The Western Jewish Bulletin about uscontact ussearch
Shalom Dancers Dome of the Rock Street in Israel Graffiti Jewish Community Center Kids Wailing Wall
Serving British Columbia Since 1930
homethis week's storiesarchivescommunity calendarsubscribe
 


home > this week's story

 

special online features
faq
about judaism
business & community directory
vancouver tourism tips
links

Sign up for our e-mail newsletter. Enter your e-mail address here:



Search the Jewish Independent:


 

 

archives

April 25, 2003

Learn, think, then speak

Editorial

At a recent Philosophers' Café, Dr. Leonard Angel was the featured speaker on the topic of Love, Law and Peace in Israel/Palestine. At the outset, Angel, who is an author, poet and president of the Vancouver branch of World Federalists, spoke of his discomfort about the speech, acknowledging that he was not an expert. Indeed, he noted, he doesn't know much about the conflict there, but said there are times when we are obligated to get involved because the issue is so urgent.

This motivation is sincere and well-intended. Nobody should stand by idly while genocide or atrocities are taking place – this is one of the lessons of the Holocaust that we will reflect on during Yom Hashoah Monday evening. But we also have a responsibility to inform ourselves adequately to make intelligent contributions to the discussion of world affairs.

On this continent, we have freedom of speech. Yet far too frequently people mistake the right to speak with an obligation to do so. And far too often, speakers ignore the concept that with rights come responsibilities. If we have the right to speak, we also have a responsibility to do so within the parameters of decency and reflection.

The war in Iraq seems to have lowered the bar on free expression. Actors, filmmakers, singers and hockey commentators have been moved to speak up due to the life-and-death nature of some of the issues facing the world today. Thousands, possibly millions, of people have marched against the war in what has truly been one of the most remarkable examples of public mobilization since the Vietnam War. But how many of these people have taken the time to research the political history of the area or spoken to displaced citizens of the region in order to become well-informed about the subject for which they are waving placards?

Yet, while thousands have marched, some might argue that their collective voices have not been as strong as a few lone voices with access to mass media or captive audiences. Consider filmmaker Michael Moore's apparently spontaneous and not- very-articulate rant at the Academy Awards. Consider the spectacle of actor Sean Penn traipsing around prewar Iraq. Canadian icon Don Cherry was hauled before CBC brass for expressing views about the war that for once drew viewers' attention away from his sport jacket.

Only an elitist would suggest these individuals do not have the right to express their views. But each of these people has a public profile, which bestows on them an impression of legitimacy that they may not deserve. Each of these people has gained a reputation for excellence in, variously, filmmaking, acting and sports commentary. Note that not one of them has a reputation for incisive and informed comment on international political affairs.

Do we need a doctorate in near eastern studies to comment on the war in Iraq? Of course not. Every citizen has a right to their own opinions. But those to whom a degree of credibility has been granted have a different obligation than the rest of us. The nature of our society means that many people put stock in the views of certain people not because they have any advanced understanding of an issue, but merely because they are given the platforms and the ability to be heard when they speak. But that ability to be heard presents them with an obligation.

In the case of Angel, for example, who admitted that his knowledge base was limited, he referred throughout his entire talk to an entity he called Palestine, as though it were a state that existed as a geographical and political unit. He never qualified this term. Though most of the listeners may have been well-enough versed on the Middle East to know that such a state does not exist, there are those who come to Philosophers' Cafés who are not familiar with the history or geography of the region. Listening to Angel, imbuing him with a credibility in this area that he may not deserve, such people may come away believing there is already a state called Palestine, with which Israel is fighting.

If you admit your knowledge base is minimal, but you're acting on passion, sentiment, conventional wisdom or common sense, could your possible misunderstanding of events, and then expression of your feeling on such events, mislead people?

If you have a platform to speak and people are listening to you, isn't it your obligation to get informed to the point that you are comfortable talking about an issue?

If the world troubles us to the degree that we feel obligated to stand up and be counted, we should at least go to the trouble of informing ourselves adequately. Thankfully, in this country, we are free to speak. It's worth remembering that we are also free to read books and inform ourselves before we do.

^TOP