I just reread Bari Weiss's resignation letter from the NY Times again to refresh my memory of it. And if this latest column is a typical example of her writing, I would not hire her at the NY Times. Not because her opinions "go against the narrative", but because it is deeply dishonest and misleading. She is making the dishonest claim th…
I just reread Bari Weiss's resignation letter from the NY Times again to refresh my memory of it. And if this latest column is a typical example of her writing, I would not hire her at the NY Times. Not because her opinions "go against the narrative", but because it is deeply dishonest and misleading. She is making the dishonest claim that the attacker is "going free" when in fact he was sentenced to a 20 year term in a psychiatric hospital. That's not the kind of fact claim that a NY Times editor would let slide.
And on top of that dishonest claim she claims he is "going free" BECAUSE of French anti-Semitism. It seems clear to me that this is not a story about French anti-Semitism. It's a story about ambiguity and possible short-comings in French law regarding criminal punishment and mental health. Maybe the criticisms coming from her colleagues at the Times were accurate and well-founded, and Bari Weiss simply can't handle constructive criticism. The flaws I see in this piece seem to be of the same kind that her colleagues at the Times accused her of--seeing anti-Semitism where there is none, and making false claims.
And I am not being a troll. I am honestly trying to hold Ms Weiss to account, which she should welcome, if she is the person of integrity she claims to be.
What are your sources stating that he will be locked up for 20 years? Most sources state that security measures where ordered and put in place for 20 years, including a ban on him from contacting the victim’s relatives, returning to the crime scene and attending drug rehab. Are you saying that he will be locked up?
Mr. Traoré was not sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital. He is currently in a psychiatric ward but will be released. He is sentenced to 20 years of security measures which include a restraining order from seeing the victim’s family.
So let's say there's a white American male with Aryan Nation tattoos and an Oath Keepers sticker on his truck. He lives in Memphis. He smokes a bunch of weed, and then breaks into the apartment of his neighbor, an elderly black woman, who happens to be the only black person in the apartment building, and attacks her. After spending an hour or so beating her bloody, terrorizing her and screaming offensive racial epithets at her, he throws her out a window, killing her, while screaming "White Power!" The DA in Memphis decides that he can't prosecute because the man was not in his right mind, having smoked all that chronic. Do you think that Americans generally would perceive this as a racially problematic incident? Do you think black people in Memphis might be particularly upset and offended?
You are the one being dishonest. A psychiatric hospital is not prison, both figuratively and literally. Also what happens if tomorrow the psychiatric hospital finds him fit and petitions the court for his release.
Lastly with what was allowed to happen in the Ilan Halimi case (I don’t know if the last names are a coincidence or if they were related) we know this is anti Semitism. Also what happened in the Enderlein/Al Dura libel case we know the French courts are anti Semitic.
However without any of the above it’s obvious in this case there was anti Semitic.
The facts surrounding Halimi’s murder clearly demonstrate an anti-Semitic motive as the thug beat her and threw her out the window. These facts do not require twisted characterizations to get to this conclusion.
From France24.com: “France's highest court on Wednesday ruled that the suspected murderer of Jewish woman Sarah Halimi was not criminally responsible and could not go on trial . . . . “.
We all know that he will not spend 20 years in a psychiatric hospital—assuming he spends anytime at all there.
Agree with Judd. You are a troll. If only you could find a way to promote those two books you've been promoting on the other columns, then this would be a real win for you. If Bari were black and the murder victim in this story were black and Bari said that not holding the murderer criminally accountable for the murder indicated racism, would you still be challenging her conclusion?
It's clear from your comments here and your comments on other columns posted or written by Bari that you're indeed a troll. For example, in the previous column written by Rossi, you commented that comments coming from conservatives re: black people - no system racism in America, etc, are deeply hurtful to black people in America and problematic. Yet you have zero qualms denying Bari's own lived experience as a Jew in America, and deny the INHERENT antisemitism in France's outrageous ruling and subsequent silence from "activists" who see microaggressions on a daily occurrence. Someone so sensitive to the feelings and lived experience of other minorities (quote from yourself: "I've heard conservatives say many things on the issue of race that are deeply problematic. Like claiming that there is no structural racism in America. Or that welfare destroyed the black family. Or that black people should be grateful that they were born in America. Or that black people are not systemically abused by the police and our judicial system.") wouldn't be arguing these points unless A. they were actually an antisemite with an irrational hatred of Jews/therefore selectively applying rules, or B. are simply a troll trying to drum up skepticism using bad faith arguments (of the caliber usually seen from the right). You have every right to say whatever BS you want but I will call you out on it. Hold Bari accountable for standing up for Jews, by all means, and I will hold you accountable for your own BS.
Matt's also not persuasive. Feeble straw men, flagrant lies and repeated attempts at ventriloquism reveal Matt to be worm. A venal, mendacious little worm.
Personally consider myself more center right, but there are those on the right who troll using bad faith arguments, or at least someone with such 'liberal democratic views' should see themselves as a hypocrites for using the same tactics
Agree about hypocrisy but....I guess I don't believe in bad faith arguments, any more than I believe in hate speech or intellectual dishonesty. There are arguments, there is speech, and there is honesty. Qualifications are weaselish if not outright dangerous.
I'm trying to connect the dots. Maybe you can help me. So a Muslim man attacked a Jewish woman in a clear act of anti-Semitism, aggravated by a psychotic episode brought on by ingesting marijuana. (I've actually seen a person experience a psychotic episode after inhaling marijuana. BTW. And that person was already mentally unstable.)
And the fact that the French judicial system sentenced the man to twenty years in a psychiatric hospital proves, in your mind, that the French are inherently anti-Semitic. Please explain how that makes the French inherently anti-Semitic. Do you think the sentence would be different if he had attacked a Christian French person? Explain your reasoning.
And Bari Weiss's claim the man is "going free", even though he was sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital is a fair accounting of the situation? Make that argument, if you can.
Matt very studiously ignores the heart of the criticism that examines his comments to show he is, logically, either an anti-semite or a troll. I gather from his continued posting he doesn't believe he is a troll so that leaves anti-semite. Outing himself as a Jew hater does not seem to bother him enough to address.
WHERE did you get this twenty years in a psych hospital? He has a twenty year restraining order against going near her family or the site of the murder.
Would you think a white man who killed a black man out of racial animus and avoided any jail time for it, would be an example of white privilege and systemic racism? If yes, you are engaging in special pleading here, biased against Jews.
That's a very broad hypothetical. Was the person having a psychotic episode after smoking marijuana? Did it happen in France, where their laws about this sort of thing seem a bit screwy? Was it, given the circumstances, the best solution because the guy is actually crazy, and belongs in a mental hospital? These are all questions that would have to be answered before I could give you a good answer to your question.
Yeah he was so psychotic that actually meant to sit and have tea with Salimi and Allah Akbar slipped out of his mouth after he beat the crap out of her and throw her out a window!
Okay, nothing that I wrote above was addressed here at all - in fact you're going off on your own tangent and in many cases putting words into my mouth (did I say the French were inherently antisemitic? Or do you lack reading comprehension?). But I'll explain my reasoning: There is a pattern of people pleading insanity after committing antisemitic hate crimes in France, and getting off criminal charges on a mere technicality which is known to be unreliable. Let's forget that nothing that you said above reflected anything I mentioned. The case with Halimi is clearly a case where the murderer, who has a history of violence, was fit to stand trial, and the court 'expertise' was seriously flawed in determining that he wasn't, but this is nothing new, it's a pattern. There is no justice for Halimi, or scores of other Jews who've been murdered by extremists who have pleaded 'insanity', knowing they can get off on it, go to a psych hospital where doctors determine whether he is a danger to society and not a court of law, and there is subsequent silence from those who claim to fight injustice. I don't need them fighting for me - but I see them. And I see you: your remarks are disingenuous. They are hypocritical. And you aren't fooling anyone here. But then again, you're not fooling yourself either, you're just a troll.
There is a real issue with characterizing a 20-year sentence in a psychiatric institution as "getting off criminal charges." I wouldn't be surprised if that would have been the length of the prison sentence in France in any case.
A french man high on cocaine who threw his dog out the window faced more prison time than this terrorist. A dog's life is worth more than a Jewish life in France. We know this man is violent, he is a criminal, he murdered a woman while the authorities watched: France - Jewish blood is on your hands again and again
It's very difficult to reply directly to what you're saying because it is rambling and incoherent. You said the ruling was inherently anti-Semitic. Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. The sentence is related to France's laws regarding mental health. You haven't presented any evidence that the sentence would be harsher had the victim been Christian. You say there's a pattern. What are you basing that on?
"Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. "
Because anyone who used a "high on marijuana" defense for any other crime would got to jail for 20 years, as opposed to receiving treatment until psychiatrists say he doesn't have to anymore.
30 years plus penalty enhancements for hate crimes. That's rather more severe than "until two psychiatrists say you're good to go". Also, notably, the guy is not insane. He was high on pot.
You most certainly are not a troll, if we are talking about those cute ones with funny hairs from the animated movie. By all means go on: I expect no less than 50 more comments from you rehashing the ideas that Bari is dishonest and a shite journalist. I'll go write a play called "Matt Quixote vs. Bari's Windmills of Dishonesty". Or a song called "Matt Joshimi fights Pink Robots of Bari's Dishonesty" for those who prefer Flaming Lips to Cervantes.
I just reread Bari Weiss's resignation letter from the NY Times again to refresh my memory of it. And if this latest column is a typical example of her writing, I would not hire her at the NY Times. Not because her opinions "go against the narrative", but because it is deeply dishonest and misleading. She is making the dishonest claim that the attacker is "going free" when in fact he was sentenced to a 20 year term in a psychiatric hospital. That's not the kind of fact claim that a NY Times editor would let slide.
And on top of that dishonest claim she claims he is "going free" BECAUSE of French anti-Semitism. It seems clear to me that this is not a story about French anti-Semitism. It's a story about ambiguity and possible short-comings in French law regarding criminal punishment and mental health. Maybe the criticisms coming from her colleagues at the Times were accurate and well-founded, and Bari Weiss simply can't handle constructive criticism. The flaws I see in this piece seem to be of the same kind that her colleagues at the Times accused her of--seeing anti-Semitism where there is none, and making false claims.
And I am not being a troll. I am honestly trying to hold Ms Weiss to account, which she should welcome, if she is the person of integrity she claims to be.
What are your sources stating that he will be locked up for 20 years? Most sources state that security measures where ordered and put in place for 20 years, including a ban on him from contacting the victim’s relatives, returning to the crime scene and attending drug rehab. Are you saying that he will be locked up?
I appreciate you filling in those gaps. That is a concern that she did not mention that.
Mr. Traoré was not sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital. He is currently in a psychiatric ward but will be released. He is sentenced to 20 years of security measures which include a restraining order from seeing the victim’s family.
So let's say there's a white American male with Aryan Nation tattoos and an Oath Keepers sticker on his truck. He lives in Memphis. He smokes a bunch of weed, and then breaks into the apartment of his neighbor, an elderly black woman, who happens to be the only black person in the apartment building, and attacks her. After spending an hour or so beating her bloody, terrorizing her and screaming offensive racial epithets at her, he throws her out a window, killing her, while screaming "White Power!" The DA in Memphis decides that he can't prosecute because the man was not in his right mind, having smoked all that chronic. Do you think that Americans generally would perceive this as a racially problematic incident? Do you think black people in Memphis might be particularly upset and offended?
What kind of jerk pays 5 dollars a month just to hate on the substack author and harass people in the comment section.
You are being a troll!
You are the one being dishonest. A psychiatric hospital is not prison, both figuratively and literally. Also what happens if tomorrow the psychiatric hospital finds him fit and petitions the court for his release.
Lastly with what was allowed to happen in the Ilan Halimi case (I don’t know if the last names are a coincidence or if they were related) we know this is anti Semitism. Also what happened in the Enderlein/Al Dura libel case we know the French courts are anti Semitic.
However without any of the above it’s obvious in this case there was anti Semitic.
The facts surrounding Halimi’s murder clearly demonstrate an anti-Semitic motive as the thug beat her and threw her out the window. These facts do not require twisted characterizations to get to this conclusion.
From France24.com: “France's highest court on Wednesday ruled that the suspected murderer of Jewish woman Sarah Halimi was not criminally responsible and could not go on trial . . . . “.
We all know that he will not spend 20 years in a psychiatric hospital—assuming he spends anytime at all there.
Agree with Judd. You are a troll. If only you could find a way to promote those two books you've been promoting on the other columns, then this would be a real win for you. If Bari were black and the murder victim in this story were black and Bari said that not holding the murderer criminally accountable for the murder indicated racism, would you still be challenging her conclusion?
It's clear from your comments here and your comments on other columns posted or written by Bari that you're indeed a troll. For example, in the previous column written by Rossi, you commented that comments coming from conservatives re: black people - no system racism in America, etc, are deeply hurtful to black people in America and problematic. Yet you have zero qualms denying Bari's own lived experience as a Jew in America, and deny the INHERENT antisemitism in France's outrageous ruling and subsequent silence from "activists" who see microaggressions on a daily occurrence. Someone so sensitive to the feelings and lived experience of other minorities (quote from yourself: "I've heard conservatives say many things on the issue of race that are deeply problematic. Like claiming that there is no structural racism in America. Or that welfare destroyed the black family. Or that black people should be grateful that they were born in America. Or that black people are not systemically abused by the police and our judicial system.") wouldn't be arguing these points unless A. they were actually an antisemite with an irrational hatred of Jews/therefore selectively applying rules, or B. are simply a troll trying to drum up skepticism using bad faith arguments (of the caliber usually seen from the right). You have every right to say whatever BS you want but I will call you out on it. Hold Bari accountable for standing up for Jews, by all means, and I will hold you accountable for your own BS.
Matt's also not persuasive. Feeble straw men, flagrant lies and repeated attempts at ventriloquism reveal Matt to be worm. A venal, mendacious little worm.
A worm that exists at the highest levels of our society: neoracist ideology with antisemitic underpinnings (and oftentimes overtly antisemitic).
" using bad faith arguments (of the caliber usually seen from the right)"
judd, you had me until this line.
Personally consider myself more center right, but there are those on the right who troll using bad faith arguments, or at least someone with such 'liberal democratic views' should see themselves as a hypocrites for using the same tactics
Agree about hypocrisy but....I guess I don't believe in bad faith arguments, any more than I believe in hate speech or intellectual dishonesty. There are arguments, there is speech, and there is honesty. Qualifications are weaselish if not outright dangerous.
I'm trying to connect the dots. Maybe you can help me. So a Muslim man attacked a Jewish woman in a clear act of anti-Semitism, aggravated by a psychotic episode brought on by ingesting marijuana. (I've actually seen a person experience a psychotic episode after inhaling marijuana. BTW. And that person was already mentally unstable.)
And the fact that the French judicial system sentenced the man to twenty years in a psychiatric hospital proves, in your mind, that the French are inherently anti-Semitic. Please explain how that makes the French inherently anti-Semitic. Do you think the sentence would be different if he had attacked a Christian French person? Explain your reasoning.
And Bari Weiss's claim the man is "going free", even though he was sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric hospital is a fair accounting of the situation? Make that argument, if you can.
Matt very studiously ignores the heart of the criticism that examines his comments to show he is, logically, either an anti-semite or a troll. I gather from his continued posting he doesn't believe he is a troll so that leaves anti-semite. Outing himself as a Jew hater does not seem to bother him enough to address.
I'm afraid he's quite proud of it.
Please provide the link showing his 20 year term.
WHERE did you get this twenty years in a psych hospital? He has a twenty year restraining order against going near her family or the site of the murder.
Would you think a white man who killed a black man out of racial animus and avoided any jail time for it, would be an example of white privilege and systemic racism? If yes, you are engaging in special pleading here, biased against Jews.
That's a very broad hypothetical. Was the person having a psychotic episode after smoking marijuana? Did it happen in France, where their laws about this sort of thing seem a bit screwy? Was it, given the circumstances, the best solution because the guy is actually crazy, and belongs in a mental hospital? These are all questions that would have to be answered before I could give you a good answer to your question.
Yeah he was so psychotic that actually meant to sit and have tea with Salimi and Allah Akbar slipped out of his mouth after he beat the crap out of her and throw her out a window!
Okay, nothing that I wrote above was addressed here at all - in fact you're going off on your own tangent and in many cases putting words into my mouth (did I say the French were inherently antisemitic? Or do you lack reading comprehension?). But I'll explain my reasoning: There is a pattern of people pleading insanity after committing antisemitic hate crimes in France, and getting off criminal charges on a mere technicality which is known to be unreliable. Let's forget that nothing that you said above reflected anything I mentioned. The case with Halimi is clearly a case where the murderer, who has a history of violence, was fit to stand trial, and the court 'expertise' was seriously flawed in determining that he wasn't, but this is nothing new, it's a pattern. There is no justice for Halimi, or scores of other Jews who've been murdered by extremists who have pleaded 'insanity', knowing they can get off on it, go to a psych hospital where doctors determine whether he is a danger to society and not a court of law, and there is subsequent silence from those who claim to fight injustice. I don't need them fighting for me - but I see them. And I see you: your remarks are disingenuous. They are hypocritical. And you aren't fooling anyone here. But then again, you're not fooling yourself either, you're just a troll.
There is a real issue with characterizing a 20-year sentence in a psychiatric institution as "getting off criminal charges." I wouldn't be surprised if that would have been the length of the prison sentence in France in any case.
A french man high on cocaine who threw his dog out the window faced more prison time than this terrorist. A dog's life is worth more than a Jewish life in France. We know this man is violent, he is a criminal, he murdered a woman while the authorities watched: France - Jewish blood is on your hands again and again
He literally got off criminal charges.
Exactly. These two individuals make no mention of this thug facing no criminal sanctions—no punishment whatsoever—for his murder of this woman.
It's very difficult to reply directly to what you're saying because it is rambling and incoherent. You said the ruling was inherently anti-Semitic. Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. The sentence is related to France's laws regarding mental health. You haven't presented any evidence that the sentence would be harsher had the victim been Christian. You say there's a pattern. What are you basing that on?
This guy should be ignored, period.
His reply was coherent and succinct.
"Why is a twenty year sentence in a psychiatric hospital INHERENTLY anti-Semitic. "
Because anyone who used a "high on marijuana" defense for any other crime would got to jail for 20 years, as opposed to receiving treatment until psychiatrists say he doesn't have to anymore.
Are you some kind of an expert on the French legal system? Or does that just feel right to you?
30 years plus penalty enhancements for hate crimes. That's rather more severe than "until two psychiatrists say you're good to go". Also, notably, the guy is not insane. He was high on pot.
You most certainly are not a troll, if we are talking about those cute ones with funny hairs from the animated movie. By all means go on: I expect no less than 50 more comments from you rehashing the ideas that Bari is dishonest and a shite journalist. I'll go write a play called "Matt Quixote vs. Bari's Windmills of Dishonesty". Or a song called "Matt Joshimi fights Pink Robots of Bari's Dishonesty" for those who prefer Flaming Lips to Cervantes.