Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Ham Steak + Muslims = Instant Hate Crime


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#1 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 19 April 2007 - 10:09 PM

Man, these days, you don't even have to beat some dude to death or firebomb something to succeed at a hate crime.

http://www.sunjourna...cident_in_city/

LEWISTON - One student has been suspended and more disciplinary action could follow a possible hate crime at Lewiston Middle School, Superintendent Leon Levesque said Wednesday.

On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive.

The act reminded students of a man who threw a pig's head into a Lewiston mosque last summer.

The school incident is being treated seriously as "a hate incident," Levesque said. Lewiston police are investigating, and the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence is working with the school to create a response plan.


...

"Incidents like this that involve degrading language or conduct are often said by the perpetrator as a joke. I know that conduct is never static," he said. "It's part of a process of escalation."


First it is a viciously placed ham steak... then, firebombing mosques. They follow like... well... bacon and eggs?

WAIT NO I MEAN

AW Fuck I COMMITTED A HATE CRIME!

#2 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 19 April 2007 - 11:06 PM

Well, if you read the article, the porkbag kid did sound like a bully, you know, one of those a-holes back in the day that always meant trouble. No doubt he deserved some sort of punishment.

Charging the porkbag kid with a crime for this is pretty ridiculous however - he's probably not a racist but rather a grade-a jackass. Because of this kind case, people believe it's a crime to insult someone. It really has been a disturbing trend.

I don't know about anyone else, but if this had been all that I had had to go through in HS I would have been thankful.

And that Somali kid really doesn't sound racist at all. Wow - one white person threw some pork in a bag at him, and a few white people laughed - that means all white people must be jerks!

#3 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 19 April 2007 - 11:11 PM

Dude, I do worse stuff than that daily, to my friends. Yeah, he did so in a jerkweed way, but he threw a sack of meat on a table!
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#4 Chacrana

Chacrana

    You wa Cock

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 03:04 AM

What I think is interesting is that it's being treated as a "serious hate crime" and the kid's in middle school. I don't care if it was unintentional or if he was being a douche -- this is kind of a ridiculous response.

it was probably in there because I'm a flaming homosexual.


#5 VanillaGorilla

VanillaGorilla

    Shark Barber

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 03:32 AM

Ha, religion. If pigs were so great, they would be humans, and not 4-Legs-of-Deliciousness.
Posted Image

#6 Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

    No Women, No Children

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 04:31 AM

it was a jackass thing to do and the kid should be punished and it was obviously a deliberate attempt to humiliate him through his religion. Hate crime is taking it kinda far, though the kid should prob go to some sort of sensitivity training.
"Men have become the tools of their tools." - Thoreau
Smash Code
1805-1831-0940 Ikohn
Posted ImagePosted Image DVDs My Games

#7 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 04:47 AM

Where I come from, that's called getting someone's goat. If putting someone in proximity to ham steak is going to elicit a disproportionate reaction from you, then the entire school will continue doing it.
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#8 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 04:56 AM

Not unrelated:

http://www.startribu...ry/1130134.html

What if a campus fails to make these changes, and others like them? It is guilty, says the report, of "Islamophobia" -- an "emerging form of racism," according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Islamophobia includes more than clearly inappropriate behavior such as violence against Muslims or unreasonable suspicion of them. It can be as "subtle" as a remark that includes a "stereotype" or betrays the speaker's "lack of understanding" of Islam (such as the notion that Sharia law treats women as second class citizens). Just "one comment" of this kind can create a "poisoned" learning environment for Muslim students, the report says.


A great rhetorical trick. Define down "-phobia" to mean "Not a de facto Muslim." Like the entire culture knows how to push our buttons.

It gets better!

"Islamophobic" comments will soon land Canadians in serious trouble, if the federation has its way. The report outlines a comprehensive system "to encourage and facilitate a culture of reporting Islamophobia on campus. Anti-discrimination officers should be notified whenever such a comment is made, it says.

But the report makes clear that systems like this will not eradicate Islamophobia from Canadian campuses. To remove stereotypes, faculty, staff, students and administrators must all learn "the tenets of Islam," it said. "Education modules" for professors should incorporate a focus on "Islam and Islamophobia," while student activities could range from more courses on themes of the Qur'an and the Islamic world today to "socials, programs and other initiatives" to teach about Islam. Everyone on campus should learn to recognize his or her "collective responsibility to identify and stop Islamophobia."

Throughout this process, however, Islam must not be taught from a "Western perspective." This qualifies as Islamophobia, because it "misrepresents Islam." At the same time, the report says, some Muslim students have called for integrating "Islamic perspectives" in disciplines such as marketing, nursing and finance," since Islam's view of these differs from those of the West.


What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years!

#9 YoshiFan1

YoshiFan1

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 05:25 AM

"On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive."

If the student was not white, do you think they would have mentioned the race?

#10 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 06:15 AM

"On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive."

If the student was not white, do you think they would have mentioned the race?


No.
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#11 Metal Boss

Metal Boss

    Supreme Master of Hadou

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 06:35 AM

No.



There is no fate the United States justice system could provide that would bring about a fitting end to these fuckers


Why isn't this case reported as a 'hate crime' like it would have been if it was the other way around?


#12 evanft

evanft

    Wombat needs Nutrisystem.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:59 AM

People are REALLY retarded.

#13 SpazX

SpazX

    13 Billion Years in the Making

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 12:38 PM

What he did was a "hate incident" in the fact that he obviously chose to do something that would insult their religion in particular. How that can be misunderstood is beyond me. He shouldn't be charged with a crime, but it's someting that should be taken seriously, not laughed off.

Posted Image


#14 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 03:04 PM

Not unrelated:

http://www.startribu...ry/1130134.html


A great rhetorical trick. Define down "-phobia" to mean "Not a de facto Muslim." Like the entire culture knows how to push our buttons.

It gets better!



What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years!


I fear the day that schools can't serve hotdogs because being near pork will offend the muslims.

The mainstream religions already got their god in our pledges and on our money last century - who knows how far this perversion of our government in the "Land of the 'Free'"will spread.

RS - that's one sad story.

#15 trq

trq

    I *am* the reinforcements

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 03:13 PM

What he did was a "hate incident" in the fact that he obviously chose to do something that would insult their religion in particular. How that can be misunderstood is beyond me. He shouldn't be charged with a crime, but it's someting that should be taken seriously, not laughed off.


That's about right. If you intentionally try to be an offensive dickwad, you get suspended. That's not a tough concept to grasp. But getting the cops involved? Sheesh. Schools are hyper-sensitive, but I can't say I blame them, considering how often even more hyper-sensitive parents sue them.

#16 trq

trq

    I *am* the reinforcements

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 03:26 PM

What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years!


There's nothing in there about "complying" or "glorifying." It's not one iota different from how students are taught to look at different eras or cultures in any other discipline: you judge them according to their own standards, not yours. You know: the idea that you're not automatically right just because you're "you." It's that whole "open mind" thing. Helps with the learning. Kind of a laudable goal for schools, probably.

#17 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 04:09 PM

Is Rollingskull actually arguing that this was an accidental ham?

Or is he just that much of a flaming ninny?

#18 MrBadExample

MrBadExample

    Puny humans...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 06:13 PM

I fear the day that schools can't serve hotdogs because being near pork will offend the muslims..

Hot dogs will always be allowed since there's no real meat in them anyway.:lol:
Hank, don't brag to your brother about your circumcision.

#19 YoshiFan1

YoshiFan1

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 06:29 PM

There is no fate the United States justice system could provide that would bring about a fitting end to these fuckers


Why isn't this case reported as a 'hate crime' like it would have been if it was the other way around?


Because whites can only commit a hate crime, and not be the victim of one (at least that unfortunately appears to be the case). I can't believe I never heard of this incident either.

#20 Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

    No Women, No Children

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:24 PM

No.



do u even read the articles, nowhere in the actual news articles used as the sources were there mention of "The animals pictured below raped Christopher Newsom, cut off his penis, then set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend, Channon Christian, to watch. An even more cruel fate awaited her!

Channon Christian, was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast and put chemicals in her mouth … and then murdered her."


so either someone has some serious inside connections and that info didnt get released to the media or its total BS, i am in no way degrading the murder of these two individuals, but lets get the facts right at least


ohh and here are the sources http://www.nowpublic...apists_in_party

http://www.wate.com/...y.asp?S=5930690
"Men have become the tools of their tools." - Thoreau
Smash Code
1805-1831-0940 Ikohn
Posted ImagePosted Image DVDs My Games

#21 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:27 PM

There's nothing in there about "complying" or "glorifying." It's not one iota different from how students are taught to look at different eras or cultures in any other discipline: you judge them according to their own standards, not yours. You know: the idea that you're not automatically right just because you're "you." It's that whole "open mind" thing. Helps with the learning. Kind of a laudable goal for schools, probably.


Reread the entire article. The modules focus on "Islam and Islamophobia" and they are defining Islamophobia down to include offering school grants with interest, as the Koran forbids usury. I think you're idealizing their motives a smidge more than is justified by the facts. Consider, also, that Aussie schools have began to erase Holocaust history from their cirriculae so as not to conflict with the teachings their Islamic students have received from their own church teachings.

Furthermore, I think that sort of knee-jerk nonjudgementalism (How dare you presume to judge group X! You're not even ONE of them. You just think you're right because you don't understand their point of view!) has been a blight on the public education system for as long as I remember sitting through brain dead history class after brain dead history class, each ideologically hamstrung by falsehoods like SMALLPOX BLANKETS and a paradigm that can only allow self-flagellation, repeatedly advancing the notion that America has always been the one true force for evil in all of the world's history.
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#22 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:40 PM

That's about right. If you intentionally try to be an offensive dickwad, you get suspended. That's not a tough concept to grasp. But getting the cops involved? Sheesh. Schools are hyper-sensitive, but I can't say I blame them, considering how often even more hyper-sensitive parents sue them.


I am now beginning to see the logistical advantages of having a religion that considers receiving bad grades or being charged MSRP for video games to be a deeply offensive thing.

Seriously though. He placed a bag of meat on the table near them! It isn't like he called the lot of them sandniggers. (Just an excuse to use the nigger censor image. I love that.) Are you seriously advocating that we define out as suspendable actions based on the whims of the most offended subgroup? If so, I'm going out of my way to make a religion that forbids cutting in line, walking slowly, and standing in large groups to block a hallway.

To take a different rhetorical track, I think school idiocy like this certainly isn't going to help those Muslims fit in. The message has been sent. They're special. Protected. You can't prank them like you can just about anyone else, or the administration will be on you like white on rice. Think that isn't going to inspire even more ill will from their classmates?
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#23 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:45 PM

do u even read the articles, nowhere in the actual news articles used as the sources were there mention of (snip)


D'oh! I made the wrong copy/paste!

This was the choice I meant to make in my article selection.
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#24 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 08:09 PM

Is Rollingskull actually arguing that this was an accidental ham?

Or is he just that much of a flaming ninny?


Msut, please, what we had was great. The stuff of legends. You were the Lucy to my Ricky. The Dianne to my Sam. The Edith to my Archie. The Rebecca to my... well... also Sam. The Lovey to my Thurston.

But, it is over now, sweetie. You're going to have to move on. I know I have,

#25 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:46 PM

each ideologically hamstrung by falsehoods like SMALLPOX BLANKETS


http://www.straightd...ics/a5_066.html

#26 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 April 2007 - 01:10 AM

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?

Anna Nicole.

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.

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.
Posted Image

#27 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 April 2007 - 01:15 AM

http://www.straightd...ics/a5_066.html


Msut, dear, that's why I loved you. The amusing little way in which you prove my point for me.

Of course I knew about that letter. I almost was hoping someone would dig it up.

If the burden of proof for unqualified statements in college level US History books about multiple instances of smallpox blankets is a single mention of the possibility of it in a single letter, then I rest my case regarding history classes being crap.
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#28 RollingSkull

RollingSkull

    No Decisive Evidence

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 April 2007 - 01:36 AM

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?

Anna Nicole.

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.
Posted Image

It was a smooth ride.

#29 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 April 2007 - 02:37 AM

Once you start criminalizing the hate emotion, you're taking a step into Orwellian thought-police land.

Crime is crime.

An accused person's sentence shouldn't depend on the color of their skin and the color of the victims skin. That's called racism.

#30 SpazX

SpazX

    13 Billion Years in the Making

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 April 2007 - 04:03 AM

Once you start criminalizing the hate emotion, you're taking a step into Orwellian thought-police land.

Crime is crime.

An accused person's sentence shouldn't depend on the color of their skin and the color of the victims skin. That's called racism.


The point isn't to actually define and sentence based on the emotion of "hate." That's simply the word they use to name it. You're right that it shouldn't depend on the color of skin, but that's not what it's supposed to do (how it works in individual cases is another story). Sentencing does depend on intent, as it should, and this is simply another level of intent.

When someone commits a hate crime they're supposed to get a harsher sentence because they are not only attacking an individual they are attacking a group through that individual.

An obvious example: A Klansman burning down a black family's house is more than a crime against that one family. They pick out that victim because of their race and their intent is to spread fear among them and therefore attack that entire group.

Posted Image