september 2004
Two alleged Mossad agents freed from New Zealand jail
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent,
Two Israelis suspected of having links to the Mossad and jailed for trying to illegally obtain a New Zealand passport were released and deported early Wednesday.
Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara were released in
line with normal policy after serving half of their
six-month sentences. They were released early in the
morning, served with deportation orders and later placed
on a plane under police escort. They were flying to Hong
Kong on Wednesday and are due to travel to Israel on
Thursday.
The two men pleaded guilty in July to trying to obtain a
New Zealand passport using the identity of a
wheelchair-bound cerebral palsy victim. New Zealand
suspended all high-level diplomatic contact with Israel
as a result and has sought an explanation and apology.
Israel is refusing to comment on the case.
Prime Minister Helen Clark said there have still been no
approaches from Israel over the issue, and thus the
diplomatic sanctions would stay in place. "The ball
remains in Israel's court," Clark said in a
statement.
The Israelis escaped a more severe sentence by each
donating 50,000 New Zealand dollars to a local charity.
They faced a maximum penalty of five years in jail and
have appealed their convictions. They were arrested in
March after police secretly followed them as they were
arranging to pick up the passport. Clark has said there
were "very strong reasons" to suspect the men
were acting on behalf of Israel's intelligence services,
without producing any evidence.
A Jewish chapel was torched, up to 90 graves smashed, and
swastikas and Nazi slogans were gouged into grass in a
cemetery in Wellington in the wake of the freeze on ties
with Israel.
A third Israeli man, Zev William Barkan, whom the defense
pinpointed as the mastermind behind the passport
operation but who left New Zealand before he could be
arrested, is still wanted.
john the birdman, a
voice from Australia.
freedom of speech
brings forth both the harsh light and the welcome shade
of truth.....?
Free speech is offensive speech
Truth hurts -- especially if it's funny.
The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.
A good writer should be both insightful and inciteful.
The best ideas are those alive with manly vigor, which rape each virgin mind and fill it with the seed of unborn thoughts.
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the police.
Things are interesting to the extent that they arouse controversy; and things which are the most interesting are those which are cursed and consigned to Hell.
Free speech is an act of desperation. It is a last resort, an onslaught of quiet fury, and -- in most cases -- an insult to, and abandonment of, vital social norms. Men who murder have usually lost their inhibitions only for a moment; but men who speak freely have lost them forever, and are thus as dangerous to a society as a mad dog.
To be taken seriously, you must first offend. If you do not, people will say, "Oh, he's just like so-and-so, with perhaps a touch of such-and-such", and forget about you entirely; while if you touch a raw nerve, you at least know that you are on the pathway to the brain. The point is, men will rarely think new thoughts without a jolt, and if you expect them to think the ones you have, then you must first crash your way into their consciousness.
Truth has no manners. It is no respecter of persons. It wounds kings as deeply as commoners. It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low. It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company. And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it.
What I say may seem outrageous and outre, but my purpose is to push the envelope of discourse to its outer limits on the theory that freedom of speech, like both mind and body, requires vigorous exercise to remain healthy. Beyond this, the act of pushing the free speech envelope will embolden others to speak, and their acts of boldness reinforce the perception that free speech is tolerated, thereby increasing the probability that it will be. But as I embolden others to speak, so I embolden them to act; and in this way I help insure that free speech is more than a sounding gong or a tinkling symbol. Put another way, I hope to make the world safe for bigotry, ie, safe for the opinions to which -- in Ambrose Bierce's words -- others are intractably and vociferously opposed. But if I advocate free speech, I also advocate and impose upon myself the harshest and most demanding discipline on speech: I acknowledge my critics and call attention to their criticism, and I always respond seriously to any serious criticism they may offer. What this means is that I accept and impose the discipline of truth: If someone is right in their criticism, I have an obligation to acknowledge the error -- publicly if possible; and with as stringent a discipline as this, I am forced to be careful in what I say. For all its stringency, however, this discipline offers some very distinct advantages: It ultimately disarms my critics -- not infrequently turning them into friends -- and continually reinforces my reputation among both friends and foes as one who is as intolerant of error in himself as he is intolerant of it in others, and as morally incorruptible as any man who walks the earth. By this means, then, I retain as enemies only the evil and the stupid; and these are those who would be my enemies no matter what. Thus my fights are few, easy and usually small, while my victories are often grand; and in the process I accomplish one of the most desired goals of any man anywhere -- I can sleep at night.
From Tom Ascher