Debating a Nazi
By Daryle Lamont Jenkins
It is early morning, and I am dog tired, but when I found out about Paula Harris, the head of the Harrisburg, Pa. NAACP agreeing to a debate with Matt Hale on Feb. 16. I started to get very concerned. There is so much going through my head right now, and it all needs to come out right now, before everyone goes on their usual stances, so here goes.

Hale's freedom of speech, as is always the case whenever racists try to do something, is protected. It has to be. We are using that same freedom of speech to respond to the scum. No one opposes him because he has something to say. They oppose the beliefs he espouses, and it is the proliferation of those beliefs that people are most concerned about. Among those beliefs, as alluded to above, is the belief that certain people should not be allowed the freedoms and liberties he enjoys. In other words while we are defending freedoms for him, he is advocating taking them away from us! That is primarily, by the way the reason why him getting a license to practice law should be opposed. If he will not uphold the law, he should not be allowed to be a representative of it.

Having said that it should be noted what is happening. Hale and the assorted racists that will show their faces on Feb. 16 could care less what people think of them. Remember, the World Church of the Creator believes that those who are not white are the enemy and that they must hate and destroy their enemies. They have even been connected to acts, and planned acts of violence, such as the Benjamin "August" Smith case, where the 21-year-old went on a two state shooting spree, killing two and injuring several more before killing himself. The debate will be nothing more for an infomercial for Matt Hale, and while it also gives his opposition a chance to make their stances clear, his opposition does not need him to do that. Rather, he needs them to promote himself. Those who choose to have a public debate with Hale have to ask what is there to gain from the event.

I am not entirely opposed to the debate, however. We believe that any ideal, no matter how foul warrants discussion. Although it was more of a shouting match than a debate, I even had a few words with Hale during his February, 2001 public meeting in Decatur, IL. If we are so opposed to what a person believes we should be able to explain why to those who inquire. That is how we keep them from going down that wrong path.

What puts Hale's position on another plateau is the fact that we have put his beliefs into practice before, and have seen, been victim of, and still suffer from the devastating effects of those beliefs. Part of what frustrates many anti-racist groups and individuals is many of those who engage in these debates seldom make note of this, not even to show how the person they are debating in particular might be part of the problem. If this debate takes place, Hale needs to be confronted on praising Benjamin Smith as a martyr, on why he feels he should practice law when he will not defend it for all people, on his overall belief that whites are superior and should in effect wipe out all other races. He should not be simply asked why he feels that way. He should be told definitively why he is wrong! Use the examples of history, show the success stories of those he hates to prove him wrong. Do NOT go down the usual path of praising diversity and unity via the "we are all part of the human race" line. That does not answer the questions for those asking them, and they will not be dissuaded from the attraction of a guy like Hale.

Let us also be clear about something else. This is not a game. Should anyone have any doubts of this they will be reminded of this fact courtesy of those from both sides who will be outside the forum, not able to get inside because the place reached capacity or had some arraigned seating that shut them out. You will have the assorted white supremacists on one side, who want to support an ideology of oppression and genocide, and the anti-racists on the other side who want to prevent that. When Hale holds his public meetings, or when other white supremacist groups hold rallies on courthouse steps, the NAACP are among those who try to encourage the anti-racist groups and individuals, and especially the people local to the area to stay away from the event, as that hate group is to be ignored. Now they themselves are bringing Hale to Harrisburg. They can no longer tell anyone to stay away, and those outside who want this debate are going to have it.

I do not believe much thought was given into accepting the debate with Hale, but in Ms. Harris we are dealing with, for the most part, a politician, who like most politicians, care more about self-promotion than of the people and causes she campaigns for. I think that is my greatest concern, the thing that causes me to write this with little sleep. Did she even talk with people in her community about this? Did she think that maybe they should perhaps have a forum for the local people to come out and vent their spleen about their concerns before bringing a fellow self-promoter like Hale to talk about a community he has nothing to do with? If I had the confidence that this was done in a real attempt to end a lot of the racial tensions in that area, I would be fine with this. I do not feel that way, however, and when this is over, I doubt I would have changed my mind.

It is going to be a tense-filled month leading up to Feb. 16, and that night will be another powder keg much like York. If we as a people are so concerned about racism, than we are going to have to come up with real solutions to that problem. We need to answer each other's questions about each other, and we need to reign in all of those who divide us for their own personal gain, no matter where they are in life. Having a vanity debate is not going to do it. Coming to the table with real leaders will. Hopefully Harrisburg will still be standing after this event long enough to give it a shot.