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.
No comments:
Post a Comment