The “Trump Hate Surge”


In this article the BBC quotes a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report that claims a significant wave of hate crime followed the US presidential election with only a tiny percentage of crimes classified as “anti-Trump”:

‘Trump effect’ led to hate crime surge, report finds

The title of the BBC article states the claim as fact.  It also makes no attempt to question any of the “findings” throughout the whole article.  So, the assertion is stated as fact that there has been a surge in hate crime and that the hate has come almost exclusively from Trump supporters.  To give a bit of perspective on the SPLC, this is a group that has labelled both Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “anti-Muslim extremists”.  In a later article the BBC admits the “evidence” provided in the report was purely anecdotal.

The article concludes by quoting the SPLC’s dig at Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon:

The SPLC has been very critical of Mr Trump’s decision to appoint a right-wing media executive to the role of chief White House strategist.

The group accused Stephen Bannon of being “the main driver behind Breitbart [News] becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill“.

Um, that would be the Breitbart that employs Raheem Kassam the British journalist of Indian and Muslim origin?  The BBC really doesn’t like the upstart Breitbart news organization, that’s something that has been becoming very clear of late.

However in another article a rather different picture starts to emerge (but only if you read the article all the way to the end):

US Election 2016: Are hate crimes spiking after Trump’s victory?

Pride of place of course goes to a young Muslim woman who is mentioned first.  A dreadful story of a hijab being pulled (or almost pulled) off, really terrible.  She decided not to report the terrible hate crime to the police and we will have to take her word for the whole thing, she is reported to have said:

“I decided not to press charges because I’m not here to expose anyone, …”

This apparently was just one of many (alleged) attacks motivated by “racial or religious hatred” which have been claimed on social media but not with any evidence to back them up.

The article then refers to what it calls:

a number of credible reports of hate crimes

which apparently included a couple of incidents of graffiti with swastikas and pro-Trump slogans.  “Credible”, really, in what sense are these “credible” hate crimes?  We don’t know who wrote this graffiti, it could easily have been put there by anti-Trump agitators.  Well, I suppose that would constitute a hate crime against Trump supporters then but we can be sure the BBC have not thought their claim through to that sort of extent.

Hate Hoax: Student Arrested for Alleged Nazi, Anti-Semitic Graffiti

Also mentioned is the alleged robbery of a student who claimed that her purse and car were stolen by two men who “made comments about President-elect Trump and Muslims”.  Again, it seems we only have her word for this whole thing at the moment, so it seems the BBC has now invented a new meaning of the word “credible”.

Then, there is mention of a violent attack by a group of black men who attack and rob a white man shouting “don’t vote Trump” (this story is actually backed up by some video footage although the BBC chooses not to link to the video).  Finally, it seems we have an incident actually backed up with some real video evidence, and its a Trump supporter who is being attacked (or did they just assume he was because he was white?).  There is also reference to an attack on a white schoolgirl Trump supporter by a black schoolmate.  This incident was also supported by video evidence.

So, to summarize this article there are only two incidents described that are actually backed up with hard evidence, and both of these are attacks AGAINST Trump supporters.  However by pushing these two incidents to the end of the article the BBC are downplaying the significance of these incidents in favour of the alleged incidents supposedly BY Trump supporters.

Elsewhere on the web we find actually there have been quite a few more well substantiated cases of attacks against Trump supporters:

In another article, the BBC hints (in their oh so subtle way) that Trump’s promise to defend the USA’s borders constitutes hate speech and suggests that his promises for example to build a wall on the US/Mexico border or stop Muslim immigration could be deemed “unacceptable incitement” “by some”:

Donald Trump: Free speech v hate speech


that a “great, great wall” should be built between the US and Mexico
most recently. that Muslims should be banned from entering the US solely on grounds of their religion

They conclude the article with this following statement which is clearly designed to hint that the USA currently has the balance all wrong:

The contrast between the different legal approaches highlights the difficulty of trying to balance the individual’s right to voicing their own opinion with protecting community interests and deterring hate crimes.


A really shocking story was reported in the Independent about a vicious attack on the New York subway where a Muslim woman ALMOST had her hijab pulled off and ALMOST had her purse stolen while she was travelling on the subway!!!!  The three drunken WHITE (ugh) louts (allegedly) said “Donald Trump” to her among other unspeakable things.  The police have mounted a huge investigation into the alleged assault (or maybe they haven’t).

These white louts (described as “disgusting pigs” by the “victim” (we have to use quotes because the assault is only alleged at this time)) might have tousled her hair as well, but (praises be to Allah) they didn’t manage that.  It could have been REALLY SERIOUS, but it wasn’t. What a relief!  No surveillance evidence or eyewitness testimony or smartphone footage has come to light to back the story up.

[UPDATE – the woman in the hijab in the above story has since been arrested for “filing a false report”.  She could now face up to one year in prison:


Another article in the Independent summarized the terrible wave of vicious hate crime sweeping America since Trump’s election:

Many of the alleged incidents were documented on Facebook, intriguingly few of the many alleged incidents described in this article seems to have involved any actual physical violence beyond the alleged pulling of hijabs and throwing of water.  There was one alleged incident where a young gay man was allegedly assaulted (pictured covered in blood in the article) but this incident has apparently not been reported to the police for some reason, nor do hospitals have any record of treating the victim.  If you can bear to read to the end of this article you will see an update which says a story involving the Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who “had her purse stolen” was fabricated as now admitted apparently by the student herself.  Maybe one or two of the other incidents might have actually happened, you never know…


There seems to have been far more actually documented violence AGAINST Trump supporters but this reality has been inverted by the usual suspects in the mainstream media.


Hate Crime – A Terribly Flawed Concept

Some people seem to think that “hate crime” is the criminalizing of hatred, but that is not generally what is meant by the phrase. The reasoning behind the idea of “hate crime” is that a criminal act should be treated more seriously if it is motivated by hatred. So for example, if a man murders a woman, not just because he wants to steal her belongings, but also because he hates women, then the sentence should be longer (that’s THE idea, not MY idea). Hatred simply on its own is not the crime. “Hate Crime” is also not to be confused with “Hate Speech” which is a different concept.

My purpose in writing this post is to expose the flaws in this idea that evidence of hatred, particularly of a certain group of people, should warrant longer sentences. I believe trying to make such distinctions leads us into a moral quagmire and runs a risk of endangering possibly the most important principle of justice, namely equality before the law. It could also in fact be having exactly the opposite effect to the main effect intended, i.e. it could be increasing disharmony among groups in society.


The first rather enormous problem with the concept of “hate” crime is that a crime may indeed be motivated by hatred, but if there is no evidence of the hatred, if the perpetrator keeps his hatred under wraps as it were, then there is no way of knowing about it. Thus if we apply a harsher sentence only where there is EVIDENCE of hatred, then the law may be being applied unequally.

Read More »