The Cowardly Media Reporting On Hate Crimes
By Alicia Colon
Criticism is not persecution and is protected by the First Amendment. We are allowed to say that we believe something is against our faith. That is not the same thing as threatening or wishing evil to befall on those who disagree with us.
Isn't it curious that the media (with the exception of ABC and FoxNews) refuses to cover a hate crime shooting of a victim at a conservative pro-life organization in Washington, DC if the perpetrator is a leftwing zealot? The alleged shooter, Floyd Corkins, was ironically subdued by the heroic guard, Leonardo Johnson, whom he had just shot at the Family Research Council. "I don't like your politics," he told the guard before shooting him.
D.C. police now report that Corkins had been volunteering for about the past six months at the DC Center for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) Community and they found ammunition and 15 Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in his bag.
The Family Research Council has been repeatedly labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which is a non-profit civil rights organization with multi-million dollar assets. The media, however, has not suggested that the SPLC bears any responsibility for encouraging Corkins proving that the media is quite selective about connecting responsibility for "hate crime" incidents. In another ironic point, how come Floyd Corkins isn't being called a white supremacist since the guard he shot happens to be a black man? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?
Unlike the previous shootings of innocent victims, the media did not immediately accuse hate talk by gay activists as motivating this attack nor did reports mention the recent vitriolic attacks and call for the boycott of the fast food giant Chick-Fil-A because of its president's conservative remarks. Who can forget how network anchors immediately accused hate talk by conservatives for the 2011 Gabrielle Giffords attack in Tucson, Arizona? Then too, an ABC reporter pounced on the possibility that a tea party member was behind the Colorado "Dark Knight" theater murders last month.
So why is the family Research Council such a target by the SPLC? I looked up the mission statement for FRC and found:
"Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society."
Hmmm. This sounds suspiciously like the tenets of the Catholic Church and other major religions but the SPLC has made this statement about the organization:
The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as "the leading voice for the family in our nation's halls of power," but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
The SPLC has listed its financial details on its website and showed its total net assets for 2010 were $238,134,564. It obviously has far greater resources than FRC and I applaud its stated mission seeking justice and equality for society's most vulnerable. However, what started out as a civil rights organization for blacks has morphed into one for any group that the SPLC designates is vulnerable to hate crimes.
Thus the group believes that gays remain the minority most targeted by hate crimes. Statistically that assertion may not hold up if one limits the crimes to serious ones like assault and homicide. More women are murdered and assaulted because they are women than gays are killed for being gay.
In addition when I first studied the murder rate of homosexuals in the late 1990s, I found a significant number of those murders and assaults were committed by other homosexuals. Nevertheless, even one hate crime is too much and whatever can be done to stop the violence should be worthy of support.
Although hate crimes against homosexuals have increased since the furor over the Proposition 8 in California that called for the elimination of same sex marriage rights, there were also additional increases in crimes against those who supported it. Most of these did not receive much media coverage. What bothers me about issues like hate speech and hate crimes is that groups like SPLC can be quite selective in determining exactly what constitutes hate.
Criticism is not persecution and is protected by the First Amendment. We are allowed to say that we believe something is against our faith. That is not the same thing as threatening or wishing evil to befall on those who disagree with us. The SPLC targets anti-gay Christian organizations but has also targeted individuals who monitor and report jihadist activity against this country. It has named individuals like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney as radical Islamaphobics and anti-Muslim.
Here is where I lose respect for organizations like SPLC and the ACLU that refuse to attack Muslim extremist groups perpetrating heinous acts of hatred in the name of jihad. One would think that since the September 11th, 2001 attack on our nation, there would be no doubt as to which groups pose the greatest danger to our national security. Yet leftwing well funded groups restrict their lawsuits and activities against benign non profit religious groups that are only exercising their constitutionally protected right to religion.
In an interview with Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review Online, a spokesman for SPLC revealed why they do not target anarchists in the Occupy movement or the Black Nationalist anti-Semites unless they are infiltrated by Far Right extremists. He said they are, "not set up to cover the extreme Left."
But why not go after the violent jihadists? When asked that question by a reader of the Atlas Shrugged website, SPLC spokesman, Mark Potok, wrote back, "With regard to monitoring radical jihadists, we have made a pragmatic decision to leave that mainly to the major Jewish NGOs, which do a good job and have some real expertise that would likely take us years to develop."
Pragmatic? So it's easier to go after peaceful traditional Judeo/Christian advocates then it is to go after those who fly airplanes into buildings, blow up ships and buses, shoot up military bases, kill fellow soldiers, all while shouting, "Allahu Akbar"?
What a bunch of phony cowards these left-wingers are! The media is full of them but at least one was once honest about it. When MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell was asked by Hugh Hewitt why he could criticize Mormons but not Muslims, he admitted, "Oh, well, I'm afraid of what the... that's where I'm really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do." He later added about the Mormons, "They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I'm not going to say a word about them."
Meanwhile, don't you dare say anything about the State Department's connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which at this moment is crucifying opponents in Egypt; nor should the Justice Department go after the New Black Panthers who are threatening the Republican National Committee saying, "Our feet will be on your motherf***ing necks."
Let's face it. This craven media only recognizes hate crimes committed by the right, whether real or imaginary. The left ones will always be given a pass.
Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at
email@example.com and at www.aliciacolon.com