HomeCounter-Racism Radio NetworkCounter-Racism Television NetworkArticlesProjectsCounter-Racism Work/Study ProjectShopping MallContact
Secure DonationsSecure Donations  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  ProfileProfile  Log inLog in

Racist or Racialist?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> Following THE LOGIC
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
truthseeker



Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:18 pm    Post subject: Racist or Racialist? Reply with quote

I've never heard of a "racialist", sounds more like white supremacy confusion....your thoughts?

truthseeker
=========================================

'Racialist' Judge's Rulings to Stick
Richmond judge apologizes, retires after racist remarks; defendants
unlikely to ask for retrial
By Dahna M. Chandler

Though Richmond lawyers have been bracing themselves for a slew of
challenges to rulings by General District Court Judge Ralph B.
Robertson, whose racist remarks between January 25 and February 19,
2004 in the Atticus chat room on Yahoo! Groups led to his retirement,
few such challenges appear imminent.

In his chat room comments, Robertson, who left the bench in late
February after his remarks became public, supported the notion that
African Americans are genetically predisposed to criminal activity.
After being challenged for agreeing with another chatter who said
some minorities "have no regard for sanitation, courtesy, private
property, etc.," he quipped, "a broom costs about the same as a
bottle of Wild Irish Rose."

Despite apologizing for his remarks, his opinions have fueled a
debate about his ability to be fair and impartial in sentencing his
mostly African American defendants. But, as a Richmond General
District Court judge, Robertson, who served 19 years on the bench and
was elected to his fourth six-year term last year, presided over
misdemeanor cases for which he could sentence a defendant to a
maximum of 12 months or a $2,500 fine. He had no jurisdiction in
felony cases.

There is no jury in General District Court and relatively few
defendants are sentenced, with two-thirds of cases dismissed or plea
agreements reached without a judge's involvement. That limited
jurisdiction makes it unlikely, according to attorney Craig Cooley,
who represented convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, that any of the
numerous defendants he represented before Robertson will request
their cases be reconsidered.

"None of my clients have requested their case be retried before
another judge," says Cooley. Most, he says, do not feel that
Robertson's sentence was unfair and would have appealed their
sentence within 10 days of the Judge's decision if they had.

Richmond Commonwealth's Senior Attorney and President of the Richmond
Criminal Bar Association, Michelle Welch agrees. "I haven't heard any
scuttlebutt in courthouse hallways about defendants clamoring to have
their sentences overturned by another judge." She says the
Commonwealth's Attorney is no longer expecting defendants to contest
Robertson's rulings.

Despite contentions that challenges to Judge Robertson's decisions
are not as likely as originally believed, Richmond Public Defender,
David Johnson, says, "We sent out letters to the 27 defendants who
were convicted during Robertson's last 60 days on the bench,
informing them of their right to have their cases tried before a new
judge," if they feel Judge Robertson's decisions were tainted by his
racial beliefs. Virginia law allows a defendant to petition the court
to reopen their case for "good cause" within 60 days of conviction.

Of those who may have received sentences or served prison time and
now feel their sentences were influenced adversely by Robertson's
racial beliefs but whose right of appeal expired, Representative
Bobby Scott (D-Richmond) says, "They would have to make a strong case
that they were not guilty and were unjustly convicted. But, then,
they would have to explain why they did not avail themselves of their
automatic appeal right."

Although Scott doesn't understand how Robertson could have been on
the bench as long as he was with his views, he says it would be
procedurally difficult to set aside a conviction after the time for
appeal has passed, except if someone is still incarcerated. "In those
cases, it creates a very difficult situation because people feel that
they were unfairly convicted and now they have a criminal record," he
states.

Cooley, too, was flabbergasted by Robertson's [remarks]
asserts, "I've never had a defendant want to appeal their sentence
because they thought Robertson was racist," he continues, adding that
he didn't think Robertson's appeal rate was any higher than any of
the other District Court judges. "In fact," he says, "I think it was
far lower."

For his part, Robertson maintains he's a "racialist" rather than
a "racist," the former, he implies is a racial realist while the
latter is a bigot. He asks African Americans to understand "that I
have never done anything in my court that has ever reflected racism.
I have made many friends in the African American community, and I
hope they will accept this apology."


But, says Scott, "If those are his views, it's appropriate for him to
have retired. The remarks are obviously indefensible and I cannot
imagine any context in which those words would have been
appropriate." Robertson's retirement will be official beginning April
1, 2004.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3083
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Racist or Racialist? Reply with quote

truthseeker wrote:
I've never heard of a "racialist", sounds more like white supremacy confusion....your thoughts?

truthseeker

I suspect you are correct. The racists (white supremacists) don't want anyone to be convicted of racism (white supremacy) because there are criteria that goes with that. If someone is convicted of being a racist (white supremacist) someone has to decide what the person says and/or does (criteria) that has defined that person as a racist (white supremacist). Once this is done you can take that criteria and measure any white person against it and sue them for millions of dollars.

Notice how even the word "racialist" is not defined in the article. They'll say someone made "racist remarks" but no one is saying he's a racist (white supremacist)? What kind of logic is that?

Check what he wrote...

[/quote="Judge Robertson']For his part, Robertson maintains he's a "racialist" rather than
a "racist," the former, he implies is a racial realist while the
latter is a bigot. He asks African Americans to understand "that I
have never done anything in my court that has ever reflected racism.
I have made many friends in the African American community, and I
hope they will accept this apology."
[/quote]

He implies? See, this is the reason you have to get a definition of the word. Now neither of the supposed definitions say anything about mistreating people on the basis of color but the entire article is about "African Americans" (colored/non-white people) being mistreated...

...you gotta follow THE LOGIC.

Someone should ask him if he's a white person and then ask him what is a "realist".
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> Following THE LOGIC All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Web CalendarShopping MallDonations