Woman charged in Fort Hood-related hate crime: Pulling a headscarf

meme

New member
pulling on a headscarf is now a "hate crime"..how bout that..
---------------------------------------------------------------------

An Illinois woman is charged with a hate crime for berating a Muslim woman about the Fort Hood shooting and then pulling at her headscarf. The charge could lead to three years in prison: justice or prosecutorial overkill?
By Patrik Jonsson * Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 20, 2009 edition

Print this Buzz up!Email and shareRepublish E-mail newsletters RSS
Atlanta - In the days after the Ft. Hood shooting, mosques around the country bolstered their security in anticipation of a backlash from Americans angry about a Muslim man alleged to have killed American soldiers on their own turf.

Since then, only one alleged hate crime against Muslims has been directly tied to the Fort Hood rampage.

Two days after the rampage by an alleged lone wolf jihadist killed 13 in Texas, a Tinley Park, Ill., woman grumbled about the massacre and tugged the headscarf of a US-born Muslim woman, Amal Abusumayah, standing in line at a local grocery store.

Reaction was swift and, as prosecutors announced this week, serious: The alleged scarf-puller, Valerie Kenney, is charged with a hate crime, and she could face three years in prison and a $25,000 fine if convicted.

The incident shows that prosecutors are increasingly serious about throwing the book at even small infractions of state and federal hate-crime laws. Yet three possible years in prison in this case, critics say, is overkill, and could serve to cheapen the definition of a hate crime.

"Look, if Kenney did what she's accused of doing, it was a nasty thing to do, and it's certainly a Stupid Crime," writes Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper. "But jail time? How about an apology, forgiveness, some kind of community service and everybody moves on?"

The Pew Research Center reported in September that Americans believe US Muslims face more discrimination than any other major religious group.

Incidents against Muslims spiked after 9/11, but soon dropped back down. And of 1,477 religiously-based crimes in 2007, 68 percent were against Jews while nine percent were aimed at Muslims.

But for many Muslims, the headscarf incident in Tinley Park – a town recently voted by BusinessWeek magazine as the best place in America to live and work – is "exactly the type of thing we worried about happening," Christina Abraham, the civil rights director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told Medill Reports, a student-written news service in Chicago.

"Usually after incidents like Fort Hood, there tends to be a spike in hate crimes. Current events cause people to act out in bigotry," she said.

According to police reports, Ms. Kenney, a bank teller, walked up to Ms. Abusumayah and shouted, "The guy that did the Texas shooting, he wasn't American, and he was from the Middle East!" (The alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is a US citizen born in Virginia.)

After being ignored, Kenney allegedly walked up behind Abusumayah and pulled her hijab, the traditional headscarf worn by many Muslim women in public.

Kenney posted a $5,000 bail, but has not yet made a plea. She is scheduled in court on Dec. 3.

"Attacking our headscarf is essentially trampling on the pride that we hold so dear," Chicago CAIR's Amina Sharif told Medill Reports. "An attack on the hijab is an attack on dignity and faith of God."

Others say both CAIR and prosecutors in the case are being overly sensitive.

"There's no defending Kenney's alleged behavior, which sounds like disorderly conduct at least, but the charge and prospective penalty are grotesquely disproportionate unless there is more to the story," writes the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1120/p02s24-usgn.html
 
pulling on a headscarf is now a "hate crime"..how bout that..
---------------------------------------------------------------------

An Illinois woman is charged with a hate crime for berating a Muslim woman about the Fort Hood shooting and then pulling at her headscarf. The charge could lead to three years in prison: justice or prosecutorial overkill?
By Patrik Jonsson * Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 20, 2009 edition

Print this Buzz up!Email and shareRepublish E-mail newsletters RSS
Atlanta - In the days after the Ft. Hood shooting, mosques around the country bolstered their security in anticipation of a backlash from Americans angry about a Muslim man alleged to have killed American soldiers on their own turf.

Since then, only one alleged hate crime against Muslims has been directly tied to the Fort Hood rampage.

Two days after the rampage by an alleged lone wolf jihadist killed 13 in Texas, a Tinley Park, Ill., woman grumbled about the massacre and tugged the headscarf of a US-born Muslim woman, Amal Abusumayah, standing in line at a local grocery store.

Reaction was swift and, as prosecutors announced this week, serious: The alleged scarf-puller, Valerie Kenney, is charged with a hate crime, and she could face three years in prison and a $25,000 fine if convicted.

The incident shows that prosecutors are increasingly serious about throwing the book at even small infractions of state and federal hate-crime laws. Yet three possible years in prison in this case, critics say, is overkill, and could serve to cheapen the definition of a hate crime.

"Look, if Kenney did what she's accused of doing, it was a nasty thing to do, and it's certainly a Stupid Crime," writes Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper. "But jail time? How about an apology, forgiveness, some kind of community service and everybody moves on?"

The Pew Research Center reported in September that Americans believe US Muslims face more discrimination than any other major religious group.

Incidents against Muslims spiked after 9/11, but soon dropped back down. And of 1,477 religiously-based crimes in 2007, 68 percent were against Jews while nine percent were aimed at Muslims.

But for many Muslims, the headscarf incident in Tinley Park – a town recently voted by BusinessWeek magazine as the best place in America to live and work – is "exactly the type of thing we worried about happening," Christina Abraham, the civil rights director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told Medill Reports, a student-written news service in Chicago.

"Usually after incidents like Fort Hood, there tends to be a spike in hate crimes. Current events cause people to act out in bigotry," she said.

According to police reports, Ms. Kenney, a bank teller, walked up to Ms. Abusumayah and shouted, "The guy that did the Texas shooting, he wasn't American, and he was from the Middle East!" (The alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is a US citizen born in Virginia.)

After being ignored, Kenney allegedly walked up behind Abusumayah and pulled her hijab, the traditional headscarf worn by many Muslim women in public.

Kenney posted a $5,000 bail, but has not yet made a plea. She is scheduled in court on Dec. 3.

"Attacking our headscarf is essentially trampling on the pride that we hold so dear," Chicago CAIR's Amina Sharif told Medill Reports. "An attack on the hijab is an attack on dignity and faith of God."

Others say both CAIR and prosecutors in the case are being overly sensitive.

"There's no defending Kenney's alleged behavior, which sounds like disorderly conduct at least, but the charge and prospective penalty are grotesquely disproportionate unless there is more to the story," writes the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1120/p02s24-usgn.html

The woman had no business screaming her prejudice and laying her hands on another. Maybe she shouldn't be charged with a hate crime, although she sounds like a hateful person, but a disorderly conduct charge might teach her a lesson in self-control.
 
The woman had no business screaming her prejudice and laying her hands on another. Maybe she shouldn't be charged with a hate crime, although she sounds like a hateful person, but a disorderly conduct charge might teach her a lesson in self-control.

well ya, no business screaming prejudice...dang that thing we have called Freedom of Speech..if it was up to the lefties we wouldn't have any..
 
well ya, no business screaming prejudice...dang that thing we have called Freedom of Speech..if it was up to the lefties we wouldn't have any..

She wasn't addressing her comments to the world in general. She was in a public place accosting a private citizen wearing a hijab. The woman could probably file assault charges.

What's your real point, that the rule of law doesn't apply when it comes to this bigot?
 
She wasn't addressing her comments to the world in general. She was in a public place accosting a private citizen wearing a hijab. The woman could probably file assault charges.

What's your real point, that the rule of law doesn't apply when it comes to this bigot?

lol, the rule of law should be the SAME for everyone in this country, rather you be a racist, a bigot, a hater...

people better wake up to see were this hate crime legislation is taking us..and it's not pretty..this woman is being charged with a "hate crime" for grabbing a Muslim woman's head scarf..
 
lol, the rule of law should be the SAME for everyone in this country, rather you be a racist, a bigot, a hater...

people better wake up to see were this hate crime legislation is taking us..and it's not pretty..this woman is being charged with a "hate crime" for grabbing a Muslim woman's head scarf..

If you don't understand why you can't just walk up to a random person, scream in their face and touch them, there's really nothing more that I can say. The only way I'd give the woman a pass is if she was mentally ill.

What would you think if you were in the supermarket and a woman wearing a hijab walked up to you, pulled on your flag pin, and screamed that U.S. troops were killing innocents in the ME?
 
If you don't understand why you can't just walk up to a random person, scream in their face and touch them, there's really nothing more that I can say. The only way I'd give the woman a pass is if she was mentally ill.

What would you think if you were in the supermarket and a woman wearing a hijab walked up to you, pulled on your flag pin, and screamed that U.S. troops were killing innocents in the ME?

:palm:
 
Good answer moo moo!

I especially like how you ignored her question, like you are better than her or something!

Ya know, it's well thought out replies like the one above that have earned mini-meme the reputation she has!

and this is supposedly an example of a well thought out reply...

:palm:
 
No...it's not.

It's the standard response engendered by mini-meme's refusal to reply with anything other than her typical snarky comebacks.

interesting....you criticize someone for not posting a well thought post while at the same time admitting you to post not well thought out posts....

:palm:

thats really embarrassing
 
interesting....you criticize someone for not posting a well thought post while at the same time admitting you to post not well thought out posts....

:palm:

thats really embarrassing

Responding honestly is embarrassing to you?

Alrightie. Something to keep in mind for later reference.

Re mini-meme: It all comes down to GIGO.

Garbage In...Garbage Out.

My response is dictated by moo moo's tone.

If she ever responded with something besides her standard snark, she might get something besides more snark in return.
 
of course it's a hate crime. It was a white woman doing something mean to a non-white woman.

We don't know for a fact that Amal Abusumayah is not a white person. Matthew Shepard was a white person, and he was still a victim of a hate crime (under current law).

I'm a white person, and it would be considered a hate crime for a Neo-Nazi to harm me on the basis that I am Jewish.

I will say that I don't really follow the libertarian line of reasoning on this issue that stricter sentencing constitutes a punishment of what a person is thinking. They are punished on the basis of what they do and why they do it. This happens all the time in determining the severity of other crimes.

It seems in this and many hate crimes cases that the only one who is punished specifically for what they think is the person being attacked. Obviously hate speech and free association between these undesirable bigots should be legal, though socially discouraged, in a free country. It's also legal to advocate for Communism in this country, it's just not (theoretically) legal to practice it.

They do not have a right to act out their bigoted feelings by violating the rights of others.

To me, it's no different than civil rights. It is confirming in the law what should already be within people's rights based on our Constitution but goes unenforced.

The majority will not assault itself, and it will not deprive itself of its own rights except inadvertently.

This country is shared by many kinds of people, and we all have a right to equal protection under the law, regardless of what may be different about us. If there is no opportunity to use the motive of the criminal to sentence them more harshly, then minority political, ethnic, religious and now gender-identity groups will be more vulnerable to discrimination and injustices than majority groups. And as an aside, even majority groups have the protections of hate crime laws if the motivation of the offender was because of their identity.

As for this specific instance, the sentence should fit the crime. It should be sentenced as any other instance where this would happen, and the judge should have some added discretion as it relates to the offender's motive.

Maybe a smart judge can require her to actually meet some Muslims born right here in the United States. It would behoove the offender to be less ignorant about the country she is living in.
 
I'm a white person, and it would be considered a hate crime for a Neo-Nazi to harm me on the basis that I am Jewish.
of course, because you'd have been assaulted for your religion by a christian. it's all relevant to the discrimination needed to avenge years of oppression by white christians against anyone not white and christian.

I will say that I don't really follow the libertarian line of reasoning on this issue that stricter sentencing constitutes a punishment of what a person is thinking. They are punished on the basis of what they do and why they do it. This happens all the time in determining the severity of other crimes.
Not sure where you're getting the idea that this is Libertarian thinking, because it's actually the opposite. Race, color, creed, religion, nationality, and gender doesn't matter. Assault is assault, rape is rape, and murder is murder. They are all crimes and appending a 'why' to the crime is only a means to look for justification where there should be none.
[/QUOTE]
 
LOL one of my history classmates in college was a Muslim girl who wears a head covering. She got wierded out by some guy in one of her classes who apparently was tugging at it from behind her. My guess is he had a crush or something. Anyway, her friends were pissed and kept referring to him as a Nazi.

HATE CRIME!!!!
 
of course, because you'd have been assaulted for your religion by a christian. it's all relevant to the discrimination needed to avenge years of oppression by white christians against anyone not white and christian.

First of all, there's no assurance that a that someone attacking a Jewish person (Neo-Nazi or otherwise) is going to be a Christian. But whites and Christians are protected by hate crime laws. If I were a Jewish Nationalist or a Zionist Extremist attacking a church or a mosque that would constitute a hate crime. We just don't have as many of those whackos in this country as we do White Nationalists.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that this is Libertarian thinking, because it's actually the opposite. Race, color, creed, religion, nationality, and gender doesn't matter. Assault is assault, rape is rape, and murder is murder. They are all crimes and appending a 'why' to the crime is only a means to look for justification where there should be none.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The traditional libertarian argument about hate crimes is that it punishes the private thoughts of the offender and undermines treating everyone equally under the law.

But I think that's bunk. All of these differences do matter because they are part of rights the government is sworn to protect in our country. Hate crimes have a motive just like terrorist acts have a motive.

I'm saying that it's a strike against the free exercise of Constitutional liberties by not allowing a judge to sentence more harshly against criminals who engage in hate crimes.

And it's nothing new. It is no different than sentencing for manslaughter and a premeditated murder.

While most of the time it is only the government that can literally deprive us of our rights, others can violate our rights or prevent our free exercise of our rights.
 
well ya, no business screaming prejudice...dang that thing we have called Freedom of Speech..if it was up to the lefties we wouldn't have any..

I agree, Meme! Just like all this sexual harassment crap. Even compliments are not protected as Free Speech.Tell a gal she's got a nice a$$ and they come down on you like you swore to the Pope!
 
well ya, no business screaming prejudice...dang that thing we have called Freedom of Speech..if it was up to the lefties we wouldn't have any..
Meme, if I got in your face and snatched that stupid fucking hat off your pointy little head you'd have assualt charges laid on me faster than Damo could shout "Government sucks!"
 
Back
Top