Sat 3 Nov 2007
Click here to read this piece at JVP’s Muzzlewatch blog.
6 Responses to “Free Speech Also Means Responding To Hate Speech”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sat 3 Nov 2007
Click here to read this piece at JVP’s Muzzlewatch blog.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
“The idea that we should not call a racist a racist or an anti-Semite an anti-Semite is absurd.” Of course, I agree with the above assertion. However, this statement rings (to me) quite similar to a quote from a high-ranking Vatican official, following the murder of two Turkish Priests:
“”Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves,”
–Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa.”
The problem with the entire concept is that there is no clearly defined line which demarcates actions and/or statements which are racist.
When I tried to ask a question during a book signing I was ignored and when I complained, I was called a “liberal”, whereas I had not even asked the question and was only complaining on a “point-of-order” basis.
And that is exactly the problem.
The general rules of behavior dictate that either one is part of the group and hence, must follow both rules and tradition (without question) or, if one questions, one is deemed to be the enemy. Woe onto humanity for this legacy alone.
The devil is NOT in the details. The devil is in the lack thereof.
Holocaust denial is not necessarily racist or anti-Semitic. Naturally, if one denies the holocaust there is a basis to explore further and see if the reasons exists. However, real anti-Semitism (in its pure form) does not deny the holocaust, it proudly affirms it. While most holocaust deniers are also anti-Semets it is not absolute. By the same token, not all Israel bashers are anti-semets. But many do find their basis in a warped view of reality. So, the solution to both revolves around the warp, the type of warp and the reason behind the warp. These answers provide the basis for the accusation of anti-Semitism.
Jews are somewhat unique in that their detractors have a very wide array of reasons for their dislike. Whereas, it is safe to say that people who (for example) don’t like Blacks or dislike Gays or even hate Arabs, have a more tightly defined set of reasons, albeit those reasons are usually irrational and form the basis for their bigotry.
Because the accusations against Jews run the gamut, it is much more difficult to parse out the data and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Every argument on the subject becomes a 6-pack of arguments. First we argue over which is the actual accusation and then we argue over the factual basis for that (those) accusation(s) and then we argue over the question of if that accusation is bigoted, or a fair observation.
I think God may be punishing us for having invented lawyers.
Anyway, there is no doubt that Israel lacks adequate respect for the innocent life of Arabs. That is not the question. The key question is whether their conduct is above or below average for evolved humans. I say it is still far above average and so, I consider most forms of Israel-bashing to be outcroppings of inherent anti-Semitism. Because Jews are accused of so many varied crimes, it is quite possible for the anti-Semite to also be Jewish.
The larger threat to Hebrews in 2007 is NOT holocaust denial. It is holocaust REVIVAL and DENIAL OF THE REVIVAL. Since I also believe that the unending war against Israel is a core component of the Holocaust revival, this makes it difficult to condemn Israel for its iron-fisted policies. Those who do, need to explain themselves better then simply saying that Israel’s various and sundry actions are “anti-civilian” or even in contravention of (so called) “International Law”. They need to explain why Israel is responding in a sub-standard way to that of other countries. New Zealand (for example) has been highly critical of Israel and a few years ago, even went to the extreme of removing the Old Testament from the Anglican Church’s lethargy. However, New Zealand is a tiny island in the South Pacific who does not permit long visits and has a very restrictive immigration policy. The fact that the ruling body of white Anglos themselves were unwanted invaders of Maori (native) turf, does not impact their attitude on the subject of Arabs.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Several thoughts in response to the post on Muzzlewatch.
1. While I will certainly excoriate Ann Coulter for her frankly anti-Semitic remarks (and would have been happy to do so if she were speaking in a public venue near me), does the author of this piece consider that EVERy speaker involved in this campaign is promoting hate speech? Specifically, do you feel that Nonie Darwish’s talk was “hate speech”?
2. Do those who deny to the Jewish people the right of self-determination in our own homeland anti-Semitic? I posit that indeed they are IF they would grant this right to every other self-defined nation (including the Palestinians, a national grouping that never existed in history prior to the founding of Israel) but deny it to the Jews. So, what about those “anti-Zionist” T-shirts on sale at the JVP conference? Are those not also hate speech?
November 4th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I guess you’ve read in the papers about the outrageously racist comments made by DNA co-discoverer and Nobel laureate Prof. James Watson as he was about to embark on a speaking tour. Google it if you haven’t seen it. Makes one wonder about his mental state. Anyway, he ended up having to resign a prestigious academic position. Before that, however, his scheduled appearance at a museum (British Museum??) was cancelled and the (under)statement was made by the museum that the cancellation was because (words to this effect) Watson’s statements were beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. Some things are like that. Whether the Holocaust really happened is one of those things. Like Watson, they should sit down and shut up.
November 4th, 2007 at 9:16 am
“Ann Coulter”:
She is the adult equivalent of the disparity found in violence against children.
When a blond-haired “all American” young girl gets kidnapped or meets other violence, it becomes national news, which runs 10 times a day for weeks (or months). Even when that kidnapping takes place in Portugal and involves non-Americans, our news media obsesses. When the child is Black, Hispanic, Asian or a variety of other non-white (or near white races), we rarely hear about the event at all. This is not to criticize the publicity generated over cases like Jessica Lunsford. I simply point out that the disparity is very unfair and must certainly be racially motivated.
Ann Coulter is successful and somewhat immune from the normal accusations which should follow her various statements, based on the same disparity. Namely, a lily-white, somewhat sexy (yet aggressive) female gets special treatment in our oh, so evolved society. While she is not any sort of Nazi, in a Nazi society she becomes minister of information or possibly education.
November 4th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Izz, tonight on The Simpsons:
Bart is in Krusty the Clown’s prop room.
Bart: (pointing to a costume)What’s that monster?
Krusty: That’s the Golem of Prague, protector of the Jews. Like Alan Dershowitz, but with a conscience.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
John:
Few lawyers have a conscience and very few who do high-profile criminal cases.
I was all ready to get pajoritive with Pakistan, until I found out that the “terrorists” they were cracking-down on were actually members of the Bar.
Now, I want to run Musharraf as an independant for U.S. President.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5622BC1E-CB89-4438-911B-82BD61772D3A.htm