Who CAIRs?

KnightofBuddha

Always quite uneasy about the use of "hate crimes" when it comes to prosecution, this just goes too far.

Now according to the radio, the book was stolen property, but still, why should this guy be charged with anything more than theft exactly?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--vandalismquran0727jul27,0,6882662.storyhttp://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--vandalismquran0727jul27,0,6882662.story

NEW YORK (AP) _ A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he was a student at the school. A message left at the Shmulevich home was not immediately returned.

The Islamic holy book was found in a toilet at Pace's lower Manhattan campus by a teacher on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book in a toilet on Nov. 21, police said.

Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.

The incidents came amid a spate of vandalism cases with religious or racial overtones at the school. In an earlier incident on Sept. 21, the school reported another copy of the Quran was found in a library toilet, and in October someone scrawled racial slurs on a student's car at the Westchester County satellite campus and on a bathroom wall at the campus in lower Manhattan. Police did not connect Shmulevich to those incidents.

Treatment of the Quran is a sensitive issue for Muslims, who view the book as a sacred object and mistreating it as an offense against God. The religion teaches that the Quran is the direct word of God.

In 2005, Newsweek magazine published and later retracted a story claiming U.S. interrogators at a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, flushed a copy of the holy book down a toilet. The report sparked deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan and protests throughout the Middle East.

Pace University has 14,000 students on its campuses in New York City and Westchester County.

Messages left for school administrators and for officials with the New York and national chapters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations were not immediately returned Friday evening.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the national CAIR office in Washington, D.C., has said the organization receives frequent reports of Quran desecrations in the United States, especially postings on Internet sites, but seldom makes them public.

He said CAIR decided to speak out about the Pace incidents because Muslim students are impacted by the creation of what could be viewed as a hostile campus environment.

ZopaTenzing

Well, that article made no reference whatsoever to the THEFT of any book. This is a joke and demeans the entire purpose of "hate crime" laws. The following quote shows the only reason it was reported as such was to placate a vocal minority,

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.

I guess freedom of expression is now just another hate crime, huh?

Simonthepilgrim

Whilst I remain very concerned about the whole notion of "hate crime", we should not forget that putting copies of the Q'ran down the toilet was among the unacceptable behaviours of the camp guards at Guantanamo Bay. To repeat this action carries more than the weight of the action itself. The action cannot be judged in isolation but must be considered within the context of the sensitive state of relations with the Islamic community.

federica

To do such a thing, with all the implications it carries, is tantamount - as far as a Moslem is concerned - to a very real, physical and intentional violence toward their faith and fundamental creed.
Islam holds the Qu'ran as a sacred object in itself - far more than the christians seem to do with the Bible.
The act of defecation is in itself unclean, which is why to lose a right hand, for a devout Moslem is a double tragedy, because only the left hand is used for performing unclean or distasteful duties. One of these is self-cleansing after evacuating the bowels.
so to place a Qu'ran in a toilet is an insult of unspeakable horror, and whilst it is probably aimed at those who have sullied the name and reputation of the Islamic Faith as a whole, all Moslems, regardless, learning of this insult will be both mortally offended and filled with disgust at such a base affront.
and with good reason.

Freedom of expression is one thing.
In light of the above, I would label this as far more sinister and wicked than mere freedom of expression.

bushinoki

Simon, are you forgetting that the whole story of flushing Q'urans was proven to be fraudulent. But that is exactly the reason why this whole issue is so serious. Just the story of it happening was enough to incite outrage in Muslims worldwide. Someone actually having done it is even worse. I feel the person who did this is not just stupid and insenstive, but the kind of hateful, malicious person I wouldn't want in this society. No, I'm not saying we should execute him, maybe deport him to Iran or Iraq.

KnightofBuddha

I find CAIR's standpoint on here extremely hypocritical. Just how well are bibles treated in Saudi Arabia? Or women for that matter?

This should answer the bible question....


http://www.christiantoday.com/article/saudi.arabia.officials.condemned.for.abuses.against.bibles.christian.symbols./2992.htm

Sure, this may be a horrible offense to Muslims and an entire faith worldwide, but why should a secular government charge him with a hate crime? Who is the victim here? A book? Ink on paper? A toilet? If you call that a hate crime, you have to do the same to the bible, the Vedas, and so forth.

So let me get this straight; we are all completely free to burn flags, but not to throw someone's holy book in a toilet? I think both actions should be protected by the 1st amendment personally. Just as I think people in the Muslim world should be allowed to burn effigies of our president and so forth.

The great thing about the 1st amendment is that it allows us to offend people and to be offended.

Simonthepilgrim

KoB,

With all due respect to the First Amendment of your Constitution, it is not an absolute licence. You still have libel laws, I believe.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that there is a real problem here. If the action alleged is likely to provoke violent difficulties in an already volatile situation, how are we to act? Our dislike of the action has to be expressed in some clear way, just as would express our disgust at Nazi symbols spray-painted on synagogue or Jewish cemetaries.

There is a vital debate to be had here about what we are prepared to accept as "free speech" and what limits are to be put on it, if any. In this debate, I believe that Buddhists have a possible input from the point of view of the Noble Eightfold Path. But we also have to acknowledge that our task is to persuade and not to enforce.

KnightofBuddha

And if we go so far as to outlaw any physical desecration to the Koran, why not outlaw any verbal attacks on it as well? Anyone who criticizes aggressively is clearly making an attack not only on a "sacred object," but on the whole faith itself. People who accuse the Prophet of murder and lying, quite often "mortally offend" Muslims. Should we charge someone like Sam Harris with a hate crime for his criticism of the Koran and Hadith?

KnightofBuddha

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

KoB,

With all due respect to the First Amendment of your Constitution, it is not an absolute licence. You still have libel laws, I believe.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that there is a real problem here. If the action alleged is likely to provoke violent difficulties in an already volatile situation, how are we to act? Our dislike of the action has to be expressed in some clear way, just as would express our disgust at Nazi symbols spray-painted on synagogue or Jewish cemetaries.

There is a vital debate to be had here about what we are prepared to accept as "free speech" and what limits are to be put on it, if any. In this debate, I believe that Buddhists have a possible input from the point of view of the Noble Eightfold Path. But we also have to acknowledge that our task is to persuade and not to enforce.

I think we should show our disgust of swastikas on Jewish synagogues by holding Nazis to the same laws as we would other vandals. Not by calling it "hate crime" and giving the perpetrator a draconian sentencing.

Hate crimes are essentially thought crimes and that is why I oppose their use in the judicial system.

Simonthepilgrim

The very idea of "making a window into people's souls" and creating a class of criminality based on belief or thought is at the very heart of totalitarianism. Start down that route and we shall imprison (or burn) those who believe/do not believe in theories of evolution or the 'right to bear arms'.

The problem still remains: where do you set the limits? The criteria have shifted as respect loses its place in interpersonal discourse.Should we, for example, make 'holocaust denial' a criminal offence as in parts of Europe?

Palzang

Legally speaking, such crimes as this do not fall under the protection of the First Amendment. The usual example given of this is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The reasoning is that the act of yelling "Fire!" can cause panic and potential death in the crowd. While flushing a Quran down the toilet isn't likely to cause panic and death, it falls under the same exclusionary rule. The act itself causes pain and anguish in the Muslim community. It is a hostile act that causes real damage to people, in other words. Flushing a Bible or other holy book down the toilet wouldn't be viewed in the same light because while Christians might find it offensive, they wouldn't feel threatened or feel that this act was a violation of their religious rights. Do you see the difference? I think the charge is the right one.

Palzang

Palzang

Oh, btw, that'll be $5,258 for my professional legal opinion.

Palzang, esq.

KnightofBuddha

Palzang wrote:

Legally speaking, such crimes as this do not fall under the protection of the First Amendment. The usual example given of this is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The reasoning is that the act of yelling "Fire!" can cause panic and potential death in the crowd. While flushing a Quran down the toilet isn't likely to cause panic and death, it falls under the same exclusionary rule. The act itself causes pain and anguish in the Muslim community. It is a hostile act that causes real damage to people, in other words. Flushing a Bible or other holy book down the toilet wouldn't be viewed in the same light because while Christians might find it offensive, they wouldn't feel threatened or feel that this act was a violation of their religious rights. Do you see the difference? I think the charge is the right one.

Palzang

I don't see how it possibly fits under the same exclusionary rule. And where is the "real damage"? Why don't we imprison the Danish cartoonists for hate crimes? That had far angrier reactions than this.

And while we are at it, let's lock up Sam Harris who has stated numerous times that the Koran is a violent, backwards writing of a delusional man. That is surely a hostile comment and would offend many Muslims.

And Daniel Dennett too. This guy has the audacity to say that religion, including Islam, is a natural phenomenon and was not divinely inspired. In some places, he would probably be executed for saying such a thing.

Salman Rushdie.....You see, the list goes on and on. Every apostate, anyone who has ever denounced Islam, in a way, is an "affront to the faith" and is worthy of execution in much of the Arab world.

Anyone who would speak against the "perfect word of God" is potentially "mortally offending" Muslims. Why should our government care?

bushinoki

I think the proper way to handle this would be civil penalties. If a riot ensues because of the desecration of a holy book, the property owners who had damages would have the right to sue the individual responsible for sparking the riot. Not to mention all the families with wrongful death/injury lawsuits. Bankrupt a man and ruin his life. I'm just leery about letting off the hook altogether, because it could start a lot of trouble.

Nirvana

Ah Mean-Spiritedness and Religion! Dump 'em both and just try to be good without hurting others. Leave the dead to bury the dead.

KoB, I'm with you here, young Brother!

ZopaTenzing

Palzang wrote:

Legally speaking, such crimes as this do not fall under the protection of the First Amendment. The usual example given of this is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The reasoning is that the act of yelling "Fire!" can cause panic and potential death in the crowd.......

Sorry, that legally doesn't fly. One can burn the Flag, copies of the Constitution, elected officials (in effigy), and other physical acts have been deemed expressions and covered under the 1st Amend. The Fire case if applicable should show in the report an action immediately following the expression causing significant harm.

None is show. I don't agree that it is a proper act and would not support anyone doing but, it was an expression-a commentary if you will.

Why not call Bible desecration a hate crime? Isn't it deserving of the same protections? Are religions rated on a scale as to who gets preffered treatment in hate crimes?

It is a collection of paper with printing on it. If it was stolen, then a crime has occurred. If I of KoB go tonight and buy a holy book and throw it in our toilet at home, is that a hate crime?

Bending over backwards is an extreme in the extremes. Offend no one ......... stifle yourself .........

:hiding:

Palzang

But there is damage shown, namely the creation of a hostile atmosphere for Muslim students at this particular school, which is not an insignificant issue. Put yourself in their shoes - would you feel comfortable and able to focus on your studies in such an atmosphere? Hate crimes are essentially a form of terrorism, and I think this case fits that criterion because the motivation is to drive the Muslims out of the school through fear.

Palzang

ZopaTenzing

Palzang wrote:

But there is damage shown, namely the creation of a hostile atmosphere for Muslim students at this particular school, which is not an insignificant issue. Put yourself in their shoes - would you feel comfortable and able to focus on your studies in such an atmosphere?

Palzang

Throwing a book in a toilet would not upset me. Violence and physical acts towards me would disrupt studies, but no violent acts are reported. "Hostile atmosphere" relies on two parties to exist; the agressor and the "victim" When you allow yourself to be a "victim" you suffer; when you discard the act as meaningless you discard the atmosphere.

Overreactions and hypersensitive emotional feelings are unjust for application of law; but it has happened before and that alone dodesn't make it right or proper.

Simonthepilgrim

I think that it is interesting, in the light of this discussion, that a number of British advertisers have decided to remove their advertising and, thus, their financial support, from Facebook because they do not want to appear alongside the British National Party (a neo-fascist, xenophobic and racist political party). It is another indication that we are in a period of transition from governmental intervention to legislation by corporations - but that's a whole other debate.

bushinoki

Like I said, the civil arena is sometimes the better place to play these things out. If there is any actual damages resulting from this act, let the people sue and ruin his life. Making this out to be a "hate crime" is overreacting to pressure that should not exist. A civil problem is a civil problem, whereas if someone were directly injured or deprived of property, then it is a criminal matter. Now, if one of the Q'urans had been stolen, then charge him with theft as a hate crime, since his intent was to commit a crime prejudicially.

not1not2

Well, honestly, i don't think this falls under the established exclusion of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, as non-protected speech. When neo-nazi's march through town, yelling at them might start a riot, but it is doubtful there will be any prosecution against that speech. And shouting fire will provoke a choice between death and staying in the theatre. It is not reasonable to expect the crowd to stand around saying, 'where?'. However, in this instance, throwing even the most sacred object of another religion in a toilet (no matter how offensive we may deem this act), does not require such an immediate response or insinuate a life or death scenario. Muslim's must be held responsible for their reaction to such speech. If a riot ensues because of the actions of a single student, the blame lies with them. Sorry, but this just does not apply here, imo.

And while I'm pretty sure hatred was in this person's mind when he committed these acts, i don't really feel this should be handled as a hate crime as nobody's health, livelihood or general safety was directly threatened. Now, if the school wants to issue him a firm reprimand and undergo sensitivity training and make a big PR campaign surrounding said sensitivity, then i think that would be an appropriate response. It would also be more in line with the the First Amendment. Finding a Qu'ran in a toilet is simply offensive speech and need not be prosecuted on such a serious level.

Anyway, just the way I see it.

_/\_
metta

Simonthepilgrim

I think it demonstrates how defective the school system is that students feel it is OK to behave in this way.

KnightofBuddha

Who says people think it is ok? I like many others find it quite ineffective and despicable to destroy books. I just don't see where the "victim" is in this case.

But let me give you an alternate scenario. I hold someone like Thomas Paine in very high regards. Basically, he is one of the closest things to a god in this world. Now if someone were to throw "The Age of Reason" into the toilet as a protest to his anti-faith writings at my school and I reacted violently, should the vandal be charged with a hate crime?

First off, he has committed an identical crime. Many people, including myself, admire and appreciate Paine's work. Wasn't this an affront to people's philosophy? And he stole it from the library too!??!??!! He should be shackled for years and forced into sensitivity training, surely!

Don't you all see the silliness of it? What difference does it make if I find Paine's work or the Koran sacred? So my biggest unanswered question still stands; who is the victim?

Simonthepilgrim

I think you are ignoring cultural difference, KoB. This is precisely what I mean by deficiencies in the educational process. To Westerners, printed books are disposable commodities and no particularly 'holy' quality attaches to them. This is not the case in other cultures. Among Tibetan Buddhists (and others perhaps) you will find that Dharma texts are treated with extreme reverence. I remember being taught that they should not be put directly on the ground. In Judaism, the scrolls of the Torah are treated with enormous respect. Indeed, among many of the Orthodox whom I knew as a child, all written/printed material was similarly revered.

I am not saying that the reaction of Muslims is right or wrong, nor am I suggesting that disrespect towards the Q'ran should be criminalised. I am simply trying to stress that you cannot take your own "who cares" attitude to destruction of what, to you, is "only a book" as being the only one - or, indeed, the correct one. Context remains vital.

ZopaTenzing

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

.............I am not saying that the reaction of Muslims is right or wrong, nor am I suggesting that disrespect towards the Q'ran should be criminalised. ..................

Then you do agree that the act of disrespecting a book, any book even one some believe is Holy, is not a crime ergo not a HATE crime.

Simonthepilgrim

Zopa Tenzing wrote:

Then you do agree that the act of disrespecting a book, any book even one some believe is Holy, is not a crime ergo not a HATE crime.

Whether something is a crime or not depends not on my opinion but on the law tested in the courts.

KnightofBuddha

I don't think book desecration should be a crime just as I don't think gambling should be a crime. To me, for there to be a tangible, punishable crime, there MUST be a victim. And frankly, a book does not constitute as a victim.

bushinoki

The only crime I saw in the whole story was that the book had been stolen. If somebody needs to charge someone with a hate crime, use the theft of the book. Then, you've actually charged someone with a tangible crime (there was a victim, the owner of that book) which was motivated by bigotry. Other than that, yes, he was acting within his rights by expressing himself. Although you might want to be careful about what you call expression. I know some veterans who, when they see some young punk wearing an American Flag upside down, they "express" themselves with their fists.

Palzang

I think what is being missed here by most people is what Simon has been trying to point out, namely that just because you don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean that it isn't a big deal to other people - Muslims in this case. We go around thinking that whatever we believe is the only way to believe and in our arrogance suppose that anyone who doesn't believe the way we believe is wrong. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude to have, particularly in the state that this poor world is in right now. Who are we to say that what someone else considers to be sacred is wrong? That is supreme arrogance, imho, and that is what creates the madness of al Qaeda or, conversely, fundamental Christianity. We have to be willing to grant others their right to believe the way they want to believe, not the way we think they should believe. That's the whole point of hate crime legislation, that even because the majority of people believe one way doesn't mean that the minority do not have the right to believe the way they believe.

Palzang

ZopaTenzing

Supreme arrogance is believing that a crime is commited because someone's "feelings" were offended. I never thought my way is the correct way just as your way and the Muslim way aren't the right way.

Laws are supposed to based on criminal elements and the facts of them being met or not. "Feelings" make that difficult and when one is hypersensitized and overreacts because a religion's support organization presents a media blitz and dog-and-pony show about how wrong an act was and how offended they are is insufficient grounds for a criminal case.

Laws should define right way and wrong from the legal perspective; not media campaigns and spin doctors regardless who they are for or against.

BTW Palzang; who are you to say what way is right or wrong? You violate your own statement before ending it! Seems it is a "human" trait found in samsara, eh?

Palzang

Your argument is illogical and circular, Zopa.

Palzang

KnightofBuddha

Palzang wrote:

I think what is being missed here by most people is what Simon has been trying to point out, namely that just because you don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean that it isn't a big deal to other people - Muslims in this case. We go around thinking that whatever we believe is the only way to believe and in our arrogance suppose that anyone who doesn't believe the way we believe is wrong. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude to have, particularly in the state that this poor world is in right now. Who are we to say that what someone else considers to be sacred is wrong? That is supreme arrogance, imho, and that is what creates the madness of al Qaeda or, conversely, fundamental Christianity. We have to be willing to grant others their right to believe the way they want to believe, not the way we think they should believe. That's the whole point of hate crime legislation, that even because the majority of people believe one way doesn't mean that the minority do not have the right to believe the way they believe.

Palzang

No one is calling into question a Muslim's right to believe in their creed. But whether or not we have a fundamental right to criticize philosophies, religions, people, politics, and so on. Why is it perfectly within reason to rail against social conservatism on this forum and in the media, and yet at the same time, it remains a taboo to criticize Islam? Because it is sacred? Because people are too sensitive?

So Ibrahim Hooper and his followers at CAIR cry victim with a persecution complex over a book in toilet.. But take a look at enlightened Saudi Arabia where bibles and other books are forbidden. An intellectually bankrupt culture where more books are produced in Spain in a single year than Arabia has printed in a thousand years. A culture so liberal that women are forbidden to drive or be alone without a guardian. So progressive that women cannot go out in public without a burqa.

But of course it is impolite for me to suggest the unreason of the Arab culture. Sensibilities are at stake.

KnightofBuddha

Just so we know, I have no objection to people believing they are right and that I am wrong or what have you. My only concern is that we as a society be allowed to express those views as boldly as we see fit so long as we are not physically threatening or harming someone.

ZopaTenzing

Palzang wrote:

Your argument is illogical and circular, Zopa.

Palzang

From the "details" you provided, I can only assume a lack of comprehension, therefore we shall conclude at this time.

Metta & Peace for all!

not1not2

For some reason I missed that the copy of the Qu'ran was, in fact, stolen. This means that he flushed someone else's holy book down the toilet. So, at this point, this is not a First Amendment issue at all. If he had bought the book from a store for this purpose, it would be.

As far as why it was treated as more than simply theft, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States

Arguments for hate crime laws

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.... The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, 'it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.'"[19] It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[20]

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.[19]

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that:

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 free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity." [21]

Anyway, while I still agree with my earlier statement on the basis of political speech, the fact that this was a theft makes that statement irrelevent.

metta
_/\_

Palzang

It seems obvious from the quality (or lack thereof) of the responses on this thread that no one is actually paying attention to what is said but just reacting from emotion. I never said it wasn't OK to criticize Islam or that we have to treat it with kid gloves. In fact, there is plenty to criticize in Islam. What is at issue here is the treatment of a book that is considered sacred and inviolate by every Muslim. Those are two separate and distinct issues. What seems to be really going on here is people expressing their contempt of Islam under the cloak of pseudo-legalities.

Palzang

Simonthepilgrim

Does nobody remember? Is the destruction of books in 1930s Germany forgotten? When we forget, we permit it all to happen again.

KnightofBuddha

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

Does nobody remember? Is the destruction of books in 1930s Germany forgotten? When we forget, we permit it all to happen again.

I believe there to be a difference. Destroying a book in an act of protest is different than burning a book with the intent of destroying that book for everyone. To hide its content. Wipe it out forever. This does not seem to be the case with the Koran.

Simonthepilgrim

Tell me, KoB, how does the destruction of a book square with your support for First Amendment rights? Wasn't the perpetrator acting directly against those very rights?

KnightofBuddha

If it was property that was stolen, he should be duly punished. I don't see it so much as a First Amendment issue. He should be charged with theft according to the laws of the land. I don't think he should get years and years tacked on because he doesn't like Islam.

But correct me if I am wrong, I think you are talking about book destruction in general. Well, that is protected by the First Amendment too. If I wanted to burn the flag or the Constitution or an effigy of George Washington, I am protected by the 1st Amendment.

Jason

Everyone,

My opinion is the person should be charged with theft and vandalism. The world is an imperfect place, and there will never be a perfect legal system. You cannot prove what he was thinking at the time of the alleged crime, only what the physical evidence and/or eye-witness accounts suggest that he did and the possible motives he might have had at the time.

People, the crimes they commit, and the people who judge them are so variegated that no system can ever be completely fair or impartial. Even the laws themselves are arbitrary and chage with the times. Stoning a woman for committing adultery, for example, was once an acceptable punishment, but very few places will condone this type of justice today.

As for the whole "destruction of books" aspect of this discussion, try to name more than one country or group of people that has not at one time burned or otherwise destroyed books for whatever reason. I am of the mind to believe that people just like to burn shit. Anyway, it would appear that history is doomed to repeat itself as it has countless times already.

Sincerely,

Jason

Simonthepilgrim

Jason,

You are, of course, right. Books have been burned everywhere. Even Harry Potter has suffered this fate in the US:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/30/book-burnings-potter-tech-media_cz_ds_books06_1201burn.html

I fear, however, the fact that people have done something does not mean that it is acceptable behaviour or that one should emulate it, particularly if one genuinely believes in 'freedom of expression' and the liberty of the press as guarantees of general freedom.

What concerns me about this story is that it is symptomatic of a rising level of action against Muslims in general as 'reprisals' for the actions of a few fanatics. For those of us who lived close to family and friends who survived pogroms and the Final Solution, it has sinister overtones.

bushinoki

KoB, so long as your intended expression was not meant to stir up people against each other, you are indeed correct, and if you were protesting something about our modern day culture, I might not like what you did, but I would most certainly uphold and defend your right to free expression. Where I would draw the line in this case is that recent history has shown us that desecration of the Q'uran does indeed have the effect of stirring up Muslims, and he should have known what he was doing, unless he is just not mentally competent. There was, a few years ago, a case out of my home town, where someone was distributing a racist newsletter to everyone in certain neighborhoods, regardless of whether they actually wanted it or not. The acts continued, until finally the police had enough complaints regarding the doggerel to file a cease and desist order in court against the publisher, stating that unless the recipients had actually subscribed, the paper was not to be delivered. There were some eventual arrests made, because of the continued public nuisance and disturbance of peace. Obviously, the group that published the paper has every right to do so, provided that what they print is within certain reasonable limits, but in this case, they were impeding upon the rights of other citizens, and there was a marked increase in the number of race related incidents during the time of delivery. Freedom of expression is one thing, but instigating incidents is entirely another, especially if you committed a crime to "express" yourself.

not1not2

Well, actually. In this instance I think the motive of this individual's action is quite clear, considering (s)he has done this before. Honestly, what motivations, other than discrimination/hate, could you possibly have for stealing someone else's Holy Book and flushing it down the toilet (for the second time)? Granted, they'd have to prove this in court, but the simple circumstances of this indicate that there is a prima facia case for a hate crime. Thus, the individual has been indicted. Really nothing out of the ordinary here.

Simon,

I will say there is a big difference between state sanctioned book destruction and an individual doing it. Especially in this case. It is hard to believe that the individual thought that his actions would lead to the elimination of all books which support the Islamic position. This particular act was a message of hatred and intolerance. Now, the attitude of this individual may be similar to the ones which led to the mass destruction of literature before, but on this scale and by an individual who is not representative of any state authority, i would not precisely equate these things.

metta
_/\_