Social justice and corruption

One of the most important necessities of true justice is that we apply it equally.  But while most on planet earth would readily agree that granting two people different verdicts for the same crime would be corruption, trends in the United States show us that our society is moving away from an equality-based law-system to one which considers the status of people instead of their actions.

As examples, a couple of major stories have caught the eye of Leftist “human rights” organizations lately. The first one, involving a police officer and two jaywalkers, resulted in an unruly pedestrian attacking the officer, which resulted in the assailant being punched in the face. The second story involved a Mexican smuggler being shot after he and his friends were throwing rocks at our border patrol agents.Sadly enough, our national media outlets and human rights organizations misdirected their anger against the defenders in both situations, which leads us to wonder: since both of these acts were well-documented as cases of self-defense, under what circumstances do “human rights” and “justice” apply?  One would think every human has a right to self-defense, especially when they come under assault from multiple people, and the defender is upholding the law. But these protests plainly show that in America, it doesn’t matter what happens, but rather who happens, in order for “justice” to become a serious cause.  As such, let us explore several different principles by which these so-called human rights organizations exist.

1) Application of law

The first thing we need to understand about Leftist human rights activists is that protection under the law only applies to those in your racial group, those holding your same beliefs, or to groups perceived as oppressed.  Due to this operating procedure, interactions are rarely reviewed on an individual basis, instead lumping a person’s outward appearance with preconceived notions about social and behavioral trends, after which legal protection is afforded or denied.   Entirely macrosocial, this form of justice seeks a “big-picture” rectification not to protect and serve the individual, but rather to raise social statuses of groups.  Police officers, oppressive.  Minorities, oppressed.

Our attorney general highlighted this point well when he decided to drop a case of voter intimidation, in which Black Panthers were scaring white voters at voting stations. While we can be absolutely sure that voter intimidation is a federal offense according to our 1965 Voting Rights Act–and attorney general Eric Holder is a federal official with concern for “human rights“–we can only be left to assume that because intimidation of whites hasn’t fit a macrosocial conception of oppression, the case was dismissed without any serious opposition from our so-called human rights activists.

2) Rules of tolerance

Second, manners are only expected of those outside either your personal beliefs/culture or outside groups perceived as oppressed.  For instance, at University of California, Irvine, a Muslim student group demanded the right to speak loudly and angrily in the middle of an Israeli ambassador’s presentation. And when they were suspended by the school, they complained about their “human rights” being violated. 

This kind of thinking is also reflected in massive, socially-acceptable programs seeking to reduce (only) black-on-black crime, as though crimes against non-blacks are socially acceptable.  While sincere interest in morality leads some to admit that fairness toward different cultural groups is a sign of tolerance, what we actually find here is not morality, but rather a tactic of domination.  Rules of tolerance are absolutely enforced against “dominant” groups, but rarely protect them.

3) Reactions to poverty

Perhaps most tellingly, these “justice” oriented Leftists will not apply their standards consistently on an economic or global scale. While marching to reverse social inequalities for blacks in South Africa, now that white Afrikaners are living in squalid conditions and plainly discriminated against by the state, the overwhelming reaction of human rights activists has been “what goes around comes around,” instead of “and justice for all.” If nothing else, this shows that their interests do not lie in fighting against poverty, but rather for the advancement of their specific group against “dominant” groups, even if those dominant groups are living in shanty towns. 

This same kind of attitude was clearly displayed by the City of Seattle, after a major construction project bidding plainly stated that no white males were to apply, even despite the fact that white male construction workers were hit hardest by our recession. Unfortunately, this misallocation of resources wasn’t simply located in our city, but rather came from a provision in our recently-passed stimulus bill, which stated that portions of the stimulus were to only be used for the advancement of minority businesses. While this stimulus act was marketed as a bill which would revamp our fallen economy for all Americans, this marketing couldn’t have been further from the truth: it was meant for specific kinds of “oppressed” people.

Fighting these kinds of attitudes will be difficult, but will rely more upon our persuasion than anger.  Since many fit into the categories overwhelmingly protected by human rights activists, and thus will not oppose the nature of these attitudes and programs, we have to begin challenging activists by asking how they would feel if groups in these situations had been reversed.  In the case of the police officers, ask whether or not they would have supported the woman punching the officer, if he had shoved her first before she had even touched him. Or in the infamous Duke student rape case, in which the boys were found to have been slandered, we would ask if the public should react the same way–by posting “Wanted” posters in campuses, and mobs demanding punishment–if the students were black and the woman were white. 

Since the reactions to different group situations are rarely the same, conservatives in this case should call activist claims to anti-racism into question. After all, if anti-racism only seeks to protect specific racial groups from law and the repercussions of their behavior, then it’s not anti-racism. Rather, the activist is only seriously opposed to suffering on behalf of a particular group, a stance they frequently claim to be unfair racial preference when adopted by other groups.

Those interested in proper justice would agree that if you can’t count on these people to apply the law equally to you, if you can’t expect them to be kind and fair if you’re not on their side, and if they won’t take a stand for you when they believe “the man” is keeping you down, these are not the kinds of people best for holding a public office. After all, if we’re at all being serious about the matter, a refusal to apply law and economics outlays equally in any given society isn’t progress.  It’s mafia-style corruption.

Remember these four questions:

Question #1: Can you count on these people to protect you under the law if you don’t fit their macrosocial preferences? 

Question #2: If you suddenly become inconsistent with any of their beliefs, can you expect to be treated fairly, or with kindness? 

Question #3: If you are suddenly impoverished–even if you are a Leftist–is it possible for them to keep you impoverished for the benefit of others, since you do not fit into a protected category? 

Question #4: How would you feel if the races were reversed?

This entry was posted on 18. July 2010 at 13:42 and is filed under philosophy, cultural/racial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print