A Hateful Choice, But Respect Free Speech

While I support demonstrating against a branch of the City University of New York (CUNY) for choosing as a commencement speaker Sharia law advocate and Palestinian terror-defender Linda Sarsour, demanding that she be disinvited plays into the hands of “progressive” opponents of free speech.

Aside from her advocacy for Sharia law, Sarsour, reports an Israeli news site:

is also an avowed anti-Zionist, having shared the stage with a terrorist murderer who killed two Jewish students in a supermarket bombing in Israel. Sarsour praised convicted PFLP terrorist Rasmea Odeh when the two addressed a left-wing conference in Chicago on April 2nd, saying she was “honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.”

While commencement speakers are overwhelmingly partisans on the left, and leftwing activists routinely and usually successfully demand that conservative commencement speakers be disinvited (or prevented from being heard due to the protestors’ loud chanting and other disruptive activities), nonleftists shouldn’t follow suit and demand that terror advocates supported by the left be likewise “deplatformed.” By all means, hold protests and boycott the event, but leave it to the left to demand limits on speech.

And no, the fact that Sarsour helped to organize the anti-Trump Women’s March in Washington and has been praised by former president Obama and other Democratic leaders in no way makes her acceptable. It just adds to the shame of the left.

(Jihad Watch takes on the skewed press coverage of the anti-Sarsour demonstration.)

By the way, leftwing defenders of Sharia law advocates might want to note that supposedly “moderate” Islamic Indonesia, in a province now under Sharia law, publically flogs men “guilty” of gay sex, with two men brutally “canned” 83 times last week. I guess the “moderate” part is that they weren’t thrown to their deaths from roofs.

More. This is not a parody. This is how you hear a great many progressives talk. They believe Christian conservatives who don’t want to be forced by the state to participate in same-sex weddings are worse—much, much, incomparably worse—then Sharia law advocates who would beat and executive homosexuals.

And then there’s this.

12 Comments for “A Hateful Choice, But Respect Free Speech”

  1. posted by TJ III on

    1. I seen plenty of political and nonpolitical commencement speeches. Some people will find something to protest, a last hurrah maybe, but most students – left, right and center – have bigger fish to fry.

    2. I believe in a separation between religion and government. I also believe in religious freedom. We get Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists who want their religion mixed in the civil law, sometimes violenty so.

    Frankly, I rather oppose mixing religion and government, instead of only complaining about it, when it involves a follower of denomination “x”.

    Indonesia has had an active gay rights campaign since early 1980s. Socially conservative attitudes prevailed, but no criminal law and the gay rights movement was gaining some ground.

    Unfortuntely, the religious fundamentalist were gaining more ground, especially in key parts of the country where their was unrest.

    To ensure a unified peace deal, the religious fundamentalists were given more authority. This “states rights” deal worked, shorterm.

    Reply
  2. posted by Jorge on

    First things first. It’s neither hypocrisy nor playing into the hands of progressive opponents of free speech for the right to call for her to be dis-invited, it is principle. It is an outrageous demand that demands a verbal rebuttal, and that is the point–it’s the limit of what the mainstream among the right will tolerate. When the left acts in an outrageous fashion, it goes beyond mere demands, commonly into blackmail, and increasingly into violence, and the left tolerates it. To the point that community’s will often isn’t strong enough to beat it back.

    It’s easy to say no to radical and anti-democratic values when “No” entails nothing more than reciting the First Amendment. It’s a lot harder when it means hiring security and calling the police. You don’t need to be paranoid enough to see “Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals” everywhere in order to see that.

    I do believe in taking responsibility for the nutcases on one’s side. The more appropriate response, if one should chose to give one, would be to simply refuse to support the University that year, and encourage other people to do the same. I’m basing that on the FALN controversy hitting the Puerto Rican Day Parade this year (and, small aside, the FALN I always used to relate from the NAMBLA controversies).

    Anyway, I don’t like threats. You can’t change the fact that Puerto Rican and Palestinian separatists go to school, make something of themselves, and give back to the community without creating seeds for making the world an even more dangerous place than it already is. Just impose the consequence on them and be done with it.

    Reply
    • posted by TJ 3 on

      Jorge

      Do you write your posts under the influence of something?

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Go to hell.

        Reply
        • posted by TJ 3 on

          “Go To Hell”? I’m not familiar with that particular vineyard. Not the best sounding label.

          Reply
  3. posted by Jorge on

    I guess the “moderate” part is that they weren’t thrown to their deaths from roofs.

    Yes, there is a danger in being overly focused on murder.

    Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    While I support demonstrating against a branch of the City University of New York (CUNY) for choosing as a commencement speaker Sharia law advocate and Palestinian terror-defender Linda Sarsour, demanding that she be disinvited plays into the hands of “progressive” opponents of free speech.

    You seem to think that opposition to free speech is confined solely to “progressives”. Hardly.

    Reply
  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    By the way, leftwing defenders of Sharia law advocates …

    By the way, the “leftwing defenders of Sharia law advocates” are defending those advocate’s right to free speech.

    Reply
    • posted by TJ 3 on

      But, Tom! Free Speech only applies when it involves money in politics, refusing to bake gay wedding cakes or the daily dumb of alternative facts. 😉

      Seriously, most of the students graduating have gotten bigger fish to fry. Why not suggest something productive, like bringing (in days leading up to speech) gay rights advocates from Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc?

      Reply
  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    More. This is not a parody. This is how you hear a great many progressives talk. They believe Christian conservatives who don’t want to be forced by the state to participate in same-sex weddings are worse—much, much, incomparably worse—then Sharia law advocates who would beat and executive homosexuals.

    Dragging out that old bullshit cartoon again, and again, and again, are we?

    Do you have any statistics or other evidence to back up your “a great many progressives” claim? Probably not, because fantasy is seldom supported by facts.

    But the “great many progressives” might have a point, in terms of actual threat to gays and lesbians in the United States, notwithstanding your absurd claim.

    In the United States, (1) the number of “Sharia law advocates” who would impose Sharia law on our citizens is insignificant in comparison to the number of conservative Christians who would impose their twisted version of Judeo-Christian Values™** on our citizens, and (2) “Sharia law advocates”, unlike conservative Christians, don’t have a major US political party ready, willing — indeed eager, apparently, given the large number of Republican-sponsored bills enrolled in state legislatures — and able to enact their version of Judeo-Christian Values™** into law.

    So which poses a more immediate threat to gays and lesbians in the United States, do you suppose?

    ** I quietly note that whenever conservative Christians start talking about “Judeo-Christian Values™”, the “Judeo” part of the equation seldom bears any resemblance to the religious/ethical values of Judaism.

    Reply
  7. posted by Jorge on

    And then there’s this.

    *Sigh.* “Why are you gay and X” is a question that should be asked exactly once. No more, and no less.

    Reply
  8. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I’m not quite sure how a post about free speech on campus turned into an anti-Islamic screed, but it might be worth our time to reflect on the fact that upholding American values sometimes comes at high cost, even for those who do not serve in the armed forces.

    And I would like to take the opportunity to honor a number of men and women among the 51,768 who died in Vietnam, and remind us that freedom of speech, like all other freedoms we enjoy, comes at a price:

    TERRY ALBRIGHT – Marine Corps – PFC – Age 21;
    DENNIS CALTON – Army – 1LT – 196th Light Infantry Brigade – Age 23;
    ANDREW CHICANTEK – Marine Corps – LCPL – Age 18;
    RAYMOND CHURCHILL – Army – SGT – 25th Infantry Division, Age 19;
    ROBERT CRAWLEY – Army – SP4 – 9th Infantry Division – Age 22;
    ERROLD FARRAR – Army – SGT – Special Forces – Age 22;
    RONALD HAGEN – Army – MSGT – Special Forces – Age 39;
    ROBERT HASZ – Navy – AN – Age 21;
    LELAND JOHNSON – Air Force – A1C – Age 21;
    JOHN KAZANOWSKI – Army – CAPT – Special Forces – Age 31;
    THOMAS KLEMP – Army – SP4 – 1st Infantry Division – Age 19;
    CLAYTON LUTHER – Army – PFC – 1st Infantry Division – Age 19;
    GUADALUPE MARTINEZ – Army – SFC – Special Forces – Age 32;
    RONALD NEUBAUER – Army – CAPT – Special Forces – Age 29;
    THOMAS NEWMAN – Army – 1LT – Age 24;
    MICHAEL PROTHERO – Army – PFC – 101st Airborne Division – Age 19;
    HECTOR RIVERA-COLON – Army – SFC – Special Forces – Age 30;
    WILLIAM ROEGLIN – Army – SGT – 4th Infantry Division – Age 20;
    ROBERT SCHELL JR – Army – SP4 – Special Forces – Age 22;
    JEROME SCHUETT – Marine Corps – PVT – Age 19;
    RICHARD STEIN – Army – SP4 – Age 20;
    MURREL THOMAS – Army – SSGT – Special Forces – Age 37;
    KENNETH WORTHLEY – Army – SSGT – Special Forces – Age 22.

    I went to school with some of these men, a few are brothers of friends, and I served with others. I visited the grave of one, a family member, yesterday.

    I apologize for going off topic, but I get more disgusted every time I read this post. Enough said.

    Reply

Leave a Comment