Page One

Debate continues on Netanyahu protests and free speech rights 

ADL not concerned with everybody’s rights 

Editor: 

In its letter to the Daily Planet and the City of Berkeley, the Anti-Defamation League, describing itself as a “civil rights organization dedicated to countering division and hatred and protecting all people’s rights to fair representation and expression,” expresses concern about the handling of Netanyahu’s recent aborted speech and asserts that “the city has an obligation to do whatever it can to provide a safe environment in which people can express their opinions freely.” 

In fact, the ADL is much more concerned about some people’s rights than others.’ In its written statement on the ongoing Palestinian crisis (see www.adl.org), the ADL one-sidedly blames the Palestinians and Palestinian leadership while whitewashing the violence perpetrated by Israeli forces.  

Thus, the actions of the Palestinians, who for decades have suffered under a brutal Israeli occupation, is unequivocally portayed as insidious and morally wrong, while Israeli violence is at worst “unfortunate” or “tragic”, and of course thoroughly “restrained”.  

Not surprisingly, the ADL extends its views to Netanyahu, who is in no small part responsible for the situation in Palestine, and feels that not enough was done to protect this great leader’s right to make money and promote his political career in the city of Berkeley.  

In fact, the high school campus where Netanyahu was to speak was cleared of all students, denying them their rights (which matter little to the ADL, as they are not great Zionist leaders), and many armed police troops and a bomb squad were specially deployed on Netanyahu’s behalf.  

But perhaps the Berkeley police should have done more, like firing volleys of tear gas at the protesters or shooting a few of them in the eye with a rubber-coated bullet, or perhaps launching missile strike at their homes (all in a most restrained manner, of course) - after all, that’s how it’s done in Israel.  

And if some of the protesters died or were severely injured, that no doubt would have been “unfortunate,” but at least then Netanyahu’s rights would have been safeguarded, and others who oppose the ADL’s and Netanyahu’s political agenda would not be encouraged to stand up for what they believe.  

Herman Kahn 

Berkeley 

The ACLU gets  

speech rights right 

Editor:  

I joined the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles in the 1950s, inspired by the work of the late A. L. Wirin, its general counsel.  

He was the Southern California counterpart of the late Ernest Besig, the inspirational ACLU spokesperson here in the North. 

The Netanyahu free speech controversy reminds me of a comparable situation in the 1930s in Southern California in which A. L. Wirin had intervened. 

The notorious fascistic demagogue the Rev. Gerald L. K. Smith was refused the right to use Glendale High School for a speech. Wirin took the issue to court on behalf of the ACLU arguing Smith’s Constitutional rights of free speech. He won. On the night of Smith’s meeting, there was an angry picket line in front of the school protesting his reprehensible views. A prominent demonstrator in that picket line was one A.L. Wirin. 

Harry Siitonen 

Berkeley 

Need to hear all sides, even offensive speech 

Editor: 

As former members and supporters of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, all currently active in efforts to preserve the FSM's legacy, we wish to affirm that the right of free speech exists even when (perhaps especially when) the speaker and/or the content of his or her speech is unpopular or even offensive, as the views and actions of Benjamin Netanyahu are to many of us. 

While peaceful and even vigorous protests are more than warranted, we are very disturbed by attempts of participants and apologists for the 28 November incident at the Berkeley Community Theater to justify preventing the speaker from addressing his audience by associating this position with the FSM. 

We are equally offended by the statements from some critics of those actions that imply such a connection, thereby discrediting the FSM. 

Although the FSM began as an attempt to protect the free-speech rights of students engaged in the civil rights movement, it never limited its defense of free speech to those with whom we agree or to advocates of causes we like, a position that would have been hypocritical to say the least. Free speech, as Mario Savio has said, is not just "a tactic for political ends"; it is a good in and of itself, a touchstone of humanity. 

Let there be no mistake--we consider any infringements of the free speech of controversial speakers and, equally important, the rights of their would-be listeners, to be a serious violation of the principles for which thousands of students struggled in 1964. Berkeley is, should be, and will remain a bastion of free speech and free assembly. 

Reginald Zelnik, Lynne Hollander Savio, Bettina Aptheker, Mal Burnstein, Kate Coleman, Tom Savio, Lee Felsenstein, David L. Goines  

Fox Cottage may be near end 

Editor: 

If you haven’t already heard, the University of California appears to be moving swiftly to dismantle the City of Berkeley landmark at 2612 Channing Way.  

Two weeks to the day after the UC Regents approved the Underhill Area Plan FEIR – I noticed yellow “caution” tape stretched around the Fox Cottage and a redwood or two.  

The building’s front window has been boarded up, or maybe removed. A white van with the UCB “fiat lux” logo was out in front around 10:15 this morning, between orange cones. 

My guess is that the bricks and materials which comprise the cottage will be stored offsite for a while, and then, when someone decides that Fox is really too expensive to reconstruct after all, they’ll quietly find their way into the Altamont landfill or Omega Salvage.  

Here’s additional evidence that these are the final hours for Fox Cottage as we know it: 

(1) As of 1 p.m. December 4, a big green “HARD HAT AREA” sign (white letters) has been posted on the boarded-up window, 

(2) A large grey dumpster has appeared on the NE portion of the Fox lot, near the redwoods 

(3) The side door on the east side is open with some construction debris in the doorway. 

If you need more information about the significance of this structure and its relationship to what remains of the pre-1950’s Southside neighborhood, I recommend that you contact Anthony Bruce or Lesley Emmington at the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, 841-2242. These other people know more than I do about Fox Cottage and the history of the Southside.  

Jim Sharp 

Berkeley 

Need to know status of the Chernobyl nuclear plant  

Editor: 

I am writing to inform you of the upcoming closure of Unit 3 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. Unit 4 at this power station was the plant that was destroyed in the 1986 accident at Chernobyl. 

Some concerns has been brought up by Greenpeace regarding the safety of the reactors that would replace Chernobyl's generation capacity. The Greenpeace press release is here: http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucreact/2000nov30.html and the leaked report is here: www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/waste/k2r4risk.pdf 

I urge you to carefully review the section beginning with "Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident: A Current Assessment." Many news organizations have incorrectly reported the health impacts of the Chernobyl accident. 

Please contact me if you have any additional questions.  

Lance Kim 

President 

American Nuclear Society 

Berkeley Student Section 

lancekim@nuc.berkeley.edu