Ask, and ye shall receive:
Photo 1 of label
Photo 2 of label
Photo 3 of label
Google Cache of Label Photos

This is just sad. If people want to sell and corporatize religion then they should do it with their own. It doesnt make it any less wrong, but it certainly will reduce the number of lawsuits they will have to face.

This would have been a boycott issue, not a legal one:

If the brewers wanted to keep a beer-quaffing Ganesh on the label, they would have a strong chance of doing it... Commercial speech does have less protection than artistic speech... Still, courts usually protect product labeling unless it tells a lie...

The hate crime claim is silly, but this label was an insensitive commercial move using the hippie-era Indica which has become a slice of Americana. A Ganesh music video or T-shirt is one thing, Ganesh beer is quite another. Sounds more like something you'd find on The Simpsons.

Note the minarets in the background, the usual lazy conflation of Hinduism with the Middle East; and the devil tails on the lettering. I dig the cubist style though.

There's a long, predictable flame war on this beer label here-- let's not repeat it. The script goes something like this:

Desi 1: 'This is insensitive to my religion.'

Non-desi: 'You have no sense of humor, you religious fanatic.'

Desi 2: 'I'm a desi and it doesn't offend me.'

Desi 1: 'I'll lighten up the day you put Jesus on a beer label.'

All three, in unison: 'Shut up!'

And round and round it goes.

"If people want to sell and corporatize religion then they should do it with their own"

From my time in Trivandrum, I recall lots of Hindu gods used for very crass commercial avertisements and company names. I believe there was a "Lord Krishna Air Conditioners" company, for example. Is the "Indica Pale Ale" problem that it's an alcoholic beverage? Or that it's a non-Indian doing the marketing?

There's another microbrew from California, He-Brew ("the Chosen Beer"), which makes use of a hebrew-looking font and many stereotypes. It's popular with hip heebs. I assume it's marketed by Jews, but what if it weren't?

"Note the minarets in the background, the usual lazy conflation of Hinduism with the Middle East; and the devil tails on the lettering"

I don't know what those things on the letters are, but I don't think they're supposed to be devil tails. The minarets may have been intentional; the artist may have been referring to India as a whole, not just Hindu India. One icon of "India" in American pop culture is the Taj Mahal.

... I recall lots of Hindu gods used for very crass commercial avertisements and company names.

Yep, there's even a Lord Krishna Bank, as I recall.

Is the "Indica Pale Ale" problem that it's an alcoholic beverage?

Yes, that alcohol is a religiously proscribed item. At least among the devout.

There's another microbrew from California, He-Brew ("the Chosen Beer"), which makes use of a hebrew-looking font and many stereotypes.

Bet it wasn't named Jehovah for a reason.

One icon of "India" in American pop culture is the Taj Mahal.

Possible. It's also possible that they were just mixing Arabs and Hindus the way pop culture does all the time.

"...claiming that it...intimidates Hindus from practicing their religion..."

To me this is the crux of the issue. Young Hindu Desis in America, especially so-called "ABCD's", constantly face many challenges about their "strange" religion. They can be discouraged from learning more about it by seeing its popular icons used in such undignified ways.

Use of icons on Indian products in India doesn't apply here because that is happening in a society where the context of the religion is established.

Not saying that young American Desis of Hindu background must all choose to embrace their religion, but as it is part of their heritage, they shouldn't by default be discouraged from learning about it by popular disrespect and ignorance of it in American society.

very well put, Deepa! bravo.

I give you: He'brew, the Chosen Beer.

I am not kidding.

As far as Jesus memorabilia, lots of totes, keychains, flashlights,t-shirts, etc. Still looking for the beer....

And He'brew is hilarious. Maybe the Lost Coast Brewery just did it wrong. Think there will ever be such a thing as Desi beer? What would its marketing look like?

As far as Jesus memorabilia...

Not Jesus memorabilia but a HILARIOUS catholic one that I saw in a store a few years ago was a water sprinkler in the shape of small statue of Pope John Paul II with his arms spread in a traditional "welcome ye faithful" gesture. When hooked up to a garden hose it would spin spraying water.

The product name? "Let us Spray"

Think there will ever be such a thing as Desi beer?

- He'brew is not putting a deity on the label, it's putting a language and a culture

- There's a long history of Hindu deities being ripped off for toilet seats, thongs and all kinds of irreligious products. Context matters here-- unlike the Pope sprinklers, they're not selling to a 25% Hindu country which is familiar with the religion, they're selling to a country which by and large views the religious symbols as areligious exotic kitsch.

Some of you will definitely not like New Orleans' Hookah Cafe, with a big picture of a hookah-smoking Ganesha outside the front door.

This is something that always comes to my mind in terms of religious iconography:

A boycott is sanctimonious drumbeating unless Hindus value the gods of their pantheon for their meaning and their meaning alone, and not the icons and rituals of identity that they provide.

While we are horrified at this crassness, we must stop to remember that this is a country where people wear stars-and-stripes thong bikinis and announce their patriotism from lapel pins and car-antenna flags. That India, too, is a country where a mad appropriation of the symbol has superceded understanding and reverence for the abstraction which is symbolized, i.e. the meaning behind the representation. Is that not demeaning our deities? Where is the outrage for that great loss?

Maitri: there's a reason why the Hookah Cafe chose Ganesh and not Jesus or Mohammed.

Partly because nobody in any serious numbers would object, partly because Indians, like, are so spiritually out there, man! I mean, all the Indian gods are, like, just acid-induced synæsthesia, right?

If our "acid-induced synæsthesia" paints us as generally peaceful and relaxed yoga-practitioners, what's the harm, right?

At any rate, who wants validation from them that judge us wrongly anyway?

My concern lies with westerners going for the half-assed urban-chic of eastern iconography and Indians/Hindus latching onto the symbolism like there's no tomorrow, when neither group wants to realize and protect the beautiful reality behind the icon.

If our "acid-induced synæsthesia" paints us as generally peaceful and relaxed yoga-practitioners, what's the harm, right?

The '60s painted Hindus as fellow drug addicts, actually. That's why Ganesh puffing on a hookah is apropos.

Jews are also a minority in the US, and the symbols in He'brew labels and ads are presented as "areligious exotic kitsch." If there were any Jewish tradition of Jehovah images (there isn't), they'd be on those bottles too. If there's any group ready to get all up in arms about being persecuted and defamed, it's Jews, but "the Chosen Beer" appears to be a success. Why? If non-Jews were making the stuff, there'd be hell to pay.

I bet hipster Desis could successfully sell beer to hipster Desis - and others - using an ironic marketing campaign. The problem, I think, is that Lost Coast Brewery wasn't sufficiently hip or educated to handle the imagery correctly; and they weren't targeting a Desi market. Their campaign was by non-Indians for non-Indians, but used Indian imagery. I suppose that's the definition of (mis)appropriation. He'brew's campaign is by Jews, for Jews (mostly), but anyone can appreciate the humor.

I'm especially concerned about Indians and Indian-expats taking offense at non-Indians' use of Hindu imagery because of "Sita Sings the Blues." I'm relieved that the response has been mostly positive, but occasionally I receive an email accusing me of "hurting Indian culture" or "ridiculing my religion." I know that anything worth doing will offend some people, but my intention isn't to hurt or ridicule. Every time I read a righteously angry post about how some dumb-ass American misapproprtiated some Hindu cultural icon, I shudder. There but for the grace of (insert deity here) go I.

If our "acid-induced synæsthesia" paints us as generally peaceful and relaxed yoga-practitioners, what's the harm, right?

The harm is in westerners going for the half-assed urban-chic of eastern iconography.

I still think people should have the common sense on not to use potentially sensitive symbols for their products. The keyword here is "potentially", if there is any doubt then just leave it out and use something else.

If our "acid-induced synæsthesia" paints us as generally peaceful and relaxed yoga-practitioners, what's the harm, right?

The harm is in westerners going for the half-assed urban-chic of eastern iconography.

Our angry snatching back and "protection" of the symbol is neither going to help westerners see us as generally peaceful and relaxed nor stop them from continuing to engage in thoughtless shopping exercises. If they don't care about their flags, do they think for a minute about something as far from their minds as desecration?

Again, I have a white-American friend who actively reads and believes in the Gita and wears a gigantic Om tattoo on his back. Is he wrong to do that? When does this stop becoming ours vs. theirs? The only thing we can do, being on the side most enlightened about these symbols, is to educate and not to pitch fits and angry boycotts (no, no, not SMers, but "purveyors" of Hinduism a la VHP, RSS, incensed mob on Sulekha, etc.).

I think the difference b/w reading the Gita and having a tatoo is that they are natural practices as a extensions of faith and belief.

Having a Ganesh smoking up or drinking is neither natural nor respectful. If they want to have a Ganesh at the entrance of the restaurant then that is fine, having a symbol is fine, but having it smoking or doing anything else ridiculous does cross a few lines that should not.

I bet hipster Desis could successfully sell beer to hipster Desis - and others - using an ironic marketing campaign.

I agree, but it doesn't have to be done by desis, it just has to be done well. (I think 'Mulit' was directed by a Swede.) Otherwise its very shoddiness comes across as disrespect, like a sales proposal done in crayon and scotch tape.

Suppose you were visiting Saudia Arabia and watched a TV show. The show was about America and claimed to be accurate. All it showed was an Arabian fellow in white makeup, an XXXXXXXL T-shirt and ugly running shoes porking out on burgers and yelling loudly into a cel phone at the base of the Statue of Liberty while gunfire whizzed around him. That's about the level of much American work about South Asia at this point.

Every time I read a righteously angry post about how some dumb-ass American misapproprtiated some Hindu cultural icon, I shudder. There but for the grace of (insert deity here) go I.

But your work is done well, the care is evident. The people complaining are probably turned off by the frank assessment of two religious icons.

Maitri: one of the major goals of boycotts is precisely to educate, to raise awareness.

Relief ... now I know why Nina Paley's name sounded so familiar - we went to the same high school.

having it smoking or doing anything else ridiculous does cross a few lines that should not

One of my least favorite phrases: "should not." Says who?

one of the major goals of boycotts is precisely to educate, to raise awareness

a) Due to such boycotts, has a considerable portion of western society come away with any of the awareness Hindus wish to instill in them?

b) Parody is still within their rights as long as it's not infringement, and woe be to any Hindu/group who copyrights these universal symbols.

Advocating for the devil aside, I have nothing against these "variations" as long as the people who come up with and sell them are willing to have something similar done to their own special icons. The people who purchase these products probably don't have the sensibility to respect their own icons, much less those of a culture of which they know squat.

Of course, the most important question is if the beer is any good. If it is, the label is a tribute, not blasphemy. (I'm a Hindu Wisconsinite ... some priorities tend to battle each other)

Maybe the outrage is because the images are on a bottle of beer, since liquor has negative connotations in Indian society. The use of mythological imagery is actually quite widespread in Indian society. Just take a look at all the calendar art, the images of Hanuman behind trucks, the names of businesses (though I doubt if any liquor shop has the name of a deity) etc. In fact, if someone wants to be offended at the bastardization of our culture, they should vent their ire at the million+ mythologicals on Indian television, each worse than the last, and made solely to reap the monetary benefits of increased ratings. When Ramanand Sagar first made the Ramayana, it was a shoddy work, but there was no standard bearer back then, and most people swallowed it. BR Chopra's Mahabharata was a great improvement in quality, but every mythological after that has been abominable.

And oh, remember the ire MF Hussein had to face when he drew Saraswati in the nude, because the self-proclaimed protectors of Indian culture could not fathom how sensuality and gods could mix. (Of course, a good reading of mythology along with a trip to the Jagannath temple in Puri, or Khajuraho would dispel that myth.. but who wants facts when you can have hysteria) I'd rather not have anyone 'protect' my culture since no one has a copyright over culture, and every influence helps add to the culture.

Btw, all this talk about about religion and liquor reminds me.. in Kerala, there's a really strong liquor called 'Yeshu-Christu' by the locals. They say that if you drink it, you will wake up only after the third day :-)

Due to such boycotts, has a considerable portion of western society come away with any of the awareness Hindus wish to instill in them?

Yeah-- everyone who's seen the news coverage of those events.

Parody is still within their rights...

Nobody's talking about government as an agent of action here.

Maitri, Hindu Wisconsonian! This Hindu (former) Iowan dislikes 'should not,' as well. Should not, would not, could not....

If you want to boycott ( I speak to the general you, not anyone on this thread in particular), go ahead and boycott. It's your right. For my part, I actually like the kitsch, whether it be John Paul lawn-sprinklers or hippie West coast 'hindu chic.' A 15 million dollar Hindu temple was built in Belmont, Illinois a few years ago....the success of the temple, the striking architecture, and the number of temple goers was all a big deal, written up in the Chicago Tribune and other papers. This sort of thing will do a lot to introduce the general American culture to Hinduism, beyond sixties kitsch.

It's just that I think the kitsch represents something, is authentic, and is a historical part of the American culture, even if it offends. It represents a time, a place, an attempt at understanding, no matter how superficial. Kitsch, by definition, is the ideal brought low down and into real, daily, hectic, busy, commercial life. Kitsch says, it doesn't all have to be so distant.

I agree that Hindu symbols are easier to use than Christian ones in this society, because, frankly, it would cause less fuss. But to me, that's not a good enough reason to be offended. The thing, in and of itself, must be good or bad. So, irrespective of what might happen if there was Jesus beer, is this good or is it bad? I suspect we fall onto different sides, but, again: if you want to boycott, go ahead. All things in a free society.....

I think the kitsch... represents a time, a place, an attempt at understanding, no matter how superficial.

Kitsch is a kind of pop art, so you have to look at each work specifically. Some kitsch is an attempt at understanding, fusing and innovating, other kitsch is just poking fun without understanding.

Indians are already learning to flex their minority muscle like the tribe. As the soon-to-be number 2 market dominant minority in this country, they have learned to "handle" those who offend them with strategic suits, however meritless. It is just the start. Get used to it, America. And DON'T expect the same treatment toward Christians in India. Won't happen. And class of rich folks who can sit on the backs of 500 million poor folks for two thousand years isn't about to worry about that.

Who knew trolls had nautical skills?

Disgusting!!

This is nothing but a Cheap marketing tactic to gain polularity.

This purely shows the racist nature of the owner of the brewery.

In my opinion not only company like this should be closed for ever and their assets confiscated but all their management should be locked up behind bars and beaten every day so others can get a lesson.

In my opinion not only company like this should be closed for ever and their assets confiscated but all their management should be locked up behind bars and beaten every day so others can get a lesson.

A Hindi,
Thank GOD your opinion counts for nothing. In my opinion you should be locked up an beaten every day. Lucky for you, my opinion doesn't matter much either.

Maitri - when did you go to Uni? Did I know you? It's all a blur...

Manish - "Suppose you were visiting Saudia Arabia and watched a TV show...about America and claimed to be accurate. All it showed was an Arabian fellow in white makeup, an XXXXXXXL T-shirt and ugly running shoes porking out on burgers and yelling loudly into a cel phone at the base of the Statue of Liberty while gunfire whizzed around him."

Of course I'd find that hilarious, because Americans aren't marginalized where I live (here in America, go figure) - it'd be novel. Also, I'm critical of much of American culture, so the unrestrained ridicule could be satisfying. But I get your point: if I were fed a steady diet of that sort of media, I wouldn't be laughing.

Somewhat related: the Bollywood movies I've rented recently make a point of depicting white people as violent thieves. In Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam there's the inexplicably murderous Italian jeep-driving couple who shoot Nandini, and Dil Chahta Hai features a Swiss girl who seduces a hapless Indian protagonist in Goa only to mug him. I crack up at these scenes, but if I subsisted only on a diet of Bollywood movies, I'd have one tweaked self-image.

... the Bollywood movies I've rented recently make a point of depicting white people as violent thieves.

Yeah, they're terrible that way. They're stuck in the '50s as far as stereotyping goes: Mortal Kombat-style white and black villains, silly Japanese tourists, bumbling Sikhs. White characters are usually as thinly written as the unseen, 'wonka-wonka' adults in Charlie Brown specials.

But then Indian characters are often just as kitschy. Ever seen Mogambo from Mr. India?

Can anyone get us Brij Dhir's email ID and tel/cell no's?
We from India are willing to help in his fight against this and ensure it is settled.
Thanks

But then Indian characters are often just as kitschy. Ever seen Mogambo from Mr. India?

After seeing "enough" bollywood movies, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Shashi Tharoor's novel, "Show Business". Enough kitschy stereotypes and tongue-in-cheek making fun of the industry, complete with Amitabh-like hero.

Though one portion of the book rang familiar of the plot for Bombay Dreams. Makes me wonder...

Nina: I believe you graduated before I did in 1993. Besides, I went to Uni only for 2.25 years, not long enough for the name to linger in its corridors like yours. ;-)

Your Sitayana is brilliant, BTW. Wait until I elicit some gasps and giggles (all in the same breath) by showing it to my mom.

All: My "parody is within their rights" comment was meant for those who want this kind of expression to be illegal.

Is it just me or is A Hindi a joke? What Hindu would make the mortal mistake of referring to him/herself as a Hindi?

(Yes, I just LOVE IT when people walk up to me and ask if I speak Hindu. If I were to have enough Indica beer and the spirit of Cubist Ganesh in me, I would say, "Yeah, just like you speak Methodist or whatever. Punk, bring it on." Alas, this ale is lost to us forever and I will just have to stare at them while carefully choosing my words.)

I being an indian and a hindu deeply outraged at what happened.Young Indian so called ABCDs i believe its not their fault if they are confused .I believe its due to their never being taught about their religion or if taught,taught the truth straight from upanishads and vedas.I won't criticise anybody but would like to say this has hurted my sentiments and i support the boycott .I think brothers and sisters by making mockery of gods be it of any religion does hurt the people of that religion howsoever tolerant the people of the concerned religion are.Hindu being a universal religion we believeing that every good man is a part of god"Parmatama" as we call it in hindi.Regarding bollywood people love it over herein india regarding your whites thieves madam every year about 700-800 movies release here in india and you picked 2-3 which released over the span of 4 years .
I support Mr.Dhir
Jai Hind

Shallabh,
it's not that we ABCDs are without values or reverence for the from-whence-our-fathers-came... we just have a sense of humor and choose not to get our chuddis in a bunch over everything.

I don't think the issue is about the apathy of ABCDs or whether Hollywood blows, in comparison to Bollywood.

as the kids say in K3G, "Take a chill pill"

there must be hang till punishment for use of religous idols for these kind of things. becouse this is an insult of mans top brass, its a purposefull hurt to that religion With intention to show than we r not answerable to anywone.

DesiDancer,
Brother I never said ABCDs are without values ,i only(if i didn't i'll correct myself) made a reference to those who say its "cool",brother u'll agree that if we keep on ignoring these skirmishs then i can see them playing with our religion 1 day.
Being tolerant is 1 thing brother but i feel we are overexploited because of our tolerance.
The bottom line is, ending all debates is this was a bad thing,the firm should have talked to hindu religious leaders before doing anything.
But they are fault now and they should be punished,thats all
Jai Hind

Shallabh- appreciate your clarification
lekin yaar, main ladki hoon... brother nahin.

I am sorry sister.I hope now its fine

Letter to the Editor

In the Northcoast Journal issue dated May 12, 2005, there is a news update Lost Coast Brewery Sued. In this update, the brewery co-owner Barbara Groom responds stating she has received positive reviews of the Indica label, which depicts an image of the Hindu god Ganesh, from Hindus in the past. In addition, in other newspapers in the Bay Area she is quoted as saying that her Hindu friends "Think it's really cool." My question is who are the Hindu friends that you are talking about who think the Indica label is so “cool”? The community in the North Coast is so very small and I must sincerely question the existence of Hindus in the area who support the Indica label. As a Hindu community member residing on the North Coast, I question the sincerity of these statements of support from other Hindus.

I believe it important for the Humboldt community to know that Barbara Groom is being dishonest when she says that she has received positive reviews from Hindus. There have been many letters sent to Ms. Groom and her sales manager, Briar Bush, via email for the last 5 years about the Ganesh image. There have been letters and articles published by the Times Standard in Summer 2003 and the Northcoast Journal in 2001 articulating how and why the Indica label is slanderous to Hindus locally and internationally. The AHAD (American Hindus Against Defamation) sent Ms. Groom correspondence educating her as to why the label is offensive and asking the brewery to take it off the shelves. Ms. Groom participated in an interview with the bay area newspaper India West in 2001, where she was again questioned about the use of Ganesh to market beer. In addition, there have been dozens of comments regarding the misrepresentation of Ganesh by Lost Coast Brewery on websites like (www.mylifeisbeer.com/beer/bottles/bottledetail/257/.
I am also aware of other Hindus who have written op-eds and sent emails to Lost Coast Brewery’s sales manager who has responded to them by saying that it is too labor intensive to change the label. It is clear to me and other Hindus that Ms. Groom and the rest of the Lost Coast Brewery staff have chosen to ignore us for years. Exercising their social power made available by white privilege and hegemony the Lost Coast Brewery continues to commodify Hindu culture. Telling those of us who resist her oppressive acts to just “relax.”

This lawsuit should not be a surprise for Ms. Groom. She has been given ample opportunity to make changes in the marketing of Indica beer, but in the name of capitalism she has co-opted a sacred deity of Hindu’s and altered its status to a symbol of hate targeting Hindus and non Hindus locally, nationally and internationally. The time for the Lost Coast Brewery to be held accountable for the violent misrepresentation of Ganesh is long overdue. It is time for Ms. Groom and the other executives of the Lost Coast Brewery to admit their mistake, apologize to the community and take the image of Ganesh off their beer, delivery trucks, t-shirts and website. Stop exploiting!

Thanks for sharing that letter. I had no idea the label's been around that long. Is there a URL for the India West interview? Actually, URLs for all the letters and articles you cite would be enlightening.

I just looked at the Lost Coast Brewery's web site, and there's nary a trace of Indica Ale. History seems to have been erased there.

It is sad that this brewery made a marketing boo-boo like this one. They have some of the best brews around.

and altered its status to a symbol of hate targeting Hindus and non Hindus locally

B.S.

This witchhunt is crazy. It makes me want to drink this beer even more.

This witchhunt is crazy. It makes me want to drink this beer even more.

and altered its status to a symbol of hate targeting Hindus and non Hindus locally

B.S.

This witchhunt is crazy.

Question: So you guys would be cool with drinking Jesus beer, or Yahweh beer or Allah beer too? If so, sounds kosher/halaal to me.

So you guys would be cool with drinking Jesus beer, or Yahweh beer or Allah beer too? If so, sounds kosher/halaal to me

Yup, as long as the hops are right and the fermentation process is sound. And while drinking it I will say to myself, "Thank Ganesh for my ability to discern the difference between the symbol and the symbolized."

Ganesh Beer is not a marketing blunder. It is not "insensitive".

Any incoherent IDIOT who thinks so, feel free to crap your pants over these words.

The lawsuit is nothing but an attempt at extortion.
The 'complainant' deserves to be taken out and kneecapped.

People have been 'selling and corporatizing' religion since religion began.
Always been that way, always gonna be. Deal with it.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your feet, STFU.

Ganesh Beer is not a marketing blunder. It is not "insensitive".

Of course not. It's not your totem.

people out there who think this has been 'cool' are either too dumbassed to take any action, or either too much of a loser.
If you think its too much trouble to uphold your own religion, even if you think it shouldnt be on the 'pedestal', then you really need to think things over. Religion is more than fanatism, understand that, and you will understand why Christians wont take a Jesus on a fuckin chuddi, so dont talk about bunching chuddis, the christians will be doing that when they find jesus on our crotches.

We must pray for their forgiveness by committing this offense and also for also for the detrimental act to have been committed. Due to Hindu Tolerance an apology and wthdrawl would suffice.

Ganpatti Dada ki Jai!!

Having traveled through India and the rest of Asia, I can say that those nations trample all over Western symbols and religions. And you know what? It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter in the other direction either.

All this hoopla is probably just repressed anger about a history of colonialism and Westernization. Those were legitimate grievances 50 years ago, but not anymore. Guys, grow up.

It's probably also repressed fear about Indian immigrants losing their identity in the US and adapting culturally. Well, face it: you (or your ancestors) chose to move to a materialistic culture; deal with it.

No, you psychoanalyst hack, it's about God on a beer bottle.

Dear John, I personally had no choice when my ancestors got on the ships to come to South Africa (I know it's not the same as 'materialistic' US)and work as indentured labourers, but having travelled abroad to both the West and East (incl. India), I kiss the ground everytime I return because although I love India and everything that comes with being Indian, I love and appreciate more that I'm Indian in South Africa - We totally rock! I don't think this issue is different for Indians from different countries, do you? Basically I just don't like people disrespecting me or my beliefs. I do find the use of Ganesh on beer extremely distasteful only because I love and respect my culture and tradition as I know it. No, I don't practice like other Hindus, I drink, smoke the occassional 'Durban Poison' and do a whole host of things my parents and in-laws would just die if they knew about. My friends eat beef and pork and they're my friends nevertheless, it's a question of tolerance and understanding. I try to be tolerant and respect other's beliefs in the hope that they would afford me the same courtesy. I thought that was a part of what being Hindu was all about. But in this day and age that is way too much to ask for I guess. I think that we are overthinking this entire issue. The reason we all have so much to say about Ganesha on 'anything', in my opinion, is that apart from some of us considering it a sacred symbol, it's also that we're already an 'abused' minority and if we don't speak up then we just continue to allow for people to take advantage of us and our beliefs. There is a saying, maybe someone could help me with: Bad things will continue to happen if good men say nothing? I know it's not God on the damn bottle, it's just a picture that I hold sacred and associate with my faith and spirituality so excuse me if I don't like associating it with alcohol, toilet-seats, g-strings etc. Maybe now they can take the aum sign of the ecstacy tablets and Krishna of the acid stamps...

"it's just a picture that I hold sacred and associate with my faith and spirituality so excuse me if I don't like associating it with alcohol"

Then don't look at the bottle or drink the alcohol then you shouldn't have any problem with the association.

I would think that it would not be inappropriate to call it a hate crime if this beer product was on shelves for 5 years despite protests issued by the residents of the area. When someone sports a Nazi -outfit, why is it considered insensitive? Because it is a symbol, a reminder of the hate ideology used to persecute Jews and make their lives miserable.
So symbols do matter. If this is a free world, then why shouldn't those who find it offensive not voice it?
For all those who are 'cool' with it, it may not matter as much, if at all, to you but fact is this is a diety revered by millions. Is it too much to ask to mind the sensibilities of those who worship and associate this diety with their religious beliefs?
Humour is one thing but its manifestations in the form of these beer bottles is another.

Oh My God, i really can't believe the lack of concern that so called 'open-minded' and 'modern' hindus on this forum have been displaying.(except a few more perceptive ones-manish vij etc) U guys r talkin abt freedom of expression and all that shit, but i find the comparison between the jewish beer and the indica one, quite inaccurate if anything. alcohol is not something prohibited by judaism, whereas it is by hinduism- hence offensive to have a hindu deity on the beer label.

For those who reckon that Hindus are overreacting to the whole thing... whatever man. I'd like to see catholics take a packet of condoms with a picture of virgin mary on it lightly, or muslims, pork chops with their religious symbol... it's offensive for god's sake!

you may not as a hindu find the association here as strong as the examples that i just gave. But i'd say that this just re-affirms the fact that hindus are becoming much less educated when it comes to knowing about their religion. i

I totally agree with Vibhushan. u might not be jewish, but sporting a nazi symbol would be considered inappropriate anywhere in Europe or the western world. it';s even illegal in many european countries, cos it offends the sentiments of not only jews, but also the general public. we're sensitive here, but we can't understand that someone would be offended by use of religious symbols on...blah blah...all the products mentioned before.

i mean if we were to take Zender's attitude

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your feet, STFU.

We really shouldn't be concerned about racist/nazi symbols...just avoid looking at them.

and for those pseudo secular pricks out there, who would brand people like me fanatic Rss supporters or whatever... I was born and brought up in scandinavia, didn't even know what religion i belonged to until a few years back and had never met an indian until i visited india when i was like fourteen.
This stuff is just basic human empathy man

i find the comparison between the jewish beer and the indica one, quite inaccurate if anything. alcohol is not something prohibited by judaism, whereas it is by hinduism- hence offensive to have a hindu deity on the beer label.

That may be the crux of the issue, and not an easy one for an American with friends of Hindu descent to understand, because most Hindu-esque Indian-Americans drink alcohol without reservation. In the US, the Hindu proscription of alcohol is little-known. Heck, if you judged from the behavior of some of my assimilated Jewish friends and family, you might not know that pork isn't kosher.

So I considered, instead of He-Brew beer, what if someone made Traif (tm) brand fried pork rinds? Using the same hebrew-styled font, maybe with a cartoon Chasid with a wink and a wicked grin? That would be both hilarious AND make even me a little uncomfortable. Indeed, many secular Jews would find that offensive, even as they support He-Brew beer.

Pictures of Jesus on condoms wouldn't be that offensive, because not all Christian sects are anti-sex. Catholics, however, could easily be provoked to sue over condoms with a picture of the pope on the wrapper. I'd buy a case before they were all recalled.

This beer label case fascinates me, because it's on the cutting edge of what is and isn't offensive/acceptable in the mainstream.

May I remind you that:

a) There is nothing sacreligious about Hindu gods drinking beer OR about using Hindu gods for commercial enterprise. There are NO Hindu proscriptions on alcohol.

b) Taking even a modestly literal perspective on the scriptures, Ganesha would more than likely have soma in hand on an average weekend.

It is entirely one's right to be offended by the advertisement, but please don't use a false sense of religious indignation to justify it.

Also, do we have to use the Christian right as a justification for religious overreaction. Just because *they* do it, does not mean we do

Since when do getting intoxicated became anti-Hindu. Few examples of revelry are: Holi, and go to temples in Varanasi and Nepal, you will see how many priests are stoned. Puritanism is not a trait of Hinduism.

Artistic freedom is very important unless a symbol with dark past is used (like, a nazi symbol).

I'm confused - I thought there was a Hindu proscription against booze. If there isn't, then color me outraged over the extreme offense some Hindus took to the Ganesh beer label. A proscription against alcohol is the only thing I could latch onto to help me understand the offense.

Just because some intoxicants are "kosher" (what's the Hindu equivalent for that word?) doesn't mean booze is. I mean, observant Jews eat meat, just not pork or bottom-feeders. Dietary laws are very particular and seemingly arbitrary (in spite of their once-reasonable origins) in all religions.

Nina,

This will enlighten you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma

You go to a place like Rishikesh, quite often sadhus (holy men) are stoned 24/7 (not all of them) to attain clarity. A term like "Shivji ka prasad (offering from Lord Shiva)" is euphemistic term for getting high- I am not at all referring to hippies. Another term is "Bhom Bhom Bhola". Bhola Nath is also used for Lord Shiva.

To each its own, that is what I intend to say, nothing more, nothing less. I do not think they are any rules.

Kush

I'm familiar with the concept of Soma. It's not alcohol. My understanding is that there's a proscription against alcohol specifically (i.e. beer) and not intoxicants generally. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

PS: I am not preaching anything. All I wanted to say is "artistic freedom" is one of the most pillars of progress.

From http://www.sortingitout.org.uk/world.htm

" Alcohol came to India through the pre-Aryans and Dravidians. Their use of alcohol is mentioned in Hindu scripture. Alcohol is tolerated in Hindu society, but only in moderation. Many states in India are dry and alcohol cannot be bought. Tobacco is occasionally smoked but generally chewed."

Moderate-to-conservative Hindus definitely look upon drinking alcohol as sinful, though they're more tolerant of bhang. Whether it's in the scriptures I'd have to Google. How PoMo.

Just because various proscriptions are not uniformly followed by Hindus is not reason enough to suggest that Hinduism is so fluid that it lacks rules of any sort. Traditional Hindus (mostly Brahmins) live their lives according to detailed dietary and hygiene rules, one of which is a clear proscription on alcohol. Are they all victims of some mass misunderstanding of their own religion?

Actually the specific proscription is against intoxicants. So yes, while sadhus imbibe, they claim (whether or not it makes sense) that they imbibe the intoxicant, the intoxicant doesn't imbibe them. In other words, it's a little odd to say "there are no rules" when the underlying rule is pretty clear - don't get intoxicated.

Nina, to give a highly condensed answer - hindu scriptures discuss three types of human nature and correponding foods (among other things) enjoyed by each of the types. The three types correspond to the pure, passionate and the dull and dark natures. Humans who have a dull/dark nature prefer foods that are stale (fermented), foul-smelling, leftover, tasteless - meat and alcohol could come under this category. Hence it would offensive to associate alcohol with Ganesha, sort of assigning Ganesha a baser nature. Unlike commandments, there is no specific listing (no pork, no alcohol etc) of foods that would be consumed by people of dull nature, only characteristics of such food and the expected behavior in man. Hinduism that way offers guidelines as opposed to unchangeable truths. Every society is supposed to work out their interpretation of the broad guideline in the specific. Another example would be the principle of Ahimsa which really is a philosophy of non-injury, much broader than - don't kill cows but eat chickens. An example of equivalence to the ten commandments would be the Ten Yamas

Unfortunately, this can be confusing for non-hindus since some uninformed Indians like to pretend to be hindus and make outrageous claims such as - 'beef eating is mentioned in the vedas', 'i saw statues simulating sex in a hindu temple', 'we drink bhaang during holi', 'i saw a holy man smoking pot' - etc. all with the aim of portraying hinduism as some sort of free-style everything-goes religion. Not surprisingly such charlatans are silent on the ten yamas or some of the more harder aspects of discipline in the religion. Quite disgusting specimens. It is as if someone saw wine-drinking and self-flagellation as the chief characteristics of christianity.

I forgot to add, reg. #71 - that there is also the warning in scripture that excessive consumption of food of dull/dark nature (tamasic) leads to development of the baser natures. Hence consumption of such foods needs to be avoided.

Nina,

Please note that Johnny Walker is typically carved out of any Hindu restriction on alcohol consumption.

In all these years, I have yet to come across a Hindu family that I know of that offers bhang during holi- in India, middle east or Canada.

I would have thought I had an unusual experience if it wasn't that my friends from different parts of India have not come across it either.

So that makes me wonder about 'being more tolerant towards bhang'. Maybe coz bhang is consumed once in a yr vs alcohol consumption throughout the year- so having it once a yr makes it 'okay'?

Hi,

I grew up in India and also in USA. In India, I spent my childhood in Roorkee. Roorkee is perhaps the "highest educated town" in India, since it is a little campus town that is made up of IIT, military sappers (like the The English Patient sikh) and government labs.

During holi,in Roorkee, almost 20-25 % of sweets used to spiked with bhang. I am talking houses of professors from hailing from all over India and caste - there wasn't any secret. As kids, we would be told not to eat some of the sweets but we would. I amm not even talking of Agra, etc.

I really miss Holi. Next year, I will be in India during Holi.

Kush

I go to India every year for last 5 years as I do research work there. Therefore, I meet a broad cross-section of people. The three things I notice: 1) everyone talks to me in English and I reply back in Hindi (unless I am in South India where folks talk to me in Hindi and I reply in English), 2) Every third person offers me a drink and I have to say no (I hardly drink), and 3) Every second person offers me a tobacco to chew (with pan or without), I have to say no again (I can’t stand). Go check yourself on the streets in Roorkee, Haridwar, Delhi, Hyderabad.

As somebody would say that I and all my contacts (family, friends, and colleagues) are charlatans. I will repeat thousand times – I am not preaching anything but I take offence to morality police.

this is funny. ganesh was the son of durga and shiva. if that is true then well he is allowed to have beer. no offence to religion as such. shiva was a ganja smoker. and kali(ex durga before the battel) was alchohol. I see no reason why a beer add on their names is offensive. But i do agree using gods names for profit is another thing. and I hate that. the commercialization of god. I mean where is the limit.

you blokes have too much time on your hands to be analysing this. Who cares as long as it is good beer....

Did you reproduce the copyrighted label of Indica with or without the permission of Lost Coast?

Are you familiar with fair use in copyright law?

Sir or madam,
I presume you are responding to my question. I have been told that one should never answer a question with another question. I presume you are defending or explaining the legitimate use of the image on this website. If this is the case, please do so in a direct fashion, not by a question that leaves some inference to the reader.

I have been told that one should never answer a question with another question.

... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. [Link]

and altered its status to a symbol of hate targeting Hindus and non Hindus locally

B.S.

This witchhunt is crazy. It makes me want to drink this beer even more.

seriously. there are some worse things like this in india (like mahavir tobacco.)

couldn't there be better things out there to spend time on?

also, i'm sure many indian-owned liquor stores would have no problem selling this beer if it made $$$.

Brij Mohan Dhir, J.D., LL.B., LL.M., (SJD Candidate)
3519 Ridgemont Terrace
Fremont, CA 94536
Tel & Fax: (510) 792-5312
Plaintiff Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA--UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Case No.: MSC05-00868

Brij Mohan Dhir, an individual and)
life member of Hindu Society of )
Metropolitan Chicago, a non profit)
Illinois Corporation; and in )
Behalf of American and Worldwide )
Hindu Community, ) Memorandum of Points
) and Authorities in
Plaintiffs ) Support of Brij Mohan
) Dhir’s Motion for
V. ) Summary Judgment or In
) the Alternative for
Lost Coast Brewery, an entity of ) Summary Adjudication
unknown form; Wendy Pound, Barbara)
Groom, Duane Flatmo, an )
Individuals; Safeway, Inc.; Ms. )
Suzie Owsley, Eureka Police )
Officer; District Officer, )
Department of Fair Employment and)
Housing; Bill Lockyer, California)
Attorney General; DOES 1-100, ) Hearing Date:
inclusive, ) Time:
Defendants ) Dept.
__________________________________) Hearing Judge:
Date Action Filed:
Trial Date: Not Set

Introduction

Plaintiff had filed this action for violations of Civil Rights: State and Federal; violations of California Penal Code Section 422.6; Defamation; Infliction of Intentional Emotional Distress, and as prayed in the complaint for reasonable damages based on deterrence policy of State of California. Plaintiff claims that there is no affirmative defense based on undisputed material facts stated in separate statement of undisputed material facts, and Declaration of Brij Mohan Dhir in support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment as a matter of law based on Memorandum of Point and Authorities in Support of Motion of Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication.
Statements of Facts

The following are the undisputed facts:

“Lost Coast Brewery is owned by Barbara Groom and Wendy Pound at all relevant times; Duane Flatmo designed and Lost Coast Brewery published the undisputed pictures of Lord Ganesh; Lost Coast Brewery, its owners, its staff, and Duane Flatmo knew that Lord Ganesh is Hindu God; Plaintiff is Hindu by birth who resides in California; Assertions “my impression of Ganesha is that he is god of fun and frivolity. Groom told India-West;” and “We like to
always have humor in our labels. Said brewery owner Barbara Groom about Flatmo’s interpretation of Ganesh. Our labels represent the relaxed, fun attitudes of the people of Humboldt County. At least, that should be people’s attitudes since we live in the best place on Earth;” Assertions of Duane Flatmo “If Ganesh forgives people, I ask for his forgiveness;” Email Complaints were filed of with America’s and India’s civil authorities when Lost Coast Brewery removed God Ganesha offensive picture from their website with promise to removing the product from market; No civil and criminal actions were taken by Suzie Owsley, and other civil authorities to protect my civil rights or civil rights of American Hindus as provided by State and Federal civil rights, and Constitutions and Treaties; Brier Bush, a General Manager of Lost Coast Brewery apologized for offensive behavior of God Lord Ganesha by email to me, which is not an affirmative defense, especially, by Barbara Groom and Duane Flatmo; World Media had reported this dispute in news papers, and on their websites, and people of world had different comments on those websites.” See, Declaration of Brij Mohan Dhir and Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts.

Statutory and Case Authorities in Support of Brij Mohan Dhir’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative for Summary Adjudication

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c provides in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceedings it is contended . . . that there is no defense to the action or proceedings . . . . (c) The Motion for Summary Judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all the evidence set forth in the papers, except that to which objections have been made and sustained by the court and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence. . . . (f)(1) A party may move for summary adjudication as to . . . one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages . . . if that party contends that . . . there is no to an affirmative defense thereto or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action or both . . . . A summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of causes of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages.”

The primary duty of the court in ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment is to determine whether there are material issues of fact to be tried. Blair v. Pitchess (1971) 5 Cal.3d 358, 284. as stated by the court in D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 20:

“[T]he aim of [Summary Judgment] is to discover, through the medium of affidavits, whether the parties possess evidence requiring the weighing procedures of a trial.”

Where there are no such issues requiring the weighing procedures of trial, summary judgment should be granted to effectively expedite litigation by avoiding unnecessary trials. Barry v. Rogers (1976) 141 Cal.App.3d 340, 342. Further, summary judgment must be granted if the moving party establishes the right to the entry of judgment as a matter of law. Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 553, 579; Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1044.
Arguments

In the above undisputed material facts of this case, the legal issues before this court are whether conduct of designing and publishing the picture of Lord Ganesh thereby causing evils, fears, and moral constrains on Plaintiff and Hindus worldwide by Lost Coast Brewery, Barbara Groom, Duane Flatmo when Lord Ganesha is shown drinking beer in his hand and trunk with right eye big and left eye small, up and down, showing Lord Ganesh threatening, intimidating, and coercive violated the rights protected under the Bane Act because these published pictures of Lord Ganesh are more than speech; and non action of Suzie Owsley including other government officers, which violates section 422.6 of California Code
Following is the well settled laws of state of California and United States of America on these legal issues of protected civil rights:
“The Bane Act provides for liability for interference or attempted interference with an individual's rights "by threats, intimidation, or coercion." [Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (a)] However, liability may not be based on "Speech alone" unless "the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and that the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat." [Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (j)] The best short summary of the conduct prohibited by the Bane Act is found in Doe By and Through Doe v. Petaluma City School Dist., 830 F. Supp. 1560, 1582, 85 Ed. Law Rep. 1169, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶43082 (N.D. Cal. 1993): "plaintiff must prove that the defendant(s) interfered (or attempted to interfere) with her rights by threats, intimidations, or coercion (and that defendant(s) did so other than by speech alone, unless the speech itself threatened violence)." The Bane Act does not define any of the four operative words "interferes," threats," "intimidation" or "coercion." The word "interferes" as used in the Bane Act (i.e., "interferes … with … rights" [Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (a)] means "violates" and has been explicitly or implicitly so construed by the Bane Act case law. [See, e.g., Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal. 4th 329, 338, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 844, 949 P.2d 941 (1998) (equates "interfere" with "violate"); City of Simi Valley v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1077, 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 468, 474 (2d Dist. 2003) (the Bane Act applies to a "violation" of a right); Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 1996) (overruled on other grounds by, Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶44799 (9th Cir. 1997)) (same)] The essence of a Bane Act claim is that the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e., "threats, intimidation or coercion"), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from doing something she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that she was not required to do under the law. [Jones, 17 Cal. 4th at 334 (the Bane Act requires "an attempted or completed act of interference with a legal right"); see also Gatto v. County of Sonoma, 98 Cal. App. 4th 744, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550 (1st Dist. 2002) (successful Bane Act claim where the plaintiff was ejected from a county fair for wearing clothes that bore an insignia which he had the right to display)] The words "threats," "intimidation" and "coercion" are far more problematic. None of these words have been construed for purposes of the Bane Act and all three have enough elasticity to raise serious questions as to the scope of the conduct prohibited by the Bane Act. In a case construing Pen. Code, §§ 422.6 and 422.7, two of the hate crime statutes that were enacted as part of the same legislation that enacted the Bane Act, the California Supreme Court stated that a "threat" is "an expression of intent to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another." [In re M.S., 10 Cal. 4th 698, 710, 42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 355, 896 P.2d 1365 (1995), quoting U.S. v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1990). There is no definitive definition of the word "intimidation" in California law. In common parlance, "intimidation" means "to make timid or fearful." [Ex parte Bell, 19 Cal. 2d 488, 526, 122 P.2d 22 (1942); see Suzuki Motor Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1476, 1481, 249 Cal. Rptr. 376 (4th Dist. 1988) ("It is a well-recognized canon of statutory interpretation that words in a statute … are to be given their ordinary and common meaning")] Nor is there a definitive definition of the word "coercion" in California law. The ordinary meaning of "coercion" is "the application to another of such force, either physical or moral, to constrain him to do against his will something he would not otherwise have done." [Ex parte Bell, 19 Cal. 2d 488, 526, 122 P.2d 22 (1942)] Case law construing the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act of 1979, on which the Bane Act is modeled, have defined "threat," "intimidation" and "coercion" consistently with the foregoing definitions. [Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467, 473-74, 631 N.E.2d 985 (1994) ("threat" is "the intentional exertion of pressure to make another fearful or apprehensive of injury or harm;" "intimidation" is "putting in fear for the purpose of compelling or deterring conduct;" and "coercion" is "the application to another of such force, either physical or moral, as to constrain him to do against his will something he would not otherwise have done")] Although the foregoing definitions of "threat," "intimidation" and "coercion" do not require violence, two cases have held that a Bane Act plaintiff must prove that her rights were interfered with by violence or threat of violence. [Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 101, 111, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1105, 137 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶58583 (6th Dist. 1998); Rabkin v. Dean, 856 F. Supp. 543, 548 (N.D. Cal. 1994)] There are strong arguments that both cases are incorrect. In holding that "to state a cause of action under § 52.1 there must first be violence or intimidation by threat of violence," Cabesuela relied on Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach, 29 Cal. App. 4th 1797, 1809, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 282 (2d Dist. 1994) for the proposition that the Bane Act "must be read in conjunction with" the Ralph Act. Based solely on Boccato, which it assumed to be good law, the court in Cabesuela imported the Ralph Act's requirement of "violence or intimidation by threat of violence" into the Bane Act. [Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 101, 111, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1105, 137 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶58583 (6th Dist. 1998)] However, as discussed in 3:17 supra,Boccato was legislatively overruled on this point by the 2000 amendment to the Bane Act. Thus, the importation of the Ralph Act language into the Bane Act by the Cabesuela court is contrary to the Bane Act in its current form. (Civ. Code, § 52.1, subd. (g) (Bane Act is independent from the Ralph Act).) The analysis in Rabkin requiring proof of violence or threat of violence is contained in a single sentence: "Although no California court has interpreted § 52.1, subd. (b), the context of this section makes it clear that the statute is meant to protect against violence or the threat of violence." (Rabkin, supra.) The only context that the Rabkin court cited is the "speech alone" clause of subdivision (j).Rabkin does not mention, much less discuss, any of the three grounds—"threats, intimidation or coercion"—to violate the Bane Act. While the court's sole reliance on the speech alone clause of § 52.1, subd. (j) may have made sense in the context of that case where the plaintiff, an elected official, alleged that the City of Berkeley violated her rights by the votes of its city council denying her pay raises, the speech alone clause is not a basis to construe the Bane Act to require violence or threat of violence. By its express terms, the speech alone clause only requires a threat of violence when speech "alone" is the basis for a Bane Act claim. Consequently, whenever a Bane Act defendant engaged in conduct other than "speech alone," the speech alone clause is inapplicable to that conduct. In Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 644-48, 783 N.E.2d 399 (2003) the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed the issue of whether "economic coercion," without any violence or physical injury, was sufficient to violate the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act of 1979, which like the Bane Act, can be violated by "coercion." After reviewing the history, language and purpose of the Massachusetts statute, the court concluded that "in certain circumstances, economic coercion, standing alone, may be actionable." [Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 648, 783 N.E.2d 399 (2003)] The court compared the language of the statute (i.e. "threat, intimidation or coercion") with the language of another Massachusetts statute which was explicitly limited to violence or threat of violence (i.e. "force or threat of force") and reasoned that "Had the Legislature wished to confine the remedial reach of the" statute "to actual or threatened physical acts, it knew how to do so." [Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 647-648, 783 N.E.2d 399 (2003)] The reasoning of Buster applies to the Bane Act. Both statutes share the same language of interference by threats, intimidation or coercion. Moreover, just as the Buster court contrasted the language of the Massachusetts statute with another statute which was explicitly limited to violence or threat of violence, the language of the Bane Act (i.e. "threats, intimidation, or coercion") is in contrast to the language of the Ralph Act (i.e. "violence, or intimidation by threat of violence") which is explicitly limited to violence or threat of violence. Further, two other provisions of the Bane Act support the view that the Bane Act is not limited to violence or threat of violence. First, subdivision (f) prohibits injunctive relief under the Bane Act if the injunctive relief would be prohibited by Code of Civil Procedure, § 527.3. Section 527.3 prohibits injunctive relief concerning a nonviolent labor dispute. If the Bane Act could be violated only by conduct that was violent or threatened violence, then the exemption for a nonviolent labor dispute in subdivision (f) would be superfluous. Second, subdivision (j) provides that "Speech alone" does not violate the Bane Act unless the "speech itself threatens violence." As with subdivision (f), if the Bane Act could be violated only by violence or threatened violence, then subdivision (j) would be superfluous. To give meaning to these two subdivisions, it is necessary to interpret the phrase "threats, intimidation, or coercion" as encompassing some conduct other than violence or threat of violence. [See Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 109 Cal. App. 4th 1720, 1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 348, 68 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 853 (4th Dist. 2003), Summarized in, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,219, 2003 WL 21881076 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003), quoting Pham v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 78 Cal. App. 4th 626, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 115, 139 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 139 (1st Dist. 2000), Summarized in, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,100, 2000 WL 33412376 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2000) ("It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that in attempting to ascertain the legislative intention, effect should be given … to every word and clause, thereby leaving no part of the provision useless or deprived of meaning … it is our responsibility to construe the relevant subdivisions … so that effect is given to all provisions, leaving no part superfluous or inoperative, void or insignificant and to make certain that one subdivision will not destroy another.")] A Ninth Circuit case decided under 42 U.S.C.A. § 3617, the section of the federal Fair Housing Act making it "unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere" with the exercise of any of the rights of that statute, provides further support that the Bane Act can be violated by conduct other than violence or threat of violence can violate the Bane Act. [Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128-1129 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1017, 122 S. Ct. 1607, 152 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2002)] Walker held that § 3617 "does not require a showing of force or violence for coercion, interference, intimidation, or threats to give rise to liability." [Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1017, 122 S. Ct. 1607, 152 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2002)] The court compared the language of § 3617 with the language of 42 U.S.C.A. § 3631, the section of the federal Fair Housing Act imposing criminal liability for injury, intimidation or interference with fair housing rights "by force or threat of force." The comparison in the language of the two statutes persuaded the Ninth Circuit that "When Congress intended to require proof" of violence or threatened violence, "it did so." (Id.) The court also looked at the "plain meaning" of the terms "coercion," "threat" and "intimidation" to support its holding that none of those terms necessarily required violence or threatened violence. [Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128-1129 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1017, 122 S. Ct. 1607, 152 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2002)] Gov. Code, § 12955.7, which is modeled after § 3617, also makes it "unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with" the exercise of fair housing rights. Although no reported California appellate decision has construed § 12955.7, a federal district court, relying on case law under § 3617, held that harassing conduct that did not involve any violence or threatened violence was sufficient to violate § 12955.7. [Egan v. Schmock, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1091-94 (N.D. Cal. 2000); see also Walker, 272 F.3d 1114, 1125 and 1131, n.8 (the "same standards" likely apply to a § 12955.7 claim as apply to a § 3617 claim)] If "threats, intimidation, and coercion" include conduct—but not "speech alone"—other than violence or threat of violence, the parameters of such prohibited conduct will need to be delineated. No reported Bane Act decision provides any assistance on this issue. Absent further amendment to the Bane Act, the boundaries between actionable and nonactionable conduct will have to be determined in future cases presenting specific factual circumstances. [See Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 649, 783 N.E.2d 399 (2003) ("we must await subsequent cases to determine more exactly the actionable bounds of" the word coercion)] However, some guidance is available in cases construing the Massachusetts statute and the federal Fair Housing Act. In Buster the Massachusetts court held that there is no actionable "coercion" where the defendant lawfully exercised his rights under a contract, even if the plaintiff is harmed in the process. [Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 648-649, 783 N.E.2d 399 (2003)] On the other hand, as indicated by two Ninth Circuit cases and a district court decision, it is actionable misconduct under § 3617 of the federal Fair Housing Act to refuse to pay monies owed, terminate a contract, fire employees or engage in a campaign of harassment such as committing acts of vandalism for the purpose of preventing another from exercising her fair housing rights. (Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001); Smith v. Stechel, 510 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1975); Egan, supra.) Regardless of how the terms are construed for purposes of the Bane Act, it is likely that the courts will use a "reasonable person" standard to determine whether particular conduct or language constitutes a threat, intimidation or coercion. [See Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1289-90, 87 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1059 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. dismissed, 537 U.S. 1098, 123 S. Ct. 816, 154 L. Ed. 2d 766 (2003) (Under the Ralph Act "The test is 'would a reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the plaintiff, have been intimidated by the actions of the defendant and have perceived a threat of violence?," quoting Hitchens & Links, § 3:4.] When the plaintiff is a woman, it is likely that the "reasonable woman" standard first enunciated in sexual harassment cases will be applied. [Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1289-90, 87 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1059 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. dismissed, 537 U.S. 1098, 123 S. Ct. 816, 154 L. Ed. 2d 766 (2003)] Massachusetts also uses the "reasonable person" and "reasonable woman" standards to determine whether the plaintiff has been threatened, intimidated or coerced. [Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467, 474-475 ("standard of whether a reasonable woman … would be threatened, intimidated or coerced by the defendants' conduct"); Ayasli v. Armstrong, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 740, 749, 780 N.E.2d 926 (2002), review denied, 439 Mass. 1101, 786 N.E.2d 394 (2003) ("Whether conduct constitutes threats, intimidation, or coercion under the statute is tested by a reasonable person standard")] The speech alone clause in subdivision (j) ensures that constitutionally protected speech is not actionable under the Bane Act. [See In re M.S., 10 Cal. 4th 698, 710-16.] In M.S. the California Supreme Court stated that "When a reasonable person would foresee that the context and import of the words will cause the listener to believe he or she will be subjected to physical violence, the threat falls outside First Amendment protection." [In re M.S., 10 Cal. 4th 698, 710] M.S. held that Pen. Code, § 422.6, a hate crime statute enacted at the same time as the Bane Act, was not constitutionally infirm because, by requiring that the defendant have the "apparent ability" to carry out the threat, the proscribed "threat must be one that would reasonably tend to induce fear in the victim." [In re M.S., 10 Cal. 4th 698, 715] Since subdivision (j) of the Bane Act includes all the elements that allowed Pen. Code, § 422.6 to pass constitutional muster, subdivision (j) likewise comports with the First Amendment. [In re M.S., 10 Cal. 4th 698, 715-716]”

Based on the above discussion of undisputed material facts and laws, it can be deduced that designing and advertisement of the pictures of Hindu God Ganesh by Duane Flatmo and Lost Coast Brewery, its owners is not protected by First Amendment because the court may come to factual and legal conclusions based on reasonable person standard that their conducts designing and advertising followed by speeches constitute interference, threat, intimidation, coercion; Plaintiff and Hindus are entitled for reasonable damages: compensatory, statutory, punitive, and cost of the lawsuit, and attorney per se fees, and any other orders and directions to Suzie Owsley (Eureka Police Officer, Crime Branch) or Government Officers of State of California officers to implement “Preventive Hate Crime” deterrence policy of State of California and United States of America.
Conclusions

Based on the above undisputed material facts, Plaintiff’s Motion of Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication may be granted with cost and attorney pro se fees as a matter of laws in the interest of justice.
Date: 01/16/06

Most Respectfully Submitted
By Brij Mohan Dhir, Plaintiff Pro Per

i do not appreciate tyou putting Jesus on this site, it is wrong and it doesnt belong here.

Karthik: If you are a true beliver such depictions will hold no meaning to you. There is no need to get worked up over such depictions. Tolerence and freedom of expression has always been the core of Hindu way of life