Jeffrey Robbins at Workmen Circle

JRT Exclusive, continuation of the previous post:

Jeffrey Robbins started by saying to the audience that his mother asked him to pass to the audience that she used to be a member of the organization. This was met with a laughter, and indeed was funny -- it seemed that every lawyer in town has a mother or grand-mother in WC. Robbins quickly switched gears and started to frame the issue -- this case is not about Islam, not about somebody's right to build a place of worship, not about Bush, Iraq, neo-cons, Donald Rumsfeld, or particular politics of the David Project that people in the audience might or might not like. This case is a fundamental case about freedom of speech, and about attempts of powerful forces with centers outside of the US to intimidate and pulverize its critics. Pulverize is the word Robbins used a number of times. The issue at stake, Robbins said, is the fundamental right of citizens to raise issue. A group of private citizens getting together, discussing an issue, and calling a press conference does not represent a conspiracy. It is an Orvellian inversion, said Robbins, to accuse people concerned about messages of hate coming from the circles around the ISB in the hateful behavior. How can a statement about Saudi connection represent defamation when such connection is a fact that nobody denies, including the ISB with its most recent disclosure about the financing coming from the Islamic bank? How could questions raised in the media, and accusing the ISB in tight connections to Saudi circles hurt its fundraising -- when most of the money raised came from the Saudi Arabia? Jeffrey Robbins said to his audience -- being sued for raising questions is frightening experience, and is effective, already people are reluctant to speak out on the matter for the fear of being next target of bare knuckle attacks. This is plain ugly, said Robbins.
Then people started to ask questions. Questions were less friendly, and  somewhat more challenging, but still within the realm of a decent discussion.

Question: Why did ISB file the suit if it is so counterproductive to their community?
Robbins: It was a mistake. But people outside of Boston have different agenda than people in Boston. Muslim community of Boston is suffering as a result of this bad decision.
Question: Howard Cooper informed us that the deal between BRA and ISB within the format of Boston's Urban Renewal program is not an unusual deal. Cooper said to us that 17 organizations -- churches and synagogues got similar arrangements from the city.
Robbins: Please name one. We asked to identify at least one transactions like this and so far I did not hear from Howard about this. The number they used in the beginning was 19. In addition, there were concerns about this particular center. Mohammed Ali Salam, a BRA official who was also a top fundraiser for ISB, himself wrote a letter to FBI raising concerns about certain activities at the center. (this was news to us, discovery process works).

Question: Have you observed your client (the David Project) in action?
Robbins: Are SLAPP suits fine against people whose political views we don't share?

Question: Howard Cooper told that Walid Fitaihi is ready to come to Boston and to apologize. (Indeed Cooper never said apologize, he said explain' JRT)
Robbins: This would be great. We are ready. So far this is not happening.

Question: Why mediation process was broken?
Robbins: It was broken by the ISB. The last message from Howard was about breaking off communication.

Question: Why not to let the defamation suit go and let the public know the facts.
Robbins: ISB requested that all documents are shielded from the public and kept under seal.

All in all, Robbins was very effective. He spoke eloquently about the plight of Ahmed Mansour, and Egyptian Muslim cleric who was jailed in Egypt for his views, and is being sued by the ISB in Boston. He was afraid of being sent to jail again. (Cooper never mentioned Mansour, not even once JRT) He spoke about Anna Kolodner, daughter of Holocaust survivors being slapped with a suit for refusing of keeping quiet, he reiterated time and again, that the case was not about politics, Muslim, or people right to pray in Boston, the question was fundamental question of the right of private citizens to raise concerns without being financially ruined and emotionally devastated. That is pulverized.

The audience listened very attentively, there were people refraining themselves from heckling, and there were people genuinely trying to learn about the situation. At some point when Robbins was speaking about the intimidation there was a thick, tense silence in the audience.

All in all the event was moderated well and quite fairly. But there was no question that the burden of proof was on Robbins, not on Cooper. Mike Felsen, who moderated the event, during Robbins time turned into somewhat of a questioner himself.  Nevertheless, he did a tremendous service to his organization, providing them with a political spectacle or rare quality.

Audience? Who knows. We have heard a few commie dinosaurs talking to each other about how effectively the David Project hid its hateful agenda behind all these Christian and Muslim fronts. Truly, we did not see people like these even in the Soviet Russia. Workmen Circle, where Yevsektzia comes to spend its golden retirement years.

posted by: jrtelegraph

 

Comments

[an observer]

The david project is doing nothing of the sort.

it's asking legitimate questions about the separation of church and state and about the supporters of the mosque.

church and state is a worthy issue.

[Ron Newman]

I sent this e-mail to Workmens Circle this morning:

Although I unfortunately was not able to attend your special meeting on Monday night, I would still like to express my opinion on this subject.

Both sides of this dispute are wrong, and therefore Workmens Circle should not side with either party.

The David Project is trying to prevent the construction of a mosque. As Jews, we should never be in the position of trying to deny another minority religious group the right to build a place of worship. This can only set a bad precedent that will someday backfire on our own community.

The Islamic Society of Boston is trying to silence its opponents by filing a SLAPP lawsuit. Even though the David Project's goal is wrong, and I disagree with much of their speech, they still have the right to free expression of their (wrong) opinions. A Jewish organization should never support suppression of free speech, however wrong-headed that speech maybe.

So I urge Workmens Circle to stand aside, expressing its disapproval of both parties' actions. Instead, please support the mediation efforts that are being promoted by the presidents of Hebrew College and Andover-Newton Theological School.