Put The Gloves On - The Hamas Charter slugs it out with the U.S. Constitution.

Are universities and their human rights crowd going all medieval on us?

Oct 02, 2024

If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers. The button below takes you to that story if you like.

Link to that story

Please subscribe and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $5 per month and less than $USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!” I get it. I don’t subscribe to many here because I can’t afford it.

But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.

____________________________________________________________________

Judging by the “Intifada now!” and street behaviour of many in the West, not to mention their keyboard warrior colleagues, it is clear that wittingly or unwittingly, implicitly or explicitly, many support Hamas, especially the Irish.

The enemy of their enemy is their friend, and that has put them up against Israel and America. They share a common cause with Hamas and the Palestinian people. But many, though, pretend to rest comfortably in ideological purgatory, self-deceived into thinking they can hold contradictory positions.

They believe they can be pro-Palestinian but not pro-Hamas - though Gazans and West Bankers consistently are open to pollsters that they do support Hamas, they celebrate Oct 7, and they have no desire to live in peace next to Jews. They want the Jews dead or gone, hopefully both.

But useful Western idiots, to use Lenin’s well-known phrasing, continue to fantasize that they can hold to Western ideals while offering passive support to a group that at its core hates the West, is opposed to post-enlightenment values and whose ideal state is incompatible with any Western Liberal democracy.

Many would still claim they are limber and flexible enough for the most extreme of moral contortions and stay in both the Hamas/Palestinian camp while still holding onto the foundational beliefs of Western democracy. But is this possible?

Is it not like telling yourself you can put your heel on your head, even though you have never tried it, because you know it will simply bring injury?

Perhaps an experiment is in order? What if we compared the US Constitution with the Hamas Charter? We would not pick sides; we would just see where they stand on the freedoms we cherish and determine who stands at the end.

Let’s have them slug it out.

Round One

Freedom of speech. The Hamas Covenant is not a fan of what we, in the post-Enlightenment West, might call “open dialogue.”

Its definition of freedom of speech could be more accurately summed up as the “freedom to agree with us, or else or the freedom to fly as you involuntarily depart a rooftop.”

The Hamas Charter supports Jihad and says opposing views aren’t welcome. Disagreeing with their narrative isn’t just rude; it’s portrayed as downright blasphemous. Give Hamas some respect for being honest; in many ways, such is preferable to the university professors and students who deceitfully bleat on about being against Israel but loving Jews, even though their sneers, words and body language say otherwise.

Hamas is clear: they want a theocracy, an Islamic world run by Koranic principles.

Contrast this with the U.S. Constitution, which essentially tells its citizens, “Speak your mind, disagree with the government, start a protest if you want. It’s all good!”

The First Amendment rolls out the red carpet for dissent.

Unlike the Hamas Covenant, which equates speech with ideological purity, the U.S. Constitution invites criticism, “You want to criticise the President? Do you think Congress is made up of self-serving clapping seals?

Shout it from the rooftops!” While you’re at it, publish it and maybe run for office.

You can even print pamphlets calling the government names; no one will smite you with divine wrath.

Round Two

But what about feminism? The Hamas Charter positions women as mothers and caregivers whose noble purpose in life is to raise fighters. But the same people who would rage if they thought we were coming close to the Hand Maiden’s tale seem to lose the moral measuring tape when they examine Hamas—usually spouting nonsense cliches that underneath “everyone is the same.”

But “they,” though, may want to kill us if we don’t want to be three steps behind, pay the inferiority Jizya tax and make sure that we don’t build higher than their mosques.

I’ve met a few soccer mums in Canada on the sidelines or at church picnics but never met one who said it was their dream to have their children fight and die for their religion and hopefully kill a few Jews on their way to their departure gate.

It just doesn’t seem to be a Western thing.

The Hamas charter says that the woman’s job is to instil moral values, presumably while the men are out engaging in Jihad. It's not a progressive take on gender roles. Forget about women having careers or personal aspirations outside the home. To Hamas, it’s as though the most fulfilling life for a woman is to ensure her children are prepped for battle and her husband is ready for martyrdom. This isn’t taking women back to the 1950s - perhaps the 1450s.

And how does the U.S. Constitution weigh in on women’s rights? It doesn’t explicitly mention women because women weren't in the political limelight at its writing. However, the Constitution’s structure allowed for change. Over time, this same Constitution that didn’t originally even let women vote became the tool through which women gained the right to vote, work, and enjoy equal protection under the law. So, while the U.S. system was slow to the feminist party, it eventually showed up, somewhat sheepishly but ready to dance.

Round Three

Freedom of religion. You might want to read the fine print if you thought Hamas was open to interfaith dialogue. According to the Hamas Charter, Islam is not just a faith; it’s the entire way of life—anything outside of it is suspect. It’s hard not to get the impression that Hamas would be quite happy if every other religion just sort of… disappeared. Coexistence is only possible, we are told, under the “wing of Islam,” which sounds more like “get in line or get out” than a recipe for peaceful pluralism.

Even today, twelve countries have the death penalty for those who would leave Islam. You will find their representatives at the UN leading committees on human rights or hectoring Western countries, and they will probably be laughing at Justin Trudeau. At the same time, Trudeau will be showing off his socks and tells them that he thinks Canada is a genocidal country.

It is not anti-racist to deny reality; it is not virtuous to hold to the bizarre notion that all cultures are automatically equally worthy of respect. It’s mindless.

Although humans share many basic desires and hopes, we are not all the same.

Contrary social cultures condition and create persons with values and beliefs utterly opposed to ours.

Contrast this with the U.S. Constitution’s stance on religion. Here, we find the government taking a hands-off approach. The First Amendment doesn’t care whether you worship one god, twenty gods, or a divine golden guinea pig born in Vulcan, AB.

Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you want, and the government can’t tell you otherwise. It’s a concept born from the Enlightenment, emphasising individual choice, rationality, and mutual respect. The U.S. Constitution is the friendly neighbourhood referee: “Believe what you want, just don’t hurt each other.?”

Round Four

The Enlightenment and the Post-Medieval University

Hamas’ Islamism and the post-Enlightenment call to reason are incompatible. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on individual rights, freedom of thought, and rational debate, is at odds with Islamism, which prioritises religious dogma and obedience. While the Enlightenment gave us principles like free speech and the separation of church and state, Islamism doubles down on theocratic governance, where dissent can be met with quite literal “divine” punishment.

Even though universities predate the Enlightenment by centuries, medieval universities, often religious institutions, were primarily concerned with theology and classical studies, grounded in tradition and authority.

However, during the Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries), the university was transformed by the movement’s emphasis on reason, individual thought, and empirical inquiry. Our modern universities are descendants of the second take on universities - not the medieval variety.

Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant, Locke, and Rousseau challenged dogmatic thinking and advocated for critical reasoning and scientific exploration. This intellectual shift redefined the university's role from where established knowledge was transmitted to a place where new knowledge could be created through research and debate. Universities became centres for scientific inquiry, critical thinking, and pursuing knowledge free from religious or political constraints.

We should try that again because it looks like many of our humanities departments, not to mention the Toronto District School Board, are going all medieval on us.

They are not teaching; they are preaching.

Rational inquiry in the Enlightenment was about questioning authority and exploring new ideas—dangerous pursuits under Hamas’ Islamism, where questioning sacred texts is not encouraged.

Islamism’s approach leans more toward “let’s follow the script.” The universal application of reason and the pursuit of knowledge that Enlightenment thinkers championed is limited in Islamism by what is permissible under religious law.

So, does Hamas’ Islamism fit with the Enlightenment? Not so much. While the Enlightenment sought to liberate human thought from dogma, the Charter seeks to contain it within divine boundaries, and we all know how much reason loves boundaries.

It’s strange how the formation of the modern university is closely tied to the ideals of the Enlightenment. Yet, so many in the university are sympathetic to Hamas, whose Islamism is utterly incompatible with the intellectual foundation of the university.

It’s like the president of the Temperance League leading the charge on a Thursday to a $5 pitcher happy hour at the local drink and barf watering hole. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t make sense.

And much of the way woke dogma is taught, or more often preached, harkens back to the medieval university or Hamas's dreams of modern society.

It looks like our universities are going all Benjamin Button.

I’m not the first person to point out that many on the left now not only do not want their ideas exposed to criticism, they think it ought to be criminal to criticize them. Our NDP party in Canada wants to criminalize the promotion of fossil fuels, and our Liberal party want to crack down on speech, where disinformation becomes misinformation, where hurt feelings become a criminal benchmark.

Reason acknowledges subjectivity, but our modern human rights crowd believes in their divine enlightenment (in a pre-enlightenment way) that grants them the ability to parse intentions, to discern irrational emotion from harassment, to gaze into the human heart and separate hate from just having a bad day and spouting off a bit.

Not to bring me into this, but for over ten months, I have been suspended, lost thousands, been defamed, been threatened and why? Because someone who has publicly said he stands with Hamas and the Houthis and who stands for the eradication of Israel had his feelings hurt (he is allowed to proclaim the previous publicly; remember, Jews are allowed to be punching bags), and he has university executives standing by his side, united in hatred.

But his hate speech isn’t called out because his friends in the human rights lounge have decided that if one has enough melanin they are allowed to post maps with Israel gone, in flames - though of course that is classic incitement to violence - hate speech - and the human rights department and friends in the executive suite have further granted him an open licence to defame and attack someone that he doesn’t even have the courage to face person to person, you know that weird old fashioned non digital communication?

I was called a liar, a danger to children, violent, and threatening, and it was suggested that I be banished from the university classroom because I said that if you stood with Hamas, you stood with Nazis.

History and truth be damned, you hurt his feelings, and we have the authority (in the old-fashioned way where the pharaohs made law by the act of words leaving their lips) to take you out.

Our modern university is going a little medieval, isn’t it?

Remember those medieval universities - grounded in authority and tradition?

And the U.S. Constitution?

It’s better than anything we have in Canada. It’s like the greatest hits album of the Enlightenment. It’s all about checks and balances, protecting individual freedoms, and encouraging an informed citizenry. The Constitution claims that people can govern themselves through reason and discourse.

Post-Enlightenment values shaped the foundation of the Constitution: governance through laws, not through divine mandates or the whims of a religious elite. It respects individual autonomy and creates a space where people can chart their courses—whether in speech, religion, or pursuit of happiness.

Round Five

So, to wrap up, let’s compare the two. And perhaps some might then pick a winner.

Hamas has a narrow definition of freedom of speech (i.e., none if you disagree), a patriarchal view of women’s roles, and a freedom of religion that works best if you aren’t particularly fond of living.

On the other hand, the U.S. Constitution is the scrappy underdog that came through for everyone after the Enlightenment, proclaiming that people should be able to speak freely, practice whatever religion they choose, and have equal rights—yes, even women.

So, if you want to be pro-Hamas, you can’t somehow say you stand with them but not support their charter.

There isn’t much middle ground between contradictory positions. However, when people have limited cognition, there is also no worry about cognitive dissonance.

To believe that there is a no man’s land where self-contradiction is a viable position or where ignorance, lack of self-examination, lack of critical thinking and good intentions can combine to allow one to be Pro-Hamas but still believe in the Constitution and its values? It's not allowed; you have to pick a side.

To try and call it a draw when the Hamas Charter is bloodied, down and barely breathing is not enlightenment; it is stupidity and is moral flat earthism.

But quite a few, especially on campus, seem to be falling off the edge of the rational world. And most of them are still afraid to wear gloves and think that bragging about their pugilistic prowess is the same as stepping into the ring.

Israel Trip $2 baby steps