By Selwyn Duke
Like the three monkeys who see, hear and speak no evil, our authorities seem intent on ignoring the true nature of yet another black-on-white racial attack. In the New York City subway this past Sunday, 29-year-old Jason Fordell was attacked by a group of black men who taunted him for being white. Yet NYC police "are unsure" if the incident is a bias crime.
The problem started when Fordell transferred to a crowded 4 train at 42nd street, where he encountered four black men who began harassing him. The New York Daily News reports on what transpired next, writing:
"People started saying stupid little comments - cracker this, white boy this, f----t this," Fordell said. "I told them the only reason they were saying this is there was four of them and one of me."
…As the train continued into the Bronx, the confrontation became physical, he said.
"I was in a headlock, punched and kicked on the floor," Fordell said.
Then a passenger decided to join in - declaring, "Oh, I get a few shots, too," before kicking and punching Fordell in the head, according to cops.
…"Everyone on the train was egging them on," said Fordell
Fordell suffered numerous injuries, which included head-bleeding, a badly swollen eye and internal injuries, as evidenced by blood in his urine. The assailants also stole a bag he was carrying that contained $2900-worth of handmade leather accessories, which Fordell sells at an East Village nightclub.
Despite the epithets hurled by Fordell's attackers, this crime hasn't yet been transferred to the NYPD hate-crimes task force because, we're told, the authorities aren't sure if it was motivated by bias. According to a Daily News source, "They have to look at whether that was the motivation before the robbery."
Really? Do the police need evidence that the four sat in a darkened room laughing fiendishly while stating that they were going to attack a white guy because they hate crackers? I always understood that the mere use of racial language during an attack was enough to classify it as a hate crime (or, at least, it seems to be when a white person is the accused).
And this brings us to yet another reason why I oppose hate-crime legislation. Not only is it an attempt at thought control, as it's hard to escape the conclusion that the extra punishment it mandates is for the thoughts expressed through the commission of the crime, but it will never be applied equally. The government just has too much room to fudge when it's assigned the role of mind-reader. And in a politically correct time, it's not hard to figure out what form that fudging will take. Hate-crime laws are not designed to punish hate, but, rather, the thoughts, actions and groups the Left hates.
And, I believe, they pave the way for hate-speech laws. After all, if people can be punished for saying the "wrong things" within the context of the commission of a crime, how long will it be before they're punished for saying the "wrong things" beyond that context?
As for the police's willful blindness, it should surprise no one. Being human, cops respond to powerful social pressure like anyone else. Add to this the fear of being labeled bigots, career damage and rioting that could result from actually enforcing the law with minority perpetrators, and it's easy to see why the thin blue line looks awfully yellow when the matter is black-on-white crime.
If this keeps up, soon we'll be like Britain. In that once-proud civilization, the police are so afraid to tackle Muslim criminality that their efforts to cover it up have reached comical proportions. And it will keep up unless we experience a deep cultural renewal. This means pulling leftist ideology up by the roots in academia, the media, the entertainment arena and beyond. Mere political victory won't change a thing.