The fraying of freedom in New Mexico
Freedoms are fraying.
Current examples include book-banning, Otero County Commission’s citizen censorship, and a New Mexico order limiting free speech.
Nationally, book-banning is on the rise. As in a recent local example, it’s mostly a small conservative group. It’s not someone reading a book and getting disgusted or offended. Partially sparked by “copycat” bans, book bans are up 33% this year, mostly censoring discussions of race, sex, and gender identity. It’s even struck fine literature like Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye?
The Otero County Commission, during Couy Griffin’s tenure, was Trump Country. In public input, some crazy guy said the 2020 election wasn’t stolen. The sheriff hustled him roughly out of the chambers. Matthew Crecelius wasn’t just any citizen. He was a veteran, an ex-MP. He had also objected to the banning of library books. The ACLU helped him win a $45,000 apology in court recently.
Meanwhile, Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham, likely with good intentions, issued Executive Order 2022-118, adopting as state law an overly broad definition of antisemitism that will chill free speech.
For years, Israeli lobbyists have been pushing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of antisemitism, in what a panel of scholars called, “a movement seeking to redefine and curtail global conversations through the misappropriation and mobilization of legitimate concerns.” Bigotry is a legitimate concern, but the misleading definition can be used as a weapon against legitimate political dialogue.
Therefore been dozens of attempts to sell governments, universities, and major organizations on the definition. Assessing it, a team concluded, “The IHRA definition is fundamentally unsuitable for adoption” and recommended rejecting it because it didn’t “reflect the historical phenomena of antisemitism fully, didn’t “reflect the current realities of antisemitism,” and “has been, and could continue to be, used to suppress freedom of speech.”
For example, the definition forbids “Calling Israel a ‘racist endeavor.’” Whatever Zionists originally wanted, even many Jews call Israel an apartheid state now. Palestinians mostly can only be second-class citizens. Israel may say that’s necessary for security; but South Africa retained apartheid partially for security, lest Blacks, given more rights and freedom, might butcher Whites.
I find “Comparing Israel to the Nazis” both tasteless and inaccurate, but if I had family in Gaza, why couldn’t I compare Israel’s slaughters to Nazi slaughters? A major Israeli general has done so, publicly. Is he antisemitic?
I would distinguish what Israel’s is doing in Gaza from “genocide.” But others disagree. How many tens of thousands of civilian deaths would make that a legitimate question? No amount, says our guv.
Hating who I am differs fundamentally from hating what I do. Anti-Antisemitism traditionally, means punishing or mistreating people simply because they’re Jewish. Further, we mustn’t hold any Jew or Palestinian here responsible for misconduct there.
A New York Congressman has urged Congress to enact this restrictive standard. He has the chutzpah to shout that it’s completely unrelated to free speech! It’s not a free-speech issue because it could lead to people getting harmed. But Gazans are people, too.
We’d let a Tutsi or Armenian accuse Hutus or Turks of attempting genocide. No nationality should have some special privilege against having its bad conduct called out by others, particularly victims. Let public opinion or courts figure out the truth. New Mexico law should not outlaw the debate!
Governor, please don’t let free speech get chopped up by a definition, accepted by you with good intentions, that was designed as a weapon.
This article originally appeared on Las Cruces Sun-News: The fraying of freedom in New Mexico
