Multiculturalism: It's Different for Girls:
When is it politically correct to beat gays and kill women?
On April 30, American journalist Chris Crain became the victim of a hate crime in Amsterdam. While walking in the street holding hands with his partner, he was savagely beaten by seven men shouting antigay slurs. A few days later, Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Program at the Human Rights Watch, expressed some sympathy for the gay-bashers. Crain's attackers were reportedly Moroccan immigrants.
"There's still an extraordinary degree of racism in Dutch society," Long opined to the gay news service PlanetOut. "Gays often become the victims of this when immigrants retaliate for the inequities that they have to suffer."
Welcome to Politically Correct World, where acts that would merit unequivocal condemnation if committed by white males are viewed in a very different light when the offenders belong to an "oppressed group."
So let me see if I've got this straight.
Scott Long, the fucking director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Program at the Human Rights Watch Organization suggested that it was perfectly understandable that some homosexual men got the crap beaten out of them in fucking Amsterdam, for heaven's sake--because the homosexual men were white, and the attackers who beat the crap out of some gays were Moroccan immigrants?
So let's see. If you're a white homosexual, it is not politically correct (and, in fact, it's a hate crime) to kick the shit out of you for being a faggot--unless, of course, the person attacking you is a Muslim immigrant. Have I got this one correct?
And if this is the case, I guess we have a "hierarchy" of abuse, where it is improper and politically incorrect for those higher to repress those lower in the totum pole--but not the other way around.
In light of this, I think I need clarification from the Human Rights Watch group. For example, is it reasonable for white homosexual men to burn crosses on the front lawns of blacks in the South? After all, one could argue (as Mr. Long did) "_____________ often become victims of [abuse] when _____________ retaliate for the inequities that they have to suffer." So, one could excuse a bunch of homosexual klan members at a cross burning and old fashioned nigger lynching by saying, as Mr. Long, the fucking director of an organization within the Human Rights Watch group, argued--albeit with different groups: "niggers often become victims of abuse when homosexual men retaliate for the inequities that they have to suffer."
Or perhaps it's the other way around: white homosexuals can't burn crosses on the lawns of blacks, but instead blacks can beat the crap out of white homosexuals? I'm confused. I guess it's a matter of asking Mr. Long if the inequities that blacks have suffered is greater than, or less than, the inequities that white homosexuals have suffered. Whoever has suffered the most gets to kick the crap out of the other, in Mr. Long's world view.
And where do women land in the scale of things? Obviously in the odd world view of the Left it is perfectly fine for Muslim immigrants to murder women in cold blood, apparently for the "inequities" that they have suffered--even when they aren't actually immigrants and doing it on their own soil, as happens regularly in Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Syria. But as I'm California Indian, has my ancestors suffered enough to allow me cart blanche to start murdering women? Or are the "inequities" suffered by California Indians only sufficient to allow me to murder white men?
I think I need a chart of relative inequities to know who can murder and beat the crap out of whom. Perhaps the Human Rights Watch folks can post something on their web site.