Zohran Mamdani says mayors shouldn't 'police speech' when asked to condemn 'globalize the intifada' slogan

[David__77]

Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee in New York City's mayoral race, on Sunday again sidestepped an opportunity to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada," saying that mayors shouldn't "police speech."

"That's not language that I use," Mamdani said when asked if he condemns the phrase, which is widely viewed by Jewish groups as offensive and anti-semitic, on NBC News' "Meet the Press." "The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights."

…

Mamdani pointed to several students, like Rumeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil, who were detained by the Trump administration earlier this year after they wrote or protested against Israel and in favor of those living in Gaza.

"Ultimately, it's not language that I use, it's language I understand there are concerns about, and what I will do is showcase my vision for the city through my words and my actions," Mamdani added.

…

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna215798

[OrlandoDem2]

1. I liked his interview. He stuck to his values. Keep fighting!!

This is a political Cold War that we are in! Our side must fight harder to take back this country!

[Blue Full Moon]

70. Absolutely

[Polybius]

2. Gonna be an interesting 4 months

The debates will be fun to watch.

[gay texan]

3. I like this guy

[yardwork]

4. This seems like a very reasonable stance.

Our Constitution is supposed to guarantee a wide range of freedoms, and all but one is under sustained attack.

This guy seems like a good politician who cares about being a good leader.

[Bettie]

5. And once they squash

the others, that last one will be taken away as well, much to the surprise of it's staunchest defenders.

[yardwork]

6. It's the only one I'd like to see gone!

[Bettie]

7. If not gone, heavily

regulated.

I mean, they regulate all of the other rights we're supposed to have....this one they think should be entirely unfettered.

[Polybius]

73. He could have said "that's shitty speech, but it's still free speech"

[yardwork]

79. He could have, and Kamala Harris could have said she'd defund Israel.

But they didn't, because this is a complicated no-win situation for Democrats in the US (but apparently not for Republicans; they get off free) and the only way to stop losing elections is for all of us to take a step back and stop with the purity policing.

[Beastly Boy]

8. When a mayoral candidate uses incendiary rhetoric, it is not just a matter of free speech. It's a matter of

declaring a policy.

When this declaration of policy is widely considered to be antisemitic, he ought to be held to account.

Not a matter of policing speech, and Mamdani is perfectly aware of it.

[yardwork]

9. He hasn't used the phrase though.

He specifically states that he won't use it.

As you know I am a strong critic of Hamas and of pro-Hamas protests.

I don't think Mamdani is saying anything wrong.

There is a LOT of misinformation about Mamdani. Google AI says he tweeted something vile on 9/11. He was nine years old and Twitter didn't exist.

[Beastly Boy]

13. He excused this incendiary phrase, embraced it and has no intention to "policce" it

Hell, I expect more from a mayor than explicitly refusing to police hate speech. That's part of his job which he is already advertising his intention to ignore.

[yardwork]

14. Remember how angry we are with pro-Palestinian voters who didn't support Harris.

Well, this is the same thing. Mamdani won the Democratic primary. I doubt many Democrats want Adams again or the Republican. Cuomo lost, full stop.

I probably disagree with most of Mamdani's views on I/P but I think he's handling this no-win political issue well.

[Beastly Boy]

18. Mamdani won the primary. I wish progressives like him would do as well in general elections

against Republicans as they do in primaries against Democrats.

The way he is handling this political albatross doesn't bode well for the general elections.

[SSJVegeta]

26. He did nothing of the sort. Whenever that phrase has been brought up

His answer has almost always been the same, which is that violence is never the answer, hate and hate crimes against ths Jewish community is a major problem and unacceptable, that he does not use that language, and that he is working to increase resources to prevent hate around the city and protect the Jewish community.

It is no surprise that many of his supporters do happen to be Jewish, including his top cross-endorser, Brad Lander.

[Beastly Boy]

34. He did, and he still does.

He refuses to acknowledge, let alone condemn, the phrase which carries an unmistakably hateful meaning to its users as a call for attacks on Jews worldwide. It is not his dubious interpretation of the phrase, and it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of a mayoral candidate committing himself in real terms to end hate speech.

It is no surprise that the vast majority of Jewish Democtats do not support him.

[SSJVegeta]

37. First you said he embraced it. Now you say he refused to aknowledge it

When in fact the reason you said he embraced is because he has acknowledged it. Not clear which attack you are committing to.

[Beastly Boy]

48. He refused to acknowledge it as hate speech.

And he embraced hate speech by refusing to acknowledge it.

But keep splitting hairs.

[karynnj]

32. He said he didn't use and did not condone it,

he also said mayors don't police speech.

Consider any other response. You would not be happy unless he interpreted it as YOU do meaning attacks on Israeli Jews by Palestinians. Others have spoken of it literally meaning uprising.

I would never use the word to me and uprising against totalitarian forces because for so many people (including myself) the word means the violence in Israel. It makes no sense to use a word that already has meanings you do not want.

I suspect part of the reason for his response is that AMYTHING involving Israel/Palestine has huge emotional baggage. I don't know how many times I have gone to "how do we speak about Israel" conversations at my synagogue and that is among Jews. It would take a long, philosophical response to explain how people using it mean it and why he doesn't. Anything said would be picked apart even more than refusing to be the speech police.

My guess is that there are many AIPAC aligned Jews (and Christians) who will never support him and that is their right. I also think that many want to make this the big issue so any people who can be defined as progressive except for Palestine will not vote for him even if they would if not for the Israel issue.

If I were a NYC resident, I would have .voted for Lander. I wonder what would have happened if people like Clyburn, Clinton etc AND Bernie and AOC had endorsed Lander, and experienced public servant without the Cuomo baggage.

[Beastly Boy]

50. He didn't even acknowledge it as hate speech.

And mayors do indeed have the responsibility to police hate speech.

I have considered one other, very obvious response: "I reject hate speech, including the phrase "Globalize the Intifada".

Easy, no?

[karynnj]

58. Easy for you, yes Easy for someone with a more nuanced definition, not so easy

[Beastly Boy]

62. What is so nuanced about hate speech?

[lostincalifornia]

53. You are right, and I think there is a reason for his invasivness

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-859044

[uponit7771]

65. You claimed Z used the phrase, he didn't

[Beastly Boy]

68. I claimed he used incendiary rhetoric.

In this case, the incendiary part of it is not the phrase itself, it is portraying hate speech as protected free speech, and his explicit refusal to police it. It is not, and he did.

[David__77]

10. What did Mamdani say that is incendiary?

[Beastly Boy]

11. He is defending an incendiary phrase which he refuses to admit is incendiary.

Certainly, this is a legitimate reason to call him out on his stance. And when people call him out, very specifically with regard to "Globalize the Intifada", he makes clear that he has embraced the incendiary nature of the phrase for what it is and has no intention to disavow it.

[David__77]

16. What incendiary rhetoric is he using?

[Beastly Boy]

19. He is claiming the right to define phrases like "globalize the intifada" contrary to its prevailing incendiary meaning.

He sees nothing wrong with it and plans to permit its use by others in the future regardless of how offensive it is to most.

[Phoenix61]

28. How can he disavow something he never said?

What exactly is it you want him to say?

[Beastly Boy]

41. It's easy

Condemn "Globalize the Intifada" as hate speech being used by bigots as a call to attack Jews worldwide. Because this is how it is being used, his denials and appeals to freedom of speech notwithstanding.

[Autumn]

17. Did he use that incendiary rhetoric? As far as I know he didn't.

[Beastly Boy]

20. If one were to overtly permit the use of a slur, one would be considered a bigot whether one uses it himself or not.

Momdani is no exception.

[Autumn]

21. His name is Mamdani. As for "permit"? Ridiculoua. No one is responsible

for another persons words. He's not some all powerful deity that controls what people do or say. To blame him and call him a bigot for what other people say or do because he doesn't feel the need to control what other Muslims say is bigotry. Free Speech dude. This isn't yet a dictatership.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Mamdani is no exception.

So you are ok with mayoral candidates overlooking bigotry?

[Autumn]

23. He's not overlooking anything. He feels that the role of government,

particularly a mayor, is not to "police speech" or determine what language is permissible or impermissible. He's right, policing speech is not whathe was elected to do.

[Beastly Boy]

24. He is being told that the speech he refuses to police is impermissible.

Certainly the role of a mayoral candidate is to listen to his prospective constituents!

he doesn't have to strain himself determining what it is: it's bigotry. How is it not his job to police bigotry?

[Autumn]

25. As soon as you can find a way that he can force people to do what you want him to do

be sure and let him know. He secured about 20% of the Jewish vote in the his election and that Jewish candidate Brad Lander campaigned jointly with Mamdani so not everyone has the problem with him that you have.

Yes it is his job to listen to his prospective constituents. It's not his fucking job to tell them what they are allowed to say. He will be in control of city government, not in control of the actions of people in his city.

But hey Trump feels that a Mamdani victory was “inconceivable” because Mamdani is “a pure communist”. So Trump is threatening to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani 'doesn't behave'if he wins the election

So it might work out well for you.

[Beastly Boy]

30. I want him to condemn incendiary speech

Him, not anyone else. He doesn't have to find a way to do this, all it takes is for him to acknowledge the bigotry embedded in a single phrase.

"Globalize the intifada" is not free speech, it's hate speech. Of course it's his job to call out the antisemites who are pellucidly clear about what they mean by it.

[Autumn]

38. So you've gone from he needs to control what people say, to him acknowledging

the bigotry embedded in a single phrase, a phrase that he doesn't use and he hasn't been caught encourging the use of.

I think that nothing this good man can ever say or do would be enough. So don't vote for him. Cumo is still in the race.

[Beastly Boy]

51. I said that, as a government official, it is his responsibility to police hate speech

And, separately and apart from his responsibilities, I said I want him to acknowledge hate speech.

Why do you find this so complicated?

[Autumn]

54. You can want him to satisfy your needs but it's not his job to satisfy you.

He's has no power to control other peoples speech. That term means different things to different people. The word intifada has different meaning in different languages. In Arabic it means struggle.

If he offends you, don't support him, there are others in that raceyou can support . You have that right.

Why do you find that so complicated?

[Beastly Boy]

63. As a government official, he not only has power, but an obligation to stop other people's hate speech.

And as a candidate, he has an obligation to make his position on hate speech clear. And telling me what hate speech in America sounds like in Arabic is a ridiculous deflection.

From what he is refusing to say, I gather that he has no intention to live up to his obligations as mayor. And, to follow your advice, I, like 80% of Jewish Democrats in NYC, will consider my voting choices accordingly.

[Phoenix61]

29. Impermissible speech? Really? Who gets to decide that. nt

[jcmaine72]

33. The perpetually offended apparently

[Beastly Boy]

49. Hate speech is permissible? Since when?

Usually, it's the victims of hate speech who decide what it is, not the perpetrators.

[jcmaine72]

56. December 15, 1791

Since the Bill of Rights was ratified 233 years ago.

Why? Because one person's hate speech is another's free speech.

[Autumn]

31. As an American, I prefer that government not tell me what I can and can not say.

You obviously think differently and are fine with government controling your voice.

It's a sad thing to see when Americans want to control other peoples speech.

[Beastly Boy]

42. As an Anerican, I prefer to not be harrassed by hate speech.

You obviously think differently and are fine with government remaining silent when minorities are harassed.

Do you think the government has a say in condemning cross burning? Or will it amount to government controlling free speech?

[Autumn]

43. As a minority I put on my big girl panties and deal with it. Sticks and stones

may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Still applies today.

[Beastly Boy]

52. As a minority, I do the same thing. Hence my responses.

You will agree, silence and complicity is no way to deal with bigotry, no?

[mcar]

55. So you'd be ok

with people screaming “kill all the f***, kill all the n******” and having a Dem candidate say he won’t condemn that talk because it’s not up to him to police speech?

[Autumn]

59. Of course no. No intelligent person would be okay with that.

He spoke against it but no one wants to listen to him.

Meanwhile goal posts seem to be moving.

He excused this incendiary phrase, he embraced this incendiary phrase, he used this incendiary phrase , which is really a crock of shit because he has done no such thing

Now it is he refuses to prevent them from using that phrase to which has transitioned to it's his responsibility to stop Impermissible speech.

JFC Maybe he should end homlessness, world hunger and end all wars. While people lie about him

[mcar]

60. Oh ok

[Mossfern]

57. What happens when those words

lead to violence?

[Seeking Serenity]

71. You arrest and vigorously prosecute the violent one(s)

As it has always been.

(Now if your local prosecuting attorney doesn't want to prosecute violence, then it's time to elect a new prosecutor.)

[markpkessinger]

36. Mamdani NEVER said "globalize the intifada!"

This entire brouhaha arose because he was asked if he would denounce the phrase, which he declined to do, for reasons explained in the OP. The question itself was clearly intended to lay a trap for him.

[Autumn]

40. In Arabic the word "intifada" means struggle.

Globalize the struggle.

[Beastly Boy]

12. He excused this incendiary phrase, embraced it and has no intention to abandon it

Hell, I expect more from a mayor than explicitly refusing to police hate speech. That's part of his job which he is already advertising his intention to ignore.

[Mossfern]

15. Mayors set examples

by refusing to police hate speech, he is abandoning his responsibility to do this.
Will he refuse to police hate speech against black people? Will he stay silent if
people start shouting the N word? Will he stay silent when Ultra Orthodox start
calling for the clearing of all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank?

I think this stance is very cowardly.

[mcar]

27. Can you imagine

The response if a Dem candidate said similar about racist or homophobic slurs?

“Well, I won’t use n***** or f***** but I won’t condemn others for using them. It’s not my job.”

[KambreaPratt]

35. There seems to be a lot of double standards

"It's ok if we or our guys do it"

Is that what's going on here or not?

[mcar]

46. Seems so

[Seeking Serenity]

72. First time in politics?

If political animals didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have ... etc, etc.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

80. Welcome to DU

[Oopsie Daisy]

44. I had to chuckle (above) with the etymology explanation of why it's acceptable...

... because of a literal foreign translation of a single word. It's as absurd as someone on DU trying to excuse using the f-word because it means cigarette in British English, or because the c-word isn't misogynistic in British English, etc.

I understand that there might be different (literal, dictionary) meanings for certain words in other countries or languages or cultures... but I also know that thoughtful and mature people will understand that it's crucial to recognize that the impact of words goes beyond regional variations and cultural differences.

Regardless of the claimed intent behind using such language, it doesn't negate the harm it can cause to individuals who have been historically marginalized and oppressed.

Rather than justifying offensive language, and rather than making excuses or being dismissive of the negative effects, we are better served by politicians and candidates (and anyone who claims to be a caring human being) when we can promoting empathy and awareness.

It's really not that hard to contribute to a more positive and inclusive online community where everyone feels valued and respected.

[mcar]

47. I recall how some of these same Mamdani apologists

reacted when Hakeem Jeffries posted a religious message on Twitter.

It was hair on fire “he’s dead to us” hysteria.

But level some true constructive criticism against their current darling and it’s

[PunkinPi]

61. Now, apparently some of those folks are turning on him (see vid below) bc he said

Israel has a right to exist. The NYC general election is going to be a hot mess, esp. as Mamdani moderates some of his positions.

[Polybius]

75. Wow

Who exactly would that guy support to be our candidate? Does he realize that that's not a winning platform? Also, I wanna see the rest of that video. How did Mamdani respond?

[fujiyamasan]

81. This is a good point, the translation isn't particularly relevant

People are not expected to be Arabic or Islamic scholars. All most people hear with the word intifada, is an ominous foreign sounding word. Now, that ignorance may even come across xenophobic, but that’s the political reality. It’s just a reminder that it’s probably best not to use the word in any context.

More educated people would associate it the the events in the occupied territories in the 80s and 2000, the latter ending up with multiple terrorist attacks killing Israeli civilians (and of course retaliatory attacks killing Palestinian civilians). They are not something to be romanticized.

I still don’t know if Mamdani actually used the word (I see no quote of him saying it), but he strikes me as playing coy about not ‘policing’ it. I agree, a mayor should not play thought police, but it’s easy enough to condemn the use of it, and move on. It’s the same case with a few other slogan like “from the river to the sea…”. Some may not explicitly use it as a call for genocide toward israel, but most understand that it implies no Jewish state.

[Polybius]

74. This!

+1,000,000.

[Nanjeanne]

39. Personally I ask that my preferred politicians support

policies that I support, stand up to bullies, embrace humanity, make my life easier and give my children a future.

Mamdani is a candidate I have no problem getting behind. He seems to be able to create a coalition of people and is determined to continue to do that by talking with potential voters. I love listening to his interviews and his optimism, excitement and knowledge.

[RoeVWade]

45. What's important to ask politicians, is "what are they going to actually do related to what they just said."

True for all of them. What action or inaction are they going to do related to what they just said, preferably on the spot, right after they say it.

Especially, when they say something controversial.

[AloeVera]

64. What controversial thing did Mamdani say exactly?

Is there a quote?

[uponit7771]

66. Too many on the left are going harder after Mamdani than Trump

[AloeVera]

67. "The left"?

I wouldn't say it's the "left". Just the usual suspects plus a sprinkling of new ones. Some even joined today!

Hmmmm.

[RoeVWade]

78. I'm stating what I think is a general principle, i.e., if someone thinks it's controversial that might involve some

action or inaction.

[spanone]

69. K&R

[RandySF]

76. This is going to bite him in the ass.

[bamagal62]

77. Did he ever say that?

(I’m very confused about all of this.)
If not, then we are falling for bullshit. Where is the quote where he said that? Help me out here.