From the WSJ Opinion Archives
The Green-Eyed
Human-Rights Violator
Human Rights Watch is taking on the pressing problem of jealous ex-boyfriends.
The group has a new report out on "Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims,
and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11." For all the
warnings about an expected wave of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim crimes after Sept.
11, we really didn't see much of one; HRW manages to come up with three authentic
examples of people who "were murdered as a result of the September 11 backlash."
Curiously, none of the victims were Arab, and at least one was Sikh, not Muslim;
it's a safe bet that Osama's boys wiped out considerably more of their innocent
coreligionists on Sept. 11 than all America's "haters" put together.
Three people murdered is, of course, three too many, no matter what the circumstances. But to put things in perspective, that's one-third as many murders (and possibly less) attributed to the "D.C. snipers," who seem to have been on a mission of Muslim-inspired hate, and it's roughly 1/1,000th the number of victims that 19 Muslims claimed on Sept. 11.
This is where the jealous ex-boyfriend comes in. In order to inflate its numbers, HRW throws in other crimes, the circumstances of which it acknowledges are ambiguous at best. Example:
On September 17, 2001, Ali Almansoop, a forty-four year old Yemini Arab, was shot and killed in his home in Lincoln Park, Michigan after being awoken from his sleep by Brent David Seever. At the time of his murder, Almansoop was in bed with Seever's ex-girlfriend. Immediately before killing Almansoop, Seever said that he was angry about the September 11 terrorist attacks. Almansoop pleaded that he did not have anything to do with the attacks. Seever shot Almansoop anyway. Seever acknowledged to police investigators that he killed Almansoop in part because of anger related to September 11. Prosecutors chose to prosecute the matter as a murder, rather than a bias-motivated murder, because they believe Mr. Seever's motivation for murdering Almansoop was motivated in part by jealousy over Almansoop's relationship with is ex-girlfriend. Mr. Seever had been stalking his ex-girlfriend before the murder.
It is beyond ludicrous to classify this as a "hate crime." It obviously was a crime of passion, or what one might term a "love crime." If Seever had kept his thoughts about Sept. 11 to himself, Almansoop would be no less dead, but HRW wouldn't care. This crime is a "human rights" violation only because the perpetrator, in HRW's words, "said that he was angry about the September 11 terrorist attacks."
An HRW press release quotes Amardeep Singh, the report's author: "Law enforcement and other government agencies should have been better prepared for this kind of onslaught." Sept. 11 showed that the government was unprepared to deal with an organized terrorist threat of which, at least in general terms, we had been receiving warnings for years. In contrast, the "hate crimes" HRW catalogues were the acts of demented individuals scattered around the country and not acting in concert. How in the world was the government supposed to have "prepared" for this--let alone to have prevented a jealous ex-boyfriend from uttering politically incorrect thoughts while slaughtering his ex-girlfriend's new beau?
How's
This for a Hate Crime?
We don't, of course, mean to disparage the very real problem of hate crimes
against Muslims in America. Consider this story:
The death threats began shortly after September 11, 2001. Every few days, for about four months, Khaled Abou El Fadl would receive an angry, anonymous phone call at either his San Fernando Valley home or his UCLA office. In his e-mail inbox, he found ominous messages from obscured sources with warnings such as, "You know what we're capable of." At first, the pudgy, 39-year-old professor of Islamic jurisprudence dismissed the calls as harmless outbursts at a tense moment. But, as the fall of 2001 progressed, Abou El Fadl began suspecting that the threats were more serious than he had initially assumed. Twice in November, he noticed a van that inexplicably lingered outside of his relatively isolated home but then disappeared after he called the police. A few months later, he found the windows of his family's SUV smashed at a crowded movie theater parking lot. Neither the radio nor the cash in the car had been stolen; no other vehicle in the lot had been touched.
When he brought these incidents to the attention of police, they requested--and he granted--permission to tap his home phone. UCLA installed a red panic button next to his desk, ensuring that campus cops could respond within minutes to any crisis in his office. The FBI even assigned an agent to track down his tormenters. (To date, they have not been found.) All of this might sound like the prelude to a textbook hate crime, but the Abou El Fadl case has a twist: The callers weren't angry white men accusing him of terrorist sympathies; they were fellow Muslim Americans accusing him of selling out the faith.
This, of course, is not from the Human Rights Watch report but from The New Republic.
'A
Day of Police Action'
In Britain, it seems, they're taking "hate crime" seriously. "Police
investigating allegations of racism, homophobia and domestic violence have raided
about 150 addresses across London," the BBC reports. "Twenty-seven
people have been charged, including one for rape but most have been arrested
on suspicion of making racist threats and of homophobic harassment."
The report goes on: "The raids signal the start of a day of police action against 'hate crime'--offences against people on the grounds of their race, faith, religion, disability, or sexuality. Posters in newspapers and on the Tube and trains urging victims of hate crime to come forward are running as part of a two-week campaign by the Metropolitan Police."
Imagine how civil libertarians would wail if there were "a day of police action" against Muslim terrorism.
You
Don't Say--I
"Iraq's Nod to U.N. Doesn't Rule Out a War"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
Nov. 14
You
Don't Say--II
"Bush Takes Tough Stance on Iraq"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 13
You
Don't Say--III
"U.S. Reacts Skeptically to Iraq Acceptance"--headline, Reuters, Nov. 13
You
Don't Say--IV
"Iraqi Paper Says Conflict With U.S. Not Over"--headline, Reuters,
Nov. 14
You
Don't Say--V
"Iraqi Letter Hints at Trouble Down the Road"--headline, CNN.com,
Nov. 14
You
Don't Say--VI
"U.S., Iraq May Be Nearing Showdown"--headline, Associated Press,
Nov. 14
You
Don't Say--VII
"Secretary General Kofi Annan said today that the United States seemed
to have a lower threshold for going to war in Iraq than other nations on the
United Nations Security Council."--lead paragraph, New York Times report,
Nov. 14
'The
Tyrant of the Age'
Looking over the letter that Iraq's ambassador to the U.N. sent Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, it's hard to see why everyone's saying Iraq has agreed to comply
with the U.N. resolution demanding its disarmament. Here's how it opens:
You may recall the huge clamour fabricated by the President of the United States administration, in the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq, supported in malicious intent, and spearheaded in word and malevolence, by his lackey Tony Blair, when they disseminated the claim that Iraq had perhaps produced, or was on its way to produce, nuclear weapons, during the time when the United Nations inspectors had been absent from Iraq since 1998. Then they returned to stress that Iraq had in fact produced chemical and biological weapons. They both know, as well as we do, and so can other countries, that such fabrications are baseless. But, does the knowledge of the truth constitute elements for interaction in the politics of our day, which has witnessed the unleashing of the American administration's evil to its fullest extent, dashing away all hope in any good? Indeed, is there any good to be hoped for, or expected, from the American administrations, now that they have been transformed by their own greed, by Zionism as well as by other known factors, into the tyrant of the age.
The Bush administration has emphasized that Iraq has no right to reject or attach conditions to the resolution; it must simply comply. But the letter is full of conditions:
We hereby inform you that we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents, if it is to be implemented according to the premeditated evil of the parties of ill-intent, the important thing in this is trying to spare our people from any harm. But we will not forget, nor should others do, that safeguarding our people's dignity, security, independence, and protecting our country, its sovereignty and sublime values, is as a sacred duty in our leadership's and government's agenda. . . .
Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will, also, take into consideration, their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned amongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence and sovereignty. We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with the international law as soon as possible. If they do so, professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the lairs' lies will be exposed to public opinion, and the declared objective of the Security Council will be achieved. It will then become the lawful duty of the Security Council to lift the blockade and all the other unjust sanctions on Iraq. If it does not, all the peoples of good will in the world, in addition to Iraq, will tell it to do so. The SC will be compelled before the public opinion and the law to activate paragraph 14 of its resolution No. 687, by applying it to the Zionist entity.
Saddam Hussein's regime, in short, is not even going along with the charade of pretending to cooperate with the U.N. Let the bombing begin!
The
Mad Mullahs' Unappealing Choice
Hashem Aghajari, the Iranian professor facing a death sentence for "insulting
Islam" (a religion of peace), "has refused to appeal the sentence,
challenging the hard-line judiciary to carry out the execution," the Associated
Press reports. Aghajari is a real hero, willing to put his life on the line
in the name of freedom. Remember this the next time some America-hating idiot
here or in Europe starts boasting about what a courageous "dissenter"
he is.
Monty
Zuma's Revenge
Suzanne Davidson reports in the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles on her
encounter with the "antiwar" folks from "Not in Our Name,"
who turn out, on Davidson's telling, to be a bunch of thugs. They held a demonstration
at L.A.'s federal building Oct. 6, across the street from where 25 Jews, many
of them elderly, show up every other Sunday "to show support for Israel
by carrying banners, signs and Israeli and American flags." Here's what
happened:
We stood and held American and Israeli flags and our pro-Israel banners. People began gathering at the crosswalk signal in order to get to the Federal Building. When they saw us they started cursing. Without first saying hello, or anything, a young Latino man told us to "f--- off."
He began yelling at one of our older Russian Jewish supporters, Isaac, "You are Zionist Nazi pigs. You are Nazis!" It was surreal. People on the corner were all yelling at us in such a fevered pitch I couldn't hear myself talk.
I stepped between the Hispanic man and Isaac and said -- or rather, yelled -- "That's enough. It's enough already." . . .
Around 2 p.m., a group of African Americans marched across the street into our rally, beating on drums and chanting, "Free the Palestinians, Free the Palestinians." I thought this was supposed to be about President Bush and Iraq. The group kept marching up and down, forcing our people to move from their positions.
Some brought cameras and video equipment, and ignored our requests to refrain from photographing us. They chanted, "First Amendment rights" and "This is a public place." One man photographed one of our small signs that read "Israeli flags-$6." We sell flags to pay for the security. I could only imagine this photo being used in some anti-Semitic book similar to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
One woman who videotaped me yelled that she could do what she wanted to because she had First Amendment rights. I told her that she lacked grace. She turned around and said, "Well you lacked grace when you slaughtered my people." She was referring to Native Americans. Again, I thought this was about President Bush and Iraq. Was everyone with a personal beef here at this demonstration?
We wonder if any of these "Not in Our Name" petition signers were there:
- Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, "Member of National Organization of Journalism and Executive Workshop Schools, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem'
- Im Saddams Bitch, "Philozophizer"
- Runup N Bitemyass, "Department of Fenestration, MIT"
- Ahben Dover
- Eileen Dover, "Sporting events observer/announcer"
- Kunta Kinte, "geneological researcher, NAACP"
- Rose E. Palmer, "touch therapist trainee"
- E. Rassible, "Anger Managment Counselor"
- Rev. Mia Reeves, "Seminary of Interfaith Studies; Pagan Unity Campaign - State Chair; Witches Against Religious Discrimination; State Chair"
- Patricia Richman, "I am an artist and mother of tow"
- Jody Rink, "pain old (poor) American Citizen"
- Dub Yakick sass
- david gaviola tapia, "YES, IN MY NAME :-)"
- Monty Zuma, "Gallup, NM"
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that "a member of Not in Our Name familiar with the mechanics of how names are placed on the statement could not be reached Tuesday." The paper doesn't identify its unreachable source, but something tells us it's a guy named Heywood.
Yankee
Ingenuity
"U.S. Army experts are trying to embed microscopic electromechanical machines
in paint that could detect and heal cracks and corrosion in the bodies of combat
vehicles, as well as give vehicles the chameleon-like quality of rapidly altering
camouflage to blend in with changing operating environments," reports the
trade publication Military & Aerospace Technology. The paint would include
"nanomachine powders consisting of tiny machines that act as gears, motors,
and electronic switches at the atomic level."
Reuters
Reverts to Crude, Emotional Headlines
Here's how Reuters, the "news" service that cultivates a studied neutrality
on the question of whether the Sept. 11 hijackers were terrorists or "freedom
fighters," headlines a dispatch on Russia's president: "Putin Reverts
to Crude, Emotional Chechnya Approach."
Say
It With Flowers
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "revived
Gennifer Flowers' defamation suit accusing Sen. Hillary Clinton of masterminding
a campaign to discredit her claim of an affair with Bill Clinton," the
New York Post reports, citing wire-servce dispatches. "The 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled, 3-0, that Flowers could try to prove in a Nevada court
that the former first lady conspired against her with presidential aides George
Stephanopoulos and James Carville."
Maybe Hillary ought to seek a change of venue to Taiwan, whose judiciary seems to be in line with Clinton-style mores. "A group of Taiwanese judges and lawyers say oral sex isn't intercourse and so isn't adultery," Ananova reports.
'Oh,
They Can't Mean That'
"There's a shift in the winds in our inner cities," writes Alex Kotlowitz,
a liberal author of books on poverty, in the New York Times. "On the heels
of a fatherhood movement . . ., more and more young couples are
considering marriage." Kotlowitz recounts a story that is both encouraging
for the future of America's poor and revealing about the attitudes of American
liberals:
"I was out in the field all of the time, interviewing low-income single mothers," Kathy Edin, a sociologist at Northwestern University, told me. "And what really struck me in those interviews was how many people talked about the desire to get married. And I would go back, you know, and talk to my friends in academia and they would say, 'Oh, they can't mean that.' But I would hear it again and again."
Will You Marry Me, or Do I Have
to Sue?
A group called Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD, has filed a
lawsuit in Massachusetts demanding that the state recognize marriages between
couples of the same sex. "The suit . . . argues that the right
to marry the person of one's choice is protected under the state constitution."
We once wanted to marry the person of our choice, but she said no. If GLAD has its way, the unjustly jilted will at last have legal recourse.
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Elena Matis, Paul Stinchfield, Wim de Vriend, Mara Gold, Daniel Goldstein, Joe Hancock, Barak Moore, Gary Petersen, S. Roberts, John Siminoff, Michael Segal, C.E. Dobkin, Jerome Marcus, Raghu Desikan, Al Dubinsky, Joseph Cutler, Blaise Rhodes, Paul Siebenshuh, Brian O'Rourke, John Steele Gordon, Greg Reiman, Steve Prestegard, John Hoh, Darren Gold, Marie Bourgeois and Jose Guardia. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: The Democrats stole two Senate seats--and still it wasn't enough.
- John Fund: Why polls so often get it wrong.
- Claudia Rosett: Appeasement hasn't worked with North Korea.
