So the two bigots, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are once again injecting themselves where they don’t belong.  They have slithered down to Jena, Louisiana, to protest charges brought against six black youths who assaulted a white teen named Justin Barker, who was knocked unconscious.  The two uncivil-rights bots are doing their usual schtick, claiming that this incident is another example of racial injustice and double standards in America and giving their careers as professional rabble-rousers their periodic dose of media juice. 

I won’t say much about the details of the case, except to point out that the two demagogues’ poster boy for racial injustice, Mychael Bell (parents who embrace irregular spellings of common names have a certain hang-up), has four convictions for violent crimes.  Yes, a real choir boy.

What really interests me about this case are the real double standards.  In this TimesOnline article some of them are evident, such as the notion that whites are treated more leniently by the justice system.  The truth is that if six white students had beaten a black teen, the perpetrators would be charged with a hate crime and the story would have been all over the national media from the get-go.  As for this case, it’s only receiving more attention now because the two racial hustlers showed up, and the focus is on absolving the guilty.  The article, though, states,

". . . they [the protesters] were against the unequal
application of justice in America . . ." 

Yes, there certainly is unequal justice in America.  If a group commits an inordinate amount of crime, its members are more likely to be punished.

Even more outrageous is the equivalence some are trying to draw between symbolism and substance.  Many are complaining about the fact that white students who hung some nooses on Jena High School grounds — which they say sparked this violence — were punished with only school suspension, while the book is being thrown at the black students. 

This is a diversionary tactic and much reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case.  If you remember, Simpson’s defense shysters and the media shifted the focus to the fact that Detective Mark Fuhrman once used the word "nigger," making it the issue.   It was as if  a racial epithet was a more serious charge than a brutal and bloody knife-slaying of two innocent people.  Likewise, there are some now who act as if the hanging of a noose equates to a brutal beating and, in fact, mitigates it.

This strategy serves two malevolent purposes.  Over the short term, the miscreants who perpetrated this assault may enjoy slap-on-the-wrist justice.  The long-term effect, though, is far more ominous. This proposition lays the groundwork for hate speech laws, as it further convinces people that "offensive" words and symbols need to be prohibited because, hey, it’s not just sticks and stones that may break my bones. 

Sorry, folks, but this is a dangerous road to travel; the rendering of political and social statements — no matter how odious they may be — must never be equated with actual violence, and to do so is an immoral act that does violence to our First Amendment.  It may hurt the perverts to hear this, but the right to freedom of speech wasn’t secured to protect pornography.

Speaking of perverts, if we do want to start punishing criminally those who erect offensive symbols, let us start with people such as Andres Serrano, the "artist" who immersed a crucifix in a jar of urine. 

Until you put that on the table, leftists, you can flush your double standards right down the Jackson.