Sources: Men Arrested Trying To Repaint Bedford Bike Lane
Video: Sad Subway Rant
Call to Ban Carriage Horses, Close Stable
VIDEO: Cycling Activists Repainting Bedford Ave. Bike Lane
Giuliani Takes Job As Security Consultant For Rio Olympics
The fight between boys at a Queens public school that led to a Sikh classmate's hair being cut off was classified as a hate crime by the authorities. The Queens DA's office and the NYPD gave a few more details. The NY Times reports that 17-year-old Umair Ahmed, a Pakistani student, and Vacher Harpal, a 15-year-old Sikh, "had had an argument and that Vacher had made derogatory comments about Mr. Ahmed’s mother." And though Vacher apologized, it was not enough for Ahmed. From the Queens DA's office, which offers a lot more information about the alleged attack:
District Attorney Brown said that, according to the charges, just after 12:00 noon on May 24, 2007, the defendant, armed with a pair of scissors, approached 15-year-old Vacher Harpal in theAccording to a prosecutor in the DA's office, Ahmed also acknowledged that he knew Vacher's hair was part of his religion. Ahmed was charged with second-degree menacing as a hate crime, second-degree aggravated harassment, second-degree harassment and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, and could face up to 7 years in prison if convicted. DA Brown said, “The defendant is not accused of some schoolhouse prank but an attack on the fundamental beliefs of his victim’s religion and his freedom to worship freely. His alleged actions have no place in a civilized society – especially in Queens County, the most culturally diverse county in the nation. Crimes of hate can never be tolerated here.”
hallway of Newtown High School, located at 48-01 90th Street, and stated, “I have to cut your hair.” When Harpal asked, “For what, it is against my religion,” the defendant allegedly displayed a ring with Arabic inscriptions and stated, “This ring is Allah. If you don’t let me cut your hair, I will punch you with this ring.” It is alleged that Harpal initially refused to go into the bathroom with the defendant because he feared that the defendant would hurt him with the scissors.Once inside the bathroom, it is alleged that Harpal removed his dastar while crying and begging the defendant not to cut his hair, which had never been cut and fell past his waist. The defendant is then alleged to have used the scissors to cut Harpal’s hair to the neckline and thrown the hair into the toilet and onto the floor.
Sikh community leaders protested outside the school; Sikh Coalition director Amardeep Singh told the Daily News, "When you lose your hair, like any Sikh, it's like dying. It's clearly a tragedy." However, Ahmed's sister claims that Vacher asked for his turban and hair to be cut.
Yesterday, there were less details of the crime. Given the DA's account:
Image from U.S. Department of Justice poster about Sikh American Head Coverings, via Wikipedia
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hate crime laws should be unconsitutional. Why do liberals assault the Constitution to pander to voters?
Thanks for stopping by, but your trolling just isn't ready for the big time yet.
Actually, this seems like a pretty good application of the hate crime concept. Something that is not normally a serious crime (cutting someone's hair, what could that be, assault at best) is given a more serious weight - because it *is* more significant than just an unwanted haircut.
Do I really think the kid is going to do 7 years? No.
Where hate crimes do seem pointless and discriminitory is when the actual act (robbery, assault, murder) is already heinous and carries a punishment that already seems appropriate.
Though, #1, perhaps you could explain what's unconstitional about it.
(unconstitutional)
Where hate crimes do seem pointless and discriminitory is when the actual act (robbery, assault, murder) is already heinous and carries a punishment that already seems appropriate.
Sorry, if a white person killed a hispanic just because the hispanic was walking down his block, that should be punished more severely. It helps set an example.
Pakistanis are extremely Islamic fundamentalist and keep a strong grudge against the Sikhs. Infact in UK there are well documented cases of Pakistani guys being rewarded by their mosques to forcebly convert Sikh girls. I suppose with the rising number of Pakistanis in USA they are now doing the same here as they have been in the Uk
This hate crime not only has hurt the Sikh boy aginst whom it was purportrated, but may directly hurt the up-to-now good relations between the Pakistani and Sikh communities.
The Pakistani boy should be disciplined by his parents in public in front of the Sikh boy and his family.
It should be made abundantly clear that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated and will not spoil the relations between the 2 communities.
I can't belive that this sort of thing can still happen...when will people educate themselves ?
I think the pakistani boy would at least 3 yrs but not more than 5yrs, he will surely get convicted...
PROUD SIKH
proudsikh.us
the kid should go to jail.
another muslim resorting to violence.
pathetic.
It surprising how few people are disturbed by enforcement of thought crime laws... "unlawful imprisonment, menacing and aggravated harassment" are rational and should be prosecuted as per the plantiffs wishes. Hate/bias laws step over the line, especially with religion. I'd love to invent some bogus belief system that totally benefits only me. If you look at me, you steal my soul. It's my religion, damn it! Now anyone who glances my way pays with a hate crime allegation. Super!!
the word "think" has been left out in your Gothamist Poll image...
"think" twice next time?
watch out or they will be making you pray on the floor on fridays
>
There can never be good relations between Pakistani and Sikh community. Only way to keep these uncivilized Pakistanis in control is through "Chittar". More over periodic Chittar because these guys are quite shameless and effects of the dose fade away quickly. Like they forgot the beating in first indo-pak war and came back to fight another one.
"Image from U.S. Department of Justice poster about Sikh American Head Coverings"
um, wow.
This is no different than the Nazis forcing Jews to eat pork.
This should not be tolerated at all, and deserves the maximum punishment allowed by law.
HEY U MOTHER FUCKING NON MUSLIMS!!!!! FIRST DO WAT U WANT 2 IN THIS WORLD N THEN GET "ABUSED" WHEN U GET UP IN ANOTHER WORLD!!!! HAHAHA...NOW THIS IS ALL A FUCKING LIE!....THE STUPID, IDIOTIC, UGLY, MAMA PUSSY SUCKING AND MOTHER FUCKING VANCHAR IS LIYNG!!! HE IS SOOO UGLY DAT HE WANTED 2 GET THE ATTENTION OF "GIRLS" WHICH HE CAN'T 4 THE REST OF HIS LIFE CUT HIS HAIR N ASKED IN FRIENDSHIP 2 JUZ TRIM OFF THE SIDES N DEN BLAMED IT ON THE OTHA BOY!!!!!! U MOTHER FUCKING INDIANS U SUCK UR MOMS PUSSIEZZZZZ N FUCK UP UR SISTERS!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...BASTARDS, FAGETS, PIG HEADS!!!!!
first of all, i am just shocked to hear this, when i went to that school 4 years back, it was amazing how, punjabis and pakistanis were good friends... and not such extreme crime ever happened.. but it's funny how Suspects sister kept on saying, Victim asked for hair cut, but what if he asked him to bit the shit out of him, would the suspect have done that too,
it's very ignorant that the reputation we left for Newtown is going down the drain every single day, min and sec. If muslims go on the riots for their rights and religion. then everyone is entitled for their rights, doesn't matter of anything...
"The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind."
If you oppose hate crimes because they are 'thought crimes' then you would have to oppose distinctions between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder in the courts. All that hate crimes try to do is codify punishment for behavior that targets not just the victim of the original crime (a forced haircut at scissor point is assault) but intimidates an entire group.
Painting a smiley face on a train is graffiti and destruction of public property. Painting a swastika on a synagogue is destruction of public property AND intended to intimidate an entire community. Why shouldn't that carry an additional charge? The charge must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
And for those that oppose hate crimes because they give special rights to minorities you should know that hate crimes prosecutions are colorblind. There are hate crimes prosecutions that target hate crimes against white victims who were assaulted based on their race by a group of black youths in Long Beach, CA. The law sees no color - only the crime of trying to intimidate a group based on the color of their skin. The same type of prosecution could occur if a Christian child was assaulted in a bathroom based on his/her religion.
This is about equal protection under the law, not special treatment.
"The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind."
If you oppose hate crimes because they are 'thought crimes' then you would have to oppose distinctions between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder in the courts. All that hate crimes try to do is codify punishment for behavior that targets not just the victim of the original crime (a forced haircut at scissor point is assault) but intimidates an entire group.
Painting a smiley face on a train is graffiti and destruction of public property. Painting a swastika on a synagogue is destruction of public property AND intended to intimidate an entire community. Why shouldn't that carry an additional charge? The charge must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
And for those that oppose hate crimes because they give special rights to minorities you should know that hate crimes prosecutions are colorblind. There are hate crimes prosecutions that target hate crimes against white victims who were assaulted based on their race by a group of black youths in Long Beach, CA. The law sees no color - only the crime of trying to intimidate a group based on the color of their skin. The same type of prosecution could occur if a Christian child was assaulted in a bathroom based on his/her religion.
This is about equal protection under the law, not special treatment.