Thursday, December 23, 2010

Whose Hate Speech?

Recently, my father, Dr. Kaukab Siddique, came under assault by the Zionists, after he gave a speech calling for the peaceful dismantling of Israel at the annual Quds Day rally in Washington, DC. The Zionist campaign reminded me of similar assaults on Dr. Tony Martin, Prof. Ward Churchill, Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Prof. Francis Boyle, Prof. Norm Finkelstein and many others. The primary distinction was that unlike the others, my father is a Muslim and a Semite. This makes him even more a thorn in the side of the Zionists, who view him as one of those they would prefer to beat to a pulp with the butt of their Tavors (Israeli assault rifles), or torture in Israeli prison, but not debate.

In other words, to be a Muslim and outspoken against Israel magnifies the Thought Crime. One analogy which comes to mind: During slavery, the white power structure exhibited a degree of tolerance for the white abolitionists who quietly and theoretically challenged slavery. The same power structure screamed for a manhunt followed by public hanging for a Denmark Vesey calling for a slave rebellion. Hence the obscene response to my father’s speech by the Zionists.

My father did not advocate violence. He did not violate the law. He merely challenged prevailing paradigms, which say it is okay to allocate $2.55 billion dollars each year (one million dollars per day in military aid alone) of U.S. taxpayer money to a colonial settler state which oppresses its original inhabits. A firm believer in Freedom of Speech, he spoke out on his time, at his own expense, about an issue he felt strongly about.

This was not the first time my father has been in the Zionist crosshairs, as the ADL, AJC, JDL, and the Wiesenthal Center scrutinizing his writings, placed him on their McCarthy-style blacklist, and attempted to have him removed from his position at Lincoln in 2006.

This time, however, they appeared far more determined, launching their supporters to write letters to LU President Ivory Nelson, suggesting my father’s classes be monitored, and questioning the process that led to his tenure--all with the implication that he should be removed. In a campaign of harassment and intimidation, they and their supporters sent hate-filled emails and letters (including threats of violence and even death) to him. They galvanized a dozen state senators to visit the university. The threat of firing alone would have been enough to convince many academics, particularly immigrants, to abdicate their heartfelt political stance. In such a climate, how could one possibly claim that free speech is extant?

My father, who believes that Authority belongs to Allah alone, did not succumb to the Zionist pressure. It made me intensely proud to have him as a father.

He draws a salary from Lincoln University, which, while not a state school, receives partial funding from the state of Pennsylvania. In an action reminiscent of mafia-style blackmail of the historically black college, a group of state senators visited my Dad's boss at the behest of the Zionist lobby. They were concerned, they told the LU President, about state funds going (indirectly) to the salary of an individual engaging in what they claimed was hate speech. In other words, fire this professor who dares speak out of line with the Zionist lobby, otherwise we’ll yank your funds.

The issue that arises from all this is the allocation of free speech.

To call for the peaceful dismantling of a colonial-settler state on par with Apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia, French-occupied Algeria, or British-occupied Kenya is hate speech.

But saying, "that there’s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches,” (Strom Thurmond, then presidential nominee for the States' Rights Party) is not hate speech.

Saying that poor blacks fail to acquire wealth partly because of their "habits;" that bilingual education teaches "the language of living in a ghetto;" that building an Islamic center near Ground Zero is like Nazis erecting a sign near the Holocaust Museum; or that Obama is engaged in "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" (Newt Gingrich)--all these are not hate speech.

Praising Strom Thurmond, an overtly racist politician, and saying the country would have been better off if they'd followed his agenda (i.e. of racial segregation, and hence complete exclusion of Black people from the mainstream) (Trent Lott) is not hate speech.

Telling a 15-year old black teen “You don’t f---ing belong here. Get out of here,” while beating him in the head with a radio (Eliyahu Eliezer Werdesheim, Shomrin Jewish patrol in Baltimore) is not hate speech.

Assessing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as "worth it" (Madeleine Albright) is not hate speech.

Saying that all Taliban should be annihilated (many U.S. politicians), neverminding that a vast majority of Afghan Pashtoons support the Taliban as the only force effectively opposing the U.S. occupation of their country, and that Pashtoons make up the vast majority of the Afghan population, hence equivalent to saying tens of thousands of people should be annihilated--that is not hate speech.

Joking about an assassination attempt on (then Senator) Obama (Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee)--as long as one quickly apologizes--is not hate speech.

Calling for the assassination of U.S. citizen and cleric Anwar Awlaki, because he opposes the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and Africa (Obama administration)--is not hate speech.

Calling for the assassination of Julian Assange because he exposed the hate speech of various and sundry U.S. statesmen and their toadies (Tom Flanagan, former aid to the Canadian Prime Minister)--is not hate speech.

The cases of hate speech against Muslims, people of color, and anyone who stands up for us, are too numerous to mention. The small subset I mentioned are those who were on U.S. federal or state government payroll (or in the case of Tom Flanagan, teaching at a public Canadian university, on Canadian government payroll) at the time they made their hate-filled comments. It is okay for them to launch hateful, threatening, demeaning diatribes against people of color and Muslims while sopping up your and my tax dollars.

The Doublespeak dictionary says that hate speech is only hate speech if it is directed against certain select populations, and not others.
----
Postscript: Want to see hate speech? Look at the youtube comments, following the posts of the video of my father's Al-Quds Day speech (link is below). Writer after writer--primarily racist Zionists, hurl obscenities and death threats at him—all for calling for the peaceful dismantling of Israel, in effect, an entirely new look at a failed U.S. foreign policy. It is something U.S. policy makers, if they care about their constituents more than they care about the European settlers in Israel, ought, in a time of economic depression, to be considering anyway.

----
Dr. Siddique’s Quds Day speech is here.

Background on the Zionist assault on Dr. Siddique's free speech rights, as covered by the Philadelphia Inquirer is here and here. Coverage of the case by the Lincolnian (Lincoln University’s student newspaper) is here, here, and here.

Dr. Siddique’s response to the Zionist onslaught, aired on South African radio is here.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Happy Thanksgiving, Pakistan?

So Dawn, Pakistan’s largest daily paper, picked up on my piece, Thoughts on Thanksgiving. Evidently, the Dawn Op-ed  columnist, Irfan Husain, writes regularly for the pro-government daily. Amusingly, he is an old friend of my family, a testament to the variegations in mindset within a single family.

Husain’s December 1 Op-ed begins with a detailed description of his family’s thanksgiving turkey preparations, a practice they adapted during time spent stateside. He brags about serving the turkey to a Thanksgiving party. All of this occurs in Karachi, a Muslim city, in a Muslim land, whose very raison d’etre is Islam, and where the holiday does not exist. It is similarly absent from all neighboring countries, indeed from all of Asia. Amazingly, Husain claims Thanksgiving “is an entirely secular holiday, with no religious overtones.” He appears woefully ignorant of the identity of the colonists who initiated White celebrations of Thanksgiving in New England (the northeastern part of the U.S.). The colonists were Puritans—men and women who attempted church reform in Britain. Unsuccessful, they emigrated to what later became Massachusetts Bay Colony (the site of many massacres of Native people). They were devout Christians (according to their understanding of Christianity) who emigrated for the sake of their religious faith; to characterize a holiday of their initiating as “secular” is simply inaccurate.

Husain’s description of Thanksgiving? “A day that commemorates the feast provided to the early colonists by Native Americans, and is modelled [sic] after European harvest festivals.” He neither disputes or confirms the central idea of my piece, i.e., the coincidence of the holiday with massacres of Native people, for which there is overwhelming evidence, leading to the necessity for people of conscience to disassociate from it.

Bizarrely, he claims to feel strongly about the plight of Native people, and does not take issue with any of the historical facts I bring forth in my article, writing rather eloquently that, “White colonists have an appalling record of virtual genocide in the lands and continents they conquered since the 16th century. Indeed, the history of every country in the Americas, as well as of Australia, is written in blood.” But—he still insists on celebrating the holiday!

He delivers the rank old “If-you-don’t-like-it-then-leave.” In his words: “But surely Ms. Siddique should not be in America at all if she feels so strongly about the Native Indians, and what was done to them.” It reminds me of the daily redneck cries at the sight of my hijab during the Iranian hostage crisis. “If you don’t like it here, go back to Iran!” they would fling, not bothering to ask whether I was Iranian.

I wonder at such mindless response. Irfan Husain must have been sleeping in history class, when Emerson, Thoreau, Thomas Paine, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others were discussed. Even in the slanted dominant culture version of history currently taught, the tradition of dissent is extolled. Husain misses the boat on the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the Underground Railroad, Seneca Falls, and many other movements throughout U.S. history which chose dissent over emigration (although there were some which encouraged followers to emigrate). Husain and others of his ilk should stop and think about what he propounds: Country X hosting only people of Creed A; Country Y populated with only those of Creed B. What an odd world his would be, of homogeneity of thought within national borders.

The idea that a Muslim, propelled by the command to amr bil mauroof and nahi unal munkari, should feel strongly about injustice, and should not leave but rather work for change, seems not to enter his mind at all.

He ridicules the idea of politely deflecting Thanksgiving greetings. I’ve done it plenty of times, taking care to employ a gentle, polite, friendly manner. It’s fruitless to be acerbic or use charged terms like “genocide” (as he facetiously suggests in his ridicule), since the aim is to convey one’s heartfelt sentiment, not denigration of the other. My deflection of the greeting is frequently met with questions as to why I don’t celebrate the holiday, appreciation, or an apologetic “Oh well I don’t really celebrate it either, it’s just a time to get family together.” The objective, to encourage thought—about popular celebrations and practices—is achieved. It is merely a starting point to get people thinking about injustices within society, and what can be done about them.

He claims that given the climate of Islamophobia in the U.S., Muslims should not be withdrawing from mainstream practices such as Thanksgiving. Husain continues, “Ms. Siddique should not then complain of not being accepted as Americans [sic] if they [sic] deliberately spurn American traditions.” To me, his assorted apologia for Thanksgiving indicates a hopelessly colonized mindset. As a friend in London commented upon reading the op-ed, “People like Husain are importing the totalitarian petty tyrant mindset from banana republics into western states.”

Irfan Husain and the ruling class of Pakistan should be aware that not all Pakistanis and Muslims living in the West yearn to blend into the woodwork, or to become groveling sycophants for the U.S. power structure. It is a matter of shame that my Pakistani “brothers,” whose country is being bombarded by U.S. missiles, exhibit such servility to the U.S., while increasing numbers of Black and White Americans question the holiday, (as they question aspects of U.S. foreign policy). Many of my American friends refuse to celebrate Thanksgiving to show solidarity with Native People. The Native people themselves gather at Plymouth, Massachusetts, near the site of the early Puritan landings, for a “Day of Mourning.” It is a gathering in which I’ve participated in previous years, and encourage others to do so as well. Pakistan’s great revolutionary poet, Allamah Iqbal, wrote about the indelible concepts of self-identity and self-love. His writings challenge the “love your slave master, more than yourself” paradigm promulgated by Husain. Although I’m no expert in Iqbal, I’m quite sure he would never be an apologist for “Thanksgiving.”

Husain’s comments exemplify the attitudes of Indo-Pak elites who visit or emigrate to the U.S. They ally themselves with the ruling class, insisting on self-delusion about American history, minimizing, denying, or overlooking the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings of Blacks. They are oblivious to Native peoples, whom they recall quaintly as noble savages seen in Westerns (popular in Pakistan), or spectacles to be viewed in a museum. These elites behave in arrogant and racist fashion, viewing themselves as superior to Black people, whom they view through the lense of Hollywood or corporate media, turning a blind eye to genocide, broken treaties, and treachery against Native People. As Steve Biko, the great South African freedom fighter said, “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” By ruling class measure, at least, the weapon is already had.