10 June 2011

Hate Crime Madness

There was a recent incident involving an 11-year-old boy having his bathers pulled off by a group of girls. They also filmed the event and uploaded it to YouTube:

Apologists for the girls have claimed that the mother could have pressed charges if she chose to, which is partly true, though there is far more to this picture than a simple reluctance in this regard. It is clear that if any boy dared to commit such an act against a girl there would be serious consequences involving sexual assault, and in all likelihood the authorities would press charges without the consent of the parents. A major reason for this involves the nature of modern crime legislation, which elevates women to the highest level of protection. If you commit a crime against a woman, or any other minority, then the likelihood is you will have to prove that it wasn’t motivated by prejudice, or in the case of women, face tougher sentencing due to the victim's gender.

There is also a recent case involving a gay man who claimed that a hate crime was committed against him on a university campus, though he eventually admitted that this was a false allegation. It appears that the man believed that he could get away with such an act in the same manner as women all too often do. This was not the case, and the man is now facing charges. Thus if you’re a man, whether you’re gay or not, it appears that the law doesn’t consider you to be a protected group in the same manner as women.

Women appear to be so protected by the law that there is even talk of closing down women’s prisons in the UK for all but the most serious offenders, though even these prisoners would be put in homely local custody units instead. In the present economic climate it is clear that Feminists are going to take advantage of the lack of state funds to push forward more agendas based on unsubstantiated evidence. If such policies were to be successful there is always the possibility that men would retaliate with violence given that there will no longer be any way for them to attain fair justice against criminal women in the legal system.

It has been argued by Baroness Corston that closing female prisons would be for the best given that women commit suicide in prison, and that female criminals are often victims of abuse such as domestic violence. For starters women attempt to commit suicide more often, but three-quarters of suicides are by men. Secondly, Corsten defends her case on the grounds that women are taken away from their children when they are imprisoned, though this argument clearly shows no consideration for the men that suffer the same fate. Thirdly, the claims that female victimhood allegedly motivates female crime is explored in my video here:

The video demonstrates via four Criminology case studies that the evidence to justify this stance is not only biased, but also based on a lack of evidence. It appears that dishonest Feminist research, and the culture of chivalry that has always protected women, is responsible for the injustice of women getting away with heinous crimes of child murder, and the killing of intimate partners. Patriarchal theory has embedded the idea of female victimhood into the consciousness of society, to the point where cognitive dissonance prevents anyone from accepting the facts when they are presented with them. The video above also addresses how domestic violence is now committed against men around 50% of the time.

Men are repeatedly used as scapegoats to defend the innocence of women in society, and in Sweden there was a case where 23 women caught with child pornography are facing a maximum of two years in prison, while the man who provided them with the images has been given a maximum of six years. The women claimed that they were "wrote things that they thought he wanted to hear in order to remain in contact with him," while referring to the man that provided them with the images. Two women are accused of taking pictures of children and sending them to the man. But once again, it is the man who has been framed as the primary instigator, while the women have been allegedly led astray, and thus will face lesser punishment.

Though one might argue that crime against women is not technically ‘hate crime’, the protection provided by the state to women still highlights the bias and similarities towards women and minority groups, and how this can lead to abuse of power in the same manner as hate crime can. In the UK there is a push to make it impossible for women to be charged for false rape accusations on the grounds of intimidation. Once again this shows the complete inability to see women as adults that are responsible for their actions, even when they commit crimes themselves. I do not believe there is a group in society that has anywhere near the level of protection of women.

In Scotland new hate crime legislation has been introduced through the Hate Crime Guidance Manual. Dr Gordon Macdonald of CARE expressed concern by stating that the new system could be abused. The new guidance could force police officers to investigate hate crime that occurred over a decade ago, and they would also have to provide swift and robust resolution to any allegations. Chief inspector Sir Dennis O’Connor warned that police were now focused on hate crime, leaving ‘yobs’ to run amok. The Civitas think-tank has stated that Christians were being unfairly targeted for hate crime prosecutions, also commenting on the restrictions on free speech that come with hate crime legislation.

A case, which highlights how nonsensical hate crime legislation is, involves two black women that beat a transgender woman in a McDonalds restaurant. The black women persisted to the point of the victim almost having a seizure, while staff watched and even filmed the event. The police are investigating whether the crime was hate motivated. To me this is akin to trying to figure out whether a robbery was financially motivated, though most of all the police appear to be uncertain about the stance they should take given that two minority groups are involved. The whole situation clearly shows the irrationality surrounding hate crime, given that society has now reached the point where crime is considered more severe if it is committed against a certain group.

Given that men are now the most expendable group in society, it falls on them to be the scapegoats for a justice system that no longer elevates equality for all. But one important thing to remember when forming opinions in the PC culture we now live in is that today’s moderates are tomorrow’s fundamentalists, which would certainly appear to be the point we’ve now reached with Politically Correct Cultural Marxism.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!


  1. Spot on! I am doing a project on the false charges of "hate crimes" and "hate speech." I used the same incident about the transsexual woman being beaten by two black women, in my project. I have a lot of other cases in which women get away with anything or their behaviors are rationalized away due to an anti-male bias.

    This is an incident in which a black person had gotten punched in the face, after he was accused of being gay:


    But the irony is that the black person violated another man's personal space, so he got punched at revenge. There is no "hate crime."

    Another incident is person called Tim Hardaway, I believe, is falsely charged of "hate speech". Here are some excerpts:



    Hardaway has attempted to quiet the backlash from his comments by talking with some people in the media.

    "I shouldn't have said that I hate gay people or anything like that," Hardaway told WSVN-Channel 7. "I should have just said I don't condone him being in the locker room."

    In an interview with South Florida CBS affiliate's sports reporter Jim Berry, Hardaway seemingly retracted his apology and let loose on the potential of a gay family member:

    "Hardaway then made a bizarre comparison to the way he talks about gays to the way he discusses food. "When I was growing up…..we say we hate broccoli, we say we hate potato chips… It's just a form of how we talk."


    "You don't hate people the way you hate broccoli. You don't get to admit that you're homophobic, and brush it aside like you're Shrub Sr and his veggies... And you don't get to go on a 5 minute tirade on how you hate gay people, how they shouldn't be allowed in the United States, or in the world, and then go on and say "I shouldn't have said it". Besides, in addition to being just plain idiotic, it shows that he only regrets his choice of words, and not the sentiments. Dumbass."


    My personal opinion is that he was sexually harassed by another guy in the locker room, so he was angry and used unclear language which was falsely interpreted as "hate speech."

    Here is the full transcript of what Tim Hardaway said: http://www.gluetext.com/content/t/tim_hardaway/tim_hardaway.html

    If you read it, then a lot of what he said was taken out-of-context and falsely interpreted as "hate" when his other statements aren't.

    If you say "gay people shouldn't have special rights", then you would be accused of "hate speech."

    Here are examples of those types "hate speech". Read it and make your own call. A lot of the charges were actually false accusations:


  2. Thanks for restoring my comment from the spam folder.

  3. I find it sad that the idea of blind justice and equality in the law is still not here. It is not inposible to get . Just have equall consequences for each crime.. That should be easy. In fact it is easy. Expections in my opinion should be people with certain mental condition or mental handicap.

    Jasmine(Eopyk) from YT here :)

  4. Groups of girls perpetrating attacks with overtones of sexual humiliation upon vulnerable lone, usually younger males is something that is actually very common. Victims tend to be physically or socially disadvantaged and introverted. It's something of a cultural blind-spot, not only is it under reported, when it is reported, it is usually either dismissed or culpability for the assault is transferred to the victim. It's quite a disturbing revelation into our culture because it highlights the callousness with which weaker or disadvantaged males are regarded. They're, to a large extent, considered to non-persons unless they conform to masculine stereotypes.