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).

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.