"Irvine 11"
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Politics
Forum Name: Current Events
Forum Description: Current Events
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16349
Printed Date: 17 February 2025 at 4:50pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Irvine 11"
Posted By: abuayisha
Subject: "Irvine 11"
Date Posted: 14 February 2010 at 2:50pm
|
Sign*Reader, what's up with the "Irvine 11" story? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=news_result&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prnewswire.com%2Fnews-releases%2Fcair-nlg-ask-calif-university-da-to-drop-charges-against-irvine-11-84310337.html&rct=j&q=irvine+11&ei=pn14S52JFY7QtAOL7tjLCA&usg=AFQjCNGCMGVZhroEQBxVRs-UC9QQqHFWVA - CAIR, NLG Ask Calif. University, DA to Drop Charges Against ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcaryZbL3gE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcaryZbL3gE
|
Replies:
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 17 February 2010 at 9:01pm
| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salam-al-marayati/free-11-muslim-students-r_b_461927.html - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salam-al-marayati/free-11-muslim-students-r_b_461927.html |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 17 February 2010 at 9:52pm
|
Salaam bro. I was out cruising last few days in the desert so couldn't reply promptly... Now this was no surprise, it was bound to happen since George Galloway's visit last year to this reactionary campus in little Israeli enclave of Turtle Rock...Galloway spoke about Israel's "The politics of Genocide" as part of his VIVA PALESTINA campaign via Orange County on MSU's invitation! That didn't sit well with the campus Zionists including its spineless opportunist chancellor Drake who is sent in by the Zionist President Yodof of the UC system... I saw bunch of Jews and other reactionaries had shown up but George G did really well... So as a payback for that they invite of all people this Israeli Ambassador to get the MSU riled up and it surely they did... he being an American born Jew who was also a memeber of IDF(aka the killers of Palestinians) This guy Oren is slick storyteller but the MSU guys were not going to put up with his lies after what IDF did in Gaza and he was not up to Q&A session... that is my impression! Anyways Muslim students have very low opinion of Patracca the professor and Drake both are Zionist lackeys! Drake will do anything to keep Yudof happy! My kids tell me UCI happens to be the most repressive campus in the UC system! IMO the students were really gutsy and I hope they get good legal help to fight the repression! As the old saying "to live in Rome and fight with the Pope" is not going to be easy! The sly Zionist are using blacks to push their agendas; look what they are doing through Obama... ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 February 2010 at 7:24am
| Were these students MSU or MSA-PSG? Seems I read somewhere that the kids arrested were Persians. |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 18 February 2010 at 8:08pm
|
It was MSU with African SU, Asian Pacific SA, Hip Hop Congress, Hindu Student Council, Pak SA, Radical SU, Society of Arab Students, Vietnamese American Coalition, Young Americans for Liberty and Workers Student Alliance who had sponsored George Galloway's visit! I didn't see Persians involved, names sound Palestinian to me! Here is link to sign the petition! http://www.irvine11.com/ - http://www.irvine11.com/ ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: Boomer
Date Posted: 27 February 2010 at 3:21pm
I think you need to may need to seek professional help regarding your fascination with "zionist" conspiracy theories. The fact is, the MSU students had plannned to do everything they could to disrupt the speaker from presenting his arguments. This may come as a shock to you but not everyone is immersed in your world of invented conspiracy theories and paranoia.
|
Sign*Reader wrote:Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 01 March 2010 at 12:19am
Your inventions are facts and my facts are inventions makes a nice joke! LOL Pot calling the kettle black... But it sure is obvious how fascinated you are by the Zionists scum or may be one yourself cuz it is bothering the hell out of you that makes my day & I love it... The student protests and disrutions are part of the students struggles have been against this University's role for the exploitation of the students! Here is another essay, go over the names and then decide who is who! Excerpts From: Mr. DiFi Cashes in on Crisis http://www.counterpunch.org/parrish03012010.html - Students would speak during the
notoriously brief public comment periods, hold rallies, and
occasionally disrupt the proceedings when all else failed -- and all
else invariably did.
|
Posted By: Boomer
Date Posted: 01 March 2010 at 2:53am
I've invented nothing. I'm only pointing out that you demonstrate with every post that your life is consumed by invented conspiracy theories involving zionists. Why not spend a bit of your time instead trying to improve your self-created misery instead of immersing yourself in these silly conspiracy theories. |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 03 March 2010 at 2:29am
You can't pretend... the truth is too bitter which is showing in plain view as the discussion has given you the bellyache and it absolutely great... If these are conspiracy theories then a simple question...why are you so hot and bothered? It gives great satisfaction that it has done its intended function to prick the dead conscience of a Zionist prick! BTW many likes of you have come here, barked then gone and never heard again! You won't last either I can assure you of that! ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 03 March 2010 at 7:01am
http://miahs.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/speaking-out/ - Speaking outIn http://en.wordpress.com/tag/political-jargon/ - Political Jargon on February 9, 2010 at 6:37 amhttp://collegelife.freedomblogging.com/2010/02/08/israeli-ambassador-xxxx-at-uci/15647/ - 12 arrested for disrupting Israeli ambassadorAfter watching the video, a discussion started on whether this was the best possible way to address the problem. I gave my opinion:
Someone responded in their defense that they had deliberated and thought about this in a meaningful way and came to the conclusion that they wanted to carry out their protest in this manner. Then continued to give his opinion that Muslims are too critical of each other, which I agree with, and reminded me of a very important lesson. The reminder was from the story of Prophet Dawud PBUH, when he was reprimanded by Allah (swt) for judging between two parties without hearing both sides of the story. Excellent reminder, although I don�t think it is relevant in this case, since I am not a judge in a case against the student or for them, and in no position to give or deny them any rights. My analysis of the situation was from looking at what results came from it, the students were arrested, and they got some media attention, but unfortunately, the wrong type. In addition he made another good point that if someone that promoted genocide was invited by the school Muslims would protest just the same. I agree in principle, but in action the active Muslims I have seen tend to (there are exceptions) focus on causes they feel are related to them and not so much general causes, like human rights outside of Muslim lands. Lastly, another contributor explained that the way Muslims are so harsh on each other is a result of introspection and continued to explain that we have to make sure that when it comes to political issues, namely Palestine, Muslims have to follow the rules and not make exceptions for themselves (with respect to protesting or reacting to events). There�s this notion that being politically correct shows weakness or silence. On the contrary, who got the better of that exchange? The ambassador stood silently and waited for them to finish and continued his talk. The students took turns interrupting him and being disrespectful. One brother has added that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) never acted in that way when dealing with Quraish. He didn�t interrupt them in mid-sentence and scream out objections. It has nothing to do with worrying about what others think of us, what do I as a Muslim see when my brothers and sisters act this way? I have been president and VP of MSA and I know a lot goes into events and there is an organized way of coming to these conclusions as to how events are run. Sometimes we get a little emotional about our local MSA�s and respective schools and their efforts, and that is understandable, but Muslims won�t get anywhere acting up in public. |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 03 March 2010 at 7:33pm
What in the world is she talking about?
So where are they supposed to act in? May be try the Zionist path, find your own Obama, and let him do the acting! LOL ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 03 March 2010 at 7:44pm
|
Mark A. LeVine (UC Irvine History Professor) Shouting Down the Israeli Ambassador: Boneheaded? Perhaps... Illegal? Not So Fast.The
outburst by eleven UC students against Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren
has generated a firestorm of condemnation of their actions, including
from UCI Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, whose credentials as a
defender of free speech rights are unassailable. A Heckler's Veto? As well articulated as this argument is, do the comparisons used actually reflect the situation at hand? Is vigorous and organized, yet clearly limited, protest really the equivalent of "shouting fire in a crowded theater"? Did the students ultimately prevent Ambassador Oren from being heard? Is there really no room for "disruption" of any length or style at a talk by an Ambassador of a country embroiled in a contentious decades long conflict? In fact, the students actions, and the reaction by the audience, university, and police, are far more complicated than they might appear on the surface and challenge the assumption by most people that they crossed a clear boundary of acceptable protest and deserve whatever fate is handed to them by the University and even the District Attorney. Several issues in particular raise troubling questions surrounding how the university police, and administration more broadly, handled the event and its aftermath. First, there is the question of the level of disturbance caused by the students. Ambassador Oren was scheduled to speak and answer audience questions for 1 1/2 hours. The protests by the students were clearly aimed to disrupt his speech, but it's just as clear that they were not trying to scuttle it. Each outburst seems to have lasted under one minute, after which the student left voluntarily. In total, eleven out of 90 minutes were taken up by the protests. Even with the twenty minute break that Oren took during the protest he was, as Chancellor Drake pointed out in his condemnation of their actions the next day, able to finish his speech. There was also time for audience questions had he chosen to take them. These facts raise the question of whether, as many university officials and commentators, including Dean Chemerinsky, have argued, the actions of the students constituted a "heckler's veto" and therefore crossed the line between acceptable and prohibited protest. To begin with, the use of this term is questionable, as it has, as a rule, referred not to protesters shouting down a speaker at a gathering but rather to government or other officials canceling or prohibiting a speech or gathering out of fear of the protests it might generate. Even if we accept the implications of the term, the assertion that the students' actions constituted a veto over Ambassador Oren's right to be speak is debatable. If 40 or some similarly large number of students engaged in the action rather than 11, Ambassador Oren would have been unable to complete his speech and the protest would have thereby crossed the line of acceptable speech. But this was not the case. However uncivil or even obnoxious one might consider the protest, by design (rather than because of the actions of police or university officials to stop them) they did not continue long enough to prevent him ultimately from being heard. Given the heated nature of Israeli-Palestinian debates on campuses today, one could look at the rough and tumble of the students' protest here and, quoting a basketball analogy often used in the last two minutes of an important game, declare: "No harm, no foul," or at least not a flagrant one. It is true, as Dean Chemerinsky notes in his Oped, that universities have the right to limit the free speech rights on campus to a greater extent than is normally allowed in the public sphere. But at least at UCI there are no firm guidelines on what those limits are. When I enquired I was referred by a UCI spokesperson to the UCI Dean of Students' Handbook on Campus Policies. But that document offers little guidance to judge whether the protests against Oren's speech crossed the line. Section 30.00 (http://www.dos.uci.edu/conduct/uci_policy.php#30.00), which deals with free speech, does not define any limits to speech beyond the broad statement that the "University is committed to assuring that all persons may exercise the constitutionally protected rights of free expression, speech, assembly, and worship," and that protests "must not, however, interfere with the University's obligation to protect rights of all to teach, study, and fully exchange ideas." Without a clear ban in place beforehand on the type and style of protest in which they engaged, it is hard to see how they could fairly be subject to severe punishment by the university for their protest, never mind arrest and potential prosecution. Indeed, this criminalization of dissenting speech is the most troubling part of the whole affair. It is impossible for me to see how university police or the administration can justify arresting these students after they voluntarily left the room and made no efforts to return. Who made this decision? What reading of which law where they using to determine that students who make short protests and voluntarily leave an auditorium can be arrested? The students clearly constituted no threat to the speaker or the audience--in fact, the video of the event clearly demonstrates that the audience engaged in far more obnoxious behavior than the students, using racial/religious epithets against them and even accosting several of them. Despite the students' pointing this out to police at the time, no audience members were removed from the hall, let alone arrested. Moreover, previous campus protests, such as against UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo, have resulted in students being removed from the auditorium by police after shouting him down during a talk, but no further disciplinary or legal actions were taken against them. Together these facts raise serious issues of equity in the application of already vague university regulations and laws. And even with the arrest, it is unfathomable that the District Attorney would use already limited government resources to prosecute the students for their actions. Yet to date there is no indication that they will not face prosecution. But on what basis? An Undue Limitation on Legitimate Protest? University officials sent an email to the entire student body in the aftermath of the event which warned students that any such protests would be considered illegal and create "a very serious situation." Specifically, they informed them that "if anyone 'without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character' they can be charged with a misdemeanor under California Penal Code �403. Other penal codes can apply as well." I am proud that my colleagues in the UCI administration have fought long and hard to protect academic freedom on campus against concerted efforts to diminish it. Yet while it's not the intention of the university, it seems to me that this email could have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly because there is no attempt to define what "willfully disturbs" an event means. This opens to the door for arresting students for even the slightest disruption of an event. Imagine how a 19-year old student would react to being told that he can go to prison and face expulsion from the university merely for engaging in vigorous protest against a speaker who supports enforced genital mutilation of women, the execution of homosexuals or other unpopular policies. Or more to the point, who represented a state that engaged in these practices. If you were that student, what would you do the next time someone was speaking at the university whose views you strongly disagreed with? Would you risk crossing an undefined line and thereby put your future in jeopardy, or would you stay silent? And what does this environment do to the university's role as a place where boundaries, ideas and actions can be explored? Some of the most creative and impactful protests in history have been extremely theatrical and disruptive. Should students be forbidden from exploring these forms of protest? And it would seem professors are equally at risk. For example, if a pro-Hamas speaker was coming to campus and Jewish students came to me for advice on how to respond to him, I might well--before now--have suggested they do a die in at his talk. Put on paper masks of Israelis killed in suicide bombings and come to the front of the hall, say the name and date they were killed, and fall to the floor. Perhaps even have themselves carried out to emphasize the point. Until now, I would have assumed that as long as this didn't prohibit him from finishing his talk and was non-violent, this would not only be acceptable, but also highly effective and even pedagogical. It would force those who blithely support the right to resist through terror to confront the faces of the victims the actions they support produce. Yet it would now seem that my advice might well be illegal, and lead my arrest, prosecution and even revocation of my tenure, along with the suspension or expulsion and prosecution of the students who staged the protest. As important, this potential criminalization of dissenting speech is not just limited to highly contentious protests surrounding Israel. Students have also been arrested and face harsh disciplinary action across UC for engaging in protests on hot button but legitimate issues. Rather than repressing dissent, we should be helping students to find the most creative ways to express it within commonly understood bounds. But making a habit of arresting students for vigorous but non-violent and ultimately limited protest makes this goal that much harder to achieve. The Missing Ingredient: Power There is a final issue involved in these protests that Dean Chemerinsky's article did not touch upon, and that is the utter disparity in power between the students, and the views they represent, and Ambassador Oren and the government he represents. There is little doubt that the Law School and Political Science Department, who co-sponsored, rightfully saw his presence as a chance to engage an important actor on issues of concern to the UC community. However, from the Israeli side Ambassador Oren's appearance at UCI was part of an extremely sophisticated, well funded and self-described "propaganda" campaign--known by the Hebrew term "hasbara." directed by the Israeli government and major American Jewish organizations with the goal of presenting Israel in the most positive light possible on campus. Oren was speaking at UC Irvine not as an academic presenting research but as an official representative of a government, one of whose jobs is to convince the public at large of the justice of his government's policies. That is one of the most important jobs of an ambassador, but it is based on a very different set of ground rules than that of a scholarly presentation. In fact, the outrage demonstrated by many (but by no means all) members of the Jewish community at the protests is disingenuous. The World Union of Jewish Students and the Education Department of the Jewish Agency, a quasi-governmental organization with strong ties to most major Jewish organizations, sponsored the publication in 2002 of a 131 page manual for Israel advocacy titled the Hasbara Handbook, which specifically lists as the first of "seven basic propaganda devices" available for use by activists "name calling," and declares that "for the Israel activist, it is important to be aware of the subtly different meanings that well chosen words give. Call 'demonstrations' 'riots', many Palestinian organizations 'terror organizations', and so on." It would seem that for members of these groups now to call for the expulsion of the so-called "Irvine 11" and threaten to stop donating money to UCI unless harsh measures are taken is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. A Malfunctioning Public Sphere In the United States the normative understanding of the public sphere is that everyone has an equal voice and disparities of power and access are naturally checked at the door, allowing all sides on a debate "equal" footing on which to state their case. But the reality, particularly when it comes to debates around Israel, is far more constricted. The context of the students' rowdy, and to some "uncivil", protest has to be considered in judging their actions. Ambassador Oren represents a state that has engaged in a 43-year long occupation and settlement enterprise, as as part of this process committed large scale and systematic violations of the most basic human rights of Palestinians, from land expropriations to extra-judicial killings to numerous war crimes, all of which are amply documented by Israeli Jewish human rights organizations as well as by the US State Department, United Nations and other international organizations. Yet despite this record, Israeli officials routinely receive warm official welcome on college campuses across the United States, something its hard to imagine happening with representatives of countries with similar human rights records. Meanwhile, back in the Occupied Territories, not only Palestinians, but foreign activists and even Israeli Jews are routinely arrested, beaten, tear-gassed and even shot and killed merely for engaging in non-violent protests against the on-going expropriations of Palestinian land, demolition of homes, uprooting of trees and orchards, and other human rights violations. The students at UCI are fully aware of these facts because in the last two years they have gone out of their way to bring Jewish and Israeli speakers to campus who've experienced them first hand. Put this next to the deference generally shown to Israeli officials, the well-documented unwillingness of the mainstream media to challenge Israeli policies or explanations with any regularity, the political clout of pro-Israel groups, and the powerful Hasbara network on campuses, and their rowdy, uncivil protest suddenly makes more sense. Indeed, against such a powerful bloc of forces, we can ask how already marginalized Muslim students should be expected to protest against the Ambassador's appearance. We can take a less politicized example and ask how marginalized students should be expected to protest crippling tuition increases even as the quality of their educations diminishes against a powerful President who has declared emergency powers and effectively neutralized the long-cherished notion of "shared governance." How polite should students really be expected to be in this situation? Is demanding that they be 'civil' and 'respectful' itself an infringement on their free speech rights in a situation where speakers who represent powerful and normally untouchable interests or groups--whether foreign governments or the UC Regents, for that matter--routinely deflect troublesome questions, change the subject or in some cases respond with very narrow and even inaccurate answers that the audience has little chance to challenge. In short, are there situations when marginalized voices have little recourse accept to push the boundaries of polite debate in order to get their messages heard? And if in doing so they ruffle feathers, upset audience members and perhaps even exercise extremely poor tactical and political judgment in their choice of strategies--as the students in this case have so clearly done, since they both deflected attention away from their cause and played into deeply ingrained stereotypes of irrational and unreasonably angry Muslim men--should the University be punishing them and the state prosecuting them? My hope is that the members of the UCI community can use this event as a teachable moment, coming together as a campus more clearly to define the limits of acceptable protest, to understand the realities behind the passions displayed by the Irvine 11, and to help figure out how to bridge the still gaping chasm that separates Muslim and Jewish students on campus and the communities they represent. Turning UCI into a First Amendment battle ground will likely not achieve these ends and instead will undermine the vigorous and sometimes rowdy given and take that is essentially to the preservation of free speech and academic freedom in the University. ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |