Comments on: Convincing the non-believers http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:22:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: James Waterton http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269230 James Waterton Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:14:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269230 It's not coincidental - and whether it is or isn't is irrelevant, anyway. Danby has every right to criticise Antony for whatever reason he chooses. That's free speech, addamo. If you demand political justification (on top of the fact it's simple free speech), I think the issue is that the simulator created by Macquarie uni was deemed biased by parents of children in Danby's constituency, so it is a matter for him, as representatives of those concerned citizens.<br/><br/>Besides, I hardly think Loewenstein is a dissenting voice on the particular board he sits on. In fact, that's the point Danby's making, I believe.<br/><br/>Danby has every right to campaign against whoever he chooses. Also, AL is perfectly entitled to campaign against the election of Danby, so the answer to your last question is yes, if he wants to. <br/><br/>So - dissent was not quashed, Danby did not censor. Glad we cleared that up. It’s not coincidental - and whether it is or isn’t is irrelevant, anyway. Danby has every right to criticise Antony for whatever reason he chooses. That’s free speech, addamo. If you demand political justification (on top of the fact it’s simple free speech), I think the issue is that the simulator created by Macquarie uni was deemed biased by parents of children in Danby’s constituency, so it is a matter for him, as representatives of those concerned citizens.

Besides, I hardly think Loewenstein is a dissenting voice on the particular board he sits on. In fact, that’s the point Danby’s making, I believe.

Danby has every right to campaign against whoever he chooses. Also, AL is perfectly entitled to campaign against the election of Danby, so the answer to your last question is yes, if he wants to.

So - dissent was not quashed, Danby did not censor. Glad we cleared that up.

]]> By: Wombat http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269182 Wombat Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:19:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269182 James,<br/><br/>Danby can indeed do or say what he wants, but it seems a tad coincidental that AL's critics are colletively focusing on AL's suitability to hold down his position at MacQuarie University, becasue he dares to speak out. People on the NSW Board of Education and MacQuarie Uni made a desision to give him that position, as Danby;s contituents haev with him.<br/><br/>Should AL complain to them that Danby is not a suitable political reporesentative, and that they made the wrong choice? James,

Danby can indeed do or say what he wants, but it seems a tad coincidental that AL’s critics are colletively focusing on AL’s suitability to hold down his position at MacQuarie University, becasue he dares to speak out. People on the NSW Board of Education and MacQuarie Uni made a desision to give him that position, as Danby;s contituents haev with him.

Should AL complain to them that Danby is not a suitable political reporesentative, and that they made the wrong choice?

]]> By: James Waterton http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269169 James Waterton Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:14:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269169 It is Danby's right to hold whatever position he wants in regards to Israel - he is elected to represent his constituents, and if that's what they elected, that's what they get. I fail to see why you have some problem with this, Mannie. It's called representative democracy.<br/><br/>David Heidelberg - It is Danby's right (as a citizen with full rights) to call for MUP not to publish the book - as it is MUP's right to ignore him and publish it anyway (which they have done). It is Danby's right to try to convince the general public not to buy the book - as it is the general public's right to ignore him and buy it anyway.<br/><br/><b>IF</b> Danby ever used the power of his office or some other form of coercion (rather than persuasion, which is simply free speech), then that would be censorship. However, there is <b>absolutely no</b> evidence of this. DANBY DID NOT CENSOR ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN. Anyone who thinks he did seriously needs to purchase a dictionary.<br/><br/>It's not a low blow, addamo. Loewenstein is not being consistent. And since when did questioning someone's qualifications for a position become taboo? And anyway, what's that got to do with the point at hand ie. the accusation of censorship? Danby is a critic of Loewenstein's. Is he not allowed to be? Why not? Why are you being so illiberal? <br/><br/>If Antony wanted to, he could criticise Danby - on his past, his qualifications for his position, his lifestyle, whatever. However, he needs to be honest in his criticism, rather than throwing around fallacious accusations. It is Danby’s right to hold whatever position he wants in regards to Israel - he is elected to represent his constituents, and if that’s what they elected, that’s what they get. I fail to see why you have some problem with this, Mannie. It’s called representative democracy.

David Heidelberg - It is Danby’s right (as a citizen with full rights) to call for MUP not to publish the book - as it is MUP’s right to ignore him and publish it anyway (which they have done). It is Danby’s right to try to convince the general public not to buy the book - as it is the general public’s right to ignore him and buy it anyway.

IF Danby ever used the power of his office or some other form of coercion (rather than persuasion, which is simply free speech), then that would be censorship. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this. DANBY DID NOT CENSOR ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN. Anyone who thinks he did seriously needs to purchase a dictionary.

It’s not a low blow, addamo. Loewenstein is not being consistent. And since when did questioning someone’s qualifications for a position become taboo? And anyway, what’s that got to do with the point at hand ie. the accusation of censorship? Danby is a critic of Loewenstein’s. Is he not allowed to be? Why not? Why are you being so illiberal?

If Antony wanted to, he could criticise Danby - on his past, his qualifications for his position, his lifestyle, whatever. However, he needs to be honest in his criticism, rather than throwing around fallacious accusations.

]]> By: Wombat http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269142 Wombat Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:05:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269142 James,<br/><br/>"You criticise others, it's exercising your free speech. Others criticise you, it's "quash[ing] dissent"<br/><br/>That's a bit of a low blow mate. Danby is the one who is questioning Ant's qualifications and sutability to hold his position at Macquarie University. And then he went further to imply allude to some conspiracy theory at the NSW Department of Education.<br/><br/>It's interesting tha the same charges are brought up by David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz in the US. Could be the evidnce of the standard Zionist line of defence.<br/><br/>I didn't read anythnig about trying the same slime tactic with Danby's job suitability. James,

“You criticise others, it’s exercising your free speech. Others criticise you, it’s “quash[ing] dissent”

That’s a bit of a low blow mate. Danby is the one who is questioning Ant’s qualifications and sutability to hold his position at Macquarie University. And then he went further to imply allude to some conspiracy theory at the NSW Department of Education.

It’s interesting tha the same charges are brought up by David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz in the US. Could be the evidnce of the standard Zionist line of defence.

I didn’t read anythnig about trying the same slime tactic with Danby’s job suitability.

]]> By: Mannie http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269139 Mannie Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:52:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269139 Danby has called for Melbourne University Publishing (MUP) not to publish Antony's forthcoming book.<br/>Danby has criticised Louise Adler of MUP for accepting the book for publication, and is urging the public not to support the book by buying it.<br/>Danby represents the federal seat of Melbourne Ports/Israel, and is vehemently opposed to any views which are contrary to the zionist line in Australia.<br/>Danby believes that the number of Jews in Australia who agree with Antony's anti-zionist stand would only fill a telephone booth, so why is he so afraid of having such a book published?<br/>This is censorship on a scale that has not been seen in Australia since pre-1975 and reminds me of the terrible days in apartheid South Africa pre-1994, when as much as possible was censored, politically and "racially" and this is creeping in to Australia at this moment.<br/>Danby's presence in the federal parliament will come to an end in the next few years, and hopefully the Loewenstein book will be around to remind people that there are allowed to be alternative views to the accepted zionist line pushed as representing all Australian Jews. Danby has called for Melbourne University Publishing (MUP) not to publish Antony’s forthcoming book.
Danby has criticised Louise Adler of MUP for accepting the book for publication, and is urging the public not to support the book by buying it.
Danby represents the federal seat of Melbourne Ports/Israel, and is vehemently opposed to any views which are contrary to the zionist line in Australia.
Danby believes that the number of Jews in Australia who agree with Antony’s anti-zionist stand would only fill a telephone booth, so why is he so afraid of having such a book published?
This is censorship on a scale that has not been seen in Australia since pre-1975 and reminds me of the terrible days in apartheid South Africa pre-1994, when as much as possible was censored, politically and “racially” and this is creeping in to Australia at this moment.
Danby’s presence in the federal parliament will come to an end in the next few years, and hopefully the Loewenstein book will be around to remind people that there are allowed to be alternative views to the accepted zionist line pushed as representing all Australian Jews.

]]> By: David Heidelberg http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269137 David Heidelberg Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:47:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269137 Give it a rest James. Danby made explicit statements to MUP in an attempt to stop the publication of Antony’s book.<br/><br/>By any definition this is not exercising free speech, its exerting political pressure to squash free speech. Give it a rest James. Danby made explicit statements to MUP in an attempt to stop the publication of Antony’s book.

By any definition this is not exercising free speech, its exerting political pressure to squash free speech.

]]> By: psydoc http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269129 psydoc Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:22:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269129 orang: the modern equivalent is dhimmitude. Agreed its a different kind of "yassuh boss", but the boss still understands. orang: the modern equivalent is dhimmitude. Agreed its a different kind of “yassuh boss”, but the boss still understands.

]]> By: orang http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269128 orang Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:10:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269128 " ....Does this not strike you as an Uncle Tom type proposition?"<br/><br/>Uncle Tom sort of infers that Ant. does what he does to ingratiate himself to the white boys. I don't see too much of "Yassuh boss" in his writing. <br/><br/>No, what you mean't I think is, "token Nigger". <br/>They needed a jew so put him in. But a jew who won't necessarily represent the jews. (at least the ones who think zionism is A-OK) ” ….Does this not strike you as an Uncle Tom type proposition?”

Uncle Tom sort of infers that Ant. does what he does to ingratiate himself to the white boys. I don’t see too much of “Yassuh boss” in his writing.

No, what you mean’t I think is, “token Nigger”.
They needed a jew so put him in. But a jew who won’t necessarily represent the jews. (at least the ones who think zionism is A-OK)

]]> By: Progressive Atheist http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269127 Progressive Atheist Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:07:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269127 In the 70s, I was a participant in a workshop in which such a roleplay took place. One person took the role of Israel and the other person took the role of Palestine. Then they swapped places. Both participants said they had a much better appreciation of the politics involved.<br/><br/>I was impressed with the educational power that this roleplay had, and I came away convinced that such simulation games would be an effective tool in the political peace process.<br/><br/>I can understand why the Zionist lobby would object to such roleplays - they are effective means of psychological transformation. As evidenced by the many comments on this board, Zionists do not like to put themselves in the shoes of others (in psychological terms, it's called <i>empathy</i>), but this is precisely the way that peace comes about.<br/><br/>Lets hope someone goes ahead with these roleplays, despite the objections of the Zionists.<br/><br/>Well done, Antony, on your appointment. Perhaps you can be instrumental in introducing role plays and simulations into peace studies in NSW high schools. In the 70s, I was a participant in a workshop in which such a roleplay took place. One person took the role of Israel and the other person took the role of Palestine. Then they swapped places. Both participants said they had a much better appreciation of the politics involved.

I was impressed with the educational power that this roleplay had, and I came away convinced that such simulation games would be an effective tool in the political peace process.

I can understand why the Zionist lobby would object to such roleplays - they are effective means of psychological transformation. As evidenced by the many comments on this board, Zionists do not like to put themselves in the shoes of others (in psychological terms, it’s called empathy), but this is precisely the way that peace comes about.

Lets hope someone goes ahead with these roleplays, despite the objections of the Zionists.

Well done, Antony, on your appointment. Perhaps you can be instrumental in introducing role plays and simulations into peace studies in NSW high schools.

]]> By: James Waterton http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269124 James Waterton Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:38:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/01/29/convincing-the-non-believers/#comment-269124 Oh dear, the old "Danby was trying to censor me!" chestnut rears its ugly head again. <br/><br/>You criticise others, it's exercising your free speech. Others criticise you, it's "quash[ing] dissent". <br/><br/>You're about as consistent as an oil and water cocktail, Antony. Oh dear, the old “Danby was trying to censor me!” chestnut rears its ugly head again.

You criticise others, it’s exercising your free speech. Others criticise you, it’s “quash[ing] dissent”.

You’re about as consistent as an oil and water cocktail, Antony.

]]>