Israeli fascist Moshe Feiglin barred from UK but coming to Canada this week
Tue, 2008-03-25 10:05
#1
Israeli fascist Moshe Feiglin barred from UK but coming to Canada this week
Tue, 2008-03-25 10:05
#2
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080322.FEIGLIN22/TPSt... and Mail[/url]
quote:
An Israeli political activist banned from entering Britain on the grounds his views could foment violence is scheduled to meet with three groups in Toronto next Thursday, including Jewish students on an undisclosed university campus.Moshe Feiglin is a West Bank settler who heads a faction of the right-wing Likud party. He advocates harsh military action against Palestinians, pulling Israel out of the United Nations and encouraging non-Jews in Israel to emigrate.
He is being brought to Canada by the Jewish Defence League.
On his itinerary are a meeting with Jewish students, a dinner at Shaarei Tefillah Synagogue in North York and an unspecified community address later in the evening.
Although Mr. Feiglin had no plans to visit Britain, a British government official said this month that his presence in the country "would not be conducive to the public good" and he therefore would not be allowed to enter.
Shimon Fogel, executive director of the Canada-Israel Committee, which represents the organized Jewish community on issues of Canadian-Israeli relations, said yesterday he has no problem with Mr. Feiglin visiting Canada and was disturbed by the news that he had been barred from Britain.
"He participates in the Israeli democratic process and he's part of a legitimate political party," Mr. Fogel said.
"I have a lot of confidence in Israel's ability to vet the propriety of those who participate in the political process there."
[url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact2_a?currentPage... in [i]The New Yorker[/i] (2004):[/url]
quote:
"Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy of a Jewish state?"
"For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish state, not a democratic state. Democracy should serve the values of the state, not destroy them."
"In any case, [y]ou can't teach a monkey to speak and you can't teach an Arab to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches."
[url=http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=58606&ATypeI... from the British Home Office banning Feiglin:[/url]
quote:
Dear Mr Feiglin:I am writing to advise you that following the London bombings in July 2005, the Home Secretary announced a list of particular activities that would normally lead to a person being excluded or deported from the UK on the grounds that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK national whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium including:
-writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;
-public speaking including preaching;
-running a website;
-using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader
To express views that:
-foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs;
-seek to provoke others to terrorist acts;
-foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts;
-foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
The Home Secretary has considered whether, in light of this list, you should be excluded from the United Kingdom. After careful consideration, she has personally directed that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here would not be conducive to the public good. She has reached this decision because you have used your position to propagate views which foment and provoke others to serious criminal acts and also foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
This has brought you within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours.
The Home Secretary notes that you have made the following statements:
"In order to declare that we are right, we have to declare war. War now! It's not the Arabs who are murdering mothers, but those merciful people who
gave weapons to the murderers. It's not the Arabs who are burning babies, but the peaceniks that recognised the justice of the Arabs cause. It's not the cruel people who are bombing us, but the merciful people who showed them mercy. War now! A holy war, now"– "War Now" article by you, quoted on Channel 7 Israel National website
"The Christian world is faced with two options: it can fight against terror, which means fighting against Islam, or it can surrender and be gradually overcome by the waves of the modern Moslem Jihad… Arabs are not sons of the desert but its father. They created the desert — everywhere they come vegetation stops and the wind blows everything away"
— Extract from an article by you quoted on the "Israel Science and Technology Homepage"
"The basis of Islam is not the quality of mercy but of justice. If Christianity bridges the gap between sin and morals by automatic benevolence
and absolution (that over long periods were sold by clergy), Islam does this in a far simpler way — it abolishes both benevolence and morals… Their holy Muhammed is strong, cruel and deceitful."In expressing such views, it is considered that you are seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK, you would continue to espouse such views, which would not be conducive to the public good in the UK.
In light of these factors, the Home Secretary is satisfied you should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that your exclusion is conducive to the public good. You are advised not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival. Although there is no statutory right of appeal against the Home Secretary's decision, this decision is reviewed every three years.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the Secretary of the State for the Home Department
[ 25 March 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
Tue, 2008-03-25 15:49
#3
How much do you want to bet the CJC will defend his "right" to visit Canada (even though they're big supporters of hate speech laws) and won't have a critical word to say about Feiglin?
Tue, 2008-03-25 17:10
#4
This reminds me of [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009054&p=]a discussion we had[/url] when British imam Shaykh ul Haq was invited to speak in Canada.
At that time, one of our resident posters opened a thread as follows:
quote:
I applaud the Muslim Canadian Congress, Canadian Jewish Congress, Hindu Dharma society and Egale Canada for coming together to ask that hate propogandist ul Huq be kept out of Canada.
Ultimately, Ul-Haq chose not to attend, because Canadian authorities would not guarantee that they wouldn't deport him on landing.
Yet, as you can see by reading those threads, there was [b]no evidence whatsoever[/b] of anything resembling hate speech in Ul-Haq's past - except for some out-of-context mistranslations by the Islamophobic ultra-right "Canadian Coalition for Democracies".
It was to the lasting shame of these organizations that they got sucked in by the propaganda and combined forces to demand that this speaker be banned from Canada.
Today, we have an example of an outright hatemonger and fascist - Feiglin - coming here at the invitation of a group whose U.S. branch is listed as terrorist.
I have some questions:
[b][i]Where is the Canadian Jewish Congress on this issue?
Where is the Muslim Canadian Congress?
Where is the Hindu Dharma society?
Where is Egale Canada?[/i][/b]
Unless they are craven hypocrites pandering to Israel, Bush and Harper - which they couldn't possibly be - their voices had better be heard, demanding that this piece of scum be kept far from our shores. I encourage anyone who has any contact with these organizations to challenge them accordingly.
Wed, 2008-03-26 05:36
#5
Is Feiglin actually an MK now? When I lived in Israel many years ago, he was just a little organizer.
Wed, 2008-03-26 05:48
#6
Any babblers attending the conference of Concerned Jewish Canadians, in Toronto this weekend?
Wed, 2008-03-26 05:58
#7
lagatta, do you have a link to the program for that conference? I assume it is not being held over Shabbos, right?
Wed, 2008-03-26 06:33
#8
The Conference does include the Sabbath; but there is no decision-making that day. I'm sure this has been discussed; many observant Jews will attend such an event on Sabbath if it doesn't involve note-taking or deliberation, as it is a form of study.
I know there are synagogues and hotels/guesthouses within walking distance for people who do not use cars or public transport on Sabbath.
The conference had to take this into consideration while remembering other people attending including Muslims and Christians and participants ability to attend despite their work or studies.
At least one participant from Montrйal I know is Sabbath-observant.
The Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC) invites you to a strategic planning conference to build an Independent Canadian Jewish Movement For Peace And Justice & Against The Occupation
March 28-30, 2008 Steelworkers’ Hall 25 Cecil Street, Toronto
The ACJC is convening a meeting of Jewish groups in Canada that are united in opposing
Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and siege of Gaza. Our goal is to discuss coordinating the
existing anti-Occupation movements across Canada who share a commitment to building real
peace and justice in the Middle East. Working together, we have the potential to offer alternative
perspectives to the views of organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’Nai Brith,
who support uncritically all actions of Israeli governments.
Potential allies are invited too: (international Jewish peace and justice groups, Canadian
unions, churches, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian groups, and peace groups).
[url=http://www.nion.ca/pdf/acjc-conference-callout.pdf]http://www.nion.ca/pd...
Wed, 2008-03-26 06:43
#9
Sunlight is a great disinfectant. I would rather have Mr. Feiglin come to Canada, his views open to critique and his supporters identified rather than have him foment dissent in dark corners.
The same with Islamists who are threatened with being barred entry. They need a process for accurate translation of their viewpoint to forestall misinterpretation - unintended or otherwise.
The Brits are a weak,watered-down society full of security cameras who are afraid of their own shadow. Canada should take the path to strengthen society,not water it down.
Wed, 2008-03-26 06:47
#10
M. Spector
[url=http://www.jewishisrael.org/policy/platform.htm]What Feiglin stands for[/url]
Didn't Feiglin speak in Toronto [url=http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/26182.shtml]last October?[/url]
Wed, 2008-03-26 07:51
#11
N.Beltov
quote:
jester: Sunlight is a great disinfectant. I would rather have Mr. Feiglin come to Canada ... [etc.]
That "sunlight is a great disinfectant" is a commonly used expression among the hard right. For example ...
quote:
Catholic Friends of Israel: Too many hard politicos of the left have carved out a pro-Palestinian trench in our Churches. A little sunlight is the best disinfectant.
[url=http://www.think-israel.org/jul04bloged.html]Catholic Friends of Israel [/url]
Notice that the word "Palestinian" is followed by the word "disinfectant". In Israel itself, especially among the settlers and people like Moshe Feiglin, there are plenty of examples of remarks about disinfectants and cleaning products, comparisons of Palestinians with insects, and the "need" to bring the disinfectants and the Palestinians together.
quote:
PUNYAPRIYA DASGUPTA: Israel’s ambassador in New Delhi, David Danieli, sees Hezbollah as something akin to a scorpion (Times of India, 28 July). His is not much of a new invention. Other Israelis in responsible positions have made similar statements before. A few days earlier, Dan Gillerman, Israeli representative at UN, regretted Kofi Annan’s failure to mention that the Hezbollah was a bunch of “ruthless, indiscriminate animals”. During its First Lebanon War in 1982 Israel’s chief of staff Rafael Eitan was gleeful that he had shoved the Palestinian ” drugged cockroaches” into a bottle. To Menahem Begin, chief author of the Deir Yassin massacre, who went on to become Israel’s prime minister and get a Nobel peace prize, the Palestinians were “two-legged beasts”.
[url=http://peoplesgeography.com/2006/07/30/israels-foes-as-beasts-and-insect...'s foes depicted as beasts and insects[/url]
The phrase was originally used by the first Jewish member of the US Supreme Court, Justice Brandeis, but seem to be almost [i]code words[/i] now for some rather odious ideas about solving the Palestinian "problem".
Here's Feiglin sharing his views on the Palestinians:
quote:
Moshe Feiglin: He dismissed Palestinians saying, “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches."
So, the terms are: monkeys, insects, disinfectant, thieves and robbers, and so on.
And this is the "disinfectant of sunlight" ?
Wed, 2008-03-26 08:42
#12
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]So, the terms are: monkeys, insects, disinfectant, thieves and robbers, and so on.
And this is the "disinfectant of sunlight" ?[/b]
Thats a real stretch to bullshit your way into associating "Sunlight is a great disinfectant" with extemist viewpoints.
You must be really desperate to spin a generic comment into an opportunity to paint my neutral remarks as some sort of "right-wing" demagoguery. You are both dishonest and full of shit.
I believe I first heard the term as applied by a war-dissenter to Bush's Iraq policies. It applies equally to the Harper government's close info control and the Liberals' past fiscal misadventures.
Wed, 2008-03-26 08:48
#13
Regardless of quibbling about the origin of some phrase, we don't invite fascists and racists into our living rooms and our schools and workplaces in the expectation that lots and lots of exposure will lead to some healthy debate.
When they are Canadians, they should be reviled, ostracized, condemned - and we must teach our children that these "ideologies" are the great exception, not to freedom of speech, but to civilized and respectful discourse.
When they are foreigners, they must be barred at the border. I'm sure it speaks English (since the ultimate origin of the extremist fascist wing of Zionism is the United States of America), but if not, I'd be happy to draft an "Excrement Keep Out!" sign in Hebrew.
Wed, 2008-03-26 08:52
#14
N.Beltov
I dont' think it's unfair at all. I didn't claim, for example, that your [i]intentions[/i] were to mislead, or something like that. I just pointed out that the language is loaded, that is has a history, and, given Feiglin's associations and views, some of which I quoted directly, you ought to stay away from such language.
Especially if you want to convince anyone that Feiglin's presence will benefit Canada by his version of "sunlight", "disinfectant" or whatever.
Wed, 2008-03-26 09:19
#15
quote:
Especially if you want to convince anyone that Feiglin's presence will benefit Canada by his version of "sunlight", "disinfectant" or whatever.
I'm not on a mission here,trying to convince anyone of anything.
In fact what I am saying is that the country should be strong enough to let the individual make up their own mind. Notwithstanding the slippery slope argument, I am not comfortable with the mob rule concept of limiting entry into Canada based on political views.
I would much prefer any extemist to come to Canada, say his piece and be judged on his words than be told what to think by the frightened individuals who fear his words.
I'm not afraid of speeches by extemists but I am afraid of the actions of those want to decide who speaks and who doesn't.
Wed, 2008-03-26 09:27
#16
N.Beltov
That's almost a Nietzschian view, you realize? That which does not kill us makes us stronger, and all that?
The British government, in its correspondence to Feiglin, noted that his presence could contribute to the promotion of hatred and all that. Perhaps the Brits have a much stronger Muslim lobby and influence than Canada does, and that is the difference between us and them?
I realize that there are plenty of Canadians who have such views, and I'm not in favour of deporting them or anything like that. However, it's really hard to see what benefit it would serve Canada to have Feiglin come here (again?) and speak publicly.
Wed, 2008-03-26 09:49
#17
M. Spector
I think jester's trying to say that Feiglin's presence in Canada could contribute to the promotion of hatred against the JDL.
It appears Feiglin has been here before, and I didn't notice a huge wave of increased hatred one way or the other as a result.
Wed, 2008-03-26 10:03
#18
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b] In fact what I am saying is that the country should be strong enough to let the individual make up their own mind.[/b]
Yeah, but we still advocate that people should keep their promises, not assault each other, and not steal. We don't (knowingly) invite lying violent thieves to give lectures advocating and recruiting for their lifestyles. If they're foreigners, we tell them to keep the hell out.
quote:
[b]Notwithstanding the slippery slope argument, I am not comfortable with the mob rule concept of limiting entry into Canada based on political views. [/b]
Me neither. I'm talking about racist fascist scum - no matter what their political view. If Ul-Haq had actually been proven to give anti-Semitic anti-queer speeches for example (which there was no evidence for), I would have advocated turning his plane around.
quote:
[b]I would much prefer any extemist to come to Canada, say his piece and be judged on his words than be told what to think by the frightened individuals who fear his words. [/b]
Then you're irresponsible, because real live advocates for an obscene cause do better recruitment than absent ones. It's not as if there's an actual debate in society as to whether Arabs are low-lifes - is there? Would you like to start one?
If this fascist criminal recruits one single gullible Canadian to his cause by coming here, then the responsibility falls on you.
Wed, 2008-03-26 10:09
#19
What jester is saying is that the timidity of the British government speaks to weakness.
Nietzsche,in my opinion, was a pantywaist mama's boy who conjured up the delusion of ten feet tall and bullet proof whilst hiding under his bed. I prefer "Adversity builds character".
In that vein,I doubt that the new Canadians who have experienced real tribulations in their former lives will have much truck with Feiglin's manufactured sort and that I have great faith in all Canadians' character to weed the wheat from the chaff and generally ignore extremist grievances.
Barring extremists means giving credence to their views, even if only-like the British,to fear them.
That is what I mean by sunlight,etc...the ignominity of being marginalised will do much more to negate extremist views than giving the extremists voice by a controversy over entry rights.
Wed, 2008-03-26 10:18
#20
quote:
Then you're irresponsible, because real live advocates for an obscene cause do better recruitment than absent ones. It's not as if there's an actual debate in society as to whether Arabs are low-lifes - is there? Would you like to start one?If this fascist criminal recruits one single gullible Canadian to his cause by coming here, then the responsibility falls on you.
Bah! Get back under your bed, unionist.
I and like minded Canadians will gladly accept that responsibility ( and the complimentary guilt-trip) [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] even though the "responsibility" you conjur up is based on groundless fearmongering and you do your fellow Canadians a disservice in doubting their ability to render judgement themselves without Big Brother.
You should consider moving to timid Britain - a camera on every corner in case someone says something you don't like.
Wed, 2008-03-26 13:31
#21
N.Beltov
Thanks for your free speech fundamentalism, jester. If I get caught yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, I'll know who to look to for support.
It's rather obvious that Feiglin's views are too odious to defend, even for you. Hence your tiresome rhetoric that avoids the question altogether.
Wed, 2008-03-26 14:07
#22
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Thanks for your free speech fundamentalism, jester. If I get caught yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, I'll know who to look to for support.It's rather obvious that Feiglin's views are too odious to defend, even for you. Hence your tiresome rhetoric that avoids the question altogether.[/b]
Oh. The last pass with the paintbrush didn't work so now its on to belittling my POV as "tiresome rhetoric".
It must be really tiresome for you superior beings to have to suffer the fact that the great unwashed prefers thinking for themselves than enduring endless lectures on what to think from the likes of you and unionist.
No doubt Feiglin is a miserable fascist wretch but so are many other home-grown fascists. I'd rather have them prove themselves so than have you tell me so.
You superior beings have so little faith in the ability of the rabble to sort out the muffins from the meadow muffins that YOU must protect us from the idle thoughts of sundry fascists and wingnuts.
You spare me your condescending hubris, o superior one,and I'll spare you my tiresome rhetoric - I'll even throw in sparing you my jaundiced eye as a bonus. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-03-26 16:44
#23
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Why would anyone be surprised?
Jester's 'absolute' freedom of speech is entirely consistent with his right-wing libertarianism - in which he has been absolutely consistent here.
Wed, 2008-03-26 18:36
#24
N.Beltov
Yea, OK, I forgot. Does he show as much enthusiasm for ... oh never mind. It will be more entertaining to find out the hard way.
Wed, 2008-03-26 19:00
#25
quote:
Alliance of Concerned Jewish CanadiansMedia Release
Attn: Assignment editor: For immediate release March 27, 2008
Jewish Alliance Condemns Feiglin Visit
The Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians is troubled by the visit to Canada this Thursday by extremist Israeli politician Moshe Feiglin who is to attend a $180 a plate fundraising dinner for the Jewish Defence League, an extremist organization with questionable links. This will be Feiglin's second visit to Canada in the past year. Earlier this month, the leader of the extremist "Jewish Leadership" faction of Likud was banned from the United Kingdom by British Home Secretary Jaqui Smith because, in the estimation of the British government, Feiglin is "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK." [1] Of particular concern to the British government were calls by Feiglin for a "War now! A holy war, now"[2] along with other incendiary statements.
We call on the Jewish community and its leading organizations to summarily reject Feiglin's presence here and to refuse to extend to him any support or welcome. Unfortunately, instead of condemning him, groups like the Canada-Israel Committee have welcomed Feiglin's visit with spokesperson Simon Fogel telling the Globe and Mail this week, "He participates in the Israeli democratic process and he's part of a legitimate political party. I have a lot of confidence in Israel's ability to vet the propriety of those who participate in the political process there."[3]
"There is no place in the Jewish community for fascists," said ACJC co-chair Andy Lehrer, who conducted an investigation of the JDL last year. "That such a hateful organization is having a public meeting in a synagogue is incompatible with Jewish principles. Most Jews unequivocally reject the extremists of the Jewish Defence League."
Feiglin has advocated the revocation of Israeli citizenship from non-Jews and the large scale deportation of Palestinians resident in Israel. Feiglin has been described as a "Jewish fascist" by former Israeli cabinet minister, Tommy Lapid.[4] He has also made numerous hateful and contemptuous statements about Palestinians, saying for instance that "[y]ou can't teach a monkey to speak and you can't teach an Arab to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.[5]
Tragically, Feiglin's brand of extremism is rapidly becoming mainstream in Israel. Feiglin has twice contested the leadership of the Likud party coming in second place with 23.4 percent of the votes in the 2007 leadership primary double the level of support he enjoyed 18 months previously.
The Jewish Defence League is described by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States as a "right-wing terrorist group".[6] In 2001 JDL Chairman Irv Rubin and his west coast organizer Earl Krugel were arrested for plotting to bomb a mosque and the office of a Lebanese-American US Congressman. Krugel pled guilty while Rubin committed suicide while awaiting trial.
ACJC is an umbrella organization of Canadian Jewish groups who demand Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Territories and Gaza and believe Canadian Jews should play a larger role in supporting and promoting a peaceful and just solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
-30-
Wed, 2008-03-26 19:51
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Why would anyone be surprised?Jester's 'absolute' freedom of speech is entirely consistent with his right-wing libertarianism - in which he has been absolutely consistent here.[/b]
Absolute is your wording,not mine.
If an individual wants to climb on their soapbox and are not breaking the laws of the land,who are you or I to tell them they cannot speak?
There appears to be a number of instances where various speakers have been discouraged from speaking in Canada and most of them,if I remember correctly, have to do with the Palestinian/Israeli issue in one form or another. University students involved in vetting each others' speakers amid riotous grievancemongering etc.
It all smacks of rule by mob rather than rule by law.
Wed, 2008-03-26 20:39
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Jester's 'absolute' freedom of speech is entirely consistent with his right-wing libertarianism - in which he has been absolutely consistent here.
With all due respect, I'm getting tired of the accusation thrown around here that people who are free speech "absolutists" are "right wing", the implication being that you have to support restrictions on free speech to be "left"?
So is Noam Chomsky for example, a rightwing libertatrian?
Wed, 2008-03-26 21:09
#28
N.Beltov
The ACJC basically calls for protests, or a kind of shunning, of Feiglin and doesn't seem to be calling for him to be barred from Canada. Maybe I've missed something here.
A useful discussion might include which Canadian laws, if any, could be applied in this case. That's in addition to the debate over whether such laws should be enforced or prosecuted.
Left wing visitors, peace activists, and so on, are routinely excluded from coming to Canada, though often it is over convictions for civil disobedience in which the nature of the offense is deliberately ignored or treated the same as, say, murder or rape would be treated.
Wed, 2008-03-26 21:44
#29
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The ACJC basically calls for protests, or a kind of shunning, of Feiglin and doesn't seem to be calling for him to be barred from Canada. Maybe I've missed something here.
I'm all for protesting hate-mongerers, and I've always found the rightwing line that racists and fascists have a right to free speech but people don't have a right to oppose them (i.e. "politically correct fascists" or whatever) to be pretty idiotic.
I'm not saying anything about the ACJC. I'm responding particularly to this accusation that those who support free speech must be "right wing libertarians." Maybe the person is, but I don't think that means people like Chomsky for instance should be tarred with the same brush.
[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]
[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]
Wed, 2008-03-26 22:13
#30
N.Beltov
Well, to some degree anyway, it varies from country to country just as the laws vary from country to country. The Americans (USians) absolutize free speech, they practically make a fetish of it, so the American Chomsky, or any American, isn't the best example for a Canadian.
Of course, no country completely absolutizes free speech. No one remains unpunished who yells "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Some key questions are "What are the [clearly defined] restrictions?" and, of course, for those of us on the left, "How is free speech exercised?" - i.e., what about ACCESS to the media, who has it, who doesn't, and, in general, what opportunity do people have to get their point of view across?
It's also fair to address the question of [i]freedom FROM advertising, marketing, and the endless consumer brainwashing that goes on every day in our own country.[/i] This is also related to "free speech"; my "freedom" not to be polluted by endless advertising and mind-numbing inanity. Just posing this last question makes it clear that there is a class element to free speech questions that appeared, at first glance, to have no such aspects at all.
Wed, 2008-03-26 22:44
#31
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Of course, no country completely absolutizes free speech. No one remains unpunished who yells "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Some key questions are "What are the [clearly defined] restrictions?" and, of course, for those of us on the left, "How is free speech exercised?" - i.e., what about ACCESS to the media, who has it, who doesn't, and, in general, what opportunity do people have to get their point of view across?
Extending the positive freedom of making free speech actually meaningful isn't aided by smashing the negative freedom of not having the state restrict speech.
Thu, 2008-03-27 02:39
#32
quote:
You should consider moving to timid Britain - a camera on every corner in case someone says something you don't like.
Timid? Try Walsall on a Saturday night...
Thu, 2008-03-27 02:50
#33
quote:
You superior beings have so little faith in the ability of the rabble to sort out the muffins from the meadow muffins that YOU must protect us from the idle thoughts of sundry fascists and wingnuts.
Imagine the wonderful world of totally free expression: We could have pornography on every street corner and every TV station. We could allow Neo-Nazis to recruit on the CBC. Afterall, they're just one of the many voices that reflect our Canadian diversity, right? We could let pedophiles do street canvassing outside of public schools. We could have committees of rapists take out full page ads in the Star to promote "The Rapists' Viewpoint". And, last but not least, we could have a dedicated team of people blitzing the radio stations, TV, newspapers, calling your boss and camped outside your house telling everyone that you have sex with little boys while looking at pictures of Hitler and should be killed.
Hey, we can just let the rabble decide what to believe, eh?
Thu, 2008-03-27 03:14
#34
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
I'm responding particularly to this accusation that those who support free speech must be "right wing libertarians."
I said nothing of the sort. I merely commented upon the consistency of Jester's world-view - one to which he is entitled, whether I agree with it or not.
Thu, 2008-03-27 03:41
#35
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Those promoting the issue of 'free speech' here deliberately ignore the issue that that free speech is unavailable to one side here. Thus we have only propaganda, rather than debate and the battle of ideals.
Where is the Hamas leader who is being allowed to promote violence and raise money to fund terrorism in this equation?
If one is silenced and not the other, then society does not enjoy true freedom of speech.
Thu, 2008-03-27 07:18
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
[b]With all due respect, I'm getting tired of the accusation thrown around here that people who are free speech "absolutists" are "right wing", the implication being that you have to support restrictions on free speech to be "left"?
So is Noam Chomsky for example, a rightwing libertatrian?[/b]
I think that trying to label an individual as a member of any part of the political spectrum is an attempt to marginalise the individuals position and give a wholesale direction to their remarks that were not the original intent.
To some,anyone who does not subscribe to groupthink is suspect and must be labeled as such.
Thu, 2008-03-27 07:36
#37
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]The ACJC basically calls for protests, or a kind of shunning, of Feiglin and doesn't seem to be calling for him to be barred from Canada. Maybe I've missed something here.A useful discussion might include which Canadian laws, if any, could be applied in this case. That's in addition to the debate over whether such laws should be enforced or prosecuted.
Left wing visitors, peace activists, and so on, are routinely excluded from coming to Canada, though often it is over convictions for civil disobedience in which the nature of the offense is deliberately ignored or treated the same as, say, murder or rape would be treated.[/b]
Good idea. I confess that while dependant on the law to sort out who will be allowed to enter Canada and even who is allowed to speak publicly, I do not know what those laws are or the selectivity of their enforcement.
Given the support the views of Feiglin muster in the US administration with its cabal of Zionists and the zeal with which our PM panders to the Crusader mentality, there may well be lax enforcement of a law that would bar Feiglin via political interference.
I also would like to hear so-called radical Imams speak. What is refered to in the media as inflammatory rhetoric in support of jihad may well be standard koran boilerplate that has no real intent to adherents much the same way that passages in the old testament threaten havoc but have no literal effect.
By banning speakers,we deny ourselves the opportunity to hear their views first-hand and judge the words, not an analysis of them.
Thu, 2008-03-27 07:42
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Those promoting the issue of 'free speech' here deliberately ignore the issue that that free speech is unavailable to one side here. Thus we have only propaganda, rather than debate and the battle of ideals.Where is the Hamas leader who is being allowed to promote violence and raise money to fund terrorism in this equation?
If one is silenced and not the other, then society does not enjoy true freedom of speech.[/b]
The Tamil Tigers don't seem to have a problem raising funds - doesn't Jack Layton pitch for them?
quote:
Strengthening this request/demand was the argument that a large number of Tamils
were living in Canada and therefore the Canadian Prime Minister MUST visit the Wanni.
It was projected that Martin not going to the Wanni will amount to a snubbing of Tamil
sentiment, A parallel was drawn with the Kofi Annan trip where the Colombo government
debarred the UN Secretary - General from going to the Wanni or for that matter any
major Tamil area affected by tsunami. Martin is being asked not to emulate Annan. There
was also a veiled threat that Tamil Canadians would withdraw their support from the
Liberal party in the future. The pro - tiger efforts were spearheaded by Tamil youth and
student organizations and also the Canadian Tamil Congress.After the LTTE front organization Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils (FACT)
was clearly identified as a tiger front it was allowed to become virtually defunct.
Corresponding to FACT decline was the birth and growth of the Canadian Tamil
Congress. Though some of its youthful members who bask in the limelight deny any links
with the LTTE there is a general view in the community that it is "guided" by tiger
elements in Canada.One tactic employed by the tiger lobby has been its blatant manuevre to get close to the
opposition New Democratic Party. When Liberal MP"s kept away from a pro - tiger rally i
Toronto last year the tiger lobby promptly wooed and got NDP leader Jack Layton on its
platform at the last minute.[b]Layton in his zeal to grab the Tamil vote [/b]made a controversial
comparison between Nelson Mandela and Pirapakaran that disgusted its traditional
supporters. Now Layton is part of the MP group accompanying Martin but has insisted
that the Prime Minister should visit "Tamil" areas. He may even undertake a separate visit
to the North - East supported perhaps by the Tiger lobby.
[url=http://www.tamilweek.com/Martin_defies_Canada_LTTE.html]Tamil Week[/url]
The proper question isn't why terrorist groups cannot operate in Canada but why Feiglin isn't considered a member of a terrorist group.
This brings us back to political interference - apparently,the Liberals,while in government, pandered to various immigrant groups for votes and political expediency is of the reasons why obvious terrorist groups are free to operate in Canada.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: jester ]
Thu, 2008-03-27 08:16
#39
quote:
By banning speakers,we deny ourselves the opportunity to hear their views first-hand and judge the words, not an analysis of them.
A platitude if I've ever heard one. Again, shall we allow Neo-Nazis to advertise on the CBC?
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Thu, 2008-03-27 08:24
#40
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
To some,anyone who does not subscribe to groupthink is suspect and must be labeled as such.
At least the labels I apply are clear, concise, and meaningful. Unlike the slurs some engage in.
Thu, 2008-03-27 08:41
#41
Anyone who claims to be outside of "groupthink" is usually anything but. It's really funny to hear it from someone who is essentially parroting libertarian orthodoxy elevating speech outside the realm of all other acts. The idea that, "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll die for your right to say it" is pretty much a standard Marine Corps rallying cry at this point. You don't have to be particularly independent of mind to utter it.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Thu, 2008-03-27 09:24
#42
LTJ - doesn't add anything of use to most threads, except judging others opinions from his condescending perch as the sole definer of what is and isn't acceptable opinions for people to argue.
I think a serious discussion of [b]ideas, philosophies, politics[/b] without all the sarcasm, labeling, cheap insults, and accusations would make for a much more fruitful and enlightening threads. (in other words can't we respect each other) I realize some just log on to mock and judge and make (what they think) are witty insults but it boring to read.
I say let him speak but show up and ask reasoned, intelligent questions and forced him to defend his fascist views and statements in a public forum for everyone to hear.
I also agree with those who say the governemt is hypocritical on who or what opinions are OK and who gets banned.
Why such fear - there is nothing to fear but fear itself. In a free exchange of ideas and views I trust the public to make up their own minds about what is the best policies, ideas ect.
This fear of fascist views being heard is just as ridiculous as the fear of communist views being heard. People aren't as stupid you might think, they can handle it and dismiss and condemn it if they think it's wrong.
Thu, 2008-03-27 09:33
#43
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
LTJ - doesn't add anything of use to most threads, except judging others opinions from his condescending perch as the sole definer of what is and isn't acceptable opinions for people to argue.
Not that you'd ever condescend to judge anyone, of course.
[i]edited on request[/i]
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
Thu, 2008-03-27 09:40
#44
LTJ - that comment you quoted is exactly the kind of comment I just said I rather not have to read here.
Thu, 2008-03-27 09:58
#45
quote:
A platitude if I've ever heard one. Again, shall we allow Neo-Nazis to advertise on the CBC?
We? What "we"? Thats my point- "we" you or I do not get to decide who speaks and who doesn't. That is the mandate for the duly constituted laws of the land.
The "we" dictates who speaks in a totalitarian country and if that is your preference,why don't you get to work and build one.
Canadians obviously and rightly will have no truck with the politics of exclusion where interest groups with an axe to grind are allowed to dictate who speaks and who doesn't.
Certain entities in Canada are already making these choices in the name of security - universities who cancel speaking engagements based on threats of civil unrest from the other side of the argument. Thats mob rule and should not be tolerated in a democracy.
Thu, 2008-03-27 10:05
#46
Pogo
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]No one remains unpunished who yells "Fire" in a crowded theatre.[/b]
Given that you just up the thread chastised someone for using a phrase without considering its historic context, you should look up the context for this phrase.
If I could trust our border controls to make correct decisions regarding whose voice should be allowed and whose voice should be blocked I would probably put aside my free speech absolutism. However whenever you provide a tool like this with a subjective judgement inevitably important voices will be blocked and more likely from the left than the right.
Thu, 2008-03-27 10:17
#47
Jester, edit that out of your post immediately unless you can verify it.
LTJ, just a hint - if you think someone has posted something libelous, then maybe don't quote it in its entirety all over again in your own post. Maybe you could edit it out too.
Thu, 2008-03-27 10:17
#48
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]Anyone who claims to be outside of "groupthink" is usually anything but. It's really funny to hear it from someone who is essentially parroting libertarian orthodoxy elevating speech outside the realm of all other acts. The idea that, "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll die for your right to say it" is pretty much a standard Marine Corps rallying cry at this point. You don't have to be particularly independent of mind to utter it.[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ][/b]
You are the one doing the parroting when you change the context and intent of my words to fit into the mold of how they [i]should[/i] be [b]interpreted[/b] by the great minds who espouse treading upon the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
I am independent minded and do not subscribe to any particular political orthodoxy but accepting that fact will negate your efforts to label me a right-wing whatever.
Better to manipulate my words to fit your desired label.
The usual collection of failed communists and sundry hangers-on is pissed off that anyone has the temerity to voice an independent view to the consensus of their great,if underappreciated, minds.
The issue is whether Feiglin should be allowed in to Canada to speak. If you want to derail it to attack me personally,fill yer boots.
Thu, 2008-03-27 10:24
#49
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Done.
Thu, 2008-03-27 10:27
#50
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]We? What "we"? Thats my point- "we" you or I do not get to decide who speaks and who doesn't. That is the mandate for the duly constituted laws of the land.[/b]
And who mandates the mandate? There's a strong hint in the etymology for "mandate" - it comes from the same latin root as "hand" and "to give". In English it's the "delegation of authority". Now, who do you suppose "hands authority over" in Canada: is it formed in the ether and handed down by God?
quote:
[b] The "we" dictates who speaks in a totalitarian country and if that is your preference,why don't you get to work and build one.[/b]
Then you completely misunderstand how our own system works - OR - we live in a totalitarian state... We - yes, [i]we[/i] - use various forces (legal, financial, market, etc.) to decide who speaks and who doesn't. The "duly constituted laws of the land" are just such a mechanism. They are why, for instance, Ernst Zundel can't empty his latrine in Canada any longer.
quote:
[b] Thats mob rule and should not be tolerated in a democracy.[/b]
Thank you, Mr. DeTocqueville, but you didn't answer the question: should Neo-Nazis be able to freely advertise on the CBC?
And why is speech priveliged above other sorts of act?
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Thu, 2008-03-27 10:29
#51
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Now [i]here's[/i] a meaningful way of labelling your opponents: [b]"the usual collection of failed communists and sundry hangers-on"[/b].
You bring such clarity to these discussions with your precise terminology, Jester.