One of the first things I had to do in September of 2007
when I launched this website was to write articles defending free speech on
campus. I did it on 2 occasions only, 8 days apart – September 18 and 26 – even
though I had enough insight to write 2 or 3 more articles each and every day on
that subject. My problem is that I was held back by the condition of my
eyesight while waiting to be operated on.
What prompts me to look back at my old record at this time,
is an August 25, 2016 editorial in the Wall Street Journal that came under the
title: “The Chicago School of Free Speech” and the subtitle: “One school tries
to educate freshmen, not to bow to their anxieties.” The editors begin their
piece with these words: “For a change, we come not to bury a college president
but to praise him … the University
of Chicago
Nine years earlier, my September 18, 2007 article had come
under the title: “Who's afraid of the Virgin Wolf,” in which I lamented that
once again, an “American institution, St. Thomas in St. Paul Minnesota, has
canceled a previous engagement by someone who was to speak on Palestine … none
other than Bishop Desmond Tutu [of South Africa] whose fight against apartheid
is legendary”.
As to my September 26, 2007 article, it had come under the
title: “The Zionist Hate of American Freedom,” in which I quoted the Chairman
and Editor of Pluto Books who said in an open letter: “Pluto books and the University
of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a
Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming
Zionism which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the U.S. The vitriolic
attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and
denigrated Overcoming Zionism. Pluto Press's importance and presence in the US is under
threat”.
Over the six months that followed those instances, I
received word to the effect that Abraham Foxman, who used to head the
Anti-Defamation League, was trying to do something to muzzle me because the
Canadian Jewish Congress was rendered as impotent as a neutered pussycat.
Foxman had gone to Israel
on a mission I described in an article I wrote under the title: The Day the
Foxman dropped the Mask,” published on this website on March 7, 2008. Here is
what I said then:
“The man cried out [to the Israelis] for the development of
a method by which to censor from the information highway the opinions that do
not comply with the ideas designated as good thinking by the commissars of
truth as they monitor what the people of the world are saying to each other,
and thinking to themselves”.
That was not the end of it because I kept fighting for
freedom of speech, of thought and of conscience with the nearly 2,000 articles
I wrote and posted on this website. Two notable pieces were (1) “Jack the Ripper of the academic Free Speech,”
published on November 23, 2015. And (2) “They're back at the Start of the
vicious Cycle,” published on February 27, 2016. The first is about Alan
Dershowitz; the second about the New York Daily News – both Jewish and both saying
in essence that freedom of speech, of thought and of conscious applies to Jews,
only the Jews and no one but the Jews. They advocate the muzzling of everyone
else because it is enough, in their opinion, that the Jews are speaking for
themselves and for everyone else. This says a great deal about the religious
philosophy to which they adhere.
So then, with nine
years of history on this subject behind us, what do we make of the latest Wall
Street Journal editorial? For one thing, we notice that the editors had very
little to say themselves. Instead, they quoted at length other people such as
Robert Zimmer, Jay Ellison and John Boyer. Together, they make these points:
“The desire for safe
spaces from discomfiting speech or ideas will not override the academic
community's interest in rigorous debate. Members of our community are
encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of
censorship. We expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous
debate, discussion, and even disagreement. Chicago 's commitment to academic freedom
means that we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove
controversial”.
And then, with
shameless aplomb, the editors end their presentation like this: “Maybe Chicago 's example will inspire spinal infusions at the
likes of Rutgers, the University
of Missouri