White Supremacist leader, Shaun Winkler, is running for Sheriff in Rathdrum, Idaho.
From The Boston Globe:
Winkler said despite the white supremacist beliefs he holds as a KKK imperial wizard, his brand of justice would be color blind.
In a discussion among the editorial staff here at GMP offers us some things to think about, here.
From Jackie Summers:
The question isn’t whether or not he will win.
The question is: if you can be publicly supremacist, should anyone actually expect justice from you?
Justin Cascio replied:
No, of course not. But when people are married to their partisan issues, they don’t want justice for “the other guy,” they think that you can only have justice for some, and that it’s still justice.
As a country, we need to be reminded again that we don’t vote on matters of rights. Otherwise it’s just mob rule.
What do you think?
AP Photo/Nicholas Geranios
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
“As a country, we need to be reminded again that we don’t vote on matters of rights. Otherwise it’s just mob rule.”
I think this is so important, especially at the moment. Maybe it’s because I’m from California, where we have extremely strong ballot initiatives, but I think we’re at a point where we need to remind people that the U.S. is a representative democracy for a reason.
Let’s not kid ourselves – of course we vote on rights. We’ve always voted on rights, and we’ll continue voting on right for some time to come. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is something that was voted on. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is something that was voted on.
When I hear the cry against “activist judges” such as those in California, or Iowa, of Massachusetts, it’s usually because those judges have been the only ones to say, “no, you don’t get to vote on rights” and the people leading the march against such judges are those who would rather you didn’t have rights, and who believe a bigoted majority trumps any claims you might have on equal protection under the law.
We must oppose those people at every turn. We must expose them, isolate them, mock them, and boycott them. We must be fierce advocates for justice and tolerance, and raise our voices to combat small-minded antagonistic thinking. We must not be afraid to stand up to their hatred and to join hands in solidarity against intolerance. Most of all we must reach out to the next generation and teach them the lessons our mothers and fathers learned at the end of the billy club.
“Let’s not kid ourselves – of course we vote on rights. We’ve always voted on rights, and we’ll continue voting on right for some time to come. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is something that was voted on. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is something that was voted on.”
Not directly, though, is the point…as to the rest of your comment, yeah I agree.
As a country, we need to be reminded again that we don’t vote on matters of rights. Otherwise it’s just mob rule.
In theory, we don’t. In practice, we do all the time. Voting IS mob rule. We’re just reasonably fine with it when our preferences prevail.
Well said.
“As a country, we need to be reminded again that we don’t vote on matters of rights. Otherwise it’s just mob rule.”
Of course we don’t. Noone ever votes to deny someone else their human rights. But everyone defines human rights differently so we vote.
As for the question at hand… I wouldn’t trust him to administer justice by a long shot.
As a country, we need to be reminded again that we don’t vote on matters of rights. Otherwise it’s just mob rule.
I have to say that it pretty much is mob rule considering the voting system. Things go the way that the majority of the mob votes.
White supremacy, anti-Semitism, or any other form of racism (including racism directed against whites) is inherently unjust. Why any reasonable person would entrust law enforcement to a racist is beyond me. By the way, as I read somewhere, this jerk happens to be a big supporter of Ron Paul. No surprise there.