Audio: CAIR spokesman hangs up on Andrew Wilkow; Update: Audio fixed
posted at 3:45 pm on August 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Rude, but give this a full listen and tell me if he isn’t right about there being nothing productive to conversations like these. Either you accept the theory of hate crimes or you don’t. If you do then Hooper’s basic point is clear, albeit unconvincing: he considers what Shmulevich did a tacit threat (in his words, an “act of intimidation”) and threats aren’t protected speech. That’s why Wilkow’s comparison between the Koran in the crapper and the crucifix in urine doesn’t wash. If I wave a knife at you and tell you I’m going to kill you and then get up on stage at a coffee house on open mic night and do the same thing, one’s a crime and the other isn’t. The only difference is my intention, but it’s a huge difference. The flag-burning example doesn’t work either because hate crimes are explicitly aimed at protecting “vulnerable” minorities. Americans are a majority and thus aren’t “vulnerable;” so are Christians, in theory, although trying to discriminate among faiths would be a huge headache for the legislature and likely unconstitutional which is why they make the statute apply to all faiths. If you’re wondering why hate-crime statutes are enforced more often to protect minority religions notwithstanding the political power of American Christian organizations, that’s assuredly a big reason.
If you don’t accept the theory of hate crimes then you’ve got two options, either challenging the theory or accepting it for argument’s sake and challenging whether a hate crime was committed in this particular instance. Wilkow sticks with the latter for the most part, asking Hooper “where’s the harm?” to the Muslim community when the only victim of an actual crime was Pace. In essence, what Hooper’s trying to do is formulate two separate crimes to two separate entities in this one act of Koran-flushing: the criminal mischief committed against Pace in the destruction of the book and a separate crime of threatening the Muslim community. In that case, though, the cops should simply charge him with those two separate offenses, not try to “meld” them into one unified hate-crimes charge. I wonder if they were thinking about doing that initially; that would explain why some papers reported that he’d been charged with criminal mischief and a separate count of aggravated harassment. Oh well.
Thanks a lot to Andrew’s producer, Nick Rizzuto, for hooking us up with the audio.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
We are giving this nut to much air time.
But I did listen.
Dersu on August 1, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Where did you go to law school again?
It’s like me saying if I wave a gun in your face saying I’m going to kill you then do the same thing at a bank, one’s a crime the other isn’t.
Just doesn’t make much sense.
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Oh and the Constitution was about protecting the majority from the minority. Hate crimes are explicitly aimed at garnering the voites of the “intellectually-challenged” minorities.
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 3:56 PM
What I mean is, one is a threat and the other is “performance art.”
Allahpundit on August 1, 2007 at 3:56 PM
So, if “offensive” speech is protected speech, then what’s his
porkbeef with Islamic Rage Boy?BigOrangeAxe on August 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM
And CAIR would have been totally cool with it if this had been presented as “performance art?”
I’m guessing not.
Karl on August 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, did it make a sound?
If a Koran is jammed in the crapper and no Muslim ever sees it, have they been harmed?
BacaDog on August 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM
How exactly is flushing a Koran in a toilet intimidating? I’m not seeing the threat.
JackStraw on August 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM
If one goes with whether Hooper believes it a threat or not, one still have to factor in a reasonable person test.
Blake on August 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
TheEJS, maybe you aren’t aware, but you just conflated performing on stage with robbing a bank. I feel stupider for having even read that.
DaveS on August 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
i think AP means that if the quran flushing had been part of a modern art exhibit that would not be a crime.
zane on August 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
That’s true. We should be giving it to Tay Zonday.
Blake on August 1, 2007 at 4:01 PM
That’s question was raised in the Hitchens clip yesterday, but Hooper opted to obfuscate by bringing up another case, where a Koran had been shot up and delivered to a mosque–clearly a different scenario.
DaveS on August 1, 2007 at 4:02 PM
No, performance art can land you visits from the Secret Service. Performance art threats are taken as serious as other threats.
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Yep. And Hooper did that deliberately to confuse the issues.
Blake on August 1, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Luckily there’s no such thing as a “Clash of Civilizations” so this guy is completely harmless.
Stephen M on August 1, 2007 at 4:05 PM
If I waive a gun in your face no matter what my intentions, it could be intimidation to the other party.
If I waived a feather in your face and meant it to intimidate you and you perceived it as intimidation, it wouldn’t pass the reasonable man test.
Blake on August 1, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Yeah, look, you’re overanalyzing here. I’m making a simple point about intent. If I’m in a play and lunge at a guy with a knife, I’m not going to jail. If I do the same thing in real life, I am. Good enough?
Allahpundit on August 1, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Did the audio cut out before the hang up? The clip sounds like it ends with Hooper still speaking.
nailinmyeye on August 1, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Protecting the majority from the RULING minority. It’s a little different.
Hate crimes do pander to minorities, but there’s no reason to believe those who want them are intellectually challenged, after all, the crimes work to their benefit. There’s really no downfall to a hate crime for minorities.
Esthier on August 1, 2007 at 4:10 PM
It obviously wasn’t a hate crime. Mean, disrespectful, childish, etc. but not a crime.
terryannonline on August 1, 2007 at 4:11 PM
So waving a knife then falls between a gun and a feather (depending on the mood you’re in that day)?
Also what if the person is allegeric to the feather? That could be considered attempted homicide. With our legal system as it is, never say never.
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
hate crime… i meant to say… sorry
terryannonline on August 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Look, if you are going to punish speech because it is part of a threat against someone, you better be d*mn well sure it’s an actual threat. Oh, say, like waving a knife in someone’s face and threatening to kill them.
There is NO WAY you could construe a Koran in the toilet per se as a threat. If he throws it in the toilet while waving a flag that says “Death to those who insult, I mean, follow Islam,” then you’ve got intimidation.
Clark1 on August 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Dang AP, you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel(salty one, too)over this thing.
Didn’t you say in a previous thread that without the crime of stealing the Koran there is no hate crime?
How is it a hate crime if the Koran wasn’t in the possession of a Muslim but Pace University? Is Pace University a solely Muslim school working under Sharia Law? If the book was taken from the library’s inter-faith meditation area, isn’t it the property of the entire school, which would include those not in the Muslim faith?
And lastly, how can this be charged as two separate crimes? You yourself, AP, stated that if it was my own Koran I could flush it without the long reach of the law coming at me? If the flushing of the Koran can be charged as a separate crime then I would assume that it doesn’t matter whose it is, just whether or not someone ‘feels’ intimidated by my actions. Which is ultimately a very slippery slope.
Sultry Beauty on August 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Why is sending video of a koran being shot to a bunch of muslims not a hate crime but video of a shot up koran being delivered to a location frequented by muslims is a hate crime? That makes no sense. If you believe in hate crime legislation, I would think that both would qualify as equally intimidating.
I am assuming that the korans were dunked in a toilet in a men’s restroom, so could female muslims be intimidated by the alleged actions? If female muslims are able to be intimidated by the alleged actions, then is it not the reporting of the actions causing the intimidation?
rw on August 1, 2007 at 4:14 PM
I agree. I couldn’t tell that Hooper hung up.
A visit from the Secret Service is really not the same as being hauled away in hand cuff after robbing a bank.
Then again, Allah’s already addressed this. Sometimes the most simple answer is the correct answer.
Esthier on August 1, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Ok.
And whether ruling or not, the minority can impose it’s will on the majority (aka political correctness).
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Good question… how did this Threaten anyone?
Was the crap gonna fly out of the toilet? Was is a biological weapon?
Insulting? yes, but since when are insults not covered under free speech?
Romeo13 on August 1, 2007 at 4:17 PM
The initial reports for criminal mischief and harrasment were probably based on the police charge, i.e., the crime speicified on the arrest report. Typically, the prosecutor decides whether the facts of the crime support the augmentation to a hate crime. It looks like that is what happended here any why the initial reports defer from what is being reported today.
Mig on August 1, 2007 at 4:20 PM
The words “tact” and “manners” are just completely lost on you aren’t they?
Your whole ideology still fails since it’s not the minorities who are pushing hate crime laws. Political correctness is being imposed significantly more by mob rule and protest than it is by any minority groups.
As you yourself said, these things are being used to get minority votes instead of being used by minorities.
Last, this isn’t about whether or not hate crimes are wrong. That’s a separate issue altogether, one we might agree on despite the distaste I now feel in that knowledge.
Esthier on August 1, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Is bravado a hate crime?
Kids walk around all the time with an air of bravado. Statements like “if he gets in my face, I’m taking him down”, if the kids are white, no big deal, if one talking is white and the other black, then it becomes a big deal?
Their was no gun, no knife, no stage, no bank, just a video of a messed up kid over reaching.
This is a kid with bravado, making a stupid gesture, but just bravado. No one was harmed, no individual was picked out and “dissed”, just some screwed up kid being the BMOC.
The best thing the judge could do is give him 100 hours of community service, and slap his wrists. Believe me this kid knows where the line in the sand is now.
right2bright on August 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Legally, the kid is in trouble with only the school for destroying library property. Usually that’s at most a fine given by the school.
The ability to bring this and decide in a public forum this kid had the Mens rea to commit this act as a threat for muslims is irresponsible. The same logic was placed upon the flag-stomping/burning incident in Cali.
Only when it’s needed, such as me being called into an AOCs office to explain why I trouble follows me around.
And the whole minority group imposement… you say my logic fails (not great tact in itself) but all you need to do is look at La Raza. True though this isn’t about hate crimes as Constitutional matters.
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Plus, the book in question didn’t even belong to the offended party. That to me would change the whole situation.
I mean I could see the argument of intimidation if the person had taken the book directly from a Muslim student’s hands before damaging it. But as it is, as the school’s book, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Esthier on August 1, 2007 at 4:27 PM
What I’m trying to get at, and really infuriating most people here, is that legal definitions are so precise they can be manipulated by any good lawyer (one of the ironies).
If you were to threaten someone (and have the means to back it up) it’s classified as: Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual, harmful or insulting contact, regardless of the injury caused. Criminal battery requires an intent to inflict an injury on another, as distinguished from a tortious battery.
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 4:30 PM
It’s not being insulting to say that your logic fails. That’s not a statement against you personally but rather against your argument.
I’m not questioning your intelligence but rather the argument you are using.
And I stand by that statement. La Raza is not pushing laws in this country. La Raza has no political party of its own and at best can only take to the street in hopes of being able to demand something of the government that fortunately people like you and me were able to prevent.
Esthier on August 1, 2007 at 4:31 PM
If a Koran is thrown in a toilet and no one is there to see it, is anyone threatened?
I guess if you are a muslim and on hair trigger insult/islamaphobia alert the answer is yes.
Drew on August 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM
What individual did he threaten?
right2bright on August 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM
I’ve heard that be used before. Yet when I question your logic, I get a lecture on “tact” and “manners”.
I propose a cease-fire.
right2bright, the threatening act can be against any individual, but legally it’s classified as society is the victim. Kinda why murder trials proceed, because the actual victim is dead, society takes the burden.
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Someone needs to develop a toy like a toilet that you crank up and it plays music until the seat pops up and Mohamed pops out holding a koran. I could sell a million.
Blake on August 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM
American law is set up where EVERYONE IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.
You can’t have a law set up weighted toward minority groups because they are minority groups. The supreme court ruled school bussing for racial harmony is unconstitutional.
If I agree that ‘hate crimes’ is appropriate in America (which I don’t), it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for ‘hate crimes’ to only exist for ‘minority groups’. What would ‘minority group’ mean if that is the legal definition (only for minorities)?
Minority in the state, minority in the city, minority in the neighborhood, minority in the country?
African Americans are in the minority in the country at about 12%. Go to Atlanta and they are at least 50% of the population. So my point is that you can NOT have a law that makes a group special and still have that law be Constitutional.
ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM
All this noise about the Koran in the toilet. The question is will it “Blend“.This dude is a dumb ass but I thought the ending was fitting.
Guardian on August 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Personally I just like the picture of the Koran sitting squarely in the toilet bowl.
For me it’s art: medieval middle-eastern literature melds with modern western sanitary technology. I much prefer it to the piss-Christ.
Aylios on August 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Not quite.
From the audio, it sounds more like CAIR’s case isn’t so much Shmulevich intentionally intimidating Muslims. Their case is Muslims saying that they interpreted the actions of Shmulevich as intentionally being an act of intimidation against Muslims. In other words, this was a hate crime because Muslims felt intimidated, whatever the intent of Shmulevich.
In the future, hate crimes against Muslims wouldn’t include obvious crimes like bullet strewn Korans delivered to mosques; hate crimes might include a group of people trick or treating at a Muslim house dressed as Porky Pig making the Muslim owner believe the people wanted him to feel intimidated.
Along those lines, couldn’t the John Does argue that the Imans, in disrupting the plane to such a point that passengers were afraid, make a case stating that given the profiles of the 9/11 killers and the religion of the Imams, their actions were a tacit act of intimidation. How many flights with Muslims aboard go off without such incidents?
Canadian Infidel on August 1, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Aylios,
You have an odd sense of art.
terryannonline on August 1, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Or maybe if it was presented as a cartoon…
taznar on August 1, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Maybe I should clarify. I wasn’t questioning your tact because you question my manners. Had you simply been questioning my logic, you would have responded in kind, addressing my arguments and refuting them, instead of implying that I have been had, which is naturally insulting.
It was never my intention to fire at you.
Esthier on August 1, 2007 at 4:54 PM
First, I’m not seeing the hate crime with the Koran in the crapper. I see no intimidation of Muslims by this act, but I do see an attempt to intimidate non-Muslims by Hooper, CAIR, and the Muslim community who use this simple act of vandalism to get the state to punish people who don’t respect the Koran.
Second, it is a mistake to take anything Hooper says at face value, such as his claim of threats against Muslims. The previous list of such threats against Muslims presented by CAIR has been thoroughly debunked when examined in detail. CAIR fishes for such complaints and exaggerates them, even concocts them, to play victim, the Muslims’ favorite game. I’m not saying it’s impossible that some yahoo didn’t blast a hole in a Koran with a shotgun, not that there’s anything wrong with that, and deliver it to a mosque. I’m saying it’s possible that CAIR could just as easily staged this event, which conveniently has no perpetrators named.
Third, CAIR demands a respect for Islam that no Muslim nation shows for any other religion. CAIR is not looking for an equal standing in America, but to be superior, just as its representatives told a Muslim crowd when it was less circumspect than it is now.
Fourth, never forget that Saudi money funds CAIR and the Saudi Wahhabis mean to destroy America.
Fifth, isn’t it time for somebody to display a Piss Mohammed in a museum so that we can compare and contrast the reaction to Piss Christ? A Mohammed rendered in elephant dung is sorely needed, too, to be placed in the same New York museum that displayed St. Mary’s image in the same medium.
Sixth, there is nothing wrong with harsh criticism of Islam and Muslims and much to commend it. It’s high time for a tidal wave of such criticism. It’s simply insane that Muslims butcher Americans by the thousands sitting in their offices or flying to Disneyland and we allow contemptible Muslim goons like Hooper abuse us for not respecting his religion. Fight back. Hard.
Tantor on August 1, 2007 at 4:55 PM
For me, sure.
For CAIR, probably not. They prefer to try to stifle Spencer in advance of a speech, pursue the Flying Imams suit, etc. They act in bad faith and impute bad motive to anyone who disagrees with them.
And then there are the mobs that riot over Danish cartoons and those that filed suit against the newspaper that ran them. And threatened jihad when they lost the suit.
The “art” distinction does not exist for such people, which is why the CAIR-types would be disingenuous to rely upon it. (And lest we forget CAIR got involved in trying to muscle the Danish gov’t into doing something in the cartoon controversy).
Karl on August 1, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I can’t find a posting I would question anyone’s manners or intelligence*, much less yours. That’s not a good debate for me, just makes the side having to resort to it look weak. I may be arrogant but I try to keep from condescending.
*Does not apply in cases dealing with murtha or the safety of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines
TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM
The essence of “hate crime” in the America of today -
The second Europeans set foot on this continent.
All “hate crimes” emanate from this despicable act.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Like I said, Let’s nuke CAIR, and ALL the damn Islamic Mosques and rid this damn country of this terrorist Religion!
Chuck in Detroit on August 1, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Yeah, I typed that one completely wrong. I meant to write “my logic” instead of manners.
I may have misunderstood you. It’s been known to happen online where tone isn’t immediately evident. Sorry if I have. Either way, at least we agree that it’s pointless to do so in debate.
Esthier on August 1, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Wilkow was 100%, absolutely spot-on, and I think all the gaps and non-answers on Hooper’s part should be ready for anyone to play. Sterling.
MadisonConservative on August 1, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Where’s a good troll when you need one? Oh speak of the devil. Hi Chuck!
Guardian on August 1, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I think I am gonna order me some Free Korans from their website.
I will post the YouTube link showing the Video of what I do with them.
:D
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 1, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I am pretty sure CAIRs HQ is in Washington DC.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 1, 2007 at 5:15 PM
CAIR is clearly agitating whether it’s done purposefully or not. Are they truly representing Muslims’ best interests? What if we like Muslims but don’t like CAIR? Would Muslims be insulted then?
Bacchus on August 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
It’s thought police stuff. The victim gets to determine the intent of the perp by how the victim feels about the act.
Sorry, a Koran in the crapper and a crucifix in piss is the same. If I went to your house and threw YOUR Koran in YOUR crapper, that’s a different crap.
On the larger subject, watching Dougie Hooper get interviewed is a complete waste of time and electricity. He’s the long lost fourth stooge.
Yes, the “interviews” are pointless. As was Levin’s badgering of Maurice Hinchey last night.
Doc56 on August 1, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Fifth, isn’t it time for somebody to display a Piss Mohammed in a museum so that we can compare and contrast the reaction to Piss Christ?
That’s actually a pretty interesting idea, and to Allah’s point about the comparison as made today isn’t valid.
Call me crazy, I doubt Hooper will treat it any differently.
And goddam I’m getting sick of him complaining about intimidation of Muslims. This isn’t the same as putting a bullet hole in a Koran and leaving it at a Mosque, and he damn well knows it.
Guy reminds me of Linda Chavez whining about her hate mail.
daveintexas on August 1, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I just went to CAIR to request a free Koran, they want $7.95 for it!
allrsn on August 1, 2007 at 5:37 PM
PERFECT
mjkazee on August 1, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I just went to CAIR to request a free Koran, they want $7.95 for it!
allrsn on August 1, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Well, it will be autographed by Bin Hidin’ … and shipping from Waziristan does cost money.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 1, 2007 at 5:56 PM
From the CAIR website:
We cannot ship this volume to prisons due to its
weightuse as ahardback editiontool for murderous propaganda. Please contact CAIR at 202-488-8787 for more information.Guardian on August 1, 2007 at 5:58 PM
CAIR is applying the same game plan as gays, feminists, illegal sympathizers, and cross dressers - take offense to everything and claim discrimination and/or intimidation in order to get media attention. Flood the airwaves with propaganda and eventually, the public accepts the fact that discrimination is happening everywhere - must be true. The public says, “Let’s give ‘em the benefit of the doubt.” A few years pass and CAIR starts to demand more. The public is open to that demand and CAIR wins! The left does the same thing for every interest group it represents… blah, blah, blah….
mcra99 on August 1, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Their intimidation only counts as 50% of a male Muslim’s. But I’m not sure how the whole menstrual blood thing might factor into “intimidation” in the event of dropping a Koran into a women’s toilet.
(I’m sorely tempted to post a query in broken English at AskImam.com.)
Fatwa Arbuckle on August 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM
well CAIR didnt exactly approve of the Danish cartoons, and those are art.
firepilot on August 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I have a Koran. Got a light?
400lb Gorilla on August 1, 2007 at 6:30 PM
we have meet the enemy and their name is CAIR.
you want shari law go to iran .
If you don’t like our free speech don’t listen, and it will be a cold day in hell{even with your 72 virgins to keep you warm}when you will shut me up.
“CAIR can go to Hell and they can take their 72 virgins with them.”
Mojack420 on August 1, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Hate crime laws are total BS. However the laws do exist.
I am no lawyer, (didn’t want to burn in hell) but it seems to me that part of any criminal trial is to prove intent. Did this guy intend to intimidate muslums? Or was he trying to make a statement. I think the burden on proof of itimidation is going to make this a tough case to prosecute
conservnut on August 1, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I’m sure someone else has pointed this out.
Flushing a Koran down the toilet - hate crime.
Flushing a Bible down the toilet - freedom of expression/performance art/whatevs.
Looting and Destroying the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (and using the Bible as toilet paper)by “militants” despite it being under the auspices of a foreign church - protesting Israel, etc, etc, not a hate crime.
Shouldn’t it be, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, or am I thinking the impossible again?
mjk on August 1, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Lemmie tell you something, you Arab loving piece dog tripe. I my get kicked of here, But I’m a god damned American and I have a right to free speech, just like these faggot loving liberals. I’m a White Man, I’m a Christian and I was born in this grand Country we call the United States. This country, in case anyone has forgotten, was founded by WHITE CHRISTIANS! Not by Blacks, Not by JEWS, Not by Arabs, But BY WHITE PEOPLE! and this land was founded by Christians who Believed in the Holy Bible and it’s Doctrines.
I stand in utter amazement that our so called President didn’t not order a carpet bombing of ALL the nations involved with September 11′th. It was Muslims who BOMBED the WTC. It was MUSLIMS who BOMBED the Pentagon. and what did our idiot President do, Sent us into a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11′th!
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! That Religion isn’t a Religion of Peace, it’s a RELIGION OF WAR, PERIOD, end of story, and I stand amazed that Michelle Malkin, A so called defender of the Conservative Values in America, Allows the teaching and study of a Religion that is diametrally opposed to the very values that she claims to support.
There I said it, and if you all wanna boot me off, feel free!
and in parting, here’s little link for ya, you might learn something.
-Chuck in Detroit
Chuck in Detroit on August 1, 2007 at 7:13 PM
hmmm
Chuck in Detroit on August 1, 2007 at 7:13 PM
wow great audio clip thanks for sharing .
Mojack420 on August 1, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Go Andrew! Listening to him give Hopper a ration was heartening to say the least.
I think Wilkow has a point in that Hopper is assuming intent to intimidate.
The two Korans were taken from a school library, not from a Mosque and thrown in a school toilet, not at a Mosque or at any person or group.
An expression of outrage against an object or ideology isn’t intimidation against people.
Speakup on August 1, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Been nice having you around, Chuck.
Well, no, I’m lying. You’re a jackass, and the world would be a better place without you and Doug Hooper. You have fun back at Stormfront, k?
/still not believing dude dropped a stormfront link here
Pablo on August 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Where’s AP?
mram on August 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
It will be interesting whether AP will be able to tell from the IP, etc. whether “Chuck” is a real neo-nazi neanderthal, of some Lefty posing as one in a lame attempt to discredit the site.
Karl on August 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I’m thinking the same thing. Just like a poster at Jihad Watch that was banned and had his comment removed, yet CAIR had a copy of it. They must read ever comment ever moment of the day to cature it . . or they were the ones that planted it. Which I think this is something like that too. The “Had nothing to do with 911″ commment is kind of a give away.
Now if Chuck is really the freak he’s playing on line. White Pride? Why have pride in the circumstance you were born into? Rather have pride in what you’ve accomplished, and I don’t mean having inbred kids. Ya know, keeping things pure and all. To paraphraze The Big Z, “Belgium man, you’re a swatting jujuflop!”
- The Cat
MirCat on August 1, 2007 at 11:55 PM
sorry if you all can’t deal with the truth…
Chuck in Detroit on August 1, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Remember the guy who put sheets across the grand canyon, or something like that? He put up hundreds of red flags across the desert? Did some additional BIG art things. Remember, all in the name of art.
Soooooo,
We should find 50 people, one per state, for all of the United States.
We find people that can be in their state capital at a predetermined date and time to participate in this “non-hate art”, at least one person per state.
Everyone buy a koran (or get one free from CAIR{yeah right}) and we will all burn them, in our respective state capitals, at the same time of day, on the same date, all at once.
we call it “Not Capital Punishment” or “Capital non-hate crimes”, or ????
Maybe we do this on 9/11/2007 at 9am mountain time. 11 am eastern, 6 am Hawaiian time.
Anyone wanna coordinate this?
I’ve got Denver.
shooter on August 2, 2007 at 12:07 AM
We need to get these guys http://thefire.org/ involved in this issue. They have been kicking a$$ and taking names on college campuses all over the country–all centered around protecting free speech. They have some good stuff up on their web-site. While it is tailored to college campuses, there is a lot of relevance to this current flap with CAIR. In particular this page http://thefire.org/index.php/article/4978.html is relevant, and while there is a book-length pdf guide to free speech available for download, a shorter review of the history of free speech http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech-1.pdf is helpful, esp from around p. 20 on (it’s 24 pages total). These guys are fighting the good fight, and man are they cleaning up. Let’s sic them on CAIR.
smellthecoffee on August 2, 2007 at 12:42 AM