Anti-Zionist McGill student regrets violent web posts

[oberliner]

MONTREAL — The McGill University student who tweeted about wanting to shoot people at a campus event that he deemed to be “a Zionist meeting” has formally apologized.

Haaris Khan now awaits the judgment of the university administration on whether he will be disciplined. After its investigation into the March 8 incident, Montreal police decided last week that it could not be proven that there was “criminal intent” behind the comments Khan made on his Twitter account.

<snip>

The film has nothing to do directly with Israel or the Middle East, but Khan tweeted that “I’ve infiltrated a Zionist meeting… I want to shoot everyone in this room. I should have brought an M16… Never been this angry. This experience has hardened me into a soldier of freedom and truth.”

The next day, he tweeted, “The jihad begins today.”

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21096&Itemid=86

[aranthus]

1. I'm sure he deeply regrets getting caught.

I also love how the antisemite protests that he isn't an antisemite, only an anti-Zionist, even though the film screening, which he described as a "Zionist meeting," at which he made his threats of violence, had nothing to do with Israel.

[Codeine]

4. This.

They hate having the mask pulled away.

[Ken Burch]

8. It's just about him, not about everyone who calls themselves an "anti-Zionist".

This man is mentally ill. That's the issue here.

Fortunately he was stopped before he harmed anyone.

And nobody here would ever defend the guy.

[oberliner]

12. There is no basis to claim this man is mentally ill

I also don't know what you mean by suggesting that he was "stopped" before he harmed anyone.

In what way was he stopped?

[aranthus]

15. You have no basis for believing that.

In fact, judging from his tweet and his "apology" it's much more likely that he's quite sane.

[King_David]

17. By that definition

theres an awfully lot of very mentally ill people with the same ideas.

[Ken Burch]

18. That wouldn't surprise me.

And look, antisemitism, like all other forms of bigotry, must be combatted, and combatted constantly...but(and I say this ONLY because this story was posted in THIS topic forum)it is not more prevalent or virulent than any other form of prejudice on the entire planet, and its existence, vile as it is, must never be used to silence discussion on any issue relating to the I/P dispute. It's really disturbing that some people seem to want to create the impression that we're back in 1939 again. We're not, and it's irresponsible and demagogic to imply that we are. There is bigotry in the world, but no one particular group is in greater danger from it than any other.

The existence of antisemitism isn't challenged by anyone here, but it does NOT justify the deligitimization of all serious discussion about the Occupation or the settlements, or about what the Israeli government does or does not have the right to do in the name of "security". Nor does it require everyone who opposes antisemitism even to support the concept of Zionism. You can be just as passionate an opponent of antisemitism as a non-Zionist as you can be as as Zionist. What matters is that you oppose injustice against anyone and work constantly against all injustice and all prejudice. (And again, I'm not personally a non-Zionist-I just don't accept the argument that antizionism is always just code for antisemitism. It can be, but then again, conservative and "Christian" support for Zionism can ALSO be coded antisemitism, since a lot of those types of "pro-Israel" people support the existence of a "Jewish state" because they want their countries to be Judenrein states.)

Everyone who posts in I/P(other than the occasional crazy who the rest of us all make sure gets banned as soon as she or he rears her twisted head)opposes antisemitism. That goes for the anti-Zionists as well as the Zionists. We shouldn't be made to keep proving we oppose it.

And it's my suspicion that posting stories like this in this thread, in at least some cases, about making people prove they're not antisemites. That's simply an inappropriate thing to do in this particular forum.

And if the intent behind posting the thread is to imply that everyone who self-identifies as an "anti-Zionist" is either in agreement with or responsible for what this young man posted, that is also totally unfair. It's just as vile as implying that all Zionists would agree with the handful of Israeli soldiers who disgraced themselves by printing those "two kills, one shot" t-shirts with the pregnant Palestinian woman on them.

[oberliner]

19. Where do you get the idea that this story has anything to do with anti-semitism?

It is about an anti-Zionist.

None of the tweets that he made were about Jewish people.

Why do you think he is anti-semitic in spite of the fact that he explicitly stated that he was not?

What did he say/tweet that was anti-semitic?

[Ken Burch]

20. That's been the spin of half the posters in this thread

The ones who have also used this as yet another chance to insinuate that everyone who self-identifies as "anti-Zionist" is just a closeted antisemite.

I think he's just a kid with anger issues who probably needs some sort of counseling. But a lot of people in this thread have been unwilling to leave it at that, or to accept that it's just about this one kid.

[oberliner]

21. Only five people have posted in this thread, and we are two of them

There has hardly been any "spin" of any kind.

You talk about "a lot of people" in this thread, yet almost no one has posted in it.

I'd still like to know what was said or written by this person that you believe was anti-semitic.

[LeftishBrit]

22. In fact, I don't think *anyone* in the thread said anything about anti-Zionists in general

Some of us did say that *he* seemed to be using 'Zionist' as an antisemitic code-word rather than politically; though I backtracked on this point after Oberliner provided further context.

None of us said anything that wasn't specifically about this one individual.

[oberliner]

23. Maybe the one about having the mask pulled away

That's the only post, though, I think that comes anywhere close.

[King_David]

24. Anti Zionists who are not Anti Semites? nt

[LeftishBrit]

2. He sounds either utterly vicious or seriously mentally ill. Or both.

In either case, he could clearly be a danger to others (I'm reminded of Jared Loughner). This isn't just insulting behaviour for which an apology might be appropriate; it involved serious threats.

[oberliner]

3. "My name is Haaris Khan. I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a terrorist."

From his apology letter to the school newspaper:

My name is Haaris Khan. I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a terrorist. I am not a threat to my fellow students on campus. I can be an idiot sometimes, though. I've learned that using my voice in a public forum comes with great responsibility. Politics can be nasty and human emotion can lead to colossal errors. In my case, I can only say that I erred in such a way. For that I am very sorry. My comments were totally inappropriate and I would never harm my fellow students. I have never been a violent person and I have never had any violent altercations in my life. I came to McGill University wanting to contribute, not destroy.

http://www.mcgilltribune.com/opinion/an-apology-1.2117696

[King_David]

5. Clearly another one for whom the word 'Zionist' is code

''The film has nothing to do directly with Israel or the Middle East, but Khan tweeted that “I’ve infiltrated a Zionist meeting''

He meant he had 'infiltrated a Jewish meeting'

Zionist to this guy = Jew (not a very cryptic code word)

[LeftishBrit]

6. Firstly...

if he referred to this meeting, which had nothing to to with Israel, as 'Zionist', then he *is* an antisemite, and probably quite a paranoid one.

Secondly, he wasn't just rude about the Jewish (let's use the right term) students; he was publicly fantasizing about his desire to kill them, and being very precise about what sort of gun he wanted to use.

It may have been just sick fantasizing. But I know of at least two past cases of shooting rampages at Montreal universities, and if I was a McGill student, especially a Jewish one, right now, I'd be worried.

[oberliner]

11. Let's make sure we have the facts straight

The "meeting" in question was actually a screening of the film, Indoctrinate U, hosted by the Conservative and Libertarian clubs at McGill. There were approximate 20 people at the event.

Here is some information about the screening:

Join Conservative McGill and Libertarian McGill for a screening of the film Indoctrinate U, in which Documentary filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney investigates political censorship at colleges and universities in the United States. The event is scheduled to begin promptly at 6:00pm on Tuesday, March 8 in the Leacock Building, Room 232.

The poster for the event (linked below) says: "Join us for a fascinating look at the influence of the political Left in American universities"

http://conservativemcgill.ca/en/2011/03/01/indoctrinate-u-movie-screening-2/

I have not seen the documentary, but according to Khan, the film took "subtle jabs" at Palestinians, certainly a believable claim considering the context and content of other similar "documentaries" put out by the right.

It is not altogether unreasonable for Kahn, an avowed "anti-Zionist", to get angry while watching a film that was presenting a point of view that was apparently antithetical to his own, while seated among a group of students who were most likely supportive of the right-wing message presented in the film.

I would also note that this screening took place during "Israeli Apartheid Week" - and there was very likely a degree of tension among students who hold strong positions related to Israeli and Palestinian issues, so even a passing reference in the film to those issues might have generated angry feelings.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Ok, that does add perspective; but still the violence in the message is worrying

I would be angry if I had to watch a right-wing film in the company of a bunch of Conservatives and Libertarians (though I would probably find any or all excuses not to attend in the first place!) And under the circumstances 'Zionist' might indeed have been a political rather than a racist term. But I would still not send out messages about *what kind of gun* I would use to kill the others!

[Ken Burch]

7. This kid had bigger problems than being anti-Zionist.

He obviously has major psychiatric issues and should be put in long-term care.

If it hadn't been about "Zionism", it likely would have been about something else with that type of personality.

And no, you can't hold what he talked about doing against everyone who self-identifies as an "anti-Zionist". OK?

[oberliner]

9. "He obviously has major psychiatric issues and should be put in long-term care."

You made this diagnosis based on a few tweets?

I don't see how you could possibly make such a determination.

Certainly there is no actual evidence to suggest what you are claiming.

[Ken Burch]

14. To make violent threats against innocent people is the sign of a disturbed mind

it's not just being a bigot.

[oberliner]

16. He didn't threaten anyone

In fact, no one in the room even noticed him during the entire event.

He was quietly "tweeting" on his Blackberry in the back of the room.

People text, IM, and tweet a lot of things that they are thinking but would not actually do.

How many college students do you think there are out there who, while sitting in a particularly boring class might send an IM to a fellow student saying something like "God, I want to kill this teacher" or something similar?

Does that constitute a violent threat against an innocent person? Would you say that anyone who sends an IM like that has a disturbed mind?

I think it is pretty common for college students to vent their frustration in that way.

[cali]

10. you don't know that.

Why insist on it? It sounds to me like he just lost it. His apology sounded sincere to me and not at all "crazy".