The Zionist Hate Campaign Against David Icke

November 18, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Campaign Against Antisemitism was desperate to cancel David Icke’s talk in Manchester last night.  Labour MP, Kate Green, worked hard on behalf of the Lobby. They all failed,  Icke’s talk, so i hear, was a great success. I looked into the ‘evidence’ levelled against Icke by the Zionist hate groups. There is nothing there as I prove in the following video..

https://youtu.be/HLKCrVrT88w

cover bit small.jpg

 If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

Advertisements

Trump discloses the decline of America’s status and its inability ترامب يفضح تراجع مكانة أميركا وعجزها

Trump discloses the decline of America’s status and its inability

سبتمبر 24, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The speech of the US President Donald Trump before the United Nations General Assembly revealed the degree of the decline in the US status in the international politics. The speech which is based on boasting of the glories and the greatness of America was disclosed by the speech of Trump himself in his electoral campaign that included great signs of the position of America on the brink of a disaster regarding culture, education, civilization, unemployment, and services. His focus on the danger of what he described as the Islamic terrorism and made it an international priority was disclosed by his electoral campaign through accusing the former administrations in the White House of their responsibility of making this terrorism and promoting it as a political commodity. There are two left accusations in his speech; one is full of clamor against the Northern Korea threatening of destroying it totally. This speech does not suit a president of a country that boasts of talking about human rights and threatens of eliminating a total nation from a map, while it claims that it seeks to liberate its people from what it describes as the regime’s dominance. Furthermore, it is a preconditioned threat with the initiative of the Northern of Korea to threaten America, so it loses its value as a threat politically. On the other hand, his words about Iran and accusing it along with Hezbollah of destabilizing the region, and the pretension to be weeping on the “sin” of singing the understanding on its nuclear program without daring to say any word of being prepared to regress from it. Above all of that his threats to Cuba and Venezuela of boycotting without a roadmap that prevents the same consequence resulted from the boycott adopted by the former administrations throughout many decades. Thus the rhetoric was for spreading hatred from the helpless, who is unable to behave, just uttering malevolent cries, does not have neither the ability nor the vision of how to turn them into practical steps.

This speech of hatred is as the speech of boasting, it is devoid of any valuable initiative to stop in front of the real problems facing by the humanity, he ignored the issues of the climate crisis which his administration has withdrawn from the only agreement which the industrial countries signed it successfully, knowing that the aggravation of this issue will threaten the future of humanity and the life on this planet. He ignored the issue of reducing the nuclear weapons which was pledged by the former presidents of the major countries, where America was at their forefront, and which consumed the financial and the scientific resources of those countries, and caused a crazy race of arming that will threaten of raising the level of tension and the dangers of the futile destructive wars, on the contrary he boasted of increasing the expenditure on arming, moreover, he ignored issues of no less importance as the rising waves of racism which sweep the world from America to Europe and the Far East , and which wait for effective initiatives for the culture of the common living among the nations, by the United Nations culturally, politically, socially, and economically, in order to encourage the exchange, the partnership, and the interaction among the different components religiously, culturally, socially, and ethnically.

Trump represented the inability of his government of playing a leading role worldwide in resolving the major crises and the initiative to lead the projects of combating; he showed a decline in the leading status of America in the world. On a more serious level, Trump has escaped from referring to all the regional explosive conflicts which the world is awaiting Washington’s initiatives. Neither the issue of the explosive Kurdish secession got a part of his rhetoric, nor the destructive inhuman war of Yemen, nor the war on Libya, the spread of terrorism in it, and the standstill of the internal reconciliation between its parties, nor the future of the endeavors of the political solution in Syria and the approach of the issue of changing the regimes by force under the slogans of democracy and the human rights, and what they led as growing the terrorism and increase of the waves of the displaced people, the threat of stability by making the chaos the only available alternative in the sensitive dangerous countries. America emerged as a major marginal country with an arrogant rhetoric but which is devoid of any initiatives.

What is dangerous in Trump’s rhetoric regarding our region is that he is the first President whose his speech is devoid of any reference to the Palestinian cause and the endeavors of spreading peace in the region. The countries and the leaderships which present Washington as a friend to the Arabs must read through the wide smile of the Head of the Occupation government Benjamin Netanyahu and his warm applause for trump’s words upon mentioning Hezbollah as a threat to stability in the region the suggestion which Netanyahu wanted to send to us that this speech was under his control.

Although the verbal American interest of the Palestinian cause would not provide any effort towards giving the Palestinians some of their rights or protection, but it was a sign of the degree of sticking of some of the Arab governments to the Palestinian cause, or to embarrass them for ignoring it, but this is no longer exist. Trump’s speech has revealed clearly this fact, as the escape from any responsibility in resolving the issues which the International Community was unable to implement its resolutions to solve them has revealed that America has lost the feature of the active country in making solutions for crises, after it was proven the inability of America to wage wars, no matter how long its president shouted and how much he spent militarily.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ترامب يفضح تراجع مكانة أميركا وعجزها

سبتمبر 20, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– كشف الخطاب الذي ألقاه الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب أمام الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة حجم التراجع في المكانة الأميركية في السياسة الدولية، فالخطاب الذي تركّز على التغني الفارغ بأمجاد وعظمة أميركا، يفضحه خطاب ترامب نفسه في حملته الانتخابية وما تضمّنه من إشارات بالغة لوقوف أميركا على شفا كارثة في الثقافة والتعليم والحضارة والبطالة والخدمات، كما تركيز ترامب على خطر ما وصفه بالإرهاب الإسلامي وجعله أولوية دولية، يفضحه كلامه في حملته الانتخابية عن اتهامه الإدارات التي سبقته في البيت الأبيض بالمسؤولية عن صناعة هذا الإرهاب وتوريده للعالم كسلعة سياسية، وبقي من الخطاب تهديدان فارغان، واحد مليء بالصخب ضد كوريا الشمالية بتدميرها كلياً. وهو كلام لا يليق برئيس دولة تتشدّق بالحديث عن حقوق الإنسان وتهدّد بمحو شعب كامل عن الخريطة، بينما تدّعي السعي لتخليص هذا الشعب مما تصفه بتسلط نظامه عليه. ومن جهة مقابلة هو تهديد مشروط بمبادرة كوريا الشمالية بتهديد أميركا، فيفقد قيمته كتهديد بالمعنى السياسي، وبالمقابل كلامه عن إيران واتهامها مع حزب الله بزعزعة استقرار المنطقة، والتباكي على «خطيئة» توقيع التفاهم على ملفها النووي، من دون التجرؤ على لفظ مفردة الاستعداد للانسحاب منه، وفوقهما تهديدات لكوبا وفنزويلا، بالمقاطعة من دون خريطة طريق لتجنب النتائج نفسها التي ترتبت على المقاطعة طوال عقود اعتمدتها الإدارات السابقة، ليصير الخطاب بثاً للكراهية من فاقد للحيلة وعاجز عن التحرك، يطلق الصرخات الحاقدة ولا يملك القدرة ولا الرؤيا لكيفية تحويلها خطوات عملية.

– خطاب الكراهية الذي أطلقه ترامب، كما هو خطاب التفاخر، خلا من أي مبادرة ذات قيمة للتوقف أمام المشكلات الحقيقية التي تواجهها البشرية. فهو تجاهل قضايا أزمة المناخ التي انسحبت إدارته من الاتفاقية الوحيدة التي نجحت الدول الصناعية بتوقيعها، والتهديد الذي يمثله تفاقم هذه القضية على مستقبل البشرية والحياة فوق الكوكب، كما تجاهل قضية خفض السلاح النووي التي تعهّدها رؤساء سابقون للدول الكبرى وأميركا في مقدّمتها، والتي تستهلك الموارد المالية والعلمية لتلك الدول، وتتسبّب بسباق جنون تسلّح يهدد برفع منسوب التوتر ومخاطر الحروب المدمّرة بلا طائل، ليسلك طريق التباهي بزيادة الإنفاق على التسلّح، وتجاهل قضايا لا تقلّ أهمية مثل تصاعد موجات العنصرية التي تجتاح العالم من أميركا إلى أوروبا والشرق الأقصى والتي تنتظر مبادرات فعالة لثقافة العيش الواحد بين الشعوب تقودها الأمم المتحدة، ثقافياً وسياسياً واجتماعياً، واقتصادياً، لتشجيع التبادل والتشارك والتفاعل بين المكوّنات المختلفة دينياً وثقافياً واجتماعياً وعرقياً.

– جسّد ترامب عجز حكومته عن لعب دور قيادي على مستوى العالم في حلّ الأزمات الكبرى والمبادرة لقيادة مشاريع التصدّي لتفاقمها، وأظهر تراجع مكانة أميركا القيادية في العالم، وعلى صعيد أشدّ خطورة وراهنية تنصل ترامب من التطرق لكل النزاعات الإقليمية المتفجّرة التي ينتظر العالم فيها، مبادرات من واشنطن، فلا قضية الانفصال الكردي المتفجّرة نالت كلمة من خطابه، ولا حرب اليمن المدمرة واللاإنسانية، ولا حرب ليبيا وتفشي الإرهاب فيها ومراوحة المصالحة الداخلية بين أطرافها مكانها، ولا مستقبل مساعي الحل السياسي في سورية ومقاربة قضايا تغيير الأنظمة بالقوة تحت شارات الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان وما أنتجته من نمو في الإرهاب وزيادة في موجات النازحين، وتهديد الاستقرار بجعل الفوضى بديلاً وحيداً متاحاً

في مناطق شديدة الحساسية والخطورة، وظهرت أميركا دولة هامشية كبرى، تملك خطاباً متعجرفاً ولغة صاخبة لكنها فارغة اليدين من المبادرات.

– الجديد الخطير في خطاب ترامب، الذي يعني شعوب منطقتنا، أنه أول رئيس أميركي يخلو خطابه أمام الأمم المتحدة من أي إشارة للقضية الفلسطينية ومساعي إحلال السلام في المنطقة. وهذا برسم الدول والقيادات التي تقدّم واشنطن صديقاً للعرب، أن تقرأ عبر الابتسامة العريضة لرئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو وتصفيقه الحار لكلمة ترامب، عند ذكر ترامب لحزب الله كخطر على الاستقرار في المنطقة، الإيحاء الذي أراد نتنياهو إيصاله لنا عن يده الطولى في هذا الخطاب.

– لم يكن الاهتمام الأميركي اللفظي بالقضية الفلسطينية يقدّم خطوة نحو نيل الفلسطينيين بعضاً من الحقوق، أو نيل البعض من الحماية، لكنّه كان علامة على حجم تمسّك بعض الحكومات العربية بالقضية الفلسطينية، أو إحراجهم من تجاهلها، وهو ما لم يعُد قائماً. وقد كشف خطاب ترامب هذه الحقيقة عارية بمثل ما كشف التنصّل من أي مسؤولية في حلّ القضايا التي عجز المجتمع الدولي عن تنفيذ قراراته لحلّها، أن أميركا قد فقدت صفة الدولة الفاعلة في صناعة الحلول للأزمات، بعدما حسم عجز أميركا عن خوض الحروب، مهما علا صراخ رئيسها وإنفاقه العسكري.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Jew Loving is the Way Forward

On The Current International Zionist Smear Campaign

July 24, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A Statement by Gilad Atzmon

“The criminalisation of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the west.” Glenn Greenwald 19.7.2017

Together with veteran Pink Floyd star Roger Waters and many other artists and thinkers worldwide, I am being subjected to an international smear campaign, orchestrated and promoted by various Zionist institutions that attempt to silence every form of legitimate dissent of Zionism and Israeli politics.

Video:  https://youtu.be/kaWRu0nvEr8

Local councils, clubs and festivals that promote my music or my thoughts around the world are being subjected to a barrage of emails sent in a clear and malicious attempt to slander me. In these emails I am called an ‘anti-Semite’, ‘bigot’, ‘racist’, ‘Holocaust denier’, and so on.

Obviously, there is no truth in any of this.  As a writer I have indeed criticised Israel and other manifestations of Jewish political exceptionalism, I critically analysed Zionism, Jewish politics, ideology and identity politics in general. I do believe that all states, ideologies and politics must be subject to criticism, but I have never criticized Jews (or anyone else for that matter) as people, as a race or as a biological entity. In fact, my work is deeply anti-racist and focuses only on the political and the cultural.

Unfortunately, there are some who are engaged in relentless censorship and book burning and we must never permit them to succeed. Intellectual freedom and tolerance are precious Western values which we must defend at all odds. So in case you feel the need to address some of those hateful operatives, here are a few points you might wish to take into account.

1.    From its day of inception, my own musical group, the Orient House Ensemble (OHE) has been a melting pot for artists of many different ethnicities and backgrounds, including Jewish, Black, Arab and Romani musicians – hardly a ‘bigoted’ setting.

2.    Despite increasingly tough ‘hate speech’ laws in the UK, Europe and the USA, I have never once been questioned by any law enforcement authority about any of my writings or public appearances. My views and thoughts are well within the strict boundaries of the law in the UK, EU and every other Western country.

3.    I have been accused of being a ‘Holocaust denier.’ This is clearly not the case. I do not deny the Holocaust, but I do insist that this chapter in our past should be treated not as a religion or dogma, but must, like all other events in the past, be subject to scrutiny and open discussion.  Despite Germany and Austria’s stringent Holocaust denial laws, my books and writing are translated and published in both countries and I perform and teach there regularly without ever being subjected to any legal issues.

4.    My work has been endorsed by some of the most respected humanists and scholars around. Here are just a few examples:
“A transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely.” Professor Richard Falk United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine

“Fascinating and provocative” Professor of Political Science, John J. Mearsheimer

“Atzmon has the courage – so profoundly lacking among Western intellectuals” Professor of Sociology, James Petras

“Gilad’s book constitutes an excellent critique of Identity Politics in general and Jewish Identity Politics in particular from a humanistic perspective.” Professor of International Law, Francis A. Boyle

Instead of King of the Jews. Perhaps Atzmon should be recognized as the prophet of old, At least in his self description and his outreach, this is the way he appears” Jewish theology Professor Marc Ellis

“A superb and necessary book that demystifies some “undeniable truths” about Jewish identity –
Gauden Sarasola, El Pais

“Atzmon’s essential contribution to solidarity with Palestine is to help non-Jews realize that they are not always in the wrong when conflicts with Jewish organizations arise.” Science Professor Jean Bricmont

“Gilad Atzmon’s book, The Wandering Who? is as witty and thought provoking as its title.  But it is also an important book, presenting conclusions about Jews, Jewishness and Judaism which some will find shocking but which are essential to an understanding of Jewish identity politics and the role they play on the world stage.” Publisher and Film Producer Karl Sabbagh

“Gilad’s escape from spiritual claustrophobia towards a free and open humanitarianism is fearless” Legendary Musician Robert Wyatt

“It is excellent from beginning to end.  very well-organized and well-articulated arguments.” Revolutionary Songwriter David Rovics

“In his inimitable deadpan style, Atzmon identifies the abscess in the Jewish wisdom tooth – exilic tribalism – and pulls it out. Ouch!” Eric Walberg, Al Aharam Weekly

“A brilliant analysis that makes what appear to be contradictions in Jewish identity based political behavior not only comprehensible but predictable.” Jeff Blankfort, Jewish Solidarity Campaigner

“A fascinating achievement” Law professor Oren Ben Dor,

“Gilad Atzmon is someone who encompasses what it means to be an intellectual.” Kim Petersen, Dissident Voice

Gilad Atzmon’s book Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and gilad.co.uk.   

Antisemitism is Merely a Business Plan

July 18, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

While The Crown Persecution Service (CPS) attests that there has been no increase in anti-Semitism in Britain, in the following Sky News interview, Jewish ethnic activist Gideon Falter, insists that Jew hatred is on the rise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2LgDoRqgN8

We are asked to choose between two versions of the truth, that delivered by Falter who leads the Campaign Against Antisemitsm (CAA) and basically makes his living manufacturing antisemitic incidents and the judicial approach of the CPS: a public body, subject to scrutiny and committed to impartiality. This is hardly a difficult choice.

Falter and the CAA obviously fabricate anti-Semitic incidents. Falter interprets condemnation of Israel and Jewish politics as ‘hate crimes.’  It seems the CPS doesn’t buy Falter’s duplicitous  claims.   Against the odds and despite the treacherous Zionised British political elite, the CPS insists upon defending freedom of expression so that Britain may still be able to regard itself an ‘open society.’

Openly and in the name of the Jews, Falter condemns the Crown Prosecution Services. Falter conspicuously operates to wipe out the British liberal heritage of freedom of speech.  This attempt may not be very popular amongst Brits and could lead to some unfortunate circumstances for British Jews. I guess that this is exactly what Falter and the CAA are after. Since Falter makes a living out of the ‘rise of anti-Semitism,’ it shouldn’t surprise us that he himself propels such a rise.

This dynamic is at the core of the Zionist philosophy: Since Israel presents itself as a  ‘Jewish shelter,’ its existence becomes meaningful only when a shelter is desired.  As we often witness, it is Israel’s politics and policies that instigate global Jew hatred and that hatred actually affirms Israel’s existence as a safe haven for world Jewry. Falter and the CAA employ the same method. A decrease in anti-Semitic incidents or Jews being loved and cherished could have  fatal consequences for Falter and his CAA’s business plan.  They need anti-Semitism and a lot if it. When it isn’t there, they just invent it.

The only issue that concerns me here, is where does all this leave the Goyim, the gentiles, the non-Jews?

Falter and the CAA need the Jews to be hated so they can collect more and more British taxpayer money. But what is the role of the ordinary Brit? If hating the Jew means working for Falter and the CAA what is left for the non-Jews? Not a lot, I can tell you.

Gilad Atzmon’s book Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and gilad.co.uk.   

Saudi Arabia’s Rule: Grandson’s Era, Hatred Era

July 1, 2017

Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

Amine Abu Rashed

The $100 billion compensation prize handed to isolated crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef has not been the main event of what is taking place inside the house of the Saudi royal family. It is because the entire issue has started with isolating the deputy crown prince Megrin bin Abdul Aziz and assigning Mohammed bin Salman instead, allowing the King’s son later on move quickly towards the throne.

 

 

There is a quite important difference that “Megrin” is not as fierce as “bin Nayef”, the man with the great power inside the royal palaces. Therefore, the price to isolate him was costly, hitting some 20% of the kingdom’s annual budget of $500 billion. It is also 20 times equal to the “Maldives” annual budget, the whole island that King Salman rented in 2014 to spend one week with his retinue once he was the crown prince. All of the kingdom’s internal issues can be solved as long as oil revenues go as a “monthly royalty” to the King and the ruling family, whose princes from Abdul Aziz’s blood are 1500 princes divided between sons, grandsons and grand grandsons, whose ages range between more than 80 to at least one minute whenever a prince is born.

Despite the recently circulated media information saying “bin Nayef” has been under a sort of “house arrest,” a Saudi official replied as saying that “the news talking about limiting the residence of former crown prince inside the palace are not 100% true.”  However, the main title of what has happened is about the royal order that was issued on 21/6/2017, after assigning bin Salman as the crown prince, which provided changing the primary law of ruling in Saudi Arabia. This royal order included an amendment of clause B of Article 5 in the primary law to the following: “Ruling is designated to the sons and grandsons of the founder King Abdul Aziz Al Saud, in which allegiance is paid to the fittest among them…, and after the sons of the founder king, there won’t be any king or crown prince from any other branch of the founder King’s ancestry.”

The phrase that says: “after the sons of the founder king, there won’t be any king or crown prince from any other branch of the founder King’s ancestry,” is just to appease the other family wings in which the sons are distributed between the wives of founder Abdul Aziz, because the “Sudairi” wing, in reference to Princess Hissa al-Sudairi is the strongest and most prominent one. This is because she has been the favorite and influential wife, in which two of her sons, King Fahd and current King Salman, were in charge of the throne. It is an unprecedented phenomenon, in which the bequeathing of throne used to take place between the brothers of Abdul Aziz’s sons, but has now turned to be between the father and his son to reach the grandsons. Meanwhile, a grandson here or there, from any other wing, is appeased with being assigned a crown prince, in an attempt to absorb the other wings’ indignation and reducing current hatred against the “ancestry of Abdul Aziz from Princess Hissa al-Sudairi,” like the Al Sheikh family to which Turfa bint Abdullah belongs, the second most prominent wife of Abdul Aziz, and the mother of King Faisal who ruled between 1964 and 1975 and was killed by one of his nephews in revenge for the death of the killer’s brother during a protest of religious hardliners against the opening of the first TV channel in Faisal’s era.

The problem of the grandson princes started during King Faisal’s era, who repeatedly opposed the absurd life they are living, in addition to wasting the wealth of oil revenues that are distributed among hundreds of them on a monthly basis without making any productive work. King Faisal issued royal orders to reduce those payments for some princes and to full cut them from others unless they join higher careers within the government, fitting the ancestry of Al Saud. This, however, didn’t stop their hatred and recklessness, and their competition to build fancy palaces inside the kingdom, as well as buying luxury houses and apartments in the UK, Spain, France and Egypt, in addition to possessing private planes and silver and gold-plated cars, besides their stock market investments and trade deals. Most of their money is deposited abroad in anticipation for the royal throne’s collapse.

In this regard, American author Jean Sasson wrote a book in the early 1990s naming it “Princess Sultana” before she published another book entitled “The Daughters of Her Highness” about the confessions of a woman from the Saudi royal family, naming her “Sultana”. Her character decided to stand up against the corruption of this family, predicting that the throne will fall after the death of Abdul Aziz’s sons and moving the rule to the grandsons who are indeed distributed between rival family wings.

Those grandson themselves are the ones who turned things upside down in 2015 with the rising star of Mohammed bin Salman, indicting him with what they also are of absurd life, adding that he gathers around himself a retinue of young reckless inexperienced princes, and that the Kingdom’s escalation of its aggression against Yemen isn’t but a show of force from the “Sudairi wing” in front of other rival wings, saying that King Slaman has done this with an incitement of his son Mohammed. They themselves have recently become furious about Mohammed’s escalating tone against Iran, saying that he is dragging the kingdom towards a dilemma with dire consequences. Indeed, they are not keen on the regime’s stability as much as they are afraid of the family’s throne collapse and the evaporation of the “monthly royalty” from the oil revenues that guarantee their obscene wealth. This “monthly royalty” will remain a tax every king has to pay in order to silence those aspiring greedy members until the throne would collapse when the “cheese hunk” won’t be enough to fill all the stomachs…

Source: Al-Manar Website

First Amendment

May 28, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Eve Mykytyn

Partially in response to the polarizing presidency of Mr. Trump, and also, I think, in response to a desire to reach the “right” results, there has been an increasing tendency in the United States to try and limit free speech.  In earlier generations, the left was more in favour of free speech and the right was more willing to suppress it (eg, the flag burning and pornography cases).

Now this seems to be a tactic favoured by many without regard to political affiliation, although of course, the speech they would choose to suppress may be quite different. Two recent examples come to mind, the treatment of demonstrators at Trump rallies and the treatment of Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Why listen and engage when you can simply attribute words to the other side and then oppose them?

The edges of free speech have always been difficult, that is, commercial speech limitations (for instance commercial false advertising or ‘news’ articles that are really advertisements) or free speech that includes or directly incites prohibited actions (throwing a bottle at a policeman conveys speech, but is still prohibited).  But the opposition to free expression I’m trying to get at here is not a within such difficult categories.

My brilliant young friend, who has a PhD in physics, challenged me, “I am outcome driven,” she said. “I don’t want people to preach against vaccines when the outcome may be that children die.” I tend to agree with her about vaccines, but I would not attempt to silence those who disagree.

First. I would have no idea what would be a reasonable way to prohibit speech I don’t like. Should the police track down these people and arrest them? Do our jails need more prisoners who have committed a nonviolent crime? Should we hold internet sites responsible for all speech? This seems to lead inevitably into a discussion of anonymity and government intrusion.

Second.  Who should determine what is ok speech?  The government? Trump? Obama? The FBI? The NSA? Scientists? Or only scientists who opposed using their gifts to create nuclear weapons?

Third. The outliers are sometimes right. Dr Kevorkian forced this country to consider assisted suicide. He earned the name ‘Dr Death’ from his campaign to use death row prisoners as voluntary experiments for various medical procedures. By any standard he was an odd and unappealing character. But he managed to force us to confront a difficult issue and think about how we wanted to handle it.

The anti vaccine people funded scientific research  into vaccines and potential causes of autism and those studies disproved the link. Just because autism manifests itself around the time children are vaccinated does not mean vaccines cause autism, but it was not an unreasonable hypothesis. And the autism studies partially so-provoked found a surprising link to paternal and maternal age that proved more promising. So even if you disagree with them, they ultimately may have helped push us to forward.

Fourth. No reasonable person likes the idea of name calling or so-called hate speech.The problem is that hate speech is difficult to define, even if we knew how to enforce prohibitions. Can a pink person claim to hate all pink people? In a private conversation? In an e mail? On a sign at a demonstration? On the pink people’s website? On his own website? What if the pink person is criticizing other pink people in an attempt to improve them?  Do the same rules apply when a purple person criticizes pink people? Does it matter whether purple or pink people constitute the dominant culture?

This is not purely theoretical. The US government and New York State (among others) have, at various times, tried to prohibit speech against Israel as anti Semitic. (They did this by prohibiting state funding or business with any group thatadvocated boycotting Israel saying that such advocacy was “abusing Jewish students.”) Like many, but perhaps not most Americans, I do not see the two as the same. Israel is a foreign country and Jews are an ethnic group in the United States and elsewhere. In this case, by trying to prohibit constitutionally protected hate speech, New York is clearly denouncing political speech as well. And it does prompt the question, do we now attempt to stop ‘hate’ speech against all groups?  Why this group?

In the Netherlands, a country that attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech, Siegfried Verbeke was convicted for simply publishing Robert Faurisson’s 1978 work questioning the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank. The court stated that, “By raising doubts as to the authenticity of the diary within the context of REVISIONISM …the brochure far exceeds the limits of what is acceptable within the framework of freedom of expression.” The court did not dispute the truth of the research, the legal problem was the context of hate.

And how can it be otherwise? Speech occurs within a context, and often that context includes advocating a political position. This is different than a clerk who insists she is exercising her freedom by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay people or election officials who try to make it difficult for Blacks to vote. The clerk and the election officials are free to say what they want (so long as what they say does not impede the ability of others trying to exercise their rights), but they are obliged to obey the laws whether they like them or not, as we all are.

I would hope that ‘the marketplace of ideas’ would ultimately serve to help us discard ideas that are dangerous or wrong. If not, to the extent that we are a democracy, we have agreed to live with the decisions of the majority BUT with the most important of protections, the bill of rights. It is worth reminding ourselves that the bill of rights was specifically designed to protect minorities from the will of majorities. There is a reason freedom of speech appears in the first amendment. There are limits to the extent we are allowed to police each other.

Americans are blessed that we have a first amendment. Although it has been imperfectly and sporadically protected, it is there at least as an aspiration.

“But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”  George Orwell, in his brilliant proposed preface to Animal Farm. Sadly, usually omitted from the book.

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

%d bloggers like this: