Sorry, I don't think it's "cancel culture" to deport foreign nationals who express support for an officially recognized terrorist organization. It's common sense.
I support this sentiment. Terrorist supporters undermine what we work for and frankly would not be afforded the freedom or lifestyle 'back home' that they enjoy here. Governments don't negotiate with terrorists, has that changed? These dumb kids are vulnerable or enroute to being turned into terrorists themselves from what we are seeing.
Alas, it is not that simple... who designates which groups are terrorists? A favorite play from the Strongman's Playbook is to label opponents as terrorists and get allies to agree.
One of many examples: the PKK is an organization fighting for Kurdish autonomy from Turkey and it has been officially recognized as a terrorist organization by them. Turkey being a member of NATO has urged other NATO nations (including the US) to recognize the PKK as terrorists. Many Kurds around the world, including in the USA, consider the PKK to be freedom fighters opposing an oppressive regime. To be fair, some PKK actions fit neatly into the category "terrorist attack." Opinion is divided.
Here's where it starts getting really messy:
Under the umbrella of the PKK is the YPG, an American ally in fighting ISIS. Turkey was livid over American support of Kurds with ties to the PKK. So, under the previous administration, America abandoned some of our staunchest allies in the Middle East despite protests from our Military who fought along side them. When the US abandoned the YPG, General Mattis resigned - read his resignation letter https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/20/2002075156/-1/-1/1/LETTER-FROM-SECRETARY-JAMES-N-MATTIS.PDF
Are you seriously trying to argue that it's a grey political question whether Hamas is a terrorist organization after they brutally murdered over 1200 innocent civilians and kidnapped hundreds more, including elderly and babies? Maybe try a bit harder to hide your antisemitism.
Wow. Calling me antisemitic - despite my being part Jewish! That is a sign of a quality intellectual discussion. I recall when Hawking & Suskind were debating properties of Black Holes, they'd always include a nasty attack on the other's character like accusing their opponent of pedophilia and such.
I am confident I am engaged in a productive conversation with a worthy partner!
In any case, I did not refer to Hamas. I replied to a statement supporting
"[D]eporting foreign nationals who express support for an officially recognized terrorist organization."
My point was that it is not always that clear cut. I gave an example of the US military partnering with the YPG and giving them military aid in the fight against ISIS. The YPG are under the PKK, who are officially recognized as a terrorist organization.
I do agree with the civilized world that Hamas is a terrorist organization illustrated by their attacks, which they video'd and distributed. I also agree that water is wet and fire is hot.
The question is about whether to deport foreign nationals who express support for Hamas, not some mythical hypothetical general principle applied to people who support the Kurds. This should be abundantly clear from the context. Your entire comments are at best irrelevant and at worst serve to muddy the waters, giving the impression that you think Hamas is equivalent to the groups you mention. If that wasn't your intent then I suggest you rethink the appropriateness of your initial response.
Oh. Now I understand! We are 'talking past each other.'
My 'the question' regards the general principle of deporting people for supporting groups that have been labeled as terrorists - and it is not hypothetical. Not for me and my family who are Kurdish. It is not hypothetical for more distant relatives who fought along side the US in Syria but, according to Turkey, are terrorists. This is personal for me & mine.
BTW: Kurdish soldiers are being targeted, along with American soldiers, by allies of Hamas. We are on the same side - and neither of us can afford to alienate friends at this time.
I am sorry that this misunderstanding caused you to be so upset. It seems you are carrying an enormous amount of anger (I can totally relate - I feel angry about Hamas' terrorist attacks, too).
I rethunk my initial response and it is definitely appropriate. Also, as I said before we cannot afford to alienate friends at this time.
Have a great day, I have happier topics to entertain me!
Philosophically, I agree. But practically, it's stupid.
First - the left in the US doesn't fear the right. They despise them. The only thing holding them back from engaging in planned and systematic violence to achieve their political goal of complete power is uncertainty about how much they "can get a way with". The boundaries are being tested continually, and the envelope of acceptability is rapidly expanding.
Second - The left in the US is not interested in co-existence. They consider all conservatives to be "right wing fascist terrorists". They want us jailed or reprogrammed if they can't eliminate enough to cow the remaining into submission.
Third - does anyone think even for one second, that if the "right is nice", the left will start to play nice. NFW - they will become even more extreme than they are now.
The game is already underway and the rules are set. Play it or get destroyed. Sometimes, "ya jus gotta throw down".
I disagree. I have friends/family on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides are convinced the other side is crazy because they are looking at the most extreme of the other end of the spectrum and thinking that they are the representatives of that side.
However, I have heard my liberal friends/family disparage the extreme leftists. And the conservatives disparage the extreme right. There are moderates on either side who don't think like the extremists, though they may understand the emotions/perspectives behind the extremism.
We should be careful not to lump in everyone into the most extreme camp, or we lose our ability to close the divide and institute some civility.
I understand your position, and it's a "nice" position to have.
But, IMO, it's too late for that. The extremes are determining actual government policy and action. This isn't hypothetical anymore. The left wants to, and is beginning to, severely restrict freedom of speech, the right of self defense, freedom of association, the right to chose what you put in your body, they want to monitor everything you say and/or write (they are already monitoring everything that you post - including this), they want to decide how you will raise your kids, they are criminalizing political opposition,...
While the liberal friends and family you have may disparage the extreme left, they continue to vote into power people who implement extreme policies. That's not going to change peacefully, I believe. I've read enough history to conclude that we have crossed the Rubicon.
My position isn't based off of wanting to be "nice." It's about doing what is moral. It's not about standing aside and letting bad guys do bad things. It's about standing one's ground but with principals. Otherwise the alternative one is trying to present is a lateral move at best.
I agree that real harm has been done by extremists, but doing real harm in response will not help. Put more bluntly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We do not need to lump everyone into the most extreme camp. Hamas has done the dirty work for us with its extremist antisemitism, its extremist agenda to eliminate the state of Israel and its extremist and indiscriminate slaughter of Jewish civilians on October 7. Analyzing this situation in terms of the American left/right divide is futile.
Except for people caught up in the pro-Hamas cause who lack the capacity to understand the moral consequences of their words and deeds due to a mental disease or defect, adults who have made the choice to celebrate Hamas deserve public and private opprobrium for doing so.
I agree that we should respond to people who are supporting Hamas. I'm just saying we should keep in line with our morals when we do and not use the severity of the situation to excuse our own (potential) bad responses.
My comments about American politics were in response to comments I received on my post. I don't see them as directly related to the conflict between Hamas and Israel.
Ah! So this is one of the principles compiled by Gurwinder on his substack:
15. Nutpicking:
Online political debate mainly involves cherry-picking the most outlandish members of the enemy side and presenting them as indicative in order to make the entire side look crazy.
The culture war is essentially just each side sneering at the other side's lunatics. I'
Pro-Hamas protesters are not asking for open dialogue leading to better outcomes. They explicitly call for the elimination of Israel and the extermination of its inhabitants. No other outcome is acceptable for them. They don't want to get along. So this statement doesn't make sense - "We could reach across the aisle with an olive branch and find common cause with our brothers and sisters across the political spectrum" in this situation. What words can you say to someone who tortures, rapes and kills and ALSO records it all with a bodycam. What conversation is there with those who support it?
On campus, if harassment is severe, persistent or pervasive and to limits or deny a student's ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program, then it violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Can a student feel safe, or expect fair treatment in a class, when instructors and their followers are shouting "From the river to the sea..."? It's not a violation of the First Amendment, in that case, to not tolerate it.
I'm glad to see FAIR sticking to its principals instead of letting anger win. The Hamas attacks were brutal and vicious. People praising them are ignoring that fact. But we need not be brutal and vicious in our response. We need not sink to that level.
So (sarcastically, of course) is "I sank to that level." I believe we should stand our ground but with good morals. Otherwise we aren't the good people we pretend to be.
Humans make our most evil decisions when we view human conflict as good people vs bad people instead of moral choices vs immoral. Look at any atrocity in history - including Hamas's rape, torture, and murder of Israeli people - and you will find that mindset. But there are no magical chosen ones who can do whatever despicable thing they want and still be good people.
My argument is that we should be using good morals to combat bad. Hamas did a terrible thing. People who are arguing, "Hamas are good people who were pushed to do this" are fooling themselves. Hamas chose to be bad people when they chose bad morals.
Good people are dead people if they aren't willing to do bad things when needed.
When I am looking at someone who is threating to kill me I'm not considering "good or bad", "moral or immoral". I'm thinking "kill or be killed".
The false choice is what you propose: if you do a bad thing you can't be a good person. And that highlights the biggest tension of the human condition. We can define "good" and "bad", but can't seem to accept that both exist in people and that "co-existence" is not their definition.
My comment has to do with responding in kind because "they started it," not with avoiding asserting your beliefs. If we have a vengeful attitude, then everyone has a right to react with aggression to every perceived attack. This is what I'm arguing against. And to clarify, I'm talking about verbal/ideological threats. A physical threat is a different scenario. The rules are more dog-eat-dog in a violenclt situation.
Let's say I overhear someone saying that Israel was asking for it, and Hamas is only fighting for the rights of Palestinians. If I respond by saying the speaker deserves to be raped like Israeli women were, or I beat them up because they are verbally supporting violent extremism, then I am responding in kind. I am defending my right to live free from the threat of physical violence by attacking someone promoting violence. But I'm also increasing tension and promoting an altercation between myself and this other person. And since we are all representatives of our belief systems, I'm also promoting an altercation between my political/ideological group and the other person's.
In a nutshell, as long as it isn't a physical threat, I believe we should take the opportunity to show the other person how their view is harmful in an assertive, non-aggressive way. It's the only way to make progress.
It's a lovely, luxury sentiment until your daughter is raped and killed at a music festival or someone kills your family in front of you. It's not like hamas selected an actual political or military target to go after - they went straight for civilians. It is necessary to crush the people who did this.
When waging war one must NEVER allow emotions to over-ride reason. No matter what atrocities have been perpetuated against YOU, exercising restraint goes far beyond a moral luxury. Restraint and reason are pragmatic and critical to victory.
Remember the Abu Graib videos which showed US guards humiliating muslim prisoners (in violation of the rules of war and civilization)? Those guards had emotional reasons to exact revenge for 9/11 - they would not be human if they did not feel the desire for revenge. Unfortunately, when the video leaked it incited much anti-American hatred and rallied the resistance (for many Iraqis, America was an aggressor attacking and innocent nation). I have heard an estimate that that video extended the war by a few years and cost many soldier's lives.
The history of war shows that treating the enemy cruelly galvanizes their resolve and creates enemies faster than you can kill them. If you want to end Hamas' influence you must erode their popular support ... which means waging war surgically, rationally and with restraint.
As I said, when there is a physical threat, a physical response is often needed. However, we need not sink to their level. We shouldn't send in our soldiers to rape and to kill civilians.
It's not a luxury. If your morals only last until you are provoked, then they aren't morals. You were just in a good mood.
Your original comment appeared to suggest that Israel should moderate it’s response to the hamas outrage. Of course no sane person could advocate or condone what Hamas did, and clearly Israel is not responding in kind. So not clear on the genesis of your original comment.
I was referring to the substack article from FAIR about canceling people for conmemning Israel/being pro-Palestine. My original comment was referring to sticking to principals/morals even when someone is saying something you believe to be very wrong. Using violence/aggression to silence opinions you tends to worsen the situation, makes people arguing for peace/dialogue into hypocrits, and makes the "sane" group into a villain. That's what I was trying to get at; I was pleased that FAIR wasn't being hypocritical and was sticking to its principals, even in a terrible situation.
Not sinking to that level is difficult when you know Hamas will repeat their horrible killings over and over till every Jew is gone. Isn't that in their charter?
Hamas carried out a physical act of violence, so a physical response is necessary. I'm talking about sinking to their level. There is a difference between defending yourself (or country, etc.) from a physical threat and harming civilians. I'm talking about avoiding unnecessary and cruel acts just because we are rightfully angry that Hamas did something despicable.
Dana, do you feel that way regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The majority of the war has been aimed at Ukrainian civilians. Russia has constantly bombed hospitals, schools, apartment building, homes, farms and many other civilian infrastructures ie train stations, restaurants and the list goes on plus the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children. Like Hamas, Russia does not want Ukraine to exist. Would love your thoughts?
I cannot speak for Dana but I think your example is awesome! Western aid for Ukraine has been contingent on Ukrainian 'behavior.'
One thing they had to do is root out much corruption in their government because NATO wasn't going to send billions to have it line the pockets of oligarchs (many of whom are connected to Russian oligarchs!)
Another condition is following the 'rules of war' that prohibit, torture, targeting civilian populations & mistreating POW's (as the Russians are doing).
The problem is mistakes happen and there are always some bad apples. The trick is to practice restraint and not to become a monster when you fight a monster.
Yes, I do. I think that physical actions require physical responses, but I think coming at the situation with a vengeful attitude tends to destroy people's moral character until they are no better than the "bad guys." I attribute it to the fact that when people feel they have a moral motivation, they tend to think any action towards their goal is also moral.
To use a mundane example: Say a coworker is trash talking behind your back. Well, when they slip up and do something stupid/embarrassing, why not talk about them? They deserve it; they did the same to you. But now you are locked in a battle with this person, and they have a valid reason to think you are a scummy person. If you'd confronted them directly instead, you are more likely to stop the problem, and they don't have the excuse that you were doing it too.
Obviously, in situations like Ukraine or Israel, a stern talking-to isn't going to cut it. Military response is necessary and morals get murky. But if the goal is to retaliate, instead of to stop the invasion/violence, a lot more bad will come of it. That's why I argue for sticking to morals and avoiding unnecessary violence.
Hamas hates Israel and feels they deserved the attacks. They feel that taking Palestinian land was a moral flaw on Israel's part. So they (Hamas) feel justified in committing war crimes because they have a moral reason behind their actions. Same with Russia. They feel Ukraine was stolen from them and see themselves as revenging themselves against a bunch of thieves.
The use of the word "thieves" is not accurate. For Putin, it's all about power. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), Ukraine became an independent country and was recognized internationally along with a number of other countries dropping out of the USSR at the same time. Putin, is actually the thief in this regard. With regard to the Jewish state, Palestinians have had the chance to become their own state/country but refused to do what's best in the interest of their people. Jews and Arabs have always lived side by side since time began and actually Judism predates Islam by 3000 years. Hamas loves to hate more than they love their children hence the tragic lives of ordinary Palestinians to this day who live in abject poverty. Only those in power, Hamas for example, live in luxary.
Please, name one pro Hamas protester who’s been physically attacked or arrested for their opinions? Now reverse that question with Isreali. There is no equivalency. Fired, doxxed, published on a database, shamed and denied employment are small mercies for the advocates of murdering innocents.
I agree that supporting mass murder, rape, and torture is despicable and that pro-Israel advocates have been attacked. However, I don't think seeking retribution against someone with whom we disagree is at all merciful. I think it's right and reasonable to be angry at the disparity in how different sides are treated. But retribution for an opinion isn't right.
My argument is that we need to stick to morals and principals even when others don't. What makes someone "the good guy" isn't just what they believe, it's how they act. People don't change their minds on heated subjects like this if you (literally or metaphorically) beat their wrong opinion out of them. To show people that they are on the wrong side, you have to make it clear that their side is acting immorally. The best contrast is for them to see that their side treats people like dirt while your side treats people with dignity, even during heated disagreement.
I do not agree. There is a distinction between free speech and hate speech. Supporting terrorists who murdered innocent people with unspeakable cruelty is the ultimate hate speech and it needs to be condemned. US citizens are protected by the First Amendment, but that does not mean that private companies or educational institutions need to employ those who promulgate abhorrent views. In addition, there is no reason that foreign nationals who espouse the Islamist ideology which is inconsistent with our Constitution and our fundamental beliefs should be permitted to stay in the country. Those who defend these people on the grounds of free speech would never accept racist speech from a white nationalist group. Many of the protestors are explicitly in their racist antisemitism. If racist hate speech is considered impermissible in our society, the condemnation needs to be consistently applied.
Thank you for writing this. I would only change the headline - lead with moral priorities instead of posture.
We can disagree with people vehemently without punishing them for beliefs. But punishment should follow intimidation, vandalism of posters, and incitement to violence or other criminal acts.
While I support free speech, I'm concerned about tolerance of ideologies incompatible with Western democracy and human rights. Advocating for a caliphate is to support terrorism. The crowd's failure to condemn such ideas, and their celebration of violence, shows a disturbing cultural clash with our societal values in a modern free world. It's alarming that such actions go unpunished, highlighting a disregard for the universal principles of human rights and a lack of political will to police laws that protect us all. I these values should be non-negotiable in the West. If our laws and principles aren't enforced, allowing such public displays only signifies weakness and naivety.
I'm uncomfortable with groups publicly promoting ideas against a free society and acting in ways that go against showing dignity to all regardless of race sex creed, or democracy. The issue here isn't about restricting free speech, but rather the failure to properly confront hate speech and intolerance or anti democratic ideologies! Allowing it to masquerade as "cultural diversity" is the main problem. The culture of human rights should be universal and not bounded by any cultural limitations , extending equally to all groups (and expecting all people to adhere to them as the price of admittance). diverse "culture" in this area is not compatible the west already had its civil wars and witch hunts to understand the need of frees speech and democracy (and the deep need for citizens to adhere to compassionate democratic values regardless of religious or other belief). Once again... waiting for the government to stand and take action against those that would use and justify violence... but we live in a leadership vacuum
Hmm no I don't agree with that - there is a difference between disagreement and hate - and that is exactly why we have laws in place so segments of society don't have to feel threatened by hate or death threats...
Hate speech that incites violence or hatred should be punished since that is the red line that is crossed, is it is not a civilised way to interact in a civil society - there needs to be limits, this action is such a limit (healthy society can agree to disagree without the need to threaten and intimidate, or can compromise- since that is the heart of the values of society and the promise each person in society makes to the other - that safety of everyone matters more) - the problem is that the west currently does not defend the laws it has in place. Sedition, hate speech and incitement to violence are not being policed.
The current situation in israel is only a pretense (and any other suitable situation would have worked also for islamists) - the situation with islamists has been boiling for years, just waiting for such a moment.
I’m against hate speech law, it’s tantamount to thoughtcrime law and it’s never equally applied. Threats and incitement to violence are already illegal. Violent crime is already illegal. Prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes to the fullest extent of the law for their acts, not their thoughts. One day the shoe may be on the other foot, and what’s considered reasonable today may be considered hate in the future. Be wary of unintended consequences. I’m Jewish BTW.
Also I like knowing who those so full of hate are. I do however agree with your opinion of the Islamists. But let’s not police words and thoughts like they do with their blasphemy laws.
"Threats and incitement to violence are already illegal, as is violent crime. Perpetrators of these crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their actions, not their thoughts.
However, it's frustrating that such cases rarely go to court. Thought crimes are different from threats made by organized groups with funding and training, as they have the means to follow through. People supporting Hamas, or any other type of sedition should be charged.
while we do have laws in place, they are often not effectively enforced, which is a major part of the problem. I believe in addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis. Credible threats should be punished, perpetrators expelled, and funding should be cut where possible."
but yeah its a very sad time for the rest of us that just want to live in a world that has kindness and compassion... (a classmate just graduated this year - is back in israel now - and I have to say is so sad to think of him and his family and friend's now in danger - no one should have to live what they are going through, and I guess EU where I live will be ramping up again for yet another xmas markets with security and bomb squads checking rubbish bins and another summer of attacks.... All through naivety of thinking everyone wants to get along together as equals based on common humanity....and that open borders with no requirements for entry are fun)
“ However, it's frustrating that such cases rarely go to court. Thought crimes are different from threats made by organized groups with funding and training, as they have the means to follow through.”
I absolutely agree with that statement⬆️ Threats should be investigated and prosecuted. Also agree with this:
“I believe in addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis. Credible threats should be punished, perpetrators expelled, and funding should be cut where possible.
Again though my problem with Hate Crime Laws is who decides what’s hate? And who will be in charge of that in the future.”
As far as “ People supporting Hamas, or any other type of sedition should be charged.” goes, that’s tricky. It’s one thing to say that one agrees with their beliefs/actions and another to define an opinion as seditious. I think that would lead to some undesirable outcomes to say the least. And I like knowing who they are. But funding a terror group is already illegal and should be prosecuted.
expressing an opinion or engaging in illegal activity is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies and the rule of law - So yes I agree with you on that!
Yes I agrees and I think the problem largely is lack of political will
follow through... ditto with Terror group is already illegal and should be prosecuted... there are high level members of Hamas on the dole in the UK or who have gained citizenship....
(I like to know who they are too, after a few thousand years we have enough history to know undesirable outcomes and problems.. when groups go underground
Hate Crime Laws is who decides what’s hate? (yes I agree with you on this too many times in history this has been perverted in the worst way... well lets hope sensible laws and oversight ...maybe this is asking for a miracle? - we live in sad times
I think everything you wrote sounds lovely and reasonable. I also think to a good degree it is precisely what we have done to allow the fabric of country to change into something that is very authoritarian and ugly.
The reluctant hero always ends up finding his limit and has to fight back to save himself and family. It is time.
Freedom of speech produces some useful knowledge. When I went into my university last week, I walked by a demonstration that consisted of a bunch of white kids sitting on the ground like sheep, while being screamed at and ordered what to chant by a couple of Arab students. This is a pretty good illustration of All You Need to Know.
When I was a student in England, I'm pretty sure that getting involved in political demonstrations in my host country would have gotten me swiftly deported. This was in writing on my alien registration papers. I'm glad these international students are enjoying the freedoms they have here in the United States, which they likely don't have in their native lands. It would be awfully mean of Tom Cotton to toss them over the border but I have other things to worry about. They aren't citizens, their rights are exactly what we choose to give them.
Being maleducated in the history of their country, those protestors who are citizens would be surprised at the rights that they won't have, if this situation sparks off a big shooting war like they apparently want. They won't have learned anything about the constitutional suspensions in the Civil War, or the fifth section of the Espionage Act (still on the books!) or the alarming provisions of the Patriot Act. They'd have a very hard time explaining their social media feeds to an unsympathetic wartime judge. But I can't worry about their problems, I have others such as the well-being of my draft-age children. Just because you can say it, doesn't mean it's wise to do so.
I've discovered that my country has a lot of people in it, who are more committed to an ideological cause espoused by foreign enemies, than to their responsibilities as American citizens. If not for freedom of speech, I'd likely not know this. So I guess that's a plus.
Up front, cancel culture is revolting. I’m with you there. However...
One, Hamas is a prescribed terror group & clearly describes itself as one (for instance, saying that there will be more & more 10.7s. A clear terrorist act).
Two, chanting ‘death to the Jews’ or its equivalent (for instance, calling for an intifada).
Three, being a foreign student (and I’ve been one before) requires one to behave with respect to one’s host, tempering one’s own natural opinions & feelings. In fact, it is usually in one’s contract that one can be deported for any act contrary to the mores & laws of one’s host nation. Foreign students who misbehave, threaten mayhem or become politically involved in the affairs of the host nation SHOULD be deported. They have come to learn from their host nation &, if allowed, to respectfully share theirs. They are not there to be political activists. It’s in the word; they are students. The Latin origin of the word being ‘dedicate oneself to study’.
Well I think it’s pretty funny that all of a sudden universities which didn’t have any free speech are now embracing it. When Jews want something cancelled it’s all about free speech. And all lives matter. The hypocrisy stinks. And if someone is going to demonstrate for Hamas openly, or sign a letter, calling them out is not doxxing. Unless they hide their faces behind 10 kaffiyehs.
Freedom of association absolutely includes the right to boycott and "cancel". Any attempt to limit that right necessarily violates core principles of freedom, which leads inexorably to our present muddled view of ethics and morality (i.e. the Orwellian moments where "anti-racism" means discrimination against certain races, speech is considered violence, freedom and individual rights equate to slavery).
If employers want to fire an otherwise stellar employee for a microagression, I'm willing to bet that employee could find work elsewhere. An employee who claims Hamas are freedom fighters, wears a mask at a protest blocking traffic and setting fires, burns the US and Israeli flag, and even explicitly calls for the murder of innocent people? Yeah, I think THAT person may have a hard time finding work once it gets out. That they wear masks during these protests shows that they know it as well.
So the heart of the question is when is it JUSTIFIED to cancel someone? Getting fired for saying that all people of any race should be treated equal is not the same as getting fired for calling for the elimination of millions of human beings. The fact that that student may face life long consequences for such a view is simple justice.
The only wiggle room here is age, but I'd say at 18/19 plus this gap is quickly closing. Ultimately it should be left to individuals, both to employee, employer to make these distinctions. I can empathize with an 18 year old freshman who gets swept up in a campus protest. A 30 year old doesn't get that pass, and a Professor certainly knows what they're doing and owns what they say entirely.
When I first saw this, my response was if you were Jewish, you might think differently. I will acknowledge that there’s a difference between people infuriatingly and falsely accusing of Israel of committing genocide and apartheid, and those who recently distributed online, and apparently at rallies, a map of Jewish businesses in New York, to target for intifada. For the latter, I am fine with prosecuting citizens to the fullest extent of the law, and throwing any non-citizens participating the hell out of the country.
I’m sorry, but there is no “example” you can set for a crazed, leftist, Jew-hating mob that will be anything other than a waste of time. It’s too late for that.
Hoping to achieve "peace in our time," Mr Chamberlain? @neil kellen's comments here are correct. The left are terrorists (defined as "using whatever means, sometimes violence, to frighten the rest of us into silence") and you cannot negotiate with them. Pull their masks off. Forgiveness is always possible later once they renounce their BS, but not now.
Hamas is arguably worse than Nazis were. There has to be a line somewhere that should not be crossed; the Hamas terrorist organization that slaughters women and children is that line.
Sorry, I don't think it's "cancel culture" to deport foreign nationals who express support for an officially recognized terrorist organization. It's common sense.
I support this sentiment. Terrorist supporters undermine what we work for and frankly would not be afforded the freedom or lifestyle 'back home' that they enjoy here. Governments don't negotiate with terrorists, has that changed? These dumb kids are vulnerable or enroute to being turned into terrorists themselves from what we are seeing.
Alas, it is not that simple... who designates which groups are terrorists? A favorite play from the Strongman's Playbook is to label opponents as terrorists and get allies to agree.
One of many examples: the PKK is an organization fighting for Kurdish autonomy from Turkey and it has been officially recognized as a terrorist organization by them. Turkey being a member of NATO has urged other NATO nations (including the US) to recognize the PKK as terrorists. Many Kurds around the world, including in the USA, consider the PKK to be freedom fighters opposing an oppressive regime. To be fair, some PKK actions fit neatly into the category "terrorist attack." Opinion is divided.
Here's where it starts getting really messy:
Under the umbrella of the PKK is the YPG, an American ally in fighting ISIS. Turkey was livid over American support of Kurds with ties to the PKK. So, under the previous administration, America abandoned some of our staunchest allies in the Middle East despite protests from our Military who fought along side them. When the US abandoned the YPG, General Mattis resigned - read his resignation letter https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/20/2002075156/-1/-1/1/LETTER-FROM-SECRETARY-JAMES-N-MATTIS.PDF
The real world is messy...
Are you seriously trying to argue that it's a grey political question whether Hamas is a terrorist organization after they brutally murdered over 1200 innocent civilians and kidnapped hundreds more, including elderly and babies? Maybe try a bit harder to hide your antisemitism.
Wow. Calling me antisemitic - despite my being part Jewish! That is a sign of a quality intellectual discussion. I recall when Hawking & Suskind were debating properties of Black Holes, they'd always include a nasty attack on the other's character like accusing their opponent of pedophilia and such.
I am confident I am engaged in a productive conversation with a worthy partner!
In any case, I did not refer to Hamas. I replied to a statement supporting
"[D]eporting foreign nationals who express support for an officially recognized terrorist organization."
My point was that it is not always that clear cut. I gave an example of the US military partnering with the YPG and giving them military aid in the fight against ISIS. The YPG are under the PKK, who are officially recognized as a terrorist organization.
I do agree with the civilized world that Hamas is a terrorist organization illustrated by their attacks, which they video'd and distributed. I also agree that water is wet and fire is hot.
The question is about whether to deport foreign nationals who express support for Hamas, not some mythical hypothetical general principle applied to people who support the Kurds. This should be abundantly clear from the context. Your entire comments are at best irrelevant and at worst serve to muddy the waters, giving the impression that you think Hamas is equivalent to the groups you mention. If that wasn't your intent then I suggest you rethink the appropriateness of your initial response.
Oh. Now I understand! We are 'talking past each other.'
My 'the question' regards the general principle of deporting people for supporting groups that have been labeled as terrorists - and it is not hypothetical. Not for me and my family who are Kurdish. It is not hypothetical for more distant relatives who fought along side the US in Syria but, according to Turkey, are terrorists. This is personal for me & mine.
BTW: Kurdish soldiers are being targeted, along with American soldiers, by allies of Hamas. We are on the same side - and neither of us can afford to alienate friends at this time.
I am sorry that this misunderstanding caused you to be so upset. It seems you are carrying an enormous amount of anger (I can totally relate - I feel angry about Hamas' terrorist attacks, too).
I rethunk my initial response and it is definitely appropriate. Also, as I said before we cannot afford to alienate friends at this time.
Have a great day, I have happier topics to entertain me!
Philosophically, I agree. But practically, it's stupid.
First - the left in the US doesn't fear the right. They despise them. The only thing holding them back from engaging in planned and systematic violence to achieve their political goal of complete power is uncertainty about how much they "can get a way with". The boundaries are being tested continually, and the envelope of acceptability is rapidly expanding.
Second - The left in the US is not interested in co-existence. They consider all conservatives to be "right wing fascist terrorists". They want us jailed or reprogrammed if they can't eliminate enough to cow the remaining into submission.
Third - does anyone think even for one second, that if the "right is nice", the left will start to play nice. NFW - they will become even more extreme than they are now.
The game is already underway and the rules are set. Play it or get destroyed. Sometimes, "ya jus gotta throw down".
I disagree. I have friends/family on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides are convinced the other side is crazy because they are looking at the most extreme of the other end of the spectrum and thinking that they are the representatives of that side.
However, I have heard my liberal friends/family disparage the extreme leftists. And the conservatives disparage the extreme right. There are moderates on either side who don't think like the extremists, though they may understand the emotions/perspectives behind the extremism.
We should be careful not to lump in everyone into the most extreme camp, or we lose our ability to close the divide and institute some civility.
I understand your position, and it's a "nice" position to have.
But, IMO, it's too late for that. The extremes are determining actual government policy and action. This isn't hypothetical anymore. The left wants to, and is beginning to, severely restrict freedom of speech, the right of self defense, freedom of association, the right to chose what you put in your body, they want to monitor everything you say and/or write (they are already monitoring everything that you post - including this), they want to decide how you will raise your kids, they are criminalizing political opposition,...
While the liberal friends and family you have may disparage the extreme left, they continue to vote into power people who implement extreme policies. That's not going to change peacefully, I believe. I've read enough history to conclude that we have crossed the Rubicon.
My position isn't based off of wanting to be "nice." It's about doing what is moral. It's not about standing aside and letting bad guys do bad things. It's about standing one's ground but with principals. Otherwise the alternative one is trying to present is a lateral move at best.
I agree that real harm has been done by extremists, but doing real harm in response will not help. Put more bluntly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Doing real harm can help - otherwise the Third Reich would be running the world now.
I think it is acting morally to forcefully, even violently, stopping evil.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are talking about physical harm. I agree that physical harm often calls for a phyical response.
We do not need to lump everyone into the most extreme camp. Hamas has done the dirty work for us with its extremist antisemitism, its extremist agenda to eliminate the state of Israel and its extremist and indiscriminate slaughter of Jewish civilians on October 7. Analyzing this situation in terms of the American left/right divide is futile.
Except for people caught up in the pro-Hamas cause who lack the capacity to understand the moral consequences of their words and deeds due to a mental disease or defect, adults who have made the choice to celebrate Hamas deserve public and private opprobrium for doing so.
I agree that we should respond to people who are supporting Hamas. I'm just saying we should keep in line with our morals when we do and not use the severity of the situation to excuse our own (potential) bad responses.
My comments about American politics were in response to comments I received on my post. I don't see them as directly related to the conflict between Hamas and Israel.
Ah - thank you for the clarification!
Ah! So this is one of the principles compiled by Gurwinder on his substack:
15. Nutpicking:
Online political debate mainly involves cherry-picking the most outlandish members of the enemy side and presenting them as indicative in order to make the entire side look crazy.
The culture war is essentially just each side sneering at the other side's lunatics. I'
Gurwinder's substack: https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/30-useful-principles-autumn-2023
I hadn't seen that article. Thanks!
Gurwinder has some awesome content, well worth perusing his sub stack
Pro-Hamas protesters are not asking for open dialogue leading to better outcomes. They explicitly call for the elimination of Israel and the extermination of its inhabitants. No other outcome is acceptable for them. They don't want to get along. So this statement doesn't make sense - "We could reach across the aisle with an olive branch and find common cause with our brothers and sisters across the political spectrum" in this situation. What words can you say to someone who tortures, rapes and kills and ALSO records it all with a bodycam. What conversation is there with those who support it?
On campus, if harassment is severe, persistent or pervasive and to limits or deny a student's ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program, then it violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Can a student feel safe, or expect fair treatment in a class, when instructors and their followers are shouting "From the river to the sea..."? It's not a violation of the First Amendment, in that case, to not tolerate it.
Agree. Being Pro-Hamas = incitement to violence. By the authors own take this is not orotexted speech.
Protected!
I'm glad to see FAIR sticking to its principals instead of letting anger win. The Hamas attacks were brutal and vicious. People praising them are ignoring that fact. But we need not be brutal and vicious in our response. We need not sink to that level.
"I did not sink to that level" is a good epitaph.
So (sarcastically, of course) is "I sank to that level." I believe we should stand our ground but with good morals. Otherwise we aren't the good people we pretend to be.
Humans make our most evil decisions when we view human conflict as good people vs bad people instead of moral choices vs immoral. Look at any atrocity in history - including Hamas's rape, torture, and murder of Israeli people - and you will find that mindset. But there are no magical chosen ones who can do whatever despicable thing they want and still be good people.
My argument is that we should be using good morals to combat bad. Hamas did a terrible thing. People who are arguing, "Hamas are good people who were pushed to do this" are fooling themselves. Hamas chose to be bad people when they chose bad morals.
Good people are dead people if they aren't willing to do bad things when needed.
When I am looking at someone who is threating to kill me I'm not considering "good or bad", "moral or immoral". I'm thinking "kill or be killed".
The false choice is what you propose: if you do a bad thing you can't be a good person. And that highlights the biggest tension of the human condition. We can define "good" and "bad", but can't seem to accept that both exist in people and that "co-existence" is not their definition.
My comment has to do with responding in kind because "they started it," not with avoiding asserting your beliefs. If we have a vengeful attitude, then everyone has a right to react with aggression to every perceived attack. This is what I'm arguing against. And to clarify, I'm talking about verbal/ideological threats. A physical threat is a different scenario. The rules are more dog-eat-dog in a violenclt situation.
Let's say I overhear someone saying that Israel was asking for it, and Hamas is only fighting for the rights of Palestinians. If I respond by saying the speaker deserves to be raped like Israeli women were, or I beat them up because they are verbally supporting violent extremism, then I am responding in kind. I am defending my right to live free from the threat of physical violence by attacking someone promoting violence. But I'm also increasing tension and promoting an altercation between myself and this other person. And since we are all representatives of our belief systems, I'm also promoting an altercation between my political/ideological group and the other person's.
In a nutshell, as long as it isn't a physical threat, I believe we should take the opportunity to show the other person how their view is harmful in an assertive, non-aggressive way. It's the only way to make progress.
It's a lovely, luxury sentiment until your daughter is raped and killed at a music festival or someone kills your family in front of you. It's not like hamas selected an actual political or military target to go after - they went straight for civilians. It is necessary to crush the people who did this.
When waging war one must NEVER allow emotions to over-ride reason. No matter what atrocities have been perpetuated against YOU, exercising restraint goes far beyond a moral luxury. Restraint and reason are pragmatic and critical to victory.
Remember the Abu Graib videos which showed US guards humiliating muslim prisoners (in violation of the rules of war and civilization)? Those guards had emotional reasons to exact revenge for 9/11 - they would not be human if they did not feel the desire for revenge. Unfortunately, when the video leaked it incited much anti-American hatred and rallied the resistance (for many Iraqis, America was an aggressor attacking and innocent nation). I have heard an estimate that that video extended the war by a few years and cost many soldier's lives.
The history of war shows that treating the enemy cruelly galvanizes their resolve and creates enemies faster than you can kill them. If you want to end Hamas' influence you must erode their popular support ... which means waging war surgically, rationally and with restraint.
good point.
As I said, when there is a physical threat, a physical response is often needed. However, we need not sink to their level. We shouldn't send in our soldiers to rape and to kill civilians.
It's not a luxury. If your morals only last until you are provoked, then they aren't morals. You were just in a good mood.
Your original comment appeared to suggest that Israel should moderate it’s response to the hamas outrage. Of course no sane person could advocate or condone what Hamas did, and clearly Israel is not responding in kind. So not clear on the genesis of your original comment.
I was referring to the substack article from FAIR about canceling people for conmemning Israel/being pro-Palestine. My original comment was referring to sticking to principals/morals even when someone is saying something you believe to be very wrong. Using violence/aggression to silence opinions you tends to worsen the situation, makes people arguing for peace/dialogue into hypocrits, and makes the "sane" group into a villain. That's what I was trying to get at; I was pleased that FAIR wasn't being hypocritical and was sticking to its principals, even in a terrible situation.
Not sinking to that level is difficult when you know Hamas will repeat their horrible killings over and over till every Jew is gone. Isn't that in their charter?
Hamas carried out a physical act of violence, so a physical response is necessary. I'm talking about sinking to their level. There is a difference between defending yourself (or country, etc.) from a physical threat and harming civilians. I'm talking about avoiding unnecessary and cruel acts just because we are rightfully angry that Hamas did something despicable.
Dana, do you feel that way regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The majority of the war has been aimed at Ukrainian civilians. Russia has constantly bombed hospitals, schools, apartment building, homes, farms and many other civilian infrastructures ie train stations, restaurants and the list goes on plus the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children. Like Hamas, Russia does not want Ukraine to exist. Would love your thoughts?
I cannot speak for Dana but I think your example is awesome! Western aid for Ukraine has been contingent on Ukrainian 'behavior.'
One thing they had to do is root out much corruption in their government because NATO wasn't going to send billions to have it line the pockets of oligarchs (many of whom are connected to Russian oligarchs!)
Another condition is following the 'rules of war' that prohibit, torture, targeting civilian populations & mistreating POW's (as the Russians are doing).
The problem is mistakes happen and there are always some bad apples. The trick is to practice restraint and not to become a monster when you fight a monster.
Yes, I do. I think that physical actions require physical responses, but I think coming at the situation with a vengeful attitude tends to destroy people's moral character until they are no better than the "bad guys." I attribute it to the fact that when people feel they have a moral motivation, they tend to think any action towards their goal is also moral.
To use a mundane example: Say a coworker is trash talking behind your back. Well, when they slip up and do something stupid/embarrassing, why not talk about them? They deserve it; they did the same to you. But now you are locked in a battle with this person, and they have a valid reason to think you are a scummy person. If you'd confronted them directly instead, you are more likely to stop the problem, and they don't have the excuse that you were doing it too.
Obviously, in situations like Ukraine or Israel, a stern talking-to isn't going to cut it. Military response is necessary and morals get murky. But if the goal is to retaliate, instead of to stop the invasion/violence, a lot more bad will come of it. That's why I argue for sticking to morals and avoiding unnecessary violence.
Hamas hates Israel and feels they deserved the attacks. They feel that taking Palestinian land was a moral flaw on Israel's part. So they (Hamas) feel justified in committing war crimes because they have a moral reason behind their actions. Same with Russia. They feel Ukraine was stolen from them and see themselves as revenging themselves against a bunch of thieves.
The use of the word "thieves" is not accurate. For Putin, it's all about power. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), Ukraine became an independent country and was recognized internationally along with a number of other countries dropping out of the USSR at the same time. Putin, is actually the thief in this regard. With regard to the Jewish state, Palestinians have had the chance to become their own state/country but refused to do what's best in the interest of their people. Jews and Arabs have always lived side by side since time began and actually Judism predates Islam by 3000 years. Hamas loves to hate more than they love their children hence the tragic lives of ordinary Palestinians to this day who live in abject poverty. Only those in power, Hamas for example, live in luxary.
Please, name one pro Hamas protester who’s been physically attacked or arrested for their opinions? Now reverse that question with Isreali. There is no equivalency. Fired, doxxed, published on a database, shamed and denied employment are small mercies for the advocates of murdering innocents.
I agree that supporting mass murder, rape, and torture is despicable and that pro-Israel advocates have been attacked. However, I don't think seeking retribution against someone with whom we disagree is at all merciful. I think it's right and reasonable to be angry at the disparity in how different sides are treated. But retribution for an opinion isn't right.
My argument is that we need to stick to morals and principals even when others don't. What makes someone "the good guy" isn't just what they believe, it's how they act. People don't change their minds on heated subjects like this if you (literally or metaphorically) beat their wrong opinion out of them. To show people that they are on the wrong side, you have to make it clear that their side is acting immorally. The best contrast is for them to see that their side treats people like dirt while your side treats people with dignity, even during heated disagreement.
I do not agree. There is a distinction between free speech and hate speech. Supporting terrorists who murdered innocent people with unspeakable cruelty is the ultimate hate speech and it needs to be condemned. US citizens are protected by the First Amendment, but that does not mean that private companies or educational institutions need to employ those who promulgate abhorrent views. In addition, there is no reason that foreign nationals who espouse the Islamist ideology which is inconsistent with our Constitution and our fundamental beliefs should be permitted to stay in the country. Those who defend these people on the grounds of free speech would never accept racist speech from a white nationalist group. Many of the protestors are explicitly in their racist antisemitism. If racist hate speech is considered impermissible in our society, the condemnation needs to be consistently applied.
Thank you for writing this. I would only change the headline - lead with moral priorities instead of posture.
We can disagree with people vehemently without punishing them for beliefs. But punishment should follow intimidation, vandalism of posters, and incitement to violence or other criminal acts.
While I support free speech, I'm concerned about tolerance of ideologies incompatible with Western democracy and human rights. Advocating for a caliphate is to support terrorism. The crowd's failure to condemn such ideas, and their celebration of violence, shows a disturbing cultural clash with our societal values in a modern free world. It's alarming that such actions go unpunished, highlighting a disregard for the universal principles of human rights and a lack of political will to police laws that protect us all. I these values should be non-negotiable in the West. If our laws and principles aren't enforced, allowing such public displays only signifies weakness and naivety.
I'm uncomfortable with groups publicly promoting ideas against a free society and acting in ways that go against showing dignity to all regardless of race sex creed, or democracy. The issue here isn't about restricting free speech, but rather the failure to properly confront hate speech and intolerance or anti democratic ideologies! Allowing it to masquerade as "cultural diversity" is the main problem. The culture of human rights should be universal and not bounded by any cultural limitations , extending equally to all groups (and expecting all people to adhere to them as the price of admittance). diverse "culture" in this area is not compatible the west already had its civil wars and witch hunts to understand the need of frees speech and democracy (and the deep need for citizens to adhere to compassionate democratic values regardless of religious or other belief). Once again... waiting for the government to stand and take action against those that would use and justify violence... but we live in a leadership vacuum
"There should be no laws restricting hate speech"
Hmm no I don't agree with that - there is a difference between disagreement and hate - and that is exactly why we have laws in place so segments of society don't have to feel threatened by hate or death threats...
Hate speech that incites violence or hatred should be punished since that is the red line that is crossed, is it is not a civilised way to interact in a civil society - there needs to be limits, this action is such a limit (healthy society can agree to disagree without the need to threaten and intimidate, or can compromise- since that is the heart of the values of society and the promise each person in society makes to the other - that safety of everyone matters more) - the problem is that the west currently does not defend the laws it has in place. Sedition, hate speech and incitement to violence are not being policed.
The current situation in israel is only a pretense (and any other suitable situation would have worked also for islamists) - the situation with islamists has been boiling for years, just waiting for such a moment.
I’m against hate speech law, it’s tantamount to thoughtcrime law and it’s never equally applied. Threats and incitement to violence are already illegal. Violent crime is already illegal. Prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes to the fullest extent of the law for their acts, not their thoughts. One day the shoe may be on the other foot, and what’s considered reasonable today may be considered hate in the future. Be wary of unintended consequences. I’m Jewish BTW.
Also I like knowing who those so full of hate are. I do however agree with your opinion of the Islamists. But let’s not police words and thoughts like they do with their blasphemy laws.
"Threats and incitement to violence are already illegal, as is violent crime. Perpetrators of these crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their actions, not their thoughts.
However, it's frustrating that such cases rarely go to court. Thought crimes are different from threats made by organized groups with funding and training, as they have the means to follow through. People supporting Hamas, or any other type of sedition should be charged.
while we do have laws in place, they are often not effectively enforced, which is a major part of the problem. I believe in addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis. Credible threats should be punished, perpetrators expelled, and funding should be cut where possible."
but yeah its a very sad time for the rest of us that just want to live in a world that has kindness and compassion... (a classmate just graduated this year - is back in israel now - and I have to say is so sad to think of him and his family and friend's now in danger - no one should have to live what they are going through, and I guess EU where I live will be ramping up again for yet another xmas markets with security and bomb squads checking rubbish bins and another summer of attacks.... All through naivety of thinking everyone wants to get along together as equals based on common humanity....and that open borders with no requirements for entry are fun)
“ However, it's frustrating that such cases rarely go to court. Thought crimes are different from threats made by organized groups with funding and training, as they have the means to follow through.”
I absolutely agree with that statement⬆️ Threats should be investigated and prosecuted. Also agree with this:
“I believe in addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis. Credible threats should be punished, perpetrators expelled, and funding should be cut where possible.
Again though my problem with Hate Crime Laws is who decides what’s hate? And who will be in charge of that in the future.”
As far as “ People supporting Hamas, or any other type of sedition should be charged.” goes, that’s tricky. It’s one thing to say that one agrees with their beliefs/actions and another to define an opinion as seditious. I think that would lead to some undesirable outcomes to say the least. And I like knowing who they are. But funding a terror group is already illegal and should be prosecuted.
expressing an opinion or engaging in illegal activity is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies and the rule of law - So yes I agree with you on that!
Yes I agrees and I think the problem largely is lack of political will
follow through... ditto with Terror group is already illegal and should be prosecuted... there are high level members of Hamas on the dole in the UK or who have gained citizenship....
(I like to know who they are too, after a few thousand years we have enough history to know undesirable outcomes and problems.. when groups go underground
Hate Crime Laws is who decides what’s hate? (yes I agree with you on this too many times in history this has been perverted in the worst way... well lets hope sensible laws and oversight ...maybe this is asking for a miracle? - we live in sad times
I think everything you wrote sounds lovely and reasonable. I also think to a good degree it is precisely what we have done to allow the fabric of country to change into something that is very authoritarian and ugly.
The reluctant hero always ends up finding his limit and has to fight back to save himself and family. It is time.
Freedom of speech produces some useful knowledge. When I went into my university last week, I walked by a demonstration that consisted of a bunch of white kids sitting on the ground like sheep, while being screamed at and ordered what to chant by a couple of Arab students. This is a pretty good illustration of All You Need to Know.
When I was a student in England, I'm pretty sure that getting involved in political demonstrations in my host country would have gotten me swiftly deported. This was in writing on my alien registration papers. I'm glad these international students are enjoying the freedoms they have here in the United States, which they likely don't have in their native lands. It would be awfully mean of Tom Cotton to toss them over the border but I have other things to worry about. They aren't citizens, their rights are exactly what we choose to give them.
Being maleducated in the history of their country, those protestors who are citizens would be surprised at the rights that they won't have, if this situation sparks off a big shooting war like they apparently want. They won't have learned anything about the constitutional suspensions in the Civil War, or the fifth section of the Espionage Act (still on the books!) or the alarming provisions of the Patriot Act. They'd have a very hard time explaining their social media feeds to an unsympathetic wartime judge. But I can't worry about their problems, I have others such as the well-being of my draft-age children. Just because you can say it, doesn't mean it's wise to do so.
I've discovered that my country has a lot of people in it, who are more committed to an ideological cause espoused by foreign enemies, than to their responsibilities as American citizens. If not for freedom of speech, I'd likely not know this. So I guess that's a plus.
Up front, cancel culture is revolting. I’m with you there. However...
One, Hamas is a prescribed terror group & clearly describes itself as one (for instance, saying that there will be more & more 10.7s. A clear terrorist act).
Two, chanting ‘death to the Jews’ or its equivalent (for instance, calling for an intifada).
Three, being a foreign student (and I’ve been one before) requires one to behave with respect to one’s host, tempering one’s own natural opinions & feelings. In fact, it is usually in one’s contract that one can be deported for any act contrary to the mores & laws of one’s host nation. Foreign students who misbehave, threaten mayhem or become politically involved in the affairs of the host nation SHOULD be deported. They have come to learn from their host nation &, if allowed, to respectfully share theirs. They are not there to be political activists. It’s in the word; they are students. The Latin origin of the word being ‘dedicate oneself to study’.
Well I think it’s pretty funny that all of a sudden universities which didn’t have any free speech are now embracing it. When Jews want something cancelled it’s all about free speech. And all lives matter. The hypocrisy stinks. And if someone is going to demonstrate for Hamas openly, or sign a letter, calling them out is not doxxing. Unless they hide their faces behind 10 kaffiyehs.
Freedom of association absolutely includes the right to boycott and "cancel". Any attempt to limit that right necessarily violates core principles of freedom, which leads inexorably to our present muddled view of ethics and morality (i.e. the Orwellian moments where "anti-racism" means discrimination against certain races, speech is considered violence, freedom and individual rights equate to slavery).
If employers want to fire an otherwise stellar employee for a microagression, I'm willing to bet that employee could find work elsewhere. An employee who claims Hamas are freedom fighters, wears a mask at a protest blocking traffic and setting fires, burns the US and Israeli flag, and even explicitly calls for the murder of innocent people? Yeah, I think THAT person may have a hard time finding work once it gets out. That they wear masks during these protests shows that they know it as well.
So the heart of the question is when is it JUSTIFIED to cancel someone? Getting fired for saying that all people of any race should be treated equal is not the same as getting fired for calling for the elimination of millions of human beings. The fact that that student may face life long consequences for such a view is simple justice.
The only wiggle room here is age, but I'd say at 18/19 plus this gap is quickly closing. Ultimately it should be left to individuals, both to employee, employer to make these distinctions. I can empathize with an 18 year old freshman who gets swept up in a campus protest. A 30 year old doesn't get that pass, and a Professor certainly knows what they're doing and owns what they say entirely.
When I first saw this, my response was if you were Jewish, you might think differently. I will acknowledge that there’s a difference between people infuriatingly and falsely accusing of Israel of committing genocide and apartheid, and those who recently distributed online, and apparently at rallies, a map of Jewish businesses in New York, to target for intifada. For the latter, I am fine with prosecuting citizens to the fullest extent of the law, and throwing any non-citizens participating the hell out of the country.
I’m sorry, but there is no “example” you can set for a crazed, leftist, Jew-hating mob that will be anything other than a waste of time. It’s too late for that.
Hoping to achieve "peace in our time," Mr Chamberlain? @neil kellen's comments here are correct. The left are terrorists (defined as "using whatever means, sometimes violence, to frighten the rest of us into silence") and you cannot negotiate with them. Pull their masks off. Forgiveness is always possible later once they renounce their BS, but not now.
Correct. When you think about the commonalities of Hamas and Hitlers final solutions. Not to be appeased.
Hamas is arguably worse than Nazis were. There has to be a line somewhere that should not be crossed; the Hamas terrorist organization that slaughters women and children is that line.