footnotes to the saga of Harry's Place

Harry's Place is indeed back, if I have any readers who don't know that already. I should note that it now appears their DNS company is British. I may have said California-based at some point. On the other hand, they confirm that their DNS took action in response to an actual complaint.

There are other things to talk about. I think David Hirsh is right that "the time has come to break some UCU confideniality." However, I also agree with him that this is about the UCU and not about any particular individual in it. Some prominent members of the boycott movement (including Sue Blackwell who ridiculously asserted that the article at David Duke's website was not racist) are worth mentioning by name. The individual who posted the link to David Duke's website, however, is merely a symptom of something larger.

And while I do agree, up to a point, that it is inappropriate to use the names of those involved in the debate on the UCU list, it is much more important that this not be an excuse to ignore the criticism of antisemitism. It is clear that several people involved in the debate intend exactly that. 'Since the criticism was not made in a properly civil fashion, there is therefore no antisemitism to talk about.' Such tactics have been used time and again to silence all sorts of anti-racist activists, and they are morally reprehensible.

Once again, those brave souls who speak out against Jewish power have managed to prove that they are delusional. Jimmy Carter, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt claimed in best selling books that their views were stifled. Clearly they were not stifled effectively. Now, once again we see that, though antisemites might be embarrased, it is anti-antisemites who are actually silenced.

Update on Harry's place

[another update: Although I haven't managed to bring the site up yet, reports are that they're back.]

Further to this recent post, which focused on how Jewish participation in the discussion of antisemitism is being attacked, Harry's Place may have some difficulty.

Harry's Place may be removed (or rather have it's DNS disabled) after a 'complaint' to the company that our domain name is registered with.

We assume after threats were made on the weekend that this 'complaint' originates from Jenna Delich or her supporters.

Though we have not yet seen the complaint submitted, we assume it runs along the lines that pointing out that Ms Delich linked to the website of a known neo-Nazi figure and former Ku Klux Klan leader is defamatory.

In and of itself, this is little more than harrasment in this day and age where they can always put up a new site somewhere. In that way, it's unlike Galloway's libel suit that shut down a radio station. But it is rather serious as harrasment, and threatens to destabilize Harry's readership and the influence they've earned. The ease with which this sort of thing can happen is frightening, and I'm not reassured that the decision will apparently be in the hands of a DNS company completely and utterly unfamiliar with advanced ideas of rhetoric. (It was, after all, such a computer programmer who banned me from Newsvine in order to defend antisemitism on the grounds of free speech.) Further, it is entirely likely this action is a prelude to a libel suit which may be much more than harrasment.

How not to drive drunk. Or, what can be learned from linking to David Duke

So, over in Boycotting Britania, a certain member of the UCU (that's the union for university professors) has "accidentally" recommended something on David Duke's website. I put "accidentally" in quotes not because I think it was intentional but because I think it's like getting into a car accident while driving drunk. Apparently, the person in question has threatened to sue for libel because some people had the chutzpah to point out to her that she's, to extend the metaphor, a drunk.

Modernity has a post at Harry's Place on how not to do such things. You know: check that your tires are properly inflated before you get into your car. (Never mind that some people should just give their keys to a friend.) And even if there are no swastikas prominently displayed on the website you'd like to recommend, if it has prominent links to sites that do have swastikas prominently displayed, that's a good indication that you should sober up before entering the debate.

David Hirsh adds, "I would add this: if you agree with what is written on a fascist website then you should stop and wonder why that might be."

I will add that it is imperative that minority voices not be silenced or ignored. If you want to avoid antisemitism (and for some people that seems to be a big if), it is absolutely necessary to pay attention when Jews tell you something is antisemitic. That doesn't mean agreeing uncritically, but it does mean listening carefully and ensuring that representative (an important point - Tony Greenstein doesn't count) Jewish voices are part of the conversation. Even if you disagree with the views Jews are expressing -especially if, and everyone knows this is true in the present case, it's plainly the view of the majority of Jews- it's still important not to exclude them from political debate. That's like when the road signs are blurry and you still won't admit you're too drunk to drive.

Modernity's post was prompted by a UCU member who wrote, "This has made me crucially aware of how difficult it is to set out rules, even guidelines, for avoiding errors." This person accepts that David Duke is a vile antisemite, but can't understand that perfectly normal people who hold the same precise views might also be antisemites. Of course, despite the clarity of Modernity's helpful guidelines, it really is difficult to set out rules. You see, it's the refusal to even entertain Jewish perspectives that's antisemitic. Citing David Duke's website is just the final straw that proves the need for an intervention.

I'm not going to take a stand against whiny idiots who scream libel at the drop of a hat. But there are several features worth noting. One, it is impossible for such a process to be neutral in deciding what is and isn't antisemitism. The effect, as in the recent Galloway case, is to reify antisemitism into law by prescribing rules in a process where the communal Jewish voice is excluded from the outset. Two, if libel laws (whether stricter or looser) are applicable, then hate speech must be much more vigilantly guarded against. Since libel laws do not cover instances where a specific individual is not being spoken about, and racism wouldn't be racism if it weren't about broad groups, without enforcing hate speech with greater vigor even the most vile antisemite could take unfair refuge in libel laws.

It is becoming so that Jews are legally prevented from speaking out against antisemitism.

Eve Garrard's open letter resigning from the UCU

In spite of my longstanding commitment to Union membership, the recent actions of the UCU are finally driving me out of it. I find that I cannot remain in an institution which sets out to discriminate against its Jewish members.

Read the whole thing.