The Most Dangerous Professor in America?
Hatem Bazian, a senior lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley, is the most dangerous professor in America, according to a campus watchdog group.
Hatem Bazian, a Palestinian professor at the University of California-Berkeley, publicly calls for an intifada [violent uprising] in the U.S.
While neo-Nazis would be tossed off any respectable faculty, Bazian regularly blurts out anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that would make any Jew-hater proud, all the while maintaining his taxpayer-subsidized “teaching” position.
For a taste of the anti-Semitic brainwashing prevalent on American campuses, watch Bazian continue to blame Jews for the world’s problems.
This will take some time to process. If it isn't visible, check back.
Tags
Who is online
401 visitors
Looks like a fine man. <sarc>
No WONDER there is growing anti-Semitism. Is this an example of permitted free speech in accordance with America's First Amendment? Say one bad word about a Muslim and there will be a fucking riot, and a well known member of NT who is silent about this bastard will jump up and down shouting "ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!!".
Dear Friends Sixpick and Buzz: The First Amendment does not grant absolute freedom of speech.
Inciting violence, and hate speech are specifically prohibited.
This is a long settled matter of law in the USA.
Those who live lives with hatred in their hearts will harvest shame and disgrace.
I join you in not being a fan of a hate mongering fear peddler.
Onward and Upwards.
Enoch.
While I don't think highly of the professor I do believe hate speech is protected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/no-gov-dean-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.576f15697b9c
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/hate-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-oregon-mayor-says-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.b9305e0ef65f
Perhaps Canada WAS (and I say WAS because of some recent totally unnecessary resolutions concerning Islamophobia) more advanced when it came to hate speech. Earnst Zundel was convicted of it, deported, and in Germany for his hate speech he spent a lot of time in jail.
While I'm absolutely opposed to the messages of the KKK and Westboro Baptist church I'm glad the supreme court protected their hate speech. It is far more dangerous when government decides what people can and can't say. I'm a strong believer in limited government and maximum freedom to the people.
Dean,
I have to disagree. As Enoch pointed out, even free speech has it's limitations. Put the anti semitism aside, which qualifies as hate speech, he is calling for an intifada [violent uprising] in the U.S., and our SCOTUS has made that clear, that is forbidden.
We all live by the Constitution, and so does this pig. If he doesn't like it, he can leave the country.
How would an intifada in the United States unfold?
How the heck would I know?
Well you said he should be censored for encouraging it, didn't you?
If it is not a viable probability, or possibility, how is it different than any other extremist message?
Well after watching his video, John, it's clear that he is preaching to those interested:
"What are we doing? Why don't we have an intifada here in this country?"
"We are many, they are few"
"And it's time that we have an intifada here in this country that fundamentally changes the political dynamics here."
"And let it be known here at Berkeley that we support the intifada. Intifada, intifada, long live the intifada"
"They are going to say that Palestinians are to radical....Well, you haven't seen radicalism yet."
That is a direct threat.
So who would start this? How about the Arab and sympathiser that he preaches to?
And please note that I said the word Arab. That does NOT equate to Muslim.
Hate speech should be protected unless a direct incitement to violence. However, the state does not have to subsidize bigots like him.
Hate speech should be protected unless a direct incitement to violence.
But he is calling for direct violence. What are you guys not getting? Do you not know what an intifada is?
Enoch,
Although I agree with "inciting violence" I have to disagree on "hate speech". ALL speech is protected. This is why: Define hate speech along with 10 others and see how many different definitions you get of "hate speech". I was once accused of spewing hate speech while listing factual and practiced aspects of Sharia law. (stoning, cutting off ones hand for theft and death to those that dare leave or speak against Islam, along with practices/"laws" concerning Rape, treatment of women...) The point is that some people do not want some things to become general public knowledge and will use the label "hate speech" to silence you from telling the truth. This is WHY ALL speech IS and MUST be protected.
'96,
The government defines hate speech as that, that directly incites violence. It is NOT saying hateful things about people.
more advanced when it came to hate speech.
Advanced is the wrong word, I think.
This speech maybe disgusting, but censoring it be would a huge step backward for human rights.
This speech maybe disgusting, but censoring it be would a huge step backward for human rights.
Sean,
Hate speech is a specific thing. It's not saying just hateful things. It's inciting people to violent acts. This has been already covered by SCOTUS.
He will not be arrested or charged with a crime. While I do not agree with his message there is no crime here. If there was people like Alan Dershowitz would be calling for legal action.
He will not be arrested or charged with a crime. While I do not agree with his message there is no crime here.
I have to disagree. He is actually telling people to take it to the streets. That is incitement. It goes beyond the message. It is calling for an act of war. That is what an intifada is. In fact, you could argue that it's treason on some level, since it against everything in our constitution.
So while yes, he will not be arrested, it still doesn't make it right.
I think we need constant vigilance regarding anti-semitism, which is an age old problem. Shedding light on the words of fanatics like this man is a necessary and important part of that vigilance.
I agree John. BTW.. please take note that I said I agreed with you.
Dear Diary,
Perrie agreed with me today.
A professor at BERKELEY. Isn't this the same school that used to stand up for free speech but now seeks to restrict any speech that may offend someone? Yet none are offended by this ass hat? That speaks volumes.
I agree '96