These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

Ian Paul doesn’t think that Google will actually pull out of China. But whatever ends up happening, the implications of this statement could be huge – both for Google as a business, and for China. Stay tuned.

Bakri said that the ban was ”the gravest mistake,” describing his group was peaceful think-tank whose younger members would be pushed toward violence if it were driven underground.

[ . . . ]

”We (were) never involved with any violence, yet,” he said.

Yet, eh? Sounds awfully close to a threat, there.

Now, normally I would be inclined to agree that banning any group for holding views, however offensive or despicable, is a violation of freedom of speech as long as no other laws are being transgressed. But in this case, we’re not just talking about pissing people off by marching:

Bakri’s group argues that, as Muslims, they’re not bound by British law and has expressed support for bin Laden and al-Qaida. In its previous incarnation as al-Muhajiroun, the group was linked to several terror suspects and was accused of recruiting British Muslims to fight in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Bakri has acknowledged that some of al-Muhajiroun members have engaged in militant attacks but says the group can’t be held responsible for their actions.

Bakri, who was deported from Britain in 2005, added that, whatever happened, his followers could regroup under a different name.

”Tomorrow we can call ourselves whatever we think is suitable for us,” he said.

He’s right, of course. Banning the groups won’t erase the sentiment. But allowing them to openly collect funds and organise isn’t the answer either. The British government might have reacted to the wrong thing – moral outrage at the group’s planned (and cancelled) protest march through Wootton Bassett – when they implemented the ban. But it’s clear that we’re not just talking about distasteful speech here, but illegal actions. And that’s where the line gets drawn.

And they can always ban whatever the group decides to call itself tomorrow, too.

The new law defines blasphemy as:

 “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.”

In other words, a complete trampling of the notion of freedom of speech. In fact, this blog post probably violates that law. Good thing this site isn’t hosted in Ireland.

The best response to this that I’ve seen so far? Atheist Ireland published 25 blasphemous quotes by everyone from Salman Rushdie to Richard Dawkins to Christopher Hitchens to Jesus Christ to the Pope, and even Muhammed. My favourite is this one:

Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

If they’re looking to prosecute people under the new law, I suggest they start in their own backyard.

Since last week, it seems that way. Even though the Vietnamese government is issuing denials.

Some Vietnamese Facebook users launched a Facebook group in protest of the blockage, but as of right now it appears to only have a handful of members. Hmmm, wonder why that could be?

Of course, as Barack Obama found out last week after giving a speech in China about internet freedom, protests against censorship have an above-average risk of, well, being censored.

It was almost 1,000 years ago when Canute, king of England, Denmark and Norway, led his courtiers down to the Sussex seashore. Weary of their flattery, he ordered them to watch as he loudly commanded the waves to recede – and as the waves did not. A king’s powers, he demonstrated, go only so far.

In a gesture almost as futile, but without any of Canute’s wise humility, the government of Canada is fighting in the Supreme Court to make sure Canadians on the West Coast can’t see federal election results from Atlantic Canada until after western polling stations close. As legal causes go, this one is pointless, wrong-headed, arrogant and utterly out of touch with reality.

[ . . . ]

Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians freedom of expression. There was nothing malicious or even inaccurate about what Paul Bryan did. No one can demonstrate that he did anyone any harm. And in any case, nobody could stop a foreigner from putting results on a website outside Canada.

Information wants to be free, and in this case, at least, the government should stop trying to reverse the tide.

In the last election, I decided to toe the line on this blog and I didn’t post any results until the last poll closed in B.C. But it was an exercise in nonsense, because those results were freely available to anyone with an internet connection and the brains to search for a US-based news or blog source. Not to mention anyone with a telephone and a friend or acquaintance out east.

This law, and the government’s efforts in enforcing it, are completely pointless. I agree with the Gazette: Allow the information to be broadcast, because everyone’s getting it anyway.

This started off as merely an amusing tidbit but I wonder what’s in store. The blogosphere is one of the last arenas of freedom of speech, and it seems that Iran’s hardline religious leaders have chosen it as their next battleground. So far they’ve only been concentrating on Iran, but the global nature of the Internet makes me wonder how far off we are from seeing attempts by Islamists to control worldwide blogging content. It’s something every blogger ought to be keeping a close watch on.

Iran’s hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country.

With his call echoing the rhetoric of the nation’s 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic’s late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Iran still has strong moderate factions, and since taking office a year ago Ahmadinejad has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners. His administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.

Hey Mahmoud, what’s wrong? Can’t stand the blogging competition?

D’oh! China has banished Homer Simpson, Pokemon and Mickey Mouse from prime time. Beginning Sept. 1, regulators have barred foreign cartoons from TV from 5 to 8 p.m. in an effort to protect China’s struggling animation studios, news reports said Sunday. The move allows the Monkey King and his Chinese pals to get the top TV viewing hours to themselves.

Foreign cartoons, especially from Japan, are hugely popular with China’s 250 million children and the country’s own animation studios have struggled to compete. Communist leaders are said to be frustrated that so many cartoons are foreign-made, especially after efforts to build up Chinese animation studios.

The most ironic part of this news story? That China, a Communist nation, is really doing nothing worse than what the CRTC does here in Canada. Ain’t it great living in such a free country?

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned Western music from Iran’s radio and TV stations, reviving one of the harshest cultural decrees from the early days of 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Songs such as George Michael’s “Careless Whisper,” Eric Clapton’s “Rush” and the Eagles’ “Hotel California” have regularly accompanied Iranian broadcasts, as do tunes by saxophonist Kenny G.

But the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of Iran’s Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban Western music.

Cause after all, everyone knows that the saxophone stylings of Kenny G. contain hidden Zionist brainwashing propaganda.

Though we may scoff, cultural restrictions are key components of Ahmadinejad’s renewed fanatical war on the West and against any kind of freedom or reform for his people. One only wonders how far he can push before the forces for change in Iran push back.

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone could be banned from office for up to five years for likening an Evening Standard reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard if he is found guilty by an independent panel.

Livingstone will have to attend a disciplinary hearing, which will decide whether he is guilty of failing to treat others with respect, or bringing his office into disrepute.

The decision to refer the dispute for adjudication was announced by local government watchdog the Standards Board for England, which said yesterday that it had “concluded that the issue should now be considered at a hearing held by the independent Adjudication Panel for England”.

The panel, whose members are appointed by the lord chancellor Lord Falconer, has the power to ban people from office and to instruct those brought before it to make an apology. A public hearing is expected to take place this December, during which Livingstone has the right to bring in his own legal team.

(Via Lynn).

Update: I should probably mention that I’m generally uncomfortable with hate speech laws even where there is clear evidence of real antisemitism (see my postings on David Ahenakew, for example), and that arguably Livingstone’s comments were just idiotic, not necessarily evidence of the kind of virulent antisemitism that someone like Ahenakew displays. Furthermore, I don’t really agree with the idea of forcibly removing someone from office for making hateful comments. Theoretically, if someone holds and spews such views openly, and the people vote for him anyway, then those people are getting exactly the leadership that they deserve. Such is democracy.

Anyway, I’m fairly sure that all the panel will do is possibly censure him or force an apology. But I’m concerned of what message about freedom of speech it will send if they impose harsher penalties – and about what message about antisemitism it will send if they find him not guilty.

It’s not entirely a lose-lose situation, though; the panel is evidence that the British government is taking antisemitism seriously, and holding elected officials to a higher standard. And, in the publicity this is sure to generate, at least more people will see Ken Livingstone’s true colours. Maybe it will affect their behaviour next time they go to the polls, and they’ll kick him out on his arse and vote in someone more worthy.

I’ve always been torn on the issue of hate speech legislation. Restricting freedom of speech can have potentially dangerous consequences for a free society, and it’s not something to take lightly. After all, restricting free speech means that someone has the power to decide what qualifies as hate and what doesn’t. This opens the door for things like this, when those in power can muzzle their political opponents by attacking different opinions as “hate speech”. Deny a freedom to your enemies, and you open the door for your enemies denying that same freedom to you if the tables should turn.

And one could argue – convincingly – that people like Ahenakew should be encouraged to say what they really think, so at least we know what they really think and can judge them on that basis. And if political ostracism for hate speech isn’t disincentive enough for someone to shoot off their mouth in public, then it’s doubtful hate legislation will be either.

On the other hand, wilfully and publicly promoting hatred against a group of people, when left unchecked, can allow the hatred to grow and spread like a cancer. It’s like advertising; repeat something often enough and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it.

There are no easy answers here. However, the Ahenakew trial is just barely underway and it’s already leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

First of all, there’s the ridiculous defence argument that Ahenakew said what he did because he was on medication:

“He was certainly not feeling well that day and wouldn’t have said these things if he was feeling well,” [Defence lawyer Doug] Christie said.

“His medication had recently been doubled caused clearly by a chemical imbalance in the blood being related to diabetes. In addition to that he had two glasses of wine the night before.

“I think in those circumstances it’s pretty obvious that he wasn’t measuring his words the way he would normally do.”

Basically the lawyers are arguing a technicality: hatred is okay, but expressing it isn’t. That’s the way the law is written after all. This isn’t Orwell’s 1984 and we’re not about to start prosecuting thoughtcrime. So this defence argument of utter nonsense actually might work here.

This raises the question of what happens if Ahenakew is acquitted. Some people will use that mere fact as vindication for their hateful and antisemitic views. Ahenakew would become an underground hero of the antisemitic fringe. In many ways, an acquittal could have worse consequences for Canadian society than a lack of trial in the first place.

Then there’s the issue of the media coverage of Ahenakew’s trial actually becoming an additional vehicle for Ahenakew’s vile views to be spread. Every time a clip of Ahenakew’s despicable statements about Jews is shown on the news, millions of Canadians are hearing it. One hopes that most people react to what they hear with distaste, but some people may be reacting by agreeing. After all, it’s this exposure of such views that hate speech legislation was designed to prevent.

Now that Ahenakew is on trial, only a conviction would send a message to Canadians that promotion of such hatred is unacceptable. Only a conviction will deter further spreading of the cancer of hatred. Which is why I’m hoping for this outcome. It’s kind of like the war in Iraq; agree or disagree with it at first, now that the US is there, they have to finish the job.

But there are a lot of tricky questions here, and I don’t think the sour taste is going away anytime soon.

Nov. 5, 2004 — Media coverage of a statement issued by Federation CJA yesterday may have caused misunderstanding about Concordia’s position regarding inviting Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia. Concordia’s position has not changed and the university’s primary concern remains the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and our guests.

As Dr. Lowy outlined in his update to the community of Oct. 25 and subsequent opinion page pieces in the Toronto Star, The Gazette and Le Devoir:

“Concordia is presently reviewing its physical plant and general environment. Changes recommended by experts will be considered so that all speakers can then be welcomed on campus. And this will be done in a timely fashion with an eye towards implementing the necessary changes this academic year. Until then, we will continue to hold off campus under Concordia auspices any event considered not secure in our present facilities. Freedom of expression will continue to be supported as it always has been at Concordia.”

This has been Concordia’s position and remains Concordia’s position.

The university is examining possible locations from a security viewpoint with the intent of making the necessary modifications so an event of this kind can be held with the proper level of security, dignity and respect that such a visit demands.

In the light of the work that remains to be done, this will certainly not be possible in this calendar year. The university will try to make this possible before the end of the academic year.

This is spin 101: try to please everybody and offend nobody by saying contradictory things in the same statement.

The fact is, Concordia initially said no to the Barak speech, citing security concerns. Now they’re saying they hope they can host him in the current academic year on campus. Whether they admit it or not, that’s a reversal. And the right thing to do. But I wish they weren’t so cowardly about admitting it.

Backtracking on a decision that fuelled a furor over free speech, Concordia University in Montreal has agreed to invite former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to speak on its campus.

The university reached the decision after “extensive discussions” with Jewish community leaders, according to a press release yesterday. Concordia says it will welcome Mr. Barak once it can upgrade security in one of its buildings.

Federation CJA has applauded this decision, and I hope that the support that the university receives from the public will convince them that they are doing the right thing by allowing the former PM to speak.

Many students will be upset by this decision, and I can understand why. They don’t want more tensions, more headlines, or the risk of another riot. They just want the situation to calm down and go away.

But ultimately I believe that this is the right decision. I hope that the average student can understand the importance of defending free speech – not just for rioters, but for everyone.

If the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had any kind of lesson, it’s that certain kinds of speech are very dangerous, because certain groups have ensured that this is so. Upon hearing that news, Damian had this reflection:

It’s worth remembering a scene in Martin Himel’s Global TV documentary, Jenin: Massacring Truth, in which a cartoonist for The Independent is asked about his cartoon showing Ariel Sharon eating a baby, and why he wouldn’t draw Arafat in such a manner. He responds, glibly, that “Jews don’t issue fatwas.”

Martin Himel, you will recall, was also behind the controversial documentary Confrontation at Concordia, about the 2002 Netanyahu riots.

The point here is that certain people are willing to resort to violence in order to shut down speech they disagree with. They cannot be allowed to succeed. Otherwise, they will grow bolder and bolder, until eventually the only speech permitted will be their point of view.

Concordia made the wrong decision at first. I believe that strongly. And their change of heart is a case of better late than never.

To all of you out there who may have written leaders or participated in the awareness campaign about this event, I believe you had an effect. Thank you.

To the students and alumni who will be upset or angered by this decision – including some members of a divided Hillel – please try to understand the larger implications of this decision, and realize that defence of free speech – while not always smooth – ultimately benefits us all.

And to anyone considering rioting: you may have thought you were victorious. This new decision proves you were wrong. If you disagree with Barak’s message, feel free to mount a peaceful protest. That’s what freedom of speech is all about. But I hope you think long and hard before resorting to violence again. That has absolutely no place in a free society.

“This is a day of great sadness for those who value freedom of expression in our universities and in Canadian society,” stated Federation CJA President Sylvain Abitbol. “Concordia University has allowed itself to be taken hostage by a small and violent group within its campus. With this decision, Concordia has demonstrated that the right to free speech is only as strong as the institutional will to protect it.”

I wonder how long we’ll have to wait to see similar condemnations from Muslim community leaders. I wouldn’t hold my breath…

Update: The Montreal Gazette, the CBC, and Canoe all have the story. Lots more coverage sure to follow. I’m sure the university won’t know what hit them.

This time, Hillel submitted a request to bring Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia, but, according to a press release from Hillel, the university has denied their request for anywhere on both campuses – even Loyola. Now, they’re holding a protest:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DENIED AT CONCORDIA

First Ehud Barak, WHO’S NEXT ???

Join us for a FREE SPEECH RALLY:

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2004

12 PM at the corner of McKay and De Maisonneuve

Please read the open letter below for more information.

Dear fellow student,

We are writing to ask for your support. Last week, Concordia University denied former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak permission to speak anywhere on campus – including the quiet, and more easily guarded, Loyola campus – hiding behind a “security risk assessment”.

They claim that they cannot effectively secure their campuses. We say that it is their duty to protect their students and to allow freedom of speech to exist on their campuses.

A small group of thugs are holding an entire university community hostage and deciding who is allowed to speak and who is not. All people who value democratic principles such as freedom of expression and speech should share our outrage with this intolerable situation.

This is not acceptable in our Quebec and Canadian society. We ask for your cooperation in FREEING speech. We will be gathering outside Concordia’s Hall building on Tuesday at 12pm (Corner Mackay and Maisonneuve) calling for the Board of Governors, the Administration, the Faculty and students of Concordia to reclaim their campus.

This is a historic opportunity and no matter what your political affiliation is… This affects you!

Today is a day of great sadness for freedom of expression at universities and in Canadian society.

We invited Ehud Barak so that we could all learn from him. We have been told that the Administration has restored peace to its campuses. This unfortunate incident has demonstrated that we have appeased the violent side but we have not achieved true peace. Peace should not be confused with appeasement.

We will know that we have peace on campus when we can all learn together- when we can all reason together, safely, intelligently and constructively. For that, we and our parents sacrifice so much- in order to pay tuition and learn at this school.

In return, all we demand, is equal treatment and a safe learning environment, just like everyone else.

Is that too much to ask?

Looking forward to your support,

Yacov Fruchter

Montreal Hillel President

Jason Portnoy

Concordia Hillel co-President

When the idea was first floated to bring Ehud Barak – a left-wing dovish former Israeli PM who offered Yasser Arafat a historic settlement at Camp David in 2000 – to Concordia, there were mixed opinions. Some students thought he would be an interesting and valuable speaker.

Others, however, worried that bringing a “controversial” speaker like Barak (I guess at Concordia, anyone associated with Israel is controversial) would disrupt the relative calm that has returned to students’ lives over the past two years, and bring back the chaos and divisiveness of the period before and after the Netanyahu riots. For example, this student:

Forget all the bickering over how dovish or hawkish Barak is, or whether he has a right to come to Concordia. He’s a legitimate politician of a democratic state, and of course he should be permitted to speak, here or anywhere else. That said, it would be better for all of us if Barak did not come to Concordia. I say this not because I have anything against the man, but because this is the first year in all my time at Concordia where I can go to class without passing people in the Mezz screaming at each other, or reading inflammatory letters about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Link. We’re not making national headlines because of riots, moratoriums or arrests; and people now are talking about tuition fee hikes, fair trade coffee, the excellent performance of this year’s CSU, and other issues much more relevant to Concordia students at home. I like this kinder, gentler version of Concordia, and would very much resent Hillel, SPHR, or any other organization’s attempts to sabotage that simply to make a point. Bring Barak to a synagogue or a community centre, and I’d be the first person to see what he has to say. But for the love of God, not at my school. Not at the cost of setting us back another two years. Signed, -Another Jewish student sick of it all.

I am all too aware of what it’s like to go to a school that is in the midst of hostile tensions. The atmosphere on campus is finally calmer and friendlier, and I can understand why students wouldn’t want to shake things up again.

I can understand. But I vehemently disagree.

You see, denying Barak’s right to speak means letting the people who rioted against Netanyahu win. They used violence to shut down Netanyahu’s right to speak. In the process, they ensured that nobody they dislike would ever be allowed to speak on campus again, because the university would be too afraid to let them. So pro-Palestinian speakers are more than welcome at Concordia – there were several last year – but Israeli speakers are shunned.

That’s victory to thuggery over reason. That’s victory to – and no, I’m not exaggerating – terrorism over freedom. Because using violence or the threat of violence to shut down free speech is in fact a form of terrorism. SPHR and their friends have terrorized the university, the student population, and the administration, into

Above all, that’s a lack of a free, open exchange of ideas, which is what education is supposed to be all about.

This isn’t really about Barak who – despite his dovish politics, is going to be as demonized by SPHR and the Palestinian lobby as any Israeli. It has nothing to do with whether I liked Barak’s policies or Netanyahu’s or Ariel Sharon’s or anyone else.

This is about a competition of ideas, and whether one set of ideas will be allowed to shut down and stifle another. It’s about the future of Jewish students at university campuses all over North America, and whether they will have the right to bring in speakers or openly proclaim their views without fear of violence. It’s about whether we – as a society – want to accept the notion that anyone can speak at a university campus… except an Israeli.

As a Concordia alum, I support Hillel in this call to action. It is my hope – though, sadly, not my expectation – that any reasonable student, regardless of political affiliation or background – who supports the right to free speech, will go out there and join them.

I won’t be there in person but I’ll be there in spirit. Please spread the word.

Palestinian journalists covering the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian Authority complained over the weekend that they had received death threats from the various feuding parties.

As a result, many of them said they have stopped covering the internecine fighting. Others said they were continuing to report on the power struggle, but without having their names mentioned for fear of reprisal.

“Many Palestinians working with the foreign media in the Gaza Strip are being threatened,” a journalist in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post. He said the threats were coming from all the parties involved in the internal strife

[ . . . ]

The Gaza City rally was either downplayed or completely ignored by the Palestinian media. Al-Quds, the largest daily newspaper, instead carried a story in which it said Palestinians throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip continued to express their support for Yasser Arafat by staging marches and issuing statements.

So much of the world continues to stubbornly insist that the Palestinian government is democratic. Freedom of the press would seem to be a basic requirement for that to hold true, and yet, here’s just further evidence that journalists are only allowed to report one thing: anti-Israel news stories. Anything else could get them shot.

The blogosphere is up in arms about this. Damian Penny thinks that the decision will “come back to haunt” us. He links to Colby Cosh, who claims this law turns special interests into “second-class citizens”. David Janes says that “Freedom died today in Canada”. And so on. And so forth.

I’m going to take a flying departure from all of them and say that I think this ruling is actually a very good idea. And here’s why:

“Freedom of expression” does not mean the same thing as “freedom to buy politicians and drown out everyone else’s expression”. There may be nobody much to vote for at the polls, but at least my choices are still between the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, or Bloc… and not between the gun lobby, the anti-abortion lobby, the union lobby, or the environmental lobby. We need only to glance towards our neighbours to the south, who are stuck between voting for the ACLU or the NRA in each and every election.

Lobbying as a political activity in itself is all very well and good. But sadly, it has the effect of so heavily mortgaging political parties to special interests, that they no longer have the freedom to govern effectively.

This law doesn’t restrict third-party spending outside of an election period. It doesn’t stop people from expressing their opinions, or from organizing to do so in a concerted fashion. If anything, this will allow a wider variety of opinions to be heard, because the ones with the most money can’t drown out the rest.

The next step, in my opinion, is rigorous campaign spending laws for candidates and parties. People should win on the strength of their ideas, not on how frequently they can plaster their face on prime-time.

But, as Dennis Miller would say, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

This bill was kind of a rock-or-a-hard-place issue. It’s tempting to lump it together with yesterday’s marriage vote, but in reality, the issues are separate. Sure, both votes involved gays and human rights, but that’s where the similarities end.

Firstly, today’s vote was proposed by idiotarian Svend Robinson (and for the record, it’s his politics, not his sexual orientation, that I object to).  Remember Svend? The guy who nominated the ISM for a Nobel Peace Prize? And made the announcement on IndyMedia? Yeah, forgive me for being a bit skeptical of him.

In this case, though, I find myself agreeing with Svend . . . because the alternative is people like this:

Opponents of the bill had complained that the legislation would stifle free speech, particularly among religious groups.

Some worried that passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality could be declared hate literature.

“We’ve seen through the courts that when religious freedom comes up against gay rights, that in fact religious freedom intends to be more often than not the loser in those particular cases,” said Derek Rogusky, of the group Focus on the Family.

Actually, the main difference is that the issue here is not marriage – where, granting the right to gays to marry doesn’t infringe on the rights of straight people to do so. The issue is much more controversial than that. A debate has been raging about hate laws right here on this blog, and I can’t say that there’s any black and white clear answer on the notion.

However, it seems clear to me that, considering the fact that these hate laws already exist, and that it’s already illegal to incite hatred against people based on colour, race, ethnicity, or religion, then it seems logical to me that sexual orientation be included as well.

In other words, either the law should be for everyone or no-one. Either extend it to gays or scrap it altogether. Anything else is just plain hypocritical.

Freedom of speech is a precious and inalienable right. David H is correct in saying: “Allowing one group of people to decide that the words of another group are so dangerous that they must be silenced is a dangerous precedent.” I have repeatedly stated that freedom of speech need apply to all, and not only to those we agree with. If I, for example, say that Kevin Spacey is a good actor, and an angry mob of people disagrees with me and decides to riot to prevent me from speaking those words, then they are denying my right to free speech.

But freedom of speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of that speech. And that is where laws about incitement of hatred come into play.

The angry mob that chose to silence the speech of Benjamin Netanyahu was denying the right to freedom of speech by deciding ahead of time that based on who Mr. Netanyahu is – namely, the right-wing, former Prime Minister of a country that they hate – he shouldn’t have the right to address a crowd. That was wrong for many obvious reasons. Having read the text of the speech that Netanyahu planned to give on September 9th of last year, it is clear that – though it contains a political opinion that is unpopular amongst the Left at Concordia, it is far removed from any sort of hate speech. If Netanyahu were to have been permitted to speak, however, and if he did in fact incite hatred, then he would have been subject to the consequences of this under the law, just like anyone else.

I think a great deal of misconception comes from the word “censorship”. The C-word is taken as a given evil, and people scurry away from it screaming. But, to quote the old cliché, freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. Not permitting the yelling of “fire” isn’t censorship; it’s protection of public safety. Similarly, it doesn’t give you the right to approach a contract killer and ask that he murder your wife. That may be speech, but it’s also contracting murder which is – rightly – extremely illegal.

So, of course it is obvious that there are limits to speech. Those are clear-cut cases, but what about cases that aren’t so clear-cut? For example, what about somebody publishing a website denying the Holocaust? This is where societies differ – in the U.S. it’s legal, in Canada it’s not. There are arguments on both sides of the issue here. Some would argue that denying this freedom is ultimately more dangerous, because if the situation were to be reversed and the tyranny became the majority, they could conceivably deny the freedom to you. The true test of freedom of speech, they would argue, is whether we can bear to watch a Ku Klux Klan march, or a neo-Nazi rally, without succumbing to our natural desire to shut these racist assholes up.

I think they make a good point. And that they’re wrong.

Freedoms are not absolute. They end at the point where they interfere with the rights of their fellow human beings. Incitement of hatred has real consequences for the groups against which it is directed. And a society must draw the line somewhere in order to function civilly.

Hate speech is not without cost or consequence. To assume that speech is always peaceful is like saying that contracting a killing is a peaceful, protected act. Certain groups have learned very quickly that if you repeat a lie often enough, people come to believe it as truth. And if you spew hate loudly enough and often enough, you recruit others to your cause, and ultimately create what Ursula Owen calls a “culture of hate“:

In the face of such enormities, the political correctness debate has rather muddied the waters, diluting the wider implications of what hate can produce. For the most dangerous threat behind hate speech is surely that it can go beyond its immediate targets and create a culture of hate, a culture which makes it acceptable, respectable even, to hate on a far wider scale. Such a culture of hate is not easy to define, and does not necessarily have one trajectory, but its evolution is evident in the circumstances surrounding some events in recent history.

[ . . . ]

Words can turn into bullets, hate speech can kill and maim, just as censorship can. So, as dedicated opponents of censorship and proponents of free speech, we are forced to ask: is there a moment where the quantitative consequences of hate speech change qualitatively the arguments about how we must deal with it. And is there no distinction to be made between the words of those whose hate speech is a matter of conviction, however ignorant, deluded or prejudiced, and hate speech as propaganda, the calculated and systematic use of lies to sow fear, hate and violence in a population at large?

Owen has been one of the world’s most staunch supporters of freedom of speech. But even she concedes that the area of hate speech is tricky, and that there are no clear-cut answers.

Speech is a weapon as well as a right. There ought to be a wide range of what is considered acceptable speech. We shouldn’t censor speech simply because we disagree with it or find it distasteful. But when it crosses the line into outright incitement of hatred, then it stops being a healthy part of society and becomes a cancer.

If the majority becomes the tyranny, then hate speech laws may be used against the good minority. But we must prevent the majority from becoming the tyranny in the first place, or else we’ll have a lot more to worry about than laws on freedom of speech. We’ll have lost our humanity.

The original report claimed the banned songs included Give Peace A Chance by John Lennon, Soldier Boy by The Shirelles (a love song), Revolution by The Beatles and One Tin Soldier by The Original Caste.

“No songs have been banned on 1050 CHUM — none,” Brad Jones, the station’s program director, said yesterday. The station yesterday even played at least two of the purported banned songs, including Give Peace A Chance.

Rob Farina, program director of 104.5 CHUM-FM, said his station also has not banned any war- or peace-themed songs.

Jones said pulse24.com’s story was the result of a breakdown in communication during an interview between a pulse24.com reporter and CHUM-FM music director Barry Stewart. The reporter asked Stewart which war-themed songs were being pulled. Stewart thought the reporter meant pulled off the shelf for broadcast, whereas the reporter meant pulled from the playlist.

I’m certainly glad that the rumours turned out to be false. But the fact that the media was so willing to believe and publish the story in the first place raises an interesting question: where does the line get crossed? Being sensitive to controversy is one thing, but I could never condone all-out censorship, and neither could most people.

But while this report was false, reports that MTV Europe is practicing censorship unfortunately seem to be true:

MTV has banned music videos with war-related titles, lyrics or images, including Paul Hardcastle’s 19 and Outkast’s Bombs over Baghdad, for the duration of the conflict in Iraq.

The leading music channel will not show pop promos that feature “war, soldiers, war planes, bombs, missiles, riots and social unrest, executions and other obviously sensitive material”, according to an internal memo seen by MediaGuardian.co.uk.

[ . . . ]

“MTV, like many other broadcasters, feels content should reflect audience sensitivities at this time of war,” an MTV spokeswoman said.

“Any changes to playlists are only a temporary measure,” she added.

I sincerely hope that this policy is reconsidered. After all, isn’t freedom of expression one of the things we’re fighting for?

A federal court jury found Fowad Assed, a Palestinian-born U.S. citizen living in Brooklyn, innocent of sending threatening e-mails, referring to three messages to the Jewish Defense League that threatened bombing businesses in Borough Park, a heavily Jewish neighborhood.

Assed, 33, never denied sending the e-mails, which were sent to the militant Jewish group the day after the Israeli army declared it was going after Palestinian groups following suicide bombings.

Defense Attorney Deborah Colson had argued that while the messages might be offensive, Assed was exercising his rights to free speech.

One e-mail stated: “If you kill an Arab today over there, we will kill a Jew in the U.S. … We should go to 13th Avenue in Brooklyn and set bombs in the stores there.”

Times like these test our desire for certain freedoms. In Canada, Assed would almost certainly have been convicted under hate legislation. But in the U.S., he’s apparently free to threaten to blow up as many Jews as he wants.

Of course, that’s the whole point, right? Once you start curbing your enemies’ freedoms, you’re also giving them leverage to curb yours. Deny freedom of speech to the devil, and he can turn the tables right back on you. And the true test of a democracy’s commitment to freedom is whether it grants that freedom to its most flagrant and despicable abusers. Fowad Assed being a case in point.

First the administration, caving to threats of violence, initially cancelled the speech. Then, showing great courage, they decided to let it go ahead after all. Then, York was forced to bring in tons of riot police in hopes of avoiding a reprise of the Concordia fiasco. It seems to have been averted, but not without incident. Leftists “occupied” a floor of the administration building in attempt to get the university to cancel the speech. And after Pipes left, someone called in a bomb threat to the building.

Freedom of speech means freedom for speech you don’t agree with to go ahead as well. When will the Left get it?

York University could have waffled and cancelled Pipes’ speech, but it didn’t. It took a stand for freedom of speech and against threats and intimidation. And the students who invited Pipes could have caved as well, but they didn’t. Kudos all around (except to the idiotarians who felt it necessary to try to shut down Pipes’s speech).

Three journalists were formally charged Tuesday with slandering Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and harming Jordan’s reputation in an article that discussed the sex life of the prophet and his wife, Aisha.

Muhannad Mubaideen, 29, Roman Haddad, 28, and Nasser Qamash, 33, were also charged at the trial’s opening with “destabilizing the society, propagating perversity and circulating false rumors.”

The charges, outlined in an indictment sheet read out at Jordan’s military State Security Court, are considered misdemeanors punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine.

Under the law, the verdict and sentencing are irrevocable.

Yeah, sure, good ol’ freedom of the press.

Cim Nunn, a spokesman at York, said that while Mr. Pipes attracts strong opinions, and students likely would protest against him, the university is a place for free expression.

“We wouldn’t move forward with this event if we weren’t satisfied that we were going to be able to do so in a way that ensured that everybody participating was going to be able to do so safely,” Mr. Nunn said.

The public lecture was to take place at the Student Centre’s restaurant, the Underground, but it was cancelled when a number of student groups expressed concerns.

In other words, York was afraid of turning into the next Concordia. It wanted to avoid a riot. So it initially caved to pressure and cancelled the speech.

Granted, the Middle Eastern Students Association spokesperson claimed that he would urge students to protest “peacefully”. But then, the CSU and the SPHR claimed that the Netanyahu protest would be peaceful, too.

The tactic of the anti-Israel contingent to try to shut down any speech they disagree with is seemingly common. Daniel Pipes has been un-invited from several campuses across North America recently.

Pipes, best known for his site Campus Watch, where he monitors antisemitism on campuses, is persona non grata to many of Israel’s greatest critics. And, as with Netanyahu, they’ve decided that any speech that doesn’t fit with their politics shouldn’t be heard, and they threaten violence in every instance in effort to get most of them shut down.

Luckily, some universities are coming to their senses. Université de Québec à Montréal reversed a decision back in December and allowed a scheduled speech by journalist Gideon Kouts to go ahead, after initially shutting it down due to threats. And now, Daniel Pipes will be allowed to speak at York University after all.

It looks like universities are learning, albeit slowly, that caving to threats of violence is to let violence win. Academic freedom can only exist if everyone has a voice.

“Jews in Belgium live today in a new reality, one in which they cannot express their sympathy for Israel in any way,” reflects a historian at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, the Free University of Brussels. His angry comment came in response to death threats aimed at two Jewish students who put up pro-Israeli posters on campus earlier this month.

Benjamin and Nicole, who agreed to be identified only by their first names, study natural sciences at the Free University, and belong to the Friends of Israel association. Two weeks ago, they and a few other students put up some pro-Israel posters in the student union area of the Brussels campus. The posters conveyed messages such as “Which was the first state in the Middle East which gave Arab women the right to vote,” or “Terror attacks against civilians are an abomination.” Along the bottom of the posters was written “If you’re for tolerance, don’t rip this off the wall,” in anticipation that a leftist group would be likely to remove the new posters.

The next morning, the two students received phone calls from an anonymous caller who had a Middle Eastern accent, and threatened to attack them. “We know who you are and where you live,” the caller threatened, in the call to Nicole. “We also know that you have a brother, as well as the license number of your car and the place where you park it.” The caller continued: “If the flyer isn’t removed by the evening, we’ll burn the car, and harm you and your family.” Benjamin, 22, received a similar phone call.

The students reacted by taking down the posters, because those threats and follow-ups convinced them that their personal safety was at risk. But they later helped stage a rally that drew 1,000 people in support of free speech.

The point is, freedom of speech doesn’t seem to extend to Israel’s supporters on campuses around the world. Incident after incident of this ought to be enough for the alarm bell to sound. You can put up posters in support of Palestinians, Iraqis, Pagans, Wiccans, the Falun Gong, snowboarding, amateur radio, or people who pick their noses. That’s all allowed. But any kind of pro-Israel activity is being met with extraordinary efforts to shut it down.

In the wake of last year’s events, we decided some pro-activity was needed. We offered a speaker, Edwin Black, who wrote IBM and The Holocaust, to the student union. They helped to book a room, and put up posters around the school. [ . . . ] That subject was right up the alley of the anti-corporate types. The Jewish community has far too much pro-capitalist rhetoric, and apologists for corporate extremism.

Nobody’s disputing the CSU’s willingness to be accommodating to people whose speech agrees with theirs. Of course they roll out the red carpet for anyone who wants to bring in an anti-capitalist, anti-corporate speaker. That fits right in with the CSU’s politics. Nobody’s disputing the rights of someone like Edwin Black to be heard. I even agree that there has been too little attention paid to the role of certain corporations in the Holocaust. All that, of course, is besides the point.

No, this dispute is about freedom of speech extending to those with whom the CSU disagrees. True freedom means allowing anti-corporate types to speak, and also pro-corporate types. It means allowing pro-Palestinians to speak and also pro-Israel speakers. It means helping left-wing, right-wing, and non-wing alike to be heard.

The letter goes on to criticize the Jewish community leadership compared to the CSU:

And let’s not keep calling these people anti-democratic. We never voted for the leadership of Montreal’s Jewish community. In fact, we find their unabashed support for Israel, no matter what is done there, to be an embarrassment. When will our community welcome dissent, as a sign of strength and not of weakness?

Ah, but there’s a key difference. Nobody voted for the Jewish community leaders because we all have a choice whether or not to be represented by them. We don’t pay tax to these people, we give donations. We can choose to agree with some of these community groups some of the time and disagree other times. These groups are interest groups, and their views are pro-Israel. Mr. Wallace and Mr. and Ms. Bailey have every right to dissent.

Concordia students don’t have this choice. They have to pay fees to the CSU or else they can’t take their classes. The CSU legally represents all students, whether they like it or not. CSU fees aren’t voluntary – they’re compulsory. And that is why the CSU’s flagrant abuse of democracy is so disturbing. When CSU executive members illegally annul by-election results and appoint themselves to remain in power after being recalled by the students, when council members elected to represent their constituents instead use their positions to advance their own political views, and when thousands of dollars of student money is used to defend people who assaulted some of those same students, then that’s abuse.

The CSU may act nicely towards people with whom they agree. But the true judge of an elected representatitve is his or her ability to act nicely towards people with whom they disagree.

UQÀM officials would doubtless protest – without question truthfully – that they haven’t an anti-Semitic bone in their bodies. And yet they evidently failed to discern the larger pattern: Kouts, after all, is not the only prominent Israeli recently prevented from speaking at a Montreal (read: Canadian) university. In September, glass-smashing thugs silenced former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Concordia.

Apologists quickly absolved the pro-Palestinian hooligans responsible for the window breaking. Blame, they argued, belonged to Mr. Netanyahu for being so controversial. Concordia, they maintained, was at fault for letting such a controversial politician speak. No violent controversy would have occurred, they insisted, had the university foreseen the security risk inherent in Mr. Netanyahu’s appearance.

Mob violence, in other words, wasn’t the fault of the violent mob. Responsibility, rather, was placed on those who saw no reason for a mob or violence. Windows were smashed because the university failed to install glass strong enough to resist pounding fists.

Sounds an awful lot like Jaggi Singh’s arguments, doesn’t it?

The following article, entitled Student ‘tolerance’: Palestinian activists brook little opposition on a Montreal campus by Shafer Parker first appeared in Report Magazine on December 18, 2000:

Simmering discord between the two groups erupted into open conflict last month when the local chapter of Hillel, an international Jewish student support group, displayed on their information table a widely circulated column entitled “Myths of the Middle East,” by Arab-American journalist Joseph Farah, who serves in the U.S. as editor and chief executive officer of the on-line magazine WorldNetDaily (www.worldnetdaily.com). The column, which first appeared in the Jerusalem Post, argues that the Palestinian fight for a homeland and for control of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem are merely a cover for the Arab world’s intention to erase Israel from the Middle East.

[. . .]

But instead of refuting Mr. Farah’s assertions, an Arab student group, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), insisted that the offending material be immediately removed from the information table. It then passed a resolution within the Concordia Student Union (CSU) condemning Hillel for disseminating material that was “racially, ethnically and religiously discriminating.”

Hillel spokesman and Concordia business major Yossi Lanton says the official condemnation was unnecessary because Hillel took steps to undo the damage as soon as they were told their material was offensive. “We had that column off the table 20 minutes after it first appeared,” he says. “Later we apologized. But that wasn’t considered good enough because the apology was made in the CSU council meeting to the Muslim Students’ Association, not in public to the SPHR.”

But what rankles most with Mr. Lanton is his perception that the CSU supports a double standard in regard to the SPHR. “They repeatedly play videos in the student centre that show things like an Israeli policeman beating a Palestinian,” he says. “And when the SPHR held a march this fall to protest the ongoing violence in the Middle East, they had banners that equated the Star of David with a swastika. Someone tried to burn an Israeli flag, and when a Jewish girl ran to rescue it, the crowd started chanting ‘Down, down with Israel.’” When Hillel asked for an apology, spokesmen for the Palestinian group denied responsibility, blaming non-member “extremists” for the excesses.

CSU president Rob Green brushes off Hillel’s accusation that the SPHR is allowed to distribute material offensive to Jews. “No one has ever shown me any SPHR material that opposes the Jewish culture, people or religion,” he says. “The SPHR is focused exclusively on the behaviour of the Jewish state.” Confusion over what materials are acceptable arises, he says, because “the minute anyone says something against the state of Israel, the Jews start crying anti-Semitism. But it’s not the same thing.” Which is a shame, he adds, because “a lot of Palestinian students want nothing more than a democratic debate on these issues.”

Hillel’s concerns over the abuse of democracy rose to new heights on November 27, when a CSU resolution calling for Israel to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 242 was supposed to be debated and approved. Resolution 242, which was originally approved in November 1967, calls on Israel to withdraw from all the territories it occupied at the end of the Six Day War and to “achieve a just settlement of the refugee problem.” Concerned that the Palestinians could easily approve the resolution in overwhelming numbers, Hillel called for a boycott of the vote.

Which may have worked, says dean of students Donald Boisvert, because only 411 students showed up, 111 short of the number needed to form a quorum. “But then again,” he says, “we’re approaching exam time. A lot of students may have decided they needed to study.” Mr. Boisvert says that even though Hillel was prevented from distributing a particular piece of information, he sees no need to defend their right to free speech. “We stand back from ruling on what is appropriate and inappropriate,” he says. Nevertheless, he insists he would never allow anyone to distribute hate literature. Asked about the banners equating the swastika and the Star of David, he replies, “Well, I can’t get into what an individual Palestinian decides to do or not do.” He acknowledges the Palestinians are numerous enough to dominate campus discussions. But he cannot say how many of each group are on campus. “We don’t ask for that kind of information,” he says.

The real issue, says Mr. Farah, whose column sparked Concordia’s recent unrest, is whether freedom still exists on North American campuses. He sees a growing intolerance for meaningful free speech within academia that, in his opinion, seems even worse in Canada than in the U.S. “But these days campus demonstrations everywhere are often in opposition to free speech,” he says, “which is ironic considering student activism began in the 1960s with the free-speech movement.”

Freedom is also the reason why even Arabs ought to support the existence of Israel, Mr. Farah says. “I’ve travelled extensively throughout the Middle East,” he says. “And I can tell you that unlike Israel, Arab-controlled lands are one giant police state. Until the Arab world demonstrates it believes in individual rights, Arab students in the West ought to be most concerned about what’s going on in their homelands.”

Just replace Yossi Lanton with Noah Joseph, and Rob Green with Sabine Freisinger. Anyone feeing a sense of deja-vu?

Lawyer Michael Bergman said yesterday he plans to file a civil action against the Concordia Student Union in Quebec Superior Court by next week seeking annulment of the suspension of Hillel’s rights and privileges.

The university will be named as a co-party to the action, and be asked to “take control of its own space and property” and enable Concordia Hillel to carry on its religious and secular programs.

If necessary, Concordia would be asked to place the CSU under trusteeship, Bergman warned.

Hillel would also seek “significant” punitive damages for infringing on “the freedoms, liberties and constitutional rights of Concordia’s Jewish students and their association, Concordia Hillel,” the group’s co-presidents said in a statement.

As many of you know, the CSU will be meeting tonight to attempt to pass motions forcing Hillel – and other groups – to sign agreements before their club can be reinstated. On this point, Hillel’s lawyer said the following:

The student government has since backtracked, saying Hillel can be reinstated if it signs a commitment not to distribute material that promotes war.

A motion is to be presented at a council meeting tonight calling for Hillel’s immediate reinstatement, while another restates that all campus clubs sign the commitment.

Bergman, acting as Hillel’s counsel, said the group will continue to refuse because “signing it would mean we are against the war on terrorism, a war against Iraq, a war in self-defence, a war to protect Canadian soil.”

Essentially what it comes down to is the CSU’s refusal to accept that others may not share their views, but still have the right to freedom of speech. The CSU’s politicians are anti-war. Hillel – from my view, normally a peace-loving organization – is being asked to sign an agreement to share that view, or else it will not be allowed to operate on campus.

Hillel’s views on peace or war are irrelevant. What is relevant here is the principle of the thing. The CSU cannot dictate to any of its member clubs what to believe or what political views to hold. If Hillel wants to be a pro-Israel club, the CSU can’t ban it from operating because the CSU is pro-Palestinian. If some other student group wants to endorse free trade, the CSU cannot ban it because the CSU is anti-free trade. And if tomorrow, a group of students wanted to form a pro-war group, then the CSU really has no right whatsoever to disallow it on the grounds that they are “demilitarized”.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone – agree or disagree. And that is the real issue at stake here. The CSU is going to try to pass more motions against Hillel tonight. See below for the appeal to the community to show up and protest.

Entitled “Rêver La Palestine” (Dream of Palestine), the book is written by a 15-year-old Egyptian girl who holds terrorists up as heroes. According to an e-mail being circulated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

The fifteen-year-old Egyptian author, Randa Ghazi, who lives with her family in Italy, writes about Palestinian teenagers who fight ‘bloodthirsty Jews, who assassinate children and old people, profane mosques, and rape Arab women.’

Dream of Palestine is being touted as ’surprisingly mature’ and ‘a great text of suffering and hope.’ One of the novel’s heroes calls for Jihad against the Jews who are ‘a doomed people’ and to ‘kill all Israelis.’ The main character is encouraged ‘to kill hundreds in his suicide bombing’ and later does blow himself up along with five Israelis.

The book has become a bestseller in French bookstores. To join the protest against it, sign the online petition. And thanks to Jamie for the heads-up on this one.

Update: LGF has posted about this, and there’s quite a lively debate going on in the comments about the dangers of censorship versus the dangers of the hate contained in the book. Check it out.

In regard to your Nov. 8 article “Egyptian drama series promotes hatred: Israel”: Egyptian media policy ensures Egypt’s equal respect for all religions and beliefs. It also does not allow for any dramatic work or program to contain innuendos aimed at religious institutions.

The drama series in question, “Knight without a Horse,” does not contain, in its dramatization nor its discourse, what could be taken as a “call for anti-Semitism.”

Egyptian media policy respects the right to freedom of expression, that being a human right. Denying individuals this right would not be synonymous with the democratic principles that Egyptian society follows and that allows this society to respect the cultural practices of others as well as their religious and sacred beliefs.

Stirring up an allegation of “anti-Semitism” at this time of crisis is an old tactic, and since the allegations have not been proved truthful, we think there is a hidden agenda.

In regards to the allegations that “anti-Semitism” is growing within Egyptian society, there is a big difference between anger toward Israeli politics and “anti-Semitism.”

This drama series, like all others, has passed through a rigorous censorship governmental committee prior to receiving approval for broadcasting. This committee ensures that any material that might be thought to contain religious innuendos be removed.

It appears that certain Zionist circles have created this propaganda to divert attention away from the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and its daily consequences on the Palestinian people’s freedom and right to practice their religious rituals and to earn a living.

Fatma Abdalla

Director of the press office, Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Ottawa

I could comment, but he does such a nice job of exposing his ignorance with his own words, I hardly feel it necessary! I mean, aside from the usual and expected Zionist conspiracy theory and allegations of a “hidden agenda”, he manages to defend free speech and “rigorous” governmental censorship in the same letter. And “Egypt’s equal respect for all religions and beliefs”? Those being Muslim, Muslim . . . and Muslim, right? Certainly he can’t mean Jewish!

For a closer look at what’s really being said in Egypt these days, I direct your attention towards an editorial in the Egyptian government paper Al-Akbar (translated by those nice folks over at MEMRI) – one of many articles that praises the recent Jerusalem bus bombing that claimed 11 lives.

“This operation in which eleven Israeli terrorists were killed and dozens were wounded stems from a number of reasons, the first of which is that this operation is a consequence of a brave ambush prepared by Palestinian martyrs … in Hebron which … because of the state of madness that over took the ruling Israeli gang led by Ariel Sharon, who seeks to spill more Palestinian blood, especially the blood of children, women, the elderly, and the brave people of resistance.”

“In essence, everybody knows that the resistance is the only way for liberation, and there is no alternative. This weapon, the weapon of legitimate force, is the only weapon that Israel fears. Only the resistance can smash the Israeli arrogance and idiocy of its leaders.”

Egypt, remember, is supposedly at PEACE with Israel. It sure brings a whole new meaning to the expression, “with friends like these, who needs enemies?”