The Trayvon-Zimmerman Circus: “Racists” Have Rights, Too
Published: 2013-07-17

This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.

Originally posted at Republican Party Animals on 17 July by David Stein. I believe the message here is applicable to Holocaust Revisionists as it is to all citizens. Revisionists deserve the same civil rights and “human rights” as do all others in America, even “racists.”
http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/4839

It’s fairly clear that the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman circus is not going away any time soon. “Civil rights” leaders and leftist politicians will no doubt milk Zimmerman’s acquittal for all it’s worth, and riots (which always translate into mainstream media-speak as “mainly peaceful protests”) and reprisal beatings will probably continue in fits and starts, especially if the Justice Department refuses to pursue federal charges against Zimmerman, or, worse, if it does, and loses, as it most likely would.

What interests me about the post-acquittal reaction of so many Trayvon supporters is a complete lack of interest in the actual crux of the case – who initiated the physical confrontation. Part of the indifference to this key question is that even the prosecutors had to concede that it’s not really an answerable question. So, to admit that it matters is to admit that there is more than enough reasonable doubt to justify an acquittal.

Martin supporters instead like to focus on the claim that Zimmerman is “racist.” He was “racistly” following Martin, his evil racistic mind indulging in racistical fantasies. And, it therefore goes, if Martin felt that he was in the presence of a “racist,” he had every right to start beating on him, and Zimmerman, being a “racist,” had no legal right to defend himself, as he had forfeited his rights by being a “racist.”

In this way, it no longer matters who attacked first. By virtue of Zimmerman’s “racism,” Martin legally could have done anything to him. The concentration on “racism” allows Martin supporters to ignore everything else.

Okay, folks, time for a splash of cold water: Racists have rights. And I purposely didn’t put that use of the word in quotes, because people who are accused of being racist get so damn caught up in proving that they’re not, the central point gets lost that even if they do harbor racist thoughts, that’s not illegal. Period.

You can’t beat someone because they’re racist. End of story. Any objective analysis of Zimmerman’s life would indicate that he is not racist, but I want to tackle the issue from the point of view of so the hell what if he was? As I said, you can’t beat someone up because you think they’re racist. You can’t bash their head into the ground. You can’t break their nose. If Zimmerman did indeed attack Martin first, Martin had every right to defend himself. But being annoyed because you think some racist “cracker” is “profiling” you isn’t enough.

I feel uniquely qualified to comment on this. From 1990 through 1995, I was repeatedly accused of being a “racist.” In the pages of newspapers, magazines, and on TV, I was slammed with the term. I am not and have never been even remotely racist, and – like anyone hit with that charge – I became obsessed with proving my accusers wrong. But these days, as I’ve been looking through old archival materials for a book I’m writing, I’m stunned by just how many people claimed that because I was “racist” (that was their opinion, not the reality), I was therefore not entitled to any rights.

And I’m not talking about half-wit agitators like Al Sharpton or obscure newsletter authors. In 1993, Robert Berdahl, then-president of the University of Texas at Austin, and Laura Stein, an assistant professor of communication law and First Amendment rights at the same school, both wrote separate op-eds specifically arguing that I was not entitled to Constitutional rights because of my “racism.”

Yes, they were speaking specifically about me, by name. They argued that I was not protected by the Constitution. Berdahl specifically wrote that my historical writings are not Constitutionally protected because they are “a source of great pain and anguish” that “insults a community’s standards of decency.”
Therefore (in Soup Nazi voice) NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!

Yes, they were speaking specifically about me, by name. They argued that I was not protected by the Constitution. Berdahl specifically wrote that my historical writings are not Constitutionally protected because they are “a source of great pain and anguish” that “insults a community’s standards of decency.”

Therefore (in Soup Nazi voice) NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!

The assumption that “racists” have no rights goes far back. And, in Europe, it’s a reality – having “racist beliefs” is indeed illegal. But that isn’t the case here. And the Martin supporters need to wake up and drink that big beautiful cup of assumption-rattling coffee. Not that their delusion is difficult to understand. As I pointed out, academics have for decades been pushing the falsehood that racists don’t have rights. So has Hollywood.

In fact, the Trayvon Martin case reminded me of a scene in the unfortunately popular Steve Martin/Queen Latifah “comedy” “Bringing Down the House.” In the film, Martin’s snooty sister-in-law makes a snide, racially-tinged comment about Latifah, who then proceeds to follow the “racist” into the women’s bathroom, where she initiates a brutal physical confrontation. Remember – Latifah was the heroine, and this act was seen as a good thing. As audiences cheered, Latifah beat the evil racist to a bloody pulp. When the racist dares to fight back, Latifah pounds her head repeatedly into the tiles of the bathroom wall, and slams her head into a toilet. She leaves the bloodied woman’s body hanging limply from a hook, to the applause of the audience (more “humor” comes in a later scene, when we see the sister-in-law’s face disfigured from the beating).

Now, granted this is (supposedly) a comedy, but the message is still clear: it’s okay to initiate physical confrontations and beat the crap out of “racists,” who in turn have no right to defend themselves.

With its hip-hop themes, “Bringing Down the House” was especially popular with black audiences, and with young people in general (the fight scene won the “Best Fight Award” at the Teen Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards). And it’s hardly the only film or TV show to push the “racists have no rights” message; the 2001 Lifetime series “Any Day Now” featured an episode in which the protagonist defends a black kid accused of manslaughter for beating a white kid to death for using the “n word.” The black kid’s actions are presented as wholly justified.

There’s no doubt that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood busybody, but that’s not the thing that has stirred anger and passion on the left and in the black community. It’s the idea that he’s a “racist,” and, therefore, entitled to a beating, and not entitled to fight back.

Sorry, guys, this isn’t “Bringing Down the House,” and this isn’t Western Europe (yet). Even if Zimmerman harbored “racist thoughts,” it still matters whether or not Trayvon attacked first, and whether Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him. True racism is ugly and vile, to be sure. But legally, racists, real or imagined, have rights just like everyone else.


Posted by David Stein (Cole) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013
http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/4839


Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): David Cole
Title: The Trayvon-Zimmerman Circus: “Racists” Have Rights, Too
Sources: Smith's Report, No. 198, August 2013, pp. 6-8; reprinted from http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/4839
Contributions:
n/a
Published: 2013-07-17
First posted on CODOH: Oct. 3, 2013, 7 p.m.
Last revision:
n/a
Comments:
n/a
Appears In:
Mirrors:
Download:
n/a