Raunaq Alam, a 32-year-old activist, faces a jury trial in North Texas this September over allegations of spray-painting “Fuck Israel” on a non-denominational church in Euless. Alam was originally facing a misdemeanor charge. Prosecutors increased the stakes by later seeking to raise the charges to felony-level, including under a hate-crime statute that would result in a maximum 10-year prison sentence.
The case has received significant public interest. Its chilling effect on free speech and the ability to engage in activism related to international affairs has kicked off a robust debate. Alam’s lawyer, Adwoa Asante, moved to quash the hate-crime enhancement. She contends that this broadening protection invites critical consideration of where the limits of protected speech should be drawn. “Nowhere in the statute does it cite governmental entities such as states as part of protected persons or group,” Asante stated.
Adding to Alam’s predicament is his history of previous interactions with law enforcement. Since that time he has remained behind bars as the case against him continued to change and develop. His previous activism has focused on human rights abuses, especially against the Palestinian people. Alam has claimed that anyone familiar with him would attest he is not a hateful person.
“I’ve always spoken out in favor of people that are oppressed,” – Raunaq Alam.
Alam emphasizes the need to focus on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where he claims tens of thousands have died due to Israeli military actions. He insists that his message was intended for the Israeli government – not the people of Israel.
Adwoa Asante has written about the dangerous precedent hate-crime laws set in this situation and beyond. “If citizens and persons within the United States are allowed to say and express ‘Fuck America’, why would the condemnation of a foreign country garner more enhanced prosecution from the state of Texas?” she questioned.
The prosecution, headed by Lloyd Whelchel, normally tries the big cases like the capital murders and other infamous felonies. Asante sees this unfurling trajectory of Alam’s case as indicative of an increasing trend to silence dissenting opinions on international matters. This is particularly the case when it comes to issues related to Palestine.
“It’s simply a matter of how far the government is going to silence and to repress anybody that opposes the genocide of Palestinians,” – Adwoa Asante.
Alam’s case sparked debate on what constitutes a hate crime, and whether our hate-crime statutes are being enforced as intended. Intersectional activist Yasmin Nair, who delivered one of the most electrifying talks, said this. She pointed out how these laws have been used to stifle criticism of Israeli policies. “The notion of a hate crime has been fitted over these very expansive definitions of antisemitism,” she stated.
During her opening remarks, Nair noted that when people criticize what’s happening in Gaza it has more frequently been deemed as antisemitic. Now, hate-crime laws are used for completely different purposes. This agenda goes well beyond our domestic agenda, though,” she continued.
Alam’s trial would address some much larger questions regarding individual accountability. More importantly, it opens up larger conversations about free expression itself and the limits of the law in today’s society. Jon Rosenthal, another commentator on the case, pointed out that it is not a given that Jewish communities support the prosecution’s heavy-handed approach.
“It may surprise some of you to learn that Jewish communities do not uniformly support this bill,” – Jon Rosenthal.
Rosenthal called on Congress to address religious harm and persecution in an indiscriminate manner. His advice was to draft legislation that covers the spectrum of religious persecution, not just one particular faith.
Activists such as Afsheen Khan are sounding the alarm. Or perhaps they’re concerned about the increasing risks for journalists and activists who speak out against what they see as injustices.
“Journalists and people that are standing up [to genocide], they are for sure being targeted, especially those who look like me,” – Afsheen Khan.
This trial comes amidst a larger environment of increased scrutiny under the guise of free speech when it comes to criticism of international militaristic and colonial politics. Alam has long insisted that his activism comes from a desire to empathize with those under duress, to interrogate those injustices.
“I have so much love and compassion for people, and that’s the main reason why I’m so outspoken,” – Raunaq Alam.
As Alam awaits his jury trial, community members and activists across the country are watching intently as this case unfolds. Depending on the court’s decision, it could create an important precedent about how free speech and activist speech factor into Texas’s hate-crime law.