After I wrote recently about the Wisconsin hunters murdered by a Hmong immigrant, I received the following [uncorrected] email from Jeffrey and Tina Wiltsee of Indiana:
"You nazi die nazi pig!!!!!!!! Go back to Europe bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!! Long live the hmong people!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha ha die white scum!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To the gas chambers and then the ovens!!!!!!!!!! Ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sincerely, from a true white gentile."
(And this was the polite part of the letter!)
I forwarded the email to James Fulford, VDARE.COM editor extraordinaire, and he researched the address for me.
As fate would have it, Tina Wiltsee [email her] showed up as a botany student at Purdue University.
So I thought I would pass the email on to the Dean of Students of this public a.k.a Government university.
The next day (remarkably fast for an academic bureaucracy) I received an email response from the assistant dean of students Kathleen B. Peters informing me that Ms. Wiltsee was no longer a student at Purdue.
However, according to Ms. Peters:
"I can assure you that had the individual been enrolled as a student this type of communication would be handled under Purdue's Anti-harassment Policy. I encourage you to contact your local authorities regarding this harassing electronic communication to investigate possible criminal charges."
Purdue University's "Anti-harassment Policy" covers all forms of harassment. Punishments range from verbal warnings to expulsion.
Surprise! Bias motivated behavior is special.
Section VIII. Sanctions for Bias Motivated Behavior
"…discrimination or harassment motivated by bias based on a person's race, gender, religion, color, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability, the sanctions for such conduct are subject to enhancement in accordance with these Procedures."
But should a public university (or private for that matter) be able to censor the opinions and free speech of their students?
Bryanna's forbearing opinion: Absolutely NOT!!!
Incidentally, what would happen if I did contact my local authorities?
Believe it or not, in some states these kids committed a crime by simply telling me what they thought of me.
It's called a "hate crime"…you know, as opposed to crimes motivated by love.
There are two currently hot issues with hate crime legislation:
1. Sentencing enhancements for existing criminal statutes.
2. The federalizing of hate crime—the creation of a new federal crime statute where one does not now exist.
For the most part, hate as a motive exists only to augment the punishment for the corollary crime (Point 1).
That may be changing. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HR4204) is lurking around the Senate as we speak.
It was introduced on April 22, 2004 by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI). In the Congressional findings—the summary provided by the bill sponsor for House consideration, there is a reference (sec 10) to generations of institutional slavery—followed by this conclusion:
"Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude."
Good luck with that! But what about the other special categories the legislation aims to cover: homosexuals, religious groups and the handicapped?
Indeed, the poster child for HR4204 seems to be Matthew Shepard.
In 1998, Shepard was brutally murdered in Laramie, Wyoming supposedly because he was gay. The two men found guilty of his murder were sentenced to double life terms in prison.
His assailants were not charged with a hate crime. Their punishment was determined by the egregious nature of the crime by itself.
But the case incited rage throughout the gay community, which was quick to label it a hate crime. The gay lobby cited the unique brutality of the crime as an example for why hate crimes should include sexual orientation.
But now it appears that the crime may not have been motivated by hate at all. The two men responsible for the murder say they were just robbing Matthew Shepard, for money to buy drugs.
And, according to CNN, the Wyoming prosecutor tends to agree. [Matthew Shepard's killers deny murder was hate crime, Friday, November 26, 2004]
"Prosecutor Cal Rerucha also said the case was too complex to simply be labeled a hate crime. He said many people overlooked the drug and robbery aspects of the case at the time of the attack."
Why would anyone want to overlook drugs and robbery in a murder case?
Rerucha told CNN:
"People want an easy answer to this case and I don't think we would be here five years later if there was an easy answer."
There is an easy answer.
The issue of motive can be important in establishing guilt. But it should be irrelevant to the process of determining punishment.
The mother of a slain heterosexual man does not mourn any less or differently than Mathew Shepard's mother.
Proponents of hate crime legislation argue these laws do not anoint a special privilege class of victims—that they punish a certain category of criminals.
Yeah, not so much.
For example, in Redlands, California three Latinos were attacked by a gaggle of alleged skinheads. The assault is being investigated as a "hate crime."
The police chief of Redlands, Jim Bueermann, explained why the hate crime angle is being pursued. [Assault probed as hate crime by Stephen Wall, San Bernardino News 1/04/05]
"I find all crime to be offensive," Bueermann said. "Those crimes those are [sic] committed against people because of who they are as human beings are especially offensive. [BB emphasis] We pull out all the stops if we believe the crime is motivated by hate."
Especially offensive? Pull out all the stops?
That blows the whole does not anoint a special privileged class of people theory out of the water.
The real story was buried deeper in the article.
The real story: Chief Bueermann was responding to a demand made by Gil Navarro, associate president of the local chapter of the Mexican American Political Association [MAPA].
"We want reassurances that a hate crime will be sought against these hate mongers and these criminals," said Gil Navarro [Send him mail]. "This should not be treated as a normal assault because of the racial slurs that were directed at these individuals."
According to the Department of Justice, a hate crime is defined as "the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability."
So how do advocates define hate crime?
Our friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC], as I have mentioned before, produce an Intelligence Report that among other things, tracks hate activity. They consider them crimes.
Here are examples from its website
The Hate Watch list also included events which are, much to their dismay, technically not crimes…well, not yet.
I agree that these crimes and rallies are offensive. Maybe even vile.
But they are also protected under the First Amendment.
Organizations such as the SPLC and MAPA are devoted to anti-hate legislation.
Yet the home page of the SPLC says: "Throughout its history, the Center has worked to make the nation's Constitutional ideals a reality."
So since when is the First Amendment not a "Constitutional ideal"?
Hate crime legislation has very little, if anything, to do with ending racism or bigotry.
It is a shameless attempt to promote the Left's political interests du jour—above everybody else.
Wow, imagine that…
Justice would cease to be blind. Instead, justice would be on the lookout.
Hate crime legislation would effectively end all equality before the law.
Yeah, that's a Constitutional ideal…in places like the Sudan.
Bryanna Bevens [email her] is a political consultant and former chief of staff for a member of the California State Assembly.
