Eric Holder’s Selective Hate Crimes Act
By Wyatt Earp | July 4, 2009
Attorney General Eric Holder is a real piece of work. Obama’s go-to guy started off his reign by saying that America was “a nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race relations, then “improved” said relations – by dropping charges against Philadelphia Black Panther members who were intimidating voters at the polls.
Sadly, he is trying to “improve” hate crime legislation in this country . . . with more selective enforcement. Witness this revelation, courtesy of Wizbang:
Last week, during Senate hearings on the proposed Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions offered the following hypothetical scenario to Attorney General Eric Holder: “[A] minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality, is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality.” Sessions then wanted to know if the minister would be protected under the new proposed hate crimes legislation, because he was attacked specifically because of his religious views. AG Holder responded:
Well, the statute would not — would not necessarily cover that. We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends — is designed to cover. That would not be covered by the statute.
That’s fantastic. Apparently, the AG is treating hate crimes like we do in Philly: If you aren’t a member of a selective class, you cannot be a victim of hate.
Later in the hearing, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn asked AG Holder about last month’s attack on a US Army recruiting office in Little Rock by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a radical Muslim, that left Pvt. William Long dead and Private Quinton Ezeagwula seriously wounded. The recruiting office and soldiers were targeted simply because they represented the US military. Again, Holder responded:
There’s a certain element of hate, I suppose. What we’re looking for here in terms of the expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis to see groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don’t know if we have the same historical record to say that members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African-American, Hispanic, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over — over the many years.
You see what Holder is getting at, right? Wizbang columnist Michael Laprarie does.
Thank you, AG Holder, for clearing up the real purpose behind “hate crime” laws — they are designed only to protect “historic” minorities, i.e. non-whites, homosexuals, and non-Christians. If you are white, or associated with a belief system akin to Christianity, and you are singled out as the target of a criminal act solely because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, you have no additional recourse against the perpetrators of the crime under the proposed law.
Holder’s position on hate crime is truly despicable, but considering his record thus far, it is not surprising.
Topics: Politics | 9 Comments »
July 4th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
So called “hate” crimes, to me, have always represented an inequality of justice. If I assault you and break your arm, I receive one punishment, but if I break your arm and call you a hurtful name, I get another more severe sentence!
So much for “freedom of speech”!
TANJ.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Proof – Just selective freedom. Get used to that for the next eight years.
July 4th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
This seems to be open discrimination with various groups of people being treated differently. Would this stand up if challenged right the way to the Supreme Court?
Do you not have “catch-all” codes over there? “Assault” does not require you to receive a blow (that would be battery or “assualt and battery” or even “grievous bodily harm”). “Action likely to lead to a breach of the peace” is another.
Mind you, we are going the same general direction over here.
July 4th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Lock and load… It’s a coming….
July 5th, 2009 at 5:05 am
So, how about a little bit of Vigilance committees in return? 3-7-77
July 5th, 2009 at 8:32 am
So what ever happened to equal protection…?
July 5th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I find certain members of this administration to be very racist if you are white, Christian, conservative, etc.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
[...] sadly, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder would agree with this sentiment. But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty [...]
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
[...] [...]