Sheeba Singh

© Panjabi Beat, December 2008-January 2009. Vol. 1 No. 2

‘Diaper head,’ ‘terrorist,’ ‘taliban,’ ‘towel-head’ are some of the few names which have been in increased use since 9/11 against those believed to be Muslims or members of the Taliban in the United States as well as in Canada. Although not all, some of the victims in such cases are normally not members of any terrorist group but a part of the Sikh faith which emerges from India with no intention of ‘bombing’ anything or place- brining no harm to anyone despite the hate crimes being inflicted on the group itself. Through widespread portrayal of the turbaned man as the terrorist or Muslims as the Taliban, various groups who conform to a similar identity (i.e. especially Sikhs) have been attempting to face such hate crimes and misunderstandings in the name of terrorism since 9/11. This paper will attempt to approach the hate crimes which have been inflicted particularly on the Sikh community since the attack on the World Trade Centre, 2001, through a restorative means to seek for answers in order to deal with the victims of attack in addition to the larger community.

Through an advocation of the restorative method, I will argue that such a community based response may guide the North American society to an increased tolerance and understanding of diversity in religions, ethnicity and race that would help to guide those in misunderstandings of the image of a ‘taliban’ or a ‘terrorist’ as one different from a man with a turban. Although this paper will push towards no specific method of restorative means, most principles of victim-offender mediation will be primarily looked at for this purpose.

In order to construct a proper argument for the means of this paper, I will initiate with a brief introduction of what I mean by hate crimes, restorative justice and victim offender mediation. Through this, I will be able to highlight the key components of the same which will play important key roles, pushing towards community based response in hate crimes. However, it is also important to rationally study the limitations of such a proposal, and this will be also evaluated. A response to such critique will follow to once again emphasize the importance of community involvement, especially, in such instances of hate crimes which affect various religious and ethnic groups. Finally, with my conclusion, I will be able to assert the need for participation of the victim, offender and community in victim-offender mediation in hate crimes that have occurred and that dialogue, accountability, reintegration and educational awareness are principle in this regard.

Exploring Hate Crimes through Victim Offender Mediation: Key Concepts

For the purpose of this paper, what constitutes hate crimes are actions against the South Asian (Sikh) community which continue to occur in the name of terrorism causing individuals and groups of the Sikh faith discomfort, loss or fear through the actions of others as inflicted upon them. Volpe and Coates indicate that such prejudice crimes are biases which may be based on race, religion, ethnicity,sexual orientation or age and can lead to crimes of assault, intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, murder or rape (Volpe and Strobl 2005: 528, Coates et al. 2006: 7). However, for the purpose of this paper, only biases which occur on race, religion or ethnicity will be taken into consideration in relation to the hate crimes which are being addressed. Such crimes, according to Volpe and Strobl mounted to 480 in the year of 2001 itself, and according to CNN, only six days following 9/11 saw 133 incidents of hate crimes (Volpe and Strobl 2005: 528, CNN 2001). As Kavita Chhibber also explores in her article, the 9/11 backlash continues to effect the Sikh community even today ( Chibber 2005).

Although restorative justice has not been literally acknowledged by the Sikh community in the aftermath of 9/11, they have continued to venture a community based response in order to deal with the crimes that have occurred against members of their community. Restorative justice, according to Coates, Umbreit, Volpe and Daly, offers an alternative response through which the victim, offender and the community places all the participants in active roles and involves them fully in the healing process in order to provide a means to share the experience, obtain answers, and identify harms (Umbreit et al. 2003, Coates et al. 2006, Volpe and Strobl 2005, Daly 2002). Coates et al. additionally state that restorative justice dialogue enables the victims who desire answers to lingering questions to attain some sort of answers through dialogue with appropriate mediation (Coates et al. 2006: 15). According to Umbreit et al., the important components of victim offender mediation are the victim and the offender- the central part of the process, the community, offender accountability and appropriate social conditions (Umbreit et al. 2003: 384-385). Although persuasion exists for the constituents to participants, advocates of restorative justice tend to claim that participation in such mediation is voluntary- which is also fundamental to the mediation process (Umbreit et al. 2003, Coates et al. 2006, Volpe and Strobl 2005, Daly 2002).

Looking at Some Hate Crimes

Looking at the various hate crimes which have occurred against the Sikh community since 9/11, one would now be led to question the validity of the applicability of victim offender mediation or any other restorative justice method in dealing with the atrocities that have and continue to occur. The most prominent of hate crimes to have occurred involved the shooting of Balbir Sing Sodhi- a gas station owner in Arizona- by a man who exclaimed ‘go back to your country’ as he shot the innocent man in September 2001 (CNN 2001). In another article, Kavita Chibber indicates that Balbir had planned on raising awareness among the media, government and community about Sikhism when he was shot by Francisco Roque who exclaimed that he had intentions on killing all ‘rag head people’ (Chhibber 2005). In addition to this tragic event, Chhibber and Denise Leifker mention, in their articles, additional instances of gruesome attacks on the Sikh community members (especially male members) such as yelling out ‘suicide bomber’ to a Sikh Man, the stabbing of Iqbal Singh as he stood in his driveway with his two-year old granddaughter in his driveway and an additional killing of three Sikh cab drivers in New York by their respective passengers in 2003 (Chhibber 2005, Leifker 2006). Leifker also indicates that hate crimes have continued against Sikhs and other groups which ‘appear’ Muslim affecting members in their homes, work, schools, business and place of worship proving itself to be a persistent problem (Leifker 2006). The list of such occurrences is fairly lengthy, however, I feel it is necessary to understand the intensity of crimes which have occurred in the name of terrorism in order to be able to address a probable solution through mediation or any other variable of restorative justice.

Why Restorative Means? How Would Mediation Help?

On asking my Father (who stands as an ambassador for many Sikhs throughout the world) about the intensity of hate crimes which continue against our community and dealing with the offenders through a communitarian means, he responded by stating that, ‘what is characteristic of Sikhs- no matter where they are- is their forgiving nature.’ He continued to say that if anything, what Sikhs want to claim, is their identity as Americans, Canadians or Australians in addition to their identity as Sikhs, as distinct from identity formed by the media of ‘Muslims’ or ‘taliban’ (Singh 2008). Umbreit et al affirm that community reconciliation is at the core of restorative justice and through its members, a community is able to form stronger relations with its own members, as well as those who they wish to reintegrate by acknowledging the harm and offering forgiveness (Umbreit et al. 2003: 385). The purpose of mediation, according to Umbreit et al. is to provide a safe means for dialogue enabling a response to the harm through constructive dialogue (Umbreit et al. 2003: 386, 388). Such a process can initiate by a smaller number of people, dealing firstly, with those directly involved with the crime followed by a larger involvement of community members (Coates et al. 2006: 15). Referring to the restorative justice dialogue which took place after 9/11 in Oregon, Coates et al. continues to express that both victims and offenders are required to be present as well as their supporting community or neighborhood (ibid.). As explained by Umbreit et al., Eugene Younce called the Muslim community with a death threat and this was received by Tammam Adi who chose to deal with this through the restorative justice program; and this was also agreed to by Younce on realizing his mistake (Umbreit et al. 2003: 386-387). Through appropriate mediation and counseling, primarily the victim and the offender were able to reach an agreement to terms in order to obtain necessary ‘closure’ (Umbreit et al. 2003). This instance highlights the relevance of restorative justice, dialogue and victim offender mediation in dealing with hate crimes despite their intensity, peacefully. With appropriate mediation, this can also be seen as a step closer to peaceful reconciliation for the Sikh community (in addition to others oppressed by hate crimes and bias) to reintegrate and educate the society about themselves, their religion, ethnicity and beliefs.

Restorative Mediation: An Idealistic Hope?

The basic premise of restorative justice lies in the involvement of both the victim and the offender in addition to the community in order to fully formulate a community based response (Umbreit et al. 2003, Coates et al. 2006, Volpe and Strobl 2005, Daly 2002). However, in most of the crimes which are described against the Sikh community, the offenders have often disappeared or showed disgust or no remorse after having committed a crime. In her article, Leifker indicates that it is not uncommon for members of the Sikh community to be ridiculed in public by people passing by; as in the case of one man whose turban got torn off and a woman cut off his hair (which is, both a sacred and vital part of Sikhism) in public or young men who have assaulted Sikhs claiming they wanted to ‘kill a taliban’ (Leifker 2006). Where offenders continue to show lack of remorse for the actions and pain that they inflicted on the Sikh community members, restorative justice does not appropriate the needs of the victims. Despite their willingness to forgive, and understanding of permeating ignorance; unless the offenders stepped forward to voluntarily participate in mediation, restorative justice in any form can not be an option. An additional aspect of restorative justice addressed by a number of writers is accountability (Umbreit et al. 2003, Coates et al. 2006, Volpe and Strobl 2005, Daly 2002). This implies that the offender take responsibility for the actions that they inflicted on an individual or community in order to progress mediation for dialogue, mediation and reintegration through sanctions (Braithwaite 2007).

Braithwaite differentiates between reintegrative and disintegrative shaming by emphasizing that the former rests on re-acceptance into a law abiding community after community disapproval whereas, the latter does not involve forgiveness but conforms to labeling and rise of stereotypes (Braithwaite 2007: 55). Additionally, he claims that shaming provides a society which its ‘socialization’ aspect and forms an integral part of building of the conscience in dealing with disagreement (Braithwaite 2007: 75). If however, the offender fears that they will end up a victim of disintegrative shaming, hence avoiding public humiliation and mediation, restorative justice is not possible.

Not only the offender, but the victimized individual or group must also be willing to participate in the mediation process. Due to the fear which may persist in the victim, they may not have the courage to face the offender- even if they were to admit of their crime. And finally, the community also is requisite to restorative justice and its denial or refusal to accept the offender can also be problematic. This could also be more prominent within cases of inter-communal societies- which offer difference of opinions towards dialogue and mediation as such methods could only have possibility in effectivity within a homogenous community only (Braithwaite 2007). Moreover, especially in cases of difference of historical backdrop, racial inequality could have a profound impact on further resolution techniques that may or may not be implemented (Conners 2004: 262-263). It is important to evaluate the practices of restorative justice- whichever way they are implemented in- to ensure that they do not continue to be reflective of a hierarchal nature and adhere to values shared by the whole community (ibid).

Working with Dialogue: Making Peaceful Reconciliation through Dialogue Possible

Robert Conners proclaims that many people believe in the abilities of restorative justice to provide means through which participants can ‘heal’ by justifiably replacing the wrong-doings with appropriate responses through sanctions or dialogue with the ‘right’ (Conners 2004: 255). He also professes that it is important to acknowledge substantial differences of societal context and differences which may be a backdrop to oppression- socially, economically or politically (Conners 2004: 256). Despite the differences which may arguably weaken the structure of a community based response, Volpe and Strobl state that involvement and understanding of the importance of restorative justice has increased since 9/11 (Volpe and Strobl 2005: 533). They continue to say that, even if this may not be the case, it is an opportunity to educate the community of the importance of equal participation which can be heightened through appropriate media attention ( ibid). After a few teens burned down a Sikh temple after having mistaken it for a Muslim temple, Volpe and Strobl state that the Sikh community took a ‘restorative justice like’ response and forgave them and invited the teens to a religious Sikh ceremony after which one of the girls, Hudson, helped in the rebuilding of the temple (Volpe and Strobl 2005: 532). Through such mistaken identity and ignorance, what continues to be at loss and at stake, are the lives and security of not only Sikhs, but other community members who conform to the image of ‘terrorist’ formed by the media.

In response to other criticism against restorative justice as a suitable revenue against hate crimes, in most of the incidents explained in the articles, the offenders have come forth with the crimes that they committed. In such a case, it is likely that they would be willing to consider mediated dialogue in order to resolute misunderstandings, the crime itself and the fear created in the society. Just as other restorative processes which have been effective, due to the seriousness of the issue, communities, victims and offenders would be more willing to resolve it through another means. Kathleen Daly mentions the differences between restorative and retributive justice to indicate the state’s central role in courts in contrast to the community’s direct involvement in the restorative sanctioning (Daly 2002). Through an awareness of the importance of community and participant involvement, and adequate mediation, restorative justice could provide an alternate means for- if not ‘justice’ (which stands as a relative term) then- psychological peace or stability after atrocities invigorated by hate occur. Kavita Chibber raises a very important point, quoting another Sikh, ‘..the Sikhs must stand up and fight for themselves, because now the difference between speaking up and staying silent’ affects lives (Chibber 2005).

Concluding Remarks

Chhibber claims that about 300,000 Indian Sikhs live in the United States and about 150, 000 reside in Canada (Chhibber 2005). With these numbers, the last quote from her article seems to hold more weight. Being Indian, and being Sikh, hate crimes affect my life, and threaten not only my security, but the security of my family, my friends and the larger community to which I belong. To see Sikhs beginning to be ashamed of where they come from, and Sikh men shaving their beards and conforming to ‘western’ life for the sake of inclusion is unfair and unnecessary. Both Liefker and Chhibber as well as friends and family of my own have expressed lack of confidence and increased fear to go out in public as Sikhs (Chhibber 2005, Leifker 2006).

With temples being burned down and innocent lives being lost for the sake of ignorance is not something any community is willing to live with. Although the focus of this paper is Sikhs, racial profiling affects many more communities throughout the world. Although idealistic, through restorative means, which enable active involvement and community based dialogue, awareness is possible. It is important to address racial profiling, through such means, in addition to retributive sanctioning, as it enables communities that live innocent lives, causing no harm to others- the power to educate, the authority to inform and the willingness to be and live as who they are.

Through victim-offender mediation, accountability and sanctioning through the community and the victim itself, re-integration is possible. Another important characteristic which embodies restorative justice is psychological resolution. As a result of mediation, both victims and offenders can gain an understanding of the other’s perspective. This is especially important for the victims in cases of heightened fear of the oppressor.

Feeble attempts made to inculcate sense of security among the minorities and marginalized groups by promulgating laws to protect the interests and provide equity has not had encouraging results. What we need is awareness and respect for each other, as pieces of legislations have provided more weight on paper than theory. Knowing, understanding and respecting each other can do much better than turning to courts for passive participation that provide little security for the self and psychological relief from fear. The band aid solution is not necessarily the best- especially as imposed through retributive justice process and therefore a consideration of restorative means would be apt.

Works Cited

Umbreit, Mark S, Ted Lewis and Heather Burns. “A Community Response to a 9/11 Hate Crime: Restorative Justice through Dialogue.” Contemporary Justice Review 6 (2003): 383-391.

Coates, Robert B., Mark S. Umbreit and Betty Vos. ” Responding to Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice Dialogue.” Contemporary Justice Review 9 (2006): 7-21.

Volpe, Maria R., and Staci Strobl. “Restorative Justice Responses to Post- September 11 Hate Crimes: Potential and Challenges.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22 (2005): 527-535.

Daly, Kathleen. “Restorative Justice” Punishment and Society 4 ( 2002): 55-79.

Braithwaite, John. Crime Shame and Reintegration (United States of America: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Leifker, Denise. “Investigation Anti-Sikh Discrimination in a Post 9/11 World.” Sikh Spectrum.com Quarterly Issue No. 26 (Novermber 2006), http://www.sikhspectrum.com/ 112006/denise.htm

Chhibber, Kavita. “The Sikhs: In the Shadows of 9/11.” Little India (April 5, 2005), http:// www.littleindia.com/print.php?a=1434

“Hate Crime Reports up in Wake of Terrorist Attacks.” CNN, September 17, 2001, http:// archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/