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...

Gun Violence: Enough of a Reason to Restrict Gun Ownership?

The Constitution of the United States of America provides in the Second Amendment the right of her citizens to "keep and bear arms". The US Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times and has affirmed that the right extends beyond guns being kept solely for use in a militia (see District of Columbia v. Heller). I do not claim to be a US constitutional law expert, or even a constitutional law expert.

What follows is commentary in light of the recent shooting deaths of six people in Tuscon Arizona recently. The attack occurred at a "meet & greet" the constituents event being held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

I am anti-guns. I do not see the use of them. I have fired the odd gun in the past, but it is just not my thing. I do not enjoy guns. I know many people who do enjoy guns and who make a good case for owning one or two or more. I am not anti-guns in the sense of law enforcement having them. Perhaps I am anti-guns in terms of how easy they are to acquire and how devastating they can be when used for illegal purposes.

I cannot imagine that the founding fathers or the early political masters of the US had in mind the sort of gun violence that afflicts the US now. I am almost certain that the founding fathers did not envisage that the right to own guns would become a right to wreak havoc, despair and death on innocents; men, women and children.

My condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones in this tragedy: U.S. District Judge John Roll, 63; Christina Greene, 9; Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman, 30; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Scheck, 79.U.S. District Judge John Roll, 63; Christina Greene, 9; Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman, 30; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Scheck, 79. I also offer my best wishes for a speedy and full recovery to all those who were injured in this instance of madness and senseless violence.

I have been reading with interest that there are connections being made to the "vitriol" and over-the-top rhetoric, which includes references to gun violence, in the political debate. In my mind this is an associated, but secondary issue. The focus must remain on guns and the ease of access to them.

I wonder if there would be a significant drop in gun-related violence if the rules governing gun ownership were further tightened to a degree that they became incredibly onerous? Or, would this just serve to promote a black market for weapons allowing gun violence to persist?

I would be happy to live in a world without guns. Yet, I am a realist. If we did not have guns then we would kill ourselves with whatever weapons were available. yet, it would probably take a lot longer to kill six people with a bow and arrow in comparison to getting off 20 rounds from an automatic handgun.

Hopefully, this tragedy will spur some debate about guns and gun ownership that will generate a whole lot of bipartisan support that will ultimately see the rules tightened even further. Maybe, it is time that politicians and others stopped trying to hide behind some universal and blanket right allegedly secured by the founding fathers and had a little bit of a think about what the founding fathers were really concerned about when it came to the right to keep and bear arms.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit that the founding fathers and the early political statesmen of the Republic did not have the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in mind when confirming the Second Amendment as part of a "Bill of Rights".

Your Home as Your Castle

Some interesting news out of Ohio in the US. Interesting if you are into legal, law, and legislation like I am. If you're not then you might want to skip this post.

The Ohio Legislature has passed a law which states that a home-owner who wounds or kills an intruder in their home is going to be presumed to have been acting in self-defense. This is known as the "Castle Doctrine". It interestingly also applies to motor vehicles.

If you have read my previous posts you will know that I am not a fan of guns or weapons in general. They have a purpose, but I am not sure that a society armed to the teeth is any safer than one where no or very few guns exist.

The previous incarnation of the law required that a home-owner prove that they were acting in self-defense. However, the new law shifts that burden to prosecutors to prove that the home-owner was not acting in self-defense. This is going to be very much a case of shoot first and ask questions later. There may be times where a home-owner acts in legitimate self-defense and other times where they do not. There would seem to be plenty of scope for a defense attorney to use the provisions to get a defendant a free pass for a wounding or death that was not self-defense but because it occurred in a home or a car then the presumption is that it was self-defense.

I wonder whether in 12 months time there might be some regret at this new law. It certainly seems to make it easier for all people to carry concealed weapons. This is likely to make the lives of some public servants such as police officers even more dangerous than it was prior to this piece of legislation being enacted.

Some of the things that citizens can now do and the protections afforded them include, among others:

• Home-owners are presumed innocent where an intruder is wounded or killed;

• The law applies to vehicles as well;

• Home-owners who rightfully use self-defense are immune from civil lawsuits initiated by the intruders, if they survive, or their families; and

• A landlord cannot evict a permit-carrying tenant for keeping a firearm on the rented premises.

The land of the free and home of the brave just became a little scarier by my reckoning.