Toilet Stuffing as Cause Celebre

Readers have made it clear, both through comments and even more so through e-mails, that they do not like my position on  Stanislav Shmulevich.  He is the fellow who stole a Koran from Pace University, stuffed it in a toilet, and defecated on it.  He then stole another one, and simply stuffed it in the toilet.

I have been told that somehow this is a free speech issue, but I don't get it.  A regular commenter, Rick, is someone who probably has a bible in his house.  If I were to enter his house, take the bible off the shelf, stick it in his toilet, and then defecate - I don't think he would see it as a free speech issue at all.

Pace University is a private school.  The Korans he destroyed were not his property.  He stole them. As I understand it, he was not even a student at the school when he did this. If I were to buy an American Flag, take it to a public square, and burn it in a safe manner; one that poses no risk to anyone else's private property- we're talking free speech.  If I sneak into your house, steal your American flag and set it ablaze in the bedroom where your child is sleeping, we're no longer talking about free speech.

While some of the anger by the likes of Johnson and Malkin is typically and clearly phony, others have problems with the "hate crime" aspect of the case. I can understand disliking a law that relies so heavily on 'intent'. Even though much of our legal system does depend on an analysis of the intent of the accused, it is important that we not become a country where having certain thoughts could be a crime.  But whether or not you like the law, it is the law in New York, and Stanislav was no doubt aware of its existence. He was not merely stealing a book or jamming a toilet, he was doing so because of his hatred of a group of people.  I don't know his position on hate crime law, but I do know that many Jewish groups have fought for such laws.

Among the Jewish signatories are the American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; Hadassah: the Women's Zionist Organization of America; Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A; Jewish Women International; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Labor Committee; Na'amat U.S.A.; National Council of Jewish Women; National Jewish Democratic Council; Union of American Hebrew Congregations and Women of Reform Judaism.
(source)

(thanks to memeorandum)

Comments

[rick]

“How people who are so full of it themselves can defend plugging up toilets is beyond me.”

I don’t believe anyone has raised a “free speech” question here. Just looking for a little clarity as you seem to be suggesting that commode clogging is the crime and you are taking issue with those silly enough to defend commode clogging. As I suspected, you are reacting to the insult.

As I type this there is a mission to rescue the 21 surviving Korean volunteer workers in Afghanistan. They are being held by the ‘religion of peace’. Two have already been executed. People will predictably react to their barbarism in unpredictable ways. Shmulevich has chosen an odd form of protest. Perhaps he is just refusing to sit at the back of the bus.

Muslims are going to have to deal with this until they can exorcize their own demons from within. Until then they’ll need to be a little less ‘thin skinned’.

If I ever have the pleasure of a visit by you and Mesdames, I would ask that you not flush my latest addition of The American Rifleman.

My very best to Mesdames and her saintly tolerance. Tell her I have a one last bottle of E. Guigal Cote-Rotie ‘La Mouline’ 1986 I am saving for her visit. http://www.guigal.com/vignoble.php?langue=en&rub=1&srub=1

[repsac3]

"I don’t believe anyone has raised a “free speech” question here."

Actually, Malkin did, on the site to which Bustard links.

"Muslims are going to have to deal with this until they can exorcize their own demons from within."

I wonder whether you would say the same of Catholics, given their failure to exorcize those demon pedophiles from among their midst? (Yeah, yeah... I know... Moral equivalency, the argument of last refuge.)

Contrary to a previous comment I made, I see that the guy admitted to shitting on the Koran because he had an issue with Muslims. Whatever we think of hate crime legislation--I'm personally on the fence--it is the law in NY.

And if I might point something out, this isn't about "flushing the Koran"... One reason for his troubles is his FAILURE to flush.

[bbbustard]

Thanks. I too am on the fence about hate crimes - even though judging intent is what we do every time we convict someone of manslaughter versus premeditated murder. But putting aside the remarkably inconsistent position of our friends on the right on intent, the fact that they once again fail to support the "law is the law, obey it" position is hilarious. I wonder how a strict constructionalist, you know, someone who doesn't legislate from the bench, would rule if it were to come before a court.
Thanks again -

[bbbustard]

Many thanks for your kind comments to Mme Bustard. She loves the idea of sharing a bottle with you - but wants you to be sure that the wine doesn't go bad before you open it.

I know of no one on the left who has ever endorsed the Taliban to the extent that the Bush administration has. Bush of course supported the Taliban throughout most of 2001, and in fact reversed Clinton policy so that the USA was their largest financial supporter. He wasn't worried about their human rights record at that time. And in fact, the left has spent much of the last five years damning Bush for not paying more attention to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Condemning the "religion of peace" because of the acts of some thugs we have supported is pretty strange logic.

[bbbustard]

Many thanks for your kind comments to Mme Bustard. She loves the idea of sharing a bottle with you - but wants you to be sure that the wine doesn't go bad before you open it.

I know of no one on the left who has ever endorsed the Taliban to the extent that the Bush administration has. Bush of course supported the Taliban throughout most of 2001, and in fact reversed Clinton policy so that the USA was their largest financial supporter. He wasn't worried about their human rights record at that time. And in fact, the left has spent much of the last five years damning Bush for not paying more attention to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Condemning the "religion of peace" because of the acts of some thugs we have supported is pretty strange logic.

[rick]

"I wonder whether you would say the same of Catholics, given their failure to exorcize those demon pedophiles from among their midst?"

I would and do.

[rick]

Sorry for the sarcasm. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of terror and barbarity and was spread at the point of the sword. That's not to say that you will not encounter a peaceful carpet maker or cabbie. Yes, I know about those 11th century Christians. It's just that they are not flying planes into our buildings these days. Nor are they executing any Korean humanitarian workers. Neither will drawing any moral equivalency prevent those nuclear detonations awaiting our great cities courtesy of the 'religion of peace'. More sarcasm!

Please direct me to the "Bush of course supported the Taliban throughout most of 2001, and in fact reversed Clinton policy so that the USA was their largest financial supporter" stuff. Please. Do I not recall us threatening to 'bomb Pakistan back to the stone age' for supporting the Taliban? I believe I do.

[bbbustard]

Rick - Sorry to have not responded, Mme Bustard and I have been in the process of moving. It's only about 2 blocks, but it still has been difficult. I needed some outdoor space so that I too could barbecue, especially on Sundays - Not Yet however.

[rick]

Moving for me is like moving a battalion. I have accumulated a mountain of 'stuff and momentos' over the years. I hope the move is a good one for you and Mesdames.
It is a joy to be able to cook outdoors. Last Thanksgiving I prepared our 28 pound turkey outside on my 4 burner Jenn Aire.
No need to respond. Do Mesdames' bidding.