Typical Media anti White Bias-

[Michael Hardner]

Or the Toronto lesbians who got beat up by the black person. Still, clearly there's an idea that it's only a hate crime if a minority is the ones getting hurt.

-k

There's an idea for sure - as evidenced by the few posters here who are asking about it. But there are lots of ideas out there. Does the media jump on the possibility that a 'hate crime' has happened ? Probably, but we've yet to agree on why. We do know that such crimes are unusual and thus attract attention for that reason. And, to recap your thoughts, some believe that the media are afraid to report some 'hate crimes' for fear of being labeled.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Shwa]

I messaged you about discussing such things online but didn't hear back - do you read your messages ?

I dunno, I might be looking in the wrong place. Others have messaged me fine and currently the 'Signed in as' menu reads "Messenger (0 New)" Should I be looking somewhere else?

[Shwa]

Specifically, the claim that "the police are treating this as a hate crime" is shoddy because that decision is out of their hands.

You are kidding me right?

You are confusing vernacular with legalese, which MH and I have already pointed out. If the police see evidence of a motive, they are going to investigate it - it is "in" their hands to investigate that - and thus they will "treat" it as such. Now, the media might report it as 'hate crime' but the police would treat it as whatever applicable section of the Criminal Code they need to lay charges.

Why are we even talking about first-degree murder?

Because of this:

The notion that because the motive might factor into the sentencing, such a thing is a crime in and of itself is silly. Would people go around saying "police are investigating this as a possible greed crime" or "police are investigating this as a possible self-defense crime"? The police are investigating it as an assault, and will provide whatever information they can find, including possibly a motive, to the prosecutor.

The police, the news and "people" go around qualifying crime all the time. Even "hate crimes" as evidenced by the subsequent links I have supplied you.

Because you proposed that the police have the power to decide whether a homicide will be treated as a 1st degree murder or a manslaughter.

I never said that. I said that it gets in the "news reportage" and is often attributed to police sources.

So they knew that the crime was a robbery...

Nope. They speculated on the motive as per the actual quote. You deny the police discuss motives in the news, I supplied contrary information.

speculate on a hate motive with no information other than the skin color of those involved.

Nope again. I think the black-on-white/mulatto lesbian article I supplied shows that the news reported one of the victims saying that the motive was because she was a lesbian. The news didn't have to report that. This was a black man afterall. They didn't have to print that the lesbians wanted "hate crime" charges because they were lesbian, even though the perpetrator was a black man. The article passed from the writer, through an editor (or editorial board) and into print. It was a choice. Even though the man charged with the assault was black.

So why did the news make that choice. Any idea?

[Michael Hardner]

I dunno, I might be looking in the wrong place. Others have messaged me fine and currently the 'Signed in as' menu reads "Messenger (0 New)" Should I be looking somewhere else?

I tried again and seems to have worked differently. Check again.

[kimmy]

You are kidding me right?

You are confusing vernacular with legalese, which MH and I have already pointed out. If the police see evidence of a motive, they are going to investigate it - it is "in" their hands to investigate that - and thus they will "treat" it as such. Now, the media might report it as 'hate crime' but the police would treat it as whatever applicable section of the Criminal Code they need to lay charges.

Yes, that's it.

"Hate crime" is a catch phrase that the media is free to toss around because it has no real meaning in this context.

However, I'm not sure that people understand that point. The lesbians demanding that their attacker be charged with a hate crime... do they understand that there's not actually a "hate crime" that he can be charged with, that when he's in court it'll be for common assault? Will people be indignant that the hooligans who attacked the man in Courtenay are only going to be charged with assault and not "hate crime"? There seems to be a widespread belief that "hate crime" is an actual criminal offense.

Nope. They speculated on the motive as per the actual quote. You deny the police discuss motives in the news, I supplied contrary information.

They knew the victim was robbed, and they knew why his attackers picked him and not his neighbor. Calling it a targeted robbery is not "pure speculation."

It's certainly not comparable to the Vancouver case where media types were asking the police to speculate on a hate motive despite no supporting evidence.

Everybody, yourself included, understands the distinction being made here, and I won't waste my time engaging you in an idiotic discussion of the dictionary definition of "speculation".

Nope again. I think the black-on-white/mulatto lesbian article I supplied shows that the news reported one of the victims saying that the motive was because she was a lesbian. The news didn't have to report that. This was a black man afterall. They didn't have to print that the lesbians wanted "hate crime" charges because they were lesbian, even though the perpetrator was a black man. The article passed from the writer, through an editor (or editorial board) and into print. It was a choice. Even though the man charged with the assault was black.

So why did the news make that choice. Any idea?

You already know my answer: because two people getting punched in the face isn't news, but "Haaaaate Criiiiime!!" is.

-k

[Shwa]

You already know my answer: because two people getting punched in the face isn't news, but "Haaaaate Criiiiime!!" is.

kimmy, from an earlier post:

I'm arguing this because I think the premise has merit,

So where is the typical media anti-White bias in the story I supplied about the black man who assaulted the two lesbians (white/mulatto) who demanded he be charged with hate crimes?

I am just trying to get a sense of what premise you think has merit and what your position is on that premise.

[kimmy]

kimmy, from an earlier post:

So where is the typical media anti-White bias in the story I supplied about the black man who assaulted the two lesbians (white/mulatto) who demanded he be charged with hate crimes?

I am just trying to get a sense of what premise you think has merit and what your position is on that premise.

That we've seen a couple of examples of non-white people accused of hate crimes (the lesbians incident, and Peter Akenahew, although the latter incident actually does fall under the legal definition contained within s318/319...) doesn't dispute the idea that bias exists. It just illustrates that Jews and homosexuals can cry "haaaate criiiiime!" as well as racial minorities.

I think my earlier posts address the double standard I'm discussing, and I don't have time to add anything more right now.

-k

[Argus]

Aside from the time they do of course.

WHo was that indian chap who opined about the Holocaust?

David Ahenakew, made anti-semitic remarks including holocaust denial, and did it on television. The Jews have a lot of people watching for that sort of thing and demanded the charges - which he was acquitted of, btw.

Now suppose we go through his remarks and change the word "jew" to "white man". What do you think the chances of charges being laid would have been?

[Argus]

So where is the typical media anti-White bias in the story I supplied about the black man who assaulted the two lesbians (white/mulatto) who demanded he be charged with hate crimes?

It wasn't the media who speculated that there was a hate crime there. The victims themselves said it was a hate crime and demanded he be charged. He wasn't, btw. Interestingly, the statement in the Star says:

Police said although the attack was disturbing and offensive, it did not meet the narrow definition of a hate crime. Specifically, the attack did not advocate genocide and there was no clear evidence the man incited others to join him in the attack.

That would seem to render any possibility of hatred being considered in the Port Coquitlam attack by three White men on a Black man moot, would it not?

Edited November 26, 2009 by Argus

[M.Dancer]

.

Now suppose we go through his remarks and change the word "jew" to "white man". What do you think the chances of charges being laid would have been?

Ummm...okay

The White Man damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's why Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the White Man didn't take over Germany, or even Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. White Men would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing now, they're killing people in Arab countries.

I think they would have said he was a kook....isn't that the general concesus anyway?

[M.Dancer]

The Jews have a lot of people watching for that sort of thing and demanded the charges - which he was acquitted of, btw.

Don't you mean the White Men have a lot of people....?

[Michael Hardner]

David Ahenakew, made anti-semitic remarks including holocaust denial, and did it on television. The Jews have a lot of people watching for that sort of thing and demanded the charges - which he was acquitted of, btw.

Now suppose we go through his remarks and change the word "jew" to "white man". What do you think the chances of charges being laid would have been?

There are limits to how far you can measure fairness with this tit-for-tat method of changing the group mentioned. For example, what if he had said "The Irish control the media." - would he have been charged then ? Likely not. Is it because of bias ? I think that Morris' comment is more apt.

I would submit that the content of what is being said has to be looked at in a cultural context.

If somebody said that natives were controlling the bubble gum industry, they'd probably be just sent for observation and not charged either.

[Shwa]

It just illustrates that Jews and homosexuals can cry "haaaate criiiiime!" as well as racial minorities.

OK, so what you are saying - forgetting that Jews and homosexuals can be as white as anyone I know - is that all minorities - can call "haaaaate criiiiiime!" and it will get media attention as well as white/off-white women?

So by this are you excluding white males and thus the premise should actually be: 'typical media anti-white male bias?'

Is that a better fit as your premise?

[charter.rights]

It just illustrates that Jews and homosexuals can cry "haaaate criiiiime!" as well as racial minorities.

-k

The story of the black man and white/mullato lesbians illustrates that whites are equally capable of crying "hate crime" when it suits them.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ummm...okay

The White Man damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's why Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the White Man didn't take over Germany, or even Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. White Men would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing now, they're killing people in Arab countries.

I think they would have said he was a kook....isn't that the general concesus anyway?

I don't know why but that's funny as hell.

[kimmy]

OK, so what you are saying - forgetting that Jews and homosexuals can be as white as anyone I know

You keep acting as if the Akenahew and Toronto lesbians incidents are some sort of evidence of balance.

Matthew Sheppard was a white male, and his murder also prompted a big media frenzy. You'd think something like that would be devastating to my argument, right? Well, no.

- is that all minorities - can call "haaaaate criiiiiime!" and it will get media attention as well as white/off-white women?

So by this are you excluding white males and thus the premise should actually be: 'typical media anti-white male bias?'

Is that a better fit as your premise?

No, a number of incidents that have received puzzlingly little coverage have had female victims.

I again refer you to my earlier post here.

The story of the black man and white/mullato lesbians illustrates that whites are equally capable of crying "hate crime" when it suits them.

Sure, they can claim hate crime, and they might even be right... but nobody actually takes the claim seriously unless it's coming from a "visible minority", a homosexual, or a religious minority.

The family of that young man in Buffalo complained that it was a hate crime, and by any reasonable definition they're right... but that fact was largely ignored ... because he's white.

-k

[Shwa]

You keep acting as if the Akenahew and Toronto lesbians incidents are some sort of evidence of balance.

Not at all. All I am saying is that your argument doesn't seem to be very solid if we count recent evidence that is contrary to what you are saying. Sure there is Matthew Sheppard and there is also the recent late-October death of Christopher Skinner in Toronto. Read the story. Hate crimes is mentioned also.

Sure, they can claim hate crime, and they might even be right... but nobody actually takes the claim seriously unless it's coming from a "visible minority", a homosexual, or a religious minority.

By "nobody" do you include the police, Crown, lawyers, family members? Or do you wish to qualify "nobody" as well?

The family of that young man in Buffalo complained that it was a hate crime, and by any reasonable definition they're right... but that fact was largely ignored ... because he's white.

Here is where your argument goes off the rails:

Beating of man, 18, probed as hate crime

“Police are looking into the possibility that it could be a hate crime, based on the information we have received,” said police spokesman Michael J. DeGeorge, who declined to elaborate.

Now, this is in the US and I am not about to go searching their law catelogue and try the case myself. But I would say that the police investigated and didn't find sufficient evidence. Is that possible? That it wasn't because the victim was "white" it was because they didn't find any evidence sufficient enough to convict anyone of those crimes? Because by any "resonable defintion" that is what appears had happened.

[kimmy]

First off, a guy getting beat up by people telling him "your kind doesn't belong in this neighborhood" and "stay away from our women" has always been *the* classic example of a "hate crime" in the colloquial usage.

So I think that anybody who disagrees that the incident in Buffalo wasn't a "hate crime" (in the colloquial sense) ought to just concede straight up that their concept of a hate crime excludes the idea of a white victim.

Yes, I have already pointed out that the Buffalo media covered the gang-beating of Brian Milligan Jr and reported on the racial aspect of the story. The police have no solid evidence on that aspect and can't speculate on it. That's not unusual. What is remarkable is that the story doesn't even exist outside of Buffalo.

Local media (in Knoxville, Tennessee) also reported on the Channon Christian/Chris Newsom murders and asked police about a potential hate crime aspect to it. The indignities performed upon Christian and Newsom seemed difficult to fathom without some kind of hate motive; the assailants were black and the victims white. The police had no solid evidence on that aspect and couldn't speculate on it. And, as with the Brian Milligan case, the story went virtually unreported outside of the local media.

Concurrent with the Christian/Newsom murders, the Duke lacrosse case was headline news all over the United States. And although the Christian/Newsom murder was ignored by national news outlets, bloggers picked up on it. They asked "why are we hearing so much about Duke lacrosse, and nothing at all about this heinous crime in Tennessee?" and drew the obvious conclusion.

MSNBC did an article on the issue-- not about the murders themselves, but about the criticism of the media by bloggers. After all the handwringing about the unfairness of internet scrutiny, the article gets to the point and asks two experts: the University of Tennessee law professor who operates Instapundit, who said that while he can't say it's a hate crime, he absolutely believes the press would have made a bigger deal about it if the races had been reversed.

The contrary opinion comes from Ted Gest, the president of Criminal Justice Journalists, who says "no no no, it's not the race of the victims, it's just that it's not really big news without this blatant racial motive!"

Which is an interesting for 2 reasons.

First off, if the Duke lacrosse rape case was big national news because there was a blatant racial motive, it more or less illustrates that all you need to have a "blatant racial motive" is white attackers and a non-white victim.

And secondly, 2 years later we've got this incident in Buffalo where there really was a blatant racial motive, and the incident is still invisible outside of the local news. It makes Mr Gest's explanation ring hollow, unless one factors in the requirement that a "blatant racial motive" requires white attackers and a non-white victim.

So you've been able to dredge up some incidents that were considered newsy because of some other factors (gay victims, or maybe some Jewish victims.) Big deal. It really just further illustrates the point that these cases were newsy because of the victims' identity. If Matthew Sheppard was straight, his murder (as horrid as it was) would not have made it out of the local news. If Mr Scott had punched a couple of straight women, it would have at most merited about 2 lines in the Police Blotter column on the back page of the City section.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

So what you are saying, then, is that the whole thing is media bias, and there was no racial motivation on the part of the rapist/murderer in this case?

I met a very talented but gloom ridden artist that immigrated from South Africa - the reason this white man came to Canada was because he knew that his white children would not have an opportunity to achieve success if they stayed. His art was very animistic..strange creatures doing very disgusting things..brilliant technical work I do admit...I finally found out what his problem was...This LIBERAL told me that his 90 year old grand mother was raped by a gang of black youth...I asked him if he wanted justice or revenge - this a-hole said that he was but "an observer" I would say he was a coward!

[Shwa]

So you've been able to dredge up some incidents that were considered newsy because of some other factors (gay victims, or maybe some Jewish victims.) Big deal.

"Dredge" or not, it is a big deal because it completely derails your position. And here's why:

It really just further illustrates the point that these cases were newsy because of the victims' identity.

Well duh-uh. We are talking "hate crimes" here are we not?

If Mr Scott had punched a couple of straight women, it would have at most merited about 2 lines in the Police Blotter column on the back page of the City section.

Nope again. Not if they accused him of a hate crime - that of extreme misogyny. You know, like Marc Lepine and the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. Do you remember that? It was a 'hate crime' - 'crime of hate' that was actually white on white/* and the hate angle was much written about in news reports all over the world.

Oh wait, Lepine's victims were feminists apparently, "their identity," thus the only reason that crime was actually "newsy."

[kimmy]

"Dredge" or not, it is a big deal because it completely derails your position. And here's why:

Well duh-uh. We are talking "hate crimes" here are we not?

If we are talking "hate crimes", then a hate motive should be what is relevant.

But it's obvious that what we're really talking about here would be more appropriately called "identity politics crimes".

Nope again. Not if they accused him of a hate crime - that of extreme misogyny.

That's pretty inane. If the media reported incidents of chick-battery as "hate crimes", even if the victim claimed "extreme misogyny!", nobody would take it seriously.

You know, like Marc Lepine and the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. Do you remember that? It was a 'hate crime' - 'crime of hate' that was actually white on white/* and the hate angle was much written about in news reports all over the world.

Oh wait, Lepine's victims were feminists apparently, "their identity," thus the only reason that crime was actually "newsy."

And now you're just being ridiculous.

What's your point with this absurd tangent? That a crime with white victims can still get in the news? It was one of the most shocking acts of violence during peace-time in Canadian history. It was big news regardless of identity politics.

The news media isn't going to ignore huge stories like that one. It's contrary to their mission of selling papers. On the other hand, they'll certainly turn small news stories into big ones if they think they can do so.

Michael and I discussed a list of criteria that make small-time crime "newsy" a while back. The list I suggested was something a long the lines of this:

-they have video

-lurid details, sexual angle

-shocking, grisly details

-famous people involved

-particularly sympathetic victim

-extraordinary plot twist

And, of course,

-"hate crime" angle.

And it's this last one where the bias exists, where the identity politics takes over.

-k

[Shwa]

If the media reported incidents of chick-battery as "hate crimes", even if the victim claimed "extreme misogyny!", nobody would take it seriously.

+

What's your point with this absurd tangent?

See the first quote.

[Oleg Bach]

All crime of all sorts is "hate crime." It certainly is not done out of love - When a political agrees to screw us finacially and morally - He or she must certainly hate us - charge them and bring them before the Human Rights Tribunal..

[kimmy]

+

See the first quote.

What. Your argument is that the Montreal Massacre was newsy because it was "extreme misogyny" rather than because it was one of the largest mass-murders in Canadian history?

I'm sorry, I think this discussion has jumped the shark.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

What. Your argument is that the Montreal Massacre was newsy because it was "extreme misogyny" rather than because it was one of the largest mass-murders in Canadian history?

I'm sorry, I think this discussion has jumped the shark.

-k

The lasting legacy of the Montreal Massacre at this time is to generate more man hate and to put a division between the sexes - The killer was not representative of all males or males in general - this was not a man or a woman that murdered - it was a thing! Time to let it go and understand that supidity and evil does not have a sex. I never like the term womans rights....those that want to humilitate and enslave you don't give a damn if you are male or female - black or white - they persecute everyone.