A shabby little event that reeked of hypocrisy occurred in Montreal earlier this month. The participants made a mockery of the idea of freedom of speech, the central value of democracy.

You’ll recall that a violent riot prevented former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nétanyahou from speaking at Concordia. Anti-Israeli radicals destroyed property, attacked innocent individuals, particularly Jews, and many screamed racist slurs. Fortunately, this was captured on videotape since the protesters lied about what happened, denying racist comments and blaming violence on police.

Regardless of anyone’s views about Nétanyahou, a fundamental democratic tenant is free speech, protected from violence. Yet, Concordia responded by banning all public discussion of the Middle East.

In spite of the ban, three of Canada’s most radical anti-globalists, Sven Robinson, Libby Davies and Judy Rebick, asked Concordia student groups to invite them to air their anti-Israeli views in a public event at Concordia. They proclaimed how much they loved free speech and their offense at Concordia’s ban.

Now, if they so loved free speech, they must have been horrified by the anti-Nétanyahou violence. Given the high profile of all three, their loud complaints should be everywhere. I spent much time searching the net, looking through newspaper files, and calling groups, which have followed the Concordia controversy, to see if any of the three had condemned the violence.

All I could find was the exact opposite. Judy Rebick, instead of attacking this violent suppression of free speech, co-signed a public letter that criticized scholars brave enough – in spite of the anti-Israeli hysteria in academia – to condemn the violence of the anti-Nétanyahou demonstrators. Apparently, Rebick, a self-proclaimed defender of freedom of speech, believes it’s fine to attack the right to free speech of anyone who, by her light, is politically incorrect.

As Keith Landy, president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, asked of all three. “Where were these avowed defenders of free speech and fundamental rights when rioters at Concordia violently prevented Mr. Nétanyahou from speaking in September? Their hypocrisy is stunning.”

The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. If Robinson, Davies and Rebick truly were concerned about free speech, they would have invited a pro-Israeli speaker to join them at Concordia and insisted that his or her views be heard out. They didn’t.

Concordia sought and won an injunction to block the Robinson-Davies-Rebick event. That was wrong. Universities should be about free speech. Because of the injunction, the three radicals moved their event to the sidewalk in front of Concordia’s downtown campus. It says a lot about both sides on this argument that, even after the violence that greeted Nétanyahou, the Robinson-Davies-Rebick event was marred by no violence, despite the intent to provoke.

The Concordia Student Union, proclaiming its dedication to free speech, plans another Middle Eastern event. Does their commitment to free speech mean they want to hear the other side of the argument? Nope. Instead of showing any attachment to open debate, they plan another anti-Israeli speaker.

If these groups were not full of hypocrisy, if they were truly dedicated to free speech, if they thought it wrong to use violence to block free speech, then they would have followed the advice of famed Nazi hunter and human rights activitist Simon Wiesenthal, who demanded that Nétanyahou be invited back, while emphasizing he had “no political affiliation with Mr. Nétanyahou.”

Wiesenthal is an old man, who has seen more tragedy than many of could bear. His tone reflected sadness. “I never thought I would live to see the day when there would be more open expression of hate against Jews than in the 1930s,” he wrote to Concordia rector Frederick Lowy. “To allow violence and intimidation to succeed … should be unacceptable to a university which promotes the values of freedom of speech and open exchange of ideas.”

Sadly, not only has the university community permitted “violence and intimidation to succeed,” it has award a victory to hypocrisy and defeat for free speech.