AUGUSTA, Maine — A Lewiston man was harassed out of his home by another tenant last spring because he is Jewish, the Maine Human Rights Commission found Monday.
Bruce Brown, now of Lewiston, said a tenant in the Saco apartment building he lived in drove him out of his home by painting swastikas on his car, purposely setting off fire alarms “hundreds of times,” shutting off heat and water to the apartments “at least 20 times” and by throwing loud parties — all because of Brown’s religion.
Members of the Maine Human Rights Commission voted unanimously that Joshua Boucher of Saco did create a hostile environment that forced Brown to leave.
Boucher denied painting swastikas on Brown’s car.
“There is no evidence anyone saw Mr. Boucher put any swastikas on the vehicle. The only basis for it is essentially my client lived there and was angry because Mr. Brown had called the police when [Boucher] smoked pot,” said Boucher’s attorney, Paul Aranson.
The Human Rights Commission’s investigator wrote that Boucher likely did paint the anti-Semitic symbols on Brown’s car and therefore discriminated against him.
Paul Vestal, chairman of the commission, asked, however, whether there was a possibility that Brown tried to set up Boucher.
“This case is really difficult because, in my view, what’s to say Mr. Brown didn’t put the swastikas on his own car? He’s been living there for a couple years and he was getting tired of the noise and the parties and people using drugs and he starts telling the cops that these swastikas start appearing,” Vestal said.
“I don’t think Mr. Brown did that,” the commissioner’s investigator Barbara Lelli said at the meeting Monday. “It’s hard for me to believe that someone Jewish would paint a swastika to hide behind it and pin it on someone else. Why not key the car?”
Lelli also said that in the course of her investigation, Boucher changed his story about the swastikas, first saying he didn’t do it and didn’t know who did, but later saying he did know who did it — pinning the crime on other tenants in the building.
Vestal also wondered why Brown and Boucher lived peacefully with each other for more than a year before the harassment started. Lelli said the harassment started shortly after Brown started calling the police on Boucher when he thought Boucher was smoking marijuana and crack cocaine.
“That triggered anger on Joshua Boucher’s part, which led to an anti-Semitic response,” Lelli said Monday.
Boucher’s attorney also questioned whether Boucher was even subject to the Maine Human Rights Act because he wasn’t the landlord, just a tenant.
According to Lelli, Boucher did violate the law by interfering with Brown’s “civil right to live in housing free of religious discrimination” which she said is not limited to landlords. The final vote was 5-0 that Boucher discriminated against Brown.
Brown filed a second complaint with the commission because Boucher’s father, Ronald Boucher, owned the building and was his landlord. Brown said Ronald Boucher also discriminated against him, but the commission in a 5-0 vote found no reasonable grounds for that allegation. According to the commission’s investigator, it’s not clear that Ronald Boucher knew what was going on.
In such cases, both parties are encouraged to reconcile and reach a settlement. If conciliation fails, the complainant may file a civil lawsuit in Maine Superior Court, where a binding settlement can include monetary damages.
I
would say if the younger Boucher had access to shut off the heat and electric,
he had some level of responsibility as an agent for the landlord(his father)
and would in fact make the landlord guilty of discrimination as well.
Mr. Brown needs to be compensated…Enough is Enough!! PERIOD!!
A 5-0 vote shows that we have 5 people who really don’t understand our rights very well at all. They had nothing to go on except unsubstantiated allegations. This would go nowhere at all in a civil lawsuit or criminal case. This case was nothing but a waste of time and money. I’m not prejudiced and I abhor some of the ignorant bigots I know of in my own community. Believe me, I would not hesitate to help somebody make a case against them. I would gladly testify about anything I witness. I would give good advice to victims so that they will be able to prove their case. Mr. Boucher might be a bigot but I still believe in rule of law and the bill of rights.
Mr. NotBunyan, since you have a crystal clear notion of what went on, can you fill in the missing parts that the article left out? It appears you have examined all the evidence, since a rational mind would not state in unequivocal terms that this was a waste of time and money based on a news report of a couple of hundred words.
Can you, the all knowing, see where in the article it said that any evidence linking the accused to the crime? If there had been any evidence it should have been at least alluded to.
The only mention of evidence is the lawyer’s statement that there is none.
And you would expect the lawyer for the defense to say something different?
I think it’s all about you trying to show off and the HRC trying to get publicity. This story is about Mr. Brown. If these things really happened to him he deservers compensation. The problem is that it appears he does not have the proof he needs to win that compensation. So the HRC is using him badly. It would be nice to give him advice (in private) so he’s better prepared if it happens again. Putting him on the gong show is just not right. If there had been good evidence presented, you could count on BDN to tell us all about it. What you read here is the best the reporter could find no matter how deep they dug.
I think it is all about you saying you know everything that was said and shown and therefore you have the only right opinion. Rather, you should hold judgement on how the case went.
At least my comments express the fact that I care about Mr. Brown and I’m opposed to bigotry. Yours don’t.
Ah, grasshopper, since it is you who is all knowing, please tell why you say it is all a waste of time. you did not attend the hearings? Did you read any transcripts? With only what you read in the paper as your base, you have pronounced it a waste of time and money.
I never voiced the opiniom that this was a waste of time or money. But … any reporter that neglects to inform the reader of pertinant information that was given during the hearings has failed in the job of reportimg.
It’s ironic that in 2012 a man of French decent doesn’t even know that his ancestors faced some of the same treatment/discrimination right here in Maine. History class is a waste of time-right?
those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
In the 1920’s, Maine had the largest contingent of Ku Klux Klan outside of the South. French-Catholics were the targets…there are photos online of massive KKK rallies in Lewiston, Milo, and many other towns in Maine.
April, they’re still here. Maybe hiding their bedsheet’s in the closet and hiding their action’s behind their lawyer’s but they’re still here. Who do you think is driving the ‘voter registration and ID issue’ so hard ? Go back and see the parallel to now and the voting criteria back in the late 50’s and early 60’s before the Voting Rights Act was made law in 1965. Some people just can’t let go off the past.
I think you give him too much credit and besides voting has nothing to do with this case.
I remember the poll tax, designed to keep the poor(read black) people from voting. But that can’t be compared to voter ID. That’s just silly…
You will have a lot of people disagree with you. Across the country, the Voter ID effort served no purpose other than to limit access to the polls. There is not enough voter fraud to justify it. It was a solution looking for a problem. The people of Maine overturned the the Voter ID law initiated by the ultra-conservatives. Few groups yammer on more about the evils of government intrusion while insisting on it when the issue best serves them.
How the frick can that disable voters when you can’t even cash a BLOODY check w/o one??? How does common sense bank’s protections of their client’s need for protection compare to voter’s right to vote?? The same Damned thing!! Everybody needs an ID for EVERYTHING!!! It may be a conservative (safety) thing, but most certainly is NOT ‘ultra”. SHEESE!
Get real, Chuck! Where is the real harm?
What about elderly individuals who no longer drives and therefore no longer require a drivers license. They may be house bound yet still deserve the opportunity to exercise the fundamental right to vote. These recent attempts to enact new voter ID laws clearly disadvantages those individuals.
If they are THAT housebound, then they wouldn’t be voting. Like I said, they are an EXTREME minority….
Can you say absentee ballot?
Because voting is not related to finances or anything for which there is a risk of loss. People are forever confusing “risk” with “rights.” Without an ID, financial loss may occur when cashing a check, using a credit-card, buying a car, or in some way misrepresenting yourself as someone else. For these types of transactions, it is important to know who you are.
In the case of voting, the person, most of the time, is already registered to vote. The likelihood of someone coming to your regular polling station, using your name, and voting in your place, is close to zero. Voter fraud, when such fraud rarely occurs, usually consists of one person voting at two polling stations, usually in different states (the whole out-of-state student issue), but that is extremely rare. In other countries, voter fraud is an issue but that is not because of individual voters but instead is the result of the voting officials “stuffing” the ballot boxes. It has nothing to do with individual voters.
The right to vote is so fundamental in our Constitution it must not be infringed. It is better to have a couple of errors in voting than to deny a person his right to vote. If voter fraud were widespread I would say there is an argument for it, but it is not. Then, you must ask yourself why is this such a big deal with the ultra-conservative crowd? Why would they care about the potential for an occasional fraudulent vote (which is well within the margin of error expected on any vote counting)? It makes no sense until you start looking at demographics.
Young people, first time voters, minorities, elderly, and low-income people tend to vote on the liberal side. They also are less likely to have an ID as compared to older, more conservative voters. With an upcoming election to re-elect a Democratic president, pass Marriage Equality, and continue with this perceived “liberal” movement, one could surmise there is an effort to keep these people from voting.
Now, I happen to agree with you that most people have some form of ID. But, to require that ID to be allowed to vote runs the risk of disenfranchising a segment of voters. That risk is not worth the risk of fraud.
Let me briefly touch on margin of error. In 2000 when Bush-43 and Gore were within a few votes of each other in FL, many of us in the IT field cringed when we saw the pre-perfed punch-card voting. Back in the ’70’s when I was in school, we learned never to use these as they are fraught with errors. Chads fall off all the time. You could not run a deck of cards through the readers 5 times and get the same answer. The acceptable margin of error on these cards probably is in the 2% to 5% range (industry standard) but generally evenly distributed. Most elections are won by far bigger margins. In the Bush-Gore contest, the difference in votes was well under 1%. Therefore, the machines could have counted the cards 100 times but never would have resolved the problem. The Bush-Gore difference fell well within the margin of error.
A report on this: http://www.notablesoftware.com/Press/dixon.html
My point in mentioning this is that all elections have a “margin of error.” They just do. The incidence of fraud is well below any of the margins of error so with or without IDs to capture any fraud, the impact of the fraud on the results will not be noticeable.
As I said before, this effort in Maine to kill same day registration was a “solution looking for a problem.” The only purpose it served was to limit voting by certain segments of society. That is not worth the risk of denying the right of a citizen to vote. The people of Maine saw through this scam and restored same-day voter registration.
I think it also speaks volumes that a group would sink to this level to influence an election.
Just a bit verbose, perhaps?
All I said was that the poll tax doesn’t compare to a voter ID. Everybody has an ID! The police prefer it. Anyone that does not have one is in such a small minority as to not be discussed in this idealistic ‘discussion’.
Alas, yes. Why say something in 25 words when 2500 will do? It is the curse of being an opinionated touch-typist.
We’ll meet for a beer at Bertha’s (and perhaps some mussels). We can be as verbose as we want! I have a home 4 doors down. :)
Perhaps the next time I am up. I am from Maine but live in DC – still have the old family farm up there.
Bertha’s mussels is in Fells Point, Baltimore. You must’ve seen the green bumper stickers. They used to be ubiquitous :) (I now live in greater Boston)
I trust the Republicans to run my elections. See how well Mitt did in MI. When they made the rules on Feb.5, they decided the winner in each congressional district would get one delegate, and the rest would be divided proportionally. After the election, they awarded both extra delegates to Mitt, saying they had made a mistake on Feb5, and the new rule was that Mitt was supposed to win.
Of course in ME, they just went ahead and pronounced Mitt the winner even though Aroostook and Washington counties had not even voted. Yup, you can trust the Republicans to make your election rules. NOT!
If it is required for one to need a drivers license or a state ID in order to vote, it is equal to a poll tax, because you have to pay for both of those items.
Really, seriously, who doesn’t have one? NO ONE, unless you’re looking at the EXTREME minority. Even people on welfare has/needs one!
So, it’s ok to exclude the minority from voting? Another state had it thrown out due to exactly what I said. Now, if they came up with a specific voting ID, that was free, it’s a different situation. How ever, it would be very costly for states to do that.
Milly, get real.What minority? It’s not a phone tap! You are going off to the world of idealism which doesn’t apply to the real world.
How much does it cost, who doesn’t have one already, and what is the HARM anyway??
because you would be excluding people from voting, that’s the harm. How about some of the elderly who still vote, but never had a birth certificate, as those are now required to have just to get a DL,( I don’t know if you need one for a state ID)? You are wrong on this issue. It took my brother, who isn’t even elderly a year to get a copy of his BC. The hospital he was born in had been sold a few times, and the records were buried. Sorry, but even the justice system disagrees with you.
People of MOST any age have already established their identity. You are still in the ‘what if’ mode and your one example of a problem with a BC is rare. Admit it.
The biggest rally was in Portland of about 3000. Maine had a KK newspaper called “The Maine Klansman” the gov Brewester ( the gov ) was supported by them. US jews need to remember so does everyone else.
Where’s the proof of any wrong doing? What waste of time.
I wonder how the alleged perpetrator of the swastikas knew that Mr. Brown was Jewish. Brown is not a common surname for a Jewish person.
Maybe from observing that he honored the Sabbath on Saturday. That may have been a hint.
Or a Seventh Day Adventist?
I read this article and then went and prepared supper.
I’ve come to the conclusion that this man was harrassed because he was a snitch and not because he was Jewish.
Jews have to be very careful about crying wolf over something like this. Because when the real wolf shows up at the door, nobody is going to take you seriously.
x
Do Christian people also have to be careful, or just Jewish people?
So he was harassed for being a snitch. If a Methodist is accused of being a snitch, are swastikas painted on his/her car? Probably not. But if you are Jewish, that sign appears.
It’s called pushing buttons. They knew what would get under his skin.
But if this was a matter of hate crimes, why was the first year peaceful? Had that been the motive, they would have done it soon after he moved in. It doesn’t wash.
x
That is just silly, of course a Methodist would have little fear of a swastika. NAZIs did not target them. I suspect that if the Methodist was the snitch, some other symbol would be used.
From reading the article the the evidence was circumstantial at best but as usual the commision has made a decision that was based on feelings not fact.
After all there has never been a trumped up charge of harassment in the past.
Doesn’t matter. The perps used his religion to harass him. That’s enough.
WOW XeXnon you should read some history. We ( the Jew’s) did cry out we screamed when Hitler was just a voiced nobody listened. We piled onto any ship with room leaving but the USA would not let us in. If this person painted a SWASTIKA on the mans car it was because he is a jew NOT because he did his civic duty and called the police when he noticed the law being broken.
I’m quite well versed in history. Like how the zionists collaborated with the nazis in WWII to target their own kind. The same zionists went on to found the racist, apartheid country we know today as modern Israel. So if you’re going to discuss history with me, you should put your cup on now.
Snitches are not welcome among drug users. We all know this is true. The man could have been Amish and still suffered the same intimidation and threats. But because he was Jewish, they used swastikas as leverage. Unless they have a demonstrated history of Jewish hatred, this is just the product of immature minds making some very poor decisions rather than actual hate because he’s Jewish.
x
Snitching? What is this, some inner-city ghetto? I wish we had more “snitches” out there. They used to be called citizens reporting crimes. Personally, I couldn’t care less if some guy is toking and smoking in his apartment unless the smoke is stinking up my place. But, “snitching?” We need to move away from this idiotic idea that reporting crime is “siding with the MAN.” Really. Just grow up.
Your true colors are showing. And they’re ugly.
You know nothing of my colors, but allow me to give you some insight.
I grew up in Alabama. Saw the civil rights movement firsthand. I remember well the whites only drinking fountains and all the rest. Even the town clinic had a side entrance for “colored” people.
I didn’t like racism then and I have no tolerance for it today. I have always treated everyone as an equal to myself.
So, back to the topic. It’s my view this man was harrassed NOT because he was Jewish, but because he snitched on a drug user. Based upon what is published here, the evidence just doesn’t support anything different.
Had he been gay, he would have been belittled in the same method. He would hear things like fag or queer or had his car painted pink. Were he a Muslim, towelhead or had a Koran burned on his doorstep. But because he was Jewish, they did the things to him that would offend Jews.
It still doesn’t prove he was targeted BECAUSE he was Jewish. And the year of living peaceably amplifies my point.
x
I agree that IF the person painted the swastika, it was done because the victim is a Jew, but there was no evidence that the accused did the deed.
I hope he sues, then proof will be brought to bear and the speculation can stop.
“The Human Rights Commission’s investigator wrote that Boucher likely did
paint the anti-Semitic symbols on Brown’s car and therefore
discriminated against him.”
Use of the word “likely” without supporting evidence is not proof. If Brown claims he saw Boucher painting swastikas or shutting off utilities, it’s not in this story. So all we have here is that Brown “suspects” Boucher is the culprit and some “investigator” says it’s “likely”.
The word ‘likely’ is used when the preponderance of evidence points to it being true. Since I don’t have all the evidence, I won’t speculate on how likely it is that he did or did not harass the victim.
If there is any evidence here the “investigator” and the reporter should have at least alluded to it. Since there was not even a mention of evidence, just personal opinion, I assume that there is no evidence.
There is no mention of evidence so it’s “likely” there is none.
Boucher’s lawyer is Jewish, and that is tactically a really good move on his part. Paul Vestal is the former warder of the Maine State Prison, and he’s use to hearing truth and lies from criminals. The name Brown, is common among Jews and is a simple translation from Braun (German). Is the case solid? Well, it seems weak but likely based on ignorance going both ways. I would have a hard time making a just decision on this one.
http://ygn.me/quN8bj8
I am not sure what you were attempting to say, but the link leads to a shopping site.
Maine Human Rights Commission has to find discrimination to validate their existence!
There will never be an end to discrimination as long as there are people whose jobs depend on it.
There also will never be an end to discrimination as long as we still have ignorant, knuckle dragging, half breed twits walking around.
Can we say “intolerance” and “bigotry” about your comment?
That doesn’t even make sense. Like, there will never be an end to crime so long as there are police forces?
In the end this Commission’s findings mean nothing. They can’t assign a monetary judgement or any legal finding of guilt.
You appear to be one of the few people making comments here that understands the power of the commission. It only paves the way for court if the parties can’t settle. Without it, a large number of these cases would clogg our courts. Mr. Brown may or may not go further.
OOPS
People generally don’t commit a crime against someone because they love them (excuses from domestic batterers not withstanding). Every crime is a hate crime. This young man harrassed his neighbor. Period. It doesn’t make any difference that he used a swaztika, it could have been pink and purple flowers, the intent was to harrass. Take the brat and the landlord (his father?) to court for the harrassment and be done with it.
While there are people who would seek to do actual harm to people of different faiths, races, gender identifications or sexual preferences this does not seem to be one of those cases.
No,not every crime is a hate crime. If I was to break into someone’s home, that I don’t know and steal stuff, itwould not be a hate crime. It would be an economic crime.
If I was to get into a fight at a bar, it would not be a hate crime. It would be a violent crime of anger, not hate.
If I sell drugs, it is not a hate crime. If I steal money from your bank account it is not a hate crime. It my not even be a hate crime if I kill someone, depending on the reason. It could be for monetary gain, revenge or just for kicks. Even rape is not usually a hate crime, it is one of power and control.
So, no, not all crimes are hate crimes.
Sounds like there may be two sides to this story. Have we had both fairly reported here by BDN editors?