Woman accused of hate crime against Muslim

First, let me begin by saying I despise hate crime laws because I feel they are hypocritical and give special protection to certain groups when justice should always be dispensed equally.

However, what this lady did was wrong. If she wants to feel resentment towards Muslims or any segment of the population, fine. She has the right to FEEL whatever she wants to. But she does not have the right to rip religious articles of clothing off other people. Just like we don't have the right to pull off a nun's habit, knock a yarmulke off a Jewish man's head, etc.

I personally wish she was being charged with assault like any other person who ripped a piece of clothing off someone else but because it was religious, the law is applied unevenly. It sucks but that still is not an adequate excuse for the woman who did this.

Originally posted by ROBL240
People have gotten less jailtime in the UK for rape and murder than for simply yanking off a headscarf. Muslims need to stop taking themselves too seriously and take a few chill pills.

Chill pills, exactly! But not likely to change any time soon... because the religion of peace isn't... well...

Its because the courts are scared of offending muslims aswell now, i see alot of points raised in this topic and most of them are right.

I mean, if the hood of a jedi was yanked down would the perpitrator find themselfs in any kind of trouble - i doubt it.

This woman is obviously an ignorant cow for doing this but they could quite easily tell her that and belittle her rather than make a big deal out of it.

Racism happens all the time to people in england to all races, but especially white, Alot of black people in England despise white people and nothing will be done if recial slurring or minor assult occured.

Also, lets not forget in the Quaran it teaches that there is only one god - allah and everyone else is wrong and should convert- yap yap yap. This book is racist and should be seen as such, just like nazi's/ neo-nazis are seen as racist for having anti semite ideology.

Excellent point, we should start reporting hate crimes against white non-muslims immediately!!!

In my opinion this was assault with a religious slant. But any sentence should be appropriate and 3 years imo is ott. Whatever - it should include some education and work with Muslim groups.
I am trying to think of a corresponding crime. Say a Muslim yanked a cross off a Christian. Can we be sure the law would be equally applied?

[edit on 19-11-2009 by unicorn1]

reply to post by unicorn1

Say a Muslim yanked a cross off a Christian. Can we be sure the law would be equally applied?

There was a recent story of an elderly woman having her cross grabbed from her and stomped on the ground. Not sure whatever came of it but it was noted that they were not ruling out the angle of a hate crime.

Also, hate crimes against whites are statistically the second highest race to be attacked in hate crimes (second to blacks) and Christians are the second most attacked religion (second to Jews). Jews are the most attacked with something like 1,000 cases a year. Christians come in a far second with something like 150 and Muslims come in a close third after that with slightly less than 150. In New York it's a bit different with whites coming in first for hate crime victims. So with those numbers, it tells me it at least does 'register.'

Apparently hate crimes against whites and Christians ARE labeled as such. They just don't always make the headlines and the victims generally have to push very hard to get it labeled as such. Sometimes they fail even when it's obvious. Like the case of the student up in New England who was beaten to death due to being white. The murderers set out to 'kill a cracker' and screamed racial slurs while killing him according to witnesses but the perps got seven years. Then there was the white man who had been harassed long term. They finally caught the perps after they surrounded his home and masturbated on his property. DNA tests on the sperm were done and the violators were arrested and charged with hate crimes. So it's a hit or miss.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by neformore
You know, some of the reponses here are laughable.

The woman acted irresponsibly and did something stupid that she had no business to do.

Its her fault. Her actions. Her responsibility.

Trying to come up with excuses to justify her stupidity is symptomatic of much deeper problems with society.

no, that is only part of the story, the other part is the ridiculous "hate crime" legislation which elevates certain victims

Originally posted by blueorder

no, that is only part of the story, the other part is the ridiculous "hate crime" legislation which elevates certain victims

Could you enlighten me as to what legislation you are referring to, I could link you to the blacks law Vols 1 to 8 if you need to go through them in order to show me.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by GW8UK]

Originally posted by centurion1211
The difference is that under multi-culturalism no one tries to assimilate and become an American like the immigrants of the past all wanted very badly to do.

I would guess that you are white caucasian
The U.S. is both multi-ethnicity and multi-cultural.

but if you are a white caucasian you wouldn't know this unless you live with a family of another ethnicity, especially if from asia.

Asians bring their own culture with them, even if they were born here.
Trust me on that
They may have slightly assimilated, but it doesn't mean they don't have the culture anymore.
This may change after a few generations, then it will no longer be multi-culturalism, but for now it is.

That's why you often see chinese people hanging with chinese people, indians with indians, arabs with arabs and so on and so forth.

Originally posted by unicorn1
I am trying to think of a corresponding crime. Say a Muslim yanked a cross off a Christian. Can we be sure the law would be equally applied?

No. "Hate crimes" only apply to crimes commited against certain protected minority groups or members thereof. That's the perversity of such a silly legislation.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Asians bring their own culture with them, even if they were born here.
Trust me on that
They may have slightly assimilated, but it doesn't mean they don't have the culture anymore.
This may change after a few generations, then it will no longer be multi-culturalism, but for now it is.

That's why you often see chinese people hanging with chinese people, indians with indians, arabs with arabs and so on and so forth.

Pretty much every people has the instinct to prefer the presence of their own ethno-cultural group except for white people, who are so indoctrinated by all this PC propaganda they sometimes actively encourage ideas that are destructive for their own ethno-cultural group.

reply to post by GW8UK


This was passed on the back of the Defense spening bill:

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Public Law No. 111-84
(snip)

What does the HCPA do?
The HCPA gives the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence by providing the DOJ with jurisdiction over crimes of violence where a perpetrator has selected a victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

In addition, it provides the DOJ with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions with investigations and prosecutions of bias-motivated crimes of violence. The HCPA authorizes the DOJ to provide grants to state and local communities to cover the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. It also authorizes the provision of grants for local programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs that train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes.

(snip)
The final version of the DoD authorization bill, containing the HCPA, passed the House on October 8, 2009 and the Senate on October 22, 2009. The legislation was signed into law by President Obama on October 28, 2009 (Public Law No. 111-84).

The legislation was endorsed by more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, Presbyterian Church, Episcopal Church, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Young Women’s Christian Association and National Disability Rights Network.

www.hrc.org...

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by GW8UK

 

This was passed on the back of the Defense spening bill:

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Public Law No. 111-84
(snip)

What does the HCPA do?
The HCPA gives the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence by providing the DOJ with jurisdiction over crimes of violence where a perpetrator has selected a victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

In addition, it provides the DOJ with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions with investigations and prosecutions of bias-motivated crimes of violence. The HCPA authorizes the DOJ to provide grants to state and local communities to cover the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. It also authorizes the provision of grants for local programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs that train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes.

(snip)
The final version of the DoD authorization bill, containing the HCPA, passed the House on October 8, 2009 and the Senate on October 22, 2009. The legislation was signed into law by President Obama on October 28, 2009 (Public Law No. 111-84).

The legislation was endorsed by more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, Presbyterian Church, Episcopal Church, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Young Women’s Christian Association and National Disability Rights Network.

www.hrc.org...

Thank you for this but i want to know where in there does it 'elevate' (i think he means elieviate) certain victims.
Endorsements are not legislation

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak


it's not only that, chinese people can speak with other chinese people that they can't speak about with people of other ethnicities, same goes for east indians, arabs, pakistanis, japanese people and so on.

Also, you know i was reading the story about a cop tazing a 10yr old.
the mother said the daughter was acting crazy so she called the cops.

This is no offense to anyone, but familes from asia would NEVER call the cops, they are the parents and they would deal with the issue themselves.

This is part of what sets different ethnicities apart, culture.
If U.S. was only multi-ethnic the differences would stop at language and skin color, but it goes far beyond that to a point where most americans might feel culture shock in their own country trying to understand the difference.

U.S. is a multi-cultural country!

reply to post by Libertygal


Just a quick correction. Hate crime laws have existed in the U.S. since the 60's. The new one Obama signed in 2009 simply added in sexuality, gender, and disability. Hate crime laws themselves were not new under Obama. The Matthew Shepard act only added to the previously existing laws. Hate crimes have been federal offenses for decades.

reply to post by GW8UK


My apologies, I misunderstood you.

I think it may be this:

"race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."

As it does tend to lend itself towards huge penalties for minorities, to which the term "caucasian" does not lend itself, for instance.

I think this legislation does lend itself to stiffer penalties for these crimes, and some people may construe it as devaluing the crime itself and elevating it just due to it being a hate crime.

In other words, if someone of another race/religion attacks a caucasian person, they may get a lesser penalty than someone who attacks a person of a different stature. I am certain there will be abuses of this law on that basis alone, just as there are abuses of almost all laws to some degree or another.

Some people may ask, "If it is a crime to attack someone, which it is, then why is it a worse crime to attack someone different?"

The whole idea comes down to proving intent, which I stated in another post, is very hard to prove a thought. Unless, of course, someone speaks it out as they do the attacking.

I think there is some basis in the fear of this legislation, in a lot of different aspects, but now that it has become law, the only redress people will have is their day on court.

reply to post by AshleyD


You are correct, but it removed the Federal requirement that it take place during a federal activity, such as voting. It was only under that circumstance that it was a Federal offense. With that removed, now any action is a Federal offense.

Originally posted by GW8UKCould you enlighten me as to what legislation you are referring to, I could link you to the blacks law Vols 1 to 8 if you need to go through them in order to show me.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by GW8UK]

the expanded federal hate crimes law- a crime for pulling the headscarf off a woman just because you disliked the woman and were a bit of an ahole would be a lesser crime than pulling the headscarf off a woman because she is muslim- utterly ridiculous and elevation of victimhood again

Now what do you wish to discuss sire?

Originally posted by GW8UK
Thank you for this but i want to know where in there does it 'elevate' (i think he means elieviate) certain victims.
Endorsements are not legislation

He means "elevate" thank you

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak

No. "Hate crimes" only apply to crimes commited against certain protected minority groups or members thereof. That's the perversity of such a silly legislation.

Not necessarily. I'm only trying to be fair here so will mention all of my observations. If you look at the FBI statistics, groups like whites and Christians are most definitely recorded as being the victims of hate crimes. If hate crimes against Christians/whites were simply being dismissed, their stats in both raceial and religious incidents would not place them in the second most victimized category. Due to the fact they are the second most highest victimized groups according to FBI stats, that tells me hate crimes against whites and Christians are definitely recognized and not dismissed.

On the other hand and to be fair, I have noticed a different kind of hypocrisy. When a white or Christian is the victim of a hate crime, even a blatant one, most of the time the onus is on the victim to prove beyond all doubt the crime was inspired by hate of their race or religion. And sometimes it is so obvious (like screaming racial slurs at a white victim during a beating) but the case is still not declared a hate crime by a jury (not law enforcement). But if a white person or Christian commits a crime of a person different than themselves, it is often (not always) automatically seen as a hate crime and the perp has to go to lengths to prove their motivations were not hate inspired.

But please don't think it goes ignored. There is a somewhat recent scandal about the tradition 'beat up a white kid day' where minority youths seek out and beat up white kids on May 1st due to their race. Some kids were sent to juvenile detention over it and it was labeled a hate crime. Or the Nation of Islam murders where the initiation was something like killing seven white males, five white females, or four white children to be accepted. The perps got the death penalty for that after killing something like 70 white people due to their race. So it does happen- they do get busted and on a regular basis. It's just not played up in the media and it seems harder to prove.

But it's not fair to say it only helps minority groups. It really does help all people. I just still think it's wrong because it creates special classes of people.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by AshleyD]