Surely the delicate balance of free speech vs. hate speech is something both extremes of the spectrum must agree are worth embracing. From municipal pronouncements to human rights experts, many have opined on QuAIA’s use of the term “apartheid.” The conclusion reached is that it may be offensive, even obscene and hateful, but it simply does not meet the legal test of hate promotion."
Alas, this is not, as it may appear at first glance, an endorsement of free expression. It is, rather, an endorsement of the idea that certain designated victim groups, for example, the LGBTXYZ crowd, are allowed to hate others, but no one is allowed to hate them. Thus, it has become perfectly acceptable in "Delicatebalanceland," our national dystopian theme park, to hate--really full on, meets-the-legal-definition-of-hate hate--Christians (especially Catholics) and "Zionists." Which results in the cognitive contortions on display in the statement quoted above. QuAIA, because it is "queer," can spew Zionhass, an acceptable form of hatred (and the Jew-hate of our time), and can do so in a publicly-funded parade. However, it could not spew old-fangled "anti-Semitism"--that is, hatred aimed at Jewry qua Jewry--because Jews are still seen as a victim group (though, admittedly, we're near the bottom of the list these days, well below Muslims, Aboriginals, black people and those with disabilities). And you would never see, say, Ku Klux Klanners Against Israeli Apartheid being allowed to march in the Pride parade because, while their cause in this instance may be socially acceptable, they themselves are not.
In other words, the "delicate balance" and "the conclusion" that QuAIA's Zionhass "does not meet the legal test of hate promotion" is a load of codswallop that only those of the Leftish persuasion (a group that's even more tribal and insular than Jewry) could ever swallow.
|Welcome to "Delicatebalanceland." Come for the scary rides; stay for the even scarier Zionhass.|
Post a Comment