Love the title. Forcible hair-cutting is certainly a hate crime. Same as ripping off a hijab.

But (and I hate to note this) we should probably wait for more facts. I can think of two recent cases, in Vancouver and Sctoland (which was the topic of an SM post) where a young Sikh boy falsely claimed that he has his hair forcibly removed.

The term "brown on brown" hate crime sounds wierd (though it makes sense in a US context). What were the Gujurat riots? The Indian and Pakistani Ayodhya riots? Was partition a brown-on-brown hate crime? The Holocaust -- a white-on-white hate crime?

It is a hate crime once it reached the point where the defendant was aware that cutting the Sikh's hair was more humiliating than punching him with the ring of Allah.
Other observations:
1) The Sikh shouldn't feel that bad about his hair being cut. The guy willingly took part in a fight he was not prepared to fight all the way. He already ceased being a true Sikh man by crying like a wimp and letting his hair get cut instead of letting his face meet the Ring of Allah. The hair is just part of the package of being that. Once the package is broken, who cares about the the other parts of the package such as the hair?
2) If I am the Sikh kid's brother or another relative, I will meet the defendant after his inevitable release and force the kid to eat bacon. Everything is even at that point.

meet the defendant after his inevitable release and force the kid to eat bacon. Everything is even at that point.

Sorry, but when I read this (not expecting it), I burst out laughing.

Personally, I think this episode is in a vast gray area between roughhousing and hate-crime. I remember hearing about "taunts" like this when I was in middle school between various groups and some Sikh kids at my school, but it seemed to be more just talk than anything.

It is a crime. It does not deserve any less or more punishment than any other similar crime.

Regarding the brown on brown title, in this case, it is more of a religious tribalism at work more than racist factors. Using brown on brown would be as bad as characterizing the conflict in N Ireland as White on White. I think the brown on brown is more appropriate where FOBs and ABDs or CBDs fight each other.

I will meet the defendant after his inevitable release and force the kid to eat bacon. Everything is even at that point.

And so the cycle would continue.

Change the defendant to a couple of white kids - is it a hate crime then?

“Change the defendant to a couple of white kids - is it a hate crime then?”

if they are Sikh, yes.

There's another "brown on brown" crime in the newstab. A Bangladeshi killed a Gujarati family in California over what appears to be jilted love. The article framed it as a dispute over religion.

Can it be a juvenile hate crime-- that's what it sounds like to me.

Anna, your reference to Alexander Pope is apposite. ;>)

Pravin (#2) said:

He already ceased being a true Sikh man by crying like a wimp and letting his hair get cut instead of letting his face meet the Ring of Allah. The hair is just part of the package of being that. Once the package is broken, who cares about the the other parts of the package such as the hair?

Good thing there are macho Sikh men like you out there to impose their definition of "a true Sikh man" on children.

Personally, I think 'hate crimes' as a vector for justice is tre nebulous, this case notwithstanding...

Mr. Ahmed was arrested on charges of unlawful imprisonment and menacing as hate crimes, as well as criminal possession of a weapon and aggravated harassment, the police said.

why are "hate crimes" punished harsher than other crimes? I owuld think the punishment should be the same thing for the same crime regardless? Any lawyers here that can explain that better?

He should have just taken the punch or just fought the dude.(I know the kid had scissors,but the dummy probably would have put them down before he threw the punch).

If the events happened as reported, then yes, I think it would qualify as a hate crime.

i remember most of the desis in my high shcool were overachieving geek types. has that changed since then? Did i just go to an abnormal high school?

Can we please refrain from speculating about what the child should or should not have done? He was 15. None of us was calm, cool or collected at that awful age. It's easy to assert what someone should do, when it's a theoretical exercise.

Now that I have got that out of my system, I have to say that I can't stop wondering if he wanted to get rid of his hair and had his friends help him out in a plan now gone horribly awry.

1) The Sikh shouldn't feel that bad about his hair being cut. The guy willingly took part in a fight he was not prepared to fight all the way. He already ceased being a true Sikh man by crying like a wimp and letting his hair get cut instead of letting his face meet the Ring of Allah. The hair is just part of the package of being that. Once the package is broken, who cares about the the other parts of the package such as the hair?

Thanks for blaming the victim. You are a real man.

1) The Sikh shouldn't feel that bad about his hair being cut. The guy willingly took part in a fight he was not prepared to fight all the way.

what does "taking the fight all the way" mean? sounds ominous.

why are "hate crimes" punished harsher than other crimes?

The act was intended (and, since our jackass homeboy Le Perpetrator was packing shears, premeditated) to humiliate the kid by targeting one of the core symbols of his religious identity. Hate crimes often reinforce structural racism/homophobia/sexism/religious tribalism present in the majority society in the worst way, so they are treated more punitively, when the books allow.

And as for whoever said this:

He already ceased being a true Sikh man by crying like a wimp and letting his hair get cut instead of letting his face meet the Ring of Allah. The hair is just part of the package of being that. Once the package is broken, who cares about the the other parts of the package such as the hair

That was a deee-licious slice of crazy you just baked there, dude! You must be mantastic to have the kind of stones it takes to stand up and insult a traumatized kid. I bet your insecurity is buffed to a fine sheen, blingity-bling.

The act was intended (and, since our jackass homeboy Le Perpetrator was packing shears, premeditated) to humiliate the kid by targeting one of the core symbols of his religious identity. Hate crimes often reinforce structural racism/homophobia/sexism/religious tribalism present in the majority society in the worst way, so they are treated more punitively, when the books allow.

interesting...thx.

Of course, if we call it what it is, some chap will come about and claim "ah sepia mutiny is biased against pakistanis"...

I would say let's wait for more facts to come out. Why did this kid go into the bathroom? Daytime in a high school, he could have just run (that is not very Sikh-like either but hey he's human, he's a kid, it's definitely understandable especially if the other guy is a lot bigger)...no way the other guy was going to come running after him in front of everyone and forcibly cut his hair. The defendant's sister says these two were friends, and the Sikh boy requested the other to cut his hair. I'm not saying that's what happened, but more facts need to come out. If this story is true, yes it's a hate crime, but it is rather wimpy how he conducted himself.

Teenagers are hurtful and stupid? Shocking! I'd call this a hate crime, though what does that even mean when the perps aren't adults?

that is not very Sikh-like either but hey he's human, he's a kid, it's definitely understandable

Jesus H. Christ, does anyone else think this kid is a disgrace to Sikhism? I'd love to hear from other Sikhs especially (Amitabh, not sure if you are one).

The defendant's sister says these two were friends, and the Sikh boy requested the other to cut his hair

Also, does anyone have a link for this? Very interesting.

Puliogre, hate crimes are punished harsher because it does not affect one individual but an ethnicity or culture that person belongs to (wikipedia">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Justifications_for_hate_crime_laws">wikipedia).

As for Pravin's comment:

The Sikh shouldn't feel that bad about his hair being cut. The guy willingly took part in a fight he was not prepared to fight all the way. He already ceased being a true Sikh man by crying like a wimp and letting his hair get cut instead of letting his face meet the Ring of Allah. The hair is just part of the package of being that. Once the package is broken, who cares about the the other parts of the package such as the hair?

Where did that come from? It's easy to say that he should have stood up and fought to the bitter end when you are so far removed from the situation.

Aren't all crimes due to hate? (a la southpark)

And I love all the manly Indian men piping in with what they would have done. Everyone is a gangstarr on the Internet it seems.

Aren't all crimes due to hate? (a la southpark)

The shoutout to South Park notwithstanding, a mugger doesn't take your wallet because he hates you. All crimes are not motivated by racial/religious animus, so they're not "hate" crimes.

Everyone is a gangstarr on the Internet it seems.

You made me laugh out loud:)

And I love all the manly Indian men piping in with what they would have done. Everyone is a gangstarr on the Internet it seems.

i would make a pretty $hitty gangsta. skinny little geeky guy. ive only gotten into 1 fight in my life. thats cause some young kid in a club actually punched the girl i was with at the time. no way to avoid violence in that case.

why are "hate crimes" punished harsher than other crimes? I owuld think the punishment should be the same thing for the same crime regardless? Any lawyers here that can explain that better?

There are different justifications for hate crimes. It terrorizes the group to which the victim belongs because the perpetrator targeted the victim because of his membership in that particular group. It has the component of additional malice beyond the ones already codified in law. It also comes handy in cases of religious discrimination, for example, in the absence of this law, yanking off a cap from a persons head would be punishable at the same level as yanking off a hijab from a Muslim womans head or a turban from a Sikh mans head.

I figure his karha would have been bigger than the ring his assailant was wearing...

Daytime in a high school, he could have just run (that is not very Sikh-like either but hey he's human, he's a kid, it's definitely understandable especially if the other guy is a lot bigger)...

Its Hindu-like to back down and be all wimpy?

is there a lot of inter religion violence in the brown community in the US? Doesnt seem to be spoken about very much. dont really hear about it much on tv, or in community papers, etc.

what are 'yo-mama' type insults? how insulting were these insults?

If the events unfolded as reported, I would say it's totally a hate crime. As Ikram said, it's similar to ripping off someone's hijab. There is no reason to go after someone's hair in this context without it having religious significance.

1) The Sikh shouldn't feel that bad about his hair being cut. The guy willingly took part in a fight he was not prepared to fight all the way. He already ceased being a true Sikh man by crying like a wimp and letting his hair get cut instead of letting his face meet the Ring of Allah. The hair is just part of the package of being that.

Talk about missing the point!!! I am going to go stick my head in a bag and scream.

why are "hate crimes" punished harsher than other crimes? I owuld think the punishment should be the same thing for the same crime regardless? Any lawyers here that can explain that better?

Pondatti wrote:

Also, does anyone have a link for this? Very interesting.

Yep. Check out the video at this website

With quite a lot of chutzpah, the sister of the accused crashed the Sikh press conference, interrupting a white politician and claimed that Vacher asked Umair to cut his hair, and that the deal was that Vacher would claùim he got "jumped". But another student interviewed claimed that Umair and Vacher exchanged threats previously.

As an aside, to me, ethnic leaders in New York, whether Black, Irish, Jewish, Muslim or (in this case) Sikh, all look very slimy and opportunistic. Is it something about the climate? The NYC accent? Or just the nature fo the ethnic greivance game that all American minorities play these days, where every incident, even between those too young to remember the Reagan presidency, is used (at worst) to grandstand or (at best) as a 'teachable moment'. Is this kind of thing really necessary?

As an aside, to me, ethnic leaders in New York, whether Black, Irish, Jewish, Muslim or (in this case) Sikh, all look very slimy and opportunistic. Is it something about the climate? The NYC accent? Or just the nature fo the ethnic greivance game that all American minorities play these days, where every incident, even between those too young to remember the Reagan presidency, is used (at worst) to grandstand or (at best) as a 'teachable moment'. Is this kind of thing really necessary?

maybe its because these poeple claim to speak for their people, and people actually believe them. you have to be a bit of a sleaze to pull that off.

I figure his karha would have been bigger than the ring his assailant was wearing...

Sandeep, you should watch the "Yo Mama" comedy show on MTV. This is a much "tamer" example -- Yo mama so fat, she use a mattress for a maxi pad.

I figure his karha would have been bigger than the ring his assailant was wearing...

What is this?! Maybe next time they should just whip out their dicks and compare.

I'm saying that why be afraid of someone wearing a ring on a finger when you have a karha that's definitely much larger in size and you could definitely use to defend yourself?

what are 'yo-mama' type insults? how insulting were these insults?

Yo mama so fat she put on her lipstick with a paint-roller

I'm saying that why be afraid of someone wearing a ring on a finger when you have a karha that's definitely much larger in size and you could definitely use to defend yourself?

How do you know how big his kara was? Honestly, can we lay off with this shit?

I agree with the everybody who's saying that we need to wait for more facts before we start judging anybody.

I don't know how often it actually happens that a Sikh kid asks people to beat him up and cut his hair, but I've heard it suggested enough (jokingly?), and heard of enough actual cases, to remain skeptical at this point...which is really a shame.

How do you know how big his kara was? Honestly, can we lay off with this shit?

Seconded! Seriously, people. No cheesedickery. Making fun of kids getting hurt is so May. Let's usher in a June crammed proper with mama jokes. My favorite:

Yo mama's so fat, she's got smaller fat mamas orbiting around her.

I take yo yo mamma joke and raise it with a racist joke.

Russell Peters (if you're impatient, forward about 1 minute into the video) for the two people on this board who haven't seen his performance.

@ #40

thanks for posting the video. Sorry, but who the heck is she to just crash a press conference like that? They can have their own one.

I don't believe the accused's sisters story either, about what supposedly "really happened". Why on earth would the Sikh boy ask someone else to cut off his hair, and then say he was just jumped? The fact that it happend in a school bathroom only disapproves her story even more. The Sikh boy would just cut it off himself, and then say he was jumped by someone he didn't know. Thats what happened with the 2 cases when a Sikh boy cut off his hair, and then said he just jumped. Those boys never involved anybody else they knew.

Navi, be real. The kid could just as easily ask a friend to "stage a fight" and do the same thing. I'm not saying I believe either story. The sad thing is we won't know until we hear more. I wish that, as a community, we could offer kids the strength to be honest.

ive only gotten into 1 fight in my life. thats cause some young kid in a club actually punched the girl i was with at the time. no way to avoid violence in that case.

seriously, puliogre - there was no other way to deal with the situation? it is amazing how much 'testosterone' this post is bringing out. it's rather ridiculous.

The Anti Defamation League defines hate crime as: a criminal act against a person or property in which the perpetrator chooses the victim because of the victim's real or perceived race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or gender. Statutory wording obviously differs in various jurisdictions.

I feel this is qualitatively different because a victim is chosen as REPRESENTATIVE of a certain group and brutalized/victimized in whatever way because of (and most likely ONLY because of) his/her affliation with that group. In the case presented here, I think whatever fight/grudge was going on was intensely personal, which to me greatly reduces the "symbolic" and/or impersonal nature of the "textbook" hate crime. I would say absolutely not a hate crime.

I don't think that each and every situation in which some kind of ethnic/religious/communal symbolic element involved constitutes a "hate crime." To me, the critical difference is if someone is victimized solely or primarily as an example of their group affiliation. If some white guys go looking for ANY woman in a hijab and decide to rip it off of her just for kicks, that's a hate crime. If two Muslim girls/schoolmates get into a fistfight and one rips off the other's hijab in a rage, causing much public humiliation for the victim, I don't know that you'd call that a hate crime. This devolves into shades of gray though: If two guys who know each other are fighting and the white one keeps calling the black one a "dirty n*****", is that a hate crime? I don't think so, but I'm not sure how that stands up in courts nowadays. Like all matters, depends on the state, depends on the judge, depends on the lawyers, depends on the jury....

Yes, Camille is correct:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6207509.stm

Sikh boys have been under enormous pressure in Canada and Austrailia to uphold such religious symbols in the wake of 9/11. And yes I am a sardarni myself, and have seen my own cousins cut their long-cherished hair to get that better job, better life in the West, etc. The child could have made it up, instigated it, or not resisted as much as he may now need to pretend to.

How disturbing is it that "apology" was defined by the alleged victim having to get a haircut? That's kind of powerplay places this beyond any incidence of juvenile delinquency. And when you have that kind of violent powerplay, there's the backdrop for any hate crime. Hair-pulling or a bloody nose would've been roughhousing, but there's something about this that strikes me as so complex -- freakishly so.

The post title is quite apt -- as someone said.

if the facts as told here are accurate, it is a hate crime - obviously the defedant knew how important his hair (and by extension, religion) was to the victim to use that as his revenge - i think it's rather obvious that he would not have done the same thing to a non-sikh - they would have just fought it out using their fists. however, if the defendant's version is true, i feel very sad for the other kid that he had to stage this whole thing just to cut his own hair, something he felt he could not do openly or seemingly of his own volition. and going by some of the comments on this board, there is, indeed, intense pressure to be a 'true sikh man.'

From what I read, the attacker knew the importance of the kid's hair and chose to cut it off because of that importance. Hopefully the attacker serves some time to reflect on the greatness of his religion and the right it gives him to hurt someone who believes differently than he does.

seriously, puliogre - there was no other way to deal with the situation? it is amazing how much 'testosterone' this post is bringing out. it's rather ridiculous

I tried other options. they jumped us anyways. i hate violence as much as the next guy. but, cmon...

My initial comment was a little bit tongue in cheek. Don't take it that seriously though the obviously flippant remarks were loosely based on a sincere thought that went through my mind. When we ask each new generation to follow traditions, do they really know why they are following them? Isn't the hair and dagger thing symbolic of a Sikh warrior man? Or do a lot of us follow traditions without paying attention to the whole? Or did I get that assumption wrong? And 15 is not that young. In the not too distant future, he will be eligible for the army.

My initial comment was a little bit tongue in cheek. Don't take it that seriously though the obviously flippant remarks were loosely based on a sincere thought that went through my mind. When we ask each new generation to follow traditions, do they really know why they are following them? Isn't the hair and dagger thing symbolic of a Sikh warrior man? Or do a lot of us follow traditions without paying attention to the whole? Or did I get that assumption wrong? And 15 is not that young. In the not too distant future, he will be eligible for the army.

it always seemed to me that the whole point of traditions was simply to foster a sense of continuity? Im sure the sikh gas station attendants of the world arent wearing their beard for warrior purposes. I would think a beard is disadvantagious in any war scenario. i would think they just wear the beard/turban to feel contrinuity with thier culture, ancestors. no?

51 · ak on May 30, 2007 06:33 PM · Direct link

ive only gotten into 1 fight in my life. thats cause some young kid in a club actually punched the girl i was with at the time. no way to avoid violence in that case.

seriously, puliogre - there was no other way to deal with the situation? it is amazing how much 'testosterone' this post is bringing out. it's rather ridiculous.

I agree, makes me want to go out and punch somebody.

Or to quote an excellent mimic/mediocre comedian... "somebody gonna get hurt real bad".

On a serious note, in response to the "Indian men acting like Gangstarrs on the internet" comment, I had to move to India as a kid in the late 70s and ABDs were not that common back then. When I was barely 10, I would be attacked by 12-15 year old kids in my school on a regular basis because I was from the U.S. and I was almost their size. I did not back down. Indians do know how to fight back. And this is another true story. When I was 7, a couple of kids in my school bus asked me to POWDER MY FACE. We were all suburban kids. My white buddy and I were fortunately the biggest kids in our class. So we proceeded to engage in an all out school bus fight. It was actually kind of amusing to see this lil kids with bloody noses. I can't remember clearly, but i may have had one too.

I agree, makes me want to go out and punch somebody.

funny.

puliogre - sorry, your wording just made it seem that that was the immediate reaction. but, yeah in certain situations, i guess eventually you have no choice, and it sometimes depends on the other person - if they're not going to let it go without a fight, might as well give them a good one.

I did some reporting on this story on the day it broke. Desi youth workers who are actually directly involved with kids in this neighborhood, including ones who attend this high school, cautioned that there were numerous conflicting versions of the sequence of events. It was only clear that (a) there had been trading of taunts (apparently yo mama jokes), and (b) the hair had been cut. Exactly how things evolved from (a) to (b) was very much up in the air. There is no doubt of course that the cutting of the hair represented an affront to the victim's religious beliefs, and no one wanted to second-guess the police in their investigation and the D.A.'s office in its pressing of the charges. Still, these youth workers, who operate daily in a community where there are large numbers of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh desis, as well as pretty much every other ethnic group under the sun (Elmhurst is as diverse as it gets), pointed out that the only clear pattern this underscores is that "kids fight," and when they fight they align on identity -- Indian vs Pakistani, Gujarati vs Punjabi were two examples I was given. Again, no one is disagreeing that what happened here went further in that it ended up in religious humiliation.

Two other things. First, the reference to the "ring of Allah" made in the D.A.'s office's press release was the first such reference in a day that had already seen numerous versions of the story put forward. Moreover, the D.A.'s office presented the incident as, basically, the alleged perpetrator grabbing the victim in the hallway and taking him into the bathroom and forcing him to have his hair cut -- as if there hadn't been a whole sequence of events leading up to it. I showed the D.A.'s press release to people who had been talking to kids from the school all day and they were incredulous. The key point here is that when a decision is made to charge someone with a hate crime, there is a strong incentive on the prosecution to put forward narratives that emphasize facts that can clearly be seen as manifesting religious or ethnic hate or bias. It's a well known problem of the "hate crime" category that it doesn't do a good job with complex incidents in which ethnic, racial or religious identity play a part but not the only part.

Second, and this goes to what Ikram was saying earlier in this thread, my understanding is that the press conference that was called at 2 p.m. the day after the incident (and the first day it was in the news), was called by a Sikh uncle who is neither from that neighborhood nor is affiliated with the major Sikh civil-right organizations in NYC like the Sikh Coalition. This uncle apparently made a nuisance of himself after 9/11 as well, putting forward the "we are not Muslims" line at the same time that other organizations were trying to build solidarity among, and recognition of, all the different groups at risk of bias and profiling. As Ikram said, self-appointed leaders tend to be opportunistic and are often counter-productive. I would venture this problem goes beyond NYC, but certainly this city with its infinite diversity creates a lot of opportunities for this kind of behavior.

On the day after the Elmhurst incident, the youth workers were mostly concerned about the risk of this incident leading to incendiary, irresponsible rhetoric by leaders in the masjids, mandirs and gurudwaras of Queens, and the possibility of retaliation or escalation in the playgrounds over the long, hot Memorial Day weekend. It seems that the weekend passed without incident, which is testimonial to the underlying positive climate in Elmhurst (which is visible if you've ever visited the neighborhood) as well as the good sense of most of the kids living there.

were mostly concerned about the risk of this incident leading to incendiary, irresponsible rhetoric by leaders in the masjids, mandirs and gurudwaras ... and the possibility of retaliation or escalation

Jeepers...sounds more like India than Queens.

Pondatti (#26) I never said this kid was a disgrace to Sikhism. But much of Sikhism's ethos includes ideals about how to behave when being persecuted. Obviously few can actually live up to that. One can (and probably should) let this kid off the hook, but it would not be uncalled for to say he did not exhibit the type of behavior that represents the ideals of the religion. That's all. In other religions, let's say Jainism, where the ideals are very different, one would not offer this criticism at all, and the issue would never come up. Sahej if you're out there, I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

Puliogre (#33) I agree it would be hard to avoid violence in a case like that.

Pravin, you kind of prove my point. The amount of misplaced machismo in this thread is laughable. Who cares if a 15 year old Sikh boy acted like a sissy or not? Really?

And more than that, what does your ability to fight off teenagers in the 70s have to do with this incident?

If this event turns to be out true.

I'm very surprised at the lack of outrage over this attack on the young sikh boy. I wonder if this anything to do with the attacker being another desi of a muslim background. If this had been a couple of white boys, I have feeling that there would have been alot more comments.

Two months ago a 40 year old sikh man said he was attacked by cop and there were over 300 comments. Most of them saying that the cop was gulity, with very few people waiting for all the facts to come out.

Now if this event turns out to be false.

It will be yet another case of a young teenage sikh boy, saying that he get attacked and had his hair cut. Then the sikh community leaders in the West need to deal with this issue.

As for the Brown on Brown crime. Most south asian brown who murdered in the west, are killed by other south asian browns.

Clueless, unfortunately I'm really hesitant to get all up in arms when for all we know the story is kind of made up. If it really was an attack, I would be more outraged, but there are conflicting stories, and we've seen evidence of kids making up really elaborate hoaxes in the past. It's unfortunate, and like I said, I wish that, as a community, we were accepting enough to let kids feel like they can be honest instead of coming up with elaborate stories to "get out of" religious observance.

Isn't the hair and dagger thing symbolic of a Sikh warrior man?

Siddhartha, that uncle is ALWAYS stirring up trouble. If a member of the family crashed the press conference, I'm frankly glad. There are too many opportunistic folks who play off these incidents instead of actually doing good. The same uncle also has made it difficult for a lot of (U.S.) Sikh advocacy organizations to pair up with (U.S.) Muslim advocacy organizations because of all his stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Thanks for the clarification, though. :)

Camille, thanks for the info. I was just relaying what my perception was.

Ramanan said "And more than that, what does your ability to fight off teenagers in the 70s have to do with this incident?"
My comments about the 70s incidents was in response to the person who stereotyped all of us making some lighthearted comments on this teen as some geeks who would not fight in real life and we were acting like gangstas on the internet.

I do think it is a hate crime if one is to believe the victim amidst the varying accounts. However, let us consider the age of the participants. I would not sentence anyone to jail.There are other forms of punishment that could be meted out.

It's a well known problem of the "hate crime" category that it doesn't do a good job with complex incidents in which ethnic, racial or religious identity play a part but not the only part.

This is true. But more fundamentally, hate crimes are thought crimes...ie, they give extra punishment due to a person's ideas and beliefs. now the particular beliefs in question are repulisive so few complain, but if the govt is allowed to give extra punishment to racists, could they do the same for communists? how about feminists? first they came for the racists...slippery slope.

there are first ammedment issues here and while such laws may pass constitutional muster they certainly go against her spirit. this is not the american way. it's orwells.

i must admit i take perverse pleasure in the fact that hate crime laws are being used to prosecute a persecuted minority. this was not the way it was supposed to be, but since we no longer live in a land where the KKK goes around lynching, i wouldn't be surprised if prosecutions of non-whities exceed those of whites.

the only way around this would be to design a law that only protects certain minorities, ie the hate crime would have to mimic instiutional racism...much like the logic of the "blacks can't be racist" argument.

but such laws would certainly be deemed unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause. america protects individual rights, not group.

No worries, Pravin. Sorry to be so harsh, there's just been so ,any ,achismo-filled posts re: Sikhs and Sikhi lately that I've been at capacity. My interpretation is of course n ot the only correct one, nor is it the end all be all, but I do think a very violence-oriented interpretation of Sikhi goes against the foundations of the faith.

What is this?! Maybe next time they should just whip out their dicks and compare.

i must admit i take perverse pleasure in the fact that hate crime laws are being used to prosecute a persecuted minority

i'm sorry to say, but whites do not have the monopoly on racism. desis are no less when it comes to these sorts of issues - and south asians living in america often hold over not only the desh-related prejudices (i.e. hindu vs muslim vs sikh etc) but also develop some new ones relating to the make-up of their adopted country. i think my parents are not alone in their thinking that they are basically whites - and look down on people of most other races/ethnicities. and while my mother was shocked when i called her a racist, she still stands by her "no marrying black/latino/muslim" edict. i'm glad these laws are not meant to protect any one group.

I wouldn't classify this as a crime... a little hair cut doesn't hurt. He wasn't sodomized for crying out loud. Plus, these were kids. Kids can be more sadistic than adults at times. Its actually somewhat normal for a pre-teen to be sadistic... part of the maturation process. This was peer pressure, not a hate crime. Whoever cut the Sikh fellow's hair did to retain his status among the peer group.

a little hair cut doesn't hurt.

Utterly ridiculous comment...a forced haircut doesn't hurt YOU...it certainly hurts the Sikh who has deliberately never cut his hair, as an article of faith. You may not subscribe to the belief yourself, but do you really not get this? No empathy?

This is true. But more fundamentally, hate crimes are thought crimes...ie, they give extra punishment due to a person's ideas and beliefs.

Its not about a person's ideas and beliefs. Its about when those ideas are put in practice.

a little hair cut doesn't hurt.

What an ignorant statement.

What is this?! Maybe next time they should just whip out their dicks and compare.

the lingayats would win every time. hands down.

a little hair cut doesn't hurt.

All the muslims in this world are criminals, they are thinking they will get the heaven from the god but i can say they will goes to the hell for ever.

the lingayats would win every time. hands down.

Do they shave, wax, or go au natural?

Its not about a person's ideas and beliefs. Its about when those ideas are put in practice.

o come on acfd. i have an idea that liberals are not human and i go on shooting spree at the aclu offices. i don't get extra time. only if you put your racist ideas into practice does the law kick in.

it's about the thought(crime).

Do they shave, wax, or go au natural?

rahul: when you're looking up at the empire state buliding, do you care if there's grass growing on the sidewalks?

rahul: when you're looking up at the empire state buliding, do you care if there's grass growing on the sidewalks?

Manju, why should my ideas and beliefs influence the actual fact in question?

Although, remember, it wasn't blades, it was cooties that killed the beast.

Manju, why should my ideas and beliefs influence the actual fact in question?

what do you mean by "actual fact in question?"

what do you mean by "actual fact in question?"

Who do I look like? PG?

Who do I look like? PG?

no. she'd be worshipping the lingam by now.

o come on acfd. i have an idea that liberals are not human and i go on shooting spree at the aclu offices. i don't get extra time. only if you put your racist ideas into practice does the law kick in.

it's about the thought(crime).

Manju: Its still not about thought. Thought is only relevant to the extent that it defines the motive. In criminal jurisprudence, different motives do commonly beget different punishments. Its about certain motives behind committing a crime being more punishable than other motives. Also remember, that for hate crimes to be a 'thought crime', they would have to be punished by themselves. However, hate crimes are almost always tagged on crimes to some other crime.

I do share at some extent your general queasiness about hate crime legislation. Its amorphous and another way of adding on to the already burgeoning prosecutorial discretion which I find troubling to say the least.

Btw, have you heard about the proposal in Massachussets to provide protection against discrimination on the basis of weight/height.

If I am the Sikh kid's brother or another relative, I will meet the defendant after his inevitable release and force the kid to eat bacon. Everything is even at that point.

Yep!

My favorite one:

"Yo mama so stupid, she failed the Turing Test."

quick someone burn down this crap forum

quick someone burn down this crap forum

Quick, pick a handle you won't disrespect with such stupidity. Warning #1.

Yes, a little haircut doesn't hurt! Being a Sikh has nothing to do with it. Like I said, pre-teens have a certain amount of sadism in them - teasing, for example. In this case, sadism was simply combined with peer pressure resulting in what - a haircut. This was the most obvious way for the other fellow to get even with the Sikh kid - insult the Sikh kid's religious beliefs. Now, I am not saying this was the correct thing to do, by all means - however, it sure as hell ain't a hate crime! I don't know about you, but when I went to grade school, I heard/experienced/witnessed lots of mean things - including that bordering on the racial. When I got to high school, it was close to zero. In college, it WAS zero altogether. Moral of the story: for the same reason you can't expect adolescents to not giggle at the mention of the word "sex", you can't really expect them to be sensitive to other cultures either. Whether we are talking desi kids, American kids, or British kids, is immaterial.

I figured it's a hate crime once you particate in a hateful action with full intent to humiliate, injure or harm someone else specifically based on a religious, sexual, or other distinguished factor the law has deemed as part of a discriminatory act.

I'm still amazed by all the people who think it's no big deal for the kid to get his haircut. Lk1, it seems like you're almost dismissing this as "kids will be kids." The forcible cutting of his hair, knowing about the significance, is quite a bit more disturbing than just immaturity as you claim.

76 · LK1 on May 31, 2007 09:20 PM · Direct link

I wouldn't classify this as a crime... a little hair cut doesn't hurt. He wasn't sodomized for crying out loud.

I would assume that sodomy doesn't either if you use adequate amounts of KY. That makes it ok, right?

LK1, although I wouldn't equate it to sodomy, it is a very fundamental violation of someone on a very deep level. The emotional consequences could be devastating. Try to understand.

I'm still amazed by all the people who think it's no big deal for the kid to get his haircut.

So far, fortunately, only one person voiced that view.

I suppose holding down and force feeding a Jewish or Muslim kid pork, or an observant Hindu beef, could be seen as just tomfoolery and 'kids-will-be-kids' too, right? It's something like that isnt it Amitabh?

I appreciate the fact that some of you are at least beginning to consider the potential value of my "kids are just kids" logic. You should also understand that within this age group, there is a certain tendency to form cliques. In my opinion, the bullying and consequent isolation of certain individuals arises from this same formation of cliques. There are always those who never fit into the cliques... its inevitable that they suffer some form of abuse. And they become easiest targets of the rowdy cliques. Whoever cut the Sikh kids hair, lets call him Person A, would have thought he was acting in the interest of his clique. Don't forget that group behavior differs vastly from individual behavior. Therefore, its not surprising that Person A resorted to extremes. Person A needed to prove to his clique that he could hold his own. Cutting the Sikh fellows hair was an obvious attention-grabber.

You're just explaining the obvious dynamics behind bullying and thuggery. It doesnt really add to our understanding.

I should make one other point. The vast majority of Americans are very liberal when it comes to religion. Maybe its different in India, but that is irrelevent. You can't expect an adolescent at some public school in New York to understand Sikh customs. Its not part of the curriculum. Not to mention, Sikhs are a minority here... sure, you could put them in a Hollywood flick, and people would quickly learn, but ahhh, there is no money-making potential in that - how many Bollywood films have you seen in which the main actor wears a turban? Don't expect Hollywood to be different. Minus Hollywood, there is no way for American's to know about Sikhs short of actually interacting with them. Again... I wouldn't reasonably expect some immature pre-teen in NYC to spend his time becoming culturally sensitive. What I would expect him to do his play a lot of pranks, just as I did when I was his age.

It doesnt really add to our understanding.

Because there isn't much else to be understood, other than that adolescent sensibilities don't always border on the mature. Classifying that as a hate crime is beyond me.

I appreciate the fact that some of you are at least beginning to consider the potential value of my "kids are just kids" logic.

No. Nor do I have any interest in 'understanding' Person A. Person A should be given the most severe punishment that society deems permissible for his age and his crime...which in this case was definitely a hate crime (if it really happened as described).

I should make one other point. The vast majority of Americans are very liberal when it comes to religion. Maybe its different in India, but that is irrelevent. You can't expect an adolescent at some public school in New York to understand Sikh customs. Its not part of the curriculum. Not to mention, Sikhs are a minority here... sure, you could put them in a Hollywood flick, and people would quickly learn, but ahhh, there is no money-making potential in that - how many Bollywood films have you seen in which the main actor wears a turban? Don't expect Hollywood to be different. Minus Hollywood, there is no way for American's to know about Sikhs short of actually interacting with them. Again... I wouldn't reasonably expect some immature pre-teen in NYC to spend his time becoming culturally sensitive. What I would expect him to do his play a lot of pranks, just as I did when I was his age.

Inter-religious studies could help. I think a good time for that would be junior high. Having representatives from all of the world's major religions come in and give some talks, and for the schools to implement the rule that at least 50% of the speakers should be women, especially for those religions where women are under-represented as representatives, such as Islam. This would force those religions to push their women forward more if such a curriculum were mandatory across all public junior high schools in America. Catholic nuns are common as public speakers, but Muslim women? Not. Time to change that.

No. Nor do I have any interest in 'understanding' Person A. Person A should be given the most severe punishment that society deems permissible for his age and his crime...which in this case was definitely a hate crime (if it really happened as described).

He shouldn't be given any punishment at all. I say that because this sort of thing goes in thousands of schools all over the country. Its called BULLYING. In the military, its called HAZING. These are like rituals the uber-sensitive loner has to pass through. I'm guessing our Sikh friend wasn't very popular... I can't exactly imagine him in a group of kids with baseball hats and super loose jeans... thats why I went to the trouble of explaining cliques etc. Personally, I blame the Sikh kids parents for this. They should have prevented him from a turban at least to the primary school. Why isolate him for the sake of some religious beliefs? Their logic I imagine is that if he didn't wear the turban from a young age, he would never be inclined to wear it. I don't know about that. I think Sikhs should just try to assimilate more. If they can't, then they shouldn't expect to get away with harmful comments, when those from the dominant culture impose their own way of doing things. You do have to respect the turf your on. Happens in every society.

Above should read as: "prevented him from wearing a turban."

The Sikh shouldn't feel that bad about his hair being cut. The guy willingly took part in a fight he was not prepared to fight all the way. He already ceased being a true Sikh man by crying like a wimp and letting his hair get cut instead of letting his face meet the Ring of Allah. The hair is just part of the package of being that. Once the package is broken, who cares about the the other parts of the package such as the hair?

Yes... he willingly took part in a fight. He was also outnumbered. No surprise the assailant felt a need to publicly humiliate him. And yes... the Sikh kid should have fought back. Thats how grade school works. I was punched quite a few times, but I did my own share of punching. Its all very silly in the end, but anyway, this is the culture of public education in the US.

Personally, I blame the Sikh kids parents for this

This is the source of your stupid comments on this subject. Someone punches and bullies your son or daughter, and it's your fault? Pathetic. Cluelessness masquerading as realism and insight.

I think Sikhs should just try to assimilate more. If they can't, then they shouldn't expect to get away with harmful comments, when those from the dominant culture impose their own way of doing things.

So basically, you just hate Sikhs, and have the sneer of a bully and thug and bigot yourself? Why did it take you so long to say so, you should have come out with it at the start and saved yourself all that typing.

LK1, basically what you've given us is an argument that comes straight out of your ass. Not only is your understanding of Sikhi completely nonexistent, your comments are offensive in the extreme. If YOU are too ignorant to understand the significance of kes in the Sikh religion, that's your problem. Please don't project your insecurities and ignorance onto "Person A" and the child who was attacked. You know nothing of the situation, nor do you know what happened. For that matter, none of us know the inner dynamics, which is why so many of us have reserved judgment at this point.

For you to belabor your point -- which has already been demonstrated to be ignorant and hateful --, you are intentionally ignoring the larger picture and delegitimizing a significant and worrisome incident. I don't care if you don't think a child's hair is important to his faith or religious observance. What you think or feel is totally irrelevant. At the end of the day it IS an act of aggression against this child's faith, and it is pretty clear that "Person A" understood this.

In related news:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/02canada.htm

"Two teenage boys face charges as police in Canada continue to investigate suspected racially-motivated attack on an Indo-Canadian couple in British Columbia.

The two youths face charges for racial attack on an elderly Indo-Canadian couple, Gurmit Singh Tiwana, 79, and Surjit Kaur, 72, in the Fraser Valley city this week while on an evening walk.

Tiwana said he was still trying to deal with the shock of the violent attack by four Caucasian teens while he was out on an evening walk on Tuesday with his wife Surjit Kaur.

"They started throwing racial slurs on us as well as stones. We tried to escape, responding to them in no way. We had gone ahead of them and all of a sudden we saw them following us," Tiwana said.

The elderly Sikh said once the boys caught up to them, one of them threw a large rock that struck his wife's ankle. He said she needed four stitches.

Police arrested two teenagers, aged 14 and 18, not far from the scene of the attack."

Knowing how mean young kids would be, it's parents' duty to protect their kids as much as they can from that crap. Part of that is not sending your kid to school in something that is too far off from the norm. Whatever and wherever you may be. My non-Indian friends with kids in India don't send their girls to school in tight jeans and spaghetti straps.

Tiwana said he was still trying to deal with the shock of the violent attack by four Caucasian teens while he was out on an evening walk on Tuesday with his wife Surjit Kaur.

Some of these people need to get an identity and a culture already. Stat. Wtf. How could they attack an elderly couple like this!?

LK1: Stop being so obtuse. The kid who cut the hair was a Pakistani American kid. That area is full of Sikhs and Pakistanis. Surely, you dont believe that the Pakistani kid had no appreciation of the fact that the kesh is an article of faith for the Sikhs.
Anyway, I am not going to waste my time with you. I was going to write you a long answer because I have personally handled some cases of religious discrimination and have some idea about how hate crimes affect a person. However, its obvious that you have a problem with Sikhs and my arguments will not be able to compete with your bigotry. I hope you can find peace.

Part of that is not sending your kid to school in something that is too far off from the norm. Whatever and wherever you may be.

If so, that is completely NOT analogous to dressing "conservatively" when in India. The two are not even comparable. Is it acceptable for teenagers to rip off another woman's hijab, then, because it is "too far off from the norm"? And will a "norm" ever change unless there is greater information, exposure, and acceptance of differences?

Camille # 116 ,

I would'nt bother to reason with PG .By her own admission she never misses an opportunity to offend with unsubstantiated statements or sweeping generalizations

[blockbuster] Once again, the parents are to blame for this. They put the kid in a bad situation. By suing the assailant, they are only making the situation worse. This is not the last time the Sikh kid will be bullied. Is he going to sue his classmates in college, if they snicker at him? Is he going to sue his co-workers, if they make a snide remark behind his back? Is he going to sue the women at parties who refuse to date him because of his headgear? At some point, the kid is gonna have to deal with all this, all by himself... he's gonna have to learn the hard way the consequences that publicly displaying the turban bring. Now, wearing the turban itself is NOT a bad thing. What is BAD is if you can't SUFFER in silence the ensuing persecution that may come along with it. And personally, most people can't (myself included) which is why we choose to conform to the dominant ideals, so far as is possible. Those who can suffer in silence, however, are a unique lot, worth of much admiration. Of course, deciding to press charges/file a lawsuit just shows you are a COWARD at heart. There were MILLIONS of Indians who would have raised their guns or whatever weapons were available at the time, had Gandhi given the signal. I don't think this Sikh kid's parents have any REAL religious conviction at all, if they can't show TOTAL forgiveness to the assailant and his family. [/blockbuster]

Al Chutiya @115:

Yes, its true that the assailant was a Pakistani Muslim. And a friend of this Sikh fellow -the only proof you need that this was not a hate crime. IMO: it was probably an innocent prank.

For the record: I'm not a Sikh, but you don't need to be a Sikh to understand that this was just a prank between two under-age school. I don't follow the presumable logic of some on this thread that only Sikhs are capable of understanding what happened here. In 21st century America, most BOYS and MEN DON'T have HAIR that falls past their WAIST. If they DO, then, all motivations aside, it will invariably DRAW attention. I leave the CONSEQUENCES of that attention to the reader to judge for himself/herself.

I leave the CONSEQUENCES of that attention to the reader to judge for himself/herself.

You mean the tendentious ramblings and apologia for racist violence and spurious Lord of the Flies 'realism' that you squirt as justification for racist thuggery, violence and bullying? Basically, you're an apologist for nasty nasty nasty bigots and violence because you share the prejudice and bigotry of those squalid little violent bullies. You're not talking about the specifics of this situation, you've been making a general apologia for violent hateful attacks on Sikhs. It's not only creepy, it's cowardly and repulsive. Here's the news -- the general reader, (apart from a few possible tendentious half-wits in tune with your bigotry) does not share your bigotry and bully-boy charter and justification for violent attacks upon people, just because they look different.

Well said (as always), Red Snapper. I loathe any insinuation that someone who was assaulted was "asking for it".

Of course, deciding to press charges/file a lawsuit just shows you are a COWARD at heart

on the contrary, it shows that you have the conviction to not only stand up for your beliefs, but to not tolerate any disrespect of them. letting things go is far easier than making your voice heard, esp. when people do not always want to hear what you have to say. the civil rights movement won the larger part of the battle, but i think it's a duty to all americans to also stand up when smaller violations come along. it's a constant process, but things will never improve if the dialogue does not continue.

as far as consequences of having long hair - only the rational/expected reactions should be tolerated. of course, people will always make comments - unnecessary, yet still tolerable. but physically violating someone's person - intolerable. and quite frankly, LK1, that's a slippery slope. and pretty ridiculous, considering that historically, the majorities have done quite despicable things - slavery, apartheid, empires, segregation. so i'd rather not rely on the 'majority's' viewpoint without qualification.

Red Snapper that was beautiful.

PG, are you saying that Sikh parents should not send their children to school with long hair? If so, that is completely NOT analogous to dressing "conservatively" when in India. The two are not even comparable. Is it acceptable for teenagers to rip off another woman's hijab, then, because it is "too far off from the norm"? And will a "norm" ever change unless there is greater information, exposure, and acceptance of differences?

They have a right to sue, however, commonsense says tells us that kids are mean (ever been to elemenatary school?) and it's a parental instinct to spare your kids as much meanness as you can.

I would not send my kids to school public school in tilak, though I wear it at home and amongst other adherents to my religion. However, if my imaginary kids wanted to wear tilak to school, so be it, but I would say "at your own risk". More than likely I would not even put them in the American public school system.

I would not send my kids to school public school in tilak, though I wear it at home and amongst other adherents to my religion. However, if my imaginary kids wanted to wear tilak to school, so be it, but I would say "at your own risk". More than likely I would not even put them in the American public school system.

So you wouldn't encourage your children to express their individuality or their culture while in public in America? You would rather they walk and talk like everyone else so they blend in and don't attract unnecessary attention? Wow. I feel very sorry for your imaginary children.

I'm shocked how some people don't see this as an hate crime. There a very good chance that the young pakistani kid who is being accused of this crime had to know, how important hair to this young sikh boy. He must have known the emotional effect that this would have had on the young sikh.

Sonia # 126,

While I wouldn't dream of judging anyone for their religious beliefs, I can see where PG is going.Note : I mean this in general and not as a comment on this particular incident .

At what point do you draw a line between assimilation in the country that you are bringing your children up in and pride in your origins and culture?

This is a sincere question: As a parent, I go through this everyday. I want my son to be happy and integrated wherever he is and at the same time I find it so difficult to give up some ingrained cultural mores. But I will be willing to give up some of them if it means that he will be happier.

Red Snapper, thanks. That was great. :)

PG, you may consider a tilak optional. For a Sikh, and for parents who are raising their children as Sikhs, cutting your hair is NOT optional at all. We've had this conversation before - please look through the archives for the discussion there. Given that it isn't an option, common sense dictates that society will have to learn to get used to it. This was not an incident of "meanness" -- the "assailant" or whatever clearly targeted this child and his hair for its religious significance. Whether he understands why is unimportant. He knew that this was an attack against something the child places importance in. Should we also encourage Jewish children who wear a yamulke to avoid school? Tell children who wear the hijab not to bother to attend?

what i find so interesting about this debate on integration is that many of the factions that make up the majority were once minorities, and themselves discriminated against. while we may laud the jewish, italians, irish, african american etc cultures, they were not greeted by the then-mainstream with the acceptance we see today. the first wave of immigration generally consisted of northwestern europeans, plus, of course, their slaves. in the second wave, it was mainly the irish (due to the famine), italians, and eastern europeans. and in the twentieth century, jews. all these minorities were discriminated against fiercely, yet they have not let go of their cultures, for the most part. a great example would be the jewish, who not only because financially successful, but did so while making it clear that their religion and cultural identity would not be compromised. why do we, as desis, think that we should be any different? yes, i am sure all these groups assimilated to some extent, but it seems there is some element of 'shame' - an apology for our culture(s) being so different from the mainstream, when it well might be that in the next 50 years or so, we will be as accepted as these other groups. but i think how or whether this will happen depends largely on how we deal with opour culture vis-a-vis the mainstream. i would hate to have desis accepted in the future, only to have completely diluted our culture along the way.

[blockquote] Basically, you're an apologist for nasty nasty nasty bigots and violence because you share the prejudice and bigotry of those squalid little violent bullies. You're not talking about the specifics of this situation... [/blockquote]

You want to view the actions of two immature adolescent boys from an adult perspective. The problem with your logic is that adults resolve disputes far differently. For starters, the motivation for an adult dispute is never a "your-mama" joke. Secondly, while it can be adult-like to resolve the dispute by means of public humiliation, the non-existant "hate crime" you are so desperately trying to imagine took place does not end with a haircuit. There is almost always some substantial bodily harm or vandalism or theft of property involved. Thats why its called a CRIME. The hate component is irrelevent. If we start judging every defendent according to their likes and dislikes, the criminal justice system will become meaningless. There needs to be some objective assessment... the degree of bodily injury, for example, is an excellent indicator. The last time I checked, getting a haircut was not considered a crime. Of course, it was a silly thing to do in this case, for the Muslim guy to do what he did, but what do you expect of two immature adolescent boys? Its for the same reason that those under a certain age are ineligible for the death penalty.

as far as consequences of having long hair - only the rational/expected reactions should be tolerated. of course, people will always make comments - unnecessary, yet still tolerable. but physically violating someone's person - intolerable. and quite frankly, LK1, that's a slippery slope. and pretty ridiculous, considering that historically, the majorities have done quite despicable things - slavery, apartheid, empires, segregation. so i'd rather not rely on the 'majority's' viewpoint without qualification.

Wearing the turban will invariably invoke quite a bit of distaste. Not everyone has had the benefit of an immigrant experience, where adapting to two cultures simultaneously (hopefully) affords one a unique perspective. Some have been reared in sheltered, homogenous settings. You have the subcultures too, which may in certain cases restrict interaction with other groups. Of course, the vast majority of educated individuals will keep their feelings to themselves, as a matter of politeness. The danger is when that distaste factors into a potentially volatile situation. I really would rather not imagine this guy at a bar, for example. Sure, he has the right to be at one. Its just that in certain social situations, its best for everyone to try to conform, especially if they are unable to defend themselves against attacks. In the case of children, this is the responsibility of the parents.

the majorities have done quite despicable things - slavery, apartheid, empires, segregation. so i'd rather not rely on the 'majority's' viewpoint without qualification.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. We don't have to adapt to every aspect of the dominant culture - in fact, some of our own ideals, such as the high emphasis on education - are superior. However, I don't understand this need to declare 24/7 that "I'm a Muslim", or "I'm a Sikh" - assimilate at least a little eh. Unless of course your whole life is actually centered around religion - for example, the Amish. But the Amish do their best to avoid the majority culture, which shows they do in fact have real religious conviction. They have fully rejected materialism. And they don't file lawsuits either, when their children get murdered in senseless violence of the most brutal kind - far worse than a little haircut.

The last time I checked, getting a haircut was not considered a crime.

Are you even reading the responses that are being written to your outrageous comments? If so, you would have realized by now that this was not simply a "haircut." I really don't understand why you continue to write out the same old thing w/o reading the comments of Camille and others. In your opinion, a haircut is no big deal but bodily injuries are a big deal. Well, maybe you should talk to a Sikh since this whole issue concerns a Sikh boy, not a regular kid who gets monthly haircuts. My husband would rather have his body beaten up and bruised than ever let his hair be cut, so I think he would take issue with the fact that you think a haircut is no big deal. Stop looking at the world from inside a bubble and accept the fact that there are people out there who believe in different religions and will do anything to keep them alive.

Oh, and in case you think my example doesn't work in this case since my husband is a grown man and this issue is about a 15 year old boy, you should know that he felt the same way as a child much younger than 15.

Are you even reading the responses that are being written to your outrageous comments?

I don't know how to respond to comments such as "you're a bigot, racist" etc. I personally don't care for such subjective nonsense.

Well, maybe you should talk to a Sikh since this whole issue concerns a Sikh boy, not a regular kid who gets monthly haircuts.

My friend, don't let your emotions overcome your better judgement. Like I've pointed out, adolescents, in general, don't rationalize on the same level as adults. You don't need to be a Sikh to understand that.

My husband would rather have his body beaten up and bruised than ever let his hair be cut, so I think he would take issue with the fact that you think a haircut is no big deal. Stop looking at the world from inside a bubble and accept the fact that there are people out there who believe in different religions and will do anything to keep them alive.

If the parents of the Sikh boy did not sue, then I might take into serious consideration the possibility that this was a serious affront to their religious sensibilities. However, the fact that they sued and decided to press charges shows to me that they are in fact heartless, not least of all, money-hungry. I have mentioned the Amish already. When the Amish girls were murdered, not a single lawsuit was filed. Therefore, I find it rather amusing that these Sikh parents chose to sue, on the grounds of religious offense. You know one test of religious conviction is how forgiving you are - you can wear a turban, burkha, etc. 24/7, but if you seek financial reparation after a trivial incident, you are nothing but a hypocrite, and that little symbol you gleefully embellish to the outside world is meaningless. For the record, I am not religious, I just really despise people who pretend to be.

For the record, I am not religious, I just really despise people who pretend to be.

You are not the only non-religious person here. I am an atheist as well. I have some family members who wear the hijab and there is a way to have a reasonable debate about hijab/turban whatever versus issues of safety etc. You however are not interested in a reasoned debate but more interested in attacking the child, his parents, the Sikh community, the 10th Guru and everybody else. Also your ranting about seeking legal recourse is insane to say the least.

LK1, what ails you man? Why do you have so much bigotry and hatred inside you for Sikhs? You've been biting your nails and writing abstract apologia for the racist bullying and violence against Sikhs for the last couple of days without respite or shame. Your 'explanation' amounts to something similar to saying that women who dress innapropriately deserve to be verbally and physically sexually abused. I have never read so much inverted moral imbecility in my life. And yet you do it constantly, consistently, hissing hate in the form of a warped apologia for racist bullying and violence and victimisation. It's really pathetic.

However I do think that reading your screeds has a kind of value, for explicating the mechanics and psychology and self-justification of the morally incoherent 'Emperor's New Clothes' mode of discourse that seeks desperately, twisting and breathless, to justify its own perpetual bigotry and moronic reasoning. Thanks for giving us a look into that mess, a jumbled spaghetti of chauvinism and prejudice. It's important to know that minds like yours exist.

Lots of love, again, to Red. Eloquent as always.

LK1, it is clear that there is no point in discussing this with you. Not only do you fail to consider alternative views, you're steadfastly convinced that your inconsistent and bizarre logic is prevalent and correct. You may feel that a haircut is just a haircut. In certain contexts, this kind of a haircut is tantamount to assault, which last time I checked was a crime. I'm not going to argue over whether or not you think this is the truth based on your warped view of what should be considered criminal and hateful and what should not in the U.S. Also, FYI, Sikhs did not just burst on the scene post 9/11 -- we have been around for over 100 years in the U.S., and we have visibly practiced our faith throughout that time period. Just because folks like you have decided to pay attention now doesn't mean that we, as a community, have not experienced this kind of consistent abuse before or this rhetoric of "assimilate or die." I have never once heard someone (in contemporary society) say that the way to get by is to keep your head down and take whatever abuse comes your way. As Red said, the same logic is used to justify violence against women. The same logic was used in the south when the KKK and others were terrorizing Black, Jewish, and Catholic families as well.

The French government has passed a law banning the wearing of Islamic headscarves in schools, which comes into effect at the start of the new school year on 2 September. BBC News Online examines the controversy surrounding the ban, which will affect millions of Muslims.

Find out about different styles of Muslim headscarf

In graphics

Q: Why was a law banning the wearing of headscarves passed?

The French had been debating this issue for two decades, but it intensified in the past couple of years, with dozens of girls expelled from secular schools for refusing to remove their head covering.

Few things declare religious identity so emphatically. The visible Muslim presence has therefore added a pronounced religious dimension to rising French concerns about immigration and integration.

In addition, many French people regard the headscarf as a symbol of oppression of women, as well as the embodiment of a political worldview that rejects secularism and even, for some, embraces Islamic extremism.

And then there was a centre-right government under pressure from the far right National Front. The law was passed in March, ahead of regional elections. Polls at the time suggested that between 60-70% of the population supported the ban.

Q: Why is there such sensitivity to overt religious symbols in a Catholic country?

Secularism in France has a unique definition, more accurately expressed in the French term "laicite". It underpinned the French Revolution, which among other things sought to end the domination of the Roman Catholic Church over the state. There ensued much conflict between the church and secular authorities, and an atmosphere of anti-clericalism emerged.

The matter of public religious symbols has been ambiguous, however. In 1989, a court ruled that the wearing of religious insignia in state schools was permissible as long as it was not done with the aim of "pressure, provocation, proselytism or propaganda". Much of the debate focused on whether certain symbols fell into these categories.

Q: Did outrage at the ban really lead to two French journalists being taken hostage?

The group allegedly behind the abduction of Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, the Islamic Army of Iraq, demanded that the law be overturned.

The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says that while the headscarf issue has certainly provoked a negative reaction in the Muslim world, Iraq's kidnappers have not previously linked their action to events thousands of miles away. There has been speculation the hostage-takers may have come up with this unusual rationale only after the kidnapping, when they realised the nationality of the hostages.

The kidnapping of the men has baffled French public opinion, which is generally pro-Palestinian and strongly opposed the war in Iraq.

Q: Will French Muslims be able to challenge the law in court?

They will. There are clearly different interpretations of a French constitution that protects freedom of conscience, education and expression of religious belief. France is officially a pluralistic society and many Muslims argue that their rights to express their religious identity would be infringed by this law. Muslim women who wear the headscarf insist it is nothing to do with politics, but about dignity and obedience to God. Banning the wearing of it, they maintain, requires them to disobey their religion, or compromise their education.

If a challenge in the French courts failed, they could also take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Article nine of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs, subject "only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

However, the European Court of Human Rights recently upheld a ban imposed by Istanbul university in Turkey on a student who refused to take off her Islamic headscarf.

Q: Apart from the French Muslim community, are other religious groups also angry about this law?

Yes, Christian and Jewish groups reacted angrily to the ban on "overt" religious symbols in schools. As well as having the biggest Muslim community in Europe, France also has the biggest Jewish one. While one Jewish group had no problem with the ban, the Grand Rabbi of France, Joseph Sitruk, opposed it.

Others of no particular affiliation have argued that unity comes not through uniformity, but through diversity. Far from encouraging integration, they say, it will do the opposite, victimising Muslims in particular (most of whom are North African immigrants) and potentially pushing some towards political extremism.

It will also probably lead to more private, confessional schools. There are hundreds of private Catholic schools, but the first Muslim school, a junior high school in Aubervilliers, outside Paris, opened only two years ago.

Some Muslim groups have told girls to wear whatever they want and have pledged legal aid and private tutoring if they are expelled from school.

Q: Can Muslim girls wear headscarves to schools in other parts of Europe?

Yes, although the situation is very chequered. In Britain, Muslim girls are free to wear the headscarf. In Germany, there is a heated debate over the issue and some states are considering banning headscarves in schools.

The most striking parallel with the current situation in France is Turkey. There, the secular republic banned headscarves in public institutions. That has led to many girls being excluded from the public system.

In France headscarves are already forbidden for people working in the public sector, but that rule - which is not a law - is occasionally broken. A Muslim employee of the city of Paris was recently suspended for refusing to take off her scarf or shake men's hands.

America should follow the example of France. After all, American democracy was fashioned after the ideals of the French Revolution. Desi immigrants who come and abuse the cherised ideal of secularism are nothing but hypocrites; they can't fix their own backyard (India) and they want to hold someone else's to a higher standard?

Anyway, education is an important issue. Religion should never be brought into the picture, except perhaps as a subject of historical analysis. In the same way as headscarves and turbans should be banned from schools, Christians should not be allowed to form private prayer groups in the school perimeter, nor should the Bible be read/studied. Except for the wearing of hijab/turbans, the other principles have already been long enacted, as far as public education is concerned.

As long as headgear does not interfere with learning, why ban it?

What's really needed is LEGISLATION, such as there was in France, banning the headscarves. The French finally realized, after 20 years of futile debate, that thats the only way to conserve securalism. Because some people just aren't interested in secularism, which brings me to my next question: why bother immigrating to the West in the first place? Its so much easier to practice your religious traditions in your native country. Yes, diversity is good for the West, but exactly what kind of diversity... you don't see Hindus putting their religion on public display 24/7... what you see are Hindus striving for the highest ideals in education and service. Thats the kind of diversity you want, not this, where women who come to this country don't even work, for religious reasons.

What a comedy of errors your contributions to this thread have become, LK1! Carry on ---- I am enjoying this squirming half wittery..

And we are blessed, because at least in your last post, whilst you affix your colours to the standards of the French and American Revolutions, you did not reiterate your apologia for racist bullying, violence and hatred of those who fall outside your remit of bigotry. The French and American revolutions are safe in that isolation (for now!) from the shit throwing of your justification of violent thuggery. Hooray! Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite! (sans racist violence against those LK1 the bigot hates, for the time being!) Vive la revolution!

As long as headgear does not interfere with learning, why ban it?

Because it does not promote learning. Maybe the French realized this; they have a much better system of education. The American public (free) educational system is largely worthless, it has enough problems already, the last thing it needs is to become the model of religious tolerance.

you don't see Hindus putting their religion on public display 24/7...

I remember when I was a kid and my cousins from Long Island stayed with us one summer holiday, being told all about the Hindu women being attacked by racists in New Jersey by 'dot bashers'. I remember my mother and father being 'Paki bashed' when I was growing up. I remember being racially abused over the years having provoked them with my brown skin. We deserved it. Hindu women in America and Britain deserve it for wearing saris, visiting mandirs, wearing bindis.

Hindus occasionally provoke people too LK1. Let's be honest, even though Sikhs and Muslims and occasionally blacks are the main culprits by provoking others by existing, we are also to blame for the occasional violence, which some religious people will try to say is racist.

As a community we need to weed out those in our Hindu diaspora who cause trouble by walking out in daylight and provoking these kinds of things.

Sorry, I completely disagree with you on the headscarf thing and a lot of other things that you say----- and I don't think that will ever pass in the US with our First Amendment, thank god.

France's ruling isn't secularism from where I stand. It is ethnocentric and xenophobic --- the way most French Christians practice their religion doesn't require any prominent displays of their religious affiliation. Their law reflects that and is completely inconsiderate to the other French people who come from religions that practice their religion in other ways. The law fits mainstream, white French culture. They are worried about oppression of women? The hijab isn't the cause of oppression, as many friends I have who where the hijab know. I know there are some Muslim feminists who disagree with my above stance, but I know too many open-minded women who where the hijab.

And if the French are saying that the families are forcing these girls to wear the hijab...that's slippery slope when the law dictates what a parent can force their children to do, when it doesn't cause bodily harm to the children and or the rest of society.

I'm sure in the US that law would be unconstitutional.

Hey LK1, I think you are into this 'banning headgear' jive just because you hate Sikhs and Muslims, and are a bigot. After all, for the last couple of days you've been writing gleeful justifications for the racist bullying and victimisation of innocent Sikhs and presumably Muslims too. I think in reality, you're just a chauvinist and a bully.

Hindu women in America and Britain deserve it for wearing saris, visiting mandirs, wearing bindis.

Hindu women wear sari's to the workplace? Really? That is fascinating. Visiting mandirs is just fine. Build as many religious places of worship as you want; in the Constitution, this is defined as the "right of assembly." Secularism does not imply atheism. Let's differentiate between the two, because the difference is worth noting. A bindi is a small thing. It doesn't go 3 or 4 feet in the air and come in 5 or 6 different colors. It also doesn't come with a beard attached. Now why don't Indian guys just wear dhoti to work in the summertime, eh? I'm sure it would be far more comfortable.

France's ruling isn't secularism from where I stand. It is ethnocentric and xenophobic --- the way most French Christians practice their religion doesn't require any prominent displays of their religious affiliation.

Which religion really requires a prominent display?

“Because it does not promote learning. Maybe the French realized this; they have a much better system of education”.

Why?

Why stop at banning the headscarf, have everyone have the same haircut, same colour eyes, have them wear steel toe cap boots so they can kick anyone who is different.

Schools give the best chance for people to have tolerant views, understanding of other cultures and mainly other people. You start restricting them at an early age, you send into a really small world.

At this point, LK1 is just enjoying watching us all squirm. Red Snapper summed up his warped attitudes very well. In a different era, under different circumstances, he probably would have supported the Nazis (I know, they say the discussion is over once you bring up the Nazis). I say let's forget him now.

No LK1, wearing saris or shalwaar kameez wherever and just being abused for it.

Now, do you think that Hindu women and men who are racially abused and 'dot bashed' are responsible and culpable for being attacked? All you're telling us is that you hate Sikhs and Muslims with a violence, and believe they deserve to have violence inflicted on them by racist thugs. In short, racist thugs area proxy for the expression of your own hatred and bigotry. Let's shift the parameters and address Hindu victims of racist bullying and violence. Where does their culpability arise from?

France's ruling isn't secularism from where I stand. It is ethnocentric and xenophobic --- the way most French Christians practice their religion doesn't require any prominent displays of their religious affiliation. Their law reflects that and is completely inconsiderate to the other French people who come from religions that practice their religion in other ways. The law fits mainstream, white French culture. They are worried about oppression of women? The hijab isn't the cause of oppression, as many friends I have who where the hijab know. I know there are some Muslim feminists who disagree with my above stance, but I know too many open-minded women who where the hijab.

It may not be fair to this religious group or that, I agree on that. However, France had, and still has, a major problem with Muslim immigrants. And that is that these immigrants just weren't assimilating into mainstream French society, reflected in the high poverty levels and poor educational performance by the same said group. The hijab, of course, is not the root cause. But it is indeed part of a larger issue, and that is this overwhelming apathy towards integration, an apathy which comes from misguided belief in upholding certain religious tenets. Look at the Muslim response, for example. Setting up a Muslim school? Why would you set up a Muslim school in the host country, just so girls can wear headscarves, when the French schools are themselves excellent? This shows you wear the priority of certain elements of the Muslim community lie - they would rather their children stuck to Islam, than recieved a first-rate albeit "secular" education. Again, going just by the response to the ban on headscarves, you can see the real motivations of certain elements. Thankfully the French were able to see the light, and in doing so, offer a brighter future to these children.

And if the French are saying that the families are forcing these girls to wear the hijab...that's slippery slope when the law dictates what a parent can force their children to do, when it doesn't cause bodily harm to the children and or the rest of society.

I'm sure in the US that law would be unconstitutional.

You're right Amitabh, although he's the one squirming. I stand by what I say --- it's actually quite important to see a mind like this anatomise and dissect itself in all its rancid glory.

France's ruling isn't secularism from where I stand. It is ethnocentric and xenophobic --- the way most French Christians practice their religion doesn't require any prominent displays of their religious affiliation. Their law reflects that and is completely inconsiderate to the other French people who come from religions that practice their religion in other ways. The law fits mainstream, white French culture. They are worried about oppression of women? The hijab isn't the cause of oppression, as many friends I have who where the hijab know. I know there are some Muslim feminists who disagree with my above stance, but I know too many open-minded women who where the hijab.

It may not be fair to this religious group or that, I agree on that. However, France had, and still has, a major problem with Muslim immigrants. And that is that these immigrants just weren't assimilating into mainstream French society, reflected in the high poverty levels and poor educational performance by the same said group. The hijab, of course, is not the root cause. But it is indeed part of a larger issue, and that is this overwhelming apathy towards integration, an apathy which comes from misguided belief in upholding certain religious tenets. Look at the Muslim response, for example. Setting up a Muslim school? Why would you set up a Muslim school in the host country, just so girls can wear headscarves, when the French schools are themselves excellent? This shows you where the priority of certain elements of the Muslim community lie - they would rather their children stuck to Islam, than recieved a first-rate albeit "secular" education. Again, going just by the response to the ban on headscarves, you can see the real motivations of certain elements. Thankfully the French were able to see the light, and in doing so, offer a brighter future to these children. Its the children who suffer, not the Islamic chauvinist elders. God only knows the motivations of the latter.

PG on June 4, 2007 01:26 PM · Direct link
France's ruling isn't secularism from where I stand. It is ethnocentric and xenophobic --- the way most French Christians practice their religion doesn't require any prominent displays of their religious affiliation.
Which religion really requires a prominent display?

Sikhs, Jews, Muslims for example, often express their religion thru hijabs, turbans, etc. Most white Christians just go to church and maybe where a small cross necklace - that's not banned.

Now, do you think that Hindu women and men who are racially abused and 'dot bashed' are responsible and culpable for being attacked? All you're telling us is that you hate Sikhs and Muslims with a violence, and believe they deserve to have violence inflicted on them by racist thugs. In short, racist thugs area proxy for the expression of your own hatred and bigotry. Let's shift the parameters and address Hindu victims of racist bullying and violence. Where does their culpability arise from?

Now you're taking the situation out of context. Like I said, Hindu's do not put their religion on display 24/7. This is because Hinduism is itself versatile, and can easily adopt to outside influences, while maintaining a strong sense of internal cohesion. This is why there is a Hinduism to begin with; else, it would have been swept away a long time ago by Islam, Buddhism, or Christianity, e.g. foreign conquerors desperate to impose their religion on the peaceful Hindu masses. To be perfectly honest, I do not see nearly as much a versatility in Islam. I do not think Islam has properly adapated to the needs of the 21st century; I think there is some conflict it has with secularism, which is of paramount importance to a modern democracy. Turkey is the only Muslim nation out there to have realized this. If Bush had succeeded in Iraq, my point would be made much more clearer. Anyway, Sikhism does not have a similar issue, even though, it is by nature halfway Islam. No one attacked gurdwaras after 9-11, to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately, the beard and turban do not lend themselves well to post 9-11 sensibilities; well, what do you say to that? I don't know.

LK1: Unfortunately, your South Asian features do not lend themselves well to post 9-11 sensibilities either.

Now you're taking the situation out of context.

No I'm not. Your context is so knotted in with your apologia for racist violent attacks, the enactment of your own lunatic bigotries, that anyone who trips it up (which is easy to do), causes confusion and recitations of 'changing the context'. Your prejudice is not the baseline from which all other truths arise. Your prejudice and cowardly apologia for violence, thuggery, and racism are actually the baseline of moral idiocy that I and most other people reject. You don't have an answer because you're a bigot exposed. You blame the victims because you hate the victims in your febrile and deranged moral universe. You identify with the violent, the racist, the bigot.

No I'm not. Rubbish............... is so knotted in with your apologia for racist violent attacks, the enactment rubbish........................................
that anyone who trips it up (which is easy to do), rubbish...................... rubbish........................recitations of 'changing the context'. Your prejudice is not the baseline from which all other truths arise. Your... rubbish... rubbish............................................................................................... rubbish

For those who need a breath of fresh air:

Is this a hate crime? Or just juvenile stupidity and roughhousing gone too far?

Its good that whoever blogged this had the consideration (maybe good sense is a better description, at this point) to note the second possibility.

LK1: Unfortunately, your South Asian features do not lend themselves well to post 9-11 sensibilities either.

The difference is that I don't jump on the lawyer bandwagon when someone (usually an American) mistakes my features for that of an Arab. Personally, I don't care for someones lack of geographical understanding (& Americans tend to be amazingly geographically obtuse, when it comes to that. Nor do I care what religion someone is. Just leave your external (visible) religious symbols at home when you go out in public. How much simpler could the solution be? We live in a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

LK1: >>Just leave your external (visible) religious symbols at home when you go out in public. We live in a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

Not sure how the first sentence is related to the second. A secular democracy only means that the Government does not discriminate based on religion. It does not mean that we all have to give up our individual preferences related to dress, language, food etc. If you extend your logic to other situations, you will end up with statements like: "Just leave your Tamil, Hindi at home when you travel on NJ Transit" or "Just leave your halal/kosher restrictions at home when you go out to eat".

A person's preference to retain religious traditions in public (at his/her own expense) should not be seen as an invitation to attack or ridicule.

M. Nam

PS: The grey area in this is regulations regarding heargear/facial cover etc for passport photos/driver's license etc. In this, the law of the land must trump.

Just leave your external (visible) religious symbols at home when you go out in public. How much simpler could the solution be? We live in a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

You don't care about Jews wearing yarmulkes or Christians wearing crosses. They don't threaten secular democratic principles. Sikhs wearing a turban really bothers you for some reason, and for wearing it, they deserve to be physically attacked. Your prejudice is vile. Your logic is of the same type that says, 'Well what do you expect? She was wearing a tight t-shirt, of course she deserved to get raped'. Even though everyone has pointed this out to you many times, you keep yelping the same apologia for racist bigotry and bullying. All the cut and pastes that you are just about clever enough to cut and paste about the French revolution and la la la don't cover up the thuggish logic that reigns in you.

Not sure how the first sentence is related to the second. A secular democracy only means that the Government does not discriminate based on religion. It does not mean that we all have to give up our individual preferences related to dress, language, food etc.

Your qualification is essential:

A person's preference to retain religious traditions in public (at his/her own expense) should not be seen as an invitation to attack or ridicule.

Yes... if you wear a full length all black burkha in the middle of broad daylight, which is your Constitutional right, just understand that people will stare (they have a Constitutional right to stare). And humans being human, some people will make fun of you (they have a Constitutional right to make fun of you). If you are in school, well, read the above article to see what may happen. If you can handle all this, then go for it. But by all means, don't sue or try to have a 16 year old boy sent to prison for seven years; thats just downright inconsiderate. Unless less of course you suffer grievous physical injury - in that case, by all means, resort to whatever legal means are at your disposal.

If you extend your logic to other situations, you will end up with statements like: "Just leave your Tamil, Hindi at home when you travel on NJ Transit" or "Just leave your halal/kosher restrictions at home when you go out to eat".

Except that I haven't extended my logic to other situations. I've focused exclusively on religion.

lk1:

People may have a right to stare, and even make fun of you - but only behind your back. They certainly don't have the right to physically or verbally assault you, as it happened in this case.

In any case, Secularism has no bearing on individual preferences.

M. Nam

No one attacked gurdwaras after 9-11, to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately, the beard and turban do not lend themselves well to post 9-11 sensibilities; well, what do you say to that? I don't know.

The beard and turban have not lent themselves to racist understandings of a xenophobic, majority-dominant ideal of what constitutes "acceptable appearance." Neither does being brown/black in America, among other things.

I'm with Amitabh. THe discussion is done, and LK1 has just been digging himself deeper trying to rationalize his racist views, policy prescriptions, and understandings.

Sikhs, Jews, Muslims for example, often express their religion thru hijabs, turbans, etc. Most white Christians just go to church and maybe where a small cross necklace - that's not banned.

Is it required in the laws of the religion to do so at all times?

My religion calls for the wearing of tilak. Sometimes I wear it in public, sometimes I don't. My inner spiritual development is not dependent on even having a material body, what to speak of dressing that body in a certain external way.

Is it required in the laws of the religion to do so at all times?

I'm not Sikh,Jew, or Muslim - but like all religions, I think what practices you uphold depend on your interpretation of the religion.

What I am saying is that most European Christians do not practice their religion in a way that requires them to wear prominent signs of their religion. If they did, I do not think the law in France would have been passed.

Is it required in the laws of the religion to do so at all times?

Is it required in the laws of the religion to do so at all times?

I'm not Sikh,Jew, or Muslim - but like all religions, I think what practices you uphold depend on your interpretation of the religion.

What I am saying is that most European Christians do not practice their religion in a way that requires them to wear prominent signs of their religion. If they did, I do not think the law in France would have been passed.

Maybe it's time the individual member of those religions do some inner reflection on what is neccessary and what is not neccessary for their inner development.

The cup is either empty or half full, and if you apply the LAW OF ATTRACTION, nothing happens to us that we did not invite into our energy-field in some way or another. Also, nothing happens to us that we cannot learn and grow from.

People often think I've got mustard on my nose when I wear tilak in public. I use it as an oppurtunity to share some philosophical wisdon with them. But my inner spiritual development has nothing to do with wearing tilak on my nose or even clothes on my body. I could go naked everywhere and still progress spiritually. However, going naked is illegal.

Perhaps sikhs, muslims and anyone else claiming that they have to wear certain things in order to follow their religions properly are wrong? Rather they might need to differentiate on what is just an external cultural aspect of their religion and what is actual inner spiritual growth and whether or not the types of clothing you wear have anything to do with that at all.

PG, no offense, but that argument is easily made by someone who does not feel required to wear something as an element of their faith. I can't speak for Islam or other faith traditions, but I feel really strongly about the requirements in Sikhi. We are not asked to do much by way of "external representations," and the number of "rituals" or whatnot in Sikhi are nearly nonexistent, which is reflected in the teachings of the faith itself. That said, when someone from a religion tells me that I need to reevaluate what is important so that I fit in better with what THEY feel is acceptable/comfortable, I am not likely to give their interpretation much credence. Whatever peace you have made with your faith, that is your decision entirely. I don't think I'm being super-conservative here when I saw that there are requirements and guidelines, as there are of ALL faiths, and that it is reasonable to feel free to pursue those. One should not have to live in fear that s/he will be jumped or abused because of his/her decision to follow their religion freely. Freedom of religion is supposedly a value we ought to have in the U.S., and this includes freedom of expression of that religion. It is not like such "outward" observances hurt ANYONE, nor do they deviate from the morality of American society.

It is easy to tell us to "assimilate." I'm sure that if that is the decision the faith community decides to make that they will decide to do so if they wish. It is not the right or privilege of external forces, however, to dictate to us how we ought live our lives when our observance does no harm.

typos galore, sorry. It should read:

"when a person from another religion..."and "when I say..." Hopefully the post is intelligible, nonetheless.

Camille,

My point is that if such external clothing were required in the religion, it would be explicitly stated so by the founder of the religion. If muslims or sikhs can provide shastric (scriptural) references wherein the founders of their religions explicitly wrote what was to be worn and explicitly stated that it's required to make spiritual advancement towards God, then I would say "fair enough". It has nothing to do with assimilating into the country that I happen to be camping out in at this point in time.

If you can provide such statements from the founding Guru of Sikhi, stating that men have to wear that in order to make spiritual progress but women do not have to, I would be interested in reading and researching that.

PG, your standard is completely arbitrary, and in my opinion, a little ridiculous. Additionally, to clarify, the dastar/turban is not necessarily for the spiritual progress of men, nor does it exclude women. It simply says that women are not required to wear if they so chose. This is because, in my opinion, Sikhi recognizes that equality of the genders does not mean a masculinization of women so that they will be treated equally. It is part of the whole package of a how a Sikh is asked to live his/her life, and the prescriptions are based in scriptural teachings but also in the idea that spiritual progress requires living your life in a way that enables such progression.

The requirements in Sikhi are in the Rehit Maryada, which was adopted in the late 1920s. After the installation of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the "living Word" and the last Guru, the power to make decisions was delegated to the Granth and the Panth, the latter being the Sikh community at large. As a community, Sikhs adopted the Rehit Maryada, which does NOT run counter to any of our teachings, scriptural or otherwise. This is what gives us the flexibility to "unadopt" the standard of kes. That said, the inclusion (or non inclusion) of the turban in scripture does not make it any less significant or any less required. Different faith traditions have different standards and ways of doing things. I maintain that it is not the right or privilege of someone of a different faith tradition to dictate what is reasonable/unreasonable or desirable/undesirable in the religious practice of others.

Camille,
In a court of law this would not hold up.

Basically what you are saying is that the requirement of wearing turban/dastar was not created by the founder of your religion but by members of it (perhaps mostly men?), many years later. I wonder if it's the same for the hijab/burkha/niqab in Islam.

If one wants to wear turban or burkha or tilak in public fine. I have no problem with that at all. However, if one says it is "required" in their religion, proof should be given how it's required and when and how that became a requirement. If it was not explicitly stated by the founder of the religion then they are hard-pressed to proove that it is anything more than an "option".

Among young Punjabi Sikh's here in Vancouver[ the biggest sikh community out side of India] and the Punjabi Sikh community in Northern and Central California[biggest in the United States] it seems like around only 10 to 20% of young kids don't cut there hair. I maybe wrong but that what I've seen in those community.

However not all sikh's are punjabi. There is a small but growing sikh community in United States in place like New Mexico, among white but also some black and hispanics. From what I've been told all there kids don't cut there hair at all.

Does anybody have any info on young white and blacks sikhs and if they face any problems for there religous beliefs.

If one wants to wear turban or burkha or tilak in public fine. I have no problem with that at all. However, if one says it is "required" in their religion, proof should be given how it's required and when and how that became a requirement. If it was not explicitly stated by the founder of the religion then they are hard-pressed to proove that it is anything more than an "option".

PG, respectfully, your positions are blinkered and presumptuous, exactly and approximately.

Maybe it's time the individual member of those religions do some inner reflection on what is neccessary and what is not neccessary for their inner development.

Why? If it is important to them and doesn't hurt other people, why should they need to rethink how they express their spirituality. The only time, it seems, people should rethink how they express their spirituality is when it isn't helping them in their spirituality.

Camille, I've known Sikhs who have cut their hair and do not wear a turban but still consider themselves Sikh. I purposely put in "how you interpret your religion" just b/c there are different interpretations of what makes you a Sikh. I remember reading a thread on SM about this --- some Sikhs on SM said doing this and this made you a Sikh; other Sikhs claimed they are Sikh even if they have cut their hair etc.

PG, in a court of law your rational wouldn't stand up either. And actually, the turban has stood up in courts of law in the U.S. and Canada, several times over for the last 40 years. I don't have access to WestLaw at the moment, or I would offer you citations. Feel free to inquire with SALDEF, though. They keep that information on file.

Camille, I've known Sikhs who have cut their hair and do not wear a turban but still consider themselves Sikh. I purposely put in "how you interpret your religion" just b/c there are different interpretations of what makes you a Sikh.

The requirements are cumulative as you move forward in your spiritual progression. To be a Sikh, you should have #1-4 on lock. From the previous thread, we all agreed that if you are an amritdhari (i.e. confirmed) Sikh, then you are absolutely required to keep your hair, and if you are a guy, this includes the turban. If you are working towards an amritdhari lifestyle, there is a bit more flexibility in interpretation. The departure was about whether or not "cut hair" meant you were not part of the faith. This is where we had some divergence of opinion. I feel that, based on both scripture and the Rehit, if you call yourself a Sikh and are trying to live a Sikh lifestyle, you cannot cut your hair. If you're cutting your hair, you've already made a decision. I personally feel that some folks feel a really strong affinity with their faith group, but are not really religious themselves and have a hard time letting go of the fact that they've already kind of decided not to be Sikh. I think it gets more complicated with folks who do feel very committed to the teachings of the faith but choose to cut their hair. At present, it's still considered to be "out of sorts" with the faith itself. Until Sikhs get together to change the Rehit Maryada, the prevailing requirement is going to be that part of being Sikh is keeping your hair.

PS, we had this conversation

Yeah, that's what I alluded to. I know - i read that thread. Thanks for giving me your opinion of what makes a Sikh a Sikh, but to me it is still your opinion.

A few of you have misunderstood my point.

Tilak is worn in my religion. However, if it became against the law of any country to wear tilak on my face (such as at school or at work), I could not argue that it is a "requirement" and therefore a law against it is a violation of my religious rights. I could only argue that it is an option that I choose to exercise. While I may not be legally allowed to wear tilak to work or school, nobody can come into the privacy of my own home and stop me from praying to my version of God. Hence, there is no violation of my religious rights.

As far as I have read, burkha/niqab/hijab is not required dress in order to be a Muslim.

I'm simply asking if wearing a turban is required for being a Sikh.

If these are optional

PG:

Excellent points. Everyone can agree that religions are man-made. They may be inspired by "God" - I for one, believe the Vedas were inspired by God - but at the end of the day, "God" did not tell explictly tell anyone to wear a beard, or a turban, or for that matter, to hold hands while walking around a fire during marriage. These are RITUALS created by religious figureheads for varying purposes. Its easy for people to get carried away by the emphasis on rituals - in fact, it is this very overemphasis on rituals that led the Buddha to shun "Hinduism." At some point, every religion, and the adherents of those religions, have to come face to face with reality. In our modern world, that reality is the one defined by science.

In our modern world, that reality is the one defined by science.

And not the reality defined by some Mullah, Guru, Rishi, or Preacher. This is why I say religion has no place in schools, except for the sole purpose of historical analysis.

I mean, religion is good as far as teaching morals goes. But where reason and logic are concerned, there is no substitute for science and mathematics. I wish the Americans would follow the example of the French, and ban headgear once and for all. 95% of those complaining would eventually adapt, showing you how ridiculous their complaints are even at this stage. Economic woes and the needs of day to day survival will win over the larger lot of complainers - after all, that is why they immigrated in the first place.

PS, I understand. I also wasn't trying to divert from your point - just wanted to provide a link to your reference. The italics I posted, however, are not my opinion. They're the consensus of the Sikh faith community at large. Just to clarify.

PG, it is not optional, as I have stated numerous times.

Maybe it would help if other Sikhs on SM could back me up a bit here? I have a feeling folks are disinclined to believe me because I'm a single voice basically repeating the same thing with varying evidence.

LK1, I'm sure life in a fascist regime will be great once we all just suck it up and "adapt."

I don't want to offend you - I can see where this might be touchy b/c I'm not Sikh, but I think you are?

But as you say, it is a "consensus" and people will always have different interpretations of what makes them a believer or not.

For example, I went to a Christian school during elementary school, and they were very much that if you are a Christian, than that means you have accepted Christ in your heart and you will go to heaven. Other Christians I've met don't interpret their faith this way and thus they can conclude to me that they don't think I'm going to hell :). You have every right to believe what you feel makes a Sikh a Sikh, but I'm just open to other people's interpretations of their faith.

A few of you have misunderstood my point.

Tilak is worn in my religion. However, if it became against the law of any country to wear tilak on my face (such as at school or at work), I could not argue that it is a "requirement" and therefore a law against it is a violation of my religious rights.

if it became against the law of any country to wear tilak

It would be a violation of your rights - I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm sure under the First Amendment it would violate your rights; In the US you can't pass some arbitrary law that you can't wear a Tilak or a brown shirt, just cause the king said so...A fine mess we'd be in. If wearing the Tilak causes some physical danger to others, than the govt would have some sort of case to preventing you from wearing your tilak.

I could not argue that it is a "requirement" - you could if that was your interpretation of your religion. Even if it isn't a requirement but that is how you want to express your religion than you should have the right to under the US constitution.

The French are really going down a slippery slope.

The French are really going down a slippery slope.

I am not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing - I agree with all your other statements, except for this one.

To understand why the French passed this law, you have to first of all consider their motivations. I stated earlier that they are having a very real problem with Muslims assimilating. By assimilation is not meant the number of Muslims attending mass on a daily basis. I am talking real, viable economic indicators - high rates of poverty, poor educational performance, etc. I, for one, saw those riots. The banning of headscarves in public and educational places is an attempt to make the Muslims integrate. Its not about French Catholicism vs. Islam. The effect of Muslim poverty was beginning to affect mainstream French society.

Anyway, the response of Muslims to this ban on headscarves says loads. Opening Muslim schools just so girls can wear their headscarves 24/7? Like I said before, this is sheer nonsense; France has one of the best educational systems in the world. To go to France and send your children to a Muslim school means you are better off staying in your own country. I am never an apologist for stupidity. Hindutva fundamentalism is wrong, issuing fatwas is wrong, believing that its a God-given duty to wear religious garb 24/7 is wrong... it doesn't matter what religion you are... common sense will tell you who's "right" and who's "wrong" here. Thats why I noted the importance of science. Children today should not be bothered about religious fundamentalism.

I applaud the French for their actions.

Du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas.

Translation: Its just one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.

- Napoleon

I don't want to offend you - I can see where this might be touchy b/c I'm not Sikh, but I think you are?

And in other news, 17 year old Umair Ahmed, the boy who attacked the Sikh, could face up to 7 years in prison. IMO: that is absolutely ridiculous. I am thoroughly horrified that this could happen in America, of all places. This was not even a hate crime - the two were friends, according to reports. Umair Ahmed's life will be ruined because of a fight he won fair and square? At that age, suffice it to say that I would have done exactly the same thing to the Sikh kid. You get into a fight at that age, there's a lot at stake. Your pals are going to remember it forever... its your reputation on the line. Anyway, suffice it to say that the other children at that school will remember the Sikh kid as a coward and cry-baby who sued after losing a fight. I hope his parents are happy. My condolences go out to Umair Ahmed - he did what all REAL MEN worth a grain of salt would have done at that age, which was teach the Sikh kid a lesson.

This IS a hate crime.

Ahmed did not just beat up the victim, he cut off his hair. Unshorn hair is an important part of Sikhism. The accused knew that Sikhs, like Vacher, are not supposed to cut their hair, but he did that to the victim anyway. Ahmed purposely targeted the victim's religious faith. This is not okay.

Yes, apparently, they were friends at one point, but many friendships do fall out. And what is this crap about "the sikh kid should have protected himself" or "that is how teenage boys act"? Thats easy to say when your not in the situation and you're sitting on your ass at home. Ahmed was 17 years old, thats almost an adult, he should have known not to get in a mess like this. Will he act the same way 10 years from now, and expect his co workers to be fine with him commiting hate crimes? HELL NO

The accused COULD face up to 7 years in prison, very unlikely that he will. Some community service at most, even a month at juvie is out of question.

I've met and spoken w/ a few kids who go to Newtown HS, and there have been Muslim vs. Sikh incidents in the past. Sometimes older guys, NOT even HS students, hang around near the school and try to start stuff. The last few mos., many people (including small business owners) have been concerned about it.

Emma,
i'm just curious, do you know approx. what perecentage of the high school is south asian?

Red Snapper, comment #189 proves every single thing you've been saying about this jerk all along. The man hates Sikhs, simple. Maybe he lost his girlfriend to one once, or got his ass kicked by one. I'm going to keep it to myself but I think I've guessed his background too. It would be great if someone could teach him a lesson soon.

At that age, suffice it to say that I would have done exactly the same thing to the Sikh kid.

I get the feeling you'd do it at your age now too. Your biases and lack of objectivity (as well as your simple desire to rile us all up and get a reaction) are all very obvious. Suffice it to say you're just a jealous loudmouth behind a keyboard.

As for Umair, if he did the crime, I hope he goes away for seven years.

Ahmed did not just beat up the victim, he cut off his hair. Unshorn hair is an important part of Sikhism. The accused knew that Sikhs, like Vacher, are not supposed to cut their hair, but he did that to the victim anyway. Ahmed purposely targeted the victim's religious faith. This is not okay.

Its not okay. Ahmed deserves to be punished. But to suggest imprisonment as the punishment is ridiculous. Do you know how high the testesterone levels run among adolescent boys? Even as far as men are concerned - have you ever been to a bar? Do you know how easily fights break out over the smallest issues? Ahmed should be suspended from school for a year, for improperly touching another student.

On another note, keep in mind how inner city public schools are. Kids sell drugs in the bathroom. Kids bring guns... at my old high school, after the Columbine incident, metal detectors were installed. These schools are hopelessly under-funded and overcrowded, not to mention, supervision is poor; this is exactly the type of environment that led to the incident portrayed above. You have a few thousand nervous, high-adrenalin teens, who form into various cliques - power struggle is inevitable. One clique will try to show its dominance over another. So maybe the Sikh boy and his parents will feel vindicated if Ahmed is punished, but I assure you, you are not dealing with the core issue, which is the quality of the high school in general.

Yes, apparently, they were friends at one point, but many friendships do fall out.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that if Ahmed had such a distate for Sikhism, he would have been friends with a Sikh to begin with? Perhaps Ahmed was just being mean?

And what is this crap about "the sikh kid should have protected himself" or "that is how teenage boys act"? Thats easy to say when your not in the situation and you're sitting on your ass at home. Ahmed was 17 years old, thats almost an adult, he should have known not to get in a mess like this. Will he act the same way 10 years from now, and expect his co workers to be fine with him commiting hate crimes? HELL NO

Because I've been there and seen that. Grade school was especially worse. Boys were constantly hitting each other, often provoked by (judged from an adult perspective) immature comments. Not everyone matures overnight. 17 is still a young age. Even if Ahmed was just 17, I doubt he forsaw the possibility of prison. Kids don't evaluate the consequences of their actions on the basis of "hate crimes." In a way, that makes sense, because the majority of violent crime is committed by those over 20... also note what I said before, you are ineligible for the death penalty if you are a juvenile. In a court of law, they have to determine the motivation for the crime - and the motivations of under-age children are usually too simplistic to warrant the severest punishment. For one thing, kids are too, too easily manipulated by adults. The boy who was involved in the D.C. sniper incident is a case in point. And no, he didn't get the death penalty.

The accused COULD face up to 7 years in prison, very unlikely that he will. Some community service at most, even a month at juvie is out of question.

LK1,

I know how teenagers act, the social aspects of high school, etc very well. This is because I am one and I attend a inner city school. I see and intereact with teenage boys everyday(on a level you no longer understand), and yes they do fight over the littlest things (although girls are not much better), but there is a difference between typical bullying/fighting and victimizing someone over their religous faith.

It is very possible Ahmed did not care what Vacher's religious faith was when they were friends. But when they did fall out (when threats and yo mama jokes ensued), he showed he did not respect the victim's religion and went out of his way to insult Vacher and his religion.

When one "clique" is trying to dominate another, fighting between the two groups does follow. Yet, once one group target's another group's religous faith or ethnicity, it is a very different story. Ahmed did not simply "make fun" of Vacher's religion, he purposely cut off his hair, which is an important part of the Sikh religion. Therefore, this is a hate crime. If Ahmed does get a punishment and this event goes on his permenant record, it is all his fault. It is up to his future employers to decide if they want to hire someone who commited a hate crime in high school to work for them.

navi,

Its good to know that you and I are on the same playing field, as far as the experiencing of attending inner city schools goes.

I assume you understand this thing about "needing to make a point" in front of your friends. "Needing to make a point" involves getting some kind of reaction from your victim. The more spectacular the reaction, the better, short of actually evoking a last dying gasp from them. You and I will agree that Ahmed was trying to make a point. Where we disagree is whether he fully understood the consequences of his actions. When a Neo-Nazi (Skinhead) vandalizes a synagogue, there is no doubt that he knows what's in store for him, if he is caught. But he doesn't make a point of doing it in front of several other people, e.g. witnesses. Ahmed, on the other hand, chose the most public place of all, the bathroom. Anyone could have walked in there while the hair-cutting was going on. Which shows that Ahmed's actions were spontaneous, not pre-meditated. A hate crime, IMO, is usually pre-meditated. As I see it, these two exchanged fights... Ahmed had to show his friends "he's the man"... Ahmed had to evoke the most spectacular reaction from his victim... he also had to do it within a time frame. What were his options? Yes, the thought of removing the Sikh guys turban and cutting his hair would have run through his mind. I saw this in an Italian movie once... the women of the little town in Italy wanted to get even with a lady who had been a prominent Nazi supporter... they dragged her out of her home, and what did they do... they beat her up and then cut her hair off. Of course, you could argue that men seldom see cutting another man's hair off as adequate punishment... but in this case, the base motivation that Ahmed had was to humiliate the Sikh boy as much as possible. The hair, unfortunately, was just too obvious to bypass.

Its relevent to ask, if the Sikh boy did not have the long hair, nor wore the beard, would Ahmed still have sought punishment? Answer: yes. And that completes my justification of why this was not a hate crime. Because Ahmed would have found a way to get even with the Sikh boy no matter what. Was cutting the Sikh's boys hair far worse than giving him a black eye or bloody nose? Looking at the responses to this thread, many Sikhs would say yes. But that is besides the point... the fact of the matter remains that Ahmed was ready and willing to get even with the Sikh boy with whatever means were available at his disposal. And I don't think the word "hate crime" ran through his head.

As I see it, these two exchanged fights...

*As I see it, these two exchanged verbal insults

By the way, navi, I left out an important point. Didn't the Sikh kid sort of dragged himself into this situation by exchanging insults with Ahmed? Usually, if you know someone is more powerful than you, you don't exactly insult their mother... common sense!

With my apologies to Ennis for "lifting" a comment from his forum and to paraphrase it (forgive me muralimannered if I'm way off the mark)... reasoning with people like LK1, and that oh so famous PG and others is like reasoning with cottage cheese.. you won't get very far. They'll believe what they want to believe and they'll justify whatever they want to justify. This type of on-uppance (hell give me a break it's late and I'm inventing words) can be very tiring, and it kinda gives them the fuel they need to spew misguided or skewed beliefs (uh-oh I'm asking for it am I not??). Hence, let's all stick to SM's posting mantra "Please do not feed the trolls". Good night.

Unfortunately, some of us forget that this is supposed to be a debate and not a symposium for the outpouring of pro-Sikh sympathies:

Is this a hate crime? Or just juvenile stupidity and roughhousing gone too far?

LK1 - what do you think about elective (of course, what do you think I am, fascist?) plastic surgery to make ourself lighter complexioned so we fit in better? If it's good enough for MJ, it must be good enough for the rest of us, right?

LK1 - what do you think about elective (of course, what do you think I am, fascist?) plastic surgery to make ourself lighter complexioned so we fit in better? If it's good enough for MJ, it must be good enough for the rest of us, right?

If you feel plastic surgery will improve your appearance, go for it. However, keep in mind that these operations are not 100% safe, so be sure you go over it with your surgeon. Thats all I can really say from this vantage point; someone with more medical expertise could give you a better opinion, no doubt.

Oh, LK1, you misunderstand me so. I did not ask for it for an improvement in appearance, just so I'd fit in better in trains and planes and school grounds.

LK1 is the perfect troll - a coward who utilizes the cloak of anonymity provided by the internet to spew forth hate. I seriously do not know what is wrong with you, man - and your virulently anti-Sikh mentality is there for all to see. This thread has become way too ridiculous...it's time this idiot was banned.

And for the record - Yes, I am a keshdhari Sikh. No, it is not "just a haircut" we are talking about here. And yes, I'd rather die than lose my hair. LK1, you seem to be big on "fair fights" and "testosterone-fueled machismo"...you sure can talk the talk, bud. But you sure as hell can't walk the walk. Coz I do it everyday, when I walk out as a keshdhari Sikh in America, not as a way of "defying" the "American way of life", but as a measure of the strength of my conviction.

Ever heard of courage, LK1? I think you could use a fair bit of it.

I went to Newtown in the 90s. It was a rough school even back then but from what I hear it has gotten worse recently. Most of the desis got along fine because we together were the minorities (the majorities were latinos). As an Indian Muslim there is no excuse for what Ahmed did. If someone insults your mother than fight him one on one like a man, but don't you dare do something hurtful to his religion, that is uncalled for. I hope Ahmed gets punished although that 7 years in prison might be a bit too extreme.

...do it everyday, when I walk out as a keshdhari Sikh in America, not as a way of "defying" the "American way of life", but as a measure of the strength of my conviction.

I don't doubt your conviction. What I am asking is why would you need financial compensation and or a lengthy prison sentence to make you feel better when your supposed conviction is undermined by an immature 17 year old. That kind of "religious" conviction is beyond me.

Is this thread still running? LK1, I have to say, you have nuclear plutonium levels of hatred running in your veins, no matter how you try to dress it up, you're just a vicious little bigoted thug. Amitabh is right, your post 189 makes that clearer than anything else. It's fascinating to watch you squirming your way around justifying your bully boy bigotry towards Sikhs --- but the relief comes from knowing that in real life, you are probably a little coward too scared to act on your violent racist hatreds.

I don't doubt your conviction. What I am asking is why would you need financial compensation and or a lengthy prison sentence to make you feel better when your supposed conviction is undermined by an immature 17 year old

Huh? Why is he immature? You already said you would do the same, and you probably have fantasies of doing the same, you nasty little racist vicious thug.

Grow some balls and take it on the street, not with a boy, but someone the same size and age as you, see what happens. Until then, you'll just be like all racists and Nazis --- a small man, small in every single way, tiny, small, miniscule, irrelevant, stewing in your own piss and vinegar resentments, a small and frightened and pathetic little no mark.

You already said you would do the same

Yep, I would have done the same if it was me at his age. Unlike you, I am honest enough to admit it.

I went to Newtown in the 90s. It was a rough school even back then but from what I hear it has gotten worse recently. Most of the desis got along fine because we together were the minorities (the majorities were latinos). As an Indian Muslim there is no excuse for what Ahmed did. If someone insults your mother than fight him one on one like a man, but don't you dare do something hurtful to his religion, that is uncalled for. I hope Ahmed gets punished although that 7 years in prison might be a bit too extreme.

Wouldn't you say that 1 year of school suspension (as I suggested before) is adequate, for inappropiately touching someone else? The idea of any prison time is ridiculous. This was a prank gone awry, not a pre-meditated crime.