04-27-2006, 07:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hindu American Foundation Reacts to False Media Reports after Court Hearing</b>Washington, D.C. (April 26, 2006) â The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) reacted quickly today to errors in media coverage of a hearing for a preliminary injunction filed by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) against the California State Board of Education (SBE) in Superior Court on April 21. The injunction sought to stop the printing of textbooks containing inaccuracies and an unbalanced presentation of Hinduism. In denying the injunction, presiding Judge Patrick Marlette did not pre-judge the merits of the case, indicated that he was "troubled" by the SBE process in approving the contentious textbooks, and encouraged the parties to discuss resolution of the case before the start of the school year.
<b>No journalists were present at the hearing, and according to HAF, several media reports relied on the motivated and biased interpretations of an amateur writer who gained recent notoriety for his anti-Hindu blog. This individual, with no previous experience reporting on legal proceedings, detailed that he attended the hearing and did not rely on official transcripts in his widely circulated report.</b>
"While HAF's legal team would have preferred that the preliminary injunction had been granted, they were pleased that the judge suggested the process followed by the SBE to be problematic," said Ishani Chowdhury, Executive Director of HAF. "It is sad that one individual's musings that were patently false at best, and blatantly racist at worst, were accepted as truth by too many."
Based on the writer's account, that variously intimated gratuitous comments as to the race and ethnicity of HAF's legal team and of those present in the courtroom, some media reports erroneously stated that a preliminary injunction hearing requires a "lower showing" on the merits. In fact, such a hearing requires the court to balance a number of factors, including any harm that could be caused by granting or denying an injunction. Here, presiding Judge Marlette twice indicated that he was "troubled" by the process used to approve these texts, but in denying the injunction request seemed concerned that even if the books were poorly written, "harm" wouldn't occur until the children actually had the books in hand -- something that is currently several months off.
Judge Marlette also appeared to be concerned that he could not evaluate how "bad" these texts were in the contexts of a preliminary hearing, as that decision would require a lengthy analysis of the texts, comparison with the treatment of other religions and possibly expert testimony. Preliminary hearings are, by contrast, limited. The court rules impose limitations on both the length of the papers that can be submitted and the amount of time available for the hearing.Â
<b>"Some accounts report that the judge rejected HAF's claims 'on the merits,' when the judge never decided such a thing," said Suhag Shukla, </b>Esq., legal counsel of HAF.<b> "Clearly there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to the standard of proof required for preliminary injunctive relief. It's difficult to obtain -- particularly against the government. More importantly, this particular denial has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case."</b>
HAF leaders reaffirmed their commitment to their legal action to ensure that California school textbooks accurately and equitably depict Hinduism
<b>"It is bewildering that these activists will oppose equal treatment of all religions in school textbooks, the lack of which is what led to the lawsuit,"</b> said Chowdury. "Hindus are merely seeking parity with other religions in sixth-grade textbooks, where social problems of other religions are not given the same prominence, even as the redeeming features of Hinduism are ignored."
The Hindu American Foundation is a non-profit 501©(3), non-partisan organization, promoting the Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One can guess who is these new anti-hindu jokers in town.
<!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>No journalists were present at the hearing, and according to HAF, several media reports relied on the motivated and biased interpretations of an amateur writer who gained recent notoriety for his anti-Hindu blog. This individual, with no previous experience reporting on legal proceedings, detailed that he attended the hearing and did not rely on official transcripts in his widely circulated report.</b>
"While HAF's legal team would have preferred that the preliminary injunction had been granted, they were pleased that the judge suggested the process followed by the SBE to be problematic," said Ishani Chowdhury, Executive Director of HAF. "It is sad that one individual's musings that were patently false at best, and blatantly racist at worst, were accepted as truth by too many."
Based on the writer's account, that variously intimated gratuitous comments as to the race and ethnicity of HAF's legal team and of those present in the courtroom, some media reports erroneously stated that a preliminary injunction hearing requires a "lower showing" on the merits. In fact, such a hearing requires the court to balance a number of factors, including any harm that could be caused by granting or denying an injunction. Here, presiding Judge Marlette twice indicated that he was "troubled" by the process used to approve these texts, but in denying the injunction request seemed concerned that even if the books were poorly written, "harm" wouldn't occur until the children actually had the books in hand -- something that is currently several months off.
Judge Marlette also appeared to be concerned that he could not evaluate how "bad" these texts were in the contexts of a preliminary hearing, as that decision would require a lengthy analysis of the texts, comparison with the treatment of other religions and possibly expert testimony. Preliminary hearings are, by contrast, limited. The court rules impose limitations on both the length of the papers that can be submitted and the amount of time available for the hearing.Â
<b>"Some accounts report that the judge rejected HAF's claims 'on the merits,' when the judge never decided such a thing," said Suhag Shukla, </b>Esq., legal counsel of HAF.<b> "Clearly there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to the standard of proof required for preliminary injunctive relief. It's difficult to obtain -- particularly against the government. More importantly, this particular denial has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case."</b>
HAF leaders reaffirmed their commitment to their legal action to ensure that California school textbooks accurately and equitably depict Hinduism
<b>"It is bewildering that these activists will oppose equal treatment of all religions in school textbooks, the lack of which is what led to the lawsuit,"</b> said Chowdury. "Hindus are merely seeking parity with other religions in sixth-grade textbooks, where social problems of other religions are not given the same prominence, even as the redeeming features of Hinduism are ignored."
The Hindu American Foundation is a non-profit 501©(3), non-partisan organization, promoting the Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One can guess who is these new anti-hindu jokers in town.
<!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->