Punishing White Nationalists

By Elizabeth Wright

[Reprinted from Issues & Views March 12, 2001]

As an American black, I am growing more alarmed and even ashamed of the way that the "guardians" of my civil rights are using the excuse of protecting me and other "minorities," in order to trample on the rights of white Americans.

On Nov. 9, 2000, Alex Curtis was arrested in San Diego, California. As of this date, 25-year-old Curtis, a self-described white nationalist, has not set foot outside his cell, except to attend court hearings and limited visits with his attorney and parents. Curtis's parents (his father an engineer, his mother a schoolteacher) have willingly offered to put up the value of the family business and their home, so their son can be released from jail to await his trial. All of their pleas have been rejected.

The state, whose charges against Curtis are still vague and tend to drift somewhere along the lines of "conspiracy to violate civil rights," and "conspiracy to commit civil rights violations," has decided that no amount of bail should be accepted to free this young man. In reading the prosecution's case against him, it appears that Curtis has been incarcerated more for what it is expected he might do than for anything he has done.

What he has allegedly done is this: distributed "racist" propaganda, spray-painted graffiti on a synagogue, shoved a fake, plastic snakeskin through the mail slot of a public official, and vociferously verbalized his disdain for that same official--actions described as "harassment."

What he has certainly done is maintain a white nationalist website that was derogatory towards ethnics and racial minorities and publish a newsletter expressing similar sentiments. He has exercised his right to dissent from the popular orthodoxy on race, especially denouncing the enormous influx of immigrants into California, while making these views known to others. He is, without a doubt, by his own description, a belligerent racist and, by the description of others, an obnoxious one.

Curtis is not charged with physically harming anyone, and the Star-Telegram of Ft. Worth, Texas reports, "No direct acts of violence are alleged in the indictment." For this reason, it is important to the prosecution that a case be built against Curtis to convince a jury that he has indeed, in the words of an FBI agent, "conspired to commit highly disruptive, life-threatening crimes." Although the FBI claims to have taped conversations between Curtis and a friend, a spokesman is quoted in the San Diego Union-Tribune admitting, "Curtis's statements are general in nature and not specific."

This, however, is not slowing down the prosecution, which is being egged on by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, and is expected to demand the minimum "hate crime" sentence of 10 years of prison punishment for Curtis's impertinent behavior and beliefs. The brazen, irreverent Curtis is denied bail for what in a saner political climate, would be deemed nothing more than fraternity capers or Halloween pranks. What happened to 30 days in the county jail? Ten years for "harassment" and conspiring to violate rights?

The ADL has described Curtis as a "rising star in the racist movement," and has expressed concern over the popularity, although limited to a small circle, of his website and newsletter. Spokesmen for this self-styled human rights group staunchly justify Curtis's arrest on the basis of his potential to be a future "danger." Is it now acceptable to arrest American citizens on the basis of nipping future trouble in the bud? Do we detain and deny freedom to nonconformists for what we think will be their prospective crimes?

The story grows worse as we learn of other young white men who are being incarcerated on similar charges or have received long, harsh prison sentences for minor crimes. For example, in Houston, last June, 21-year-old Matthew Marshall and four friends decided to end a night's drunken revelry by burning a cross on the lawn of a black family. No one was harmed by this foolish gambit and no property damaged. In fact, the family of Dwayne Ross, asleep throughout the escapade, did not know of its occurrence until the next morning, when they viewed the remains of charred wood. All five white men were arrested and charged with "violating civil rights," for which Marshall has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.

In addition to Judge David Hittner allowing the prosecution to bring in instances of Marshall's past juvenile, albeit non-criminal antics, the Judge admitted to being influenced by an overheard off-hand remark, that included a racial slur, supposedly spoken during a pre-trial hearing by Marshall's angry father. As reported by the Associated Press, the 10-year prison sentence was deserved, explained Hittner, because the "seeds" of the young Marshall's racism "were sown at home."

In December 1999, in Riverside, California, a black woman, Tyisha Miller, while sitting in her car, was tragically shot to death by several policemen--for no reason that makes any sense to this day. The police officers who did the killing were fired but not prosecuted. Needless to say, the Riverside police have been fighting the stigma of racism, as the local media and community groups have kept alive the issue of police excesses. The charge of "systemic racism" now dogs the department.

Since the mindless shooting of Miller, many white residents have charged the police with the overzealous apprehension of young white men. The rationale of the police seems to be that their own exoneration from the taint of racism can best be attained by coming down hard on other whites.

Woe to those whites who happen to find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, as, apparently, did several young whites, earlier this year, who are members of a group called "Western Hammerskins." This group, whose members are known more for their strutting bravado and racist blatherings than for their actions, calls to mind the pitiful band of contentious followers attached to New York's recently deceased Khalid Muhammad.

Their trouble began when a fight broke out at a bonfire party, and a black man, Randy Bowen, was chased and assaulted. The whites who were responsible for the assault, all in their 20s, were quickly caught and arrested. Charged with a "hate crime," the six face stiff sentences. Although three of the men were identified by witnesses as the actual perpetrators of the assault, the other three appear to have only been onlookers. (Bowen's injuries were not life-threatening and he recovered.)

In a rare, open journalistic moment, the Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reported the frustration and anger expressed by the parents and friends of the arrested men. Said the mother of Travis Miskam about the relationship between her son and the assaulted man, "These boys have been at each other's throats ever since middle school. That fight would have happened even if Bowen was white."

And the father of Gregory McDaniel expressed the sentiment of many, by claiming, "Our children are being used by the district attorney's office to pacify blacks and other groups after the Tyisha Miller shooting. It's that simple. I don't know how anybody could look at this case and deny that."

Jason McCully's father pointed to the current anxieties among the police about their department's image. "There's a lot of pressure being put on Riverside right now by the state and civil rights groups. The easiest thing for them to do is sacrifice our boys and say, 'Look, see how tolerant we are here.'"

Deputy District Attorney John Ruiz dismissed the parents' comments and called the assault "one of the most shameful incidents this county has seen in a long time." He expressed horror over a T-shirt imprinted with a racial insult that was found during a sweep of the accused Miskam's bedroom. Ruiz intoned, "That's why this is an important case."

Does the offending T-shirt make this case important for the same reasons that Alex Curtis's case is treated in such a critical manner? In dozens of cases like these, the defendants' homes have been ransacked and "objectionable" literature, videos, and other materials have been removed and held as "evidence" of the defendant's wicked state of mind. In the two-year period before Curtis was arrested, his home was twice invaded by the local police, who confiscated his computer and his writings. From the emphasis placed on the thoughts and mental outlook of these young men, whether expressed in a newsletter, on a website or on a T-shirt, it would appear that it is their offensive ideas that condemn them in the eyes of the state and the bullying lobby groups that have power to impact the state's prosecution.

Curtis, facing a possible 10-year prison sentence for tasteless mischief making, is learning the hard way what life is like in a post-constitutional United States, where orthodox ideologies make certain behaviors more "incorrect" than others, and where simple civil offenses can be ratcheted up into felony crimes.

Take a look at the case of Sara Jane Olson (formerly Kathleen Soliah). Olson, a former member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, was a fugitive on the run from the law since 1976, until her arrest in June 1999. In 1976, Olson was indicted in absentia, along with other SLA members, for planting pipe bombs under police cars. Today, she faces one count of "conspiracy to commit murder" and two counts of "attempted explosion of a destructive device with intent to murder."

A month after Olson's capture, this woman, who has already demonstrated her propensity to run from the law and is charged by the state with serious felonies, was released on bail and is subject to an electronic monitoring system. In contrast, the approximate $250,000 which is the value of savings, business and home offered by the parents of Alex Curtis as bail, is rejected at each court hearing. Also, his lawyer's plea that Curtis be put under house arrest and be subjected to a similar electronic monitor, goes unheeded.

While Olson and her many fans and supporters are successfully raising money through a defense fund set up in her behalf, anyone who might contribute money to the defense of Curtis will have to face the possibility of being targeted in the future as a fellow traveler--a "hater" and "racist."

In a society where citizens are thoroughly conditioned to be intolerant of even a vague approximation of "white consciousness," Alex Curtis's rightwing views are held as more contemptible than those of the leftist Olson, who, although charged with the commission of particular felony crimes and implicated in others, is still accorded greater due process of law.

Is there much chance that at some point we will begin to witness organized protests against this lop-sided justice? Not likely, since the typical white American tends to shy away from outspokenness, especially on the subject of race. With social ostracism as the paramount fear, most whites seem satisfied to live within the safety of self-imposed censorship. Given this reality, the rare white who dares to indicate displeasure with the status quo, or unexpectedly erupts in anger, as did baseball player John Rocker, can expect little support from fellow whites and a whole lot of trouble directed his way from a state that is determined to enforce conformity and compliance.

Not content to deny bail to Alex Curtis, not content to hold him in confinement for seven months prior to trial, not content to coerce him into groveling apologies to his tormentors, who have been granted inordinate power over his life, these same tormentors are now evaluating whether or not his apologies are "sincere" and, therefore, acceptable. It couldn't be clearer that this young man is in jail for his beliefs and the thoughts in his head, rather than for any of the trivial pranks for which he is charged. Thought crime prosecution wasn't supposed to happen here, right?

On April 18, as reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Curtis apologized to the bureaucrats whose delicate sensibilities he had offended through his capricious antics. However, to their dissatisfaction, the account goes on to say, Curtis "stopped short of disavowing the white supremacist beliefs he once expressed on his website." Soviet recantation, anyone?

This dangerous thought criminal was surrounded by a battery of federal marshals throughout the apology sessions. The Union-Tribune claims that "Curtis' four victims [victims!] said their sessions with Curtis were emotional and, at times, upsetting." Are these grown-up people we're talking about here?

There seemed to have been much concern about Curtis's demeanor and attitude. One of the "victims," Morris Casuto, regional head of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, claimed, "I don't want him to think a simple 'I'm sorry' is going to cut it with me." Bob Filner, a Congressman who was also a Curtis "victim," lamented, "Somehow, he never learned of the virtues of diversity." Will seven months in a prison cell, with the prospect of spending the rest of his youth there, have taught him these virtues?

They must all have taken satisfaction in Curtis's genuine show of emotion when his parents were mentioned. Lord only knows the threats that probably have been made by the prosecution's crew against his faithful, supportive parents to whom he is very close. As more and more dissident whites are prosecuted, perhaps these enforcers will adopt the Israeli model of leveling and destroying the homes of the parents and relatives of recalcitrant offenders. This might also teach some further lessons about the virtues of diversity.

If his plea bargain goes through, the prosecution, ever so generous, claims it will recommend that Curtis spend only three years in prison for his pranks, instead of the possible ten. For three years after his release, Curtis must refrain from promoting his views on race and immigration. Further, says the prosecutor, Curtis will not be allowed to associate with anyone on a list of 138 people whom the government has targeted as "white supremacists." Curtis's lawyer, Bernard Skomal, says, "He has basically given up his First Amendment rights for three years." Does anyone know of a precedent for these kinds of terms?

Anything can be expected of a justice system that is not about meting out justice to fit the crime, but is merely a tool of self-appointed, vindictive lobby groups with ideological axes to grind. Their aim is clear: after months of incarceration totally demoralizes the stubborn dissident, make him publicly recant all his beliefs, which should fill him with self-loathing, and then let him face the contempt of his peers whose respect he once enjoyed. Alex Curtis's next hearing or trial, or whatever it turns out to be, is scheduled for sometime in June.

How proudly the multiculturalists must chortle over their success in waging their unconstitutional wars, first against the Ku Klux Klan, then against various militia groups, and the Aryan Nations, and the Church of the Creator. And countless individuals. The jackboots have been busy. What satisfaction they must derive from yet another feather in their caps by bringing down a popular figure like Curtis. Can their ultimate prize, Dr. William Pierce of the National Alliance, be far beyond their reach and their schemes of entrapment?

But before the move is made on Pierce, it's likely that law enforcers will hit another angry white troublemaker, who just won't see the light, and has the nerve to believe that he has First Amendment protection to disseminate his views. This is Arizona shortwave radio host and anti-government protester William Cooper, who is currently under investigation for failing to pay income taxes for two years and for writing misinformation on a bank's loan form. For his "heinous" crimes, Police Chief Scott Garms ruminates over the appropriate action to take against Cooper. As reported in the Arizona Republic, our man of the law at least sensibly claims that it might not be wise "to go in and storm that house and make a martyr out of him." But they're thinking about it.

Copyright 2001 © Issues & Views