It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Irvine 11: Islamophobia is alive and well

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
This could have gone in several forums but decided this was the best fit.

I searched but was surprised not to find this story.

IT appears 11 muslim students stood up to object to a speach made by a visiting Israeli diplomat



Charges against one were dismissed. The others stood trial, accused of interrupting Israeli a]mbassador Michael Oren's February 8, 2010 University of California-Irvine speech, criticizing him and Israeli injustice.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed misdemeanor criminal charges, accusing them of disturbing a public meeting and engaging in a conspiracy to do so.



A seccond article gives more detail and oppinion



Jewish leaders applauded the verdict. According to Shalom Elcott, Jewish Federation & Family Services president:

The student disruption "crossed the moral, social and intellectual line of civility and tolerance. While we accept the right and requirement of a public institution to provide an unfettered forum for diverse points of view, we do not, nor will be ever, support 'hate speech.' "

In other words, free, honest, accurate comments are hateful when Muslims state them. Jews and Christians can say what they please.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Los Angeles (CAIR/LA) headlined, "Muslim Groups Appalled by 'Irvine 11' Guilty Verdict, Declare Travesty of Justice," saying:

"Leaders of four prominent Muslim organizations" expressed outrage over an appalling verdict, "convicting 10 of the 'Irvine 11' students on (unjust) misdemeanor counts...."


Indeed. In America your freedoms and liberties depend on your race and religion.



"You can heckle the President. You can heckle high ranking government officials, but it you heckle an Israeli diplomat you will be prosecuted."


Well, You would be OK if you were white and Jewish I expect.

What is happening America?
I read today about girls being coralled and maced in the high street for being part of a peacfull demonstration - I saw the video, it was sickening.

I read last week about a black man who was put to death for killing a cop - only everyone seems to think he was innocent.

I read about cops beating and killing civilians and not being charged.

I read about a man being beaten for heckling Sarah Palin while she spoke abuot delivering freedom to the middle east - he was dragged out and abused!

What on earth is goin on in the US?




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
It's a crappin' mess, I tell ya.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 




Makes me sick.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
If the jury saw this video, I'm not surprised the Irvine 11 were convicted.


UCI School of Law Dean Erwin Chermerinsky, in a lecture given months before Oren’s visit, addressed the very topic of First Amendment protections. In his lecture, Chermerinsky was careful to note that at the university, free speech was protected in areas considered public forums, while within enclosed spaces, university policies mandate a specific time, place and manner for which speech is allowed. Oren’s speech was given in at UCI’s Student Center, which falls into the latter.


Certainly, conspiracy charges were a slam dunk. The charges weren't bogus as the judge and defense attorneys would have had them tossed before trial began.

The only objection I've seen that makes any sense is that the students had been punished enough by the school already. But that call is the job of the prosecutor and the legal system. That responsibility to make judgments is why you sometimes get a speeding ticket, and sometimes just a warning.

Please consider this case more carefully.





posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I'm starting to think they are being used as a sacrificial lamb, there's plenty of evidence stating the bankers who coerced the british government into handing over Israel to the unlucky Jews in ww2 were not jews at all, which explains why the rothschild family were supplying all the gas for the chambers. Jews have been used throughout history and i don't think it looks good for them this time, time will tell.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
This is disgusting seeing the racial discrimination happening in a free country like America. Well, I also think it might be a different case if it were a different diplomat from a different country, or even if it is even an American sitting on the stage. Right?

Cheers



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Since when do you get a criminal conviction for breaking university rules?

If they broke the law of the land then which law? Disrupting a public speaker? Then there should be thousands of citizens arrested and prosecuted - and I don't need to post a video to prove that - you and I have both seen enough video of people disrupting meetings. They don't all end up with criminal convictions.

Did you mention the prosecutor was a pro Israeli jew?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Ive said this before and I will say it again. Freedom of speech does NOT equal Freedom of slander. The fact is, they broke the school policy and also broke local law by not protesting in the approved protest area, which was NOT in the auditorium during the speech!

Another thing Im sick pf hearing is how these punks got severly punished. Get over yourself! They ended up with 5 years probation and community service and the 5 years of probation gets reduced to 1 year if they finish the community service before January 2012. Boy, thats harsh for breaking the law
Also, this isn't the first time this group of students have done this type of crap and last time they got let off the hook completely.
edit on 25-9-2011 by DerbyCityLights because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Ive said this before and I will say it again. Freedom of speech does NOT equal Freedom of slander. The fact is, they broke the school policy and also broke local law by not protesting in the approved protest area, which was NOT in the auditorium during the speech!

Another thing Im sick pf hearing is how these punks got severly punished. Get over yourself! They ended up with 5 years probation and community service and the 5 years of probation gets reduced to 1 year if they finish the community service before January 2012. Boy, thats harsh for breaking the law
Also, this isn't the first time this group of students have done this type of crap and last time they got let off the hook completely.
edit on 25-9-2011 by DerbyCityLights because: (no reason given)


Speaking the truth is not slander.

And what's this all about? Only permitted to protest in certain designated areas - when did you accept that as an American citizen? You don't feel this is just police state rules - what about YOUR freedoms, my friend? When you find you can only say certain things in certain places without running the risk of picking up a criminal conviction.

You find the rules all too convenient and 'fair' at the moment. Wait untill it is you and yours who are saying the wrong thing in the wrong place. 1984 slightly?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Shamatt,

Thanks for responding, let me try to answer your questions.


Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by charles1952
 


Since when do you get a criminal conviction for breaking university rules?

If they broke the law of the land then which law?

Well, of course you don't get a conviction for breaking University rules. If you're curious about which law, besides conspiracy, there's the California Penal Code, Sections 626.2 and 626.4 which seem to apply.


Disrupting a public speaker? Then there should be thousands of citizens arrested and prosecuted - and I don't need to post a video to prove that - you and I have both seen enough video of people disrupting meetings. They don't all end up with criminal convictions.


You're right. Some are convictions, some aren't. It depends on circumstances. This is one of the ones that resulted in a conviction.


Did you mention the prosecutor was a pro Israeli jew?

No, I didn't mention that, because I don't know that either of those statements are true. How would you find out if he was pro-Israeli? Did it come out in court? In his biography? I'm sure, as an elected official, he needs to appear before many different meetings, if that's what you're thinking about. I frankly don't know.

Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 

It seems that they got the punishment appropriate for the action. If someone at the Capitol building in Washington acts that way, they get escorted out by Police and charged. You can heckle to a degree, but when you don't have common sense when to stop, you get treated as a badly behaving person should. Heck, they even manged to embarrass with their actions a Palestinian who lost two brothers to the Israeli's.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Having read both articles the following can be stated:

As both articles did not show what all happened during the time of the speech, and one is highly biased not much can be stated as to what was fair and what was not. The fact that CAIR, an organization that is highly suspect in its own right is involved, it makes both to be very highly suspicious. The second article is suspect, as they got the fact that a person has to answer yes for the rest of their lives on job applications, as most look back only 7 years.

If the 11 people who went to court were asked to leave and did not, or were disruptive, or put up a struggle when engaged in their protest, then yeah, they were wrong for that. We do not agree with the banning of protests, and support such, however, when it is in a private venue, or where they are deliberately and knowingly walking with the intention to try to cause a ruckus, where people could be injured, then they should be prosecuted with in full intents of the law.

We should not just jump off and claim discrimination right off the bat, until all of the facts are displayed.
However, from the point of view, there is not enough to show that the Muslim population in the US is undergoing any sort of discrimination, not any sort of actions which where those who are Muslim are being targeted, or told no they can not go anywhere, or do anything that anyone else in the US can do. In fact, if anything people are bending over backwards to make them feel welcome and avoid any sort of situation where such could be claimed. In fact the only things that are often make the news are events where people are often put in news that are looking for 15 minutes of fame, or seeking special treatment.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
KnocksMeDead,

I did a little looking because I was interested in your comment that it might be a different case if it was an American sitting on stage. I found that the Ambassador is, indeed, an American. He was born in upstate New York and grew up in West Orange, New Jersey.

And I don't see a lot of evidence that this event happened because of race. If I've misunderstood you, would you correct me.

Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I don't know why Islamophobia (not a word BTW) was even mentioned in the title of this thread.

Just because a group of people that deserve to have a cautious eye bestowed upon them, doesn't mean we have a phobia of them. Just being cautious, and making sure we are not a victim of some kind of suicide bomber.

I mean who else checks for the exits when a Muslim walks in the room? Self preservation is the key.

Interrupting a public speaker is rude, but I wouldn't expect anything less from this crowd. They call it free speech, but what about the speaker who was invited to speak, and the people who choose to come to listen to him? Shouldn't they have the right not to be interrupted?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I've found out one little bit of the puzzle.

The prosecutor charged them under California Penal Code section 403:

403. Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Section 302, by the way is a special set of rules for disrupting a religious service. It doesn't apply here.

>>>>>KnocksMeDead



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


There are a lot of examples of Arab families being badly treated only becasue of their race/religion.

nymag.com...

blog.beliefnet.com...

And there was another man - can't find a link to it at the mo - in NYC was picked up a few weeks after the attack and jailed.

So there is a lot of evidence that American Muslims are not getting a fair go.

I feel this is just another example. A minority of your countries population is black, but the majority of your prisoners are black. This is just another example of the same thing. You need to be a white Cristian or Jew t live in the US and get a fair go. Either that or be wealthy.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

Speaking the truth is not slander.



If it is not factual and portrays the person or entity in a negative light that may have an impact on them, it is most definitely slander. Do you actually know everything they said or are you reacting emotionally to a slanted news report?



And what's this all about? Only permitted to protest in certain designated areas - when did you accept that as an American citizen? You don't feel this is just police state rules - what about YOUR freedoms, my friend? When you find you can only say certain things in certain places without running the risk of picking up a criminal conviction.


No, these are not police state rules. These rules exist to give everyone free speach. How can anyone speak freely when others are shouting them down?



You find the rules all too convenient and 'fair' at the moment. Wait untill it is you and yours who are saying the wrong thing in the wrong place. 1984 slightly?


And you are to quick to judge my friend.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 

The first article that you showed, is typical of the authorities doing investigations. During 9/11, Islamic extremists, using Islam as a justification attacked the USA. In that time frame, they traveled and lived at different places, along with going through and visiting with different people. The authorities, were doing what they could to not only find out the truth of the matter, but also consider this: What would have been the far worse crime, detaining people who are on a visa, who are not citizens and allowing something to happen, or detaining them to find out if they are connected, and clearing their names, so they can stay in the country and be granted citizenship?

During the days after World War II, all Japanese Americans were rounded up and taken to detention centers, as it was known that some were working with the Empire of Japan. Combine that with the fact that currently, there is a small percentage of Cuban Americans who do actively spy for the Cuban government during the reign of Fidel Castro, and what the family went through, does make sense. The authorities are charged with keeping, and protecting the citizens of the USA. It is also surprising that not one time was it mentioned that no one asked for a Lawyer, to be present and did not exercise their rights, as guaranteed under the law. After all they thought this is like the movies, well then the rights are there, and if they did not use them or exercise them, then whose fault is it?

While you are pointing out stories that are reported on such, how about the fair and balance point of where there are equal number of stories where those who are Muslim use their religion to demand special treatment on the job or in a community, to try to force people to back down. Combined with the fact, that from all observation, they often identify themselves as Muslim first, a nationality second, tends to make one very suspicious of them. That is how it should be, as most people of a nationality would identify themselves as a nationality first, and then something else second. People are tired of hearing about rights for one group or another, bad things happen this is true, but when it is to try to change the very fundamental nature of a society, they are going to bulk and press back, combined with the fact very group are identifying themselves as a separate group, well it makes for bad times on both sides.

But then agian, if the Islamic Americans would just change one bit, say to identify themselves as American first and be apart of society, rather than Islamic first and hang to the rear on issues when it comes to geo politics, things may be a bit different. Even the HH the Dali Lama, when it comes to the host country India, does not make waves, infact, telling the Tibetian refugees to support India and all of its actions, to keep the peace, perhaps they should take a lesson and a page from others in the past that were in the same boat, rather than using their actions as an example, but the meanings.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Shamatt,

I spend most of my life nowadays in a confused state, and I have to admit it hasn't cleared up any here. Where is the objection to this case?

Is it that section 403 of the Penal Code doesn't apply? Do you think that the protesters didn't violate that law?
Do you think the District Attorney didn't have the right to bring the case? Maybe the trial proceedings were illegal?

I suspect your theory is that the First Amendment grants the right to say anything, in any manner, in any place, at any time, that someone wants. If that is not your theory then you must accept that society can put some limits on "free speech." If so, what is there about this particular limitation (section 403) that "grinds your gears?"

I've posted information about the law, the acts, the District Attorney, and the speaker earlier in this thread. Happy to discuss anything with you, but I don't understand your position yet.

Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Nice ramble, but I don't buy it. You see, the vast majority of muslims not just in America, but in the UK, Australia, Canada, Europe - world wide in fact, do want to live quiet lives respecting their neighbours and being respected. It is a small minority who act the way you speak of. And all of them are tarred with the same brush.

In the first story I poste dit mentions that


Hundreds were arbitrarily arrested in the first months after the attacks. One man, a Palestinian legal permanent resident, was stopped for driving four miles over the speed limit in North Carolina and spent four months in jail.


and that


On November 5, 2001, the Justice Department announced 1,182 had been arrested, then stopped providing a tally.


I'm not sure how that is helping anyone?

I will return to the caht tomorrow - it is 2:30 am here and I am knackered!

I would just say this before I go...... I agree that in a post 9/11 climate extraordinary measures need to be taken, but that does not wipe the need for common sence or human decency, which must always, surely, take preference?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join