What is your opinion of the OP?
It's not racist. It's actually the opposite of racism. He's trying to fix racial divides.
He has that authority. It's completely within his legal rights as a judge. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
Actually I wouldn't. If a white judge were seeing a majority of cases in front of him that were white kids causing problems and he asked the black, asian, latino, etc. people to leave so he could address the people as a white community about a problem, I'd commend him. But even for those who wouldn't, Ch'i already explained that white culture and black culture aren't the same.
You're not sorry, you're self-righteous and you're not listening to what everyone else is saying.
You aren't a civil right leader. You're actually widening the chasm with threads like this where you berate leaders who are trying to fix the divide, calling them racist: a term you clearly don't understand.

If what you said was true, its hardly actionable.

How could you prove that the order was made on the BASIS or race, rather than he wanted to speak to certain people (who were defined for different reasons) and their race was merely a defining factor which he used for simplicity's sake?

although saying that, I am aware of no law under which the judge could be prosecuted in any case, whatever intepretation you give it.

Under what federal or state (Georgia) law?

Just for the record, I'm not paid for my politics. I work for a non-partisan, non-profit organization. My boss, the deputy exec director, was Gingrich's former legislative director.

But you can still call me a "democratic operative" if it makes you feel better. I'm not offended :)

And on the voter caging issue, two courts (NJ, OH), on two separate occasions, called that so-called voter fraud prevention activity illegal because it was "ferreting alleged voter fraud" ONLY in SELECTED districts of a city or state based on the predominant race in that district...that is discriminatory, in violation of the Voting Rights Act....a topic for another thread if you like.

pan, darling, i cannot imagine what your problem is.
but it doesn't matter.
enjoy yourself.

I object to being labelled off-topic and ignored.

Martians are clearly second-class citizens here.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Firstly, of all the people who would know which race tends to gravitate toward crime, it's a judge, so his reasoning has nothing wrong with it. Secondly, it's his courtroom, and he can tell people to leave if he wants to. Thirdly, as willravel already mentioned, it had nothing to do with his decision-making process. All he wanted to do, from what I gather from the video, was to get all of the black people together and tell them that they're making their race look bad. Is that politically correct? No. Does it make at least a little bit of sense? Why yes, yes it does.

Back of the bus, greeny.

Beyond that, nothing to see here. 'Tis the usual examples of martyrdom and countermartydom that happens daily. Although I have wondered how you folks manage to nail that second hand to the cross. I would have figured it would be tough to do with the first one already nailed down and all. Are you just better hung that I? Is a hammer really a "hammer"?

Mmm far as I can tell, none of this has anything to do with martyrdom, I think the only question is should a judge be able to use race as a factor in his court.

Apparently the answer is yes, well yes provided the judge was black, and he wanted to talk about black folk about black things.

But I thought this wasn't about race, by pan's own words this thread isn't about race.

My bad - I wasn't clear. I didn't mean IRL martyrs. I don't see any of those here.

I meant TFP martyrs. Dime a dozen in this thread.

of course, it isn't about race...until it is again.

Too bad we can't persuade the old white crackers in Walton County, Ga. to finally start talking about "black things", isn't it?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&u...Search+the+Web

Atlanta congressman John Lewis made the speech yesterday, asking for justice for the two black couples lynched in Walton Cty, GA 1946. John Lewis remembers what it was like living in the south in the 1950's:
<img src="http://www.dogsforpeace.com/graphics/Selma2.jpg">

March 7, 1965, "Bloody Sunday" - forever changed Selma, Alabama.
John Lewis, Hosea Williams, and Blue leading a march for equality.


<img src="http://www.ibiblio.org/sncc/pictures/Louis_Arrested.jpg">
http://www.ibiblio.org/sncc/lewis.html
<i> In 1963, Lewis helped plan and took part in the March on Washington. At the age of 23, he was a keynote speaker at the historic event. In 1965, he led 525 marchers across the Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. State troopers attacked the marchers in a violent incident that later became known as "Bloody Sunday." </i>


Not a crumb of empathy in your entire being, is there? What do you think that you are you accomplishing on this thread? I'd suggest that you watch the video at the first google link, but nothing can penetrate your "knowing what you know", can it?

How many years are enough to dampen the visceral pain, still burned into living memory ? IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE....that is what we've been trying to tell you in every one of our posts on this thread.

The legislature of the state of Georgia has refused to pass hate crime legislation or to keep track of and report hate crimes to federal crime statisticians. You would be right at home, here, come on down!

Empathy complicates felicitous fancies, don't ya know? :p

Not to hijack... but again the legalized double-standard making up for a double-standard is epitomized in Hate-Crime legislation.

Something has to be going somewhere to get hijacked. This thread stopped going anywhere two pages ago, when pan was thoroughly rebutted and declined to respond.

I'm SO glad I was away from my computer for the whole day today.

The only thing i object to in that news story was the use of the term "reverse racism". I'm not saying what the judge did was right or wrong, I just don't like when that term is used. Racism is racism, no matter what color your skin is. I find the term "reverse racism" to be a means to justify racism for people who either don't realize that they are being racist or don't want to admit that they are just as bad as the people who are racist against their own race.

Actually the irony is the original poster thinks that the judge should be censured for of all things, common sense.

You mean there has been racism host?!?!?!?!?!

I for one am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that this country once exhibited racist policy!!!!!

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TELLING ME ABOUT IT, I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN.

But if you want to dig yourself in a hole talking about hate crime legislation be my guest. I'm waiting for you to tell me why someone who kills someone for his wallet, or he just likes to kill people is a superior human being to someone who does it based on race, and deserves a lessor punishment. That should be special, and by special I mean short bus special.

What a surprise that a conservative, white, heterosexual male doesnt get the concept of criminal intent.

Ustwo...I guess you dont get the concept of criminal intent either....another surprise.

dc_dux, the distinction in hate crimes has little to do with mens rea (the technical legal term for criminal intent). It has to do with motive, which is a distinct concept from intent. Related but separate. In most criminal law motive is probative of intent but not dispositive, and is not in any case an element of the crime.

loquuitor....I stand corrected. I do appreciate the legal knowledge that you bring from experience.

Take an example:
Guy A spray paints graffiti on a subway car....motve = self-gratification or maybe just for kicks?

Guy B spray paints a swastika on a synagogue...motive = intimidation

Two cases of vandalism.....should they be subject to the same penalty? Would a hate crime law make a difference in sentencing?

or

A couple of rowdy guys (lets call them will and rb) take a couple of pieces of 2x4 lumber out of a shop class in a predominantly white school and burn them on the football field to celebrate the end of the school year.

A couple of angry guys at the same school (lets call them seaver and ustwo) take a couple of pieces of 2x4 lumber out of the same shop class and burn a cross on the football field to intimidate the small number of black students in the school.

Assume the state has no cross burning law......same crime, same penalty?

No, they shouldn't be the same. Guy B should be more heavily punished.

Let's say Guy C comes out of a gay bar and gets the Hell beat out of him by 4 black men, that were waiting to beat a gay man. They should be tried for a hate crime.

This I have no problem with. If hate and intimidation are the driving force behind the crime, then the punishment needs to reflect that. However, since prejudice and hatred can exist in ALL groups then ALL groups must face the same treatment. To say only one group should be tried for hate crimes or to try only one group for hate crimes and let another off.... then the system is wrong and prejudicial within itself.



Same treatment, that's all I'm saying about the OP also. If you can sit there and tell me it is ok for a black judge to do this but not a white judge..... then something is wrong you are hypocritical. Just as when I say I would demand anyone else's job having done something similar for their own grouping, because the color doesn't matter the abuse of power and prejudicial theme it sets.

We can not have double standards and laws that treat one group one way and another differently and say we are fighting prejudice. The fight in and of itself promotes prejudice by the laws it has created, then.

You cannot fight prejudice and hate with prejudice and hate..... IT WON'T WORK!!!!! Yet, by the postings on this board some seem to eagerly and enthusiastically believe it will, and God forgive you if you speak out on the hypocrisy.

Pan: RACISM, HYPOCRISY, WHITE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE!
Everyone else: it's more complicated than that. Here's why...
Pan: RACISM, HYPOCRISY, WHITE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE!
Everyone else: No, seriously pan, it really isn't that simple. Again, here's why...
Pan: RACISM, HYPOCRISY, WHITE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE! I'M NOT RACIST!
Everyone else: Okay, Pan. Whatever.

pan....you never heard me say that.

I just dont buy your argument that the OP wasnt about race.

But....I know "it aint easy being white"

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YHmv9w7Yefw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YHmv9w7Yefw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

OMG, that's awesome.

DC wins.

You're absolutely right, pan. Intention is a huge factor when deciding what's right or wrong, especially when one is being judged (as in a Court of Law).

Since neither hate or intimidation were the motivating forces in this case, there was no racism, prejudice or anything to get riled up about.

I do agree that all groups should face the same treatment, too. I think if you're a white man driving through the 'hood, you should be stopped and asked what business you have there. All things being equal and all ...

..........

So you truly believe you can excuse fighting racism and hate by using racism and hate?

Even Malcolm X saw that wasn't possible and it cost him his life, his own people killed him because he realized that won't work. All you will ever accomplish by doing that is to keep exploitation, racism and hate alive and flourishing.

If I give one group special treatment, it's prejudicial by definition and it will create resentments and feed hate from those groups that don't get that treatment. That is human nature.

If you take the past mistakes, learn from them and work to create a better future by understanding all sides, then hate cannot grow and true equality can become a reality.

That is my belief and that is all I am trying to communicate.

If you would say that a white judge doing this was racist, or a male judge dong this would be sexist, or whatever..... then you have to say the same in ALL situations like this. Otherwise, you are showing prejudice and supposedly that is what you are fighting..... that makes no sense, is illogical and will NO NOT NEVER solve anything. To make excuses to somehow allow this to happen, only allows prejudice, resentments, hate and anger against each other to grow because you keep feeding the monster.

If you say what he did was wrong/right and any other judge doing the same action was wrong/right and you show consistency.... there is no longer any prejudice there. There is equality there. Negativity can not grow, prejudice, resentments, anger, hatred can not grow and begin to wither and die.

We should not be defined by our color, religion, sex, sex orientation, ethnicity, we should be looked at as brothers and sisters of the same race.... THE HUMAN RACE. We can take pride and recognize our cultures, but we must respect ALL cultures equally if we are to truly understand and live peacefully with each other.

Malcolm X even said:

Link: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

How far to the other extreme do we go until we realize it is hatred/prejudice and exploitation and all things we hated and preached against..... but we sugar coated it, excused it and sold it as the solution?????

How far the other way do we have to go to realize in the end, we didn't need to give anyone special treatment to make up for the past, because now we have just as much hatred, prejudice, anger, resentment, exploitation as we did when we began?

As the world gets smaller we best learn to forgive, make the future better for all and recognize that we are ALL in this together and hate, prejudice and resentments get us nowhere.

Disagree. It all depends on who is doing the damage. If a random person spray paints a happy face on a subway and a neo-nazi sprays a swastiki on a synogogue, then yes, the neo-nazi will be punished more.

But if a random person sprays messages threatening everyone on a subway with death and someone spray paints swastikis on a synogogue because they may think it's cool, unaware of the history, then no, the person threatening the general public will be in deeper shit.

A few teenagers sprayed swastikis on buildings in my city last year and it was not deemed a hate crime because it was shown these kids didn't understand the significance of their actions. Of course the Jewish community was upset, but how do you charge someone with hatred when they don't understand what and why they are doing it in the first place?

In the example he used, he said it was used for intimidation.

Yes, there are people who may not understand the significance and meanings that have been placed on the swastika and other signs and symbols.

With those teens.... we as a society must make sure they understand the meaning behind those symbols now and educate them on how wrong and truly hurtful those signs are to others.

I'm using love, convergence, understanding, and peace. You're hating the judge because he was trying to act as a responsible community leader.
You clearly aren't familiar with Malcolm X. His life was struggle, and he knew it, but he had that hope, even at the end.

Just as this judge has the hope.
PAN!! LOOK HERE!!! READ THIS!!! LQQK!!!
If the judge were white and he was responding to a high crime rate among a white population, I'd be applauding him for his efforts to help. If the judge were a woman and she was responding to a high crime rate among the female population, I'd be applauding her for her efforts to help. Is that clear enough? Or should I write it again, and again and again? Because it's not the first time I've wrote it.

So to clarify, if the roles were reverse and the judge white I'd be supporting him, too.

I have the feeling that if MLK or Malcolm X were alive today, Pan, you'd be calling them racist hate mongers because 1) they both recognized differences between the black community and the white community and 2) that neither believed that the problem could be effectively dealt with by ignoring it.

As it stands, it isn't that difficult to make it seem like dead people agree with you by selectively quoting them.

four freakin' pages of this crap...(mumblemumblemumble...)

Yes, he did in both cases. At the end though he saw ALL HUMANS as equal.


But you are the minority in this aspect Will.

Look how many made excuses saying that a white judge shouldn't e allowed or couldn't but for the black judge it was ok.

I can truly respect your position in that you would applaud ANY judge in similar circumstances at doing this. You aren't showing any prejudiced. You are ok with the action from anyone not just a black judge and make excuses why others can't.

My problem is that in court and a judge whether in session or not should not show this type of behavior. I'm against ANY judge doing it. I feel if it was a god message ALL there may have benefited not just a select group picked out by the judge.

It becomes prejudicial and shows bias.

So we disagree there. But that is just part of it.

But the other side, the side you aren't involved in because you say all would be applauded, is where a group starts saying it is ok for this judge to do this.... but not a white judge, a male judge, a female judge, etc.

When that happens it becomes hypocritical and even more divisive.

It is time we stop being fucking divisive at all and realize that WE ARE ALL ONE RACE.... THE HUMAN RACE.

Malcolm even saw it. MLK saw it. John Lennon saw it.

If you separate this judge by his race and allow him to do this but would not allow a white judge to.... then is that not just as wrong as letting the white judge do it and not the black judge???????

YES, BECAUSE EITHER WAY IT PROMOTES RACIST, PREJUDICIAL BEHAVIORS.

I am not and I have never said IGNORE.... I said learn from the past and stop making the same mistakes, going to extremes and promoting hatred in ANYWAY.

Giving a black judge a pass and then stating you would condemn a white judge is just as racist and wrong as as allowing a white judge to do it and not the black judge.

And how have you come to this conclusion?

If a white judge had done this, what do you think the outcry would have been?

I am running late for work, so I don't have time, but there are several posts that have stated they wouldn't allow a white judge to do this.

When I continually asked the question, how many were silent and didn't answer but kept making it a black/white issue and twisting my words and meanings?

But I can't say that because then we get all about how it is all about me and we have that argument instead of maintaining focus on the true issue.

And the outcry would be just as wrong if it were a white judge, but at least it would be justified to some degree. It's okay to work toward equality but also, simultaneously, admit that things still aren't equal yet. That's simply reality.

Yes it would be just as wrong, but we differ, I do not believe under any circumstance would a difference in outrage be justified.

Absolutely, but it is better to try to learn from each other and the past and find positive ways to move forward, than to continue to promote prejudice and excuse it because of the past.

Learning from each other is not the same as calling someone racist and asking for them to be fired, especially when it's very, very clear that the man's intent wasn't racist at all. He wasn't promoting prejudice by asking the white people to leave, he was trying to get his house in order because crimes being associated with black people is a huge problem when it comes to the divide between races.