Cite?
Not an entirely reasonable assumption. The journalists could well have been there because they knew a certain percentage of their readership would like to see them expand on the potential hate crime aspect of the story, whether or not the incident did, in fact, represent an instance of anti-Semitism. Plus Lord knows the parents seem to have been working that angle. The anti-Semitic aspect of the story makes great sensationalist copy, whether or not it’s true.
And your basis for that is…what? No doubt you have access to the complete facts of the case, and are about to cite them with reasoning.
You are beyond presumptious. Shit, have a look at the rest of your post:
And that, really, is your entire argument. With no evidence, basis in fact or reasoning you have arrived at the conclusion you wanted to. It was a hate crime, because you think so. The judge was wrong, because you think so. Damn those French, damn their antisemitism, their hateful arabs, and biased judges - why can’t the world see them for the prejudiced bastards they are?
Why does this make the case less clear? It’s a combination of factors – the judge is saying “not only did you bring a meritless suit, you also brought undue publicity to the case (which makes the court’s job harder), plus you essentially slandered the defendants unnecessarily; thus, you get a nice, big fine.” This is not unusual. A person who brings a meritless suit but doesn’t otherwise interfere with the administration of the court’s business probably deserves a smaller fine than a person who does so.
To analogize: we are in Iraq for several reasons – suspicions that Saddam has WMD; a fear that Iraq aids terrorists; a desire to free the Iraqi people; and a need to force compliance with the cease-fire agreement. It baffles my mind when antiwar posters ask “which reason is the real reason?” when, in fact, they are all real reasons, reasons that in toto add up to a compelling case for military intervention. **
I see. So now you’re an expert on French law, including the degree to which that country recognizes negligence liability for school prinicipals for afterschool fights? You, who has heard not one sentence of actual testimony, read one brief, or otherwise been made familiar with the facts of the case (outside of Google-translating a short article about it), are in a better position to judge whether or not the case was meritless? I bow before your psychic powers, O great one. :rolleyes: **
No, which is why I said you were “close to” reversing on that issue, because you’re making an argument disturbingly similar to the one made by hate crimes proponents. At the very least, you appear to give credence to the argument that the incidence of white-on-black crime is proof of rampant hate crime. **
Sure, if you assume a bevy of facts not in evidence. :rolleyes: **
So what? A group of girls was beaten up by a larger group of students from another school. Prove it was motivated by religious hatred (rather than, say, interschool rivalry) outside of some vague gut feeling. **
Cite? **
Or the media saw a chance to spin a playground dustup into news by playing the race card to garner more newspaper sales and television ratings. But that’d never happen, would it?
Why not just cut to the chase, people:
The French are eviiiiiiiiiiiil because they do not support George W. Bush’s war against Iraq. Those bastards!
The family being fined here is Jewish, and therefore (in december’s eyes) above all reproach, real or imagined.
Therefore, anyone who doesn’t see that 1 + 2 = EXTREME OUTRAGE is doubtlessly a closet French anti-Semite who yearns for the return of the gas chambers. :rolleyes:
/sarcasm, for those who may have missed the point.
december, your attitude only makes it that much harder to get support for REAL cases of anti-semitism.
You’re the Jesse Jackson of the SDMB when it comes to anti-Semitism.
(goes off singing the Asshat Song, to the tune of “Ode to Joy”)
It’s true that it upsets me when a mob beats up three Jewish school girls. I guess rjung in his wisdom knows that the three girls were really the ones at fault, and I’m a bigot for being upset. My apologies.
:rolleyes:
It is not the fault of the girls that they were beat up.
It is the fault of the girl’s parents for bringing a meritless lawsuit, for drumming up unwarranted publicity for that suit, and for accusing the defendants of anti-semitism.
Evidently you cannot distinguish between these two things, which is pretty damned pathetic. And rjung’s comments were clearly directed at the latter instance.
december. I am new here, and this is the first time I’ve had the pleasure of hearing you point out the troubles of the world. If I may, “BRAVO!!” The way you cunningly quote people to prove a point that they haven’t made, the way you quote an article that you can’t read, and the fabulous form you have shown in you frantic backpedaling show a wit beyond reproach! Please, continue to post, so that I may continue to learn how to make a complete and utter jackass of myself.
Stunning. Truly stunning. :rolleyes:
Good Goddamn.
And people say I’m hypersensitive on Jewish issues (not here, as I don’t discuss it much here).
December, this is the second person in this thread, minimum, who you’ve implied has anti-semitic motives simply because they disagreed with you and called you on obvious bullshit.
Knock it the fuck off.
Anti-semitism is horrible and your ongoing attempt to use the idea to mean “Someone who disagrees with me.” is more than a little nauseating and it undermines the term so that when it’s used to describe a real situation, people don’t care.
With the exception of a shared interest in comic books, IIRC Rjung and I disagree on just about everything (not that that’s a bad). So please understand what it means when I say “He is completely right and you are 100% wrong…and being more than a little assholish by trying to tar anyone who disagrees with you with the same ‘anti-semitic creep who wants little girls to be beaten up’ brush”
Frankly, I’m seriously considering asking the mods to consider if your ongoing attempts to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as an anti-semite falls under the “hate-speech” rule or the “don’t be a jerk” rule.
DCU, you well know that a judge’s finding is not necessarily correct. It’s true that the judge said the girl’s parents brought a meritless lawsuit, drummed up unwarranted publicity for that suit, and accused the defendants of anti-semitism. However, I think the judge was wrong. You may think the judge was correct, based on the facts as reported. You’re entitled to your opinion.
Note that the reporter found the judge’s finding shocking. The 20 reporters who attended the hearing evidently thought it was, or might be, an instance of anti-semitism. Also, note this quote from the google translation of the March 12 article.
When you add this comment to the fact that a group of Arab students attacked these 3 Jewish girls, the warning from the Minister of Education, and the pattern of attacks by Arabs against Jews in France, I see a very strong case that it was a hate crime. I think one could get a conviction under hate crime statutes in the US based on these facts. Don’t you?
If you or any other poster believe the attack was not anti-semitism, I invite you to support you POV, beyond just saying there’s no way to be sure.
Fenris, rjung made a sarcastic comment and I responded with a sarcastic comment.
And let’s don’t forget the two (wring and TwistofFate) he implied were racist not five posts in on page 1, Fenris. Obviously someone who disagrees with december is either racist or anti-semitic. I don’t recall as december apologized to TwistofFate for this remark, either: “I assume the two of you were equally unsympathic when Rosa Parks broke the law by not sitting in the back of the bus. :mad:” And notice how quickly december shuts up when Fang responds to [b[december**'s comment " I greatly appreciate your input, Fang. You didn’t quite say the attack was almost surely anti-semitic, given what’s going on in France, but I assume you would support that POV." with “No I wouldn’t.” Also note the wording of december’s post: “didn’t quite say … almost surely anti-semitic.” When in point of fact Fang never came close to saying that and indeed said the exact opposite: “december: As a Jew and dual American-French citizen who is particularly disgusted at the level of anti-Semitism in France (e.g. Chirac’s comments to the effect that it’s not a problem), I have to say, you are way off base…”
BTW, december, starting a response with “tomndebb is just wrong” is a really bad way to start a response, especially given your history on this MB posting facts, logic and unbiased cites.
Will anyone address the issue of whether the alleged attackers were in fact convicted of anything at all? I don’t see anything referring to a conviction in the article, so if there’s been no conviction even for assault, I don’t see how it’s logically possible to support that it was a hate crime. So no, unless a huge chunk of the story is missing (admittedly quite possible), I don’t see how these facts would support a hate crime conviction even in the U.S.
**december, [/f] if you see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in this mess, I think you need new glasses. Even if you think there is a severe and statistically abnormal pattern of anti-Semitic attacks (a POV which you have not supported with anything more than a couple of anecdotes), this is still not evidence of any sort that the individual alleged attackers were motivated by racial hatred.
As an earlier poster pointed out, how do you know this wasn’t simply a fight over a boy, or a school rivalry, or something else much less sinister?
Eva Luna, from what I have been able to understand in this thread, there was no conviction.
Welll, I wasn’t sure whether the alleged assailants were in fact found not guilty, or whether the article simply didn’t mention the outcome of the assault trial.
You’re kidding right? I’ve been whooshed? The lawsuit (and December’s OP) contribute to anti-Semitic sentiment? How?
As in, those uppity French Jews really ought to mind their place, right?
No, more as in “God, those annoying pro-semites! Damn them and their Jewish friends! Why I oughta…”
For example, this might happen when those pro-semites shamessly spread misinformation and then fling accusations of racism and anti-semitism when challenged.
Just an example, mind you.
Problems with anti-Semitism in France? That’s an interesting way to put it. Especially since the last time there were “problems with anti-Semitism in France” large numbers of people were forcibly removed to fun places like Bergen-Belsen.
This is really funny. Let me try to explain.
december is Jewish. The girl’s parents are Jewish. For that matter, I’m Jewish, so I will have to laugh my head off if you or anyone else accuse me of antisemitism.
IMO december and the assaulted girl’s parents are both manipulating a horrible situation to serve their own quasi-political ends, by attempting to show how “their people” are unjustly victimized by French authorities, who are doing nothing to protect them from hate crimes.
There has been nothing presented through the entire course of this debacle that the incident in question constituted an assault serious enough to merit a criminal conviction, by current French legal standards, let alone any evidence presented to establish the motivation of the alleged assailants, antisemitic or otherwise.
No assault, no motive established, therefore no hate crime, therefore no failure of school authorities to protect a Jew from a hate crime, therefore no basis for a civil lawsuit against school authorities, therefore no reason for the parents to complain to the media about the way in which the baseless lawsuit was handled by the court. Therefore one pissed-off judge, and as a result, one large fine.
Hit “post” too early; sorry. I meant to add to my post above that, well, it doesn’t reflect well on the Jewish people at large when members of the Jewish community distory the truth and make false accusations to serve their own political ends.
God those annoying abolitionists! Damn them and their Negro friends! Why I oughta…
Just an example, mind you.