Posted on 02/10/2005 2:46:19 PM PST by anotherview
How to Stop 'Protected' Hate Speech
by Beth Goodtree
Feb 10, '05 / 1 Adar 5765
Much of today's anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment is promulgated by hate speech. Falsely wrapping themselves in the 'free speech' provisions of various countries, these haters have been given free rein to spread their repugnant political agendas aimed at genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, we can stop this and we have the legal juice to do it. Even as individuals. Here's how:
Remember those pesky Geneva Conventions? We, the United States, signed them, as did Israel, Great Britain, Canada, and many other countries. Well, when we signed them, we agreed to carry out all sections of them. No "one-from-column-A-one-from-column-B" nonsense. America, and all other signatories, agreed to them all.
Therefore, since the US is a signatory to all the Geneva Conventions; and since the Geneva Conventions list 'hate speech' as a war crime of genocide (or the implied potential to encourage genocide); and also since it clearly states* in Articles III and IV that any signatory must amend their constitutions or other legal processes to be in compliance; this makes it clear that "hate speech" as defined by the Geneva Conventions themselves, is not protected under US or any other signatory country's law. "Hate speech" is defined as incitement towards a group based upon national, ethnic or religious affiliation. Also included in this "Hate Speech" part of the Geneva Conventions are people who aid, fund, abet or help in any way.
Therefore, private individuals or groups can sue others in US civil court for violations of the Geneva Convention's Hate Speech provisions - a war crime.
Boy, do I have some candidates and potential candidates for war crimes trials.
Most immediate on my list is an event that will be staged in a few days by, of all people, the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. They plan on showing a series of short films, including four that present Jews and Israel in not merely a bad light, but in some cases, can be extremely inflammatory. Out of the 45 films, four are about the Israeli-Arab conflict, with the focus on Arab suffering and/or supposed Israeli brutality. Not one mention of the thousands upon thousands of murders and maimings of Jews by the Arabs simply because they are Jews and/or Israeli. Not one mention of the historical truth of the current conflict, which would show that every single supposed incident of suffering is actually caused by the Arabs themselves, first for abandoning their homes, then for waging war on Israel five times .
There was not even some balance to the film-fest, as would have been accomplished by the showing of the film The Road to Jenin,which demonstrates that the so-called 'Jenin Massacre' was a deliberate and malicious fabrication.
Maybe the threat of being sued for Crimes Against Humanity will alter their latest documentary film festival scheduled for February 10-28. Maybe MoMA, with the likes of Ron Lauder on its board, will realize that a prestigious museum presenting such a lopsided view of the Middle East actually fuels lies and hatred towards Jews and Israel.
Meanwhile, the US, as well as Great Britain and Canada, have many candidates ripe to be sued in civil court for Crimes Against Humanity. Great Britain and Canada are loaded with Islamist religious leaders who continually call for "death to the Crusaders (Christians) and Zionists." And while the Islamist religious leaders in America have been more cautious as of late, they still have a history of public pronouncements of death upon the non-Islamists.
But better yet, guess who funds most of these Islamist pronouncements? I'll give you a hint. They live in obscene and decadent luxury, keep slaves whom they say are paying off "debt servitude", and administer death to anyone in their country who fails to follow their narrow religious teachings. If you guessed Saudi Arabia, then you might be ripe for winning an oil well in a civil suit.
But it doesn't stop there. Our most respected institutions, our universities and colleges, are frequently in violation of the Hate Speech clause of the Crimes Against Humanity laws. And wrapping themselves in the 'freedom of speech' cloak not only won't wash, it demonstrates the sheer ignorance or audacity of supposed institutions of higher learning. America vowed, when we signed those Geneva Conventions, to amend our laws to exclude hate speech as protected and to prosecute violators, their aides, abettors and funders.
This means that the recent Duke University Hate-Jews-and-Israel fest, billed as a Pro-Palestinian rally, is a prosecutable offense. As are all those so-called Pro-Palestinian rallies (so popular in California) which often devolve into not just hate speech about Israel, but outright lies meant to foment murderous wrath directed at Jews.
All these people, groups and institutions are ripe for suing in civil court by anyone. And better yet, there is no statute of limitations on Crimes Against Humanity.
NOTE:
* The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 26 November 1968
Article III
The States Parties to the present Convention undertake to adopt all necessary domestic measures, legislative or otherwise, with a view to making possible the extradition, in accordance with international law, of the persons referred to in article II of this Convention.
Article IV
The States Parties to the present Convention undertake to adopt, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes, any legislative or other measures necessary to ensure that statutory or other limitations shall not apply to the prosecution and punishment of the crimes referred to in articles I and II of this Convention and that, where they exist, such limitations shall be abolished.
Liberalism is in itself hate speech, its down to the level of little more than hate whitey this or hate whitey that, so why is Israel special? In my book they have just been added to the enemies list.
In the U.S.A., there should be NO restrictions to Free Political Speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Just because you don't like it, does NOT give you the right to squelch it --- just as NEITHER does it give the 'offensive party' the right for protection from YOUR free speech response to their diatribes.
No?
"Liberalism is in itself hate speech, its down to the level of little more than hate whitey this or hate whitey that, so why is Israel special? In my book they have just been added to the enemies list."
Right on brother! Free speech was made for those who go against the grain, however repugnant. This is neo-cons (i.e. "former" Marxists) trying to push a liberal totalitarian anti-democracy agenda on conservatives, using the group conservative/mainstream Christians want specially protected to do it. Every nation and religion is bashed, Israel is no exception. If you can't say anything critical of Israel policies or Jewish religion, then you better prepare to love Saudi Arabia and Islam, because eventually the same standard will apply.
Hey! You aren't a very good sheep! You are "supposed" to go along with this neo-con crud! Hails to you for seeing through this "trial balloon."
Kill my free speech, kill my freedom. Then I have to kill to get it back (sorry, forgive me Jesus). Not the way of democracy, but if it be, then so be it.
Idiot author. The same applies to everyone. Israel can be convicted on all counts, and so can Christians by your standards. BTW I am neutral in that conflict.
" Falsely wrapping themselves in the 'free speech' provisions of various countries, these haters have been given free rein to spread their repugnant political agendas aimed at genocide and ethnic cleansing."
Gee, why don't you just say "hiding behind the first amendment" and be done with it. I don't know why or how this lefty speech code garbage keeps drifting over here.
I suggest you learn a greater appreciation for our liberties before someone comes by and shuts you up for saying something unpopular. Either that or just go join the Communist Party USA and be done with it.
Hey, don't spoil it for me buddy! My ancestry goes back 4 centuries in America and I have French, German, English, Scottish and Canadian Indian blood. (There may be more...it would be worth the effort to find out.) I could have at least a million lawsuits by myself and that would be on a good day.
No treaty overrides the Bill of Rights. Period. End of discussion
The same First Amendment that allows me (and others on FR) to heap disdain on Islamofascists also allows others to say bad things about other religions or ethnicities. Grow a thicker skin and learn to live with it.
When people can be imprisoned for what they say and what they think then you cease to be a free people.
"These hate speech and hate crime laws I believe are along with activist judges the greatest threat this country faces."
Hear, hear!
But you can be punished for crying fire in a theatre. I have to respectfully disagree that true hate speech should be punished.
Not really. The author has everything wrong from her examples to the Geneva Convention, which this isn't a part of. But forget war crimes, if you thing you can either incite others to or collude to commit a criminal act, and rely on the 1st Amendment to get off, you're dreaming.
I agree these people are just using Israel as the stalking horse, but with our luck the Pat Robertsons of the world would go along with this globalist tyranny and it could become reality. Its tough defending people like the Pro-Pali liberals or the Ward Churchill variety goofs, but in the end it is the right thing to do.
I understand and thought about the example you mentioned before posting and I am not in disagreemnt with you.
I think the problem we have concerning speech in this country is the fact that we have let the activist judges so distort the first amendment that no one even knows what speech is anymore or what the definition of the term "right" is either.
I happen to believe speech is verbal and what comes out of your mouth.
It is not desecrating the flag or parading down the street naked shouting obscenities in people's face. I believe you have the "right" to state your opposition or support to any cause or idea passionately but in a civil and decent manner.
It is not a "right" to threaten or incite or attempt to cause physical violence or harm to others.
Great leaders of the past where able to make their case in a manner that would win you over without the need to stand waist- deep in the sewer or by use of the club on the bodies of their opponents.
With a little exercise of common sense we could too.
Agreed. The concept is sound until the liberals get into the act.
"if you thing you can either incite others to or collude to commit a criminal act, and rely on the 1st Amendment to get off, you're dreaming."
ok -- If that is the case, at what point is calling for the destruction of our enemies within our borders considered "illegal" ??
If mohammed is trying to cut your head off, do you simply ask him to please use a sharp knife first? Or do you "pre-emptively" blow his head off first? It would be rather difficult to retaliate AFTER your head has been removed from your body, would it not?
Being politically correct in a time of war or when somebody wants you - your family - your country DEAD is simply S T U P I D!
Besides, our Constitution calls for the power of the people to rise up and dismantle this government whenever they decide it has become too powerful and tyranical. Is THIS hate speech to be muted? To many (especially lawyers and radical judges) ... YES!
"Hey, don't spoil it for me buddy! My ancestry goes back 4 centuries in America and I have French, German, English, Scottish and Canadian Indian blood. (There may be more...it would be worth the effort to find out.) I could have at least a million lawsuits by myself and that would be on a good day."
Our ancestry is similar, except I don't have any Indian and the Canadian in me isn't blood, it's Scottish and English and the Swiss is actually German. Yes we could all file numerous lawsuits if we were all permitted to sue for reparations. I am a little miffed about the treatment of my Swiss-German Mennonites all over Europe and America. The slander continues to this day, with liberals calling them a "cult." Everyone has a gripe. The difference is that we got over it and others don't. Could you just imagine how they would go about taxing us for black slavery reps?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.