To be fair, while it's fascinating that the news did not jump all over the Christian/Newsom murders, it's not evidence of a anti-white double standard. After all, who was the centerpiece of the news before Imus, Gonzalez, and VT?
Who get national stories when they're abducted? Pretty white females.
What groups are more likely to be abducted but aren't reported on? Black females (and, I believe, males).
The media is a mess, and I don't excuse their failure to report on that case. It certainly has all the elements of sensationalism and outrage that national news channels crave.
I disagree with you on your basic principles there. For starters, I'm not implying an anti-white
double standard in the news. I'd say it ranges more along the pro-non-white-ethnic-group standard, which comes from a (p, m)aternalistic mindset that to give out that sort of information inflames racial ill will against non-whites. Approach it from that
paradigm, and I think it holds for most media practices. (Well, when combined with the ratings grab of an attractive little blond girl in peril when you factor in the sleaze of the likes of Geraldo and Greta.*)
*This should go without saying, but Fox News dipwad reporters are the only ones whose names I can recall. Please don't take it as affirmation about the EVILS of FAUX NEWS.
As for the point you're trying to make with that incident, it falls on deaf ears, given the regional small-town paper you cite in the OP.
The fact of the matter is that a ham-steak is considerable as a "hate incident." There's no two ways about it, IMO.
You can take issue with its designation, you can take issue with the police involvement, or you can take issue with both. Personally, I see no reason to think of it as anything but a hate incident (you must admit, a ham steak is a pretty absurd thing to taunt someone with unless you fully grasp what is considered unclean by Muslim doctrine, and select those people as a target). I would disagree with official involvement and the need to "make an extreme example" of this kid. It seems to have backfired, as people (like you) are feeling sorry for this fucker because you feel he's being overpunished. I don't disagree that the punishment is unnecessary, but still think the kid is a fucker.
Now, I think you need to reconsider how "hate crime" is defined by US law before making any further claims. I don't know how Canada does it, but I do know how the US (or at least most states) do it, and your insistence (in the OP) of massive violence is unnecessary and unrelated to "hate crime" designation.
I think it goes without saying, but hate crime designations are bunk anyway. I need not explain why unless someone has the stones to contest me on that one. Furthermore, I think it goes without saying that my statement (More mocking at how much easier 'bigotry' has become) in the original post was a jest.
I, for one, have seen readings of the Koran that claim that eating pork is bad, not simply being around it. And I could, were I to retrace my steps over the ENTIRE INTERNETS, unearth a good deal of anecdotes of Muslims being less than strict about it.
That said, I'm not entirely sure where you're approaching this from, if you're slavishly devoted to the legal definition of a 'hate incident'... or, well, I don't know.
I don't know what you mean by my point "falling on deaf ears." And I certainly don't agree that the administrations efforts have backfired. They've suspended the kid. The message has been sent to those students.