Irvine 11: Trial Comes to an End

10 Comments

1. 

   Yasmin

   September 21, 2011 at 3:19 PM

   Inshallah justice will prevail!

   Reply
2. 

   Umm Sulaim

   September 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM

   May Allah grant the Irvine 11, their families and us patience.

   My heart skips each time I come across this news.

   My confidence lies in Allah’s Knowledge and Mercy. Everything that happens to a Believer is good.

   Umm Sulaim

   Reply
   • 

     Umm Sulaim

     September 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM

     May Allah turn this ‘bad’ news into obvious good news for the #Irvine11.

     A criminal record will dent their career prospects; just what I was afraid of.

     Umm Sulaim

     Reply
3. 

   MuslimNoise

   September 21, 2011 at 5:20 PM

   May Allah make their affairs easy for them.

   Reply
4. 

   Carlos

   September 23, 2011 at 1:56 AM

   Let the American jury trial system do its work. The jurors will hear all the evidence and make a common sense decision. If the jurors decide any of the defendants are guilty of a crime, I will defer to their decision.

   Reply
5. 

   Nadya

   September 23, 2011 at 2:19 AM

   According to the director of the Criminal Justice Research Center, about 10,000 people in the United States are wrongfully convicted of a serious crime each year.

   Flaws in our justice system? Let the innocent people behind bars, overflowing our prisons, and increasing our tax dollars answer that question.

   What’s important is that we stand up for our brothers just like they stood up against the war criminal who their university spent thousands of dollars sponsoring and treating like a king in a time where students are dropping out of school due to lack of financial aid.

   It’s easy to humbly defer to the decision of the jury when it is not YOU standing on trial.

   Reply
6. 

   TMS

   September 23, 2011 at 9:35 PM

   The ‘irvine 11″ and their supporters just don’t get it, because they continue to show a lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment and the rights in America that they seek to trample upon yet also seek to use to their advantage. As Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine’s law school, so aptly stated, “There’s no free speech right to disrupt an event. … It’s not a matter of free speech because there’s no free speech right to shut someone down.” That is the fact none of these people can comprehend as they blindly shout that their 1st Amendment Rights are somehow violated.

   The simple concept that they cannot comprehend is that while they had every right to hold a peaceful protest outside the event (but that is not the type of people they are, or the type of speech they support), they had no right to enter in order to disrupt and prevent the event. They showed they are actually opposed to free speech, not faslely claimed supporters of free speech. Democracy and free speech live, not die, by the correct verdict, and this was the correct verdict to protect democracy. If they held an event to support their position, and it was interrupted by a planned conspiracy to prevent their event and speech, they would want to have those responsible arrested. These people did not “st[and] up against the face of oppression” as they spout — they are seeking to oppress rights of others that they disagree with. It is called hypocrisy,a nd anyone who cannot see that is blinded by hate not truth.

   Reply
   • 

     Nadya

     September 25, 2011 at 10:22 AM

     “You have to ask yourself, who is more barbaric? Those who protest when a war criminal comes to campus, or those who embrace and wrap him in a cloak of respectability?” -Norman Finkelstein

     As a friend of mine stated: “I remember one of the Irvine 10 brothers conveying a story that really stuck with me. Rosa Parks broke the law by siting at the front of the bus and the one little act brought about equality for all individuals. Could see have easily stood up (when asked to move)? Yes but she decided to stand up for justice by staying true to her principles, and historically this is what has brought about change in our country.”

     Even if (which I don’t) I agreed with you that the protest “trampled” 1st amendment rights…What on earth do you think civil disobedience is??? It’s to stand up and do the right thing even if the law forbids it.

     That being said, the time has come to stop debating the method of debate used and to move forward with what proceeded it.

     Reply
   • 

     Carlos

     September 26, 2011 at 5:41 PM

     A little overstated, TMS, but, generally, I agree with you.

     Nadya, the point you are making is not that the protesters violated the law to pursue a higher principle. You are arguing that the law, itself, is unfair. That is a bold statement. This is different from what many other commentators here are saying, which is that the protesters’ legal rights were violated. Which is it?

     Reply
     • 

       Nadya

       September 26, 2011 at 6:13 PM

       Actually I said:

       Even if (which I don’t) I agreed with you that the protest “trampled” 1st amendment rights…What on earth do you think civil disobedience is??? It’s to stand up and do the right thing even if the law forbids it.

       My point is that although I DO believe the protesters rights were violated, even IF I thought they had broken the law, I would still support them.

       Reply