Are We Losing Free Speech in America?

 Click Here to Read Article

PUSH TO BAN ANTI-ZIONISM WORLDWIDE!!!

Canadian Government Kills Freedom Of Speech On Israel

Special note: See some extra sources and links under the videos below. 

See here for the Zionist takeover of Canada. You can also see this documentary from 2010 showing how Canada is a stronger supporter of Israel than the United States is. This is something very few people know about. 

Also, see here for the Canadian government cracking down on criticism of Israel and here for the Canada-Israel public security agreement. See here for how the RCMP targets Muslim extremists, but gives Zionist terrorists a free pass. In case you think it is any different under the piece of garbage named Justin Trudeau, see here, here, here, here, here and here.  This same crap is going on in the United States, it is a part of Homeland Security. The Canadian version of Homeland Security is called Public Safety Canada. To learn more about Homeland Security and its connection to Zionism, see here. Also, see here for how the United States is limiting government funds to home owners that had their houses destroyed by hurricane Harvey because they are on a boycott of Israel list. See here for how it is now illegal to criticize Israel in South Carolina! Oh, but wait.... you don't want to live in Texas or 16 other states if you plan to boycott Israel either. 

It gets even better, Israel doesn't even have a constitution, (Canada doesn't really either with the introduction of Bill C-51,) so how can they give a damn about free speech? They don't! That's why they do this to Jewish Americans who criticize Israel in the state of Israel and why they are trying to get other countries to shut up about what they are doing.  Even more amazing, the United States has made it a part of their foreign policy to go around fighting "anti-Semitism." #Coexist See here for more about coexistence. 

1. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-s-speech-to-the-israeli-knesset-1.2503902

 2. http://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/canadian-government-cracking-down-israeli-criticism/ 

3. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-cites-hate-crime-laws-when-asked-about-its-zero-tolerance-for-israel-boycotters-1.3067497

 4. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-law-on-hate-speech-is-the-embodiment-of-compromise/article22520419/

17 Benjamin Franklin Quotes on Tyranny, Liberty, and Rights

 Benjamin Franklin was dubbed “The First American” for a reason.

Gary M. Galles

Americans remember Benjamin Franklin as one of our founders. That is fitting because he was not just our most famous citizen at our country’s birth, but he was also so much a central part of that birth that he has been called “The First American.”

As a member of the Second Continental Congress, Franklin helped draft the Declaration of Independence. As a member of the Constitutional Convention, he helped draft the Constitution. Both documents bear his signature. Franklin’s role in our founding has been eclipsed in modern memory by his many other accomplishments.

He also signed the Treaty of Alliance with France, bringing the colonies French aid against the British, and the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War and recognized the independence of the United States. He was the only person, in fact, to sign all those key documents.

However, Franklin’s role in our founding has been eclipsed in modern memory by his many other accomplishments. He was a prolific inventor, from his trademark bifocals to the Franklin Stove and artificial fertilizer. He ran his own paper and published Poor Richard’s Almanac. He even published the first political cartoon in the colonies. He founded the University of Pennsylvania, as well as America’s first public library and hospital. His discoveries went far beyond his famous kite experiment, including the identification of lead poisoning and the charting of ocean currents.

Franklin's Inspirational Words

Unfortunately, attention to what Franklin said about American liberty has often been crowded out by his other accomplishments. On his January 17 birthday, we should remember some of those inspirational words.

1. "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" (proposed by Franklin for the motto of the Great Seal of the United States).
2. "From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion, it is still the birthright of all men."
3. "Every man…is, of common right, and by the laws of God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty."
4. "All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual… is his natural right which none can justly deprive him of."
5. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
6. "Our cause is the cause of all mankind…we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own."
7. "[F]requent recurrence to fundamental principles…[is] absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free."
8. "The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater the need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance and enable him to plunder at pleasure."
9. "Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech."
10. "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics…derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates."
11. "Sell not...liberty to purchase power."
12. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
13. "This Constitution…can only end in despotism…when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
14. "I hope...that all mankind will at length…have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats."
15. "Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes!"
16. "Ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy."
17. Benjamin Franklin expressed the goal of America’s experiment in liberty when he said, "God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country."

As we reflect on current political developments, we should consider how far we are from that goal and how to rekindle America’s liberty.

How Many Americans Knew That This Was a Policy Of The United States Government? How Sad Can The United States Get?

SEE BELOW!
VERY IMPORTANT...

Yes, this is how pathetic the United States government has become. 

Essentially it is enforcing Israel's campaign against global free speech, see here to read about it. Also see here for how Israel would like world internet censorship. See here for the origins of Homeland Security. See here for a collection of tweets about Homeland Security and its connections to Zionism. See here for the strong connections between Israel, Canada, and the United States. See here for the Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement for Counter-Terrorism & Homeland security. See here for how the Canadian government is cracking down on criticism of Israel.

See here for the corruption of the RCMP and how they work with organized crime, see here for a video of the head of Homeland Security at the ADL "Leadership" Conference, see here and here for how Jewish groups get most of the Homeland Security grants, see here for how the ADL works with the RCMP and the FBI and its ties to organized crime.

=============================================================================

Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism

---

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Ira Forman, advances U.S. Foreign Policy on anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. The Special Envoy develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) produces the State Department's annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and the Special Envoy provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports. The office can be contacted at: SEASinfo@state.gov.

Combating Global Anti-Semitism in 2016

Remarks

Ira N. Forman
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism 

Berlin, Germany

March 16, 2016

On January 27, 2016, President Barack Obama made a powerful statement on fighting anti-Semitism at the Embassy of Israel. “Anti-Semitism is a distillation,” he said, “[it is] an expression of an evil that runs through so much of human history, and if we do not answer that, we do not answer any other form of evil.” So how do governments effectively “answer” and strongly combat rising anti-Semitism?

The office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the U.S. Department of State has been tracking the rise of anti-Semitism around the world and witnessing its alarming presence and growth in Europe and beyond. We know Jewish communities in Europe have faced an upsurge of anti-Semitic incidents, including violence in Western Europe over the past few years. Jewish communities are anxious about their safety and future. 

Sadly, if present trends continue, the viability of some of the smaller European Jewish communities will come into question due to anticipated emigration and/or assimilation. To best protect Jewish communities and combat anti-Semitism, the U.S. Department of State has encouraged European states to appoint Special Envoys or other senior officials to focus on anti-Semitism.

In Berlin, in November 2014, at the 10th Anniversary of the OSCE's Conference on Anti-Semitism, Ambassador Samantha Power stated, “One way to ensure sustained attention to anti-Semitism is to appoint a high-level envoy… Governments who appoint high-level officials to coordinate whole-of-nation efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and give them the political backing and resources they need, will see the difference it makes.”

We all welcomed the appointment of an EU Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism, Katharina von Schnurbein, and we look forward to future collaboration. This position is an important first step. Ideally, individual European governments will establish a point person to combat anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is evolving into new, contemporary forms of hatred, racism, and political, social, and cultural discrimination against Jews. One virulent aspect is the relation of conflating Jewish communities with Israel, using criticism of Israel as a pretext for anti-Semitism. As government leaders we cannot ignore this phenomenon.

Being in Berlin, I am reminded of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent statement urging the need to specifically address anti-Semitism among youth from countries where hatred of Israel and Jews is widespread.

We have witnessed instances where anti-Israel demonstrations have taken on anti-Semitic tones such as in Malmö, Sweden, when protestors shouted, “Slaughter the Jews!” And we have seen in Toulouse and Marseilles how Jews have been targeted by terrorists who reportedly said they were protesting the situation in Palestine.

In our work, we engage with Jewish community leaders in Europe. We have heard from the Dutch Jewish community that “any criticism toward Israel is considered ‘anti-Zionism’ [in the Netherlands], but people know this and they shout ‘Zionist!’ when they mean ‘Jew’ so they won't get in trouble.”

Jewish leaders from Sweden also noted how anti-Semitism can be covered by anti-Zionism. Recent graffiti with swastikas was not classified as 'anti-Semitism' by police in Stockholm, but as actions against Israel. And I quote, “If you are hurt wearing a kippa [in Sweden], it is classified as anti-Zionism, which is legal.”

And then there is an ongoing case in Germany, which many of us know of, when in the early morning hours of July 29, 2014, anti-Israel protestors in Wuppertal threw Molotov cocktails at the main synagogue. Last year, the judge determined these actions “anti-Israel” and not “anti-Semitic.” Although this decision has recently been challenged, we have to be aware of the correlation.

This is why it is especially important to define anti-Semitism clearly to more effectively combat it. My predecessor Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal said it best, “Opposition to a policy by the State of Israel [can morph] into anti-Semitism …This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many to identify – but if all Jews are held responsible for the decisions of the sovereign State of Israel [or if] governments call upon and intimidate their Jewish communities to condemn Israeli actions…this is not objecting to a policy–this is anti-Semitism. Our State Department uses Natan Sharansky’s framework for identifying when someone or a government [can] cross the line – when Israel is demonized, when Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the countries, and when Israel is delegitimized.”

While we understand the complexities of this issue and the importance of context, we are concerned about those instances where the line is crossed between legitimate opposition of Israeli government policies into rhetoric that questions Israel’s right to exist and targets Jewish communities outside of Israel.

Thus we encourage European governments to adopt a working definition of anti-Semitism, ideally, one which would include a section on how anti-Semitism relates to Israel, to improve the safety and well-being of Jewish communities in Europe.

We should also note that we are very careful to use this definition appropriately and object to its misuse as part of efforts to silence the legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. It is important to be as accurate as possible and not overstate or understate the problem. Unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism motivated by ideological or political aims distract from and are counterproductive to good-faith efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

For example, when one of the strongest opponents of anti-Semitism today—Pope Francis— is accused of taking an anti-Semitic stance, those unsubstantiated accusations make it more difficult to identify and address actual incidents of anti-Semitism. The Catholic Church has made impressive strides in speaking out against anti-Semitism and condemning intolerance.

The United States government deeply appreciates the Church’s critical voice. In October 2015, our office had the opportunity to meet Pope Francis and Vatican officials and thank them for the Church’s continuing efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and encourage them to continue. Indeed, in 2015 Pope Francis told the media “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”

All of us are here because we believe that democratic governments should proactively combat anti-Semitism. But governments cannot combat anti-Semitism alone. If we are to beat back the tide of anti-Semitism, we need to strengthen and enable civil society, in Europe and wherever anti-Semitism arises, to raise its voice and speak out.

Everyone needs to understand that anti-Semitism is not just a “Jewish problem.” Anti-Semitism and religious intolerance are fundamental threats to democratic societies; religious intolerance leads to the loss of rights for other minority groups, threatening social cohesion and fundamental freedoms. Civil society, governments, and religious leaders all have a responsibility to act against all forms of intolerance, including against religious or ethnic minorities.

As many of you know, at the end of 2015, the U.S. State Department led an international effort that helped prevent a statue from being erected in Hungary to honor a notorious World War II-era anti-Semite, Balint Homan. We worked with members of Congress, U.S. and international NGOs, Hungarian groups, Jewish community leaders, and European government leaders—including several of you here –to send the message that anti-Semitic acts will be strenuously opposed.

We believe there is a significant role for legislators and parliamentarians to play in speaking out against anti-Semitism. The U.S. Congress, for instance, played an important role in our efforts in Hungary, and we are appreciative of their leadership in combating anti-Semitism.

We also believe governments should make it easier for civil society and religious leaders—who are often closer to the dynamics and issues on the ground and within their communities—to access their governmental leaders, meet with them, share information, and continue to receive funding for projects and programs that combat anti-Semitism and intolerance of any kind.

In Hungary, because Hungarian civil society—Jews and others—felt empowered after the success in December, plans to unveil another statue honoring another anti-Semite last month were foiled. Because we expect these issues to persist, civil society and governments must remain vigilant and continue to coordinate efforts to confront these anti-Semitic actions.

As parliamentarians we need to encourage civil society to speak out, to build coalitions and bridges with diverse communities, and to educate in terms of citizenship and democratic values.

With a robust civil society in Europe that is both encouraged and aided by governments, hopefully, together, we can turn down the faucet of anti-Semitism. I often use this metaphor of a faucet. We may not be able to turn it totally off, but we can certainly turn it down.

Thank you.

Jefferson on the Freedom of the Press

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (6 January 1816) ME 14:384.

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge John Tyler (June 28, 1804); in: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME) (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors), 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, Volume 11, page 33.


Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. James Currie (28 January 1786) Lipscomb & Bergh 18:ii.


The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington (16 January 1787) Lipscomb & Bergh ed. 6:57.

To preserve the freedom of the human mind then and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Green Mumford (18 June 1799).

I am  for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.- Letter to Elbridge Gerry (January 26, 1799); in: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME) (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors), 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, Volume 10, page 78.

I have stated that the constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen [...] Freedom of the press, subject only to liability for personal injuries. This formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must otherwise be done by revolution. It is also the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being. - Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray a.k.a. Adamantios Koraes, October 31, 1823. The letter can be found in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Andrew A Lipscomb and William Elery Bergh, 20 volumes, (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1901-04), at page 489 of volume 15.

An hereditary chief, strictly limited, the right of war vested in the legislative body, a rigid economy of the public contributions, and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses, will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive. But the only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted, when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Marquis de la Fayette (November 4, 1823); in: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME) (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors), 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, Volume 15, page 491.

Canadian Government Cracking Down On Israeli Criticism

Special Note: the article below is from when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister, but, we have to question how much anything has really changed. As the articles here, here, here, here and here show, it seems that for the most part, Justin Trudeau is continuing to spearhead a domestic and foreign policy that is very favorable to Israeli interests.

===========================================================================

Criticism against police officers isn't the only thing that Canadian authorities are cracking down on. Now the Harper government is looking to use hate crime laws against Canadian advocacy groups that try to encourage boycotts of Israel. There are a number of organizations which could be implicated from this move, from large labor unions to the United Church of Canada ---- and many others.

It is no secret that the Harper administration and Israeli officials have had a close relationship over the years, and Canadian officials now look wiling to place that support for their friends, above the basic Charter-protected rights to free speech of Canadian citizens they are in place to represent. Israel has continued to gain a lot of criticism throughout the years for its questionable military actions, one movement in particular that has caught the attention of officials in Canada is the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement.

When it comes to arresting those who speak-out, Harper has the ability to assign priorities to the RCMP  for investigation purposes; emphasizing the need to find those engaging in hate speech regarding Israel. However, the prosecution of those individuals would ultimately require an assent from a provincial attorney general. When it comes to hate speech laws in Canada, there are believed to be several limits which have been set to prevent the state's ability to criminalize your words. In order for you to be prosecuted for your hate speech, all of these (7) conditions must be met:

1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;

2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;

3. It must be public;

4. It must be deliberate, not careless;

5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;

6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;

7. No prosecution can proceed without approval, of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.

Hopefully, these types of checks-and-balances in the Canadian legal system would prevent any peaceful individual from being wrongfully incarcerated, simply for sharing their non-violent viewpoints. Civil liberties groups are insisting that the new move by the Harper administration would be challenged in court because of the seeming infringement on basic rights to free speech. Public Security Minister Steven Blaney has deemed boycotts of Israel to be on par with anti-Semitic hate speech and violence. Blaney says the government should show zero tolerance when dealing with BDS and this type of criticism.

It appears as if there are efforts being made in a number of ways that contribute to the overall action of suppressing dissent from the status quo. Is it going to soon get to the point where you cannot criticize the government at all? Is that a pillar one would expect to find in any "free and democratic" society? Especially a nation which has an international reputation as being a bastion for human rights. Over the last few months in Canada we've seen piano players losing contracts over controversial political tweets regarding Russia and Ukraine, mail employees refusing to carry mail that had too strong a message for their personal feelings, student activists being jailed and fined for sharing controversial anti-police street art, citizens being bullied into feeling like they're "with the terrorists" if they don't support unjust anti-terror legislation, and now anyone who vocalizes dissent against the nation of Israel is also going to have problems. We can only imagine what's next.

Israel Campaigns Against Global Free Speech

Posted by Alcibiades Bilzerian

Alarmed at the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiments on the internet, Israeli politicians recently called for nations around the world to enact legislation prohibiting criticism of Jews and Israel. Lobbying to outlaw global free speech is nothing new for Israel, however; it has been in the business of criminalizing speech for decades.

Israel is in the precarious position of receiving tens of billions of dollars in aid every year from nations that purport to support democracy, while simultaneously oppressing the Palestinian people and perpetrating what Nobel Peace Prize winners Bishop Desmond Tutu and President Jimmy Carter deem an apartheid. If the American or European people ever knew that their tax dollars where being used in such a way they would surely cut Israel off. In order to conceal this truth and stifle any criticism, Israel and its lobbyists rely on sympathy from the Holocaust and labels of anti-Semitism to discredit critics. Even US Secretary of State John Kerry was recently called an anti-Semite for supporting a peaceful resolution to the Jewish/Palestinian conflict. Kerry is not alone however, President Obama, and just about anyone who has ever opposed an Israeli policy has been labeled anti-Semitic by his enemies. In order to add teeth to these labels, Israel lobbyists around the world lobby endlessly to criminalize anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Israel’s threat of forcing world governments to enact new laws against free speech should not be taken lightly. Israel and its lobbyists have already succeeded in enacting stiff anti-racist laws in most Western countries. These laws have been used on numerous occasions to jail academics, pro-Palestinian activists, and also individuals who have spoken provable facts that are deemed anti-Semitic “canards“.

In Australia, Jewish groups lobbied successfully to outlaw holocaust study and “hate speech.” As with most laws regulating speech and academic study, it has been routinely abused, and is now on the list for repeal. In fact, the law is so tied to Jewish lobbying, that the Jewish newspaper Hareetz published an article: Australian Jews brace for a fight against the repeal of hate laws.

In Canada, Jewish groups lobbied for the enactment of hate speech regulation, and defend its use today. In 1983, Israel lobbyists filed a complaint against Ernst Zundal over a book he had written. He was tried several times, his citizenship application in  Canada denied (even though he had resided there for decades), he was detained for two years without trial, and eventually deported to Germany where he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

In France, Israel lobbyists publicly complained about comedian Dieudonne’s parodies of Israel and the holocaust. His home was raided, his shows banned, and hefty fines were imposed. England also followed suit and barred Dieudonne’s entrance into the country. In 2003, the French legislator and Israel lobbyist Pierre Lellouche managed to push through a law which extends the definition of discrimination to include nationalities so anti-Israel activists could be jailed. In 2009, the Lellouche law was used  to convict 20 anti-Israel activists.

In England, Jewish lobbying efforts successfully enacted strict hate speech laws, and in Austria, acclaimed historian David Irving was incarcerated after Israel lobbyists complained about his academic work. The European Jewish Parliament and the chief Israel lobbyist in Belgium recently called for similar laws to stifle criticism of Israel. According to the Canadian Jewish News article French Vigilance on anti-Israel speech provoking backlash, Israel lobbyists are also attempting to enact similar legislation in the Netherlands.

In America, the Israel lobby has been fighting mightily for years to prohibit hate speech. Those efforts have been unsuccessful thus far, but they have managed to enact hate crime legislation. As Abe Foxman of the ADL noted, the social consequences in America for bigotry against Jews are so severe, (given disproportionate Jewish influence in government, media, finance, higher education, professional sports, etc…) that anti-Israel speakers often see graver consequences than the criminal sanctions they would face in Europe. For example, if one were to be labeled an “anti-Semite,” even if the allegations were wholly unsubstantiated, he would most likely be fired and ostracized from society.

One has to realize that Israel’s efforts having nothing to do with hate speech, anti-Semitism or holocaust denial, but are rather about stifling critical speech that affects Israel and its lobbyists. For example, we know that Israel and its lobbyists are not offended by holocaust denial because Israel and its lobbyists are the leading proponents of Armenian holocaust denial in the world today. Israel should also not be particularly offended by anti-Semitism, because Israel is actually one of the most racist and anti-Semitic nations on the planet.

Today, Israel is furiously enacting anti-free speech laws, hiring internet trolls to spread propaganda and disinformation, and even asking the Jewish owners of social media websites Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, and Youtube to remove material Israel does not like, regardless of its truth or merit. Israel has also campaigned against political parties it does not like in Greece, Hungary, and Ukraine. In Greece, the anti-Israel Golden Dawn Party was disbanded and its leaders arrested for no legal reason. This is a dangerous precedent that threatens world wide freedom and must be combatted immediately, before speaking out against such Israeli efforts is also illegal.

Laws protecting free speech are put in place specifically to protect speech that powerful groups find objectionable. Otherwise, there is no free speech and it is just a matter of time before the list of prohibited phrases grows to include everything the powerful oppose. If it’s illegal to speak about certain races, the disabled or elderly, then why not government employees, and then the rich, or poor, and so on? Either speech is totally protected or it is not protected at all. The point of speech protection is to protect the most unpopular forms of speech. Popular forms of speech obviously need no protection.

#Israel #Israeli racism

The Right To Tell The Government To Go To Hell

by John W. Whitehead


“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”― George Orwell (See here for more excellent George Orwell quotes, see here for a lecture on 1984.)


Free speech is not for the faint of heart.

Nor is it for those who are easily offended, readily intimidated or who need everything wrapped in a neat and tidy bow. Free speech is often messy, foul-mouthed, obscene, intolerant, undignified, insensitive, cantankerous, bawdy and volatile.

While free speech can also be tender, tolerant, soft-spoken, sensitive and sweet, it is free speech’s hot-blooded alter ego—the wretched, brutal, beastly Mr. Hyde to its restrained, dignified and civil Dr. Jekyll—that tests the limits of our so-called egalitarian commitment to its broad-minded principles.

Unfortunately, our appreciation for a robust freedom of speech has worn thin over the years.

Many Americans have become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. We’ve come to prize civility over freedom. Most of all, too many Americans, held hostage by their screen devices and the talking heads on television, have lost the ability to think critically.

Societies that cherish free speech relish open debates and controversy and, in turn, produce a robust citizenry who will stand against authoritarian government. Indeed, oppressive regimes of the past have understood the value of closed-mouthed, closed-minded citizens and the power inherent in controlling speech and, thus, controlling how a people view their society and government.

We in the United States have a government with a ravenous appetite for power and a seeming desire to turn the two-way dialogue that is our constitutional republic into a one-way dictatorship. Emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” the government is whittling away at free speech, confining it to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalizing it when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shaming it when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzling it when it appears dangerous.

Free speech is no longer free.

Nor is free speech still considered an inalienable right or an essential liberty, even by those government entities entrusted with protecting it.

We’ve entered into an egotistical, insulated, narcissistic era in which free speech has become regulated speech: to be celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority and tolerated otherwise, unless it moves so far beyond our political, religious and socio-economic comfort zones as to be rendered dangerous and unacceptable.

Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.

Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Disguised as tolerance, civility and love, political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite. Consequently, college campuses have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.

Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,”  and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”

Hateful speech:  Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook are in the process of determining what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.

Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its newly unveiled war on “extremism,” the Obama administration is partnering with the tech industry to establish a task force to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online is considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted.

The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state. Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use. The end result is control.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

Thus, while on paper, we are technically still free to speak, in reality, we are only as free to speak as a government official or corporate censor may allow.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long been the referee in the tug-of-war over the nation’s tolerance for free speech and other expressive activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Supreme Court’s role as arbiter of justice in these disputes is undergoing a sea change. Except in cases where it has no vested interest, the Court has begun to advocate for the government’s outsized interests, ruling in favor of the government in matters of war, national security, commerce and speech. When asked to choose between the rule of law and government supremacy, this Court tends to side with the government.

In the 225 years since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted, the rights detailed in that amendment—which assures the American people of the right to speak freely, worship freely, peaceably assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and have a free press—have certainly taken a beating, but none more so than the right to free speech.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.

Unfortunately, in the war being waged between free speech purists who believe that free speech is an inalienable right and those who believe that free speech should be regulated, the censors are winning. Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms.

If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.

What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.

Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, makes independent thought all but impossible, and ultimately foments a seething discontent that has no outlet but violence.

The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say—frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

The problem as I see it is that we’ve lost faith in the average citizen to do the right thing. We’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive populace, content to watch and not do. In this way, we have become our worst enemy. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once warned, a silent, inert citizenry is the greatest menace to freedom.

Brandeis provided a well-reasoned argument against government censorship in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927). It’s not a lengthy read, but here it is boiled down to ten basic truths:

1. The purpose of government is to make men free to develop their faculties, i.e., THINK.
2. The freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are essential to the discovery and spread of political truth.
3. Without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile
4. The greatest menace to freedom is a silent people.
5. Public discussion is a political duty, and should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
6. Order cannot be secured through censorship.
7. Fear breeds repression; repression breeds hate; and hate menaces stable government.
8. The power of reason as applied through public discussion is always superior to silence coerced by law.
9. Free speech and assembly were guaranteed in order to guard against the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities.
10. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground (a clear and present danger) to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent, and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.

Perhaps the most important point that Brandeis made is that freedom requires courage. “Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards,” he wrote. “They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.” Rather, they were “courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government.”

In other words, the founders did not fear the power of speech. Rather, they embraced it, knowing all too well that a nation without a hearty tolerance for free speech, no matter how provocative, insensitive or dangerous, will be easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed.

What the police state wants is a nation of sheep that will docilely march in lockstep with its dictates. What early Americans envisioned was a nation of individualists who knew exactly when to tell the government to go to hell.