Talk About Tolerance, This Is Tolerance

Back in the latter part of the 1970s a group of American Nazis announced plans to hold a political demonstration in Chicago. The city required a large insurance bond be paid to cover the possible damages that would result from such a provocative demonstration. The amount of the bond effectively terminated the Nazi plans to go forward, but they then decided to organize a march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, an area where not only a substantial part of the community was Jewish, but in those days a large number of Jewish immigrants were survivors of Nazi atrocities and concentration camps in Europe. In an effort to tone down the Nazi march, a local court said the Nazis could not display swastikas, nor wear Nazi Party uniforms, as these things were essentially equivalent to provoking violence.* The whole issue garnered national and even international attention, even more so when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the court ruling as a violation of the First Amendment (specifically the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble). The main attorney for the ACLU was Burton Joseph, who was Jewish and a partner in a Chicago law firm. While it's been so many years ago, my recollection is, a number of other Jewish ACLU attorneys openly supported Joseph's view. After a number of hearings, including by the U.S. Supreme Court, and much coverage by the international media, the march was allowed to go forward, along with the display of swastikas and the wearing of Nazi uniforms. Anti-Nazi demonstrations were organized by many Americans across the country, and the Nazis then asked to change the march back to Chicago, which was granted.

While such actions by the ACLU have not always been popular over the years, and this one was not popular with many Americans, as veterans' groups, among others, also protested, as I recall, such legal challenges bring focus to various decisions, along with the accompanying discussions, sometimes very heated discussions. Democracy is not easy, and I suppose all of us at one time or another would like to stop someone with whom we disagree from expressing contrary opinions. The question is always, "how much freedom do we want?" There are limits to freedom, as for example, we don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, just for the hell of it. Ah, that's not a direct quote.

For Jewish attorneys to defend the right of Nazis to march tells you just how much these attorneys appreciate the law. It certainly doesn't mean they liked Nazis, but they loved the law. To be quite honest, I'm not sure I could do such a thing, but this is how you defeat the crazies and the anti-democracy elements. We can't be so insecure that we are afraid of differing viewpoints. Talk about tolerance, this is tolerance and a respect for law which should earn respect from all of us; of course, there are those racists and haters out there ...

* These are my words, not the court's words, but this was essentially the argument.

WORD HISTORY:
Hate-This word goes back to Indo European "khedo," which had the notion of "strong emotional feeling." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hatojan(an)," which became the more specific "to hate," in Germanic. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hatian," which then became "haten," before the modern version. The noun was derived from the Old Germanic form "hatiz," which then gave Old English "hete." Other Germanic languages have (noun then verb): German "Hass" and "hassen," Low German and Dutch "haat" and "haten," West Frisian "hate" and "haatsje," Danish "had" and "hade," Icelandic "hata" (same for noun and verb), Norwegian and Swedish "hate" (same for both noun and verb, with the ending "e" pronounced like "ah").