Friday, March 23, 2012

Contaminated with GoV Cooties

Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolff sent this information on a speech cancelled in Leeds, for which we owe her a debt of gratitude.

Brooke Goldstein had the rug unceremoniously pulled out from under her forty-eight hours before she was due to appear as an invited speaker at Leeds University. She explains what happened - and why Gates of Vienna was one of the black sheep counted among her flock of questionable associations. [The emphases in her remarks are mine -D]:

I’m obligated to argue in defence of free speech. Members of the Jewish community, namely Leeds University JSoc, the Union of Jewish Students and Jeremy Newmark (the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council), would rather cancel a speech they’ve never heard and publish false accusations against a person they’ve never met, than provide a forum where students may learn about free speech and debate it on its merits.
Yes, knee-jerk fear kills intellectual curiosity. There is nothing so closed as a Leftist mind. It’s a phenomenon we encounter all the time.

Ms. Goldstein continues:

The world is rife with controversy over the Middle East and intimidation of anyone brave enough to speak truth about it. In civil society, controversies can be openly discussed. In repressive societies they cannot. In the extreme, controversies can spark civil uprisings and wars. But should the fear of negative student reaction result in the gagging of free speech on campus? I think not. If the threat of hostility is the new test before airing legal arguments, what freedoms and rights will we protect? Exploring the law shouldn’t get in the way of working towards a deeper understanding in a university environment. Especially in higher academia, one expects to learn from how others think even though they may disagree with their conclusions.
Indeed, "one expects" that, but it doesn’t happen in the rare air of the upper rooms in academe’s Ivory Towers. Ms. Goldstein describes how the parties she mentioned above, "banded together" to make certain she wouldn’t be permitted to speak as scheduled on March 12th. Ironically (what else is new?) the topic was to have been the stifling of free speech in the Middle East. She noted the irony of this situation in passing, but it’s deeper than that. Leftists live lives brimful of unintended and unexamined ironies. This is just one of them.

Yes, there is a singular lack of courtesy exposed here, but it’s simply another commonplace in academia. Ms. Goldstein will say more about the invitation-followed-by-cancellation-without-notification, but first some background on her accomplishments:

I am a New York City-based human rights lawyer, director of two charitable nonprofit organisations and grandchild of Holocaust survivors. I have been invited to brief the White House, State Department, Pentagon, U.S. Central Command and the UK Parliament (thrice) on issues of asymmetric warfare, libel law, and human rights. I’m a regular commentator on television and have published articles in a variety of sources. I’ve worked with Christians and Muslims to defend civil liberties and expose those who violate them.
She describes her experience as a second year law student, risking her life to visit the West Bank to document the indoctrination of little children into violence and death. Her film, "The Making of a Martyr", won awards and was shown globally. She followed that up with the founding of The Children’s Rights Institute. She says its raison d’être is raising awareness and legally combating the use of children in armed combat.

And, of course, she directs The Lawfare Project, which monitors and responds to the abuse of law as a weapon against liberal democracies. We’re all too sadly familiar with that gambit, especially by Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi provocateurs, who use their considerable wealth to sue folks into silence., a fearful; silence for which the defendants pay dearly in lost time and legal costs.

She explains the experience:

I’ve never been excluded from speaking at any venue or accused of harbouring dangerous views until Leeds JSoc decided to call off my talk. Prior to the event’s cancellation, they never contacted me to discuss the content of my speech. I only heard about the cancellation from a third party 48 hours before I was scheduled to appear. In their published defence, Leeds JSoc did not quote anything I have said or written to justify their cancellation.

The three reasons given for the revocation were that I provided legal services to the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, linked to an article about Wilders on a website called "Gates of Vienna", and that a member of my staff blogged about the controversy surrounding a film entitled "The Third Jihad."
In the U.S. guilt by association is not permitted by the First Amendment. But obviously, such niceties don’t hold sway in bastions of unfreedom like the University of Leeds. But, you say, why Gates of Vienna? Or rather, that’s what I asked myself. She explains each of her sins:

RE Wilders:
Governments should not enforce modern-day blasphemy laws that punish offensive speech; this is something for the marketplace of ideas to sort out. Moreover, legal representation does not mean a lawyer assumes the views of her client, no matter how offensive.

Wilders has since been acquitted of all "hate speech" charges by the Dutch government. I’m disappointed Leeds JSoc did not exhibit the intellectual curiosity to contact me and challenge my contentions on one of the most pertinent issues of our time. Namely, what limits can be placed on free speech and what is acceptable criticism of religion in free societies?
Could one infer that Ms. Goldstein does not find the views of Dutch Parliamentarian Wilders congenial to her own ideas? It’s a reasonable question, but I have no clue to her thinking there.

“Gates of Vienna” is a blogging website that, allows “a variety of opinions. Comments made on [the] blog do not necessarily represent the views of the blog’s owners.”

Indeed, that is the legend which appears on our home page, though our sentiments are given in the first person plural, to wit: We allow a variety of opinions here at Gates of Vienna. Comments made on this blog do not necessarily represent the views of the blog’s owners. See that word “allow”? It’s one these students would do well to practice.

Ms. Goldstein responds to this charge:

I think it is ridiculous to argue that I should be held accountable for the entire content of the website, because The Lawfare Project linked to one article. The news page of The Lawfare Project’s website links to hundreds of articles in similar fashion.
She’s right. Her website is a treasure trove of information likely to appeal to conservatives. And there’s the rub, ladies and gentlemen: in the arena of the free exchange of ideas, these law students and their mentors are blinkered from reality, locked into their fears of any contamination which might occur if they entertained ideas which differ from their own agenda. Their behavior is reminiscent of the childhood game of “Cooties” — as in “don’t get your cooties on me”. As I recall, this game was more likely to be engaged in by girls.

Finally, RE the last indictment against her —

The Third Jihad is a film narrated by a Muslim-American doctor that discusses some of the issues we are facing today with Islamist terrorism and the application of Sharia law within Western democracies. Leeds JSoc thinks the film is “despicable and abhorrent”. The Lawfare Project’s blog, authored by a Muslim woman, analyses this precise controversy and is an example of the exchange of ideas that apparently Leeds JSoc wants to shut down.
That’s the point, isn’t it? Don’t engage in ideas, simply label things you don’t like as “despicable”. Why is the film “abhorrent”? Because they say it is. Being a Leftie means you never have to explain your hatreds. They are self-evident to any righteous Leftist. So to speak.

We thank Brooke Goldstein for her defense of our blog. We are pleased that she ‘gets’ what we’re about and isn’t scared off by our associations.

As for the students who blew off her lecture, it’s truly a case of “their loss”.


Pierre_Picaud said...

As the late great Andrew Breitbart would say, "If you're taking flak it must be because you're over the target."

Ex-Dissident said...

The last article at the Sultan Knish site titled "The New Nazis" is very applicable here. Essentially these folks are collaborators and they have blood on their hands. Something they and their parents should think about.

babs said...

"But should the fear of negative student reaction result in the gagging of free speech on campus? I think not. If the threat of hostility is the new test before airing legal arguments, what freedoms and rights will we protect?"

This is the new normal on university campuses all over the western world.

A few years ago my youngest son was still a student at SUNY Binghamton. He told me that a religious person (Christian) was slated to speak at the campus and a large movement was being formed to stop him from speaking. I told my son that he should bring a little spiral notebook to the lecture and make notes on what ever he disagreed with. Then, during question and answer he should challenge the speaker.
That is the way it is done in a civilized society. You have every right to disagree with the speaker but no right to prevent him/her from speaking. Apparently, this idea has been lost and we are all the lesser for it.

Anonymous said...

From RonaldB

The Jewish leadership in the US has exhibited an extremely aggressive blindness towards the dangers of Islam as Islam to other religions, or to freedom in general:

I have no idea how they treat the opportunity of free expression.

Boo said...

She's an incredibly smart, fearless, conservative woman - a liberals worst nightmare. They would have done anything to make sure she didn't speak.

Anonymous said...

These jewish students are laying the path for future jews to be murdered by islam. They are Kapos.

In the reports about the Toulouse massacre I noticed several times the comment that for decades jews and muslims in France had worked together to stymie the "right wing". These jews who actively support islamisation also have a responsibility for the death of those children in Toulouse.

Most jews in the west simply cannot see the bigger picture. The politically active among them rail against the rising anti-semitism, but they refuse to recognise the left-green alliance.

Already it is being noticed by academics in universities the length of Britain, that there are almost no visibly recognisable jews. Islamic anti-semitism has been allowed to stew there for so long, the jewish students do not even realise that they are living in stage of mental siege.


laine said...

Mid-East Muslims allied with the Nazis and their singular commonality was antisemitism. Funny how Muslims have never been penalized by Jews themselves for that alliance, never hounded to recant or pay reparations, their sins not the fodder of a single book or film, let alone thousands. The guilt for sins of a few (German) Christians were somehow extrapolated to Christians at large, even though they were the ones who died in the millions to end Hitler's reign. Holocaust museums not Christian appreciation centers keep being built in the lands of the saviors. Meanwhile, present day Muslims are not held responsible for their historic nazi ties nor are they challenged in any meaningful way by diaspora Jews on their continuing blatant antisemitism. What gives? How can this be interpreted except that Jewish hatred of Christians is greater than their dislike of Muslims? Or that Jewish leftism is of a particularly virulent sort that makes common cause with antisemitic Muslims to harm the more hated Christians? The Leeds censorship by Jewish students is part and parcel of this bizarre protection of Muslims. Wilders defends Dutch Christian patrimony against Muslim colonization and this makes him persona non grata to British Jews? What fate do they wish for the Netherlands, to be over-run by Muslims? Britain should be so lucky as to have someone of Wilders' caliber to risk his life defending native culture from Islamification.

Anonymous said...

Politically correct multiculturalism appears to be a form of secular religion which infects much of the educated classes in Western countries. The indoctrination takes place most intensively in the colleges and universities and slightly less so in the MSN. Therefore, the more highly educated an individual is in the United States, for example, the more likeley he or she is to believe in this secular religion.

The Jewish (ethnicity) adherents cannot see that they, themselves, would be the first to be attacked should what they support be allowed free rein. The PCMC Christians are essentially in the same boat; remember what Nonie Darwish and Bat Yeor report about the commonly-used Egyptian saying, "After Saturday comes Sunday, meaning after we deal with the Jews we will turn our attention to the Christians.

And no, most Jews do not generalize Nazi beliefs to Christians in general--the concept of the "rightous Gentile" is a strong one among religious Jews at least (who knows what the lefties believe--many are only nominally Jews anyway).

It seems to me that lefties of both Jewish and Christian origin are willing to call anyone a "Nazi" or a "racist" for the crime of not toeing the politically correct line. I don't think the Jewish variety is any more "virulent" than the Christian (although it is arguably more stupid)--in fact they appear to be exactly the same. It's a secular religion. The lefties appear to want to believe that PCMC will keep them safe from Muslim violence.

The argument seems to go something like "Arent all people basically similar, don't we all want the same things--we're all human, aren't we?"

Muslims know how to exploit this belief.

And the left demonizes anyone who does not subscribe to it.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Goldstein's crime is her apostasy of being a Conservative Jewish Female. The Liberal allegiance of so many Jews in the US is due to being Liberals first and Jews second; the same with Liberal women. To hell with the issue, the Liberal leadership dictates and the foot soldier obeys.
Since Liberals view Conservatives apostates to 'all things good and decent(all creatures great and small ;-0), Ms. Goldstein has three strikes against her without ever opening her mouth.
As has been mentioned in other comments...the Liberal Jews' position of Liberal first, Jew second is resulting in an entire political class that is self-annihilating. Alas.