Showing posts with label Stanislav Shmulevich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanislav Shmulevich. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

DESECRATING A BIBLE IS NOT A HATE CRIME. At least that is the conclusion you get from The Washington Times:
Asked whether someone was ever charged with a hate crime over the Bible, [Stanislav Shmulevich's attorney] Mr. Thorpe said "that would take a paralegal a couple of days to research, but this whole situation is fraught with this kind of question."

A search of Lexis/Nexis did not disclose any hate-crime prosecutions for destroying a Bible.
Meanwhile, Allahpundit--who does not find the Lexis/Nexis search conclusive--has a post delving deeper into the legal aspects, including Eugene Volokh’s take on New York’s hate-crime statute. Allahpundit also writes that the idea to charge the hate crime came from the police and not from Pace University--and he explains why that is a good thing.

Technorati Tag: .

O'REILLY VS. MALKIN ON STANISLAV SHMULEVICH. O'Reilly is happy Shmulevich is being charged with a hate crime; Malkin looks at the context at Pace University--and is critical in general of hate crime law.

Link: sevenload.com

Check out Bryan Preston's post which seems to mirror Malkin's argument.

[Hat tip: Hot Air]

Technorati Tag: and and and and .

Monday, July 30, 2007

A QURAN DESECRATION LIBEL IN JEWISH HISTORY. Reminiscent of the blood libels when evidence was planted to incriminate Jews in using blood to bake Matzahs, Andrew Bostom relates this incident from 1910:
Another false accusation of Koran desecration by non-Muslim infidels—with even more horrifying consequences—a brutal pogrom against the defenseless dhimmi Jews of Shiraz, Iran—took place in October, 1910. David Littman has provided the full translation of an Alliance Israélite Universale report of the 1910 Shiraz pogrom which was precipitated, in large part, by a mendacious allegation against the Jewish community: desecrating copies of the Koran by placing them in cesspools (latrines).
…about three weeks ago, some scavengers were busy cleaning out the cesspools of a Jewish house when they brought to light an old book, a few pages of which were unsoiled and which was recognized as a Koran…On the first day of the festival of Succoth, some Jews were returning home from synagogue in the morning when they noticed at the entrance of their house a veiled Muslim woman holding a parcel under her arm. As soon as she saw them approaching, she hurriedly threw her parcel into the cesspool…then she ran away. The parcel was hastily pulled out. Once again, it was a Koran…not sure, in effect, that other Korans had not been thrown, likewise as the first ones, into Jewish houses without the knowledge of their inhabitants…it was [deemed] prudent for this dignitary [the leading Muslim religious leader of the city] to be informed, in case one of these books should be discovered and seized on as a pretext to molest the Jews. [emphasis Bostom's]
This appeal was to no avail, and in the ensuing carnage and destruction,
Not a single one of the Jewish quarter’s 260 houses was spared. [emphasis added] Soldiery, …sayyids [descendants of the prophet and/or Muslim dignitaries], even women and children, driven and excited, less by religious fanaticism than by a frenetic need to plunder and appropriate the Jews’ possessions, engaged in a tremendous rush for the spoils. At one point, about a hundred men from the Kashgaīs tribe, who were in town to sell some livestock, joined the first assailants, thereby completing the work of destruction.

But these fanatics weren’t satisfied to rob the Jews of their possessions. They engaged in all sorts of violence against their persons. As soon as their quarter was stormed, the Jews fled in all directions, some to the houses of Muslim friends, others to the British Consulate, on to the terraces, and even into mosques. A few remained to try and defend their property. They paid for it with their lives or a serious injury. Twelve of them were killed in this way in the mêlée. Another fifteen were stabbed or hit with bludgeons or bullets from rifles or revolvers; they are in an alarming condition. A further forty sustained light injuries. An unlucky woman was wearing gold rings in her ears. A soldier ordered her to surrender them. She made haste to comply and had taken off one of the rings and was trying to remove the other when the impatient fanatic found it more expeditious to tear off the ear lobe together with the ring. Another woman was wearing around her neck a big silk braid to which was attached a small silver case containing some amulets…[an assailant] tried to snatch it from her and, seeing that the braid held, cut it with his knife, making at the same time a deep gash in the flesh of the unfortunate Jewess. How many more such atrocious scenes have occurred, of which I have not yet heard!

In short the outcome of yesterday’s events is as follows: 12 people dead and about 50 more or less seriously injured, whilst the five to six thousand people comprising Shiraz community now possess nothing in the world but the few tatters they were wearing when their quarter was invaded. [emphasis Bostom's]
This is independent of whether Stanislav Shmulevich is actually guilty of what he is accused of doing.

Technorati Tag: and and .

Sunday, July 29, 2007

PUTTING THE QURAN DESECRATION IN PERSPECTIVE (UPDATED):
Well, if had burned an American flag the issues would be clear. If he had put a crucifix in a glass of urine, it would have been art.

On the other hand, a book in a toilet, regardless of the book, can damage the toilet and cause property damage, so there may be a fairly simple cause of action on that basis.

Or if the Quran was not his own, well, then, Mr. Shmulevich is on his own.

The good news - with a name like that, tracking this case via Google should not be difficult.
UPDATE: For the legal implications of the case--whether Shmulevich is being properly charged--check out this post by Allahpundit, which goes into deep detail on the relative statutes.

Also see Little Green Footballs: Pace University Koran Case - Unbelievably Outrageous

Michelle Malkin asks: Which of these is a crime in America?

Malkin links to a New York Times editorial from September 1999 entitled The Museum's Courageous Stand, in defense of artist Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary;"-- a depiction of a black Madonna adorned with elephant dung:
The Brooklyn Museum and its lawyer, Floyd Abrams, have found a fittingly aggressive way to make this point in the face of Mr. Giuliani's unremitting attack. Their suit argues that no one can be punished for exercising First Amendment rights.
Unless you express those rights about Islam.

Technorati Tag: and and .