The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?


The
Hate
Crimes Prevention

Bill”

will be in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. It
recently passed the House, causing the Anti-Defamation
League to



rejoice
.
The ADL called the law
"an essential and
necessary step forward in the national effort to counter
hate crimes"
and urged passage by the Senate.


It also congratulated itself on taking a leadership role
in promoting this legislation for the



last 10 years
.
Other



Jewish organizations

have also been at the



forefront

of promoting “hate crime” legislation in the US and throughout



the West
.


Needless to say, here are
very sound reasons to oppose
this legislation.
“Hate Crime”
laws are superfluous, since crimes such
as murder or assault are crimes whatever the motivation.
Moreover, as



Paul Craig Roberts

recently



pointed out

there is a pronounced tendency for American legislation
to metastasize into regulations far different and much
more sweeping than the enactors envisaged (or



admitted
).
This alone is reason enough to oppose any legislative
advance into the areas of motivation or opinion. It is
inevitable that
“Hate Crimes”
will quickly come to



include political speech
,
specifically on



immigration
.


Why are Jewish organizations so committed to this drive
to abolish free speech? Sadly, such an attitude is
entirely within the Jewish tradition. Jewish groups have
a long history of powerful controls over group members,
ranging from



regulations

on economic behavior and charity toward other Jews, to



regulating behavior

likely to give rise to anti-Semitism or likely to damage
other interests of the group.
 


One aspect of this is that there was little history of
free speech within traditional Jewish societies.
Historically,



Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

point out, rabbis and other elite members of the
Ashkenazi and Sephardic communities had extraordinary
power over other Jews— literally the power of life and
death. And they were highly intolerant. Jews accused of
heretical religious views were beaten or murdered. Their
books were burned or buried in cemeteries. When a
heretic died, his body was beaten by a special burial
committee, placed in a cart filled with dung, and
deposited outside the Jewish cemetery.


This repressive tradition



continues
.
Notwithstanding the image of freely



tolerating dissent

within the Jewish community
(“
Two
Jews, three opinions
), John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt
have



shown

that on important issues like Israel, Jewish dissenters
are marginalized and there is strong pressure to limit
disagreement. Jews can criticize Israel but only out of
public view. Mearsheimer and Walt note that pro-Israel
activism is dominated by


“hard-line Zionists, Orthodox, and



neoconservative
circles”.
As has happened so often in Jewish history, the most
committed Jews have determined the direction of the
Jewish community, with the result that the leadership of
pro-Israel organizations



tends to be more radical
than the rest of the American Jewish
community


Already, elsewhere in the English-speaking world, the
“Hate Crime”
strategy has been used to repress views unwelcome to
Jewish organizations.


In Canada, for example, as the Jewish journalist



Ezra Levant

has



described
,
Jewish organizations and activists have been a major
source of support for the



Canadian Human Rights Commission
,
an organization whose role is to enforce




“hate speech”


totalitarianism
. 


Levant describes the



Simon Wiesenthal Center

as “one of the most vicious interveners in Canadian Human Rights Commission
censorship trials.”


Bernie Farber, Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian
Jewish Congress, claimed recently that
“our anti-hate
laws are probably the most underused.”
Levant
comments:



“That sounds like Ian Fine, senior counsel for the CHRC,




who declared that

`there can`t be enough laws against hate.` … Farber …
wants more censorship, more government intervention into
thoughts and ideas — and the emotion called `hate`.”

A good example of this intolerance for speech they don`t like is
the response of Canada`s organized Jewish community to
recent demonstrations against Israel. The Canadian
Jewish Congress



complained
that protests against Israel`s incursion
into Gaza
contained images that were
"uncivil, un-Canadian, that demonize Jews and Israelis," and is
asking the police to investigate the matter for referral
to the CHRC.

Nevertheless, despite the strong support of the organized Jewish
community for thought crime legislation, the CJC`s
Farber has the effrontery to




claim

“we are firm
supporters and believers in the need to be able to
demonstrate passionately in free and democratic
societies”
.



Perhaps he is excluding Canada from the ranks of
“free and
democratic”
societies. In that he would be quite
right.


In Australia, Jewish organizations
have also been leading the push to criminalize thought.


Andrew Fraser
,
a former professor of public law at Macquarie University
in Sydney, was brought before the Australian Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he had
written a letter published in a newspaper suggesting
that “once black
African colonies in Australia grow in size and in
confidence, one can reasonably expect a number of social
problems and rising levels of crime and violence.”

In his


comments

before the Commission, Fraser noted that the charges


against him

by an African had actually been instigated by
“several organized Jewish groups that boast openly of the campaign they
have organized against me,”
citing articles in
Jewish newspapers. Fraser wrote that Jewish individuals
and organizations had acted
“to further their shared ethnic interest in the growth of a multi-racial
society in Australia.”


In a wonderful passage, Fraser
states that he has no objection against African and
Jewish groups pursuing their interests in making
Australia into a multi-racial society—



“But they must understand that, as Australia becomes a
multi-racial society, it is inevitable that
Anglo-Australians, having observed the self-interested
activities of other racial, ethnic and religious groups,
are bound to become more conscious of their own
distinctive racial identity. Many white Australians
already feel that they are losing their ancestral
homeland to a massive influx of Third World migrants
hostile or indifferent to the ethnic interests of the
host society. … The simple fact is that a multi-racial
immigration policy is not obviously and necessarily in
the best interests of white Australians.”


Exactly. But the problem is that there is an imposing
array of national and international organizations that
are both promoting non-White immigration into formerly
European countries, and attempting to criminalize any
dissent from that policy.


Already we see



intellectual justifications

(see also



here

and



here
)
from legal scholars aimed at making American law more in
line with European and Canadian laws limiting freedom of
speech on multicultural issues. (Importing foreign law
into American courts is a particular



cause

of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, one of the Supreme Court`s two
Jewish Justices).


Two reasons explain the tremendous push by Jewish
organizations for
“Hate”
laws. The first is, obviously, Israel.



Zionists

in America have succeeded in turning the U.S. into a


client state

of Israel and in commandeering huge quantities of
American resources in its defense. This is an
astonishing achievement, far removed from any obvious
interests of the majority population in the U.S. As the
task gets more difficult, the temptation



to repress

grows.




William I. Robinson
,
a Jewish sociology professor at the University of
California–Santa Barbara, is good recent example.
Robinson sent an email to his students juxtaposing what
he termed "parallel images of Nazis and Israelis" — Jews victimized
during the Holocaust and Palestinians attacked by Israel
during the recent Gaza invasion. The response was swift.
The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned
Robinson`s email. The ADL`s Abraham Foxman announced
that "You can
criticize Israel; you can criticize the war in Gaza. But
to compare what the Israelis are doing in defense of
their citizens to what the Nazis did to the Jews is
clearly anti-Semitism"
.


In other words, the ADL believes in
free speech—up to the point where it think it conflicts
with its version of Jewish interests. And after that
point, it is perfectly willing to do whatever it takes
to shut up people like Robinson. (Hmm,


sounds familiar
;
see also



here
.)


The second reason Jewish organizations want enhanced
repression powers: immigration. The organized Jewish
community has



long

been the



single most effective pres
sure group

in favor of massive non-White immigration into the
United States. The ADL and other Jewish organizations
are currently presenting a



united front

on the issue of so-called
“comprehensive
immigration reform”
, which would legalize millions
of illegal immigrants and set off another massive round
of chain migration to the US from Mexico and other
countries. Organizations with high levels of Jewish
funding such as the


ACLU

and have been in the forefront of expanding the
“rights” of legal and illegal immigrants and refugees and making the
enforcement of immigration laws difficult. 
The



Southern Poverty Law Center

 (or


$PLC

in VDARE.com terminology) seems to have completey
shifted its focus from, well, southern poverty and the
Ku Klux Klan to



attacking critics

of immigration, no matter how law-abiding and



respectable.


From my Darwinian perspective, this is quite clearly a
program of conquest and displacement of European peoples
by non-European peoples. 
Since I am of European descent this strikes me as
rather obviously against



my interests.


Most of the time since the



catastrophic

1965 Immigration Act passed—producing, once again,
consequences quite different from what the enactors
claimed to envision—a



bipartisan

consensus kept what was happening out of public debate.


But the Bush/Kennedy Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration
attempts of 2006 and 2007 were


unexpectedly defeated
—only and exclusively because of
grassroots opposition. This political instability can be
expected to increase as the consequences of immigration
become increasingly undeniable. Accordingly, elite
intolerance of dissent on the immigration issue is
perceptibly



rising.


It`s important to realize the scope of this effort to
prohibit speech that conflicts with the multicultural
utopia envisioned by the left. Exhibit A in the Big
Picture of Hate Crime legislation is the recent


Durban Review Conference



in Geneva — the follow-up to the


World Conference Against Racism

of 2001.


The


Outcome Document


put out
as the consensus sentiment of the conference is a
real eye-opener. It is a compendium of the dogmas of the
intellectual left which, if implemented, would result in
massive transfers of wealth from Western countries to
undeveloped countries and massive population transfers
from undeveloped countries to Western countries. And it
calls for international legal power to punish speech and
actions that deviate from these policy goals.


For example, Paragraph 13 provides this masterpiece of


Orwellian doublethink
: it
“reaffirms … that
all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority
or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well
as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall
be declared offence punishable by law …
and that these
prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and
expression
.”
[My emphasis]


On the face of it, this seems to state that a race
scientist like



J. Phillipe Rushton

or



Richard Lynn

could be sent to prison for claiming on the basis of
scientific data that there are distinct races and that
they differ in intelligence and other traits linked with
economic development. But even so, the OD claims, the
proposed laws will not infringe these scholars` right to
say whatever they want.


Perhaps the idea is that while Rushton and Lynn are in
prison, they will be free to discuss these ideas with
their cellmates.


Without mentioning Western societies in particular, the
OD clearly articulates a moral and legal duty of Western
societies to be overrun anyone who wants to live in
them.


There should have been a mass protest by people of
European descent at Geneva. But, ironically, the only
protestors
were Jewish activists.


However, these activists were concerned not because the
program of the OD, if implemented, would sound the death
knell of every traditionally European country in the
world. Rather, they were protesting because the OD
reiterated its support for the


Durban Declaration and Programme of Action



of 2001. This contained paragraphs referring to Israel
as a foreign occupying power over the Palestinians and
calling for an independent Palestinian state. Each of
these proposals is anathema to serious Zionists.


There was a massive



paradox

in Jews protesting the Geneva Conference—given that
Jewish organizations in Western societies have been
strong supporters of the policies advocated by the rest
of the document. Essentially, Jewish organizations are
seeking to carve out for Israel an ethnonationalist
exception to the leftist zeitgeist that dominates the
OD. Israel has a


discriminatory immigration policy

based on tracing descent to a Jewish mother, and it has
a variety of policies that discriminate against Arabs
within Israel (e.g., Palestinians who



marry

Israeli Arabs cannot become Israeli citizens). It has
created an



apartheid society

in the West Bank occupied territories, and it



has treated

African migrants and refugees very poorly, doing its
utmost to discourage them from coming and making their
lives as miserable as possible after they arrive. All of
these are in clear violation of the OD.


In short, Israel is behaving as if it is a nation with a
certain ethnic core and is



arranging its affairs

in order to keep its ethnic identity. But in the US, the
organized Jewish community has been the most


effective force
in favor of massive non-White
immigration.


Arguably, the federal hate crime law now before the
Senate does not explicitly penalize speech in the
absence of a crime. But not only do these social
engineering measures have a very strong tendency to
mutate under the influence of the courts and the
bureaucrats—it is also quite clear that



some of the supporters

of “hate laws” are eager to expand them to speech even in the absence
of any other crime. Thus the
Megan
Meier

Cyberbullying Prevention Act”


was


just introduced in the House. It would make it a federal
felony to cause “substantial emotional distress”
through
“Severe, Repeated, and Hostile”
speech.


Such a law could easily be applied to politicians or
judges, and is obviously



unconstitutional

under current interpretations. But one can easily
imagine that Obama appointees would have no problem
altering this in the interests of the
“empathy”


for
people`s hopes and struggles”


that he has



said

he will require of them. Of course, Obama`s criterion of
“empathy” as
a legal standard is about as far removed as one can
imagine from the rule of law based on founding documents
(especially the First Amendment) and legal tradition.
But he did say, after all, that he was the



candidate of
“change”
.


The ADL is on the verge of getting
its Federal Hate Crimes bill signed into law. It is only
a matter of time before it makes an all out assault on
the First Amendment.


And now the Obama Administration,
and the entire intellectual left, will be wholly on
board with the Jewish organizations` long-held agenda.


Kevin MacDonald [email
him
]
is professor of psychology
at California State University–Long Beach and a frequent
contributor to

The
Occidental Observer
. For
his website, click

here.