Oooh, a protest I went to yesterdays "I hate hate crimes" rally on Lower Sproul, and was pleasantly suprised. I thought it was going to be boring, since it had university backing, but it turned out to be quite interesting, especially with the occasional screams from the drunken revelry at the Bears Lair. People were coming and going, and I'd say at the peak there were about 80 people (generously). Interesting sound bites, though. (unfortunately, most quotes are approximate and unattributed) "Hate stops here. Hate stops with me." "The meaning of this is that the community does not support hate crimes." "Our words cannot erase pain, but they can state principles." Billy Curtis, from the Gender Equity Center, blamed it on our national leadership and their "violent rhetoric." He condemned the ignorance that lead to people "mistaking Sikhs for Arabs." Which raises the question: Would it have been okay if they had properly identified the Arabs and targetted their hate crimes at them? Because if not, it hardly seems relevant whether folks are mistaking Sikhs for Arabs. The Patriot should be glad, because they got plenty of mention. It turns out that The Patriot's opinions about racism being caused by race-awareness are hate speech, according to these folks. One of the Muslim students who was attacked with water was certain the problem would get worse because of the way America treated Cat Stevens. She blamed the media for the problem. Interestingly, she has been asked "What did it feel like when your dad cut your clitoris off?" The Sikh student asked to leave the Dining Commons because he was wearing a religious dagger was counted as one of the recent hate crimes. The student in question showed up, and showed himself to be Mackish. That is, he looks for hate when it's not there. He said that the DC folks responded to him because he was wearing a turban and had a long beard (his beard wasn't even that long) and, almost as an afterthought, was carrying a weapon. Yes, was carrying a weapon. Mystery solved? Rebecca Parker from the Graduate Theological Union suggested that those folks who oppose hate crimes should "know the Other on the Other's terms," which is, of course, the opposite of what Mr. Singh had just done, by assuming the worst of the Other. Also, "The Other" is a stupid phrase. Anyway, victory goes to the Latino folks for the most interesting comments. The first speaker insisted that she found "responding to hate speech with more speech" was inadequate, without ever mentioning any kind of real solution. (Stealing The Patriot?) Include traditional bitching about The Patriot's funding and "glossy cover." Her brother then came on and repeated the whining about The Patriot, but proposed a great solution to the hate crime problem. Museum exhibits! That's right, responding with more speech isn't a solution, and trying to engage the opposition is a bad idea because, according to him, "They make me mad, and therefore I will never communicate with them." Instead, set up "Facing Hate" at a museum about communities coming together. That'll stop people from ever committing hate crimes again. "Hate speech is not free speech, as it silences people and keeps them from learning from each other." I don't quite see how that makes a) sense or b) it not free speech. Anyway, the idea of coming together as a community to fight the epidemic of people acting like assholes seems a bit... uh... ineffective. But hey, that's just me. posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 9/30/2004 09:02:00 AM # Comments (0) . . .
