Troublemaking Dissenters at Palestinian Solidarity Week
It’s interesting that Javed introduces Islam into this story when the literature in question doesn’t mention it. While the flier described by the Diamondback apparently depicts two Palestinian Muslims, it does not logically follow that the flier is a commentary on Islam in general. Furthermore, if Javed makes a distinction between politics and Islam, the de facto government of the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza certainly does not. “Hamas” is an Arabic acronym standing for the “Islamic Resistance.” The first article of the Hamas charter states: “The movement’s program is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgment in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.” It is a basic point of fact that the elected leadership of the Palestinians in Gaza considers religion and politics synonymous, hence an event proclaiming solidarity with the Palestinians implies at least tacit approval of the fusion of Islam and politics and the violent methods used to promulgate the resultant ideology. This apparent endorsement is confirmed by the presence of speakers such as Saalakhan, who has been an open apologist for Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
An event titled “What Would MLK Say About Gaza?” highlights the depraved and hypocritical atmosphere of Palestinian Solidarity Week. Martin Luther King Jr.’s life was a testament to non-violence in an era when other black leaders such as Malcolm X openly embraced militancy. Indeed, if the Palestinians had emulated the peaceful resistance methods of Dr. King over the past four decades they would by now undoubtedly possess the state they supposedly long to establish in the West Bank and Gaza. Instead, they have chosen a path of religious extremism, brazen violence against civilians, and ultimately self-destruction.
As for Dr. King’s views on the conflict, it is unlikely that Dr. King ever spoke or thought much about Gaza. Indeed, for most of his tragically shortened adult life Gaza was an annexed territory of Egypt and the appellation “Palestinian” was not yet commonly used to describe Arab Muslims in the region. But he is on the record about Israel. In a 1968 appearance at Harvard University, he said: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.” Thus it seems doubtful that he would associate himself with the explicit anti-Zionist politics promulgated at Palestinian Solidarity Week if he were alive today.
The police appear to have been the only rational actors in this overblown University of Maryland fiasco, deferring to the Constitution instead of the hurt feelings of pro-Palestinian students whose own actions buttress an ideology that regularly manifests itself in violence against civilians across the world. Furthermore, the university’s spineless groveling before the offended students was an affront to the free speech rights of the rest of the student body and the community at large. Universities are the soft underbelly of the First Amendment; they foster a “politically correct” atmosphere where bureaucratic fiat trumps free political expression.
At the height of the Maryland affair, Clement lamented that “[the posters] made a number of our students feel very uncomfortable.” Ms. Clement, our university students should expect to feel uncomfortable when contemplating one of the most controversial political conflicts of our time, and it is certainly not the role of your administration to shield them from their own feelings.
Indeed, there are few subjects worth discussing that do not offend some segment of the population. The role of a university should be to expose students to a variety of perspectives and provide a relatively objective venue for discourse. Instead, our college campuses have become a preserve of reactionary liberal orthodoxy, with facile phrases like “diversity” belying an oppressive ideological conformity. Students should have a right to organize a “Palestinian Solidarity Week,” and other students should have a right to freely express their opposition to such an event. The dissenters certainly should not be treated as troublemakers — criminal provocateurs whose dangerous words and images are worthy of censorship — for simply exercising their First Amendment rights. After all, we are talking about fliers, not bombs.
Societies rise and fall into oblivion, often through outside factors like population movements such as the Mongols, but often more because the society itself no longer has the desire to continue. America and the West has not only debunked it’s own myths of morality and greatness, it has created new and not so nice ones which depict it as mortally tainted from the first Pilgrim to set foot on American soil to the present day. The important, influential, and ruling segments of American society are not even raving Leftists, they are far worse, they are nihilists who not only do not know the price of anything but also do not know the value of anything, indeed, they are so vitiated by ennui, they don’t care about values at all. Apart from the temporary feeling of aliveness which they get from alcohol or drug abuse, or modern sports, the Hollywood elite, the media, the intellectuals on the campuses, and even most American politicians see life as some sort of repetitive video or computer game, not a life and death reality. The Moslems, at least the more radical ones, see life as a war to be fought and won, by them.
The posters should make people uncomfortable. They depict the truth behind Hamas, Hezbollah, etc…
Remember, everything before the “but” is BS.
Linda Clement, appeaser, has less will to promote the Bill of Rights on campus than these Hamas advocates have the will to suppress campus speech. Clement can’t handle the truth, so she appeals to “feelings”. I can imagine how the feelings of tories were hurt by the pamphlets agitating for independence in the 1770′s.
Regardless of the West’s technology and wealth, the jihadis think they are going to win because they have the will to win.
“[The posters] made a number of our students feel very uncomfortable,” Clement said.
Hmmm… Truth tends to do that.
There must be some Israeli students on campus. I realize a lot of them don’t want to incur the harassment and all, but it would be interesting to get some of them, or even American Jewish students, to file a complaint against the organizers of Palestine Solidarity Week; some of their activities must make Jews and Israelis uncomfortable.
Not truth, FACTS. I want to hear the facts, not someone’s version of the truth. The truth is what someone believes, not always what the FACTS are. This is where the news media has lost their journalistic merit; they started printing truths instead of FACTS.
“There is a difference between free speech and hate speech,”
It’s true. You see, free speech is all well & good, so long as it’s not offensive to anyone…unless it’s speech against Christians, conservatives, whites (particularly white males), and minority Republican voters; in those instances, all bets are off – there’s nothing too outrageous that may be uttered about them.
Free speech becomes “hate speech” when it exposes them for who they are. Most of the time your speech becomes subversive, not when you lie or spew invective about the left, but when you tell the truth about them in reasoned tones. Apparently, the First Amendment only applies when people say things they don’t disagree with.
In this scenario, it’s kinda funny how the Palestinians & their liberal lapdogs complain about their rights always being violated while denying Israelis & Jews in general the right to even exist.
Any code of political correctness is necessarily a miniature protopype of the great ideological instruments of tyranny, like nazyism, communism, or islam.
Submitting oneself to a code of political correctness, and responding to the peer pressure of chanting slogans elevating Hamas to a presumption of moral respectability, is like dipping a toe in the waters of slavery.
At the age when one is in the grips of existencial anguish, why not? Can we really expect young people to be devoid of curiosity, and well guarded against trying anything in a supposedly “safe” environment? One rarely grows into adulthood in response to a wink and a nod.
In the midst of this intellectually toxic atmosphere, some students still manage to exercise adult judgment and courage, like the young man who challenged Barney Frank recently.
People capable of leadership are rare, and always have been. Thanks God, some of them become teachers, and do in fact lead the next generation into the exercise of rational thought, to which children take as easily as a duckling takes to water, if given a chance. Wisdom is not as noisy and boisterous as idiocy, but it’s still around, and there was plenty of it at the tea parties.
The Muslum must come to the understanding that their beliefs are not mine or other beliefs and never will.
It is a good thing they didn’t post this video at the University:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em-MnAYiEWk&feature=related
It could be very “threatening” to the Palestinian Solidarity Week cause of spreading lies, propaganda and Jew hate. It might even open the eyes of some “useful idiots”, that is the true reason why it is “threatening” and “hate speech”, it must be blocked to avoid hurting the solidarity with peace loving Palestinians like these in the video above and below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G74yu8zna5o
It is like PBS, isn’t? very educational
Universities the bastion of free speech, only if they believe in it.
Islam – the death cult.
Don’t say anything – or someone will kill you.
When someone tells you not to talk about something.
Talk about it.
A bunch of heavily financed savages funded by Oil revenue revise history on university campuses that whore out tenured middle east studies positions to the highest donors.
Militant Islam still exsts. It has existed since the 8th century when it swept across Asia Minor, North Africa and into Spain. There is no room for Chritianity or Judaism in the mind of militant Islam. Even if that were not true why is it that proIsrael, proAmerican values are prohibited speech whereas proIslam speech is not? The First Amendment is color blind and issue blind. Isn’t it?
Let’s compare Israel and Hamas
Imagine two drivers barreling down a street. The first sees a boy playing on the road, swerves away, but still strikes and kills the child. This is Israel. The second driver also sees a boy playing. He smiles as he guns the engine, and rams the car into the child. This is Hamas. They have both killed a child, a reprehensible act for which they should be held accountable. But one committed manslaughter, the other committed murder. Hamas has not killed as many civilians as Israel, not for a lack of a will to do so, but for a lack of better weapons. Given Israel’s war machine, it could have killed thousands more civilians in Gaza. They didn’t, not for a lack of weapons, but for a lack of a will to do so.
Intentional or not, the Palestinian civilians have suffered greatly. The killing of civilians by Israel is not welcomed. It is usually regretted, regarded as a mistake, and usually brings protests and calls for accountability. For Hamas, however, the killing of Jews is seen as a victory, and usually brings cheers. Who holds them accountable? I do feel sorry for the misery the Palestinian people have suffered. But it’s hard to empathize with a people who show no remorse at their own acts of cruelty.
Israel’s objectives in Gaza and the West Bank may at times be suspect. But Hamas’ objectives are always clear: the destruction of Israel as well as the Jews. Israel’s actions, however reckless, respond to a desire to protect its citizens in Sderot, or any other Israeli town. Hamas’ actions respond to a desire to protect its military hardware, irrespective if this places its citizens in harms way. So while Israel builds bomb shelters to protect its citizens, Hamas builds tunnels to protect its fighters, its leaders, its weapons. Hamas leaves its citizens to be killed and later paraded in front of the cameras.
Israel has spent its resources in building a modern society. Hamas has spent what little resources it has into building a war machine. Israelis, like any in the West, promote hope for a future in their children. Hamas promotes children becoming “martyrs.”
In 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza. Hamas would pull into Jerusalem. If Hamas laid down its weapons, there would be a chance for peace. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no chance for Israel. Because in the end, Israel does go to war, but would rather live in peace. Hamas would simply rather Israel die.
Here’s the letter that I sent to Linda Clement (lclement@umd.edu), educating her about the SCOTUS rulings that absolutely verify that anonymous speech is indeed protected.
Ms. Clement,
You were quoted as saying:
“There’s such a thing as free speech, but when you post things anonymously and make others feel threatened, that’s not free speech.”
Simply put, you’re 100% wrong. Not because I say so, but because the Supreme Court of the United States says so.
The Supreme Court of the United States in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission said:
I think it could be easily and persuasively argued that on a campus like yours that essentially endorses the Palestinian point of view (instigating a police investigation of their critics), expressing a view critical of the Palestinian agenda is indeed unpopular. In fact, that the University instigated such an investigation shows the wisdom of the SCOTUS ruling because your university indeed tried to retaliate against those “unpopular individuals.” That the Muslim Student Association has demonstrable ties to violent Muslim jihadis makes a compelling case for anonymity when criticizing them.
McIntyre was a relatively narrow ruling focusing on political speech. A broader 1960 ruling, Talley v California
It’s pretty clear that the University’s actions to investigate the publishers of the fliers that you find to make Muslims “feel threatened” runs afoul of Talley. One might think that the intended victims of the people pictured on the poster have a more immediate sense of danger, but what are a few more dead Jews to folks in the ivory towers of academe?
Since you instigated a criminal investigation, perhaps you should be reminded of another bedrock constitutional right, that people are innocent until proven guilty and that criminal intent must be proven. As such, the fact that some others “feel threatened” has no bearing on free speech rights. The intent of the speaker is critical, not the subjective reaction of those who hear/read the speech. I’m sure there are plenty of Jewish and other students on campus who “feel threatened” by the Muslim Students Association, what is effectively the campus organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, but I strongly doubt your office would be sensitive to their fear.
I wonder, before you expressed yourself about the limits to free speech, did you even bother to see if anonymous free speech is protected? It took me less than a minute to find those SCOTUS rulings. One would hope that a university would be more devoted to free inquiry and free speech, but at the very least you should have checked what the law really is, as opposed to your own politically motivated and politically correct desires to suppress speech you find offensive.
Here in Israel, where we deal with radical Islam and Terrorism daily,
this is the best weapon!
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel