There is a growing ideological trend that seeks to deprive those broadly considered to being “on the right” of any and all rights, through dehumanization and the systematic exclusion from key institutions.
Most of us expect such an attitude among young college students, who have limited life experience and have not yet met the human beings with whom they disagree and about whose lives they are so cavalier. But this ideological malice is far more pervasive than that. No longer seen as extreme, we live among those who maintain a sort of nonchalant malevolence. Those who have redefined speech as violence need little help in the justification of retribution against their enemies.
I lived this reality in a small way when I was made a victim of a minor crime in an American city.
It was a cold Sunday afternoon in February. I was recovering from illness and had returned home after Mass to change into more casual attire. Thereafter, I ventured outside with my small dog, Leo, for a quiet afternoon walk. After walking about 100 yards up the hill, a white SUV pulled up rapidly a few yards in front of me, and the passenger-side window rolled down. A friend lived in that house, and it was not her car, making it all the more strange.
I turned my head as I walked by, only to see the driver performing a sex act while staring at me angrily. I continued walking and took another street, hopeful that perhaps I had misinterpreted what I had seen. Then, as I looked ahead down this new street, I saw the white SUV once again, this time facing me. The driver had moved his car so that I might walk past him again, at which time he repeated his action. Again, he made eye contact and stared with rage.
After passing his car, I looked back and acquired his license plate and other key details about his vehicle. When I returned home, I called and notified the police.
At first, law enforcement seemed uninterested, unless it could be shown that I was not this man’s first victim. Social media posts indicated that this was a growing pattern for him.
Finally, charges were filed, and he was arrested.
Through his lawyer, he attempted to get the charges dropped in exchange for community service. I fought against that, telling the DA’s office that this was not a slip by an otherwise upstanding citizen, but a precursor by a disordered man. Rage and sex do not coexist in healthy people. The perpetrator needs to at least have a record, for the sake of his next victim.
After a series of delays and canceled court dates, we finally met each other in court. I testified to what had happened, and the District Attorney’s office tried to bring the other victims to light, but those women had not gotten the perpetrator’s license plate. Thus, they were dismissed as hearsay and did not count.
With me as the only remaining witness, his lawyer decided on a character assassination. “Do you think the West is in decline?” he asked incredulously. I was confused because I thought that was demonstrable. Could it really be true that some people think our society is going in a positive direction?
“You’re a cultural commentator, aren’t you?” he asked pointedly.
When asked about the purpose of this line of questioning, he began reading a highly curated list of titles from my work over the years.
“America isn’t Racist Enough,” he began. It was a sarcastic title for a piece about how the country clearly is not racist enough for those who are faking their own hate crimes.
“Why Not To Celebrate MLK Jr. Day,” he continued. I oppose the holiday and Martin Luther King’s veneration because it is bad for a society to herald the morally unscrupulous, even when most people do not know the details thereof (which I explained in a video by that title).
He continued reading off other headlines, as the majority-black courtroom turned cold. I was not allowed to respond or explain. In that moment, I saw how precarious justice becomes when a person’s rights depend not on objective evidence but on whether one’s beliefs offend the sensibilities of the room.
The lawyer’s claim was really two-fold—the first explicit, and the second implicit:
- That my accusation against his (white) client was merely fodder for a video/essay.
- That my alleged racism should deprive me of justice in a courtroom.
If the first claim were taken to its natural end, then all writers, journalists, and commentators would have no right to justice. They would sacrifice all meaningful protections of the state at the picking up of a pen. Anything that happens to them could become a story, and so they cannot be trusted to report their maltreatment. Nevermind the obvious truth that if they wanted to invent stories, they could do so without involving law enforcement and blaming innocent people.
The second, and implicit, claim is more pernicious. The man whom I accused was white, so the accusation was not that my testimony was biased against a black man, but that my ideology should deprive me of the right to legal redress. It was that my moral character is such that criminal actions against me ought to be ignored. If my viewpoints on entirely unrelated topics are egregious enough to the court, then maybe it is actually okay that it happened.
The judge, to her credit, found the perpetrator guilty, for which he served all of eight community service hours, but at least now carries a criminal record.
The significance of this story is not that my worldview was grossly misrepresented (though it was), but that there is a growing notion that some people deserve to be victims as a result of their ideology. We see it every time a new video shows a group of 15 people kicking an unconscious victim on the ground, and commentators ask, “But what did he say first?”
A Portland jury found a black man, Gary Edwards, not guilty of assault after stabbing a white man with a knife because it was alleged that the white man had used a racial slur, and thus the stabbing was “self-defense.” Security cameras showed Edwards approaching his prey with the fixed-blade knife in hand, while the victim sat on a bench. Edwards is a homeless man with a long history of criminal behavior, including a prior assault. None of that mattered as much as what the victim said.
We saw the same mentality in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, when people dug through hundreds of hours of footage, searching for his most ‘offensive’ statements, so that they could justify what had happened to him and his family. Thousands of educated people in respectable careers jumped online after his death to blame him for having the audacity to speak.
This ideology exists in courtrooms across America. It is not exclusively the domain of young ideologues anymore. It is held by lawyers, medical professionals, teachers, and many of the people you know.
My experience was a reminder that the erosion of rights never begins with mass movements or sweeping laws, but with the quiet shift in what people believe others deserve. A country cannot survive when justice is reduced from an objective absolute to a negotiable idea that is only seized when the victims and perpetrators align with our cultural vendettas. If we do not confront this mindset clearly, publicly, and without fear, then the next victim of “deserved” violence will not be an exception. It will be the new normal.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Sarah Cain identifies the corruption of justice, when guilt or innocence is not determined by evidence of evil, unlawful intent, rather by what side of the cultural divide you’re on, “I saw how precarious justice becomes when a person’s rights depend not on objective evidence but on whether one’s beliefs offend the sensibilities of the room”.
This has taken place preeminently but not exclusively in the public domain. Many of our justices, all opposed to the present administration, and who supported Biden’s moral anarchy, are Soros appointees, Leftists elected by Soros’ money and his determination to wreck our nation – a nation which he declared was the major impediment to global justice. George Soros [et Al], who calls himself a kindly old man is a secular Marxist, meaning one who adheres to socialism on a global rather than national platform. Whether we agree or disagree with Trump’s policies he presents a momentary impediment to a Leftist anarchist nation.
As such Catholics cannot distance themselves from politics, particularly with the Cupiches of our Church having gained influence. Leo XIV seems in line with this moral pacifism, engagement with the Left. A reason why the upcoming January Cardinals Consistory presents a crossroad for good or bad. Prayer is in order, although there’s every reason to make our voices heard.
Bravo to Sarah Cain for her courage in taking this low life to court. Law is NOT the same as justice, as many of us have sadly observed over the Biden years, as govt agencies were weaponized against average citizens. The persecution of Pro-lifers on absurd grounds is one such obvious example. The ongoing persecution of Donald Trump is another. Reality and laws were twisted and new hybrid charges concocted to do as much damage to people as possible. As someone once remarked, it doesnt matter if you are innocent. They are not interested in that. The process is the punishment, breaking many innocent people financially and ruining reputations. It is unAmerican and disgusting.
In the midst of this, the charge of racism became to go-to threat to ruin people. We see this presently in the investigation of a potential 9 billion dollar embezzlement by Somali’s in Minnesota. It has come out that whistleblowers and the DEM party alike were threatened with such accusations of racism there if they went public. And of course the dems, ever putting Americans last, did not wish to lose this voting block and remained silent. The theft lumbered on in plain sight.
It is past time to end DEI , wokeism, and reverse racism wherever it is found in the US. Its implementation has done the country immense damage and revived old hatreds. This is not a plus for us as a nation and it must end. Judges who will not take a colorblind or politically blind approach must be removed from the bench. Ditto, legislators with obvious racial animus must be voted out, or impeached if necessary to remove them from office. Excellence is the only standard which is fair. In the case of some occupations, ( Medicine, pilot) its the only standard which is SAFE.
Lastly, I HAVE no slave owners in my family genealogy, which reaches back some 400 years in this country. Racism is just as noxious when practiced by blacks as by whites. Leftists need to stop acting like all whites are responsible for slavery, or that whiteness provided an advantage. There are no living slaves. Therefore there are no living victims. As someone from a lower middle class (at best) background, I can say truthfully I worked my way to where I am . No one handed me a thing. I don’t owe anyone anything. People who try to play the racism song for me meet a deaf brick wall. Americans have to stop being afraid of being painted with a lie. Those of us with a brain are no longer listening.
I enjoy researching family history. Going back 400 years can mean nine or ten generations. 9 generations theoretically equals 2,048 individuals.
If you have cousin marriages which were fairly common, that reduces the number of ancestors but still it’s going to be difficult to know for a certainty that not a single one of those hundreds of ancestors was a slave owner.
Slavery & businesses related to slavery were an everyday part of life in each colony & every US state. Over 40% of colonial NYC households had slaves per the NYC Historical Society. Rhode Island was a center of the colonial slave trade & Connecticut had virtual plantations.
Most of us who follow genealogy research would be able to access wills, and eventually census reports which indicated race and occupation (depending upon the year) of household members. A will would most certainly list slaves as assets if any were owned. Mine do not list any slaves. My family were mostly ministers and military people, or small New England Farmers. Sorry to disappoint but not every white person owned a plantation. I have only had an interest in searching direct ancestors. I have no interest at all in what distant “cousins” who are NOT my direct biological ancestors did with their lives. Having to pay an enslaved clerk at a shop in order to purchase a loaf of bread for example, has absolutely nothing to do with being a slave owner. Nor does buying bread condone slavery in any sane measure. . That kind of crazed “logic?” entanglement has more to do with views of secular wokeism than reality.
I have not got much use for revisionist history that tries to blame people for a past they had no part of and give others credit they didnt earn. This includes trying to inject racism into everything.
Thank you Sara Cain for your courage and thank you CWR for publishing this article. Yes, Western civilization, based on Christianity, on Athens and Jerusalem as a wise writer said, is in decline and may not survive. But the likes of you can make a difference, and going down fighting is more than honorable. God bless you. These interviews by Fr. Connolly of CWR may be of interest to you as well as historian R. Ibrahim report on Vienna:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/08/12/the-myth-and-reality-of-the-andalusian-paradise/
https://www.thepostil.com/author/dario-fernandez-morera/
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2025/02/12/vienna-spits-in-the-eyes-of-poland-insults-its-historic-saviors-to-appease-its-historic-persecutors/
The first link I listed is not accurate. This is the right one
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/12/16/the-forgotten-history-of-christian-slavery-under-islam/
Anyone who has served jury duty, making no difference whether selected or not, has seen the American Justice system machinery at work. Don’t worry Sarah the upside is you will never be selected for the jury panel. Just think you get to smile as you are dismissed and walk past all the other prospective jurors sitting with their fingers crossed hoping not to be selected.
I served on a jury, as foreman on a homicide trial, involving the battering of an infant by her mother. I would rather somebody such her, who can express her concerns as opposed to somebody, such as you who traffics in passive aggressive argumentum ad hominem without the slightest effort to make a coherent and compelling counterpoint..
I’ve only been selected for one jury but what I observed was that a defendant’s financial ability to retain competent legal representation is what can make a difference.
One of the best questions I’ve heard asked in jury selection is what bumper stickers we had on our vehicles. That can reveal quite a bit.
Last year I was called for jury duty. I felt delighted to be chosen to serve on a jury, but I received notification the night before the trial that the case had been dismissed. I could never find out why. Call me weird, but I felt disappointed.
I served on a jury, as foreman on a homicide trial, involving the battering of an infant by her mother. I would rather somebody such her, who can express her concerns as opposed to somebody, such as you who traffics in passive aggressive argumentum ad hominem without the slightest effort to make a coherent and compelling counterpoint..
How to apply the sermon on the mount in this situation? In our culture?
I believe you can start with “If you want peace, work for justice.” and then proceed to “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”