By Tina Trent
What happens when ponytailed defense attorney Ron Kuby gets mugged? He screams bloody murder, demands a police crackdown on the alleged assailant, and collaborates with reporters at the New York Daily News to raise the specter of hate crime charges. Here's the outline of the story, from the New York Post:
Michael Cook is charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly clocking Kuby on West 23rd Street in mid-September. Kuby told cops he'd been walking near Cook and Cook's girlfriend, and the punch in the nose was his reward for objecting to the girlfriend's overheard anti-gay diatribe.
"I spend my life preventing most people from going to jail, but he's working very hard to go there," Kuby said of his accused assailant. "Sooner or later the warrant squad will wake him up very early in the morning and without a cup of coffee."
The lawyer famous for using every trick in the book to denigrate police and spring violent offenders back onto the street expects a different response from the system when he's the alleged victim of a minor crime -- in this case, a fistfight Kuby acknowledges instigating.
Never mind legal niceties, such as using the word "alleged" before guilt has been determined:
Kuby had the following unsolicited legal counsel for Cook: "He can still turn himself in by showing up in court as soon as he can. I think 9 a.m. tomorrow would be a splendid time, so as to avoid the silver bracelets."
And if the police refuse to let the perp have his cup of coffee, Kuby can always change sides and sue them for brutality.
Ron Kuby is an acolyte of the late, unlamented William Kunstler, who also gloried in springing terrorists and murderers from prison. Kuby and Kunstler infamously raised the defense of "black rage" in the case of Long Island Railroad assassin Colin Ferguson, who murdered six people and injured 19 in 1993.
Although Ferguson ultimately refused to let Kuby and Kunstler represent him, families of the murder victims still had to listen to the lawyers blame their loved ones for the racist killing spree that took their lives. Irresponsible racial allegations are Kuby's favorite legal tool. In reality, Colin Ferguson was the cricket-playing son of wealthy Jamaicans; his "rage" seems to have had more to do with anger at having to hold a job after his family's fortunes declined.
Ron Kuby is now claiming that overhearing anti-gay language on a street corner enraged him and led to a fistfight. The New York Daily News is playing along, portraying Kuby as a courageous opponent of hatred rather than as a blowhard.
Yet according to the same Daily News coverage, Kuby fully participated in the alleged slur-fest, accusing the young Asian woman he lashed out at of being in the wrong neighborhood and suggesting that she go back to the neighborhood where she belongs. Hate can be a point of pride when wielded by or against the right type of person.
It's hard to believe that Kuby is all that sensitive to homophobia, either, for he routinely represents Islamists who believe in killing gays for being gay. Does he challenge his terrorist clients to fistfights over their hatred of gays and women? Of course not. Their status as members of another victim group inoculates them from being responsible for their hatreds, just as Colin Ferguson's race inoculated him from responsibility for picking off one innocent white person after another to feed his "black rage."
Ron Kuby is a walking object lesson in the injustices that arise from identity-based law enforcement, which includes both hate crime laws and claims of lesser culpability based on the criminal's identity. Kuby routinely argues that blacks and Islamists should not be held responsible for the violence they perpetrate. So he is racist towards his clients, also: he expects them to be held to lesser standards than the rest of us. He views them as less than fully civilized.
Kuby's client list is heavy with terrorists whose chosen prejudice is killing Americans for being American. There's Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the infamous "Blind Sheik" of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and El Sayyid Nosair, convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and also tried for attempting to kill a police officer during the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane. The latter charge fell to jury nullification, another injustice Kuby gleefully rubbed in the victims' faces.
"We philosophically believe that the Constitution knows no boundaries when it comes to matters of race, religion, sexual orientation, status and wealth," boasts Kuby's website. Well, unless you're a white woman pleading for her life before Colin Ferguson plants a bullet in your head, or one of the thousands of Americans who died for the crime of being American on 9/11.
Identity-based legal activism dictates that some people are more valuable than others. An El Sayyid Nosair matters more than his American targets. Policemen's lives are worth very little. Abdel-Rahman is the victim of Americans as he urges his followers to slaughter Americans. Colin Ferguson is the victim of racism as he blows away innocent white people on a train.
Now Ron Kuby is the victim, according to Kuby himself, and he darned well wants the police and courts to pay attention. Once you go down the path of assigning different values to human lives, there is also no slight too small for the protected classes. In the New York Daily News, Kuby plays up his beat-down as a homophobic hate crime, posing with a rainbow flag and re-enacting his courageous "resistance" to a fawning reporter.
The Daily News, for its part, is continuing a long tradition of deceptive reporting on hate crime laws by raising the question of whether the young woman who got in the dust-up with Kuby would be charged with hate. Reporters never ask that question when real criminals commit hate-based crimes against the wrong types of victims. For example, nobody in the media wondered why the FBI failed to record the nearly three thousand 9/11 deaths as hate crimes in their official statistics.
Eric Holder is always yammering about trying terrorists as ordinary criminals, but he has never once suggested that they should be tried for hate crimes.
The New York Daily News (and the New York Times, and the Post) didn't ask if Mbarek Lafrem would be tried for hate after Lafram sexually assaulted and nearly beat a woman to death after she refused to dance with him in 2010. Lafrem claimed that the victim's refusal of his sexual attentions constituted aggression against him, that women are supposed to submit to men. The powers-that-be refused to label his act hatred, and they refused to explain why. The media enforced this silence, as they always do.
According to the civil rights activists running the hate crimes movement, women aren't supposed to be counted as hate crime victims because then there would be too many hate crimes. Activists used to discuss this openly, but now they wisely keep such opinions out of the written record. Bill Clinton and Eric Holder perfected the strategy of duplicitous silence on questions about the enforcement of hate crime laws in the 1990s. They could not maintain this charade for long, however, without the assistance of compliant journalists.
Unsurprisingly, with the media marching in lockstep with the activists, the politicization of hate crime laws has grown more extreme. Today, the New York City Hate Crimes Unit is a political tool in the hands of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. A vocal gay-rights activist, Quinn categorically refuses to answer questions about the selective application of these laws. She refused to comment on the lack of hate crime charges in the Lafrem case and in other cases of serial rapists targeting random women in the city.
Yet when gay activists in New York City reported that a rainbow flag had been burned outside their offices, the elite hate crimes squad swooped in to investigate, and Quinn headlined at the rally, denouncing the alleged crime (no offender was identified; the flag was a tiny 4"-by-5" emblem left outside the building). But kidnap a random woman off the streets and set her on fire because you hate women, and nobody will utter the h-word -- particularly not Quinn.
If you are a victim from the wrong ethnicity (white), nationality (American), or sexual orientation (heterosexual), you are no longer equal in the eyes of the law. Ideally, there would be no hate crime laws, but so long as they exist, we lose moral ground and legal rights every time they are applied inequitably.
"Dyke" uttered by a rapist is grounds for enhanced bias crime sentencing; "b***h" thrown at a heterosexual rape victim is not. A girl walking down the street engaging in a private, if crude, conversation can be called out by the media for being a hate criminal because someone else punched Ron Kuby, but killing 3,000 Americans because they are American doesn't count as hatred.
For if the 3,000 were "counted," then virtually all the victims of hate-crime murders over the past hundred years would be victims of anti-American hatred, and virtually all the worst hate criminals would be Muslims.
Hate crime laws certainly weren't drafted to achieve that outcome.
The point of hate crime laws has never been to "oppose hate." These laws are designed to rig the justice system in favor of politically connected minorities. It is therefore unsurprising to find a Ron Kuby wallowing in them, every chance he gets.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz29uETaXoy