On the Greg Felton Speech at the Vancouver Public Library

26Feb08

I got thrown out. I got thrown out of the Library - a first for me.

Here’s the background: fervent anti-”Zionist” (wink wink, nudge nudge) Greg Felton gave a speech tonight at the invitation of the Vancouver Public Library. I’ve written about that here.

My plan before the speech was to crash the party with cameras. I arrived to find that cameras were banned. I spoke to a large woman, a library staffer, who told me that this was standard procedure. I saw Irshad Manji in the very same room so I know that’s a lie. When I confronted her with this she told me that it was done at the author’s request.

So that’s how it started. There were a lot of security and they were needed. There were about 70 people present for the talk - in a room that holds nearly 200. 60% were against Felton, and 40% were supporters. There was a clear socioeconomic breakdown in the room that matched the breakdown of supporters and opponents.

The City Librarian, Paul Whitney, gave a brief introduction talking about the controversy and identifying the opponents of the talk as Jewish. He said that the majority of the letters he received opposing the talk came from Jews, which raises the questions: what does a Jewish letter look like? how did he sort the Jewish letters from the gentille letters? Why did he sort the letters this way?

Felton came on and gave the bigoted anti-Israel boiler plate. The man squirmed and shook the podium as he spoke in a voice that didn’t rise much above ‘halting’ except when he spoke the word ‘Zionist’. People from the audience laughed and shouted at him during most of his speech. I chimed in from time to time.

During the speech Felton said something which I think qualifies as hate speech. he said:

The USA and Canada are under Zionist occupation (aka Z.O.G.)
This occupation aids and abets murder and torture overseas
Dual citizens support this occupation
“dual citizenship raises issues of loyalty and treason”

The latter is the identifiable group - dual citizens. The former are why his statement is a real threat and real hate speech. I don’t intend to file a human rights charge against him as I don’t believe in the system - but I do expect the Library to be accountable for giving him space to break the law. I will be writing them tomorrow to demand answers and to find out what action they are taking against Felton (at the very least I’d imagine they’d ban him from coming back).

At the end of the talk, he broke for questions. My question was this:

Me: “Mr. Felton, I don’t really care about Z.O.G. so I won’t need you. But Mr. Whitney, I do need you. You’re a public servant. I live in this city, I’m a tax-payer and I pay a very small portion of your salary so I think I deserve an answer to this - Mr. Whitney, what have you accomplished here?”

Felton: “An open debate…”

Me: “I wasn’t talking to you.”

Whitney: “Yes, ‘an open debate’. ..”

I thought it lovely that Whitney chose to quote Felton in defence of his own actions.

After the questions everything totally broke down as Felton tried to sell his book - something Whitney promised would not happen. Half the crowd shouted at each other over that, the other half argued with a screaming bearded guy at the back of the room.

During the ruckus I tried taking some pictures, but the camera wouldn’t work. I did get a picture when I got out of the lecture hall - a picture of a sign saying ‘no pictures’. Which is when I exchanged words with a security guard and got thrown out.

Felton on the other hand remained inside selling his book, flanked by Library security and Paul Whitney.

See the Covenant Zone blog for more on this

NowPublic

Filed under: News |
Tags: Canada, free speech, Politics

25 Responses to “On the Greg Felton Speech at the Vancouver Public Library”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Blazingcatfur on February 26, 2008 said:

Maybe the Gentile letters weren’t circumcised.
2 McMicah on February 27, 2008 said:

I also used to automatically equate “Zionist” with “Jew” until someone pointed out to me that Christian Crusaders could be called Zionists, too: Motivated by Jewish scriptures (and the New Testament Book of Revelations) to retrieve the “Holy Land” from heathen Muslims, they celebrated successes as proof of their “divine right.” Then I began to notice something strange: The term “Zionist” is most often racialized (i.e. falsely equivocated with “Jew”) by two groups; (1) those who blame everything on “the Jews,” like neo-Nazi, fake “Christian” white supremacists and (2) those who portray Jews only as victims and attack critics of Israeli actions as “Jew haters,” like the Anti-Defamation League. (Your “wink wink, nudge nudge” interjection does this, too.) The false and polarizing use of the term Zionist has made it very difficult for anyone to calmly discuss the origins, ideology, proponents and opponents, history and impacts of a very real, important and complicated movement, called “zionism.” Did Felton not offer any clarification, or definition of the term Zionist during his presentation? Please clarify. Also, did audience members laugh when Felton used the term “Zionists” because they don’t believe Zionism exists, or because they disagreed with his definition? What was your impression?
3 truepeers on February 27, 2008 said:

I enjoyed your question and response to Whitney; if i hadn’t written my post late at night…
4 truepeers on February 27, 2008 said:

McMicah, what Felton did was give a classic, if crude, conspiracy narrative focussed on an enemy within (who has undermined the American Constitution and now pulls the strings of government from behind the scenes) an enemy with dual (or completely treasonous) loyalties. In other words, what he did was take a standard form of antisemitism. Just because he substituted the word “Zionist” for “Jew”, we should consider this a legitimate criticism of Israel? Come on. He made no serious argument about or engagement with any empirical reality of Israel of America.

What he did, most simply, was call American Zionists, in effect, “dirty Jews” which is what one used to call the enemy within, though he would never use such a give away terminology today. And that is why so many of us don’t buy the b.s. about anti-Zionism not being antisemitism. It’s not because we don’t appreciate that one can have legitimate criticisms of Israel; it’s that 90+% of the criticisms of Israel that we read and hear effectively takes the form of calling Zionists dirty Jews. It’s crude, conspiratorial, hatred that differs little from classic (19-20thC.) antisemitism.

Felton did not attempt a definition of Zionism, other than to make a pro forma distinction between Zionists and Jews. We laughed at him because his critique of the Zionist lobby was a parody of classic antisemitism, just without the self-knowledge a parodist should have.
5 brie on February 27, 2008 said:

Hello Robert…

Cathy’s friend Brie here. Just thought I would let you know that the URL to this post came through on the listserv for my “Intellectual Freedom” class at library school.

Also, as a library staff member I can explain the photography thing a little bit. There actually is a policy stating that photography and filming are not permitted at the library branches without prior permission (I think there is a form to fill out). However, I’ve never heard of it being applied to events—only in cases when people take pictures of the library collection, staff, etc. So there was some truth in that…but in this case I don’t see why photos wouldn’t be allowed, especially if they let him sell his book.
6 free speech forever on February 27, 2008 said:

A wiser man than me once said, “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” The library was absolutely right to let Felton speak. It ain’t free speech if you agree with it.

His comments are now out in the public domain where they can be freely challenged. If he was not allowed to speak, the viewpoints of Felton and his ilk would not simply go away. They would go underground where they can’t be challenged by rational argument.
7 Robert Jago on February 27, 2008 said:

It’s not about silencing him - I don’t claim that I or anyone else has a right to do that. But I don’t think the library has the obligation to give him free space and free security. I think they ought to ban him from any other free events, and the person who booked him should be reprimanded for not doing their research.

The library also needs to be held accountable for the speakers they grant this free space too - left-wing anti-Israeli speakers have come three times in a row - while opposing views are largely shut out.

You know, I’ve tried to rent that very space for a seminar I had to give on work permits or something, but ended up doing it elsewhere, because it was too expensive. It would have cost me close to $1000 to have that space - but this guy gets it [+ promotion] gratis.

This is as much about free spech as the Maclean’s HRC complaint. That’s the one where a group is demanding free space in Maclean’s for a rebuttal of Mark Steyn. Space there would cost probably ten thousand dollars for anyone else, but they demand it free in the name of “free speech”. It’s not free speech, but an expensive gift they are demanding from Maclean’s in the one case, and from taxpayers in the other.
8 Greg Ffelton on February 27, 2008 said:

I remember you. You had nothing to say yet kept on talking. I suppose I should thank cowards and hypoctites like you for publicizing my talk, since traffic to my wesbite has jumped markedly.

When it goes up on YouTube it will doubtless receive a very wide audience.

What you call “hate speech” is simply informed opinion, unlike the anti-Muslim bigotry that masquerades as official commentary. Never once did you or any of the zionist rabble offer any intelligent refutation of my comments, much less betray any ability to comprehend them.

The sheer vacuity of your question, and your obvious fear of honest debate about the zionist influence in North America, did more to enhance my argument than anything Paul Whitney could have said.
9 Robert Jago on February 27, 2008 said:

So do you confirm my account of what you said about dual citizens at the speech and would you repeat that here?
10 jaime on February 27, 2008 said:

The library people abused their authority and the public’s good will by hosting this phoney baloney wind bag..

But you knew that already. In any case, Felton now has another fiasco to proudly add to his resume.

I know, I know..he’s been thrown out of better places than this…
11 The Atheist Jew on February 28, 2008 said:

Greg Felton, your “informed opinion” is nothing more than assmonkey rhetoric. Have a banana.
12 George on February 28, 2008 said:

Felton only had 30 minutes to give a synopsis of his 500 page book so it is not surprising that he only hit the high points of this thesis and had to leave out many details and explanations to his text (hence the lack of a definition of “Zionist” — if you have to ask you should have done your homework before coming to the talk).

The talk was not anti-semitic, but those who tend to support Israel right-or-wrong like to hurl that epithet rather than engage on the facts.

Indeed, when the facts are not there, those opposed to Felton simply make them up — quoted from elsewhere on this page: “What he did, most simply, was call American Zionists, in effect, ‘dirty Jews’”. Of course Felton said no such thing.

I was not planning to buy his book but when his opponents starting screaming at him and the City Librarian when Felton said he would be selling copies (quite standard at other readings I’ve attended at the Library), I decided to buy it to find out what was provoking such blind rage.

I’ve only had a chance to read the first couple of chapters but it appears to be thoroughly researched, rational, and well written. Nothing so far is anti-semitic. While not as scholarly as Mearsheimer and Walt (The Israel Lobby), it is an easier read and covers sufficiently different ground to make it a worthwhile companion read to M&W.

It was brave of the library to host the event and equally interesting to observe the response on both sides.
13 The Atheist Jew on February 28, 2008 said:

Hey George, what is your definition of Zionist? Be specific.
14 The Atheist Jew on February 28, 2008 said:

I also wonder what on earth would hold back someone from buying this imbeciles book if they already were inclined to buy The Israel Lobby.
I can smell something foul here, George.

But back to my question. Let me clarify it. I ask because I usually don’t get an answer. It is me playing “Stump The Anti-Semite”

Usually I get silence, but I also get answers having to do with perceived affects of Zionism. I can’t remember getting a direct answer though.
15 truepeers on February 28, 2008 said:

Indeed, when the facts are not there, those opposed to Felton simply make them up — quoted from elsewhere on this page: “What he did, most simply, was call American Zionists, in effect, ‘dirty Jews’”. Of course Felton said no such thing.

George, the words “in effect” refer to the fact that Felton did not literally say “dirty Jews” but that his talk implied such a figure. I think that is really beyond argument. If you were there, what do you think he was talking about in building up that conspiracy narrative about “Zionist” “traitors” with “dual loyalties?” I mean, did he actually prove the point by actually exposing one person, let alone a serious conspiracy, in the light of hard evidence about treasonous thoughts or conducts? No, of course not. He just imagined it all, to appeal to the resentful in the audience. Are you familiar with the history of Judeophobia? If you are, you should know that this stuff is old hat. That’s it been around since before Zionism. Lacking a means to explain how history actually works, the conspiracy theorist points to the easily imagined enemy within. Such scapegoating of the Jew is easy to do, especially when you don’t have to engage in any serious discussion of facts. You wasted your money; I could have shown you how to play this game for half the price and a hundredth of the time.
16 Greg Felton on March 1, 2008 said:

Mr Jago:

You are a typical of the zionist who defends the right to free speech as lonng as it does not offend Israel. Those who do are subjected to defamation and misrepresentation. You deliberately misrepresent my factual comments about the dual-loyalty zionists to make me appear anti-Jewish, whenn in fact that staement is based in fact and Jewish perspectives.

You are a coward and a thug, and there is nothing you can do to stop me from writing and speaking.

Greg Felton
17 A NonJew on March 1, 2008 said:

What’s most interesting to me about all of this isn’t Greg Felton - he’s a racist and a buffoon and is seen as such by most people who aren’t hoping (secretly or otherwise) for the eradication of Israel and the final and complete extermination of the Jews and the ushering in of an era of “complete peace and freedom”. No, it’s the support Felton received from Paul Whitney. Whitney’s remarks that it was mostly Jews who objected to the invitation to Felton exactly echo a statement on a CBC media show a few years back made by Tony Burman,then head of CBC news. In response to a comment about apparent CBC bias against Israel, Burman noted that it was mostly Jews who thought the CBC was biased against Israel. Upon hearing this, I had the same reaction as Robert Jago had to Whitney’s remarks: how did Burman know that it was “only” mostly Jews who saw anti-Israel bias at the CBC? Was there a mandatory box next to a comments window on the CBC feedback web page that asked for the commentator’s religion? Also remarkable was that fact that Burman’s statement went unopposed on the program, although given the near unanimous loyalty (read fear) Burman received at the CBC, this probably shouldn’t be that surprising. But even if it is mostly Jews that oppose anti-Israeli bias, so what? Don’t their views count? Or do the views of Jews only count when they oppose Israel and are therefore trumped up as shining examples of enlightenment by such vanguards of the left as Whitney and Burman, or such supporters of the new holocaust as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah?
18 George on March 1, 2008 said:

To the Atheist Jew:

(a) What’s your point wrt the definition of Zionist? Look it up on Wikipedia.

(b) “I can smell something foul here, George.” How perceptive! What you smell is the undeniable odour of someone who can tell the difference between attacks on Jews (because they are Jews) and attacks on Jews (because they support the illegal and inhumane policies and actions of the Government of Israel). There is a difference but those who try to suppress debate of such policies and actions use the false charge of anti-semitism to try to silence the critics of those policies. Fortunately there are some who are not cowed by such transparent attempts to silence them.
19 Robert Jago on March 2, 2008 said:

Felton - I pre-emptively answered the free speech thing a while back: http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/hate-speech/

My question to you was essentially this - are you saying that my account of what you said is false?
20 Chomsky Reader on March 8, 2008 said:

Just to clear up any confusion about America being controlled by Zionists, here are two excellent documentary films just on that subject which can be viewed online for free:

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-6604775898578139565&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=4754&q=peace%2Band%2Bpropganda%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bpromised%2Bland&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6604775898578139565&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6604775898578139565%26q%3Dpeace%2Band%2Bpropganda%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bpromised%2Bland%26total%3D65%26start%3D0%26num%3D100%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H23_gY0OTzE0Iinl-f9fWNkcOYPSdg

‘The Israel lobby - The influence of AIPAC on US Foreign Policy’
http://video.google.com/url?docid=2894821400057137878&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=3072&q=The%2BIsrael%2Blobby&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D2894821400057137878&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D2894821400057137878%26q%3DThe%2BIsrael%2Blobby%26total%3D605%26start%3D0%26num%3D100%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21uOzmbruTrZ5sfGZt4a1BhsLeOAQ

I suggest you turn your vicious hatred towards ancient genocidal and racist religions rather than the voice of reason.

best!
Chomsky Reader
21 seriously on June 5, 2008 said:

Let’s not caught up in semantics.

The people who founded Israel and those that currently rule Israel, independent of their religious affiliation, are no friend to their fellow humans. The people that run Israel are thugs, murderers, criminals; essentially racist, violent oppressors to those who do not conform to their beliefs. You see, the funny thing is, that those in control of Israel are evil and self serving. Those that support Israel, independent of religious/cultural affiliation, support an ugly regime. This has nothing to do with religion. Certain people are oppressing other certain people. And they do so based on race. This makes them racist. So, those that rule Israel in an apartheid manner are racist, violent oppressors. This is the case no matter what their religion may or may not be. People oppressing other people is what is happeniing. Period.
22 seriously on June 5, 2008 said:

By the way, do not call me an anti-semite, for I am Ethiopian.
23 vildechaye on June 15, 2008 said:

I don’t know (or care) how he defines it in his book, felton throws around the term zionist incredibly loosely. I am guessing that anybody who even vaguely supports the existence of the state of israel (never mind its actions) or disagrees with Felton qualifies as a zionist. This is based on numerous exchanges with him.

To the Ethiopian: What are you still angry that a few thousand falashas were able to escape your homeland hellhole and make it to a first-world country with a Western legal system and a social safety net?

And do you really believe that the “thugs” who “run” israel (actually they’re elected and get tossed out on their butts regularly) are worse than Assad, Mubarak, Ahmadinejad, King Saud and all the other leaders of the surrounding Arab and muslim states. When did ANY of them ever face an electorate? They would terrified to even try…

So if i were you, i wouldn’t be too quick to back Felton up, he’s an ignorant — and extremely pompous — blowhard.