Incitement is a key buzz word that is employed to halt any robust discussion and it indicts, especially, the nationalist camp, religious or secular.
Even the President of the Supreme Court employs the language:
"This is a campaign of delegitimization led by a number of politicians, Knesset members and even cabinet ministers, who exploit their [parliamentary] immunity and give the general public false and misleading information that has deteriorated into incitement against the court, the justices and the judiciary's work," she said.
President Shimon Peres used it a month ago:
During an official memorial ceremony Tuesday night at the President's Residence, Peres honored Rabin and reflected on their relationship.
"We will never forget your walking down the road of hate and incitement, along a landscape of violence and provocation. You did not panic. You did not retreat. You did not stop your march," Peres said.
Haaretz's Akiva Eldar used it in a call to American Jewish leaders to intervene in Israel's democracy:
For several long months, the (mostly self-appointed ) "leaders" in the U.S. community have ignored the unbridled incitement launched by Israel against human rights organizations, the Supreme Court and the media.
Charges have recently been brought:
A-G orders incitement probe into Safed rabbi
Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein decided on Tuesday to open a criminal investigation against Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, chief rabbi of Safed, on suspicion of incitement to racism.
The investigation will be based on a number of statements Eliyahu made in reference to the Israeli-Arab community which were publicized by the media.
So, should we not try to ascertain what "incitement" is in a democracy other than Israel?
This is what is incitement in America:
State v. Turner, 2011 WL 4424754 (Conn. Super. September 6, 2011)
A Connecticut state court held that prosecuting a blogger for posting content online encouraging others to use violence did not violate the blogger’s First Amendment right to free speech.
Defendant was charged under a Connecticut statute prohibiting individuals from “inciting injury to persons or property.” Angry about a bill in the state General Assembly that would have removed financial oversight of Catholic parishes from priests and bishops, defendant posted the following statements to his blog:
•[T]he Founding Fathers gave us the tools necessary to resolve [this] tyranny: The Second Amendment
•[My organization] advocates Catholics in Connecticut take up arms and put down this tyranny by force. To that end, THIS WEDNESDAY NIGHT ON [my radio show], we will be releasing the home addresses of the Senator and Assemblyman who introduced bill 1098 as well as the home address of [a state ethics officer].
•These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die.
•If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they’re going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too
Defendant challenged the application of the state statute as unconstitutional. The court disagreed, finding there to be “little dispute that the defendant’s message explicitly advocate[ed] using violence.” Moreover, the court found the threatened violence to be “imminent and likely.” The blog content said that the home address of the legislators and government officials would be released the following day.
Though the court did not find that a substantial number of persons would actually take up arms, it did note, in a nod to 9/11, “the devastation that religious fanaticism can produce in this country.” As such, there was a sufficient basis to say that defendant’s vitriolic language had a substantial capacity to propel action to kill or injure a person.
Mrs. Beinisch, learn to use words judiciously.
For the law's sake, for Israel's democracy sake.
^
Posts
