Honest debate on hate crimes?
In my February 15, 2005 post, I cut and pasted an excellent column on "hate crimes" by Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe. Below is what the Letters Editor of the Boston Globe thinks passes for an honest debate on the subject (the letter writer was mentioned in Mr. Jacoby's column; I said in my Feb. 15 post the letters against Mr. Jacoby would run greater than the letters in support; no, I never tire of being right):
(Beginning of letter.) New light shed on hate crime debate, March 14, 2006
On Feb. 15, Jeff Jacoby wrote about the church burnings in Alabama, criticizing me, among others, for saying that there was no evidence as yet that the arsons were hate crimes (''The flames of hate in Alabama," op-ed).
''If anything is a hate crime," the apparently omniscient Jacoby wrote, 'obviously this is." Well, now it turns out that Jacoby is utterly wrong (''3 college students arrested in Ala. church arsons," Page A3, March 9).
Just as I suggested in my remarks at the time, officials now say the attacks were carried out by thrill-seeking young people, not hate criminals.
Jacoby's obvious intent was to pillory people he imagined were anxious to discard any possibility of the attacks being anti-Christian hate crimes, and that group, apparently, included what he described as the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, where I am a director.
Such crimes, Jacoby suggested, were merely less interesting to the left. But, of course, that was not my motivation. My point was simply that there was no evidence yet supporting that idea, and that anti-Christian hate crimes were relatively rare in the South. Jacoby obviously doesn't like hate crime legislation, organizations like SPLC that seek to battle hate groups, or the need for actual evidence to support the opinions he is so very quick to spout.
Mark Potok, Montgomery, Ala. (End of letter.)
Now, go to my February 15 post and read Mr. Jacoby's entire column.
First, Mr. Jacoby doesn't believe in hate crimes, so Mr. Potok's out-of-context quote is disingenuous. Second, more than half of Mr. Jacoby's column is unimpeachable; if the buildings burned were those of the groups he cites, there definitely would have been howls of "hate crime!"; the facts in the Alabama church burnings do not change this charge, nor has Mr. Potok written anything to challenge this charge, nor can anyone seriously deny the charge. And, if the buildings burned in the hypothetical cases cited by Mr. Jacoby were also determined to have been burned as pranks, some agenda-pushers would have ignored these facts and held the victimized group still suffered a hate crime. Many in the hate crime crowd would still claim all of the victimization attributed with a hate crime; this cannot be denied.
As Mr. Potok believes in hate crimes, it is asinine for him to argue there was "no evidence" of such. The fact that these were not hate crimes (again, his words), does not mean there was "no evidence". If these were hate crimes (again, a phrase he recognizes, not me) would the 10 Baptist churches burned be evidence? Of course they would. The churches would be the primary evidence! I believe the 10 churches are not "no evidence"; they most assuredly are "evidence", though. My goodness, physical evidence is not only evidence when it supports your desired conclusion only to be dismissed if it doesn't.
And, yes, it is better to let all the evidence be gathered before conclusions are drawn. It is absolutely true that many people draw conclusions too quickly and too irresponsibly based on incomplete evidence; Tawana Brawley, Charles Stuart and Willie Bennett are names from cases that come immediately to mind.
Arson is a crime. Do people really want to try and legislate that it makes a difference whether the arsonist hates white buildings, hates churches, thought it would be funny, loves large fires, loves the sound of fire engine sirens, thought firemen in oxygen masks risking their lives was exciting, loves the sound of water gushing out of a hose, or any other reason when she put the match to the accelerant? And, how, exactly, are we going to determine which thought was the last thought through the arsonist's head?
In my February 15, 2005 post, I cut and pasted an excellent column on "hate crimes" by Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe. Below is what the Letters Editor of the Boston Globe thinks passes for an honest debate on the subject (the letter writer was mentioned in Mr. Jacoby's column; I said in my Feb. 15 post the letters against Mr. Jacoby would run greater than the letters in support; no, I never tire of being right):
(Beginning of letter.) New light shed on hate crime debate, March 14, 2006
On Feb. 15, Jeff Jacoby wrote about the church burnings in Alabama, criticizing me, among others, for saying that there was no evidence as yet that the arsons were hate crimes (''The flames of hate in Alabama," op-ed).
''If anything is a hate crime," the apparently omniscient Jacoby wrote, 'obviously this is." Well, now it turns out that Jacoby is utterly wrong (''3 college students arrested in Ala. church arsons," Page A3, March 9).
Just as I suggested in my remarks at the time, officials now say the attacks were carried out by thrill-seeking young people, not hate criminals.
Jacoby's obvious intent was to pillory people he imagined were anxious to discard any possibility of the attacks being anti-Christian hate crimes, and that group, apparently, included what he described as the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, where I am a director.
Such crimes, Jacoby suggested, were merely less interesting to the left. But, of course, that was not my motivation. My point was simply that there was no evidence yet supporting that idea, and that anti-Christian hate crimes were relatively rare in the South. Jacoby obviously doesn't like hate crime legislation, organizations like SPLC that seek to battle hate groups, or the need for actual evidence to support the opinions he is so very quick to spout.
Mark Potok, Montgomery, Ala. (End of letter.)
Now, go to my February 15 post and read Mr. Jacoby's entire column.
First, Mr. Jacoby doesn't believe in hate crimes, so Mr. Potok's out-of-context quote is disingenuous. Second, more than half of Mr. Jacoby's column is unimpeachable; if the buildings burned were those of the groups he cites, there definitely would have been howls of "hate crime!"; the facts in the Alabama church burnings do not change this charge, nor has Mr. Potok written anything to challenge this charge, nor can anyone seriously deny the charge. And, if the buildings burned in the hypothetical cases cited by Mr. Jacoby were also determined to have been burned as pranks, some agenda-pushers would have ignored these facts and held the victimized group still suffered a hate crime. Many in the hate crime crowd would still claim all of the victimization attributed with a hate crime; this cannot be denied.
As Mr. Potok believes in hate crimes, it is asinine for him to argue there was "no evidence" of such. The fact that these were not hate crimes (again, his words), does not mean there was "no evidence". If these were hate crimes (again, a phrase he recognizes, not me) would the 10 Baptist churches burned be evidence? Of course they would. The churches would be the primary evidence! I believe the 10 churches are not "no evidence"; they most assuredly are "evidence", though. My goodness, physical evidence is not only evidence when it supports your desired conclusion only to be dismissed if it doesn't.
And, yes, it is better to let all the evidence be gathered before conclusions are drawn. It is absolutely true that many people draw conclusions too quickly and too irresponsibly based on incomplete evidence; Tawana Brawley, Charles Stuart and Willie Bennett are names from cases that come immediately to mind.
Arson is a crime. Do people really want to try and legislate that it makes a difference whether the arsonist hates white buildings, hates churches, thought it would be funny, loves large fires, loves the sound of fire engine sirens, thought firemen in oxygen masks risking their lives was exciting, loves the sound of water gushing out of a hose, or any other reason when she put the match to the accelerant? And, how, exactly, are we going to determine which thought was the last thought through the arsonist's head?
posted by Zack at 2:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home