Connect with us

Latest

Video

Analysis

Fact checking Benjamin Netanyahu’s General Assembly speech

The speech was full of downright lies and “alternative facts”. Here is the reality.

Published

on

4,333 Views

Yesterday, Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before the United Nations in a speech that served as a kind of appendix to Donald Trump’s controversial, bellicose declaration that was delivered hours earlier.

Both speeches predictably focused on Iran and both leaders told a great deal of untruths and half-truths about the situation. Here are some of the most glaring untruths, followed by a factual explanation of the situation.

1. Iran is “devouring nations”. 

The full quote from Netanyahu is as follows:

“Well as you know, I strongly disagreed. I warned that when the sanctions on Iran would be removed, Iran would behave like a hungry tiger unleashed, not joining the community of nations, but devouring nations, one after the other. And that’s precisely what Iran is doing today.

From the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, from Tehran to Tartus, an Iranian curtain is descending across the Middle East. Iran spreads this curtain of tyranny and terror over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere, and it pledges to extinguish the light of Israel”.

In reality, Iran occupies zero countries and has not occupied any country in its modern history. By contrast, Israel has occupied part of Syria, the Golan Heights, since 1967. This occupation is condemned by the United Nations and all five permanent members of the Security Council, including the United States.

The other country on Netanyahu’s list that has been occupied by Israel and not Iran is Lebanon. After invading Lebanon in 1982, Israel set up a permanent occupying force in southern Lebanon between 1985 and the year 2000. Israel maintained a presence in the country until 2006, when Israeli forces retreated in the face of strong Hezbollah defences.

Israel continues to occupy Palestine according to the UN and most impartial observers. It previously occupied Egypt, the Jordanian West Bank and in 1981, illegally bombed Iraq.

Iran by contrast has done no such things. The Iranian assistance provided to Syria during the conflict in the country has been done under a legal agreement with Damascus based on mutual friendship and a common cause against Salafist terrorism. Iran’s training of some Iraqi volunteers has been conducted on a similar basis.

By no logical stretch of the English language, could this been seen as “devouring nations”.

2. “We will act to prevent Iran from establishing permanent military bases in Syria for its air, sea and ground forces”

This statement while designed to sound like a defensive measure is actually an admission of a premeditated war crime. No foreign country can use the threat of force to blackmail its neighbours or anyone else when it comes to internal affairs.

If Syria invites Iran to establish some sort of permanent presence in the country, that is a matter which is strictly between Syria and Iran. To use this as a pretext for an act of war, is put simply, a war crime.

3. “Syria has barrel-bombed, starved, gassed and murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and wounded millions more, while Israel has provided lifesaving medical care to thousands of Syrian victims of that very same carnage. Yet who does the World Health Organization criticize? Israel”.

This one is full of outright lies. First of all, prior to the conflict, not only were all Syrisns feed, but food prices were subsidised by the government, making nutritious foodstuffs more affordable in Syria than in most parts of the region.

Even today, Syrians are not starving, but due to western backed sanctions, food is more expensive and medicine is both more expensive and more scarce than they were prior to the conflict with Salafist terrorism. None of this has to do with the Syrian government nor its partners who continue to deliver aid.

Syria has not possessed any chemical weapons since 2013. In a joint effort by both Russia and the US, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons certified that by early 2014, there were no chemical weapons left in the Syrian governments hands.

Syria did develop a chemical weapons program in the 1970s in response to intelligence about Israel’s secretive nuclear weapons program.

In spite of this, Syria has never used chemical weapons, not on a foreign power and not internally.

The only chemical weapons in Syria today, are those in the hands of terrorists who are fighting Syria.

In respect of the Israeli hospital program. These hospitals have not been open to ordinary Syrians, let alone to the Syrian soldiers fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Instead, the hospitals have perversely been used to give medical treatment to al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters who are known as some of the most violent terrorists in the world.

4. “Two years ago, I stood here and explained why the Iranian nuclear deal not only doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, Iran’s nuclear program has what’s called a sunset clause”.

Not only does the JCPOA (aka Iran nuclear deal) prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but Barack Obama’s administration admitted this openly. The EU and Russia continue to express their support of the deal and the US State Department, EU and UN have all agreed that Iran is in full compliance with the deal.

The only country in the Middle East to develop and maintain nuclear weapons is Israel. Furthermore, Israel obtained its nuclear weapons without international sanction and to this day, refuses to admit to having nuclear weapons. As such, Israel is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Israel is one of only four nations in the world to have never signed the treaty.

Israeli historian Avner Cohen as well as the award-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh have confirmed the existence of the so-called ‘Samson Option’, wherein Israel will deploy its nuclear weapons if it feels its security is threatened.

During his speech at the UN, Netanyahu alluded to the ‘Samson Option’ in saying,

“Those who threaten us with annihilation put themselves in mortal peril. Israel will defend itself with the full force of our arms and the full power of our convictions”.

In this sense, Iran has much more to fear form Israel than Israel has to fear from Iran, yet ironically it is Israel that continually protests about its own fears.

CONCLUSION: 

While Iran hasn’t invaded another country in its modern history, nor has it occupied a single country, Israel has occupied five: Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. Unlike Iran, Israel has nuclear bombs, unlike every other country in the Middle East.

With this record, it becomes clear who should be afraid of whom.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
seby
Guest
seby

This slimeball could not talk straight if a pipe was coming out of his mouth.

What has the world come to, when people elect scumbags like these to “lead” them.

Norman
Guest
Norman

Only if they’re scumbags themselves?

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

You ignore the fact that most Jews are brainwashed, from birth, into believing that they are a “chosen” master race. Americans are brainwashed almost as thoroughly.

Norman
Guest
Norman

Not ignoring anything, fact or otherwise. At some level you’d have to be in agreement with the scumbag to elect same, weither brainwashed or not. You walk away when you wake up?

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Brainwashed people have to be awakened. In IsraHELL’s case that awakening may take a couple of nuclear weapons. America will require more work – like a dollar that suddenly will buy what it’s worth…………nothing.

Norman
Guest
Norman

America and Israel both are more than aware of everything that awaits them hence their plans and efforts to divert, forestall, avoid and or change the outcomes.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

The rulers of America and Israel are aware. The people are definitely NOT.

Norman
Guest
Norman

Not knowing the full implications of one’s support for whatever cause does not absolve you from any and all of it’s consequences. Call to mind the adoration of the German people for Hitler and realise their complicity to later beg they did not know? How disingenuosly horrible and disgusting. Ultimately there could be reasons why many would not publicly voice their disapproval, but, to put it down to being brainwashed is laying it on too thick.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Possibly, you may wish to learn about the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler. If you have been taught, for your entire life, that the sky is “pink” and finally learn that seven billion people call it “blue”, you are not at fault for the error. You’re making unreasonable assumptions about the ability of people to reason through issues. Many, many millions of Americans and others are TAUGHT that thought is wrong or a waste of time. They have to be taught otherwise. You can’t just tell them that they’re “stupid” or “bad” and expect results.

Norman
Guest
Norman

It’s precisely the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler and his answers / solutions to all of it that found a home in the hearts and minds of most. They had , initially, no idea of the real intentions and horrors that would unfold but they stayed the course with Hitler didn’t they? Americans and the rest of the world are no different. Those few that are different is shouting in the wind. I wouldn’t plead the innocence of the “brainwashed” not when it comes down to making choices?

harris
Guest
harris

“Many sincere Christians, ignorant of the facts, believe present-day
Jews to be “people of the Book” returning as “chosen of God” to their
Israel homeland. This is totally false. In fact, the whole theory that
God’s Chosen People return to Palestine before the reign of the Messiah
is unsupported by a line in the New Testament, which foretells only that
the Anti-Christ forces will be centered in and defeated in Palestine
before His Coming. They are there now.”

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

You are entirely correct – except for the part about the anti-Christ being defeated in Palestine.

There’s no real reason for such an assumption. The battle-ground is Washington, London, Moscow and Beijing. BRICS will defeat the evil empire in those places, hopefully economically and not through nuclear war.

Don’t fantasize that humans can “interpret” what God wants. Be good and fight against evil. That is enough for us to think about. God’s going to do what God’s going to do.

Norman
Guest
Norman

Entirely true. The battles and wars between nations is an entirely different matter than the battle between Christ and Satan. Not saying the one has nothing to do with the other. The one is designed to divert attention away from the other and just how near we are to the end of everything. Even so, we have time to disagree and fight one another on the details. Hilarious?

harris
Guest
harris

exactly, it’s an apostate state.

AmeliaCCalvillo
Guest
AmeliaCCalvillo

Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!si295d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewMarketNetJobsOpportunity/simple/work ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!sg245l..,…

lickeyleaks
Guest
lickeyleaks

Netbigobyu went to the same prep school as Trump,McCain,Obama,Bush,The Clintons and then 3 months in Hollywood as a finishing school..

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Pathetic Polish-Lithuanian Turd, who changed his surname in order to pretend to be part of the artificially created “Israeli Identity”.
Deception and lies from day one, it’s the Khazarian way of life. No honour, no morals, the ends justify the means.

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Although of Jewish background, I am starting to turn anti Semitic.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

If you are of “Jewish background” the odds are 95% that you are Khazar (Polish-Ukrainian background) and have nothing to do with any Semitic culture or genes. Merely having ancestors who adopted Judaism 1400 years ago, even if you speak a dead language, doesn’t make you “Semitic”. Semites are ARABS.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Sorry Tapatio. I posted my sage advice before reading yours. I like Vera so that is probably OK.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Ms Gottlieb seems nice and sensible. It doesn’t matter about both posting the same basic message. It happens all the time.

Norman
Guest
Norman

Both Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of Abraham from different mothers. Abraham is a descendant of Arphaxad and Arphaxad a descendant of Shem which makes both Ishmael and Isaac to be Shemites. In time the word Shemites changed to Semites. The meaning did not however change.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

That’s nice. Everyone in the Middle East was Semitic. However, at tel Megiddo, Rome made the Hebrew version functionally extinct. Sadly, they didn’t do a thorough job. As to who begat whom 3000 to 4000 years ago (according to the cult that gave new meaning to prevarication), I couldn’t care less. If a Jew said the sky was blue, I would check to make sure that it hadn’t turned pink. I’ve read and compared the teachings of the BUddha, Jesus and Mohammad and concluded that Jesus and Mohammad intended to cure the world of the disease that was the old… Read more »

Norman
Guest
Norman

“.. Jesus and Mohammed intended to cure the world of the disease that was the old Abrahamic cult.”? What on earth are you talking about. I cannot speak for Mohammed since I’m not absolutely familiar with his teachings but to assert that Jesus intended to do as you concluded is not true at all. Consider that Jesus has come and gone( to come again) and yet the disease as you call them remains to this day. The cult /disease as you call them has grown and multiplied. They’re still here. Your conclusion is faulty then.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

You are probably not a Semite but a Turkic Khazar. Ease into it by reading The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler, righteous Jew.

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

As I just answered above…I want NO part of any religion.

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

Opposing this Zionist supremacist slimeball doesn’t make you an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew, it makes you a self-respecting Jew. Oliver Stone, Seymour Hersh and numerous others don’t have any personal issues when criticizing Israel and neither should you.

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Please!!! Spare me this ‘self hating Jew’ crap! Those Germans who fought Hitler…would you have called them ‘self hating Germans’??? I have no use for Zionists – giving Judaism a bad name. I have become an atheist and want absolutely NO part of any religion.

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

I am totally with you, Vera. That was precisely my point. Leaving aside personal religious convictions, I am in full agreement with your comment. The ”self-hating Jew” canard is used to denigrate the most ”dangerous” critics of Zionism: anti-Zionist Jews.

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

I like the way you put it.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

IsraHELL, like the US and other Rothschild puppet states, is an outlaw state. It should be Boycotted-Divested-Sanctioned and Blockaded until it can either obey international law or collapses completely.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Quarantine.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Exactly.

harris
Guest
harris

Do you know that in France, they have passed laws wherein people get heavy fines and even are sentenced to prison terms ( ie Vincent Reynouard) for criticizing publicly Israel and history. Similar laws are being prepared in the UK and I think Congress in US is preparing some laws to tackle businesses who refuse to accept Israeli made goods…

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Those laws passed in France because their Parliament is just as corrupt as the US Congress.

I doubt that such laws can pass in the US or UK, though it’s possible that something similar to Germany’s laws could pass. That’s a more general restriction on public expression.

Doesn’t really matter. I’m going to say what I believe/know.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Fuckoff Bibi you asshole. Strangely enough, this monster gestated in Nazi Lithuania and Fascist Canada before going to Nazi finishing school – Israel – AKA The Jewish State.

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

Netanyahu playing tough with other people’s backs. Let the US stop endlessly backing trash like him and then one may listen to a different tune coming from Tel Aviv.

GIVVO6_B
Guest
GIVVO6_B

At least the kosher fascist did not have another childish cartoon to try and demonise Iran this time.

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending