Law professor Sahar Aziz spoke about hate crimes on Monday. (Sidney Hollingsworth/The Daily Campus)

 On Monday afternoon the American Constitutionalist Society, in conjunction with the Muslim Law Association and the Human Rights Association, hosted a panel in the Hillcrest Classroom of the Dedman Law School on hate crimes. The panel was comprised of Sahar Aziz, Dave Sidhu, and Rais Bhuiyan.

Aziz, an associate professor at Texas Wesleyan School of Law, discussed the distinction between hate speech and hate crimes in America.

First, she clarified that what constitutes a hate crime is its impetus: when a difference in the victim from the perpetrator – such as race, religion or sexual orientation – is the motivating factor of a crime, a hate crime has occurred.

  Hate crimes are a disturbingly common phenomenon. In 2008, the FBI released that 7,783 hate crimes occurred that year, of which 20 percent are estimated to be motivated by religious bias. Indeed, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that there are 1,018 known hate groups in the United States.

 Hate speech is also prevalent in this country – and when directed at Muslims, hate speech is socially accepted.

“Muslims have lost their right to dissent,” Aziz said.

Hate speech is also constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, a uniquely American invention.

But when does hate speech facilitate hate crimes? According to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the case Virginia v. Black, “Hate propaganda incorporates symbolism, like swastikas, that demagogues display to rally supporters to action.”

Hate speech must directly instigate a call to pernicious action in order to cross the tenuous line between constitutionally protected assembly and unlawful praxis.

Dave Sidhu, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, stated that American hate crimes laws founded on the basis of the 13th Amendment are under attack. Three white supremacists, who branded a Native American man with swastikas in New Mexico, have challenged Congress’ authority in crafting the hate crimes laws under which they are being prosecuted.

However, Sidhu argued that the extant definitions on hate crimes must broaden. Currently, what makes a hate crime is the ideological drive that precipitated the act in question. Thus, the shooting rampage at the Sikh temple in Oak Lawn, Wis. is not considered a hate crime.

Moreover, Sidhu believes that hate crimes are consonant with terrorism and must be legally defined as such. He said that these acts of violence, the psychological impetuses of which can’t possibly be known, warrant the “social pejorative” inherent in the title terrorism.

The third and final speaker, Rais Bhuiyan, is a survivor of a hate crime. In 2001, he was shot in the face with a shotgun at a Texas convenience store. The gunman, Mark Stroman, said he wanted “to kill every Muslim [he] could find.”

Bhuiyan survived his attack, and, because of his Islamic religious convictions, forgave his attacker, saying that “God created us all in his image to be compassionate and merciful.” He even went so far as to petition the state of Texas to commute his sentence from death to life in prison. He also traveled to Denmark and successfully exhorted the manufacturer of lethal injection materials to cease supplying American prisons.

His capacity for forgiveness inspired Stroman to apologize for his actions.

Bhuiyan concluded his speech by saying “hate may not affect you today, but it may tomorrow. Stand up against injustice today.”