The Counterpunch article below claims that the Hate Crime Bill of 2009 will result in criminalizing speech that is (specifically?) critical of Israel, Jews, Christianity, or that questions the Holocaust. The article follows my commentary.
1. The hate crime legislature is quiet specific. It limits hate crimes to acts of violence, and simply extends the protections to LGBT people and people with disabilities.
2. The bill creates no new crimes. It attaches a 10 yr penalty to already existing crimes in which acts of violence are “motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim” adding sexual orientation, gender and disability to the already protected categories of race, color, national origin and religion.
3. The bill says absolutely nothing about speech!!!!! nothing about the Holocaust, nothing about Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Christianity. There is no correlation between the Hate Crimes Bill and the scenarios the author describes.
4. The bill is quite simple and straight forward. for the full bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.256:
5. Counterpunch magazine has been of the opinion that since Zionists condemn all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, nothing is. I am of the opinion that Counterpunch often promotes positions, attitudes and stereotypes that are anti-Jewish, using the Zionist accusation as a smokescreen for their own bigotry.
6. This bill would simply add as a protected class, LGBT people and people with disabilities, who are often the target of some of the most brutal hate crimes. Incidentally, the bill changes nothing regarding discrimination against or the alleged privilege of Jews and Christians (current law protects people against discrimination based on religion– any religion). The people most directly hurt by this article and this agenda are not the people this article expects or wants the reader to fear.
7. By adding these groups to protected classes, data of incidents can be collected and categorized as hate crimes.
8. The article is written by Paul Craig Roberts whose bio states “was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.” He is a right wing Republican author of The New Color Line, How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, has written profusely against affirmative action and other compensations to deter discrimination.
9. Lest anyone think that I excuse or support Israeli brutality or U.S. support thereof, for the record, I am anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist. I support the right of return for all Palestinians and a fully democratic, secular state in historic Palestine, from the river to the sea. I support and am part of the bds movement, have been targeted by Zionists and the Zionist establishment, placed on Zionist blacklists and hit lists and have been blacklisted from my union for expressing such views. Often when I express concern and opposition to anti-Jewish sentiment within progressive movements I am falsely accused of being a crypto-Zionist, with a Zionist agenda. Those familiar with my writings know that I am highly critical of what I refer to as the Zionist campaign against academic freedom and free speech and that I have criticized the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the ADL of using the rhetoric of human rights to advance U.S. (global) and Israeli (regional) hegemony. I support free speech, which includes my right to counter what I don’t agree with.
I do agree with Noam Chomsky when he state:
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
Emma Rosenthal
Café Intifada
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html
May 7, 2009
The End of Free Speech?
Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.
To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.
Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House. As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.
It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.
It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.
It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.
It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.
In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.
Given the hubris of the US government, which leads Washington to apply US law to every country and organization, what will happen to the International Red Cross, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the various human rights organizations that have demanded investigations of Israel’s military assault on Gaza’s civilian population? Will they all be arrested for the hate crime of “excessive” criticism of Israel?
This is a serious question.
A recent UN report, which is yet to be released in its entirety, blames Israel for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the United Nations premises in Gaza. The Israeli government has responded by charging that the UN report is “tendentious, patently biased,” which puts the UN report into the State Department’s category of excessive criticism and strong anti-Israel sentiment.
Israel is getting away with its blatant use of the American government to silence its critics despite the fact that the Israeli press and Israeli soldiers have exposed the Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the premeditated murder of women and children urged upon the Israeli invaders by rabbis. These acts are clearly war crimes.
It was the Israeli press that published the pictures of the Israeli soldiers’ T-shirts that indicate that the willful murder of women and children is now the culture of the Israeli army. The T-shirts are horrific expressions of barbarity. For example, one shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach and the slogan, “One shot, two kills.” These T-shirts are an indication that Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians is one of extermination.
It has been true for years that the most potent criticism of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians comes from the Israeli press and Israeli peace groups. For example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Jeff Halper of ICAHD have shown a moral conscience that apparently does not exist in the Western democracies where Israel’s crimes are covered up and even praised.
Will the American hate crime bill be applied to Haaretz and Jeff Halper? Will American commentators who say nothing themselves but simply report what Haaretz and Halper have said be arrested for “spreading hatred of Israel, an anti-semitic act”?
Many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda that Palestinians are terrorists who threaten innocent Israel. These Americans will see the censorship as merely part of the necessary war on terror. They will accept the demonization of fellow citizens who report unpalatable facts about Israel and agree that such people should be punished for aiding and abetting terrorists.
A massive push is underway to criminalize criticism of Israel. American university professors have fallen victim to the well organized attempt to eliminate all criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at a Catholic university because of the power of the Israel Lobby. Now the Israel Lobby is after University of California (at Santa Barbara,) professor Wiliam Robinson. Robinson’s crime: his course on global affairs included some reading assignments critical of Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
The Israel Lobby apparently succeeded in convincing the Obama Justice (sic) Department that it is anti-semitic to accuse two Jewish AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, of spying. The Israel Lobby succeeded in getting their trial delayed for four years, and now Attorney General Eric Holder has dropped charges. Yet, Larry Franklin, the DOD official accused of giving secret material to Rosen and Weissman, is serving 12 years and 7 months in prison.
The absurdity is extraordinary. The two Israeli agents are not guilty of receiving secrets, but the American official is guilty of giving secrets to them! If there is no spy in the story, how was Franklin convicted of giving secrets to a spy?
Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American rather than Israeli interests. It eliminates any prospect of Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda.
To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti-semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel. It is permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a universal hate-crime in the Western world.
Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered.
Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination? How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks and anti-semitics? Surely the case doesn’t need to be protected by thought control.
Imprisoning people for doubts is the antithesis of modernity.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Great post Emma. Thank you for writing this. The Counterpunch article (by a former Reagan secretary!) seems pretty clearly to be an example of using criticism of Israel to hide anti-Jewish sentiment.
I don’t think the anti-jewish sentiment is hidden at all. counterpunch has used the fact that the zionist establishment accuses all criticism of israel of being anti-semitic, to assert that nothing is anti-jewish, that anti-jewish (anti-semitism) doesn’t exist. they’ve done this for some time.
what this article does does is use that antipathy to advance an agenda against a hate crimes bill that would simply add violence against people based on disability, sexual orientation and gender by asserting, against any reading of the bill (which includes, btw an assertion that this will have no impact on nor violate any constitutional protection against speech!) that this is part of some jewish and christian conspiracy to lock up people for felonies for raising criticism of israel, jews or christians.
this is ALWAYS the agenda of racists: to use racism to advance a hegemonic social agenda well beyond the oppression of the targets of that racism.
while i believe (an understanding fostered in anti-racism discussions at our mutual alma mater– hampshire 77) that racists are always responsible for their racism– no one MAKES them racist, that the israel lobby and zionist establishment has contributed to the creation (in the interests of empire- not in the interests of the jewish people) of an atmosphere where an article like this could be published by anything other than a white supremacists underground publication and any criticism just gets lost in the din of the shouts of “anti-semitism” by israeli apologists.
DAVID LETTERMAN’S HATE, ETC. !
David Letterman’s hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it’s Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who’ve gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It’s the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that’ll outdo even Hitler’s by stating that “Judah hath dealt treacherously” and “the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this” and asks “Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?”
Haven’t evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin’s continuing “crucifixion”!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in “Separation of Raunch and State” and “Bible Verses Obama Avoids.”)
What part of PCR article would you refer to as anti-Jewish?
Or is it simply that you think he is purposely misleading his readers with false info regarding this Bill and what it does and that this is an example of antisemitism?
I don’t see anything here indicating bigotry at all – the only evidence you offer is the man’s serving in Ronald Reagan’s administration – as if only that is needed (PCR was an economist btw) to prove his anti-Jewish credentials.
I’m truly interested in your thoughts – I’m sure I fully understand them, however…
Shit – this is from June.
Sorry
Michael Pugliese Re : https://cafeintifada.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/654/
Yes, Paul Craig Roberts is a right-wing fool. Long ago, when he became the fave paleo-con of too many lefties, I found his views on race, immigration, multi-culturalism, repugnant. A guest on the radio show, “The Political Cesspool.” A show which has had hubdreds of “white nationalist, ” guests. PCR writes on VDARE (a nativist, anti-immigrant site) wild polemics saying, “white civilization, ” must be protected bs. the , “cultural marxists, ” who have hijacked K-12 education in the USA, in his view. Cf. the Nazi coinage, “kulturbolshewismus.” “cultural bolshevism.” Too many leftists who laud PCR for being oposed to the neo-cons on foreign policy, ignore or excuse his racist bs.
4 minutes ago (08:59) ·
Michael Pugliese About the “Hate Crimes Bill, ” and PCR, I betcha a source for him on it and its alleged outlawing of anti-Zionist speech by the J-O-O-S of ZOG, is the Rev. Ted Pike. Pike is a rancid far right anti-semite.
2 minutes ago (09:02)
Pike is another regular on, “The Political Cesspool.” http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/
[…] 2. https://cafeintifada.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/654/ […]
Appreciate the awareness around white supremacists such as PCR on this blog. Been doing all i can for many years to alert activists to these guys who are fully into the right wooing the left. Disturbing, but good there is this awareness.
[…] 2. https://cafeintifada.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/654/ […]
Sylvia Rivera Law Project articulated, much better than I could, its reasons for opposing Hate Crimes legislation.
http://srlp.org/fedhatecrimelaw
http://srlp.org/genda
but pcr doesn’t oppose hate crime legislation on any point. he opposes it because of some non-existant clause in the bill. he also is quite clear that white people are an endangered group in need of protection. he has no problem with THAT.