Blood Libel: The Sarah Palin Defense...

Politics is a heated business at the best of times, and rhetoric is often emotive and extreme. There is undoubtedly consequences from this continual ratcheting-up of the rhetoric and the anger. Whether or not the recent mass-killings in Tuscon, Arizona, are proof of this remains a contentious issue of debate. However, Sarah Palin, the one-time Governor of Alaska and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, is at the center and forefront of this debate.

Sarah Palin makes up for her deficiencies as a politician by using extremely emotive language that disguises the fact that she does not know much about what she must know about to ever become President of the United States. In the lead-up to the recent mid-term elections in the US she was responsible for producing a map that had cross-hairs marking marginal congressional seats that she believed the Tea Party could "target" and win. One of these seats was that of Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords was shot and critically wounded in the Tuscon shootings.

The point of this post is not to question whether that sort of action is an incitement to act that requires some individual who is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic basket to go buy a gun and kill a few people. To each their own on that one. This post is about how Palin has responded to the accusation that her extreme rhetoric is a trigger to this violence.

Palin stayed quiet for several days. In hindsight, she should have stayed quiet. Palin posted the following video on her Facebook page:



The argument that "acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own" is only true to the extent that the person who commits those crimes, in this case pulls the trigger, is responsible for their actions. However, it would be naive to suggest that every action is independent of every other action. It would be remiss to just accept that people cannot be incited to act when they might otherwise have not acted. Although, in this instance, it would seem that Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, had serious issues way before Palin started bandying around maps with cross-hairs.

Yet, Palin was not willing to leave it there she then went on to say this:

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Blood Libel is an emotive term. It is a loaded term. It has a very specific meaning that is linked to anti-Semitism. Blood libel in essence is a myth that Jews sacrificed Christian children in the lead up to Passover. The blood of these Christian children was then used in medicinal rituals and to bake unleavened bread (matzsos). The blood libel myth has been used throughout history to justify pogroms against Jews and is an underlying piece of the propaganda puzzle that has been employed to justify some of the most heinous atrocities committed by humans against their fellow human beings.

A blood libel is not simply just a false accusation, but rather there are very specific understandings that go with the use of the term.

What is even more bizarre about this line of defense is that Gabrielle Giffords is a Jew. Surely, Sarah Palin and her people are not that stupid that they did not do the hard research yards to firstly find out what the term meant and secondly to think about the context in which they were about to use it, or are they?

Let's assume that she or her minions are not that stupid, then this is a cold, calculating, and deliberate attempt to inflame and incite this situation even further. It is only fair to question Palin's motivations for using the term blood libel. Is Palin suggesting that like the Jews she is being falsely accused or is she suggesting that it is a Jewish conspiracy to undermine her?

I am all for freedom of speech. As much as it sometimes pains me, I do believe that there is a freedom of speech that we all enjoy. But, I believe that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The freedoms that we enjoy to speech and expression must be used responsibly. When one chooses to exercise their freedom of speech and expression irresponsibly then they must be brought to account.

In this instance, there were so many other ways and terms that Sarah Palin could have employed to have made the point that she thought she was being unfairly criticised with regards to the Tuscon killings. However, she chose to use a term that was designed to prolong the controversy and to keep the news cycle running and to keep her name at the front and center of that news cycle.

I wonder if the next news-bite from the Palin camp will be about exercising a few of her rights under the Bill of Rights, perhaps she might start exercising her Second Amendment rights not just to keep and bear arms but start using them to return America to exceptionalism?

I am shaking my head at the thought of a Palin run for the presidency of the US...

Let's Hear it for Tolerance...

In a move that is sure to ignite heated debate not only about education, but also the direction of the United Kingdom, an undercover investigation by the BBC has discovered that schools under the auspices of the "Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland" organisation have been teaching some really interesting content. The investigation also uncovered that this content is being taught in some schools in the UK that are owned by the government of Saudi Arabia.

The schools in question are located throughout Britain and are "teaching" somewhere up to 5000 impressionable students from the ages of six to eighteen. The challenging content includes teaching students about Sharia Law, particularly the more brutal and heinous punishments available. For example, students are being taught that thieves will have their hand cut off for a first offense and then a foot for any subsequent offense.

Interestingly, the students are being taught that the process is humane as the stump where one's hand used to be is cauterised so as to prevent the thief from bleeding to death.

Some of the other juicer educational experiences include reminding students that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of Allah. Therefore, suitable punishments for homosexuals include stoning them to death, burning them to death, and throwing them off a cliff. The common denominator here being that homosexuals must die for their sins.

Funnily enough, the Jews do not miss out either in these weekend schools. Students are taught that those evil Jews are hell bent on world domination. And, if given the chance they will seek to take over and control all of the world's wealth and resources.

Ultimately, the theme of all this content seems to be "if you do not follow Islam, or convert immediately, then you are going to be damned to hell!"

Nothing like preaching a little love and tolerance, is there?


Apparently, Ofsted, the British educational watchdog, is doing a little investigating of its own and will soon report to the Education Minister, Michael Gove. I might try and see if I can follow this story through to its conclusion, if for no other reason than I am interested in the implications of teaching such content in schools generally.

To be honest, I do not see any problems with teaching the fundamentals of Sharia Law and what punishments are available under that system. It could be done in a manner that is comparative and without bias. However, the teaching of content that suggests that Jews are focused on world domination through control of financial and natural resources combined with the idea that any one who is not Muslim is damned to hell is likely to be much more problematic and controversial.

The anti-Semitism in the textbooks is surely going to get people fired up. The whole affair is likely to see some interesting to and fro in the cyber-sphere on all manner of things ranging from political correctness to tolerance.

I am surprised that I am yet to see the arguments rehashed that suggest within 20 years Britain will be a Muslim State under Sharia Law. Perhaps even the more extreme protagonists will start to suggest that this is the tip of the iceberg and it will not be long before Europe is an Islamic Caliphate. Hence, the poster and the idea that it will not take long to ignite differences to a flash point.

Does it all start with education?

The Terminator vs. The Road Warrior (Mad Max)...

This is sure to be a much better offering than the "Predator vs. Alien" film or the other classic two franchise spin-off of "Freddy vs. Jason". This is better because it is like reality TV and involves Arnold Schwarzenegger, current Governor of California (aka 'the Governator') vs. Mel Gibson (aka misogynist, anti-Semite, racist and alleged beater of women).

Arnie was in some good comedic form at a recent gig where he was supposed to be talking to a group of utility commissioners in Sacramento about energy issues and ended up comparing Gibson to the environmental disaster that continues to unfold in the Gulf of Mexico.

The one-liner was premised by it seems BP has worked out how to contain the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, but "no one has figured out how to contain Mel Gibson."

Now, Gibson has been in the news over the years for his inability to control his outbursts, seemingly this is exacerbated by alcohol and more recently dementia drugs, apparently. The most recent spray was directed at the mother of his youngest child, Oksana Grigorieva.

In keeping up the game, the governor added that participants probably should turn off their mobile phones as they were expecting a call from Gibson.

Ouch, Mr. Governator! That was a cheap shot, don't you think?


Just as a side note. I have wondered whether it is possible to separate the man from his acting? I only ask because, I have enjoyed watching some of his movies. As a man though, I do not have a lot of time for a fundamentalist catholic with a family history of denying the Holocaust, who is anti-Semitic, racist (his latest rants included derogatory references to blacks and hispanics), and a misogynist. So, that's why I wonder whether I can separate the man from his acting and feel comfortable with the fact that I have enjoyed some of his films.

On another side note. It has been theorised and speculated that Gibson has been using Chantix to quit smoking. Chantix is also used in the treatment of Alzheimer's and dementia. The side effects of this drug are nasty to say the least. Not that this is an excuse because some of his behaviour and attitudes predate him taking this drug, but it is a mood changer for sure.

There are some pretty serious allegations against Mel Gibson with respect to domestic violence and abuse of his girlfriend. These allegations do, and should, attract jail time if the offender is found to be guilty.

Mahatir, 9/11, and Jews...

There is one thing you can always count on from the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, controversy. Whether what he says is true or not seems to be irrelevant. But, on some issues the man is downright creative in the manner he constructs his conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, probably more disturbing is the suggestion that the targeting and killing of Jews has failed to solve the "Jewish problem" at least as he sees it. I wonder if I am reading too much into the implied 'if you are going to do it, then do it right' sentiment that he appears to be suggesting.

If the quotes attributed to him are correct then he paints a pretty disturbing picture of what goes on in his head. It would seem that the only difference between him and Ahmadinejad (who is supposedly of Jewish ancestry) is that Mahatir does not deny that a massacre (probably a little less severe than a using the terms genocide or holocaust to describe the 'Final Solution' envisaged by the Nazis) took place during the Second World War.

The conspiracy theory that if the US can put together a film like Avatar, then they are more than capable of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks and blaming them on Muslims as an excuse to wage war on Muslims. The idea that the 9/11 attacks were not all that they seem, and that the US may have been involved in setting up the attacks on themselves is not a new one. Let's face it, even Rosie O'Donnell is on the record saying that the 9/11 attacks were staged and that the World Trade Centers were brought down with strategically placed bombs.

However, it is his comments about Jews that are most disturbing. Mahatir seems to think that the world's problems are caused by Jews and some kind of Jewish lobby. This is not new either as a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, what is a little disturbing is that he seems to think that confining the Jews to ghettos and then periodically massacring them is not necessarily a bad idea, but rather it has not been done properly as the Jews have always managed to rise up again and thrive once again.

Mahatir is quoted as saying, "even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world."

Then again, one needs to take whatever Mahatir says with a grain of salt, the man is renowned for his anti-US and anti-Semitic stances. I guess he is certainly not putting his name forward as a man of peace and reconciliation.

Freedom of Speech Under Attack?

I am an advocate of free speech. I have never considered free speech to be an absolute right but rather one that is modified by defamation laws and protected by an ability to prove what one says.

However, it seems that this freedom of speech is slowly but surely being whittled away as vilification and hatred laws are introduced to the regulatory framework and discourse is restricted to agreed truths that cannot be questioned.

This is a direct attack on the freedom of speech! The cartoon is a statement about the Canadian Human Rights Commission system and it can be found here at the FreedomSite Blog.

I have always wondered for example why it was wrong to publish a cartoon of Muhammad, or more specifically how that was any more wrong than say publishing a cartoon of Jesus or Buddha or some other religious icon?

I have always wondered why there cannot be academic debate say on the holocaust or why saying that the numbers of Jews killed under the "Final Solution" might not have been six million. To my mind there is no doubting that Nazi Germany as led by Adolf Hitler adopted a policy known as the "final solution" and that the purpose was to rid Europe of the Jews.

Yet, I do not understand the fear of having to defend this position. If someone questions whether the gas chambers were capable of poisoning the number of people claimed, then they are labeled anti-Semitic and threatened with jail. Where is the free speech in that and who is protecting the rights of these people to exercise their right to free speech?

Or is it the case that when you want to talk about Muhammad or Israel or other things you can only do so within the "agreed" discourse and to stray from this very limited path makes you a criminal?

Whatever happened to the idea that I might disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.

How can we ever live in a truly functioning democracy if the narrative and the discourse is dictated by the few? Many vilification and hatred and denial laws are used purely for the purpose of stifling legitimate debate. And, this is a sad development and sets back our ability to live in peace and harmony with each other as these laws foster the ill-will and hatred that they seek to overcome.

It is time that we started behaving like adults rather than allowing our politicians to regulate us like we are children.

The freedom of speech must be a freedom to disagree, a freedom to challenge, and a freedom to question. Anything less makes a mockery of the freedom of speech as a legitimate human right.

Thus endeth the sermon!

Yemen and the Qur'an

I have been reading this interesting piece in TheAtlantic.com which dates from 1999 and discusses the discovery of fragments from early versions of the Qur'an and suggests that the Qur'an is no different from other religious texts. Specifically, the claim seems to be that further academic study of these fragments will lead to an ability to place the Qur'an into a historical context...

Interestingly, there appears, at least to the author of the article, similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible. Of particular note is that the Qur'an was not in a written form at the time of the Prophet's death and that there are Suras that were not included (kind of like the "missing" gospels - Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code anyone?).

Unfortunately, further Internet search has only turned up minimal articles and comments on this of note. I will do more reasearch and perhaps post again.

The idea of frank, open, transparent debate on this subject is intriguing. I just do not see how serious academic debate can be had without it being labelled anti-Islam or some kind of Zionist conspiracy to belittle Islam and the Muslim experience. In this regard it is similar to Jewish claims of anything that questions the Jewish experience as being anti-semitic.

Religion and academic study and debate; are they compatible?

I am, albeit slowly and surely, learning more about those things that interest me. Islam is one of those things...The above photo is of some of the Yemeni Fragments and can be found at this link.

Have a good week!