In San Francisco, “Hate Crime” Hysteria Metastasizes Into “Hate Speech” Totalitarianism

Earlier this month, on August 11,
the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

unanimously passed
a resolution demanding the FCC
investigate the relationship between "hate speech in
the media"

and hate crimes.  Amnestied
illegal alien-turned-City Supervisor
David Campos
was the most vocal sponsor of the
resolution.  

It was always

obvious
that the Obama Administration`s
“Hate Crimes”

hysteria
is actually aimed at

repressing opinion
. But what is
"Hate Speech"?
According to the San Francisco

August 11 resolution,
it is words
"intended to
offend"
some group. This is
not limited to
advocating violence—but also specifies
"creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups".

The San
Francisco resolution quotes various studies by

the National Hispanic Media Coalition about an alleged
rise in hate crimes against Latinos and how this is tied


"hate speech" i
n
the media. (More on this later.)

Who are these
"vulnerable
groups"
? Guess what—they aren`t

whites
,
men
, or

Protestants
. But they do include
"African
Americans,

Asian-Pacific Americans,
Latinos, Muslims, Jews,
Catholics, women,

Lesbians, Gays, Transgendered people,
and people
with disabilities"
.

But, most of all, the Board of
Supervisors is concerned with the
"negative
coverage of Latinos
and the immigration debate"
.
They breathlessly repeat the

debunked
claims of the

UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center
and the
National Hispanic Media Coalition
"that a
correlation exists between an increase in hate speech in
the media and an increase of hate crimes committed
against vulnerable groups"
.

How big an epidemic is hate-speech
related violence in San Francisco? According to the

San Francisco Police Department
`s own statistics, a
grand total of no (0) anti-Mexican Hate Crime in

2008
and one (1) in

2007
. 
The SFPD does not say exactly what type of crime these
were, but given the hissy fit the city is throwing over
hate crimes, it`s a safe bet if they were murder,
rape,
or
serious assault
, we`d hear about it.

While few hate crimes occur in San
Francisco, plenty of crimes occur due to criminal
illegal aliens. Yet in 1989, San Francisco passed a
sanctuary city policy

that

"prohibits city employees from helping Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration
investigations or arrests unless such help is required
by federal or state law or a warrant".

Many cities try to hide their
sanctuary policies, but in early 2008 San Francisco
actually lunched an ad

campaign
to let all illegal aliens know they have
nothing to worry about. A spokesman for city mayor Gavin
Newsom bragged:
"We have worked with the Board of Supervisors,
Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights
groups to create a city government-wide public awareness
campaign so that immigrants know The City won`t target
them for using city services."

The ad
campaign paid off, sort of. On June 22, 2008, illegal
alien and MS 13 member Edwin Ramos

murdered
San Francisco resident

Tony Bologna
and his two sons.

Ramos
had a long criminal record, including two felonious
assaults—one against a pregnant woman. Less than three
months before the murder he was arrested on gang and
weapons charges. But he was neither charged nor reported
to immigration authorities.

One of the
most outrageous aspects of the city`s system was that it
specifically protected known illegal alien drug dealers
from deportation. Last June, the
San Francisco
Chronicle


reported
,

"San Francisco juvenile probation officials—citing the city`s immigrant
sanctuary status—are protecting
Honduran
youths
caught dealing crack cocaine from possible
federal deportation and have given some offenders a
city-paid flight home with carte blanche to return."

[Feds
probe S.F.`s migrant-offender shield
,
By Jaxon Van Derbeken, June 29, 2008]

Former

Narcotics Unit Captain Tim Hettrich
was quoted as
saying that illegal alien drug dealers
"pass themselves
off as juveniles, with a three-day growth of beard and
everything else. It`s frustrating, some of them have
been arrested four or five times…That is one of the big
problems with being a city of sanctuary."

One of these
illegal aliens was Alexander Izaguirre who stole Amanda
Kiefer`s car, and then tried to run her over with it,
and fractured her skull last year.

Kiefer
only recently discovered that Izaguirre had been
arrested for dealing crack cocaine just four months
earlier. But the city put him on its
"back on track"
program, which

helped give him a job
(which it is

illegal
in and of itself) and expunged his record.
 

Kiefer
asked: "If
they`ve committed crimes and they`re not citizens, then
why are they here? Why haven`t they been deported?"
 
[San
Francisco D.A.`s program trained illegal immigrants for
jobs they couldn`t legally hold
By Michael Finnegan,
Los Angeles Times,
June 22, 2009]

Even
after Kiefer`s case, the San Francisco District Attorney
who runs the program,

Indian-Jamaican
California AG wannabe

Kamala Harris
, still

defends it
, saying that, save for Izaguirre, all the
other illegal aliens whose records were expunged were
"following the
rules"
and deserved to be let free even after
prosecutors found out about their status.

After a
spate of negative publicity over the murders, San
Francisco revised its policy so city officials can
report illegal aliens who commit felonies.

But David
Campos—the same supervisor who sponsored the Hate Speech
resolution, and

former teenage illegal alien himself
—wants to

create an exception
to allow juvenile illegal alien
felons to avoid deportation.

This would
have protected the Bolognas` killer, Edward Ramos, who
was arrested for two felonies at the age of 17.

It gets even better. The City of
San Francisco is not the first entity to ask the FCC to
investigate "hate
speech"
. On January 28, The National Hispanic Media
Coalition

sent
it a
"Petition of Inquiry…In the Matter of Hate Speech in the
Media"
.

The NHMC seems to be the driving
force behind Campos` crusade against Hate Speech. It is
cited in four parts of the resolution. In fact, the
language and definition of hate speech (words like
"vulnerable group", "climate
of hatred"
) come straight out of the
"National Latino Policy & Issues Brief"
 [PDF]
on Hate Speech and Hate Crimes by the UCLA Chicano
Studies Research Center and the NHMC. It takes a very
broad definition of hate speech to include words like
"criminal illegal
aliens"
. In fact, it specifically

cites
criticism of San Francisco`s sanctuary policy
as an example (links added):

Analyst of Hate
Speech from The

John & Ken
Show

EXAMPLE

"And this is all under the

Gavin Newsom
administration and the

Gavin Newsom policy in San Francisco
of letting
underage illegal alien criminals loose" (from the July
21, 2008, broadcast].

TARGETS

Vulnerable group: foreign nationals (undocumented people).

Social institutions: policy and political organizations (city policy and
mayor`s office).

FALSE FACTS

The sanctuary policy preceded Gavin Newsom`s tenure as San Francisco`s
mayor, and neither Newsom nor the sanctuary policy
supports "letting underage illegal alien criminals
loose."

FLAWED ARGUMENTATION

Guilt by association is used to make the hosts` point. Undocumented
youth and those who are perceived as their endorsers at
the institutional level are stigmatized by being
associated with criminality.

DIVISIVE LANGUAGE Criminalized undocumented youth and their perceived
validators (Gavin Newsom and the

sanctuary
policy) are depicted as a threat to San
Francisco citizens, setting up an "us versus them"
opposition.

ANALYSIS

The language depicts the hosts` targets (undocumented people, city
policy, and Mayor Gavin Newsom) as dangerous, criminal,
and collusive, in addition, the focus of that policy
(undocumented people) becomes reduced to "underage
illegal alien criminals."

This is self
evidently absurd, but now that using flawed reasoning in
opposition to illegal immigration is considered hate
speech, I`ll briefly dispense with this nonsense lest I
be accused of a

Petitio Principii
fallacy.

  • "Undocumented
    people"
    is, of course a politically correct
    euphemism for illegal aliens. If they are a
    "vulnerable
    group",
    then so are thieves, con artists, and
    rapists.

  • Illegal alien criminals
    is a redundancy and San Francisco`s policy explicitly
    calls for letting illegal aliens loose; so that is Gavin
    Newsom`s policy. I guess the NHMC thinks
    “criminal illegal aliens” means those who also committed other
    crimes; and being let
    “loose” means
    not actually putting them through the justice system.
    But the fact that if illegal aliens, after they are
    tried for their local crimes, are not reported to
    federal immigration officials. That is letting them
    loose.

  • Again,
    "undocumented
    youth"
    are
    ipso facto
    criminals, so associating them with
    "criminality"
    isn`t guilt by association; as they all are criminals.
    Criticizing an elected official`s policies
    vis-à-vis an
    illegal aliens isn`t
    "guilt by
    association"
    unless you are accusing the mayor of
    being an illegal alien himself.
     And it`s a bit of
    a pot-kettle-black thing for the NHMC to accuse others
    of "guilt by
    association."

  • If using the words
    "illegal aliens" and
    "criminal illegal aliens"
    is divisive, then ICE
    officials in the Obama administration

    are guilty
    .

  • As for us vs. them,
    pretty much all politics pits different interest groups
    against each other. If John and Ken are guilty then San
    Francisco is putting the progressive right-minded
    thinkers and the underclass "us" against
    patriotic American
    "them."

This would
be laughable—if it weren`t parroted by politicians and
the Main Stream Media. This is not limited to the
People`s Republic of San Francisco. For example, Sen.

Robert Menendez,
(D, NJ)
sent
the same request to the FCC as San Francisco. Even
Barack Obama

made
the phony argument on the campaign trail.

The
hypocrisy demonstrates just exactly what the real agenda
behind the cries against
"hate speech".

It`s not
about protecting Hispanics and immigrants from
"hate crimes".
It`s about protecting

Treason Lobby
politicians like David Campos from
criticism for their failure to defend American citizens
from illegal aliens—and, ultimately, it`s about a
totalitarian drive to suppress all patriotic dissent.

"Washington Watcher" [email
him
] is an anonymous source Inside The
Beltway.