The Fort Hood massacre committed by Major Nidal Hassan was a national tragedy that took us all by surprise. It was quickly and widely condemned by the American Muslim community who were as shell-shocked and dismayed as anybody else, and who were additionally concerned about a potential backlash against those who happen to share Hassan's faith, though not his crime.
It is no surprise that the usual culprits who have built careers out of inciting hysteria against Muslims saw this tragedy as an opportunity on a golden platter. The hate blogs and radio talk shows were quickly abuzz with familiar voices trying hard to extend Hassan's guilt to every Muslim and the faith they practice .
Unfortunately, there are always the vigilante Joes and Janes out there who consume this stuff with little critical scrutiny and, in some cases, act upon it.
Such was the case a few days ago at a local grocery store in Tinley Park, Illinois.
Amal Abusumayah, a 28-year-old American mother of four young girls, was going about her usual shopping when she was randomly treated to a dose of derogatory comments about her faith and ethnic heritage; the offending woman, later identified as 54-year-old Valerie Kenney, referenced Fort Hood.
Amal tried to ignore the comments and proceeded to check out at the counter when she felt a sharp pull on her hijab -- or headscarf.
Amal was "shaken up" and felt violated but did not know what to do. She followed the woman to the parking lot and called the police. She was not sure if she wanted to press charges that night, but later decided that it was something she owed to her daughters. They, like Amal, were born and would grow up in this country -- as American as anybody else.
The Tinley Park police department handled the incident admirably from the get-go, and after a thorough investigation, the Cook County State Attorney's Office charged Valerie Kenney with a hate crime.
"If you don't try to stop it, the behavior will continue," Tinley Park police chief Michael O'Connell said. But if people are charged for their crimes, he said, "they'll get the message they better not do it."
(The FBI was also closely monitoring the situation but usually only files charges if the state somehow fails to do so.)
CAIR-Chicago, per its mission of "defending civil rights, fighting bigotry, and promoting tolerance" had been assisting Amal on her quest for justice. We, along with many other Americans, applauded the charge. To my surprise however, I have come across a disturbing number of posts and comments on the blogosphere by individuals who took offense at Amal for standing up for herself, rather than at Valerie for violating her rights.
"This is what happens when you allow open and avowed enemies into your country, they are granted special privileges above and beyond what normal citizens are allowed ... the perp [sic] was reacting to the Fort Hood shooting, noting rightly that 'those people' were the cause of the problem," one blogger wrote.
"Chief Michael O Connel is a useful idiot- only too ready to charge those deemed enemies of the people in America's undefined and vaugue [sic] political correctness campaign," said another blogger playing on an increasingly popular theme on the far-right that treating Muslims equally is synonymous with the "Islamization" of America brought about by "political correctness."
Others, like Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times sympathized with Amal, but felt that what Valerie did does not constitute a hate crime.
Roeper argued that the "Headscarf pull is mean, but it's not a hate crime." I am not sure what sort of criteria Roeper and others use to determine what a hate crime is and what it is not, but they certainly do not seem to be too concerned with the established legal definition.
The law doesn't criminalize being "mean" (how on earth would that be defined anyway?) What the law does do, however, is define a battery. Battery is intentional, unpermitted contact causing harm or offense by one person against another. That is what Valerie Kenney did when she tried to pull off a Muslim woman's headscarf at a Jewel in Tinley Park. Moreover, when a person commits such an offense based on hatred towards the victim because of their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. it becomes a hate crime. In other words, according to the laws of our nation, battery is one thing; battery based on bigotry is another.
Hate crimes are their own class of crime for a very good reason: the enhanced classification and punishment deters people from criminally acting out on their bigotry. It is the government's obligation to its citizens to take a no tolerance position on such crimes.
Nipping such behavior in the bud is important because if it is tolerated, its frequency and intensity is hard to control. A zero tolerance policy towards bigoted battery is the only way to effectively prevent another tragedy -- like the brutal murder of Wyoming's Mathew Shepard or Germany's Marwa El Sherbini -- from happening again.
As for Kenney, the justice system will determine the appropriate punishment for her. Three years in jail and up to $25,000 is the maximum sentence, but it's not the only sentence option available. Judges and juries are generally fair. Either way, our system dictates that we entrust judgment to them.
Lastly, I would be remiss not to write a few words about the larger picture: the general phenomenon of anti-hijab prejudice.
Hijabis -- women who wear the hijab -- are de facto ambassadors of their faith because of their distinguishable physical appearance. They are proud to represent their faith, but also bear the burden of being readily singled out by those who harbor anti-Muslim sentiments.
Ironically, if those who are viscerally opposed to the sight of a hijabi actually took the time to look at the facts of her life, they may realize that hijabis make for a positive stereotype worthy of their admiration rather than a negative one they ought to fear.
In the United States, a young hijabi is more likely than the average person to go to college, excel in her studies, raise a successful family, and be active in her community.
She is more likely to pay her taxes, abide by the laws of our country, and vote.
She is much more likely to return your wallet to you if she finds it, report a crime if she witnesses one, and give an honest testimony if called upon.
She is much less likely to be in a gang, use or sell drugs, mug you at gun point -- or drink, drive and run over your kid. Your husband or boyfriend is less likely to cheat on you with her.
She is less likely to curse you in traffic or flash you the middle finger, and more likely to look the other way if you do so to her.
That is because, more likely than not, behind the hijab is a virtuous value system rooted in personal vows taken before God that make for a good citizen and a good human being. (The hijab itself is merely one consequence of these personal vows, intended as an exercise in sexual modesty while in public.)
This is not to say that Muslim women who do not wear the hijab do not share those values, it is only to say that the correlation between the hijab and good behavior is a positive -- not a negative -- one.
I hope that more people can take the time to know each other based on who they truly are, rather than on lazy stereotypes. But for those who simply wish to lash out and act upon their hateful prejudices, the law is capable of protecting its subjects.
For the rest of us, let's get the conversation started.
Follow Ahmed Rehab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Ahmed_Rehab
Liz Ryan: Does Dress Code Trump Religious Freedom?
What I do know is that the religious are likely to vote conservative, are socially intolerant of others, bigoted, and especially hate gay people.
Criminal cases in Common Law jurisdictions are decided on the Actus Reus (the act or omission) and the Mens Rea (state of mind) of the accused. Most crimes require both.
There is a famous South African appeals case (they are a common law country too) that illustrates this principle. Three accused hit the victim over the head. Thinking he was dead, they tossed him over a cliff, where he died of exposure. At trial, the defence counsel wanted a finding of manslaughter instead of murder. They tried to argue that for the state of mind (intent to kill) there had been no requisite act (a blow resulting in death). And that for the act (tossing him over the cliff) there was no requisite state of mind (intent to kill) since the victim was already thought to be dead.
judges wouldn't have it - they ruled that the events leading up to the victim's murder were all of one "transaction."
As such, an assault on a witness of a hate crime would be taken by the court to be in the same series of events - the same transaction, motivated by an intent (hatred of a protected group).
As far as the bigot having no animosity towards the second victim: Webster defines animosity- ill will or resentment tending toward active hostility...
I would have to say that he does have ill will and resentment towards the witness and definitely acted with active hostility towards the witness..
Oh yeah. Liberals that turna blind eye to this cult would not fair so well if there was a Islam type atmosphere in the U.S. In fact much of what they support would be banned or outlawed.
the day after 9-11 when an old man from India was shot down in the street in Texas because he was wearing a turban. The fact that he was not even from the same continent, let alone the same religion did not stop some genius from gunning him down in the street.
But I also know racism is not a 'white' invention. In the '70's my sister was visiting Iran and was chased by a group of men down a street who grabbed her blonde hair while calling her 'whore' in Farsi. A policeman saved her from being seriously assaulted.
My brother has taught school for 25 years and every year some parent of a newly arrived child will come into his class and accuse him of hating the child's race because of a poor mark given. He has had children in Grade Three accuse him of racism -where does an eight year old get that idea ? - at home.
My brother's wife is from Sri Lanka.
Opponents of hate crime laws feel that they provide special protections to certain citizens, even though the laws protect everyone. These people believe that hate crimes should not be given any further consideration aside from regular laws, and in doing so, inadvertently align themselves with the bigoted perpetrators that committed the hate motivated crimes.
I believe hate crime laws, in some respects, are an attempt to rectify lingering social injustices. Treating hate inspired crimes as random acts of violence will do nothing to help protect American citizens from their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Without the protection of such laws, where is the retribution for the emotional toll the victim will carry with them for the rest of their lives? Is it only worth $100 as one blogger suggested? Perhaps that's the going rate for yanking a hijab from a woman's head, but what's the going rate for a yanking a hijab from a woman's head while at the same time inflicting a lifetime of fear, humiliation and degradation? There is no dollar value.
You've definitely got a new fan. I think hate crime laws are exactly what you say, an "attempt to rectify lingering social injustices." I also would say that the widespread Arab-bashing & Islamophobia within our MSM (including Hollywood, TV & a majority of modern published fiction) also fosters the sense that Arabs of all religions & Muslims of all ethnicities or anyone with similar-looking identity is fair game for ridicule, harassment or even worse. I am sorry about your experiences in this regard to being a victim of such crimes & would say that Americans have to do better to live up to our ideals. A case in point about this topic is the new Dean Koontz book, a great one in every respect except the author inserts several unnecessary (not related to story line, as usual) swipes mocking & mis-characterizing the people, cultures (even food) & religion of the Middle East. How many young people read Koontz' novels & carry away the subconscious message about certain groups? How hurtful could that be? How many young fans of Koontz may even belong to one of these groups he targets? Queen Noor has written eloquently about how she feels in the middle of a great book or movie when all of a sudden, there you have it, the insertion of the usual hateful message that unfortunately perpetuates stereotypes & may even encourage some to act out in heinous hate crimes.
As far as the batterer is concerned, referencing Ft. Hood to Amal in the grocery store was making a public & shameful implication that Amal or all Muslims are responsible for the criminal actions of an individual. Clearly, she is not; just as the rest of us are not responsible for bad actions undertaken by those of similar beliefs, religion, race, gender, preferences & the like. We can't allow members of our society to give Muslims a collective guilt we would not apply to anyone else or any other group in our society.
Does the America you know include "innocent until proved guilty"?
However if she was was "randomly treated to a dose of derogatory comments
about her faith and ethnic heritage" as the article states then the accused likely did mention the words Muslim and Islam. There's no way to know that she did not say those things and given the fact that she has been arrested and charged after and investigation (a point also specifically made within the article) the prosecutor believes this to be a hate crime. Tugging on a scarf would not be considered a hate crime on its own. Some supporting behavior was required.
"Does the America you know include "innocent until proved guilty"?"
It does actually, for everyone; KSM and Major Hasan included
[[ The woman passed her in the aisle and made a loud reference to Fort Hood.
Abusumayah, 28, said she was shopping, when Kenney walked up to her and shouted, "The guy that did the Texas shooting, he wasn't American, and he was from the Middle East."
Minutes later, while Abusumayah was paying for her groceries, the woman approached her from behind and tugged hard on her blue and beige headscarf. ]]
Makes it fairly evident that there was racial (if not clearly religious) undertones to Ms Kenny's actions.
In Canada, where I live, extreme political correctness is required from all politicians and civil servants. Even the Conservative party kicked out a member who made statements to a newspaper about his personal beliefs on gays as sexual deviants. I'm not even sure they gave him a hearing - he was out the next day and the party apologized profusely in a press-conference for the actions of a former member.
It has been like this since the 70s under Pierre Trudeau, who firmly believed that if those in authority set a tolerant example, society would follow. I think it has. People have to be made to feel too ashamed to, for example, say hateful things about minorities in public. In time, that shame gives way to thoughtfulness, and then acceptance.
If the _Muslim woman made anti-_Christian statements before, during, or after tugging on a t-shirt it would become a h@te crime.
Prosecution as a hate crime seems appropriate. It re-enforces the idea that this is a nation of laws and not a nation of priviledges and prejudices.
I personally find people who persecute other people because of their race, color or religion (or any other variants) to be scarier and perhaps "less American" than the folks they attack. Have they never been to NY and read the message at the base of the Statue of Liberty-- or studied the origins of America-- or read the Constitution? Our country was founded by and for immigrants, and the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and other personal expression.
the notion that we need hate crime legislation to deter hate crime is false on its face. If we believe that people are willing to commit a crime because the punishment is so lenient then we need to up the punishment for that crime, not make certain vicitms more important than others.
See, what you understand is what you want to understand, not what it really is! I think you should have to pay $100 everytime you come here and display your lack of patriotism and loyalty to the Constitution of the United states!
Misdemeanor battery at best...and possibly not even that depending on the area and ethnic makeup of the community for the jury pool.
That being said, the scarf puller looks like a bigoted idiot to me. It may be possible to hit her for some civil liability...but that looks kinda tenuous too since there is no demonstrable harm or expense involved for the woman who was bothered at the store. My Rehab is trying waaaay too hard to make this into more than it is.
Since a hate crime prosecution carries with it an enhanced sentence which means an identical incident happening to someone not in a protected class would receive less justice.
Loading comments…