By Tom Quiner
This is an ugly story that makes me ashamed to be a white guy:
Two white men and two white women kidnapped a mentally handicapped young black man. They dragged him to an apartment building, bound him, gagged him, terrorized him. They cut his scalp and hair. They mocked him for his race. As they abused him, they actually video taped the assault and posted it on Facebook to publicize their revulsion for the vulnerable young man with black skin. And for the final act of humiliation, they forced him to say these words, which I am editing in the name of decency: “F*#k black people. F*#k Barack Obama.”
Here is my question to you: is this news?
And … is this a hate crime?
Okay, you know what I’m doing. The crime described above is not what happened exactly.
I changed the skin color.
The victim was white.
The attackers were black.
And they made him say, “F*#k white people. F*#k Donald Trump.”
If the story had occurred as I described it, this would be a non-stop news story for months. The mayor of Chicago, where the crime occurred, would have labeled it a hate crime within seconds.
President Obama would unleashed his justice department on the culprits.
This story spread like wildfire on social media on Wednesday when it broke. But the mainstream media was strangely subdued, according to the Media Research Center (MRC) which monitors media coverage. ABC and NBC didn’t even cover it Wednesday night.
CBS did cover it Wednesday, but they chose not to report the race of the attackers and the victims. Would they have done the same if the story broke according to the false narrative I initially presented above?
The MRC said that the Washington Post’s writer, Callum Borchers, “launched into a tirade about how the Chicago attack only served to confirm the distorted views of Trump supporters. Seriously?
Over at CNN, Don Lemon downplayed the assault as “just dumb, stupid behavior,” and a guest on his show, Symone Sanders, was emphatic that the beating was “not a hate crime” since, in his view, it was motivated by political leanings, not race.
Again, if the story unfolded as I initially portrayed it, do you think the mainstream media would be as subdued?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Is Obama smug?
Is Hillary integrity-impaired?
Okay, we know the MSM is biased, so nothing I’ve said surprised you. In fact, it’s not really my main point. My real point is that hate crime legislation is unnecessary, counter productive, and un-American.
It puts the government in the position of regulating people’s thoughts, as if it doesn’t regulate enough already.
The law should judge people by their actions, not their thoughts. When you try to glean someone’s thoughts, sentencing becomes overly subjective based on biases cooked into the political power structure.
Even more, I’ve seen no evidence that ‘hate crime’ legislation deters hate crimes. You’ll note in the Chicago assault mentioned above, that the black assailants didn’t attempt to restrain themselves when coercing their victim to say, “F*#k” white people.”
So, what is the purpose of ‘enhanced sentencing’ laws?
The intent is good, to acknowledge the equality of all peoples regardless of race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status of the victim. But if this is its desire, the Law should punish all assaults the same, regardless of race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status of the victim.
Human beings should be the protected class, not the politically-favored class of the moment. Let’s get rid of these anti-American laws.