Hate Crimes

When is a hate-crime not a hate-crime? Answer: when the powers-that-be say it isn't. [Excerpts]

One problem with hate-crime laws is that they're more the result of bad ideology than good criminology, and nothing illustrates this point better than the current spate of church burnings in Alabama.

As you may know, five churches were burned in rapid succession in the early morning hours of February 3, followed by four more overnight last Monday/Tuesday. Yet, while I had encountered much reportage on this story prior to writing this piece, I had yet to hear any government official or media figure hazard the guess that these acts could constitute a hate-crime. So I did a Google news search.

I entered the terms "church fires" and "hate-crime" and, lo and behold, a search engine capable of plumbing the very depths of the Internet found a staggering twenty-two results (as of 2/7). More significantly, all the articles cited only one or the other of a mere two sources that mentioned hate-crime in relation to this arson-targeting of churches.

Twenty-one of the articles mentioned an FBI agent, Charles Regan, who said,

"We're looking to make sure this is not a hate crime and that we do everything that we need to do."

Now, I realize that this was more likely just a manner of speaking than a Freudian Slip, but it seems to me that, when the crime involves a favored group, the powers-that-be look to make sure that it is a hate-crime. And with great zeal too, I might add.

[C]ould you imagine the reaction if nine synagogues or mosques had been thus burned? The monolithic mainstream media would elevate the story to prominence and exhaust themselves pontificating about how dreadful these hate-crimes were. And the posturing by public officials, oh, the posturing, it would be intense enough to induce backache.

(http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn33.htm)