Woman who pepper-sprayed Muslim Uber driver pleads guilty to aggravated harassment
A New York woman who pepper-sprayed her Muslim Uber driver has pleaded guilty to aggravated harassment, according to court documents seen by The National. "[Jennifer] Guilbeault has several programmes to complete as well as 100 hours of community service," read an email from the New York Supreme Criminal Court. Court documents alleged that in July last year, Guilbeault, 23, pepper-sprayed Uber driver Shohel Mahmud, 45, as he began to pray in Arabic at a red light. Guilbeault was seated in the back with another passenger. 'Ms Guilbeault lunged forward, towards the driver's seat,' the district attorney said at the time. Video obtained by local news outlet ABC7 showed that she then sprayed Mr Mahmud in the face. Mr Mahmud can be seen shouting in pain, and shortly after Guilbeault can be seen and heard saying to the other passenger: 'Get him out.' In the video, the other passenger appears shocked and repeatedly asks Guilbeault what she is doing. When describing the attack to ABC7, Mr Shohel said that he 'was kind of hanging out of the car' and that his seat belt prevented him from escaping initially. 'I closed my eyes and finally got out, but realised my car was running so I put it in park again and got out,' he said. Guilbeault was initially charged with hate crimes. 'Everyone is welcome to live and work in Manhattan, and our hate crimes unit will continue to address bias-motivated attacks by thoroughly investigating and prosecuting cases, conducting community outreach, and supporting victims,' said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg when charges were first announced in October. Guilbeault's lawyer, Michael Alber, has not yet responded to The National's requests for comment on her guilty plea. In October, he said his client had not been "motivated by race, religion, national origin or any other discriminatory factor" in the incident. "This case needs to be looked at with all surrounding circumstances, which include assessing all of the evidence and lack of evidence," he added. "We look forward to working with the District Attorney's office to fully vet all of the facts in the proper forum, which does not embellish or exaggerate the claims, especially where the integrity and credibility of claims can properly be tested. "A full and fair review of the evidence is going to show a crime was not committed in this matter, and that a rush to judgment is not appropriate, and is hurtful to all those involved." Hate crimes generally concern specifically attacking someone due to bias-motivation based on ethnicity, religion, gender or disability. Hate crimes have strong potential to resulting in more severe penalties, but can often be more difficult to prove.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
At least 34 killed in Israeli strikes on second day of Eid al-Adha
Israeli air strikes have killed at least 34 Palestinians in Gaza this morning, Al Jazeera reports. It marks the second consecutive day of attacks during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha. On Sunday, at least 42 Palestinians were killed in Israeli strikes, medical sources told Al Jazeera,
The National
a day ago
- The National
Aftermath of Israeli air strike revealed after Beirut building reduced to rubble
The National reports from the scene of an overnight air strike on the Lebanese capital
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
'We don't want them': Trump issues latest iteration of controversial travel ban
US President Donald Trump instituted a long-anticipated travel ban on Thursday, prohibiting US entry to citizens from 12 countries and restricting the entry of citizens from seven others. Trump's proclamation 'fully' restricts nationals from largely African and Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Myanmar from entering the US. It also partially restricts nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. In a video he released on social media on Thursday, Trump said the Colorado attack had 'underscored the extreme dangers posed by foreign nationals who are not properly vetted'. The suspect in the attack is alleged to be an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa and previously lived in Kuwait. Rumors had been circulating for months about what countries would be on the list after Trump signed an executive order on 20 January and gave the US State Department 60 days to identify countries for which 'vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries'. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters According to the Trump administration, the ban is designed to 'protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes'. How does the ban work? The order goes into effect at midnight on 9 June, and both the full and partial bans apply to foreign nationals from the designated countries who are outside the country on 9 June and do not have a valid visa as of that day. The proclamation outlines that no visas issued before that date will be revoked. Citizens from countries facing a complete ban will not be issued any non-immigrant or immigrant visas. Countries facing a partial restriction will see the suspension of entry of all immigrants and the following temporary visas: B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas. The order has made room for exceptions including the following: any lawful permanent resident of the United States; dual nationals; diplomats travelling on valid non-immigrant visas; athletes or members of an athletic team and immediate relatives; travelling for the World Cup, the Olympics or other major sporting event; immediate family immigrant visas; adoptions; Afghan special immigrant visas; special immigrant visas for United States government employees; immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran. 'Unecessary and ideologically motivated' Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Muslim civil rights organisation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement released on Wednesday that Trump's new travel ban 'is overbroad, unnecessary and ideologically motivated'. 'Are they troublemakers?': Trump questions why Harvard has so many international students Read More » He criticised the targeting of mostly Muslim and African nations and said it raised 'the specter of more vague free speech restrictions'. "Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer." He added that the screening tests being undertaken by the US government were "vague" and could easily be abused to ban immigrants based on religion or political activism. He said the new travel ban risks separating families, deprives students of educational opportunities, blocks patients from accessing unique medical treatment, and would create a chilling effect on travellers. 'Automatically banning anyone based on their nationality or vague allegations of 'hostile attitudes' to American culture or policies undermines our nation's values,' he added. World reacts Like Trump's controversial tariffs, the latest iteration of the travel ban has continued to ruffle feathers and wear leaders down. Venezuela's interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, lambasted the Trump administration as 'bad people' on state television, saying 'they are supremacists who think they own the world and persecute our people for no reason". "The truth is being in the United States is a big risk for anybody, not just for Venezuelans," he added. Meanwhile, the ban prompted Chad's president, Mahamat Deby, to issue a reciprocal ban on US citizens. In a statement, he said, 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and pride'. Republic of Congo government spokesman Thierry Moungalla told a news conference he thought it was 'a misunderstanding'. 'Congo is not a terrorist country, does not harbour any terrorists, is not known to have a terrorist inclination,' he said. The Somali ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, took a more resigned tone. He said in a statement that Mogadishu 'values its longstanding relationship with the United States. [Somalia] stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised'. Trump's history with travel bans Six of the countries on the new list were on different iterations of Trump's 2017 predominantly Muslim travel ban list, and continue to remain on the banned list. These countries include Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Venezuela. Trump upset national sensibilities when he issued a "Muslim" travel ban within a week of taking office during his first term in January 2017. The countries on his original list were seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees This order affected individuals regardless of their immigration status, including green card holders and those with employment-based visas. Travellers with valid visas and permanent residency were denied entry. Following large-scale protests and chaos at airports, courts pushed back on the ban, leading to the first ban being blocked by a temporary restraining order in Washington v. Trump in February 2017. US judge blocks Trump order banning foreign students at Harvard University Read More » Three more iterations of the ban followed, leading to numerous lawsuits being filed in federal court against the Trump administration. One of the most successful lawsuits was Trump v Hawaii, a lawsuit on behalf of the state of Hawaii, where the Muslim Association of Hawaii, Dr Ismail Elshikh, and two John Doe plaintiffs challenged the various iterations of the ban. After Trump issued the second iteration of the ban in March 2017, the Hawaii district court issued a nationwide injunction against the second version of the ban, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 12 June 2017. The Court prohibited the government from enforcing the ban against foreign nationals who possess a 'bona fide relationship' with a person or entity in the US. But the government interpreted that ruling narrowly, issuing new guidance that would still ban 'grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other 'extended' family members' on the theory that they are not 'close' family. In July 2017, the Hawaii district court ruled that this definition 'represents the antithesis of common sense' and prevented the government from enforcing it. After a government appeal, the Ninth Circuit largely left the district court's order relating to travel, in place, while staying part of the order relating to refugees. Trump issued a third iteration of the ban in September 2017, and the lawsuit returned to the Hawaii district court. The court ruled that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court permitted Muslim Ban 3.0 to go into effect as appeals progressed. In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction after a 5–4 decision. The third iteration of the ban imposed full visa restrictions on citizens from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim. These countries included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. Iranian nationals were allowed to enter under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas, although such individuals were subject to 'enhanced screening and vetting requirements'. In January 2020, a fourth travel ban was instituted and included additional countries such as Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania, which restricted applications to immigrants from those countries but did not restrict entry by non-immigrants.
