Reply #71: You have no problem with selective enforcement? [View All]

[Shaktimaan]

What if America chose to give black criminals far higher sentences than white ones? Or only really investigated crimes committed by black people, barring a few un-ignorable crimes by whites?

Would you argue that no problem exists? That it is OK if the courts exist solely for the prosecution of black people and the protection of whites, because the black people who were convicted were truly guilty?

Guilt and innocence is only one aspect of justice. Another one is the assurance that the law is applied equally to all. After all, what is a court worth if its only purpose is to enforce the laws against one ethnicity?

If the HRC's goal is to ferret out human rights violations in Israel alone, then it is fair to ask who is looking after the rest of the world? When you argue that no problem exists you are arguing that the intended purpose of the HRC is unnecessary. That fighting for human rights everywhere is less important than ensuring that Israel is closely watched so that any infraction can be pounced upon.

You are arguing that a human rights worker who comes across a murder scene in Palestine, and discovers upon investigation that the murderers were Hamas and not Israel, has no obligation to prosecute Hamas just as they would Israel. That there is nothing wrong with her just walking away from the murder scene to go in search of a crime that Israel did commit. Even if that crime is far less significant.

Let me boil it down to one question... Is it OK for a court to only prosecute black people, if they make sure that those people are indeed guilty, and let everyone who isn't black get off scot-free?