this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
30 points (58.7% liked)

World News

31476 readers
1143 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
30
Two women wearing hijabs denied entry to Democratic campaign event (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge 105 points 5 months ago (4 children)

FWIW that video is heavily edited, and the campaign released a statement that a group, including those women, were refused entry because they were disruptive at previous events.

Now, I think Kamala and Biden deserve the protests, and they should be doing something, anything, to end the genocide in Gaza.

But it's a political rally. If you protest at one of these, they're not going to let you into the next one. It has nothing to do with your religious headwear or islamophobia or sexism or terrorism. Claiming discrimination when there isn't any is disingenuous and counterproductive. It lends credence to the people who dismiss legitimate complaints of discrimination.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How do you tell that the video is heavily edited?

[–] themeatbridge 8 points 5 months ago

I watched the version in the article.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Ah, should’ve stuck to “free special zones” or entered nonsense they’re calling it now.

[–] Linkerbaan 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The video is not edited there's a 7 minute raw video of it which backs up the claims

In the uncut video the campaign did NOT state at any point that those women disrupted previous events despite being asked about it multiple times. If they just said those words instead of saying silent this would have not being a problem.

Only after the video went viral did the campaign release a statement that they disrupted previous events. If the campaign just said those words when the women asked about it this would have not blown up.

[–] themeatbridge 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I haven't watched the raw video, just the edited version included in the article where the women berate a guy who is accused of racism and says he'll speak with someone else before realizing he needs to just shut the fuck up.

Does the raw footage include any evidence of bigotry or islamophobia? Do they use any slurs or misogynist language? If it were a Republican rally, I'd expect that, but if any Democrat staffers or volunteers were explicitly prejudice on tape, they'd be fired and that would be the headline. I didn't see that in the edited version of the tape, so I'm guessing nothing like that happened, but again I could be wrong. You tell me, how does the raw footage back up their claims of racism?

Remember, the people keeping them out are not decision makers or spokespeople. They may not be authorized to speak on behalf of the campaign or the event. The venue reserves the right to deny anyone entry, and an explanation is a courtesy.

If someone accuses me of racism on camera, I'm not going to say another fucking word, because you can't win that argument. It's bait. Like I said, I didn't watch the unedited video, but I'll bet the protesters got stonewalled for most of it. That's what I would have done in the same position. Polite but firm, you're not getting in. Once the accusations fly, polite evaporates. We're done talking.

Are you suggesting that the statement from the campaign is a lie? That these women were not attending the rally to protest and be disruptive? Are we to believe that it was just the two women in hijabs and not their entire group that was denied entry? If the statement is true, then it really doesn't matter what was said to them when they were denied entry, they were going to make a scene. They wanted a video that could go viral. If the statement is a lie, then that's an entirely different story.

I support the protesters and their cause. I believe that Israel is engaged in genocide and needs to be stopped. I think it's criminal that Biden is supporting Netanyahu, and I support international criminal charges against Israel.

But I don't believe that these women were discriminated against because of their hijabs. And I don't believe that they believe it, either. And that makes me doubt their sincerity and their agenda. It makes me think they are merely seeking to cause chaos and embarass the campaign.

They have undercut their own argument with baseless accusations in a time when real bigotry, real fascism is on the rise in America and around the world. Their lies add fuel to the fire. Their chaos undermines real protest and real criticism.

Again, I could be wrong. You said the unedited video backs up their claim. I watched the edited video and it didn't support their claim. Can you tell me what's in the unedited version that's different?

[–] Linkerbaan -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They asked him for like 7 minutes why he's denying them entrance and if it had anything to do with their Hijiabs.

Other questions were being answered but not that one.

There's a shorter 2 minute version as well here https://twitter.com/npl_palestine/status/1752371248473186670

Not answering an accusation instead of denying it implicitly says "yes".

hey should have directly said "no it's not because of your Hijabs" and even better, actually tell them why they were denied entrance

[–] themeatbridge 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Not answering an accusation instead of denying it implicitly says "yes".

No, come on that's just not true. You know for a fact that if anyone said "no it's not because of your hijabs," they would have been called a liar and then that would have been the clip on the news. PR 101 teaches don't repeat the question and don't accept the premise. There's no answer they can give to that question that ends the interaction and makes the women stop filming and go home.

The answer to their question was the statement the campaign put out. That's the right move, the smart move. Let people with experience who actually speak for the campaign take the time to issue a written, edited, vetted statement that is factual and without emotion.

Edit to add, their subtle homophobia also undercuts their credibility. Suggesting he's being racist because he's a "member of the LGBTQ community" is odious and belies their own bigotry. It makes me doubt their even Democrats.

[–] Linkerbaan -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No, come on that’s just not true. You know for a fact that if anyone said “no it’s not because of your hijabs,” they would have been called a liar and then that would have been the clip on the news. PR 101 teaches don’t repeat the question and don’t accept the premise. There’s no answer they can give to that question that ends the interaction and makes the women stop filming and go home.

Yes there is a good response. That would be "you have disrupted previous events". That would not be controversial.

They should have not given them a wristband in the first place if they were barred. That is the point where the Democrats already screwed up. Not giving a reason at the door is even more screwed up and if it's true that they were the only women with Hijabs in the crowd then the implication of barring them for their religion is not unfounded.

They only got a reason after the video went viral which is the part that can't be ignored.

Suggesting he’s being racist because he’s a “member of the LGBTQ community” is odious and belies their own bigotry. It makes me doubt their even Democrats.

I believe she's referencing that the LGBTQ community was supposed to be inclusive. Her statement at 0:36 is "You're part of the LGBT community too right... and you're still gonna kick us out?" The tone seems disappointed, not accusatory

[–] themeatbridge 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes there is a good response. That would be "you have disrupted previous events". That would not be controversial.

You'd be playing right into their game, fueling the drama.

"Oh, so this isn't a democracy? I don't have the freedom to speak? Because I thought this was America! My grandfather fought in WWII on the beaches of Normandy, but because I'm an islamic woman, I don't get the same rights, is that what you're saying?"

You see it in the video. These women jump immediately to accusing him of racism, and he shuts off because he's smarter than you. You'd be there trying to reason with instigators who know full well why their group was denied entry and who are looking to make a scene, make a video, and make you look bad. Whatever you say would be twisted, edited down, and shared on twitter and Fox News to make your party look bad.

They only got a reason after the video went viral which is the part that can't be ignored.

Why is that detail so important to you? Of course they didn't get an explanation at the time, because they were making accusations to create a scene. They had been refused entry, and I'll bet if they had been reasonable in their request for an explanation, they would have gotten it. Turning on the camera and accusing people of racism is not reasonable. Of course the campaign didn't issue a statement before the video went viral, because there would be no need to make a public statement to let the people involved know what happened. You think they release statements about every disruptive attendee they turn away on the off chance that the attendees made a video accusing someone of racism?

For that matter, we don't know that the group wasn't privately given an explanation before the statement. These two women might not have gotten the memo, but there were more people involved.

I believe she's referencing that the LGBTQ community was supposed to be inclusive. Her statement at 0:36 is "You're part of the LGBT community too right... and you're still gonna kick us out?" The tone seems disappointed, not accusatory

I believe you're giving these people too much deference. First, the paradox of tolerance is not a sincere argument, because anyone who values inclusivity understands that it is not absolute. Anyone who uses that argument is already suspect, because they are either arguing in bad faith, or they are hoping to abuse the values of the tolerant to be intolerant.

And why is she assuming he's a member of the LGBTQ community? Is that public information? Does he want everyone on twitter to know his sexual orientation? Outing a member of the community on video is a not-so-subtle form of harassment. There's no excuse for that behavior, just like there's no excuse for baseless accusations of racism.

The people who made this video are the bad people in this video. They are villains, liars, and traitors to rhe cause they claim to support.

And your defense of them has exceeded reasonable discussion. You've ignored the reasonable questions I have asked you, and repeated their absurd talking points even after acknowledging that they are baseless. If you have any confusion, read my comments again. They were as clear as I can possibly make them.

Good day.

[–] Linkerbaan -3 points 5 months ago

Why is that detail so important to you?

Because if the video didn't go viral they would have never even gotten a reason. Your arguments make no sense.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago

This is very much US-internal news.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Been a lot of going backwards as of late.

[–] Potatofish 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn't let these two women inside if it were raining outside. They are ducking obnoxious.

BTW, this was already posted and shot down.

[–] Orbituary 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Shot down by whom?

[–] Potatofish 0 points 5 months ago

Hard to say because the post was deleted.

[–] mulcahey -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

1000019513

I mean, you would know about getting shot down

[–] agitatedpotato 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've seen the fediverse drown out stuff I learned in my professional career from multiple people with doctorate degrees because they didn't agree with it. Downvotes on the fediverse are even less indicative if quality than downvotes on reddit. There's plenty of other reasons to make fun of that guy too.

[–] mulcahey 1 points 5 months ago

This is a good and fair take, thank you

[–] Potatofish 1 points 5 months ago

Oh, my internet points.... nooo...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Looks like we’re going back to the widely accepted Islamophobia from the early 2000s. We have learned nothing.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Did we ever leave those days?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

We forgot for a while because the zeitgeist went back to the geopolitics of "Russia and China bad".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I hear you. Shit is fucked up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/zPex3SwtCSs?si=rvadQ95GobAyR3ch

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.