Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Palestine, Israel and the need for freedom of speech
|
Echoing the discredited and contemptible Holocaust-denier David Irving, Australian Fredrick Toben, who happily accepted an invitation to the 2006 Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, was back in the news last week after being found in contempt by a Federal Court for refusing to remove material from his website that vilified Jews. The Australian featured a photo of Toben’s nephew giving a Nazi salute outside the court. As a human being first and a Jew second, Holocaust denial disgusts me — as it should any decent person. It must be condemned in the strongest possible terms as both an indignity to the millions of victims and survivors, as well as a perversion of the historical record. The Jewish Holocaust, along with other similar catastrophes against Cambodians, Rwandans, Palestinians and Tamils, should be respected and understood. But there are two critical questions about the whole Toben saga. Firstly, does it do anything to address the serious issue of Holocaust revisionism, a growing problem as survivors of the death camps fade away? Secondly, can the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), the lobby group that has pursued the Toben case for years, credibly argue that Toben has been chastised by their pursuit let alone that community education on the Holocaust been enhanced? Just last week saw yet another Australian man, who had posted anti-Semitic rants on YouTube, charged with inciting racial hatred. The Toben and Irving cases strike at the heart of liberal democracies. Which views are permissible? Are there limits? Who decides the rules? More ominously, however, the Toben saga masks a very selective concern for racial vilification by the ECAJ. Holocaust denial warrants condemnation, but too often any criticism against Jews or Zionism is automatically slammed — witness a recent article by the former head of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBD) professing to oppose all racial hatred, especially anything directed at Jews. Yet, equally egregious examples of bigotry are ignored, even endorsed. Anti-Muslim sentiment has often been proudly displayed since September 11 by the Zionist establishment. In their world view, only what they find offensive should be censored. Take the case of leading Israeli historian Benny Morris who visited Australia in 2008 and was warmly welcomed by the current head of the JBD head Vic Alhadeff. Morris has exposed the massacres and forced expulsions of Palestinians in 1948 but he is also a proud extremist who thinks the Arabs are “barbarians” who should be placed in a “cage”. He believes that the mistake of David Ben-Gurion and the leadership of 1948 was that they did not fully carry out the expulsion of the Palestinians. He has called for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran. He argues in his new book that Jews value life more than Muslims. These positions are abhorrent. However, I would not want to censor Morris’s views. If Toben’s ideas are beyond the pale, why not equally call for the censure of Morris or even push for criminal charges? The answer is obvious: the Jewish establishment largely agrees with Morris, he’s Jewish and a Zionist and therefore not “offensive.” A community is either consistent about racial vilification or it’s not. There have been countless examples of senior Jewish leaders publicly supporting viciously anti-Islam and anti-Arab sentiments and regularly welcoming overseas visitors, such as Daniel Pipes, who routinely defame Muslims in the name of their Zionist jihad. Pipes continually claimed during last year’s US Presidential debate that Barack Obama was Muslim, a transparent attempt to insinuate terrorist-sympathy. I don’t remember the shock-jocks calling for the Jewish establishment to stand up and take a stand against such bigotry (such is demanded of Muslims.) Where, for example, is the Jewish outrage over the third biggest party in the Israeli Knesset, Yisrael Beiteinu — its leader is hardline Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman — last week proposing a law that would forbid Arabs in Israel from commemorating their annual “Nakba” [catastrophe] day? For many Palestinians, this is nothing less than an assault on denying what they regard as their Holocaust. My point here isn’t to support rampant racial hatred; I actively campaign against it (and when Toben himself approached me in 2006 at the Adelaide launch of my book, My Israel Question, I wanted to have nothing to do with him). There is no denying that Holocaust revisionism is a growing problem and it must be tackled in every way possible. But the agendas of those pushing loudest for criminal punishment against racial vilification are counter-productive, highly selective and certainly demonstrate double standards. The Jewish victim complex must end and criticism of Israel, as distinct to that of Jews, treated as both legitimate and appropriate in a democracy. Witness last week’s predictable smearing in Melbourne of a robust “anti-Semitic” play about Israel. Free speech is a delicate beast that must be constantly nurtured and defended. Our society can handle robust engagement on a host of issues. Some will offend Jews. Some will offend Muslims. Some won’t offend anybody. Hurt feelings shouldn’t be a crime. |
|
|
14 Comments
I just want to add that the Jewish victim complex has ended a long time ago, the Holocaust is now being used only as a shield to protect Israel from any criticism.
Yes, quarrel and hypocrisy prevail in just about every community, and the subject of this article is so fraught that I even feel nervous just writing this reply.
As long as someone is trying to be lord and master of creation (forgetting, of course, that there already is one), there will be these kinds of irreconcilable power struggles.
Thank you Loewenstein, now holocust denial presents another opportunity to reopen your favorite subject matter: the countless flaws of Zionism, Israel and the Jews. At least you got a chance to plug your book. Maybe Jews and greed should be the subject of your next article and you can play the central self loathing charater…
Like any other reasonable person, I know full well that millions of gypsies, disabled, homosexuals, Jews and members of many other minorities were murdered in “The Holocaust”, but still, isn’t freedom of speech more important? It’s also worrying that nobody seems to be speaking for the millions of people other than Jews killed during this time. Are their voices being drowned out by the Jewish, and Jewish influenced, media?
Loewenstein claims “Holocaust denial disgusts me — as it should any decent person”.
If that is truly the case, you would have to wonder why [a known Holocaust denier]* appears almost daily within the comments section of Antony’s blog.
In contrast, all of my comments there, and those of many others, have been censored by Antony “Freedom of Speech” Loewenstein, simply because he doesn’t agree with them. He has a long documented history of this hypocrisy.
He can spare us the bit about “robust engagement” having never, ever, engaged any of his critics online or in the blogs. Instead, he thinks replying to fair criticism is beneath him, and his opponents can only possibly be mean bullies. As opposed simply to people who have found so many, obvious academic errors in his work.
* [edited by Crikey]
Daniel: Removing comments from one’s own blog or website isn’t “censoring”, nor is it a matter of free speech, because you have every opportunity to partake in uninhibited free speech elsewhere. When you’re in someone else’s forum (such as Crikey, or Antony’s blog), prepare to abide by the rules and tastes of the publisher.
The obvious analogy is this: If someone kicks you out of their house because they don’t appreciate what you say, is that censorship? Of course not.
So, it’s probably not worth using the comments section on the Crikey website to grind what appears to be a personal axe.
Jeff,
Ordinarily I would agree with you, that a blogger has the right to decide what is, and is not published on their blog.
Antony however is a special case. He has built a modest career, off the notion that he was “censored” and “silenced” for his highly unpopular views. As such, in his case it is completely hypocritical.
I am far from the only person who takes exception to this, by the way. I also note that he will have read my earlier comment (and numerous others, on other blogs) yet as I mentioned, has never responded. What Antony has derided as “smear campaigns” and “vicious” “tactics”, is little more than what would otherwise pass for robust argument. The simple fact is, Loewnestein can give it out, but he can’t take it. Ultimately, he has no genuine interest at all in “debate”. Merely blowing his own trumpet, and hopefully selling enough books to pay the gas bill.
Goodness me, it’s hard to know where to begin to counter the contradictions and falsehoods. I think it’s best to start with the outright lies. The ECAJ is not a Jewish Lobby group. Its function is to represent not lobby. Moving on…You ask ‘what views are permissible?’ ‘Are there limits?’ I would think that you could find the answer to both those questions quite easily by taking a look at the Racial Vilification Act. I don’t think you will find ‘hurt feelings’ listed. So that’s that. Further, laws such as those that Toben was charged with exist to protect the freedoms of ALL Australians from feeling persecuted on the base of their race. This is generally considered a fairly fundamental right, even in liberal democracies.
Oddly, you seem horrified by the fact that Jewish bodies focus on racial hatred made against Jews. Apparently this suggests that they are not equal in their disapproval of racial vilification. As the Australian government governs Australia…not say New Zealand, as women’s groups discuss women’s rights as Gay rights groups argue for gay rights as other ethnic groups argue for rights respective to their ethnic groups. Jewish organisations focus on Jewish issues. If there are occasions where members of other ethnic groups are being unfairly targeted by such groups, let a case be brought against them. If anything the Toben and Irving case are examples of those who spread racial vilification being successfully brought to justice.
As I began speaking of contradictions I shall end with one. You say that there is “No denying that Holocaust revisionism is a growing problem and must be tackled in EVERY possible way.” I think what you meant to say was….every possible way EXCEPT charging those who racially vilify Jews and deny the Holocaust.
I hope you’re not offended, I trust that if you are – You’ll just get over it.
JPL,
While I don’t disagree with your corrections, I don’t see what the problem with “lobbying” actually is. Loewenstein is obsessed with references to what he calls “The Lobby”, which he uses as a perjorative. However lobbying is a perfectly normal part of any healthy democracy.
The green lobby is fine. The women’s lobby is fine. Union lobbies are fine.
The frequently dishonest Palestinian lobby, is clearly fine, and even have Loewenstein as one of their flagbearers.
Unfortunately, as always double-standards apply when it comes to the world’s only Jewish state. Heaven forbid that Jewish groups should be allowed to advocate their opinion. Can’t have that!
By the way, referring to my earlier comment, notice how Loewenstein still hasn’t responded? It’s much easier on his own blog, simply deleting comments. Gutless, Antony.
Daniel,
I don’t see the problem with Lobbying either, infact I think lobbies play an extremely important role. However, in this case he is wrong. The ECAJ are a democratically elected body that represents. I think his suggesting it is a lobby has negative connotations in this case.
Either way I don’t think it matters a great deal. You are correct to point to a far more important issue which is the double standards that are applied to Israel, Jewish groups etc.
Despite being a lousy writer, Antony is a capable blogger from a technical perspective. So it is interesting to note that on his blog, where he refers to this article, he deliberately links only to the front page of Crikey.com, rather than this one.
Clearly Antony “Let the Debate Continue” Loewenstein wants to control the debate and ensure opposing voices (such as mine and JPL’s) aren’t heard. He prefers an echo chamber.
Don’t you Antony? I know you are reading this…
Hi all, Jane here, with my Web Editor’s cap on. While I love nothing more than a robust discussion, please try and keep the discussions about the issue at hand. There are ways to ask questions about a writer’s story that don’t involve making things personal. We have a Code of Conduct that recommends you playing the ball, not the man. Over and out.
Jane,
If you must insist on editing my comments, to protect the precious feelings of a known Holocaust denier, and a Crikey columnist who hosts her on his own blog, then the very least you could do is also clean up my HTML to get rid of the boldcaps.
You won’t get that from Antony Loewenstein, I’m afraid. Refer my earlier comments
He has never turned up to any form of debate, argument or what have you. Much better for him to put his hands over his ears, close his eyes, and then insist (ad nauseum) that nobody listens to him and he wants more debate.
It’s quite pathetic, really.