A couple of instances have happened in the past several weeks. That made me think of how it could be impact gay rights debates.
First, on Staten Island there was an incident where raw bacon was found in a public park where a Muslim gathering was taking place to celebrate the end of Ramadhan. Police were investigating it as a “hate crime” despite littering not even being a crime, just a civil infraction. So are we at the point where hate thoughts can make a non criminal act criminal, then stepped up to extra punishment as a hate crime? Say they had left rainbow flags or stars of davids. Would that be investigated as a “hate crime” by the NYPD?
Also, couldn’t one argue that given religion is protected under hate crime laws, that making pro gay, same sex protests in the presence of religious people is hate speech?
A last question is, there was a faked hate crime done by a lesbian former Nebraska basketball player. She had self inflicted all of the injuries, including cutting a cross in her chest to make it look like christians had done it. Is that a hate crime against christians? She tried to make it look like THEY did it, when the attack never even happened. Is trying to frame someone due to their beliefs a hate crime?
I don’t know if any school of Islam actually teaches that mere contact with a pig product is spiritually defiling or if that’s just a folk belief. Seems that “hate crime” is being used rather loosely for an act of harassment.
Re the lesbian lady- if she were ID’ing someone specific with a false accusation, “hate crime” might be more applicable but hoaxing an attack without specifying an attacker would not seem to qualify.
Say if she had instead done a false rape allegation, claiming a black man did it. Say if a group of KKK types find a black guy and beat him or lynch him as a result of the false rape allegation. Would that change your views? Or this very situation, but instead of a cross, she carved a star of david or crescent moon and people attacked jews and muslims as a result.
You don’t need to specify an attacker for there to be consequences of a false claim.
I’ll confess to chuckling that you felt the need to type out “Fake hate crime by lesbian” and not touch that with a ten foot pole.
As for the other, yes, if someone decided to scatter leave a giant amount of bacon or sausage or bacon in front of a synagogue I suspect that would be taken as an anti-Semitic threat and the same is true of a similar threat directed at Muslims.
Now obviously such reactions can upset one of the more miserable least sympathized groups of Americans; morbidly obese white Americans living in their mother’s basements.
White skin privilege is a real thing and so is non-white skin privilege. There aren’t many advantages in the US to being a male non-white, but one is that if life isn’t going you’re way it’s easy to blame racism, sexism or something similar as opposed to “I have poor social skills” “I’m really fat” “I need to exercise more” or “my mother was wrong when she told me I was special” or something similar.
People like that deserve our sympathy and undrstanding.
You completely changed the fact pattern. THis wasn’t at a mosque, it was public property. A city park. The situation you described would be vandalism of private property, tresspassing etc. No crime took place here. Just littering.
And why pork? Would you think this is a hate crime if they left non hala turkey bacon or non halal beef bacon? That’s just as haram as pork is. There isn’t a hierarchy of haram foods, haram is haram.
If there were a Jewish event on public property and someone left shrimp on the ground, would you say that’s a hate crime because shrimp is just as unkosher as pork bacon is?
It would depend on the motivations of the person left the bacon.
For example, did some leave someone bacon before a gathering of Muslims with the purpose of upsetting them or did they do that because that person do that simple because they were stupid.
Similarly, there’s a difference between some who wears a swastika T-shirt because they’re an admirer of “the people” versus those who wear it for the purpose of expressing hatred for Jews and other non-Aryans.
If “upsetting” someone is grounds for charging someone with hate crimes, then should pro gay rights advocates get charged for upsetting/offending devout christians, jews and muslims?
Please address the issue of different types of bacon. Say if someone left out halal beef bacon, not realizing it was halal? Say they had left out non halal beef bacon?
haram is haram. It doesn’t matter if it’s haram turkey or pork. Haram is haram.
Why the focus on the bacon and no mention to the messages left on the event’s website? The OP makes it sound like the bacon is a hate crime in itself when your link clearly points to the messages.
I don’t think they ever confirmed those messages actually existed. A later story had said someone called up a local newspaper saying they did it and they did it to feed wild animals so they claimed.
However, presuming the messages on the website took place, and leaving bacon in a public park, was a crime committed? Then how can it be stepped up to a hate crime had those same actions against say Lutherans not be considered a crime?
A hate crime is not a thought crime. It’s an act intended to threaten or intimidate a group of people based on their identity. Burning a cross in a black neighborhood or throwing bacon at a mosque sends a message based on the identity of those engaging in the act and those indented to get the message—“you as a group aren’t welcome here,” “you as a group should leave or face consequences.”
That is what makes a hate crime different from simple vandalism or littering.
I don’t believe that you don’t understand that pork, specifically, can be intended to convey a message, and that such message would be understood, as opposed to other haram foods.
Would throwing rainbow flags at a mosque be a hate crime?
Haram is haram. It doesn’t matter if it’s pork or turkey. WOuld you be demanding hate crime charges if they had found some haram chicken wings at the park?
Isn’t that why pork is deemed offensive because it’s haram? It’s just the most famous case. Haram is still haram.
What about if your mere presence is offensive to a group? Like say if a group of blind people with seeing eye dogs were there the day of the event knowing muslims find dogs to be dirty and offensive animals? Should they be charged with some kind of hate crime because they could have used a cane that day instead?
Yes, exactly. It’s the most famous case. And thus it can be intended to convey a message and that that message will be understood. If you can find a situation in which other haram foods effectively communicate that message, then those would also fit.
“Haram is still haram” is the standard for a Muslim who is interested in keeping to the halal code. It is not the standard for hate crimes.
Are they there with the intent to intimidate and threaten them? Are they there to send a message of hate and intimidation? Are groups of Muslim-hating blind people known to have the inclination to effectively threaten and intimidate Muslims as a group? Are Muslims likely to feel that their security is threatened when they are faced with hostile blind people start sending messages like this?
That’s a silly comparison. The blind people aren’t there to insult anyone and need their dogs. That’s entirely different than leaving something somewhere as a deliberate insult. About the only way it would be equivalent would be if the blind guys picked up their dogs and rubbed them on the Muslims to harass them.
