"Christians Under Threat in Syria", US Dept of State, 3 March

While the Assad regime attempts to paint itself as a protector of Syria’s minorities, it has brutally cracked down on dissent from all segments of society. The regime has arrested Christian worshippers, human rights advocates, and peaceful dissidents like Akram al Bunni and President of the Assyrian Democratic Organization, Gabriel Moushe Gourieh; raided and confiscated church property; shelled Christian communities like Yabrud; and bombed dozens of churches, some simply for being located in opposition-held areas.

The Syrian people have a long history of tolerance and co-existence, but both the regime and ISIL are fueling sectarian strife to justify their brutality. We strongly condemn these abuses and urge all parties to protect and respect the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or religion.

reliable source, pls? TIA.

btw, was this you?

I am from a Muslim country myself and I know more about Islamic society than you liberals will ever do. Wake up out of your dream and stop protecting them and their mindless hatred. And you may not realize this, but Muslims are NOT a race. Islam is an ideology that should be allowed to be criticized without liberals yelling 'racist', and Muslim society is so backwards it NEEDS to be criticized and reformed without you liberals telling us we're 'racist'.

and

Really - Muslims are not backwards? Do you ever see people from other religions behaving like this?

You only get Muslims who cannot tolerate a difference in opinion, and only Muslims will come up in arms and ready to kill people for making jokes.
It's okay though, it's you people who lose out though because as we enjoy life in the 21st century and all the benefits that come with it you and your backwards people will still be living in poverty with 11th century values. Sorry but ignorance only hurts you people, not us!

and

Lol the Muslims are the laughing stock of the world for a reason, the backwardness of you people is mind numbing.

and this

Warren Raymond I'm not Muslim, I just respect the equality of all peoples no matter their religion or race. This is something the Jews need to learn quickly.

and this

Stop posing as a victim and look at things critically. Many Jewish youth in France are thugs, pure and simple. The murders of Moroccan youth by Jewish thugs is proof of that. Zionism is a thuggish movement that produces ugly fanatics like you. It's a thuggish movement that carries out apartheid and murders thousands of indigenous Palestinians every year.

Furthermore, I am not Muslim but I would prefer the company of Muslims than Zionist bigots such as yourself. The world knows your despicable beliefs and is calling you out for it. Instead of blaming other people for violence look at your own people that are causing problems. Much of France knows. The videos are out there displaying Jewish thugs wrecking Paris. There is no excuse for ignorance, but you're a Zionist so I can't expect much from you, to be honest.

and this

Most Jews are more loyal to Israel than they are to the countries that have given them everything.

they're all tied to your FB account, so either you've a long history of racism trolling, or someone stole your password.

I'm sure you can do better. For now, troll fail, -1

indeed, one suspects that had the candidate suggested that rape is wholesome, or that African Americans are genetically inferior, Mr Montgomery would have no problem in reasoning correctly that some views, compounded as they are of ignorance, bigotry and callous indifference (if not outright hatred), are "intolerable" - not to be tolerated.

One can only hope this represents a foolish desire to appease, rather than a gross moral failing on the part of Mr Montgomery.

it does suggest some interpretation of the word "intolerable" that is not found in dictionaries.

Dear editor, I think the photo you have chosen to illustrate this piece needs a caption. It seems to be drawn from the same source as the photo which illustrates "French Jewish Group Condemns Attack On Arab Teens", appearing on this site today. That photo is captioned

"Jewish and Muslim demonstrators advocate peace at a rally in Paris."

By placing an appropriate caption on a photo illustration you provide context for the reader to understand how the illustration relates to the story. Here one is left to wonder why you chose a photo of an interfaith peace rally to illustrate a story that begins

"A French Jewish watchdog recorded a near doubling of anti-Semitic incidents in France"

One might think you are trying to imply that the group counted this rally an example of anti-Semitic incident.

Alternatively, you might use one of the dozens of photos available from Getty Images, which show the rioting, firebombs, graffiti, and other images of actual "violent acts", which are the subject of this story. There are roughly three dozen such images available.

As is written in the SPJ Code of Ethics

– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

well done.

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
--- John Stuart Mill

"Over 1,200 Scholars Boycott University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Until Professor Steven Salaita Reinstated", USACBI (US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel)

one might note that 1,200 "scholars" is a small fraction of the estimated 1.7 million teaching personnel (this number comes from a third party who cites BLS, but I cannot verify the source). But they are dedicated in their pursuit of... something.

a link to a Google Docs file is provided. The file has the text and a list of the signatories.

Note particularly paragraph nine, which reads

Whereas students and scholars have the right to pursue education and research without institutional interference, repression, and harassment when they take public positions in solidarity with Palestinians;

Because students and scholars who take public positions in solidarity with Israel, for instance, have no such right. Thus the constant assault on academic freedom practiced by the B&D mob.

But for creative cloudiness look to the "background section", which begins

UIUC has shown itself hostile to pro-Palestinian faculty by violating a faculty member’s protected rights. The University’s actions in this case are racist, violating faculty members’ protected rights to freedom of expression and throwing their legally protected personal and academic freedoms under the bus when confronted with public pressure. For daring to vocally support Palestinian rights to freedom, Professor Salaita currently has no job, no home of his own, and no health insurance.

Professor Salaita’s expulsion from UIUC is part of a larger pattern of systematic squelching of free speech that, in effect, supports human rights violations against Palestinians.

Get it? If you don't agree with them, you're (a) hostile and (b) racist. And if you don't agree with them, you're "in effect, support[ing] human rights violations."

This is what we call "mission creep". This is where "we will not recognize the government of Israel" becomes "we will not recognize any institution in Israel", becomes "we will not recognize any Israeli person", becomes "we will not recognize any Israeli business", becomes "we will not recognize anyone who recognizes Israel, or an Israeli institution, or an Israeli business, or an Israeli person". But they're not racist. It just has a racist effect, purely coincidental.

"Many turned their back as trustees spoke."

pretty much says it all, right there. Respect for free speech, what's that?

"U. of I. right to reject prof's hate speech", Chicago Tribune, today, quotes these completely wholesome and not-at-all splenetic tweets

But we won't defend this:

"Zionists: transforming 'anti-Semitism' from something horrible into something honorable since 1948."

Or this, posted by Salaita in June after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed:

"You may be too refined to say it, but I'm not: I wish all the (expletive) West Bank settlers would go missing."

If that one doesn't strike you as reprehensible, substitute "African-American" or "gay" or "women" for "West Bank settlers" and imagine sitting in a classroom run by the author of that remark.

Salaita also retweeted a post from an account name Free Palestine, complaining that a story by journalist Jeffrey Goldberg "should have ended at the pointy end of a shiv."

...
There's plenty of room at the U. of I. for passionate intellectual discourse. There's room for profanity, vitriol and provocative language. But there's no reason to make room for hate speech.

Y'know, excusing race-hatred and calling for mass-murder. Go ahead, make of it what you will.

"The dissenting vote was by trustee James Montgomery who said he regretted his previous support for withdrawing Salaita’s faculty offer. He said the university needed to accept all views, however intolerable."

I'm sure that won't be put to the test - vide "U Of Ill. Can't Stop Micron's Emails To Profs In IP Row", law360, 12 April 2013

A federal judge on Thursday said Micron Technology Inc. can continue to tell University of Illinois engineering professors it won’t hire or support them or their students while the university pursues a lawsuit accusing the company of improperly selling semiconductors made using the school’s proprietary process....
“The university characterizes this as a harassing email meant to coerce it into settling its patent litigation lawsuit. It moves for an injunction barring future harassing communications from Micron to any university employee,” Judge Darrow said.
But the judge found the university’s request problematic.
“The term ‘harassing’ is vague and likely violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1)(C), which states that every order granting an injunction must describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained,” the judge said. “Based on the university’s overly broad request, it is unlikely that the court could tailor an injunction that is both meaningful and compliant with Rule 65.”
Judge Darrow also said that enjoining future speech raises First Amendment concerns, in that temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions — i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities — are classic examples of prior restraints, which are “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights”


gee, you'd think they'd be extra sensitive on issues of free speech. Also,

"Freedom of Speech in Jeopardy as Students are Penalized for Publishing Controversial Cartoons", 17 Feb 2006:
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today called upon the University of Illinois to reinstate the editor in chief and opinions page editor of the student newspaper, the Daily Illini, who were suspended after reprinting a series of controversial cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad.

Then there's the case of Louis Wozniak. One suspects that while views are accepted, acts based on those views may be actionable. Or perhaps, it just depends on whose ox is being gored.