Saying Israelis are 'legitimate targets' not a hate crime

[drdon326]

Police have decided not to charge a controversial Muslim leader under Canada's hate-crime laws for suggesting on a television talk show last fall that all adult Israelis are "legitimate targets" for Palestinian terrorists.

Investigators with Halton Region police said that while the comments by Dr. Mohamed Elmasry "were described by many as hate crime," they did not meet the legal definition.

"Although the comments would be considered distasteful to many, in this context they do not constitute a criminal offence," police said in a news release. "The comments were made during a free-flowing discussion between subject-matter experts who were encouraged to express their opinions openly on a topic of significant public interest."

Dr. Elmasry, a University of Waterloo professor and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, drew widespread public condemnation last October for telling a television panel discussion that all Israelis over the age of 18 could be targets for attacks by Palestinians because they are all members of the country's army.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=845a6d55-2da6-47d7-a1fe-9a17610b62a8

[Colorado Blue]

1. Oh for heaven's sake. Under that ruling ALL civilians are

members of SOMEBODY'S army, which some other group could kill with impunity. And what the hell, why stop with the age limit? After all a child is a POTENTIAL soldier so why not take a pre-emptive whack.

I think we are going backwards. Fast.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Terrorists and Terrorists' Apologists

use that response after a bus bombing or a school bus bombing.

ALL civilians are" members of SOMEBODY'S army,

That's the line that is sometimes used after a bus or disco bombing.

And what the hell, why stop with the age limit? After all a child is a POTENTIAL soldier so why not take a pre-emptive whack.

And, that's the line that is sometimes used after a school bus bombing.

[Yosie]

2. That is a correct statement of Canadian Law, and also of US Law

BUT if Dr. Mohamed Elmasry makes an "overt act" - as raising his fist, or one of his companions raises his fist -- that is an "overt act" -- and therefore a "Hate Crime."

Let's go a step further - if the "overt act" of "raising a fist" and Dr. Mohamed Elmasry's statement "that all adult Israelis are "legitimate targets" for Palestinian terrorists" (especially given the terrorist's predilection for conflating "Israelis" and "Jews" as in the case of Leon Klinghoffer aboard the Achille Lauro) gives one a fear (does not have to be "reasonable") of an "unauthorized touching" -- then it is both an "assault" and a "hate crime" - under both US and Canadian law.

I am not going to go into the "self defense" issues in the context of ones fear of an "unauthorized touching."

[Colorado Blue]

4. Oy.

[Yosie]

5. Hate Speech is Not Hate Crime

Unless it is accompanied by either a conspiracy to commit a "Hate Crime" or a Physical Act (At Least A Threatening Gesture).

[Colorado Blue]

6. Oh - I understand. Thanks.

[DemFromMem]

10. ??

I thought a hate crime is a crime of violence where the perpetrator of the crime is motivated by hate of the group in which the victim is a member.

[Djinn]

7. No speech should ever criminalised

just like if someone wanted to say something really offensive like that they get aroused at the thought of dead arabs - they should be able to say it.

you can't refute idiots unless they're out in the open.

[DFWdem]

8. I agree

But Canada does indeed have laws on the books that criminalize speech. They say it's a good thing, I disagree.

[bemildred]

26. Agreed, let them talk, let them wave their hands around. nt

[Amfortas]

9. Advocating the death of civilians IS hate speech.......

if not a hate crime.

It depends on Canadian law (which I don't know about), but I think that hate speech that implies doing harm to civilians should be prosecuted.

[Darranar]

11. Calling them "legitimate targets" is not the same as advocating...

their killing.

[Amfortas]

12. How is it differnet ?

[pelsar]

13. targets...

excuse me..but if someone says its ok to kill my kids just because they are israelis...that somewho strikes me either a new version of anti semtism..or perhaps simple hate because.....(hmm cant think of anything else)...at any rate for those who do believe that its ok to target my kids because of their nationality or whatever other pathetic excuse they can come up with... thats why we have the IDF over here....

[Darranar]

23. They are different words with different meanings...

Something can be legitimate without being the proper course of action.

[eyl]

24. Calling something a "legitimate target"

means you can attack it, though you may choose not to. Are you maintaining that the only theoretical bar to attacks on Israeli civilians is the wisdom of that approach?

[Darranar]

25. That is not what I said...

Firstly, I am not Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, so what I think he is saying is not the same thing as my own opinions. (For what it's worth I think attacks on Israeli civilians are atrocious, despicable, illegitimate, and stupid.)

Secondly, legitimacy is a seperate issue from both the morality of an action and its wisdom. An action can be morally wrong while still being legitimate. For instance, it was a perfectly legitimate act to vote for Bush in the last election, but that action was still both unwise and morally wrong.

[Yosie]

14. A distinction without a difference.

Calling them "legitimate targets" is exactly the same as advocating their killing.

----Words and Phrases Judicially Construed, Lexis.com (by subscription)

[newyorican]

15. The difference being...

the Canadian Authorities have decided not to prosecute.

So the reality is that there is a distinction with a difference. Anything else is opinion and fantasy in this case.

----Words and Phrases Realistically Construed, the Actual Article (by reading it)

[Radio_Rick]

21. Love the way some misconstrue with a unique twist

as in both elMasry's quotes http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=845a6d55-2da6-47d7-a1fe-9a17610b62a8 and in a different thread in this forum, re: TNS Country studies, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x88490 and http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21954 - frequently disregarding the actual article http://www.tns-global.com/corporate/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity] where simple analysis (just simply reading the original source) yields a different result, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x88490#88515 then what was appended in DU.

[Yosie]

22. As usual

Rule 2 of the Rules of the Rules of Disinformation -- which will be responded to as my violation of Rule 7 of the Rules of Disinformation.

[newyorican]

16. Some other examples of so-called Hate Speech...

that were not pursued legally:

"There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies ­not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"The Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

"The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

Just to cite a few...

[pelsar]

17. morons.....

its not really a problem in finding morons who say stuiped things...and freedom of speach is as "holy as it gets"...but someplace in there, there is a line, because speach, delivered by people who have influence can lead to destruction and death.


where is that line?......its vague and though I loath to defend the right for nazis to have free speach they should have as should muslim extremists, and israelis....up to the point where they advocate killing-that is the difference between your examples above and the one which says: go out and kill my family.

someplace a line has to be drawn...somewhere, and thats where I draw it

and the canadian distinction?....sure they have that right, after all no one is advocating killing canadians! (though if the guy said that its ok to kill the PM of canada, it might have had a different outcome)

[newyorican]

18. As always...

the line (by individuals) is drawn depending who (whom?) is the target.

Those on the same side one stands are labeled "morons" and "stupid", while those on the other side of the imaginary line are labeled as "hateful" and "bloodthirsty". The kernel of truth to take from all of this is that either all labels apply to all antagonists, or they apply to none.

[pelsar]

19. i disagree....

its not a matter of "whom the target it"....explaining/teaching that its OK to kill a complete nation/gender/religion/blondes is very different from calling them idiotes.

calling people dumb...all of us do everyday....teaching your collegues/friends/children etc that its perfectly fine to wipe out the family across the street is not.

I'll bet in your own life, you've called people idiotes/morons/jerks/etc...yet at the sametime you've probably never said that its pefectly ok to kill them and their families. So in "real life" you too see a difference.

[eyl]

20. If you want to make a point,

you might want to choose examples of actual hate speech.

"There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies ­not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

Katsav was talking about the terrorists who had stoned two teenagers two death the day before. A search for "Katsav" in the Jerusalem Post's online archive shows only one story on May 10, on an unrelated issue. On May 11, he did refer to the matter, however. The archives aren't free, so I don't have access to its full text, but you can see the beginning, which reads:

President Moshe Katsav said yesterday that Israel would never stoop to the brutality the Palestinians displayed in the stoning to death of two Tekoa teenagers this week.

Referring to the brutal murders of two young boys from Tekoa, Katsav said he is sure there are Palestinians and other Moslems who oppose terrorism, but it was terrifying to realize how much cruelty and hatred the Palestinians ...

From other sources, what it seem the article actually said was

President Moshe Katsav said yesterday that Israel would never stoop to the brutality the Palestinians displayed in the stoning to death of two Tekoa teenagers this week.

"There is a huge gap between us and our enemies - not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience," Katsav told reporters at Beit Hanassi.

"We would never stoop to the kind of brutality inflicted on the victims in Tekoa and Ofra," he added. "They're our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who don't belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy."

Katsav said Israel must change its approach to the Palestinians, but stopped short of voicing exactly what that new approach should be -- although he appeared to imply that retaliation is at times necessary.

"Force is no solution to anything," he said, "but sometimes it's essential."

Referring to the brutal murders of two young boys from Tekoa, Katsav said he is sure there are Palestinians and other Moslems who oppose terrorism, but it was terrifying to realize how much cruelty and hatred the Palestinians harbor against Israelis.

Hardly a condemnation of Palestinians in general.

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

Again, I can't directly access the story*, headlined "PA demands Barak apologize for 'crocodile' comment". What it seems to have said (again, from online searches, however, is:

A senior Palestinian official demanded
an apology from Prime Minister Ehud Barak yesterday for his alleged
comment that "Palestinians are like crocodiles."
A "senior source" aboard the prime minister's flight from Ankara
on Monday was quoted as commenting on the crippled peace
process that "maybe the Palestinians are like crocodiles - the
more you give them, the more they want." Political pundits understand the "senior source" to be Barak himself.

Not exactly what wa quoted, assuming Barak said it at all.

"The Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

What was actually said:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of a million and half a million Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

Again, this is hate speech only if you're prepared to argue that all Palestinians are terrorists.

"The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

Scare quotes (and the fact that the PM is unnamed) are warning signals. The line actually read

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir warned today that rioters would be crushed "like grasshoppers."...In remarks aimed at Arab rioters, the Prime Minister said: "We say to them from the heights of this mountain and from the perspective of thousands of years of history that they are like grasshoppers compared to us."

You can object to his words, but again, it's not a sweeping remark to all Palestinians.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

This was actually said, acording to Gad Becker (who wrote the Yediot raticle on which the NYT article was based. However, from CAMERA:

According to Becker, this “uncharacteristic”(as he puts it) and controversial comment was made by outgoing Chief of Staff Eitan during a discussion of how best to deal with Arab violence in the West Bank. In responding to suggestions by Knesset members that the army should stop stone throwers by shooting at their feet or throwing stones back, Eitan reportedly said:

The Arabs will never win over us by throwing stones. Our response must be a nationalist Zionist response. For every stone that’s thrown–we will build ten settlements. If 100 settlements will exist–and they will–between Nablus and Jerusalem, stones will not be thrown. If this will be the situation, then the Arabs will only be able to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.

"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

From the interview in question (quoted here):

'Do you think the emergence of the Palestinian fighting forces, the Fedayeen, an important new factor in the Middle East?
Golda Meir: Important, no. A new factor, yes. There was no such a thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian State? It was either southern Syria before the First World War and than it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."

Again, you can object to her position, but she's not claiming there weren't people; rather that there was no national entity known as Palestinians (note also the use of the past tense).

*This link is nonfunctional, since it's relatively old, and the JPost has changed its URL structure in the meantime. Maybe you can do something with it though.