Free Speech Struggles To Survive In U.S. and Europe

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

-- 





Elizabeth Wright is an African-American writer and editor of the 
Issues & Views Magazine and blog. Her articles were also published in 
Issues & Views.

=====

Free Speech Struggles To Survive In U.S. and Europe / 8-13-2007

Unfortunately, there are always more updates to be done on the 
victims of Europe's "hate crime" laws. In the last Commentary, The 
insidious chilling of debate, "thought criminals" David Irving and 
Ernst Zundel were awaiting their fates in German and Austrian jail 
cells. As you know, in December, Austria freed Irving, and in 
February, Germany sentenced Zundel to five years in prison. The 
67-year-old Zundel has been incarcerated [for more than] four years 
for the "crime" of publicly disputing the official version of 
Holocaust history.


Also, in the grand democracy of Germany, Germar Rudolf is on trial 
for a report he authored in 1993 questioning, after his own 
examinations and research, the accepted, "official" account of the 
gas chambers in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Rudolf, a chemist 
and former doctoral candidate at the Max Planck Institute, (Š) had 
all his property confiscated by the German government, which also 
demands he pay 55% of all money earned on the sale of his books about 
his research, since they are now considered "illegal." [He has been 
sentenced to 30 months in prison]


Here in Free Speech USA, New York University historian Tony Judt is 
getting his come-uppance for having the temerity to think he can give 
lectures and write articles about Middle East issues when his 
perspectives differ from those of The Lobby--that is, The Lobby that 
does not exist.


Like others, such as Amos Elon, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, 
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Richard Cohen, Tony Kushner and Israel 
Shamir--all of whom criticize the United States's biased support of 
Israeli policies--Professor Judt is learning that there is a special 
hell reserved for his ilk. Representatives from that hell follow you 
around, hunt you down, and single-mindedly work to sabotage your 
every effort at dissent.


After Abraham Foxman of B'nai Brith's Anti-Defamation League got on 
the case, Judt's scheduled talk last October at the Polish consulate 
in New York was canceled. The Washington Post quotes the Polish 
Consul General describing phone calls he received from the ADL and 
the American Jewish Committee: "The phone calls were very elegant but 
may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure." Another 
speech, scheduled at the Bronx's Manhattan College, was also canceled 
under pressure. Explained the Hebrew Institute's Rabbi Avi Weiss, who 
was responsible for bringing about the cancellation: "Being 
anti-Israel is essentially being anti-Jewish." And that's that. 
Subject closed.


As the issuers of death threats and the torchers of homes and 
libraries constantly remind us, when mocking the First Amendment, 
"You have the right to try to be heard, but you don't have the right 
to be heard."


It was encouraging, for a while, back in March 2006, just after 
publication of the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," 
by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, to experience a wave 
of hope. Even though the paper, authored by the two Americans, was 
published and placed online by a London magazine (an American 
magazine having chickened out), the knowledge that it was being 
distributed throughout the U.S., and could not be annihilated like 
Dixie Chicks CDs, made some of us feel like we lived in a free 
country, after all. (A working version of the paper is on the Harvard 
University website.)


But, let's face it, we knew the light couldn't last. When The Lobby 
(that does not exist) can interfere with the elections of members of 
Congress, can prevent books from being published, can directly 
intervene in the workings of governments in foreign countries, there 
is little hope that the light will last for long. Former President 
Jimmy Carter is learning about that right now. The publication of 
Carter's book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, brought the hounds 
running in his direction. Fortunately, the would-be censors could not 
prevent the book's release.


However, the hounds have found other ways to "Get Carter," as writer 
Chris Hedges titled an article on the subject. After Carter spoke in 
a forum about the Middle East, at Brandeis University, pressure by 
the Usual Suspects was brought to bear on some of the University's 
wealthiest donors, as implied in The Jewish Week (2/16/07). A current 
Brandeis trustee reported on "a fair number of donors who have 
indicated they will withhold contributions." And, joining those with 
concerns, no doubt, for their future careers and/or financial 
welfare, 15 members of the Carter Center's advisory board resigned.


Yet, as bad as it looks, what with people running to put distance 
between themselves and the ostracized Carter, author Philip Weiss, 
writing for The American Conservative magazine (2/26/07), sees a 
silver lining. He reports not only on the thousands of copies of the 
book that have been sold, but on the fact that many months after 
publication, it is still on the New York Times bestseller list. Weiss 
thinks that greater numbers of Americans finally are seeking to 
educate themselves on this hot topic, instead of depending on the 
usual media sources. (His article offers a first hand, eyewitness 
account on the forum at Brandeis University.)


So far, in this country, the government is not officially in on the 
censorship game of banning the publication and sale of particular 
books. However, with the success of a federal "hate crime" law, the 
door might be opened to such a possibility.


In countries where citizens are imprisoned on "Holocaust denial" 
statutes and "incitement to racial (or gender) hatred" laws, for 
expressing unpopular opinions, such enforcement began with so-called 
hate crime legislation. Although certain interest groups have managed 
to get "hate crime" laws passed in several states of the U.S., 
attempts to pass national legislation have failed up until now. 
Today, the latest bill, H.R. 254, sponsored by Rep. Sheila 
Jackson-Lee of Texas, is working its way towards passage in the House 
of Representatives.


New York sets a precedent


On another free speech front, in New York, the City Council has set a 
precedent by symbolically "banning" the public use of a word. The 
word, of course, is "Nigger." What else? What other word is so 
ubiquitous that New Yorkers have grown inured to its intrusion into 
their daily lives? And what could be more ironic than the fact that 
it is blacks who cannot restrain themselves from using the word and 
are primarily to blame for extending its life in the popular lexicon?


As non-blacks sought to distance themselves from the epithet, blacks 
picked up the word and sanctified it. Since the Council's resolution 
against use of the word has no legal weight, it is meaningless. As it 
should be. The question is why anyone other than blacks should be 
bothered with this nonsense. Why should government time be taken up 
with moralizing over an abusive term, when the targets of the term 
embrace it to varying degrees? And why should government be toying 
with passing resolutions to ban words--even symbolically?


Contrary to media claims of a generational gap, where only young 
blacks overuse the word, among many older blacks, the term "Nigger" 
is a deepseated cultural norm. Throughout their lives, they have 
grown used to identifying the "good" blacks from the "bad" ones--and 
the bad ones are generally labeled "Niggers." Don't blame it on the 
young, Mr. Cosby.


In "NYC To Be 'Nigger'-Free Zone," the gay website Queerty.com has 
fun mocking the ridiculous resolution: "If the council's all about 
cleaning up people's politically incorrect potty mouths, where are 
the bans on spic, faggot, kike, chink and all those other nasties? 
Also, if nigger's banned, where does that leave negro?"


Where, indeed?


By the way "all those other nasties" are generally terms spewed forth 
by blacks, more often than by members of any other group.

=====





Free Speech Struggles To Survive In U.S. and Europe