Denounce the hooligans who jeered a guest lecturer at the U

On Tuesday, the University of Minnesota Law School hosted Prof. Moshe Halbertal — a world-renowned philosopher, political theorist and historian of Jewish thought, as well as one of the world’s leading military ethicists — who delivered the annual John Dewey lecture in the philosophy of law. I had the pleasure and honor of introducing Prof. Halbertal. As is now widely known, Halbertal’s lecture was delayed some 40 minutes. My colleague, Prof. Dale Carpenter, described the scene in a post he published: “[O]ne by one … protesters stood up to shout denunciations of Israel and were escorted from the hall by university police. One young woman came screaming back into the lecture after having been ejected. Outside the hall, the protesters chanted so loudly that it was difficult to hear Halbertal, much less to concentrate on what he was saying, until 45 minutes after the lecture was to have begun.”

These acts of cultural hooliganism present a real threat to free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Carpenter is correct in noting both that “there is no right to shout down a speaker at an academic lecture” and that “members of a university community have an obligation to consider opposing viewpoints and, if not always a duty to listen to them, then at least a duty to allow others to listen to them.” The affront to free speech in the appalling conduct of the protesters should be disturbing to anyone. So too should be the overtly anti-Semitic attitudes demonstrated.

Let me be clear. It is absolutely legitimate to criticize the state of Israel and the policies of its government. I myself have expressed such criticism often. Unfortunately, much of the anti-Israel discourse is but a thin disguise for anti-Semitic sentiments.

To criticize Israel is OK. To call for the utter destruction of the Jewish state and for a Jewish Free Zone between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, as the protesters repeatedly chanted, is anti-Semitic. To criticize Israel’s policies is legitimate. To single out Israel as the only country for such criticism while maintaining a deafening silence (and at times even support) for Arab and Muslim regimes that brutally murder their own citizens and harbor genocidal plans against the Jewish state is anti-Semitic.

It is also important to note that the protests at the Law School were not an isolated incident. They are part of a campaign carried out on campuses across the country designed to intimidate Israel supporters and Jewish students and professors.

Finally, to challenge views, positions and speakers is a mainstay of the academic exercise. But I suspect that had the invited speaker been anyone other than an Israeli and a Jew we would not have seen the protests that we witnessed on Tuesday. The protests occurred because the speaker was an Israeli and a Jew. That, too, is anti-Semitism.

Perhaps, you may think, the protests were not aimed at the speaker because he was an Israeli and a Jew but because of the substance of his positions? Here, too, you are in for a rude awakening. The gist of Halbertal’s talk was that soldiers ought to assume significant risks, indeed greater than many military ethicists would argue for, in order to protect noncombatants. Does that sound like an apology for war crimes, as the protesters would have you believe? Indeed, some of the protesters also demonstrated a few days earlier against a rally for peace held on the campus and at which I spoke. Protesting against peace and protesting against greater protection for civilians: Is that the message the protesters wish to convey?

The cultural hooligans who disrupted Halbertal’s lecture ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms for their infringement of basic rights and their anti-Semitic message. Moreover, the University of Minnesota must investigate, determine whether any university students violated university policies and, if so, impose appropriate discipline.

A failure by the university to do so will incentivize other groups to disrupt with impunity any speech they disagree with. It will also signal a measure of unacceptable tolerance for hate speech and anti-Semitism.

Oren Gross is Irving Younger Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. The opinion expressed is that of the author and not necessarily that of the Law School or the university.


http://www.startribune.com/denounce-the-hooligans-who-jeered-a-guest-lecturer-at-the-u/341298291/

How rude. Some people have no idea about etiquette.

the LLA at it again eh.....

true colours and all that....

considering your position on this subject...these weren't your friends were they??

It's a free country. Imagine if it was your darling Netanyahu.

He is not my darling and do not back him either, so that was a tad immature Quill

Original Quill wrote:It's a free country.  Imagine if it was your darling Netanyahu.

It's rude, ungracious, and completely ignorant. Still, I'd expect you to support the great unwashed anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's a free country.  Imagine if it was your darling Netanyahu.

It's rude, ungracious, and completely ignorant. Still, I'd expect you to support the great unwashed anyway.

I love the adjectives of the fascists. The way Shakespeare wrote it, it was unwashed artificers...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's rude, ungracious, and completely ignorant. Still, I'd expect you to support the great unwashed anyway.

I love the adjectives of the fascists.  The way Shakespeare wrote it, it was unwashed artificers...

Clearly, you approve of bad manners and ignorant, unseemly behaviour.

No surprise there though.

Not only that Quill, they were anti-semitic in thier chants, which is racism, which you should denounce not back.
Like he says criticism is one thing, but antisemitism is wrong on every level.

Didge wrote:Not only that Quill, they were anti-semitic in thier chants, which is racism, which you should denounce not back.
Like he says criticism is one thing, but antisemitism is wrong on every level.

Well, it's a free country. You can't make judgments until it goes to a civil jury.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Not only that Quill, they were anti-semitic in thier chants, which is racism, which you should denounce not back.
Like he says criticism is one thing, but antisemitism is wrong on every level.

Well, it's a free country.  You can't make judgments until it goes to a civil jury.

A free country for hate speech?

Wow

Speaks volumes how you contradict your own liberal values

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, it's a free country.  You can't make judgments until it goes to a civil jury.

A free country for hate speech?

Wow

Speaks volumes how you contradict your own liberal values

A free country for any speech.  Unfortunate that you don't like what they say, but they are not physically harming anyone.

This thread is the perfect match for the one over in "Oceania," where they want arrests for anyone who criticizes the authorities.  Now you want arrests for anyone with differing political views.  It's a short walk over to the position that there should be arrests for anyone who votes for a particular political party, or candidate.  

Suppose it were Nazis who were advocating overthrow of Israel and protesters outside protesting them?  Would you be so keen on knocking some protesters' heads then?  Freedom of speech, association, and freedom to protest is anyone's right.

Yay for the right to protest!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

A free country for hate speech?

Wow

Speaks volumes how you contradict your own liberal values

A free country for any speech.  Unfortunate that you don't like what they say, but they are not physically harming anyone.

This thread is the perfect match for the one over in "Oceania," where they want arrests for anyone who criticizes the authorities.  Now you want arrests for anyone with differing political views.  It's a short walk over to the position that there should be arrests for anyone who votes for a particular political party, or candidate.  

Suppose it were Nazis who were advocating overthrow of Israel and protesters outside protesting them?  Would you be so keen on knocking some protesters' heads then?  Freedom of speech, association, and freedom to protest is anyone's right.

Sorry that is complete babble on every level
There is nothing wrong with genuine protest, but shouting down people with anti-semitic hate, is not a protest but hate speech and is denying free speech on every level.
So what ever way you look at this you are not only justiying antisemitism, you are denying free speech based off aninmals
Like I say some of the left and liberals completely contradict their own values.
If this had been a Democrat being shouted down by the KKK, you would have been spitting dummies showing your utter hypocrisy.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A free country for any speech.  Unfortunate that you don't like what they say, but they are not physically harming anyone.

This thread is the perfect match for the one over in "Oceania," where they want arrests for anyone who criticizes the authorities.  Now you want arrests for anyone with differing political views.  It's a short walk over to the position that there should be arrests for anyone who votes for a particular political party, or candidate.  

Suppose it were Nazis who were advocating overthrow of Israel and protesters outside protesting them?  Would you be so keen on knocking some protesters' heads then?  Freedom of speech, association, and freedom to protest is anyone's right.

Sorry that os complete babble on every level
There is nothing wrong with genuine protest, but shouting down people with anti-semitic hate, is not a protest but hate speech and is denying free speech on every level.
So what ever way you look at this you are not only justiying antisemitism, you are denying free speech based off aninmals
Like I say some of the left and liberals completely contradict their own values.
If this had been a Democrat being shouted down by the KKK, you would have been spitting dummies showing your utter hypocrisy.

So your entire argument rests upon what the protesters said, not anything they did? Besides splitting hairs, it is illegal and unconstitutional under US law to try to prevent them.

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

There is no exception for hate speech, as long as it does not pose an immediate "harm" to anyone.

Similarly...

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

US law under the First Amendment is the broadest reach of freedom of speech ever.

So now you are ignoring the facts.
They did not communicate with an etiqute or decorum but tried to shout down the speaker and with hate speech.
That is acting like thugs and not decent protestors, which again you ignore the antisemitism.
So again what is important here is again you justify antisemitism and justify people acting like thugs.
Again free speech is allowing free speech which it was these thugs that tried to stop free speech showing clearly you are against free speech;

Like I say you make a mockery of your own Liberal values

From the article"


Let me be clear. It is absolutely legitimate to criticize the state of Israel and the policies of its government. I myself have expressed such criticism often. Unfortunately, much of the anti-Israel discourse is but a thin disguise for anti-Semitic sentiments.

To criticize Israel is OK. To call for the utter destruction of the Jewish state and for a Jewish Free Zone between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, as the protesters repeatedly chanted, is anti-Semitic. To criticize Israel’s policies is legitimate. To single out Israel as the only country for such criticism while maintaining a deafening silence (and at times even support) for Arab and Muslim regimes that brutally murder their own citizens and harbor genocidal plans against the Jewish state is anti-Semitic.

Aslo from the story:


Finally, to challenge views, positions and speakers is a mainstay of the academic exercise. But I suspect that had the invited speaker been anyone other than an Israeli and a Jew we would not have seen the protests that we witnessed on Tuesday. The protests occurred because the speaker was an Israeli and a Jew. That, too, is anti-Semitism.

Perhaps, you may think, the protests were not aimed at the speaker because he was an Israeli and a Jew but because of the substance of his positions? Here, too, you are in for a rude awakening. The gist of Halbertal’s talk was that soldiers ought to assume significant risks, indeed greater than many military ethicists would argue for, in order to protect noncombatants. Does that sound like an apology for war crimes, as the protesters would have you believe? Indeed, some of the protesters also demonstrated a few days earlier against a rally for peace held on the campus and at which I spoke. Protesting against peace and protesting against greater protection for civilians: Is that the message the protesters wish to convey?

The cultural hooligans who disrupted Halbertal’s lecture ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms for their infringement of basic rights and their anti-Semitic message. Moreover, the University of Minnesota must investigate, determine whether any university students violated university policies and, if so, impose appropriate discipline.

Didge wrote:So now you are ignoring the facts.
They did not communicate with an etiqute or decorum but tried to shout down the speaker and with hate speech.
That is acting like thugs and not decent protestors, which again you ignore the antisemitism.
So again what is important here is again you justify antisemitism and justify people acting like thugs.
Again free speech is allowing free speech which it was these thugs that tried to stop free speech showing clearly you are against free speech;

Like I say you make a mockery of your own Liberal values

My only responses is: Horrors, you don't say?!  Etiquette and decorum?  Those are values, to be ignored under the First Amendment.

The assumption of the US Constitution is, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words and phrases cannot hurt me.  If someone isn't posing a physical threat, you can always shout back!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So now you are ignoring the facts.
They did not communicate with an etiqute or decorum but tried to shout down the speaker and with hate speech.
That is acting like thugs and not decent protestors, which again you ignore the antisemitism.
So again what is important here is again you justify antisemitism and justify people acting like thugs.
Again free speech is allowing free speech which it was these thugs that tried to stop free speech showing clearly you are against free speech;

Like I say you make a mockery of your own Liberal values

My only responses is: Horrors, you don't say?!  Etiquette and decorum?  Those are facts to be ignored under the First Amendment.

The assumption of the US Constitution is, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words and phrases cannot hurt me.  If someone isn't posing a physical threat, you can always shout back!

But again you contradict yourself,m because they were trying to deny Free Speech.
I dop not care about your lame laws, that is half the problem with the US, where poor hypocrites use these laws to back hate speech as you are doing now.
He was attacked with hate speech for the one single fact he was a jews, if this had been someone black, you would have written 30 pages now of the injustice of KKK supporters trying to shout him down and its this hypoicrisy that gives away the game you are again justifying antisemitism.
On every level you have made the worst and poorest excuses here, and fail to recognise it was they trying to deny Free Speech.

So the next time hate speech is directed at blacks, you will say sticks and stones will you?

Of course not and hence why you constantly are hypocritical here

Anway I have better things to than try to reasoin with someone who is championing hate to Jews here and also making a mockery of Free speech when it was the protestors trying to deny Free speech

Your points oin this will never be valid and like I say proves you constantly contradict,.

Laters

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

My only responses is: Horrors, you don't say?!  Etiquette and decorum?  Those are facts to be ignored under the First Amendment.

The assumption of the US Constitution is, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words and phrases cannot hurt me.  If someone isn't posing a physical threat, you can always shout back!

But again you contradict yourself,m because they were trying to deny Free Speech.

By use of physical harm?  I don't think so.

Didge wrote:I dop not care about your lame laws, that is half the problem with the US, where poor hypocrites use these laws to back hate speech as you are doing now.

But as I understand it, it happened in the US.

Didge wrote:He was attacked with hate speech for the one single fact he was a jews, if this had been someone black, you would have written 30 pages now of the injustice of KKK supporters trying to shout him down and its this hypoicrisy that gives away the game you are again justifying antisemitism.

Injustice is another matter.  What does the speaker intend to do to deliver justice to Palestinians who have had their homes stolen from them.  I mean.....if you really want to talk about injustice, there are a lot more pressing things than harsh language by demonstrators.

Didge wrote:On every level you have made the worst and poorest excuses here, and fail to recognise it was they trying to deny Free Speech.

But not by bringing physical harm to anyone.  If you are worried they will outshout your side, shout back...louder.

Didge wrote:So the next time hate speech is directed at blacks, you will say sticks and stones will you?

Of course not and hence why you constantly are hypocritical here

To the contrary, we've seen lots of demonstrations by the KKK and others, just like that.  All you can do is shout back.  Or, create a counter-demonstration, which is figuratively the same thing.  In a nation that respects freedom of speech, physical restraint by either side is prohibited and indeed, frowned upon.

Sheer bull by Quill again the defender of antisemitism and againast Free speech who now thinks shouting hate speech against people because they are Jewish and Israeli is acceptable, no matter their views.
That is racism and you claim to stand against racism.
That has been easily dispelled,
Again people shoutiong down others is not free speech but trying to deny free speech.
The person was only protested against because he is a Jew, that is antisemitism.
The problems of Palestine are caused by the Palestinian authourities and always have been.
They deny a chance to have a nation because they do not recognise the right of Israel to exist, not that this has anything to do with the speaker, which is the point that eludes you

Anytime now you champion any claim to racism in the US, I shall just remind you of your sticks and stones point.
Mind you thankfully Most Americans are not racist like you and are appalled at the antisemitism here.

Again Free speech is not shouting down others, that is denying Free speech and the view they did this was based on the person being a Jew, where they sang anti-semitic songs.

Dont forget to take off your SS runes from your shirt before you go to bed

sassy wrote:Yay for the right to protest!

So you wouldn't mind if you were doing an election speech in a village hall, and a load of yobs starting screeching about what an old cow you were, that you were totally bonkers, and that people should completely ignore you?

Don't forget Raggs, it's one rule for them and a different one for us.

nicko wrote:Don't forget Raggs,  it's one rule for them and a different one for us.

I just think that there are the right times and places for protests, and a lecture at a University is not one of them, and neither is a homecoming parade either by the way.

If someone is invited to give a lecture, they should be able to do so without being harassed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:Don't forget Raggs,  it's one rule for them and a different one for us.

I just think that there are the right times and places for protests, and a lecture at a University is not one of them, and neither is a homecoming parade either by the way.

If someone is invited to give a lecture, they should be able to do so without being harassed.

Absolutely - protest outside the hall by all means but let the person give their lecture and let others here it. During question and answer time if any - challenge their views in a respectful way. Write a piece for the university newspaper /blog protesting and countering their arguments. Plenty of ways to show you don't approve without being insulting or disruptive to others.

Didge wrote:1.  Again people shoutiong down others is not free speech but trying to deny free speech.

2.  The person was only protested against because he is a Jew, that is antisemitism.

3.  The problems of Palestine are caused by the Palestinian authourities and always have been.

4.  They deny a chance to have a nation because they do not recognise the right of Israel to exist, not that this has anything to do with the speaker, which is the point that eludes you

Those are all questions of fact. I doubt the protesters were shouting where the speaker couldn't be heard. I doubt that the protest was about the speaker's religion.

I doubt that the problems of Palestine are solely caused by Palestinians...aren't the Israelis taking their homes and land and using it for their own purposes?

As you point out in pt. 4, much of this is ideological. It all could be sorted out in a court of law, not in the streets as you would have if it were illegal. We don't need to settle such questions with police batons.

Good that you highlighted the most important points.

Even more impressive you had no answer

Didge wrote:Good that you highlighted the most important points.

Even more impressive you had no answer

Hit the 'send' button prematurely.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:1.  Again people shoutiong down others is not free speech but trying to deny free speech.

2.  The person was only protested against because he is a Jew, that is antisemitism.

3.  The problems of Palestine are caused by the Palestinian authourities and always have been.

4.  They deny a chance to have a nation because they do not recognise the right of Israel to exist, not that this has anything to do with the speaker, which is the point that eludes you

Those are all questions of fact.  I doubt the protesters were shouting where the speaker couldn't be heard.  I doubt that the protest was about the speaker's religion.

I doubt that the problems of Palestine are solely caused by Palestinians...aren't the Israelis taking their homes and land and using it for their own purposes?

As you point out in pt. 4, much of this is ideological.  It all could be sorted out in a court of law, not in the streets as you would have if it were illegal.  We don't need to settle such questions with police batons.

Religion?
Being Jewish is not just religious but an ethnic and cultural identity

Well lets look at the Palestinian problem.
They were the aggressors, they from the very start did not accept the state of Israel to exist and still to this day in the majority do not accept the right of Israel to exist. This is a fundemental fact. They claim the land of Israel is occupied. I am not denying Israel through policies like Settlements has not helped, but looking to make out that Palestine is the victim is like claiming Nazi Germany was the victim for aggresively invading Poland and then losing WW2. The Palestinians set out with Egypt, Jorden, Syria etc, to wipe out Israel and failed and it is now them claiming victim status, which is ridiculous. None of this problem would exist today if the Arabs had accepted the right of Israel to exist. Now I bet you not a single Palestinian would object to the formation of Bosnia, a minority people of a former larger nation of Yugoslavia. Or would they object to many nations that have formed from minorities in larger nations. This is the whole point and it is steeped in religious rhetoric of from the very start objecting to having lands once formely conquered by Arabs/Muslims themselves be in controled by Jews. That is what it boils down to at the end of the day conceeding Muslim control which it had been under the Ottoman Empire. Just look at when Gaza and the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Egypt, and look at the 1964 PLO charter, which did not class these areas as occupied, go figure.. What is even worse they could have peace but do not wish peace, because they simply will not except Israel to exist.
So the settlements are wrong, but is Israel wrong for defending itself?

No

If anything where the Palestinians have had a chance to create a nation 3 times, it has been Israel withdrawing from lands it rightfully won in conflicted, based off numeroeus times of being attacked, that has made concessions to the Palestinians. That is bonkers when you think about it when in the main they have been attacked so many times, yet it shows it is srael reaching out for peace. Resolution 242 was brought in so that such lands after the conflict could not be sceded by that nation that won, though had previously been the case against aggressor nations. The point is and has always been a hatred of the Jews, ever since they were rightfully given the chance of self determination. The Palestinians could have peace tomorrow, they only have to reach out and grab it with both arms, but spare me how you equate them to being any kind of victims, when they have constantly and aggressively attacked Israel. To make out aggressors are victims, of which the Palestinian authorities have always been is like I say making out the Nazi's to being victims.

Again shouting down people based solely becuase they are Jewish, is fundemnetally racist. They are making them culpable and responsible for anything the Israeli goverment does. Imagine making all blacks responsible for the acts of a goverment, that would be again inherantly racist. But this is the reality and why you see antisemitism around the world, because of hate directed not so much at Israel but at Jews themselves.

You do not resolve problems by shouting down those who differ with your views, as nothing is achieved. As imagine growing up having a tantrum shouting at your parents everytime they tries to reason with you. You would never learn anything or be able to reason your points, as you would be seen as problematic.


The point is his talk as actually about troops doing more to protect the lives of civillians, so how on earth does that warrant vile people, shouting abuse and shouting antisemism through songs?

You are not prosecutor/judge/ & jury, Didge. Make your case to a civil court jury, not to us.

Original Quill wrote:You are not prosecutor/judge/ & jury, Didge.  Make your case to a civil court jury, not to us.

I thought this was a debate reasoning the ethics of the conflict and situation?
Whether you cannot respond to them or not is your issue, not mine

Again what these vile thugs did was unethical and stems clearly from antisemitism.
Only hate leads to such abuse, as these people absued the actual ethics of teaching itself.
As can you imagine teaching lessons in that capacity?

I have noticed that Quill just likes to stir the shit, even if he agreed with you he would not admit it, it suits him to wind people up.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You are not prosecutor/judge/ & jury, Didge.  Make your case to a civil court jury, not to us.

I thought this was a debate reasoning the ethics of the conflict and situation?
Whether you cannot respond to them or not is your issue, not mine

Your mistake.  This is a debate about free speech.  It happened in Minnesota and that is in a state of US.  The US is an open society...the provisions of the US Constitution apply.  The First Amendment to the US Constitution allows free speech and assembly, and that includes the right to demonstrate peacefully for any issue, right or wrong in your eyes, justified or not.

If you like, those are the ethics of the situation.  The US is a constitutional government, and one of the provisions of the Constitution is that speech, assembly and demonstrations like this are permitted.  We haven't even gotten into the veracity of their cause.

Didge wrote:Again what these vile thugs did was unethical and stems clearly from antisemitism.
Only hate leads to such abuse, as these people absued the actual ethics of teaching itself.
As can you imagine teaching lessons in that capacity?

I disagree that these were "thugs".  I disagree that what they did was "unethical".  I disagree that it was "antisemitism".

Furthermore, I disagree that it was "hate", or if it was, you have yet to show us that it was.  It is my understanding that they were reacting to the actions of Israel, which they claim to be unethical and unlawful.  That's not hate; that's a difference of opinion.

As long as they were not physically disruptive--and the ones who were had been removed--I even disagree that it was abusive to the function of teaching.  I have personally taught on a university campus where demonstrations were taking place outside.  We carried on, and on many such occasions we turned it into a lessor in democracy.  I was at Berkeley, where demonstrations are no small part of life.

I would have thought there was a right to remove disruptive people from the University premises.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought there was a right to remove disruptive people from the University premises.

University premises are where demonstrations commonly are held. They are public places, most often supported by public funds.

The article says that inside the lecture hall, two persons were removed.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought there was a right to remove disruptive people from the University premises.

University premises are where demonstrations commonly are held.  They are public places, most often supported by public funds.

The article says that inside the lecture hall, two persons were removed.

It's wrong to have a demonstration when someone's giving a lecture. It's rude to them, and it's rude to the people who actually want to listen. Sometimes, Quill, you need to acknowledge that such behaviour is out of order and forget about your own prejudices.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

University premises are where demonstrations commonly are held.  They are public places, most often supported by public funds.

The article says that inside the lecture hall, two persons were removed.

It's wrong to have a demonstration when someone's giving a lecture. It's rude to them, and it's rude to the people who actually want to listen. Sometimes, Quill, you need to acknowledge that such behaviour is out of order and forget about your own prejudices.

Meh...rudeness? Methinks he'll live.

Demonstrations seeking redress are a time-honored part of American life. Y'all have the same thing going on at Hyde Park.

Universities in particular are places where demonstrations typically take place. They are places where issues are being discussed, and important to the people there. Listen...I went to Berkeley, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that demonstrations on university campuses are not what it's all about.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's wrong to have a demonstration when someone's giving a lecture. It's rude to them, and it's rude to the people who actually want to listen. Sometimes, Quill, you need to acknowledge that such behaviour is out of order and forget about your own prejudices.

Meh...rudeness?  Methinks he'll live.

Demonstrations seeking redress are a time-honored part of American life.  Y'all have the same thing going on at Hyde Park.

Universities in particular are places where demonstrations typically take place.  They are places where issues are being discussed, and important to the people there.  Listen...I went to Berkeley, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that demonstrations on university campuses are not what it's all about.

Demonstrating at Hyde Park isn't quite the same thing now is it Quill?

People who go to University should respect the right of others to hear lectures - they're supposed to be intelligent after all.

Bear in mind ragga...when talking of intelligence, that you are talking about a country where 30+% actually beleive in creationism

where a significant proportion believe in the zombie apocalyps

where an even bigger percentage believe the govt is "out to get them"...personally

etc etc etc.....

Lord Foul wrote:Bear in mind ragga...when talking of intelligence, that you are talking about a country where 30+%  actually beleive in creationism

where a significant proportion believe in the zombie apocalyps

where an even bigger percentage believe the govt is "out to get them"...personally

etc etc etc.....

I put it down to the rather histrionic nature of some Americans really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Meh...rudeness?  Methinks he'll live.

Demonstrations seeking redress are a time-honored part of American life.  Y'all have the same thing going on at Hyde Park.

Universities in particular are places where demonstrations typically take place.  They are places where issues are being discussed, and important to the people there.  Listen...I went to Berkeley, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that demonstrations on university campuses are not what it's all about.

Demonstrating at Hyde Park isn't quite the same thing now is it Quill?

People who go to University should respect the right of others to hear lectures - they're supposed to be intelligent after all.

Pshaww...people who go to university go there to be exposed to new and different ideas. What better way to be exposed to that than a living demonstration, airing the issues and having discussions on the periphery. That's what is all about.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Demonstrating at Hyde Park isn't quite the same thing now is it Quill?

People who go to University should respect the right of others to hear lectures - they're supposed to be intelligent after all.

Pshaww...people who go to university go there to be exposed to new and different ideas.  What better way to be exposed to that than a living demonstration, airing the issues and having discussions on the periphery.  That's what is all about.

So the people who wanted to hear the lecture wanted to hear something new and different. Why aren't you standing up for them?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Pshaww...people who go to university go there to be exposed to new and different ideas.  What better way to be exposed to that than a living demonstration, airing the issues and having discussions on the periphery.  That's what is all about.

So the people who wanted to hear the lecture wanted to hear something new and different. Why aren't you standing up for them?

Confrontation is a learning experience. Life isn't all about bussing on the cheeks, and then off to tea. Well, maybe it is for a British finishing school...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So the people who wanted to hear the lecture wanted to hear something new and different. Why aren't you standing up for them?

Confrontation is a learning experience.  Life isn't all about bussing on the cheeks, and then off to tea.  Well, maybe it is for a British finishing school...

I don't think there's much to be learnt by acting like a loud-mouthed hooligan. Perhaps that sort of thing is admired where you come from, but it's not generally admired over here.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I thought this was a debate reasoning the ethics of the conflict and situation?
Whether you cannot respond to them or not is your issue, not mine

Your mistake.  This is a debate about free speech.  It happened in Minnesota and that is in a state of US.  The US is an open society...the provisions of the US Constitution apply.  The First Amendment to the US Constitution allows free speech and assembly, and that includes the right to demonstrate peacefully for any issue, right or wrong in your eyes, justified or not.

If you like, those are the ethics of the situation.  The US is a constitutional government, and one of the provisions of the Constitution is that speech, assembly and demonstrations like this are permitted.  We haven't even gotten into the veracity of their cause.

Didge wrote:Again what these vile thugs did was unethical and stems clearly from antisemitism.
Only hate leads to such abuse, as these people absued the actual ethics of teaching itself.
As can you imagine teaching lessons in that capacity?

I disagree that these were "thugs".  I disagree that what they did was "unethical".  I disagree that it was "antisemitism".

Furthermore, I disagree that it was "hate", or if it was, you have yet to show us that it was.  It is my understanding that they were reacting to the actions of Israel, which they claim to be unethical and unlawful.  That's not hate; that's a difference of opinion.

As long as they were not physically disruptive--and the ones who were had been removed--I even disagree that it was abusive to the function of teaching.  I have personally taught on a university campus where demonstrations were taking place outside.  We carried on, and on many such occasions we turned it into a lessor in democracy.  I was at Berkeley, where demonstrations are no small part of life.

1) You are completely mistaken if you think Free speech is shouting down a lecture, as it is denying that person the chance to speak and lay their case for what ever specific topic they are discussing. In this case, it was about how soldiers in war should do more, even at risks to themselves to help prevent civillian casulaties. How anyone thinks that should be a reason to shout a person down, not allowing them a chance is denying free speech in itself, which you have mistaken throughout. So you are making a mockery of not only the First Amendment but championing thuggery.

2) Again nobody was denying them a chance to speak, its called waiting your turn, which is what most civilized people do when there is a lecture going on. In this case these thugs tried to drown out what was being stated, whish is not engaging in civilized discussions. Nobody is going to be able to voice or hear properly either side. If one of them is not waiting their turn by shouting down the person who 's turn it is to speak at that given time. So do you think the Supreme Court would function in the capacity you claim is Free Speech? Of course not. Haas there been any trial you sat as Judge where somebody just shouted over anybody who was speaking and you allowed such a fracus to continue? Of course not and to even attempt to claim otherwise is being completely disingenuous on your part.

3) There is nothing wrong with civilized protests, where you can voice your concern within the parameters of the debate. This was not a lecture that was derived from any oppressive speech but was in fact speaking on the humane view which sought to protect civillian life. So how anyone can formely protest and then even worse shout down that person for no other reason because they were an Israeli and a Jews, is racist and barbaric. It is the very thugs you champion that were the oppressors being hateful because of an association. His nationality and ethnicity. That is like saying you would champion KKK to shout down a lecture by Martin Luther King in his hey day. That again would be barbaric because those who shout down and use the method of hate, are no better than the hate they proclaim to champion against. Hate does not combat hate, and if you think so you then know nothing of peace.

4) You can disagree all you like that it is not hate, which shows you know very little about antisemitism. These people were singing a song which denies the very existance of Israel. To do that would be like singing denouncing any nation in a world to exist thus denying the people of that nation self determination. How you do not think that is hate, when Israel does exist and these people are calling for it to cease to exist is pure hatred. If you claim to stand for self determination then you have no argument against this being hate. Not only that you would then aslo back the view that a person is guilty by association, which I know you do not agree whith because if you did, you would then back countless racists that claim blacks are all criminals through guilt by association. So you need to make up your mind here. Your sentiments to Palestine, of which I wish to have a nation of their own, has clouded your ability to reason here and you like I said forego your Liberal values. That is why at no point has any of your points had any validity.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Confrontation is a learning experience.  Life isn't all about bussing on the cheeks, and then off to tea.  Well, maybe it is for a British finishing school...

I don't think there's much to be learnt by acting like a loud-mouthed hooligan. Perhaps that sort of thing is admired where you come from, but it's not generally admired over here.

You sound like just the ole marm that kids go to university to get away from.


Did your kids wanna got to Aberdeen?

Original Quill wrote:

You sound like just the ole marm that kids go to university to get away from.

Did your kids wanna got to Aberdeen?

I went to University, and never behaved in such an unseemly and rude manner. If people wanted to listen to a lecture, they were entitled to do so without some foul-mouthed yobs causing a scene.

and you wonder why the americans are universally disliked the world over

not "hated" just disliked