Black panther intimidating
But then, it has been decades since the commission held a hearing about the threats and intimidation carried out by an organization that the Anti-Defamation League categorizes as a hate group — in this case, the New Black Panther Party.
Commission on Civil Rights — but never before to one where there were armed security guards.
In fact, there is nothing the New Black Panthers have ever said or done to suggest that they don’t believe what they did was intimidating to people they hate. These were the three men who had attempted to protect prospective voters in Philadelphia on Election Day.
One later testified that he did notice his picture being taken by Shabazz.
That same DOJ leadership apparently doesn’t believe the NBPP was engaging in intimidation when it sent thugs uniformed like Mussolini’s blackshirts, one with a billy club, to stand in front of the entrance to a polling place. In the middle of it, King Samir Shabazz, the Panther who swung the billy club on Election Day, got up, moved to the side of the hearing room slightly in front of the witnesses, and photographed the three men seated at the witness table testifying against him.On Friday, April 23, the commission finally held its long-delayed hearing on the Justice Department’s now-infamous dismissal of almost all the cases it had already won by default against three members of the NBPP and the party itself for voter intimidation in Philadelphia in the November 2008 election. A number of Panthers, including two of the defendants in the lawsuit the DOJ dropped (Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz), marched into the hearing room in their black, fascist-style paramilitary uniforms.The very fact that the NBPP showed up in force refutes the claim made by the DOJ’s leadership that the case was dismissed because there was no evidence of coordination between the national organization and the Philadelphia chapter.Thus, if the two men were lawfully invoking their Fifth Amendment right, that means that they were conceding that their actions not only violated the Voting Rights Act — which is a civil matter — but might also subject them to criminal prosecution. C., never even appeared for his deposition when subpoenaed.
It’s hard to see any reason for taking their photographs in such a way other than to try to intimidate them.
Or does an advocate of genocide just want to add pictures to his scrapbook?