The San Francisco Chronicle reports of more anti-Arab hate crimes here in the city: Mission graffiti strikes at Arabs; Women's center, cafe defaced. It turns out that the cafe belongs to an Arab-American and was displaying a "Stop the War" sign. I condemn such acts of violence, but I also wonder how it would have appeared for a German-American in 1941 to display a sign saying "Stop Lend Lease" or "Leave Hitler Alone". It is appropriate to express disapproval of people who display pro-Saddam signage, but not by damaging their property.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for the Alameda County District Attorney's Office to explain why they chose not to prosecute the anti-Israel protester who was arrested for stealing and destroying my camera in Berkeley last month. I don't claim expertise to determine what is or is not a hate crime. But it would seem hard to explain the theft and destruction of my camera except as being motivated by a perception that I was pro-Israel (as an indication of this perception, see IndyMedia's report on the event, which appeared hours before I posted my own report, and described me as a "proIsreal [sic] fanatic". )
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 21, 2002 04:48 PMI'm not an expert on hate crimes, but in your case it sounds like a stretch. For one thing, I'm not sure that crimes motivated by the victim's (perceived) political viewpoints count as hate crimes. For another, even if they do, the jerk could probably argue that his theft and vandalism was motivated by your run-in with the woman that didn't want to be photographed, not by your pro-Israeli stance per se.
Posted by: Jeff Bishop on December 21, 2002 10:45 PM>> the jerk could probably argue that his theft and vandalism was motivated by your run-in with the woman that didn't want to be photographed, not by your pro-Israeli stance per se.
That's the sort of question that trials are used to answer.
I suspect that Mr. Sharkansky can make the case that the assault and theft was motivated by his perceived national origin. The attacker may have assumed that said national origin was associated with a particular political belief, but surely bigotry and prejudice are not a defense to a hate crime enhancement.
Now, if you want to argue that the entire basis of hate crime laws is flawed and wrong, you might well find some sympathy, but try really hard to make it look like your objections are not due to the specific facts of this case.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on December 22, 2002 09:39 PMI'm only going on what Stefan wrote, which was that he thought the incident was motivated by his assailant's "perception that I was pro-Israel." Stefan has not claimed that the assailant attacked him because of his country of origin, actual or perceived, so I'm not about to assume that now.
I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws generally, but that's a separate issue. Here, the focus should be on whether or the incident qualifies as a "hate crime" under existing law, not on the legislature's wisdom in enacting that law (nor, for that matter, on whether or not it would be a good idea to expand hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by the victim's political beliefs).
Posted by: Jeff Bishop on December 23, 2002 09:57 AMRegardless of the "hate crime" issue, this incident sounds like it could have been prosecuted under time-honored statutes like those dealing with assault and battery. Is anything being done along these lines?
Posted by: David Foster on December 23, 2002 08:53 PM> Stefan has not claimed that the assailant attacked him because of his country of origin, actual or perceived
It doesn't matter whether Stefan claims that. The question is whether or not it is true.
Of course, if we're going to accept Stefan's word as gospel, then where's the outrage that the thug isn't in jail for simple theft?
Why shouldn't this thief be charged?
Here is Hate Crime
Posted by: Lynn Carrier on January 2, 2003 10:59 AM