On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, J. van Baardwijk wrote: > What do you think will happen if someone would have attacked an Israeli > visitor to the Parliament for showing Israeli symbols? I can tell you what > will happen: the public will demand that the responsible government > officials be sent home because they failed to protect the public.
But failing to protect Jews themselves isn't failing to protect the public? Failing to protect Jews' right to peaceful and public self-identification and self-expression is not failing to protect the public? > Now, what is more important? The right of an Israeli to openly wear Israeli > symbols, or the right of everyone (including said Israeli, BTW) to be > protected from being blown up? The former, by Franklin! I reiterate a question from an earlier post: is there really sufficient threat to all of Europe to justify the fear that associating with anything Jewish will create a significant likelihood of attack for individuals and for non-Jewish sites? I rather doubt it. If the government doesn't defend the right of the people, no matter their ethnicity, to express themselves and identify themselves peacefully and publicly, then what good is the government in the first place? I can think of one possible exception: if the nation is at war with a Nazi-like foe, such that display of a religious symbol draws fire the way officers' insignia sometimes draw fire. But that is clearly not the case in modern Europe. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
