Last week, the New York City Council held a hearing on a package of bills called the Community Safety Act, which would establish an Inspector General’s office to independently oversee the NYPD and require officers to obtain written consent before searching anyone without a warrant or probable cause. Now, a New York Post editorial is calling out City Hall for its human rights-protecting ways, decrying the council as “pro-crime” for even considering the bills.

More than simply kissing the ass of the NYPD, however, the editorial creates its own facts in order to portray City Council as power-hungry. “Just how safe do you think New Yorkers would be if the mayor and police commissioner no longer ran the NYPD,” it opens, “but instead control was handed to . . . the City Council?” The jab, which makes reference to the new Inspector General position, is built on a false premise: that the city council would control the office, when in fact the bill calls for the mayor to choose the appointee.

The piece is full of race-baiting language as well, implying that a “racial-grievance lobby” controls City Council, and that Councilwoman Helen Foster accused Councilman Peter Vallone “for defending the NYPD while white” at the Community Safety Act hearing.

Read the full text here.

(Photo: Wally Gobetz/Flickr)