Sunday, November 05, 2006

no gay parade

I must be the last blogger to actually write about the gay parade in Jerusalem. This is not because I have been sitting on the fence or undecided, it is because I am lazy.

The other day,DAG wrote about gay people parading in Jerusalem. He feels that as long as Israel decares itself to be a Democracy they are obligated to allow the freedom of expression. He also feels that Israel must remain a democracy. Traditionally, when a Jew disagrees with what another Jew has said he starts calling him names and does not answer the actual points made by the guy he disagrees with.
At the rock of galilee, when we disagree with someone we not only call them names, we also answer their points.

Gay people should not be allowed to march in Jerusalem. A democracy does not mean freedom of expression, a democracy is defined as giving citizens the right to vote. If the citizens vote to suppress freedom of speech, then so be it. One of the powers granted to the citizens of Israel is the right to protest. If the government shows that it completely ignores protests, and couldn't care less what the protesters want, then the protesters have to get their attention. This is when protests turn violent. We saw that the mass peaceful protests against the deportation of the katifians did not change anything. If a protest does not have the power to change anything then it is a sham of a protest.

Freedom of Expression is not absolute anywhere. The classic example is yelling Fire in a crowded theater. There are laws against disturbing the peace. The language that you use and the pictures that you show are limited. Israel would not allow the nazis to march in Jerusalem, and even Dag would be hardpressed to insist that they should. They also would not give a parade permit to a group who has a slogan "Rapists Unite" or even "Beastility is fun." Personally, I would be almost as horrified if their was a heterosexual parade. Sexuality is not something that should be paraded in public.

When a group comes in and says, we want to piss on your Torah and your values and we insist that your tax money pays for it and not only that but it will be in the center of town and we will inconvenience you at the same time, the answer must be a strong NO. Jerusalem is a holy city and it has sensitivities that must be respected. We let the Mormons build on the mount of olives, despite Mordechai ben David's best efforts. The gay people should not be allowed to march.

Until the time of Moshiach, we may not have the ability to stop people from behaving indecently, but we certainly can stop them from marching through our streets, waving their abomination in our faces.

16 comments:

Rafi G said...

well said

tafka PP said...

I completely understand - although I disagree - with your sentiments regarding the upcoming parade, but I strongly object you comparing the Gay Pride parade to "Rapists Unite" - even flippantly.

rockofgalilee said...

tafka,

that is exactly my point. I am not comparing the gays to the rapists, I am saying if you let the gays march under the slogan, "you can't stop them because of freedom of expression" then you can't stop anyone. Nazis can march in Jerusalem, no matter who they offend. In a democracy, we don't allow everyone to march.

If you want to argue that you have no problem with the gays and from your perspective they are not doing anything wrong, then my post does not apply to you. This is specifically a rant against those who say that while we disagree we have no choice because of democracy.

I do agree with you gays and rapists are not in the same category and I apologize if my post insinuated otherwise.

DAG said...

Nazis matrched in a survivor com in Chicago. A democracy CAN vote to eliminate its freedom of expresiion, but by doing os thye are ending their status as a democracy

rockofgalilee said...

Dag,

By voting to restrict freedom to what is considered appropriate, they are not giving up their status as a democracy, but they are affirming it.

They will not stand by idly and allow a minority to determine the rules for the majority. They vote and exercise their right as a community to determine the community behavior.

What you are saying is actually anti-democratic. You are suggesting that even if the majority of people vote that something should not be allowed, it should be allowed anyways. That is dictatorial as it completely ignores the will of the people.

tafka PP said...

I might be wrong- I thought Freedom of Expression was considered such as long as it remains inside the law.

Rape is against the law: Solidarity with the freedom to practice a homosexual lifestyle- while distasteful to many and potentially inappropriate for the holiest city in the world- is not against the law.

Aside from the vague insinuation (thank you for clarifying) that would be my main problem with your comparison.

I'm under tremendous pressure to both attend and not to attend. I imagine it will be cancelled and the decision will be made for me- if not, maybe I'll live-blog it...

DAG said...

i affimr there right to not be a democracy..BUT a democracy MUST allow free expression

Rafi G said...

DAG - if I am not mistaken the march was not allowed but then changed upon appeal, meaning it is not so clear cut that you have to permit everybody to do what they want.. The courts allowed it under condition that the venue be changed. They ended up allowing a small march in Marquette Park in Chicago... If I remember correctly the march died on its own and never actually happened.. There ar eplenty of links on the internet for details of the event

rockofgalilee said...

Dag: A country that must do something irregardless of the will of its citizens is called a dictatorship. That means that the people do not have the ability to choose how their country is run.

As I mentioned, there are many, many examples where freedom of expression is limited.

tafka: rape is against the law, so I accept that is a bad example. but it is not against the law to call Mohammead a pig. Would Israel allow a "Mohammead is a pig" parade? It seems to me that the government of Israel would not permit that freedom of expression because it would cause a "public disturbance," not unlike the public disturbance that has been created in this situation.

Cosmic X said...

Well put, Rock.

Anonymous said...

I believe there is too much favoritism being shown homosexuals. Equal support should be shown Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, the physically and mentally disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, political prisoners, dissenting clergy, and others who were represented in the holocaust.

Anonymous said...

Actually anon, I think
"Gypsy" is also a derogatory term. Try "Rom" instead. I think an Israel Gypsy Rights parade would be interesting if less populated...

mort said...

Sim,

If the people of Israel voted against a gay parade, then you arguement would hold up. But they have not. So just because it offends religious Jews and religious Jews' view of Jerusalem, does not mean that it is not allowed. If Israel is the democracy you say it is (one equal vote per person), then put the issue to vote. However the cards fall, so be it.

rockofgalilee said...

mort:
you have completely ignored the issue. The disagreement between Dag and myself is whether freedom of expression can be limited in a democracy. According to DAG, if 90% the country voted that there should be no parade, they must allow it in order to be a democracy.
I, on the other hand, say that
1) his idea is anti-democratic not the democratic ideal and
2) freedom of expression is not and should not be an unlimited right.

The government has the right, and has exercised the right in the past, to stifle freedom of expression because of other considerations. As an example of this, Jews are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount because the police consider this a provocation to the Muslims. There was no vote on this issue, the muslims simply explained that they would riot if it is allowed. The police then agreed to their demands and the attorney general, who is insisting that the freedom of expression of gay people cannot be stifled because of the threat of violence, added his seal of approval.

In Israel we have a situation where peaceful protests are always ignored and violent protests, or the threat thereof, actually make a difference.

Looking at the existing model, if you really wanted to stop something would you do it peacefully or violently.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Rock; I haven't posted yet on the subject...so Im even later than you!

(They don't call me the Late Jameel for nothing)

Joe Settler said...

Wow, you haven't gotten so many comments in a while. Talk about a parade and everyone comes out of the closet.

Seriously though,
a) Tatiana Suskind went to jail for a few years for a "Mohamad is a Pig" caricature. So I guess her freedom of speech wasn't guaranteed. (Unless only certain FoS are protected- rather misses the point doesn't it when we know whose is and whose isn't).

b) No one calls Jameel "Late Jameel"

c) Check out my post on "what's going to be said on Sunday".