Quran Flushed Student Charged With Hate Crime

[mrgonzo]

This man was charged with hate crimes for placing a Quran in the university toilet.

I could see vandalism or such. Personally, I thought a hate crime act had to be violent, I had no idea it covered the realm of projection, I dont understand how these laws are constitutional?

So would it be a hate crime to march and desecrate the Quran in public say light it on fire in an anti-muslim march?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/hatecrime_arrest_in_quran_inci.php

 

[quincy]

Our country reserves the harshest criminal punishments for the most destructive crimes, and there are no crimes, perhaps, more destructive than hate crimes. These crimes, based on a person's bias against a particular race, religion or ethnicity, not only harm the individual or individuals to whom the crimes are targeted, but also affect the community in which the crimes occur and society as a whole.

Hate crimes target first, and then they intimidate, cause fear, degrade, and dehumanize, through physical violence, property damage, defamatory insults, offensive graffiti and harassment. Nooses hanging from trees, crosses burning on lawns, rocks thrown through windows, slurs splashed in paint across garage doors or on building walls, and baseball-bat beatings are just some of the many forms that hate crimes can take.

The laws that protect our freedom of speech and our freedom of expression were never designed to protect criminal activity. Freedom of speech is not an unlimited and unrestricted right, and never has been. Freedom of expression is not an unlimited and unrestricted right, and never has been. Hate crimes are not protected by the First Amendment, regardless of the form the hate crime takes.

 

[CdwJava]

So would it be a hate crime to march and desecrate the Quran in public say light it on fire in an anti-muslim march?

No. If it is YOUR Quran or you donated it to the cause, then burning it would not be a crime ... unless you broke some OTHER law.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Unfortunately, hate crimes have devolved to something for which they were unintended. I have seen where two drunks in a bar get into a bar fight and a felony hate crime is charged because one idiot refers to the other using a racial epithet, or disparging remark concerning sexual preference. Suddenly you have a felony where no crime would likely have been charged otherwise, adn on its face would have been a misdemeanor.

I do NOT believe that such excited utterances were what the the laws were intended to address and I have a REAL hard time charging those offenses.

- Carl

 

[quincy]

A bar fight between two screaming drunks, racial epithets being tossed back and forth or not, is quite different than the hanging of nooses fashioned from science lab tubing in a university science lab, and different than anti-semetic remarks written in paint across the front of a suburban house, and different than beating a kid with a baseball bat simply because he is gay. I would think most courts would be able to discern that difference and judge accordingly, regardless of how the charges were written up by an officer.

I do not see a fair fight between two drunks as a hate crime, even when their heated exchange results in unpleasant speech. Generally and unfortunately, hate crimes are not fair fights between two equally matched people. The perpetrator of a hate crime often operates in secret by himself, or as one in a protective group of many. A rock thrown through a window or a Holy book tossed in a toilet or a cross burned on the lawn or a woman of another race raped and beaten - these are not fair fights. The intent is to intimidate - not only the victim, but the victim's "group" - and then the intent is to not get caught or found out. It is so much easier to hate if no one knows you're the one doing the hating.

I am surprised a fight such as the one you described, Carl, would ever result in a felony hate crime charge. If it were 3 against 1 who is different, then maybe yes.

 

[mrgonzo]

The laws that protect our freedom of speech and our freedom of expression were never designed to protect criminal activity.

Well - these acts were not considered criminal activities until you passed a law making them so - therefore the law infringes on our freedom of speech and expression.

Freedom of speech is not an unlimited and unrestricted right, and never has been. Freedom of expression is not an unlimited and unrestricted right, and never has been.

This is a slipperly slope, when you start saying things of this nature you will slowly erode away our rights as is being done.

What these Hate Laws are doing is neutralizing protest.

 

[mrgonzo]

No. If it is YOUR Quran or you donated it to the cause, then burning it would not be a crime ... unless you broke some OTHER law.
- Carl

Well they are claiming that the Quran in the Toilet provided a hostile atmosphere that intimidates students.

Couldn't burning a Quran at a protest be construed by someone as intimidating? What if you held protest outside of a muslim students dorm and burned a Quran because you hate them as a person and religion? That is freedom of expression, how can society progress and voice opinions without this right? You are neutralizing protest - all movements are brought from hate and discontent.

 

[mrgonzo]

"Hate Crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of a free society"

New York Hate Crimes Statute

This law states they must cause "physical and emotional damage" NOT either or, so where is the physical damage with the quran in the toilet?

 

[CdwJava]

A bar fight between two screaming drunks, racial epithets being tossed back and forth or not, is quite different than the hanging of nooses fashioned from science lab tubing in a university science lab, and different than anti-semetic remarks written in paint across the front of a suburban house, and different than beating a kid with a baseball bat simply because he is gay. I would think most courts would be able to discern that difference and judge accordingly, regardless of how the charges were written up by an officer.

Obviously you have not seen how the law is too often applied.

Two people get into a fight or argument for reasons wholly unrelated to race, creed, religion, etc. and one party calls the other a foul epithet, then the otherwise innocuous incident becomes a hate crime ... as it is too often applied. The statute in CA does not always differentiate between these incidents (the noose and the epithet in a fight or argument) though many DAs will tend to drop the hate crime element upon review of the lesser offense.

I am surprised a fight such as the one you described, Carl, would ever result in a felony hate crime charge.

I don't believe it should. Sadly, I have been overruled on this a few times and have had more than one disagreement with my superiors and with DAs on this.

- Carl