Stanislav Shmulevich, a student at Pace University, has been charged with a hate crime for taking two Korans, defecating on them, and leaving them in public toilets on two instances. Clearly a crime - theft, at the very least - was committed here, but should this amount to a hate crime?

(Note: the link is to the police report of the incident which is, to my knowledge, presently available only at littlegreenfootballs.com. The link was put in to provide primary documents to those who read about it rather than a link to the commentary on this particular website.)

It can be said, at the very least, that the defendant in this case is guilty of theft - the books were not his, and he had no right to take or destroy them. As one who has worked in a janitorial position before, I also wouldn't mind giving the guy a piece of my mind - I'd hate to be the janitor who had to clean that mess up. Defecating on a book in a toilet is, in addition, about the most stupid and childish way I have ever heard of expressing one's opinion.

But do his actions, as laid out in the police report, constitute a hate crime?

The closest parallel I can think of is the burning of crosses by white supremacist groups. Burning the cross - an inherently religious symbol - on the property of others has a lengthy history of association with violence and as a threat to others. The message sent by a burning cross is well understood by all reasonable observers.

But how close a parallel is this? The Koran was not desecrated in a location easily visible to large portions the public (it was left in a public restroom - the maximum audience would be a handful of people, tops) nor was it a specific threat against an individual. A Koran in a toilet covered with feces lacks an association with threats and violence in the U.S. It's certainly not a glowing praise for Islam, but it does not constitute a threat of physical violence in and of itself.

It is true that the Koran receives special treatment in Islam. The book must be treated with deference, not allowed to touch the ground, not read while unclean, placed specially on a shelf, etc. I can appreciate this treatment of sacred objects and have no problem with it. But is the government in effect forcing others to follow these guidelines as well by treating these Korans as anything other than simply books and property? Does this create a precedent for the sacred objects of other religions? Does this allow the government to mete civil justice for religious crimes?

I think that Shmulevich clearly should be charged for theft and any damage he caused by sticking books in a toilet (and that he should personally pay the janitors involved big, fat settlements, but that's another story). But is this really a hate crime? I don't think so.