FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Interconnectivity: Hate Crimes Against Jews and Muslims

This commentary focuses on hate crimes motivated by religion and argues that American Jews and Muslims as the primary targets of religious hatred must cooperate to fight the hate menace. The commentary also argues that the provocateurs of religious hatred and their corporate sponsors should be identified, exposed, and held responsible under both civil and criminal laws.

Since 2001, the animus against American Jews and Muslims has remained steady. After the 9/11 attacks, the hate crimes against American Muslims (554 victims) peaked out. In the same year, however, American Jews also faced the most incidents of hate crimes (1196 victims).  In 2015 & 2016, the hate crimes against American Muslims have roughly doubled as compared to those in immediately preceding years; but the hate crimes against Jews have also ascended. As the chart demonstrates, regardless of yearly fluctuations, American Jews and Muslims are the principal victims of hate crimes motivated by religious bias.

Each year, the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program operated under the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collects data across the United States involving various offenses, including hate crimes. In 2016, for example, a total of 6, 121 hate crimes were reported, involving more than 7,500 victims. Victims include individuals and businesses.

Hate crimes are ordinary crimes, including murder, rape, assault, and property damage, motivated by the offenders’ biases. Bias-motivation rather than the type of offense determines the genealogy of hate crimes. Various biases motivate hate crimes, including those of race/ethnicity/ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, gender, and disability.

Each year race-motivated hate crimes top the list. And each year, religion-motivated hate crimes rank the second highest. In 2016, for example, 58.5 percent of hate crimes are motivated by race/ethnicity/ancestry while 21.3 percent of hate crimes are motivated by religion. While African Americans are the leading targets of racial hate crimes, Jews and Muslims are the primary targets of religious hate crimes.

American Jews and Muslims

A common misperception exists among some social and political circles that American Jews and Muslims are at odds with each other. Surely, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict divides Jews and Muslims. Yet in the United States, if hate statistics are any indication, Jews and Muslims as the foremost targets of religiously-motivated hatred occupy the same boat. Recognizing their common victimhood, Jewish and Muslim organizations need to pool their resources to fight religious hatred against all groups.

The UCR statistics show that over the past sixteen years hate crimes against American Jews constitute more than 50% of the religiously-motivated hate crimes. Muslims are next, sharing about 25% of the hate crimes. These percentages have for the most part remained steady. When religiously-motivated hate crimes rise, as they did the most in 2001, both Jews and Muslims suffer proportionately. When religiously-motivated hate crimes dwindle, as they did the most in 2014, both Jews and Muslims benefit proportionately. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are interdependent hatreds.

Unfortunately, some prominent provocateurs of Islamophobia are Jews, such as David Horowitz, Pamela Geller, David Yerushalmi, and Shalom Lewis. Some Jewish provocateurs paint Islam as an inherently violent religion; some portray American Muslims as a threat to national security; some lead campaigns for drawing the Prophet Muhammad’s cartoons; and some advocate murdering the families of “terrorists.” Such incitements poison the minds of ordinary Americans who lack the first-hand contact with Muslims.

It is unclear why Jewish provocateurs breed hatred against Muslims. Presumably, they do know that American Jews are and have been the prime victims of religiously-motivated hatred.  Maybe, they foolishly believe that by propagandizing the perils of Islam they can divert the hatred against Jews toward Muslims. Maybe, they don’t care about hate crimes against Jews as long as Muslims are also despised. Maybe, they are unaware of the spill-over effect of hatred.

Spill-Over Effect

The UCR statistics demonstrate that when hatred against any religious group is incited, almost all religious groups, including atheists, experience more hate crimes. The spill-over effect is particularly pernicious with respect to historically-targeted religious minorities, such as Mormons and Jews.  Even American Catholics, the third most hated religious group, suffer additional hate crimes when Jews and Muslims are targeted.

The intertwining of hate crimes among various religious groups reveals that no religious group is immune when a wave of hatred is released against a specific religion. In America, Jews and Muslims are closely tied as victims of religious hatred, even though anti-Semitism is condemned much more forcefully than Islamophobia. The fact remains that despite social taboos on anti-Semitism, an increase in hate crimes against American Muslims has a corresponding uptick effect on hate crimes against Jews and other religious groups.

Provocateurs and Perpetrators

In a previous commentary, I distinguished between provocateurs and perpetrators of religiously-motivated hatred. A provocateur produces hatred against an identified religious group by speech, oral or written, but rarely commits a hate crime.  By contrast, perpetrators commit hate crimes, such as murder, rape, physical assault, or property damage, motivated by bias against the religious identity of victims. Laws are in place to punish the perpetrators of hate crimes. However, the provocateurs of religious hatred seek refuge under the First Amendment.

I maintain that the provocateurs of hatred are much more dangerous than the perpetrators of hate crimes. The provocateurs furnish intellectual and emotional resources to cultivate and express hatred. By maligning Islam, for example, the provocateurs lay the foundation for violence.  Religious hatred, if unleashed against any religious group, observes no denominational boundaries.  Unwittingly, the provocateurs generate hatred not only against Muslims but also against Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Sikhs, and Hindus.

A universal consensus is building that free speech is the heart of a thriving democracy. Free speech is indispensable for transparency, creativity, and accountability. Men and women of enormous intellect and integrity have been exiled, tortured, and murdered for saying innocuous things such as “that the earth moves or that it is not flat.”  The depressing history of intellectual and political oppression cautions us not to dilute free speech protections.

Yet, it is the business of law to make distinctions. Without censoring free speech, the law has the tools to hold the provocateurs of hatred accountable. The whole world, except the United States, punishes the provocateurs of hate speech.

Sean Hannity, Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz, David Yerushalmi, Shalom Lewis, Robert Spencer, Ann Coulter, Pamela Geller, Bill Maher, to name a few, and the corporate media that sponsor them to express religious hatred can be held liable under state and federal laws. The victims of religious hatred should speak to their lawyers to explore the possibility of whether any of these provocateurs and their corporate sponsors can be held responsible for the religiously-motivated provocations that nurture criminal violence.

The legal system cannot sit idly by to passively ponder over the statistics of hate crimes that the UCR generates each year. The perpetrators of hate crimes, if apprehended, are lawfully prosecuted. But the provocateurs that disgorge hatred in their TV shows, speeches, or writings take cover under the First Amendment. The lawyers may begin to experiment with various available legal doctrines, including aiding and abetting, accomplice liability, vicarious liability, contributory liability, principal liability, and corporate negligence to reach the provocateurs of hatred.

Liaquat Ali Khan is the founder of Legal Scholar Academy, a firm dedicated to the protection of civil rights and human liberties. Send your comments and question to legal. scholar. academy[at] gmail.com

More articles by:
June 18, 2018
Paul Street
Denuclearize the United States? An Unthinkable Thought
John Pilger
Bring Julian Assange Home
Conn Hallinan
The Spanish Labyrinth
Patrick Cockburn
Attacking Hodeidah is a Deliberate Act of Cruelty by the Trump Administration
Gary Leupp
Trump Gives Bibi Whatever He Wants
Thomas Knapp
Child Abductions: A Conversation It’s Hard to Believe We’re Even Having
Robert Fisk
I Spoke to Palestinians Who Still Hold the Keys to Homes They Fled Decades Ago – Many are Still Determined to Return
Steve Early
Requiem for a Steelworker: Mon Valley Memories of Oil Can Eddie
Jim Scheff
Protect Our National Forests From an Increase in Logging
Adam Parsons
Reclaiming the UN’s Radical Vision of Global Economic Justice
Dean Baker
Manufacturing Production Falls in May and No One Notices
Laura Flanders
Bottom-Up Wins in Virginia’s Primaries
Binoy Kampmark
The Anguish for Lost Buildings: Embers and Death at the Victoria Park Hotel
Weekend Edition
June 15, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Dan Kovalik
The US & Nicaragua: a Case Study in Historical Amnesia & Blindness
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Yellow Journalism and the New Cold War
Charles Pierson
The Day the US Became an Empire
Jonathan Cook
How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions
Ajamu Baraka
North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization
Andrew Levine
Midterms Coming: Antinomy Ahead
Louisa Willcox
New Information on 2017 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Deaths Should Nix Trophy Hunting in Core Habitat
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Singapore Fling
Ron Jacobs
What’s So Bad About Peace, Man?
Robert Hunziker
State of the Climate – It’s Alarming!
L. Michael Hager
Acts and Omissions: The NYT’s Flawed Coverage of the Gaza Protest
Dave Lindorff
However Tenuous and Whatever His Motives, Trump’s Summit Agreement with Kim is Praiseworthy
Robert Fantina
Palestine, the United Nations and the Right of Return
Brian Cloughley
Sabre-Rattling With Russia
Chris Wright
To Be or Not to Be? That’s the Question
David Rosen
Why Do Establishment Feminists Hate Sex Workers?
Victor Grossman
A Key Congress in Leipzig
John Eskow
“It’s All Kinderspiel!” Trump, MSNBC, and the 24/7 Horseshit Roundelay
Paul Buhle
The Russians are Coming!
Joyce Nelson
The NED’s Useful Idiots
Lindsay Koshgarian
Trump’s Giving Diplomacy a Chance. His Critics Should, Too
Louis Proyect
American Nativism: From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Trump
Stan Malinowitz
On the Elections in Colombia
Camilo Mejia
Open Letter to Amnesty International on Nicaragua From a Former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience
David Krieger
An Assessment of the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit
Jonah Raskin
Cannabis in California: a Report From Sacramento
Josh Hoxie
Just How Rich Are the Ultra Rich?
CJ Hopkins
Awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse
Mona Younis
We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty
Dean Baker
Not Everything Trump Says on Trade is Wrong
James Munson
Trading Places: the Other 1% and the .001% Who Won’t Save Them
Rivera Sun
Stop Crony Capitalism: Protect the Net!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail