Islamic Supremacist Chutzpah Alert: CAIR, the thuggish enemy of the freedom of speech, claims the freedom of speech as a defense for the Muslim thugs who disrupted a talk at UC-Irvine by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren.
The freedom of speech is the freedom to state one's point of view without fear of government reprisal. The freedom of speech is not the freedom to bully, intimidate, shout someone down. These "students" could have asked Oren questions during the question period if they had wanted to exercise their freedom of speech, or staged their own event. All they really wanted to do was keep him from exercising his freedom of speech.
And parenthetically, the schoolmarmish professor who cries "Shame on you!" to these thugs is simply embarrassing. He doesn't even realize that these Islamic supremacists cannot be shamed by him. He doesn't even realize that they aren't even playing the game he thinks they're playing, and they certainly aren't playing the game he himself is playing.
"Islamic group defends student protest: District attorney should drop charges against 11 students because the incident took place on campus, says CAIR," by Tom Ragan for the Daily Pilot, February 16 (thanks to Twostellas):
A pro-Islamic group is urging UC Irvine to drop disciplinary actions against a group of students who were arrested after protesting the Israeli ambassador's presence on campus by intermittently interrupting him during a speech last week.In all, 11 students, many of whom yelled and screamed in protest, were detained and cited by campus police for causing a ruckus during Ambassador Michael Oren's speech. Their tones at times reached fever pitch, according to scenes from the event that were captured in a video posted on YouTube.
Oren was trying to speak about diplomatic relations between Israel and the United States, but was interrupted so often that he had a hard time delivering his message, UCI officials said.
The matter has been forwarded to the Orange County district attorney for possible criminal prosecution, but a decision won't be made until later this week because the office has not yet received the complaint, said Susan Schroeder, spokeswoman for the D.A.'s office.
But the D.A.'s office should drop the charges because the incident occurred on campus, said the Anaheim office of a pro-Islamic group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
"We feel this is a campus event. It was noncriminal, nonviolent and nonthreatening," said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR's Greater Los Angeles Area office. "Off-campus police should not be involved in such matters. The D.A.'s office shouldn't be involved in such matters. It was just a bunch of students who spoke out at a student event."
If the campus decides to pursue disciplinary action, then it would only be perceived as "selective enforcement," Ayloush said, adding that the campus probably does not want to be viewed in such a light.
"We strongly see the protest as a matter of free speech, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees," he said. "Students complain all the time, they interrupt all the time, or they boo people all the time. This is nothing new. People have yelled to me, 'Go home, you terrorist,' and I take it. I don't complain."...
Liar!
Let me see if I get this straight - freedom of speech means that I get to prevent speech that I do not approve of.
Yeah, it is "the world turned upside down".
CAIR would've defended Ted Bundy if he'd been a muslim--and if not, they would falsely claim that he'd converted...
Ayloush here suggests that the university will be viewed as practising "selective enforcement" if it doesn't drop the charges against the disruptive students. This hint that the arrests somehow prove religious discrimination is designed to make those in the PC crowd quake and give in to Muslim demands.
Yes, it's definitely selective enforcement all right -- those who sat quietly waiting to hear Mr. Oren's speech won't be charged at all -- how discriminatory.
Question for Hussam Ayloush, are there any circumstances where you would not interfere with Michael Oren's right to speak by disrupting it?
Harassment is both non-violent and yet a crime -- and it should be.
Being a muhammadan means NEVER having to say you're sorry.
"...I take it. I don't complain."
Wait a minute. Isn't he just complaining now?
"selective enforcement"?
Is this type of welcoming treatment given to all guest speakers on the campus or was it selective?
What examples are there of other students disrupting campus events and having NO disciplinary action?
I suspect that there are no factual examples, other than previous muslin interruptions, to support their claim...
What does the campus Code of Conduct say about respecting the opinions of others and proper behavior at campus events?
"What does the campus Code of Conduct say about respecting the opinions of others and proper behavior at campus events?"
Exactly. Although it doesn't sound like the protests rise to the level of being criminally prosecutable by the county DA, they easily violate the Code of Conduct. At the very least the disrupting students should be publicly thrown out of school and barred from campus permanently. Further, the student organization responsible for organizing activities that violate the Code of Conduct like this should be publicly decertified and uncerimoniously thrown off campus, as well. Given the psychology of victimhood and propensity for violence of the students, the demonstrations that would certainly follow could easily lead to actions that are ciminally prosecutable, in which case the book should be thrown at them, and upon release from prison they could be deported. Would settle for a plea bargain that to avoid jail time they would leave the country and be permanently barred from reentry.
Eastview, I wouldn't be surprised if many, or most, of the disruptive students are native-born Americans. Would be interesting to find out.
Hello America,
This is jihad.
My letter to UC Irvine:
http://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/on-freedom/dear-uc-irvine/
Chancellor Drake, UC Irvine, chancellor@uci.edu
Office of the Dean of Students, deanstu@uci.edu
Mark G. Yudof, President of the UofC, president@ucop.edu
BCC: freespeech@standwithus.com
...This episode is but an example of bringing Sharia to the West, and must be seen in the larger picture of cultural jihad, of which it is just a part. Wherever Islam grows, armed and a stealth-cultural jihad (’striving in the way of allah’) is in play as existing governments and unbelieving (infidel, kafir) culture are marginalized and conquered, by ever-growing social pressure, political or violent means. This stealth jihad is an insurrection which begins with a demand for deferential treatment of Islam...
Thank you, Robert. www.StandWithUs.com is organizing a response at UCI.
"We feel this is a campus event. It was noncriminal, nonviolent and nonthreatening," said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR's Greater Los Angeles Area office. "Off-campus police should not be involved in such matters. The D.A.'s office shouldn't be involved in such matters. It was just a bunch of students who spoke out at a student event."
"If the campus decides to pursue disciplinary action, then it would only be perceived as "selective enforcement," Ayloush said, adding that the campus probably does not want to be viewed in such a light."
Why would this constitute "selective enforcement"? Are there cases of groups infiltrating into audiences for the sole purpose of shouting down, distrupting, preventing a speech by an apologist for Islam? When, where, have there been such examples, that then went unpunished? Adduce the evidence.
As for being "nonviolent" and "nonthreatening" -- don't be silly. Given the cases, of which everyone is well aware, where Muslims have threatened to kill, and have killed, such people as Pim Fortuyn (through a soft-headed Dutch puppet, manipulated by others), Theo van Gogh, and have threatened to kill, among others, Robert Redeker, Magdi Allam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard, and a dozen editors in Denmark, France, and elsewhere, in a dozen countries, while at the same time, not a single Muslim apologist, as for example Al-Qaradawi, or Tariq Ramadan, or Anjem Choudary, worries for one second about his safety, it is surely clear who is using intimidation and Storm-Trooper tactics all over the globe, and who are the victims of that intimidation. It would be idiotic, given such a widespread understanding, for the police and the UC/Irvine administration not to prosecute these cases. The government, should fact, should make any such attempts at intimidation (with carefully pre-arranged mass shouting, interruptions, staggered mass walkouts and so on) as punishable with fines, prison, and leading, in cases of non-citizens, to expulsion from the country.
If free speech is no longer to be exercised on the subject of Islam or anything remotely related to Islam, if that is Muslim rules on what can or cannot be discussed are enforced in the Western world by disruption and intimidation, then what is the point of having Free Speech? The "students" at Irvine have as little respect for, or interest in, the Free Speech rights of the First Amendment as they do for the rest of the Constitution, which document, of course, flatly is contradicted, in letter and spirit, by the Shari'a. And that is why, as many are discovering, it is impossible to be both a devout Muslim and a loyal supporter of the American Constitution which is surely the sine qua non or should be, of American citizenship. There's no avoiding this contradiction; the sooner we grasp it, the better.
He didn't?
It will interesting and telling to see how this all plays out.
Thank you for this article. I live in southern California and am well aware of the thuggery engaged in by many of the Muslims students at our universities.
Hugh, wasn't Pim Fortuyn murdered by a Dutch leftist?
"...wasn't Pim Fortuyn murdered by a Dutch leftist?"
Not exactly. The man who killed Pim Fortuyn on May 6, 2002 in Amsterdam had been manipulated by Muslims; he was a famous crank, a weak-minded animal-rights activist who was persuaded that Pim Fortuyn was "preying" on the Muslims as the "weakest members of society."
This exploitation of the weak-minded is quite common. Think of all the people who are not quite right, some of them actually defective, who become suicide bombers.
Or think of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a confused boy searching for something, having trouble with his sexual urges and so on.
Think of that cretinous Richard Reid.
Think of the spoiled child-of=Marin-County, the terminablly confused John Walker Lindh, a product of all that is worst in American life.
And think of all the brand-new converts, such as that Mr. Reilly who was persuaded to set off explosives. In my article on Reilly, I mention the case of Volkert van der Graaf, the killer of Pim Fortuyn, one of the noblest and clearest-sighted people in all of Europe.
You can google the piece -"The Half-Wit, His Nail-Bomb, And His Islam” -- but here is the relant excerpt:
Devon and Cornwall Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville said Reilly [a Muslim convert in England] appeared to be a "vulnerable" individual who had been "preyed upon" and "radicalised".
He said: “Our investigations so far indicate that Reilly, who has a history of mental illness, had adopted the Islamic faith.
We believe that he was preyed upon, radicalised and taken advantage of."
Reilly was arrested by police at the scene of the explosion. He suffered lacerations to his eye and some facial burning after one device exploded. -- from this story
Mohammed Rasheed, aka Nicky Reilly, is said to be a half-wit -- not a half-wit in the Garaudy or Galloway or Chomsky sense, each quite capable of low cunning, but a half-wit in the literal sense. And it is a quite plausible claim. For Muslim "activists" (fine word, activists -- its awfulness reflecting the awfulness of all "activists") are good at identifying, for the purposes of Da'wa, target populations of the economically and psychically marginal.
The explosive Mr. Reilly of Exeter [another half-wit]turns out, unsurprisingly, to be a man with a history of mental illness, who was "preyed upon and radicalised" by Muslims.
This description fits perfectly the Dutchman Volkert van der Graaf, a demented man and "animal-rights activist" whose "concern for the most vulnerable members of society" led him to murder Pim Fortuyn -- via Muslims who probably carefully explained to him that next to of course animals it was they, Muslims, who best fit that definition, they who were most vulnerable. And they most likely told him that it was bad old Pim Fortuyn who was out to get them and wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be right, if some brave protector of the "most vulnerable" were to come to their aid by shooting Pim Fortuyn dead so he wouldn't any longer be able to threaten those "most vulnerable" and helpless Muslims?
And that is exactly what Volkert van der Graaf did.
There are those who continue to believe that because Volkert van der Graaf was not a declared convert to Islam, and was known as an animal-rights activist, his murder of Pim Fortuyn had nothing to do with Islam. They never seem, these people, to ask themselves two questions. First, what did the murder of Pim Fortuyn have to do with animal rights? Was Pim Fortuyn known for having taken any position on the treatment or mistreatment of animals? No, he was not.
The second question is: why did Volkert van der Graaf, then, murder Pim Fortuyn? What was it about Pim Fortuyn that he, Volkert van der Graaf, told the court was the reason for his murdering him? It is no secret. He made it clear before his trial, and at his trial, and after his trial.
From the Daily Telegraph of March 28, 2003:
“A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland's first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution. Volkert van der Graaf, 33, a vegan animal rights campaigner, said he alone was responsible for killing the maverick protest leader last May, days before a general election in which the Fortuyn List party vaulted into second place and shattered Holland's consensus.
Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as 'scapegoats' and targeting 'the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: "I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself."
Possibly van der Graaf arrived at this conclusion on his own. More likely, I think, is that Muslims used him as a weapon, a human guided missile that they could exploit and direct through the power of mental suggestion.
But it doesn't matter. It was a killing for Muslims, on behalf of Muslims, for a Muslim cause, by a non-Muslim sympathizer, of a man known for his anti-Muslim views.
Surely that is enough to connect it to the case of Mr. Reilly, in Exeter, a half-wit whom more cunning Muslims, demented in a different way, were willing to exploit by putting thoughts into his head -- which thoughts led to his little bomb, and little explosion. That explosion hurt, in this case, only him. But there are other half-wits, for Islam preys in the West not only on the economically marginal but on the psychically marginal as well. They are given a Total System that justifies them in their resentments. It organizes that resentment, often taken out in criminal activity, so that it all makes sense within the framework of Islam, as justified hatred of Infidels. Criminal behavior is reinterpreted, so that stealing from Infidels becomes justified as proleptic Jizyah, and rape of Infidel women -- see those imams in Norway, explaining this so solemnly -- is deserved, because of the way they dress, which means, of course, that they are, civilizationally, asking for it.”
Here are two (there are more to be found at YouTube) appearances by Pim Fortuyn. The first is a televised debate with Marcel Van Dam. The second is Pim Fortuyn, at a private meeting, finally exploding in fury at what the Dutch have allowed to be done to them in their own country.
See here:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/25982
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umrjDnj8nbg
Not only does Israel not have the right to exist but in the minds and souls of these zombie warriors of islam , Israel does not have the right to speak.
CAIR, in effect, is in full warfare mode against Christians and Jews here in California, islamic intimidation is occurring in almost every civic and religious activity.
Cair is a foreign army clothed under the guise of a religious minority.
Make no mistake, our numbers are growing and sooner or later this beast will be slayed.
islam is my enemy, islam is at war with America,
I am at war with islam.
Hey Israel, how about sending your US ambassador home for a while?
I am a friend of a professor at UC- Irvine who was at this event,and has really excellent in depth coverage at his blog. Here is the link for those who are interested.
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/
This will take you fousesquawk.
Read the article that a Salem, Oregon newspaper wrote about this and how they love one of the nastiest, jew hating, Israel loathing websites around: La voz de Aztlan.
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/02/salem-or-news-publishes-article-by-la.html
Comment on my letter to US Irvine:
"Maybe thing (sic) would have gone differently if the speaker didn't have a dead Palistinian child around his neck as a trophy."
In relation to the question of Islamist movements recruiting the weakest and most vulnerable members of society to do their dirty work, we might look back at this incident in Israel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okU0ZaSO6L8
In the above case, a young woman suffering from a terminal illness was pressured into attempting a suicide attack against the hospital where doctors and nurses were valiently trying to save her life.
It might be worthwhile as well to look into the life of the "hashashin" or "assassins" of yore, who I believe were kept doped up on hashish and had been brainswashed to believe that they were ACTUALLY already in paradise, but who were told that they had been given permission by Allah to go out and attack the infidel.
These Muslim students can no longer deny
That free speech simply doesn't apply.
Their clever idea
Is American sharia -
And kiss the constitution goodbye.