Saturday 24
September, 2012
‘…..Support Palestine Defeat Zionism…’
Hameed Abdul Karim
Coming hard on the heels of the
of the vilest of movies ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ and the subsequent
blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the French magazine Charle
Hebdo, there is this outrageous advertisement on New York busses carrying a vicious racist message. The ad reads “In Any War between the
Civilised Man and the Savage, Support the Civilised Man. Support Israel. Defeat
Jihad’. This spiteful ad made its debut in San Francisco on city busses. And
now it’s in New York. The timing seems perfect considering the UN is having yet
another of its talking shops.
The nice men and women of New
York would think this might insult the delegates at the UN sessions. And they
would be right because that’s the precise intent of the people behind this uncivilised
advertisement when you consider the timing. Most of the delegates are indeed
‘savages’ or were referred to as such during the days when they were the ‘White
Man’s Burden’.
The ethnic ‘Red Indians’ who were
slaughtered in their millions by the ‘civilised’ Europeans in the largest
genocide known in history, would not take too kindly to this wicked advertisement
either. The White man described them as ‘savages’ too as they went about their
‘God given responsibility to exterminate the ‘savages’ from the land that Columbus
‘discovered’ and purge it from all ‘impurity’ for the ’Pale Faces’. Neither
will the ‘Black’ man, for exactly the same reason. A similar genocide took
place in Australia. And there is one taking place in Palestine as we speak.
The person behind this racist
advertisement is the anti Muslim and Islamophobic Pamela Geller. She also
happens to be a hard core Zionist Jew. In
an interview over RT TV she says there is no harm in mocking the Prophet
Muhammad or Jesus Christ or the Buddha. ‘This is America’ she points out ‘where
freedom of speech reigns supreme’. But up until today there is not a single
case where we had seen the Prophet Moses or the Prophet Abraham being mocked at
in any way at all. It’s not that we would want this to happen, but this gives
you a clue of the identity of the people behind the slander of holy personages
of faiths other than Judaism.
In all fairness let it be said
that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority rejected the heinous
advertisement when it was brought before them for approval. So Pamela Geller
went to court and the federal judge ruled in her favour saying that the ad is
protected speech under the First Amendment. How would the good judge react if
the advertisement read ‘In Any War between the Civilised Man and the Savage,
Support the Civilised Man. Support Palestine. Defeat Zionism’? Would he have
resorted to the First Amendment and rule in favour of the ad? If he did he
would be condemned as an anti-Semite if he’s a Goy (Gentile). If he were a Jew
he would be denounced as a ‘self hating Jew’ like so many Jews who stand up
against Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians. The First Amendment does not
protect anybody who speaks against Zionism, Israel’s version of Apartheid. So
much for the First Amendment and ‘free speech’ in the ‘land of the free and the
brave’!
Sure there is such a thing as
‘hate speech’ but this was introduced to punish anybody who criticises Israel
or Zionist Jews, not Islam or Muslims or any other faith or people. For example no one is allowed to question the
holocaust and indeed many have paid heavy prices for daring to do just that.
Some have been thrown into jail in Canada and Europe simply for questioning the
number of Jews that the Europeans, especially the Germans, killed.
Coming to the First Amendment
itself, in his book ‘A People’s History of the United States’ Howard Zinn says,
‘The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights shows that quality of interest
hiding behind innocence. Passed in 1791 by Congress, it provided that “Congress
shall make law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” Yet, seven
years after the First Amendment became a part of the Constitution, Congress
passed a law very clearly abridging the freedom of speech’. This was the
Sedition Act. Under this act any ‘false, scandalous and malicious statements
against government, Congress or the President with intent to defame them, bring
them into disrepute or excite popular hatred against them’ was banned.
‘This act seemed to directly
violate the First Amendment. Yet it was enforced. Ten Americans were put in
prison for utterances against the government and every member of the Supreme
Court in 1798-1800 sitting as an appellate judge, held it constitutional’.
Sounds very much like the Florida Supreme Court that ‘selected’ George Bush
jnr. as President of the United States of America! So what chance did we have
of a federal court judge classifying Pamela Geller’s scurrilous advertisement
as ‘hate speech’?
If you wish to relegate Howard Zinn’s version of history to
that of a bygone era, you might want to focus your thoughts on the recent
‘Patriot Act’ and ‘Homeland Security’. These acts have dwindled Americans’
civil rights as Americans themselves claim. All this new legislation, as some
silly talking head might say on Fox TV, is to ‘curtail democracy to protect
democracy’. But hate mongers, fear mongers and rabble rousers like Pamela Geller
will continue to flourish under the First Amendment. You can bet your devalued bottom
dollar on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment