Granting permission to a religious student group to use university facilities under the same conditions as other student groups does not violate United States regulations. In FREEDOM OF RELIGION, EXPRESSION, PRESS, DENIAL OF PRISONERS' REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY ORDER IN RELATION TO INMATES' PRAYER OBJECTS, IN WHICH INMATES ARGUED THAT THE DEPRIVATION OF PRAYER OBJECTS VIOLATED PRISONERS' RIGHTS TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES, an inmate failed to exhaust available administrative remedies in connection with the destruction of the prayer object and, although the prisoner had exhausted administrative remedies, he had not demonstrated that the prisoner could suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary court order. The other prisoner, among other things, was unlikely to prevail on the merits of the demand for free exercise because the rules and policies in question were reasonably related to a legitimate criminal interest. The regulations satisfied the least strict, valid and rational connection with a factor of legitimate government interest, and the prisoner had alternative means to exercise the prisoner's right to practice the prisoner's religion. The administrative rules relating to entry to the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve did not unconstitutionally hinder the defendants' right to practice their religion. When the union's retaliatory demands served as the basis for both a lawsuit for prohibited practice and for lawsuits under the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act and the freedom of expression clause of this section, the intermediate appellate court correctly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to retaliation lawsuits.
Under both the First Amendment and this section, there is a qualified public right of access to the transcript of a closed proceeding, once the overriding interests that advocated the closing of the proceeding are no longer viable; the same procedural and substantive protections must also be observed that a court considering closing a judicial proceeding in which the public has a possible qualified right of public access should be observed if a court is considering denying access to the transcript of the closed procedure. The qualified right of access to criminal trials under this section is not extinguished by the mere need to conduct a mid-trial examination of jury members to investigate possible jury misconduct; however, the defendant's right (Article I, § 14) to a fair trial is a primary interest that may require such a trial to be held behind closed doors. The hearing should be held behind closed doors only if specific conclusions are reached that demonstrate that, first, there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be impaired by the publicity that the closure would prevent and, second, that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's rights to a fair trial. This section provides citizens with a qualified right of access to observe judicial proceedings in criminal trials. When the circuit court conducted five different court proceedings that were not open to the public and sealed off their transcript until approximately six months after declaring it void, they failed to properly protect citizens' qualified right of access as they did not observe necessary procedural and substantive measures. Furthermore, they continued denying access even after potential risks associated with closure had passed. The Honolulu Police Department will safeguard the constitutional rights of all citizens regardless of race, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation.
This policy provides general guidelines for staff members so they can identify and deal with crimes motivated by prejudice towards any person's real or perceived race, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity or expression or sexual orientation. It also defines appropriate measures for victims and suspects. Derogatory words or epithets directed against members of protected classes are prohibited unless accompanied by an imminent threat with capacity for carrying it out. When determining if a crime is a hate crime there are several characteristics that must be taken into account. These characteristics are not strict criteria; it is not necessary for certain key characteristics or certain number of characteristics to be present for it to be considered as such. These include: Drawings, marks or graffiti related to prejudice left at crime scene; Certain objects or items indicating bias used; Victim is member of racial/religious/disabled/ethnic/national origin/gender identity/expression/sexual orientation group overwhelmingly outnumbered by other residents in neighborhood where incident took place; Victim visiting neighborhood where hate crimes previously committed against their group; Several incidents occurred at same location/time; All victims same race/religion/disability/ethnicity/national origin/gender identity/expression/sexual orientation; Substantial part community perceives incident motivated by prejudice; Victim participated in activities promoting their race/religion/disability/ethnicity/national origin/gender identity/expression/sexual orientation; Incident coincided with holiday or date important related to race/religion/disability/ethnicity/national origin/gender identity/expression/sexual orientation; Offender previously involved in similar hate crime or member of hate group; Signs hate group involved; Historically established animosity between victim & offender groups. Hawaii has taken steps towards protecting its citizens from hate speech based on religion by providing clear guidelines for identifying such crimes and providing victims with appropriate measures for dealing with them.
This ensures that all citizens are able to exercise their constitutional rights without fear of discrimination or persecution based on their religious beliefs.