Nationwide condemnation of Irvine 11 convictions by student and activist groups

Sept. 26, 2011 Electronic Intifada

Immediately following the convictions of the Irvine 11 students last Friday, student and activism groups across the US have condemned the guilty verdicts while pledging to stand in solidarity with the Irvine 11, defend free speech and protect the right to dissent.

More than 30 Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) university chapters nationwide signed onto a pledge over the weekend that stated, in full:

We join our voices with the unjustly charged and convicted Irvine 11, who dared to draw attention to Israel’s war crimes. Orange County District Attorney, Tony Rackauckus, has punished students who care about the world enough to try to change it. The 11 students refused to remain silent when Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren spoke at the University of California, Irvine in February 2010. Their brief outbursts, at best representing protected First Amendment speech and at worst harmless civil disobedience, have led to McCarthyistic misdemeanor charges. On September 23, 2011, an Orange Country jury found them “guilty.”

We unequivocally condemn these charges, which unfairly single out and criminalize Muslim students who chose to exercise their First Amendment right to speak out against Israel’s human rights abuses. Had the speaker not been Israeli, had the issue not been Palestine, had the students not been Muslim, these charges never would have been pursued. Rather, these charges reflect a climate of Islamophobia and an irrational exceptionalism for Israel when it comes to free speech. The charges chill the free exchange of ideas and students’ right to protest at universities nationwide.

It is our right and duty to speak out against Israel’s egregious violations of international law and Palestinian rights. The American government gives Israel over three billion dollars a year in military aid and is therefore directly responsible for Israel’s actions. We are troubled by the increased suppression of student voices in support of the Palestinian struggle for freedom. Student groups around the country continue to be targeted for their criticisms of Israeli governmental policies. University administrators find themselves under intense pressure from the Israel Lobby when pro-Palestine events occur on campus. It comes in the form of public smearing, alumni pressure, and frivolous lawsuits, as well as U.S. Department of Education investigations that seek to classify criticism of Israel as a violation of students’ civil rights. But it is the criminal prosecution of the Irvine 11 and the silencing of student activists everywhere that violate our civil rights.

It is inconceivable to suggest that Ambassador Oren, who has published four opinion-editorials in the New York Times alone and can easily command the attention of newspapers and television crews, has been denied a voice. On the other hand, it is routine for Palestinians to be silenced by the military and government that he represents without any media attention. The Irvine 11 shed light on the Palestinian voices constantly excluded from the media and public discourse.

To the Irvine 11: you are not alone. Like Dr. King wrote of his own unjust verdict, this week in September, the court convicted more than just you; it convicted every student dedicated to upholding human rights and ending injustice. We commend you for your courage and moral clarity. We know that the Irvine 11 are convicted criminals — but we are proud of their crime.

Harvard University’s Palestine Solidarity Committee posted a similar press release that stated:

The Irvine 11 should be commended for confronting Oren’s propaganda effort to whitewash Israel’s criminal actions and policies in front of college audiences. Instead, they have been unjustly punished for constitutionally-protected dissent that is a routine part of student activism, including here at Harvard.

On November 23, 2009, Harvard students also staged a walk-out of a speech by Oren at the Harvard Kennedy School. Last year, AIDS activists from Harvard and other colleges heckled and interrupted President Obama while he spoke in Boston. In neither case were students punished for exercising their right to protest.

… We call on students to support the Irvine 11 as they move ahead in appealing this unjust verdict. Further, we call on students to redouble their Palestine solidarity efforts. This attack only reinforces the urgency of continuing to organize in support of equality, justice and freedom for Palestinians and all oppressed peoples.

Meanwhile, interfaith organizations say they continue their committment to solidarity and support of the Irvine 11 and the right to free speech for everyone.

Jewish Voice for Peace posted its statement over the weekend, which read, in part:

This is a shameful day for the legal system and the Jewish communal leaders who actively supported this unfair railroading of young Muslim students and unprecedented attack on everyone’s right to free speech. How can it be that the Israeli ambassador enjoys more rights in the United States than do young Muslim citizens?

We hope this prompts some real soul searching among those who actively supported the case against the Irvine students simply because they didn’t like what the students had to say about Israel’s human rights record.

The principle of free expression for even unpopular speech, as it applies to all people, is fundamental to democracy. And it is never, ever OK to allow or support the unjust targeting of a minority group — which is what happened here. And frankly, as a religious and ethnic minority who was once a largely young immigrant population, Jews of all people should understand the need to protect minority rights.

And J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles/Orange County, had this to say about the convictions and the need for interfaith solidarity:

Obviously in light of the Irvine 11 verdicts there is an immediate need for improved listening to one another across faith traditions and reaching a new place of mutual respect. Today I am calling upon fellow Orange County bishops, rabbis, and Islamic leaders to come together immediately in renewed solidarity to address the issues and injustices raised in relation to these verdicts. Our Episcopal congregations will also increase participation in the Shura Council’s Open Mosque Day on October 16 to demonstrate our understanding that Islam is at its core a religion of peace within our shared Abrahamic tradition, and deserving of equal protection under First Amendment freedoms.

For more on the Irvine 11 solidarity campaign, visit the Stand With the Eleven website at www.irvine11.com.

National SJP Statement on the Irvine 11

We Stand With the Irvine 11

“Ordinarily, a person leaving a courtroom with a conviction behind him would wear a
somber face. But I left with a smile. I knew that I was a convicted criminal, but
I was proud of my crime. It was the crime of joining my people in a nonviolent
protest against injustice.“
-Martin Luther King, Jr. (Case No. 7399, convicted of “violating the state (of
Alabama)’s anti-boycott law,” March 22, 1956, from Stride Toward Freedom: the
Montgomery Story.)
We join our voices with the unjustly charged and convicted Irvine 11, who dared to
draw attention to Israel’s war crimes. Orange County District Attorney, Tony
Rackauckus, has punished students who care about the world enough to try to change
it. The 11 students refused to remain silent when Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren
spoke at the University of California, Irvine in February 2010. Their brief
outbursts, at best representing protected First Amendment speech and at worst
harmless civil disobedience, have led to McCarthyistic misdemeanor charges. On
September 23, 2011, an Orange Country jury found them “guilty.”
We unequivocally condemn these charges, which unfairly single out and criminalize
Muslim students who chose to exercise their First Amendment right to speak out
against Israel’s human rights abuses. Had the speaker not been Israeli, had the
issue not been Palestine, had the students not been Muslim, these charges never
would have been pursued. Rather, these charges reflect a climate of Islamophobia and
an irrational exceptionalism for Israel when it comes to free speech. The charges
chill the free exchange of ideas and students’ right to protest at universities
nationwide.
It is our right and duty to speak out against Israel’s egregious violations of
international law and Palestinian rights. The American government gives Israel over
three billion dollars a year in military aid and is therefore directly responsible
for Israel’s actions. We are troubled by the increased suppression of student voices
in support of the Palestinian struggle for freedom. Student groups around the
country continue to be targeted for their criticisms of Israeli governmental
policies. University administrators find themselves under intense pressure from the
Israel Lobby when pro-Palestine events occur on campus. It comes in the form of
public smearing, alumni pressure, and frivolous lawsuits, as well as U.S. Department
of Education investigations that seek to classify criticism of Israel as a violation
of students’ civil rights. But it is the criminal prosecution of the Irvine 11 and
the silencing of student activists everywhere that violate our civil rights.
It is inconceivable to suggest that Ambassador Oren, who has published four
opinion-editorials in the New York Times alone and can easily command the attention
of newspapers and television crews, has been denied a voice. On the other hand, it
is routine for Palestinians to be silenced by the military and government that he
represents without any media attention. The Irvine 11 shed light on the Palestinian
voices constantly excluded from the media and public discourse.
To the Irvine 11: you are not alone. Like Dr. King wrote of his own unjust verdict,
this week in September, the court convicted more than just you; it convicted every
student dedicated to upholding human rights and ending injustice. We commend you for
your courage and moral clarity. We know that the Irvine 11 are convicted
criminals—but we are proud of their crime.
—-
“…Instead of stopping the movement, the opposition’s tactics had only served to give
it greater momentum, and to draw us closer together. What the opposition failed to
see was that our mutual sufferings had wrapped us all in a single garment of
destiny. What happened to one happened to all.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Signatories (Add your group here)
National SJP Coordinating Committee
American University SJP
Arizona State University SJP
Benedictine University SJP
Boston University SJP
Brandeis SJP
Brandeis JVP
Brown University SJP
Cornell SJP
DePaul University SJP
Hunter College SJP
Illinois Institute of Technology SJP
Loyola University MESA
Northwestern University SJP
Ohio State University SJP
San Diego State University SJP
School of the Art Institute Chicago SJP
St. Xavier University SJP
Temple University SJP
University of California – Los Angeles SJP
University of California – San Diego SJP
University of Chicago SJP
University of New Mexico SJP
University of Pittsburgh SJP
University of Southern California SJP

--
Charlotte L. Kates charlotte.kates@gmail.co

'Irvine 11' jury finds all 10 students guilty

Muslim college students convicted of disrupting speech

By Tori Richards Reuters

SANTA ANA, Calif | Fri Sep 23, 2011

Ten Muslim college students from Southern California were convicted on Friday of unlawfully disrupting a speech by Israel's
ambassador to the United States last year.

The verdict followed two full days of deliberations by a six-man,
six-woman jury in the so-called "Irvine 11" case, which touched off a
furor over free speech rights at the University of California at Irvine.

Spectators began wailing in the packed courtroom in Santa Ana,
California when the verdicts were read by a court clerk, and about 50
people left the courtroom visibly upset.

The defendants, who are all in their early twenties, were convicted
of one count each of conspiracy and disturbing an assembly and could
face jail terms of up to a year, probation or community service at sentencing.

Charges have been tentatively dismissed against the 11th defendant.

"We're going to continue fighting this. We're going to appeal this
decision," supporter Marya Bangee, 25, told Reuters outside the court.

"These men to us represent our struggle for civil rights in this
country and for them to be found guilty and sentenced for speaking
their minds is devastating for us all," Bangee said.

The case stems from a protest organized by the Muslim Student Union
at the university of a February 8, 2010 speech there by Michael Oren,
the Israeli ambassador to the United States.

Prosecutors say the students interrupted his appearance by yelling
such insults as, "It's a shame this university has sponsored a mass
murderer like yourself."

The Orange County District Attorney's Office, which is prosecuting
the case, has said the students -- rather than exercising their own
free-speech rights -- were interfering with the right of Oren to be heard.

But the charges against the students drew an outcry from civil
liberties advocates and Southern California's Muslim community, who
say the students were unfairly singled out for prosecution even
though similar protests are common at universities and do not result
in prosecution.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at UC Irvine, has also
criticized the criminal charges as heavy-handed.

The Muslim Student Union was suspended by the university for an
academic quarter and put on probation for two years.

(Writing by
Dan
Whitcomb; Editing by Cynthia Johnston)


***************************
'Irvine 11' jury finds all 10 students guilty

September 23, 2011 | LA Times

After more than two days of deliberation, an Orange County jury on
Friday found 10 Muslim students guilty of two misdemeanors to
conspire and then disrupt a February 2010 speech at UC Irvine last
year by the Israeli ambassador to the United States.

There was crying as the verdict was read in Superior Court Judge
Peter J. Wilson's courtroom. The students showed no visible emotion,
although they hugged each afterward. Some also stormed out.

In a case that garnered national attention over free-speech rights,
the trial centered on conflicting views of who was being censored.
Prosecutors argued that Ambassador Michael Oren was "shut down" when
his speech was interrupted by students who took turns shouting
preplanned phrases in a crowded UC Irvine ballroom.

Six defense attorneys argued that the students, seven from UC Irvine
and three from UC Riverside, were only following the norm of other
college protests and were being singled out.

A guilty verdict, the defense had said during the trial, could chill
student activism and the free exchange of ideas at colleges nationwide.

University administrators disciplined some of the students involved
and suspended the campus Muslim Student Union, whose members
participated in the protest, for an academic quarter. The group is
still on probation.

The case also has drawn the attention of a wide range of groups,
including Muslim and Jewish organizations and civil libertarians. The
trial began Sept. 7.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Irvine's Law School, has said that
although freedom of speech is not an absolute right, university
sanctions were enough for the students.

But he also added that he believes criminal sanctions go too far.

Chemerinsky told The Times last week that "it makes no sense" to use
such resources. "It's so minor."

Charges against one defendant were tentatively dismissed pending
completion of 40 hours of community service at a local soup kitchen.

But the other 10 went on trial Sept. 11 before packed, at times
noisy, crowds in the courtroom.


-- Nicole Santa Cruz and Mike Anton

Who's Gagging Whom In the Irvine 11 Case?

The First Amendment, academic freedom and Islamophobia collide in an OC courtroom

By MICHELLE WOO OC Weekly Thursday, Sep 22 2011

In her closing arguments for what has come to be known as the Irvine 11 case, defense attorney Reem Salahi offered a personal story. Displayed on the projection screen was a black-and-white photograph of a man with his mouth taped shut.

Christopher Victorio

Some of the Irvine 11

"I talked to my cousin in Syria," she began. Before she could go any further, however, the prosecution objected, saying the tale didn't relate to evidence in the case. Judge Peter Wilson agreed.

"Well," Salahi said. "I guess I can't tell you my story. I got shut down."

The packed courtroom exploded with laughter and cheers. After the jurors stepped out, the judge admonished the crowd for its outburst. "This is a court of law," Wilson said sternly. "It is not a spectator sport."

The irony was not lost on anyone. A decision would soon arrive in the historic Irvine 11 trial, one that has ignited an unusual debate over First Amendment rights at public events.

The case centers on an incident during a Feb. 8, 2010, speech by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at and sponsored by UC Irvine. Members of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) stood up and shouted scripted messages relating to the 2009 attack on the Gaza Strip—such as "You, sir, are an accomplice to genocide!" and "Murder is not free speech!"—before being escorted out by police. The university suspended the MSU and ordered the group to collectively complete 100 hours of community service.

A year after the protest, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed criminal misdemeanor charges against 11 students, eight from UCI and three from UC Riverside, who became known as the Irvine 11. The 10 current defendants are Mohamad Mohy-Eldeen Abdelgany, Khalid Gahgat Akari, Aslam Abbasi Akhtar, Joseph Tamim Haider, Taher Mutaz Herzallah, Shaheen Waleed Nassar, Mohammad Uns Qureashi, Ali Mohammad Sayeed, Osama Ahmen Shabaik and Asaad Mohamedidris Traina. (Charges against Hakim Nasreddine Kebir will be dropped if he completes 40 hours of community service by next month.) "In our democratic society, we cannot tolerate a deliberate, organized, repetitive and collective effort to significantly disrupt a speaker, whom hundreds assembled to hear," Rackauckas said in a statement.

The students are charged with disturbing a public meeting and engaging in a conspiracy to do so. If convicted, each faces up to a year in jail.

The defendants, silenced by a gag order, are at the center of a political maelstrom, as people around the country watch YouTube videos of the demonstration. They've been called martyrs, bravely speaking out against injustice in the Middle East. They've been called pawns in a trial brought on for political gain. They've been called thugs, unwilling to engage in civil dialogue and very willing to squelch dissent at any cost.

But lead prosecutor Dan Wagner called them "guilty," writing the word on an easel pad in bold red letters.

"Who is the censor in this case?" he asked the jurors. "Right there—10 of them."

He added, "Free speech is not absolute. It does not include the right to suppress or cancel another person's right to free speech. If it did, then no one would have the right to free speech."

In his prosecution, Wagner tried to prove the defendants "willfully disturbed" a lawful meeting by presenting a series of emails that were sent in the days leading up to the protest. Obtained from Google by search warrant, the messages discussed plans for a disruption similar to a 2009 incident at the University of Chicago, where about 30 demonstrators stood up in the crowd, one by one, to protest a lecture being given by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

One email contained the minutes from an MSU meeting, which stated that the goal of the protest was to "send the speaker a message" and show him that "he can't just go to a campus and say whatever he wants." Included were plans to "disrupt the whole event" and "shut down with individual disruption."

Rabbi David Eliezrie, president of the Rabbinical Council of Orange County, sat in the courtroom in support of the prosecution. He attended Oren's speech last year and described the disruptions as "frightening for anyone who believes in the Constitution."

"If they wanted to go outside and walk around with signs, that's their right," he told the Weekly. As for the way the students protested, he called it "everything just short of violence."

Wagner included as evidence several warnings and scoldings from UCI Chancellor Michael Drake and professor Mark Petracca throughout the event.

The defense, in turn, tried to get jurors to look at the incident in the greater context. "College students protest," said attorney Jacqueline Goodman in her closing arguments. "Protest is messy, but it's beautiful. This is how democracy survives."

During the trial, attorney Lisa Holder explained the students were speaking out against violence, that they "modeled their behavior after revered leaders they had studied at UC Irvine," including Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. The defense team had brought in several witnesses who had experienced student protests, all of which ended without arrests or sanctions. Goodman projected a photograph of Representative Joe Wilson and his infamous "You lie!" in reference to his outburst during President Barack Obama's September 2009 health-care address. She compared the disruptions by the defendants to comedy-club heckling: "Rude, not illegal."

Both Wagner and defense attorneys showed conflicting pie charts breaking down how much time Oren actually had to speak after disruptions by the protesters, subsequent cheering and jeering, plus remarks by university officials were subtracted.

Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, called the trial "political theatrics."

"When dissent is questioned in a court of law, one may argue it's the beginning of the death of democracy," he said.

Throughout the trial, the elephant in the courtroom has been Islamophobia, an issue that many Irvine 11 supporters have raised because the incident took place on a campus with a history of tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as because the students are Muslim.

"If these kids had been Christian or Jewish, we wouldn't be sitting here," said Hussan Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Los Angeles, in an interview. "There's some political gain for the persecution of Muslims, especially in right-wing circles."

The courtroom audience overwhelmingly consisted of Irvine 11 family members and supporters. During breaks, a few women in multihued hijabs would kneel down in the corner of the hallway, then start bowing and murmuring prayers.

Kifah Shah, spokesperson for the Stand With the Eleven Campaign, warned them to not do so. "Go pray outside," she said.

Shah has said that in pursuing this case, the district attorney's office has "set a very dangerous precedent of stifling critical discourse across college campuses." Hassun Chaudhry, a UC Irvine alum and friend of the defendants, agrees, believing the prosecution of the Irvine 11 may send an open invitation to the government to selectively quell dissent.

"They're using the anti-Muslim sentiment to get people to fight these kids' liberties, and then they can use this case to trump other liberties," he said. "It can be used against environmental groups or people who are anti-corporation. It's just gonna bite everyone in the ass."

As of press time, a verdict had not been reached in the Irvine 11 trial. For up-to-date news on the case, visit our Navel Gazing blog at blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing, on which portions of this story have previously appeared.

This article appeared in print as "Who's Gagging Whom? The First Amendment, academic freedom and Islamophobia collide in the Irvine 11 trial."

Jury in Irvine 11 trial goes to deliberation after attorneys’ closing arguments

Sept. 21, 2011 Electronic Intifada

After two days of closing arguments by the defense and prosecution attorneys, the jury tasked with reaching a verdict in the Irvine 11 trial finally broke for deliberation on Tuesday afternoon.

The courtroom heard the arguments of defense lawyers Lisa Holder, Tarek Shawky, Jacqueline Goodman and Dan Stormer before the prosecution, Dan Wagner, argued a rebuttal and closed his arguments.

The jury “stands between democracy and creeping fascism”

Holder maintained that the jury should not “divorce the content from the conduct” of the protests, which she reiterated were aimed at sending a message of dissent directly to the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, who was speaking on behalf of his government and its policies in Gaza. “The UC administration placed limits on [the students’] speech,” she added, “because it was the message of the content of this group — pro-Palestinian politics and perspective. The university was prohibiting this specific, unpopular, pro-Palestinian message. This is about content, not conduct.”

She implored the jury to imagine if UC Irvine students had stood up and applauded Michael Oren, and shouted “we love you Michael Oren! We love Israel!” in a pre-planned ovation to convey support for the ambassador. “Assuming that the scenario was true, do you believe that the prosecution would go after these students? Would they be found guilty of disrupting the event?” she asked. “Would those students be prohibited from speaking by the university? Or arrested for their conduct? Of course there’s a reasonable doubt about that.”

Holder repeated earlier arguments by the defense that the university administration did not provide reasonable opportunity for a protest, and therefore the law does not apply for prosecution.

Addressing the jury, Holder said that the jurors “stand between democracy and creeping fascism. This is about content. We have to remind the government that we the people will not tolerate the prevention of free speech.”

These students “are not criminals”

Tarek Shawky added that the Irvine 11 are not criminals — rather, he said, “they are upstanding students and members of the community. They were compelled to stand up and demonstrate because of their duty, their right to speak truth to power, to express themselves — and they have the right to do so in a peaceful, nonviolent and verbal method.”

“They were going to speak truth to power because that’s what they’ve been told they could do in this country,” he said.

On the DA’s claim that the plan to protest was “a criminal conspiracy,” Shawky stated that he would call a plan to lawfully protest “a fundamental right.”

He added that people in the ballroom who heckled and jeered the student protesters “got preferential treatment based on the content of their support” of the ambassador’s speech.

“There is one verdict that is supported by common sense,” he remarked, “and that is not guilty.”

“Heroes and patriots”

Jacqueline Goodman began her closing arguments stating to the jury that the Irvine 11 are “heroes and patriots … in the tradition of the finest American political activists,” and compared them to Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez. “I’m so proud of them. They’re real people with real blood. When you know that people halfway around the world were being killed — and continue to be to this day — what would you do?”

“These are people who stood up because their conscience demanded it,” she continued. “The government wants you to call them criminals. They’re using all their might to call these extraordinary young men — these heroes — criminals.”

“We know and cherish the fact that social change comes from lawful civil disobedience,” she said.

Goodman argued that the university administration made no indication that a protest would be tolerated. “[The university] is a marketplace of ideas, but it assumes that there is equal power between ordinary citizens versus political figures. This public official occupied a better position to publicize his views using the mass media.” She added that those who disagreed with Oren would have only been able to proclaim that disagreement with direct, vocal criticism.

“Free expression of dissent protects democracy. It is messy, but it is beautiful,” she stated. “You step up and interrupt injustice when you see it. Does it mean that that’s illegal? It means that [the students] are heroes … Are we going to let [the government] criminalize dissent?”

The jury are the “guardians of freedom”

Finally, defense attorney Stormer appealed to the jury to consider the consequences if “a failure to behave” was made a crime in the US. “Freedom of speech prevents anarchy. It gives people — and dissent — a voice. Dictatorships say ‘we won’t tolerate a disruption, you must be civil.’”

“[Prosecution attorney Dan] Wagner accused our clients of censorship [of Michael Oren]. But announcing at the start of the event that there was no mechanism for protest — that’s censorship,” he emphasized. “Using a private police force [to arrest protesters], that’s censorship.”

“Our society is premised upon the following concepts,” Stormer continued. “You may not like what I have to say, but you gotta love the fact that I have the right to say it. These students had the right to protest, the right to plan, and are not guilty of the charges filed against them.”

Wagner’s rebuttal

Prosecution attorney Dan Wagner, in a tone many audience members found angry and patronizing, scoffed at the defense’s arguments and again repeated his claim that the students “took away the free speech rights of the ambassador.” He called the defense’s assertions were from “an alternate reality” that has no evidentiary basis.

He also attempted to de-politicize the intention of the students’ protest by claiming that their shouting was “gibberish,” and claimed that their only intent was to “make noise and shut the speaker down” — instead of acknowledging, as laid out by the defense and the students themselves in their planning email correspondences, that their protest was a purely political one meant to bring the reality of Israeli policy in Gaza into the ballroom that night.

The jury will decide

After Wagner’s rebuttal, the judge instructed the jury to begin deliberations toward reaching a verdict for each of the two misdemeanor counts charged by the Orange County District Attorney’s office.

Once a verdict is reached, which will be sometime within the next few days, The Electronic Intifada will attend an immediate press conference outside the Orange County Superior Courthouse and will continue to update live on twitter at @intifadaLive.

Jury in Irvine 11 trial goes to deliberation after attorneys’ closing arguments

Sept. 21, 2011 Electronic Intifada

After two days of closing arguments by the defense and prosecution attorneys, the jury tasked with reaching a verdict in the Irvine 11 trial finally broke for deliberation on Tuesday afternoon.

The courtroom heard the arguments of defense lawyers Lisa Holder, Tarek Shawky, Jacqueline Goodman and Dan Stormer before the prosecution, Dan Wagner, argued a rebuttal and closed his arguments.

The jury “stands between democracy and creeping fascism”

Holder maintained that the jury should not “divorce the content from the conduct” of the protests, which she reiterated were aimed at sending a message of dissent directly to the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, who was speaking on behalf of his government and its policies in Gaza. “The UC administration placed limits on [the students’] speech,” she added, “because it was the message of the content of this group — pro-Palestinian politics and perspective. The university was prohibiting this specific, unpopular, pro-Palestinian message. This is about content, not conduct.”

She implored the jury to imagine if UC Irvine students had stood up and applauded Michael Oren, and shouted “we love you Michael Oren! We love Israel!” in a pre-planned ovation to convey support for the ambassador. “Assuming that the scenario was true, do you believe that the prosecution would go after these students? Would they be found guilty of disrupting the event?” she asked. “Would those students be prohibited from speaking by the university? Or arrested for their conduct? Of course there’s a reasonable doubt about that.”

Holder repeated earlier arguments by the defense that the university administration did not provide reasonable opportunity for a protest, and therefore the law does not apply for prosecution.

Addressing the jury, Holder said that the jurors “stand between democracy and creeping fascism. This is about content. We have to remind the government that we the people will not tolerate the prevention of free speech.”

These students “are not criminals”

Tarek Shawky added that the Irvine 11 are not criminals — rather, he said, “they are upstanding students and members of the community. They were compelled to stand up and demonstrate because of their duty, their right to speak truth to power, to express themselves — and they have the right to do so in a peaceful, nonviolent and verbal method.”

“They were going to speak truth to power because that’s what they’ve been told they could do in this country,” he said.

On the DA’s claim that the plan to protest was “a criminal conspiracy,” Shawky stated that he would call a plan to lawfully protest “a fundamental right.”

He added that people in the ballroom who heckled and jeered the student protesters “got preferential treatment based on the content of their support” of the ambassador’s speech.

“There is one verdict that is supported by common sense,” he remarked, “and that is not guilty.”

“Heroes and patriots”

Jacqueline Goodman began her closing arguments stating to the jury that the Irvine 11 are “heroes and patriots … in the tradition of the finest American political activists,” and compared them to Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez. “I’m so proud of them. They’re real people with real blood. When you know that people halfway around the world were being killed — and continue to be to this day — what would you do?”

“These are people who stood up because their conscience demanded it,” she continued. “The government wants you to call them criminals. They’re using all their might to call these extraordinary young men — these heroes — criminals.”

“We know and cherish the fact that social change comes from lawful civil disobedience,” she said.

Goodman argued that the university administration made no indication that a protest would be tolerated. “[The university] is a marketplace of ideas, but it assumes that there is equal power between ordinary citizens versus political figures. This public official occupied a better position to publicize his views using the mass media.” She added that those who disagreed with Oren would have only been able to proclaim that disagreement with direct, vocal criticism.

“Free expression of dissent protects democracy. It is messy, but it is beautiful,” she stated. “You step up and interrupt injustice when you see it. Does it mean that that’s illegal? It means that [the students] are heroes … Are we going to let [the government] criminalize dissent?”

The jury are the “guardians of freedom”

Finally, defense attorney Stormer appealed to the jury to consider the consequences if “a failure to behave” was made a crime in the US. “Freedom of speech prevents anarchy. It gives people — and dissent — a voice. Dictatorships say ‘we won’t tolerate a disruption, you must be civil.’”

“[Prosecution attorney Dan] Wagner accused our clients of censorship [of Michael Oren]. But announcing at the start of the event that there was no mechanism for protest — that’s censorship,” he emphasized. “Using a private police force [to arrest protesters], that’s censorship.”

“Our society is premised upon the following concepts,” Stormer continued. “You may not like what I have to say, but you gotta love the fact that I have the right to say it. These students had the right to protest, the right to plan, and are not guilty of the charges filed against them.”

Wagner’s rebuttal

Prosecution attorney Dan Wagner, in a tone many audience members found angry and patronizing, scoffed at the defense’s arguments and again repeated his claim that the students “took away the free speech rights of the ambassador.” He called the defense’s assertions were from “an alternate reality” that has no evidentiary basis.

He also attempted to de-politicize the intention of the students’ protest by claiming that their shouting was “gibberish,” and claimed that their only intent was to “make noise and shut the speaker down” — instead of acknowledging, as laid out by the defense and the students themselves in their planning email correspondences, that their protest was a purely political one meant to bring the reality of Israeli policy in Gaza into the ballroom that night.

The jury will decide

After Wagner’s rebuttal, the judge instructed the jury to begin deliberations toward reaching a verdict for each of the two misdemeanor counts charged by the Orange County District Attorney’s office.

Once a verdict is reached, which will be sometime within the next few days, The Electronic Intifada will attend an immediate press conference outside the Orange County Superior Courthouse and will continue to update live on twitter at @intifadaLive.

"Eager for closure": Nearing a verdict in the Irvine 11 trial

Sept. 16, 2011 Electronic Intifada

The defense team for the Irvine 11 rested their case on Thursday afternoon at the Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana, after nearly a dozen pieces of evidence — ranging from emails to a video made by The Electronic Intifada — were offered to the jury during the last two weeks of trial hearings.

The students from UC Irvine and UC Riverside, who nonviolently protested a speech given by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren in February 2010, are being charged by the Orange County District Attorney’s office with two misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to disrupt a meeting and disruption of a meeting. If convicted, each student could face up to a year in jail for each charge.

Several witnesses concluded their testimonies on Thursday, including a professor of sociology at UCLA who is an expert on audience behavior during speeches, and a former student at UC Irvine who witnessed an on-campus demonstration by college Republicans attempting to shut down a speech by a Muslim activist in 2001.

The student, Kareem Elsayed, said that the university administration had not made any preliminary rules to which the audience should abide, and did not intervene when the speaker was repeatedly drowned out. No one was arrested or led away, he added. But the event inspired him to become involved in student activism, and he stressed the point that although he didn’t approve of the disruption, he thought it was an acceptable form of protest.

The professor, Steven Clayman, testified that the protest against Oren was “an unavoidable feature” due to the nature of the speech, given what Oren represents as an Israeli official. When examined by attorneys, Clayman stated that “it was not possible to prevent audience disapproval” and “[the university administration] can’t force audience members to comply with the rules.”

Dan Stormer, a defense attorney for the Irvine 11, pointed out several facts during Clayman’s testimony that he wanted the jury to remember, including the fact that there was no publicized question and answer period on the event flier. The prosecution has built a major part of its case against the students based on the fact that Oren allegedly had no time for a question and answer period, and therefore the students had “shut down” the event, leading to the misdemeanor charge.

However, Stormer reminded the jury that the ambassador had tickets to an LA Lakers game that night (the jury knew about Oren’s basketball game plans, but were not allowed to see the photo of his meeting with Laker star Kobe Bryant), and the speech itself started 30 minutes late due to problems with seating inside the ballroom. Finally, Stormer said that the university administration spent more time berating the student protesters than was probably necessary, which led to further delay in Oren’s speech, which the professor agreed with.

The prosecution’s rebuttal included showing the jury a video — recorded and produced by The Electronic Intifada — of the protest of a speech given by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Chicago in October 2009. A pared-down version of the video was shown earlier in the trial by the defense. The point in showing a longer part of the video, the prosecution asserted, was that there is a mention of EI’s cameraman who was threatened with arrest by security when it was discovered that we had been filming the protest. The attorneys’ intent in showing EI’s video was to establish the “state of mind” of the Irvine 11 protesters, who they claim could have known that they were facing possible arrest by protesting Oren.

However, upon the recitation of various email threads between the defendants and others in the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine, it was clear that the students intended to do the very opposite — “we won’t lead anyone into getting arrested,” stated one person’s email. “It’s not part of the plan … that’s why we need to write down exactly what we’re going to say.” In the email, the discussion for a plan to protest during Oren’s speech included a link to EI’s video, which had been making the rounds not only online, but in Palestine solidarity communities worldwide — leading to other similar protests in New Orleans, San Francisco, and Scotland (in neither place no one was ever arrested or prosecuted).

The email continued: “The point of the video is to prove how extremely careful we have to be with how things go … We ARE the voice of the Palestinian people, and we have to make sure we’re not just trying to be disruptive. People need to take us seriously and we need to show them how passionate we are about what we are doing.”

Clearly, the plan by the students was to obey the law — and, explicitly, not to violate it. And as Stormer said earlier in the trial, “You cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed.”

Community reaction, community support

Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, said he attended “nearly every other day” of the trial hearings over the past few weeks, and told The Electronic Intifada that he has faith in the jury and in the process. “Hopefully this will come to an end,” he said.

He added:

In the Muslim community, there has been a lot of anxiety and concern, but the community has extended its unconditional support to the students and their families. We’re committed to supporting them in any which way possible, but we’re all eager to bring this to a closure.

The de-politicization process is the most concerning. As taxpayers of this county, once this comes to a close we have to ask ourselves what options and recourse we have after witnessing this political theater. Was this the most prudent way to use our resources, and if not, how do we address the judgment of the DA’s office? This is not the first time that the DA’s judgment has been questioned. There was the killing of the man in Fullerton recently by police officers, and we stand in solidarity with the deceased.

In this UCI case, Arabs and Muslims are not alone. Many other communities of different ethnicities and faith backgrounds are in solidarity with us and are of equal concern. There are Japanese-American and Jewish community leaders among us today. It’s a collective concern for all of us.

Raihan Dakhil, a graduate of UCI in political science, said that she was attending the trial to support her fellow students. “It’s ridiculous that they’re on trial for a simple protest,” she told The Electronic Intifada.

She continued:

They were definitely selectively targeted for standing up on Palestine issues. And being Muslim is an easy target. What they’ve done is an act of courage, and it will inspire others to stand up. Some people could be intimidated by this process, but it’s about standing up for what’s right.

This has inspired me. It’s made me proud of standing up for the truth. It’s made me more firm in my beliefs, my political beliefs in justice.

I hope they’re found not guilty. So many other protests have happened. Even President Obama was protested recently, and he thanked them and said that this is what our country is all about. The Irvine 11 students’ protest was a peaceful protest.

The closing arguments will begin on Monday, 19 September, and the verdict will follow soon afterwards. For more information on the solidarity group, Stand With The Eleven, visit their website at www.irvine11.com.

Recap of first day of Irvine 11 trial: "no unlawful act was committed"

Sept. 8, 2011 Electronic Intifada

Today’s opening statements in the Irvine 11 trial included explicit deconstruction by the defense team of the Orange County District Attorney’s argument that the Muslim students who protested an Israeli official’s speech last year did so in violation of a California penal code for conspiracy.

“You cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed,” stated a defense attorney in the courtroom today.

The trial, now underway in the Orange County courthouse in Santa Ana, California, focuses on the prosecution’s claim that the students violated the penal code that could send the students to jail for up to two years on two misdemeanor counts: conspiracy to disrupt a meeting, and disruption of a meeting.

Kifah Shah, media coordinator and spokesperson for the Irvine 11 solidarity group, Stand With the Eleven, told The Electronic Intifada that approximately 100 supporters packed the courtroom after attending a press conference outside of the courthouse. Several major media organizations also attended the pre-trial debriefing, which was organized by local community leaders from such groups as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and several interfaith leaders and professors at UC Irvine.

The LA Times’ Orange County-based Daily Pilot reported that Father Wilfredo Benitez of the Saint Anselm of Canterbury Episcopal Church stated at the press conference that “[t}his smells of persecution. In a free country … this should simply not be happening.” The report continued:

Moutaz Herzallah, whose son Taher is among the defendants, said Rackauckas “threw the [U.S.] Constitution in the trash” when he decided to press charges.

Moutaz Herzallah, who is from Gaza, said he immigrated to the United States “to have peace, dignity and honor” and that the D.A. should be prosecuted for his disregard of the Constitution.

Shah said that the opening day of the trial “went really well.”

“There were a lot of people there, and a lot of community members came out to support. There was a sentiment of eagerness in the room awaiting and anticipating justice. There was a hopeful feeling,” she added.

I asked her if she had a sense of whether the selected jurors were given a clear picture of what went on during Ambassador Oren’s speech that has led to the prosecution of the students, following the opening statements by the defense and prosecution teams.

Shah replied:

Yes. They went over what happened and explained it thoroughly to the jury. They went through exactly what happened, and obviously in their own terms. In terms of the opening statements, the prosecution is arguing that this was a “heckler veto” — meaning that individuals don’t like what’s being said, and decide to “veto” a speech. The prosecution lawyer reiterated that the students tried to “shut down” the event, to provide the evidence during his statements that [the protest] was a conspiracy. He also went over the fact that they belong to a group, the Muslim Student Union (MSU), and that these defendants “conspired together as a group to enact a heckler’s veto.”

He said that the MSU “was not happy” that the ambassador, Michael Oren, was coming to campus, and “they didn’t want to debate the ambassador — they decided they wanted to shut down the event within the guise of acting as individuals. They wanted to shut him down.” Like I said, he repeatedly asserted that the Irvine 11 wanted to shut down the event.

The other part is that he also talked about that it’s the act itself that the jury will deliberate upon, and not the content of the speech. He added that in the beginning of [Oren’s event] itself, the chair of the Political Science department had stated that we “expect and relish debate on campus, but will expect nothing but civility and courtesy” [from the audience]. And then he said that even the Chancellor, when the protest began, that “this is outrageous, and this violates the rules.” So the prosecuting attorney chose these statements in particular to tell a story to the jury — that this was a violation of rules, that this was a conspiracy to shut down the event.

The defense attorneys also laid out what the defendants did during the protest, and what that looked like for them. What was really hit it on the head was that [defense attorney] Reem Salahi stated exactly what was written on the index cards [from which the students read during their protest]. This was a concerted, calculated effort — it was not their intention to resist removal, they were not trying to stall or prolong anything — they simply wrote down what they wanted to say on their index cards, said what they had to say, which amounted in total for each of them just a few seconds, which took up a cumulative five minutes including the jeers from the crowd.

In their emails [that were subpoenaed during the investigation], the students were talking about not resisting, being nonviolent, acting with a certain demeanor — the defense was illustrating how it wasn’t their intention in any way to “shut down” the event. At the end of the event, even Michael Oren had said that he wished the students who protested and were removed from the ballroom “had stayed … it was that group that I wanted to address.”

The defense said really well that “you cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed.” So what the prosecution has is a conspiracy to commit a crime, and then the actual committing of that crime. But in terms of whether or not a crime was committed, we’re looking at CA Penal Code section 403 which states that there is a violation if a meeting has been disturbed or broken up. However, there was not a crime that was committed here — Oren did finish his speech, at the end of which he stated that he wished the students had stayed.

Another argument is that Oren wasn’t able to do a question and answer — but if you look at how the event was advertised, they didn’t even say that there was an intention that there was going to be a question and answer section to Oren’s speech. The penal code was not violated. That means that the prosecution’s argument of a “shut down” didn’t happen.

In closing, I asked Shah to talk about the solidarity efforts of her campaign, Stand With the Eleven.

Well, even from the opening statements, this is a political opportunity for the district attorney’s office — everyone knows he’s running for re-election, and I really think that if this is selective prosecution, it’s really important to remember that now it’s not just about these ten students, but it’s significant for all Americans at this point. The precedent that is set concerns everyone’s rights to free speech.

The district attorney is the one who’s committing egregious acts of intolerance and persecution. It’s not about these ten students in a courtroom anymore, now it’s about every American and everyone’s rights to free speech.

The Electronic Intifada will continue to update our readers on the Irvine 11 trial. The verdict is set for 23 September.