[This article by Gregory Hood was originally published at American Renaissance on 28 November 2017. We discussed this on The Daily Planet this morning, and I found it to be an article of such importance that I asked the Editors at American Renaissance for permission to republish the article at The Revolutionary Conservative. You can read the original here. – Augustus Invictus, Publisher]
The rule of law is fading for white advocates.
The bodies of the victims were barely cold, and most of the people in the colony wanted to see the British soldiers hanged. But John Adams believed there was a principle at stake: “Council [sic] ought to be the very last thing that an accused person should want in a free Country,” he wrote. “That the Bar in my opinion ought to be independent and impartial at all times, And in every circumstance. And that persons whose Lives were at Stake ought to have the Council they preferred.” The Massachusetts lawyer went on to defend the men accused in the “Boston Massacre;” this took impartiality and courage that became part of his legend and for which he is honored to this day.
Adams’s actions were based on English law, knowledge of the “rights of Englishmen,” and precedents established in the Common Law over centuries. John Adams wasn’t rebelling against his Anglo-Saxon heritage; he was acting in its finest traditions.
Today, the Anglo-Saxon legacy of American law is seen as a badge of shame. “Critical race theory” has infected the legal profession, and is gradually stripping whites of legal protections even King George III’s subjects took for granted.
Already, lawyers are being targeted simply for defending those who are “far-right.” The American Civil Liberties Union has long been known as principled defenders of free speech. In the run up to the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the ACLU stood up for the rights of demonstrators, even joining a lawsuit against the city for trying to move the rally location at the last minute. Leftists on Twitter responded by fiercely attacking the ACLU before the rally.
The criticism had the intended effect. In the aftermath of Unite The Right, the ACLU announced it would be weakening its free speech stance, would no longer defend groups who bring firearms to their events, and would examine prospective clients on a “case by case” basis. But this didn’t spare it condemnation.
At the College of William & Mary, the nation’s second oldest university and the alma mater of presidents Jefferson, Monroe, and Tyler, a “Black Lives Matter” student group shouted down the executive director of the ACLU in Virginia. Slogans chanted by the affirmative action students included “ACLU, you protect Hitler too,” “the oppressed are not impressed,” and “ACLU, free speech for who?”
In a country with the rule of law, a legal right of free speech applies to everyone. And yes, the rule of law would protect even “Hitler.” Yet not only are leftists willing openly to deny the rule of law, they physically threaten lawyers who are willing to defend white advocates.
For example, a lawyer in Sacramento is described by antifa as a “danger to the community” because he is defending members of the Traditionalist Worker Party. His enemies describe Danny Brace as a “scumbag attorney to neo-Nazis” and have made him the subject of a “neighborhood safety alert.” How does he endanger the community? He’s “taking the money of neo-Nazis and providing legal services to them, enabling their violence and hateful actions.”
Mr. Brace is simply representing a client accused of a crime. This is what lawyers do, and it doesn’t appear to reflect any political motivation. Indeed, it appears that Mr. Brace is also representing a non-white man accused of murder, an alleged gang member in the Tongan Crips. Does defending this client mean Mr. Brace is “enabling” murder and gang membership? Or is it only racially aware whites who should be denied counsel?
All right, let us assume that lawyers should not represent white dissidents because they will be accused of being sympathizers. It follows then that white dissidents must become lawyers themselves, because no one will represent them. But apparently, this is also forbidden. Attorney Glen Allen was fired by the city of Baltimore because of information found in records more than a decade old that were probably stolen from the now all-but-defunct National Alliance. Mr. Allen supposedly attended a conference or bought reading material. Therefore, he was fired as a lawyer simply for associating with a group liberals do not like, not because of any professional misconduct over a career of many years.
Another target is Evan McLaren, a graduate of Penn State’s Dickinson School of Law, who recently passed the bar, and who once clerked for the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. [Publisher’s Note: We discussed this case at The Daily Planet on 15 November 2017.] Media are demanding that Mr. McLaren be denied the right to practice law because he is “dedicated to the preservation of white heritage and identity.” Mr. McLaren’s former classmates are also rushing to denounce him, declaring that the true role of a lawyer is to “expand the definition of equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (How naïve to think a lawyer’s job is to advocate for clients under existing laws!) And the office he once worked for is scandalized that he turned out to be an “alt-rightist.”
Mr. McLaren’s hysterical critics seem not to have noticed that he has broken no laws and made no threats of violence. Even those who disagree with the Alt-Right, such as Mike Cernovich, understand this is a troubling precedent.
Far left HuffPo want to prevent a man from becoming a lawyer because they disagree with his beliefs.
— Mike Cernovich 🇺🇸 (@Cernovich) November 13, 2017
Needless to say, Mr. Shabazz encountered no problems practicing law. He has been sanctioned by the DC Bar, but only for professional violations such as “failing to safe-keep a client’s property.” He is now representing Corey Long, the black man who used a flamethrower against Unite the Right demonstrators. A Baptist church in Charlottesville invited him to host a town hall meeting, but cancelled at the last minute after protests from Jewish groups. Mr. Shabazz still held a press conference at the statue of General Lee where, as he has his entire career, he made veiled threats: “Your help has come—legal or otherwise,” he told black residents.
In contrast, even death does not shield white lawyers from condemnation. To use an example from Canada, Barbara Kulaszka recently died and a memorial was held for her at a Toronto public library. However, a coalition of multicultural and “human rights” groups tried to get the memorial cancelled. Bernie Faber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, told the Toronto Star that “Barbara Kulaszka was a fellow traveler in hate groups in this country.” He added: “She provided legal counsel to neo-Nazis, racists and bigots, and in fact ensured, through some of the work that she did, that hate laws and neo-Nazis and even Nazi war criminals would not be prosecuted in this country.” The fact that courts actually agreed with Kulaszka’s arguments appears to have been an additional reason to halt her memorial.
The next step after denying whites counsel is denying them legal redress. The Michigan Court of Appeals took a step in this direction by ruling in favor of the Detroit Free Pressagainst talk-show host James Edwards. [Publisher’s Note: We discussed this case at The Daily Planet on 06 November 2017.] The Free Press had called Mr. Edwards a “leader of the Ku Klux Klan.” He has never even been a member, and he sued for libel. The court ruled against him because, quoting Aesop, “a man is known by the company he keeps,” thus arguing that white advocacy is the same as leading the Klan. This would be like getting court approval for claiming that Jesse Jackson is a leader of the New Black Panther Party. As James Fulford of VDARE.com noted, “the facts don’t matter—even when the Main Stream Media outlet is apprised of them.”
Rather than ensuring equal protection under the law, the system that is emerging is increasingly political. The bad guys—white advocates—may be denied legal representation, participation in the legal system, and even legal redress. In contrast, anti-whites can use the system freely. The system ensures that “racists” are punished and “anti-racists” rewarded, instead of ensuring that all citizens live under the same rule of law.
Ironically, this new standard is now backfiring on one leftist lawyer. Doug Jones is the Democrat nominee in the Alabama Senate race. He has built his candidacy chiefly around how he had bravely prosecuted “two of the four Ku Klux Klan members responsible for the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in September 1963.” This is hardly a profile in courage; a prosecutor is supposed to prosecute murderers, whatever their politics. Nonetheless, Mr. Jones brags about it on his campaign website.
However, during the 1980s, Mr. Jones worked as a private attorney and defended Tom Posey. Mr. Posey helped arm rebels in Nicaragua as founder of the Civilian Military Assistance (CMA) paramilitary group. The CMA reportedly had “ties with the KKK and Holocaust deniers,” according to Fox News. (At least stronger ties to the KKK than James Edwards.)
A prosecutor should, in theory, prosecute every crime he can. In contrast, as a private defense attorney, Mr. Jones could have declined to represent Mr. Posey. Instead, he made money helping him beat the rap of weapons smuggling, and Mr. Posey went on to have a lurid career in paramilitary activities, which was carefully monitored by the FBI.
If Mr. Jones wants to cover himself in glory for simply doing his job as a prosecutor, it seems fair he should accept blame for defending Mr. Posey to get more money. To use antifa’s logic, he was “enabling” Mr. Posey’s career.
Of course, Mr. Jones was just providing counsel. But according to antifa and their media allies, it’s scandalous if pro-whites participate in the legal system or receive proper legal representation, and those who represent them are culpable. Mr. Jones can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim to be a hero for doing his job in one case and then deny moral responsibility in another.
If leftists claim this is an unfair standard, they need to question the kind of legal system they are creating through militant “anti-racism.” The claim “justice is blind,” meaning that there is an equal standard of justice that applies to all, is being abandoned. White should think twice before assuming that the “rule of law” still applies to them.
John Adams was once an exemplar of how a lawyer should act, fearlessly fighting for unpopular clients’ interests even at the cost of his reputation. Today, John Adams would be just another “Nazi.” The claim everyone deserves counsel would be “enabling hate.” And the argument everyone has the right to legal redress would be called just another racist relic—just like everything else the Founding Fathers gave us.