Video: Should Stanislav Shmulevich face felony hate crimes charges?

posted at 9:33 pm on July 30, 2007 by Bryan

Bill O’Reilly says yes. Michelle disagrees.


Link: sevenload.com

If the law were applied fairly, O’Reilly might have a leg to stand on only in the sense that you would have equal protection under the law. I personally believe that hate crimes laws are bad based on first principles of freedom of speech, expression and assembly, but you could at least argue that we would all face the same justice for doing the same or analogous offensive things. But we all know that that isn’t the way things work in the real world.

Desecrate a Bible and nothing happens to you. Put a crucifix in a jar of urine and you get rewarded with taxpayer funds. Promote US sovereignty security and someone, probably on the White House staff, will call you a racist. But at least you won’t face any charges. Desecrate a Koran, and get slapped with felonies. That’s not fair.

These photos were taken in New York City in February 2006. Not Pakistan. Not Tehran. New York City. Did anyone in any of these photos face any charges?

nyc1.jpg

nyc2.jpg

No. Nor should they have.

Now, I find these signs very offensive. They are in fact intended to offend. But no one took them up with the police, no one pressured any administration anywhere to take action, and no charges have been filed.

I don’t want the people holding them charged with crimes based on those offensive signs, and I’m not backed up by a credible threat of force to get them charged with anything even if I wanted to. I believe in free speech. For the record, the London protest sign cases were different, in that the protesters were inciting the overthrow of the British government and murder. They deserved charges based on that. Stanislav Shmulevich didn’t incite murder; he protested quietly and nonviolently.

The agitators at CAIR and in the MSA at Pace don’t believe in free speech as concerns Islam and the Koran. If they did, they would have treated Shmulevich as a protester with whom they disagreed, but who has his right to free speech including saying and doing things that they personally find offensive. They believe that we all should treat the Koran as they do in their strict and chosen way of belief, as governed by sharia. And they have the credible threat of violence backing them up, so they’re getting their way.

If we go down the road of letting the police charge felonies for putting a book in a toilet as a nonviolent protest, we are going down the road of ending free speech for anyone in this country who is not a Muslim. It really is that simple. That is obviously not what O’Reilly intends and he means well, but as the cliche says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case, the road to sharia is paved with PC thinking that’s based on good intentions.

Hate ought not be a crime. It’s an emotion. Hate can lead to crimes, but so can many other emotions and attitudes that we haven’t (yet) criminalized. Greed, envy, lust, jealousy — all of these can lead to crimes just as often, if not more often, than hate does. Are we going to criminalize all of them, too?

Ironically, if the sharia pushers get their way, yes, we probably will criminalize all of those things at some point. And that, like the hate crimes laws we have now, will be done with the best of someone’s intentions. And, like the hate crimes laws we have now that create felonies out of putting a book in a toilet, we’ll get the worst of consequences.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM

BacaDog – I don’t agree with hate crimes and I don’t agree with the charge of hate crime here. But I am under the impression that the hate crime is putting the Koran in the toilet and dumping on it.

What apparently is the case is that the stealing and the vandalism is the hate crime.

So this means that I can take my own swastika and leave it on the steps of a Jewish building, I can take my own Koran and desecrate it and leave it on the steps of a mosque and take my own Bible and desecrate it and leave it on the steps of a church, and since they were all my property and there is no crime of leaving objects on the steps of buildings, then there is no hate crime?

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:15 PM

You are right, the Koran is a guide book for the imposition of a global calipahate. It is not strictly a religous book, it is a political ideology and a totalitarian one at that.

deadbackpacker on July 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM

If the answer to my previous question at 11:30pm is “NO”, then I don’t understand these “hate crime” laws. I was under the understanding that the ACT was the “hate crime”.

But now that you guys have explained that it is not, I understand it a little better. As see-dubya stated, a crime must be committed in order to classify it as a hate crime. In other words, there are no hate crimes, only crimes which can be described with the word hate.

I understand now. Sorry for the shouting earlier.

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM

What apparently is the case is that the stealing and the vandalism is the hate crime.

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Only if by stealing and vandalizing he meant to offend. If he was stealing and vandalizing for the pure joy of being an idiot, he’s ok as I understand it.

BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:36 PM

The seed, that specificity, that Bill puts forth here is what germinated and grew into the poisonous nightshade family plant that is the embodiment of the political correctness malaise that is in full bloom today and threatens our very survival.

Splitting hairs and allowing positive discrimination to begin instead of accepting the the first amendment for all it’s thorny necessities has proven to have not only (now severe) unintended consequences but is a steep, slippery slope indeed.

Now the question is, how do we go back? How do we become just the right combination of thick skinned tolerance and at the same time counter real wrongs?
How do you specify good moral judgment?

Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 11:37 PM

By the way, I still am of the strong opinion that even if the Muslim groups found out that Stan S had taken his own Koran and put it in the toilet, they would still have charged him with some sort of hate crime. Just as the College Republicans got in trouble for stomping on the Hezb’Allah flag.

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:37 PM

The statute reads “against an individual.’ Not ‘group.’

TinMan13 on July 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Only if by stealing and vandalizing he meant to offend. If he was stealing and vandalizing for the pure joy of being an idiot, he’s ok as I understand it.

BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Right, I understand that now. I interpreted the case wrongly prior to this. I thought that the act of putting the Koran in the toilet was the hate crime, regardless of why he did it.

But referencing the SFSU precedent, I still believe that he would have been brought up on some kind of charges, even if he had dunked his own Koran, just as the College Republicans were deemed in the wrong.

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:40 PM

As see-dubya stated, a crime must be committed in order to classify it as a hate crime

.

Well, they can interpret any action has a crime, if they deem it to be motivated by hate. So really, no real crime needs to be committed. That is the scam they run. They make up the crime as they go along. For example, it is not a crime to leave a ham in a mosque or anywhere else for that matter. But do so, and the police will be called upon to file hate crime charges anyway by trumping up some crime.

Remember when those Simi valley cops were aquitted by the first jury? Well, in order to circumvent the double jeopardy rule, and to satiate the black blood lust for justice, the authorities charged those same cops with a different crime – depriving Rodney King of his civil rights. You see, they can make up any act to be a crime if they want to. Thus the real basis for any hate crime charge need not be an actual crime, but any action that the state can spin into some crime regardless of how convoluted the reasoning.

jihadwatcher on July 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM

I think a lot of people are missing the point here:

see-dubya on July 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM

You are missing the point. The Koran is a hate crime!

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM

How do we become just the right combination of thick skinned tolerance and at the same time counter real wrongs?

Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 11:37 PM

We learn to accept that things will piss you off from time to time. There’s a difference between getting your feelings hurt and getting harmed. We’ve forgotten that.

BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Well, they can interpret any action has a crime, if they deem it to be motivated by hate. So really, no real crime needs to be committed. That is the scam they run. They make up the crime as they go along. For example, it is not a crime to leave a ham in a mosque or anywhere else for that matter. But do so, and the police will be called upon to file hate crime charges anyway by trumping up some crime.

This was the point that I was trying to make (admittedly not very well…), jihadwatcher. This is why I was misunderstanding the case. I thought they were criminalizing putting a Koran, even one’s own personal property, in the toilet. I thought it was the ACT of putting the Koran in the toilet that was the “hate crime”. And I still believe they would have trumped up some charges, as you say, had they found out it was his own Koran.

But apparently, in this case, the crime is the theft and vandalism and the “hate crime” is doing those crimes with “hateful” intent.

But I still believe the goal of this case is to make “desecrating a Koran” into a “hate crime”, no matter if it is private or personal property.

I believe that is the goal of this case: enforce Islamic shari’a law with regards to respecting the Koran.

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Excellent post.

Now the question is, how do we go back?

There is no going back. Unless it it forced to, government never willingly retreats from the power it has gained to limit personal freedoms.

infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM

So this means that I can take my own swastika and leave it on the steps of a Jewish building, I can take my own Koran and desecrate it and leave it on the steps of a mosque and take my own Bible and desecrate it and leave it on the steps of a church, and since they were all my property and there is no crime of leaving objects on the steps of buildings, then there is no hate crime?

Not necessarily. There’s another crime on the books in NY called “aggravated harassment” which yesterday AP was discussing as a likely charge that would be filed against Shmulevich. It has a special chapter dealing with religious institutions. It probably covers klan-style cross burnings as well.

By the way: Nothing that you read on Hot Air is intended to serve as legal advice, even though some of it may be written by lawyers.

see-dubya on July 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

We learn to accept that things will piss you off from time to time. There’s a difference between getting your feelings hurt and getting harmed. We’ve forgotten that.

BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:45 PM

There is no going back. Unless it it forced to, government never willingly retreats from the power it has gained to limit personal freedoms.

infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Thanks, I agree with you both, the conflict is how do we nullify the damage by CAIR and others without legislation and at the same time expand liberties?

Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

But I still believe the goal of this case is to make “desecrating a Koran” into a “hate crime”, no matter if it is private or personal property.

I believe that is the goal of this case: enforce Islamic shari’a law with regards to respecting the Koran.

Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM

BINGO!!!

As the Koran is a massive hate crime in and of itself, and an insult to humanity, it would have been infinitely more logical to have charged him with the “crime” of hating hate.

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM

I am wondering, if someone put “Mein Kampf” in a toilet, would they be charged with a hate crime against Germans or those of German descent?

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

I’m thinking issues such as these will have to go all the way up to SCOTUS. And as disillusioned as I am with Bush right now, I’m nevertheless thankful Roberts and Alito are on the high court.

infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

I’m nevertheless thankful Roberts and Alito are on the high court.

infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

You are probably aware that Bush wanted Miers and Gonzales.

I bet you are.

MB4 on July 31, 2007 at 12:04 AM

infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

After so many years of sickening activist liberal SCOTUS findings and finally being able to appreciate a much more balanced court (one more originalist jurist please), Roberts having a seizure and falling today scared the crap out of me.

Especially with Sen. Chuckie crying about real live constructionist decisions finally being realized.

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Uh Oh Can the Clash of Civilizations br far behind? Who let the dogs out?!!

sonnyspats1 on July 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM

MB4 on July 31, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Of course I am. Thank God we got who we did.

Roberts having a seizure and falling today scared the crap out of me.

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Me too. If God forbid Bush had to appoint a replacement the Dems would pull out all the obstructionist stops in oppostion.

infidel4life on July 31, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Okay, this is part of the reason that I was confused before, because I was focusing on what CAIR was promoting with regards to this case:

Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African-American family, there is a difference between desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment.” …

Nowhere in there does it state “there is a difference between desecrating your own religious text and desecrating the text of another in public. They focus on the desecration of the text, in general, in private vs public. So it seems that no one can desecrate any Koran in public or it is hate speech.

That seems to be the focus of CAIR in this case. Their goal anyway.

see-dubya on July 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Thanks for the explanations and your patience with me. I am getting pretty riled up about this case and letting my emotions get the best of me in some of my postings.

Michael in MI on July 31, 2007 at 12:22 AM

I’m thinking issues such as these will have to go all the way up to SCOTUS.
infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

I think so too but that takes years and depends on the specific case can then take years more.

Equal rights for all, special privileges for none.
Thomas Jefferson

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” –Benjamin Franklin

Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

Samuel Adams
1722-1803

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 12:23 AM

I am wondering, if someone put “Mein Kampf” in a toilet, would they be charged with a hate crime against Germans or those of German descent?

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Excellent point MB4. If I was a Holocaust survivor and I hated the Nazis because of the atrocities they committed against me during the war, could I be returned to prison for my hate?

And something else, maybe Stanislav Shmulevich doesn’t hate Muslims at all, but only hates the Koran and the ideas contained within it, is that a crime?

And if its a “hate crime” to hate the Koran, which is only “a thing” and not a person, then if I hate earthquakes, is that a “hate crime” too ? What if I hate taxes ?

Maxx on July 31, 2007 at 12:24 AM

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

- Thomas Jefferson

infidel4life on July 31, 2007 at 12:25 AM

The point is that these charges should never have been brought at all, other than lifting the books and dunkin’ em.

Oldnuke on July 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Absolutely and especially in this case. There wasn’t any verbal or physical abuse to anyone. There wasn’t even a witness! To charge someone on the suposition of knowing his intentions is ludacrous. We are approaching the thought police portrayed in the Tom Cruise movie. The post you references is a worst case scenario. I like to keep ten steps ahead of my eninies. Excuse me while go drain my pool.

sonnyspats1 on July 31, 2007 at 12:29 AM

Stan S. needs to read about the anti-Nazi resistence group “The White Rose“. A sister and brother, Sophie and Hans Scholl, and several of their friends.

They thought Hitler was wrong, scattered oppostion pamphlets, and were arrested for hatecrimes against the State.

And died for their belief in freedom.

All Stan S.’ll need to do is live for his.

profitsbeard on July 31, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Roberts having a seizure and falling today scared the crap out of me.

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Me too. If God forbid Bush had to appoint a replacement the Dems would pull out all the obstructionist stops in oppostion.

infidel4life on July 31, 2007 at 12:19 AM

With the reported casualties in the wake of the Clintons I was wondering if Justice Roberts needs a food taster. Bush may get the chance to appoint at least one more Justice, the oldest being 87 yo. Sandra Day Oconnor is rumored to want to retire also.

sonnyspats1 on July 31, 2007 at 12:35 AM

This is an artistic work no hate crime involved.

If a

Cross in a jar full of urine = artistic work.

Then

Koran in a urinal = artistic work

What’s good for the goose…

F15Mech on July 31, 2007 at 12:36 AM

…how do we nullify the damage by CAIR and others without legislation and at the same time expand liberties?

Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

People must realize there are religions, and then there are death cults, and Islam is a death cult… and no more worthy of Constitutional protection than Nazism. Once enough people take this position, political forces could come to bear against the enemy within, without trampling on anyone’s religious freedoms.

Maxx on July 31, 2007 at 12:53 AM

It seems to me that if Stanislav spends a year or more in jail for putting a couple of inexpensive books in a toilet, whether he stole them or not, it will be a violation of his eighth amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Although before this eighth amendment violation could theoretically take place his first amendment rights would have to have first been violated.

FloatingRock on July 31, 2007 at 1:02 AM

If he had flushed his own Koran, there’d be no charges.

Allahpundit on July 30, 2007 at 9:50 PM

And the difference between virtually no jail time verses 1-4 years is a measly $50-$100 for the cost of the books—-Sounds unusually cruel to me.

FloatingRock on July 31, 2007 at 1:28 AM

People must realize there are religions, and then there are death cults, and Islam is a death cult…

Maxx on July 31, 2007 at 12:53 AM

I think we’re pretty much stuck with the Islam as a religion label which wouldn’t matter if extremists who read the Koran would refrain from violence and be content with Islam as one of many religions.

There are many many Muslims who are nonviolent.

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 1:32 AM

There are many many Muslims who are nonviolent.

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 1:32 AM

They are Apostates and are defying the will of Allah as given to them by Mohammad.

MB4 on July 31, 2007 at 2:50 AM

The only reason I even watch Bill anymore is to listen to Michelle when she is either a host or a guest. Bill is simply trying to be that “amartest guy in the room” type guy who sees every point. Come on Bill. Listen to. Michelle. Her arguement was thoughtful and valid and correct. It really sickens me to see how this country is slowly allowing sharia law to creep in. I can’t believe that so many people are so blind.

hoosierken on July 31, 2007 at 6:06 AM

Here is something that happened in Eugene, Oregon that is similar in nature.

It will be a joyous celebration – and an opportunity to lobby for stronger hate crime legislation – when rabbis and others gather at Eugene’s orthodox Jewish synagogue Sunday to celebrate the restoration of a damaged Torah.

It is the same Torah that was rescued from the wreckage of the Holocaust six decades ago – and was vandalized in February at the Ahavas Torah synagogue in south Eugene. A second Torah also was damaged, and vandals destroyed prayer books and wrecked a large, locked wooden chest containing the Torah scrolls.

Four transient males were charged in connection with the break-in. None, however, was charged with a hate crime as defined by Oregon law. That’s because the law requires a clear demonstration of intent – such as anti-Semitic graffiti – to prosecute.

kiakjones on July 31, 2007 at 6:23 AM

Meanwhile, next door,

Recent legislation in Canada and similar pending legislation in the US view open,… non-politically correct speech as ‘hate crimes’ rather than free speech.

A conservative blogging website, freedominion.ca is under investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission after someone complained that a comment posted that offended both Islam and gays.

The comment: “I can’t figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”

How could this comment be considered offensive when it’s true?

oldleprechaun on July 31, 2007 at 6:51 AM

So, can I poop on my Koran, or not?

Dork B. on July 31, 2007 at 7:56 AM

Lately I have found O’Reilly to be somewhat smug and self-righteous and do not watch much anymore. I hope this young man gets off lightly because while he was foolish and used bad judgment, what he did was NOT a felony and does not deserve prison time of any kind. Islam should not be surprised at people’s reactions to some of their behaviors, nor should Pace College’s administration. Unless they radically change their actions it can only get worse in my opinion. I’ve always thought of tolerance as a TWO WAY street, or hoped anyway.

jeanie on July 31, 2007 at 8:13 AM

How do you desecrate a book dedicated to a moon worshiping pedophile-terrorist?

Timber Wolf on July 31, 2007 at 8:30 AM

I am no fan of the hate-crime law. But this kid stupidly filmed what he did, and told the viewers that he was doing because he hated the followers of the Koran, and he was doing it to tick them off. That may be his undoing. They will say he was doing to incite violence.

As much as I hate Kos, O’Reilly’s throwing stones in a glass house.
Bad Candy on July 30, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Could you explain this?

right2bright on July 31, 2007 at 8:35 AM

Who gets to decipher the definition of the hate crime? I, personally, think that this kid who demolished the Koran was exercising his first amendment right. If you can abuse a Christian symbol or burn an American flag and be protected under the first amendment, then you can certainly destroy a Koran in protest and be protected. Hate crime….phooey!

lynnv on July 31, 2007 at 8:47 AM

Mens rea is used in criminal proceeding to provide insight into the ‘guilty mind’ of the defendant. The decision on whether such state actually exists, however, is up to the jury.

This is strictly an Anglo-American term, primarily based on the fact that we borrowed much of our criminal process from English Common Law. Common Law allows for the introduction of precedence as well, while most countries provide for fairly specific laws and, therefore, crimes.

Hate crime is an arbitrary assignment of intent to an action, when no such intent may be present, thereby eliminating any leeway from a jury or judge (just like the 3-strike policy for felons).

We are chopping heavily at the First Amendment here. It is just that simple.

Miss_Anthrope on July 31, 2007 at 9:09 AM

OK, I’m late to this one though I was looking for it last night. Hopefully someone will read this message in a bottle down so low on this thread.

I believe O’Reilly was playing devil’s advocate and I don’t think Michelle was strong enough in this segment. Maybe she’s afraid of tangling with Bill, but she’s right, O’Reilly knows it. Bill O was throwing MM a softball to get all worked up.

‘Hate crimes’ legislation was intended to protect PEOPLE from harm due to hate. The ‘crime’ here had nothing to do with a person. There is no victim in this ‘hate crime’. It is impossible to claim a ‘hate crime’ against a population in general under the law.

Michelle did say that ‘hate crimes’ legislation is bad altogether so I give her credit for that. I’ve always said that murder is murder and is just as bad no matter the motive. If someone murders a gay guy because he hates them, why is that more terrible than if someone murders me because they hate my ideas? It creates a separate class of crime, and people are not equal under the law.

This crime wasn’t threatening, he didn’t coerce anyone to violence. He was making a political statement. ALSO, someone needs to explain to Bill that there is a difference between ‘hate’ and ‘anger’. He said he did it because he was ‘angry’ at the university. Anger is not hate.

ThackerAgency on July 31, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Michelle made O’Reilly look like a foul last night. It was amusing watching Bill try to argue his point.

tex68 on July 31, 2007 at 9:42 AM

There are many many Muslims who are nonviolent.

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 1:32 AM

There were many Nazis that were nonviolent but that doesn’t mean they didn’t belong to and promote an ideology that caused widespread death and destruction. If you have 1.5 billion people saying the moon is made of green cheese, does that mean the moon is made of green cheese ? Of course not, and 1.5 billion people saying Islam is a religion doesn’t make Islam a religion either.

We need to deny Islam the elevated status of “religion” in this country if we want to maintain religious freedom. Its only a matter of time… on second thought it is happening now… that people and media will start making the argument that “religion” is dangerous. They will make no distinction between Islam and other belief systems, because destroying all religious freedom is their goal and Islam will give them their opportunity. Islam is NOT a religion, it is a death cult, we need to accept that fact and demand that our government act in accordance with it.

Maxx on July 31, 2007 at 10:09 AM

…”the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case, the road to sharia is paved with PC thinking that’s based on good intentions.”

This is why I love you.

Ernest on July 31, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Bigfoot on July 30, 2007 at 9:58 PM

This is very well said. I’d really like to see what would happen now if someone took video footage of themselves entering a book store and purchasing a Koran of their own. Continue to roll footage as they carefully open the book and lay it on the ground, urinate in it, spit in it, crap in it and then flush it down the toilet. That would make the case interesting.

Zetterson on July 31, 2007 at 10:20 AM

A few years ago, I never would have thought that a “hate crime” would be given to someone for dunking an inanimate object in a toilet.

I hope Stanislav Shmulevich calls the Koran to testify against him….and I’m not kidding. That’s how ridiculous this case is.

moonsbreath on July 31, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Islam is NOT a religion, it is a death cult, we need to accept that fact and demand that our government act in accordance with it.

Maxx on July 31, 2007 at 10:09 AM

*

They are Apostates and are defying the will of Allah as given to them by Mohammad.

MB4 on July 31, 2007 at 2:50 AM

We need to ask the real expert Robert Spencer but I think MB4 shows us answer.

Minus the ‘prophet’ Mohammad, would Islam be the aggressive, dominion determined by threat of death religion as believed by many Muslims, it is now?

If the answer is no, for our own benefit, we need to be articulate enough to separate the two theologically and operationally.

Denying religion status to Islam in my opinion alienates all Muslims when the percentage of Muslims who do not believe in convert or die, could be aiding our WTO.

Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 10:51 AM

This is a perfect example of why I can’t stand BO and why I think MM should have her own show. Heck, she should run for Prez, or be Duncan Hunter’s VP…I can dream.

Christine on July 31, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Moonsbreath nailed it. I thought hate crimes applied to physical violence against a minority person. If it doesn’t then we have the Brave New World all set up for HRC to take her throne, or is it 1984 all over again? I’m getting my ‘novels’ mixed up as they come true.
In any case, the fact that this case of vandalism has reached this point is chilling. Are you ready for Sharia law? Alan Colmes, for one, seems to be blissfully unaware of the danger that we are facing and so does our ‘judicial’ system.

Christine on July 31, 2007 at 11:11 AM

After the exchange between Michelle and O’Reilly, I changed the channel. I have no intention of ever watching O’Reilly again. I’m fed up with his righteous posture as (1) arbitor of culture and (2) self-appointed judge, jury and executioner. His support for hate crimes laws is just plain misguided. He’s definitely gotten too fat-headed and pompous for his own good. I’m sorry, though, that I won’t be seeing Michelle anymore. Hey FoxNews: give Michelle her own show.

Kalifornia Kafir on July 31, 2007 at 11:23 AM

There’s a site which says it will provide you a free Koran.
Of course they will then know where you live.

Stephen M on July 31, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Usually, I find Bill O far too self-righteous for me on many issues. However, on this one, I tend to agree more with him than MM on this issue. Although I do think MM makes good points as well. This is one of those issues that when I hear reasoned discourse on both sides, it makes me have to think about it some more.

asc85 on July 31, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Is it a hate crime or will I get sued if I make a t-shirt that reads?

“I would give up my 72 virgins in Allah’s whore house for one good BBQ pork sandwich”

With a picture of Mohammad holding a sandwich.

I just reinvested all my assets in pork bellies so you’re welcome to sue me ass$#@^CAIR.

Mojack420 on July 31, 2007 at 11:53 AM

If I purchase my own copy of the Quaran( Koran?), would if be a felony for my to throw my on copy in my own toilet?

dlmcilvain on July 31, 2007 at 1:19 PM

dlmcilvain, only if you do it in the toilet at CAIR headquarters…

Jonas Parker on July 31, 2007 at 1:44 PM

“Hate Crimes” are PC insidious folly in the most twisted way of logic. ALL crimes are motivated by some sort of “hate”. There is obviously too much legislation for the good of the people and for the preservation of the Constitution to waste attention on “hate crimes” as such.

OBVIOUSLY, “hate crimes” are only going to be prosecuted against those who hold dear the American traditions that established and built our nation.

There is no Constitutional reason for the Supreme Court to validate “hate crimes”.

It truly is time for individuals and conservative organizations to join together and sue the government for discriminating against the sons and daughters of the American Revolution. Don’t tread on me.

maverick muse on July 31, 2007 at 1:49 PM

If Shmulevich’s only crime was taking Korans owned by the University (or some student organization), then let’s see if anyone wants to have some fun.

Go buy some Korans from a bookstore. Use your credit card so you have extra backup for this. Have a Notary Public handy to notarize a copy of your receipt and put the copy in the hands of the lawyer who will bail you out later. Also pick up a few Bibles.

Then go to the meditation room a few minutes before evening prayers, place the Bibles alongside the Korans in the room, sit down on the side of the room nearest Mecca, open your bag, pull out a Koran, and methodically tear out a page. Fold it into a paper airplane. Tear out another page. Make it into a boat. Get at least one Star of David and a cross out of your origami efforts.

If you aren’t assaulted yet, when the Muslims show up to pray, you pray too. Not as loud as they do though. If you can have a hidden camera and microphones set up to record the hijinx, so much the better.

The Monster on July 31, 2007 at 2:39 PM

BOR is a fool 1/2 the time, must be a lil masochist in him, loves being whooped by Michelle.

oldernslower on July 31, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Put a crucifix in a jar of urine and you get rewarded with taxpayer funds… Desecrate a Koran, and get slapped with felonies.

sarc/ I’ve heard that the desecrated Koran is currently on life support and it is unclear whether the book will pull through. Worse yet, it didn’t have health insurance so maybe some caring soul can off the book a job if it ever recovers. Such a violent and heinous felony should be punished to the maximum, lest we find poor uninsured Korans left on life support systems in hospitals around the country.

On another note, the grant inspired crucifix received a gift of ‘Estée Lauder Beyond Paradise Eau de Parfum’ whilst visiting the NEA Headquarters. One participate was overheard saying, “We’re so glad the crucifix came, it just stinks a little…” /sarc off

How is it possible to have a violent, felony, Hate Crime against an inanimate object? Who was actually hurt, maimed, or assualted? If vandilism is now considered a Hate Crime, then all those gang-bangers in the LBC who graffiti their hateful words on my building outta get 5-10 years. Instead, their getting mentored by the L.A. mayor.

I’ve officially entered the Twilight Zone. Now excuse me while I take my upsidedown U.S. flag that’s hanging under my Mexican flag because there’s a bonfire at the local community center. They’ve got a larger than life effugy of President Bush sitting up on the top and I figure I can help out using my flag as the torch… oops, sarc off for real now

Sultry Beauty on July 31, 2007 at 3:34 PM

People like to speak about how the U.S. is based on freedom or a Judeao-Christian background or other ideals, but these are all just clichés. The real foundation of society is simply: The Rule of Law applied equally to everyone.

Read Deuteronomy, that’s where that concept came from.

What do you think the Judeao-Christian ethic is?

srhoades on July 31, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Ironically, if the sharia pushers get their way, yes, we probably will criminalize all of those things at some point.

Shouldn’t need to go that far. This is one example of why the 2nd Amendment exists.

AZ_Redneck on July 31, 2007 at 10:57 PM

I stared at the Tv in disbelief when BillO’ tried to make this argument last night. Somehow I missed this posting. Is it just me or has he been going to the other side a bit lately? Iraq, immigration. I’m finding myself disagreeing with him more than I agree with him. I know he’s supposed to be objective but c’mon.

PowWow on August 1, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Why can’t we hate on the cancer that is eating at humanity called: Islam?

That said, Bill is a moron…

Tim Burton on August 1, 2007 at 1:56 AM

I am curious about the pictures. The top photo has two posters. The bottom picture seems to have a larger crowd but if you look at the picture closely it seems to be identical to the one in the first picture, particularly around the border – the material the picture is attached to.

Any photoshop experts feel like examining it?

Bradky on August 1, 2007 at 8:22 AM

Beings how my last attempt on this subject disappeared, let me try to re-state this.

Is it wrong to (very strongly dislike) any organized belief that advocates muder? Have we gotten to the point where it’s politically incorrect to (very strongly dislike) any organized belief that advocates murder? Is it now against the law to (very strongly dislike) any organized belief that advocates muder?

If these things are true, is it because we may intimidate potential murderers?

Ernest on August 1, 2007 at 10:41 AM

So, like WHO do file felony hate crime charges against for the hate crime that IS Islam?

(Yes. That’s right. I just said Islam IS a hate crime. Is THAT a hate crime too?)

CyberCipher on August 1, 2007 at 5:14 PM

I don’t understand how a man putting a book in the crapper can intimidate anyone.

I wonder if these people feel intimidated by the assassination of South Koreans and murder of thousands of other people by members of the religion of peace?

coldshot on August 1, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2