If you haven’t heard about it, a free speech controversy is about ready to erupt that is going to make the Mohamed cartoon imbroglio look like a walk around the Ka’aba.
A 23 year old and Ukranian immigrant, Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn, has been charged with two felony counts for throwing a Koran into a toilet on two separate occasions. The incidents occurred last year when Shmulevich was a senior at Pace University in New York. He left school a couple of credits short of graduating and now works for an international banking firm in New York city.
There are a couple of aspects to this matter that need clarification before a definitive judgment can be made about Shmulevich’s actions. First, what was his intent? If it was to show his disgust for the Islamic faith and knowingly hurt Muslims by tossing what they see as the word of God into a toilet, he should definitely be criticized as an ignorant lout.
But a felon? And this is where the second missing piece of information that will allow us to judge the situation rationally comes into play; just what is it the prosecutor hopes to accomplish?
Ignoramus or not, the fellow was making a statement expressing his beliefs. And Michelle Malkin (in what is sure to be the most controversial post of the day) asks the right question. Using some powerful visual examples, she wonders “Which of these is a crime in America?”
A) Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine.
B) Burning the American flag.
C) Putting a Koran in a toilet.
And yes, she has a picture of a Koran in a toilet.
Michelle will no doubt be vilified by the usual suspects who will almost certainly miss her larger point for posting such a disturbing image. Malkin haters don’t do nuance nor do they grant Michelle the same luxury of being a controversialist as they do their own rabble rousers on the left.
The crucifix in urine is but one example of the outrageous anti-Christian “art” that has been shown over the last decade or so. What was the “intent” of the artist in creating such a display? Nothing less than to knowingly inflict emotional pain on those who believe in Christ as God. Artistic expression is rightly protected under the first amendment. But if we are going to use the standard of a Koran in the toilet provoking the exact same reaction among Muslims as the crucifix in urine did to Christians, why does one form of expression get a pass and the other doesn’t?
Isn’t this what the first amendment was created to protect? It doesn’t matter that your idea of free speech is different than mine. The first amendment guarantee is that all speech (with very limited exceptions) – yours, mine, and Mr. Shmulevich – is protected regardless of its affect on others.
Or it was anyway. Now we have “hate crime” statutes where we ask prosecutors, judges, and juries to play at being psychic in order to reach into the mind of defendants and glean their “intent” in committing an act.
If that act is to do violence against someone for their race, creed, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation, the defendant is judged more harshly and receives a longer prison term for what was in his mind at the time he committed the crime. This may be an efficacious rationale for protecting the lives and health of minorities through deterrence although I have yet to see any statistics that would lead me to believe this is so. What disgusts me is the shameless pandering by politicians in passing hate crime legislation in the first place. Posturing to win votes by playing to the interests of special pleaders is not a good way to make law under any circumstances.
And Mr. Shmulevich’s case is a perfect example. Using hate crime legislation to deal with violence against another for who they are is one thing. But using the statute to prosecute people who offend someone’s beliefs? This is an entirely different kettle of fish for which we are about to have a much needed and long overdue debate.
Does one have a right not to be offended in America? Or are only certain groups granted that right? If I write “Muslim go home” on a bathroom wall at a Christan church, can I be tried for a hate crime? Or, if a Muslim spits on a bible and burns it, is he subject to the exact same standard of justice if it was a Christian doing the same thing?
Instead of over generalizing, let’s look at this specific case involving Mr. Shmulevich. He’s a devout Jew who actually defended the Koran when the first instance of its desecration came to light 10 months ago:
The suspect’s roommate in Gravesend, Brooklyn, said she was stunned by the charges.“It’s impossible. He was defending the Koran,” said Ola Petrovich, 24, an online saleswoman. “We had that conversation. He said, ‘Don’t criticize the Koran if you haven’t read it.’
“Why would he do something so stupid?”
[snip]
“He read the Koran,” she continued. “He was telling me, ‘You should read it.’ He’s Jewish, but he’s theologically sound. Both his parents are ballistic over this.”
The Korans Mr. Shmulevich threw in the toilet were school property taken from a “meditation room” on campus. Now I’m not a lawyer and will make no attempt to analyze the legal issues regarding this case. But Allah has the language of the statutes under which Mr. Shmulevich is being charged with a hate crime and to these layman’s eyes, it is perplexing to me why the prosecutor would be charging Mr. Shmulevich under either of these statutes. Instead, it appears to be a case where the prosecutor files more serious charges in hopes the defendant will plead to lesser ones.
Charge him with stealing the Korans, yes. Perhaps even charge him with a misdemeanor for vandalizing school property. But charging the man with two felony counts under dubious circumstances smacks of prosecutorial overkill.
Beyond the legal troubles of Mr. Shmulevich, there is the issue of double standards in the equal application of the law. Evidently, the law views artistic expression in a different light than other free speech issues. A crucifix in urine and putting a Koran in the toilet being done for the exact same reasons are evidently seen as separate matters all because the individual who placed the crucifix in urine says he is an artist and actually received grant money for the piece from the National Endowment for the Arts. In this case, “intent” becomes meaningless because the artist – Andres Serrano – is protected by virtue of tradition and law regarding art and the necessarily broad definition of it.
There is a strong sense among conservatives that this double standard is patently and grossly unfair. How can you protect one form of speech and prosecute another when the intent is similar? So far, there has been no case that I know of where a Muslim or anyone else has been prosecuted for desecrating the bible in this country although this fellow appears to have equalled Mr. Shmulevich’s act. I’m sure “Vile Blasphemer” would argue that he’s either engaging in satire or other forms of free expression that would protect him from the zealous prosecutor who is currently after Mr. Shmulevich. But does it really matter that much if Shmulevich was deadly serious in his protest? Suppose his defense is he was just trying to be funny? Are we to believe that this should be a mitigating factor when determining if a hate crime has been committed?
It seems to me we have not thought through all the ramifications of hate crime legislation of this type. When we skirt this close to punishing people for expressing their most passionately held beliefs – even if those beliefs offend – everyone loses a little freedom. Perhaps the statutes are drawn too broadly. In any event, an act such as that carried out by Stanislav Shmulevich must be seen in the same context we would view anyone exercising their rights granted under the first amendment. To do less, weakens the first amendment and consequently, our most cherished and fundamental freedoms.
8:53 am
[...] Rick Moran: The Korans Mr. Shmulevich threw in the toilet were school property taken from a “meditation room†on campus. Now I’m not a lawyer and will make no attempt to analyze the legal issues regarding this case. But Allah has the language of the statutes under which Mr. Shmulevich is being charged with a hate crime and to these layman’s eyes, it is perplexing to me why the prosecutor would be charging Mr. Shmulevich under either of these statutes. Instead, it appears to be a case where the prosecutor files more serious charges in hopes the defendant will plead to lesser ones. [...]
9:02 am
[...] Bill’s Bites / Moonbattery / Man Arrested on “Hate Crime†Charges… after throwing Koran in toilet / Time to stand up America…not to insult Muslims but to defend our First Amendment Rights! | Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar / American Civil Liberties Union Religious Bias « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT / Sunday Overnight · New York Articles / Ignorant Americans? « Spontaneous Order / Sunday Overnight : Weblogs / Shari’a Law in the US, trumps our own « Toms FlashBacks / Support Free Speech, Koran Demonstration « Toms FlashBacks / Political correctness alive and well at Pace U. « Full Metal Cynic / First Round : The Shot! @ shotpolitics.com / The Saloon dot net / Hyscience / Pajamas Media / Koran flusher charged with felonies! « Crush Liberalism / Crush Liberalism /Right Wing Nut House [...]
9:03 am
I agree that the hate crimes part of this case is most likely nonsense, but there is a difference between a crucifix, a flag, and a Koran—only the Koran is beleived to be an actual holy item by its followers. Christians (well, most) do not believe the crucifix is a physical embodiment of divinity, but rather a symbol of the relgion. Likewise for the flag, American or otherwise: it may symbolize a country but it is not the country itself.
The Koran, however, is specifically regarded as more than just a book in the Muslim faith. Christianity has no prescriptions against burning a Bible, or defacing a crucifix—its unbelievably rude, but not a sin. The Koran is covered by strict rules in the Muslim faith, because it is essentially considered to be a actual physical manifestation of the power of Allah, and not just as a collection of words on pages. Thats where the issues with handling Korans at Gitmo came from—to the Muslims, it wasn’t just rude, it was being forced into a sin by the guards.
The above is a VAST oversimplification, but just wanted to throw my two cents in.
BTW, the crucifix case is distinguishable as well based on the fact that the crucifix was “art” (I use that term loosely), assuming you are refering to “Piss Crist” by the idiot a few years ago. If the gentleman in the instant case claimed this was some sort of performance piece, he may have a better defense (but I still don’t see hate crime, unless he forced Muslims to watch him do it at gunpoint or something like that).
9:23 am
Sorry. Doesn’t cut it.
What you’re saying is that only Muslims are protected from being offended. It doesn’t matter what Muslims say about their own book. They are not the ones engaged in free speech. The protection here is granted the person who is expressing himself – not the target of his protest. And the Constitution grants no rights to those who may become such a target.
And btw – there are many Christians who see the Bible as the verbatum word of God and revere the book the way that Muslims revere the Koran. You’re saying that because one religion spells out how a book is viewed, they are entitled to being protected from offense?
And what about the flag? There are specific rules and regulations about how to dispose of a flag. Burning it is only the final step. You are saying that we can ignore the rules and regs regarding burning a flag because that’s protected speech (I agree that it is – but not for this reason) but must prosecute someone who ignores the rules about handling a Koran?
It’s a muddle to be sure. But shouldn’t we be erring on the side of free speech rather than granting special privilges to one group?
9:33 am
Okay – I misunderstood your comment. You’re saying it is NOT a hate crime. Good.
10:00 am
@ Mr. Moran:
I definitely don’t see a hate crime, unless there are substantial facts not covered in the case summaries you and Ms. Malkin gave. I used to work in criminal justice, and it seems to me this is a prosecutor going with the “charge him with everything under the sun, then agree to drop most of them if the defendant cops to the real charges” approach.
re: the distinction between the Koran, flag, and crucifix—
There is a difference between “rules” and “religious commandments.” Yes, there are rules for the proper disposal of Old Glory. Not to follow those rules, however, is not a sin, as in an action that will condemn your soul to Hell. Like I said, it makes you a jerk, but not damned. Same goes for the Bible—while many people believe it is the Literal Word of Jaweh and revere it, there is nothing in the Christian faith (that I’m aware of) that proscribes destroying a copy of the Bible, or highlighting importand text, or doodling in the margins, whatever. Its not a SIN.
Mishandling the Koran (or allowing it to be mishandled) is considered a SIN, not just bad conduct. I’m not Muslim, and I don’t believe it is a sin, but the rules of the faith damn the follower for the transgression.
Example: I cut the hair of an extremely devout Jew (I think the term is Hassidic?). In my mind, I’ve just assulted him. In their mind, they have sinned against God, and their soul may be forfeit. That goes way beyond “offended.”
A non-religious (and extremely sloppy) example. As a white male landowner, I can burn wood on my property. I can burn shapes on my property. I can burn a wooden cross on my property IF I’m not displaying it to Black Americans. If I am showing it to them, I’m looking at a crime, whereas if I burn a cross with my white buddies, its a campfire.
“You’re saying that because one religion spells out how a book is viewed, they are entitled to being protected from offense?”
essentially yes, but change “viewed” to “handled” and “offense” to “losing their eternal soul.”
The problem with viewing this from the Muslim perspective is, well . . . we’re not Muslims. From our theological upbringing (presuming you were raised in some Christian faith in America), the proscription against defiling the Koran makes no sense, and that makes it hard to see Muslims as anything other than whiners when situations like this come up.
I think that’s where the “hate crime” charges is coming from—for the Muslim, its a different situation than the Christian. Its not a matter of being offended, its a matter of being damned. Thats the trouble with mixing Law and Religion—one tries to be based on reason, and one tries to be based on faith. The two don’t go together well.
10:26 am
[...] Allah’s got a legal run-down. Rick Moran writes:  The Korans Mr. Shmulevich threw in the toilet were school property taken from a “meditation room†on campus. Now I’m not a lawyer and will make no attempt to analyze the legal issues regarding this case. But Allah has the language of the statutes under which Mr. Shmulevich is being charged with a hate crime and to these layman’s eyes, it is perplexing to me why the prosecutor would be charging Mr. Shmulevich under either of these statutes. Instead, it appears to be a case where the prosecutor files more serious charges in hopes the defendant will plead to lesser ones. [...]
12:48 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 07/30/2007…
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back of…
12:54 pm
CQ Radio: NRCC Chair Tom Cole…
Today on CQ Radio (at the special time of 1 pm CT), we’ll have Representive Tom Cole, chair of the National Republican Congressional Caucus, to discuss candidate recruitment and the 2008 campaign. The GOP has more hope of recapturing…...
1:05 pm
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 07/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
6:55 pm
The obvious difference is where it all happened. Desecrating things in your own private space is one thing, doing it in public is different. I bet if somebody would sneak a sculpture of Jesus with horns and a giant penis into a Christian church, the reaction would be different than if the same sculpture would be placed in a museum.
The “hate speech” angle is likely absurd, but it looks like the guy deserves being kicked out of the university. If somebody likes to paint swastikas and adores Hitler, that’s his own business, but if he writes “Death to the Jews” on the walls on campus, he has no business being there.
7:06 pm
Speaking about “double standards”, there was outrageous case of Rachel Bevilacqua, so it’s not like artistic anti-Christianism can’t have bad legal consequences.
11:54 pm
Hopefully, this case will be thrown out of court as it should be, but what I’m hoping the real benefit of these absurd charges will be a continued spotlight on the agenda of C.A.I.R.
With the “Flying Imams” case and now this, C.A.I.R. should get even more publicity and I’m certain that in the long run, the terrorists at C.A.I.R. should have continued to operate a bit lower under the radar as they had.
Now, C.A.I.R. will become clear to the American people – the masses will see the true intent of this organization and they will begin to pressure their congressmen and women to shun this outfit.
Greed and publicity are addicting…apparently even to C.A.I.R.
12:29 am
Somehow I am more concerned with the camera being in a public toilet area than I am with the other issues stated.
Who authorized the camera in a public toilet/restroom.
Why do they have a camera there?
Who installed the camera?
Who is the operator?
Is this common practice at the University and other public places.
Hmmmmm….
3:54 am
Nicolay,
It would be nice if you read the pages in which you have provided links. Your reference to the Church of the Subgenius and the “outrageous case of Rachel Bevilacqua” seems to imply she was persecuted for engaging in anti-Christianism. When in actuality, the case was a custody dispute brought by the father of Rachel’s son. The petition was filed based on the continued and increasing unstable mental condition of the son as a result of the mother’s guardianship.
“The obvious difference is where it all happened.”
A church is private property and not subject to an open-ended interpretation of free speech. In other words, if you do not like what the church teaches, then you are perfectly free to leave and take your phallic Jesus with you.
You also suggested Mr. Shmulevich should have been kicked out. So, one can only assume you believe universities, a public institution, are not places in which free speech should be staunchly defended. Remove the fact that a Koran was used, and instead put a chemistry textbook in the toilet. Do you still think he should be expelled? If you say no—the only logical answer—it then means putting a book in the toilet is not an expellable offense. The difference being one action is likely to hurt the feelings of someone. Simply put, if the act committed (placing the Koran in the toilet)is not a crime in and of itself, then what he thinks becomes the crime-a sad day indeed!
You use the egregiously inappropriate example of writing anti-semitic statements on walls. What makes it so wrong is the nature of the two acts. Putting a Koran in the toilet, where it may or may not seen by a Muslim, is an extremely passive act. Writing on the walls is much more aggressive act, and one that has a greater likelihood of being observed by those it is meant to offend. By using an example practically everyone can agree is wrong, you minimize how repugnant censorship can be. If you asked “what if someone paints anti-war and Bush is Hitler messages on walls,” the question becomes much more difficult to answer; not for me, but most certainly for you.
4:06 am
QQQ…
Does one have a right not to be offended in America?From a piece on the toilet Koran story by Rick Moran. Also, with photos, at Moonbattery. In my view, it is the privilege of every American to both offend and to be offended. This kid was charged with…
3:52 pm
The quote you give is from the last appeal and is a total “psycho-expert” B.S. When it all started, the judge expressly referred to her taking part in SubGenius events as reason for taking a child from her. She was also prohibited from having SubGenius literature at home when the kid is around.
Putting Koran in the public toilet in a University attended by Muslims is unambiguous harassment, and it’s in no way more passive than anti-semitic writings on the wall.
Well, what’s hateful about writing “anti-war” messages? Is war peace now and freedom slavery? Bush=Hitler is kind of a different matter, but I believe he’s not a student on campus now, so it’s not gonna offend him, and the church of Bush has not that many members either. But a guy making such writings should definitely be confronted and face some punishment. Would you really want to have campuses all covered with hateful graffiti?
If the writing said “kill the rednecks”, I’d say that the question would be simpler.
Again, it’s not about limiting free speech, it’s about kicking out the guy from the private university for harassing fellow students.
5:58 pm
Advice to Stanislav Shmulevich on proper way to fl…
So here is my advice to Stanislav: “Go back and take a photo of the Koran swimming in the toilet and call it “Holy Sh*t Mohammed” and frame it….
12:58 am
Submitted for Your Approval…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
5:05 am
Submitted 08/01/07…
This week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations are in. The Glittering Eye does a riff on one of last week’s non-council entries in Where’s the Beef? Though the orientation is different ( the original was lamenting the fact; The Glittering Eye is simply …
9:40 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Whose Freedom? What is Speech?†[...]
11:11 pm
The Council Has Spoken!...
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are NEA Also Confused About SCOTUS Dec…
3:14 am
Council speak 08/03/07…
The council has spoken and declared that Colossus of Rhodey’s excellent NEA Also Confused About SCOTUS Decision Regarding Race & Schooling was the best Watcher’ Council post of the week. It has also voted Michael J. Totten’s Baghdad Raid Night the b…
9:20 am
Watcher’s Council results…
I finally nailed down a first place showing! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are NEA Also Confused About SCOTUS Decision Regarding Race & Schooling by The Colossus of Rhodey, and Baghdad Raid…...
11:46 am
[...] It happened at the Watcher’s Council The votes are in and they are good. My post, “He’s not my President,” placed a respectable third, deserved falling behind the first place winner, NEA Also Confused About SCOTUS Decision Regarding Race & Schooling by The Colossus of Rhodey, and the second place winner, Whose Freedom? What Is Speech?, by Right Wing Nut House. Congratulations to both these bloggers for a job well done. Heck, congratulations to all the Council members for the other equally good posts. I find the weekly vote very challenging…. [...]
8:39 pm
“Mishandling the Koran (or allowing it to be mishandled) is considered a SIN, not just bad conduct. I’m not Muslim, and I don’t believe it is a sin, but the rules of the faith damn the follower for the transgression.”
This is the core of the Muslim oppression: what is a sin for THEM to do becomes prohibited for non-Muslims to do. If it is a sin to mishandle the Koran, it is a sin ONLY FOR MUSLIMS. No one forced a Muslim to mishandle the Koran. The quote is instructive: “damn the follower”—it correctly doesn’t say “damn the observer.” This is a crucial difference.
This is why it is oppressive for Muslim cab drivers to refuse to carry passengers with alcohol—it is imposing their morality on non-Muslims.
That is the essence of Muslim history – imposing Sharia law on non-believers, by force if necessary. Using our (pathetic and misguided) hate speech/action laws to enforce Sharia law must be resisted at all costs.
12:05 pm
I agree with Rick. I don’t think this guy should be charged with a ‘hate crime.’ But then, I think hate crimes are for the thought police, not a free society.
I don’t agree so much with several commentors. A custody case over a minor child is hardly in the same category as free speech issues involving adults.
Rachel may well have gotten a raw deal, but we’re relying on her testimony and that of her friends to make that judgment- and by their nature, custody issues are loaded with emotional baggage (they can’t help but be, it’s our KIDS we are talking about).
I’m also not impressed with her decision to publicize her kid’s name and situation on the internet, but oh, well.
I remember seeing another custody case over religion years ago- Donohue or Oprah. One parent Catholic, one Jewish, they divorced, and one parent wanted the other one not to be allowed to discuss their religion with or in front of the child, and the judge did rule in favor of that request. I forget why, and it may or may not have been a stupid ruling- but the point is you don’t really have freedom of speech with minor children in custody cases. Like it or not, it’s a hairier situation. My friend may be free to say what she likes about her ex husband’s soul to me, but a judge can rule that she can’t say those things to her kids. So this isn’t the same thing at all as an adult student in a public university surrounded by other adults putting a book in the toilet.
As for the difference between the Koran and other religions and the treatment of their icons- poppycock. The Catholics view the Eucharist as something every bit as holy (holier even) as the Koran, yet there was a sit com episode (Committed) all around misusing it- it was very offensive to Catholics (and I’m not one). The Anchoress blogged about it. People objected, but nobody took them to court. They are not charged with a hate crime, even though you know it wasn’t love for their Catholic acquaintances that prompted such a story line.
I also don’t agree that it’s oppressive for Muslim cab drivers to refuse to carry passengers with alcohol. They are not imposing their morality on non muslims because you don’t have to take their cab. You can walk, take a bus, take a subway, get your own car, or dump the booze if you like. Those who insist that a Muslim transport them in violation of his conscience are the ones imposing their morality on others. But then I believe in freedom of association as well as freedom to do business with whom you want (or not do business with whom you don’t want).
I’m not interested in living in Dhimmitude, but that doesn’t mean I want to dhimmify Muslims, either.
4:54 pm
Spinners and Winners…
Another complete breakdown of the Big Lizards machine; but this time we have an excuse—a massive disk-drive failure that required replacement and which interfered with the smoothly oiled functioning of the reptilian automaton. We were unable to send…
7:01 pm
Watcher’s Council Results…
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are NEA Also Confused About SCOTUS Decision Regarding Race & Schooling by The Colossus of Rhodey, and Baghdad Raid Night by Michael J. Totten. Here are the full tallies of….
4:56 pm
The prosecuting authority here is acting in accordance with the spirit of ‘hate crime’ legislation, which is the appeasement of Islamist cultural and physical aggression. The hate crime legislation has the intended effect of criminalising criticism of Islamic theology, with unintended side effect of allowing Islamist recruitment to flourish.
The reason that the ‘hate crime’ legislation is not applied even handedly to those who insult other religions, is that society at large is not, frankly, terribly afraid of other religious groups. People are, however, afraid of Islamists. Rightly so.
The logic of appeasement runs thus: if we do everything possible, including presumably the restriction of basic freedoms, to prevent anyone from offending Islamists, maybe they’ll stop trying to blow us up; meanwhile if a few Christians should get upset about pictures of their God Incarnate in some stale urine, well at least they won’t kill anyone…and maybe, by tacitly sanctioning the desecration of a very potent symbol of western culture, the Islamists will be satisfied that we’re really trying to empathise with their concerns and issues….
Mr Shmulevich should not be prosecuted for placing a book in a lavatory. The man responsible for ‘Piss Christ’ should not be prosecuted either. Nor should I, for saying that Mr Shmulevich has behaved with rudeness and stupidity, and that Mr ‘Piss Christ’ is a moron, whose work is vacuous, boring and entirely devoid of merit.
All are well within the bounds of acceptable free speech.
The much more important point is that in passing the hate crime legislation, both your society in the US and mine in the UK, are showing the Islamist that we are terrified of them, physically, culturally and electorally, and that we do not in fact value our freedom. Since their philosophy depends upon the assumption that we can in fact be coerced into abandoning liberty and democracy, in favour of religious submission and theocracy, this kind of legislation can only encourage them.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...
Benjamin Franklin
The posture of appeasement serves only to encourage derision and violence.
8:59 am
car insurance low…
inspires Bolshevist buster,arrival recasts …