Stats

Monday, November 06, 2006

Mazuz Approves Rape Of Jerusalem

INN:
Att. Gen. Menachem Mazuz ordered Jerusalem Police Commander Ilan Franco on Sunday to issue a permit to allow the homosexhibitionist parade to march through the streets of the holy city of Jerusalem.
We the people have to finance the march of the degenerates. This, in spite of the fact that 90% of Jerusalemites oppose the parade:
Ninety percent of Jerusalem residents, including secular and religious people, are against holding the planned parade by homosexuals in the capital this Friday, according to Voice of Israel government radio.
I'm pretty disgusted.

8 comments:

amechad said...

I'm disgusted myself.

At your intolerance and homophobia.

Larry Lennhoff said...

As I understand it, the whole point of free speech is to permit unpopular viewpoints to be expressed. Why would speech everyone agrees with need to be protected?

Cosmic X said...

Amechad,

Please, enough ad hominems! Write something intelligent!

Larry,

I think that is the heart of the issue. Free speech does have its limits. If the nudists were to parade around Jerusalem in nude would you also raise the banner of "freedom of expression"? The public has the right to draw the lines, to say what is acceptable and what is not.

orange&black said...

i notice that no abomination march supporter ever answers your question about permitting the nudist pride parade!

Don Radlauer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Don Radlauer said...

OK - I'm probably wasting my time commenting here, since your mind is clearly not open, but I'll try anyway:

1) The fact that a majority of Jerusalem residents oppose the parade does not in any way mean that the parade should be forbidden. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly do not exist to protect the expression of popular ideas; that which is popular doesn't need protection. It is precisely the expression of unpopular ideas that needs to be protected.

2) There are indeed limits to legitimate free speech. The classic law-school example of speech that is legitimate to prohibit is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater - that is, speech that is likely to result in violence, dangerous panic, or other immediate and obvious harm to society. In this context, public nudity is generally considered inflammatory, and thus we do not have the right to walk around naked even if we feel that we should have the right to do so. (Were there large numbers of people who strongly believed, for whatever reason, that going nude in public was indeed appropriate, there might be a case to be made that such a march could, indeed, be a legitimate political expression. However, since there is no political group fighting for public nudity rights, the example is purely hypothetical.)

Were the Gay Pride marchers in Jerusalem to be naked, scantily dressed, or to engage in sexual behavior in the course of their march, they would indeed be going beyond the bounds of permissable free speech; but it is important to note that this would be equally true if the marchers were all heterosexual. As the marchers are in fact supposed to be fully clothed and are instructed to behave in a decent manner, the only conceivable objection to the march is based upon who the marchers are, and what policies they are advocating. To wish to ban a peaceful political demonstration based solely on the identity and beliefs of those marching is indeed bigotry, and is entirely illegitimate in a democracy.

-Don Radlauer
Alfei Menashe

Cosmic X said...

Don,

Nice comment. For me, and for most Jerusalemites, the idea of people marching in the name of illicit relations is as offensive as a nudist march. The same would be true if we were talking about a heterosexual group promoting adultery that was holding an "aldultery pride" march here in Jerusalem. The population of Jerusalem is not the same as the population of Tel Aviv, and we have different standards.

This march is an attempt to force a lower standard on Jerusalemites, to taint the holy city with the moral decay of Sodom. No thanks.

Don Radlauer said...

It may be true that Jerusalem's population is not the same as Tel Aviv's - but Jerusalem is not only your city, and it's not only Judaism's holy city. (For that matter, Jerusalem has a rather large gay community, according to recent articles.) It's Israel's national capital, and receives extra government subsidies because it's the national capital.

As such, non-Jerusalemites have a vested interest in how Jerusalem is run. Were the planned march to take place in B'nei Brak, I'd be much less likely to participate - even though marching there would be infinitely more convenient for me. But B'nei Brak isn't my national capital, and so - as a "straight" who doesn't normally get involved in gender politics - I wouldn't care if a Gay Pride march got cancelled there.

If this march is banned because of religious objections - even though the marchers are avoiding Haredi neighborhoods and plan to behave decorously - then what's happening, basically, is that Jerusalem is abandoning its status as a national city and, instead, embracing a new identity as a combination yeshiva/shtetl/museum. I have no problem with the existence of shtetls for those who want to live a shtetl lifestyle; but it's unfair to make the non-shtetl-dwelling Israeli public shell out to subsidize a shtetl lifestyle for Jerusalem. And it's equally unfair to create an image for the rest of the world of Israel as an intolerant theocracy.

I certainly have no desire to offend you or anyone else; most of those marching on Friday likely feel the same way. (And I suspect that quite of lot of "straights" are planning to march; I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels the need to defend Jerusalem from Jerusalemites) But you should remember that you have no right not to be offended! People have the right to hold different views than you do, and as long as Israel is not a theocratic state run by rabbis (and it isn't quite, not yet, and I hope not ever) your preferences are not legally superior to mine or anyone else's.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole "moral decay of Sodom" issue is being ridiculously over-inflated. It seems to me that the sin of Haredim who refuse to serve in the IDF is far worse than anything (most) homosexuals do in their bedrooms.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...