The World According to Nick - What Are We Afraid Of?

Monday, September 24, 2007

What Are We Afraid Of?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now in New York City, and it has sparked about the amount of controversy that one would expect. Besides the obvious hatred of a monster, who condones and encourages terrorism, denies the holocaust, and supports the abuse of his own citizens by the government in ways that I can't even fathom... his appearance here in the United States, and specifically at Columbia University, is generating a lot of questions that reflect as much on us, as on him. The first thought that is coming to the minds of many is simply... How can we even let him speak? What gives him the right?! The great irony here is that the same Constitution that gives us the right to speak freely, grants him the same right (according to the 14th Amendment). The same Constitution that he abhors, allows him to speak openly against us.

For my part, I don't think he should be silenced. While I certainly question the motives of those at Columbia University who invited him to speak... my questions center on them, not him. Why would they want him to speak? What value does his insight into world politics bring? His hatred of Jews? His hatred of freedom? His encouragement of terrorism? Does Columbia find these things valuable because they agree with them, or because they want to provide him a forum to pronounce his views and hope that students will backlash against him?

I've said before that Freedom of Speech is a wonderful instrument which allows the truly hateful and ignorant among us to self identify, so that we don't have to search for them. Silencing people does not make their views go away, it merely pushes them to the shadows where the light of good cannot reach to destroy it. Moreover, when we allow someone to speak, it gives us an opportunity to speak back, and fight them on their own turf. Protest against him. Speak against what he says. Counter his views in the hope that others will hear! The thing that bothers me most about what's going on in New York today is the news that the Port Authority evicted protesters from Ground Zero.

But for those who truly do want to silence him... I would ask you why. What are you afraid of? In my experience, people don't bother attempting to stop things that they don't fear. Do you truly believe that the people of America will be swayed by what this monster says? Isn't it just as likely that those who hear him will be disgusted by him, and will only convince them how evil he is? Is there that little faith in the heart of the basic American? If that is so... then our problem isn't with Ahmadinejad, but rather with ourselves. Silencing him won't restore our faith.

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers. Glenn forwarded you on to this post with the following comment "Nick Schweitzer wonders why people care about Ahmadinejad". To be clear... I don't wonder why people care. I know why we care. My question is... Why are people afraid of what he has to say, and the fact that he's saying it here? We should only be afraid if we're afraid he can influence us. We should always care.

Posted at 12:31 PM by Nick |

24 Comments | No Trackbacks

Add to del.icio.us | Digg this Post | Filed Under: Current Events

Monday, September 24, 2007 1:50:41 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Good for you. 60 Minutes had an outrageous interview last night. What ever happened to free speech? Oh, I know...George W. is working to eliminate that.

Len WIlson

Monday, September 24, 2007 1:52:04 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

We have so many problems here in America have a serious problem with accepting what other's opinoins are. Their veiws of our society will always be against the grain that we call truth. The man can speak at his invited event because he was invited by a private party. The school does not accept the military and rotc for reasons they need not answer to the public for. America supported the war in Iraq, but when we found out the truth we began to clamour for our troops to come home. The war is illegal, against world policy. we have become imperialist who are greedy and bent on owning everything in every country that belongs to others. What has been done in the name of business is never considered when America is concerned. What a double standard. We always see the evil done by other countries but not the evil that persist in this country.

Marcus Areilius

Monday, September 24, 2007 2:18:31 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

The school does not accept the military and rotc for reasons they need not answer to the public for.

You mean other than the fact that they get federal funds, right? Or do you mean other than the fact it is a violation of federal law?

The war is illegal,

Hilarious.

The Ace

Monday, September 24, 2007 2:39:15 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Those of us who are against this are not afraid of what he has to say. We are afraid of letting him speak at Columbia because we already know that so many of the students and faculty there already agree with him, and he will inflame their passions. This is a bad idea. We are afraid that students and faculty like those at Columbia and UC Irvine (to name but two of so very many) will act on those passions in ways that will be harmful to our families and our society.

If Columbia (and these other schools) actually did allow a diversity of voices to speak to their students, this fear would not be so great. I repeat, we are not afraid of what he has to say. We are afraid of the fools who believe him, and we are right to be.

David Preiser

Monday, September 24, 2007 2:49:07 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

It's important to remember that the Constitution grants us freedom from regulation of speech by the U.S. Federal and State governments. It does not mean we cannot protest when people who don't believe in these freedoms for their own people are given a pulpit from which to profit from their own propaganda. I object to Columbia's providing such a pulpit to a government which has committed acts of war against the U.S. for which it has never atoned. The kidnapping of ambassadors is the one of the most fundamentally heinous acts one government can commit against another. I certainly suppport his right to speak, and he has done so prolifically from within the confines of his own boundaries. I also reserve the right to condemn his speech. I'm not afraid of him, I'm outraged that many in our universities actively support him.

Bo McIlvain

Monday, September 24, 2007 3:02:43 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

"But for those who truly do want to silence him... I would ask you why."

Attacking his speech is more about attacking 'them' than him. A potential conservative speaker would probably catch more criticism from the university than this guy. That's a problem. That’s why I'm actually upset. I don't really care what that idiot has to say and I don't have a problem with letting him, actually, say it....

Thomass

Monday, September 24, 2007 3:09:56 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Why do people continue to ask what we are afraid of by having
this guy speak? I see no reason to reward him by granting him
a stage from which to spew his nonsense. I also have the same
freedom of speach, when do I get my slot at Columbia?

"We have so many problems here in America have a serious
problem with accepting what other's opinoins are."
True. Because of my problems I have trouble accepting the viewpoint
that gays should be killed and Israel should be destroyed. Beacuse
of MY intolerance.

"Their veiws of our society will always be against the grain that we call truth."
Uh, what?

"The man can speak at his invited event because he was invited
by a private party."
Yes, everyone already knows this. The dispute is BECAUSE he was
invited. Subtle, I know.

"The school does not accept the military and rotc for reasons
they need not answer to the public for."
The hell they don't. They take my tax money they sure as HELL
owe me an explanation as to why they break the law by booting the
military off campus. And if the don't ask/don't tell is the reason
then why don't they ban congressmen or senators from speaking
there since they are the ones that passed that law, not the military.

"America supported the war in Iraq, but when we found out the
truth we began to clamour for our troops to come home. "
Thanks for speaking for me, but stop. I doubt if you would
recognized the truth if it bit you in the ass.

"The war is illegal, against world policy."
I love that one. Why don't you cite me which law is being broken?
World policy? You freaking kidding me? UN policy, maybe.
Why, again, do you think we should bow down to that collection
of dictators and thugs? You do understand that many, if not
most member states are not democracies and do not speak for
their people.

"we have become imperialist who are greedy and bent on owning
everything in every country that belongs to others."
Who is this "we" you are referring to? It's call trade, dipshit
and it benefits both sides. One of the drawbacks, at least to
people like you, is that it lifts the poor countries and
provides a longer lifespan for those people. Give me details on
what we are stealing from anyone.

"What has been done in the name of business is never
considered when America is concerned."
No idea what that is supposed to mean. Work on coherent thoughts
and sentence structure.

"What a double standard. We always see the evil done by other countries but not the evil that persist in this country."
Saddam feed people thru a industrial shreader and we......don't.
Yeah, two sides of the same coin.

buzz

Monday, September 24, 2007 3:16:07 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

There is a difference between respecting someone's right to free speech and offering them a platform from which to speak to thousands. There is also a difference between free speech and giving a tyrant a propoganda victory that will demoralize the dissidents in his own country.

MikeMangum

Monday, September 24, 2007 3:27:19 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Buzz,

Good comments, all. Rather funny though, for someone to state, "we have become imperialist who are greedy and bent on owning everything in every country that belongs to others." and then sign off as "Marcus Aurelius" ???

DonM

Monday, September 24, 2007 3:36:35 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

What is it with this characterization of my consternation at Ahmadinejad being given a forum at Columbia as fear? What is it with this assumption that I want to "silence" him? Considering he's the titular head of a hostile power, denying him a podium on the Upper West Side would have very little practical effect on him getting whatever message he wants out to the world.

I think most of us who care about this do so because we're appalled that one of the great Universities of the world, an institution built upon the ideals of reason and open inquiry, would grace a blatant medievalist with a podium in its halls.

Does this perspective make sense?

Mark

Monday, September 24, 2007 3:46:29 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

It's not a question of "fearing" what he says. It's a question of giving a respectful hearing to ideas that warrant no respect. None of the ideas of Ahmadinejad deserves respect. Those ideas can be expressed, sure. By him or anyone else.

But just as a speaker who tells a science class that the earth is flat may express that absurdity, no serious person would invite that speaker to express that view. It deserves no respect.

There is - or should be - a broad "bond" or "chord" that unites us as human beings. Whether we are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, believer in liberal democracy or believe in monarchies, there is a broad consensus, roughly drawn and attained, that bonds us together. We may disagree on many issues, including big ones, but we agress on the largest issues.

Jews are not apes. The Holocaust did occur. Gays may not be murdered simply for being gay. Human beings are not things that may be treated like property or treated as ends towards a means. These broad principles transcend many differences.

Ahamdinejad transgresses these bonds. He doesn't believe in them. He has the right to believe in them. But we don't have an obligation to give them a respectful hearing.

SMG

SteveMGalbraith

Monday, September 24, 2007 4:09:37 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

The man is the President of Iran, a country of immense significance
in the Middle East generally, and specifically with regard to the
eventual disposition of the Iraq War. It makes sense to find out
what he's thinking about, and how that reflects what other folks
in the Middle East may be thinking about.

It never hurts to understand your enemy.

Neal J. King

Monday, September 24, 2007 4:28:54 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Observers should compare and contrast this with the reception Columbia gave to Mr. Gilchrist - who wanted nothing more than to have the (Southern) border patrolled. Or so it is believed - before the students and faculty who now suddenly believe in airing all opinions, no matter how odious, rushed him and disrupted that discussion. Where are those students now? Cheering the Iranian dictator?

I have no problem with the "rights" so long as it's remembered that it's a right to speech, not a right to a forum or a right to be heard. I do have a problem with hypocrites; what, pray tell, makes this thug's comments that much more palatable than those of another US citizen?

Lysander

Monday, September 24, 2007 5:45:47 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I agree with Lysander. Why the double standard? I don't agree with the so-called "Minutemen", but the contrast between what happened to them and the protection Ahmadinejad got should concern us all.

Mwalimu Daudi

Monday, September 24, 2007 6:41:33 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

We are so intollerant of eachother's free speech and opinions, why shouldn't we be intollerant of his? At least we are consistent.

It's bullshit, but it's the truth.

Sarah

Monday, September 24, 2007 9:48:15 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Answering the headline:
I am not afraid of Ahmadinejad nor anything he will ever say.
I'm afraid of eggheads who argue the Constitution gave
Ahmadinejad the right to speak at Columbia.
No, the _invitation_ gave him that _privilege_.
Had Columbia not extended Ahmadinejad an invitation to
speak he would not have been "silenced" per
Nick Schweitzser's melodramatic closing line.

At this moment I can't speak at that auditorium.
Not because my Constitutional rights are abridged.
But because I'm not invited.

This is not a free speech issue.
This is about a speech given, by invitation,
at a Columbia U auditorium.

Will one of you geniuses post a link to my or Ahmadinejad's
Constitutional right to speak wherever, whenever, regardless
trespass laws?

Stephen M

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:17:04 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an United States citizen? The answer to that is 'No, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not an United States citizen.' Therefore the 14th Amendment does not apply for him in this case. He is exercising a privilege, not a right. This privilege is extended by the Columbia University who has denied that privilege to other speakers in the past. An issue is the standard that Columbia uses to determine to whom to grant the privilege.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:30:07 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I figured I'd let the Instalanche burn out before I responded to comments. My experience has been that these comment threads take on a life of their own, and I'd have a full time job if I tried to respond to all of them as they came in.

First of all, I'd hope that those who read my post in it's entirety would understand that I don't agree with what this madman has to say, but as Neal said, whether you think his thoughts ought to have a forum or not because of their innate value, he is the President of a country that is a major power broker in the region, and that itself warrants time to listen.

I understand that many are simply upset that he is getting time to speak, while groups like the Minutemen were not. While I understand that frustration, and think it's a valid point of dispute, just like I don't believe that there should be equal time requirements on radio by the FCC, I don't believe there should be requirements for colleges to be fair and balanced if they choose not to be.

By all accounts, Ahmadinejad did not get a warm welcome, and though it would never sway his radical beliefs, he certainly was called on the carpet for things he has said and done. It was also done in a forum where many people might actually like him, and so while it would never sway Ahmadinejad himself, maybe it made some students think. For those who are worried about the beliefs of Columbia students, this should be considered a good thing.

Finally... to "a" who believes that Ahmadinejad doesn't have a right to free speech in this country because he is not a United States citizen, might I suggest a closer reading of the 14th Amendment which reads in part "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice how it says any PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION... not citizen. Those are precise words. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Thank you all for your thoughts, and for keeping it generally civil. It's much appreciated.

Nick

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:21:55 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Perhaps you'd like to educate us as to why somebody who's not even a resident has a right to even BE in this country at all, much less the leader of an openly-hostile foreign power?

Calvin Freiburger

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:35:24 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I'm not sure whether that is a serious question or not Calvin. For one, we do host the meeting place of the United Nations General Assembly. Because of this, we often times have leaders of countries in this country with whom we have disagreement. And due to internation treaties that we are a party to, we have a duty and obligation to allow him into the country.

With that said, it's not as if this is a unique occurance. Leaders of hostile foreign countries are often here on official business in order to meet at the UN, or even to meet with members of our government. During the Cold War, it was not unprecedented for members of the Soviet Union to speak in our country. And I'd remind you that there is no declaration of war with Iran.

As I've tried to point out before, you and I may not like it... but that doesn't mean it should be unlawful for him to be here, nor illegal for someone to invite him to speak even if I don't care to listen.

Nick

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:53:20 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Whether something is common practice, or whether it has precedent, is utterly unrelated to the question of whether something is ethical. The question of our legal obligation to allow him access to anywhere other than the UN remains unanswered.

Calvin Freiburger

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:54:56 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Whoops, I missed the treaty line. I apologize.

But for the record, that in and of itself is a powerful reason for withdrawing America's support of the UN.

Calvin Freiburger

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:10:35 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I completely agree with your comments about Columbia allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, telling more about Columbia than MA. But to understand why he shouldn't be allowed to speak, you need to ask yourself the question, why did he want to?
This speech will be portrayed in Iran, by state controlled media, as a triumph for MA. It will use Columbia to legitimize the subject of Holocaust denial, destruction of Israel, execution of gays and all the other fun-filled parts of his agenda. Not to mention providing advanced IEDs to kill our military.
Ahmadinejad's despicable views have all the media attention he requires. What he can't do is legitimize them without the help of some useful idiots at Colombia.

GeoffCH

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:50:16 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I wonder, did anyone actually bother to read the remarks of Columbia's president as he "introduced" this guy? Those who think the university is stroking this jerk, better check themselves.

And Ahmadinejad doesn't have free speech. He's not an American. He's protected by NO amendment. But the reason it's important for us to hear him are many. He's really important. His views are less dangerous when properly aired. It's got to be incredibly educational for the students on a number of levels.

Nobody at Columbia "agrees with" him. I mean, he did his best to sound like a Democrat, something Fred Dooley sees great significance in, but he's doing that to undermine the president, not because he likes the Democratic party platform, folks. American lefty's do not secretly long for the imposition of sharia law, in case it hadn't occurred to you, and this chump doesn't secretly long for gay marriage, secular government and gender equality. Anyone to whom this is not obvious should have his head examined. Twice.

But what I mean is, nobody agrees with his holocaust denying or his theocratic ways of government. It's offensive that anyone here believes that scads of American university students and faculty agree with him on this stuff. Come back to earth, folks!

Good for Columbia. I think they played this just right.

scott

Comments are closed.