Denounce the hooligans who jeered a guest lecturer at the U

First topic message reminder :

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/

Lord Foul wrote:and you wonder why the americans are universally disliked the world over

not "hated" just disliked

Haha...I really don't care. You don't seek to be liked. You look for respect.

I don't see the UK with twenty-two aircraft carrier fleets around the world. In fact, I think it's down there suckling on one of the teats.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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.



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.

Still waiting for a reply Quill

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:

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.

Still waiting for a reply Quill

I already told you I disagree. You're just repetitive, saying the same things over and over.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and you wonder why the americans are universally disliked the world over

not "hated" just disliked

Haha...I really don't care.  You don't seek to be liked.  You look for respect.

I don't see the UK with twenty-two aircraft carrier fleets around the world.  In fact, I think it's down there suckling on one of the teats.

I thought you didn't approve of war.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Still waiting for a reply Quill

I already told you I disagree.  You're just repetitive, saying the same things over and over.

I do not think so I resoundly showed your views were in conflict and contradicting.
As seen your last reply just proves that, so thanks for a waste of a debate, when you already knew you had no answer.

faux respect...is that what you seek? the fear shown to bullies...

thats not respect....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...I really don't care.  You don't seek to be liked.  You look for respect.

I don't see the UK with twenty-two aircraft carrier fleets around the world.  In fact, I think it's down there suckling on one of the teats.

I thought you didn't approve of war.

You've got it wrong. I don't approve of wasting time and resources on bullshit.

Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya...these little pissant actions are half way round the world and we have no business there.

When and if the US has a genuine purpose, I'm all for it. But people who want action with ISIL are just bored, and I ain't paying for it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought you didn't approve of war.

You've got it wrong.  I don't approve of wasting time and resources on bullshit.

Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya...these little pissant actions are half way round the world and we have no business there.

When and if the US has a genuine purpose, I'm all for it.  But people who want action with ISIL are just bored, and I ain't paying for it.

So where are these 22 aircraft carrier fleets?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You've got it wrong.  I don't approve of wasting time and resources on bullshit.

Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya...these little pissant actions are half way round the world and we have no business there.

When and if the US has a genuine purpose, I'm all for it.  But people who want action with ISIL are just bored, and I ain't paying for it.

So where are these 22 aircraft carrier fleets?

They are mostly all deployed.  There 11 super-carrier task forces, and 11 small carrier task forces.  I don't keep track of them.  



Before they can get to you, they have to get through them.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So where are these 22 aircraft carrier fleets?

They are mostly all deployed.  There 11 super-carrier task forces, and 11 small carrier task forces.  I don't keep track of them.  



Before they can get to you, they have to get through them.

So they could be around Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Libya then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are mostly all deployed.  There 11 super-carrier task forces, and 11 small carrier task forces.  I don't keep track of them.  



Before they can get to you, they have to get through them.

So they could be around Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Libya then.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that I saw on the TV news that one of them was in the Persian Gulf. You hear now and then, but I don't keep track.

Maybe this article decribes why Moshe Halbertal had such a hard time.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/killing-40-civilians-one-go-reasonable-says-israel-army-ethicist

If you are stating and talking about really contraversial subjects that involves the deaths of thousands of people then a student campus is not exactly the best place to expect to get an easy ride no matter which side you are on.



Goes with the teritory doesn't it?

And I seem to remember Walter Wolfgang was the darling of the RW when he was hecling Jack Straw at a Labour Party conference. That was over the top of course using anti-terrorism laws to do so but at least he got an apology.

Irn Bru wrote:Maybe this article decribes why Moshe Halbertal had such a hard time.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/killing-40-civilians-one-go-reasonable-says-israel-army-ethicist

If you are stating and talking about really contraversial subjects that involves the deaths of thousands of people then a student campus is not exactly the best place to expect to get an easy ride no matter which side you are on.



Goes with the teritory doesn't it?

And I seem to remember Walter Wolfgang was the darling of the RW when he was hecling Jack Straw at a Labour Party conference. That was over the top of course using anti-terrorism laws to do so but at least he got an apology.

So I rn approves and justifies the antisemitism based off a bias pro Palestinian paper as his only source which even makes a feeble case against him:


Moshe Halbertal, a law professor at Hebrew University and visiting professor of law at New York University, was less extreme in his rhetoric and allowed for some criticism of Israel’s behavior in Gaza. But he chalked up Israeli atrocities, like the wiping out of dozens of families in Gaza, to “sporadic” mistakes. “War is messy,” he said.

That is them themselves inventing things he says to things they associate to.
Like I say, first off Irn tries to deny the creation around Israel and uses some dody souyrce as a means to justify antisemtism.
Here is a link to him, which is far removed from the false claims Irn has made to justify thugs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Halbertal

How does Irn "approve and justify" antisemitism merely because he believes (rightly) that demonstrations are to be expected, given the speaker and the setting of a university campus.

His comments are on the periphery, and not even involving the substance of Halbertal's lecture. I think this is one of those times where you're a little overboard there, didge.

Original Quill wrote:How does Irn "approve and justify" antisemitism merely because he believes (rightly) that demonstrations are to be expected, given the speaker and the setting of a university campus.

His comments are on the periphery, and not even involving the substance of Halbertal's lecture.  I think this is one of those times where you're a little overboard there, didge.

I think you are talking ujtter bull at the end of the day if you think a person is a target of hate based on nothing more than the fact he is a Jew. Again his lecture was on the troops in comabt to ensure more than anything they risk their lives more to save civillians, which at every turn you have avoided just as you di my last post which I shall now post for you again which you made the poorest excuses not to counter

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.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:How does Irn "approve and justify" antisemitism merely because he believes (rightly) that demonstrations are to be expected, given the speaker and the setting of a university campus.

His comments are on the periphery, and not even involving the substance of Halbertal's lecture.  I think this is one of those times where you're a little overboard there, didge.

I think you are talking ujtter bull at the end of the day if you think a person is a target of hate based on nothing more than the fact he is a Jew. Again his lecture was on the troops in comabt to ensure more than anything they risk their lives more to save civillians, which at every turn you have avoided just as you di my last post which I shall now post for you again which you made the poorest excuses not to counter

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.

Completely misses the point.

One thing that can be noted though those extremist left like Irn, sassy and Quill are the worst racists going on this board with hate for the Jews, where at every turn they try to justify such hate and back thugs who target a person soley because he is a Jew,
All 3 ignored that this group were denying the very existance of Israel and not one of them condemn this for the racism that it is.
The man was not promoting any hate but a speech for the protection  of civillians and they think being a Jew is guilt by association. They ignore they acted like thugs and ignore the hate that was promoted.

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:

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.

Still waiting for a reply Quill

Now it is you missing the point and making poor excuses, and that is the third time you evaded answering

The reason you have no case and the fact again the 3 of you try to defend such hate, means you back hate as a method to target people.

Didge wrote:One thing that can be noted though those extremist left like Irn, sassy and Quill are the worst racists going on this board with hate for the Jews, where at every turn they try to justify such hate and back thugs who target a person soley because he is a Jew,
All 3 ignored that this group were denying the very existance of Israel and not one of them condemn this for the racism that it is.
The man was not promoting any hate but a speech for the protection  of civillians and they think being a Jew is guilt by association. They ignore they acted like thugs and ignore the hate that was promoted.

Your position is extreme. Basically, what you are saying is, if you're not with us you are against us.

That last time I heard that on a political stage, GWB was saying it to any nation that wouldn't join us in attacking Iraq. Bush: 'You Are Either With Us, Or With the Terrorists' - 2001-09-21, Voice of America. We all saw what that led to, didn't we? These are generally seen as words of desperation.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:One thing that can be noted though those extremist left like Irn, sassy and Quill are the worst racists going on this board with hate for the Jews, where at every turn they try to justify such hate and back thugs who target a person soley because he is a Jew,
All 3 ignored that this group were denying the very existance of Israel and not one of them condemn this for the racism that it is.
The man was not promoting any hate but a speech for the protection  of civillians and they think being a Jew is guilt by association. They ignore they acted like thugs and ignore the hate that was promoted.

Your position is extreme.  Basically, what you are saying is, if you're not with us you are against us.

That last time I heard that on a political stage, GWB was saying it to any nation that wouldn't join us in attacking Iraq.   Bush: 'You Are Either With Us, Or With the Terrorists' - 2001-09-21, Voice of America.  We all saw what that led to, didn't we?  These are generally seen as words of desperation.

Wrong, Free speech does not mean shouting down someone whilst they are speaking because that denies the speaker having their Free speech. You back thuggery and based off no justification other than guilt by association to that person being a Jew. At every turn you have tried to deny Free speech not support it because these thugs attempted to deny Free Speeh

Now either address my previous points or stop wasting my time with the poor excuses that you have made throughout this debate. At every turn you have championed those that wished to deny Free speech

My previous post stills stands which I know you cannot answer and are just wasting time.
What you have decided is that because he is a jew makes it acceptable to shout down a person because he is Jewish.

That is racism and you are thus backing racism

Didge wrote:Wrong, Free speech does not mean shouting down someone whilst they are speaking because that denies the speaker having their Free speech. You back thuggery and based off no justification other than guilt by association to that person being a Jew. At every turn you have tried to deny Free speech not support it because these thugs attempted to deny Free Speeh

I think you are on shaky grounds here.  What you call “thuggery”—gratuitous adjectives lend nothing to arguments—are in fact expressions of honest sentiment, aimed at one of the great apologists for Israeli brutality.

Kasher and Halbertal co-authored the Israeli military code of ethics, which has guided the army’s conduct during Israel’s increasingly ferocious military assaults against the Palestinians it occupies as well as its neighbors over the last two decades.

Halbertal’s excuse for Israeli atrocities in Gaza is: War is messy.  That’s not “guilt by association.”  Those are his own insensitive words.   Pretty cavalier for someone who poses as a legal ethicist, wouldn’t you agree?  You’d have to be blind not to recognize that this could tempt some to “thuggery”…as you call it.  I mean, this was not a lecture on the DNA of the paramecium.

The underlying debate is not the issue here, except insofar as to note that there is a degree of aggravation that prompts the protests.  As I understand it, the lecture that Halbertal was giving took place in a lecture hall.  On two occasions protesters were disruptive—the first was before the lecture had even begun, whereupon the protesters were escorted out.  Then, a woman subsequently re-entered from outside and again was promptly escorted out.  

The protests were then held outside the building.   At that point, if the protesters were too loud, I suggest you take up building soundproofing with the facility management department of the University of Minnesota.

Sounds pretty tame to me…by my Berkeley standards.  Everyday when I was at university, they had some sort of demonstration going on at Sproul Plaza:


Nonetheless, we at Berkeley received one of the finest educations available in the world.

Again still no answer to my fundemental poiints and yet more justification of antisemitism.

Again his speech was on trhe further safeguard of civillians, whereas they were singing the denial of israel itself. That is clear antisemitism to deny the existance of a country and the self determination they have and they did this based off the fact he is Israeli. If this had been a speaker from Rhwanda, and people shouting abuse at this person for no other association that he comes from that country and claiming thus is responsible for the genocide, would you think that is resonable?

If you do then you are again claiming guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy.


Again the worst aspect of every reply you have stated you have not shown how shouting down a person is Free Speech, when by doing so is actually denying free speech

Now if you fail to answer my original post again where many points were address the debate is over, because I am not wasting my time with someone who evades most of the points.

Either way you are losing the debate, so this is your last chane Quill, fail to do so.






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.

Didge wrote:Now either address my previous points or stop wasting my time with the poor excuses that you have made throughout this debate. At every turn you have championed those that wished to deny Free speech

Lol…Didge, I’m not responsible for your actions in "wasting [your own] time", nor should I be. You are responsible for your own actions. If you didn’t keep answering, the debate would die of its own volition.

I’m responsible for my own actions; you are responsible for yours. I have no control over whether you keep it going or not. However, I’m quite enjoying the discussion…perhaps because I’ve gotten the better of it. Lol.

I told you Quill I am not wasting my time when people avoid countless points. So its up to you in furture to engage them, if you do not, then there is little point further debating
You lost the debate when I made that post which you failed to answer, and many here knowo that accept pourself,l which is your own failing not mine. It jjust gets tedious when you avoid answsering. So accept you lost the debate graciously, if not, then I will let you sulk as the debate is over

Like I say, Free speech is not shouting down people, as that denies Free Speech

Laters

Didge wrote:Again his speech was on trhe further safeguard of civillians, whereas they were singing the denial of israel itself. That is clear antisemitism to deny the existance of a country and the self determination they have and they did this based off the fact he is Israeli. If this had been a speaker from Rhwanda, and people shouting abuse at this person for no other association that he comes from that country and claiming thus is responsible for the genocide, would you think that is resonable?

If you do then you are again claiming guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy.

Again the worst aspect of every reply you have stated you have not shown how shouting down a person is Free Speech, when by doing so is actually denying free speech

Well, as I said, I am not interested in the underlying topic of his lecture, except insofar as it prompted the demonstrations.

And guilt by association is not a logical fallacy. It is quite logical, however it is irrelevant. Association may suggest sympathy, but it cannot give rise to guilt alone. Guilt by association is technically known as a fallacy of relevance (of what relevance is the association to the guilt?)

You have yet to prove that these demonstrators did not have a point. What you are really saying is that you wish they would not make their point. You argue that they are faux free speakers, who put out noise in lieu of ideas. But in order to prove that you must deal with their ideas; and to deal with their ideas is to concede that they have a point.

What you are really saying is your premise is not the same as their premise. You keep banging away at your premise, just as they keep banging away at their premise. Then you throw up your arms and say, this is pointless...they are just shouters. It is pointless, but that's as much your fault as theirs. If you are not communicating, you are just shouting.

Didge wrote:I told you Quill I am not wasting my time when people avoid countless points. So its up to you in furture to engage them, if you do not, then there is little point further debating
You lost the debate when I made that post which you failed to answer, and many here knowo that accept pourself,l which is your own failing not mine. It jjust gets tedious when you avoid answsering. So accept you lost the debate graciously, if not, then I will let you sulk as the debate is over

Like I say, Free speech is not shouting down people, as that denies Free Speech

Laters

But you are still deflecting the real point.  The protesters in this case are not merely shouting down...they are protesting a genuine point about this speaker: he is an apologist for Israeli atrocities against Gaza. He even admits as much, saying War is messy.

How civilized is a person who stands over the bodies of dead children and says that?  The protesters are right to be appalled.  And equally, they have a right to shout their indignation.

Every point avoided again

Show me the war crimes israel has been found guilty of that he has defended?

You are just going off poor claims quill and what was it you said to me earlier on this very debate?

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

So how is it now you have contradicted yourself and become the prosecutor/judge and Jury?

You have decided for one that Israel is guilty of war crimes, when it never has been. I have stated i think they are at least in one case very possibly guilty of a war crime with operation Hannibal, but you have no grounds of evidence to make such an assertion and yet haved judged that they are. So did any of these protestors at any point recognise the war crimes committed by Hamas? Notice I did not say Palestinians, because i cannot hold culpable for the actions of Hamas, as much as I would never hold all israeli's accountable for the actions of the IDF or Israeli goverment. Now lets talk about moral equivalence.

Hamas fires indiscrminate rocket attacks into Israel, with the sole intent to hit and cause terror to civillians.

The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the relevant sections of which have the status of customary international law, in Article 57(2) c indeed prescribes that ‘effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit’.

That is a war crime. Each and every attack is a war crime.

Israel drops leaflets, then rings or texts and then lastly uses the roof tapping, to warn civillians of an impending attack. This can range in time but its at least 10 minutes with a phone warning. Even the biased link here cannot denied that.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-gaza-families-were-given-just-ten-minutes-warning-israeli-attacks/14102

And how many minutes do the Israeli's near the border have warning of an attack, which I might add no warning not come from Hamas, but from the Israel defense system?

3 minutes

Now for the Palestinians there should be very few casulaties, but this is not the case, because of some fundemental appalling Policies by Hamas that ensure high casulaty rates. Luckily Israel invests in the protection of its civillians, with defense systems and bomb shelters, otherwise the casualties would be far higher. Now with Hamas though they do not care for even Palestinian civillian lives.

1) They place weaponary around civillian areas, so any retaliation attack, even warning is going to be fired into a built up area, which Israel has a legitimate right to target. This though again which there is countless evidence of Hamas doing is yet again a War crime.

2) Hamas builds tunnels, that fighters and the elite of Hamas can use, but build no bomb shelters for the civillians, and as seen instead build tunnels for the majority with the intention of attacking israel. This again shows no care for the civillians of Gaza by Hamas. Now if Hams actually cared about its civillians and built bomb shelters or gave access to the tunnels used to attack israel. 10 minutes is enough time to seek shelter.

3) Last and by far the worst mechanism used by Hamas, is human shields. They instill a view of Martydom to the people of gaza and have been shown again with evidence that they demand that people do not seek safety after been warned of an impending attack by Israel. That is basically asking humans to defend their rockets. It then glorifies these people dying of which they have demanded thier blood in order to protect the weapons they indiscrminately attack Israel with. Again that is a war crime.

Voluntary human shields may, under certain circumstances, be considered to directly participate in hostilities and hence, for such time as they do, lose their protection from attack under Article 51(3).

If Israel has been guilty of a war crime it has been like operation hannibal, where an israel was taken hostage and a commander opened fire indiscriminately shelling, trying to take out those who had taken that soldier hostage or even worse take out the Israel Soldier, in order to save them totrure.

Completely wrong and have condemned many times.

So you are telling me, these pro-Palestinan thugs, who ignore all these wrongs done by Hamas, are justified in acting like thugs shouting down a lecturer, with hate, of which it was hate, based off your view he is an apologist to war crimes?

Seriously?

I think you need to see who really are the apologists here. The same thugs shouting songs that deny the very existance of israel. They thus have no justification for their hate, when they ignore the countless war crimes committed by Hamas.

So moral equivalence.

How can they be justified to shout down someone who they have an unsubstantiated claim is an apologist of again a claim to Israeli war crimes, when they are apoplogists of war crimes themselves?

Now he would have enagged them in discussion on this very matter, but they did not want to talk or discuss but shout down the lecturer, which says more about the fact that they are apologists, than he is, because they are closing their ears to any reason.

It proves beyond doubt they were nothing more than racists thugs

Which leaves you little to back any of your stance here with yet again you not offering a single reason to or rational view that proves shouting down someone from speaking is not denying a person Free Speech.

He was the one denied Free Speech and all due to hate.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Maybe this article decribes why Moshe Halbertal had such a hard time.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/killing-40-civilians-one-go-reasonable-says-israel-army-ethicist

If you are stating and talking about really contraversial subjects that involves the deaths of thousands of people then a student campus is not exactly the best place to expect to get an easy ride no matter which side you are on.



Goes with the teritory doesn't it?

And I seem to remember Walter Wolfgang was the darling of the RW when he was hecling Jack Straw at a Labour Party conference. That was over the top of course using anti-terrorism laws to do so but at least he got an apology.

So I rn approves and justifies the antisemitism based off a bias pro Palestinian paper as his only source which even makes a feeble case against him:


Moshe Halbertal, a law professor at Hebrew University and visiting professor of law at New York University, was less extreme in his rhetoric and allowed for some criticism of Israel’s behavior in Gaza. But he chalked up Israeli atrocities, like the wiping out of dozens of families in Gaza, to “sporadic” mistakes. “War is messy,” he said.

That is them themselves inventing things he says to things they associate to.
Like I say, first off Irn tries to deny the creation around Israel and uses some dody souyrce as a means to justify antisemtism.
Here is a link to him, which is far removed from the false claims Irn has made to justify thugs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Halbertal

You need to learn to read what people actually say and not end up sticking labels on them for something they didn't do. I gave a reason why people maybe want to demonstrate against people who hold views on events that lead to the death of thousands of people and in doing so they can probably expect a rough ride on student campuses where it happens on a regular basis whichever side you are on

Anyway, you are the last one to whinge about free speech given that you were promoting the view that people who post, write or publish words on what you consider to be anti-semetic views should be banned.

So much for your free speech in that your free speech is ok but those that you disagree with it is not. I guess you must have been expecting to get a free run without retort,,,,,right?

Remember this thread?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7727-the-new-anti-semitism-treat-racial-hatred-trolls-like-sex-offenders-and-hit-them-with-internet-asbos-mps-propose

And that from the regular user of racial aggrivated language and xeenphobic rants make your vision one of an absulute hypocrite.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


So I rn approves and justifies the antisemitism based off a bias pro Palestinian paper as his only source which even makes a feeble case against him:


Moshe Halbertal, a law professor at Hebrew University and visiting professor of law at New York University, was less extreme in his rhetoric and allowed for some criticism of Israel’s behavior in Gaza. But he chalked up Israeli atrocities, like the wiping out of dozens of families in Gaza, to “sporadic” mistakes. “War is messy,” he said.

That is them themselves inventing things he says to things they associate to.
Like I say, first off Irn tries to deny the creation around Israel and uses some dody souyrce as a means to justify antisemtism.
Here is a link to him, which is far removed from the false claims Irn has made to justify thugs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Halbertal

You need to learn to read what people actually say and not end up sticking labels on them for something they didn't do. I gave a reason why people maybe want to demonstrate against people who hold views on events that lead to the death of thousands of people and in doing so they can probably expect a rough ride on student campuses where it happens on a regular basis whichever side you are on

Anyway, you are the last one to whinge about free speech given that you were promoting the view that people who post, write or publish words on what you consider to be anti-semetic views should be banned.

So much for your free speech in that your free speech is ok but those that you disagree with it is not. I guess you must have been expecting to get a free run without retort,,,,,right?

Remember this thread?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7727-the-new-anti-semitism-treat-racial-hatred-trolls-like-sex-offenders-and-hit-them-with-internet-asbos-mps-propose

And that from the regular user of racial aggrivated language and xeenphobic rants make your vision one of an absulute hypocrite.

Again nothing that addresses my points, brings out his disctionary of collected views by me because he is obsessed with hate against me, thinking that proves his point

It does not, its yet again a poor deflection, I mean something 7 months ago, where againt that was on hate speech, so quelle surprise you are obsessed and think people have to stick to things from the past
Its proves your desperation again Irn, even more so with your last point

Anyway, You posted up some poor link, with one sentence claim made from a pro Palestinian media, which was utterly poor.

Israel has not been hit with any judgements to face war crimes, you just back a thuggish group that clearly are haters of Jews.

You back thugs who no doubt like you support Hamas and suppor war crimes in the actions of Hamas

That is what is so disgusting, such thugs, shouting and singing songs denying the existance of israel, which you do not vene condemn which is racist in itself

You also think its acceptable to deny free speech because a person is Jewish

That is racism on every level and you hace veen utterly exposed Irn

Glad people are finally getting to see what you are really like.

So if anyone wanted to know who are the real thugs, its the extreme left, no better than the far right that think hate is acceptable.

Didge wrote:Every point avoided again

Show me the war crimes israel has been found guilty of that he has defended?

You are just going off poor claims quill and what was it you said to me earlier on this very debate?

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

So how is it now you have contradicted yourself and become the prosecutor/judge and Jury?

You have decided for one that Israel is guilty of war crimes, when it never has been. I have stated i think they are at least in one case very possibly guilty of a war crime with operation Hannibal, but you have no grounds of evidence to make such an assertion and yet haved judged that they are. So did any of these protestors at any point recognise the war crimes committed by Hamas? Notice I did not say Palestinians, because i cannot hold culpable for the actions of Hamas, as much as I would never hold all israeli's accountable for the actions of the IDF or Israeli goverment. Now lets talk about moral equivalence.

Hamas fires indiscrminate rocket attacks into Israel, with the sole intent to hit and cause terror to civillians.

The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the relevant sections of which have the status of customary international law, in Article 57(2) c indeed prescribes that ‘effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit’.

That is a war crime. Each and every attack is a war crime.

Israel drops leaflets, then rings or texts and then lastly uses the roof tapping, to warn civillians of an impending attack. This can range in time but its at least 10 minutes with a phone warning. Even the biased link here cannot denied that.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-gaza-families-were-given-just-ten-minutes-warning-israeli-attacks/14102

And how many minutes do the Israeli's near the border have warning of an attack, which I might add no warning not come from Hamas, but from the Israel defense system?

3 minutes

Now for the Palestinians there should be very few casulaties, but this is not the case, because of some fundemental appalling Policies by Hamas that ensure high casulaty rates. Luckily Israel invests in the protection of its civillians, with defense systems and bomb shelters, otherwise the casualties would be far higher. Now with Hamas though they do not care for even Palestinian civillian lives.

1) They place weaponary around civillian areas, so any retaliation attack, even warning is going to be fired into a built up area, which Israel has a legitimate right to target. This though again which there is countless evidence of Hamas doing is yet again a War crime.

2) Hamas builds tunnels, that fighters and the elite of Hamas can use, but build no bomb shelters for the civillians, and as seen instead build tunnels for the majority with the intention of attacking israel. This again shows no care for the civillians of Gaza by Hamas. Now if Hams actually cared about its civillians and built bomb shelters or gave access to the tunnels used to attack israel. 10 minutes is enough time to seek shelter.

3) Last and by far the worst mechanism used by Hamas, is human shields. They instill a view of Martydom to the people of gaza and have been shown again with evidence that they demand that people do not seek safety after been warned of an impending attack by Israel. That is basically asking humans to defend their rockets. It then glorifies these people dying of which they have demanded thier blood in order to protect the weapons they indiscrminately attack Israel with. Again that is a war crime.

Voluntary human shields may, under certain circumstances, be considered to directly participate in hostilities and hence, for such time as they do, lose their protection from attack under Article 51(3).

If Israel has been guilty of a war crime it has been like operation hannibal, where an israel was taken hostage and a commander opened fire indiscriminately shelling, trying to take out those who had taken that soldier hostage or even worse take out the Israel Soldier, in order to save them totrure.

Completely wrong and have condemned many times.

So you are telling me, these pro-Palestinan thugs, who ignore all these wrongs done by Hamas, are justified in acting like thugs shouting down a lecturer, with hate, of which it was hate, based off your view he is an apologist to war crimes?

Seriously?

I think you need to see who really are the apologists here. The same thugs shouting songs that deny the very existance of israel. They thus have no justification for their hate, when they ignore the countless war crimes committed by Hamas.

So moral equivalence.

How can they be justified to shout down someone who they have an unsubstantiated claim is an apologist of again a claim to Israeli war crimes, when they are apoplogists of war crimes themselves?

Now he would have enagged them in discussion on this very matter, but they did not want to talk or discuss but shout down the lecturer, which says more about the fact that they are apologists, than he is, because they are closing their ears to any reason.

It proves beyond doubt they were nothing more than racists thugs

Which leaves you little to back any of your stance here with yet again you not offering a single reason to or rational view that proves shouting down someone from speaking is not denying a person Free Speech.

He was the one denied Free Speech and all due to hate.

Anyway sorry Quill for the poor deflections from Irn

Back to the debate