The Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued a press release today about a disturbing incident in Pennsylvania:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on local and federal authorities to treat the beating of an 8-year-old Muslim child in Bensalem, Penn., as a hate crime. The Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group says the child was allegedly beaten earlier this month by three 13-year-old boys who made remarks such as “go back to Iraq” and “Saddam Hussein helper” during the attack.
According to the Muslim boy’s family, he came home with a bloody mouth and spent one night in the hospital for observation. He is now terrified to go outside and cannot sleep at night. The alleged attackers, whose names are apparently known to police, have not been taken into custody.
“A disturbing pattern seems to be developing in which ordinary American Muslims, Arab-Americans and those perceived to be Middle Eastern, are subject to attack merely because of their religion, ethnicity or distinctive attire,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. “Law enforcement authorities at both the local and national levels can help discourage these types of assaults by treating them with the seriousness they deserve.”
In a similar incident on Monday in Pennsylvania, a 14-year-old Iraqi-American girl says she was beaten by a classmate while a crowd of students stood by yelling anti-Muslim comments. The victim said her attackers shouted “kill the Muslim girl�that’s what she deserves” during the assault.
Also this week, a Sikh man who may have been mistaken for an Arab, was shot in Phoenix, Ariz. The victim said he heard his attacker shout “go back to where you belong,” just before being shot. Police are treating the incident as a hate crime.
Of course, to many of the most rabid pro-war types, I’m now a Saddam sympathizer for even mentioning this. Better to pretend it didn’t happen. Okay, I’ll stop making folks uncomfortable now. Go back to your lattes, catch-phrases and masturbating over photos of GW in a flight suit.
This is a disturbing trend. I have not witnessed anything like this in Nashville. Besides the obvious problem I have with the beatings, I have a problem with the entire “hate crime” legislation. A crime is a crime, the motive being “hate” should not make for a stiffer penalty.
At any rate, these attacks are crimes and should be treated accordingly.
Yep, designating as a “hate crime” isn’t necessary. The kids administering the beating have committed assault. Take the cases seriously and charge the perpetrators thusly.
Although, part of the reason that “hate crime” legislation came about is due to a shortage of folks like you and I who would view these beatings as wrong and disgusting. That, however, doesn’t mean we need a separate charge for “why” someone did what they did. Assault is assault, murder is murder. Lock their asses away.
5/22/2003 4:10:00 AM
I’m not sure that I agree with the idea of hate speech or hate crimes, but the courts DO take into account the motivations of the person who commits a crime. That’s why there’s a difference between manslaughter and murder, and why we have three degrees of murder. The crime is the same: homicide. What differs among these four crimes is the killer’s intent and motivations for the killing.
Al-Muhajabah: You are correct about differing degrees of homicides. But of course there is a big difference between differing levels of homicide and tacking on an additional charge based on hatred.
5/26/2003 7:26:00 AM
As I said, I’m ambivalent about the idea of “hate crimes”. Another justification that is given is that because of the hatred/racism/bigotry involved in the crime, it may cause more disorder than a crime that is either purely random or is between people who know each other. Again, I’m not entirely in favor, I just don’t think it’s black and white like it’s often presented.
You’re right about it not being black and white. Few things ever really share that distinction. However, I could really care less about why’s regarding the meat sack known as Donald Grant who killed my grandfather or his bumbling idiot accomplice. Did he do it because my grandfather was a security guard and former deputy sheriff that he may have recognized from his previous incarcerations? Did he do it to cover up the armed robbery he was committing at the store my grandfather was guarding? Or did he do it because my grandfather was a “white” security guard in a “black” neighborhood? There were several other people in the store that he didn’t kill who clearly saw his face.
I don’t really care either way. My grandfather is still dead. It was still first degree murder regardless of whether or not the prevailing “reason” was hatred or greed.
That’s the mindset I’m writing from. Readers can view it as enlightened experience or perhaps a perspective of someone too close to the topic to possess sufficient objectivity. Either way, there’s some merit to either conclusion that readers may reach.
5/26/2003 10:07:00 AM