Thursday, October 06, 2005


In my experience, Catholic school students have been targets for abuse in NYC, on basketball courts, buses or subways, since at least the mid '70's. when I started going to and from school on my own. The uniforms (I wore a tie that said SPAS, for St. Paul the Apostle School - If you don't get it, SPAS is short for "spastic."), most of all, made us singled out for bullying, though race and class were also factors.

Thirty years later, the current perpetrators of these abuses are sometimes charged with "hate crimes" (sometimes NOT, creating more controversy). As much as I sympathize with the victims, I am still opposed to the "hate crime" designation, especially for minors. I was picked on for being white by my Catholic classmates, as well as outside of school, without my SPAS uniform on. Part of me is glad to see "hate crime" laws applied equally, because this will logically end up with these laws being moot, or overturned. Logic, though, does not always intersect with the application or evolution of law and legal precedent.

What I am curious about is the NYCLU and ACLU's position on the recent spate of "hate crimes" against white Catholic students in NYC. Since they are supporters of "hate crimes" legislation, why aren't they out in front on these cases? It depends on which context one puts the question in: Regarding race, the ACLU believes that blacks can't be racist, or guilty of "hate crimes," because "they don't have the power" to be; a preposterous proposition, considering the power of the black (or any other "disempowered") students to assault the white Catholic students. Regarding class, the elite ACLU view is that Catholic school students are "priveledged," and can afford to segregate themselves from these situations, having no business on public property (or transportation), which is reserved for "the underclass." Regarding religion, the ACLU performs the legal equivalent of these kids' bullying tactics against the Catholic church, Catholic (and Christian) organizations, showing the same contempt for their display in the public sector, so why would they oppose this on religious harassment grounds? (I googled this six ways from Sunday, and found nothing about the A [or NY] CLU opposing hate crimes against whites or Christians)

I have some links below to commentary and news stories about these attacks, but I must make it clear that HATE WILL NEVER GO AWAY, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT LEGISLATES ABOUT IT. People can hate the look on someone's face as easily as the color of that face. The sooner that the liberal groups like the ACLU learn this, the sooner they may change their distorted missions, or just cease to exist. The progressive view is to charge all crimes as what they are, with motive providing one factor in considering punishment.

If the ACLU refuses to defend all Americans' civil liberties equally, they don't deserve to use the words "civil liberties" in the title of their organization.

This was a production of the Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join just go to our Protest The ACLU Portal and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and we will send you further instructions. Also see the weekend trackback party!

RELATED LINKS: LaShawn Barber, Village Voice, American Renaissance (read the comments on LaShawn's page, and the A.R. comments. The V.V. article doesn't have any reader comments, but has a definite opinion on how to view this issue.)

No comments: