Free Speech on U.K. Campuses Is Under Attack as Never Before and Jews Are Prime Targets

[shira]

Good news for anti-Zionist fascist haters of Israel & their insane regressive Left defenders. Their despicable fascist movement is growing....

Free speech on U.K. campuses is under attack as never before.

"First they came for the Jews" (pace Niemoller) and silenced them, and the university authorities did not speak out, because they were frightened of the violent protesters, and anxious to raise money from wealthy Arab states. Then they came for the students who wanted to discuss the reform of Islam, or limits on free speech or gender issues, and disrupted their talks. And the university authorities did not speak out because they sheltered behind the autonomy of student unions. 

Then came the extremist Islamist speakers promoting the subjugation of women, and extinction of apostates and gays. And the university authorities did not follow the U.K. government's Prevent policy, designed to counter radicalization on campus, because the lecturers' union and the national student union sided with radicals and Palestinian activists. 

There were student protests against government policy, sometimes violent, in the 1960s and 70s. But never have campus protests been so widely or indiscriminately launched, and never have the university authorities been so complicit in allowing the free exchange of ideas to be closed down. Nor have students ever been so self-censorious, in my experience. They claim a right not to be offended. But we cannot secure freedom of expression if we all also maintain a right not to be offended. Any idea that has the potential to upset students or cause discomfort is seen as problematic. Some beliefs are branded as dangerous and to be repressed. Currently the ever-fluid list includes, but is not limited to, any reform of Islam, any right-wing views, any issue that could be regarded as in any way colonialist. So the protection of safety for some students means that others are labelled as dangerous and hateful.

[font color = "red"]Attacks on Jewish and Israeli speakers, of whatever complexion, are at the centre of the silencing strategies. [/font]It does not matter whether the speaker is an Israeli Beduin (Ishmael Khaldi, Israeli diplomat, was prevented from speaking to the University of Edinburgh Jewish Society in 2011 by pro-Palestinian protesters), or an Ambassador (Ron Prosor received similar treatment at the same university) or a peace activist (Ami Ayalon at King's College London, last week). The mere fact that there is a Jewish gathering or an Israeli theme is seen as provocation by pro-Palestinian activists and therefore to be blocked. On 19th January the protests plumbed new depths. At King's College the police had to be summoned when an anti-Israel mob threw chairs, smashed windows, and activated fire alarms.  Some students in the audience feared for their physical safety.  Although the event has received national publicity and the perpetrators are known, the King's authorities have done no more than issue a statement announcing the setting up of an investigation and reminding students that violence is unacceptable.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.699385

[shira]

1. More from this amazing OP....

It is not only regarding Jewish and Israeli meetings that this terrible attitude prevails. Whether it is a movement to obliterate the legacy of Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, or to block and harass any woman speaker who questions attitudes to women in Islam or to transgender people (the latter to which Germaine Greer can attest), U.K. universities are rife with hatred, closed minds, ignorance, stereotyping and, yes, anti-Semitism.

The peaceful Jewish student who only wants an enjoyable three years at university would do well to avoid those colleges where there is a sizeable Palestinian movement (often a cover for anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism and sometimes misogyny). London colleges and Scottish universities are amongst the worst.

Of course, Jews are also prone to complain when there is a speaker who is virulently anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist or plain unpopular, but their reaction is limited to complaints, not violence. Therefore I disagree with the opinion piece written by Hannah Weisfeld in which she highlighted the similarities between attacking an event and complaining about it. Her false analogy brings to mind the reactions to the Charlie Hebdo slaughter a year ago. There were many who said afterwards that they 'had it coming' to them by publishing cartoons offensive to Islam; the act was too provocative, although legal, enabling the step to legitimating a violent response that much easier, and ensuring self-censorship for all. Contrast that to the annual International Holocaust Cartoon competition, designed to repudiate and ridicule the Holocaust and hosted by Iran: but we Jews do not murder cartoonists, so there's no fallout. 

This is the wrong debate. It is the law that controls freedom of speech and expression, and it is to the law that we must resort when the mark may have been overstepped, not violence.

It is a sad world when violence is tolerated as a protest in universities, and Jews (let us be clear, in this context the term Zionist or Israel targets all Jews) are the victims. There has been nothing like it since Germany and Austria before the Second World War.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.699385

[shira]

2. Fascist Jew haters protest Sharansky / Michael Douglas Israel talk @ Brown University....

Anyone who doubts the gravity of the threat to Israel and Jewish students on American college campuses could have stopped by the Brown University campus here on Thursday night.

Students and community members attempting to listen to a conversation about Jewish identity between actor Michael Douglas and Soviet dissident turned Israeli political figure Natan Sharansky had their event intruded on by loud chants of “free, free, Palestine” from protesters outside.

Don’t blame Brown. The event was crawling with university and city police, along with Mr. Sharansky’s formidable security detail. The protesters have as much right to speak on campus as Mr. Sharansky, 68, and Mr. Douglas, 71, do. Though they do not necessarily have the right to speak so loudly and closely as to drown out the Jewish identity event, or to distribute inside the lecture hall, as they did, a slickly worded handout accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and libeling Mr. Sharansky as “an infamous anti-African racist” while falsely representing the flier as a “program addition.”

The protesters failed to stop Mr. Sharansky from delivering his message, though the noise they generated outside could be heard inside the lecture hall for what seemed like a long while.

But it’s nonetheless a sad moment for American higher education, for Israel, and for world Jewry when a campus conversation between an American actor with a Jewish identity and a human rights hero known for surviving nine years in the Soviet gulag is greeted — before it even happens — by an op-ed in the student newspaper summoning a rally “to speak out against this justification of Israeli crimes.” It’s a measure of the movement’s virulence that it targeted not an appearance by an Israeli general or a foreign policy talk but rather a discussion about Jewish identity.

http://www.nysun.com/national/sharanksy-breasts-a-protest-against-his-talk/89435/

[Little Tich]

3. While I actually don't have anything to say about the OP itself, there are some people, including

Roger Waters, who put a lot of emphasis on the Baroness Deech's maiden name (Nee Fraenkel). Hmm...

A note from Roger Waters - August 18, 2013
August 19, 2013 at 2:35am
18th August 2013 Warsaw
To My Colleagues in Rock and Roll

Nigel Kennedy the virtuoso British violinist and violist, at The Recent Promenade Concerts at The Albert Hall in London, mentioned that Israel is apartheid. Nothing unusual there you might think, then one Baroness Deech, (Nee Fraenkel) disputed the fact that Israel is an apartheid state and prevailed upon the BBC to censor Kennedy’s performance by removing his statement. Baroness Deech produced not one shred of evidence to support her claim and yet the BBC, non political, supposedly, acting solely on Baroness Deech’s say so, suddenly went all 1984 on us. Well!! Time to stick my head above the parapet again, alongside my brother, Nigel Kennedy, where it belongs. And by the way, Nigel, great respect man. So here follows a letter last re-drafted in July

Source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/roger-waters/a-note-from-roger-waters-august-18-2013/697457193602067/

Note: My bolding

[shira]

4. The only reason Roger Waters would have written Nee Fraenkel is to point out....

.....that she is of "Zionist" origins.

He's just another POS anti-zio BDShole.

[Little Tich]

5. I'm not jumping to any conclusions about Roger Waters being an anti-Semite, but I don't like it.

Personally, I see no reason to "whistleblow" Baroness Deech as a Jew in this or probably any case. To Waters' defence (?) though, I did notice on Google that he wasn't the only one doing it.