City Council Speaker Julie Menin and Councilmember Dr. Yusef Salaam combined forces in a “combat hate” hearing at City Hall, focusing on protecting access to houses of worship and schools across the city. However, most of those testifying were passionately at odds over the proposed bills.
A concern exists about protests and counterprotests near houses of worship and private religious schools based on hate crimes and attacks that have taken place. However, a deep divide arose during the intense, almost 10-hour hearing, especially among Jewish and Palestinian New Yorkers who testified. Many supported the bills in the name of public safety and religious freedom, while just as many were against the bills in the name of protecting constitutional rights, such as the right to peacefully assemble and freedom of speech.
“This package of bills is designed to benefit all communities across New York City,” said Menin. “Our city’s tapestry is woven of many religious spaces, backgrounds, races, creeds, ethnicities, languages, and viewpoints.”
“I have personally experienced the devastating impacts of hate, sentenced for a crime I didn’t commit simply because of the color of my skin. There was even a call for my death,” said Salaam, who chairs the newly formed Committee to Combat Hate in the city council and is a devout Muslim. “Racism is very, very real.”
Salaam added that in the past 10 years, reports of hate crimes have more than doubled in the U.S., New York state, and in the city. This includes notable rises in anti-Semitism, anti-Black hatred, anti-Muslim hatred, anti-LGBTQ+, and other gender-based violence.
The hearing reviewed and heard testimony on seven bills, building on Menin’s proposed Five-Point Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism.
Some of the components of the plan would require things like “an NYPD response” plan that restricts movement or protests around houses of worship, and “buffer zones” near entrances and exits; information distributed to students about social media and online hate; and another requirement that the NYPD report on the status of hate crimes. These are just a few of the multiple proposals in the plan.
“I don’t feel that we should have to legislate this, but our spiritual well-being is at stake,” said Councilmember Darlene Mealy, who said she identifies as Christian.
“Black churches in this country have been on the receiving end of violent, racist attacks since we’ve been here,” said Councilmember Crystal Hudson. “Despite this history of violence, Black churches, broadly speaking, are not asking for this legislation. In fact, Black churches often serve as places of refuge for the communities that have exerted their First Amendment rights in the face of the very racism and anti-Blackness that have killed so many.”
Concerns from Black and Brown New Yorkers centered around potentially fraught interactions with an increased police presence, the proposed bill’s effectiveness in terms of public safety, and criminalizing protestors within the city. They pushed back against the NYPD response plans around restricting protests around churches, and for the same around schools, in particular. Menin said that the concerns about the two proposals are “misconceptions” and that the bills are pro-First Amendment. Those in direct opposition to the bills were also concerned that the legislation would target anti-ICE organizers and demonstrators.
In 2020, there was a rash of civil disobedience and demonstrations globally following the police-killing of George Floyd in Minnesota. During that time, the city and several NYPD officials, as well as several individual officers, were sued for the “brutalizing of peaceful protesters,” according to the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the Legal Aid Society. They reached a settlement totalling $500,000 in 2024.
“I think there’s a broad consensus in this council, and certainly for myself. We understand and are concerned about rising hate and the fear that people legitimately feel walking into different spaces,” said Councilmember Tiffany Cabán in the hearing. “Some of our concern here is that we want to make sure that we’re doing this effectively and not impeding constitutional rights.”