9/11 victims were "little Eichmanns"?!?
Warning: some impolite language follows. Forgive me, but I think it's warranted on this topic.
Now, then - would somebody explain to me why anybody should have to put up with this bullshit?
A University of Colorado professor who suggested the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were justified and those who died in the World Trade Center were not innocent victims has ignited protests on an upstate New York college campus where he's been invited to speak.
Ward Churchill, an expert on indigenous issues and chairman of the ethnic studies program at CU-Boulder, will take part in a panel discussion Feb. 3 at Hamilton College.
Administrators defended Churchill's appearance but admitted his views are considered "repugnant and disparaging" by many people.
"Hamilton, like any institution committed to the free exchange of ideas, invites to its campus people of diverse opinions, often controversial," the school said in a statement from college spokesman Michael DeBraggio.
In a treatise titled "Some People Push Back," written after the bombings, Churchill asserted the nearly 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center worked for "the mighty engine of profit" but chose to ignore their role.
"True enough, they were civilians of a sort," he wrote. "But innocent? Gimme a break."
Churchill went on to describe the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolph Eichmann, who carried out Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews during World War II. [my emphases]
Of course, it's people like this SOB who also want to see Israel stomped out of existence as well, and who believe that the Jews "really" run the world economy, too.
Jim Geraghty's reaction was telling:
On the one hand, Churchill (Egads, how did this man end up with that honorable name?) has a First Amendment right to saw whatever he wants to say. On the other hand, if somebody called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" in my presence, I have no idea whether I could restrain my outrage and keep my objection merely verbal.
I don't know how applicable First Amendment protections are in this instance. Just as you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, so this execrable "speech" can, at the very least, be classified as "hate speech," it seems to me. Certainly it qualifies as "fighting words." So let me put my own spin on appropriate reaction to it.
If somebody called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" in my presence, I would tear him/her enough verbal assholes to be figuratively regular for the rest of his/her natural life. But if I were related to any of the 9/11 victims and the same thing took place, they would have to pull me off of the bastard with about a gallon of tranquilizer and a jaws of life.
In any case, "Professor" Churchill, let me give you the time-honored double-middle-finger salute. And be very, very careful where you abuse that right to "free speech" - you never know just who might be listening.
UPDATE: Looks like the squeaky wheel still can attract some grease after all....
Now, then - would somebody explain to me why anybody should have to put up with this bullshit?
A University of Colorado professor who suggested the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were justified and those who died in the World Trade Center were not innocent victims has ignited protests on an upstate New York college campus where he's been invited to speak.
Ward Churchill, an expert on indigenous issues and chairman of the ethnic studies program at CU-Boulder, will take part in a panel discussion Feb. 3 at Hamilton College.
Administrators defended Churchill's appearance but admitted his views are considered "repugnant and disparaging" by many people.
"Hamilton, like any institution committed to the free exchange of ideas, invites to its campus people of diverse opinions, often controversial," the school said in a statement from college spokesman Michael DeBraggio.
In a treatise titled "Some People Push Back," written after the bombings, Churchill asserted the nearly 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center worked for "the mighty engine of profit" but chose to ignore their role.
"True enough, they were civilians of a sort," he wrote. "But innocent? Gimme a break."
Churchill went on to describe the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolph Eichmann, who carried out Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews during World War II. [my emphases]
Of course, it's people like this SOB who also want to see Israel stomped out of existence as well, and who believe that the Jews "really" run the world economy, too.
Jim Geraghty's reaction was telling:
On the one hand, Churchill (Egads, how did this man end up with that honorable name?) has a First Amendment right to saw whatever he wants to say. On the other hand, if somebody called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" in my presence, I have no idea whether I could restrain my outrage and keep my objection merely verbal.
I don't know how applicable First Amendment protections are in this instance. Just as you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, so this execrable "speech" can, at the very least, be classified as "hate speech," it seems to me. Certainly it qualifies as "fighting words." So let me put my own spin on appropriate reaction to it.
If somebody called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" in my presence, I would tear him/her enough verbal assholes to be figuratively regular for the rest of his/her natural life. But if I were related to any of the 9/11 victims and the same thing took place, they would have to pull me off of the bastard with about a gallon of tranquilizer and a jaws of life.
In any case, "Professor" Churchill, let me give you the time-honored double-middle-finger salute. And be very, very careful where you abuse that right to "free speech" - you never know just who might be listening.
UPDATE: Looks like the squeaky wheel still can attract some grease after all....
posted by JASmius at 4:41 PM
<<< Home