When we disrupted Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's keynote speech at the Jewish Federations of North America's annual general meeting last November in New Orleans, we were met with hisses, boos, verbal harassment and even physical attacks from other members of the audience. But criminal charges were never so much as mentioned. Yet, on September 23rd, ten students who interrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's speech at UC Irvine in February 2010 were convicted of two misdemeanors for their participation in that protest. Today, October 11, 2011, is a national day of action to protest those unjust convictions. We think it's a perfect opportunity to look at the similarities and differences in these two actions.
In both protests, each person who stood up to bring attention to crimes committed by the Israeli government acted non-violently, and cooperated fully with security personnel and the police. So what was the difference? Why were we not arrested, charged and tried while the Irvine 11 were? Logically, the opposite should have been true: our target was bigger – the Prime Minister of Israel; our venue was bigger – the largest Jewish event in North America; and our protest came later – inspired in part by the brave actions of the Irvine 11. But there is one more difference, and it proved to be the crucial one: we are Jews and the Irvine 11 are Muslims.
The Irvine 11 inspired us to openly challenge propaganda that whitewashes military occupation and grave violations of human rights and international law. The Irvine 11 pushed us to name these crimes that are all but silenced in mainstream American media and discourse, and to demand that Israel's representatives address them. The Irvine 11 reminded us of our moral responsibility to protest the Israeli military aggression that led to the deaths of over 1,400 Gazans during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, the humiliation and human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians on a daily basis, the illegal wall and settlements that separate Palestinians from their families and their livelihoods, and the second-class citizenship of Palestinian-Israelis.
But now, Orange County's criminal justice system has sent a message that the Israeli ambassador's right to speak without interruption is more worthy of protection than the right of American citizens to protest the illegal and unconscionable actions of Israel's government, a government that is given access to countless forums in the United States – from New York Times op-eds, to CNN, to college campuses, to Congress – to perpetuate propaganda that whitewashes its crimes. Even more disturbing, the fact that the Irvine 11 were charged and tried while we were let off without a mark (as were other non-Muslim protesters in Orange County who later interrupted Dick Cheney and George W. Bush) is testament to the influence of Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism and blind support for Israel on contemporary American society and political discourse.
The day the Irvine 11 were convicted was a shameful day for the American legal system. The principle of free expression is fundamental to democracy, and the Irvine 11's conviction constitutes a chilling attack on all Americans' right to free speech. Moreover, this clear targeting of a minority group should set off alarm bells for those who abhor racism and strive for the protection of equal rights for all citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity. We fear for those whom our justice system would silence in order to protect the powerful.
We join the administration of UC Irvine and the dean of UC Irvine's law school, along with proponents of free speech and human rights throughout the country, in condemning the targeting of Muslim students by the Orange County District Attorney's office. We take heart in the bravery of people just like us who are occupying cities across the United States, demanding an end to a system that privileges the voices and values of the powerful over the needs and rights of the many. We stand with the Irvine 11 as they move forward with their appeal, as we stand with all those who refuse to be cowed by state repression in the struggle for social justice. Join us today.
A powerful post. I found this part particularly compelling:
Cute race bating, but wasn’t Rae Abileah arrested? she is Jewish, no?
The venue, the type of disruption, and the location it happened is much more relevant the religion.
so eager to insert yourself on top of the thread you have no time for research?
The police later confided that they were trying to protect me from the angry mob and get me out of there in one piece.
and, as a matter of fact there was a difference in venues. one was a state institution where foreign propagandists are not protected by the first amendment.
what are you talking about Annie? was she not arrested at the hospital?
link to moveoveraipac.org
as for inserting myself at the top of the thread, that is tough when I responded to North’s initial comment.
Jewishness isn’t a ‘race’.
1. Your statement that “foreign propagandists” have no free speech rights is false and irrelevant.
2. It is false because the Supreme Court has recognized that “all persons” are accorded free speech rights. See e.g. Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 160 (1939) (“(F]reedom of speech and of the press secured by the First Amendment. . . against abridgment by the United States is similarly secured to all persons by the Fourteenth against abridgment by a state.”) “All persons” includes spokespersons or ambassadors (“foreign propagandists,” if you prefer). It includes the Irvine 11. It includes you and me. It includes neo-Nazis in full Nazi regalia.
3. It is irrelevant because your characterization of Oren, even if accurate, has no bearing on the free speech issue in this case. What is at issue is the constitutionality of the particular state statute under which the Irvine 11 were prosecuted.
4a There is a well-established analytical framework for reviewing free speech challenges to particular state statutes. If the restriction is content-based, the standard is strict scrutiny: Under strict scrutiny, the statute must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest and is presumptively invalid.
4b. If the restriction is content-neutral, the standard is intermediate scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny, the statute must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication
5. There is more to be said about analyzing the statute under these tests, and about analogous caselaw. However, appellate counsel will have to argue for reversal within the established framework. He or she cannot just assert a false and irrelevant principle that sounded good on the internet. “No time for research” is an admonition you should take to heart in this instance.
Wow, you really just cited Schneider v. New Jersey which was a ruling against an ordinance to keep the streets “clean and of good appearance.”
what are you talking about Annie? was she not arrested at the hospital?
do you even read your own links dbg? here’s the title:
Protester disrupting Netanyahu in Congress arrested at hospital.
iow, different protest, time and place.
as for instering yourself at the top of the thread that is exactly what you did by attaching yourself to north’s initial comment. sans one iota of evidence w/your lame ass question posed as defacton evidence ..which is wasn’t.
iow, different protest. the one where she was mobbed and attacked by members of aipac.
Annie, that is exactly what I was talking about. She was a Jew and was arrested for protesting, I wasn’t talking about New Orleans. The author’s main argument was that the ‘Irvine11′ were arrested because they were Muslim, but Abileah, a Jew was also arrested.
Abileah, a Jew was also arrested.
yes, jews have been arrested in the US. you diverted from the comparisons made in the video dbg. the comparable example from the post was a group of jews and a group of muslims in comparable circumstances unlike abileahs individual protest where she was attacked by member of aipac. you inserted yourself and said “Cute race bating, but wasn’t Rae Abileah arrested?”, in the incident of this example in the video the answer would no, she was not.
you got me annie, she was by herself so the whole thing is different. maybe they are just anti-groups?
maybe they are just anti-groups?
the point is ‘they ‘ are not anti groups when the groups are jewish. they are anti ‘groups’ when the group is muslim. hello
Prosecuted?
as for why no prosecution of the jvp action in new orleans, the last thing that the israel-firsters wanted was for the jvp’s disruption of the pm’s speech to play out in msm any more than it actually did. indeed, the spectre of knowledgable young jewish students, on trial, informing the public as to the realities of the i/p conflict, had to have (probably still does) given them fits. after the jvp members did their thing at the jewish federation meeting, undoubtedly the federation officials met with law enforcement to discuss what action(s) might be taken to punish the “culprits.” most likely the conversation went something like this -
police representative – “do you want us to prosecute them?”
jewish federation’s spokeperson – “please no, we want the subject of this disturbance to disappear from msm immediately, if not sooner”
“but why?”
“the adverse effect that giving jewish voices for peace a platform to reach out will have on the public perception of who actually speaks for jews”
“so what should the new orleans pd do about today’s disruption?”
“disruption, what disruption?”
thanks for what you did in New Orleans and keeping the spotlight on this issue.
Seems like Camera has convinced CSpans Washington Journal to not touch the Israeli Palestinian conflict, allow guest and host to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran and block callers who bring up serious questions about our Reps and US pledge of allegiance to the I lobby and Israel. Another shift taking place on Cspan.
The wall of silence had come down a bit on Cspan…no longer. Allowing the wall to go back up due to pressure from the I lobby
How did Camera do this exactly?
There has been a noticeable difference when callers bring up the I/P issue in a respectful way. All Washington Journal host now interrupt the caller ask questions about resources for the information and sometimes just interrupt the caller. Now I don’t object to host of shows asking their quest or callers where they are getting their information (in fact I think this is critical and can be a chance for callers to plug accurate information sources) but the host do not apply this standard to all callers when they repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran, about the Iraq war etc. They apply these questions generally to those calling in with relevant questions or comments about the I/P issue. I assume this is due to the pressure from Camera who has a segment of their site devoted to attacking CSpan and claiming that all callers are anti semitic. Go check out their CSpan watch website.
Clearly Cspan is bending to this pressure. Sounds like their filtering system seems to be blocking out folks who call in about this issue. Have been watching and listening to Washington Journal for several decades. The wall of silence was coming down. Now seems to be going back up.
During the week that the Palestinians were making their bid at the UN for recognition of statehood Washington Journal did not have any guest on to inform the public from both sides views. Nothing. Silence. No Un folks..nothing. Was the oppotune time to inform the public on the history, UN process etc. Nothing
I understand that part, just not sure what Camera had to do with it.
Try pulling your head put of the sand. It might help your reasoning.
DBG, why didn’t you answer Kathleen’s question instead?
I noticed how bad the Jewish protesters were treated by the fans of Israel, while the Muslims were quickly escorted out.
The Muslims are just irritating, and has to be quickly removed so that Oren can continue his speech? (We can deal with them later. Put them in prison or shoot them in the head or something….)
With the hatred against the traitors of the Jewish tribe and the treatment they received i can understand how it is difficult to be Jewish and protest against the crimes of israel.
Thank you Amirah, Antonia and Emily and for all those in Young Jewish and Proud and Jewish Voices for Peace. Thank you to the Irvine 11 for speaking up for the voiceless.
It is a strange thing when the mainstream Jewish tradition misses the humanity for the idolization of a state.
For other examples of this blatant hypocrisy, discriminatory and misuse use of the law see:
link to israelandpalestinediary.blogspot.com
Though mushed together for rhetorical purposes, the original post presents two separate claims on behalf of the Irvine 11: free speech violation and selective prosecution. I address the latter.
a. The New Orleans and Irvine protestors were not similarly situated. The New Orleans prosecutor lacked the meeting disruption statute that the D.A. in Irvine utilized to prosecute the Irvine 11.
b. Even if you could find some local protest that was not prosecuted, a selective prosecution claim would be difficult given the applicable principles and the evidentiary burden. Prosecutors are given broad discretion in deciding against whom to focus limited prosecutorial resources, and a strong presumption of regularity supports those decisions. “Defendants bear a demanding burden when seeking to establish that they are being selectively prosecuted in an unconstitutional manner. In order to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection, a criminal defendant must present clear evidence to the contrary.” U.S. v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 807 (11th Cir. 2000).
c. Here there is no clear evidence, only conjecture. The Irvine 11 prosecutor could have exercised his discretion based on the number of people involved in this disruption, or on the frequency and severity of the disruption, or on the warnings from the University that the defendants chose to disregard.