Letters to the Editor <http://www.Interweavers.com/berkeley/opinion_article.cfm?issue=12-18-00&storyID=2790> Nov. 29 protesters were intolerant Editor: On Wednesday evening, Nov. 29, I held a ticket to hear Mr. Netanyahu speak at the Berkeley Community Theater. To my chagrin, my constitutional right to listen to whomever I please was taken away from me by that rabble who held placards and shouted their cliches: that Israel was racist, fascist, nazi, etc. Where were the police to protect us? Where were the police to take us safely into the auditorium? They could have cautioned the protesters to make way for us to go into the yard and into the building. I really resent that the police made no effort to help us. I want a formal inquiry into this situation. This should not happen again. As a matter of fact, the city of Berkeley should apologize to the event organizer and Mr. Netanyahu. The intolerance of the protesters obliterated our first amendment and our constitution. Thalia Broudy Berkeley Wouldn't let Hitler speak Editor Regarding Shirley Dean's and a large number of others' insistence that we trampled their and our purported free speech rights by resisting Netanyahu's appearance: We, hopefully, wouldn't let Hitler speak here, either. I hope we'd have done the same if Kissinger had appeared, given his insistence that nations of people need to be murdered, and the excuse that he can say it because he's a Jew. Norma J F Harrison Berkeley What if the shoe were on the other foot? Editor: I suggest someone invite the historian David Irving of London to the Berkeley Community Theater to talk. He seems to invoke the same strength of feeling as Netanyahu but he's on the other side of the fence. Let's then see how the free speech community, the ADL, and the various local groups react. Wray Buntine Berkeley We are all responsible for our words Editor: In my view, the Netanyahu in Berkeley incident had very little to do with free speech and much more to do with karma, the most powerful force on earth; more powerful than the all the guns used to protect "free speech." We are all ultimately responsible for the words we speak and the consequences that may result. Michael Bauce Berkeley Protesters were seniors, parents, not 'goons' Editor: Aubrey Lee Broudy (letters, 12-11) should check again with his wife about what happened when she went to hear Benjamin Netanyahu at the Berkeley Community Theater at Berkeley High School a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Broudy said his wife was unable to enter because "Berkeley goons had blocked the doors and the Berkeley police somehow were not able or willing to move them away." As someone who wants to evoke the memory of Mario Savio and draw upon Berkeley's "freedom of speech" motto, Mr. Broudy should reconsider his characterization of people as goons. Amongst the so-called "goons" that night were senior citizens, people in wheelchairs, and young couples with their babies. If Mr. Broudy's wife had really been interested in hearing what people had to say, she would have found that there were any number of conversations going-on between those who had come to hear Mr. Netanyahu and those who had come to object to his presence, and there was an exchange of ideas between people who normally would not even be talking to one another. No one blocked any doors to the Berkeley Community Theater. Police did seal-off the Berkeley High School campus earlier in the day; explosives-sniffing dogs were brought in; and other dramatic preparations were made for Mr. Netanyahu's arrival. When people began entering the high school campus en route to the Theater, those there to protest Mr. Netanyahu's presence integrated themselves with the crowd after the police grabbed two people who had peacefully approached the ticket-holders to ask them to reconsider their decision to attend. At this point the police locked the gates to the high school campus. As one Police Lieutenant explained, the police were then unable to determine who was a ticket-holder and who was a demonstrator, so they were not able to "move them (the demonstrators) away," as Mr. Broudy mentioned in his letter. The event was then cancelled by Mr. Netanyahu himself. Mr. Netanyahu is deeply involved in the suppression of free speech, assembly, and even the right to exist, of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. I am proud of the demonstrators who deprived him of a forum for his message of intolerance and hate in Berkeley. Steve Wagner, Oakland Did lecture series offer opposing view? Editor: Though I can see both sides of the recent "free speech" controversy over the appearance of Benjamin Netanyahu in Berkeley, I realized by reading your December 9 article "Lecture Series Provides Intellectual Entertainment" that the the prospective listeners were by no means passive agents in this imbroglio. Fame feeds upon itself. The celebrity of speakers such as Wesley Clark, Kissinger, and Netanyahu not only allows them abundant access to the mass media denied most of us but "entitles" them to lecture fees in the tens of thousands of dollars for a few hours of "work." Going to hear them is an ethical choice; I would no more want to contribute to the net worth of any of these men than I would to that of a famous Holocaust denier or serial killer doing the lecture circuit because I "just wanted to hear what they had to say." Moreover, series subscribers vote on whom they want to hear. Did the subscribers have the choice of hearing Yasser Arafat, Edward Said, Ramsey Clark, or Mordechai Vanunu, and if so, how did they vote? Gray Brechin Berkeley Netanyahu, not protests often on TV Editor: Berkeley Mayor Shirley Dean sadly demeans herself, churning nonsense about protesters violating the "free speech" rights of ^A'poor, besieged' Benjamin Netanyahu as well as falsely claiming that the protesters object to "controversial figures." (We object to mass human rights violators.) As we said in the ^A'90's, "Puh-lease!" Netanyahu has more "free speech" than all the protesters combined. In case it has escaped the Mayor's notice, Netanyahu an omnipresent figure on American TV, with plenty of U.S. financial and media support gets to speak all the time. You could hardly avoid hearing him. For those who felt so traumatized about missing Netanyahu's PR speech, you can catch him almost any week, on any American TV set near you. And yet, in the U.S.major media, the dissent of even large nonviolent protests is only featured when protesters engage in bold civic actions that "make news." Netanyahu's cancellation made the protest "news." Netanyahu would have never allowed any dissidents in the auditorium the free speech to morally challenge his involvement in Israel's internationally condemned mass human rights violations. In fact, Netanyahu led a state whose very policies deny the free speech of those it oppresses. But Dean is not alone in defending the freedom of a mass human rights violator to carry on without inconvenient interruptions. I guess, over the years, the FSM signers of the Dec. 7 letter to the Daily Planet have become staid and forgotten a few things about the lopsidedness of power and dissent. I n such lopsidedness, the protest against Netanyahu actually constituted a strike for free speech. Only the peaceful disruption (in the tradition of sit-ins) brought some national attention to the moral issue of Israel's oppression of Palestinians. This increased free speech to voices typically censored by the American media. Mario Savio, an incisive and charismatic leader of the FSM, championed the free speech rights of those without institutional or state power to speak truth to power. Savio didn't champion the free speech rights of power: power by its very nature already has this right. Savio also proclaimed that we must throw our bodies on the gears of state power when it becomes heinously oppressive and in a way, that's what the protesters did. We know what Netanyahu stands for: he stands for oppression. No business-as-usual. There is no true "free speech" without the opportunity to critically challenge power; and meaningfully none, when the major media is politically controlled and dissent is barred access. Then, there is only power's propaganda. By unthinkingly criticizing the protesters as attacking "free speech," Mayor Dean and the FSM letter writers subvert the very foundation of "free speech": speaking truth to power. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley Don't lose message of demonstration Editor: Using the theme "Attack on free speech" has been an inaccurate, but convenient, way of drawing attention away from the message of the demonstration of Tuesday, Dec. 5 outside the Berkeley Community Theater. "U.S. and Israel out of Palestine," was one of the chants. U.S. money and arms enable Israeli military to murder hundreds of Palestinians (largely children) and to wound thousands more. U.N. Resolutions have repeatedly demanded that Israel withdraw to pre-1967 borders, that Jewish settlements in occupied territories are illegal under international law, and that East Jerusalem is part of Palestinian territory. Remember, it was the United Nations that ended the British mandate over 1947 Palestine and created the state of Israel alongside Palestine. Margaret Katz Berkeley First Amendment is for all Editor My God, I have never read a more fascist interpretation of free speech (letter by Osha Neumann 12/12) in my life, e.g. the first amendment "restricts government, not people. When (the government) makes a law restricting speech, that law affects us all and is enforced with all the power of the courts and the cops." Unless, of course, zealots like this individual decides who will and will not enjoy this first amendment right. While he's at it, why not dictate just who we, the ignorant majority, may hear or may not hear, see or read. I can't believe this man is practicing law in our community. Michael Yovino-Young Berkeley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 EST