Jena 6: Jena High "White Tree" Cut Down

Quick summary of the Jena Six case:
In Jena, Louisiana, a black student challenged the de facto segregation of his high school by asking permission to sit under the “white tree.” School officials told him to sit where he liked. The next day three nooses hung from the tree, which triggered an impromptu protest by the black students of Jena High. LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters, flanked by the police, informed the black students at an assembly later that day that he could end their lives “with the stroke of a pen.” Racial tensions grew, the school’s academic wing was burned, and Robert Bailey, a black student, was attacked by a group of whites at a party. One person was charged with a misdemeanor for that beating. The next day Bailey and two friends were threatened with a shotgun at a convenience store by Matt Windham, a white man who had been present at the beating. They wrestled the gun away from him and ran to report the incident to the police, who charged them with robbery of the shotgun. Finally at school two days later, a group of white students, including the noose hangers, taunted Bailey and other students, calling them “niggers.” A white student was beaten by a group of black students, taken to the hospital and released within three hours. He attended a school function that night. Six black students were charged with second degree attempted murder for the fight. The first to be tried was Mychal Bell, whose public defender put on no case, called no witnesses, and permitted a friend of the DA, the mother of a prosecution witness, and a good friend of the victim’s mother, to be empaneled on the six person jury. Bell was quickly found guilty. Robert Bailey, Theodore Shaw, Carwin Jones, and Bryant Purvis are still waiting to be tried. The sixth of the Jena Six is in the juvenile justice system.

Read this Jena Six article for more details or check the Jena Six archives.

Another good article on the Jena 6 by Abbey Brown at The Shreveport Times, but with some interesting and seemingly contradictory details.

… “A clean slate,” LaSalle Parish School Board member Billy Fowler said of why the tree was cut down in the past few weeks. “There’s nothing positive about that old tree. It’s all negative. And I’m serving on the new School Board, and we’re wanting to start fresh on some things.”

… Fowler said the tree eventually would have been cut down for construction purposes, but that he also is hopeful its removal will help heal old wounds.

“School’s about to start,” he said. “We don’t want the blacks coming back up there looking at the tree knowing what happened, or the whites. We just want to start fresh.”

… “Cutting down that beautiful tree won’t solve the problem at hand,” [Caseptla Bailey, mother of one of the Jena 6] said. “It still happened.”

But Fowler hopes that isn’t the case. He said he’s confident it will help the school year get off on the right foot.

… According to Jena High students, the nooses were found hanging in the tree the day after an annual assembly where one student asked about who could sit under the tree.

… The noose incident, which some have said should be handled as a federal hate crime, was never reported to the Jena Police Department, LaSalle Parish sheriff’s office or LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters, according to U.S. Attorney Donald Washington.

The school investigated the incident and determined the nooses were placed there as a “prank” in response to the question, he said. Washington’s office doesn’t have enough evidence to prosecute those responsible for the nooses with a hate crime, he said.

The article references that a school committee, not Schools Superintendent Roy Breithaupt, overruled the Jena High principal’s expulsion of the noose hangers, although Breithaupt evidently agreed with it. If that’s true, who was on the school committee? The article also states that the student who asked permission to sit under the white tree, Justin Purvis, did so at an assembly. That has not been reported before. The first assembly reported in this story was the one where DA Reed Walters threatened the black students. However, if Purvis did ask at an assembly, that gave the noose-hangers an extra day’s lead time to practice making a noose, which as I’ve noted before, is not a simple knot. If the nooses were never reported to the Jena Police Department, who eventually reported them to the DOJ, which U.S. Attorney Donald Washington said investigated the incident a week after it happened?

It was a good decision to cut down the tree. Bailey is correct in that it won’t change anything, but the tree’s stump will not evoke nearly as much anger as the tree itself would have. This doesn’t solve existing problems, but it may prevent future ones. That’s something, at least.

Open Trackbacks

Link to Pursuing Holiness and track back your latest and greatest here!

Trackback using Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackposted to [Read more...]

National Republican Congressional Committee Survey

The NRCC just sent me an invitation to complete a survey. I hope they were sincere in wanting opinions because I just gave them both barrels.

rncc.JPG

My reply?

How about “We suck slightly less than Democrats” ?

Seriously, you don’t need a slogan. You need to quit *talking* about it and actually come back to the values Reagan espoused. STOP with the earmarks, STOP making a federal law out of everything, STOP allowing immigration/employment laws to be flouted. People will come back in droves.

It was all downhill from there.

This is why I stopped calling myself a Republican and started calling myself a conservative.

Jena 6: Update by ABC's The Blotter

ABC News’ The Blotter has a decent article: Black Youth Facing 22 Years for Schoolyard Fight. The money quote?

The Justice Department would not comment on the meeting because it is part of “ongoing casework.” The district attorney could not be reached for comment.

Ongoing casework by the Community Relations Service or by the Civil Rights Division? It makes all the difference. The CRS’ recent forum in Jena basically amounted to “Simmah down, people!” The rather bizarre query to attendees for suggestions on how they think the DOJ should have handled the situation added insult to injury with this bizarre comment:

[US Attorney Donald Washington] mentioned and addressed each of the complaints he thought community members have raised in recent months — selective and malicious prosecution, the fact that some students have been suspended and others expelled, hate crimes and patterns or practice of racism.

Many questioned whether there was prosecutorial misconduct on the part of LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters. He did not attend the forum, citing a judicial gag order.

Washington said selective prosecution is very hard to prove, and in order to do so he would have to have to “dig in his head” to determine if Walters was treating black and white people differently.

In fact, neither extrasensory perception nor brain surgery are methods used to determine selective prosecution..

In order to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show both “(1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive, i.e. discriminatory purpose or intent.” Id. at 475 (emphasis added). See also United States v. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 1992). The impermissibly discriminatory purpose or motive must imply “that the decision-maker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because or, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. The identifiable group is typically a race, religion, or group of persons exercising a constitutional right.” Gutierrez, 990 F.2d at 476 (citations omitted). Selective prosecution claims are evaluated according to ordinary equal protection standards. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d at 938. Similarly, to establish a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution, a defendant must make a “showing that charges of increased severity were filed because the accused exercised a statutory, procedural, or constitutional right in circumstances that give rise to an appearance of vindictiveness.” United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1982).

How should it be handled? Investigate. Investigate. Investigate. The government is chock full of investigations for far less life-impacting situations than putting a bunch of teenagers in prison for a high school fight. Surely they can spare a little time and some resources for this one.

The Right To Not Obey Sharia Law, Redux

Although hate crime laws were not created to enforce sharia law in the United States, they are certainly being used to do so now.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he was a student at the school. A message left at the Shmulevich home was not immediately returned.

The Islamic holy book was found in a toilet at Pace’s lower Manhattan campus by a teacher on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book in a toilet on Nov. 21, police said.

Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department’s hate crimes unit.

In this country, we have the right to burn flags, burn soldiers in effigy, put crucifixes in urine, sculpt the mother of Jesus in dung, Fred Phelps can spew his hate, gay activists can march, people can openly accuse politicians of crimes with no supporting evidence, and we have any number of ways to express any number of points of view. But through hate crime laws, certain types of expression are being suppressed.

If the ACLU really does believe in what their name promotes, they will represent Mr. Schmulevich. The law on this matter is being stretched to the limit to make the argument that this sort of thing is a hate crime. I’m betting they won’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod, but I’m holding out hope that they’ll prove me wrong.

Littering and stealing are already illegal, and if Mr. Shmulevich is guilty of those things he should be punished accordingly. But we have the right to not obey sharia law. Through hate crime laws, our government is offering more legal protection to Islam than it does to any other faith. We should not, and cannot tolerate that if we wish to remain free.

Previous posts on the right to not obey sharia law:

Chickenhawk Christians: A common refrain these days is that of a billion Muslims, only a few have actually attacked us. Therefore, Islam must be a peaceful religion which is being twisted by a few people. Perhaps it’s even true. But when Muslims have had the option of freedom, they have chosen sharia. Does this mean that moderate Muslims are a far smaller group than we have been led to believe? Does it matter? How many Germans really believed Hitler was correct, and how many just quietly chose not to resist? There may be nearly a billion moderate Muslims, but if they don’t rein in the radicals among them whose goal is to enslave us, then we must do it. For example, after the London bombings, a survey revealed that only 5% of UK Muslims thought that more attacks would be justified. The problem is that 5% of Muslims in the UK means 80,000 people would like to see further terror attacks in the country they make their home. There are enough radical Islamists to threaten the west, and to take, or cause us to relinquish through intimidation, our freedom. The cartoon riots were a perfect example of what passivity in the face of threats will bring. We did not stand up for Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, or Hirsi Ali. Now fatwas and isolated attacks have exploded into full scale demonstrations all over the world.

The Right to Not Obey Islamic Law: Because the west now treasures life more than freedom, worldwide there is one example after another where the Wahhabi sect of Islam is demanding and receiving obeisance and cooperation. Just in the last few weeks:
In Chechnya, non-Islamic women are now wearing headscarves. An American college professor – IN America – censored for showing the Dread Cartoons of Blasphemy. Google censors just about everybody, it seems, but radical Islamists. The EU considers whether or not to implement blasphemy laws. A satire festival in Spain purposely avoids offending Muslims – and only Muslims. Our public schools allow Islamic proselytization. Mark Steyn is shut out (scroll down…) of the British press because of his strongly stated views on Islam. The Telegraph took down an article on how Sharia law may soon be implemented in England “due to legal reasons.” Here’s the cached article. Yale fights to keep the military out while letting the Taliban in. Former president Jimmy Carter panders to terrorists every chance he gets.

Do we have the right to not obey Islamic law?: Jay Tea over at Wizbang frames the cartoon conniption perfectly with this question: “Do we have the right to not obey Islamic law?”

…the world is being presented with the Islamic demands that we not depict Mohammed. On the surface, it’s a silly issue, and some commentators, satirists, and cartoonists have had a field day with that (when they’re not facing their own threats). But underneath the giggles is a simple, fundamental issue: the Islamists are demanding that their religious laws hold sway worldwide, and are using every weapon at their disposal — economic threats, violence, and appeals to liberal guilt, just to name three — to get the non-Islamic world to submit.

And let us never forget: Islam does NOT mean “peace.” It means “submission.”

[emphasis added]

Trackposted to [Read more...]