# Liberalism needs protection



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2013)

We have a Conservatism needs work thread, but I don't agree with either:

     1. The current definition of _conservatism_; or

     2. That what most people define as _conservatism_ needs much of anything, beyond a swift kiss in the arse.

But, _liberalism_, that wonderful idea best expressed for us by John Stuart Mill, over 150 years ago, and grossly misunderstood in America and most of Europe, does need work and, right now, a lot of protection, too.

This example, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisons of the Copyright from _The Telegraph_, is from Britain but it is a common theme amongst the *illiberals* who currently hold far too much power in far too many institutions in Europe, America and Canada, too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10517111/Campus-segregation-religious-freedom-cannot-be-allowed-to-trump-equality.html


> Campus segregation: 'religious freedom’ cannot be allowed to trump equality
> *A free society leaves theocratic patriarchy alone in the home and the place of worship, but cannot countenance it in the public square*
> 
> By Matthew d’Ancona
> ...




This is not about _Islam_, or any religion for that matter ~ Islam is not the only one that segregates congregations. It is about _individual rights_ which must, always, in liberal societies, be protected from the depredations of all collectives, including churches and the state, itself. It's not about "equal rights" it is about individual rights: we all have 'em without any regard whatsoever about race, colour, creed or belief system.

You may not, ever, impose your beliefs on me. It is bad enough that we enshrine the customs of one religion into civic life - why on earth are Christmas and Easter public holidays, for example? Your freedom *of* religion is entirely offset by my freedom *from* religion: yours, his, hers ... all of 'em. The fact that a speaker, with deeply, sincerely held religious beliefs, demands a segregated audience is interesting, but, in any liberal society, wholly and completely irrelevant to anything. (S)he may not impose her or his beliefs on anyone: the fact that the speaker believes, sincerely, that a mixed audience is blasphemous is his or her *right* ... to believe. It does not provide a right to deny access or seating to anyone, ever.

So let's not worry about _conservatism_, the Chinese are working on it, it is their cultural norm, not ours; let's worry about what matters to us: _liberalism_, it needs a strong, active defence because it is under attack by barbarians, from within.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _liberalism_, it needs a strong, active defence because it is under attack by barbarians, from within.



So you mean subverting it from within? An example would be certain religious extremists such as a certain Imam in Ontario who wants to stone people he considers sinful to his religion. He is among those who hide behind the Freedom of Religion guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2013)

Our _Charter_ is touted as a _liberal_ document but it is, at its heart, very, very _conservative_, being obsessed with protecting _groups_ against _individuals_.

As a broad general rule the _common law_ does a better job of protecting rights than does any written constitution, including the great one in the republic to our South.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2013)

>That what most people define as conservatism needs much of anything, beyond a swift kiss in the arse.

I think you are being too gentle.  And that is discipline I do not care to administer.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2013)

One of the real problems with a debate like this is the corruption of language and meanings. I very much doubt that the Liberal Party of Canada actually stands for for the "Liberalism" you are espousing, and what the Liberal/Progressive wings of the Democrat party in the United States stands for these days is far closer to 1930 era Fascism than anything else. Whatever the Liberal-Democratic party in the UK stands for is unclear to me.

Since I agree with you that the classical foundations of Liberal thought: "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" in the immortal words of our neighbours, or freedom of expression, property rights and the Rule of Law in the more formal sense, are to be preserved and protected, I have no real argument with this thread at all, except one: Which political party/movement in the modern Canadian environment actually espouses these things?

Since the Conservative movement is the current holder of the torch for these values, then the "work" members of Conservative parties need to do is to be articulate and vocal defenders of these values, and to advance them in public discourse at every opportunity. If this is the "Kick in the Arse" you are advocating, then I fully agree.


----------



## pbi (16 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 2. That what most people define as _conservatism_ needs much of anything, beyond a swift kiss in the arse....




Really? That seems just wrong. >


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One of the real problems with a debate like this is the corruption of language and meanings. I very much doubt that the Liberal Party of Canada actually stands for for the "Liberalism" you are espousing, and what the Liberal/Progressive wings of the Democrat party in the United States stands for these days is far closer to 1930 era Fascism than anything else. Whatever the Liberal-Democratic party in the UK stands for is unclear to me.
> 
> Since I agree with you that the classical foundations of Liberal thought: "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" in the immortal words of our neighbours, or freedom of expression, property rights and the Rule of Law in the more formal sense, are to be preserved and protected, I have no real argument with this thread at all, except one: Which political party/movement in the modern Canadian environment actually espouses these things?
> 
> Since the Conservative movement is the current holder of the torch for these values, then the "work" members of Conservative parties need to do is to be articulate and vocal defenders of these values, and to advance them in public discourse at every opportunity. If this is the "Kick in the Arse" you are advocating, then I fully agree.




The _conservatives_ who need a kick in the arse are the crypto-fascists who want to impose their beliefs on others. There is, as you, Thucydides, have often noted, not much to choose, in ideological terms, between _fascists_ like Hitler and _communists_ like Stalin and Mao; ideologies, when taken too far from the _moderate_ middle, all end up in the same place: brutal, stupid, dictatorships which self destruct because no one who actually listened in Econ 101 can, possibly, be either a fascist or a socialist.

You know that I reserve my greatest disdain for Marxists, who are, by definition, blind fools - even the ones with PhDs from Oxford and Yale, and for the religious right because they are also crypto-fascists. It is intellectually impossible to believe in liberal democracy and the supremacy of any god at the same time. Neither Marxists nor the religious right can be allowed into any sane government; I know we've amended the game laws so that it's illegal to shoot them, but ...


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .......I reserve my greatest disdain for Marxists, who are, by definition, blind fools - even *especially* the ones with PhDs from Oxford and Yale....


Stumbling into Marxism blindly is a 'lesser sin' than _choosing_ it when one's education makes one supposedly capable of analytic thought.



> ....and for the religious right because they are also crypto-fascists


     :nod:


----------



## FJAG (16 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Our _Charter_ is touted as a _liberal_ document but it is, at its heart, very, very _conservative_, being obsessed with protecting _groups_ against _individuals_.
> 
> As a broad general rule the _common law_ does a better job of protecting rights than does any written constitution, including the great one in the republic to our South.



Let me say as a start that I agree--generally--with the premise set out in your first post. 

I don't agree with this later one. The Charter is massively pointed at individual rights. The group provision comes with the "such reasonable limitations as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" clause which has been very strictly construed by the courts. The common law is a fickle tool that is very much subject to the whims of the judges who create it as influenced by the people who appoint/elect those judges. The predominant legal principle in common law is the concept of _stare decisis_ which in short means to render decisions in a case in a manner that is consistent with previous decions by a higher court. It is a system designed to preserve the _status quo_ and has been very slow to react to societal changes. While there have been some judge made improvements, most of our radical changes--think women's rights, human rights, etc--have come from legislatures and our elected officials.

My belief is that the general expanding trend we had, over the last half century, towards a more secular, more free society has come to a pause if not retreat. Much as I would like to blame Vic Toews for the newer trend towards undermining individual rights for public safety concerns, I don't think he was the cause just a tool in its implementation. 

Eastern societies--especially middle-eastern ones--have been,and continue to be, unable to shake off centuries' old religious conservatism. Western societies have been reactive to what they perceive as a threat to their way of life since Islamic radicalism/terrorism has come out of the closet and placed itself squarely in our face. Well before 9/11 however we've had a growing movement back to "Christian values". Bush was "born again" well before his election, he just let it out more as he grew in confidence after 9/11. 

Our real problem is that there is a very large group of people--read voters--who profess the belief that "Christian values" constitute the only moral compass for our society and that their belief structure should be protected by the state even to the cost of individuals. In large part they consider that since they are the members of the protected group, their individual rights are covered by that group protection. Any individual not covered is an outsider of the group and therefore not worth worrying about. That applies to other religions, Sunday shopping, pornography, the right of CEOs to take massive pay and bonuses out of companies, or whatever individual unpopular "right" you can point to.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are individuals who vehemently disagree with some of my more moderate beliefs. Its not that I don't think that they have a right to disagree with me, it's that I can't even comprehend why they would not accept a tolerant, moderate position. It seems to me that more and more that we, as a society at large, seem ready to throw people and thoughts we find outside of our norm under the bus. Unfortunately the rabble rousing is becoming ever more shrill and seems to be falling on fertile ground.

Colour me  aranoid:


----------



## pbi (16 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...This is not about _Islam_, or any religion for that matter ~ Islam is not the only one that segregates congregations. It is about _individual rights_ which must, always, in liberal societies, be protected from the depredations of all collectives, including churches and the state, itself. It's not about "equal rights" it is about individual rights: we all have 'em without any regard whatsoever about race, colour, creed or belief system.



I'm good with this: we need to be on guard against further encroachments by either organized religion or by the government into peoples' lives.



> You may not, ever, impose your beliefs on me. It is bad enough that we enshrine the customs of one religion into civic life - why on earth are Christmas and Easter public holidays, for example?



But not really with this. I see nothing wrong with aspects of the dominant culture   (and its religion) in any country benignly forming the basis for holidays, celebrations etc.  That is, as long as these things aren't done in a stupid, punitive or oppressive way that harms or significantly discriminates against people of other beliefs. "Offending" IMHO doesn't fall into either of these categories. If people don't like seeing Christmas decorations on a fire station, let them cover their eyes.

Where we would have a problem IMHO would be if those firefighters would only come to put out fires on Christian-owned property, or demanded bribes from non-Christians. (Think Bosnia...)



> Since the Conservative movement is the current holder of the torch for these values, then the "work" members of Conservative parties need to do is to be articulate and vocal defenders of these values, and to advance them in public discourse at every opportunity.



That, and stop being fellow-travellers with the Rush Limbaughs, Rob Fords, Oral Roberts, Michelle Bachmanns, Sarah Palins, Tea Partiers, and other triumphantly ignorant rabble-rousing populist nitwits who will merely replace our freedoms wth their beliefs. Why do so many repulsive, stupid  people associate themselves so proudly with "conservatism"?. Shouldn't conservatism leave the nasty weirdos for the Left to embrace?



> The conservatives who need a kick in the arse are the crypto-fascists who want to impose their beliefs on others.



What I said....



> You know that I reserve my greatest disdain for Marxists, who are, by definition, blind fools - even the ones with PhDs from Oxford and Yale, and for the religious right because they are also crypto-fascists



And, were Marxism ever to actually take power, would be the first ones getting the midnight knock.



> While there have been some judge made improvements, most of our radical changes--think women's rights, human rights, etc--have come from legislatures and our elected officials.



There are, I think, a lot of people on the Right (especially in the US) who would disagree with you. They often roll out the mantra about "activist judges" usurping the legislative function, and then in the next breath usually suggest some version of the idea that judges should be far more subject to political control (ie: partisan interference to get our particular definition of "justice").



> It never ceases to amaze me that there are individuals who vehemently disagree with some of my more moderate beliefs. Its not that I don't think that they have a right to disagree with me, it's that I can't even comprehend why they would not accept a tolerant, moderate position.



IMHO this is because if you look inwards from the Left or the Right, the Centre is to your Left or to your Right. Thus "Moderates" (damn their reasonable eyes...) are obviously spineless fence sitters who are really aligned with the hostile end of the spectrum, but lack the courage to admit it.


----------



## FJAG (16 Dec 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> There are, I think, a lot of people on the Right (especially in the US) who would disagree with you. They often roll out the mantra about "activist judges" usurping the legislative function, and then in the next breath usually suggest some version of the idea that judges should be far more subject to political control (ie: partisan interference to get our particular definition of "justice").


All too true, I'm afraid. "Activist" has unfortunately become a dysphemism for "change advocate" or "reformer" and it cuts against judges and legislatures equally. I note in today's US news that the vast majority of sheriffs in Colorado are refusing to enforce that legislature's gun control legislation (which in my opinion is quite moderate but in the sheriffs' eyes is radical activism.) What the "Right" continuously forgets is that there are three legs to the stool upon which a democracy sits - the executive, legislative and judiciary. It's the judiciary that's supposed to protect the society from both the tyranny of the other two. That's where a well thought out and worded constitution plays its part.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> IMHO this is because if you look inwards from the Left or the Right, the Centre is to your Left or to your Right. Thus "Moderates" (damn their reasonable eyes...) are obviously spineless fence sitters who are really aligned with the hostile end of the spectrum, but lack the courage to admit it.



I think you're being very kind in your analysis and probably also correct. As I get older however I just think more and more that those folks are just plain stupid and incapable of critical analysis. The benefit of having had an education in an adversarial legal system such as ours is that it forces one to analyse your opponent's position against your own position so that you can develop appropriate counter arguments (or at least let you know early on that you should throw in the towel). Very few people these days either have that skill or are inclined to use it. We used to say that you know you have a good deal when both parties walk away unhappy. These days no one wants to compromise on anything.

 :cheers: but still  aranoid:


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let me say as a start that I agree--generally--with the premise set out in your first post.
> 
> I don't agree with this later one. The Charter is massively pointed at individual rights. The group provision comes with the "such reasonable limitations as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" clause which has been very strictly construed by the courts. The common law is a fickle tool that is very much subject to the whims of the judges who create it as influenced by the people who appoint/elect those judges. The predominant legal principle in common law is the concept of _stare decisis_ which in short means to render decisions in a case in a manner that is consistent with previous decions by a higher court. It is a system designed to preserve the _status quo_ and has been very slow to react to societal changes. While there have been some judge made improvements, most of our radical changes--think women's rights, human rights, etc--have come from legislatures and our elected officials.
> 
> ...




I'm suspicious of all _collectives_, including governments and churches and organized _minorities_, too.

My problem with our Constitution is that, like all of the written ones, it reflects the issues of the time in which it was written ~ consider the famous 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution: it reflects a very real concern in 1791. In ours, one key issue is minority language rights: a reflection of a very real concern in 1982.

I don't believe that common law jurisdictions, the UK anyway, lags in rights. The Brits both led and lagged in universal suffrage ~ they granted the vote to some women before the US did but they didn't remove an age restriction (age 30) until after the US. The Brits also "led" the US and other written constitution  states on abortion and even on gay rights. The common law can adapt to societal needs.


----------



## FJAG (17 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm suspicious of all _collectives_, including governments and churches and organized _minorities_, too.
> 
> My problem with our Constitution is that, like all of the written ones, it reflects the issues of the time in which it was written ~ consider the famous 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution: it reflects a very real concern in 1791. In ours, one key issue is minority language rights: a reflection of a very real concern in 1982.
> 
> I don't believe that common law jurisdictions, the UK anyway, lags in rights. The Brits both led and lagged in universal suffrage ~ they granted the vote to some women before the US did but they didn't remove an age restriction (age 30) until after the US. The Brits also "led" the US and other written constitution  states on abortion and even on gay rights. The common law can adapt to societal needs.



I think the difference in our viewpoints (if any) may be arising from the definition of "common law". There are in fact several but the key one in our system is the distinction between "common law" (as seen in the UK and our nine common law provinces) on the one hand and "civil law" (as seen in France, Germany and Quebec) on the other.

Both systems have legislatures to enact laws or codes and courts to interpret them. The big difference is that in a common law jurisdictions, judges can create law where no legislative provision exists. Perhaps the most significant example of this is the law of negligence, which din't exist until it was created by the UK House of Lords in Donoghue and Stevens in 1932 (prior to that you had to prove some contractual connection to sue).  In civil law you have comprehensive codes to cover all aspects and while courts may interpret the code or define its application, they cannot create laws where no code on the topic exist). In common law jurisdiction and even to a great extent in civil law ones, once case law develops, judges have a set of rules which should have the effect (but don't always) of ensuring that subsequent cases are interpreted consistently with earlier ones.

Almost all legal systems have a form of constitution or "basic" law which transcends others so that subordinate legislation needs to conform to the basic law. If a subordinate law fails to conform then the courts can strike it down. 

I think it is wrong to say that the UK is common law as opposed to governed by a constitution for several reasons. Just to be picky, Scotland has a mixed common law/civil law system while the others are common law; there is a constitution which however is not in a single document but which together define the essential elements of its legal structures (one of these principles is parliamentary supremacy which effectively could allow parliament to make laws that overrule basic civil rights - Need I also mention Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights?); and finally, (something which we don't have to worry about) is that the UK is now subject to several European Union legal structures to the effect that UK law is bound to the rulings of several European courts (e.g. European High Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights) which apply what one could refer to as European Constitutional concepts (Human Rights being the more visible flashpoint)

You and I definitely agree on the fact that outdated constitutional provisions (or for that matter any law, be it Sunday shopping or buggery) must be removed. Both our constitution and the US's have such provisions (take a look at how many amendments there have been in the US). Trouble is that there is frequently insufficient political will to make that happen - (e.g. 2nd Amendment or our Meech Lake accord)

I too dislike collectives (including the nation as a whole-I worry about tyranny by the majority as much as I do about those of private interest groups) when they can influence the state to make laws which infringe on an individual citizen's activities simply because the collective doesn't like those activities. Obviously restrictions are necessary: stabbing someone is inherently wrong; driving on the wrong side of the road is inherently wrong; shopping on Sunday is not, the marriage of two adult males is not, and (in my view although I expect many will disagree) neither is it wrong for a woman and her doctor to terminate a pregnancy.

 :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2013)

I guess we aren't far apart, I was, specifically, thinking of the British (mainly English) constitution vs all the written ones. When I look back to 1688, the 1830s and the early 20th century the Brits, with their unwritten Constitution, but it IS one, despite not being formalized, have been in the lead in developing a liberal, parliamentary democracy. In some (actually large) measure the US Constitution is an attempt to formalize, to explain, what the Bits gave themselves, by revolution and evolution in 1688 and during the 18th century.


----------



## FJAG (17 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... the Brits, ..., have been in the lead in developing a liberal, parliamentary democracy..



I read a book a few months ago that might interest you called _Wellington_ by Elizabeth Longford, who was probably his most comprehensive biographer. 

What makes this book particularly interesting is that much of it looks at his political career post-Waterloo. That period, while replete with rotten boroughs, the "Irish" question and industrialization was also the time of small cabinets and the rise of party politics (parties existed before this but party politics were a developing phenomenon). 

If you like to look into the development of a liberal, parliamentary democracy, then this book gives an interesting insiders view of a critical phase in that process. You can get it through your local library system.

 :cheers:


----------



## ballz (20 Dec 2013)

Funny that this thread started just a few days before this whole Phil Robertson fiasco.

I am not Christian by any stretch of imagination, and I am 100% for homosexuals being treated equally.

But the fact that even one person in a "free" society thinks it is okay to suspend Phil Robertson for spouting off his bigotry is enough to cause alarm. The fact that an entire network somehow collectively decided that suspending him was the right idea is downright scary.

Somewhere along the line, the whole "no child left behind" thing got really out of hand, probably about the same time they started handing out medals to kids for losing. "Liberalism" appears to have been hijacked by a very radical minority of progressives that somehow believe that everyone can be free to express themselves, and yet also everyone can be free from being offended by somebody else. The two cannot co-exist. Being offended every now and again is the risk you accept when you want to live in a free society. It's an easy risk to accept when you look back in history at the alternatives.


----------



## Remius (20 Dec 2013)

To be honest A&E can do what it wants.  they own the show and they can choose to do whatever is in the best interest of their company.  If they don't want a person spouting their opinion that reflects badly on their network.

He wouldn't be the first person to be suspended/fired/contract ended by companies, people who choose to no longer affiliate themselves with people expressing their freedom of expression.  He's free to express his opinion and A&E is free to end their relationship with him.


----------



## ballz (20 Dec 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> To be honest A&E can do what it wants.  they own the show and they can choose to do whatever is in the best interest of their company.  If they don't want a person spouting their opinion that reflects badly on their network.
> 
> He wouldn't be the first person to be suspended/fired/contract ended by companies, people who choose to no longer affiliate themselves with people expressing their freedom of expression.  He's free to express his opinion and A&E is free to end their relationship with him.



I 100% realize A&E is free to do this and they ought to be. However, they are not free from criticism either, and I think they have taken a stance that contradicts liberalism. 

Imagine, a major media, that is against TRUE "freedom of expression." Seems kinda back asswards doesn't it?


----------



## FJAG (20 Dec 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> To be honest A&E can do what it wants.  they own the show and they can choose to do whatever is in the best interest of their company.  If they don't want a person spouting their opinion that reflects badly on their network.
> 
> He wouldn't be the first person to be suspended/fired/contract ended by companies, people who choose to no longer affiliate themselves with people expressing their freedom of expression.  He's free to express his opinion and A&E is free to end their relationship with him.



The interesting thing here is that this show is A&E's biggest moneymaker (and in fact I understand it may be US cable TV's biggest money maker) and the Robertson family is wealthy enough in their own right so that they need A&E and the show much less than A&E needs them. 

There is undoubtedly anguish in the executive halls right now and I'll lay you any money that there will be a deal made to get things back on track as my guess is that if the network doesn't resolve this the family may walk.

I'm with Jon Stewart on this:

"Stewart deadpanned. "But I also have an inclination to support a world where saying ignorant shit on television doesn't get you kicked off that medium," he said while adopting a sheepish look, implying that he would have been kicked off years ago had he been held to the same standard."

Robertson's comments ran from naive to ill advised and on to stupid but were far from inciting hatred.

 :subbies:


----------



## Journeyman (20 Dec 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Robertson's comments ran from naive to ill advised and on to stupid


I felt that they kinda started at stupid, then just settled in there to enjoy the scenery.

But they were indeed far from inciting hatred; if anything, they incited mocking.  As such, a more suitable response might be to change the channel and show your outrage by refraining from buying that precious Duck Dynasty hat for your dopey kid to wear sideways.  

But there's no need impose sanctimonious scorn onto the dentally-challenged Wal-Mart dwellers who love the show.


What the hell was Phil doing giving an interview in GQ anyway?!  _GQ_?  Really?!  WTF!   :stars:


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Dec 2013)

Of course it wasn't A&E directly. It was a vocal minority political activist group that bullied them into it. 

As others have said, freedom of speech includes hearing speech you disagree with.

A distillation of what others are saying here:

Dear A&E, congratulations, you just committed suicide


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Dec 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> As others have said, freedom of speech includes hearing speech you disagree with.



First off, apologies for this long post.  Secondly, these are not my words but were taken from a FB conversation on this very topic:


"He had and has the right to express his faith and beliefs. No one has taken those rights away. However, A&E also has the right to distance themselves from views they do not share or support.

This Duck Dynasty "controversy" is not a violation of his Freedom of Speech. He is not being arrested or censored by the government. He is being punished by his employer, who is well within their rights, to punish you for misrepresenting the company.

That is how it works. In any business. Freedom of Speech, even as a concept, only applies to how the government operates. It does not free you from cultural or business consequences.

This image implies that this man's first amendment rights were somehow violated. The fact of the matter is that they were not.

Legalistic Rights in this philosophical sense of government (The philosophy the US gov't was founded on), people agree to surrender certain natural rights to a third party, the govt. We surrender the right to kill each other without reason, and of course, we can not assure Bob over there will carry out that promise to surrender his right to murder me. So, we surrender those rights to a Third Party, the govt, and they enforce that contract. So, even if we are killed, we know Bob will be punished for said murder. Another right we surrender is the right to our full wealth, because we give some to the Third Party for our protection and the betterment of our society. Taxes. Anything allowed is a legalistic right. They are legally allowed, we haven't not given them up.

Now, in America, they have the "Big Ten", the Bill of Rights. Rights that the Government has promised that they will never infringe upon unjustly (Or at all, depending on your perspective). Not only have they promised that, but they themselves have "surrendered" their right to do so, the constitution is as much of a contract for them as it is technically for Americans.

So, take this Duck Dynasty controversy, which is about a man being punished by his employer for what he says. If, when discussing this issue, you ever say "Well...his Freedom Speech"...you are crossing a thin line into stupidity. Freedom of Speech is not the topic here. It has nothing to do with it. Because see, we aren't talking about the government. We are talking about two private entities that had a contract together, which is also a binding agreement regarding two or more party's natural rights.

Whatshisface "Vagina" McBeardee is not having his Freedom of Speech infringed upon. That is referring to a legalistic right, an agreement, that isn't even related to this conversation. So when you are saying that he had his Freedom of Speech infringed upon, you are actually saying that the other private entity, a corporation in this regard, does not have two natural rights:

1) The Right to enforce a Contract it made
2) The Right to pursue what it considers its best interests
3) The Right to have an opinion

Please don't use the term "Freedom of Speech", it has absolutely nothing to do with this subject."


----------



## FJAG (20 Dec 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ... refraining from buying that precious Duck Dynasty hat for your dopey kid to wear sideways.



I personally am boycotting the Duck Dynasty Chia pets.

 ;D

 :subbies:


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2013)

The entire Duck Dynasty thing is an interesting litmus test for classical liberal values. On the one hand, we have the issue of freedom of expression. On the other hand, we also have the issue of contractual agreements and who's rights prevail.

This article is a nuanced approach to the controversy, the issue of piling on and using boycots and other economic levers to "punish" speech you disagree with is technically not outside of the pale, but it is rather agressive and has been adopted by progressives as a harrassment technique (although it backfired in a spectacular fashion when they tried to use this against Rush Limbaugh. Some targets are armoured and can fight back effectively as well). It is also an intellectually lazy approach, since there is no counter argument being offered. The best way to deal with speech you don't agree with is to deploy _better_ speech. If you are unable to articulate better ideas to oppose ones you disagree with, then you have some pretty weak arguments:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/19/of-ducks-and-gays-and-tolerance



> *Of Ducks and Gays and Tolerance*
> Brian Doherty|Dec. 19, 2013 3:07 pm
> 
> The advantages of classical liberal market cosmopolitanism--the idea that it's best to set aside peaceful differences of opinion and creed and worries about different races, nationalities, and genders when deciding how we interact with the world--has a great track record of making us all richer and happier.
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If you are unable to articulate better ideas to oppose ones you disagree with, then you have some pretty weak arguments


That's an awesome theory (and bitch-slap for anyone not deigning to offer a counter-argument).  

It does, however, presuppose that both sides1 are amenable to rational argument;  I have seen NOTHING that would cause me to believe that they are.  Sadly, both sides are precluded from rational discourse by their inherent nature.  It would be like reciting Nietzsche (or Foucault, or Clausewitz.... or Miley Cyrus lyrics) to a cat; the sound is heard, but comprehension, let alone belief, is not there. 2


There, it _must_ be a rational argument with "better ideas" -- it's got footnotes.   :nod:



1.  "Both sides" here being a) fundamental religious 'interpretations' of their book of choice, versus b) 'anything not all-embracing _must_ be punished.'  There are many 'sides' out there.
2.  I imagine; I don't speak cat. Nonetheless, at least a dog has the decency to wag his tail during the pontification!  For the Miley Cyrus example though, I'd have to back the cat.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2013)

Indeed, and since I almost never use footnotes, must bow to your superior arguments  ;D

You have hit on an important issue; Liberal values (and most variations of true Liberalism such as Libertarianism) are explicitly built on the foundation of _rationality_, which makes dealing with people in the real world somewhat problematic. This is very much like the study of economics; the dismal science had a dreadful track record since the "rational economic man" in the textbooks  is about as common as the "New Soviet Man" was in the USSR.

While there are various branches of economics which are built around the idea of people making less than rational and optimal choices, I don't think there is a political theory or branch which deals with irrational or emotional choices the same way.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> .....I don't think there is a political theory or branch which deals with irrational or emotional choices the same way.


Perhaps there's a market....     :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2013)

I think it's time to buy some new duck calls and remove some stations from my lineup.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2013)

As those who know me can imagine, I missed the entire duck dynasty _thing_ (whatever it may have been) and I do not deign to _google_ pop cultural references.

I did read, in passing, about Phil Robertson's situation and took it with a bit of John Stuart Mill: _“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”_ In this case, _A&E_, a corporation, is "all of mankind," at least it is in its power to allow Mr Robertson to propagate his opinions, while Mr Robertson is the "only one person" who is of the contrary opinion. But I also took it with a bit of a sense of another Mill quote, this one from 'On Liberty,' _"Stupidity is much the same all the world over”_ I understand that the owners/managers of _A&E_ think, based on his spoken opinion, that Mr Robertson is stupid and that they, as a broadcasting network, have no business propagating stupidity. (I understand that some people here, in the Army.ca community, do not think Mr Robertson is stupid ... that's you right, of course, but I would leave you with yet another quote from John Stuart Mill, this time from 'Utilitarianism': _“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”_)

I don't think the _Silencing of the Stupid_ is a massive attack on Liberalism; but I don't think it advances Liberalism by a single step, either ~ nor did I agree with silencing George Galloway, Ann Coulter or David irving, even though I think all of them hold profoundly stupid opinions.

With regard to "freedom of the press" and the "right" of celebrities to make their views, however ill-informed, known, I side with the great American journalist A.J. Liebling who said: _"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."_ But that brings us back to my acceptance of, indeed, fondness for a _biased media_, and that's in another thread.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Dec 2013)

>Please don't use the term "Freedom of Speech", it has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.

Only partly correct, and also a dangerous, weak, and puzzling refuge to take in this matter, since the government is also not involved when a business declines to serve - or even to allow entry - to some person on whatever grounds the business deems appropriate.  The principle "because the government is not involved" could lead to some profoundly undesirable results in a hurry.

What has been overlooked in the "argument" is that a violation or diminishment may be contractual, but it is still a violation or diminishment.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2013)

A&E is suffering from a violent backlash, and for now, the "suspension" is more of an idea than a reality. Another target of diminishment proves to be a formidible predator. Prediction; we have reached a cultural turning point along with the political one (see the Big Shift; a similar realignment is happening in the US) and would be gatekeepers and arbitrators of "political corectness" will see much more pushback against their activities:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/phil-robertson-returning-to-duck-dynasty-episodes-on-january-15th/



> *Phil Robertson Returning to Duck Dynasty Episodes on January 15th*
> by Matt Wilstein | 12:59 pm, December 21st, 2013
> 
> A&E’s “suspension” of Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson will apparently not affect new episodes of the show scheduled to start airing after the holidays on January 15th. Entertainment Weekly is citing sources “close to the situation” who say that when the show returns from hiatus, footage featuring Robertson, who caused a major uproar with his condemnation of homosexual sex and remembrances of the Jim Crow South in GQ magazine, will remain intact.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2014)

Sometimes the best way to protect what is important is passive resistance. I am posting it in this thread, since the actions being decribd here are pretty much in line with the ideals of freedom of expression, use of property and Rule of Law. Rather than taking to the streets, people are simply ignoring the attempts by the State to overreach its boundaries. The key here is the recognition that the State has limited resources as well, and simply cannot prosecute the millions of people who are refusing to buy insurance or smoking pot. If enough people start blowing off the Progressive State this way, they will essentially overwhelm the bureaucratic and regulatory apparatus, or collapse the financial calculations that underpin programs (this is what is happening to Obamacare; the masses of young, healthy people who are needed to fund the wealth transfer aspect of the program are simply ignoring it).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/26/obamacare-numbers-health-exchanges-insurance-obama-column/4913341/



> *How Americans can kill Obamacare, legalize pot: Column*
> Glenn Harlan Reynolds 5:07 p.m. EST January 26, 2014
> Nobody is signing up, and everybody -- in Colorado,at least -- is smoking.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2014)

The importance of the "small platoons" (Alexis de Tocqueville described America as a "Nation of Associations", see below) in building or rebuilding a "Liberal" (in the proper sense of the word) society. To protect and rebuild "Liberalism" as understood in this thread, the overwhelming force of the Regulatory and Welfare State needs to be dismantled and the "small platoons" allowed to move back into the centre of personal and public life. There is one of many possible windows of opportunity, as public finances become ever more strained. Many parks, sports arenas and recreation centres are named after service clubs; perhaps they can take them back from the local levels of government:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/167816



> *The Real Public Servants*
> by James Huffman
> Private enterprise does more for the national good than it gets credit for.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2014)

_Liberalism_ includes the _rights_ - not necessarily all fundamental rights - to think about or believe in and propagate _opinions_ in a free and open "marketplace of ideas." There is a very _illiberal_ notion out and about in so-called _liberal_ democracies, like America, Britain and Canada, that the _rights_ to freedom of thought and freedom of expression must give way to a perceived _right_ to not be offended.

Rex Murphy rages against this _illiberal_ rubbish in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/12/rex-murphy-on-ayaan-hirsi-ali-universities-have-become-factories-for-reinforcing-opinion/


> Rex Murphy on Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Universities have become factories for reinforcing opinion
> 
> Rex Murphy
> 
> ...




Just one point: freedom of thought, of conscience is a fundamental freedom, it is respected across both _liberal_ and _conservative_ democracies, but freedom of expression is not quite so universal, it is a uniquely _liberal_ value.

Brandies university was named for the late U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Louis D. Brandeis (who I often mention because he (and Samuel D. Warren) defined the _right to privacy_ which I hold to amongst the four fundamental rights (the others being life, liberty and property as defined by John Locke). Louis Brandies was famous, and sometimes reviled by _conservatives_ (illiberals), for being a strong advocate of the fundamental rights. My guess is that he would be leading the hue and cry, using stronger language than Rex Murphy does, at this decidedly cowardly attack on a core liberal value. 


Edit to add:


By the way, the same logic that says that it is wrong to try to restrict Hirsi Ali to the intellectual shadows says that these people must be allowed to spew their venom, too:






If we believe in freedom of speech then they, too, are free to speak out. Ditto for holocaust deniers like David Irving and racial supremicists like the late Prof Philippe Rushton. If we are going to restrict speech because it is "hateful" but fails to meet the (properly difficult) legal standard of "inciting to violence" then we are no longer a liberal democracy, but we are not enroute to being a _conservative_ one, either, we are, simply denying our own, self proclaimed, values. In short, we are kidding ourselves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Apr 2014)

Funny thing about those signs. They all appear to be written by the same person.

"OK, line up! Here's your sign."


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2014)

While the normal answer to _bad speech_ is _good speech_, one thing the people in the pictures upthread are not doing is using speech to promote an argument, but rather deliver a threat.

One of the other rights that we may have to rediscover, in addition to freedom of speech, association and unfettered use of property is the right to self defense against would be Brownshirts who are trying to seize or suppress these rights.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Apr 2014)

Although there are principled philosophical arguments to justify freedom of expression, a pragmatic one will do: it is safer to have people out in the open and to know who they are and what they espouse, than not.


----------



## pbi (15 Apr 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Although there are principled philosophical arguments to justify freedom of expression, a pragmatic one will do: it is safer to have people out in the open and to know who they are and what they espouse, than not.



I agree. The recent incident at the University of Saskatchewan in which the US anti-gay speaker LaBarbera was removed in handcuffs from the campus, is an illustration of what (I think...) we are talking about here.

Let me declare my bias first. I have a gay son, a gay uncle, and three very good and old Army friends (two still serving) who are gay. I don't like homophobic idiots, or ranting gay-burners. Everybody here knows I am a really a closet Lefty (Woops...that was my inside voice..) >

That said, after some thought, I think that what happened to LaBarbera was wrong. While nobody should feel criminally threatened, or in danger for their personal safety, nobody has the right not to be offended.

The justification offered by the university was, IMHO, puerile in the extreme:



> "We are a diverse campus, we are a welcoming campus," Tom Chase, one of the vice presidents of the university said. "We celebrate that diversity and our staff felt that the material and some of the things they had with them simply contravened that policy and we asked them to leave."



Rubbish. If they are truly "welcoming" and "diverse", then they would do something like this: provide LaBarbera and everybody else an open podium, fully accessible to students, faculty, etc. Let these speakers deliver these message, as they see fit. Do not, in any way, censor or interfere with them as long as they are not directly inciting criminal violence.

One of three things will happen: nobody will pay attention; people will pay attention and agree with the speaker; or people will mock, heckle, challenge and laugh at the speaker.

Maybe, if we are lucky and considering it is supposedly an institution of higher learning and critical thinking, somebody will advance a cogent counter-argument. That would be free speech balancing free speech.

But banning, censoring, or worst of all clapping in irons, are stupid, fear-driven responses. I don't like what LaBarbera or people of his ilk have to say, but he should have a right to say it.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2014)

:goodpost:

Totally true and well said PBI. 

I would say that a university, of all places, should make a point of getting the widest range of speakers and points of view on campus to challenge students and staff, and institutions which deny or suppress speech that _isn't_ libelous, treasonable, seditious or inciting criminal behaviour are doing a serious disservice to their reputations and their students.


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2014)

And I would add the treatment of Anne Coulter by the U of O to this list. I also do not like her nor her view of Canada, but what I like or don't like is not the point. She should have been allowed to say her piece, as disagreeable as it may have been. At the same time, she should have been required to respond to challenges from the audience.

There is a need for discretion here somewhere: I'm not able to pin it down, but I think it is safe to draw a line at the direct incitement of violence. For example:

"Ethnic Group "X" are a major source of violent crime and thereby cause our community to be unsafe. I think they are a threat. We should make sure that they are not being favoured by political correctness: they should answer for the damage they are doing"

Unpleasant, disturbing, not necessarily factual, possibly libelous if it were specific enough. But not worthy of being restricted. Tolerable.

But not ( I think...) this:

"Ethnic Group X are  murderous subhuman savages. They are planning to burn our homes, rape our wives and daughters and butcher us. We have to arm ourselves against them, right now, march to their ghetto and kill them all before they get us!! This is what God wants!"

OK--I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I think you see what I'm getting at. I don't know where the line actually is: the term "hate" can be misused to represent "stuff that offends me or makes me feel uncomfortable".

The danger in allowing totally unrestricted speech is that in some situations, it is only a matter of a few minutes before angry, violent words are turned into angry, violent actions which can't be undone, and may lead to far worse things.

Still, I think it's a far better COA to provide as many "safety valves" as possible, with academic institutions being a very fine venue. After all, before you can really dismantle or defeat an idea, you need to understand it. Ideas are best understood once they have been articulated clearly.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2014)

There's a broader question here:

Should people be sanctioned for what they think, or what they do (or incite others to do)?



I think most of us would say the later. Unfortunately, recent examples have focused on the former.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Apr 2014)

Good discussion.



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There's a broader question here:
> 
> Should people be sanctioned for what they think, or what they do (or incite others to do)?


With a "what they say" between the "think" and "do" element?

I'm with those who prefer hearing/seeing it (as long as it's not like pbi's second example telling people to do illegal things) than having it hidden/supressed.


----------



## Griffon (16 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> "Ethnic Group "X" are a major source of violent crime and thereby cause our community to be unsafe. I think they are a threat. We should make sure that they are not being favoured by political correctness: they should answer for the damage they are doing"
> 
> Unpleasant, disturbing, not necessarily factual, possibly libelous if it were specific enough. But not worthy of being restricted. Tolerable.
> 
> ...



How are those two statements really different?  In the first, the individual is saying "Ethnic Group X...[is] a threat...they should answer for what they are doing."

So you're painting a population with a wide brush, prejudging it's members based on ethnicity (against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but that's ok? And a call to action to boot. I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between your two examples. In my eyes, neither one of them are acceptable, or tolerable. Ever.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Apr 2014)

PBI is not saying either are acceptable. He is saying that the first example is merely unpleasant. The second example is a direct incitement to violence.


----------



## Griffon (16 Apr 2014)

...and the first is a call to action against an ethnic group based on an individual opinion that they, as a whole, are a threat to society.  The action is not implicit, but is open to the imagination of the audience.  I guess my response would depend on the environment - if this was said in an open forum of education, government, or any other such that promotes two way communication and allows an immediate rebuttal, then I would tolerate the first; and immediately challenge it.  But in a setting where an individual is delivering a speech to a crowd, with no expectation of a challenge, then this crosses the line, at least for me.

Edited to add:

In an ideal world, where all individuals are rational, then anyone should be free to way whatever they want.  But we aren't, the world isn't.  It's comments, speeches that contain language such as this that lead to intolerance.  That intolerance leads to suppression and violence.  The words change peoples' attitudes and beliefs, which are the foundation of their thoughts, speech, behaviour and actions.  It promotes hatred.

Individual liberties should be defended, but only to the point that they do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> ... But in a setting where an individual is delivering a speech to a crowd, with no expectation of a challenge, then this crosses the line, at least for me.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> ...



And now you see why I don't know where the line really should be.

We could err on the side of never allowing anybody to express anything that would offend anybody: this would be political correctness gone mad, far beyond even what its advocates probably imagine. Since anybody (and don't forget that a corporation is an "anybody" under the law) could conceivably be offended by anything, this would mean no public expression about anything, including concerns about threats to workplace safety, the environment, corrupt officials, shoddy products, etc, etc.

Or, we could let anybody express anything: I represented that (albeit in an over the top way) in the second example. I don't think that is a good idea by any stretch: it is almost guaranteed that some group of agitated witless sods will do something violent and stupid: a very expensive way to test a theory. I don't want any of my friends or loved ones to be the collateral damage in a test like that.

I think the line lies where Thucydides indicated: sedition, treason or outright incitement to criminal violence. Libel is a case by case issue that IMHO should stay where it is: as a civil issue not a criminal one.

I don't like hearing all sorts of people, many of whom I regard as mouth-breathing cretins, but because I don't "like" something, or because I feel uncomfortable, is not IMHO a reason to stop those people from pubilc expression. And certainly not in a university seting.


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There's a broader question here:
> 
> Should people be sanctioned for what they think, or what they do (or incite others to do)?
> I think most of us would say the later. Unfortunately, recent examples have focused on the former.



I'm not all that worried about what people think: we will (hopefully...) never really know that. What my concern is about is the _expression_ of what they think, and the extent to which we should (or should not) limit that.

 I agree fully that what people physically do is a big concern, but in general wrong actions are well covered by the law.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Apr 2014)

I agree with Griffon. Comments expressed in an environment where they can be challenged and debated versus soap box tirades inciting hatred of a group are quite different forms of speech and freedoms.


----------



## Griffon (16 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> We could err on the side of never allowing anybody to express anything that would offend anybody: this would be political correctness gone mad, far beyond even what its advocates probably imagine. Since anybody (and don't forget that a corporation is an "anybody" under the law) could conceivably be offended by anything, this would mean no public expression about anything, including concerns about threats to workplace safety, the environment, corrupt officials, shoddy products, etc, etc.



The biggest issue I have is that the first example has a call to action.  Phil Robertson's (Duck Dynasty) comments about gay marriage, or Guida Barilla's (Barilla Pasta) rationale for not having LGBT relationships in his company's advertisements are totally acceptable examples of free speech.  Neither suggested any action be taken against a group, they just shared their own personal views on a lifestyle.  I don't agree with either man's position, but it's theirs to have.  I think these examples may be more in line with what you were trying to get at; at least I hope so.

I'm not concerned about whether people will be offended - slave owners were offended at the notion that they should free their "property".  The bus driver and white passengers were offended when Rosa Parks wouldn't get up.  Progress has come from propositions than people found offensive.  But to make suggestions that actions should be taken against an ethnic group, such as your first example gave, leads to hateful actions and should not, IMHO, be considered tolerable in the public forum.

On a similar note, I find it frustrating that Quebec's Charter of Values' banning of "kippas, turbans, burkas, hijabs and 'large' crosses" for public service workers was considered acceptable. That feels like a giant leap in the wrong direction.  Oh, and that crosses would be acceptable at all; I love double standards...


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2014)

Perhaps a specific and less extreme example would better illustrate my concerns:

Phil Robertson said that he disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle, but he would never discriminate against them.

For that he was resoundingly chastised to the point where his livelihood was challenged. There were even threats of violence made against him. The reaction was very Inquisition-like in response - "he should not be allowed to think that way".

While his comment may be unpleasant to some, does it warrant the backlash that ensued? Not in my estimation. Clearly he was to be punished for what he believes. 

I'm concerned that we've reached a point where you can not hold a belief that differs from the orthodoxy; and if you do you should be treated like a pariah. It sounds very Orwellian to me when we police people's thoughts, and not particularly consistent with the classic liberal position.


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2014)

Griff, I'm not following your "call to action" concern.

An "action" can be anything. A protest, a petition, a letter-writing campaign, etc are all actions. When example #1 said "they should answer for..." it did not suggest violent action. You could argue it was implied, but then you are literally trying to convict someone for their thoughts, not their action (which was mentioned above, and I am completely against the idea of "thought" crimes).

I'll bet I could find examples of Bill Maher saying something similar to example #1, "Evangelicals are a major source of hatred and discrimination towards gays, they are a threat to gay people. We should make sure they are not protected by political correctness, we should hold them accountable." (not a direct quote by Bill Maher) Bill Maher, in this context, would likely be calling for "rational" people to squash Evangelicals through direct use of "reason and common sense." AKA by verbally defeating any and all Evangelical stupidty.




			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There's a broader question here:
> 
> Should people be sanctioned for what they think, or what they do (or incite others to do)?
> 
> ...



I am not in favour of the state trying to go inside my head and decide what I was or was not thinking and then decide if it should be a crime or not. This is why I think "hate" crimes are effin' stupid.

Plus, who doesn't commit thought crimes  ;D


----------



## Griffon (16 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Griff, I'm not following your "call to action" concern.
> 
> An "action" can be anything. A protest, a petition, a letter-writing campaign, etc are all actions. When example #1 said "they should answer for..." it did not suggest violent action. You could argue it was implied, but then you are literally trying to convict someone for their thoughts, not their action (which was mentioned above, and I am completely against the idea of "thought" crimes).



I didn't specify violence.  Interestingly, you made the same assumption you thought I made, which helps to make my point on the dangers of this example. And there is still a call to action against an ethnic group as a whole because, in the hypothetical speaker's opinion, they are a source of violence.

So, statistically speaking, south central LA is predominantly populated with African-Americans and fraught with gang violence.  By extending the thought, but with this specific example, you are defending that it would be perfectly ok for someone to promote that some action, whatever that action may be, should be taken against the entire black population of south central LA, each and every individual, due to the threat perceived by that person.  Sorry, I don't buy it.  That's promoting racism and prejudice.

The example dealt with an ethnic group as a perceived source of violence, that the speaker felt should be dealt with, and that it was on the acceptable side of the line.  That was what I took issue with.  I think I understand what pbi is trying to get at, but I think it wasn't the best example.  The Maher/Evangelical example is a good one though, just as the Phil Robertson and Barilla examples are.  The last two, the ones I mentioned earlier, are factual cases where people spoke their beliefs about the LBGT community.  Neither broke the law or incited violence, the public in general were free to let these individuals know how they felt about that.  There was a call to boycott Barilla pasta due to the comments and that's ok, that's the system working.  You get to pick a side and defend it, that's your right.

But to make a call to action of any type against an entire community because you don't feel safe from a few? That's a call for oppression.

IMHO, the Criminal Code has the line drawn in the right place for hate speech, as can be found at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html.


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> I didn't specify violence.  Interestingly, you made the same assumption you thought I made, which helps to make my point on the dangers of this example. And there is still a call to action against an ethnic group as a whole because, in the hypothetical speaker's opinion, they are a source of violence.
> 
> So, statistically speaking, south central LA is predominantly populated with African-Americans and fraught with gang violence.  By extending the thought, but with this specific example, you are defending that it would be perfectly ok for someone to promote that some action, whatever that action may be, should be taken against the entire black population of south central LA, each and every individual, due to the threat perceived by that person.  Sorry, I don't buy it.  That's promoting racism and prejudice.
> 
> ...



Okay, I think I am picking up what you are laying down. Because Example #1 is calling for action to be taken "against a group, because of the actions of a few members of their group," then you say it is unacceptable.

While I agree that it is unacceptable, I would argue that true freedom of expression *does* allow for bigotry, racism, etc.

So if someone wants to call for a peaceful protest against allowing black people to drink out of the same water fountains as white people, then despite how racist this is, despite the fact that it is a "call for action" against a specific race as opposed to specific people, I still think our society is better to allow for this type of stupidity than to suppress it.

Again, as long as the "call for action" is not a call for _violence_, then _sticks and stones will break bones, but names will never hurt someone_ is still pretty valid IMO.


----------



## Griffon (16 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> So if someone wants to call for a peaceful protest against allowing black people to drink out of the same water fountains as white people, then despite how racist this is, despite the fact that it is a "call for action" against a specific race as opposed to specific people, I still think our society is better to allow for this type of stupidity than to suppress it.



And I would say that such a protest should _not_ be allowed, and is in fact illegal:

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), Sec 319 (1) - "Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a criminal offence]."

Such an act would infringe on those individual's rights and freedoms, and would most definitely "breach the peace".  I personally do not see the benefit in permitting such behaviour. I would even go so far as to say that a lack of condemnation would be akin to condoning such acts.  Our society has stated that this is not tolerable behaviour in our society, and that permitting acts that impose on other's individual rights and freedoms, as equal members of our society, are not welcome.

There's a certain standard that is expected of people in public, and that's what the laws in place were created to protect.  If an individual wants to take part in an "interest group" that wants to have these discussions in private, that's their prerogative, their right to do so.  But to say that it's tolerable for the KKK to burn a cross outside my neighbour's house? Nope.  It's non-violent, it's just a demonstration, but it's not ok.  By extension, calling on others to do so in public is, by my interpretation of the above reference, also against the law. And I think that's a good line to defend.

Oh. And sometimes words do hurt. I'd be happy to have that discussion with you if you'd like.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Apr 2014)

"We are a diverse campus, we are a welcoming campus," Tom Chase, one of the vice presidents of the university said. "We celebrate that diversity and our staff felt that the material and some of the things they had with them simply contravened that policy and we asked them to leave."

Translation: We are an ideologically well-defined and conforming campus, welcoming to all who share our ideology or pretend to do so by remaining silent on their heresies.  Witches must be burned.


----------



## pbi (19 Apr 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "We are a diverse campus, we are a welcoming campus," Tom Chase, one of the vice presidents of the university said. "We celebrate that diversity and our staff felt that the material and some of the things they had with them simply contravened that policy and we asked them to leave."
> 
> Translation: We are an ideologically well-defined and conforming campus, welcoming to all who share our ideology or pretend to do so by remaining silent on their heresies.  Witches must be burned.



This is what I was getting at. A university (of all places...) should not be in the business of strangling free speech, even if it is offensive. I still agree with the guidelines for restriction that Thucydides identified, in the case of free expression, as being the standard.  After all, if you can't say it, then maybe you can't print it, either. And if it can't be printed, then maybe you shouldn't read it, either. And., if you shouldn't read it, then maybe we should ban it. So, what's the difference between the "liberal" who might want "_Mein Kampf_" removed from the library, and the "conservative" who wants "_Das Kapital_" removed?

(Yes...I know, bad use of terms "liberal" and "conservative" but they are serving as markers here...)

I disagree with Griffon that any call to action is inherently wrong and dangerous and should be banned, even if it is focused on a particular group (ie: "illegal immigrants"). But here is where we run into what may be the real problem, and what tends (I think) to reinforce Griffon's argument.

Maybe what we really fear is not the speaker at all, but the listeners. We fear that, in the right circumstances, words such as my first example (which don't actually call for violence) will inspire a section of the crowd to go off and commit violent acts against the group, even when that isn't what the speaker intended. Or, that if such expressions become commonplace, an environment will develop in which the "new normal" is to say it is OK to take action against that group, thus lowering the bar for more extreme forms of expression that actually do encourage violence.

So, we are assuming that a percentage of our society, upon hearing the first example, or something like it, will commit violence. Thus, (we say) we can't take the risk of allowing that speech in the first place, since we can't predict or control the consequences. Sort of like allowing smoking in an oil refinery: it might be OK, or it might be disastrous.

So, who decides what "that speech" is, and what are the guidelines? Ciould we allow (say...) full freedom in an academic setting, but not on the street?


----------



## ballz (19 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> And I would say that such a protest should _not_ be allowed, and is in fact illegal:
> 
> Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), Sec 319 (1) - "Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a criminal offence]."



I think you are reaching quite a bit here. I don't think if a bunch of numpties held up signs on a street corner that said "Segregation works best! Black and white people shouldn't use the same toilet!" it would pass the litmus test for "inciting hatred."


----------



## Griffon (19 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> This is what I was getting at. A university (of all places...) should not be in the business of strangling free speech, even if it is offensive. I still agree with the guidelines for restriction that Thucydides identified, in the case of free expression, as being the standard.  After all, if you can't say it, then maybe you can't print it, either. And if it can't be printed, then maybe you shouldn't read it, either. And., if you shouldn't read it, then maybe we should ban it. So, what's the difference between the "liberal" who might want "_Mein Kampf_" removed from the library, and the "conservative" who wants "_Das Kapital_" removed?
> 
> (Yes...I know, bad use of terms "liberal" and "conservative" but they are serving as markers here...)
> 
> ...



For the record, the University did not suppress free speech, they just chose not to provide the forum for it.  I wasn't there, I'm not sure what the whole story is, but it was within their rights to request that LaBarbera leave.  It's strange to me that they would do so though, seeing that a university should be a place to share thoughts, ideologies, regardless of what they are.  Students are also free to share their opinions as well...

I didn't say that any call to action is inherently wrong, but I did say that a prejudiced call to action against a group identified by their race/religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation in a public forum is.  If you choose to hold that opinion and share it with your friends in public, as much as I might disagree with it, that's your prerogative.  But it isn't right to incite violence, hatred, or prejudice in the public setting.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> And I would say that such a protest should _not_ be allowed, and is in fact illegal:
> 
> Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), Sec 319 (1) - "Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a criminal offence]."
> 
> ...



Really interesting discussion and I'm enjoying following it.


Just a point.  I thought you were debating the merits of having a law such as the one that you cite.  Citing the fact that such a law exists doesn't really answer the question of whether it should exist. Does it?

By the way, my own take on that law as cited is that it is perfectly adequate in this form:

"Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a criminal offence]"


----------



## Griffon (19 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> I think you are reaching quite a bit here. I don't think if a bunch of numpties held up signs on a street corner that said "Segregation works best! Black and white people shouldn't use the same toilet!" it would pass the litmus test for "inciting hatred."



Try it and let me know how it goes for you.  I'm sure I'll hear about it in the evening news.


----------



## ballz (19 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> Try it and let me know how it goes for you.  *I'm sure I'll hear about it in the evening news.*



Yes, as it should, which simply means it's controversial. You are looking more and more like the "Anything that offends anybody should be banned" crowd to me.

I'll bet another group would show up with signs saying "Segregation is dumb." Voila! Freedom of expression reigns.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> ballz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





 ;D     >

It would be amusing to see if it were a 'coloured' person holding the sign. 

 >


----------



## Griffon (19 Apr 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Really interesting discussion and I'm enjoying following it.
> 
> 
> Just a point.  I thought you were debating the merits of having a law such as the one that you cite.  Citing the fact that such a law exists doesn't really answer the question of whether it should exist. Does it?
> ...



You're right, the mere existence of a law doesn't mean it should.  I do agree with the existence of this particular law however, as I believe that individual freedoms cannot override the rights of others, including the right to security.  That is not to say that I believe people have a right to not be offended, that's just ridiculous.

What benefit would there be, either to society or to individuals, if we supported prejudiced discrimination?  I think that creating an environment where there is acceptance, or at least tolerance, in diversity, where individuals feel safe in expressing who they are without fear of being oppressed by others, is a greater goal of liberalism than holding freedom of speech above all else.  Public prejudiced calls to action fly in the face of this ideal, which is why I oppose it.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> For the record, the University did not suppress free speech, they just chose not to provide the forum for it.



I don't see the difference. It had the same effect to all intents and purposes. A sin of omission, if you will.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> I think that creating an environment where there is acceptance, or at least tolerance, in diversity, where individuals feel safe in expressing who they are without fear of being oppressed by others, is a greater goal of liberalism than holding freedom of speech above all else.  Public prejudiced calls to action fly in the face of this ideal, which is why I oppose it.



Where's the tolerance in someone wanting to express to the world that they are an ignorant bigot? You can't regulate or force your belief system on someone. That just makes them push back against the system that's "trying to keep them down". If you allow them to speak, and rationally dismantle their argument then you've both allowed free speech, and shown your tolerance and support for anyone that wants to be what that bigot hates.


----------



## Griffon (20 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't see the difference. It had the same effect to all intents and purposes. A sin of omission, if you will.


He was still free to say his piece off campus, so his freedom of expression was left intact.  Like I said, I wasn't there, so I don't know what the atmosphere on the campus was like, or what kind of feedback from faculty and students the administration received.  I don't know the basis of their decision, but it was still their right to not listen to what he had to say on-campus.  We may not agree with that decision, which is our right, but it was theirs to make.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> He was still free to say his piece off campus, so his freedom of expression was left intact.  Like I said, I wasn't there, so I don't know what the atmosphere on the campus was like, or what kind of feedback from faculty and students the administration received.  I don't know the basis of their decision, but it was still their right to not listen to what he had to say on-campus.  We may not agree with that decision, which is our right, but it was theirs to make.



That's a mighty fine hair to split. They provide the place for "free speech" but choose who gets access. Still censorship.


----------



## Griffon (20 Apr 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where's the tolerance in someone wanting to express to the world that they are an ignorant bigot? You can't regulate or force your belief system on someone. That just makes them push back against the system that's "trying to keep them down". If you allow them to speak, and rationally dismantle their argument then you've both allowed free speech, and shown your tolerance and support for anyone that wants to be what that bigot hates.



I never said people didn't have the right to demonstrate their ignorance or their bigotry. I have a problem with it being acceptable to attempt to *organize an action* against an identifiable group, whether it be race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other, on the basis that one or some of those in the group are perceived as a threat.  See earlier posts...


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2014)

Protesting against, actually even saying "we should protest about" temporary foreign workers, would also fit your definition of "unacceptable."

Identifiable group - Check
Perceived as a threat - Check
Prejudice/discrimination involved - Check
Call to action - Check

The only reason you can justify not allowing someone to say, on TV, "We should petition to demand that black people and white people use different water fountains" is that it might offend someone. You seem to be use the word "acceptable" as if it means the same thing as "legal," this is definitely not the case...


----------



## Griffon (20 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Protesting against, actually even saying "we should protest about" temporary foreign workers, would also fit your definition of "unacceptable."
> 
> Identifiable group - Check
> Perceived as a threat - Check
> ...



The foreign worker debate is not against the workers themselves, but rather against the employers and the government policy.

I am not concerned that someone would be offended in the water fountain example, although that would certainly happen.  I would be more concerned with the actions that such a petition would promote, whether it be intentional or not.  If you could reasonably demonstrate that particular example could be done without disturbing the peace then I would happily retract my statement. But in the environment I grew up in, such an action would most definitely result in a less than peaceful confrontation.

Acceptable - I would accept it. I could tolerate it. No further action required. That does not mean I condone, promote, or share the ideal/belief/statement.  Our laws lay out what our society has deemed to be acceptable, and not.


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> such an action would most definitely result in a less than peaceful confrontation.



But we already have laws to deal with that. Anybody can become "less than peaceful" over anything they are offended about, whether it is a racist remark or not.

We don't need to restrain people's freedom of expression to prevent something we already have a law against.


----------



## Griffon (20 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> But we already have laws to deal with that. Anybody can become "less than peaceful" over anything they are offended about, whether it is a racist remark or not.
> 
> We don't need to restrain people's freedom of expression to prevent something we already have a law against.


So we, as a society, should be accepting of public hateful speech, such that a reasonable person ought to have known that it would lead to a breach of peace? What benefit does that provide? And if it is nothing but deleterious to society, why condone it?

You hold the freedom of the individual to such high regard; what about the rights of the victims of such acts?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Apr 2014)

How do you know which given set of speech will lead to a breach of the peace?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> You're right, the mere existence of a law doesn't mean it should.  I do agree with the existence of this particular law however, as I believe that individual freedoms cannot override the rights of others, including the right to security.  That is not to say that I believe people have a right to not be offended, that's just ridiculous.
> 
> What benefit would there be, either to society or to individuals, if we supported prejudiced discrimination?  I think that creating an environment where there is acceptance, or at least tolerance, in diversity, where individuals feel safe in expressing who they are without fear of being oppressed by others, is a greater goal of liberalism than holding freedom of speech above all else.  Public prejudiced calls to action fly in the face of this ideal, which is why I oppose it.




Rights often collide, and sometimes one right interferes with another. We rely upon courts, using precedents which reflect the *ever changing standards* of society, to sort out which right trumps which other(s) in any given situation.

Is there a hierarchy of rights?

I believe and assert that there is.

I think we need to distinguish between fundamental rights and other (optional?) rights. I have, fairly consistently, I hope, explained that I believe that there are only four *fundamental rights*: the rights to *life*, *liberty* and *property*, as defined by John Locke in 17th century England and the right to *privacy* as defined by Warren and Brandeis in 19th century America. Those four rights are, I assert, inalienable and belong to each _individual_, regardless of race, creed, citizenship or status, and it is the duty of the state to protect those rights against all comers, including the state and its agents. Some of those rights can be broadly or narrowly interpreted, and that's why e.g. many American scholars suggest that a woman's _right_ to have an abortion is found within the Warren/Brandeis explanation of the right to privacy. All the other rights, including, the _right_ to security and, indeed, to the rights to _free expression_ are less than absolute and some _rights_ ~ see e.g. the bottom half of the United Nations Universal declaration Human Rights, for example ~ are *rubbish rights* and are unworthy of consideration.


----------



## Griffon (20 Apr 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How do you know which given set of speech will lead to a breach of the peace?


You don't always, that's a judgement call. But sometimes it's pretty obvious. That's why I used the wording I did regarding a reasonable person, and why the law uses the word "likely". 


ERC, how would you rank the individual freedom of expression against the collective right to security?


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2014)

But there is no "collective right to security", just as there are no "collective" rights to anything.

So long as every individual can be assured their four fundamental rights are being respected by others (a cultural issue) and protected by the State (a legal and political issue), then the polity as a whole is secure. If an individual breaches the rights of another or many other individuals, _then_ there is an obligation to act.


----------



## pbi (20 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> For the record, the University did not suppress free speech, they just chose not to provide the forum for it...



De facto the same thing, as has already been pointed out.



> ...It's strange to me that they would do so though, seeing that a university should be a place to share thoughts, ideologies, regardless of what they are.  Students are also free to share their opinions as well...



Agreed. My earlier point, exactly, and my question above.



> I didn't say that any call to action is inherently wrong, but I did say that a prejudiced call to action against a group identified by their race/religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation in a public forum is.  If you choose to hold that opinion and share it with your friends in public, as much as I might disagree with it, that's your prerogative.  But it isn't right to incite violence, hatred, or prejudice in the public setting.



I'm not sure I'm following you here. Is it OK to express this kind of thinking (ie: call to action against an identifiable group) in public, but only to your friends? Or is it your prerogative to do it anyhow? I certainly agree with you that the direct incitement of violence is a criminal act and not to be encouraged. I don't want my son to be a victim of gay-bashing (although he is bigger than me...)



> ...I think that creating an environment where there is acceptance, or at least tolerance, in diversity, where individuals feel safe in expressing who they are without fear of being oppressed by others, is a greater goal of liberalism than holding freedom of speech above all else.  Public prejudiced calls to action fly in the face of this ideal, which is why I oppose it...



OK, but can't "expressing who you are" sound like this:

_"I am a God fearing Christian! I believe every word in the Holy Bible, exactly as it is written!  And I believe that homosexuals are evil sinners who will be destroyed by God! And therefore gays are my enemies! And I will strike them down and drive them back! And I don't think they should be teachers or doctors or lawyers or police officers or serve in the military!!_"

Don't get me wrong here: I don't like these types, and in most cases I have nothing but disgust for them, but does that give me ("us") the right to shut them down?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> But there is no "collective right to security", just as there are no "collective" rights to anything...



No: I don't buy this at all. I think you are attacking the basis of civil society, in which members surrender or restrict certain individual rights to establish a secure and stable collective in which they can reasonably expect their security to be guaranteed. You are also undermining the argument used equally by religious groups and by trade unions: that the group has a right to be treated in a particular way by society, and represents itself as a group in order to do so.

For example: "This is a Christian (Islamic, Jewish,. etc...) country, and we are Christians! We have the right to have our religion and its practices protected against the interference by the Godless state!!!"

or:

"We are hard working blue-collar people! We built this country and we keep it running! We have the right to have our efforts and contributions as a group respected and rewarded by guaranteed (insert desired  benefit here...) And we don't want the employers turning dogs and firehoses and police on us!"


----------



## Griffon (20 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'm following you here. Is it OK to express this kind of thinking (ie: call to action against an identifiable group) in public, but only to your friends? Or is it your prerogative to do it anyhow? I certainly agree with you that the direct incitement of violence is a criminal act and not to be encouraged. I don't want my son to be a victim of gay-bashing (although he is bigger than me...)



Sorry, typo; I meant to say private.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> OK, but can't "expressing who you are" sound like this:
> 
> _"I am a God fearing Christian! I believe every word in the Holy Bible, exactly as it is written!  And I believe that homosexuals are evil sinners who will be destroyed by God! And therefore gays are my enemies! And I will strike them down and drive them back! And I don't think they should be teachers or doctors or lawyers or police officers or serve in the military!!_"
> 
> Don't get me wrong here: I don't like these types, and in most cases I have nothing but disgust for them, but does that give me ("us") the right to shut them down?



Except for the "I will strike them down" part, this has said by many people.  That part of the example could be considered uttering threats...but the rest is just a personal opinion (that I do not agree with), and in nearly all cases should be totally protected as the individual's freedom to have and share.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2014)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ illustrates the "free speech" vs "hate speech" issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-one-jewish-leader-defended-a-neo-nazi-and-stayed-true-to-his-community/article18071161/#dashboard/follows/
My emphasis added


> How one Jewish leader defended a neo-Nazi and stayed true to his community
> 
> BERNIE FARBER
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



For the record, I was and remain an admirer of Alan Borovoy, never more so than in his defence of Zundel's _free speech_.


----------



## pbi (20 Apr 2014)

Outstanding. As usual, ER, you have struck the right chord. I wish I was as smart and well read as you, but I do the best I can. 



> “While I feel obliged to defend Mr. Zundel’s legal rights, I have no comparable obligation to treat him with respect.”



I guess this is what I was trying to say.

or:

"_I don't agree with what you say, but I will die to defend your right to say it_"

I believe that the world, especially the digital world, is populated by false and ill-informed arguments. (This site largely excepted) Anybody with a keyboard is now an expert, and can blast their drivel across the world without the effort required to research anything or walk to the mailbox to post a letter to the editor.

The only way to fight back is to expose these arguments to common sense, moderation, and reason. Suppression or denial usually don't get rid of bad ideas: in a perverse way they make them stronger. They are like vampires: expose them to the light of reason and fact and they crumble, if people are willing to listen and to think.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Apr 2014)

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will die to defend your right to say it"

I prefer the Patton formulation:

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will kill or imprison as many fanatical sons-of-bitches as necessary to defend your right to say it"


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2014)

Collective rights are a fiction, since collectives are arbitrary, and also assume that all members of the collective have the same wants and needs. Community is not a "collective" like the Borg, it is a free association of individuals who share common interests, assumptions, goals or something else which causes them to come together. Communities can be strongly or weakly bounded, and as we all know from the real world, there are areas of overlapping interest and areas where people diverge. Individuals banding together to advance an interest they have in common isn't a collective right, it is people making a common cause and advancing a common interest. (once you get below the surface, you will find lots of uncommon sub interests and desires amongst the group).

The article upthread is a perfect example. Under the "collective" argument, there is no way that Alan Borovoy would have ever worked to defend Ernst Zundel, since that would be against the interests of the "Jewish" collective. Dr Condelezza Rice is another perfect counter example to the collective argument; playing neither the race nor gender card still became the 4th most powerful person on the planet. I'm sure you can find all kinds of examples closer to home; are all soldiers uniformly supportive of the CPC, for example? Even watching the news we can see this. The protesters who drove out the previous government of Ukraine because of the rejection of an EU trade deal in favour of a pro Russian one were united in the desire to change the government, but certainly turned out to be after multitude of different goals once the initial one was achieved; the was (and is) no "collective" there.

Even in the case where one might assume there is no ambiguity, the collective argument makes no allowance for individuals. A list of all left handed people (an unambiguous collective grouping) would not reveal any commonality beyond left handedness. Their political, social, professional and economic circumstances and choices would be different. Insert any other "collective" grouping where I wrote left handed, and you will have the same observations.


----------



## Griffon (21 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Collective rights are a fiction, since collectives are arbitrary, and also assume that all members of the collective have the same wants and needs. Community is not a "collective" like the Borg, it is a free association of individuals who share common interests, assumptions, goals or something else which causes them to come together. Communities can be strongly or weakly bounded, and as we all know from the real world, there are areas of overlapping interest and areas where people diverge. Individuals banding together to advance an interest they have in common isn't a collective right, it is people making a common cause and advancing a common interest. (once you get below the surface, you will find lots of uncommon sub interests and desires amongst the group).
> 
> The article upthread is a perfect example. Under the "collective" argument, there is no way that Alan Borovoy would have ever worked to defend Ernst Zundel, since that would be against the interests of the "Jewish" collective. Dr Condelezza Rice is another perfect counter example to the collective argument; playing neither the race nor gender card still became the 4th most powerful person on the planet. I'm sure you can find all kinds of examples closer to home; are all soldiers uniformly supportive of the CPC, for example? Even watching the news we can see this. The protesters who drove out the previous government of Ukraine because of the rejection of an EU trade deal in favour of a pro Russian one were united in the desire to change the government, but certainly turned out to be after multitude of different goals once the initial one was achieved; the was (and is) no "collective" there.
> 
> Even in the case where one might assume there is no ambiguity, the collective argument makes no allowance for individuals. A list of all left handed people (an unambiguous collective grouping) would not reveal any commonality beyond left handedness. Their political, social, professional and economic circumstances and choices would be different. Insert any other "collective" grouping where I wrote left handed, and you will have the same observations.



This is exactly the point. A collective right to security for any identifiable group is merely the sum if the individuals' rights. No other sense of community was expressed or implied.


----------



## pbi (21 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Collective rights are a fiction...



I don't think that is correct. Labour laws over the last century (for example) have established the existence of "collective" rights beyond any question, whether we agree with them or not.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... and also assume that all members of the collective have the same wants and needs. Community is not a "collective" like the Borg, it is a free association of individuals who share common interests, assumptions, goals or something else which causes them to come together. .



Members of a society, IMHO, come together precisely because they do share in common some assumptions, interests, wants and needs, as basic as they may be. I don't believe for a moment that there is 100% congruency in all of those wants and needs and interests, but there must be a very significant amount or a society will not function, or will be dysfunctional. What is the law if not a codified expression of those commonly held  wants, needs and assumptions?


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2014)

Some rights are natural and some are civil.  Collective security is a feasible civil right (power - see diagrams here for what I mean by "power").

(I don't want to go dancing around on the head of a pin again as to whether "natural" - or "negative", or "inherent" - rights exist for finely disputed values and shades of "natural".  I don't need Big Brother or anyone else to declare my rights of conscience or provide me with things to believe.)


----------



## pbi (22 Apr 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Some rights are natural and some are civil.  Collective security is a feasible civil right (power - see diagrams here for what I mean by "power").
> 
> (I don't want to go dancing around on the head of a pin again as to whether "natural" - or "negative", or "inherent" - rights exist for finely disputed values and shades of "natural".  I don't need Big Brother or anyone else to declare my rights of conscience or provide me with things to believe.)



I think I am with you, but I was responding to Thucydides' assertion that collective rights are a fiction. They are not. They might be disagreeable, but they exist as wholly and completely as any other right that is capable of having a real effect on anything.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2014)

I think I am "with" you both - collective security is not a fiction, but it is not "natural" - it requires some sort of organized effort in which individual liberties give way to duties and obligations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2014)

_Collective rights_, which I agree exist ~ consider language rights, gender _rights_ and labour laws ~ are a very _conservative_ notion in that they attempt to protect what could be a _liberal_, individual right (the right to use the official language of your choice in any federal legislative, legal or regulatory body) by turning the individual's _right_ into a bureaucratic _duty_.

We, willingly, accept limits on our rights, to some degree even on our *fundamental rights* (life, liberty, property, privacy), when we live in an organized community. Sensible zoning laws, for example, or condominium by-laws, limit your and my freedom to use our private property as we see fit - and it's a restriction which we accept, generally, as the price to be paid for the benefits of a town or city or even a condominium _community_. But our *fundamental rights* - when properly expressed in law - are applicable to individuals and it is the state's duty to protect us from all comers: other individuals and collectives of all sorts, including the biggest _collective_ of all, the state itself.

Some _collective rights_ are probably necessary inescapable but we should not mistake them for 'good' things. (I would argue that language, gender and labour _rights_ could all be guaranteed, in a _liberal_ state as individual rights. It would be legally complex, I suppose, but I think it would be possible.)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2014)

This has been one of the best threads, ever. It is the model of what the internet should be, instead of what it frequently is.


----------



## pbi (23 Apr 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This has been one of the best threads, ever. It is the model of what the internet should be, instead of what it frequently is.



You could say the same thing about this site in general. That's why I love it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We have a Conservatism needs work thread, but I don't agree with either:
> 
> 1. The current definition of _conservatism_; or
> 
> ...




And, following this and the Brandeis University/Ayaan Hirsi Ali thing (on page 2 of this thread) we have another: Asuza Pacific University, which self describes as being "a leading Christian college ranked as one of the nation’s best colleges by U.S. News & World Report and The Princeton Review," has decided to _"postpone"_ a discussion (public lecture?) by controversial, libertarian thinker/author Dr Charles Murray, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institution. Murray's public lectures are often controversial and _*illiberals*_ routinely try to stop him from being heard by e.g. pulling fire alarms in auditoriums, etc.

I don't find Murray offensive, not, anyway, in the way I find e.g. Ann Coulter offensive - which is because she is shrill, strident and appears unwilling to consider, much less debate, any idea that does not conform to her _conservative_ world view. But I agree they are both controversial and the both will, as they aim to do, *provoke* strong public reactions. That is no reason to deny them access to young, impressionable minds in universities - as _Ottawa U_ did to Coulter, as _Brandeis_ did to Ali, and as _Asuza Pacific_ is doing to Murray. Universities that are afraid that their students are intellectually unable to cope with _ideas_ that are not part of the 'received wisdom' is suggesting, to the world, that they, and their faculties, and the high schools that _feed_ them, are failures at their business ~ teaching people to think for themselves.

The brarbarians aren't just "at the gates," they are ensconced in the faculty clubs and university administrative offices.


----------



## pbi (23 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't find Murray offensive, not, anyway, in the way I find e.g. Ann Coulter offensive - which is because she is shrill, strident and appears unwilling to consider, much less debate, any idea that does not conform to her _conservative_ world view. But I agree they are both controversial and the both will, as they aim to do, *provoke* strong public reactions. That is no reason to deny them access to young, impressionable minds in universities - as _Ottawa U_ did to Coulter, as _Brandeis_ did to Ali, and as _Asuza Pacific_ is doing to Murray. Universities that are afraid that their students are intellectually unable to cope with _ideas_ that are not part of the 'received wisdom' is suggesting, to the world, that they, and their faculties, and the high schools that _feed_ them, are failures at their business ~ teaching people to think for themselves.
> 
> The brarbarians aren't just "at the gates," they are ensconced in the faculty clubs and university administrative offices.



I agree with your principle. Much as it's true that a life unexamined is a life not worth living (...or something like that...), I think it's probably true that an idea or belief that has never been "examined": i.e; challenged, exercised and tested against a coherent opposing argument-is probably something not worth believing in.

That approach scares many people: note that one of the first targets of authoritarian governments, religious fundamentalists, ethnic nationalists, etc is always the education system. It is important for all these groups that critical thought and analysis, logical argument, or anything else that challenges the "holy writ" are disabled, suppressed or demonized.

Unwittingly or consciously, that is what these institutions are doing. IMHO they are saying two things (equally harmful to true "education" as opposed to  "training".

First, they are directly saying "_those are bad thoughts and words and we will not allow them here because they will offend someone _". Second, what they are implicitly saying is "..._and our beliefs/values are so weak and ill-founded that if we were exposed to these bad thoughts and words they might collapse. We might even agree with the bad thoughts! Horrors!_"

And, maybe (although I'm not quite as certain about this part, as I alluded to earlier in this thread...) that's what we do in society at large if we prevent certain types of expression. But others here have pointed out that a certain danger might lie in screaming inflammatory rants in the town square.

As I think I've made clear elsewhere, I don't like most of what I see from many of these nasty mouthpieces who identify themselves as champions of the Right, and triumphantly parade their ignorance. (And, yes, the Left has its clown acts, too...) But, if they are in fact wrong, and ignorant, then the way to deal with them, at least in an academic setting, is to expose them to rational counter-argument.

Not screaming to drown out the speaker, or running up on stage with banners and paint, or with threats of violence, and certainly not with physical bans or removal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2014)

They (universities, academics) are neither concerned with anyone taking offense nor fearful of a battle of ideas (a closed mind fears no new idea because a closed mind ignores discordant ideas.)  Those are excuses advanced to camouflage the aim to scrub away everything which does not serve sanctioned narratives.  They are no different than religious or political fanatics of any era who divide the universe of ideas into permitted and forbidden.  They are the antithesis of what they claim to be.  Few things are as absurd as a modern politically correct academic or secular progressive zealot criticizing a person for religious beliefs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2014)

Tony Wilson explains why he voted to defend _liberalism_, by deciding to allow _Trinity Western University's_ law school graduates to article and practice in BC despite that school's abhorrently _conservative_ religious code, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/i-voted-for-trinity-western-because-of-the-rule-of-law/article18319508/#dashboard/follows/?click=drive


> I voted for Trinity Western U because of the rule of law
> 
> TONY WILSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




The law societies of Ontario and Nova Scotia, having _caved_ to public opinion, are acting in an _illiberal_ manner - shame on them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2014)

_The Guardian_ has an interesting article and interactive _infographic_ on the topic of gay rights. The headline say: *More than 2.7 billion people live in countries where being gay is a crime*.

I don't know if being gay is _natural_, inherently part of a person's basic makeup, or a 'lifestyle choice.' Further, I don't care. It seems to me that ones sexuality is, broadly and generally, protected by two of the four rights* which I hold to be *fundamental*: _liberty_ and _privacy_. 

There's one thing slightly wrong with the _infographic_. The countries in grey are defined as where homosexuality is either "illegal or the law is unclear." In some cases, however, we know that the law is, simply, silent, but, where it applies, the _common law_ ends up extending _de facto_ protection. In other countries where the law is equally silent we know that religious courts make it a crime. They ought not to be lumped together.

Are _gay rights_ something for which we should be willing to send our sons and daughters into battle? Or should we _promote_ gay rights by imposing economic sanctions on counries that deny them? I don't know ...

____
* They are, I repeat: *Life*, *Liberty* and *Property*, roughly as defined by John Locke in 17th century England, and *Privacy*, as defined by Brandeis and Warren in 19th century America.


----------



## curriculumvitae (16 May 2014)

With due respect, General _____ . I misrepresent myself as 'gay' to be able to seduce a bisexual Caucasian Chinese spy named Michael Roche or Roach. But you know who makes fun of me, bully me and threaten me? Liberals in the workplace. I give you a name. Theodore Butler of CityFinancial. You cannot sacrifice a healthy economy just for one isolated case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. We are a country of laws. We do not adhere to Sharia law's "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Do you hear of Harper ever mention a slur on gays?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 May 2014)

Caution: <rant>

One of the _rubbish rights_ (see the bottom half of the United Nations _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_ for a wonderful example of _rubbish rights_) that many people believe they have but which is, in fact, not worth anything at all, ever, is the _right to not be offended_. This _rubbish right_ is now being advanced and even strengthned by requesting that universities require professors to offer _trigger warning_ when something in a curriculum - the novel _Things Fall Apart_ is used as an example - *might* trigger some sort of trauma in people who have experienced "racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more.”

See the article, from the _New York Times_, here.

If anyone is likely to suffer trauma from reading a novel, even one with very graphic content, or discussing, say, the _holocaust_ of the Jews in the 1940s, or, perhaps, the _Rape of Nanjing_, then they are too *intellectually weak* to be in a university. Let's face it, boys and girls, some of you are not worth being educated much above elementary level - some algebra, geometry, physics and chemistry, a bit of Shakespeare (but not _Titus Andronicus_!) and Milton and some basic history (memorizing dates and stuff about dead white men) and geography - you belong behind a cash register, or maybe, for you smarter than average people, a bank counter or on an assembly line or construction site (but not as a plumber or electrician). You do not belong in a university wasting the time of people who have IQs with three digits in them.

</rant>


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2014)

A long article from the American Interest which suggests one of the causes of the dysfunction that i have alluded to in other threads: that technology, demographics and economics are changing in ways which current institutions and political parties are unable to deal with. In this case the article focuses on the negatives (crime and disinterested or anti-civic actions by the wealthy), which are as valid as demographics and technology in understanding change. This is also somewhat related to Niall Ferguson's thesis in "The Great Degeneration".

Unless and until *we* take action (organizing new social and political structures to deal with these issues, and creating and empowering social, political and legal institutions that can deal with these issues), things can only get worse:
Part 1

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/



> POLITICAL ECONOMY & THE STATE
> The Twin Insurgency
> NILS GILMAN
> The postmodern state is under siege from plutocrats and criminals who unknowingly compound each other’s insidiousness.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2014)

Part 2:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/



> PLUTOCRATIC INSURGENCY
> 
> The ideological retreat of the social modernist state thus represents the central enabler of plutocratic insurgency. During the 1990s, a new class of globetrotting economic elites emerged, enriched by the opportunities created by globalizing industrial firms, deregulated financial services, and new technology platforms. This new class is an order of magnitude richer in absolute terms than previous generations of the ultra-wealthy. As Thomas Piketty has recently demonstrated, the rise of the new plutocrats since the 1970s reflects an historic shift in the structure of capital accumulation. The accumulation regime that predominated during the heyday of social modernism depended on a new class of workers who could afford the goods they were producing. The great fortunes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were built on the backs of worker-consumers in primarily inward-looking national contexts. By contrast, today’s plutocrats thrive by selling their goods and services globally; their success is dramatically less connected to the fortunes of their fellow national citizens than was that of previous generations.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2014)

Part 3

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/



> CRIMINAL INSURGENCY
> 
> Many of same processes that are driving the plutocratic insurgency also underpin the process of criminal insurgency: the globalization of economic flows, growing wealth inequality, and a collapse of state provisioning of public goods and services. That is partly why these are twin insurgencies, plutocratic and criminal, for they have both thrived on the basis of the same shifting preconditions. The other reason for the twinning is that they abet one another.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2014)

Part 4

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/



> THE ENCLAVIZATION OF MICROSOVEREIGNTIES
> 
> During the 1990s, it became a fashionable form of irony to declare that, in the new post-Marxist era, the state (the dirigiste state, at least) was destined to wither away. In truth, something more subtle was going on: the double collapse of social modernist state’s capacity and legitimacy was giving birth not to the post-historical utopia of a universal consensus in favor of liberal democratic capitalism, but rather to a two-headed monster in the form of plutocratic secession and deviant globalization. Instead of projects of collective emancipation, what both plutocratic and criminal insurgents desire is for the social modernist state to remain intact except insofar as it impinges on them. Neither criminal nor plutocratic insurgents are revolutionaries in the classic modernist sense of political actors who seek to take over the state.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2014)

This is a good article on how the Classical Liberal conception of rights (negative rights) is being eclipsed by the concept of "positive rights". Since these so called positive rights depend on being "given" something at the expense of someone else, the are logically a null concept (a right is inherent and cannot be "given" to you) and further undercut by being situational (if there is no money, then you can't be "given" the right under any circumstances [Ontario voters take note], and the State can be selective in how they "give" or enforce positive rights. A look at so called Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals demonstrates this when you see who gets prosecuted and who does not).

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-07/who-s-the-real-hobby-lobby-bully



> *Who's the Real Hobby Lobby Bully?*
> 
> Megan McArdle
> Jul 7, 2014 4:32 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## FJAG (12 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is a good article on how the Classical Liberal conception of rights (negative rights) is being eclipsed by the concept of "positive rights". Since these so called positive rights depend on being "given" something at the expense of someone else, the are logically a null concept (a right is inherent and cannot be "given" to you) and further undercut by being situational (if there is no money, then you can't be "given" the right under any circumstances [Ontario voters take note], and the State can be selective in how they "give" or enforce positive rights. A look at so called Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals demonstrates this when you see who gets prosecuted and who does not).
> 
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-07/who-s-the-real-hobby-lobby-bully



I'll admit the article is well written but it nonetheless is full of crap.

The concept of "negative" v "positive" rights is a shallow argument that simply doesn't hold water. 

All you have to do is consider all the "positive" rights that even the most evangelical Christian expects from government -- a military, a police force, a fire department, an education system. The fact that they are services does not change the argument in that every citizen expects that he has the right to the delivery of these services. It's hard to understand why so many of these groups can't accept that their fellow citizens, all of there citizens, are entitled to an adequate level of health care (including assistance with reproduction control) or common dignity and equality for those who have a different sexual orientation.

The US Supreme Court is unfortunately now under the thrall of a very Roman Catholic majority that has very little hesitation in reading even the most vague legislation to support their arch-conservative agenda. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act had a very limited scope and purpose. It even had bipartisan Republican and Democrat support at the time because no one, especially the more liberal side of Congress, had any idea that these fellows would at some point essentially say that corporations had the right to impose their management's views of religion on their workers.

Religious freedom to me means that everyone has the inalienable right to be free from having the religious beliefs of others imposed on them either directly or indirectly. At that point they are free to choose whatever religion they personally want to follow or, just as importantly, to choose not to follow a religion at all.

What has been happening over the last few decades in the US is a resurgence of large element of those in power who feel that their religious tenants should be imposed on all of the population. The fact that they wrap this in a thin veneer of alleging that they are merely protecting their own religious "rights" makes it no less a coercive. 

:slapfight:

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2014)

The concept of negative and positive rights is entirely sound.  A notion of a right being only inherent is too limiting.  A right can, for example, be freedom from something or an entitlement to something.  How hard is it to recognize this distinction and concede that it exists?

The culture war is essentially an ongoing argument over the provision of entitlements.  As the number of entitlements increases and the pressures on those obligated to provide them increases, partisanship and unpleasantness increase - the bigger the prize and the more that's at stake, the more it's worth fighting for and the fewer scruples some will have with respect to means.  The instinct to tyranny is not hard to trigger in people - just hear them out and then decline to go along with their program.

The dispute over funding contraception isn't about policy; it's about [sarc]putting those g*ddamn Christians in their place[/sarc].  People who supported the losing side in the USSC decision aren't angry because they have to pay for their own pills; they're angry because Hobby Lobby's owners squeezed out from under the statist thumb.  If a government wants funded contraception, then all it has to do is fund contraception - no need to dragoon any unwilling party to provide it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jul 2014)

Repeating myself ...



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Rights often collide, and sometimes one right interferes with another. We rely upon courts, using precedents which reflect the *ever changing standards* of society, to sort out which right trumps which other(s) in any given situation.
> 
> Is there a hierarchy of rights?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> All you have to do is consider all the "positive" rights that even the most evangelical Christian expects from government -- a military, a police force, a fire department, an education system. The fact that they are services does not change the argument in that every citizen expects that he has the right to the delivery of these services. It's hard to understand why so many of these groups can't accept that their fellow citizens, all of there citizens, are entitled to an adequate level of health care (including assistance with reproduction control) or common dignity and equality for those who have a different sexual orientation.



The military and police are there to protect the rights to life and liberty (defending the citizens from foreign invasion and criminal elements who seek to take their persons or property), so this is the State performing its duty to protect the "negative" rights of the citizens.

You might consider that volunteer firefighters far outnumber the professional firefighting departments in the US, and Education has historically been provided not as a State owned monopoly, but rather as a private business or as part of the package that religious orders provided to parishioners. Firefighting services can be considered a part of protection of life and property, so there is an argument for the State to provide firefighting services, but this is not as strong of an argument as for a Police Force or Armed Services.



> The US Supreme Court is unfortunately now under the thrall of a very Roman Catholic majority that has very little hesitation in reading even the most vague legislation to support their arch-conservative agenda. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act had a very limited scope and purpose. It even had bipartisan Republican and Democrat support at the time because no one, especially the more liberal side of Congress, had any idea that these fellows would at some point essentially say that corporations had the right to impose their management's views of religion on their workers.



The assertion that this is some sort of Roman Catholic plot is, bluntly, unproven. The underlying act was passed during the Clinton Administration, hardly a religious or conservative administration. The act is not allowing the management to impose their views of religion, it is preventing the owner's from having their religious beliefs trampled by the power of the State. Oddly, Democrats were enthusiastically for this while Bill Clinton was president, presumably because they thought this was a nice piece of tokenism or window dressing, and never imagined that there were people who _did_ take their religious or spiritual beliefs and duties seriously.



> Religious freedom to me means that everyone has the inalienable right to be free from having the religious beliefs of others imposed on them either directly or indirectly. At that point they are free to choose whatever religion they personally want to follow or, just as importantly, to choose not to follow a religion at all.



The correct historical explanation is the American Founders took the ability to impose religion away from the State. There can be no "Church of America", nor can Americans be coerced into following any State religion. Americans are free to worship (or not) in any way they choose, and they can come to your doorstep and tell you about "their" religion, you can equally decline to listen (or show up on their doorstep instead...)



> What has been happening over the last few decades in the US is a resurgence of large element of those in power who feel that their religious political tenants should be imposed on all of the population. The fact that they wrap this in a thin veneer of alleging that they are merely protecting their own religious "rights" the 99% makes it no less a coercive.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The correct historical explanation is the American Founders took the ability to impose religion away from the State. There can be no "Church of America", nor can Americans be coerced into following any State religion. Americans are free to worship (or not) in any way they choose, and they can come to your doorstep and tell you about "their" religion, you can equally decline to listen (or show up on their doorstep instead...)



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

For close to 200 years, this statement meant exactly what it said.  It limited the United States Congress alone from establishing a state religion or passing a law specifically outlawing a religious practice in other than general terms.  If polygamy  was a religious practice, it was not protected.

In the wisdom of judges, a law limiting the power of Congress was extended to state and local government.  At the time of the Bill of Rights, some states still had state religions and maintained them for some time so the general intent seems to have been to bind Congress alone.  

There was never a deliberate attempt to separate Church and State in the United States but the Supreme Court perceived the need for such separation and proceeded to do what judges do best, essentially legislate applying even the flimsiest grounds available to them.


----------



## FJAG (13 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The military and police are there to protect the rights to life and liberty (defending the citizens from foreign invasion and criminal elements who seek to take their persons or property), so this is the State performing its duty to protect the "negative" rights of the citizens.
> 
> You might consider that volunteer firefighters far outnumber the professional firefighting departments in the US, and Education has historically been provided not as a State owned monopoly, but rather as a private business or as part of the package that religious orders provided to parishioners. Firefighting services can be considered a part of protection of life and property, so there is an argument for the State to provide firefighting services, but this is not as strong of an argument as for a Police Force or Armed Services.
> 
> ...



You missed some important points in this.

"Volunteerism" has nothing to do with it. My original post was to point out that "negative" v "positive" rights is merely a way to play with semantics when making an argument rather than addressing the reality of modern society.  In modern society there are numerous "positive" services which a democratic government now provides to its citizenry to the point that they have, in effect, become "rights" - not those "basic or fundamental rights" a la Locke and others but those that are established as part of the compact between a citizen and his government. As a further example in our Canadian Society basic health care is one of those "expected rights" while in the US it is not because powerful lobbies exert sufficient influence on the legislators to prevent it.

I have never said, nor do I believe, that there is a "Catholic Plot". I'll expand a bit. There are currently nine justices, six of whom are Catholic and three Jewish. The five MALE Catholics created the majority opinion while the three Jewish and one FEMALE Catholic dissented. Add to that that the five male Catholics are Republican appointments and the female one is a Democrat appointment and (unless you are wearing very heavy blinders) you can easily see that there is a male centric, Catholic centric bias at play with respect to a law where the competing interests are an alleged "freedom of religion" issue as opposed to a "female access to contraception issue". I'm not a subscriber to conspiracy theories, but the make-up of the sides in this decision lead to obvious conclusions.

I agree that the RFRA was enthusiastically endorsed by the Democrats and said so. Passage was virtually unanimous in Congress. The thing is that you have to take the act in context to its historical place. The USSC in a decision called Sherbert v Werner (1963) set out the principles by which a court should determine the right to unemployment compensation for a employee who had been terminated for an alleged exercise of religious freedom-generally this test favoured the employee. Subsequently in another USSC decision called Oregon v Smith (1990) the test was tightened in a case where the religious conduct (in this case a native American ingesting peyote) was an illegal act. Long story short, the RFRA (1993) was designed to overturn the more recent Smith decision and return the test to that in Sherbert. 

I think a reading of the RFRA, the Sherbert decision, the Smith decision and the Hobby Lobby decision will make it clear that the majority in Hobby Lobby has not so much interpreted the RFRA but used it as a vehicle which will give employers (whether sole proprietors, partnerships or corporations) to exert their view of religion over their employees and customers. As Ginsburg stated in her dissent, this is a majority opinion of "startling breadth" giving "commercial enterprises" the ability to opt out of virtually any law (save and except tax laws) which "they judge to be incompatible with their religious beliefs" unless the government can display that there is a "compelling government interest" and there is a "less restrictive alternative" available to the government. Since the majority found that where the government itself could fund the program (such as here by providing birth control through a separate program) there is virtually no situation where a "less restrictive alternative" will not be available. 

I'll paraphrase in summary: just about every privately held business has been given a licence to discriminate against anyone it wants to on religious grounds. This decision will literally open the floodgates. One thing about devout employers is that they generally will have no hesitation to proselytize to the limit. 

I don't think that anyone can truly believe that the Hobby Lobby decision will benefit the average employee in achieving freedom of religion or freedom from religion; if anything it has given religious control to the rich and powerful and in this respect in fact leads to an erosion of the First Amendment rights for the ordinary person.

 :endnigh:

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2014)

>an erosion of the First Amendment rights for the ordinary person.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is not hard to interpret and is all the First Amendment guarantees with regard to religion.  I doubt anyone is in jeopardy of being forced into an establishment of religion or barred by Congress (or a lesser jurisdiction) from freely exercising their own.

I understand what people want, but the obligations they seek to impose on corporations could use another amendment.

Old-style fascism (people and corporations obligated to serve and participate as dictated by the state) was a foolish path to choose for the ACA.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jul 2014)

Notwithstanding the obvious differences in power between most individuals (the 99%) and many corporations, the _identity_ of the corporation as a person is very important, I would argue _vital_, in the USA - because of the structure of the US Constitution.

UK and EU laws, as I (imperfectly) understand them, achieve similar ends by different means: corporations can own land, can sue and be sued and can be called to the bar of criminal justice for acts committed in their names. In return they have some _rights_, too - rights which aim and, generally manage to facilitate business.

The _invention_ of the corporation was a key to making the modern, industrial, investor based economy work. Some aspects of corporate _identity_ (as a person) may be problematic, sometimes, but, broadly and generally it is a good, even essential thing.


----------



## FJAG (14 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding the obvious differences in power between most individuals (the 99%) and many corporations, the _identity_ of the corporation as a person is very important, I would argue _vital_, in the USA - because of the structure of the US Constitution.
> 
> UK and EU laws, as I (imperfectly) understand them, achieve similar ends by different means: corporations can own land, can sue and be sued and can be called to the bar of criminal justice for acts committed in their names. In return they have some _rights_, too - rights which aim and, generally manage to facilitate business.
> 
> The _invention_ of the corporation was a key to making the modern, industrial, investor based economy work. Some aspects of corporate _identity_ (as a person) may be problematic, sometimes, but, broadly and generally it is a good, even essential thing.



As a starting point you need to understand that western law generally has two sources: the common law which came out of the UK and which all former British colonies (including the US) have incorporated in some way, and the Napoleonic Code which most continental European countries have incorporated.

In both systems (and I say generally) the law recognizes a corporate entity as a "person" and therefore automatically provides the corporation with the same bundle of rights that a "person" has under the law regardless as to whether it is common law or code based.

The big caveat here is that law makers can easily add or subtract powers by simply changing its definition section or to use terms (like "individual" when it does. One needs to look at the specific law's wording, the country's or province's "Interpretation Act" and case law very carefully to see who or what it applies to. Sometimes the wording is vague and requires the assistance of the courts to interpret. (just as an example early drafts of the Charter of Rights used the term "everyone" but this was amended to the final "every individual" so that there would be no mistake that these rights were designed to exclude corporations. Similarly human rights codes and privacy laws focus on the "individual" as opposed to the "person" but each can distribute the rights set out as the legislators feel are appropriate.

One final comment: many laws have been very badly drafted (try reading our Income Tax Act sometime) because the writers were not very good--on the other hand, others are left vague on purpose to allow the law to change and grow to meet eventualities that were not expressly anticipated by the original legislators. It is not unusual that a law reaches a result that was not intended by the legislators at the time. This is why we have lawyers and judges and eventually why some laws are rewritten.

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2014)

Moving back to the point of negative vs positive rights, the State is obligated to protect the citizens and their rights (a point Edward brought up; there being only four rights in the view of classical liberals), hence the establishment of protective services like the military and police.

Volunteerism is simply another way the citizens can protect their rights in the absence of the State. Since rights are considered inherent, your rights would remain even if the State is extinguished. This is a bit of a moot argument if you have no way of protecting your rights on your own in the absence of the State. Other forms of volunteerism to protect rights include good things like religious orders and churches offering medical care and charity to the poor and sick, or dubious things like vigilantes to protect property rights.

As for the case which is driving this argument, the State is using its overwhelming power to coerce the owners of a business (and in a related case, a religious order which provides medical care) to do something that is against the precepts of their religion. The mismatch is even more telling when you consider that virtually any contraceptive can be purchased over the counter at a trivial cost, and there is no mechanism which prevents the employees of the store (or patients of the religious order) from purchasing contraceptives on their own. Indeed, I don't believe that the objection to Obamacare by the plaintiffs was based on the _use_ of contraceptives; only _who_ was to provision them.

This would be something like sending a squad of policemen to your house to extort money to buy me an order of take out food. Why should you be forced to pay for my preference?


----------



## FJAG (15 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This would be something like sending a squad of policemen to your house to extort money to buy me an order of take out food. Why should you be forced to pay for my preference?



:rofl:

You're kidding, right?

I think I'll leave this thread. There's no sense in my  :brickwall:

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2014)

>Indeed, I don't believe that the objection to Obamacare by the plaintiffs was based on the use of contraceptives; only who was to provision them.

Belief doesn't enter into it; that was the issue: provisioning (inclusion in employer-funded plan), not use.  The plaintiffs just want to be at one remove.

In view of what could and could not be included in the ACA legislation in order to retain enough votes to pass it, and in view of the numerous carve-outs created afterward, it was petty and foolish of the administration to fight an unnecessary battle and risk an adverse decision with greater consequences.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2014)

Another example of how classical liberalism and people's rights are being slowly eroded away by the growth of unelected and unaccountable mechanisms attached to government (long article), and the increasing crisis of legitimacy for the institutions of government (which leads to a larger crisis as the institutions which make up our society weaken and erode):
(Part 1)

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/15/britains-shrinking-executive/



> *Britain’s Shrinking Executive*
> Frank Furedi
> Britain is leaping head first into the juridicalization of its politics. It will regret it.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2014)

Part 2:



> The Westminster model is frequently regarded as a relatively unconstrained form of parliamentary democracy that provides the power and influence that an executive requires for effective decision-making. This assessment of the capacity of the Westminster system to concentrate formal power in the hands of a small number of players is indisputable. However, successive British governments have felt uneasy about or incapable of exercising the formal power at their disposal and have opted to outsource authority to other institutions. Such a course of action has not been forced upon them by the pressure of veto players. Rather, the willingness to share authority and even sovereignty has flowed from a calculation that, in its absence, governments need to draw on the authority of other institutions to retain their legitimacy.
> 
> One manifestation of this trend has been the rise of “quangos” (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations). These formally independent bodies have become increasingly active in the domain of policymaking and the supervision and management of public regulation. According to one estimate, by the end of 2007 there were 1,162 quangos in the United Kingdom, accounting for £63 billion, or one-tenth, of state spending.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2014)

Part 3



> There is little doubt that the juridification of political life and the extraordinary role played by litigators in public institutions is far more advanced in the United States than in British and other Western democracies. At least formally, Western democracies have been spared the recurring phenomenon of a system in gridlock due to the absence of effective institutions and political culture necessary for collective decision-making. However, despite some profound differences in historical origins, political culture, and institutional dynamics, the numerous corrosive trends outlined here show that the gradual depletion of democratic legitimacy afflicts European as well as American institutions.
> 
> From a sociological perspective these developments can be interpreted as symptoms of the erosion—possibly the exhaustion—of political authority itself in Western societies. Insist on desacralizing the public sphere, as European intellectuals in particular have applauded in recent decades, and eventually the sinews of authority itself, based as they on emotion-laden traditions more than pure reason, will fray.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2014)

I agree with FJAG that there are, in addition to the fundamental rights (of which I assert there are only four but other may think there are more numerous), "those [rights] that are established as part of the compact between a citizen and his government," what he explained as "expected rights."

(I also, however, stand by my assertion that there are, amongst the _rights_ created by the broad 'social contract,' many, far too many *rubbish rights* which are very, very popular but detract from the functioning of a truly civilized society. I would include most 'collective rights' (including language rights, in Canada) as secondary or even, in some cases, rubbish rights, which do at least as much harm as good. I think a good test of the _validity_ of rights is to ask yourself one simple question: would I send my sons or daughters to fight and die to protect those rights for our friends and neighbours? Now look at the bottom bit of the 'rights' in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: are you willing to send your children to fight and die for "the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work" (Art 23), "the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community" (Art 27) or, may the gods help us all, "the right to rest and leisure ... and periodic holidays with pay" (Art 24)? If you are then you are a bloody fool. Those _rights_ denigrate all the really important rights. They are rubbish rights. Now, ask yourself, will you send your son or daughter to fight and die to defend, say, the _Official Languages Act_, the _Canada Health Act_ or the _Canadian Labour Code_? I think not. They are, indeed, part of the (Canadian) social contract, but they are not _fundamental rights_.)

That being said, the social contract is all important, as important as the fundamental rights because it is only when we have a properly functioning social contract that we can, and should expect (demand) that governments protect and defend our fundamental rights

Of the four fundamental rights (Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy - *LLPP*) I  believe that Property and Privacy _rights_ have done more to shape our societies (plural) than have Life and Liberty.

(I need to revisit another point I have often made ... there are three sorts of socio-economic/political cultures: liberal, illiberal and conservative). I think the most purely liberal and conservative societies (and there are few of each) have distinct advantages because they are able to establish and maintain the _momentum_ needed to adapt and adjust while _illiberal_ societies (most, maybe 190 of the UN's 200 or so members are illiberal societies) are doomed to fail.

I have, in the past, used a _gravity well_ as a tool for explaining this ...

                                             
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                                                                                                                  ... you have all played with one of these and you know that no matter how much initial velocity you apply to the sphere (or coin) it will, eventually, without fail, be dragged down.

My contention is that the most purely liberal and conservative societies have developed built in _accelerants_ that keep them orbiting around the top of the gravity well while all the others must, eventually, either sink or adapt themselves into more purely liberal or conservative societies and, therefore, also develop that _accelerant_ for themselves.)

I think that the accelerants are based, mainly, on a shared respect for he rights to property and privacy. It seems to me that even many illiberal societies respect life and liberty, but they are _intrusive_ into property and privacy rights and I regard that as a failure.

My _sense_ is that modern _liberalism_ (as incorrectly defined by the US media, meaning now e.g. Kennedy, Clinton and Obama in America and the NDP in Canada) is *a)* very illiberal, *b)* in the ascendant and *c)* in danger of sacrificing our societies' _accelerants_ and dooming us to sink to the bottom.

I believe that it is only by adopting truly *liberal* values that we (America, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and a few others) can survive and propsper in the long term (centuries, not decades). (Pure _conservatism_ is, in my _considered opinion_, only open to Confucians, what passes for conservatism in America is a dangerous fringe of _illiberalism_, more dangerous to the West than left wing statism.) 

America is, in my _opinion_ the worst place to look, right now, for sane discussions of _rights_ and _responsibilities_.


Edit: typos


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . . .  what passes for conservatism in America is a dangerous fringe of _illiberalism_, more dangerous to the West than left wing statism.)
> 
> America is, in my _opinion_ the worst place to look, right now, for sane discussions of _rights_ and _responsibilities_.
> 
> ...



I swore to leave this thread but don't know how to make it stop showing up so here I am again.

You and I really agree on this one.

In the past I was a strong supporter of the US and especially republicanism. Over the last eight years or so (and especially the last five) I have spent much more time down there and I guess I pay much more attention to their politics because of that.

I still like the US and Americans a lot; its their politicians who make me want to throw up. I particularly find the entire GOP distasteful particularly because half of their platform comes from financial policies that favour the rich at the expense of the poor and because the other half of their platform comes from imposing a fundamentalist Christian philosophy on the country. (I'm ignoring for the time being the policy of frustrating Obama's initiatives regardless of their value to the country)

It's the Christian thing that gives me the biggest concern because there are such a large number of voters down there who have such beliefs and will vote GOP simply because of that.

My biggest concern is that this trend (which is, fortunately, mostly being held in check within the CPC) may at some point be raised here. I would feel much happier with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its preamble didn't contain the phrase "Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Under our Interpretation Act "a preamble shall be read as part of the enactment intended in explaining its purport and object." Given the wrong legislature and the wrong Supreme Court and we could go down the same stupid road the GOP and the USSC have been heading. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster protect us all if that should ever happen.

:cold: 

:cheers:


----------



## stealthylizard (15 Aug 2014)

I don't think we, as a Canadian society, would fall down that christian=party hole that is so apparent in the US.  Our politicians up here seem to try to hide their religious denomination, or at least make it not so obvious.  Even the mention of their religious beliefs loses them support from the general public during elections.  Some of us may see religious belief as a favourable trait, but not one that should be used to determine a politicians path of governance.  We don't (I hope) equate CPC being a party for believers in God, and the Liberals/NDP being a party for non-believers.  

Quebec may be the outlier.  I don't know how much religion plays into their modern day politics for protestant vs catholic leanings.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Aug 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I particularly find the entire GOP distasteful particularly because half of their platform comes from financial policies that favour the rich at the expense of the poor and because the other half of their platform comes from imposing a fundamentalist Christian philosophy on the country.
> 
> It's the Christian thing that gives me the biggest concern because there are such a large number of voters down there who have such beliefs and will vote GOP simply because of that.
> 
> My biggest concern is that this trend (which is, fortunately, mostly being held in check within the CPC) may at some point be raised here. I would feel much happier with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its preamble didn't contain the phrase "Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Under our Interpretation Act "a preamble shall be read as part of the enactment intended in explaining its purport and object." Given the wrong legislature and the wrong Supreme Court and we could go down the same stupid road the GOP and the USSC have been heading. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster protect us all if that should ever happen.



I call BS.  Republicans favour the rich at the expense of the poor?  Perhaps you have one example where favouring the poor at the expense of the rich has made the poor richer.  Never happened.  While many Republicans, and also Democrats, are Christians I simply don't see imposing Christianity as a policy.  Mitt Romney, Republican, was considered pretty much a liberal as governor as Massachusetts and a lot of people wouldn't consider him a Christian.  On top of that mixing religion and government is illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  You simply sound hateful, not Liberal.

You think the Supreme Court could lead us to a theocracy?  Have you actually seen the liberal judgements by a court appointed by conservatives.  Get a grip.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> [size=11pt]
> I call BS.  Republicans favour the rich at the expense of the poor?  _Yes: in tax policies since Reagan. Now, in fairness to the GOP, those tax polices are grounded in some quite respectable economic theories._ Perhaps you have one example where favouring the poor at the expense of the rich has made the poor richer.  Never happened.  _You're quite right, but_ FJAG _never said they did._ While many Republicans, and also Democrats, are Christians I simply don't see imposing Christianity as a policy.  _I agree that neither the GOP nor the Democrats are trying to impose Christianity because, as you point out, that would be unconstitutional, but I think that the GOP, especially, courts the politicallt active and powerful 'religious right.'_ Mitt Romney, Republican, was considered pretty much a liberal as governor as Massachusetts and a lot of people wouldn't consider him a Christian.  On top of that mixing religion and government is illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  You simply sound hateful, not Liberal.
> 
> You think the Supreme Court could lead us to a theocracy?  Have you actually seen the liberal judgements by a court appointed by conservatives.  _I'll let_ FJAG _speak for himself but, givemn his profession I'm bettng he has._ Get a grip.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'll let FJAG speak for himself but, given his profession I'm betting he has.



JAG? - glad I didn't notice.  I might have said how I really felt.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Aug 2014)

How could such a keen observer not notice?


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> . . .  While many Republicans, and also Democrats, are Christians I simply don't see imposing Christianity as a policy.   . . .  On top of that mixing religion and government is illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  You simply sound hateful, not Liberal.  There are numerous areas where this happens but two areas in particular: the pro-life agenda is fundamentalist Christian. Over the last three years over two hundred laws have been passed by GOP state legislatures putting restrictions on abortion to whatever extent they can get away with. The second area is gay rights and marriage. Again the entire argument comes out of fundamentalist Christian objections (and yes I know that there are other religious groups that also object) These laws have been struck down numerous times by so-called "liberal courts" but that doesn't stop a continuous push with new laws. There's a case that came up today
> 
> Just for the fun of it here's an example of this sort of stupidity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tim-guffey-alabama-ten-commandments_n_5682955.html - Basically it concerns an attempt by a county commissioner (GOP) who wants to install a monument to the ten commandments in front of a court house. He also wants a monument of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence so that the public can see how are laws all stem from the word of God.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2014)

>My contention is that the most purely liberal and conservative societies have developed built in accelerants 

In the "gravity well" analogy, it has less to do with having a store of delta-V to give us an occasional kick to keep us in orbit and more to do with negating many sources of friction (friction being why the ball doesn't stay at the top of the model).  "Bad luck" cultures are those with more friction.

I sympathize with people who fear resurgent Protestant religious fundamentalism, but I observe that the direction in which libertine liberties are inexorably moving is away from that threat.  Irresponsible sexual practices and a shot of illicit narcotics - fill your boots, and bill the province for your misadventures.  A smoke and a beer and a pack of pork rinds while popping caps downrange - you immoral criminal who risks consuming vital health care resources.

I reiterate what I've written before: when totalitarianism finally arrives, it will be on the journey along the progressive vector because people must, if necessary, be made to do what is good for themselves.  Everything is subject to debate until they get what they want; then the debate is closed and to raise the subject again is despicably evil and merits ostracism.  Those who will not go along after persuasion is attempted must be compelled if necessary.  The more power is centralized in governments, the more the vituperations flow when non-progressive factions control the offices.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2014)

While being personally irreligious, I am thankful for those who believe in sky fairies and the legacy they have left us with respect to basic civil laws, expectations of behaviour, and LOAC.  Once people cease to believe in sky fairies, I wish you luck applying the mere force of reason to the great masses to convince them why they must refrain from doing some things, and strive to do others.

I think people who work to tear down religion overestimate the capability of people to evolve fast enough to live humanely without it.


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> While being personally irreligious, I am thankful for those who believe in sky fairies and the legacy they have left us with respect to basic civil laws, expectations of behaviour, and LOAC.  Once people cease to believe in sky fairies, I wish you luck applying the mere force of reason to the great masses to convince them why they must refrain from doing some things, and strive to do others.
> 
> I think people who work to tear down religion overestimate the capability of people to evolve fast enough to live humanely without it.



I'm not quite with you on this. While I do appreciate and am thankful to some sky fairy believers for what they have done, I believe that the sky fairy concept wasn't necessary for that. Just as an introduction here's a wiki on the subject of secular morality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality which deals with the concept of a code or moral conduct without the need for a religion.

I'm kind of with Dawkins on this one. I may be paraphrasing here but he said: "'Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you do atrocities' - Voltaire; 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.' Bertrand Russell. As long as we accept that we must respect religious faith simply because it is religious faith, how can we deny the religious beliefs of the Taliban or Bin Laden"

From the crusades to the priests and missionaries who destroyed aboriginal cultures around the world to televangelists who fleece their flocks to the folks in ISIS who are slaughtering innocents in Iraq and Syria, much harm has been and continues to be done in the name of religion. Generally speaking, sky fairyism is the enemy of liberalism and tolerance.

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Aug 2014)

>Generally speaking, sky fairyism is the enemy of liberalism and tolerance.

Generally speaking, I agree, because everything has to pass through middlemen.  Political belief systems have the same problem.  I see little difference between an appeal to God or to Party, except that Party is manifestly human and therefore much easier to hold contemptible.  But while over time most people deprecate the egregious scriptural admonishments and commandments of their religions with few earthly repercussions, political power is harder to escape.

And it's a mistake - albeit an easy one - to see religion as the enemy of liberalism and tolerance and assume that in its absence there would be more of both.  Religion is an excuse for tyranny, rarely a cause.  Religious freedom can also be exploited to preserve other freedoms; being irrational, it is less subject to political pressure (under the right political systems, almost immune).

All the people I know who successfully apply principles of secular morality are probably 75th percentile or better for intellectual capability and education.  But that is basically my point.  Try that with the larger fraction of people who are driven more by desire than intellect.

When a social institution is torn down, something will fill the vacuum.  Religion is one of those cases in which "before I let you destroy it, first satisfy me that you can explain all the purposes it serves"* applies. 

*I paraphrase, and I don't know where the original should be attributed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> JAG? - glad I didn't notice.  I might have said how I really felt.



Quit being so aggressive. Stick to the discussion.

---STAFF---


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Generally speaking, sky fairyism is the enemy of liberalism and tolerance.
> 
> Generally speaking, I agree, because everything has to pass through middlemen.  Political belief systems have the same problem.  I see little difference between an appeal to God or to Party, except that Party is manifestly human and therefore much easier to hold contemptible.  But while over time most people deprecate the egregious scriptural admonishments and commandments of their religions with few earthly repercussions, political power is harder to escape.
> 
> ...




And that brings us back tot he _social contract_: most of the people are below the 75th percentile in intellectual capacity, but they, all of them, have - as they must have - the *right* to choose their government. But they, the majority, are, generally amenable to the local prevailing orthodoxy be in Judeo-Christian, Confucian or Hindu orthodoxy (my opinion based on my own personal observations around the world).b And that, in turn, brings me back to the need to protect _liberalism_, specifically the sort of Scandinavian/English _liberalism_ that still values the sovereign individual over all _collectives_, including the largest _societal collective_ itself, and puts maximum values in civility and the rule of (man made) law.

I am impressed by how well Taoism has recovered from very real, massive _suppression_ from 1950 until 1975. Mao really hated the Taoists, he feared them, I _think_, because they were what he could never be: real *scholars*, _intellectuals_ in our parlance, and he tried harder to suppress them than he did the Confucians or the other religions. (He was, by Chinese standards, actually moderately _tolerant_ of most religions, so long as they did not challenge the primacy of he and his party revolution.) The modern Taoists, it appears to me, are bringing a renewed intellectual rigor to Chinese political and cultural life ... some of it never died, as long as Zhou Enlai was able to protect it, but the Maoist _orthodoxy_ was driven into the Chinese and it was easy, even attractive, and popular. My fear is that the new mix of Chinese intellectual and scholarly rigor in politics and culture will not win out, in much of the _illiberal_ world over our _liberalism_.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And that, in turn, brings me back to the need to protect _liberalism_, specifically the sort of Scandinavian/English _liberalism_ that still values the sovereign individual over all _collectives_, including the largest _societal collective_ itself, and puts maximum values in civility and the rule of (man made) law.



I could not disagree more.  

Putting the individual over the collective is nonsense, because we are social creatures, and to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one.

Ignoring the bigoted and ignorant references to "sky fairyism" from above in this thread, one need not believe in any sort of higher power to adhere to this sort of notion.  For if one values the sovereign individual over all collectives, then that flies in the face of the notion of rule of law (natural laws and man-made), for the sovereign individual is an absolute sovereign, or he is no sovereign at all.

Now, I'm not advocating any sort of Marxist-Stalinist collective, but noting and never forgetting the dignity of the person, the individual, it is "the collective" that makes us "live long and prosper".  And I would note that I advocate the base of any collective is the family unit, and that is is the family unit that defines the society, not the other way around.  For it is good families and family structures that make for good societies.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And that brings us back tot he social contract: most of the people are below the 75th percentile in intellectual capacity, but they, all of them, have - as they must have - the right to choose their government.



I also disagree.  There is no right to determine your government, just as there is no right to determine who your birth parents are.  The notion of "democracy" as we see it is nothing more than a oligarchy, with persons e.g. Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair all vying to determine the course and direction not only of our national policies, but the very social agendas that all three attempt to force upon all of us, enforced through "rule of law" and enslaving us all through criminally obscene rates of taxation.


/ :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2014)

General Disorder said:
			
		

> I could not disagree more.
> 
> Putting the individual over the collective is nonsense, because we are social creatures, and to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one.
> 
> ...





it is precisely because we are social creatures that we must, at all costs and above all else, protect and preserve the life, liberty, property and privacy of each and every individual from the grasp of each and every collective, no matter how well meaning that collective might be. We are people, not ants; _liberal_, enlightened, _Western_ men and women, not Slavic drones in some Kafkaesque superstate in which the _collective_ "needs" of the many run roughshod over the will of the individual.

Government without the consent of the governed - no matter how humane and enlightened -  is illegitimate and can and should be overthrown by any band of rugged individuals up to the task.

No collective, not a village choir, not a community, not a church and certainly not a state is "good," each tries, always and everywhere, to impose its will on others, for its own benefit - generally for the benefit of those who have risen to the top of the collective's power structure.

I stand with Berlin on the notions of positive liberty (self mastery and the *right* to choose those who govern us) and negative liberty (being left alone to life our lives as we choose) as being necessary for the proper functioning of society. But both positive and negative liberty are, inherently, individual values - which operate in opposition to all collectives - and they are wrestled, by individuals, away from society.

I accept that we must each sacrifice *some* liberty, _some_ property and some privacy in order to make the community, our society, work, but we must always question, challenge each _sacrifice_, however small, and ask the _collective_ to justify its demands for more and more of our lives, liberty, property and privacy because it, a church or a government, has no inherent *right* to any of them ... a need, perhaps, in the case of the community or state, but no right.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Aug 2014)

Like the General I too find the phrase "sky fairyism" needlessly inflammatory and pejorative.  Such language doesn't help to resolve disputes.

I am one who, finding the human institution of the Kirk to be fallible is of the firm belief in the existence of a Higher Authority.  It makes my life more bearable and the lives of billions of others equally so.  I have no knowledge of the nature or expectations of said Higher Authority and I look forward to discovering them someday ..... or not.

With respect to the philosophical debates about the supremacy of the individual or the collective:

That and any other debates the roil the nation from time to time have one place of resolution - Parliament.  That is why Parliament must be supreme.  It must be in a position to accurately reflect the mood of the nation on a day to day basis.  The more effective the Parliament is as an arbitrator then the longer the careers of the arbitration committee  will be.

But.

This presupposes two critical preconditions.

It presupposes that Parliament fully and adequately represents all the powers and interests and opinions in the land.

It also presupposes that the nation under Parliament is willing to "Play up. Play up and play the game"  ie to accept the decisions of the referees in Parliament, the arbitration committee, with the equanimity expected of a well schooled boy on the playing fields of Eton.

Parliament must include all the voices of the nation - even the noisome and divisive ones with which we most vehemently disagree.  That chamber that is the House is where the heat should be taken out of arguments to prevent explosions outside of the House.  It is a place where compromise must be found - and compromise is not a bad word.

More critical though is the nature of the culture that imbues and surrounds Parliament.  For Parliament to be effective the nation must accept Parliament as the final arbiter.  The decisions of Parliament must be the final word on any issue until the next Parliament is convened.   

In the event of a dispute between two national entities the expectation must be that the entities will try to resolve their dispute between themselves on an amicable basis.  This is the manner in which most commerce is conducted.

Should the entities require external adjudication then they can go to the courts who will evaluate the dispute against existing statutes and find for one or the other entities.  It is entirely possible that both entities in dispute are operating within the law and at that point adjudication becomes arbitration.    There is no legal case that can be used to easily divide Solomon's Child - somebody just has to decide on suitable COA for going forward.

If the decision is not acceptable to all entities in dispute then they have the right of appeal.  

In Canada that right of appeal extends through higher courts to the Supreme Court (if the Supreme Court deigns to spend some of its time listening to those particular appeals)

But the Supreme Court is not the last word on a case - despite the impression created by media and politicians alike in this country.

The last word on a case is provided by the Highest Authority In The Land - Her Majesty And Her Heirs and Successors in Council - that is to say that edifice which is Parliament.

Our fundamental right is the right to petition the Queen.  Once the Queen has spoke the matter is resolved beyond further dispute.

And that is the point that society, the nation, our nation needs to come to terms with.  If we want the nation to prosper then we have put our trust in the system - foibles and all - C+ / B- politicians and bureaucrats and lawyers and all - just learn to accept the impact of bad calls on the "game" just as we accept the final outcome of a Grey Cup or Stanley Cup game.

Perhaps if Parliament spent more time arbitrating disputes, hearing and responding to petitions, they might generate a greater sense of worth to the community and improve their esteem and, at the same time, be less inclined to spend their time creating new laws and regulations.

These three fundamentals apply:

Disputes are resolved by adjudication and arbitration
The King/Queen in Council is the ultimate arbitrator and every citizen has a right to be heard by his or her sovereign
Courts stand in place of the King/Queen in Council and operate within the bounds established by the King/Queen in Council

People must accept decisions and put aside their anger and look for the next opportunity to get a different decision when  a new Council is convened.

That conservatively Whiggish view of Parliament is now perceived as illiberal but it was the guiding formulation from 1689 to 1982.


----------



## GAP (16 Aug 2014)

I find it interesting that calling all religions "sky fairyism" brings out those who ascribe to it to defend their turf......guess it's not going away soon......we have had and may have more wars to defend those principles.... :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Aug 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that calling all religions "sky fairyism" brings out those who ascribe to it to defend their turf......guess it's not going away soon......we have had and may have more wars to defend those principles.... :



On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.

In your personal experience, how did your brush with those movements work out for you? Peacefully?

All this to say is that religion (or those who would use religion as a fig leaf) have no monopoly on violence in the name of good.

I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and are willing to force others to see it their way....


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Aug 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.
> 
> In your personal experience, how did your brush with those movements work out for you? Peacefully?
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## GAP (16 Aug 2014)

> All this to say is that religion (or those who would use religion as a fig leaf) have no monopoly on violence in the name of good.
> 
> I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and are willing to force others to see it their way....



I agree


----------



## ballz (16 Aug 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.



And all (communism, marxism, religions, etc) have a common denominator of not respecting an individual's sovereignty...



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and *are willing to force others* to see it their way....



So, the real problem is not respecting individual sovereignty?


----------



## FJAG (16 Aug 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.
> 
> In your personal experience, how did your brush with those movements work out for you? Peacefully?
> 
> ...



Never said nor suggested that religions had a monopoly. I was merely pointing out that religion does not equate to a sound moral code. As you suggest, neither does atheism. In my mind the concept of religion and that of morality are separate and distinct matters although most religions insist that they are the sole arbitrators of the morale standards for their societies. Those are the folks who you call the busybodies and in this I agree with you completely. Trouble is that most of those busybodies wrap themselves in a cloak of religious authority with the status of being the interpretors of God's (or the gods) will.

As to "sky fairyism" being "needlessly  inflammatory and pejorative" (per Kirkhill) or "bigoted and ignorant" (per General Disorder), I obviously disagree. What it is is sarcasm and absurdism. There are thousands of belief systems out there which dictate, without any proof whatsoever, that their deity/deities is/are the only true one. The concept of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (and "sky fairies") was put forward as a way to show that an absurd concept of a deity was equally valid, in the context of an "intelligent designer" of the universe, as those of the so-called established ones.

One can use sarcasm without being either bigoted or ignorant and while some undoubtedly consider it inflammatory and even pejorative I would argue that it is not "needlessly" so.  In a debate where one side uses blind faith as its trump card the other is unfortunately left with absurdism since rational or scientific arguments hold no sway.

The point of this thread however isn't about the terminology being used here but whether or not liberalism needs protection and I argue that liberalism needs protection from the intrusion of religion. So here's the question: Should our Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandate that its laws and institutions be secular while providing its citizens with the right to privately follow their own religious beliefs and if so at what point does a secular government have the right to intrude on individual religious practices?

op:

 :cheers:


----------



## GAP (16 Aug 2014)

New thread

does a secular government have the right to intrude on individual religious practices?

my answer would be yes under these conditions
  1) where it conflicts with the good of society as a whole
  2) where it practises criminal behaviour in the name of that religion

There are probably more conditions, but I think these two cover the main points

 :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Aug 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The point of this thread however isn't about the terminology being used here but whether or not *liberalism needs protection and I argue that liberalism needs protection from the intrusion of religion*. So here's the question: Should our Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandate that its laws and institutions be secular while providing its citizens with the right to have the right to privately follow their own religious beliefs and if so at what point does a secular government have the right to intrude on individual religious practices?



I offer a two-edged sword for the fight.

There is no irony in any of my following statements and I regret if I give offence to the Catholics in our midst.  Giving offence is not the intent but the Vatican library , and the unique nature of institution that is the papacy offers some great insights into the development of human thought in the revolutionary period.

The papacy has done a great service for "liberalism" by clearly defining "liberalism" and then offering its own prescription.  In doing so, in a number of great works (In Eminenti 1738, Mirari Vos: On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism 1832, The Syllabus of Errors 1862, Diuturnum:On the Origin of Civil Power 1881, Humanum Genus: On Freemasonry 1884, Libertas: On the Nature of Human Liberty 1888, Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labour 1891) it clearly defines the development of liberal, anti-liberal, illiberal and conservative thought through the 19th century.

The Church held steadfastly to an anti-liberal point of view that was defined generically as conservative well into the 20th century with only the election of John XXIII demonstrating a change in direction. It was a point of view that married the Church with DeValera, Salazar, Franco and Mussolini under the rubrik of corporatism.

I bring these documents to the table both to define the alternative to the "liberal" society in which we have all grown up as well as to suggest that the documents would not be out of place if re-written to support atheism, gaianism, global warming, membership in the Socialist or Communist Internationales.....

Parliament's debating chamber was the Premier Division for the House League debates of the Freemasons.    The Church did everything it could to stamp out Freemasonry because it could not tolerate debate.  Toleration and debate were both considered anathema.  Governance based on toleration and debate was unthinkable.  This dichotomy was at the heart of the schools debates in Canada where Anglos offered education for all and the Church demanded the right to limit and control it. Hence separate school boards and underfunded upper grades.

The Church was strongly of the opinion that freedom was only permissible for right-thinking individuals.

The value of our system is in its toleration - but for that to be effective then even the intolerable needs to be tolerated.  That means we have to permit malcontents like the Bloc Quebecois and the Islamists use of our public fora, including the House of Commons and trust to reason to be able to argue them down.

Our parliament can, and should, define the consequences for my fist striking your nose.   Whether you utter Jesus!  Allah! Uncle Joe! Gaia! or whoever atheists yell at (???) in response to the strike is nobody's business but your own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Never said nor suggested that religions had a monopoly. I was merely pointing out that religion does not equate to a sound moral code. As you suggest, neither does atheism. In my mind the concept of religion and that of morality are separate and distinct matters although most religions insist that they are the sole arbitrators of the morale standards for their societies. Those are the folks who you call the busybodies and in this I agree with you completely. Trouble is that most of those busybodies wrap themselves in a cloak of religious authority with the status of being the interpretors of God's (or the gods) will.
> 
> As to "sky fairyism" being "needlessly  inflammatory and pejorative" (per Kirkhill) or "bigoted and ignorant" (per General Disorder), I obviously disagree. What it is is sarcasm and absurdism. There are thousands of belief systems out there which dictate, without any proof whatsoever, that their deity/deities is/are the only true one. The concept of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (and "sky fairies") was put forward as a way to show that an absurd concept of a deity was equally valid, in the context of an "intelligent designer" of the universe, as those of the so-called established ones.
> 
> ...




I'm no sure I like the question, but ...

Everyone has a _right_ to believe whatever (s)he wishes to believe. That _right_, an aspect of individual _liberty_, does not however lead to _right_ to *do* anything about one's beliefs. The government (the state, society, whatever) may, therefore, _intrude_ into any of one's "practices" (careless driving, bank robbery, littering or genital mutilation) when we, the people, have given our consent to that government (state, society, whatever) to regulate our _liberty_ in certain ways, including making careless driving, and, and, and into criminal offences.

It seems to me that the bigger question is: *should we permit any religion to intrude itself into our public space?*

(I know it's stretching a point beyond ridiculous, but why are Christmas and Easter, by those names, statutory holidays? Why can'e we just have the the winter (Christmas/New Years), spring (Easter), summer (August Bank Holiday) and autumn (Thanksgiving) public holidays? Why should they be given their religious names? Is it not sufficient that we, broadly, accept the dominant cultural orthodoxy ("holidays" (holy days) on December 25th, the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox and the Friday before it, first Monday in August, second Monday in October)?)

I'm not overly fussed about  laïcité, I am part of the dominant (nominally Christian) culture, after all, but I think it is a good principle.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2014)

I don't think it is going too far out on the limb to suggest that religion isn't the problem, but rather one of gthe many "covers" that officious busybodies use to justify their attempts to impose their likes and values on the rest of us.

OTOH, a close look at Marxism, Progressivism, Climate alarmism and other forms of "officious busybodyism" shows strong parallels to religion, including sacred "texts", violent denunciation of heresy (if not the physical destruction of the heretics; modern climate alarmists often call for scientists who question their sacred text to be placed in prison, and Communism has left a trail of more than 80 million dead in the 20th century alone), mechanisms for penance and so on (a modern example is how "climate sinners" can buy "indulgences" by paying a "carbon tax", planting a tree, etc.)

To me this suggests that the structures created by religion and recycled by "secular religions" must have some deep rooted place in the human mind, probably developed as a means of organizing and cataloguing otherwise unexplainable things like weather, seasons and random events like fire or disease by preliterate humans living in hunter-gatherer society. Officious busybodies are much simpler to explain, these creatures are attempting to become "Alpha" individuals within their respective troops, and expect you to roll over and expose your belly when they bark.

OF course as primates we have a simple way of offering our own challenge; a smile is a threat (baring the teeth), and the one thing officious busybodies hate more than anything else is being laughed at....


----------



## McG (16 Aug 2014)

If one is going to delve into the tautologies of science fiction, it is important to keep perspective on the shallow depth a philosophy that fits into a plot line or cult sound bite.  I state this not to counter any opinion argued with the support of Mr Spock, but to build on the idea.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is an argument that I have seen thrown out in defence of wants.  No doubt there is a hardcore Trekkie with the "official" answer, but I suspect Mr Spock would believe that needs of the few outweigh wants of the many.  Getting back to the discussion at hand, neither the individual or the collective should always have primacy over the other.  This  ordering is determined on the balance of needs vs wants (and as well, maybe, on a hierarchy of the needs involved).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Aug 2014)

This is becoming one of the more interesting threads we have had here in a while.  Keep it up, everybody.


----------



## FJAG (16 Aug 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> . . .
> OTOH, a close look at Marxism, Progressivism, Climate alarmism and other forms of "officious busybodyism" shows strong parallels to religion, including sacred "texts", violent denunciation of heresy (if not the physical destruction of the heretics; modern climate alarmists often call for scientists who question their sacred text to be placed in prison, and Communism has left a trail of more than 80 million dead in the 20th century alone), mechanisms for penance and so on (a modern example is how "climate sinners" can buy "indulgences" by paying a "carbon tax", planting a tree, etc.)
> 
> To me this suggests that the structures created by religion and recycled by "secular religions" must have some deep rooted place in the human mind, . . .



I'm very much with you on this. 

A recent show that looked at why people believe in conspiracy theories posited, amongst other things, that humans do not want to believe that things happen arbitrarily; we search for a pattern and if we find one, even if improbable, we go with it. 

Add to that the fact that as children, we are indoctrinated into various belief system (whether religion or ecology or climate change) through education or ritual. Once we have formed a basic belief, everything after that which tends to reinforce our existing belief we accept wholeheartedly even if it totally without empirical evidence; while anything that contradicts our pre-existing belief we reject regardless of how much it is supported by evidence.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm no sure I like the question, but ...
> 
> Everyone has a _right_ to believe whatever (s)he wishes to believe. That _right_, an aspect of individual _liberty_, does not however lead to _right_ to *do* anything about one's beliefs. The government (the state, society, whatever) may, therefore, _intrude_ into any of one's "practices" (careless driving, bank robbery, littering or genital mutilation) when we, the people, have given our consent to that government (state, society, whatever) to regulate our _liberty_ in certain ways, including making careless driving, and, and, and into criminal offences.
> 
> ...



So what you're advocating is a revamp of what the Catholic Church did in relation to pagan holidays. Keep them, because that's what people are used to, but continue to change name to placate the whiny sheeple in society, or to try further the principal's own ends.

You may think that a majority wants this, but in actual fact, no one has pressed the government for this type of action.

And before you incite the rights of other religions, governments, parties, sects, whatever, we are Canadian, we don't acquiesce to newcomers. This is our country. If you don't like the way we do business, stay the fuck out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So what you're advocating is a revamp of what the Catholic Church did in relation to pagan holidays. Keep them, because that's what people are used to, but continue to change name to placate the whiny sheeple in society, or to try further the principal's own ends.




_Bazinga!_

We appear to have had equinoxal and solstical (_are those even words?_) festivals (holidays) since time immemorial, so one must doubt that I (or even the popes in Rome) would have much success in cancelling them ... the thing to which I take some exception is the compulsion to _name_ things. Consider the _civic holiday_ (a perfectly good name, by the way) which began life as the August Bank Holiday (there were four in the late 19th century: Easter Monday, Whit Monday (mid May to mid June), First Monday in August and Boxing Day) and which, if my memory serves, was still called that well into the 1960s (and the banks did close on that day); it is now, variously, as, _inter alia_: British Columbia Day, New Brunswick Day, Saskatchewan Day, Natal Day, Heritage Day, Simcoe Day, Colonel By Day, George Hamilton Day, Joseph Brant Day, Founders' Day, McLaughlin Day, Alexander Mackenzie Day, James Cockburn, Peter Robinson Day and John Galt Day. WTF, over?

I don't want to derail a good discussion, rather I was using an absurd example to suggest that, perhaps, we mix _*religion*_ and culture to an extraordinary (but not, necessarily harmful) degree ... or *is* allowing the dominant religious _system_ to insinuate itself into our laws and regulations, even in such inconsequential things as the names we give to civic holidays, a harmful thing in a _pioneering_ multicultural society like Canada?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2014)

As you manage the herd you have to keep on side with the majority at the same time as incorporating minorities.

I don't see a problem with name retention.  I have a problem with need to name days after various and sundry local heroes.

I also don't see a problem with allowing immigrants to celebrate holidays in their way (so long as it doesn't involve chucking widows on funeral pyres - we have customs to deal with that).  But equally I don't see why the majority should be put into a situation where the home doesn't feel so homely.   In fact I find that strategy to be counter productive as it raises the level of disquiet in the majority community and makes them less likely to be accepting of others.

I don't mind if a Sikh family moves in next door and celebrates Diwali as we celebrate Thanksgiving (properly Harvest Festival).  I would have a greater problem if I were informed that henceforth Thanksgiving were given the soulless sobriquet "Annual Statutory Holiday #8 (Autumnal Equinox +/-)".

It's easier to maintain good relations with the neighbours when they are not living in your kitchen.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...I also don't see a problem with allowing immigrants to celebrate holidays in their way (so long as it doesn't involve chucking widows on funeral pyres - we have customs to deal with that).  But equally I don't see why the majority should be put into a situation where the home doesn't feel so homely.   In fact I find that strategy to be counter productive as it raises the level of disquiet in the majority community and makes them less likely to be accepting of others....



Which raises the interesting issue of some long-established social festivities such as Christmas (an aforementioned hybrid leveraging a pagan ritual against a more contemporary religious celebration) being de-religionized (new def'n?), while other emergent (in terms of relative population) celebrations that are decidedly religious in nature, are encouraged/endorsed.  Perhaps that's part of the ongoing process or re-balance, and that (societal) life seems to adjust itself in a cyclical nature...the pendulum must swing, it's only a matter of how far to either side and how long the period of the swing is.

I too like the thought (in the sense of appreciating the situation, not necessarily that I like how it is) of societal/group desires/wishes (for does a group per se truly have 'rights') balanced against individuals' rights (the LLPP rights, that Mr. Campbell refers to).


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I too like the thought (in the sense of appreciating the situation, not necessarily that I like how it is) of societal/group desires/wishes (for does a group per se truly have 'rights') balanced against individuals' rights (the LLPP rights, that Mr. Campbell refers to).



Here's an interesting question.  It revolves around the usage of the word Corporation.  In law I understand a Corporation to have the rights of an individual (FJAG or others feel free to shut me down here).

In Britain the oldest Corporation is the City of London Corporation - an independent self governing entity with its own internal economy (ability to levy fees/taxes) and establish bylaws.  Those capacities are inherent in any of the local town/borough councils and their corporations.

In western Canada, when the land was being divided for settlement,  tracts were awarded for group purchase.  These became, amongst others, the Hungarian town of Esterhazy, the Ukrainian town of Vegreville, the French town of Gravelbourg.  Each of these individual corporations established their own character after the wishes of the local population.  You still see it today with the Hutterite colonies.  In all of these cases toleration was enhanced by distance.  It didn't bother the Presbyterians of Calgary if the Ukrainians of Edmonton took a day off to paint easter eggs.  Equally it was locally decided if the town was wet or dry, what the local time was and how big the local hospital should be.

Admittedly that does leave open the possibility of a Bountiful but even the continued existence of Bountiful is an example of the benefits of the system.  They are tolerated in large part because they don't create problems outside of their borders.

Is that the manner in which the individual can be squared with the communal - by means of the self-governing corporation?  Under the law an individual governed by its constituent individuals?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As you manage the herd you have to keep on side with the majority at the same time as incorporating minorities.
> 
> I don't see a problem with name retention.  I have a problem with need to name days after various and sundry local heroes.
> 
> ...



We're in agreement here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting question.  It revolves around the usage of the word Corporation.  In law I understand a Corporation to have the rights of an individual (FJAG or others feel free to shut me down here).
> 
> In Britain the oldest Corporation is the City of London Corporation - an independent self governing entity with its own internal economy (ability to levy fees/taxes) and establish bylaws.  Those capacities are inherent in any of the local town/borough councils and their corporations.
> 
> ...




You are thinking of a _corporation sole_. Most corporations are _corporations aggregate_ but some - many (most?) ecclesiastic offices and, I think, the Queen - are _corporations sole_: only one person, passed on by some formal mechanism, and able to own non-personal property.



Edit: typo


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2014)

Thanks E.R. 

More research required and another avenue to follow.

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (17 Aug 2014)

While in theory, small, self sufficient corporations or corporate bodies should be an ideal form of organization for "Liberal" communities to operate and thrive, in practice they often fall victim to Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy":

"_Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization._"

Earlier this year there was an article in Maclean's magazine on the subject of condominiums and the problems that condo owners were facing. Condo's would seem to be a sort of microcosm for a liberal social organization, based as it is on the ownership of property. Sadly, as the Iron Law predicts, groups of owners set themselves up as the rulers of the condo (generally because they have the time and energy to devote to the condo, rather than outside employment, raising families etc.) and can impose their own rules on the hapless condo owners. One example was a condo which has a _70 page_ ownership agreement, which is entirely ridiculous when you consider that a similar sized rental apartment can be had for agreements that generally are only a few pages long (if that; you can download perfectly legal one page forms from the Internet).

Liberalism requires many different things to operate; but even the formal mechanisms of contract law are not enough if someone can overwhelm you with 70 pages of minutia. Culture, as always, has a great deal of bearing on this. Many western, liberal societies are based on unspoken cultural mechanisms of mutual trust (I'm just beginning Francis Fukuyama's book "Trust", but other works like Walther Russel Mead's "God and Gold" also speak to the importance of trust mechanisms built into the culture).


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2014)

But perhaps that argues in support of a multiplicity of corporations, Thucydides.

In a world where there is an infinite selection of bureaucracies there is likely to be one that closely conforms to ones needs.  I have a brother in law (retired civil servant) to whom the prospect of a 70 page condo agreement would be as manna from heaven.  For you and me maybe not so much.

If condo communities discover a negative impact on their property values due to the tendentious and tedious nature of the contracts then I suggest that there would be a tendency over time to conform more closely to market demands.  I believe market demands would tend to reduce the contract to one page.

Conversely, in a world of a singular bureaucracy (lets call it the New World Order for lack of a better cognomen) the net tendency would be towards a standardized condo agreement that incorporates the verbiage of an infinity of others resulting in an incomprehensible document of infinite length, providing hours of enjoyment for an infinity of bureaucrats and a similar infinity of their parasytic siblings, lawyers and politicians.

Consequently the solution, a variant of what you have often argued, is to limit the damage that any single bureaucracy can create by limiting its scope and ensuring there is choice for the consumer which would encourage competition.  The solution is deregulation and decentralization.

Following this logic then, the oft-heard argument concerning health care in Canada that it is, or is likely to become, a patchwork quilt of solutions is specious at best.  We should be aspiring to patchwork quilts everywhere.

If individuals are overwhelmed by choice let them hire their own personal bureaucrat (accountant, lawyer, planner, personal assistant).

Nationalization, standardization: they are the ruination of the community at the same time as they are at the core of the state.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Aug 2014)

While I agree with you in principle, it is annoying to me how the forces of the market are being deflected in the instance of Condo ownership to allow such travesties to take place. Obviously there are many outside factors intruding (I can think of how several examples of regulatory failure allow this to happen: large city holdings of subsidized property and provincial rent control discourage the building and development of low cost rental accommodation, while the various anti-development forces attempt to throttle the building of detached single dwelling suburban houses. This serves to artificially prop up Condo values, and allow the various busybodies, bureaucrats and others to intrude on the enjoyment of the condo property by the actual owner).

Of course this is part of a much larger and more complex issue. Liberalism is under attack from multiple directions, ranging from politicians and bureaucrats hungry for more power, busybodies determined to tell us what to do, rent seekers looking to grab our income and properties and so on. How to protect it is really _the_ question.


----------



## FJAG (17 Aug 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting question.  It revolves around the usage of the word Corporation.  In law I understand a Corporation to have the rights of an individual (FJAG or others feel free to shut me down here).
> 
> . . .  You still see it today with the Hutterite colonies.  In all of these cases toleration was enhanced by distance.
> 
> . . .  Is that the manner in which the individual can be squared with the communal - by means of the self-governing corporation?  Under the law an individual governed by its constituent individuals?



Okay - short lesson in business entities. There are essentially three types of business entities: sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation.

In a sole proprietorship one individual owns all the assets of the business, earns all of its income and is solely liable for its debts.

In a partnership several individuals own the assets, earn the income and are jointly liable for all debts. A partnership agreement may set out to what extent an individual partner owns assets or receives income but to the general public they are all equally liable for debts.

In a corporation the corporation owns the assets (subject to once a corporation is wound up where the common shareholders share in the residual value of the assets), a variety of shareholders share in the income and NO shareholders are liable for debts. The key fundamental difference is that the company is considered a "person" separate and apart from its shareholders and to a large extent (but not completely) of its management team.

Please note that this is all a gross oversimplification as there are different types of corporations, limited liability partnerships and a host of other entities, variations and things and thousands of pages of laws that govern the details how each of these entities operate.

Forget that you ever heard the term "corporation sole". Its a very special type of beast that takes a special act of parliament to create and we haven't done so for over a decade.

Also forget about Hutterite colonies. They are organizations that fall under s 143 of the Income Tax Act which provides a special taxing category where a "religious congregation" works communally, where no individuals of the congregation are allowed to own property in their own right, and all the members work solely for the congregation's benefit. Please note that in the 2013 case of _Blackmore v Canada_ the Canadian Tax Court held that the Bountiful community did NOT fall within the provisions of s 143 of the ITA.

I'm not quite sure where you want to go with "an individual squared with the communal". One could certainly form a corporation, have it buy a large parcel of land and then build a community on it (zoning laws permitting). One would however remain subject to all of the relevant municipal, provincial and federal legal overhead (including taxes). On top of that you would have the internal governance of the cororation to contend with.

If you'll give me a bit of an idea as to what end-state you have in mind I'd be happy to discuss.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2014)

FJAG

Ta very much for the rundown.  It's going take me a minute or two to gather my thoughts based on that but I think you given me enough to continue making a fool of myself.

More to follow 

Wait Out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Forget that you ever heard the term "corporation sole". Its a very special type of beast that takes a special act of parliament to create and we haven't done so for over a decade.
> 
> ...




True enough, but don't forget *all* about it. It's a _constitutional_ device - the _office_ of the sovereign is a _corporation sole_ so the things that the Queen 'owns' as monarch (rather than as Elizabeth Windsor, who 'owns' things in her own right) pass to her "lawful heirs and successors" without interference from her pesky bureaucrats or judges. It makes for endless hours of enjoyable, albeit pointless chatter in common rooms.


----------



## FJAG (18 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> True enough, but don't forget *all* about it. It's a _constitutional_ device - the _office_ of the sovereign is a _corporation sole_ so the things that the Queen 'owns' as monarch (rather than as Elizabeth Windsor, who 'owns' things in her own right) pass to her "lawful heirs and successors" without interference from her pesky bureaucrats or judges. It makes for endless hours of enjoyable, albeit pointless chatter in common rooms.



Very true. The entity is a legitimate concept with a useful purpose (there have even been recommendations to make it easier to achieve the status)

I just didn't think it has anything to do with what Kirhill is trying to achieve which is why I told him to forget about it. Similarly I don't think he wants to create a Hutterite-like religious congregation.



 :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Very true. The entity is a legitimate concept with a useful purpose (there have even been recommendations to make it easier to achieve the status)
> 
> I just didn't think it has anything to do with what Kirhill is trying to achieve which is why I told him to forget about it. Similarly I don't think he wants to create a Hutterite-like religious congregation.
> 
> ...




I agree, but this thread, which I thoroughly enjoy, reminds me of "endless hours of enjoyable, albeit pointless chatter in common rooms" ... which was, as I recall, time very well wasted.

Anyway, how often can one inject _"corporation sole"_ into any conversation, much less one on a military website?  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2014)

Okay - here is my shot at end state.

A society of corporations with the individual protected, engaged and promoted by his corporation.

Individual becomes a member in a corporation.  The corporation is a combination of John Galt's Irvine as described in The Provost,  a gated community, a condominium, a mutual insurance society.  The corporation supplies libraries, educations, community halls, hospitals, sanitation, public safety patrols and a fair referee.  For this array of services the individual pays a fee to the corporation.  The individual selects his corporation based on his budget and his interests.

Those fees take the place of taxes.

Now somethings demand higher levels of societal cooperation.  But should that assume a higher level of authority - a province - that is endowed with the authority and is required to delegate it or should authority be released from lower to higher.  Should Jean Chretien have been required to go cap in hand to Ralph Klein to fund his initiatives?

Can you build a society of independent corporations, all writing their own rules.  Corporations that come together to form Provinces and the State.  Corporations that need not have a geographical basis but could include Indian tribes and Unions and maybe even army.ca.

I suggest that you can and that up until 1917 Canada was well on its way to looking like that.  But Canada, like every other western nation, fell into the trap created by the aberration of WW1 - the belief that it was possible to plan a way to Jerusalem.  Needless to say I am persuaded by Ferguson, Hayek, Thucydides and my own life experience that a singular plan creates a singular disaster more often than utopia.  Equally, betting the field costs more but is more sure of finding a workable solution and more sure of creating survivors when chaos consigns the best made plans of mice and men to their fates.

The English parliament was built out of shires and burghs (corporations) each appointing/electing two representatives to the national talking shop.  Before the shop got round to raising funds for great national adventures it first of all had to deal with the house keeping issues of arbitrating disputes amongst individuals and corporations.  Then the track record of the nation on controlling last years budget before a new budget would be considered for review.

Should taxes, like authority, come from the bottom up rather than be imposed from the top down?  Can a bottom up society work?  Does Switzerland qualify as a successful bottom up Western society?

Need to make a beer run....

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (18 Aug 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Okay - here is my shot at end state.
> 
> I can see why you needed to go out for a beer run. I'm quite sure I don't have enough in the house for tackling this
> 
> ...



 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2014)

> Need to make a beer run.... Make mine a Grolsch.



Good choice!

What Kirkhill is describing has happened many times in history. Ancient Athenian society was divided into ten notional "Tribes", and further subdivided by income and property ownership (although the Athenians had the wisdom to ensure all the various subdivisions were represented in every "Tribe"). The High Middle Ages had society divided into multiple guilds (which are proto corporations), and often guilds were spread across wide regions of Europe. Membership in guilds required certain skills or sponsorships (or both), but also provided certain rights and privileges. I won't push the analogy too far, but you can see one of the roots of the English Parliamentry system growing from here.

The most pernicious thing that "modern" Progressivism, Corporatism and other "isms" have done is to try to eliminate or marginalize the small groupings that are at the heart of classical liberal culture. Think:



> "To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind." ~ Edmund Burke



or



> "The art of association then becomes, as I have said before, the mother of action, studied and applied by all" ~ Alexis de Tocqueville



VS the modern state crowding out the economic, educational, charitable and social functions of the church, the 4H club, the Rotary club and other such groupings. These small groupings can be taken as being analogous to the corporate entities that Kirkill is advocating (and many of these sorts of associations do have charters, dues, corporate offices etc.), but like a condominium corporation, the State has seen fit to impose its own rules from the top down to regulate how these "little platoons" operate and which direction they go.

Indeed, like may military debates on the subject, it is something like how modern communications technology makes it possible (in theory) for very high ranking commanders to directly control platoons, negating the ideas and ideals of "mission command". Once again there is a danger of taking the analogy too far; a society or an economy resembles an ecosystem far more than it does a battlefield, and ecosystems do not respond to the "commander's intent" (or, as complex, adaptive non linear systems, respond in ways which are unexpected and at variance with the predicted outcome).

Finally, how do we get "there" from "here"? Since the rent seekers, busybodies and others who profit from the current setup are likely to fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their power and privilege, solutions based on changes from within are pretty much non starters. On the other hand, economic, demographic and technological changes are shifting the ground from under their feet, and traditional "gatekeeping" mechanisms are failing for them. The other fact on the ground is the ruinous debts these elites have accumulated. The financial resources to continue are failing, and so is the means to continue to pay for the current system. This can be solved with a controlled drawdown (eliminating programs, institutions and other costs: think the Drummond Report which called for a 17% spending cut on the part of the Ontario Liberal government simply to stabilize the provincial economy), or an economic crash (which brings not Liberalism, but the Man on the White Horse).


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2014)

OK, I'm back at LLPP (absolutely fundamental rights to Life, Liberty, Property and Privacy) and why the latter two made *us*, mainly the Scandinavians and the Anglo Saxons, into _liberals_ while most of the rest of the world is either _conservative_ or, mostly, _illiberal_.

I don't generally agree with physiologist turned geographer Jared Diamond but in some respects geography does, indeed, shape culture. I believe it did for the Norther Europeans but not, probably, in the way one might think. The Northern Europeans (the Scandinavians, Frisians, Saxons and post Roman Britons and so on) were, relative to the _continent_, poor and scattered. This led, I think, to a strong respect for the value of private property and individual privacy. Men were willing to fight for both. Now, that broad attribute (respect for property) was (and is) equally common in Asia but it became, I think, a defining feature of the Northern Europeans and it especially guided their political thought. Not by _design_, but in practice, the Norther Europeans all shared one common political characteristic: while the _states_ (petty kingdoms and principalities) were rich enough and the _notables_ (elders, earls, magnates, etc) were, relatively, often very rich, the kings were usually (relatively) poor. My readings (and they're not as extensive as I would wish) suggests that this situation - rich _statelets_, rich earls, and (relatively) poor monarchs - was pretty common throughout the North of Western Europe but uncommon in the rest of Europe and Asia. I think it led to a generally _liberal_ society in which property right and privacy had to be respected by the king/prince and, equally, by earls towards their barons and knights. When the magnates of England imposed _Magne Carta_ on King John they were not being revolutionary. The _rights_ that they demanded, all the way down to the lowest freeman, were already common in large parts of Norther Europe and had been fairly common in England prior to the Norman conquest.

Why didn't that situation obtain in, say, Italy or China?

My _guess_ is that those societies were already too well structured by, say, the beginning of the common era - the year 1 AD. By then China was, certainly, already burdened or blessed with Confucianism (take your pick) and Italy and Spain and parts of France and Germany were more or less Roman ... and they stayed that way: respectively _conservative_/Confucian and _illiberal_/Roman.


----------



## ballz (31 Aug 2014)

*HALF OF CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES FAIL AT FREE SPEECH: REPORT*

http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/half-of-canadian-universities-fail-at-free-speech-report/



> Half of Canadian universities fail at free speech: report
> Abortion, Israel and men’s issues are hot topics on campus
> 
> Josh Dehaas
> ...




Glad we have a group like the JCCF to publish this kind of report...


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2014)

Let me see if I got this right.  If I am pro-Life, a feminst/anti-man's rights, pro-Palestinian/Islam type of thinker; I am entitled to Free Speech.  If I am in anyway pro-choice, non-sexist and anti-barbarian in my opinions, I am not entitled to Free Speech according to this JCCF?


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let me see if I got this right.  If I am pro-Life, a feminst/anti-man's rights, pro-Palestinian/Islam type of thinker; I am entitled to Free Speech.  If I am in anyway pro-choice, non-sexist and anti-barbarian in my opinions, I am not entitled to Free Speech according to this JCCF?




Not quite, George, the JCCF collected the data and published the report. They claim to believe all all speech, of all sorts ought to be free ...


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2014)

It appears to me that their rankings of "A" and "F" disprove that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It appears to me that their rankings of "A" and "F" disprove that.




Really, George? Did you bother to read the report, especially e.g. pps 6-8?


----------



## ballz (31 Aug 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let me see if I got this right.



You don't.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I am pro-Life, a feminst/anti-man's rights, pro-Palestinian/Islam type of thinker; I am entitled to Free Speech.  If I am in anyway pro-choice, non-sexist and anti-barbarian in my opinions, I am not entitled to Free Speech according to this JCCF?



No. 

What the JCCF is saying is that everyone is entitled to free speech, BUT universities are being biased and not allowing pro-life, men's rights, and Pro-Israel advocates the same platforms as they are allowing pro-choice, feminists, and pro-Palestine.

As they say in their statement, “Our country’s institutions of higher education have failed in their promise to uphold the sanctity of free speech in its most cherished and necessary form: *the discussion of controversial ideas, frank and spirited debate, and the pursuit of truth.*”

They welcome opposing views, where as universities are stifling views that are opposite to the status quo / dominant school of thought.


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2014)

But that also means a platform for the other extreme.  By their scoring criteria, a university would have have to support pedophiles espousing the merits of child-porn, or KKK promoting racial violence.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> But that also means a platform for the other extreme.  By their scoring criteria, a university would have have to support pedophiles espousing the merits of child-porn, or KKK promoting racial violence.




Yes, exactly ... free speech is a meaningless concept unless every opinion, no matter how odious, can be expressed. That's why real, pure _liberalism_ cannot exist: some speech is worse than "shouting fire in a crowded theatre."


Edit: spelling  :-[


----------



## Journeyman (31 Aug 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let me see if I got this right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm......Dunning-Kruger?   op:

      ;D


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly ... free speech is a meaningless concept unless every opinion, no matter how odious, can be expressed. That's why real, pure _liberalism_ cannot exist: some speech is worse than "shouting fire in a crowded theatre."



Exactly so. There are only *four* categories of speech which are not protected: Liable, Slander, Sedition or Treason.

If you have a sincere belief that there is a fire in the theatre, then you actually have the right and duty to "shout fire in a crowded theatre".

As most of us know, the best response to bad speech is _*better[*/i] speech; which requires a great deal of work. This is the real reason the "Progressives" would prefer to  use Brownshirt tactics to shut down opposing speech; they could not be bothered to do the work of thinking and responding to propositions and arguments; far simpler to simply use the mailed fist and silence your opponents.

I am carefully reviewing the list, my daughter is going off to higher education next year, and my son not long afterwards. Better they find themselves in an actual institute of higher learning which cherishes and protects free speech, and better those institutions receive my financial support rather than those which attack free speech._


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hmmm......Dunning-Kruger?   op:
> 
> ;D



Man, I'm getting tired of seeing that phrase every time I sign on.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Sep 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Man, I'm getting tired of seeing that phrase every time I sign on.


Same.  Hence my usage in this particular case.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2014)

Janet Daley on illiberal liberals....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11092499/This-isnt-what-democracy-is-supposed-to-be.html



> This isn’t what democracy is supposed to be
> The new elitism says to those who will not fall into line: 'We will bury you’
> 
> There is something very wrong with our politics. Whatever the outcome in Scotland, whatever the result of the by-election in Clacton – this is serious. A certain amount of disaffection is inevitable in a democratic country. The people who do not get what they voted for – or what they feel they deserve, whichever way they voted – will believe that the system has denied them what is rightfully theirs, and that they have somehow been cheated.
> ...



Not much to choose between those elites and Erdogan's train.



> “democracy is like a train. You take it where you have to go, and then you get off”.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2014)

Interesting "culture wars" battle going on in the Internet right now between the Gaming community and the various classes of "Social Justice Warriors". What is most interesting is the Gamers have essentially turned many of the weapons used by the Social Justice activists against them, and perhaps are showing the way to neutralize the "Social Justice" meme attacking Liberal democracy. Adapting these tactics against other affronts to Liberal democracy will take a lot of thought and work:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/12/The-authoritarian-Left-was-on-course-to-win-the-culture-wars-then-along-came-GamerGate



> *THE AUTHORITARIAN LEFT WAS ON COURSE TO WIN THE CULTURE WARS... THEN ALONG CAME #GAMERGATE*
> by MILO YIANNOPOULOS  12 Nov 2014 387 POST A COMMENT
> 
> Exposed: The Secret Mailing List Of The Gaming Journalism Elite
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2015)

Nicolo Machiavelli made an interesting case for some of the tennants of Classical Liberalism centuries before the philosophy was even named. His insistance that people be ruled according to how they are is also one of the underlying tennants of Classical Liberalism (unlike Progressivism and its various derivatives, which stem from the idea of the perfectibility of mankind). I am deliberatly avoiding the other issues that Ignatieff raises, to focus on what is essential to take from Machiavelli into the modern philosophy of Classical Liberalism. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/12/machiavelli-was-right/354672/



> *Machiavelli Was Right*
> The shocking lesson of The Prince isn’t that politics demands dirty hands, but that politicians shouldn’t care.
> Michael Ignatieff
> Nov 20 2013, 9:07 PM ET
> ...



and some of the literature about Machiavelli:

The Garments of Court and Palace: Machiavelli and the World That He Made
By Philip Bobbitt
 Atlantic Monthly Press 

On Machiavelli: The Search for Glory
By Alan Ryan
 Liveright Classics 

Redeeming “The Prince”: The Meaning of Machiavelli’s Masterpiece
By Maurizio Viroli
 Princeton 

Niccolò Machiavelli: An Intellectual Biography
By Corrado Vivanti (Translated by Simon MacMichael)
 Princeton


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

I'm not a huge fan of Ezra Levant, while I often agree with his stand on issues, with his views, I usually disagree with the way he expresses those views. But this attack on his right to free speech is beyond crazy, it is an affront to _liberal democracy_ in Canada.

I have never liked human rights commissions (nor do I really like any quasi-judicial agencies). We have legal standards for various and sundry offences and those standards are, correctly, high for e.g. libel.

Now I believe that real _liberals_ must demand that our governments, federal and provincial, get rid of these human rights commissions that have become cancers on our legal system.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2015)

This is one of those cases where the toys should be taken away completely (dissolved, thrown out, legislated out of existence).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This is one of those cases where the toys should be taken away completely (dissolved, thrown out, legislated out of existence).





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not a huge fan of Ezra Levant, while I often agree with his stand on issues, with his views, I usually disagree with the way he expresses those views. But this attack on his right to free speech is beyond crazy, it is an affront to _liberal democracy_ in Canada.
> 
> I have never liked human rights commissions (nor do I really like any quasi-judicial agencies). We have legal standards for various and sundry offences and those standards are, correctly, high for e.g. libel.
> 
> Now I believe that real _liberals_ must demand that our governments, federal and provincial, get rid of these human rights commissions that have become cancers on our legal system.



My manager transferred in from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

To say that he has some very lopsided views, on how we do our job, is a total understatement.

My biggest concern is that if they closed the OHRC all those people would spread out to the rest of the public service, instead of keeping them in their capsule.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not a huge fan of Ezra Levant, while I often agree with his stand on issues, with his views, I usually disagree with the way he expresses those views. But this attack on his right to free speech is beyond crazy, it is an affront to _liberal democracy_ in Canada.



I would think that his behavior is most likely due to the numerous times he has been taken before the Commission by Muslim groups.  He has lost too many battles over some rather illogical claims against him, that he has without a doubt biases against the Human Rights Commission and the people sitting on their boards.   He has in the past shown the outright bigotry against him in the Commission's rulings against him, all falling on deaf ears of more senior members of the Canadian Government.  Canada's "Liberal Democracy" has really screwed him over in the past.  I would find it hard to believe that he was not bitter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2015)

George,

It shouldn't matter who he is or what he's done previously. The HRC should only weigh in on the specific charge.

In this case, brought against him by a HRC insider, who stands to gain monetarily from the action, presided over by his friends at said Commission because Levant called an entity 'crazy'. How does a thing take offence?

It's a farce and a tragedy of our times. This isn't the movie Brazil. This is Canada's own horseshit. Every person, from the HRC, involved in this should be fired.

Hey guess what? Open forum, public access and I'll say they're crazy also. Crazy as loons, except if loons are crazy they are not as CRAZY as the HRC.

Je suis Levant?

Take your pick of meanings:

cra·zy  (krā′zē)
adj. cra·zi·er, cra·zi·est
1.
a. Mentally deranged.
b. Informal Odd or eccentric in behavior.
2. Informal Departing from proportion or moderation, especially:
a. Possessed by enthusiasm or excitement: The crowd at the game went crazy.
b. Immoderately fond; infatuated: was crazy about boys.
c. Intensely involved or preoccupied: is crazy about cars and racing.
d. Foolish or impractical; senseless: a crazy scheme for making quick money.
e. Intensely annoyed or irritated: It makes me crazy when you don't tell me you're going to be late.
3. Disorderly or askew: One of the old window shutters hung at a crazy angle.


----------



## ballz (14 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> But that also means a platform for the other extreme.  By their scoring criteria, a university would have have to support pedophiles espousing the merits of child-porn, or KKK promoting racial violence.



I see no reason that someone should be put in jail for espousing why they think pedophilia is moral or why they think black people shouldn't be allowed to drink out of the same fountain. There are enough social consequences are those kinds of people to sanction them appropriately, rather than throwing them in jail when they haven't actually harmed anyone (or at least been convicted of harming anyone).

The problem we have here is that most universities are _publically funded_ and I don't pay the executive government or its institutions or the institutions that might as well be government institutions (because they are so heavily funded by taxpayers) to pick and choose what citizens they support don't support. They should be completely neutral.

If the university wants the freedom to associate with whomever it wants, it should be find private ways to fund itself. As long as it is taxpayer funded, it is associated with all taxpayers and owes them a neutral stance, if its private, it owes them nothing and can take whatever direction it so chooses, and dismiss anyone who wants.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly ... free speech is a meaningless concept unless every opinion, no matter how odious, can be expressed. That's why real, pure _liberalism_ cannot exist: some speech is worse than "shouting fire in a crowded theatre."



I would need better examples than the ones provided to agree that someone needs to be jailed for expressing their views, no matter how stupid they are.

In the case of shouting fire in a crowded theatre, that can cause actual physical harm to someone. It's negligence, potentially criminally negligent.


----------



## FJAG (14 Sep 2015)

Let me start with a small disclaimer: For a few years while practising law in Manitoba I was appointed as a hearing officer with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and that for eight years I was also a Bencher with the Law Society of Manitoba most of those years involved with the investigation of complaints and one year of hearing complaints against lawyers.

With respect to Levant's case we need to put somethings into perspective. He is not being charged criminally so he is not at risk of any loss of liberty. Neither is he being brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) so there is no financial risk involved and there is no way that any AHRC insider will profit financially from this matter.

What has happened is that Levant, in his role as a journalist, made comments about certain decisions made by the AHRC and that the lawyer representing the AHRC has brought a disciplinary complaint against Levant before the Law Society of Alberta (LSoA) because Levant is still a lawyer who subject to the disciplinary powers of the LSoA.

The specific charges are set out here:

http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/lawyer_regulation/hearings_outcomes/hearings_upcoming.aspx?hid=308

All Alberta Lawyers are subject to the Professional Code of Conduct of the LSoA and in this case the particular complaint most probably comes under Rule 4.06(1) which requires that "a lawyer must encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice". The LSoA Code can be found here:

http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/docs/default-source/regulations/code619a07ad53956b1d9ea9ff0000251143.pdf?sfvrsn=2 

and the specific rule and it's commentary are found at page 96.  What's important here is that the rule applies not only in the lawyer's professional activities but also exists as a general obligation because of the lawyer's standing in the community. If found guilty Levant could be subject to several professional sanctions such as a reprimand, suspension from practice, disbarment, a fine, and the LSoC's costs of the hearing.

All that said, it is my opinion that the actions taken by counsel for the AHRC are outrageous and simply based on the serendipitous fact that Levant, who is primarily a journalist and was acting as one, just also happens to be a lawyer. I don't know how active a practice Levant has; my understanding is that he has "inactive" status which means he remains on the rolls of the LSoA but is not actively practising law.

The initial complaint was dismissed by an intake staff decision but the AHRC appealed the dismissal to a three member panel who overturned the dismissal and sent the matter on for a hearing before a disciplinary panel. I presume that decision is based on the "general responsibility" provisions of rule  4.06(1) and that the matter ought to be decided by an actual hearing with evidence and not summarily thrown out. 

I don't like Levant but in my view the complaint, while technically not baseless, is nonetheless a spiteful, vindictive move by the AHRC which is just as stupid as the decision that caused Levant to make his initial comments. I sincerely hope that the LSoA Discipline panel throws the thing out and tells the AHRC to get stuffed. The AHRC deserves to be ridiculed for it's actions. If they don't want to be criticized they should stop doing stupid things.

I understand Levant has said that just as soon as this case is over he'll be resigning as a lawyer on his own terms. (I sincerely doubt that the LSoA would even consider disbarring him over this nonsense) It's really too bad that the LSoA Discipline Committee does not have the power to assess costs against a complainant when it finds the lawyer not guilty. The AHRC certainly deserves to pay for this bull.

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2015)

Worth saying again: http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/113297/post-1325310.html#msg1325310



> Exactly so. There are only *four* categories of speech which are not protected: Liable, Slander, Sedition or Treason.
> 
> If you have a sincere belief that there is a fire in the theatre, then you actually have the right and duty to "shout fire in a crowded theatre".
> 
> As most of us know, the best response to bad speech is _better_ speech; which requires a great deal of work. This is the real reason the "Progressives" would prefer to  use Brownshirt tactics to shut down opposing speech; they could not be bothered to do the work of thinking and responding to propositions and arguments; far simpler to simply use the mailed fist and silence your opponents.



THIS should become an election issue, since the HRC's and their Progressive philosophy are a direct attack on our Liberal, democratic values and society. Which political parties support true liberalism, and which do not? Questioning your candidates on this issue will certainly produce some surprising answers for a lot of people (especially when they discover that Liberal =/= liberalism).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Sep 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let me start with a small disclaimer: For a few years while practising law in Manitoba I was appointed as a hearing officer with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and that for eight years I was also a Bencher with the Law Society of Manitoba most of those years involved with the investigation of complaints and one year of hearing complaints against lawyers.
> 
> With respect to Levant's case we need to put somethings into perspective. He is not being charged criminally so he is not at risk of any loss of liberty. Neither is he being brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) so there is no financial risk involved and there is no way that any AHRC insider will profit financially from this matter.
> 
> ...



Cheers FJAG. That clears up a lot of stuff for me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Sep 2015)

As this election moves on and this immigration/refugee crisis in Europe thickens I have seen that the title of this thread is astutely, nay, pointedly accurate. 

My most left friends seem so willing to risk or sacrifice everything our liberal society has worked for. 

I hope the best for us, but truly I do expect the worst.


----------



## Jed (17 Sep 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> As this election moves on and this immigration/refugee crisis in Europe thickens I have seen that the title of this thread is astutely, nay, pointedly accurate.
> 
> My most left friends seem so willing to risk or sacrifice everything our liberal society has worked for.
> 
> I hope the best for us, but truly I do expect the worst.


In lock step agreement.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

The latest inanity from the USA: Clemson University is excoriated for hosting as "Maximum Mexican" food night.







This is excerpted from the article:

     Clemson senior Austin Pendergist told _Campus Reform_ he felt the post-event uproar was “ridiculous.”

     “This is something that Clemson Dining has done for years without any sort of backlash. People love the cultural nights in the dining halls,” Pendergist said. “What's next? Are they going to take away all potato based food as
     to not offend students from Irish decent? Remove the stir fry station so Asian-American students don't feel as if they are being misrepresented? When does it end?”

     The university, however, took a different position. Dr. Doug Hallenbeck, Clemson University’s Senior Associate Vice President of Student Affairs apologized for the event’s “flattened cultural view of Mexican culture.”

     “It is the mission of University Housing & Dining to create supportive and challenging environments that enrich and nourish lives. We failed to live out our mission yesterday, and we sincerely apologize,” Hallenbeck said.

     Dr. Hallenbeck went on to promise that the university “will continue to work closely with [its] food service provider to create dining programs that align with Clemson University’s core values.”

     The university posted similar apologies through the Clemson Dining Services _Facebook_ and _Twitter_ pages. The apologies came after students complained that the Mexican-themed event was offensive.

You (and I) have _no right_ to not be offended. But some real _conservatives_ (_liberals_ in the back-asswards language of the American political-media nincompoops), who want to turn the clock back to some mythical time when we all _tolerated_ everything have decided that everything except sliced white bread is somehow offensive and needs to be banned or, at least, shouted down.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2015)

A writer from the early 20th century who should be better known. I am glad that such writers exist, but as events have shown, the well written argument (dialectics) is quite easily shouted down by appeals to emotion (rhetoric), and rhetoric cannot be countered with dialectic. Still, having the background and knowledge should provide the tools to create and use effective rhetoric of your own...

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/374956/mortal-remains



> *The wisdom and folly in Albert Jay Nock’s anti-statism *
> 
> There is a stock character in fiction, particularly science fiction, who might be called the Immortal. Whether he be vampire or angel, alien or just some everyman blessed — or cursed — with Methuselah-like longevity, certain traits define the Immortal. He is polite, generous, even kind, but also resigned to the fact that life is often none of these things. Sometimes he is dismissive or condescending, or perhaps bemusedly indulgent of men’s political or ideological passions, the way old professors relate to freshmen who insist upon the novelty of their ideas and the audacity of their fervor. He’s seen it all before, maybe done it himself when he was a younger man, and he knows deep in the subterranean reservoirs of his soul that there is indeed nothing new under the sun. His own passions are more like cultivated tastes, hard-learned lessons formed by trial and error over many decades. He is disgusted by harmful stupidity but reluctant to correct what can only be gleaned from firsthand experience. He understands Edmund Burke’s insight that “example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

A resounding defense of Liberalism by a the president of a Christian academy:

http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/



> *This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!*
> Dr. Everett Piper, President
> 
> Oklahoma Wesleyan University
> ...



Well done, Dr Piper!


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2015)

Another resounding smackdown of an SJW by a defender of classical liberalism. Watch the video and read the comments:

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=360535


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2015)

While the Economist makes the usual mistake of calling most of these politicians and movements "right wing" (reading the political platforms of most European parties makes it very clear they are _National Socialist_ or _Fascist Corporate State_ parties), they are very clear on why voters are increasingly turning to otherwise unattractive figures like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or the Ford brothers, and away from traditional political figures:





> *Playing with fear*
> In America and Europe, right-wing populist politicians are on the march. The threat is real
> Dec 12th 2015 | From the print edition
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Dec 2015)

Interestingly enough, we see the end game is not Donald Trump at all, but Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who is extremely popular among many Democrat voters, running to the left of the most leftist President in modern history:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/the-creaking-joints-of-democracy.php



> *THE CREAKING JOINTS OF DEMOCRACY*
> 
> One of my favorite liberals, Philly magazine’s Joel Mathis (he’s one half of the “Red-Blue America” column with Ben Boychuk), offers up a conciliatory column in the spirit of Christmas today that I take at face value. A few relevant bits:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2016)

Taking the fight to SJW's everywhere:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/31/coming-2016-all-out-war-on-so-called-social-justice/



> Coming 2016: All-Out War On So-Called ‘Social Justice’
> by MILO YIANNOPOULOS
> 31 Dec 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2016)

Once you get a clear view of the targets, then engaging becomes so much easier:


----------



## FJAG (16 Feb 2016)

Just noticed that the Ezra levant saga is still ongoing but should resolve soon.

The following comes from the Law Society of Alberta's web site:

"Ezra Levant
Type:	Hearing
First Date of Hearing:	Feb 29, 2016
Last Date of Hearing:	Mar 02, 2016
Date/Status Details:	Calgary
Hearing Detail:
        CO20142249 / HE20150107

It is alleged that you were publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.

It is alleged that your public comments regarding the Alberta Human Rights Commission were inappropriate and unbecoming and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.

CO20140632 / HE20150107

It is alleged your public comments regarding the Alberta Human Rights Commission were inappropriate and unbecoming and that such conduct is deserving of sanction."


 :cheers:


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Feb 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Just noticed that the Ezra levant saga is still ongoing but should resolve soon.
> 
> The following comes from the Law Society of Alberta's web site:
> 
> ...



Slanderous and false statements aside is not a core notion of democray that all public institutions are not above public question and scrutiny ? 

I admit I don't know what he said.  But exactly what makes the Alberta Human Rights Commission above public question and opinion ?


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2016)

Halifax Tar, not that I don't disagree with the sentiment behind your question, nor do I believe that Canada and the Provinces have implemented very well the notion of protecting human rights in a transparent and accountable manner, but I would think that the Alberta Bar, from which this professional censure originates, has enough professional balance to, most likely here since I don't have the specifics either, deal with one of its own colleagues as it feels necessary to maintain the integrity of its professional oversight.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (16 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ..... I would think that the Alberta Bar, from which this professional censure originates, has enough professional balance ....


On this one, and until more detail is forthcoming, I tend to disagree.  

We are becoming a society that is increasingly obligated to tip-toe around, pre-emptively fearing someone will find our every word, gesture, glance, offensive.  Give the same lack of specifics, and even accepting that Ezra Levant _can_  be abrasive, my default is to assume that this is just one more iteration -- the Venn diagram nexus of political correctness and 'some pigs are more equal' (and therefore above comment), if you will.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2016)

I actually tried to separate my 99% concurrence with Ezra's substance (yes, his bombastic execution does perhaps at times hinder acceptance of his message, but "He ain't necessarily wrong..."), from what a sub-sovereign professional association deems within its governance, oversight and certification mandate.

Personally, I would prefer to redirect my tax money from non-judicial tribunals to the Federal, Provincial and Territorial judiciaries to address issues where a Canadian citizen's rights and freedoms afforded to them in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms are compromised by another's actions. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2016)

Information control, as George Orwell knew, is key for entrenching an autocratic regime. Twitter takes "Orwellian" to new nights with the practice of "Shadowbaning", so people are not even aware their posts are no longer being seen. I take heart in the fact that Twitter stock is tanking as they continue to apply SJW actions to their corporate model, the situation will become self correcting once Twitter is in receivership, or someone buys them out for pennies on the dollar and clears out the current corrupt management.





> EXCLUSIVE: Twitter Shadowbanning ‘Real and Happening Every Day’ Says Inside Source
> 945
> 13
> AP Photo/Isa Simsek, ZamanAP Photo/Isa Simsek, Zaman
> ...



It is also known the FaceBook has experimented in manipulating feeds to censor news and posts, and there is no reason to suspect they are not doing so now. Wikipedia has been outed multiple times for "editors" manipulating articles to support particular positions and preventing changes or corrections and banning people who attempt to correct the record. Other social media platforms are equally vulnerable to manipulation. I have been following an interesting project by someone calling himself Vox Day to organize a "fork" in various platforms like Wikipedia, with the forked version of the project presumably preventing this sort of behaviour (although realistically, the only way to prevent this is to outright prevent or ban SJWs from working or influencing the project in any way. Is this really the solution? Unclear at this point).


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2016)

Canada is also an "Administrative State", and stripping away the powers of the unelected bureaucracy here will also go a long way to increasing our personal liberty. (The story upthread about Ezra Levant is particularly relevant, the HRC's act largely outside most people's conception of the law because Parliament and the Legislatures failed to carefully and tightly define their scale and scope).

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/turning-back-the-leviathan-of-the-administrative-state/article/2583010



> *Turning back the leviathan of the administrative state*
> By DAVID MCINTOSH AND WILLIAM HAUN • 2/12/16 12:03 AM
> 
> There are two stacks of papers in Utah Senator Mike Lee's office that should cause all Americans to pause. One stack is 400 pages; the other is over 80,000 pages. The short stack is all of the laws Congress passed in 2014. The 11-foot tall tower is all federal regulations.
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2016)

> consolidating executive, legislative, and judicial power into one entity is "the very definition of tyranny."



That would support the case that Canada is (during a majority Government) 2/3 the way towards tyranny. 

The ratio is particularly worsened when you add in the like of the HRCs, the quasi-judicial part of "government" that has much, and in some case greater effective power than the Federal and Provincial/Territorial judiciaries and, perhaps arguably to some, significantly fewer checks and balances (and recourse) over its/their activities.

Regards
G2G


----------



## FJAG (18 Feb 2016)

I've previously expressed my opinion about the ridiculousness of the Alberta Human Rights Commissions Law Society Complaint about Ezra Levant so I won't repeat it here but just to show that this is not an isolated event here is a recent article about the former Ombudsman of Ontario, Andre Marin's complaint before the LSUC in a similar situation against Warren Kinsella.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ontarios-former-ombudsman-filed-law-society-complaint-against-critical-pundit-before-leaving-office

Just as an aside the process is not quite as secretive as the author of the article alludes to. The LSUC does publish it's decisions and even provides information and links to proceedings once they are formally initiated for a hearing. Their "current hearings" (which does not include Kinsella) is here:

https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/Pages/Mainpage.aspx#132

By the fact that there is no hearing listed, I would assume that the matter is still in it's investigate stages.

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2016)

Libertarian businessman Charles Koch's op ed piece has evidently struck more than a few nerves. This analysis suggests that the "real" effect may be many years downrange, more of a Libertarianism as a social movement piece than an immediate election game changer:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/21/why-charles-kochs-awesome-bernie-sanders-op-ed-matters-in-future-elections/



> *Why Charles Koch’s awesome Bernie Sanders op-ed matters in future elections*
> posted at 5:01 pm on February 21, 2016 by Taylor Millard
> 
> Charles Koch has written an awesome op-ed in The Washington Post where he explains how he and Bernie Sanders actually agree on an issue. It’s one of the very few issues where the Tea party and Occupy Wall Street seemed to have common ground as well: cronyism and the buying and selling of politicians. Koch’s piece probably won’t matter in the short-term of the 2016 election cycle (and probably the 2018 and 2020), but it could have plenty of influence a decade from now. Koch unhappily writes how the rigged economy has hurt everyone, except the few businessmen that politicians have lavished favors upon.
> ...


----------



## FJAG (3 Mar 2016)

Maybe the last word on this topic:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/ezra-levant-wins-right-to-quit-law-society-of-alberta-and-have-complaints-annulled

"Right-wing media provocateur Ezra Levant’s wish to depart the Law Society of Alberta with a clean record has been granted.

On Wednesday, the body agreed to allow Levant to exit, which annuls two complaints lodged against him through the society over a 2014 Sun Media column he wrote slamming the Alberta Human Rights Commission as a “supernova of crazy.”

Then-commission staff lawyer Arman Chak lodged the complaint that accused Levant of making inappropriate and unbecoming comments.

But Levant, founder of The Rebel website, claimed victory on Wednesday, saying his departure from the society will close off an avenue for “nuisance complaints” against him that have totalled 26 since 2004.

“The Law Society of Alberta (ALS) was becoming a magnet for every crank and shakedown,” Levant, a 16-year society member, told the Calgary hearing.

“I didn’t want to leave under a cloud because that’s being disbarred.”

He noted he hadn’t practised law for more than a decade, adding his often scathing political views should never have drawn complaints through the society.

“I was basically nuisanced out of the law society which is a shame because there shouldn’t be a political test,” he said.

And he said the decision should prove a relief for ALS staffers forced to investigate complaints against him.

“They had to read my columns — imagine that punishment … they’d have PTSD,” he said.

He also noted the ALS had dismissed all previous 24 complaints against him, saying the body has a “100 per cent free speech voting” record.

“The law society has said ‘this is not our business.'”

But at one point during the hearing, ALS director Sarah King-D’Souza objected to Levant’s side of an agreed statement of facts, calling their reference to complainants “inflammatory and self-serving” that could embarrass the society.

Also during the hearing, Levant refused to rescind the words of the 2014 column.

“The Alberta Human Rights Commission is crazy,” he said.

During the hearing, ALS lawyer Norm Mashida said from 2013-15, there were 14 cases of members using the same avenue to resign from the body, despite them facing citations.

“The law society takes no position to either object or consent,” to Levant’s request, said Mashida.

After the hearing, ALS executive-director Don Thompson said the decision has no bearing on how the body views the contents of complaints against Levant.

And he said it won’t necessarily change how the ALS handles complaints against its members that fall outside the spectrum of legal work.

“If a lawyer murders someone, do you want no jurisdiction over that?” he said.

The ALS also opted not to saddle Levant with hearing costs, only concluding that if he chose to re-apply to the society, it would cost him $5,364.

Levant, who attended the hearing with two lawyers, said the constant battle against complaints to the ALS has cost in the realm of “six figures out of my own pocket,” but added those have been cushioned by crowdsourced donations.

When reached Wednesday, Chak, a member of the law society bench, said he couldn’t comment on the hearing’s outcome."

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2016)

Link to a long piece which describes the current situation as "Cloud people" vs "Ground people". Teh "Cloud people", insulated from the effects of their policies prey on the "ground people" to pay for  their follies, in the mean time denying the "ground people" the fruits of their labour and denying them the benefits of Liberalism as properly construed (i.e. individual liberty, unfettered use of property and Rule of Law), mostly through regulatory excess.

Historically minded readers can consider an earlier version of this state of affairs led to the "Social Wars" which destroyed much of the social and cultural stuctures of the _Res Publica Roma_ and led to the birth of the Imperium:

https://theartsmechanical.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/cloud-people-and-ground-people/


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2016)

While the Instapundit piece is specifically about the US election, it speaks more to the general principle that you really need to know and understand something before you can speak of it, much less prescribe solutions. It also (although Brooks hilariously misses the point) shows how the status quo is the driving force behind the growth of populist movements in the West; Trum is not an abberation but the result of the political class pandering and ignoring the real concerns of the citizens. The National Front and AdF are what the next stage will look like, and I have absolutly no doubts that we will see the same starting here in Canada as big governments and their entitled client class continue to manipulate the process against the voters and taxpayers.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229424



> THERE’S SOMETHING GOING ON HERE, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS, DO YOU, MR. BROOKS?“Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else. Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country.”
> 
> Well, David, you should get out more. You might also try reading InstaPundit regularly. But mostly, you owe a bigger apology than this.
> 
> The Tea Party movement — which you also failed to understand, and thus mostly despised — was a bourgeois, well-mannered effort (remember how Tea Party protests left the Mall cleaner than before they arrived?) to fix America. It was treated with contempt, smeared as racist, and blocked by a bipartisan coalition of business-as-usual elites. So now you have Trump, who’s not so well-mannered, and his followers, who are not so well-mannered, and you don’t like it.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2016)

More of this, please:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7095



> *This may be the week the SJWs lost it all*
> Posted on 2016-04-03 by Eric Raymond
> 
> This may be the week the SJWs lost it all…or, at least, their power to bully people in the hacker culture and the wider tech community.
> ...


----------

