CNN reported on a situation in London, England on December 29, 2019, of antisemitic graffiti being painted across the city.

The article read:

“Police in London are investigating anti-Semitic graffiti found scrawled across shop fronts, restaurants and a synagogue as a possible hate crime.

Is there any question that anti-Semitic graffiti is a hate crime?

The FBI defines hate crimes by breaking down both “hate” and “crime.” It does this being mindful of the First Amendment noting “Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.”

Vandalism is clearly part of the definition, as is deliberately targeting a religious house of worship or tying the commentary to a group’s religion as it states: “FBI has defined a hate crime as a ‘criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.‘”

In England, the definition of a hate crime is much the same: “The term ‘hate crime’ can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim’s disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. These aspects of a person’s identity are known as ‘protected characteristics’. A hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property.”

The case in London is seemingly so clear cut, why is there a question about the incidents being hate crimes?

When mosques were burned in Sweden, why was The New York Times quick to point out the anti-Muslim sentiment of the act, but when synagogues in France were fire-bombed and Jews attacked, the Times noted that there was just a “tinge” of anti-Semitism?

When vandals destroyed a Jewish cemetery in the United States, why was the Times reluctant to clearly label the attack on Jews?

Why does the United Nations go through great lengths to distance religion from hate crimes when the perpetrators are Muslim, but does it explicitly without pause if the extremists are Jews?

There are huge swathes of the world – including the United Nations and progressive politicians and media – which are having a very tough time recognizing hate crimes against Jews even as they magnify them against other minorities, while at the same time going out of their way to label Jews as perpetrators of crimes while minimizing crimes committed by other religious groups. These continuing actions make them accomplices to the war on Jews, and arguably subject to prosecution as well.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Anti-Semitism Is Harder to Recognize Than Racism