Wednesday, June 10, 2009

But was it ethical?

Recently friend and fellow-blogger Atboth posted about the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists and their sponsorship of a performance by an anti-Semite of monstrous proportion (Gilad Atzmon), and their refusing to reconsider once it had been made clear to them what a scumbag he was.

This post:

And this:

And this:

The problem is that he also described two of the pro-Gilad Atzmon protestors in very unflattering terms. And named them.

I'm not so sure that that, as Grant Patel might put it, is entirely 'cricket'. Can one actually name the members of the other side? Are they that public that doing so is okay?

There are several news articles about the first one mentioned - he has a history of provocative acts and threatening behavior - and the second one has written several pieces on Indybay.
Both of them come off as extremely unpleasant people, associated with the viler elements,and involved in several unsavory groups.
But is it really ethical to make their names public?

Whether it is legal to do so is another matter.
I think that if you're seen in public participating in political actions, you lose the presumption of anonymity. And if either of the two men do have the stinking big egos that they do seem to have, judging from all news articles that are associated with their names, then they are already known to the public, and they have made themselves known for their opinions and acts.

Speaking of ethics, I'm still horrified that a church would engage in anti-Semitic incitement, though. That is really an appalling thing to do!!!! How can they face their neighbors?!? How on earth can the BFUU justify having Gilad Atzmon as a guest performer?!!!!??? Why are they engaging in such blatantly despicable acts?
Why does sh*& like this ALWAYS happen in Berkeley? Are people crippled there?


GRANT!PATEL! said...

Actually, it was ethical. And legal. Everything that Stephen Pearcy and Joseph Anderson (the two alleged gentlemen who stood in front of the BFUU with the Hamas flag shouting) stands for is open and bloot on the internet. A search for their names, especially with the added criteria of either Berkeley OR Virginia, yields any amount of sewage.

I would not a t all be suprised of the bar association is investigating - they really should, in my opinion. Vocalizing support for a murderous terrorist organization like Hamas and Hezbollah is ethically beyond the pale.

---Grant Patel

GRANT!PATEL! said...

Joseph Anderson, by his own statements, stands to book as a racist, bigot, anti-Semite, and supporter of cop-killers. That may very well fit in with the mindset of the congregants of the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists (BFUU), but it puts him outside of civilized society.

--Grant Bigpoof

GRANT!PATEL! said...

Stephen Pearcy, as I have noticed, is probably psychopathic. But that is just an educated guess. It would take an expert in psychoanalysis to really make a statement yea or nea on that score.

It says buckets that the BFUU are represented by such people.

---Grant Theantivirgin

GRANT!PATEL! said...

But of course it is Berkeley. The source of ninety percent of the bad karma within a one thousand mile radius.

I wonder how much of the aura of menace originates from the BFUU?

---Grentant Pentental

The back of the hill said...

Snooky, I believe that it was ethical.

Stephen Pearcy is a known supporter of certain causes - know to the readers of newspapers and to the public. He doesn't hide it, and in fact boasts of it.

Joseph Anderson's own articles
make plain what he stands for.

Of course, legally it is another issue. Freedom of public protest essentially opens one up to being publically identified. The accused must know their accuser, as it were.