tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post610485334521270155..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Wicked, Hurtful WordsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-50858859561843129462007-06-20T19:45:00.000-04:002007-06-20T19:45:00.000-04:00"Racism" usage illuminated!I've received another r..."Racism" usage illuminated!<BR/><BR/>I've received another response from Cohen. (I had responded to his response to my email.)<BR/><BR/>He reiterated his position and included this paragraph about the way he's using "racism."<BR/><I><B><BR/>"I understand that race is not religion, but I think I made my point clearly enough and believe the term "racism" is being used more and more the way I did. As to how that has happened, it is intuitive. It feels like racism and ones natural response (at least mine, and others I've heard use the word similarly) is that the term applies."</B></I><BR/><BR/>He's lashed out at Condell and Wornick using this crudely irrational approach to concepts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-60993774505277430762007-06-19T00:51:00.000-04:002007-06-19T00:51:00.000-04:00Follow up to my email to the Peace and Justice Com...Follow up to my email to the Peace and Justice Commission.<BR/><BR/>In my previous comment, I mentioned the "should not be allowed" sentence made by Cohen which I'd seen in the U.K. comedy guide "Chortle" (<A HREF="http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2007/05/17/5335/comic_in_us__" REL="nofollow">Comic in US 'hate speech' row</A>. I received two responses to my email to the Peace and Justice Commission; one was from Cohen and one was from Jonathan Wornick. Wornick was the commissioner who sent the link to Condell's video to the commission via city's email system. Wornick said: "I was the commissioner who has been called a racist and bigot because of my forward to my fellow commissioners."<BR/><BR/>After review of material on the web site of the "Berkeley Daily Planet" <A HREF="http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=05-15-07&storyID=27051" REL="nofollow">(BDP 5-15-2007)</A> I find that Cohen's statement in the Chortle article was taken out of context; he was not advocating that Condell's speech be curtailed. He assured me that "as a private citizen one can say what they please." However, he has put this item on the Commission agenda: "Discussion on the use of e-mail system by commissioners to spread racist propaganda." Cohen said <A HREF="http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=06-01-07&storyID=27179" REL="nofollow">(BDP 6-1-2007)</A> that "We shouldn't be spreading racism through the city computers. An attempt to curtail Wornick's speech? I think so!<BR/><BR/>As further explanation of the "should not be allowed" sentence, note his complaint about how the video was presented to the commission.<BR/>"Commissioner Elliot Cohen, who called the tape “insulting, degenerating and racist,” said that the proper place for such a discussion would be to agenda it at the commission level, where commissioners could question Wornick on his intention in presenting this." According to the article, commissioners were "asked by Peace and Justice Chair Steve Freedkin not to respond, because if a majority of the commissioners took part in the discussion, it would constitute a violation of open meeting laws."<BR/><BR/>In his response to me, Cohen wrote that "...it continues to be my opinion that a commissioner should not be permitted to use city resources to spread this type of information..." and "when one is acting in the capacity as a Representative of the city I believe they owe respect to the members of our community and must control their conduct somewhat." I replied that I disagreed. When it comes to government business, I don't think there is any right to make restrictive speech rules such as a private organization can make.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Off topic, but further in the Daily Planet article, I found these shameful items:<BR/><BR/>"<I>Directing her comments to the content of the video and its claims that Islam is a religion of war, Lily Haskell, program director at San Francisco’s Arab Resource and Organizing Center, said “there is no legitimate claim that Islam is not a religion of peace</I>.”"<BR/><BR/>and<BR/>"<I>Bendib [Berkeley resident, cartoonist and Middle East commentator for KPFA] addressed the accusations of sexism in the tape. “He makes it sound like it’s the norm,” he said. “He makes it sound like it’s prescribed in the Holy Book.</I>” "<BR/><BR/>A little bit of search got me some info about where this new usage of "racism" is coming from. I assumed that Daniel Pipes might have done some research and I was right. See <A HREF="http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3144" REL="nofollow">Anti-Muslim Racism</A>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-83125465678704926882007-05-27T03:57:00.000-04:002007-05-27T03:57:00.000-04:00If Islam is a “great religion” (as Bush and all th...If Islam is a “great religion” (as Bush and all the sundry multiculturalists insist), then surely Thulsa Doom’s snake cult in the “Conan the Barbarian” movie qualifies as a “great religion” too.<BR/><BR/>Consider the striking similarities:<BR/><BR/>both religions worship a power-lusting authority figure (I know, Moslems say they don’t worship Mohammed, just as Catholics say they don’t worship the Virgin Mary; but it’s a distinction without a difference);<BR/><BR/>the authority figure likes to decapitate his enemies,<BR/><BR/>demands total submission and obedience,<BR/><BR/>preaches hatred of unbelievers,<BR/><BR/>plans to conquer the world,<BR/><BR/>keeps his followers constantly ready to die for him, <BR/><BR/>and promises them rewards after death.<BR/><BR/>To be honest, I admit there is one difference between Thulsa Doom and Mohammed. To the best of my knowledge, Thulsa Doom never raped a nine year old girl (as Mohammed did in the case of his child bride).<BR/><BR/>That’s the “great religion” the multiculturalists want us to surrender to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-31585554269874957632007-05-26T19:52:00.000-04:002007-05-26T19:52:00.000-04:00The quote from Cohen is more ominous: "‘People sho...The quote from Cohen is more ominous: "<I>‘People should not be allowed to spew racist propaganda without others being able to respond,’ Cohen said. ‘It’s not about free speech - it’s hate speech.’</I>" This is from a U.K. story :<A HREF="http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2007/05/17/5335/comic_in_us__" REL="nofollow">Comic in US 'hate speech' row</A>.<BR/><BR/>I saw this story yesterday and have already sent a very angry email to the <A HREF="http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/commissions/peaceandjustice/default.htm" REL="nofollow">Peace and Justice Commission</A>. The only email address available seems to be: clerk@ci.berkeley.ca.us<BR/><BR/>I live in Berkeley and was especially furious. The City of Berkeley has seen fit to jump on a British comic; I think it's fair for anyone to jump on them. I don't know how many countries are left which don't have hate speech laws and I consider myself very fortunate that the U.S. is still free. If we get such laws, we're in big trouble; it only takes an error, evasion, or logical fallacy to turn criticism into "hate speech" in someone's mind.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to look into the House bill you mention; I'm afraid that I missed reading about it. Damn!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com