreover, the Jews’ favored immigration policies have allowed into this country) is an amazing phenomenon that we should not dismiss as simply a bizarre ethnic idiosyncrasy. It expresses, rather, a central preoccupation of a significant number of Jews, namely their corrosive apprehension of what they think the goyim might one day do to them—a fear they entertain despite the fact that, apart from some social exclusions and other ethnic prejudices that existed up to the end of World War II, Jews have never faced serious anti-Semitism from the white Christian majority in this country.

... Now, when Jews put together the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,” with the idea that “any social prejudice or exclusion directed against Jews leads potentially to Auschwitz,” they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any minority group, no matter how alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.

So there it is. We have identified the core assumption that makes many liberal and neoconservative Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their mortal enemies. As these Jews see it, any immigration restrictions against Moslems would release a latent ethnocentrism in the white American majority that would then turn instantly against the Jews. To state this thought process in the baldest terms, these Jews believe that if philo-Semitic white gentiles exclude Jew-hating Moslems from America, it would lead those same gentiles to commit another Jewish Holocaust.

... A full and principled abandonment of modern liberalism by liberals and especially by Jews is not to be expected. Just as the Israelis will fight remorselessly against the Arabs when absolutely necessary, and then, as soon as the fighting briefly subsides, instantly turn back once again to the utopian hopes of the “peace-process,” American Jews in the face of an imminent Islamist threat may support some kind of tightening of immigration laws, only to revert to their accustomed liberalism the moment that the immediate sense of intolerable danger is past. It is unrealistic to expect any final victory in this area. Liberalism is the organizing ideology of modern society, but for secular Jews (and the great majority of American Jews are essentially secular), it is a sacred trust toward which they feel the same zealous devotion that their religious brethren feel toward their covenant with God.

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 23, 2006, 07:48 PM | #

“To state this thought process in the baldest terms, these Jews believe that if philo-Semitic white gentiles exclude Jew-hating Moslems from America, it would lead those same gentiles to commit another Jewish Holocaust.”

In short, they are psychotic, utterly beyond reason. No amount of rational argument is ever going to change the minds of such people.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 23, 2006, 08:23 PM | #

GW, sounds like the kosher version of Hesperophobia to me.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 23, 2006, 08:32 PM | #

I should point out for the record that a white/jewish alliance would be a great thing.  I don’t think it’s even a remote possibility (it’s like asking a home invader to tango).  Extending a rhetorical olive branch is a good idea though.

Posted by Voice on February 23, 2006, 09:18 PM | #

Bo Sears,

1) Historically,the elites that would bring the Jews in to collect taxes and conduct commerce on the Kings’ behalf worked quite closely with the Jews.  The white elites found the relationship rather cosy until the peasants would revolt and drive the Jews out of the country.  This happened in Spain and England didn’t it?

We have to begin the dialogue with a return to the truth about historical events where Jews see White Gentiles as collectively guilty, and try to use this as a basis for extending the olive branch with the truth of these historical events. i.e. gentiles are not the only party guilty of all sins.

We need to use history to understand that Hitlers rise to power didn’t happen in a vacuum.  Also, the Bolshevik revolution has a historical significance both at the time and how it impacted the events of the 20th century.  There are a number of issues that have to be examined to understand why we got to our current predicatment and how it effects both groups interests.  With this olive branch containing each groups perspective of history open to debate, we may be able to move forward with our interests, not in conflict ,but with mutual beneficial solution to create a workable strategy to solve our current predicament.  WN’s who question the holocaust numbers have to demand scientific enquiry and full freedom of speech regarding the event, but have to respect that if even Red Cross numbers(750,000) Jewish dead that the event was a horrific event for any people to endure-without reservation.

I think your resisting defamation site is the first part of the process that is going on in the WN and paleoconservative mags(Occidental Quarterly and to a small extent AmCon) that begins to look at historical events from perspectives that aren’t published in history books and taught to our children.

We need to use the same tools that Marcuse used-their children-because then change can effectively be long lasting.  People like Horowitz understand and have written extensively, “Radical Son”, about their indoctrination into the Jewish position with regard to the gentile.  He doesn’t agree with it either.

It could be as simple as Resisting Defamation or some other White group working with Horowitz’s Student conservative group to bring about real change and re-examination of the historical record.

2) We wouldn’t need to join as one until the time there could be a Jewish/Christian/Agnostic/White break from US and repatriation of non-europeans/jews away from European and Jewish homelands.

We respect Israels right to exist and they respect Europes right to remain White and Christian with Jewish right to religion in both places.  Israel should be part of Europe and not Turkey.  Islam cannot be absorbed into White Christian homeland, sorry but can’t budge from that as it is and would be a genocidal disaster.

I view Jews as white.  That is the crux of issue for this to work as they have to view themselves as white too.  I also view European Mediterraneans as white too, but I draw the line with Caucasoids in Islamic lands because of breeding practices for a evolutionary significant period of time and Islam being oppossed to western values.

We aren’t all of a sudden form a significant organization representing both groups but we can begin(as is already being done) to search for the truth and survive as a people.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 23, 2006, 09:41 PM | #

GW,

That article you linked to is excellent.

Voice,

One thing which proves everything in that article 100 percent is the Jewish liberal hatred of Bush. In America’s history there has probably not been another President more blatantly pro-Israel and pro-Likud as Bush Jr. And yet Jews vote for the Democrats by a 78-22 margin. Quite astonishing. 

One American Jew summed it up thus:

“We may agree with Bush on Israel but we hate him on Guns, on Church and State, on his red state fascism and his Christian fanaticism”. (In other words all causes that are dear to the majority of White Gentile America)

So there you are my friends. If George W Bush cannot make the Jews lurch rightwards, you can forget about us mere mortals at MR ever achieving such a result.

Posted by Rick Darby on February 23, 2006, 09:53 PM | #

Now, wait a minute.

It is quite true that many, perhaps most, Jewish people in America foolishly lead or follow the leftist and multi-culti agenda, including reverse discrimination, political correctness, and even rationalizing the actions of Palestinian suicide bombers—while bashing the history of the country that has been a haven for them. That’s as appalling to me as it is to you.

I’m new to this site, and many of you know the background to this discussion and I don’t, but I must ask you: why do some of you assume that there is inherently a barrier to an alliance between European Americans and Jewish Americans? Jews may have a hard time seeing present realities because they wrongly apply to them a template based on their own history, but they are no more deluded than many “white” Americans.

Svyatoslav, when you say, “I see little possibility for white/jewish cooperation.  Leopards don’t change their spots.  On the other hand I do see the value of dropping ‘anti-Semitic’ rhetoric” — what “spots” do you perceive on these leopards?  Do you think Jewish people have a gene for leftist politics? Are you saying you’d really like to come out swinging with “anti-Semitic rhetoric,” but for tactical reasons you refrain? I would not want to misunderstand you.

Posted by AD on February 23, 2006, 11:00 PM | #

Rick,

Any obvious minority within a society wants to change that society for their own interests. That is what basically drives modern ‘leftist’ politics...breaking the back of the majority culture by any means neccessary, often out of pure resentment. It was true of the Bolshevik revolution, just as it was true of the breakdown of immigration restrition. Jews usually get a special mention because they have been with us as a minority longest, have a high IQ and a historical grudge, often look like us so are undectable, were the biggest lobbyists for change in the 1960s, are over-represented in the anti-white media and intelligentsia, produced Marx & Freud....etc etc etc.

Most importantly(to many), they invented the minority-mindset(including the concept of ‘racism’ itself) that most other minority groups,and self-hating white liberals, now use as a way to break us down and keep our borders open to all and sundry.

The question shouldn’t be do we think Jews have a special gene for leftist politics. It should be, do we think any more than a small percentage of Jews will ever consider THEMSELVES part of the majority enough to stop thinking and acting with a hostile minority-mindset.

Posted by AD on February 23, 2006, 11:34 PM | #

I’ll add that nine times out of ten a ‘self-hating white liberal’ is either Jewish but hides it(like June Gordon who can’t write a sentence without the phrase ‘anti-semitic’), homosexual like old poster ‘Simon’(who can’t write a sentence without accusing people of being ‘threatened’ by homosexuality) or someone in an interracial relationship(who can’t write a sentence without talking about the aesthetics of interracial children).

That is the biggest danger. A phoney white ‘consensus’ created by people who, by their nature, spend alot of time expressing opinions. This false consensus is why we have political correctness. They are trying to convince themselves that they’re not full of resentment by projecting their minority-mentality ‘hating’ onto us;the wicked oppressive majority. Most ordinary white people don’t care enough to put the effort in to formulate arguments on the issue. That is the sole reason we’re marginalised.

I’ve never known of an anti-racist without a specific interest in reducing the white majority.

Posted by Andy on February 24, 2006, 12:17 AM | #

Svi wrote:

...a fact ironically admitted by Tim Wise, tribal ninja; he freely admits that blacks choose whites as victims because whites are rich.

Funny, Wise’s cotribalists in France just ran amok a few days ago, beating a black man, among other craziness, because Muslim kidnappers killed a jew and targeted him because “a jew is rich.”

I don’t believe that targeting someone because they are rich falls under the hate-crime rubric as presently defined. In fact, economic motives are usually used to deflect any criticism of a crime as being racially motivated. 

For example, the MSM refuses to examine any possible racist motivations behind the Wichita Massacre (insofar as they even acknowledge its existence). Check out Court TV’s website [crimelibrary.com]. Their account of the Wichita Massacre seems factually correct (if a bit toned down) but they dismiss any claims that this was a “hate crime” despite the fact that the brute sadism displayed clearly went far above and beyond anything that was necessary in a simple robbery.

Certain people in the gubment and the media (and Tim Wise is certainly among them) like to seize upon any evidence of an economic motivation in instances of black-on-white crime to show that economics was the only motivation.

I believe Jared Taylor discusses this in the first “Color of Crime” essay. 

Remember, Marxists and other assorted leftists love to reduce everything to economics. A lot of these people believe that the only two factors affecting the lives of blacks are economic forces and white racism.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 24, 2006, 02:16 AM | #

1) Historically,the elites that would bring the Jews in to collect taxes and conduct commerce on the Kings’ behalf worked quite closely with the Jews.  The white elites found the relationship rather cosy until the peasants would revolt and drive the Jews out of the country.  This happened in Spain and England didn’t it?

That didn’t just happen in Spain and England, that’s the model of white/jewish relations throughout the medieval period.  The details did vary of course; Poland never managed to gather the strength to expel her jews, for example.

I view Jews as white.  That is the crux of issue for this to work as they have to view themselves as white too.

Being a jew basically means identifying as non-white, not racially, but politically.  Change that and you can call it “jewish,” but it’d only be a name.

I’m new to this site, and many of you know the background to this discussion and I don’t, but I must ask you: why do some of you assume that there is inherently a barrier to an alliance between European Americans and Jewish Americans? Jews may have a hard time seeing present realities because they wrongly apply to them a template based on their own history, but they are no more deluded than many “white” Americans.

It’s a long story.  Short answer: three thousand years of history.  The evidence suggests that allying jews with whites would be only a hair easier than getting jews to give up on being jews.

Jews have spent roughly three millenia having a “hard time” with the issue.  It’s pretty much intrinsic to being a jew.

I don’t believe that targeting someone because they are rich falls under the hate-crime rubric as presently defined.

That isn’t what the Muslims in question did.  They used race (tribe, whatever) to select a victim (which is precisely the definition of a “hate crime") because of stereotypes attached.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 24, 2006, 02:22 AM | #

Svyatoslav, when you say, “I see little possibility for white/jewish cooperation.  Leopards don’t change their spots.  On the other hand I do see the value of dropping ‘anti-Semitic’ rhetoric” — what “spots” do you perceive on these leopards?  Do you think Jewish people have a gene for leftist politics? Are you saying you’d really like to come out swinging with “anti-Semitic rhetoric,” but for tactical reasons you refrain? I would not want to misunderstand you.

Sorry, somehow I skipped over this paragraph my first read through.

I don’t know if it’s genetic, but it’s sure as hell phenotypical.  As for the specific “spots,” again it’s a long story.  It isn’t so much that I’d “like” to do anything in particular, other than what’s best for my people, but yes I think there are good tactical reasons for staying very disciplined on the JQ.  If my race wasn’t so thoroughly indoctrinated with philo-Semitism, such tactics wouldn’t be necessary.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 24, 2006, 02:28 AM | #

The question shouldn’t be do we think Jews have a special gene for leftist politics. It should be, do we think any more than a small percentage of Jews will ever consider THEMSELVES part of the majority enough to stop thinking and acting with a hostile minority-mindset.

Bingo.  There is vast historical precedent answering in the negative, and practically none answering in the positive.  Beyond the precedent lay the paradigms, which again don’t bode well for the dream.

I’m going to play the Missourian on this one.

The tiny fraction of exceptional jews is offset by the possible cover they provide for subversion (another well-precedented phenomenon).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 24, 2006, 02:44 AM | #

Here are some sources for the “long story”:

Kevin MacDonald’s work on Judaism (MacDonald’s bibliographies are essentially JQ reading lists).  (PDF of the third book, The Culture of Critique, here) (I link to several of his essays here (popup warning for IE users))

Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

Bernard Lazare’s Antisemitism: Its History and Causes.

Anthony Ludovici’s The Jews, and the Jews in England.

Posted by Andy on February 24, 2006, 02:49 AM | #

That isn’t what the Muslims in question did.  They used race (tribe, whatever) to select a victim (which is precisely the definition of a “hate crime") because of stereotypes attached.

It seems like you completely ignored my post other than the section you quoted. 

You’re just not right about the definition of a hate crime. 
Per dictionary.com:

a crime that violates the victim’s civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim’s race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender

The important part of this definition is that the motivation is hostility. Targeting someone because of a belief that that person is rich is not a hate crime, unless the desire to inflict harm on that person was present along with the desire to steal their money. 

Tim Wise isn’t saying what you think he is. I can almost guarantee that Wise wouldn’t consider blacks targeting whites to rob as falling under the category of “hate crime”. He’s most likely trying to argue that black-on-white crime is primarily motivated by economic concerns, not hate. 

Just look at the Wichita Massacre. Black-on-white robbery is almost never considered a hate crime.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 24, 2006, 04:05 AM | #

As defined by the report, a collection of data compiled by the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, an ordinary crime becomes a hate crime when offenders choose a victim because of some characteristic – race, religion, ethnicity, religion or association – and provide evidence that hate prompted them to commit the crime.

Whoops, my mistake.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 24, 2006, 04:06 AM | #

It seems like you completely ignored my post other than the section you quoted.

What gave you that idea?

Posted by ben tillman on February 24, 2006, 06:26 AM | #

Just look at the Wichita Massacre. Black-on-white robbery is almost never considered a hate crime.

But that wasn’t black-on-white robbery.  I don’t follow you.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 24, 2006, 07:46 AM | #

I don’t believe that targeting someone because they are rich falls under the hate-crime rubric as presently defined. In fact, economic motives are usually used to deflect any criticism of a crime as being racially motivated.

That is an interesting position considering this. The victim was apparently wealthly and being held for ransom, however, there appears to be extreme pressure to consider it a hate crime.

Contrast that with this.
Sixteen black students allegedly sexually assaulted a white female student. Arguably she was attacked because of her gender, however, it is interesting to note that four of the blacks were female. That makes the gender position dubious and points to only one other motivation, her race. However, AFAICT, no hate crime charges have been laid.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 24, 2006, 02:20 PM | #

The first article linked in Desmond’s comment (just above) refers, in its last paragraph, to
“France’s center-right government.” What kind of government gets called “center-right” nowadays?  The following excerpt from a comment I posted a year ago in a thread over at Turnabout may shed some light on that:
______

[...T]ake a look at Chirac’s concern for his own nation-state, France, as reflected in the following statements of his and, underneath those, the opinion some ordinary Frenchmen have formed of him [the link to the French web-site in my original Turnabout post of a year ago is no longer active, so I haven’t included it here]:

“Europe’s roots are as much Moslem as Christian.” (“Les racines de l’Europe sont autant musulmanes que chrétiennes.”) (said by Chirac to Philipe De Villiers, September, 2002)

“France is a Moslem power.” (“La France est une puissance musulmane.”) (the French newspaper Le Monde, 1/17/85)

“Every day I open mosques in Paris but I keep quiet about it.” (“J’ouvre tous les jours des mosquées à Paris sans le dire.”) (French TV news commentary show, Journal du dimanche, 1/18/89)

“In this regard, Islam, a more recent religion in our country, enjoys equal status among the great religions present on our soil. […] We still have lots to do in order that Moslems have the use of holy places permitting them to practice their religion in dignity and tranquility.” (“A cet égard, l’islam, religion plus récente sur notre territoire, a toute sa place parmi les grandes religions présentes sur notre sol […] il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour que les musulmans puissent disposer de lieux de culte leur permettant de pratiquer leur religion dans la dignité et la tranquilité.”) (December 17, 2003)

“Islam is part of French culture and identity from now on.” (“L’islam fait désormais partie de la culture et de l’identité de la France.”) (January 29, 2002)

“We have no idea what the situation will be in 2015, whether demographically speaking or from the point of view of growth. Those are only claims. Surely we will have tasks before us, but those tasks will not be undertaken until we know definitely what the situation will be.” (“Nous n`avons aucune idée de ce que sera la situation en 2015, d`une part, sur le plan de la démographie et, d`autre part, sur le plan de la croissance. Cela ce sont que des affirmations. Il y aura certainement des efforts à faire, mais il n`est pas question de les engager avant que nous sachions réellement quelle sera la situation.”) (July 14, 2003)

As the commenter at the web-site says following this Chirac quote, if the French government considers the demographic near-future of France unknown, what is it doing permitting the arrival of millions more of North-Africans into the country? Isn’t stanching the flow one step Chirac ought to be taking right now, just in case a worst-case scenario lie otherwise in store for France in 2015? And as for the future demographic/cultural situation in France being “unknown,” what about this ”Letter to Our American Friends” (which I ran across while looking up the Chirac quotes)? It poignantly describes the demographic/cultural situation in France as it exists right now (it was written last month). If the situation right now is as described in that letter, what does Chirac have to wait for, before stanching the flood of immigrants from the Maghreb?

Then Chirac gives this as his explanation for refusing to debate Le Pen in the second round of televised debates in the 2002 election:

“Confronted with intolerance and hate, no transaction is possible, no compromise is possible, no debate is possible.” (“Face à l’intolérance et à la haine, il n’y a pas de transaction possible, pas de compromission possible, pas de débat possible.”)

(Gee, Jacques, I wonder what’ll be possible once the growing Moslem population in your country grows a little bigger? Compromise? Transaction? Debate? Fat chance!)

And the web-site goes on:

“It was in the fall of 2002 — exactly one year after the Islamist attacks of September 11th, 2001 — that Chirac sent a long message of peace and support to the Islamic world as part of his decision to treble the amount of space in the Louvre devoted to Islam — even more than that: henceforth there’ll be a special Islamic section (decree of August, 2003) equal in importance to ‘Egyptian Antiquities,’ ‘Oriental Antiquities,’ ‘Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Antiquities,’ ‘Painting,’ ‘Sculpture,’ ‘Art Objects,’ and ‘Graphic Arts,’ the aim being, said Chirac, ‘to remind Frenchmen and the world of the essential contribution of Islamic civilizations to our culture.’

“Get rid of Chirac! Judge him! The worst of politicians, the one who never bore France in his heart, the one who never governed as a conservative despite claiming that label, the one who allowed the ruination of France in the name of his humanitarian image, deserves only to be judged for his treason to the nation.”

There [...] is your Chirac who is so concerned about the survival of nation-state. (Just not his own, I guess …)