Our tip lines have been exploding about a New York incident involving a Sikh high school student who was assaulted; his turban was ripped off and then his hair, which had never been shorn, was cut against his will. Unfortunately for those of you who kept submitting the story, there were crickets chirping in the bunker this weekend. Our delay in blogging it was not a reflection of whether we feel the issue was important or not.
Here are the facts I have gleaned from the various links sent in:
- The Sikh boy was trading “Yo Mama”-like insults with two others
- Things got out of hand
- He tried to apologize
- He was informed that the only way to do so would be a haircut (WTF?)
- That’s when he was dragged in to a bathroom and cut
- Two other boys served as “lookouts”
- All the boys may or may not have been friends
- The teenaged defendant is a Muslim of Pakistani descent
- Other desi students said this was anomalous for their school.
From the Queens D.A.’s press release:
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 the 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. [link]
Is this a hate crime? Or just juvenile stupidity and roughhousing gone too far?
seriously, puliogre – there was no other way to deal with the situation? it is amazing how much ‘testosterone’ this post is bringing out. it’s rather ridiculous.
The Anti Defamation League defines hate crime as: a criminal act against a person or property in which the perpetrator chooses the victim because of the victim’s real or perceived race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or gender. Statutory wording obviously differs in various jurisdictions.
I feel this is qualitatively different because a victim is chosen as REPRESENTATIVE of a certain group and brutalized/victimized in whatever way because of (and most likely ONLY because of) his/her affliation with that group. In the case presented here, I think whatever fight/grudge was going on was intensely personal, which to me greatly reduces the “symbolic” and/or impersonal nature of the “textbook” hate crime. I would say absolutely not a hate crime.
I don’t think that each and every situation in which some kind of ethnic/religious/communal symbolic element involved constitutes a “hate crime.” To me, the critical difference is if someone is victimized solely or primarily as an example of their group affiliation. If some white guys go looking for ANY woman in a hijab and decide to rip it off of her just for kicks, that’s a hate crime. If two Muslim girls/schoolmates get into a fistfight and one rips off the other’s hijab in a rage, causing much public humiliation for the victim, I don’t know that you’d call that a hate crime. This devolves into shades of gray though: If two guys who know each other are fighting and the white one keeps calling the black one a “dirty n*****”, is that a hate crime? I don’t think so, but I’m not sure how that stands up in courts nowadays. Like all matters, depends on the state, depends on the judge, depends on the lawyers, depends on the jury….
Yes, Camille is correct:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6207509.stm
Sikh boys have been under enormous pressure in Canada and Austrailia to uphold such religious symbols in the wake of 9/11. And yes I am a sardarni myself, and have seen my own cousins cut their long-cherished hair to get that better job, better life in the West, etc. The child could have made it up, instigated it, or not resisted as much as he may now need to pretend to.
How disturbing is it that “apology” was defined by the alleged victim having to get a haircut? That’s kind of powerplay places this beyond any incidence of juvenile delinquency. And when you have that kind of violent powerplay, there’s the backdrop for any hate crime. Hair-pulling or a bloody nose would’ve been roughhousing, but there’s something about this that strikes me as so complex — freakishly so.
The post title is quite apt — as someone said.
if the facts as told here are accurate, it is a hate crime – obviously the defedant knew how important his hair (and by extension, religion) was to the victim to use that as his revenge – i think it’s rather obvious that he would not have done the same thing to a non-sikh – they would have just fought it out using their fists. however, if the defendant’s version is true, i feel very sad for the other kid that he had to stage this whole thing just to cut his own hair, something he felt he could not do openly or seemingly of his own volition. and going by some of the comments on this board, there is, indeed, intense pressure to be a ‘true sikh man.’
From what I read, the attacker knew the importance of the kid’s hair and chose to cut it off because of that importance. Hopefully the attacker serves some time to reflect on the greatness of his religion and the right it gives him to hurt someone who believes differently than he does.
I tried other options. they jumped us anyways. i hate violence as much as the next guy. but, cmon…
My initial comment was a little bit tongue in cheek. Don’t take it that seriously though the obviously flippant remarks were loosely based on a sincere thought that went through my mind. When we ask each new generation to follow traditions, do they really know why they are following them? Isn’t the hair and dagger thing symbolic of a Sikh warrior man? Or do a lot of us follow traditions without paying attention to the whole? Or did I get that assumption wrong? And 15 is not that young. In the not too distant future, he will be eligible for the army.
it always seemed to me that the whole point of traditions was simply to foster a sense of continuity? Im sure the sikh gas station attendants of the world arent wearing their beard for warrior purposes. I would think a beard is disadvantagious in any war scenario. i would think they just wear the beard/turban to feel contrinuity with thier culture, ancestors. no?
I agree, makes me want to go out and punch somebody.
Or to quote an excellent mimic/mediocre comedian… “somebody gonna get hurt real bad”.
On a serious note, in response to the “Indian men acting like Gangstarrs on the internet” comment, I had to move to India as a kid in the late 70s and ABDs were not that common back then. When I was barely 10, I would be attacked by 12-15 year old kids in my school on a regular basis because I was from the U.S. and I was almost their size. I did not back down. Indians do know how to fight back. And this is another true story. When I was 7, a couple of kids in my school bus asked me to POWDER MY FACE. We were all suburban kids. My white buddy and I were fortunately the biggest kids in our class. So we proceeded to engage in an all out school bus fight. It was actually kind of amusing to see this lil kids with bloody noses. I can’t remember clearly, but i may have had one too.
funny.
puliogre – sorry, your wording just made it seem that that was the immediate reaction. but, yeah in certain situations, i guess eventually you have no choice, and it sometimes depends on the other person – if they’re not going to let it go without a fight, might as well give them a good one.
I did some reporting on this story on the day it broke. Desi youth workers who are actually directly involved with kids in this neighborhood, including ones who attend this high school, cautioned that there were numerous conflicting versions of the sequence of events. It was only clear that (a) there had been trading of taunts (apparently yo mama jokes), and (b) the hair had been cut. Exactly how things evolved from (a) to (b) was very much up in the air. There is no doubt of course that the cutting of the hair represented an affront to the victim’s religious beliefs, and no one wanted to second-guess the police in their investigation and the D.A.’s office in its pressing of the charges. Still, these youth workers, who operate daily in a community where there are large numbers of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh desis, as well as pretty much every other ethnic group under the sun (Elmhurst is as diverse as it gets), pointed out that the only clear pattern this underscores is that “kids fight,” and when they fight they align on identity — Indian vs Pakistani, Gujarati vs Punjabi were two examples I was given. Again, no one is disagreeing that what happened here went further in that it ended up in religious humiliation.
Two other things. First, the reference to the “ring of Allah” made in the D.A.’s office’s press release was the first such reference in a day that had already seen numerous versions of the story put forward. Moreover, the D.A.’s office presented the incident as, basically, the alleged perpetrator grabbing the victim in the hallway and taking him into the bathroom and forcing him to have his hair cut — as if there hadn’t been a whole sequence of events leading up to it. I showed the D.A.’s press release to people who had been talking to kids from the school all day and they were incredulous. The key point here is that when a decision is made to charge someone with a hate crime, there is a strong incentive on the prosecution to put forward narratives that emphasize facts that can clearly be seen as manifesting religious or ethnic hate or bias. It’s a well known problem of the “hate crime” category that it doesn’t do a good job with complex incidents in which ethnic, racial or religious identity play a part but not the only part.
Second, and this goes to what Ikram was saying earlier in this thread, my understanding is that the press conference that was called at 2 p.m. the day after the incident (and the first day it was in the news), was called by a Sikh uncle who is neither from that neighborhood nor is affiliated with the major Sikh civil-right organizations in NYC like the Sikh Coalition. This uncle apparently made a nuisance of himself after 9/11 as well, putting forward the “we are not Muslims” line at the same time that other organizations were trying to build solidarity among, and recognition of, all the different groups at risk of bias and profiling. As Ikram said, self-appointed leaders tend to be opportunistic and are often counter-productive. I would venture this problem goes beyond NYC, but certainly this city with its infinite diversity creates a lot of opportunities for this kind of behavior.
On the day after the Elmhurst incident, the youth workers were mostly concerned about the risk of this incident leading to incendiary, irresponsible rhetoric by leaders in the masjids, mandirs and gurudwaras of Queens, and the possibility of retaliation or escalation in the playgrounds over the long, hot Memorial Day weekend. It seems that the weekend passed without incident, which is testimonial to the underlying positive climate in Elmhurst (which is visible if you’ve ever visited the neighborhood) as well as the good sense of most of the kids living there.
Jeepers…sounds more like India than Queens.
Pondatti (#26) I never said this kid was a disgrace to Sikhism. But much of Sikhism’s ethos includes ideals about how to behave when being persecuted. Obviously few can actually live up to that. One can (and probably should) let this kid off the hook, but it would not be uncalled for to say he did not exhibit the type of behavior that represents the ideals of the religion. That’s all. In other religions, let’s say Jainism, where the ideals are very different, one would not offer this criticism at all, and the issue would never come up. Sahej if you’re out there, I’d like to know your thoughts on this.
Puliogre (#33) I agree it would be hard to avoid violence in a case like that.
Pravin, you kind of prove my point. The amount of misplaced machismo in this thread is laughable. Who cares if a 15 year old Sikh boy acted like a sissy or not? Really?
And more than that, what does your ability to fight off teenagers in the 70s have to do with this incident?
If this event turns to be out true.
I’m very surprised at the lack of outrage over this attack on the young sikh boy. I wonder if this anything to do with the attacker being another desi of a muslim background. If this had been a couple of white boys, I have feeling that there would have been alot more comments.
Two months ago a 40 year old sikh man said he was attacked by cop and there were over 300 comments. Most of them saying that the cop was gulity, with very few people waiting for all the facts to come out.
Now if this event turns out to be false.
It will be yet another case of a young teenage sikh boy, saying that he get attacked and had his hair cut. Then the sikh community leaders in the West need to deal with this issue.
As for the Brown on Brown crime. Most south asian brown who murdered in the west, are killed by other south asian browns.
Clueless, unfortunately I’m really hesitant to get all up in arms when for all we know the story is kind of made up. If it really was an attack, I would be more outraged, but there are conflicting stories, and we’ve seen evidence of kids making up really elaborate hoaxes in the past. It’s unfortunate, and like I said, I wish that, as a community, we were accepting enough to let kids feel like they can be honest instead of coming up with elaborate stories to “get out of” religious observance.
Pravin, the answer is no. Aside from the fact that your characterization completely ignores that there are Sikh women who adhere to the same standard, kes and kirpan (which is not a dagger!!! :LSKDJFL:SDKFJ!!!) are part of the uniform of a Gursikh. The concept of being a “saint soldier” is not all about throwing down in a fight, it is about justice, community, standing up for the little guy, and it is also about learning how to WALK AWAY. It is not about getting into stupid fights in school and then “duking it out.” Whether or not you believe a 15 year old is a child is irrelevant — he’s still going through a huge transformative time in life and is no doubt figuring out who he is. Perhaps people are too quick to require him to uphold a standard or ideal that he may or may not identify with?
Siddhartha, that uncle is ALWAYS stirring up trouble. If a member of the family crashed the press conference, I’m frankly glad. There are too many opportunistic folks who play off these incidents instead of actually doing good. The same uncle also has made it difficult for a lot of (U.S.) Sikh advocacy organizations to pair up with (U.S.) Muslim advocacy organizations because of all his stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric.
Thanks for the clarification, though. 🙂
Camille, thanks for the info. I was just relaying what my perception was.
Ramanan said “And more than that, what does your ability to fight off teenagers in the 70s have to do with this incident?” My comments about the 70s incidents was in response to the person who stereotyped all of us making some lighthearted comments on this teen as some geeks who would not fight in real life and we were acting like gangstas on the internet.
I do think it is a hate crime if one is to believe the victim amidst the varying accounts. However, let us consider the age of the participants. I would not sentence anyone to jail.There are other forms of punishment that could be meted out.
This is true. But more fundamentally, hate crimes are thought crimes…ie, they give extra punishment due to a person’s ideas and beliefs. now the particular beliefs in question are repulisive so few complain, but if the govt is allowed to give extra punishment to racists, could they do the same for communists? how about feminists? first they came for the racists…slippery slope.
there are first ammedment issues here and while such laws may pass constitutional muster they certainly go against her spirit. this is not the american way. it’s orwells.
i must admit i take perverse pleasure in the fact that hate crime laws are being used to prosecute a persecuted minority. this was not the way it was supposed to be, but since we no longer live in a land where the KKK goes around lynching, i wouldn’t be surprised if prosecutions of non-whities exceed those of whites.
the only way around this would be to design a law that only protects certain minorities, ie the hate crime would have to mimic instiutional racism…much like the logic of the “blacks can’t be racist” argument.
but such laws would certainly be deemed unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause. america protects individual rights, not group.
No worries, Pravin. Sorry to be so harsh, there’s just been so ,any ,achismo-filled posts re: Sikhs and Sikhi lately that I’ve been at capacity. My interpretation is of course n ot the only correct one, nor is it the end all be all, but I do think a very violence-oriented interpretation of Sikhi goes against the foundations of the faith.
heh! Camille has good josh.
i’m sorry to say, but whites do not have the monopoly on racism. desis are no less when it comes to these sorts of issues – and south asians living in america often hold over not only the desh-related prejudices (i.e. hindu vs muslim vs sikh etc) but also develop some new ones relating to the make-up of their adopted country. i think my parents are not alone in their thinking that they are basically whites – and look down on people of most other races/ethnicities. and while my mother was shocked when i called her a racist, she still stands by her “no marrying black/latino/muslim” edict. i’m glad these laws are not meant to protect any one group.
I wouldn’t classify this as a crime… a little hair cut doesn’t hurt. He wasn’t sodomized for crying out loud. Plus, these were kids. Kids can be more sadistic than adults at times. Its actually somewhat normal for a pre-teen to be sadistic… part of the maturation process. This was peer pressure, not a hate crime. Whoever cut the Sikh fellow’s hair did to retain his status among the peer group.
Utterly ridiculous comment…a forced haircut doesn’t hurt YOU…it certainly hurts the Sikh who has deliberately never cut his hair, as an article of faith. You may not subscribe to the belief yourself, but do you really not get this? No empathy?
This is true. But more fundamentally, hate crimes are thought crimes…ie, they give extra punishment due to a person’s ideas and beliefs.
Its not about a person’s ideas and beliefs. Its about when those ideas are put in practice.
a little hair cut doesn’t hurt.
What an ignorant statement.
the lingayats would win every time. hands down.
Was there a sign that went up that said, “IGNORANT COMMENTS PARK HERE?” The first comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the Sikh religion, and the second is just hateful.
Do they shave, wax, or go au natural?
o come on acfd. i have an idea that liberals are not human and i go on shooting spree at the aclu offices. i don’t get extra time. only if you put your racist ideas into practice does the law kick in.
it’s about the thought(crime).
rahul: when you’re looking up at the empire state buliding, do you care if there’s grass growing on the sidewalks?
Manju, why should my ideas and beliefs influence the actual fact in question?
Although, remember, it wasn’t blades, it was cooties that killed the beast.
what do you mean by “actual fact in question?”
Who do I look like? PG?
no. she’d be worshipping the lingam by now.
o come on acfd. i have an idea that liberals are not human and i go on shooting spree at the aclu offices. i don’t get extra time. only if you put your racist ideas into practice does the law kick in.
it’s about the thought(crime).
Manju: Its still not about thought. Thought is only relevant to the extent that it defines the motive. In criminal jurisprudence, different motives do commonly beget different punishments. Its about certain motives behind committing a crime being more punishable than other motives. Also remember, that for hate crimes to be a ‘thought crime’, they would have to be punished by themselves. However, hate crimes are almost always tagged on crimes to some other crime.
I do share at some extent your general queasiness about hate crime legislation. Its amorphous and another way of adding on to the already burgeoning prosecutorial discretion which I find troubling to say the least.
Btw, have you heard about the proposal in Massachussets to provide protection against discrimination on the basis of weight/height.
Yep!
My favorite one:
“Yo mama so stupid, she failed the Turing Test.”
quick someone burn down this crap forum
Quick, pick a handle you won’t disrespect with such stupidity. Warning #1.
Yes, a little haircut doesn’t hurt! Being a Sikh has nothing to do with it. Like I said, pre-teens have a certain amount of sadism in them – teasing, for example. In this case, sadism was simply combined with peer pressure resulting in what – a haircut. This was the most obvious way for the other fellow to get even with the Sikh kid – insult the Sikh kid’s religious beliefs. Now, I am not saying this was the correct thing to do, by all means – however, it sure as hell ain’t a hate crime! I don’t know about you, but when I went to grade school, I heard/experienced/witnessed lots of mean things – including that bordering on the racial. When I got to high school, it was close to zero. In college, it WAS zero altogether. Moral of the story: for the same reason you can’t expect adolescents to not giggle at the mention of the word “sex”, you can’t really expect them to be sensitive to other cultures either. Whether we are talking desi kids, American kids, or British kids, is immaterial.
I figured it’s a hate crime once you particate in a hateful action with full intent to humiliate, injure or harm someone else specifically based on a religious, sexual, or other distinguished factor the law has deemed as part of a discriminatory act.
I’m still amazed by all the people who think it’s no big deal for the kid to get his haircut. Lk1, it seems like you’re almost dismissing this as “kids will be kids.” The forcible cutting of his hair, knowing about the significance, is quite a bit more disturbing than just immaturity as you claim.
I would assume that sodomy doesn’t either if you use adequate amounts of KY. That makes it ok, right?
LK1, although I wouldn’t equate it to sodomy, it is a very fundamental violation of someone on a very deep level. The emotional consequences could be devastating. Try to understand.
So far, fortunately, only one person voiced that view.
I suppose holding down and force feeding a Jewish or Muslim kid pork, or an observant Hindu beef, could be seen as just tomfoolery and ‘kids-will-be-kids’ too, right? It’s something like that isnt it Amitabh?
I appreciate the fact that some of you are at least beginning to consider the potential value of my “kids are just kids” logic. You should also understand that within this age group, there is a certain tendency to form cliques. In my opinion, the bullying and consequent isolation of certain individuals arises from this same formation of cliques. There are always those who never fit into the cliques… its inevitable that they suffer some form of abuse. And they become easiest targets of the rowdy cliques. Whoever cut the Sikh kids hair, lets call him Person A, would have thought he was acting in the interest of his clique. Don’t forget that group behavior differs vastly from individual behavior. Therefore, its not surprising that Person A resorted to extremes. Person A needed to prove to his clique that he could hold his own. Cutting the Sikh fellows hair was an obvious attention-grabber.