The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
This smells really fishy. They quote her directly when it comes to her taking the side of Palestinians in general (aka, the oppressed population) but when it comes to her supposed support of Hamas in particular, all there is in the article is a paraphrase of THEIR version, not a direct quote.
This smells really fishy. They quote her directly when it comes to her taking the side of Palestinians in general (aka, the oppressed population) but when it comes to her supposed support of Hamas in particular, all there is in the article is a paraphrase of THEIR version, not a direct quote.
Sounds like a political hit job.
There’s this idea going around that directly quoting the thing a person got cancelled for is spreading whatever hate they were spreading.
The obvious side effect of such a practice is that people who get silenced never get their side of the story told.
I find that sketchy as well