Andrew Sullivan finally stands against censorship in Europe

Finally!! Andrew Sullivan, homosexual leftist (who calls himself a conservative - everyone is a conservative these days) finally takes a stand against hate speech laws in Europe.

After years of silence while authors who criticize Islam, Judaism, Israel, the homosexual agenda, the holocaust dogma, are thrown into jail, Andrew Sullivan is finally shocked. Shocked! Why? Well this time Europe is threatening with jail someone who criticized the Catholic Church.

People like Andrew Sullivan only defend free speech when it is their speech and their issues being spoken. They never defend freedom of speech for people they disagree with.

They like to protray themselves as bold and courageous - but in fact they are fearlessly joining the strong in condemning the weak. The Catholic church is mocked from every corner of the elite establishment - and Andrew Sullivan joins them - like a chicken joining the gaggle as they peck to death a hatchling that is malformed and weak.

The truely courageous people in this world - are defending freedom of speech - speech that mocks, not the weak, but the powerful - and they are in jail for it. And Andrew Sullivan does not see them because he sits in the halls of the powerful.

Here's his hypocritical screed.

Intimidating The Press
16 Sep, 2008

A horrifying case in Italy leads to a possible prosecution of a journalist for criticizing the Pope. I see no reason that critics of Catholicism, however crude, should be punished for free speech. It's the same principle behind the absolute right to mock Islam, or any religious figure for that matter. Bilgrimage comments here.

Jews censor Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

More Jewish censorship.

A speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu was canceled after local Jews expressed concern about his views on Israel.The spring visit to Minnesota's University of St. Thomas was canceled because local Jewish groups were upset by comparisons Tutu had madebetween Israel and Hitler, according to a report in City Pages, a Minneapolis alternative weekly.

University officials reportedly canceled the appearance afterconsulting with a spokesperson for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, and with several rabbis on the faculty.The uproar apparently was linked to a speech Tutu made in Boston in2002. A news release from the Zionist Organization of America, which condemned Tutu's remarks, cited a report from Ha'aretz that quoted Tutu as saying that "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid."

A transcript of the speech available online does not include the Hitler quote.

Jewish Telgraphic Agency
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/popups/email.html?article=104490
Oct 03, 2007

Harvard Professor is censored by Jewish organizations for a book review they didn't like.


Muzzlewatch
Harvard Middle East expert Sara Roy: "I have never experienced such?blatant..censorship."

Thursday July 5, 2007

Battling for Control of Academic Discourse

This is from a pro-Israel blog Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel . Another example of the Jewish religious zealot - the Al Sharpton the the American Jewish community - Alan Dershowitz censoring anyone he disagrees with.




New York City--May 28, 2007— Nadia Abu El-Haj, an assistant professor in the department of anthropology at Barnard College, is the latest target in the ongoing tenure wars against scholars, whose works are viewed as undermining the official Israeli narrative.


University faculty and staff that have experienced such attempts at academic assassination have included Columbia's faculty members Rashid Khalidi, Georges Saliba, Joseph Massad, and Hamid Dabashi, as well as Harvard University's Hillary Rantisi and University of Michigan's Juan Cole. Recently, a campaign led by Alan Dershowitz pressured De Paul University to deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein.


Neoconservative organizations and individuals, including Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch and the Solomonia website, which represents the David Project in the blogosphere, have focused on Abu el-Haj because of her book, Facts on the Ground: Archeological Practice and Territorial Self-fashioning in Israel (University of Chicago, 2002).

This book analyzes the anthropology of Israeli archeology as well as the role that Israeli archeology and geography play in Israeli societal self-conceptualization.

Israeli academics are unused to being the object of anthropological study by a Palestinian American scholar working at a prestigious American University.

Critics claimed Abu El-Haj's analysis calls into question the connections of modern Jews to ancient tribes of Palestine...

Abu El Haj interpreted the city name of Tel Aviv as a contrived attempt to connect modern Jews with ancient Palestine because tel is an Arabic word meaning a mound composed of an ancient ruin while aviv means spring. Old-New Land, the title of a book written by Zionist leader Theodor Herzl to advocate the colonization of Palestine, was rendered into Hebrew as Tel Aviv.Phil Orenstein of the Neoconservative Democracy Project implored Barnard College President Judith Shapiro to “do the right thing” and deny tenure to the Palestinian American anthropologist. He tried to argue that pro-Israel advocates were being denied tenure.President Shapiro clarified her position on the massive campaign waged by Neoconservative Israel advocates against Abu El-Haj.

“I do not myself believe that the people who are getting in touch with me anonymously truly need to do so. Nadia Abu El-Haj has also received death threats from those opposed to her work…I have not received a single student complaint about her teaching, advising, mentoring, or anything that has gone on in the classroom. There are indeed places where Jews or Zionists are endangered and marginalized, but Morningside Heights [NYC] in the year 2007 does not happen to be one of them.”

Honoring the First Amendment

Memorial Day is a good time to remember what makes America so special. Probably the greatest gift our forfathers bestowed on we citizens if the first amendment - the right to freedom of speech. And that is what liberals hate the most about America. Freedom to speak, and to disagree with them is a threat to people who believe their are progressive.

Here is a well-written chronicle of the many ways in which liberals are trying to censor speech they don't like.

The Liberal Attack on Freedom of Speech

by Robert Knight

Director of the Culture & Media Institute at the Media Research Center

"Today, liberals are still trying to stop "the machine," but they're not aiming at the government or university officials. The "machine" they are trying to stop is public opinion that disagrees with theirs."

"Let's look at some other ways that liberals are trying to stifle free speech.

1) Targeting churches. "Project Fair Play," a program of Barry Lynn's Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, is seeking informants to monitor churches for evidence that pastors are engaging in political speech.

2) Reviving the "Fairness Doctrine." Frustrated by the dominance of conservative talk radio, liberals are trying to re-enact an old law that expired in 1986 requiring broadcasters to provide "balance." In 2004, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) tried to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Now, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is talking about reviving it. The idea is to force stations to air leftists like Al Franken if they want to continue airing conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.

3) Restricting grass-roots lobbying. The Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 984), sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), requires Executive Branch officials to keep copious records of their contact with public citizens. The danger is that fine-wary officials will simply restrict their dealings with citizens. A similar action aimed at Congress was defeated last year. But these are the malignant stepchildren of the McCain-Feingold Act (2002), which effectively prohibits private entities from advertising on issues within 30 days of an election.

4) Sponsoring a federal "hate crimes" bill that will greatly expand the scope of federal power and lay the foundation for "thought crime" and suppressing speech. Similar laws are being wielded in Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden to eliminate public discourse critical of homosexuality. In that spirit, the English House of Lords recently enacted a law prohibiting private, religious schools from teaching the Biblical doctrine that homosexuality, like other out-of-wedlock sex, is a sin. As attorney Scott Lively notes, this repeals the religious freedom guarantee in the Magna Carta (1215), the legal fountainhead of individual rights.

5) Using the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as a liberal mouthpiece, while shutting out conservative voices. PBS abruptly canceled "Islam Versus Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a documentary that had been slated as part of the America at a Crossroads series, which began airing in April. Although PBS denies any political motive, film maker Martyn Burke says the network first demanded that he fire conservative co-producer Frank Gaffney and then nixed the segment.

6) Insisting that only ideologically predictable scientists are heard on the topic of "man-made" global warming. For example, the Weather Channel features The Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen, who calls for decertifying any meteorologist who won't toe the line on human-caused "climate change."

This short list is by no means exhaustive. Using actual government power or merely a compliant media, liberals are trying to reestablish the kind of information monopoly that they enjoyed before the Internet, talk radio, and other conservative outlets provided alternatives. "