Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I have a difficult time imagining a punishment that wouldn't be justified for this asshole:
Officials are banning a Hightstown high school senior from school and all activities after he was charged with setting fire to a student's turban...Authorities say the senior torched a 16-year-old's turban during a fire drill on May 5. The junior, who is a member of the Sikh faith, was singed but not seriously hurt.
Green is charged with arson and criminal mischief.
In an earlier incident, a Sikh student in Queens had their turban ripped off and hair forcibly cut. Note to parents: can you stop raising bigoted morons, please?
Comments
Bigoted morons begat bigoted morons.
Posted by: llDayo | May 16, 2008 9:34 AM
Note to parents: can you stop raising bigoted morons, please?
I think they'd have to stop being bigoted morons first.
Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 9:39 AM
It's ironic that this post is followed by a post about school dress codes. The rationale for dress codes, particularly school uniforms, is that making everybody alike keeps kids from mistreating each other.
Posted by: Bill in NC | May 16, 2008 10:42 AM
It is a pretty sad state of affairs if students have to be homogeneous in order to treat each other with respect. By that rationale we would have to send this arsonist asshat to France where they don't allow religious garb in school.
Posted by: Cheddar | May 16, 2008 11:11 AM
Scarier was watching the local news report when it happened and the interviews w/ some of the firebug's friends about how he was a 'good guy' and how they were sure he didn't mean to hurt the Sikh student. But then again, this is Hightstown we're talking about...
Posted by: Hanspeter | May 16, 2008 11:19 AM
Arson? Mischief? The bigoted moron set someone's clothes on fire. How about Assault!?
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | May 16, 2008 11:44 AM
Wow, sounds like something that would've happened around my school... Can't say I'm surprised, though I wish I were. I am pretty sure decrepitoldfool is right. Assault sounds more like it for this incident...
Posted by: Rob W. | May 16, 2008 12:16 PM
How about AGGRAVATED assault?
Posted by: SharonB | May 16, 2008 12:16 PM
"Burn the Sikh! He's Different From Us!"
I doubt the perp knew the victim was a Sikh, or even knows what Sikhs are. People see the turban and they think "Muslim". And it's okay to be prejudiced against Muslims. Michelle Malkin told me so.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | May 16, 2008 12:25 PM
I wonder if something like this would qualify as a hate-crime? I'm not saying it should, but by current definitions that I'm aware of, this might fit the description.
Posted by: doctorgoo | May 16, 2008 12:56 PM
A woman on a website I frequent has told us that some of her daughter's Christian classmates tried to set her (the daughter) on fire at school, because she was "a witch." (Whether they first tried to see if she weighed the same as a duck was not mentioned.) Evidently some people think that we are still living in the middle ages, or at least are determined to bring back as much of that period's atrocities as possible.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | May 16, 2008 1:16 PM
Lighten up, folks. This is a bored kid pulling a prank.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 16, 2008 1:25 PM
Yes Ginger, it was just a prank. Would you say that if he lit your house on fire, as well?
If someone were to light my turban on fire and hurt me, I would want them charged with at least assault.
Posted by: Hardeep Gill | May 16, 2008 1:38 PM
Setting someone's headwear on fire is serious business regardless of the motive. I don't think you trivialize this as "boys will be boys."
Posted by: Bill in NC | May 16, 2008 1:39 PM
(emphasis added)
I know this is a totally fucking horrible event, and the perp deserves to be treated exactly like anyone who commits aggravated assault or whatever, but you gotta admit, that word choice in the news report is sort of chuckle-worthy.
Posted by: PhysioProf | May 16, 2008 2:07 PM
When you assault someone's person as a 'prank' you are saying they are not human and their personal space does not deserve respect. Doesn't matter if you didn't think it through first, that's the effect.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | May 16, 2008 2:10 PM
There is nothing one can do about such abysmal ignorance, except continue to educate the rest of us, and enforce the laws against people who commit crimes(yes, crimes) based on such abysmal ignorance. I mean, this crap about Muslims goes clear back to the Crusades. At least they had an excuse to be ignorant back then. But it still persists today, and there is no excuse to be ignorant about Muslims(or any other religious/cultural group) nowadays. But these same ignorant people think that anyone wearing a turban must be a Musliim(but except for certain religious officials in some Muslim countries, most Muslims don't wear turbans). And all Muslims are, by definition, terrorists, right? Except that most Muslims here and in their home countries, just want to practice their religion without interference(and that goes for the interference of their home countries, which is why a good many Muslims are here). As for the Sikhs, well, they wear turbans for religious reasons, as well as having some other religiously-mandated items of apparel, but they're not terrorists; they're mostly a peaceable lot, and mostly from India/Pakistan. But of course, the ignorant are just too ignorant to figure this out.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | May 16, 2008 4:01 PM
How idiotic. I'd assume the driving force behind these attacks had something to do with getting the weird middle eastern, obviously "Muslim", kid. Of course, Sikhs aren't Muslims, (or middle eastern, for that matter) and in fact, certain Muslim populations have all manner of weird beliefs akin to the blood libel about Sikhs.
And setting someone on fire isn't a prank. That's like saying running up to someone with a knife and giving them a flesh wound is just a prank.
Posted by: Julian | May 16, 2008 5:16 PM
I'm not going to say, "It was just a prank." It was dangerous and stupid and could have had serious, if not fatal, consequences. It shows a severe lack of judgement. But I'd have to hear someone say, "I/He did it because the kid was a different religion", to seriously consider that to be the case. To me, it's more like, "He's different, so we fuck with him." This idiot went too far, but I can't see this being a hate crime (not that I like that term to begin with). More of a "16 year olds are stupid" crime.
If I had been charged with a crime (at 16) every time I did something stupid that could have killed me or someone else, I'd still be in jail. Luckily, I had parents who paid attention.
Posted by: bullet | May 16, 2008 5:52 PM
So now the boy was set on fire, an act equivalent to cutting them with a knife - or setting their house on fire! :D
Evidently an arsonist asshat is guilty of a dehumanizing aggravated assault! :D
C'mon, folks, we can do better than this!
Who will give me a "tantamount to attempted murder!"? How about a "Lock him up and throw away the key!"?
Seriously, Little Green Footballs would have had him shot, hung, and drawn and quartered four hours ago!
We have a serious hyperbole deficit here and we don't have much time before the post falls off the front page.
Forget that he is a teenager, well-liked and respected and nobody was really hurt! He needs to go down, and nobody can do it but you!! ;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 16, 2008 6:10 PM
Prank? If somebody set my daughter's clothes on fire I sure as god-damn-fucking-hell would not call it a prank. I would call it aggravated assault. And what does it mean that the student was "singed but not seriously hurt"? Maybe this is a case of sloppy writing and the writer meant that only his clothing was singed. Because if any part of the student's body was singed, then we are talking pain. A simple first degree burn hurts. But regardless of whether the student's clothes or body were singed, there was a real potential for serious harm. Lighten up? Yeah, you lighten up when somebody sets your kid on fire.
Posted by: Elf Eye | May 16, 2008 7:01 PM
It's a depressing story, but it's also a headline writer's dream.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 16, 2008 7:53 PM
The arsonist is 18 and a graduating senior. Isn't that old enough to know better? Surely there is a rule at that school that no matches or cigarette lighters are allowed on campus. This dangerous "prank" could have had extremely serious consequences and needs to be punished accordingly; maybe the judge will let him off if he joins the army.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 16, 2008 8:24 PM
"maybe the judge will let him off if he joins the army."
Great! All we need is a bigot in uniform overseas.
Posted by: Bill in NC | May 16, 2008 9:59 PM
Elf Eye said:
"Lighten up? Yeah, you lighten up when somebody sets your kid on fire."
--from Dr. Oliver Sacks' website, a description of his book
[ =>Exchange the word "Child" for the word "Wife" in the title]:
THE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS WIFE FOR A HAT
Here Dr. Sacks recounts the case histories of patients lost in the bizarre, apparently inescapable world of neurological disorders: people afflicted with fantastic perceptual and intellectual aberrations;...who are no longer able to recognize people and common objects ...
;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 16, 2008 10:12 PM
New twist in the case, with more information on the students:
http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/05/15/windsor_hights_herald/news/doc482cb1e5d2d1c507241991.txt
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 16, 2008 10:23 PM
I cannot believe that you are even attempting to claim that lighting someones clothing on fire isn't assault.
Here is the legal definition of assault: A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/22542B6F-FEDB-450A-889A82A49EA50CEB
I would feel immediately threatened if someone lit me on fire as well. This isn't some kind of little joke, this is a serious offence, and frankly the kid is getting off light.
Posted by: Robert | May 17, 2008 1:35 AM
"frankly the kid is getting off light."
Light? Let's see... so far they have booked him for aggravated assault, arson, criminal mischief, and bias crime.
Still think he's getting off light? Perhaps an attempted murder charge would be appropriate? ;D
How many years in prison do you think this cold-blooded criminal deserves behind bars, if you had your druthers?
How many years for a hotfoot, while we are on the subject? You know, where the criminal lays in wait, then surreptitiously hides inflammatory devices in the victim's footwear, and then lights them when the victim is unawares.
The hotfoot could ostensibly be seen as a much worse crime than what has been reported here. Potentially, a hotfoot could be much more physically injurious. Fire does tend to burn upwards. More importantly, the hotfoot requires malice aforethought, time and effort to procure materials, deviousness.
Not really like the actual crime reported on above, where a kid with known mental problems decided on the spur of the moment during a fire drill to whip out his lighter and set the victim of opportunity's hair covering on fire.
Looks to me like the the whole thing is getting politically charged, with the victim's church fanning the flames for hate crime prosecution, so there could be more fireworks to come. Yay.
It's going to be interesting to see what kind of legs this story has got. The way things are shaping up, ideologues look poised to ruin both kids lives. They are turning one into Jack the Ripper, and the other into a religious martyr, who will likely always feel he was a victim of epic proportion, instead of just unlucky in queue.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 17, 2008 2:56 AM
"I cannot believe that you are even attempting to claim that lighting someones clothing on fire isn't assault."
I can't either. Where exactly did I say that?
What I did say was that folks should lighten up (rhetoric getting vicious), and that it was a prank. One needs to keep a proper perspective on this.
No bodies were on fire here. No houses were burned. We don't even know if bigotry played a role here.
I think the kid who did this is troubled and needs some help. Perhaps charges need to be pressed in order to get him that help. If it was just a normal kid who did something really dumb for no reason, then I would hope that any charges would be dropped.
The updated story gives a sense of how and why this event seems to be spiraling up into something way more ominous than it was originally.
This, to me at least, is a much more interesting tale then the original plot line.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 17, 2008 3:25 AM
I'm sure the guy here facing 25 years for breaking into a house, raping, bashing, dousing in petrol, and setting alight a young woman will be pulling out the ol' "it was only a prank" defense too, eh Ginger? As will the biochemist who knocked out, then stuffed her (soon to be) ex into a vat of acid.
I mean if a high school senior* can't think about the pain third degree burns might cause, why should adults, right? -DJ
*Presumeably this person is 16-18 years old, and yet he couldn't think that setting someone's clothes alit might hurt them? I wonder if he was a bedwetter, a bully, enjoys killng animals (paricularlly in a sadistic manner), enjoys setting fires, has low affect & etc.
Posted by: DingoJack | May 17, 2008 4:24 AM
DingoJack,
By comparing a stupid kid who burned somebody's turban to someone who broke into a house and raped, bashed and doused a young woman in petrol, I really think you've proved Gingerbaker's point.
Posted by: Jankles | May 17, 2008 7:28 AM
Oh he hasn't worked upto it yet...but give him time, give him time -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 17, 2008 7:35 AM
Not yet, but give this budding sociopath time.. DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 17, 2008 7:41 AM
Gingerbaker wrote: "with the victim's church fanning the flames for hate crime prosecution" [presumably no pun was intended].
Gingerbaker, there is no mention in the article you link to of any involvement on the part of the victim's church. Presumably you have another source for that informtion and will provide it shortly.
The article describes the accused student as adopted and having special needs. My daughter is adopted and a special education student (ADHD, OCD). If she were to set a fellow student on fire, however, I suspect the parents of that student would not take it kindly if I attempted to excuse such dangerous behavior on the grounds of her disability. My daughter is legally sane (i.e., understands the difference between right and wrong and is capable of controlling her behavior). A disability, save in the case of legal insanity, does not give an individual a 'pass' when it comes to obeying the law.
Posted by: Elf Eye | May 17, 2008 9:57 AM
The story is getting a lot of play inside the Sikh community in India. Here's a story:
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14673076
The local Sikh advocacy group has been very vocal about treating the situation as a hate crime.
And Gingerbaker is right, this was a spur-of-the-moment prank and nothing more. A very dangerous and stupid prank, yes, but a prank. The kid will get a citation on his record and six months of pissing into a cup for his probation officer.
Kurt
Posted by: kehrsam | May 17, 2008 10:24 AM
How is setting somebody's clothes on fire, while they are in them, just a prank? The kid would have to be pretty slow to think that and even if he honestly did think that, it shouldn't matter. He set somebody on fire.
Posted by: tincture | May 17, 2008 10:32 AM
The group referenced in the article linked by Kehrsam is a national advocacy group. Is there a local Sikh advocacy group as well?
It seems a little premature to conclude that this is a prank and nothing more. From the article linked by Kehrsam:
Sikh children have been attacked in New Jersey schools earlier too. A bias-motivated attack against a Sikh boy at Marlboro High School in 2003 caused him severe head injuries, prompting his parents' eventual decision to move him back to a school in Britain.
In 2006, New Jersey's Department of Education sent a memorandum to school superintendents calling on all schools to protect Sikh children from harassment. That memorandum cited quite a few bias incidents against Sikh students in the state.
The NJ DOE saw fit to send out a memo citing incidents of bias against Sikh students. There is the possibility of a systemic problem here, and the student who lit the fire may be part of the problem. What if it turns out that he has a history of harassing and making derogatory comments about Sikhs or other minorities? Why dismiss it as a prank before all the facts are in?
What is certain is that this young man committed a very dangerous act. Again, I am the mother of a high school student, and I want to be sure that my daughter is in a safe environment. Creating such an environment in part means that students who commit acts that put other students in danger must be held to a very high level of accountability.
By the way, truth in packaging: Although I am Caucasian, my daughter is Amerindian (Quechua, to be precise). She has only experienced a few outright instances of bias. (For example, once an older gentleman called her a 'gook'; I think he may have thought she was Vietnamese.} No doubt the fact that my daughter is one of a minority colors [no pun intended] my take on this incident of a turban being set on fire.
Posted by: Elf Eye | May 17, 2008 11:37 AM
This paragraph in the preceding post should have been italicized. I am quoting here:
In 2006, New Jersey's Department of Education sent a memorandum to school superintendents calling on all schools to protect Sikh children from harassment. That memorandum cited quite a few bias incidents against Sikh students in the state.
Posted by: Elf Eye | May 17, 2008 11:40 AM
Gingerbaker, you suck. People like you are the reason school was hell for people like me.
Posted by: Nemo | May 17, 2008 12:55 PM
Elf Eye said:
"Gingerbaker, there is no mention in the article you link to of any involvement on the part of the victim's church. Presumably you have another source for that informtion and will provide it shortly."
Please forgive me - I used the wrong term. ( Insomnial posting at 4 am will do that) The organization involved was the local Sikh Coalition, not a church. If you can believe it, the Legal Director of that group is Mr Amardeep Singh. :D
Another interesting tidbit - One article I read made a mistake and released the surname of the victim's mother. It the same name ( Kaul) as the surname of the Legal Director of the National Sikh Coalition.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 17, 2008 4:42 PM
Okay, now I'm getting the picture. The arsonist is special ed (some can go bananas, lacking impulse control, during a fire drill, a bomb scare, a pep rally, etc.) so was he mainstreamed or where was his keeper? And did he think this "prank" up on his own or did someone put him up to it? No doubt some poor overworked teacher's aide will get the ax over this.
Unfortunately, the army probably won't take this kid, even as desperate as they are.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Elizabeth -
In most schools, they mainstream the special ed kids as much as possible and no, they don't get handlers.
Gingerbaker -
I think the kid who did this is troubled and needs some help. Perhaps charges need to be pressed in order to get him that help. If it was just a normal kid who did something really dumb for no reason, then I would hope that any charges would be dropped.
While agree that the politicizing of this story is ridiculous, the notion that charges should be dropped is absurd. To me, if it was just a normal kid who did something really dumb for no reason, then it is even more important to charge him. Setting someone's clothing on fire isn't acceptable, isn't a prank and regardless of the physical consequences, the victim is probably not going to handle it well.
To the kid who's hair covering was started on fire, the perpetrators actual motivation is incidental. It is what he perceives as the motivation that he will have to deal with.
Take the religious component out. Say the kid decided to light some other kid's hat on fire. The first thing that victim is going to do, is assume that whatever trait they have that they like the least or that they think other kids judge them for is the reason that kid started their hat on fire. And you know what? The dumb little fuck that started that hat on fire, still assaulted the other.
Look at it from this perspective, if I went outside right now and tried to start the clothes a person was wearing on fire, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon which would probably be plead down to misdemeanor assault. I see absolutely no reason that the fact that the perpetrator happens to be a minor should change those results.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 17, 2008 5:34 PM
Gingerbaker, when you pointed out that the last name of the legal director of the advocacy group is Singh, were you doing so because it seemed ironic, given its resemblance to the word 'singe'? Certainly we find a coincidence 'ironic' if it defies the odds. However, Singh is such a common last name among Sikhs that it would be astonishing if someone involved in the case did not have the last name Singh! ;-)
Posted by: Elf Eye | May 17, 2008 5:46 PM
Elizabeth, there are many, many reasons why a child may be designated as a special education student, and the vast majority of special education students would be no more likely to 'go bananas' than a student not so designated. My daughter would be a case in point. She has problems with inattention but she has impulse control as good as (or better!) than that of the majority of her classmates. Like nearly all special education students, she is mainstreamed and is not accompanied by an aide. Since she is of normal intelligence, has excellent impulse control, and does not suffer from a physical disability that requires medical intervention, there would be no reason to assign an aide to her. Now, one article about this incident said that the student who set the fire did suffer from some sort of emotional disability; still, unless the emotional disability was very severe, I think it very unlikely that he would have been assigned an aide.
Posted by: Elf Eye | May 17, 2008 6:05 PM
Singh is normally the middle name for male Sikhs, and Kaur (not Kaul, Gingerbaker) is the middle name for female Sikhs. A number of years ago the SGPC (the so-called parliament of sikhs) decreed that all Sikhs should abandon their last names and replace them with their middle name (supposedly as the original guru's intended), but since this isn't a very practical proposal, few Sikhs on the whole have done it. That is why you see so many sikhs with the last name Singh or Kaur (though not many compared to the entirety of the sikh population). Mind you, it occurs to me that there probably were some sikhs before that decree who had these last names.. I'll have to look into it.
Gingerbaker: I found your calling this incident a prank an abuse of the word prank and hence I was wondering what else you would call a prank. Therefore I was genuinely curious about whether if some teenager decided to light your house on fire, you wouldn't mind others treating the incident lightly and calling it a prank.
Anyways, as a Sikh who has gone through the school system in North America with a turban, I found this incident quite disturbing. I will withhold my judgment on whether this was a "hate crime" or not until more information comes out, but I do know that the kid deserves more than the slap on the wrist that I am worried he will get. That said, I am concerned about all the "coalitions" getting involved and making this a bigger deal than it is (if it turns out that its just a case of a kid doing something stupid without thinking of the consequences rather than a stupid kid acting on an internal bias).
Posted by: Hardeep Gill | May 17, 2008 6:19 PM
@Gingerbaker:
Ginger - why did you bother to comment on the story from such an abysmal depth of ignorance? As Hardeep has pointed out, these are mandated names.
As for the suggestion that this incendiary was just involved in a prank... Maybe it was (to him); but bear in mind his father was a local school head. Do you really think that in his home life lighting people's clothing on fire was a generally accepted pastime? Anybody who thinks sufficiently little of his fellow man that he can claim that setting light to one is a "prank" is a sociopath at best.
Posted by: Robin Levett | May 18, 2008 9:08 AM
Hardeep Gill - thank you for the explanation about the names - I was in ignorance about this, and your information is edifying.
And, yes, I believe that setting one's house on fire is a very different thing than setting one's hat/hairpiece on fire.
I attended my local public junior high school for two years,and probably witnessed 5 episodes where articles of clothing were lit on fire by idiots, as simple pranks. No one ever got hurt, the perpetrator generally got run off by the victim, and yes... boys will be boys.
It saddens me to read the articles on this story and see where the victim's family is saying that they are reluctantly forced to return to school. And that they are upset that a schoolchild needs to fear going to school because of how they looked.
On the other hand - have things changed so much since I was going to school that students can actually expect NOT to be harassed for how they look?
I remember my junior high school days (middle school) as being one long torture chamber! :D And not just for me. The fat kids, the prim kids, the academic kids, the farmer's kids, the ones with the worst acne, the biggest braces on their teeth, thickest glasses - you name it.
And school was rough - there was quite a few toughs, who each were from families of toughs. Been in jail tough. And if you looked at some of these guys crossways, you could expect to find them waiting for you on the sidewalk, just off school property. And this is small town Vermont. :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 18, 2008 11:37 AM
Robin Levett said:
"Ginger - why did you bother to comment on the story from such an abysmal depth of ignorance? As Hardeep has pointed out, these are mandated names."
It must be my sociopathic nature coming through, Robin, please accept my deepest apologies. If only I could be as rational and graceful as you, my life would be so very much improved. Thank you for the inspiration.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 18, 2008 11:55 AM
@Gingerbaker:
And that's all fine and dandy, is it?
Posted by: Robin Levett | May 18, 2008 11:56 AM
Ginger - did you go to the Vermont Middle School for Sociopaths?
The only time I ever anyone get set alight at school, she carelessly leant over a bunsen burner with the inevitable results. No injury was caused thanks to the vigiant teacher, and other pupils. But I once disovled my parka by leaning in sulphuric acid once, if that makes you feel less of a freak. :)
Still I can't call this a harmless prank, even a special Ed kid knows that setting someone alight is wrong. I don't know if a legal argument of "dimished responsibility" would fly.
Again as you, and others, pointed out not enough detail is available. Did the kid act alone, or was someelse egging him on? Was this an isolated incident, or a pattern of attacks? Was it an excited kid acting out, or part of a larger pattern of behaviour? We just don't know -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 18, 2008 12:05 PM
DJ,
One of the articles said that the cigarette lighter used was supplied by a friend. This fellow got suspended for ten days. One wonders who was egging on whom.
The perpetrator is described as having both special ed needs AND having known emotional problems.
The victim was not wearing a turban, but rather a "patka". I still can't figure out exactly what a patka looks like. Google images shows hairpieces that range from a very simple wrap like a snood all the way to complex wraps that look exactly like what I, in my abysmal level of ignorance (IMALOI) would call a turban.
I think this matters - something that resembles a turban might well be recognized as a religious symbol, while a simple patka looks merely like a handkerchief - which guys have been wearing on their heads for decades without religious implications, yeah? Bears on the bias crime charge.
( I just read several web comments by the fellow who supplied the lighter! He said that Mr Green the perpetrator, is basically a goofball, and the the victim just happened to be the first kid he encountered in the fire drill line. NO way was it a hate crime, he says)
Something to keep in mind. This incident happened way back on May 5th. It's murky, but it goes something like this: The school investigated, and initially said it was a prank. Then the parents and Sikh Coalitions got involved. A local assemblywoman got involved. The police started adding charges. IIRC, someone associated with the school administration made a charge that the Police were under pressure to ramp up charges. The Police denied this. My take: the incident is getting blown out of proportion.
While this seems to be an isolated incident, there have been other incidents against Sikh students listed on the various articles. The worst, IIRC, was 5 years ago, and the victim had severe contusions to his face. Some one beat him up.
Compared to Vermont junior high school, the record of violence seems to me really really low. But, then again, I am a sociopath so take that with a grain of salt. :D
BTW, what is an Aussie doing wearing a parka? Isn't it blazingly hot all year long on that sun-scorched rock? ;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 18, 2008 1:36 PM
GingerBaker -
On the other hand - have things changed so much since I was going to school that students can actually expect NOT to be harassed for how they look?
Yes, actually for a lot of schools they have. Kids still get harassed for looking different, but it is taken far more seriously than it even was when I was in school. And a damn good thing too.
I attended my local public junior high school for two years,and probably witnessed 5 episodes where articles of clothing were lit on fire by idiots, as simple pranks. No one ever got hurt, the perpetrator generally got run off by the victim, and yes... boys will be boys.
And if being a boy means setting someone's clothes on fire, then they should get in serious trouble for it. The fact that something used to be common and not taken seriously is no reason to assume that we just have to live with it. A rather older friend of mine went to a school that not only didn't punish kids for fighting, they would allow staff to to observe fights and make sure that the fighting was "fair." Doesn't make it acceptable for schools to do today. It used to be pretty routine for school staff to get into the mocking and harassing of students who were particularly different or had some aspect that they believed worthy of mocking - unfortunately something that still happens today, but often leads to teachers being fired.
I remember my junior high school days (middle school) as being one long torture chamber! :D And not just for me. The fat kids, the prim kids, the academic kids, the farmer's kids, the ones with the worst acne, the biggest braces on their teeth, thickest glasses - you name it.
Ahh, so that makes it ok. I mean hell, it sucked for me too, so it should be just fine for me if my kid gets his as kicked or is otherwise harassed. And if another kid sets his clothes on fire, I should just suck it up and live with it? Because kids will be kids?
I don't send my kid to school to be tormented by wee Neanderthals (actually we don't send him at all currently). I expect him to learn at school, in a safe environment that is conducive to learning.
And school was rough - there was quite a few toughs, who each were from families of toughs. Been in jail tough. And if you looked at some of these guys crossways, you could expect to find them waiting for you on the sidewalk, just off school property.
Sorry to hear that, doesn't mean it has to be like that.
Look, I am with you on the notion that this was unlikely a race/religious attack. That doesn't change the fact that this kid was assaulted and the perpetrator deserves jail time.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 18, 2008 1:45 PM
DuWayne said:
"It used to be pretty routine for school staff to get into the mocking and harassing of students who were particularly different or had some aspect that they believed worthy of mocking - unfortunately something that still happens today, but often leads to teachers being fired."
That is absolutely unbelievable to me. Not only that it would happen, but that any teacher would still retain his job after being found responsible.
"Ahh, so that makes it ok. I mean hell, it sucked for me too, so it should be just fine for me if my kid gets his as kicked or is otherwise harassed. And if another kid sets his clothes on fire, I should just suck it up and live with it? Because kids will be kids?"
Look, that's not my argument, and I think you know it.
The key word here is "perspective". Keep this in perspective. There was no physical injury worth speaking about. There was no serious intent to cause physical injury here, because Green wasn't thinking at all. There was no forethought. No motive.
This was a prank, not a cold-blooded waylaying and physical beating. Although the charges would be about the same.
It was a stupid thing to do, as I have said. As I have said, Mr Green needs help. As I have said, if police charges are needed in order to accomplish that, I am for it.
But I hope that police charges can be dropped and Mr Green can get his help. I think if Mr Green gets jail time out of this it would be a tragedy, a result way out of proportion for what he did.
The way this whole incident is getting politically and racially charged, I am afraid that the kid is not just going to get jail time, but a harsh sentence.
For the equivalent of giving a hotfoot, for crying out loud. A conflagration so enormous that the victim felt some heat, and patted it out with his hands, and had to be told by someone else that there were flames present. For this you want him to do jail time?
You keep bringing up your kid as a theoretical victim. What if Green was your kid?
He stops thinking responsibly for ten seconds, and does something stupid. Not vicious, not angry, not intentionally violent, not personally motivated. Something for a selfish, twisted, adolescent idea of "fun", an idiotic idea without thinking of the possible consequences for the physical or mental injury to another student.
Would you want him to be swept up in an international political maelstrom with enough charges to ruin his life. Enough charges to have him in prison for years? A kid with learning disabilities and emotional issues? A child you adopted?
The school teachers themselves felt it was a "prank", and that what Green deserved was to be expelled and barred from campus. I'm with them so far.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 18, 2008 3:28 PM
Gingerbaker -
What if Green was your kid?
He stops thinking responsibly for ten seconds, and does something stupid. Not vicious, not angry, not intentionally violent, not personally motivated. Something for a selfish, twisted, adolescent idea of "fun", an idiotic idea without thinking of the possible consequences for the physical or mental injury to another student.
Would you want him to be swept up in an international political maelstrom with enough charges to ruin his life. Enough charges to have him in prison for years? A kid with learning disabilities and emotional issues? A child you adopted?
My oldest actually has learning disabilities and emotional issues. And you know what? If he pulled something like this, then yes, I would want him charged and I would want him to face the consequences that should come from the situation. Namely a week or so in jail (juvenile detention for kids) probation and court ordered therapy (although mine is already in therapy).
As for it becoming a huge political ordeal, I'm not sure I would object, as it would give him an opportunity to see some of the more abstract consequences of his actions. We would have a lot to talk about and learn about, so I would probably be ok with it. As it is we've discussed this situation and though we stayed away from the political abstractions for the most part, we did touch on that as well.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 18, 2008 4:29 PM
@Gingerbaker:
What's a hotfoot?
Posted by: Robin Levett | May 18, 2008 4:49 PM
@Gingerbaker:
No, it's your apparent ignorance combined with your penchant for baseless accusations of nepotism. Seriously, if there is one thing that I thought everybody knew about Sikhs it was that Singh is a pretty much universal male Sikh name. Somebody who is going to presume to create conspiracy theories should surely do enough research to know that two Sikhs having the name "Singh" in common means precisely nothing? Shouldn't they? Even if they'd been living in a cave and didn't know it at the outset?
Posted by: Robin Levett | May 18, 2008 4:56 PM
Most people (non-sikhs) assume a patka is a turban so I let it be called a turban in the discussion above. A patka is a head covering that young male Sikhs often use. It basically is a rectangular cloth with ties at the corners, and is tied tightly about the hair.
If this is what was lit on fire, then it is even more dangerous than a turban because at least with a turban there is more fabric to burn through before the fire burns the skin. With a patka, there is only one or 2 layers of fabric at most covering any part of the hair, and patka's tend to be much more difficult to take off (in case of fire..) than turbans.
There is a third head covering that young sikhs often use, called a ramal, which basically looks like a handkerchief tightly wound around the top knot of hair. The purpose of all these head coverings is the same (to protect and respect the hair, which is one of the 5 K's - articles of faith).
Posted by: Hardeep Gill | May 19, 2008 3:06 AM
GinerBaker - My brother when on a trip to England (some awards thingy) and spent the entire time wearing several layers of clothes (and complaining about the cold weather BTW). The English thought he was crazy. It was in the middle of a "heatwave" with temperatures around 21 degrees C [70 degrees F, or something]. That's cool here, just about shirtsleeve weather.
At the moment (coming into winter), clear skys and southerlies, are keeping the temperature to around 9 degrees C at dawn (or less) or in the range of 30 - 50 degrees F. Or as we say around here "bloody freezing".
Your cold isn't my cold. But the reason I wore a parka was a matter of style (as I thought it then). :)
I think few people would diagree with the idea that school really sucked, but that's not the issue. The issue is setting someone's clothes alight and that others encouraged it. This isn't a prank, it's moronic and dangerous, and those responisible should have to wear the consequences. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 19, 2008 4:48 AM
Robin asked -
What's a hotfoot?
Simply put, you get someone's sock (or shoe) smoldering. A bundle of dried grass or (much better) dried cornsilk was the common implement. Not a very common practice these days, it was a "great" way to torment others about fifty years ago on back.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 19, 2008 4:55 AM
Robin Levett said:
"No, it's your apparent ignorance combined with your penchant for baseless accusations of nepotism. Seriously, if there is one thing that I thought everybody knew about Sikhs it was that Singh is a pretty much universal male Sikh name. Somebody who is going to presume to create conspiracy theories should surely do enough research to know that two Sikhs having the name "Singh" in common means precisely nothing? Shouldn't they? Even if they'd been living in a cave and didn't know it at the outset?"
1) My ignorance isn't "apparent" - it is documented. And already apologized for.
2) The name "Singh" was highlighted for its comic value; your "baseless accusations of nepotism" problems would be around the name of "Kaur".
Seriously, Robin, If you are going to be hurling snide off-base ad hominem attacks about, you really should get your facts straight.
Otherwise, you might start to come off as a mean-spirited irrational harpy with a chip on their shoulder, which of course, nobody here thinks describes you.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 19, 2008 10:43 AM
@Gingerbaker:
And your failure to make any attemopt to find out how common the names Singh and Kaur were before making your claim of nepotism?
Forgive me for doubting that was your original intention; since the similarity of the victim's name to the verb "singe" had already been highlighted.
Now there's an unusual - and inappropriate - epithet to hurl at me. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from names without appropriate research again.
By the way, calling you ignorant and mean-spirited - ignorant because of your lack of knowledge (and unwillingness to ascertain basic facts about Sikhs), mean-spirited because of your willngness to hurl snide insults at those involved on the absis that they must be related since they share a name - is not ad hominem, it is mere vulgar abuse. I am drawing conclusions as to your character from your arguments, not vice versa.
Posted by: Robin Levett | May 20, 2008 12:18 PM
Gingerbaker - OT & BTW. The highest temperature in Wilcannia, NSW was 50 degrees C or 122 degrees F on 11th of Janurary 1939, the hotest in Australia (recorded anyway). -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 12:49 PM
Robin, I made no claim of nepotism, the victim's name was NOT Singe, and I am not "unwilling" to learn about Sikh names. Get a freaking life. Seriously.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 20, 2008 3:08 PM
DJ - 122F would melt a parka, too :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 20, 2008 3:11 PM
@Gingerbaker:
You implied it by highlighting the fact that the victim's mother and the staff attorney of the Sikh Coalition shared the name Kaur.
That isn't in doubt. What is however in doubt is whether the victim's surname was "Singh"; his surname isn't mentioned in the reports (I thought it had been). I apologise on that point.
You were unwilling to do so before impliedly alleging nepotism. Instead if thinking "That's odd - I wonder how common the name Kaur is in the Sikh community" and doing a little research, you instead simply made your allegation. As so often happens on the 'net, a posting based on incorrect information led to an education.
If any of us - inclduing you - had a life, would we be commenting on someone else's blog posts? Seriously?
Posted by: Robin Levett | May 21, 2008 8:28 AM