Tuesday, November 11, 2008

German Neo Nazi Blasts Obama. Jewish Group Calls For Legal Action

A prominent German Neo Nazi has predictably condemned the election of Barack Obama with standard racial stereotypes. According to Juergen Gansel, a deputy in the Saxony regional legislature ""A non-white America is a declaration of war on all people who believe an organically grown social order based on language and culture, history and heritage to be the essence of humanity."
In addition to condemning Obama's victory, Gansel blamed it on "
the American alliance of Jews and Negroes"

The American Jewish Committee in Berlin responded with a call for the German government to take action. Breitbart News notes the AJC reaction as follows.

The director of the AJC's Berlin office, Deidre Berger, said she was shocked by Gansel's "open expression of racism, anti-semitism and anti-Americanism."

She said the AJC hoped German authorities would look into Gansel's press release and that German politicians would clearly distance themselves from his sentiments.

"We are investigating the legal situation concerning the statement and will continue monitoring closely political statements using extremist language," she told Agence France Presse

I find myself looking at both sides of the dispute with puzzlement. The ignorance of the neo Nazi's statement is encyclopaedic. African Americans are an integral part of America, with a presence dating back to its earliest days. There has been a formula throughout America's history for becoming American. Acceptance of our laws and fluency in our predominant language have been prerequisites for American citizenship. Race is not. Those who want our borders secured and our immigration laws enforced want this for economic and security reasons. Mr. Gansel seems to have a poor understanding of this.

Despite my contempt for Mr Juergen and his views, I think that prosecuting him for expressing his opinions is dangerous and ultimately counterproductive. Banning or stigmatising free speech is a bankrupt and useless tactic of the European left. They seek to to ban uncomfortable topics like illegal immigrants in Europe and ethnic tensions between immigrants and native Europeans. It ultimately pushes voters to the far right of the political spectrum. It is ironic that Europe's "antifas" or anti fascists are most prone towards Nazi style street brawls with their opponents. The problem in Europe is not that of too much free speech but not enough. The mainstream parties censor themselves almost to the point of irrelevance. This creates an opening for the far right, which is far less reluctant to speak with frankness

I am afraid that the Obama administration will relax immigration enforcement and flood our already troubled job market with yet more legal immigrants as well. I am not worried about their race. I am worried about their political beliefs. There are a significant minority of immigrants to America who wish us ill. They should be banned or sent back to where they came from. I doubt an Obama administration wants to focus on this.

Jurgen Gansel's ill informed comments provide knee jerk leftists with a straw man to avoid debating legitimate issues. And calls to ban his speech open up accusations that there is no plausible answer to his arguments.

Michael Savage boils America's core problems down to three words. Borders, language and culture are in his opinion the centre that defines a nation's bearings. Race is notably absent from his formulation. If Jurgen Gansel were to call Michael Savage, he would probably find himself listening to a dial tone very quickly. Because African Americans have a rock solid place in the "borders, language , culture formulation.

Do Germany's National Democrats attract law breakers? That is possible. Then again, so do soccer games. Soccer has not been banned, but soccer hooligans have been. If the National Democrats are attracting lawbreakers, then go after them. Europe has a massive problem with illegal immigration and Muslim immigrants , both legal and illegal who reject the language and political system of their host countries. In Belgium, the Vlaams Blok, a Flemish nationalist party that has been accused of neo Nazi tendencies has attracted some unlikely supporters. According to the Jerusalem Post," Support for a Flemish extreme- right party with links to France's Jean-Marie Le Pen is growing among Jews in Antwerp after recent anti-Jewish attacks, local Jewish politicians said.

A perceived pro-Palestinian bias among much of Belgium's political elite, and a charm offensive by far- right leader Filip Dewinter have boosted the trend, they said."

People want their representatives to speak in plain language of the problems they see and the solutions they seek. Condemning people for "racism" and "xenophobia" drives them to the nether reaches of the political spectrum, as it did the Jews of Antwerp, who in the face of anti Jewish violence wanted action and not hollow sympathy.

The legal designation of prohibited speech is a malignant concept that could endanger a growing range of free public expression. There should be a clear distinction between offensive speech and injurious action. The only speech that is clearly prohibited under American law is incitement speech. This is a widely understood legal concept.

The American Jewish Committee would do well to use its freedom of expression to educate the public about America's laws and its cultural traditions. And when faced with violence as were the Jews of Antwerp, the right to bear arms assumes critical importance. Banning and prosecution is not fitting for a democracy. Offensive speech should be answered with informed rebuttal.

Article about German Neo Nazis Comments about Obama

No comments: