A guest opinion column published November 28th, 2007 in the St. George (UT) Spectrum caught my eye. Mitch Cole, of Beryl Junction, Utah, sounds the alarm about the concept of hate crimes and hate speech. He claims this is being pushed by a "neo-politburo" which has been assembled to systemically strip Americans of their constitutional rights and to subjugate the United States into a New World Order.
While the Spectrum's terms of service preclude replicating the entire column here, "fair use" provisions permit zeroing in on the most pertinent part, which succinctly describes the effects upon those who sin against "Political Correctness". America has not yet become a actual gulag where people are actually stripped of their liberty for their thoughts and words, but Americans have increasingly stripped of their means and incentive to exercise that liberty. Here's the excerpt:
True to form though, try going against the neo-politburo in America today, and you will face a barrage of adversity, which could cost you your job, your home, your reputation and thousands of dollars in legal fees while defending your right to free speech. Perhaps even your freedom if jail time becomes involved.
Instead of a gulag in Siberia, the offender faces a hostile media intent on making sure that every vestige of a good reputation is shredded beyond repair. The gulag in America is media-driven social ostracism, perhaps every bit as powerful as exile, as the offender is portrayed in the harshest terms, often more hatefully than the allegedly "offensive" comment. Instead of a kangaroo court with a show trial, the offender is tried in the kangaroo court of the media, and without benefit of judge and jury is penalized in the harshest manner possible.
How true this is. In 2003, Dan Schildauer, who worked for a Cabela's outlet in Nebraska, was fired from his job because of his legal off-the-job political activities, even though he had a sterling track record at work. He was pulled over by a Hispanic cop for distributing politically-incorrect flyers produced by the National Alliance, which has been arbitrarily decreed a "hate group" by unelected censors like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Even though Schildauer was found to have broken no laws, the Hispanic cop, personally offended by the political content of the flyers, turned them over to the local media, which quickly and widely trumpeted the story. Cabela's, afraid of the impact upon their bottom line, summarily conjured up an excuse to fire Schildauer. And there have been other examples of employers allowing themselves to be used as proxy enforcers of political correctness. Indeed, some employers are now claiming increasing and unprecedented control over employees' personal lives, even refusing to hire people who are smokers off the job.
And many of our secular universities are acting pre-emptively, even in the absence of any "hate crimes". Recently, the University of Delaware was caught red-handed subjecting students to a Soviet-style diversity indoctrination program. Worst of all, this program identified an official "class enemy"; whites. White students were not only browbeaten by specially-trained "commissars", or residential assistants, into attending, but the training portrayed whites as oppressors simply by virtue of their race, using historical examples as "justification". Whites were portrayed in this program as automatically "privileged" simply because of the color of their skin (an implicit admission of white supremacy), while non-whites were portrayed as "incapable of racism" simply because they were all assumed to be victims. After an explosion of negative publicity, the president of the university shut down the program.
One must wonder why the white community is being specially targeted for this type of persecution. The fact is, black oppressors like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could have no power or effect without enablement and facilitation by the white ruling elite, who are not subjected to these disparate standards and who permit this psychological blackmail of an entire race.
Proponents of hate crime laws claim they are necessary because, in their purview, when one commits a hate crime, one doesn't merely victimize a single person, but also their entire "group" or "class". However, this approach implies a "double jeopardy" component strictly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. This approach also flies in the face of America's traditional premise - that Americans are to consider themselves Americans first, with ethnicity or race a distinct second. Assimilation does not require the immigrant to abandon his original language or culture, but does require the immigrant to subordinate those considerations to common American nationality.
The "hate" factor can be addressed within the present framework of criminal statutes. For example, the crime of assault and battery has several degrees. If race or ethnic hatred are considered to have contributed to the crime, instead of dredging up separate "hate enhancers" to pile on a a legally and financially helpless defendant, why not simply charge the defendant with the first degree occurrence of the crime? This would get the job done without the image of state-inflicted "bullying".