Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Saturday, February 11, 2006

Leading by example

Italian footballer Paolo Di Canio - "a fascist but not a racist" - has been given some appropriate punishment:

"Paolo Di Canio, the Lazio forward who has become the darling of the neo-fascist right with his repeated straight-arm salutes, has been summoned by the mayor of Rome to listen to fellow Italians who survived the Nazi death camps.

"The move is part of an initiative by the mayor that has already brought AS Roma players and officials face to face with Holocaust survivors in the city hall. For almost two hours on Thursday, Francesco Totti and the other members of the Serie A side listened in silence as former concentration-camp inmates appealed to them to stop playing as soon as they saw Nazi symbols in the crowd."

Di Canio may be ignorant but Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi caused outrage in 2003 by suggesting Mussolini "never killed anyone" and merely "sent people on holiday to confine them."

9 Comments:

Blogger orang said...

you mean Silvio-good-friend-of-big-W-Berlusconi?

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:26:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Why isn't Paolo Di Canio's free expression being protected by the media and the state?

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:48:00 pm  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

I don’t see how di Canio's free expression is under threat. I certainly don't recall the world's Jews burning Italian embassies in protest over the offensive attitude of this soccer player, and demanding he be killed and freedom bought to an end in the Western world, as happened following the publication of certain cartoons. Then again, we probably have to wait 5 months for a Rabbi to run around major Jewish centres with a video and/or pictures of di Canio doing the Nazi salute.

The parallel you are clearly trying to raise here is blatantly unfitting, Edward.

Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:41:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Clumsy Birds said...
"The parallel you are clearly trying to raise here is blatantly unfitting, Edward."

I'm not sure which parallel you think I'm drawing.

If a footballer is to be sent off to learn about why his public gestures are offensive, then perhaps the editors of the various newspapers should also be sent off to mosques to learn about why their publishing decisions are sometimes offensive.

What if each refuses - the footballer and the editors? Should they be allowed to continue on their way under the protection of the right to freedom of expression? Perhaps they should. And perhaps the rest of the press when praising their fellow editors for "defending" their right should also, to show they are in fact committed to this right, praise the Nazi footballer for his "defence" of his right.

Just trying to see what happens when we are consistent in upholding our principles.

Monday, February 13, 2006 1:55:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

It seems to me that the world's Jews don't have to do to much when they have the wetsrn media to do it for them.

Anyone remember the scruitiny given to Mark Bosnich when he responded to a crowd in London that were jeering him, by doing the Nazi salute and the Hitler moustache?

Burning of buildings and the like is the tactic of those who feel disempowered. No need to resort to such tactics when you sit on the sidelines and get your proxies to do your bidding.

Much has been made of Iran's effort to comminssion a cartoonist to mock the holocaust. If they turn to Eurppean cartoonists, there are at least 7 countries whom are off limits due to laws against Holocaust denial and hate speech.

Monday, February 13, 2006 3:37:00 am  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

If a footballer is to be sent off to learn about why his public gestures are offensive, then perhaps the editors of the various newspapers should also be sent off to mosques to learn about why their publishing decisions are sometimes offensive.

Opposition to this fascist loving soccer player didn't lead to thousands of Jews rioting and threatening to kill him and his coach for his right to free speech (which I don’t believe is yet outlawed in Italy, as it is, and as you note, in other European states).

The editors of various newspapers can criticise Islam all they like, and raise connotations of Mohammad and Islam as inherently violent, or- my favourite- point out the number of suicide bombings undertaken by adherents to Islam is leading to a shortage of virgins in Paradise (although they're supposed to get sultanas or some such). If this insults Muslims, because of the publication of illustrations of Mohammad, then tough. Limiting free speech to appease a religious group is not necessary in a market economy.

Likewise, a soccer player can express pro-fascist beliefs- but expect the privately owned soccer team and privately owned (?) stadium to come under fire for allowing a pro-Facist time to salute and insult millions of Jews.

No one is going to defend the pro-fascist views of this soccer player, primarily because they haven’t been attacked (at least in the same sense that the right to free speech in Europe has been attacked by violent rioters). In any case, there is nothing particularly worthy of defending, unlike the publication of cartoons of Mohammad.

Just trying to see what happens when we are consistent in upholding our principles.

I consider my self as consistent as I can be, although I give some room for my ever-differing political beliefs.

I have certainly not been inconsistent. If a neo-Nazi magazine starts in Australia tomorrow, spits on the Holocaust, and the worlds Jews threaten to kill the editor for his free speech- and Australians who are overseas, visiting Israel, Boston, or France, I would find it appalling for Australia to give in to such pressure and shut the magazine down.

Addamo,

It seems to me that the world's Jews don't have to do to much when they have the wetsrn media to do it for them.

The politically correct term to use, in order to hide such anti-Semitism is 'Zionist'- not Jew, not that I want you to jump up and down crying 'i cant criticise Israel without you labelling me that'- it's just inappropriate to imply as you do, Jews control the Western media.

Anyone remember the scruitiny given to Mark Bosnich when he responded to a crowd in London that were jeering him, by doing the Nazi salute and the Hitler moustache?

No. No I do not. I don’t even know what a 'Mark Bosnich' is.

Burning of buildings and the like is the tactic of those who feel disempowered.

Interesting theory. Muslims, mostly from the worlds richest area- i.e, Arabs- feel disempowered, even though Muslims make up- what is it these days, half the worlds population? I really can’t remember, but it's a lot.

I reject your theory, and would remind you that Australian Aboriginals would definetly fit in the disempowered class, and have yet to commit the atrocities we've seen in the Middle East or in the West.

Much has been made of Iran's effort to comminssion a cartoonist to mock the holocaust. If they turn to Eurppean cartoonists, there are at least 7 countries whom are off limits due to laws against Holocaust denial and hate speech.

I believe this was discussed in another post on this blog, in depth. While I do not subscribe to theories that the Holocaust is a lie, or the damage was exaggerated, I do not believe we have the right to limit any-ones free speech on the matter. Private organisations, businesses, education facilities, websites, etc, and individuals should use all their power to condemn and out Holocaust deniers, who can easily be defeated in rational debate should they choose to engage in such a thing.

We should also not allow funding to go to Universities that employ Holocaust deniers, seeing as it is disgusting, sickening, to allow my tax-dollars to go to some anti-Semite for her or his next research project on the matter.

Anti-Semites, and anti-Mohammad's can fund their work themselves.

Monday, February 13, 2006 2:43:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

[1] "Opposition to this fascist loving soccer player didn't lead to thousands of Jews rioting...."

Argumentum ad ignoratum.

[2] "The editors of various newspapers can criticise Islam all they like... Limiting free speech to appease a religious group is not necessary in a market economy."

I assume you link free expression to a market economy because if people don't like something, they can "vote with their dollars" and boycott the insulting entity. Is that right? It would certainly make sense in the context of the following:

"Likewise, a soccer player can express pro-fascist beliefs- but expect the privately owned soccer team and privately owned (?) stadium to come under fire for allowing a pro-Facist time to salute and insult millions of Jews."

So, for example, you would support the right of Muslims worldwide to boycott Denmark's export goods for whatever reason they liked (after all, it is a matter of personal preference expressed in a free market). Further, you would support the right of Iranian newspapers to publish cartoons about the Nazi's holocaust? After all, they're just running a for-profit business. The market speaks, they respond.

Just trying to find the contours of your opinions.

"No one is going to defend the pro-fascist views of this soccer player, primarily because they haven’t been attacked"

He hasn't been criticised in public? Why on earth all the furor over the salute then? Why has the footballer been requested to listen to holocaust survivors? The footballer has of course, been condemned for his views. (Your argument looks desperate if you are pushed into denying this.) MY question is: while the editors of newspapers might condemn his actions, why is no-one cheering on the footballers right to express himself as he sees fit? I am merely pointing here to the eerie silence when it comes to championing free speech about many topics (bar ones that demonise Muslims).

"In any case, there is nothing particularly worthy of defending, unlike the publication of cartoons of Mohammad."

Besides free expression (which incidentally - and this is apparently a little known fact - is not abrogated if one decides to behave decently), what is "worth" defending about them? Their artistic merit? Their political insight? Their humorous nature?

Monday, February 13, 2006 4:39:00 pm  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

So, for example, you would support the right of Muslims worldwide to boycott Denmark's export goods for whatever reason they liked (after all, it is a matter of personal preference expressed in a free market). Further, you would support the right of Iranian newspapers to publish cartoons about the Nazi's holocaust? After all, they're just running a for-profit business. The market speaks, they respond.

Yes. Muslims are consumers, and if they want to, they can boycot Danish products as some kind of punishment for insulting a Prophet. Likewise, we're seeing the opposite effect from Westerners who support Denmark, and are buying Danish with their dollars.

I'm not saying either view will win out using the market as a tool here, but it's a much more peaceful protest- and more effective- than burning your local embassy.

If you’re against this, then I’m sure you’re also against- say- boycotting Roberts for its support for the live animal trade.

The issue of holocaust denial in Iran is a more difficult one. Clearly there is no exercise of free speech within the current regime, just a theocracy continuing its Jew-hate habit. I support the right of Iranian newspapers to publish what they want- but this is just another example of the leadership dictating what the papers can do.

Of course di Canio has been criticised for his actions, his views aren’t making any other point than 'hey look at me I'm a neo-Nazi', It's not like di Canio has a PhD and publishes a history magazine dealing with the Holocaust. No one is defending his right to free speech, because it is not seriously under attack (although free speech is under attack in many parts of Europe, justified unfairly by the Holocaust). Wanting di Canio to visit victims of fascism is hardly putting a stop to his free expression. When the police pick him up, chain him to a chair and literally force him to listen to Holocaust victims, it will be a clear breach of his individual liberty. If his company says to go and do it, he has the option of leaving his job. Considering his public position, the latter would hardly be an unfair request.

The Mohammad cartoons are worth defending because they present, in what many consider a humorous way (I only found one funny), a disproportionate number of suicide bombers as being Muslim. The issue is not off topic.

As I've been saying, Danes should not be threatened by Muslims because a private paper pokes fun at a Prophet, and as I’m sure you’ve heard many times by now, Jesus and the Jews take a hell of a lot more than Mohammad has.

Using Mohammad to represent suicide-homicide bombings should not end simply because Islam doesn’t want Mohammad portrayed at all in illustration.

Monday, February 13, 2006 6:20:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Clumsy Bird,

Please excuse my comment about the world's Jews having the media doing their bidding for them. I meant to put put the word jews in quotations to quotes another post.

I make it a point nto to talk about Jewish people when making comments about Israel or Zionists. I don't believe it's any more appropriate to blame Jewish people for the conduct of Israel than it is to blame American's or Brits for the conduct of their governments.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:40:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home