<< Major Hasan's Defense | Main | News Scan >>

The PC Attempt to Intimidate Judges

I wrote recently about US Attorney Bill Killian's snarling threat to demonstrate "what the consequences are" to those with the temerity to say anything "offensive or inflammatory" about Muslims.  If President Obama, who appointed Killian, has done anything to rebuke him, I haven't heard about it.  (Not that rebuking him would be sufficient, and not that Obama has any desire to rebuke him, either).

As if going after the ordinary citizen who might criticize Muslims, fairly or unfairly, were not enough, we now see that the PC crowd will go after federal judges, too. Thus, when Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones said at a University of Pennsylvania Law School talk that blacks and Hispanics are more violent than whites, a consortium of civil rights* organizations filed a complaint.  The complaint calls for stern discipline, on the grounds that the remarks were "discriminatory and biased."

So far as I have been able to discover, it makes no mention of the fact that they're true.

*  I am old enough to remember that civil rights used to include the First Amendment.


How is what Judge Jones said even debatable?


The complaining groups have no interest in debate. Their interest is in stifling dissent and hanging the "racist" label around anyone who won't kowtow to the PC speech code.

Unfortunately, we don't know what she actually said, only a paraphrase by the people who took offense.

The demographic reality of the differences in crime rates among ethnic groups is undeniable. But we should be careful how we phrase that. Differences in group averages or rates say nothing about individuals.

For all we know, she might have carefully and correctly stated an undeniable truth, offensive only to those who "can't handle the truth."

But I don't know. I wasn't there, and the story quotes only one side.

Curious that the reporter wrote an article of this length and didn't bother to seek out an unbiased witness.

"Differences in group averages or rates say nothing about individuals."

Bingo. Which is why such things as North Carolina's misnamed Racial Justice Act are complete hogwash -- an attempt at mitigation for today's defendant based on yesterday's statistics about other cases.

"Curious that the reporter wrote an article of this length and didn't bother to seek out an unbiased witness."

I didn't think it was that curious. It's a hit piece on Judge Jones, not really an attempt at neutral reporting.

And I had to laugh at the ethics "expert" quoted in the long last paragraph. He's identified as being from Texas, and there is no indication, or any independent reason to believe, that he heard or had a transcript of Judge Jones's remarks. But he holds forth at great and scalding length about them.

Liberals are all the time hectoring us that we need a frank national dialogue about race. But if anyone ever attempts such a thing -- in a way uncongenial to their "White Privilege" agenda -- they get condemned as (ironically) racist.

McCarthy would only dream of such tactics.

The real issue, of course, is that liberal judges can say patently offensive things like "wise Latinas" being better than white males and no one will bat an eye. Of course, the President of the United States can proclaim himself moved by a speech that contains the quote "White man's greed runs a world in need." But make observations about empirical facts . . . .

But as Kent stated, there has to be care in making comments like these--not because people should be afraid of talking about controversial issues, but because slips can genuinely be hurtful. No one seriously believes that race and criminality have a causative relationship, and so to state things in such a manner is thoughtless. Criminal behavior involves a choice; skin color does not.

It is precisely because race and criminality have no causative relationship that our side cannot be cowed when the other side starts bellowing about racial disparities in imprisonment, and then claiming that they are CAUSED by racism.

They are NOT caused by racism, and, as you quite correctly say, they are not caused by race. They are caused by making choices.

Of course the question is then asked: Well, why do blacks make, proportionately speaking, more criminal choices than whites? Isn't that because of the damaging effects of white people's racial bigotry?

And the answer, which we must not hesitate to give, is "no."

Choices are indeed affected by social factors, but by far the main social factor is a stable, disciplined, employed, two-parent family life. The incidence of crime (or, more precisely, of avoiding crime) correlates with this factor more than with anything else -- race, religion, income, you name it.

This is the reason that, for example, Orientals have less incidence of crime than whites. Orientals were unquestionably the victims of long and rancid racial bigotry; coolie labor was little more than slave labor. And Yick Wo v. Hopkins is one of the most famous civil rights cases of all time.

The reason Orientals stay out of jail more than either whites or blacks is that family life, work, education and tradition are honored more in Oriental culture than in others.

Values, not race or skin color, influence choices. Some of the bravest men in public life -- Justice Clarence Thomas comes to mind -- had the "wrong" skin color but the right values (see Thomas's autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son"). They made honorable and courageous choices, and succeeded. This is one of the reasons the grievance-monger crowd -- the people who now want to hammer Judge Jones -- have a special hate for Justice Thomas.

Humble ethnic identification & thin skin, based on a stabilising faith in providence, [rather than fuming pride in race] would go far.

Let the English lift their noses in whatever directions they chose, he was fond of saying—he was a Scot. ." [Look] fer the signs o' God's hand. . there's no killing
the spirit."
- Legend of the Celtic Stone, 1999


I agree that we need to be mindful about how things are said but in terms of relationship of between race and crime it's undeniable that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of the violent crime in the this country. Thus, at the group level, they are more violent than whites.

There maybe all sorts of reasons for this disparity, but it's there nonetheless.

I also share the Judge's reported dissatisfaction with categorical prohibitions of the DP for the mentally retarded because it presumes that all intellectually disabled people are incapable of full moral accountability for the crime of murder, a presumption that is untrue.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives