Frequent 'Commentator' On CNN/MSNBC Arrested For Malicious Mischief

[Kathianne]

Ah, Egyptian-American, vandalizing ads in NY Subway:


http://youtu.be/P0jSSLleGiY



http://blogs.jpost.com/content/mona-eltahawy-defends-jihad-we-are-all-proud-savages-now


Wednesday Sep 26, 2012

Mona Eltahawy defends jihad: We are all proud savages now!

On Tuesday, the prominent Egyptian-American writer Mona Eltahawy informed her almost 160 000 Twitter followers in no uncertain terms that she was incensed by an advertisement (https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/250568521187201024) that had been placed in some New York City subways stations. Quoting a Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/uk-usa-muslim-ads-idUSLNE88O00C20120925) about the ad, Eltahawy referred to it as “‘Savage’ jihad ad,” and, by adding the hashtag #ProudSavage, presumably declared her solidarity with maligned jihadists who see themselves in a war against Israel and (western) civilization.


Indeed, as the day wore on, Eltahawy playfully pondered on Twitter how best to protest the ad, deciding eventually (https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/250573122263216128) that defacing it with pink spray paint would be “sexier” than the alternatives. A few hours later, Eltahawy was going through with her plan to cover one of the ads with pink paint, but was confronted by a woman resolved to stop her. The ensuing brawl was captured by a New York Post camera crew (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/video_exclusive_woman_defaces_anti_3xZ5mGVAGc1b6KU MFKGseK), and Eltahawy was eventually arrested and held overnight to face a criminal mischief charge (https://twitter.com/TheRobinMorgan/status/250757697920724993) in court.

This story is a perfect, if utterly depressing, illustration of the mindless sloganeering that all too often passes for political action and debate nowadays.

First, let us consider what the ad that Reuters described as “inflammatory” really said. As the Reuters report noted, the ad equates “Islamic jihad with savagery;” saying specifically:


“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.
Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”


To me, the most straightforward reading of the message here is: Jihad, understood as war, and in this case specifically as war against Israel, is savage. This is only “inflammatory” if you worry that many Muslims would be insulted to see violent jihadi acts of war denounced as savage.

But apparently, this is not how Eltahawy and her many ardent supporters read the ad. The most revealing illustration for their reading was provided by the well-known cartoonist Carlos Latuff, who has rightly been criticized (http://jcpa.org/article/anti-semitic-cartoons-on-progressive-blogs/) for his “staggering amount of work dedicated to advancing explicitly anti-Semitic political imagery.”

Latuff was quick to support the #FreeMona campaign (https://twitter.com/engnesta/status/250912250674688000/photo/1) developing on Twitter with a drawing that, according to Latuff’s own caption, meant to illustrate that “equating Muslims with savages is freedom of speech – protesting against it is not…”

But while Latuff claimed that the ad was “equating Muslims with savages”, his rendering of the ad tellingly left out the last line “Defeat Jihad.”

It wasn’t the text of the ad that equated Muslims with savages, but Latuff – as well as Eltahawy and her admirers – apparently equated Jihad, understood as war, and specifically as war against Israel, with Islam and therefore with Muslims.

That would probably please jihadists everywhere.

...

Particularly a prominent writer like Mona Eltahawy surely had the option to turn to numerous widely read media outlets to explain what she finds so objectionable in this specific ad – and perhaps also what she thinks of the mainstream Muslim views of jihad I cited above. Engaging in an act of futile vandalism accompanied by a few rather vulgar tweets and claiming that this is an exercise of free speech and anti-racist political action is indeed a poor reflection on a widely admired writer of our time.

But while I am writing this, Eltahawy’s most recent tweet (https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/251047540001222657) announces: “I return to court to face my charges - proudly - on Nov29. #ProudSavage (https://twitter.com/search/?q=%23ProudSavage&src=hash) #FuckHate (https://twitter.com/search/?q=%23FuckHate&src=hash) #NYC (https://twitter.com/search/?q=%23NYC&src=hash)”

And, in yet another tweet (https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/251048023008886787) posted just five minutes ago and already retweeted by almost 100 people, Eltahawy declares: “I spray painted that racist piece of shit poster out of principle, protected speech & non-violent disobedience. Proud & absolutely no regrets!”

Unthinking demagoguery attracts a lot of fans, it seems. And what do you know: there is also a new slogan, because, naturally, when a much-despised fringe group sponsors an ad describing the jihad that targets Israel as savage, the most anti-racist thing to do is to declare that we are all proud savages now…

[Little-Acorn]

As the Reuters report noted, the ad equates “Islamic jihad with savagery;” saying specifically:

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.
Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/mona-eltahawy-defends-jihad-we-are-all-proud-savages-now

As I pointed out earlier, the act of invading a country's embassies and killing the ambassadors, is an act of savagery, and the people doing it are indeed savages.
See: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36904-Embassies-invaded-ambassador-killed-This-isn-t-quot-your-father-s-war-quot-it-s-far-worse

I used the word "barbarism" earlier. I regret that I omitted the word "savagery", since that's what I really meant. As I said, embassies are to be held inviolate, since that is where discussions (even between warring powers) are held, in an effort to stop the fighting and destruction. People who deliberately kill the ambassadors, are people who don't want the destruction to stop: They are, in a word, savages.

And people who approve this murder of ambassadors, and try to justify it by calling it "Jihad", are no different: They are savages also. Giving the act a fancy name does not change its nature.

There's a serious question we need to ask: Once these murderers eliminate all channels of negotiation, how can we stop the murders they support, except by utter annihilation - killing them to the last man?

I would welcome any other answer that would work. But I fear there may be none.

[Kathianne]

As I pointed out earlier, the act of invading a country's embassies and killing the ambassadors, is an act of savagery, and the people doing it are indeed savages.
See: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36904-Embassies-invaded-ambassador-killed-This-isn-t-quot-your-father-s-war-quot-it-s-far-worse

I used the word "barbarism" earlier. I regret that I omitted the word "savagery", since that's what I really meant. As I said, embassies are to be held inviolate, since that is where discussions (even between warring powers) are held, in an effort to stop the fighting and destruction. People who deliberately kill the ambassadors, are people who don't want the destruction to stop: They are, in a word, savages.

And people who approve this murder of ambassadors, and try to justify it by calling it "Jihad", are no different: They are savages also. Giving the act a fancy name does not change its nature.

There's a serious question we need to ask: Once these murderers eliminate all channels of negotiation, how can we stop the murders they support, except by utter annihilation - killing them to the last man?

I would welcome any other answer that would work. But I fear there may be none.

You also forgot 'malicious mischief'? Just checking.

Perhaps there is a new thread segue here?

[Little-Acorn]

You also forgot 'malicious mischief'? Just checking.
I did indeed.

I guess that puts me a step behind the Los Angeles Police, who managed to remember to charge OJ Simpson with "violating his ex-wife's civil rights" after her bloodied body, with head almost completely sliced off by an apparently large, powerful man, was found outside her house along with a similarly-murdered body of a waiter from a nearby restaurant.

He violated her civil rights.

And the people who murdered a U.S. Ambassador committed malicious mischief.

How could I have missed that?


Perhaps there is a new thread segue here?
Perhaps... for those who want to hijack the thread to a different (but oh-so-important) subject.

[Kathianne]

Let us just say, that Little Acorn finds atoms from reasons to start a new thread, cause he likes to.

No problem there, as long as he admits that he purposefully skips threads he knows are on the same topic, all to garner 'new thread' points.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As I pointed out earlier, the act of invading a country's embassies and killing the ambassadors, is an act of savagery, and the people doing it are indeed savages.
See: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36904-Embassies-invaded-ambassador-killed-This-isn-t-quot-your-father-s-war-quot-it-s-far-worse

I used the word "barbarism" earlier. I regret that I omitted the word "savagery", since that's what I really meant. As I said, embassies are to be held inviolate, since that is where discussions (even between warring powers) are held, in an effort to stop the fighting and destruction. People who deliberately kill the ambassadors, are people who don't want the destruction to stop: They are, in a word, savages.

And people who approve this murder of ambassadors, and try to justify it by calling it "Jihad", are no different: They are savages also. Giving the act a fancy name does not change its nature.

There's a serious question we need to ask: Once these murderers eliminate all channels of negotiation, how can we stop the murders they support, except by utter annihilation - killing them to the last man?

I would welcome any other answer that would work. But I fear there may be none.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You answered your own question and the Jihadists have long presented that very thing but with the twist that all that does not bow to Islam and convert will face utter annihiliation! And they arent playing . Any decent search on their attacks worldwide clearly reveals this as the truth of the matter. Yet their appeasors cal them liars when they tell why they murder innocent women and children. Ironic , defending them while denying their words so often stated by them about why they do their murdering deeds. By the way , they are only considered to be "extremists" by we infidels, in their religion they are more often called heroes! Jihad is a part of Islam and most muslims know that.. Fact. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

No problem there, as long as he admits that he purposefully skips threads he knows are on the same topic, all to garner 'new thread' points.

You get points for starting new threads? No wonder RSR has lapped the field twice already. :rolleyes:

[jafar00]

So nobody here supports her right to freedom of expression by painting over the sign in pink? :p

[Little-Acorn]

So nobody here supports her right to freedom of expression by painting over the sign in pink? :p

If I don't like what YOU say, would you support my right to freely express my opinions by blowing your head off with a shotgun?

[aboutime]

So nobody here supports her right to freedom of expression by painting over the sign in pink? :p


jafar. Asking that kind of question qualifies as somewhat of an acceptance of destroying someone else's property, or causing someone harm. That is NOT part of our Freedom of Expression, or Speech....which you so obviously refuse to accept by trying to justify why Someone who thinks like you...would welcome the BEHEADING of another human being...merely because they dared to disagree with you.

[fj1200]

So nobody here supports her right to freedom of expression by painting over the sign in pink? :p

She can express herself all she wants up until the point that she violates the rights (property in this case) of others.


If I don't like what YOU say, would you support my right to freely express my opinions by blowing your head off with a shotgun?

:rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

She can express herself all she wants up until the point that she violates the rights (property in this case) of others.



:rolleyes:

He is muslim , he knows his right to cut your damn head off. Although he isnt very likely to admit here for all to see. Trust me , he is thinking it as soon as he reads your post!-Tyr

[fj1200]

He is muslim , he knows his right to cut your damn head off. Although he isnt very likely to admit here for all to see. Trust me , he is thinking it as soon as he reads your post!-Tyr

:rolleyes:

[jafar00]

Ok so this is what I get out of this. It's ok to exercise freedom of expression as long as you use it to attack and insult Muslims, but not if you use it to defend Muslims. Got it.

[jimnyc]

Ok so this is what I get out of this. It's ok to exercise freedom of expressioni as long as you use it to attack and insult Muslims, but not if you use it to defend Muslims. Got it.

insulting is freedom of speech' vandalism is a crime. we dont break laws when we condemn the animals within islam. do u understand the difference between speech and a crime?

[Kathianne]

I don't think the courts will let this stand, but this is NY response to the destruction of property:

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-outlets-say-nyc-transit-to-restrict-free-speech


Media outlets say NYC transit to restrict free speech


jihad (http://www.examiner.com/topic/jihad)
September 28, 2012
By: Anthony Martin (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/anthony-martin)



In spite of a court order that allows the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) to place ads in subways and buses in New York City, the NYC transit authority has now passed new rules on Thursday that some media outlets say will allow it to restrict free speech (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/conservatives-anti-jihad-subway-ad-leads-to-new-policies-nyc-authority-can-now-ban-ads-that-could-incite-or-provoke-violence/) by banning ads that "could incite or provoke violence."


The AFDI had placed a series of ads in support of Israel and condemning Muslim extremism known as "the jihad (http://www.examiner.com/topic/jihad)." But it had to get a court order (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/savaged-for-daring-to-name-savagery-pamela-gellers-point-made-by-critics-of-free-speech/2012/09/24/0/?print) to do so. The court ruled that under current policies the transit authority did not have a legal right to prevent AFDI from placing the ads.


However, the transit authority decided to change its policies after the ads provoked a confrontation with police and supporters of the ads, initiated by a political commentator for CNN and MSNBC.


Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian born activist and free lance commentator who has appeared on CNN and MSNBC, defaced some of the ads with spray paint, as the Examiner reported (http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-jihad-ads-spark-heated-protest) Wednesday. An altercation ensued when a supporter of the ads attempted to restrain Eltahawy. The police were called to the scene, and Eltahawy was arrested and sent to jail. She was released from jail Thursday.


Eltahawy claims that her actions in defacing the ads represent "freedom of expression. (http://twitchy.com/2012/09/28/mona-eltahawy-defends-anti-free-speech-vandalism-calls-it-peaceful-protest/)" But Pamela Geller, director of AFDI, stated that the vandalism against the ads represents criminal behavior. Defacement of private property is a crime, said Geller, and the vandalism was an effort to suppress her freedom of speech and that of her organization.


Further, Geller maintains that the NYC transit authority has not moved to ban her ads (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/enemedia-spins-mtas-refusal-to-drop-cause-related-ads.html) or to restrict free speech (http://www.examiner.com/topic/free-speech) in honor of Sharia law, as claimed by the New York Times, Hot Air, and other media outlets. She states that the new rules are intended to address genuine concerns about incitement to violence and that her ads do not fit that description, despite the altercation initiated by Eltahawy on Wednesday.


If the transit authority attempts to block her ads, said Geller, she will fight back...

[fj1200]

Ok so this is what I get out of this. It's ok to exercise freedom of expression as long as you use it to attack and insult Muslims, but not if you use it to defend Muslims. Got it.

No, what you should get out of it is not using religion as cover for being offended and committing a crime.

[Drummond]

Ok so this is what I get out of this. It's ok to exercise freedom of expression as long as you use it to attack and insult Muslims, but not if you use it to defend Muslims. Got it.

Taking this comment just 'on its own merits', I'd point out that freedom of expression isn't so sacrosanct that it should be enshrined as a means of defending the utterly indefensible !!

From another thread: there was the example of Islam4uk which wanted to send protesters to Wootton Bassett, in England - a town well known for its public efforts in showing its respects for returning the British war-dead soldiers / servicemen from Afghanistan - and run a thoroughly abusive, downright DISGUSTING, counter-march against those ceremonies. THIS, Jafar, was so completely offensive that the British Government felt it had to ban Islam4uk's very existence.

... and RIGHTLY SO.

So you see, Jafar, there's a limit to how far such things should be taken.

Another example that's just occurred to me ... should neo-Nazis have total, unfettered freedom to say and do just as they please ? How about Holocaust deniers, Jafar ?

[Little-Acorn]

In spite of a court order that allows the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) to place ads in subways and buses in New York City, the NYC transit authority has now passed new rules on Thursday that some media outlets say will allow it to restrict free speech by banning ads that "could incite or provoke violence."

Oh, my.

I guess that prohibits the 5th National Bank from putting up any ads announcing the opening of their new branch in downtown New York.

If bank robbers get wind of this opening, they might realize how much money there is in the building, and go in and try to rob it! And gunfire could ensue, with people being injured or killed!

Those 5th National Bank ads could definitely incite or provoke violence. Take them down, NOW! Or go to jail if you don't!

(It's always a hoot to see big-government fanatics (of whatever country or religion) try to blame people who merely said reasonable and verifiable statements, rather than blaming the criminals who voluntarily decided to commit violent acts.)

[Trigg]

So nobody here supports her right to freedom of expression by painting over the sign in pink? :p

it's called distruction of private property and it's against the law.

No matter what a sign says. If it's put up legally, and you distroy or deface it, IT'S A CRIME.

[Kathianne]

Taking this comment just 'on its own merits', I'd point out that freedom of expression isn't so sacrosanct that it should be enshrined as a means of defending the utterly indefensible !!

From another thread: there was the example of Islam4uk which wanted to send protesters to Wootton Bassett, in England - a town well known for its public efforts in showing its respects for returning the British war-dead soldiers / servicemen from Afghanistan - and run a thoroughly abusive, downright DISGUSTING, counter-march against those ceremonies. THIS, Jafar, was so completely offensive that the British Government felt it had to ban Islam4uk's very existence.

... and RIGHTLY SO.

So you see, Jafar, there's a limit to how far such things should be taken.

Another example that's just occurred to me ... should neo-Nazis have total, unfettered freedom to say and do just as they please ? How about Holocaust deniers, Jafar ?

An example that I remember and have used in classes:

http://www.civiced.org/papers/schwerin_strum.html


Human Rights Organizations in Civil Society by Philippa Strum, Professor of Political Science, City University of New York, Fellow, The Woodrow Wilson Center for International Research

In 1977, a self-styled American Nazi "party," consisting of about two dozen people in the midwestern city of Chicago, decided to demonstrate in the suburb of Skokie. Close to a third of Skokie's 70,000 residents were Jewish, and approximately 5,000 of them were survivors of Hitler's death camps or members of their families. The Catholic mayor of Skokie, impelled by the horror of the Holocaust survivors at the prospect of seeing Nazi uniforms complete with boots and swastikas in their city, decided that the Nazis would not be welcome in Skokie and quickly had the local government enact ordinances designed to keep them out.


When the Nazi group turned to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for legal representation with the claim that the statutes violated its members' right to free speech, the ACLU took the case to court. The ACLU's Executive Director was a Jewish World War II refugee from Germany. The local ACLU lawyer who handled the case was Jewish. But the ACLU found the case to be an easy one, in terms of American law and the ACLU's principles: the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court had long since interpreted free speech to include the right to demonstrate peacefully. The ACLU won the case. 1 (http://www.civiced.org/papers/schwerin_strum.html#one)

Interestingly, the outrage of the citizens of Skokie at the Nazi party, coupled with the widespread national support expressed for their position, frightened the Nazis into foregoing the proposed demonstration. Instead, they held their demonstration in Chicago, where they had to be protected by the police from the anger of about two thousand counter-demonstrators.


The case was "easy" for the ACLU's staff and its layperson directors but not for some ACLU members. Approximately 30,000 people, or 15% of the ACLU's members, resigned from the organization. Chicago is in the state of Illinois, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is the local state-based affiliate of the national organization. The affiliate lost almost a third of its annual income, which meant, among other things, that 5 of its 13-person staff lost their jobs. 2 (http://www.civiced.org/papers/schwerin_strum.html#two)



If you follow the link you will find a second case, also upheld for first amendment. Following is a discussion on the tenets of philosophy for the reasoning.

[Robert A Whit]

So nobody here supports her right to freedom of expression by painting over the sign in pink? :p

She is not the owner of the sign. She harmed someone elses property.

[Robert A Whit]

insulting is freedom of speech' vandalism is a crime. we dont break laws when we condemn the animals within islam. do u understand the difference between speech and a crime?

Correct.

And she has the right to pay for her own ad to express her own point of view.
If she posted a pro jihad sign, it is a crime to deface said sign.

This is why for one thing that the rule of law is better than rules by religion.

[jimnyc]

insulting is freedom of speech' vandalism is a crime. we dont break laws when we condemn the animals within islam. do u understand the difference between speech and a crime?

I wrote this from the hotel yesterday, on my tablet, hence the lack of capital words and apostrophe!

Just wanted to add, I'm baffled that foreigners can't comprehend what freedom of speech and freedom of expression is, and are under the belief that vandalizing another persons property would qualify under either of those. Speaking out against the animals in Islam that kill and beat, is just that, speaking. We are free to peacefully protest, which is freedom of speech and expression, if you will. And even that will sometimes require a permit. We CANNOT deface anything Muslim related. We cannot assault ANYONE. We cannot harm anyone or disrupt things at a mosque. We simply have our 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, and if someone can't comprehend that, they may want to look it up for further understanding. Because to complain that it's OK for us to use our freedom to speak out against violence and beatings and other behavior from Islam IS freedom of speech. Spray painting what someone paid for, or spray painting a woman's clothing is a CRIME. But Islam burns things in the streets daily, and mostly the American Flag, and probably assume defacing another person's property is acceptable behavior. Sad indeed.

[aboutime]

He is muslim , he knows his right to cut your damn head off. Although he isnt very likely to admit here for all to see. Trust me , he is thinking it as soon as he reads your post!-Tyr


Tyr. Right you are. Most all of us know what he is thinking, based on his expressed opinions here that seem to always defend those who need defending.
Of course. He would never agree, or admit to thinking such things. That would be against the teachings of his supposed Sacred Book that has been bastardized so often. Not even he is sure...what to say.