News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:
AMSTERDAM — Acknowledging the current hostile climate toward Jews around the globe, a local Jewish family decided to carry out their traditional Hanukkah celebration this year in the safety of their neighbor’s attic.
“Let’s be frank here, it’s not safe to celebrate out in the open,” said Benjamin Cohen. “We’ve always enjoyed celebrating Hanukkah as a family over the years, but with the way things are these days, we just don’t feel like it’s in our best interests to do it publicly this year. Thankfully, our dear neighbor has offered us a place in his attic. As long as it’s kept secret, we’ll be perfectly fine.”
The Cohen family resolved to continue celebrating the major holidays of their faith despite increasingly dangerous rhetoric directed toward Jewish people in the wake of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. “We’re not going to let the current tension take away our celebration,” said Benjamin’s wife, Rachel. “It may look and feel a bit different this year, what with all the anger and intimidation and threats of violence, but we’ll still keep up our tradition. Our people have had it much worse than this in other times!”
The Cohen’s neighbor, Lars Jansen, was happy to help the family feel safe. “They are such wonderful neighbors,” he said. “I’m happy to provide them with space in my attic to engage in their Jewish religious celebrations and have no intention of turning them in if faced with intense pressure from outside authorities.”
Go here to read the rest. It begins with Jews and Christians will not be far behind.
As disgusted as I am with the Presidents of these schools, …I will reluctantly concede they have a part of a point. Our First Amendment confirms the right to free speech, ESPECIALLY when someone else doesn’t wish to hear it. The Amendment is effectively dead if we start censoring anything.
Ironic: These schools often seek to drive Christian and Jewish ideals from their campuses and public life. Now they’re baffled by students who reject “enlightened” secular ideas to defend “Palestinian” actions. Ooops.
Perhaps they ought consider also allowing students who wish it to keep and bear arms, thereby also honoring the Second Amendment. Some of those “eager Palestinian” students might not be so eager if confronted by a 9mm pistol.
The weaselly, cowardly comments of the three university presidents tells you all you need to know about the value of higher education at our super expensive “elite” schools. In my experience as a Human Resources Manager (retired), graduates of state schools, especially those working their way, had a much stronger real world attitude toward their careers and contributed greatly to the mission of the company.
SJWs always lie, so you must judge them by their fruits.
When they oppose Christian expression or even just saying things like “it’s okay to be white” and then they appeal to free speech to defend something else, it’s not that they’ve suddenly realized some value to free speech. It’s that they think that they can trick YOU into believing that their actions are necessary due to free speech. In this video the robotic repetition of a prepared set of lines is an obvious giveaway even if you somehow thought the left might be reevaluating free speech.
They aren’t baffled by anything. They knew what Muslim students would want regarding Israel, and they are glad to see it. They just think that they might get YOU to support it too, or at least to stand by and let it occur.
The Bee never fails.
No- it is not “free speech” when a person calls for the extinction of a group of people based on their identity or beliefs. I don’t care what part of the world you are from. That is bullying and harassment and is criminal behaviour which should be punishable. I personally oppose gays but I have no right to call for their extinction and target them. I personally oppose Muslims, but I have no right to call for their extinction and target them. I personally oppose atheists but I have no right to call for their extinction and target them. Those University Presidents need to be sacked for the single reason that they are allowing fee-paying Jewish students to feel unsafe on their Campuses. You cannot harass people and call it “free speech”. And if the Presidents need someone to spell it out to them – sack them immediately!
“They aren’t baffled by anything.”
“No- it is not “free speech” when a person calls for the extinction of a group of people based on their identity or beliefs.”
All right, I’ll state things a bit differently. We have a First Amendment to protect speech, assembly, and religion especially of sorts that we detest. We have all heard this “this speech is abhorrent to me, but….” malarky. By their actions and statements, ..and what they don’t say or do, we know very well these leaders hate our guts. “Baffled” may be too charitable, “caught cheating” might be closer.
In general though, we can’t legitimately start declaring “you can’t say this” or “you can’t meet with them” without inherently undermining our own First Amendment rights.
Instead of saying “you can’t say or do that”, it’d be better to challenge them to go to Israel and join in the fight with Hamas. …Being held personally accountable for attitudes in such a way will be far more effective at quelling vile behavior.
I don’t believe instigating a genocide is protected by the first amendment.
“I don’t believe instigating a genocide is protected.”
Self-proclaimed Palestinian peoples have been pretty vocal about their intent to destroy Israel for decades. We’ve witnessed numerous fights between Israeli and Palestinian interests since 1948. Attitudes by Palestinians now differ little from those of the 80s or 90s.
They’re obnoxious and ignorant. They’re deceived.
I can’t agree that they’re illegal.
One must actually commit an act against someone to actually violate law.
inciting to riot violates peaceable assembly. Congress declares war. Read our Declaration of Independence.
I’m interested to hear from a lawyer (Donald) whether failure to provide a safe learning and working environment is grounds for legal action?
Put physical violence aside.
If I pay my fees to attend an University and the University is fails to act on individuals or groups who are verbally abusing me, creating a mob-style environment of hostility, intimidation and alienation through systematic bullying am I protected by the law?
Ezabelle,
White, male, heterosexual, Catholic students have been most unwelcome on the average college campus since the 90s, at latest. Speech codes, preferential recruiting policies, CRT, DEI, LGBT and transgender advocacy, feminism, general attitudes expressed by faculty, staff, and administration. All have contributed to a genuine hostility whereby young white men had best keep their mouth shut. Always there is the threat of poor grades (thus risk to scholarships), suspension, or even expulsion if we don’t toe the line. ..Always there is the vague possibility of bodily harm if, while traversing campus, we might say or do something that another finds “offensive”. (Or doing or saying something off campus too.)
If we can tolerate this degree of bullsh!t, I think the Jewish students can handle it too. Or they can learn to tolerate the ignorance quickly and carry on with their studies.
Granted, with so many causes of “victimhood”, Jewish students may be less inclined toward defending themselves or their own beliefs.
I think these schools have a self-inflicted Catch 22: Because of “diverse”, “multicultural”, or “woke” ideals, they can neither fully condemn Hamas nor fully defend Jewish beliefs. They can’t be seen as taking sides, lest they anger one of their “favored” groups.
“One must actually commit an act against someone to actually violate law.”
This statement is clearly (and verifiably) false.
So by your logic if a white male heterosexual has to tolerate it then Jews should just suck it up.
What if a 6 foot tall Arab male verbally abused and intimidated a 5 foot 5 female Jew- should she just suck it up too because the male is entitled to his opinion? What if she was his lecturer does he have a right to post anti-Semitic literature around her lecture theatre where she is taking a class? What if she was his student does he have a right to humiliate her during a lecture? What if both were students assigned to do an assignment together, does she have to cop his abuse- I mean he wouldn’t be allowed to do it in the workplace why is it now repackaged as “free speech” because they are on a University Campus?
Where do you draw the line where vilification is not acceptable behaviour? When it gets to the point and physically abuses her??
“Where do you draw the line where vilification is not acceptable behaviour?”
scratches head, puzzled
Conservative voices have raised such questions for several decades. Most “diversity” and like-minded training has encouraged discrimination for race, sex, or religion. Since the 90s, they added LGBT and transgender concerns. Several Court cases have allowed these attitudes.
Secular voices have long stifled anything of Judeo-Christian principle.
Ironic: Many ACLU efforts originally focused on… Freedom of Speech. By such means, they demanded tolerance of sexual lust.
“Tolerance” has been key, likely before the 90s. It has meant refraining from harshly critiquing anything, especially based on Christian principle.
Workplace harassment laws have long since abandoned genuine Justice.
Oh dear John keep scratching your head. You’ll get there eventually.
You can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded theater … You don’t have to actually start a fire for that to be illegal. All you have to do is ask Google for the difference between ‘assault’ and ‘battery’ to convince yourself that the Jewish person locking themselves in an office hiding from a mob calling for their extermination could very well be a victim of the crime of assault.
“You can’t shout “Fire” in a crowded theater….”
No, you can’t, because of the risk of people being trampled to death in the panic that follows. That’s a very different case.
Harassment and intimidation have fairly well-defined descriptions. They also already have fairly well-defined recourse.
If a mob of people go marauding across a campus or rampaging through a building, we have routine options for consequences. Trespassing, disturbing the peace, impeding public right-of-way, and the like may all be prosecuted.
Terroristic threats would be the closest legal tenet to these events. I believe even that has fairly particular criteria though. A purported assailant would need to utter a fairly specific threat against a fairly specific person–or small group, …and be capable of committing the act. Someone standing on campus at Harvard chanting about “from the river to the sea” has as much ability to commit the crime as I have to replace Putin as Russia’s leader.
I think it highly debatable whether such statements could qualify as genuine threats.
I’m curious: If you declare that calls for genocide are unacceptable,… …what punishment or consequences would you deem appropriate?
…what means would you expect used to prevent such a punishment from being inflicted against yourself in a slightly different situation?
Threatening murder has always been a criminal offense.
Yep thanks Donald. Thought so.
“Threatening murder has always been a criminal offense.”
As a general principle, sure. Prosecuting a case typically requires more specific criteria.
I do think it rather odd that none of these Congressmen mentioned this.
They may have law degrees but they are not practicing attorneys.
They may have law degrees but they are not practicing attorneys.
==
Joseph Lieberman was a partner in a mid-law firm before he went into politics f/t. That sort of biographical feature is rare in Congress. Richard Gephardt and Gary Hart were rank-and-file lawyers for about 10 years. That quantum of experience is atypical. If you prorate p/t and seasonal work, Sundown Joe and BO each worked for about 3-4 years in law offices as associates. That’s about normal. Ted Kennedy worked as a prosecutor for all of five months. Charles Schumer never practiced at all. Neither did Bilge Clinton.
Hellary was sh!tcanned from her staff position on the House Judiciary Committee at the end of 1974; the chief counsel to the committee later said that over a 14 year period, he’d employed only three lawyers for whom he’d never give a reference and she was one of the three. She did legal aid work for two years and change. Her husband was elected Attorney-General of Arkansas and voila, she lands a partnership at a mid-law firm in Little Rock. The rap on Hellary there was that she wasn’t bringing in enough business. (The Whitewater scandal began as a scheme to improve her metrics in this respect).