Victims, Officials Worry Ruling Appears to Sanction Hate Crimes

Victims of hate crimes and those who tabulate and investigate them in the San Fernando Valley expressed disappointment Monday over the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance banning residents from burning crosses or displaying swastikas and other expressions of racial or religious bias.

Although the law struck down is unlike hate crime statutes in California, those familiar with the court’s action were troubled because they said it might appear to some segments of society to sanction displays of bias based on racial, religious or sexual orientation.

“I think it’s opening up a Pandora’s box,” said Fred Duitsman, a Los Angeles police detective who investigates hate crimes in the West Valley. “It helps open up a way of expression that is a detriment to our society.”

Others agreed, citing the indication that the ruling protects displays of prejudice if they are on one’s own property or have the permission of a property owner and break no other laws.

“The Supreme Court decision still does not give you permission to come to my house and burn a cross,” said Bunny Nightwalker Hatcher, a senior consultant with the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations. “But now you may apparently be able to burn a cross on your own yard to upset your neighbors.”

The St. Paul ordinance made it a misdemeanor to place a burning cross, Nazi swastika or similar symbol on public or private property. The law said such action is a crime if it “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.”

In ruling the ordinance unconstitutional, the court ruled that law seeks to ban expression based on content, a violation of free speech. Those familiar with the ruling said that although hate crimes governed by the law will still be illegal if they involve vandalism, the ruling appears to protect such expressions of free speech if they are not in violation of other laws.

The ruling would indicate that a person who burns a cross on his own lawn may only face a possible fire code violation, said Hatcher, who puts together a yearly tabulation of hate crimes for the Commission on Human Relations.

“I would say it might unfortunately encourage people to test limits,” she said of the court ruling. “This is going to get a lot of publicity. This will indicate to those who have had the urge to burn crosses in the past that they may only have a fire code violation to fear.

“People might test to see if it is such constitutionally protected speech that they are not even required to get a fire permit.”

The ruling was of particular interest in the Valley, where hate crimes have steadily been increasing in recent years. Last year, 175 of the county’s 672 reported hate crimes were in the Valley. The problem was seen as so pressing in the area that the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has announced plans to open an office in the Valley later this year.

Hatcher said the 672 hate crimes in the county represent incidents of vandalism and threats against people. Incidents where someone uses their own property to make a prejudicial display are not counted and, indeed, are rare.

But Deputy Police Chief Mark A. Kroeker, the top police official in the Valley, said the department keeps records of displays even if they do not violate any laws. Duitsman said he investigated one incident this year in which a man had a swastika on his West Valley garage and agreed to remove it after a detective asked him to. He said the Supreme Court ruling may embolden other residents to make such displays.

“This is what scares me,” he said. “It is allowing people to preach hatred.”

For some of those in the Valley who have been victimized by hate crimes in recent years, the Supreme Court ruling was also met with disappointment and frustration.

A Jewish woman whose Sylmar home was broken into last year by vandals who painted anti-Semitic statements on the walls called the ruling “outrageous” because she believes the court is protecting the rights of a minority--racists and anti-Semites--that threatens the majority of the public.

“I think it is outrageous,” said the woman who asked that her name not be published because she fears retaliation from hate groups. “I think when people see this they are going to be encouraged to do it.”

She viewed the court ruling as sanctioning hate groups’ beliefs. The woman, who said she remains emotionally traumatized by the incident at her house eight months ago, had come home to find someone had broken in, painted swastikas on walls and posters, and painted the word Jew on a mirror. That such a crime is still a crime and not affected by Monday’s court ruling was little comfort to her.

“It would be traumatizing if it is on your house or if the neighbor across the street decides to do it at his house,” she said. “It’s like a rape.”

Although the court ruling appears to protect the rights of people who make displays on their own property or with the permission of a property owner, Rabbi Avrohom Stulberger nevertheless objected Monday.

Stulberger is principal of Valley Torah High School in North Hollywood, which was defaced by vandals who painted swastikas and Ku Klux Klan symbols on walls in March. He said students and teachers have gone through a long period of grappling with the crime.

Stulberger said the distinction between hate displays by someone on his own property versus a vandalism of other property should not allow for such activity to be sanctioned.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Stulberger said. “I am appalled. I can not believe how it can be seen under the banner of free speech. They know full well it could incite people to do this.

“It doesn’t seem to fit into any semblance of fairness. The rights of a few have to be balanced by the well-being of society as a whole. I think the people who made the Constitution wanted it to be judged with common sense. You have to ask, ‘Is this good for society or hurtful?’ I think the ruling will create bigger rifts in society. It doesn’t make sense.”

Stulberger said students at the school may find it difficult to understand the court’s ruling.

“It’s frustrating,” he said. “I think when the students read about it they will be shocked and disappointed.”

Tzivia Schwartz, western states counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, said that while the ruling was disappointing, it does not affect California hate crime laws that, rather than outlawing such displays, provide for enhanced criminal penalties when racial, religious or sexual biases are found to be motives for vandalism, assaults and other crimes.

She said Monday’s ruling could be dangerous if it is misinterpreted by the public.

“I don’t think it is a setback in terms of striking down our statutes,” she said. “But there might be a misinterpretation of the message. I am hoping it is not misinterpreted that we in this country don’t feel that terrorizing people on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation is OK.”

* MAIN STORIES: A1, A18