[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 DISGUSTING, ABHORRENT COMMENTS ARE STILL PROTECTED BY OUR CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. JOLENE UNSOELD

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 23, 1994

  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I joined with a minority of my 
colleagues in voting against House Resolution 343, a resolution to 
condemn the bigoted speech given by Khalid Abdul Muhammad at Kean 
College this past November. Few of the votes I have cast while serving 
in this body have been more troubling than this one.
  Mr. Muhammad's speech was one of the most venomous, hate-filled 
diatribes I have ever read. As a long-time supporter of Israel, I was 
especially nauseated by the speech's anti-Semitic content. In addition, 
it attacked women, Catholics, gays, and lesbians all in language 
seemingly intended to stir the most vile emotions. Perhaps even more 
disturbing than the speech was the enthusiastic reception it received 
from the young, impressionable audience. It is indeed incumbent upon 
all Members of this body to loudly condemn such poison and do all we 
can to ensure that all who hear Mr. Muhammad's message have the 
knowledge and wisdom to see that his message is rejected.
  However, as abhorrent as were Mr. Muhammad's remarks, I could not 
bring myself to support this resolution. As disgusting as his comments 
were, his right to free speech is protected by our Constitution.
  My friends in the Jewish community have often told me of their 
efforts to fight hate while protecting the rights guaranteed to each 
and every American in the Constitution. They, like I was yesterday, are 
often confronted with the difficult dilemma of whether to safeguard the 
constitutional rights of despicable bigots or limit the claims of these 
hateful few from the protections given all Americans. To limit the 
rights of some is the beginning of the erosion of the rights of all. As 
vile and repulsive as Mr. Muhammad's ideas are, unfortunately, they 
fall into the category of protected speech.
  While this resolution does not make law, I fear that it violates the 
principle and spirit of the first amendment. Our Nation's founders 
never thought that Government should be passing judgment on the speech 
of its citizens, however heinous those comments might be. The Congress 
must never take lightly its mandate to shield all citizens, whether we 
like them or not, from the tyranny which they themselves may espouse. 
This body should not put itself in such a position, but I fear that is 
what we have done with this resolution.
  This is not to say that we should let such malevolent talk occur 
without condemnation. Elie Wiesel once said that ``Indifference is the 
epitome of evil.'' To permit Mr. Muhammad's speech to pass unnoticed 
would provide fertile ground for the seed of his hate to grow.
  As an American who believes deeply in the principles upon which this 
country was founded, I denounce Mr. Muhammad's diatribe and urge all 
Americans to reject his loathsome ideas. Those of us in the Congress 
must individually use our positions to condemn such divisive and 
revolting comments. However, our institution cannot afford to give in 
to the passions released by such hate-filled speech, and collectively 
pass judgment as a Government as to what speech to condemn, and which 
to not.

                          ____________________