[[email protected]]

The Heretical 2 and the Federal Hate Crime Law: Why Sheppard and
Whittle Matter

[Nicholas Stix]

"Any day now, the Englishmen who have dubbed themselves the “Heretical 2”— writer Stephen Whittle (pen name Luke O’Farrell), and his publisher, Simon Sheppard—will be deported back to the UK, to be imprisoned.

I wrote in July , September , and again on May 18 about this pair, who
had been convicted in July in England of thought crimes (in January,
Sheppard was convicted of five more counts in absentia), specifically
of “publishing racially inflammatory written material” on the
Internet, who fled the UK for the U.S. last July, and upon arrival,
notified the authorities that they were seeking political asylum.

Whittle has persuasively argued that, based on English jurists’
expansive reading of their hate crime statutes, VDARE.com writers
could be arrested on hate crime charges, should they ever so much as
change planes in England.

(Soon, we may not even have to leave the country, to be liable for
arrest.)

The sometimes brilliant, sometimes sophomoric Sheppard and Whittle are
plenty inflammatory, alright. (They are typically referred to as
“Holocaust-deniers,” though Whittle has rejected my characterization
of them as such. On that point, we’re going to have to agree to
disagree.) Sounds like a hot story, no?

And yet, the American MSM have given Sheppard and Whittle the silent
treatment. Between Lindsay Lohan and Madonna Ciccone alerts, and
illegal alien and homegrown criminal sob stories, I guess there is
just no room for them.

To borrow from another Englishman: Why do Sheppard and Whittle matter,
and why do they matter so much? Because the U.S. government’s
treatment of them is of a piece with its treatment of white Americans
with the “wrong” sort of views, views which are increasingly being
criminalized, the Constitution be damned.

No West for Westerners

The federal government permits people to immigrate here by the
millions whose beliefs are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution,
and who routinely commit acts as part of their “culture,” such as
female genital mutilation, polygamy, and slavery, not to mention blood-
curdling violence, which are crimes here. Why does it do that?

Sheppard and Whittle made a classic asylum argument, showing that the
actions for which they were convicted in the UK are not crimes here.
Why do the feds refuse asylum to men whose actions violated no
American laws?

The answer is that Sheppard and Whittle are unapologetically white,
and pro-Western. (Unapologetically Yorkshiremen, as well.)

Our elites welcome Somalis, Sudanese, and other African Bantu and
Moslems, because those groups are unapologetically non-white, and anti-
Western.

Consider federal lawyer Michelle Myers’ kangaroo court reasoning in
the Heretical 2’s asylum case. Whittle: “[T]hat as U.S. Asylum laws
were designed to protect refugees and we criticized refugees, we could
not possibly be protected under said laws”; Myers also supported EU
crackdowns on freedom of speech.

My hunch is that Myers is so used to “making her cases” through
wielding the coercive power of the state like a brick-bat, that she is
incapable of making a legal argument. And since she had a like-minded
judge, she didn’t have to.

Myers’ “rebuttal” to Sheppard and Whittle was actually an argument for
them, since it is the EU/UK’s repression that they were fleeing,
repression20that has no basis in American law … yet.

The “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (LLEHCPA)

Militant homosexuals, illegal immigrants, racist blacks and their
totalitarian supporters are presently championing a new, enhanced hate
crime law, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act” (LLEHCPA) which, if passed, would with one fell swoop make civil
liberties as dead in America as they are on the rest of the planet.
LLEHCPA was sponsored in the House by black supremacist Detroit Cong.
John Conyers.

The aforementioned groups have long invoked imaginary hate crime
campaigns against members of their respective (client) groups, which
the new law would supposedly address.

Originally, the bill was known as the “Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act of 2007,” “LLEHCPA,” “Matthew Shepard Act,” and
H.R. 1592. It still has those names (with “of 2009” replacing “of
2007,” and the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act”), but its
House bill number is now H.R. 1913.

The House passed H.R. 1913 249-175 on April 29, to the applause of the
Log Cabin Republicans. The bill’s Senate version, which now faces a
confirmation battle, is S. 909.

I invite the reader to study the bill, whose language is a string of
fallacies and falsehoods that would require thousands more words to
fully parse.

Critics maintain that LLEHCPA will lead to the inflation of non-crimes
and misdemeanors into felonies, the multiplication of charges and
sentences upon conviction, the criminalization of Christians and other
people, based solely on their opinions, and will violate the First,
Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The
militants counter that the critics are crazy homophobes, and that the
legislation will have no such effect.

That’s what militant homosexuals said in places like England and
Canada, yet once those countries enacted “hate crime laws,” Christians
were persecuted for acting, or merely speaking as Christians. Militant
homosexuals here speak fondly of those draconian laws, and extant
“anti-discrimination” laws in America have already been used to
persecute Christians.

Consider the ongoing hate campaign that California homosexual
militants orchestrated, beginning last November, against whites who
had financially contributed to the successful campaign for Prop. 8,
which affirmed yet again, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
(Never mind that it was black support that carried the referendum.)

Considering how hate-filled the militants already are, do we really
want to put the power of Leviathan in their hands?

LLEHCPA applies as well to the fictional category of “transgenders,”
those poor, deluded souls who are convinced that they are sexually the
opposite of that which God or nature made them, and who have their
bodies butchered and re-formed like so much chopped meat.

Let me take this moment to come out of the closet: I am a transsizer.
Though I appear to be undersized, I am really seven feet tall… and
demand that I be treated as such!

“Hate crime” statutes are a logical consequence of the civil rights
movement. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was supposed to guarantee
equality under the law, was instead converted, via bureaucratic
alchemy, into legal privileges for blacks (racial quotas), and later
for other groups. And when a group gets one legal privilege, it soon
finds it wants more.

The civil rights laws created a second legal system of Shadow Law,
which contradicted and usurped the U.S. Constitution. The Shadow Law
system sees certain groups (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals) as
“protected classes,” legally superior to non-protected classes (e.g.,
heterosexual whites).

The notion of “protected classes” violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal
Protection Clause, and inexorably leads to additional, cascading
abuses, since once the 14th Amendment is violated, it is possible to
violate, with impunity, other constitutional rights.

LLEHCPA is a weapon of the multicultural coalition’s beloved
community. Thus, it was sponsored by a black supremacist, and named
for a white homosexual (who was murdered, but not because of his
homosexuality). White feminists and homosexuals support the bill, in
order to harm the one group that would variously protect or tolerate
them, and have joined with those groups—blacks, Hispanics, Third World
immigrants and Moslems—most known for violently targeting… white
feminists and homosexuals.

Rip Van Hentoff Awakens

After having for a time lost his devotion to civil liberties for
certain classes of people, journalist Nat Hentoff has roused himself
to oppose LLEHCPA.

“This bill would make it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily
injury (or try to) because of the victim’s actual or perceived ‘race,
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity or disability’ - as explained on the White House Web site,
signaling the president’s approval. A defendant convicted on these
grounds would be charged with a ‘hate crime’ in addition to the
original crime, and would get extra prison time.

The extra punishment applies only to these ‘protected classes.’ As
Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry Jr. asked… ‘Isn’t every
criminal act that harms another person a “hate crime”? Then, regarding
a Colorado ‘hate crime’ law, one of 45 such state laws, Corry wrote:
‘When a Colorado gang engaged in an initiation ritual of specifically
seeking out a ‘white woman’ to rape, the Boulder prosecutor declined
to pursue “hate crime” charges.’ She was not enough of one of its
protected classes.

Corey adds that the state ‘hate crime’ law - like the newly
expanded House of Representatives federal bill – ‘does not apply
equally’ (as the 14th Amendment requires), essentially instead
‘criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against
politically incorrect victim categories.’…

But James Madison, who initially introduced the First Amendment to
the Constitution, had previously written … ‘We have in this country
extinguished forever … making laws for the human mind.’ No American,
he emphasized later, would be punished for his ‘thoughts.’

However, doesn’t the House ‘Hate Crimes Bill’ state that nothing
in the legislation shall ‘prohibit any expressive conduct protected
from legal prohibition’ - or speech ‘protected by the free speech or
free exercise clauses in the First Amendment’?

Remember, however, as Kathleen Gilbert notes that ‘free speech
advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action
that “abets, counsels, commands (or) induces a perceived “hate crime”
shares in the guilt of that crime and is therefore punishable.’”

[Hentoff: 'Thought crimes' bill advances by Nat Hentoff, The
MetroWest Daily News, May 11, 2009.]

Hentoff reports that “hate crime” prosecutions have gotten around the
First Amendment by permitting policemen to testify as to defendants’
previous statements, even from years earlier.

Legal Immunities and New Frontiers in Double Jeopardy

LLEHCPA also puts its favored groups above the law. A member of a
“protected class” can assault a member of an unprotected class, and
claim that he had merely responded to “hate speech” from the actual
victim.

Such crimes have already been rampant for years. In virtually any
large American city, racist blacks daily commit countless racially
motivated attacks on whites and Asians, particularly in the public
schools, which are typically racist torture centers. (See my chapter
on education in the NPI report, The State of White America-2007, which
is downloadable here.) Often, they let their victims know exactly why
they are assaulting them, shouting racial epithets at them. And yet,
not only are the racist black criminals rarely arrested for their
crimes, if their victims defend themselves, the latter are often
arrested.

Based on20an unspoken deal between racist blacks and white elites, the
false claim by a black assailant that his white victim called him the
“n-word” often serves as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card (see section,
“The Magic Word”).

A New York criminal defense attorney friend says that it is virtually
impossible for a white man who has been racially attacked by blacks to
get justice, and that the victim will be lucky not to end up
prosecuted and convicted. Under LLEHCPA, white victims of racist
blacks would be prosecuted for “hate crimes.”

LLEHCPA would also bury what is left of the prohibition against double
jeopardy, which is anchored in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of
Rights, and goes back to 355 B.C. in ancient Athens. Over the past
generation, federal civil rights prosecutions have routinely violated
this prohibition, by taking someone who had been acquitted of a crime
at the state level, and prosecuting him all over again at the federal
level, under a different statute, under the sophistic theory of “dual
sovereignty,” first formulated in 1820.

According to “dual sovereignty” theory, each citizen owes allegiance
to two sovereigns, state and federal. Because of the change in
sovereignty, and because federal and state statutes are different
laws, even though the identical act is again being prosecuted, one
power may prosecute someone who has already been acquitted or
convicted in the other power’s=2 0court. Except that, under this
theory, the two prosecutions are not for the identical act, because “a
defendant who violates the laws of two sovereigns, even if by a single
act, has committed two distinct offenses, punishable by both
authorities.” Such casuistry effectively eliminates the prohibition
against double jeopardy.

Since prior to the 1960s there were few federal laws, dual sovereignty
theory was unable to cause much mischief. Beginning in the 1960s,
however, Congress decided to remake America through massive,
continuous legislating.

According to constitutional jurisprudence, the Fifth Amendment
provides three different protections against double jeopardy: Against
being re-tried for a crime, after being acquitted of it; against being
re-tried for a crime, after being convicted of its commission; and
against being punished again for a crime for which one has already
been punished.

Civil rights prosecutions began the unconstitutional tradition of
violating the first protection; LLEHCPA will eliminate, in practice,
the other two.

LLEHCPA provides for federally re-prosecuting—and thus re-punishing—
someone who has already been convicted of the same crime at the state
level, if prosecutors believe that he wasn’t punished harshly enough
the first time! LLEHCPA is thus paradise for federal prosecutors.

Buried in the bill’s labyrinthine subsections, in SEC. 6. PROHIBITION
OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.: ‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts: 3(b)2(D), we
find as a justification for a federal hate crime prosecution,

‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges
left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating
bias-motivated violence.

From Walking to Galloping Totalitarianism

America is the only nation with a First Amendment, which forbids
criminalizing ideas, as opposed to actions. Unfortunately, few judges
or prosecutors appear to have read that document. Since VDARE’s 1999
founding, it has chronicled the illegal imprisonment of Americans for
exercising constitutionally-protected speech in Michigan, Idaho,
Maryland and Louisiana.

And those were the good, old days of the creeping totalitarianism of
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush! Today we are faced with the galloping
totalitarianism of

“Barack Obama” and Co. who, with help from our old friends the SPLC,
have defined all political opponents to their right—i.e., millions of
patriotic Americans—as “potential terrorists,” as shown by the recent,
$PLC-influenced MIAC and DHS reports on “Rightwing Extremism .”

Shut Up!

LLEHCPA’s institutionalized violation of the First Amendment would
have a chilling effect on social policy debate.

Consider a case which would appear to have nothing to do with First
Amendment law: The minority mortgage meltdown. And yet, as Steve
Sailer wrote on May 17, “[T]he root cause [of the minority mortgage
meltdown] was the elite’s intoxication with the concept of diversity—
and its concomitant suppression of dissent.”

Any honest statement one makes about diversity—regarding racial and
ethnic differences in education, illegitimacy, crime,
creditworthiness, etc.—could be charged as a hate crime, based on some
member of a protected group, somewhere, having been victimized,
following a statement about his group by a member of a non-protected
group.

The next, inevitable step would be for the mere honest statement about
diversity to be redefined into a “verbal assault” against all members
of a protected class, and thus a “hate crime.” Multiculturalists in
academia and the MSM have worked for over 20 years to institutionalize
the notion of “verbal assault,” for just such a purpose.

Keep in mind that all social policy today turns on diversity—
diversityniks will have it no other way. If one cannot speak or write
honestly about the insanity that is diversity/multiculturalism, policy
collapses and economic depressions such as the present one will become
the rule, because there will be no non-violent mechanism for
correcting bad policy. Which is exactly the way “Obama” & Co. like
things.

Nat Hentoff titled one of his First Amendment books, The First
Freedom, because if it is lost, all other freedoms will be also lost
in its wake.

Meanwhile, “Obama” and his comrades embrace real bomb throwers and the
adherents of a philosophy determined to destroy Western Civilization.

Things to Come?

Any day now, Whittle and Sheppard will be sent back to the UK, where
they will serve up to seven years in prison.

At the present rate, how many American Sheppards and Whittles will
there soon be?

Keep in mind that I have enumerated some of the apparent problems with
LLEHCPA, but every federal law is inevitably extended beyond its
written meaning. Thus, this bill has potential for additional abuse
that we cannot yet foresee. It is best thought of as a contemporary
“Enabling Law,” which would give “Obama” unlimited power."

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...er/#more-13540