Teh lies

As I've said, while The Daily Cal description doesn't really prove that John Moghtader didn't hit anyone, it does portray the SJP folks as deeply dishonest. If The Daily Cal is to be believed, it seems that all their screaming about Moghtader attacking them actually was "some people attacked us. Moghtader was nearby." I want to remind folks that a description can be technically accurate but deliberately misleading, and to give it is no less dishonest than an outright lie.

I'm taking a look at the statements Sinanian claims are lies based on the video. Not having seen the video, it's difficult to assess his arguments. I suppose one could try to compare The Daily Cal's description if you believe them. I'll go through the statements as best I can.

Dalia Marina's Feb. 20 Op-Ed doesn't make many factual claims about what happened, aside from the fact that he entered Eshleman hall to confront her, which seems unchallenged by the video. Sinanian calls this piece blatantly and intentionally false, but does not explain how.

Dina Omar's Feb. 6 Op-Ed is more fact-filled, and thus more important for these purposes.

Immediately, two of the men attempted to push Dalia and I to get us away from the balcony railing, where we were holding the flags.

According to the description of the video, these two unnamed men were, of course, the two who weren't Moghtader, a fact which strikes me as relevant and probably worth mentioning.

Once Husam took out his phone, Weiner rammed him against the balcony rail. At that point, all three men were rushing to get to Husam and I was in the way. I got socked very hard in the back of my shoulder, and Moghtader pushed me.

The Daily Cal challenges this account as well, though they indicate that Moghtader pushing her could conceivable have happened.

After witnessing what happened to Dalia and I, and after being hit himself, Husam began to defend himself by swinging his arms.

The Daily Cal says the order is incorrect, and Zacharia was already fighting by the time Moghtader went over. I guess "what happened to Dalia and I" could refer to the attempt to get the flag, but the way she writes it strongly implies that it was in response to her getting punched/pushed.

It was shortly after this point that people inside the building opened the balcony doors, and the three attackers ran away.

Another statement clearly challenged by The Daily Cal, which indicated that Moghtader was the last to leave the balcony.

Omar also writes an open letter to Moghtader.

The issue is very simple: You hit me, you are a student senator who represents students like me, and after you hit me you lied about it and didn't even apologize.

The Op-Ed said Moghtader shoved her. Here she says he hit her. The Daily Cal says neither appeared on the video.

Immediately, you, Gabe Weiner and Yehuda De Sa attempted to push, shove and manhandle Dalia and me so as to get our bodies away from the railing on the balcony, where we were holding the flags.

Here, Moghtader is included in the "immediately" that only included two people in the op-ed, and again, The Daily Cal argues that he was not.

Other claims are similar to those in the op-ed.

A campaign flier states:

...he and two other males forced their way into Eshleman hall shouting anti-Arab slurs and battered 3 Palestinian students...

My main problem here is that there would have been no need to "force" their way into Eshleman hall, but I suppose you could argue that the point is that Moghtader wasn't battering the students.

Also included are a bunch of statements from the police report he says are false, which includes most of the same statements from Omar, though she came back to UCPD later to clarify that the person she claims punched her was Moghtader, as was the person who "who yelled 'I will kill/kick your Arab ass' as he was running out..." Again, The Daily Cal claims Moghtader was the last to leave the balcony.

Dalia Marina also came back the next day to clarify that Moghtader was the one running out and screaming. Zacharia came back two days later to say everyone was running out and screaming.

I should note that the claims above have nothing whatsoever to do with Sinanian's case, though that didn't stop him from including them. He seems to be pointing to these statements to assert that this is such a big deal that they should assign extra punishment to the one thing he is claiming was a violation on the part of the proponents: The Voters' Guide statement. This adds yet another By-Law to the list of By-Laws he's asking the Judicial Council to ignore, which is that campaigners can't be punished for violations that are not listed as violations in the By-Laws.

Finally, the all-important Voters' Guide statement has the special property that it makes no factual claims on its own, only repeating what other people have said (Omar and the UCPD). So even if Omar was lying, this means that Sinanian is going to have to prove that a proponent was lying in this context. Either the Primary Proponent who approved the Voters' Guide statement (Nathan Shaffer, I assume) would have to have known Omar was lying, or one could potentially argue that if Omar knew her statement was going to be used in the Voters' Guide, she was acting as a proponent. Given that the statement supposedly occurred the day after the attacks, it would be tough to prove she was giving it for the purpose of putting it into the Voters' Guide of a proposition that didn't exist yet.

I want to repeat the distinction between the rules and the right thing. My claims that Sinanian should not be bringing these charges and shouldn't win are independent of my feelings that the SJP folks are liars. Just because an injustice occurs doesn't mean that it would be just for the ASUC to do something about it, if doing so involved violating its own obligations.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 3/12/2009 01:37:00 PM #
Comments (6)

. . .

Comments:

Assuming for a second that John didn't just haul off and whack Dina upside the head off camera and that she did in fact lie to the police, if she was at all active in the recall and let her lie be used in the voter's guide, the proponents could conceivably be charged with the violation.

# posted by  Anonymous : 3:47 PM, March 12, 2009

 

That depends on what you mean by "letting." If Shaffer just took the statement she had made and put it into the Voters' Guide, then it was his call, not hers, and intentionality would have to be established for him. The violation requires the false information to be intentionally put into the Voters' Guide.

I have many problems with the way responsibility works in the ASUC. When the ASUC Senate, on the say-so of the university administration, put a fee increase on the ballot, the university then proceeded to campaign all it wanted without regard to the rules because the proponents were proxies of the campaigners, and not the other way around. But that is how the rules are written.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 3:53 PM, March 12, 2009

 

there's a whole section in the charge sheet that details how shaffer and dina and the rest were in collusion. that isn't there just for fun. that's there to show that their intentions were one in the same, and some evidence is cited to point to that. the word 'collusion' really is important for that logical bridge there, but of course you wouldn't mention that to who's reading because it wouldn't make you seem so consistent...

furthermore, the fact that you have no problems having moghtader off the senate regardless of the video (which understandably you haven't seen and cannot fully judge) showing him not doing what people said he did, is disgusting. that's total injustice. if you were john, you'd be in a storm.

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:02 PM, March 12, 2009

 

it's truly disgusting to see how far you go to ensure the by-laws are upheld. it's not always about that. we're talking about a kid's reputation on the line here. how dogmatic could you be?

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:03 PM, March 12, 2009

 

Well, shit, if it's in the charge sheet, it must be true. Yes, Shaffer used Omar's statements. Omar made her statements available to Shaffer. Those are the only facts used to prove the "collusion." This doesn't prove her status as a proponent for campaign purposes any more than a candidate using a statement by Nad Permaul which he made available makes Permaul part of that campaign.

The fact that Omar is in agreement with the recall doesn't make her a proponent under ASUC rules. And the only "collusion" claimed is that Omar participated in contributing to the petition, despite the fact that Sinanian makes no argument that the petition was in any way illegal (aside from stating it without basis).

I find nothing compelling about your complaint about Moghtader's reputation. Whether he wins or loses in the Judicial Council has very little to do with his reputation. It is not always about the By-Laws. It is, however, about the By-Laws in the context of the Judicial Council's obligation to uphold the By-Laws. I didn't realize this was arguable.

At no point do I say I have no problems with Moghtader off the Senate. In fact, a fairly cursory reading of the last paragraph of my post seems to suggest the opposite. However, as far as most of us are concerned, the ASUC's integrity as a whole is more important than Moghtader's seat, and if the Judicial Council claims the authority to do whatever the fuck it wants when it thinks an injustice has occurred, then the entire ASUC is at the mercy of a tiny number of apointees.

I made this argument in 2006 as well: The fact that you can't separate process from results is a sign of deeply dictatorial tendencies. When you come out and say "the rules don't matter as long as the right thing happens," you may as well throw every aspect of Constitutional democracy down the toilet, because the process will only get in the way.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 4:19 PM, March 12, 2009

 

I tend to agree with you in thinking that the ASUC should use whatever mechanisms it already has in place to deal with this. However, the thing that I find disturbing is that a falsified police report was given such a prominent place by recall supporters. Why were the police so easily duped by the lying witnesses? If there had been no videotape, it is likely that Moghtader would be sitting in jail right now on a false charge of a "hate crime". I think heads need to roll in the UCPD for this incompetence/corruption/bias or whatever it is. And also the witnesses who lied to police need to pay.

# posted by  Alpha3958 : 8:07 PM, March 12, 2009

 

Post a Comment