An ominous precedent has been set as a man was just found guilty of a hate crime for making a joke video of a dog doing a "Nazi Salute" and he now faces the possibility of being thrown in prison for it.
The post Man Found Guilty of a Hate Crime for A Joke Video Of His Dog Doing a ‘Hitler Salute’ appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
A 32-year-old liberal white woman was attacked and robbed by two Hispanic teens who accused the woman of being a Trump supporter while pelting her with groceries at a Bronx area deli Wednesday night.
Amazingly, the woman is not actually a Trump supporter and was apparently attacked as one simply because she was white. Keep in mind that the left has specifically blamed white people for Trump’s election victory so one can imagine that the teens were simply carrying out an attack they thought was for the “greater good.”
The New York Daily News reported:
The victim, her roommate told the Daily News, is most definitely not a Trump fan.
But the suspects, possibly teens, saw her differently.
“You stupid white c—,” they yelled at the victim inside the Musa Gourmet Deli on Jerome Ave. near E. 167th St. in Highbridge about 3 a.m. Dec 2.
In the new America, teens feel so emboldened by the anti-Trump talk that they now apparently believe that they can attack anyone they believe supports the president with no repercussions.
Additionally, these anti-Trump thugs also apparently believe that they can use the threat of violence to keep anyone that supports the president from even living in the Bronx itself.
“You think you can live here in the Bronx, you Trump supporter? You white b—h!”
Her attackers started flinging store goods at her.
Zid Ali, 31, the deli manager, said when one of the suspects grabbed the woman’s bag, which she had placed on the counter, “she said she was going to call the cops, so the other one took her phone.”
“They ran out,” he added, “and she ran after them.”
But the suspects got away and are still being sought. The NYPD’s Hate Crime Task Force is investigating the incident.
This attack is part of a larger problem where parts of the hard-left literally attack all white people for their perceived slights against the liberal orthodoxy.
Just yesterday I noted the fact that after Doug Jones stunning election victory, the hard-left went to work attacking white people as a whole simply because not all whites in Alabama voted for Jones.
“That’s right, in the new America, the hard-left openly mocks and insults all white people simply because a certain percentage of them do not vote for liberal candidates,” SHFTPlan reported.
“Keep in mind that BOTH candidates were white yet that did not stop the race baiting left from conducting a vile series of attacks on the white race while pretending that they are the civil rights heroes.”
A 32-year-old liberal white women was attacked and robbed by two Hispanic teens who accused the women of being a Trump supporter while pelting her with groceries at a Bronx area deli Wednesday night.
Amazingly, the women is not actually a Trump supporter and was apparently attacked as one simply because she was white. Keep in mind that the left has specifically blamed white people for Trump’s election victory so one can imagine that the teens were simply carrying out an attack they thought was for the “greater good.”
The New York Daily News reported:
The victim, her roommate told the Daily News, is most definitely not a Trump fan.
But the suspects, possibly teens, saw her differently.
“You stupid white c—,” they yelled at the victim inside the Musa Gourmet Deli on Jerome Ave. near E. 167th St. in Highbridge about 3 a.m. Dec 2.
In the new America, teens feel so emboldened by the anti-Trump talk that they now apparently believe that they can attack anyone they believe supports the president with no repercussions.
Additionally, these anti-Trump thugs also apparently believe that they can use the threat of violence to keep anyone that supports the president from even living in the Bronx itself.
“You think you can live here in the Bronx, you Trump supporter? You white b—h!”
Her attackers started flinging store goods at her.
Zid Ali, 31, the deli manager, said when one of the suspects grabbed the woman’s bag, which she had placed on the counter, “she said she was going to call the cops, so the other one took her phone.”
“They ran out,” he added, “and she ran after them.”
But the suspects got away and are still being sought. The NYPD’s Hate Crime Task Force is investigating the incident.
This attack is part of a larger problem where parts of the hard-left literally attack all white people for their perceived slights against the liberal orthodoxy.
Just yesterday I noted the fact that after Doug Jones stunning election victory, the hard-left went to work attacking white people as a whole simply because not all whites in Alabama voted for Jones.
“That’s right, in the new America, the hard-left openly mocks and insults all white people simply because a certain percentage of them do not vote for liberal candidates,” SHFTPlan reported.
“Keep in mind that BOTH candidates were white yet that did not stop the race baiting left from conducting a vile series of attacks on the white race while pretending that they are the civil rights heroes.”
A 19 year old Chicago woman who live-streamed the racially charged kidnapping, torture and mutilation of a mentaly disabled teen was given 200 hours of community service and four years of probation on Friday.
Brittany Herring Covington - who went by "Herring" on Social Media before her arreest, and "Covington" in recent reports, avoided a possible 33 years in prison on multiple counts, including a hate crime, aggravated battery and aggravated kidnapping - a charge which was dropped along with several others as part of a plea agreement.
Brittany Herring (Covington) mugshot
Cook County Circuit Judge William Hooks handed down the slap on the wrist to Covington, who pleaded guilty to a hate crime, aggravated battery and intimidation charges - telling the teen that he could have sent her to prison, but told her "I"m not sure if I did that you"d be coming out any better."
Hooks warned Covington that should she violate the terms of her probation - which includes a ban from social media for four years, she would face prison time. As part of the plea deal, prosecutors agreed to drop additional charges including kidnapping.
Judge William Hooks, Cook County IL
"Do not mess this up," Judge Hooks said to Covington, who stood in front of him in a blue jumpsuit. Hooks is notably the first African-American president of Chicago"s Federal Bar Association, a past president of the Cook County Bar Association, and a member of the Muslim Bar Association of Chicago.
Tanisha Covington, Tesfaye Cooper, Brittany Herring Covington, Jordan Hill and victim
The brutal attack took place in early January, after four black Chicago teens kidnapped the mentally disabled white teen and held him captive for nearly two days - binding his hands and feet with duct tape and gagging him with a sock, before using a knife to cut and stab the victim while laughing, shouting racial slurs and issuing death threats. In one segment of the livestreamed attack, one of the females can be seen laughing as she punches the victim. At another point, one of the male attackers wraps a cord around the victim"s neck while he groaned in pain, and in another a male approaches the victim with a knife and asks the others "Should I shank his ass?" Other notable quotes include:
“Fuck Donald Trump, Fuck white people”
“There’s gonna be a murder. Pop pop pop”
“We gonna put this bitch in the trunk, put a brick on the gas, like aaaaaaaaah”
“Pistol whip his ass, fool“
After nearly 48 hours, the kidnapped teen escaped after the kidnappers left the apartment to confront a neighbor who had called 911 to complain about the noise coming out of their apartment where the torture was taking place.
The video, which can be seen here, or here immediately went viral. After the teens were arrested, Chicago PD initially said it was not racially motivated, despite it clearly being a hate crime. Jordan Hill, 18, of Carpentersville; Tesfaye Cooper, 18, of Chicago; and Brittany Herring"s sister Tanishia, 24, were each charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crimes, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
After her arrest, Brittany Herring Covington bragged on Facebook from a smart phone she was able to sneak into jail, posting "yall mad?" and "Sittin in dis cell on my celly talking to yall trippin. Erbody got phones in her these day," and typing "Tfse" which stands for "The Funniest Shit Ever."
And for her participation in the brutal crime, Herring-Covington only received 200 hours of community service and four years of probation. Meanwhile, a Broward County, Florida man who vandalized a Mosque and left bacon inside was sentenced to 15 years in prison last week.
The three other kidnappers charged along with Herring-Covington are still awaiting trial. Perhaps Judge Hooks will give them the key to the city.
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
A black Air Force cadet has admitted to writing racial slurs targeting blacks attempting to generate hate crime outrage.
You may remember the epic speech given by Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria, superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy...
“There is absolutely no place in our Air Force for racism. It’s not who we are, nor will we tolerate it in any shape or fashion,” Silveria said.
“I’ve said it before, the area of dignity and respect is my red line. Let me be clear; it won’t be crossed without significant repercussions.”
"If you can"t treat someone with dignity and respect, then get out,"
Along with garnering national coverage and condemnation from politicians, the incident sparked outrage from students at the school and their parents.
In a now-deleted Facebook post, the mother of one of the cadets who said he was a victim of the racist message shared a photo of the whiteboard, calling it "disgusting."
Her post read:
This is why I"m so hurt! Someone left this disgusting message on my sons door at the Airforce Academy in Colorado! I"m angry that people are teaching their children such hate.
These young people are supposed to bond and protect each other and the country. Who would my son have to watch out for? The enemy or the enemy?
I know this is hard to see but it"s the reality my family and the country is dealing with. We cannot tolerate such hatred! Keep your head up son!
In another Facebook post, the cadet"s father wrote, "My son is not playing a victim...The real victim is the person raised with that kind of hate."
The Air Force immediately began investigating the incident after it occurred in September.
And on Tuesday, The Air Force Academy announced that the black cadet who was supposedly the victim of the racial slurs was, in fact, responsible for writing them.
"We can confirm that one of the cadet candidates who was allegedly targeted by racist remarks written outside of their dorm room was actually responsible for the act," the Academy said in a statement.
Officials said the cadet admitted to being behind the racist messages that appeared outside the doors of five black cadets’ rooms, KMGH-ABC reported.
The Air Force Academy has also confirmed that the cadet responsible for the messages is no longer at the school, but they failed to clearly state whether or not he left of his own free will.
* * *
But these incidents keep happening.
Hate crimes should not be tolerated, but neither should faking them. According to the Daily Wire, a similar incident happened just last week. An African American man alleged that someone wrote racial slurs all over his car when he was the one who wrote the slurs. The man, 21-year-old Dauntarius Williams, came forward and admitted that he staged the entire event.
One should be outraged as Silveria says. Not just as an “airman” but as human beings.
Not only do we treat each other with condemnation and hostility, but we also fake horrible things, like this hate crime hoax in the name of creating more outrage.
A black Air Force cadet has admitted to writing racial slurs targeting blacks attempting to generate hate crime outrage. The Air Force Academy announced on Tuesday that the black cadet who was supposedly the victim of the racial slurs was, in fact, responsible for writing them.
Officials said the cadet admitted to being behind the racist messages that appeared outside the doors of five black cadets’ rooms, KMGH-ABC reported. The Air Force Academy has also confirmed that the cadet responsible for the messages is no longer at the school, but they failed to clearly state whether or not he left of his own free will.
“There is absolutely no place in our Air Force for racism. It’s not who we are, nor will we tolerate it in any shape or fashion,” Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria, superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy, said. “I’ve said it before, the area of dignity and respect is my red line. Let me be clear; it won’t be crossed without significant repercussions.” The Air Force immediately began investigating the incident after it occurred in September.
But these incidents keep happening. Hate crimes should not be tolerated, but neither should faking them. According to the Daily Wire, a similar incident happened just last week. An African American man alleged that someone wrote racial slurs all over his car when he was the one who wrote the slurs. The man, 21-year-old Dauntarius Williams, came forward and admitted that he staged the entire event.
One should be outraged as Silveria says. Not just as an “airman” but as human beings. Not only do we treat each other with condemnation and hostility, but we also fake horrible things, like this hate crime hoax in the name of creating more outrage.
Authored by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,
A new German law introducing state censorship on social media platforms came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.
This state censorship makes free speech subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities that are likely to censor more than absolutely necessary, rather than risk a crushing fine. When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state"s private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?
Meanwhile, the district court in Munich recently sentenced a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of "disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations". While the mutual admiration that once existed between al-Husseini and German Nazis is an undisputed historical fact, now evidently history is being rewritten by German courts. Stürzenberger has appealed the verdict.
 A German court recently sentenced journalist Michael Stürzenberger (pictured) to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a Nazi official in Berlin, in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. (Image Source: PI News video screenshot) |
Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU, which already has a similar code of conduct for social media giants. The EU Justice Commissioner, Vera Jourova, recently said she might be willing to legislate in the future if the voluntary code of conduct does not produce the desired results. She said, however, that the voluntary code was working "relatively" well, with Facebook removing 66.5% of the material they had been notified was "hateful" between December and May this year. Twitter removed 37.4%, and YouTube took action on 66% of the notifications from users.
While purportedly concerned about online "hate speech," one EU organization, the EU Parliament, had no qualms about letting its premises be used to host a convicted Arab terrorist, Leila Khaled, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at a conference about "The Role of Women in the Palestinian Popular Struggle" in September. (The EU, the US, Canada, and Australia, have all designated the PFLP a terrorist organization). The conference was organized by, among others, the Spanish delegation of Izquierda Unida (United Left) as part of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left bloc in the European Parliament.
In the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May also said that she will tell internet firms to tackle extremist content:
"Industry needs to go further and faster in automating the detection and removal of terrorist content online... ultimately it is not just the terrorists themselves who we need to defeat. It is the extremist ideologies that fuel them. It is the ideologies that preach hatred, sow division and undermine our common humanity. We must be far more robust in identifying these ideologies and defeating them -- across all parts of our societies."
Prime Minister May keeps insisting that "these ideologies" are spread "across all parts of our societies" when in reality, virtually all terrorism is Islamic. Meanwhile, her own Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah"s hate speech, apparently, is perfectly acceptable to the British authorities. So is that of South African Muslim cleric and hate preacher Ebrahim Bham, who was once an interpreter to the Taliban"s head legal advisor. He was allowed to enter the UK to speak in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, a government building, at the "Palestine Expo" a large Jew-hate event in London in July. Bham is known for quoting Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels and saying that all Jews and Christians are "agents of Satan". Meanwhile, a scholar such as Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK, supposedly on the grounds that what he reports -- accurately -- is "Islamophobic".
The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) also recently stated that online "hate crimes" will be prosecuted "with the same robust and proactive approach used with offline offending". The decision to treat online offenses in the same way as offline offenses is expected to increase hate crime prosecutions, already at the highest recorded level ever. Prosecutors completed 15,442 hate crime cases in 2015-16.
Jews in Britain, who have experienced a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism over the past three years, are frequently on the receiving end of hate crimes. Nevertheless, their cases constitute less than a fraction of the statistics. In 2016/17, the CPS prosecuted 14,480 hate crimes. According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism:
"we have yet to see a single year in which more than a couple of dozen anti-Semitic hate crimes were prosecuted. So far in 2017, we are aware of... 21 prosecutions, in 2016 there were 20, and in 2015 there were just 12. So serious are the failures by the CPS to take action that we have had to privately prosecute alleged anti-Semites ourselves and challenge the CPS through judicial review, the first of which we won in March. Last year only 1.9% of hate crime against Jews was prosecuted, signaling to police forces that their effort in investigating hate crimes against Jews might be wasted, and sending the strong message to anti-Semites that they need not fear the law... Each year since 2014 has been a record-breaking year for anti-Semitic crime: between 2014 and 2016, anti-Semitic crime surged by 45%".
Almost one in three British Jews have apparently considered leaving Britain due to anti-Semitism in the past two years.
British authorities seem far more concerned with "Islamophobia" than with the increase in hate crimes against Jews. In fact, the police has teamed up with Transport for London authorities to encourage people to report hate crimes during "National Hate Crime Awareness Week", which runs from October 14-21. Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police will hold more than 200 community events to "reassure communities that London"s public transport system is safe for everyone". The events are specifically targeted at Muslims; officers have visited the East London Mosque to encourage reporting hate crimes.
Last year, London mayor Sadiq Khan"s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) announced it was spending £1,730,726 of taxpayer money policing speech online after applying for a grant from the Home Office. Meanwhile, Khan said that he does not have the funds to monitor the 200 jihadists estimated to be in London, out of the 400 jihadists who have so far returned to the capital from Syria and Iraq. (He also implicitly admitted that he does not know the whereabouts of the jihadists who have returned). When asked by the journalist Piers Morgan why the mayor could not have them monitored, Khan answered:
"Because the Met Police budget, roughly speaking, 15 percent, 20 percent is funded by me, the mayor. The rest comes from central government. If the Met Police is being shrunk and reduced, they"ve got to prioritize and use their resources in a sensible, savvy way."
When Morgan asked what could possibly be a bigger priority than, "people coming back from a Syrian battlefield with intent to harm British citizens", Khan did not answer. Perhaps because it is hard to admit in public that fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?
Authored by Nikita Vladimirov via CampusReform.org,
A new survey published by The Brookings Institution finds that about one-in-five undergraduate students approve of using violence to shut down controversial speakers.
A majority of undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities also agreed with a hypothetical protest in which a group “opposed to the speaker disrupts the speech by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker.”
According to the survey, 51 percent of students agreed that such a demonstration would be acceptable, while 49 percent disagreed. Not surprisingly, the response to the hypothetical scenario was also largely partisan, with 62 percent of Democrats approving of the protest, compared to just 39 percent of Republicans .
“I find the numbers in the above table to be highly concerning, because they show that a very significant fraction of students, across all categories, believe it is acceptable to silence (by shouting) a speaker they find offensive,” wrote John Villasenor, the author of the survey and a Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow.
The study further found that 19 percent of responders said that they approved of using violence “to prevent the speaker from speaking.” An 81 percent majority, on the other hand, did not approve of the violent approach.
“A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive,” Villasenor wrote.
While 39 percent of responders indicated that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, 44 percent said that it is not protected by the document. Another 16 percent remained undecided.
In one survey question, the students were also asked if they prefered a learning environment where certain views are prohibited versus an open learning environment “where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints.”
According to the study, 53 percent of responders said that they prefer the former while only 47 percent chose the latter.
“The survey results establish with data what has been clear anecdotally to anyone who has been observing campus dynamics in recent years: Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses,” Villasenor wrote.
“In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like ‘we fully support the First Amendment, but…’),” he asserted that “freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations.”
Villasenor surveyed a pool of 1,500 undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities between August 17 - 31. The margin of error is between 2-6 percent.
On 18 August 2017, the mayor of Boston Marty Walsh announced that the city should avoid the Commons on 19 August 2017 because of white supremacists and the chances of violence at a planned free speech rally. Predictably, thousands of people showed up to protest this group based on the words of the mayor. The mayor was rather unambiguous,
“The courts have made it abundantly clear. They have the right to gather, no matter how repugnant their views are. But they don’t have the right to create unsafe conditions. They have the right to free speech. In return, they have to respect our city.”
The mayor said that unpleasant white supremacists were going to show up and spout hateful rhetoric, so avoid it at all costs so you aren’t subject to these repugnant views.
The problem here?
To put it in the words of one very confused protester that was interviewed by the Boston Globe, “Excuse me sir, where are the white supremacists?”
As it turns out, this hate speech movement that Mayor Walsh was warning everyone about was a simple campaign stump speech by a Republican candidate for the Massachusetts State Senate.
Who was this despicable white supremacist? Indian-American Shiva Ayyadurai. While his profile does have some bizarre claims, mainly his claim that he invented e-mail, this isn’t any stranger than claims many other politicians make and nothing in his background seems to indicate any form of racial animosity or racial supremacist beliefs, white or otherwise. If anything, his views indicate the opposite as he accuses the US of operating a caste system where academics and politicians take the role of the Brahmin in India and is anti-GMO. These are hardly hallmarks of a right-wing belief structure and have far more in common with the American left.
Further, this is the speech he made. To cap it off, he was flanked by people holding Black Lives Do Matter signs and a woman protesting GMO food. This is a twist that was comical years ago when done on the Dave Chappelle Show, but it loses a bit of its comedy when we fast forward to 2017 and people are actually taking this as gospel, carving out time on a Saturday to yell down a few odd ducks — who dislike Monsanto — as racists.
And this mayoral behavior is expanding. San Francisco mayor Ed Lee has recently come on record denouncing a prayer group operated by Patriot Prayer on Saturday, 26 August 2017. Much like Boston mayor Walsh, Mayor Lee is rather unambiguous in his speech about the purpose of this gathering, “But as mayor of this city, I say: Any message of hate is not welcome.” And as predicted, thousands are going to show up to protest this gathering.
But, much like the problem Mayor Walsh incited, this particular rally is going to feature Hispanics, homosexuals and a transsexual speaker all of which will be be run by a person of Japanese descent.
His interview makes him sound like he hits most of the Progressive tropes, including ending wars and promoting gay rights.
So, what is going on here?
Politicians are actively tapping into modern stress that is generated by the state itself. Emotion is a powerful political motivator. People are heavily motivated to believe things that hit their emotions strongly, as shown by the classic tests to ban water. People generally have no idea what they’re protesting, just that the person has a compelling emotional hook.
When a major villain like, say, Donald Trump, manages to get a hold of a very powerful political organization like, say, the US federal government, people are bound to become fearful for their way of life if they supported a different politician for the role.
As I noted previously in an open letter to Clinton supporters, this anxiety is entirely the fault of the anxious since they were the ones that insisted on building those powerful institutions that would inevitably be taken over by individuals that you may not support and used in ways that were not intended.
This is how politicians, who are angling to generate a much more powerful government, so long as you vote for them, are able to paint groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Movement, the two largest white supremacist groups in the country, as major threats to the safety of minorities.
And by largest, I mean that the KKK has around 3,000 members nationally (out of 320 million people) and the second largest, the NSM, has around 400.
Narratives don’t work without an enemy and the traditional enemy of the mayors actively inciting violence against in their cities is so trivial they can barely make up a decent crowd at a minor league baseball stadium, let alone constitute a threat to the Republic. And nothing stirs up the emotional ire more than some Nazi sympathizers that we’ve had drilled into our heads since elementary school history are, rightfully, right evil bastards.
To point out how trivial and powerless these groups are, bees are responsible for around 100 deaths per year, which is over double the combined amount of alleged right-wing hate groups are responsible for between 2002 and 2016, making the everyday bee 31 times more deadly than white supremacist groups. Yet we don’t see massive rallies of college age students stomping through apiaries demanding bees to be snuffed out, because it’s ridiculous to fear something so powerless.
Politicians are doing what they do from time immemorial, leveraging our fear into the growth of the state. We saw it in the wake of 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act, for justification to enter the First World War and even going back further to the dissolution of the Roman Republic into an Imperial power. Manufacture fear, either via an existing external threat or, in the case of Rome under Gaius Julius and the latest mayoral pronouncements that racists are going to run amok in the city, a fake one, stir up the fervor of the population then arrive with the solution, one that requires additional money and power for public office and then ride to the rescue. Stirring up riots and a few deaths perfectly plays to their narrative.
Simply asking people to get along isn’t going to work so long as there is a massive power structure in place that is driving the actual fear. If the people are afraid of the Trumps and KKKs of the world, they could demand their politicians dismantle the power structures at the federal level so it cannot be taken over by disfavored groups and reinstall them at a local level where it is far easier to control who hold the reins of power.
Authored by Michael Rozeff via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws.
One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.”
This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code.
The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas?
No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next?
The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”
This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government.
The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles outfree speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…”
This law regards free speech as a threat, linking it to violence, painting them with one brush. There can be no justice that can stem from such a completely sloppy and inexcusably amateurish legal treatment. This linkage is made clear in paragraph seven with this language: “…communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups…” There is no distinction made here between the “open display of hate” and “violence being perpetrated”. As I predicted 11 years ago in arguing against hate crime laws, hate speech is being identified with hate crime.
I am just as uncomfortable with the notion of defining and singling out “hate speech” as some sort of new danger or threat or harmful activity or crime, to be dealt with by government or courts of law as I was 11 years ago with the idea of “hate crime”. The standard categories of crime are quite enough without adding to them a government laundry list of prejudices and aversions that everyone is not supposed to express or feel, under penalty of government law.
The writing has been on the wall for months, but German lawmakers have now passed a controversial law under which Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies could face fines of up to €50 million ($57 million) for failing to remove hate speech.
As AP reports, the measure approved is designed to enforce the country’s existing limits on speech, including the long-standing ban on Holocaust denial. Among other things, it would fine social networking sites if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory “fake news.”
“Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins,” said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill.
Under the law, social media companies would face steep fines for failing to remove “obviously illegal” content — including hate speech, defamation, and incitements to violence — within 24 hours. They would face an initial fine of €5 million, which could rise to €50 million. Web companies would have up to one week to decide on cases that are less clear cut.
Aside from the hefty fine for companies, the law also provides for fines of up to 5 million euros for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesn’t meet requirements.
Social networks also have to publish a report every six months detailing how many complaints they received and how they dealt with them.
Maas said official figures showed the number of hate crimes in Germany increased by over 300 percent in the last two years.
But human rights experts and the companies affected warn that the law risks privatising the process of censorship and could have a chilling effect on free speech.
“This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem,” Facebook said in a statement.
“We feel that the lack of scrutiny and consultation do not do justice to the importance of the subject. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure safety for the people on our platform,” the company said, noting that it is hiring 3,000 additional staff on top of 4,500 already working to review posts.
In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:
"Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what "illegal hate speech" is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.
"It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won"t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.
"There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes."
A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that "we do not have confidence in the ill-considered "code of conduct" that was agreed." A statement warned:
"In short, the "code of conduct" downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the "leading role" of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.
"This means that this "agreement" between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech."
Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that this assault on "racist" speech "appears to include anything critical of the EU"s current catastrophic immigration policy." He wrote:
"By deciding that "xenophobic" comment in reaction to the crisis is also "racist," Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel"s policies) into "racist" views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as "racist." This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.
Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: "It"s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live."
Authored by Jon Hall via Free Market Shooter blog,
An anti-racism demonstration in London, 2016.
After countless terror attacks in the name of Islam on European soil, it seems authorities in the EU are more angry over citizen’s freedom of speech and expression…
On Tuesday, Sussex police arrested 50 year-old Nigel Pelham; charged with eight counts of “publishing… written material intending to sir up religious hatred against Muslims”, it’s laughable to consider what he’s being punished for – it’s surreal! The “offensive” posts spanned between February 24 and November 16, 2015.
On that same day, German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media. Yes, the biggest problem facing the EU is hate but not the kind they’re punishing. Thus, Mr. Pelham and the 36 who had their homes raided had their fundamental human rights violated…
Thank God for our forefathers. Thank God for their foresight to decree and memorialize our fundamental rights in the Constitution. I fear of the repercussions and injustices that would be perpetrated by our already corrupt and power-hungry government if we didn’t have the Constitution and its protections.
Interestingly, the two things protecting us from Islam is also protected under our Constitution:
The Freedom of Speech and Press
The Right To Bear Arms
Therefore, without the Constitution – we would probably already be sliding down the slippery slope of hate crimes and thought police a la in Europe. Reaction to terrorist attacks from European leaders writes off the threat. Dying in a suicide bomb is just “part and parcel to living in a big city”, according to London mayor, Sadiq Khan. The Independent instructed citizens of Britain there was only one way to respond to attacks like Manchester; that saw scores of children killed at an Ariana Grande concert. Their advice? To carry on exactly as before.
Then, a week and a half later, another attack in the name of Islam was perpetrated on London bridge that saw three attackers mowing down pedestrians in a van and launching a knife attack on a market. Therefore, it’s a bit hard to “carry on exactly as before” when it keeps happening.
Europe holds no future if they begin to prosecute the only ones standing up against the invasion of a conquesting horde.
Picked up our #pride car all ready to support @EastbournePride & @HastingsPride as part of pride season. @sussex_police @NPLGBT #ByYourSide pic.twitter.com/IRXQOZImAF
— Insp Mark Evans (@Inspmarkevans) June 21, 2017
Notably, here’s some replies to the tweet above:
(INTELLIHUB) — The 39-year-old suspect in the Fresno shooting spree that left three dead and one in critical condition was an anti-white propagandist who called whites the devil on social media while telling his family that he believed a war between races was on the horizon.
Kori Ali Muhammad randomly opened fire on four different white males, hitting three and missing the fourth, before being taken into custody after he was spotted by officers and dove to the ground shouting “Ali Akbar”.
Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer told the local media that he did not believe the case was terrorism related despite the clear references but that the evidence so far indicates a hate crime.
“If in fact he’s lashing out at white people, white males in this case, that would constitute a hate crime,” Dyer said. “We believe it is a hate crime, definitely a hate crime.”
According to a report by the LA Times, Muhammad has a detailed social media history that includes direct references to black nationalism and numerous attacks on the “white devils”.
“A Facebook profile page for a Kori Ali Muhammad from Fresno paid homage to black pride and black nationalism, with images of the red, green and black Pan-African flag and a raised fist,” reported the Times.
“The rambling profile includes militant and apocalyptic language and repeated demands to “let black people go.” He referenced “white devils” and praised melanoma skin cancer.”
On Saturday afternoon, Muhammad posted a photo of himself in a colorful garment, with his head covered, and the words: “LET BLACK PEOPLE GO OR THE DOOM INCREASES REPARATIONS & SEPARATION NOW.”
On Monday he wrote: “MY KILL RATE INCRESASES TREMENDOUSLY ON THE OTHER SIDE ASÈ ALLAH U AKBAR.”
It will certainly be interesting to see the response in the liberal mainstream media to this horrific attack as it is basically the exact opposite of the narrative they usually push.
Authored by Derek Hunter via DailyCaller.com,
Wellesley College made news last month when professors declared “speakers with ‘objectionable’ views are not only offensive to students, but actually diminish their liberty.” Now, the student newspaper at the elite private college has taken it a step further – justifying violence against anyone who “either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs” to accepted progressive norms, saying “then hostility may be warranted.”
The shocking statement came in an editorial in the student newspaper, The Wellesley News, entitled “Free Speech Is Not Violated At Wellesley.”
“Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech,” the paper declared.
“Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government.”
The editorial board at the paper then ascribes a new meaning to the First Amendment.
“The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging,” the demand.
The reason “hate speech” exists is that the United States is a racist country, according to the paper.
“We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society. Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way,” the paper continues.
As for speakers and student who do not conform to what the paper deems acceptable speech, the editorial says violence may be justified.
“(I)f people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted,” the editorial states.
“If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so,” the paper concludes.
Why am I not surprised?
The attackers were charged with a hate crime after police witnessed the shocking footage of the victim bound and gagged, beaten, and made to drink toilet water while his assailants shouted "F*ck Donald Trump and f*ck white people!" Jordan Hill, 18, of Carpentersville; Tesfaye Cooper, 18, of Chicago; and Brittany Herring Covington, 19, and her sister Tanishia, 24, were each charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
Public defenders Amy Campanelli and Neil Toppel successfully convinced Judge Chiampas that online death threats and "sensationalized" media coverage justify shielding the four from public scrutiny, citing a tumblr post calling for the "public execution" of the defendants. Moreover, Campanelli argues they should not be held in jail pending trial for kidnapping, torturing, and mutilating a guy while shouting racist anti-Trump epithets:
"Sensationalized, pervasive media coverage threatens to poison the jury pool for my clients," Campanelli said, though trials in high-profile cases at the Leighton Criminal Court Building can take years to take place. "They have already been denounced in the media before anything has been proven."
"Worse, these are young people who should not be held in jail but are being held without bond because they have been prejudged," she said. "We will be seeking their release from jail."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
#1 - We all saw that video of the nearly two day long kidnapping and torture of the mentally disabled man.
#2 - The victim only escaped because a neighbor called 911 due to the noise coming out of the apartment where the torture was taking place. What would have happened if he hadn"t escaped? The assailants were heard saying:
"There"s gonna be a murder. Pop pop pop"
#3 - The woman who streamed the kidnapping, Brittany Herring Covington, showed zero remorse - even while posting to Facebook FROM JAIL:
#4 - Public defender logic; my clients are receiving death threats - the only reasonable action is to release them from jail.
Apparently these four, charged with a hate crime, deserve to be hidden from public. As their attorney Amy Campanelli said outside the courtroom:
"It is sad and unfortunate" that the case has provoked widespread comment from people who didn"t know "all the facts."
I think we"d all love to know what facts she"s referring to. CNN"s Don Lemon thinks this is just a case poor parenting, after all.
This article was written by Paul Joseph Watson and originally published at Infowars.com
Editor’s Comment: There’s a complete lack of understanding in the people about who the real enemy is. Instead, groups divided by race attack each other based on race, and on general assumptions about the election. There is little doubt that this nation can be torn down by dividing among itself.
After months of touting the victimhood of Black Lives Matter protesters, and the sanctity of their cause, the media can no longer look away from disturbing cases of black-on-white crimes of abuse, harassment, torture, humiliation and the like. Despite all this, the portrayal of the opposite of this event is likely to drag on with the fresh face and divisive politics of the next president.
Shock Video: White Man Kidnapped, Gagged, Beaten By Racist Black Anti-Trump Gang
by Paul Joseph Watson
A shocking video shows a white man bound, gagged and bloody as a gang of racist black thugs force him to say “f**k Donald Trump” and “f**k white people”.
The video was uploaded to Facebook live yesterday by a user named Brittany Herring, the African-American woman who appears in the clip.
The 30 minute video shows a young man tied up in a corner with blood coming from his head. The man’s mouth is gagged as thugs humiliate and abuse him.
The victim is repeatedly kicked and hit while forced to denounce white people and Donald Trump.
“You can’t be racist to white people” pic.twitter.com/EYMwdTjrc7
— Based Alaska™ (@bakedalaska) January 5, 2017
Chicago police tell Fox 32 that four people are in custody and authorities are conducting further investigation.
#BREAKING: Chicago Police tell FOX 32 that four people are in custody after man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live https://t.co/TY2rboK0JE pic.twitter.com/m0z6yRRtUI
— FOX 32 News (@fox32news) January 4, 2017
The young man seen in the clip, who has special needs, is now in hospital and is being treated for his injuries.
“The incident took place Tuesday in an apartment on the 3400 block of West Lexington on Chicago’s West Side,” according to police.
The footage is a chilling illustration of how anti-Trump hatred, which accelerated after the election, is now completely out of control.
Will the media even cover this footage or will news networks like CNN bury the story as they continue to hype hoax hate crimes faked by anti-Trump leftists?
@Cernovich @realDonaldTrump And here comes the spin! pic.twitter.com/TzOP2T7CfG
— Kuros (@MyKuros) January 5, 2017
This article was written by Paul Joseph Watson and originally published at Infowars.com
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
A number of disaffected Hollywood celebs, including Sally Field, Rosie Perez, “Westworld’s” Jeffrey Wright, and “Boardwalk Empire” actor Steve Buscemi, have utilized the former pro-Hillary social media group known as "Humanity for Hillary" to create yet another attack message aimed at President-elect Trump. In this latest message, which refers to Trump as "racist, sexist and xenophobic," the disaffected Hollywood snowflakes call on Congress to "vigorously oppose" and "obstruct" Trump on any policy that "violates our core values as diverse Americans."
The video opens by citing all the key buzz words that will undoubtedly "trigger" the leftists in Congress and suggests that "hate crimes in the U.S." have risen as a result of Trump"s election....
“The majority of Americans, regardless of who they voted for, did not vote for racism, for sexism, or for xenophobia. And yet, Donald Trump won.”
"And since he won, hate crimes are rising, women have been attacked in his name, people of color have been attacked in his name."
...then continues with a demand that Congress "vigorously oppose" Trump"s policies that "violate our core values as diverse Americans."
"Here"s what we demand: To the extent Trump pursues racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-muslim, anti-semitic, anti-environmental policies, we demand that you vigorously oppose him.
"We expect you to use your Congressional powers to obstruct anything that violates our core values as diverse Americans."
We wonder whether these celebs condone the mass riots held by Hillary supporters in the days after the election...does this count as a "hate crime?"
Or how about the shooting of 5 people at an anti-trump protest in Seattle (see "5 Shot, 2 Life-Threatening Injuries During Anti-Trump Protest In Seattle")? Or how about the DNC"s efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies (see "Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting "Anarchy" At Trump Rallies")?
Somehow we suspect we"ll never hear from Hollywood celebrities regarding these "hate crimes."
