I think people can support ones right to free speech and to not be intimidated by terrorists, without agreeing with all of their intent. If you think it would be a good idea to outlaw drawings of Mohammed and any possible speech that could be offensive to Islamists, I’m sure you will find millions of people to agree with you.
While I do agree with one’s right to say what they choose, and that nobody deserves to be attacked, something like this is not unexpected. I liken these attempted murderers to stupid, vicious animals. It doesn’t take much, and the animal is easily provoked to viciousness.
Pam Geller is an awful, thoroughly deranged (“Obama is a Muslim, born in Kenya”) human being, and an embarrassment to the Jewish people.
But she is not to blame for this; she has the right to express her deranged views all she wants, and her awfulness is no excuse whatsoever for the attack (by even more awful and thoroughly deranged people). Any more than the Westboro Baptists would be to blame if somebody tried to assassinate them.
Supporting her right to express herself in a peaceful and legal manner is NOT the same as agreeing with her intent.
She wasn’t the only one expressing herself that night, either. Everyone who submitted drawings were engaging in their protected form of expression as well. People who attended in order to view the cartoons were doing nothing wrong either, and none of them were asking to be shot at.
The analogy also doesn’t work because the pictures weren’t shown in a “crowded theater,” unless the entire world qualifies as such – in which case, no offensive speech would be allowed anywhere. Inside a mosque? Perhaps that would qualify. But not this.
UCB, I did not throw words without thoughts. I wrote about the need to understand why people show some support to such politicians. This does not mean that one needs to accept or adopt the rhetoric of the right leaning extremist groups. There are many reasonable and decent people who reject the aggressive rhetoric but also consider that the pendulum might have been allowed to swing too much to the left over the past decades. It’s good to remember that the country of that politician is one that has been extremely tolerant but also the scene of the murder of a moviemaker.
Fwiw, there is a difference between people taking a harsh view on the Sharia poisonous views and the pacific integration and assimilation of many citizens who happen to have a different heritable, culture, and religion. Many cities in Europe have learned to live with very large minorities but resent to the (very real) no-go zones which have become wastelands for their original inhabitants.
Rhetoric is nice, but the reality of how the life of many has been changed belies the cries for tolerance and acceptance. I guess that one has to know people who have been victimized by the “evolution” of their neighborhoods to understand that reality.
A reality that the typical CNN expert who is polled on life TV cannot begin to understand! Extremism on both sides is wrong but until we understand why the extremism exists we will still be bound by platitudes and generalities, or abject terms such as … provocateur.
And this because we should be careful to elevate the presence of different views as “provoking.” If we did the Jewish Museum in Brussels that was the target of a murderous attack could be justified as provoking the sensibilities of the people who would rather see such building burned down to the ground.
Geller isn’t an embarrassment to the Jewish people, which I consider to be as patronizing and racist a notion as the old “credit to his race” way people would describe a successful “negro”. She happens to be Jewish. She could be an Episcopalian. Bill Donahue is, IMHO, a nutcase raving Catholic bigot but I wouldn’t insult Catholics by saying he’s an “embarrassment to Catholics” even though he’s an actual spokesman for a Catholic organization, something Geller is not.
I don’t consider Geller’s group a hate group. It’s a fringe group but it has never been associated with violence - except for that waged against it.
And I should say this in capital letters: have you read the list of “hate groups” so labeled by the SPLC? It includes the Catholic Family News/Catholic Family Ministries Inc., described as “radical, traditional Catholicism” and a host of other Catholic and other Christian conservative groups. It includes nearly all Black political groups, listing them as “separatist”, whatever that means. These are all lumped in with the KKK, Aryan Nation and the Nazis. The list a Muslim groups, As-Sabiqun, which believes in eventual Islamic supremacy but which is non-violent. Some of these groups have people on record as saying hateful things but any group that’s anti-gay marriage is listed as a hate group. Groups that believe in English as the national language are on the list. Anti-immigration? Hate group. In other words, having a position that disagrees with the SPLC means you’re a hate group even if you’re not violent, even if you participate in democracy, even if what you do is protected speech.
To be clear, I don’t agree with probably all of the groups listed by SPLC but to call them “hate groups” like the bleeping Nazi Party or the KKK is an absurdity. This kind of speech is, to me, one of the biggest problems in the US: the labeling of speech by those you don’t agree with as impermissible. We see that now with Israel and a few other issues: the speech is considered the speech of oppression, a phrase right out of Marxist playbooks, and thus isn’t protected speech but is something to be suppressed in the name of actual speech. To label people with a different perspective as a hate group and have that publicized is a means of suppressing their valid Constitutional rights to hold opinions that differ from yours.
As for Gaza, what the bleep do you think happens in war? American soldiers murder people - and today’s paper says they’ve stolen tens of millions of dollars in Afghanistan - and we destroy entire areas with massive firepower often from above or from far away. Estimates of civilians killed by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the hundreds of thousands. That is what happens in war. At least the bleeping Jews care. At least they worry about these things. At least they’re open to criticizing their own conduct and at least they try to improve. I can’t say that any other nation on earth, including my own, would allow such a discussion in public. And I have to listen to this crap when I woke up to see a video about Assad dropping totally indiscriminate barrel bombs on a nursery school not only without any warning but with actual intent to do exactly that. And of course Hamas proudly announces they’re using heavy equipment to build new tunnels while their people live in ruins.
As an addition of somewhat humorous purpose, I had in mind but left out an analogy using a conversation I had about a serial killer with a Jewish name (who wasn’t Jewish, but who picked that name). So I googled that. What I got was links from a number of shall we say “hate groups” with links that all serial killers are Jewish and the like. Realize that Google Page Rank means these lunatic hate sites are the most popular results for this search!! One popped out, a story on “Wide Awake Gentile” about Harold Shipman, a British doctor who killed a couple hundred patients. The story said we don’t read about him because the Jews who control the media stop this, etc. I googled Shipman, went to his wiki page … he was a Methodist, raised by devout Methodists. There have of course been a few Jewish serial killers, notably Joel Rifkin, but why spoil a good racist story? The guy I was looking for, btw, was Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, a cannibal killer who, if you believe him, took a Jewish name (from David Paul Brown) because he wanted to feel persecuted.
Publicly identifying groups as “hate groups” is the appropriate response to speech one does not like, not killing the speakers.
Having said that, someone else’s definition of “hate” is not relevant to me, other than helping me identify a group’s underlying purpose that might not immediately be obvious to me.
Lergnom, I agree with you that if a Gentile called Geller an embarrassment to the Jewish people, it would be patronizing and racist. When I say it, it means that I’m embarrassed that she’s Jewish, and wish she weren’t. Which is a very common reaction by members of groups vulnerable to bigotry, when someone awful turns out to belong to their group – the underlying concern, of course, being that the person will cause an increase in such bigotry.
“, I agree with you that if a Gentile called Geller an embarrassment to the Jewish people, it would be patronizing and racist. When I say it, it means that I’m embarrassed that she’s Jewish, and wish she weren’t.”
While I see your point, I am a little tired of the “only certain kinds of people are allowed to say X” viewpoint - whether it’s this, or whether it’s saying the n word.
You might be tired of hearing it, Pizzagirl, but in this case it’s simply a statement of fact about the nature of vicarious embarrassment, as well as the concern that someone’s actions might increase bigotry and redound on oneself. Neither of which really applies to someone who isn’t a member of the particular group. It has nothing to do with who “can” say what – an issue that usually comes up in an entirely different context (as in, who has the right to use particular pejorative terms).
What I find upsetting about this is that the mtg was held on public school grounds and the guy who was under fire was a security guard for the school. On top of that the Texas Police were there because they knew that there could be trouble.
Why should men and women in law enforcement have to risk their lives protecting these idiots.
I know it is a slippery slope in determining which groups should supply their own protection vs. protection by police paid by the taxpayer. I get it. Protect free speech.
However, this group intentionally set out to have this contest knowing they were provoking some at their deepest level. This was not about anything but provoking Muslims with a cartoon contest. What the heck.
@sax, I’ve read that the security was paid for by the group and that they were primarily off duty officers working extra shifts. Have no idea about the Garland ISD officer, though.
At any rate, it is LE duty to protect citizens engaging in legal and protected activities. They don’t get to say “sorry, we are providing protection to THIS group, but the pro choice peeps and the cartoon artists are on their own because they are offensive.”
This was trollling and it worked, sadly. Of course they have the right to their event. That was never in question, their rights were never infringed upon, but oh the claim, that’s powerful. Obama’s taken your guns, devalued your heterosexual marriage, ruined your healthcare plan, but it’s time for a line in the sand, we must take a stand for free speech by drawing Mohammed.
The shootout exceeded expectations of the event, gave them hugely positive publicity to the people they are trying to appeal to, all in all, a great day.
All kinds of protests and events are held every year in the US that receive police protection. They are all designed to provoke some other segment of the population, and to get a public media reaction. Whether they are idiots or are brave citizens standing up for some belief or cause seems to depend upon whether you agree with them or not.
So who gets to decide whether these protest and events should be allowed to happen? The offended group? The local police force? SPLC? It seems to me that in the US, this has already been decided by the First Amendment.