Holocaust Survivor and Nobel Prize Winner Attacked in SF Hotel

[AtomicKitten]

Nobel prizewinner, author attacked at S.F. hotel
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/09/BAGC2O21IL4.DTL

Matthai Chakko Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 9, 2007

(02-09) 13:37 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Elie Wiesel, the renowned Holocaust author and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was attacked and dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator last week, possibly by a Holocaust denier who claims to have stalked Wiesel for weeks, police said.

Wiesel, 78, was at the Argent Hotel Feb. 1 for a conference on "Facing Violence: Justice, Religion and Conflict Resolution" when he was confronted in an elevator by a man insisting that he wanted to interview the author, according to San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Neville Gittens.

Wiesel said he would do so in the hotel lobby, but the man insisted on going to Wiesel's room. The man then stopped the elevator at the sixth floor and tried to force Wiesel into a room there.

"That's when the victim started yelling," Gittens said.

Wiesel escaped unharmed, made his way down to the lobby and called police.

A man calling himself Eric Hunt and claiming to be the attacker posted an account of the incident on a virulently anti-Semitic Web site called ZioPedia. The account, posted Tuesday, matches the description of the attack police later released.

Gittens said police were aware of the Web site and that there is a suspect being sought. However, he would not say whether the suspect is the person who posted the Web account.

In his posting, Hunt said his goal was for Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and author of more than 40 books, to renounce the Holocaust.

"I had planned to bring Wiesel to my hotel room, where he would truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his non-fiction Holocaust memoir, Night, is almost entirely fictitious," Hunt wrote on the site.

The site is registered to a Sydney, Australia, man who also writes on the site. A phone call and e-mail to the domain name owner were not returned.

[Lerkfish]

1. How disgusting.

[Bonobo]

2. Such a web-site should not be allowed to exist.

That is not protected speech and is as vile as kiddie-porn.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

[deadmessengers]

6. "Although I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Our first amendment rights were created EXACTLY for this reason - to protect speech that some might consider to be unpopular. That's the difference between repugnicans and us - we really do believe in freedom, including the freedom of speech.

[Bonobo]

8. Not in all cases and not in this case.

[deadmessengers]

9. Why?

Why should their free speech be banned? Is it because you personally find it offensive, or is there some other reason?

Think of it this way: do you think there are folks over on FreeRepublic who are offended every day by what we say, and would like to see us banned? I'd say that's a near certainty. I'd also guess that it's also a near certainty that if someone wanted to ban DU, you'd be pretty pissed off. Why, then, would our speech be more protectable than that of a Holocaust denier?

[Bonobo]

10. Others could argue the point better than I, but...

There are limitations in many countries on "Hate Speech"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

"Proponents of limitations on hate speech argue that repeated instances of hate speech do more than express ideas or expresses dissent; rather, hate speech often promotes and results in fear, intimidation and harassment of individuals, and may result in murder and even genocide of those it is targeted against. As such, historical revisionism is thought to be a form of propaganda which, deleting memory of real events, allows them to repeat themselves."

"n many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.
Some examples:
Holocaust denial is outlawed in seven European countries as a form of hate speech, while the Council of Europe has passed laws against any type of revisionism, defined as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity.
In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.
In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation." <1>
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Criminal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)
Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension.
Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. In 2005, three men were convicted for hate speech under the Law of Singapore.
California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds."

[deadmessengers]

11. Good thing I don't live in one.

I don't like the idea of thoughtcrimes.

[Bonobo]

12. You see no reason for ANY limitation on free speech?

I bet I could come up with some examples that would make you change your mind.

What about a verbal "assault" such as a threat on your life? That is just talk and yet is considered a crime here in America.

[deadmessengers]

13. I do

The standard in the US is that speech is restrictable when it incites or threatens imminent lawless action. In other words:

"I hate Jews" = Protected
"You should kill some Jews" = Protected, as long as there's no reasonable expectation that the person you're speaking to will follow through on it.
"You should kill some Jews", said to someone holding a loaded gun while standing in front of a synagogue on a Saturday morning = definitely not protected.

A verbal assault such as a threat is the same thing: it threatens an imminent lawless action, and is thus not protected.

I, personally, like the standard as set. It protects us, as well as the haters.

[Clark2008]

14. Bravo.

Did you take Communications Law? I did and that's just how it was described to me, almost verbatim.

[Bonobo]

15. Agreed. I spoke in anger after reading the news of the attack.

And had not checked out the website which, although offensive to me, does not rise to my definition of hate speech either.

[frogcycle]

16. then check out

http://www.godhatesfags.com

ok, so it does not promote killing; just applauds it

and the people disrupt funerals of soldiers to spew their venom. Yeah, its a slippery slope to start judging what opinions should not be expressed to whom and in what circumstances, but screaming in a grieving widow's face that god killed her husband to punish the US, that you are glad he did, saying "thank god for IEDs" - well, somehow it seems to me we ought to be able to find a way to curtail that without trampling on all our first amendment rights.

[PresidentObama]

3. Very disgusting and very sad.

Hopefully they catch this creep.

[Bluzmann57]

4. "Eric Hunt" is a coward

Plain and simple. He won't return phone calls or e-mails because he's scared. If the police ever catch this "guy" he needs to be locked up for many many years. Maybe in an Israeli prison. It would serve him right.

[Cameron27]

5. Sick, sick, sick twisted freak. n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Posteritatis]

17. "ZioPedia?" *snorts* (nt)

[fortyfeetunder]

18. Dayum.

I am just horrified at reading something like this.