Monday, February 12, 2007

Shoebat disruptions could have been much worse

Lee Kaplan, a frequent contributor to FrontPageMagazine (see blogroll), has written a detailed account of Walid Shoebat's speech that I attended at UC Davis last week. I had earlier been warned and posted about the possible disruptions that might be planned by the campus Muslim Students Association (MSA). In the end, they silently stood up in unison a few times and then made a grand silent entrance as soon as Shoebat's speech was over. This was after they were specifically warned at the beginning of Shoebat's speech, not to disrupt it. It could have been worse - much worse. Here is what Kaplan found out about what the MSA actually planned to do:
The MSA had planned to fill up several rows in the school’s Freeborn Hall when Shoebat spoke (this they did -Chanman) in order to chant and drown him out. Using a cell phone, they intended to phone a member stationed outside the building to start a fire so as to empty the auditorium. What’s more, they had ample to reason to think that they could do so without penalty. Organizers and sponsors of the Shoebat speech, who included the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the UC Davis College Republicans and campus Hillel, were initially informed by the UC Davis campus police that were the MSA to interfere with the event, there was nothing to be done. It would be considered “freedom of speech.”
Now I know why many of those Muslim students had red duct tape over their mouths with the word "SILENCED" written on the tape: they didn't get to shout down the speaker and set fires! If yelling the word "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is not considered to be free speech, then I doubt that setting a fire in order to stop someone from speaking would be considered free speech either. So why didn't the MSA students go ahead with their disruptive plan? Thank Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement:
That’s when the organizers decided to take action. They demanded that the MSA students be warned of the consequences if they did disrupt. An attorney and organizer also informed the university of legal statutes in California, upheld by the Supreme Court in a similar case that involved disruption of Martin Luther King Jr. while speaking during the Civil Rights Movement, and which provided the basis for arrest and prosecution. They further informed the school’s administration that the same rules applied in the university’s codes of conduct. Just prior to Shoebat’s speech, a student organizer notified the MSA that any intentional disruption would result in actual ar rests and prosecutions and would not be tolerated. The MSA remained silent throughout the entire speech and question period, choosing to walk out later midway through the event.
So in the end, not only did the MSA students not walk the walk, but judging by their silent protest, they didn't talk the talk either. Fine by me.

Good Day to You, Sir

4 comments:

bluejay said...

For an interesting and revealing picture of the plans and goals of the Muslims, I highly recommend "America Alone" by Mark Steyn.

Anonymous said...

Here's a little tidbit about the "wonderful country" we live in.

US, UK 'worst places for children'

Britain and the United States are the worst places in the industrialised world for children to live, according to a report by the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef).

They ranked among the bottom third in the study which looked at overall well-being, health and safety, education, relationships, risk and their own sense of well-being.

The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.

"The evidence from many countries persistently shows that children who grow up in poverty are more vulnerable," the report said, especially in terms of academic underachievement, chances of unemployment and low self-esteem.

Child well-being was rated highest in northern Europe, with the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark leading the list.

"All countries have weaknesses that need to be addressed and no country features in the top third of the rankings for all six dimensions," David Bull, the UK executive director of Unicef, said.

Risk behaviours

Britain lived up to its reputation for "binge-drinking," hazardous sexual activity and drug use, with the report putting the country at the bottom of the rankings for risk behaviours "by a considerable distance".

Almost a third of British youngsters aged 11, 13 and 15 reported being drunk on two or more occasions, against just an average of under 15 per cent in the majority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Britain had made progress in the field of child safety, having cut the incidence of deaths from accidents and injuries to the "remarkably low level" of fewer than 10 per 10,000.

Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy also achieved the same rate of progress.

Relationships

Britain and the US were also found to have the worst rankings in terms of children's relationships with their families and peers.

Unicef noted the sensitivity of this field, but said "at the statistical level, there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being," including dropping out of school, leaving home early, poorer health and low pay.

The US, Britain and Sweden had the highest proportion of children living in single-parent families, while Italy, Greece and Spain had the lowest.

The study, which looked at 40 indicators to gauge quality of life in economically advanced nations, is the first of its kind.

The report said no direct link had been found between gross domestic product and children's well-being.

It highlighted how the Czech Republic had a higher ranking than many richer countries, including France, Austria, the United States and Britain.

Chanman said...

Yikes! I totally missed the boat on the comment by anonymous. I sincerely apologize for failing to answer it, but luckily, its a very easy thing to do.

If you look at the current demographics of those European countries you mentioned, they have a birthrate of between 1.2 and 1.4 children per couple. It's pretty easy to increase the quality of life for your child when you only have one to dote on. The downside of this is that a birthrate of under 2.1 is unsustainable. That means you should be worrying that in 100 years, these countries you mentioned won't have any children left. Good quality of life for a child is easy when you have no children to worry about.

Italy, Greece, and Spain may have to lowest levels of single parenthood, but they, along with Russia, have the absolute lowest birthrate of any other countries in Europe.

Chanman said...

By the way anonymous, I noticed you used scare quotes to describe our "wonderful country".

You don't think the United States is a wonderful country? You tell me what country is better?