Political asylum from persecution in Britain?
On April 18, 2006, I wrote the following:
"I regard antisemitism as totally misguided but believe that persecuting believers in it only gives it credibility to those who are persecuted. Last Wednesday, two people, Luke O'Farrell and Simon Sheppard, who publish a British antisemitic website, were arrested by Humberside police in Britain because of what they had written. Details here and here. And what was the reaction from the guys who were arrested? It was:
"To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore"
So a fat lot of good arresting them did. It just reinforced their views and gave those views more credibility to others.
The matter has now gone to trial and the two Brits werre convicted of hate speech. While out on bail, they took a direct flight to Los Angeles and have now claimed political asylum in the USA. Some details here
The prospect of their getting any sort of sympathetic hearing in California seems slight to me. I guess they flew there because it was the only alternative they knew to what they would call "Jew York". I think it is true, however, that what they said would not be a crime in America.
There is no doubt that the two men are stock-standard antisemites with stock-standard theories about Jewish conspiracies. When what is happening in the world seems inexplicably wrong, people have blamed that wrongness on the Jews ever since the Pharaohs.
What rather appals me about the present case is that two "little people" are being assailed for it when the major source of such hatred in Britain undoubtedly comes from Muslims and the Left -- and that is virtually ignored. Once again it seems that it is only white conservatives of Christian background who can utter "hate speech".
In Britain recently, a TV channel did a program which showed local Muslims uttering very definite hate speech. So what did the British police do? Did they prosecute the Muslims concerned? No. They prosecuted the TV channel! Details here. The Muslims concerned have not been touched to this day as far as I can ascertain.
2 comments:
The dictionary defines an antisemite as "one who is hostile to jews". Can disliking jews be considered hostile? Can simply disagreeing with jews be considered hostile? In many places, (especially in places like NYC) the answer to both those questions is yes!
IMO, one of the biggest contributors to "anti-semitism", (or at least the appearance of it) is the inordinate amount of political influence jews enjoy in many parts of this country and again, especially in places like NYC where jews control "the entire" political process. This is a well-known fact and is sometimes viewed with anger by non-jews.
Example: During most jewish holidays in NYC, hundreds of uniformed police officers are assigned throughout the city to guard jewish places of worship, major jewish business's, and the private homes of many "prominent" (see: politically connected) jewish citizens. This is done (not) because of any threat. It is not a decision made by the police, but by politicians, all of whom are jewish. "No such treatment is given to any other religious group in the city"!
Of course, to voice the anger and frustration felt by non-jews who see this type of special treatment on a daily basis is considered antisemitic. But is it?
At least not until they push the local population too far, and the local population decides to take matters (back) into their own hands.
Post a Comment