There are many things that differentiate us, human beings, from the animals; one being how we comport ourselves in public.
Most
of the exhibits we chose to forbid doing in public, have to do with the exigencies
that nature imposes on us, such as relieving ourselves when nature calls, for
example. Animals have no such reluctance. They crap and urinate in the company
of each other, even while eating.
We
go even further than forbit the display of such exhibits by making laws that
protect our privacy from being breached by vulgar peeping toms or by state
security agencies.
What
all of this amounts to, is that since we became human, restrictions have been
placed on what images of ourselves we can and cannot exhibit, and what images
of others, we cannot sneak unto, and steal visually or audibly.
When
debating these matters, we may argue convincingly that there can be exceptions
to the rules we make in that regard, but we cannot argue that the restrictions
violate our freedom to express ourselves or that they unnecessarily suppress
our freedom of speech.
And
so, the questions we need to ask are the following: What can and cannot be
restricted? How far can we go in restricting the exhibits we deem inappropriate
for public viewing?
Instead
of answering these questions in the abstract, it will be helpful to analyze an
actual situation that came into the public domain as both a news item and a
commentary. The one that made waves recently, is an article that came under the
title: “School banned my ‘Proud Zionist’ t-shirt but allows ‘BLM’ garb,”
written by Carl Campanile, and published on November 14, 2021 in The New York
Post.
Here
is the actual story as told by Carl Campanile: “A teacher says that the school Principal ordered him to
stop wearing his ‘Proud Zionist’ t-shirt in the building — even though other
staffers have worn shirts touting BLM and women’s rights”.
The
first thing that comes to mind, is this: What did the school principal see that
was wrong in a Jewish teacher expressing he is a proud Zionist? After all, like
the teacher observed, other staffers have worn shirts touting Black Lives Matter
(BLM) and women’s rights.
In
specifying that it was other staffers who wore shirts touting BLM and women’s
rights, the teacher has revealed that they were office workers and not teachers. This is crucial
because nothing impresses children more than a teacher standing in a classroom,
dispensing knowledge to minds eager to soak in the knowledge that comes to them
by way of the teacher’s voice and the image he/she projects to them.
Aside
from that distinction, is there something else that makes a difference between
wearing a shirt that says “Proud Zionist” and one that says “Black Lives
Matter” or “Feminist”? Yes there is, and it is a big difference.
The
reference to blackness and feminism, tells the children there is something good
in what they were born with. Being black or a woman or something else, is who
they are. They must never develop a low self-esteem because of it, no matter
what some advertiser says, trying to sell them a product they don’t need. This
is an absolute truth, and there can be no debate about it.
As
to the reference concerning Zionism, it tells the children that an ideology bearing
huge consequences is preferred to an opposing ideology bearing consequences
that are just as huge, but going in the opposite direction. The thing has to do
with two peoples who are locked in a dispute so tangled up, minds that spent years
trying to untangle it, have failed.
There
is no absolute truth in this matter, but the children are indoctrinated by this
teacher to take one side of the dispute and soak it in as dogma before they
even get to learn or understand the particulars of the dispute. He is not asking
them to debate the two sides of the story; he is imposing one side on them,
warning that it is sacrosanct dogma.
Carl
Campanile says that the teacher filed a discrimination complaint, hinting that
this is a religious matter because the shirt features the Star of David. So,
what happened after that? What happened in this case is what happens all the
time with Jewish matters. The Jewish teacher took the case to the Jewish media
that approached a former Jewish politician, and together did what Jews always
do. They blew their entrails out of their bellies, hollering antisemitism in
this fashion:
“Former state Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who
heads the anti-Semitism group, sent a letter to schools Chancellor going to bat
for the teacher, charging that district officials were engaging in a double
standard and anti-Semitic ignorance. ‘How insulting. This is sick, pathetic and
anti-Semitic,’ Hikind raged to The Post on the school’s treatment of Levy. ‘You
can’t say you’re a proud Jew and supportive of the people and the State of
Israel?’”
Dov
Hikind’s fury would be understandable if he did something that would convince the
audience his rage has to do with the district’s practice of double standard,
and that the rage is not an act of cheap theatrics. What he can do, is display
the Swastika on his window for a day.
That’ll give him credibility.