********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************

These are some of my thoughts on this that I posted elsewhere.

Paul F

Have the initiators and supporters of this proposal thought it all through? 
France has quite strong laws against ‘hate speech’: the Wikipedia page starts: 
‘Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted 
because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a 
nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity 
or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is 
intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone 
because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an 
ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a 
gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap.’

If, as this latest ruling states, anti-Zionism is considered as synonymous with 
anti-Semitism, then criticising a political philosophy — Zionism — and the 
actions of a nation-state — Israel — is liable to be considered in law an act 
of racial hatred towards the nationality or ethnic group associated with that 
philosophy and nation-state — that is, Jews. Therefore those making statements, 
issuing publications or organising activities that present a criticism of 
Zionism or of actions of the state of Israel are by so doing liable to be 
considered as contravening the ‘hate speech’ laws, and, if found guilty, they 
will be punished according to those laws. This sets up a significant precedent, 
by which political philosophies and public institutions are directly equated 
with a nationality or ethnicity, and are thereby protected by legislation that 
protects people on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity.

If anti-Zionism is legally synonymous with anti-Semitism — that is, a political 
viewpoint is legally synonymous with a form of racial hatred — then criticism 
of Zionism and of actions of the state of Israel is in the eyes of the law ipso 
facto motivated by racial hatred of people associated with that philosophy and 
nation-state. Racial hatred on the part of the critic is thus assumed: the 
burden of guilt now falls upon the critic, who has to show that his criticisms 
of a particular political philosophy and actions of a nation-state are not 
motivated by racial hatred of the people associated with that philosophy and 
nation-state, rather than an accuser of the critic having to prove that the 
critic is thus motivated. This also sets up a significant precedent.

Other things follow. Either this legislation means that criticism of Zionism 
and the state of Israel is to be treated in law in a different manner than any 
criticism of any other political philosophy and nation-state, or, if one is to 
avoid the unique treatment of Zionism and the state of Israel, the principle 
must be extended to cover all nationalist philosophies and nation-states. 
Either way, another significant precedent will have been set.

However, if the second proposal is implemented and the precedent set by this 
new law is extended to all nationalist philosophies and nation-states, then 
politics becomes essentially impossible: anyone can assert that criticism of 
this or that nationalist agenda or policy of a nation-state is motivated by 
racial hatred and have the force of the law brought down upon the critic. (I 
can’t help thinking that some people have already been thinking along these 
lines: Modi’s supporters here are busy implementing this second proposal, 
condemning Corbyn as ‘anti-Indian’ because of Labour’s opposition to the Indian 
government’s nationalist policies in Kashmir; others will no doubt follow…) The 
only political philosophies that will be allowed to be criticised without the 
speaker or writer being likely to be up before the beak on racial ‘hate speech’ 
charges are ones that are not associated with any particular nationality or 
ethnicity.

_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to