Monday, January 08, 2024

How Would You Within The Limits Of The Constitution…

Stop the bias crimes against Palestinians and Jews? I am not talking about the war but rather the results of that war here. I mean that threats against synagogues and the violence directed at Palestinians.

The Guardian reported in October that,
Police in New York are investigating at least three incidents targeting Palestinians and Jews in the city amid heightened tensions around the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas.

A series of attacks and threats were reported across the city on Wednesday night. Earlier this week mayor Eric Adams said that New York police were on “high alert” for potential violence inspired by the latest Middle Eastern conflict.
And in Philadelphia WHYY reported,
A possible hate crime is under investigation after a suspect was caught on camera vandalizing a mosque in West Philadelphia.

When members of Masjid Al-Jamia in West Philadelphia went to pray Friday morning, they were met with vandalism outside.
And USA Today reported…
Authorities continue to investigate after a swatting spree targeted almost 200 Jewish institutions across the country over the weekend with fake bomb threats.

A total of 199 swatting incidents and false bomb threats were tracked between Friday and Saturday evening by the Secure Community Network, a nonprofit that dedicates itself to the safety of the Jewish community in North America. The organization tracked the swatting spree across multiple states, including 93 in California, 62 in Arizona, 15 in Connecticut, five in Colorado, and four in Washington state, according to a press release.
I’m serious… How do you think we can end these bias crimes here?

I am on the Governor's Hate Crime Advisory Council and I'm looking for positive suggestions on steps we can take to end the terrorism here in the U.S. I’m stumped and looking for ideas.

Bias crimes had become an epidemic.

Now I am not talking about peaceful protests by either pro-Palestine or pro-Israeli protesters. What I am talking about is threats made to religious organizations or individuals.
 
*****

When the Republicans questioned the ivy league college about the protests they questioned the college presidents about the protests. According to the Hill,
The House is set to vote Wednesday on a bipartisan resolution condemning the congressional testimony of three university presidents at a hearing last week that centered on the rise of antisemitism on college campuses.

“This is not a partisan issue but a question of moral clarity,” Stefanik wrote in a press release introducing the resolution. “Which is why our colleagues from across the aisle have come together with us to introduce a resolution condemning antisemitism on university campuses as well as the morally bankrupt testimonies of the University Presidents from Harvard, [University of Pennsylvania], and MIT during last week’s House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing.”
The college presidents were right, the Republicans are wrong.

There is a little thing call the Constitution and in the Constitution there is a little thing call the First Amendment that the Republicans keep forgetting about.

A little lessons of the 1st Amendment here, no matter how vile, no matter how disgusting the Constitution protects them. You remember last two drunk students were walking through a parking lot on UConn’s campus yell vile racist anti-Black speech? They were arrested on bias crimes charges well they were all thrown out and the students are suing UConn for violating the First Amendment.

The same thing is true for anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim protests, as long as they don’t promote violence and are peaceful they are legal.

So what would you do to end bias crimes? What would you do to end the violence here? If you had the ear of the governor what would you tell him?



This morning's Hartford Courant had this article.

It is no surprise that many people don’t understand the difference between an illegal hate crime and lawful hate speech. Under state law and usage, they are entirely separate things bearing different legal and societal consequences. Understanding the difference is critical.  Let me try to clear up any confusion.

In general terms, a hate crime under Connecticut law is conduct in which the suspect intentionally causes physical injury to a victim, or threatens to harm them, in whole or in substantial part because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of the victim.  (Federal law is somewhat different.)

[...]

Take an argument over a parking space. Both cars get to the coveted space at the same time. One car is driven by a white man, the other by a Black man, each in a time crunch. Tempers flare as they argue over who got there first. During the confrontation, the white man punches the Black man in the face and calls him a racial slur. Or the Black man punches the white man in the face and calls him a racial epithet. Now these clearly would be a criminal assault, but do they qualify as hate crimes?

On the surface, it certainly seems so, and the victim would expect it to be so charged. However, a prosecutor has to evaluate the facts carefully, and maybe ask police to dig deeper into the case, before determining the motive of the wrongdoer.  The language used was reprehensible and offensive, but a prosecutor evaluating the case must examine the following question: Were the men motivated by racial animus, or were they instead propelled by frustration, with their use of the racial slur being the vituperative outburst of a frustrated man? (By the way, FBI statistics prove that Black Americans are and have been, overwhelmingly, the most frequent victims of hate crimes.)
As I have said repeatedly hate crimes go to motive, motive not only directed at the victim but also at the community.
However, hate crimes can not only terrorize an individual but traumatize the community of which the individual is part. It rips the social fabric. More must be done to recognize it and prosecute it when appropriate. Protecting individual victims and victim communities from hate crimes, while protecting free speech, are both core values that should be treasured and assiduously protected.
So when we hear the Republican law makers go after the college presidents, making them the scapegoats for the Republican anti-LGBTQ+ laws and rhetoric the politicians are ignoring the Constitution to stir up their own animosity against the liberals for allowing the protests.
Balancing the two is not easy, but it is a balancing act that must be undertaken in our free, democratic, multiracial society.
And yes...
Douglas S. Lavine, a judge trial referee on the Connecticut Appellate Court, is co-chair of the state Hate Crimes Advisory Council.
He is the co-chair of the council that I am on.

No comments:

Post a Comment