powerful
messages from Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe
WHAT REAL HATE SPEECH SOUNDS LIKE
WHAT HATH ROE WROUGHT
E-Mail from Mr. Jacoby
Read
more from Jeff jacoby at the Boston Globe
From the Chicago Tribune, Sunday, November 8, 1998
WHAT REAL HATE SPEECH SOUNDS LIKE
By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe.
Abortion-rights proponents were quick to link the cold-blooded murder of Barnett Slepian,
the New York abortion doctor, to "hate speech" from the abortion opponents'
mainstream. On the "CBS Evening News" last week, Dan Rather raised the charge
that "rhetoric from the anti-abortion movement is helping to incite this kind of
murderous violence." A New York Times editorial warned, "Frequent accusations by
some anti-abortionists that abortion providers are committing murder can only fuel more
terrorism."
This variety of guilt by association--blaming decent if passionate
abortion opponents for the awful crimes of a fanatic on the fringe--has become routine.
When John Salvi killed two abortion clinic employees in Brookline, Mass., on the last day
of 1994, the Planned Parenthood spokesman promptly censured the
"inflammatory rhetoric" of abortion opponents for having "fostered this
climate." The National Organization for Women declared, "The National Right to
Life Committee, the Pro-Life Action League and Operation Rescue . . . are responsible for
these shootings." Slepian himself vented the same outrageous accusation. "These
non-violent people who are clasping their rosaries," he said then, ". . . bear
some responsibility for the violence."
Nor is it only in the context of abortion that such charges are made. When
Matthew Shepard was beaten to death in Wyoming, the "homophobia" of anyone who
disapproves of homosexuality was blamed for the atrocity. The lynching of James Byrd in
Jasper, Texas, was the fault, in part, of "racism" from those who oppose racial
preferences. The terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City? That was laid
to "extremism" from conservative radio talk-show hosts.
It amounts to a kind of intellectual blackmail: Keep your opinions to
yourselves, the left threatens its critics, or we will condemn you and your "hate
speech" for encouraging homicide. (The bullying is almost always
one-way--conservatives did not indict environmentalists for the crimes of the Unabomber or
hold anti-war protesters liable for the murders of the Weather Underground.) But that is
not the worst of it. Those who play the hate-speech card as a way of demonizing people
they disagree with are not only poisoning public discourse, they are trivializing the
power of speech that truly is lethal.
This is a good month to reflect on the toxicity of words meant to kill.
Nov. 9 marks the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the 1938
"Night of Shattered Glass" unleashed by the Nazis to terrorize Germany's Jews.
The date was chosen specially by Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propagandist, to honor the
birthday of Martin Luther, the 16th Century monk who was a father of the Protestant
Reformation and the founder of what became the Lutheran church.
Hitler greatly admired Luther: "He saw the Jew as we are only
beginning to see him today." Indeed. Luther saw the Jew as "hopeless, wicked,
venomous, and devilish . . . our pest, torment and misfortune." Initially certain
that his version of Christianity would appeal to Jews, he expected large numbers of them
to convert. When that failed to happen, he turned violently against them. In 1543, Luther
published "On the Jews and Their Lies," a work that would become known
throughout Germany--perhaps the most widely disseminated work of antisemitism by a German
until the rise of the Nazis 400 years later.
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews?" Luther asked. "First, their synagogues should be set on fire,
and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt, so that no one
may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it....
"Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed.
. . .
"Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds,
in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught.
"Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more. . . .
"Fifthly, passports and traveling privileges should be absolutely
forbidden to the Jews. . . .
"Sixthly, I advise that . . . all cash and treasure of silver and
gold be taken from them. . . .
"Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier,
force them to work, and deal harshly with them. . . . If this does not help we must drive
them out like mad dogs, so we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and
all their other vices. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his."
That is hate speech.
Sixty years ago on Nov. 16, on the night of Luther's birthday, Nazi gangs
rampaged across Germany. In every Jewish neighborhood, windows were smashed and buildings
were torched. All told, 101 synagogues were destroyed, and nearly 7,500 Jewish-owned
business were demolished. On that night, 91 Jews were murdered; 26,000 more were rounded
up and sent to concentration camps. It was the greatest pogrom in history. And it was
nothing compared with what was to come.
Yes, words can kill. There is such a thing as deadly rhetoric, and its
effects can be long-lived and murderous. But one is not guilty of lethal hate speech
merely for voicing an opinion that Dan Rather or Planned Parenthood don't share. The
assassination of Dr. Slepian was bad enough. No one should be using his death as an excuse
to slander others.
----------
Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe.
His e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com
Read more from Jeff jacoby at the
Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/globe/columns/jacoby
WHAT HATH
ROE WROUGHT
By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe
January 20, 1998
In some ways it changed everything. Twenty-five years after the Supreme
Court decided Roe v. Wade, one-fourth of all healthy pregnancies in America end in
abortion. Since Jan. 22, 1973, abortion has been lawful at any stage of pregnancy for any
reason. And not just lawful -- by decree of the Supreme Court, abortion is
constitutionally protected. No legislature may impose more than trivial restrictions on
what was once regarded as a shocking and tragic practice: the deliberate destruction of
life in the womb.
Roe turned abortion into a national
institution. Roughly 1.5 million unborn American infants are aborted every year -- nearly
35 million since 1973. Usually the only thing that went wrong was the mother's judgment.
A generation has grown up in the knowledge that you can always get an
abortion if you want one, and would object fiercely if that freedom were threatened. When
pollsters ask whether the decisions about abortion should
be entrusted to a woman and her doctor (i.e., not to the state), a majority of respondents
consistently answers yes. When asked if they favor "a constitutional amendment to ban
abortions," the bulk of respondents always say no.
And yet in some ways, Roe changed
nothing. In most cases most of the time, most of us think abortion is wrong -- and have
all along. In a new monograph, "Public Opinion About Abortion," survey
researchers Everett Carll Ladd and Karlyn Bowman pull together years of polling data to
demonstrate the public's obstinate split personality: Americans don't want to ban abortion
outright -- but they don't like it, either.
Should a married woman, for example, be allowed to get an abortion because
she doesn't want any more children? The National Opinion Research Center has been polling
on that question for 25 years, and the results have scarcely budged: 57 percent said no in
1972, 51 percent said no in 1996. Should abortion be legal if the woman is unwed and
doesn't want to marry the father? 1972 results: 53 percent opposed. 1996 results: 53
percent opposed.
According to Gallup, which has
also tested the issue for decades, the proportion of Americans who think abortion should
always be legal is 22 percent (it was 21 in 1975), while those who say it should never be
legal amount to only 15 percent (down from 22.) But most Americans -- 61 percent today, up
from 54 percent in 1975 -- say abortion should be allowed "only under certain
circumstances."
Parental consent for minors? A 24-hour waiting period? Laws requiring
doctors to inform pregnant women of abortion alternatives? Mandatory notification of
husbands before wives can abort? Americans support them all -- overwhelmingly.
A generation under Roe may not have noticeably altered the
public'sself-contradicting attitudes on this subject. But easy abortion has certainly
altered American life.
For a start, it has corrupted romance and sexuality. In the ancient
times before Roe, the price of an unwanted pregnancy could be terrifyingly high. That gave
unmarried women a powerful incentive to be careful -- to reserve themselves for men whom
they knew to be worthy. Sometimes worthiness could be proven only by walking down a church
aisle; if not that, it often required at least courtship, love, and commitment.
But after Roe, an unwanted pregnancy became little more than a
nuisance. To undo it, you had only to call an abortionist. Why be careful? Why hold
back? There was no longer a need to wait for that aisle walk -- or even for commitment.
Women were "liberated." But it was men who were set free.
Getting a girl pregnant was no big deal: Give her $100, and let her get an abortion.
For men who wanted sex without strings, without having to make promises, without
having to go through the rituals of romance, Roe was a godsend. And if she has the baby?
Hey, that's her problem. She could have gotten an abortion.
"In the war between the sexes," the editors of National Review
write this week, "abortion tilts the playing field toward predatory males, giving
them another excuse for abandoning their offspring: She chose to carry the child; let her
pay for her choice. Our law now says, in effect, that fatherhood has no meaning, and we
are shocked that some men have learned that lesson too well."
And some women never learn. Repeat abortions are more than 40 percent of the
total.
The Roe regime has damaged the Democratic Party, by driving pro-lifers
from its table. It has damaged our politics, by enforcing a policy -- abortion-on-demand
-- that few Americans support. It has damaged liberalism, by making it the ally of those
who threaten the weakest "community" of all. But above all,
Roe has damaged women. As the abortion culture spread, so did unwed motherhood, domestic
violence, woman-hating music, and divorce. Why blame Roe? Because Roe degraded pregnancy,
changed it from an awesome event with grave consequences to a mere hassle, easily gotten
rid of. It called forth a vast industry whose single purpose is to nullify something
unique to women: the growth of life in the womb. In any culture that makes child-bearing
cheap, child-bearers will be treated cheaply, too.
Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, put it
succinctly 75 years ago: "Abortion," she said, "is the ultimate
exploitation of women."
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe. His e-mail address is
jacoby@globe.com).
Dear Mr. Bennett,
Thanks very much for your kind words. The reaction to that
column has
been strong and mixed -- I've gotten as many responses from people angry
about it as from people who appreciated it. Personally, I'm just grateful
they all read it.
I selected the Luther example because I wanted to make reference
to
the anniversary of Kristallnacht, and because it made the point perfectly
-- i.e., it showed the difference between *real* hate speech and mere
differences of opinion, and because it could be linked to a genuine
atrocity. Everything Luther called for doing to the Jews the Nazis ended
up doing.
Of course today's Lutherans should not be accused of sharing
Luther's
antisemitism. Some years ago, in the mid-'80s, I think -- the Lutheran
church in America formally repudiated Luther's remarks about the Jews.
I have no objection to your posting the column, as long as (a)
you put
it up unedited (I attach the complete text below), and (b) you include a
link to my page on the Boston Globe web site:
http://www.boston.com/globe/columns/jacoby
I also attach a column from earlier this year that you might find of
interest.
All best wishes,
Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Home
