[quote=meadandale][quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]
Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..
[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]
Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.
[/quote]
Please listen to the webcast. He did not say anything about “non white”-ness. The specific statement in the original post was in response to the question whether a murder of a soldier should be considered a hate crime. He said that soldiers as a group were not historically targeted for violence, as opposed to African Americans or Jews. I don’t think you’d argue that there are far more historic precedents of bias crimes against Jews than against whites.
Racially motivated attacks on whites are already covered by existing legislation dating back to 1968 (which used color-blind language, even though it was created in response to primarily white-on-black incidents). Whether or not Holder personally considers it possible for blacks to commit bias crimes against whites, it’s not relevant for our legal system. There are numerous precedents of convictions for anti-white hate crimes. In 2004, 20% of all racially motivated incidents in the country were anti-white. There’s also insufficient evidence, based on his testimony, that he in fact sees things that way.
