Page 771«..1020..770771772773..780790..»

Readers Write: Far-right extremists not representative of L.I’s Jewish community – Readers Write – The Island Now

Posted By on June 16, 2021

I was reading your May 28 article, Israelis, Palestinians rally support on L.I., and was disgusted by how it normalized far-right extremists and portrayed them as representative of Long Islands Jewish community.

Most glaring was when you quoted an attendee at the May 23 Great Neck rally, Karen Lichtbraun, and gave the group she was representing, Yad Yamin, the spartan label New York-based organization.

Did you not feel it was worth mentioning that Yad Yamin is a Kahanist organization with strong ties to the FBI-designated terrorist group founded by Meir Kahane, himself, the Jewish Defense League?

In fact, in an Oct. 10, 2018 Times of Israel article about a Columbia University protest, Lichtbraun identified herself as the New York chapter leader of the Jewish Defense League.

For those unfamiliar with the late Kahane, in a nutshell, he was a truly vile human being who believed all Arabs should be forcibly expelled from Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

He also believed all non-Israeli Jews were living in a sort of exile, unable to truly live a safe or fulfilling life outside of Israel, and encouraged acts of violence and harassment against anyone he saw as an enemy, including members of the Jewish community who didnt share his warped worldview.

Unfortunately, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been fooled into believing there is no daylight between Kahanist and Jewish. They think to support the Jewish community means to treat American Jews as strangers in their own country, ignore or encourage the occupation and annexation of Gaza and the West Bank and dismiss blatant atrocities committed by the Israeli military and police as self-defense.

To be clear, the Great Neck organizers and attendees speak only for themselves. They absolutely do not speak for the Jewish community at large; no one person or group does.

In fact, your May 28 article conveniently failed to mention the Jewish marchers and speakers who attended the May 23 Garden City protest in solidarity with the Palestinian and Palestinian-American communities.

If you are a member of the Jewish community and dont see your values or beliefs reflected in this recent spate of far-right pro-Israel protests, speak up.

Let your elected representatives know that they are being taken advantage of by bad-faith actors who actively otherize American Jews for political gain.

It may sound trite, but silence is complicity.

Matthew Zeidman

New Hyde Park

The rest is here:

Readers Write: Far-right extremists not representative of L.I's Jewish community - Readers Write - The Island Now

Original source of pound cake recipe in new Athens Jewish cook book remains a mystery – Online Athens

Posted By on June 16, 2021

Thirty-fiveyears in the making, theCongregation Children of Israels Sisterhood recently released their new cookbook, Eat & Be Satisfied,a 350-pagecelebration ofNortheast Georgias vibrant Jewish and Southern culinary heritage.

Withmore than 175 recipes from classics like challah,latkesand matzo ball soupto peach chicken and the chocolate chip pecan piefromTrumps Catering,the dishes reflectthe diverse heritage of the CCIs congregants.Oneparticularrecipewould best be categorized as discovered.

Theset of directionsforWhipping Cream Pound Cake, contributed byCCI Sisterhood memberHelene Schwartz,was found stuck inside an old cookbook that belongedto Florence Schwartz.At 97,Florenceis the oldestmember of the Sisterhood, but the handwritingwasn't hers.

Theonly clue to the recipes origin was thepaper it was written on.

(Florence)mustve gotten it from aPeskinscustomer sometime in the mid-1980s, said Helene.Shes a great cook, but the pound cakewas her only bakeddessert.The cookbook we found it in mustve preserved the handwriting, because it has faded more and more since we took it out.

The historic Peskins Departmentstore in Winderis now home to the recently-renovated Legacy at Peskin Event Center.Built inthe 1930s,thestore wasowned by Henry Peskin beforeFlorence and her husband, Sandy (Peskins nephew), became business partners in the 1950s.Peskins closed in the 1990s,andthe buildingremainedvacant for more than 20 yearsprior to the renovation.

Lead bySisterhood board member andcookbook committee chairrustiKlein,the team behind Eat & Be Satisfiedbegan working on the book in October 2019, andused the time spent at home during the COVID-19 pandemic to complete it.In addition to a focus on healthy ingredients,the bookalso draws on theCaribbean, Middle Eastern, Moroccan, RussianandSouth Africanidentitiesof someof the contributors.

(Story continues after photo...)

Released in February 2021, the cookbook quickly sold out, and is now in its second printing.Poems, anecdotesand quotes are interspersed with the recipes, along with reminiscences by the owners of Jittery JoesCoffee, Mamas Boyrestaurantand Trumps Catering. There are also supplements on Kosher cooking and blessings before meals.

"We didn't want this to be an internal document that was just for our congregation, saidCCI Sisterhood presidentLizzieZ. Saltz,who also served as graphic designer for the cookbook.Theres beensuch a rise in hate towards minorities over the past decade. We wanted to put something positive out there that celebrates the joy of being Jewish.

Eat & Be Satisfied can be purchased at avidbookshop.com, and 25 percent ofthe proceedswill be donated to nonprofit agencies that combat food insecurity in Northeast Georgia.

Read more here:

Original source of pound cake recipe in new Athens Jewish cook book remains a mystery - Online Athens

Jewish student group ‘SLO Hillel’ opens new Pavilion The new gathering space is located at the – KSBY San Luis Obispo News

Posted By on June 16, 2021

A Jewish student group at Cal Poly opened it's new pavilion as a way to celebrate graduates and future students.

SLO Hillel dedicated the new space, designed by students and community members, to the Jewish community on Cal Poly's campus with a graduation ceremony.

The new Makom Hillel gathering space, is located at the JCC Federation grounds at Laureate Lane and will serve as a central meeting point for Jewish students throughout the Central Coast.

"It's mostly for the students of SLO Hillel. It's operated by the JCC, but they can use this when and how they choose. It's multi-purpose so it can be a campfire, it can be a pulpit, it can be a slam poetry, we can do Israeli dancing, we can have a silent disco," Rabbi Micah Hyman, executive director of SLO Hillel, said.

Following Cal Poly's mission of learning by doing, architectural engineering students took the lead in designing the new space.

The rest is here:

Jewish student group 'SLO Hillel' opens new Pavilion The new gathering space is located at the - KSBY San Luis Obispo News

Omar seeks to clarify comments after Jewish House Democrats accuse her of comparing US and Israel with Hamas and Taliban – CNN

Posted By on June 16, 2021

"On Monday, I asked Secretary of State Antony Blinken about ongoing International Criminal Court investigations," Omar said in a statement. "To be clear: the conversation was about accountability for specific incidents regarding those ICC cases, not a moral comparison between Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. and Israel.

"I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems."

The clarification comes days after Omar prompted a public rift among Democrats when she tweeted Monday that "we have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban."

"We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity," she wrote, including a video of herself questioning Blinken during a House hearing Monday.

On Wednesday, the group of Jewish House lawmakers, including House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, argued that "equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided."

They continued, "false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups."

House Democratic leaders said in a statement Thursday, "We welcome the clarification by Congresswoman Omar that there is no moral equivalency between the U.S. and Israel and Hamas and the Taliban."

But, they also said, "drawing false equivalencies between democracies like the U.S. and Israel and groups that engage in terrorism like Hamas and the Taliban foments prejudice and undermines progress toward a future of peace and security for all."

Omar, who is Muslim, had initially called her colleagues' Wednesday statement "shameful" and accused them of using Islamophobic tropes.

"It's shameful for colleagues who call me when they need my support to now put out a statement asking for 'clarification' and not just call. The islamophobic tropes in this statement are offensive. The constant harassment (and) silencing from the signers of this letter is unbearable," she wrote on Twitter.

Jeremy Slevin, a spokesman for Omar, said that the congresswoman had reached out to the group ahead of their statement release to offer clarification, but calls were not returned.

Omar also shared a threatening, profanity-laced voicemail her office received, adding that "every time I speak out on human rights I am inundated with death threats."

"They have no concept for the danger they put her in by skipping private conversations & leaping to fueling targeted news cycles around her."

Omar also said she was citing an open case in the International Criminal Court against Israel, the US, Hamas and the Taliban, which she argued "isn't comparison or from 'deeply seated prejudice'."

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Rome Statute which established the ICC in 2002, so the court's investigation and any eventual ruling carry less weight.

In a House Foreign Affairs hearing Monday, Omar had asked Blinken about the Biden administration's opposition to the ICC pursuing those investigations.

"I haven't seen any evidence in either cases that domestic courts both can and will prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity," Omar said to Blinken Monday, adding, "So in both of these cases, if domestic courts can't or won't pursue justice and we oppose the ICC, where do we think the victims of these supposed crimes can go for justice?"

Blinken replied that the US and Israel both have the mechanisms to ensure accountability in situations where there are concerns about use of force and human rights abuses. He added that the administration continues to believe that the ICC's jurisdiction is inappropriate, absent a Security Council referral or request from the state itself.

Republicans have often condemned Omar's views, and National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Berg said Tuesday that "every House Democrat should condemn Omar's disgusting comments."

The Democratic Party's position has traditionally been in support of Israel, but progressives, including Omar, have been critical of the Israeli government over its treatment of Palestinians. Omar also supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a nonviolent activist campaign that aims to put economic and political pressure on Israel over its actions toward Palestinians, including calling for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

This story and headline have been updated with additional information Thursday.

CNN's Ryan Nobles, Manu Raju, Amir Tal, Andrew Carey, Paul LeBlanc and Angela Dewan contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:

Omar seeks to clarify comments after Jewish House Democrats accuse her of comparing US and Israel with Hamas and Taliban - CNN

Stanford therapists allege ‘hostile climate’ for Jews in the workplace J. – The Jewish News of Northern California

Posted By on June 16, 2021

Two Jewish mental health professionals at Stanfords on-campus counseling clinic have filed workplace discrimination complaints after what they call severe and persistent anti-Jewish harassment from colleagues.

Dr. Ronald Albucher, a psychiatrist and associate professor in the medical school, and Sheila Levin, a therapist specializing in eating disorders, describe being pressed into joining a whiteness affinity group by staffers with the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program, being told they were privileged, and seeing antisemitic incidents downplayed.

The university responded inadequately to their concerns, made over the course of a year, Albucher and Levin say, thereby fostering a hostile and unwelcoming environment for Jewish employees working for Stanfords Counseling and Psychological Services office (CAPS).

Released publicly on Tuesday, the complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Californias Department of Fair Employment and Housing allege violations of state and federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Representing Albucher and Levin are attorneys with the Louis D. Brandeis Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit focusing on Jewish civil rights issues on college campuses.

The trouble began in November 2019, Albucher and Levin say, when CAPS employees were asked to join weekly seminars run by the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program within the clinic, formed earlier that year. The DEI program is facilitated by fellow psychologists and mental health professionals within CAPS.

Most programs and departments at Stanford have internal DEI programs, as do universities across the Bay Area and around the country. According to the programs web page, the initiative aims to help Stanfords psychological services office provide care rooted in cultural humility and social-justice values.

We at CAPS are staunchly dedicated to centering diversity, equity, and inclusion not only in the services we provide but within the multiple systems we inhabit, the description says.

Albucher said he was excited about and supportive of the DEI program at first. As a psychiatrist working on a campus like Stanford, where people from all over the world come to study, teach and do research, it only helps to increase ones knowledge base about other cultures and religions, he told J.

But once DEI programming began, his view soured.

Before their first meeting, CAPS staff were asked to read White Fragility, the 2018 New York Times bestseller by Robin DiAngelo. Albucher said the assignment did not appeal to him as an introduction to DEI training because it is deeply pessimistic about race relations in the U.S., and it argues that all white people are fragile on race issues, no matter what.

When he expressed that view, according to the complaint, several CAPS co-workers verbally harassed and intimidated him. At an early meeting he was berated, the complaint says, for not having read the book, thereby co-opting the meeting because other participants had to explain the book to him.

When I spoke up, probably five or six people jumped on me, he told J.

Albucher, a member at Congregation Emanu-El in San Francisco who specializes in anxiety disorders and the treatment of university students, is the former director of the CAPS program, which he led from 2008 to 2018.

To discuss White Fragility, the complaint says, DEI members split up CAPS staff by race, facilitating space for white staff to process [their] reaction to it. The group was later named the Whiteness Accountability group/book club.

The complaint describes racially segregated affinity groups that separated CAPS staff members on the basis of race or perceived race. One of these groups was for white staff, and another group was for staff comprising minorities of color.

No affinity group was ever created for members of Jewish ancestral identity, it continues. As a result, there was no space in the DEI program for Dr. Albucher and Ms. Levin to safely express their lived Jewish experience.

Albucher said he was deeply uncomfortable with the discussion groups reserved for white people and refused to join them, although he continued to attend DEI seminars.

As a gay Jewish man, I have have my own perceptions on white supremacy, and the history of this country, he said. My family has had to contend with white supremacy, he said, adding that he has family members who died in the Holocaust.

Levin also did not want to join the whites-only group, telling a DEI member that as a Jewish person, she does not feel an affinity with white identity, according to the complaint. She said the individual responded that this was the direction the clinic was going and she needed to participate if she wanted to be part of a collegial environment.

Albucher and Levin allege a pattern of anti-Jewish bias within the DEI program. The complaint cites a DEI seminar on May 20, 2020 at which concerns about antisemitism were downplayed following a racist and antisemitic Zoombombing incident four days earlier, when the N-word and swastikas were shared at a student government meeting.

At the follow-up meeting, the complaint says, DEI committee members addressed the racist and anti-Black content but did not mention antisemitism or the swastikas.

When Albucher asked about the omission, he was told that the committee decided to omit any mention of anti-Semitism so as not to dominate the discussion about anti-Black racism, the complaint says. When he brought it up again, he was accused of trying to derail the conversation.

DEI committee members justified the omission of anti-Semitism, the complaint says, by insisting that unlike other minority groups, Jews can hide behind their white identity. During the meeting, Albucher and Levin say they were subjected to anti-Jewish stereotypes, such as that Jews are wealthy and powerful business owners.

Levin was too intimidated to speak, the filing says, fearful of experiencing similar hostility and harassment on the basis of her Jewish identity and race.

After that meeting, Albucher decided he would no longer attend DEI seminars.

If you are training your professionals to dismiss antisemitism, or to disregard or deny it, how does that impact the quality of care?

On May 30, 2020, Levin emailed a DEI leader asking how she could support the program. According to the complaint, the person responded that as a Jewish, White cis woman you have immense power and privilege. It is important to understand how you are a part of the systemic racism and oppression that takes place in this country.

On June 24, 2020, the complaint alleges that during a seminar that Levin attended, participants lamented that the group was comprised of privileged people, specifically white, pass for white and Jewish people.

That August, Levin and Albucher notified Stanfords HR department about the hostile climate they were experiencing in the DEI program, the complaint says, and the HR department tried to facilitate a mediation session between the parties. Neither Albucher nor Levin felt satisfied with the outcome, and in the fall of 2020 Levin stopped participating in the white affinity group because of ongoing hostility she experienced on the basis of her race and Jewish ethnic identity, the complaint says.

On Jan. 8 of this year, the complaint alleges, Levin was again subjected to a hostile environment when, during a seminar for psychology students prospective CAPS interns a DEI program facilitator said the program would explore how Jews are connected to white supremacy and will address anti-Semitism. Another DEI representative said she takes an anti-Zionist approach to social justice.

Albucher and Levin first filed complaints with the U.S. Education Department in the spring. The department transferred the complaints to the employment agency.

The complaints come as Stanford grapples with other reports of anti-Jewish bias. On June 8, Hillel at Stanford director Rabbi Jessica Kirschner sent an email to her mailing list describing an alarming amount of online and in-person incidents stemming in large part from anti-Israel animosity in the midst of violence in Israel and Gaza. One Jewish student was told, Dont talk to me if youre Jewish, while another was told by a classmate, Im not going to talk to you, Nazi, Kirschner wrote.

Stanford has opened an investigation into the workplace discrimination complaints; Alyza Lewin is the lead lawyer representing Levin and Albucher.

The university responded to a request for comment from J. on Monday, via an email from spokesperson Dee Mostofi.

We are deeply committed to nurturing a diverse and inclusive work environment, one free from harassment and discrimination of any kind. We value and respect the dignity of every member of our community.

The complaints, which Lewin said she hopes will be resolved out of court, demand Stanford come into compliance with the law by taking concrete steps to eliminate the hostile environment for Jews at CAPS, including by creating a task force to provide input on how to respond to antisemitism on campus and how to meet the clinical needs of Jewish students. Albucher and Levin are asking for a comprehensive curriculum on antisemitism for CAPS staff, a public statement condemning antisemitism, monetary compensation and other remedies.

Lewin said the Brandeis Centers impetus for pursuing the claims extends beyond how Levin and Albucher were treated.

Our concern is that this department is training therapists that provide mental health care to students on campus, she said of the CAPS program, which employs about 30 therapists. Our worry is that if you are training your professionals to dismiss antisemitism, or to disregard or deny it, how does that impact the quality of care?

Albucher said it concerned him that it appeared politics were being infused into health care.

How are they going to work clinically with Jewish students? We need to be improving our skills within the mental health field, he said. Its clear these people will put politics ahead of science.

Continue reading here:

Stanford therapists allege 'hostile climate' for Jews in the workplace J. - The Jewish News of Northern California

Jewish writers with Soviet roots have deep stories to tell J. – The Jewish News of Northern California

Posted By on June 16, 2021

Irving Howe famously theorized that American Jewish literature would decline as the immigrant experience that informed so much of it became consigned to the distant past.

Yet Howe, who died in 1993, could not have predicted that another immigrant literary strain would emerge.

For the past several decades, some of the freshest voices in American Jewish literature have belonged to writers such as Lara Vapnyar, Gary Shteyngart, David Bezmozgis and others who left the Soviet Union during its final years.

Mikhail Iossel differs from most of these writers in having already established himself as a writer, albeit an underground one, before emigrating from the USSR as an adult. Although decades have passed, the stories in his new collection, Love Like Water, Love Like Fire,show Iossel continuing to wrestle with the intensity of life under Soviet rule.

For example, the powerful title story is set in 1939 during Stalins purges, as the wife of a committed Communist worries that her husband will be taken away by the secret police her fears set in motion by the appearance of a telltale black vehicle at their apartment building in the middle of the night.

The action is minimal, consisting primarily of what footsteps she can discern. But her terror is vivid, with her feelings about Stalin, about her husband, about her neighbors shifting as she guesses at what scenario may be developing. It is one of the most searing portrayals of the psychological impact of Stalinism I have read. And, while imagined, it is made more chilling for being presented as the story of the speakers grandmother.

This is an expertly written set of stories, often brimming with dark humor, offering many vantage points from which to consider the Soviet experience, and the particular burdens it placed on Jews.

Released within just a few weeks from each other, Zhanna Slors At the End of the World, Turn Left and Yelena Moskovichs A Door Behind a Door feature remarkable parallels. Both focus on Jewish women who left the Soviet Union as children and settled in Milwaukee, and both revolve around the search for missing siblings.

But the two novels are radically different.

Set in 2007 and 2008, Slors debut novel begins in the voice of 25-year-old Masha, who has been living in Israel for five years following a Birthright trip. She has been summoned back to Milwaukee by her father, as her younger sister Anna has vanished. The search for Anna brings Masha back to the seedy underbelly of the citys Riverwest neighborhood, where she must also confront her own past.

Annas voice then emerges in sections that have taken place months earlier, prior to her disappearance. We learn that she has been contacted by a young woman living in her native city of Chernovtsy (in todays Ukraine) who claims to be her illegitimate half-sister and is attempting to get Annas father to submit to a DNA test. While the father claims that this is a shakedown scam, Anna is torn.

Part of Annas ambivalence has to do with her absent sense of home a significant theme in the novel. Having left Chernovtsy when she was so young that she has no memory of it, she finds herself longing for a part of her identity that is unreachable.

Meanwhile, Masha has found a sense of belonging in Israel, where she is married and has embraced Jewish observance, but returning to her former life brings the fragility of her present self to the fore. As she notes, One day in Milwaukee is already turning me into a bad Jew. A bad person. Her rootlessness is manifested not only in place, but in language: drawn to linguistics, the already trilingual Masha frequently summons phrases drawn from far-flung languages.

Interestingly, the novel is set up as a mystery, but Slor makes the fulfillment of finding answers secondary to exploring the forces governing her characters psychologies.

The same can be said of Moskovichs A Door Behind a Door, whose protagonist, Olga, came to Milwaukee in 1991 as a child. Her younger brother, Misha, who has found religion and taken the name Moshe, has separated himself from the family.

Olga receives a call informing her that Moshe has stabbed someone, and that she must collaborate with the caller if she is to help her brother. She recognizes the caller as a former neighbor who had been convicted as a teenager for the stabbing murder of an elderly woman in their apartment building in the USSR.

Olgas ensuing journey is frequently confounding, made so both by the characters ambiguities and by the novels unconventional construction: It is composed entirely of hundreds of brief, titled paragraphs, with the disjointed and often dreamlike narrative sowing confusion that reflects the characters psychological dislocation and conflicts around family, sexuality, and the uneasy relationship of the Soviet past and the American present.

This is a difficult book, especially for someone like me who is not drawn to experimental writing. But Moskovichs daring prose is a potent reminder that there are many ways to tell a story.

Love Like Water, Love Like Fire by Mikhail Iossel (304 pages, Bellevue Literary Press)

At the End of the World, Turn Left by Zhanna Slor (299 pages, Agora Books)

A Door Behind a Door by Yelena Moskovich (188 pages, Two Dollar Radio)

The rest is here:

Jewish writers with Soviet roots have deep stories to tell J. - The Jewish News of Northern California

The Viewing Booth review seeing is believing in the Israel-Palestine conflict – The Guardian

Posted By on June 16, 2021

Even though he tries to maintain a cool, scientific demeanour, Israeli director Raanan Alexandrowicz finally lets slip a twinge of despair at the end of this interesting geopolitical Rorschach test. Alexandrowicz sits studiously behind a monitor as he invites a succession of volunteers to enter an adjacent booth. There, they have a choice of 40 clips to watch, snippets of life in Israel, while he asks them to share their thoughts on what they see. Half of the clips are from rightwing Israeli sources; the other half are from BTselem, an Israeli human-rights organisation that aims to document abuses of power in Palestinian territories.

Alexandrowicz quickly zeroes in on the pensive Maia, a Jewish American who supports Israel, but brings an insistent scepticism to everything she watches. He is the director of pro-Palestine documentaries such as The Inner Tour (2001) and The Law in These Parts (2011) and believes her to be his ideal audience: a possible convert.

From the sympathy she displays on watching flagrant abuses such as a soldier kicking a street kid, that seems like a realistic hope. But its quickly apparent that Maia filters everything through confirmation bias. When one child seems to misremember his own name in a BTselem video of a home search by Israeli soldiers, she wonders whether it has been staged.

At the same time as interrogating the film-makers agenda, Maia is also aware of her own possible distortions, which stem from a desire to believe that Israeli actions are justified. Above and beyond the Middle Eastern context, this is the kind of due diligence a state of permanent alertness about film-maker and viewer, their intentions and baggage that our information-saturated age demands of all of us.

Alexandrowicz brings Maia, with a sleek new haircut, back for a second session, to review the footage and her own initial reactions. But she doubles down, saying: Sometimes when you question your beliefs and you come up with better answers, they reinforce your beliefs even more. The director, on the back foot, just about clings to his sang-froid.

Not just a valuable crash course in digital-age hermeneutics, this is a gauntlet thrown down to film-makers with an old-fashioned belief in the truth.

The Viewing Booth is in cinemas from 18 June.

Continue reading here:

The Viewing Booth review seeing is believing in the Israel-Palestine conflict - The Guardian

Lazy thinking in the free speech debate could be exploited by extremists – Politics.co.uk

Posted By on June 16, 2021

Recently Michelle Donelan, minister of state for universities, went on BBC Radio 4 to discuss the governments new and much vaunted higher education (freedom of speech) bill.

According to the accompanying press release, the bill would bring in new measures that will require universities and colleges registered with the Office for Students to defend free speech and help stamp out unlawful silencing.

If passed, the bill would entail fines for universities and compensation for speakers if events were cancelled, thereby essentially bringing an end to the no platform tactic.

When questioned about how this would apply to an issue like denying the Holocaust, Donelan responded: A lot of the things we would be standing up for would be hugely offensive, would be hugely hurtful, and seemed to confirm that the proposed law would indeed protect Holocaust deniers.

This has raised the shocking prospect that antisemites and notorious Holocaust deniers, such as disgraced historian David Irving and former British National Party leader Nick Griffin, could receive compensation if they were invited to speak at a university campus and the event was subsequently cancelled.

Since Donelans interview, reassurances have been offered and there has been talk of some sort of exemption in the policy for Holocaust denial. In a later tweet thread, Donelan clarified that antisemitism is abhorrent and will not be tolerated at our universities and that the bill would only protect and promote lawful free speech.

This is not helpful, as Holocaust denial remains legal in the UK. Her comments failed to clarify the seeming contradiction between the governments stated aim of cracking down on antisemitism on campuses, while also introducing a bill which could force universities to platform Holocaust deniers.

This row exemplifies the sort of lazy thinking that is so prevalent in the ongoing free-speech debate. If an exemption for denial is forthcoming, it actually raises more questions than it answers. Would there also be exemptions that allow for the no-platforming of race pseudo-scientists or pro-eugenics speakers? What about far-right or Islamist extremists whose speech does not reach the criminal threshold?

You cannot exempt one form of legal hate speech and not others otherwise what is the point of this bill? The government needs to either take an absolutist position on free speech, or accept that this is an extremely complex issue that requires much more rigorous thinking than has gone into this bill so far.

Similarly muddled thinking has gone into this issue in relation to the long-delayed, but very welcome, newdraft online safety bill, which was published by the government recently.

Oliver Dowden, secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport, said inThe Telegraph: The last thing we want is for users or journalists to be silenced on the whims of a tech CEO or woke campaigners. This sounds all well and good, but what is a woke campaigner and who is classed as a journalist?

The crux of the issue is that free speech has become a battleground in an ongoing culture war. The result of this lazy opportunism is that the governments attempts to score points could unintentionally result in a defence of Holocaust deniers and far-right extremists.

The most recognisable far-right figure in the UK, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon [aka Tommy Robinson], has long self-defined as a journalist, as does a far-right collective of so-called migrant hunters that film asylum seekers and migrants on the south coast. Will they be protected in a bill designed to reduce online harms?

The debate around the borders of free speech is an extremely complex one, with possibly huge ramifications if handled badly. The governments sloppy missteps of late are part of a wider laziness that pollutes this whole debate. It is extremely worrying that the politicised and reductionist arguments that have long been maliciously used by the far right to try to renormalise their prejudiced opinions are now being echoed by government ministers and legislation.

One of the major issues that many fail to grasp is the difference between our right to say what we want (a right we have) with the desire to say this wherever we choose. These are not the same thing and should not be confused. Nonetheless, the two continue to be conflated by those who oppose de-platforming online or no-platforming at universities.

Even more important is the myopic understanding of free speech that is so prevalent in these discussions. This current debate has no relationship to the quality or value of the speech people demand should be heard, when and where they demand. So many, including the government it seems, wrongly assume that diversity of opinion always leads to attainment of truth and that the correct argument will always win if debated.

It would be wonderful if true, but this optimism ignores the possibility that ill-informed opinions, or outright lies like Holocaust denial and race science, will flood the debate and that he who shouts the loudest will end up drowning out others. At worst, debates can become inundated with proven falsities, which risk legitimising topics that objectively are not legitimate. Just debating the Holocaust makes it a debate when it is not.

In addition, those condemning the supposed clampdown on free speech fundamentally underestimate the potential for social inequalities to be reflected in public debate, seemingly ignorant to the nature and extent of these inequalities in the marketplace of ideas.

As such, the position of these free speech advocates is paradoxical. They claim to be committed to valuing free speech above other values, while propagating an unequal debate that further undermines the free speech of those who are already harmed by social inequalities. What about the rights and free speech of Jewish students if their universities are forced to platform Holocaust deniers?

So much of this is based on the incorrect notion that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the truth will out. The Holocaust ended 76 years ago. It is one of the most documented historical events ever recorded, yet people still deny it. How will inviting deniers onto campuses help?

Those who argue for this position have yet to explain how nearly a century of sunlight on fascism and Holocaust denial has yet to disinfect them, and it begs the question how many more people have to die in terrorist attacks and genocides until someone finally manages to comprehensively debate them out of existence.

Free speech is a hugely important right that we must protect, but it is also a complex issue that demands serious thinking and nuance, not point scoring and slogans. The government needs to remember that before it introduces legislation that could seriously benefit far-right extremists.

Follow this link:

Lazy thinking in the free speech debate could be exploited by extremists - Politics.co.uk

Mandated vaccinations have historic and legal precedent | TheHill – The Hill

Posted By on June 16, 2021

The trend seems to be going in the direction of requiring and approving compulsory vaccinations as a condition of employment. A Texas federal judgerecently requireda nurse at Houston Methodist Hospital either to be vaccinated or to lose her job.He correctly characterized as reprehensible the nurses argument that a vaccination requirement is akin to medical experimentation done during the Holocaust.

The medical experimentation done byDr. Josef Mengeleand others in Auschwitz was designed to kill the patients, not to help them.Vaccines are designed to save lives.To make any analogy to the Holocaust is to suggest that the Holocaust was no worse than vaccination.That is a form of Holocaust denial, deserving only of condemnation.

But even without that exaggerated, bigoted hyperbole, the argument offered by the Houston nurse and her fellow plaintiffs is not constitutionally sound.

The United States Supreme Court, more than 100 years ago, ruled that the public health power of government extends tomandating vaccinesagainst highly communicable and often lethal diseases.In that case it was small pox. Inthis case it is COVID-19. Its up to the government to determine the safety requirements for vaccinations, and here it has been determined that,in the light of the seriousness of the current pandemic, the vaccine is safe enough.

The Texas court went out of its way to emphasize that nobody is threatening the nurse with imprisonment.She has a choice: She can refuse to be inoculated, but she cannot work in the hospital if she makes that decision.That is a perfectly rational judicial conclusion.

The hard case may never come.That would be if all Americans were required to be vaccinated without regard to religious or philosophical beliefs.We havent reached that point yet because there are still more people who want to be vaccinated and havent received their doses than there are conscientious objectors.It is unclear whether we will be able to reach herd immunity without some kind of compulsory vaccination, but we can come a lot closer than we now are.

During the Revolutionary War, Gen. George Washingtonrequired all of his troopsto receive the primitive vaccinations then available to prevent the spread of small pox. I am aware of no objection to that order, nor to the modern-day mandate that all American military personnel must be vaccinated against multiple diseases.

Even for those who oppose vaccination on medical or ideological grounds, sacrifices are often required as a condition of living in a free and democratic society.Many people dont want to pay taxes, or to send their children to school, or to show ID when they get on airplanes. But the law requires them to do so.

In general, our nation has provided exceptions for conscientious objections, based on religion or closely related philosophical beliefs.But this doesnt mean that conscientious objectors for vaccination should be allowed to endanger others.Recall that the vaccine is only about 95 percent effective. No one would get on an airplane if there was a 5 percent chance of a crash nor should a vaccinated person be required to encounter an unvaccinated person.So perhaps conscientious objection should be permitted, but it should be conditioned on not exposing others.

The issue of mandatory vaccination is emotionally wrought.Unfortunately, like everything else in America today, it has been caught up in politics. Extremes on both sides of the political spectrum are more opposed to it than people at the center, and people on the center-right seem more skeptical than people on the center-left. Skepticism is healthy in a democracy.As the great jurist Learned Hand once said, The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right.

But, in a democracy, emotional issues are resolved under the rule of law by legislation, executive orders and judicial review.That process is now going forward.There will probably be decisions both ways, and they will vary with the facts of each case.In the end, public health considerations almost certainly will prevail over any individual preferences.That is not a sign of tyranny.It is a sign of democracy at work.

Alan DershowitzAlan Morton DershowitzMandated vaccinations have historic and legal precedent Dershowitz files multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Netflix over portrayal in Epstein series Why does the hard left glorify the Palestinians? MORE, professor emeritus for Harvard Law School, served on the legal team representingPresident TrumpDonald TrumpKushner lands book deal, slated for release in 2022 Biden moves to undo Trump trade legacy with EU deal Progressives rave over Harrison's start at DNC MOREfor the first Senate impeachment trial. He is author of the recent book, Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due Process, and his podcast, The Dershow, is available on Spotify and YouTube. You will find him on Twitter@AlanDersh.

See the article here:

Mandated vaccinations have historic and legal precedent | TheHill - The Hill

Fight antisemitism: ‘Never again’ must be backed by actions – opinion – The Jerusalem Post

Posted By on June 16, 2021

Each year Jews and non-Jews around the world recite the mantra Never Again to remember the six million Jewish lives and tens of millions of other victims murdered by the Nazis. And then, each year, we continue to see Jew-hatred and antisemitic violent attacks continue soar all over the world.We have a responsibility to remember the Holocaust, honor those precious lives lost, and elevate the voices of survivors. However, with the memory of the Holocaust fading, remembrance is not enough. We must do everything in our power to recognize the growing Jew-hatred and prevent it from being increasingly violent. Never Again must be accompanied by meaningful actions to prevent future genocides.Defining antisemitism is critical to preventing and combating Jew-hatred

To effectively prevent and fight Jew-hatred, it first must be clearly defined. Antisemitism takes many shapes and forms, and its expression has morphed over the years. Classic antisemitic canards and age-old conspiracy theories about Jews focus on hatred of the Jewish people because of their religion, and from the 19th century onwards because of their race and ethnicity. While this type of hatred is currently prevalent among white supremacists and neo-Nazis, it is no longer the predominant form of antisemitism today.

Todays antisemitism uses a new, pernicious expression of Jew hatred: the delegitimization, demonization, and double standards placed on the Jewish State of Israel. While the new antisemitism has been popularized by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, it has now been adopted by all the other key antisemitic movements, such as white supremacists, radical Muslims, the far-left, and the followers of Louis Farrakhan.

In fact, the recently released The New Antisemites report documents how under the guise of social justice activism, the BDS movement radicalizes all other hate groups, promotes violence against Jews and creates a threatening environment that normalizes antisemitism, something that history has shown to have deadly consequences.

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });

On May 26, 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) published its working definition of antisemitism, which has since been adopted or endorsed by 36 UN Member States, including the US. The IHRA is a unique intergovernmental organization that empowers political and social leaders to address the need for Holocaust remembrance, research and education worldwide to combat Holocaust denial and incitement of violence against Jews.

The IHRA definition encompasses both the old and new forms of Jew-hatred. Examples of the old include: Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective, and from the new: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor; Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; and Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

The IHRA definition exposes the true agenda of todays Jew haters and holds them accountable for their antisemitism. To disguise their true, antisemitic goal of annihilating Israel, these new antisemites purport to support human rights and social justice. It is unsurprising then that the leading voices against the IHRA definition come from the BDS movement and far-left organizations.

The IHRA definition must be widely adopted to prevent Jew-hatred and combat the violence antisemitism promotes and incites.

Realizing that proper education about the Holocaust is key to fighting todays Jew-hatred, 19 US states require Holocaust education as part of their secondary school curricula. A comprehensive curriculum must include the IHRA definition of antisemitism, enabling educators to inform students about all of the different types of contemporary antisemitism and the severe consequences of sitting idle and not firmly fighting against Jew-hatred.

The IHRA definition is the most comprehensive definition of antisemitism. It has been endorsed by the Biden Administration and adopted by the US State Department, dozens of universities across the US and Canada and the states of Kentucky, South Carolina, and Florida. All other states, universities, social media companies, schools, companies, and government entities should follow suit.

Analyses of the rising patterns of antisemitism around the globe today ominously resemble those in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. The latest conflict between Israel and the terror group Hamas, funded and incited by the Holocaust-denying Iranian terrorist regime, generated a new onslaught of antisemitic hate and violence against Jews in Europe and America.

Weve seen stunning scenes of Jews from New York to Los Angeles being assaulted on the streets by mobs of antisemitic, anti-Israel thugs. In a shocking development many would never have thought possible within living memory of the Holocaust, many Jews in America now fear walking on the streets in their kippot, speaking Hebrew in public, or wearing other articles or items that readily identify them as Jewish.

As Winston Churchill once said, Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It is our moral responsibility to recognize the similarities of the antisemitic events today to those preceding the Holocaust and take action.

We must actively work to ensure that activities, organizations, and movements promoting Jew-hatred will not result in mass genocide occurring again. To do so, we must expose and hold the perpetrators of hate and violence accountable.

To stop Jew-hatred we must not only focus on teaching about the lessons of the Holocaust, but we must also learn from them and act vigorously to prevent it from happening again. We must unite in pushing for the widespread adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, particularly when passing legislation mandating Holocaust education.

History has shown us that The hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews. When we say Never Again, let us take action to prevent a future holocaust.

Read the rest here:

Fight antisemitism: 'Never again' must be backed by actions - opinion - The Jerusalem Post


Page 771«..1020..770771772773..780790..»

matomo tracker