Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Immigration reform

FAIR

If FAIR is a "high profile player", then what does that make the SPLC? Do they consider themselves part of the "immigration debate"? Because in no part of this "report" are immigration policies and issues actually addressed. As per usual, the SPLC shuts down rational debate by engaging in ad hominem attacks (based on the personal correspondence of Mr. Tanton). It is easy to see why. The "immigration reform" SPLC refers to is "amnesty" for illegal aliens. However, it is FAIR that is really more in line with main stream views. According to a nationwide Rasmussen poll conducted in February of 2010, 68% of voters believe that gaining control of the border is more important than granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Only 26% see amnesty as a solution to the problem.

FAIR has over 250,000 other members. Are they and the 68% of the country who support border controls also bigots and "racial extremist"? Because Mr. Tanton once corresponded with "leading white nationalist thinkers", this effectively shuts down discussion against illegal immigration and the wishes of the majority? According to Dan Stein, Executive Director of FAIR:

"Long considered the most credible voice on U.S. immigration policy in America today, FAIR has been asked by Congress to testify on a wide range of issues - well over 100 times - and is a routine voice on national television. FAIR and its law firm affiliate the Immigration Reform Law Institute routinely submit both popular and scholarly articles for publication and our research division puts out some of the best fact-based immigration analysis in the country.

The SPLC has never been a policy player in this arena - indeed it has never articulated any real vision for U.S. immigration policy. It has never taken issue with any policy position FAIR has ever taken. ...So imagine my surprise when FAIR began to be aggressively criticized by the "Intelligence Project" of the Southern Poverty Law Center - beginning in 2001 and culminating in 2007 with the ludicrous declaration that FAIR is a "hate group." The designation was not made on the basis of FAIR's years of public statements, institutional conduct or specific policy positions. It was based on mere innuendo and was timed to coincide with a coordinated series of political attacks on everyone - members of the media, other organizations, politicians and a wide range of private citizens - who are working for better immigration enforcement."

Subjective 'hate'

According to FAIR:

"While disavowing any position on immigration policy, the SPLC has for nearly a decade targeted organizations and individuals who support immigration enforcement... The SPLC concluded that just about everyone actively opposed to amnesty and mass immigration was a 'nativist' a 'white supremacist', or had ties to such groups and individuals."

At no point do they address actual issues attempt to debunk any of FAIR’s studies. This policy of guilt by association is so tenuous, they have attacked FAIR for receiving contributions from someone whose deceased father was allegedly a "white supremacist". The SPLC is the origin of a number of anti-immigration enforcement myths, including the "explosion of hate crimes against Hispanics due to the rhetoric of opponents of amnesty."

What defines a 'hate crime'?

The term "hate crime" is subjective. For example, when Hispanics are attacked by whites, they are listed as victims. However Hispanics are listed as Whites if they commit anti-Black hate crimes. According to FAIR, "Hate crimes" against Hispanics have actually decreased, when taking into account the increase in their population due to open borders policies which the SPLC promotes. Yet, according to the SPLC, opponents of illegal immigration must silenced because they "promote violence".

The Department of Homeland Security’s well publicized report on "right wing extremism", relied heavily on the SPLC. It also warned that "disgruntled" veterans returning from overseas were potential terrorists. To back up this claim, they cited an SPLC report entitled "A Few Bad Men", which claimed that racists were infiltrating the military. This report conveniently coincided with their attack on the American Legion for its support immigration enforcement, which they referred to as "Legionnaires' Disease."

According to a 2005 CNN poll, 87% of Americans do not support illegal immigration and want it stopped.

White Nationalism

Carol M. Swain is the author of The New White Nationalism in America and a frequent critique of SPLC:

"I have received (e-mails) over the years from whites who confess to having been raised in liberal democratic- homes, but who are now flirting with white nationalism. These whites express frustration with immigration, black crime rates, racial preferences, and demographic changes reducing the percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the population. They see themselves as the "real" victims of racial discrimination, who have no recourse left other than to organize themselves for self-preservation. Many people believe that these concerns and attitudes belong to a radical fringe. I disagree."

In seems ironic the SPLC would stoop to such tactics as relentless stereotyping, fear mongering and demands for censorship; similar to those historically used to marginalize minorities and immigrants. Such unproductive policies surely have far more detrimental effects than real or imagined sinister connections of immigration reform and other groups. At one point, SPLC even featured an article attacking The Lord of the Rings movies as "Eurocentric", comparing them to "promotional ads for those tired old race and gender paradigms.",

Globalization

The SPLC has received funding form George Soros, who favors globalization policies.

Direct action

A Fall of 2002 Intelligence Report entitled From Push to Shove, was filled with inaccuracies and speculation. For example, a 2001 assassination in the Netherlands is described as "an apparent eco-assassination":

"Van der Graaf may have been enraged by Fortuyn's support of pig farmers in a debate with animal rights activists."

However, according to a statement from Pigs in Need, an animal rights group:

"Pim Fortuyn had reasonable views on the bio-industry, Fortuyn believed that new agricultural policy needed to be animal friendly." In a recent book, Fortuyn wrote, "Animal welfare must be a priority and we need to switch to less industrial production methods."

The assassination was attributed to Fortuyn's views on religion and immigration. ,

The report heavily referenced Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), without a single mention of its three decades worth of surrounding controversy. HLS is the 3rd largest contract research organization (CRO) in the world and the largest animal testing facility in Europe. It is a notorious laboratory with a long history of gross animal welfare violations on two continents. They are the only laboratory in the United Kingdom ever to have their license revoked by the government. HLS was the subject of a shocking 1997 BBC documentary which resulted in unprecedented arrests and prosecution of laboratory technicians for animal cruelty. See also Huntingdon Life Sciences.

According to the SPLC, "the use of animals in research has decreased in the last few decades, according to government estimates".

Animal testing is at an all time high with approximately 150 million animals a year used worldwide in experiments. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials, subsequently fail human trials. , See also animal testing.

SPLC made repeated attempts to associate the AR/eco movements with unrelated crimes. This included a bizarre connection to "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, because he once read an Earth First! journal. The term "eco-terrorism" is applied to the group Stop Hungtingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), although they aren't even an eco group. Earth Liberation Front's policy on disassociating itself from violent actions is described as a "crucial escape clause" and "refusing to take responsibility for any actions that harm humans."

Violence against acivists & animals

The only attempted murder in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement was coordinated by corporate provocateurs. However, there have been a number of incidents involving victimized animal activists who have been injured or killed, including the unprosecuted murders of two British teenagers. There is of course, massive, systemic violence in all animal industries. Virtually all animal abuse goes unreported and non-prosecuted. See also War on Animals. In March of 2006, six young webmasters were the first individuals to be convicted for "animal enterprise terrorism" for posting information on a website. They are currently serving up to six years in prison for their speech. See also AETA, section 7.