# A WINNABLE WAR



## ruxted (6 May 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Third in a three-part editorial.
A good war 
A world war, too 


 Link to Original Article on Ruxted.ca 

A Winnable War

Over the past two weeks The Ruxted Group has demonstrated that the current war is a ‘good’ war in that it is both just and necessary and that it is a global war, too – a world war.

The current global conflict is characterized as the war between Civilization and Barbarism. The secular, liberal West and its institutions are under global pressure from radical Islamists who hate and despise the western civilization and all its manifestations. What we need to realize is the outward signs of our civilization which so excite the ire of the radicals reflect our deepest cultural roots, and if we are to win this conflict and remain as a vibrant, free community we need to understand our cultural heritage and harness its strengths against all challengers both at home and abroad.

The West’s scientific, economic, social and cultural strengths are based on our heritage of individual liberty, property rights and limited constitutional governments. History shows that the greater the range of personal liberties and property rights available to citizens the greater their nation’s scientific, economic and cultural range becomes as well.  The role of government is to protect these liberties and rights at all times and in all places, allowing the citizens to enjoy the outcomes of their own pursuits. Historically, nations which have gone farthest down this road have always been wealthier and more capable than neighbouring nations which restrict their citizen’s rights and freedoms. Comparing classical Athens to Sparta, Elizabethan England to 16th century Spain, Republican Venice to the Ottoman Empire, or the four contemporary Asian “Tiger” economies to present day China we see small states with limited access to resources successfully outperforming rivals many times larger with vast reservoirs of human and material resources. When property rights, human liberty and limited constitutional government are combined with vast reservoirs of human and natural resources, we get the United States, the most powerful military, economic and cultural nation in history.

How can we, Canadians, use our cultural legacy to defeat the jihadis at home and abroad? We must strengthen our cultural underpinnings and harness them to deflect the appeal of radicals at home, and provide the resources we need to defeat barbarism abroad.

Individual liberties are best expressed by free speech. Canadians need to remove limitations on the free exchange of ideas, knowing and trusting from experience ranging back to classical Greece that the best antidote to hateful and harmful speech is more speech, allowing good ideas the ability to grow, spread and displace bad ones. Efforts to restrain free speech only work in our enemies’ favour.  Indeed the ability to arbitrarily suppress ideas is one of the aims of the Islamic radicals. To this end we need to remove politically correct “speech codes” on campus, remove so called “hate legislation” from our criminal codes (criminalizing speech is always the mark of a dictatorship), remove restrictions on political discussion embedded in election acts and more. We also need to encourage truly balanced discussion on the issues of the day by all members of society, and discourage the current trend to suppress dissenting views on the issues of the day by powerful media elites. We are stronger when all Canadians exercise their free speech rights and join in debating the issues of the day.

Abroad we need to encourage the same free flow of ideas in the societies we are assisting. Freedom of thought and speech is not, somehow, a uniquely Western attribute; both liberal and conservative societies thrive when thought and speech are free; only illiberal societies benefit from authoritarian control over ideas. In Afghanistan we should be looking for a local Conrad Black, and helping him – or her! - establish as many newspapers and news outlets as possible. Where the infrastructure permits, we should be establishing ISP’s and providing Internet cafés and blogging software, so local people can interact with the wider world. Even establishing chains of coffee shops across the land for locals to congregate and discuss the issues of the day would be a tremendous step forward for encouraging free speech in their society.

Property rights are the practical expression of our political rights, and the basis of our prosperity. Canada needs to ‘free’ the wealth of its citizens from the heavy, inept hand of the bureaucratic collective – all the real wealth there is – to ‘work’ for the common wealth of all.  Canadians currently pay out more in taxation than they do on food, shelter and transportation combined, yet our personal wealth is our own property, and the basis of how we can decide to live our lives. Understanding that our wealth is our property, and ours by right, means we as Canadians will have more choices in all matters, and more resources to carry out the choices we make as individuals. The release of our wealth back into the productive economy will provide jobs and increasing prosperity to all Canadians, and provide the Government with greater resources to devote to the “Three D” strategy of Defence, Development and Diplomacy when dealing with the rest of the world. When service members, aid workers and diplomats have access to a wide range of tools and resources, then missions like Afghanistan can be conducted much more quickly and effectively; and governments may choose to undertake many peace support operations throughout the world without worrying about burnout or over stretch.

When we work to rebuild a nation like Afghanistan, property rights need to be codified and formalized. Part of our aid to Afghanistan should be to encourage farmers and small business owners to own their land and property outright, and to ensure their tax code is fair and efficient, allowing people to keep their earnings so they may invest in their future, which is also the future of Afghanistan.

Finally, we need to understand the role of government. The growth of government in Canada has come at a price of reducing our liberties and property rights; inhibiting our prosperity and the resources needed to protect our society. The growing gap between our personal incomes and those of our American neighbours is the most visible sign, but the inability of governments to match deeds to words in this conflict or in stability building ideas like “Responsibility to Protect” is also a negative outcome of government growth. Governments exist to protect these rights, not to establish arbitrary limits to speech, or grasp property from our hands through taxation and regulation. We as Canadians must work to ensure our politicians and the Bureaucracy are limited in size and extent, that each level of government knows and respects their jurisdictional boundaries, and that we roll back government intrusions against free speech and property rights.

When we work to rebuild nations like Afghanistan, we need to ensure that the organs of government like the Army, Police and Judiciary are as efficient and honest as possible, but also to limit the power of these institutions so the inevitable corruption and mistakes of human beings does the minimum of harm to the institution and the greater society it is part of.  We must also recognize that this is the work of generations – Afghanistan, like most of its neighbours, struggles under the heavy hand of an illiberal social and political order.  Allowing the people to develop into free, functioning liberal or, much more likely, conservative society will take much time and effort on their part and time and sacrifice on ours.

This formulation is not to suggest defeating Islamic Radicals at home and abroad will be a matter of a few easy adjustments. Free speech requires constant effort and attention by all citizens to listen, analyze and participate in order to refute bad ideas and spread good ones. Property rights imply that citizens are responsible for the consequences of their use of property.  Ownership and use of property requires constant attention by the owners to ensure positive outcomes. Re-establishing limited constitutional government requires major efforts by citizens at all levels, since arbitrary government power over our lives is not only the goal of the enemy, but also the goal of many other individuals and groups in our society. The ability to feed off the resources of the taxpayer is a great incentive to increase the powers and privileges of all levels of government and the bureaucracy, and many individuals and groups which benefit from the growth of government will use all available means and resources to maintain their power and privilege.

This is the great struggle of the 21st century, the struggle between Civilization and Barbarism. Our cultural inheritance of individual liberty, property rights and limited constitutional government provide the tools we need to defeat the capricious and arbitrary societies the barbarians of all stripes wish to establish. All that is needed now is for us to pick up these tools and put them to use. The work ahead will be long and difficult, but the rewards along the way will make it all worth while.

The Ruxted Group reminds readers of the words of Martin Luther King: "If you have not discovered something you are willing to die for, then you are not fit to live."

Canadian soldiers are engaged in a 'good' war, it is also a world war, and it is a war they can win.  They are willing to fight and die for their country; is their country willing to get behind them and reaffirm the strengths which made us mighty and victorious in past good, world wars?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 May 2007)

Amen!!


----------



## GAP (6 May 2007)

The message is not getting out to the people. There are too many people with their own agenda's stirring the pot, and the MSM is grabbing whatever sells.


----------



## Flip (8 May 2007)

Posted by: GAP  
The message is not getting out to the people. There are too many people with their own agenda's stirring the pot, and the MSM is grabbing whatever sells. 


It's easy to understand why - We have not yet lined up to turn in extra pots and 
pans or uncoiled barbed wire along any beaches.

We're simply not scared enough.

Few have sacrificed anything at all.
Very few have sacrificed anything willingly.

The soccer stadium video from before the Taliban fell was 
somehow not compelling enough.

And most tragic of all - Canadians can no longer descern between good and evil.


----------



## cameron (12 May 2007)

Excellent article, I disagree on one point though.  Words are often the spark that ignite the fires of violence, therefore hate crime legislation is necessary.  Hate propaganda whether of a racist, sexist, religious, or nationalist nature, isn't just normal free speech because it incites and encourages attacks, whether physical or psychological (and the latter can be just as if not even more harmful) on a particular group.  Humans being the imperfect creatures that we are, even in a liberal democratic society some restrictions on our liberties are necessary.  Overall however, this another excellent article from the Ruxted Group, keep up the good work.


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2007)

Since human beings ARE imperfect, providing an arbitrary and capricious method to smother free speech is dangerous in liberal democratic societies and absolutly devastating in authoratarian societies. Since this is the desired end state of the Islamic radicals, we should ensure this weapon is not already at hand (as attempts by Islamic "representatives" to damage or shut down "Western Standard" for reporting on the Danish cartoon story would indicate).

Ditch the hate crime laws and use your own powers of speech and thought to incite tolerance and respect.


----------



## Pain (21 May 2007)

There is a great question here:
_"Canadian soldiers are engaged in a 'good' war, it is also a world war, and it is a war they can win. They are willing to fight and die for their country; is their country willing to get behind them and reaffirm the strengths which made us mighty and victorious in past good, world wars?"_   :cdnsalute:  
Speaking of which, does anyone out there know if there is a list of _Red Fridays_?  Is it every month or what?  
RSVP


----------



## Hollywog (26 May 2007)

The Ruxted Group said:
			
		

> Individual liberties are best expressed by free speech. Canadians need to remove limitations on the free exchange of ideas, knowing and trusting from experience ranging back to classical Greece that the best antidote to hateful and harmful speech is more speech, allowing good ideas the ability to grow, spread and displace bad ones. Efforts to restrain free speech only work in our enemies’ favour.  Indeed the ability to arbitrarily suppress ideas is one of the aims of the Islamic radicals. To this end we need to remove politically correct “speech codes” on campus, remove so called “hate legislation” from our criminal codes (criminalizing speech is always the mark of a dictatorship), remove restrictions on political discussion embedded in election acts and more. We also need to encourage truly balanced discussion on the issues of the day by all members of society, and discourage the current trend to suppress dissenting views on the issues of the day by powerful media elites. We are stronger when all Canadians exercise their free speech rights and join in debating the issues of the day.




Hence the politically correct dictionary to know what people are really talking about.

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=432
It's double plus good,


----------



## Vash13 (26 May 2007)

> There are too many people with their own agenda's stirring the pot



Good in respect to discovery and progress, which is the core of the article, HOWEVER, if you have turned on the TV lately, we see the vast majority of reality when it comes to agenda.  If these things are what the extremists see of our culture, and associated with it, things like race, and religion, it's no wonder they want to kill us all.  The gluttony, greed, needless want, self-centered egotism, debauchery, corruption, the list could go on forever.  This of course, does not justify their actions and in fact, I would argue it would be at least in part a case of hypocrisy.  It is up to us to change this situation.  One way or another.


----------



## Gunner98 (26 May 2007)

Pain said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, does anyone out there know if there is a list of _Red Fridays_?  Is it every month or what?  RSVP



Try looking at www.redfridays.ca - let your fingers do the walking/surfing.


----------



## Long in the tooth (26 May 2007)

Property rights are a pillar of a free and democratic (and prosperous) society.  Unfortunately, many left wing groups pretending to do good have expropriated the public rights argument.  This is illustrated in the Squatters case in Vancouver and the issue of Rent control in Alberta.  Be careful of Ed, he's not as strong as Ralph and may cave.  Rentals suck still in Winnipeg because of our little experiment in rent control.

I've never complained about the absolute of paying taxes, it does buy civilization.  My bitch is always the amount and the accountability of the government.

Last point about opent societies.  More books are translated into Spanish each year than have been translated into all the Arabic languages.... ever.


----------



## pbi (29 May 2007)

While I agree with much of this article, I wonder about a couple of things.



> Individual liberties are best expressed by free speech. Canadians need to remove limitations on the free exchange of ideas, knowing and trusting from experience ranging back to classical Greece that the best antidote to hateful and harmful speech is more speech, allowing good ideas the ability to grow, spread and displace bad ones. Efforts to restrain free speech only work in our enemy's favour.  Indeed the ability to arbitrarily suppress ideas is one of the aims of the Islamic radicals. To this end we need to remove politically correct “speech codes” on campus, remove so called “hate legislation” from our criminal codes (criminalizing speech is always the mark of a dictatorship), remove restrictions on political discussion embedded in election acts and more. We also need to encourage truly balanced discussion on the issues of the day by all members of society, and discourage the current trend to suppress dissenting views on the issues of the day by powerful media elites. We are stronger when all Canadians exercise their free speech rights and join in debating the issues of the day.



So, what would this mean in reality? Are we prepared to let radical imams preach freely in mosques in our cities and suburbs? Only if they don't preach violence? Well, then-if you believe that, you believe in reasonable limitations on free speech. Are we prepared to make sure that everybody gets a chance to speak freely, not just people with lots of money and media access (although, to be fair, access to the Internet has rapidly changed that playing field...). If you believe that, then "everybody" means "everybody", not just the people we like to hear or who make us feel good. And how do we make sure that the objects of hateful or threatening speech have the ability to reply with equal strength?

Are there consequences to unlimited free speech? For example, how long should we let a man incite a crowd to violence before we shut him down? Until they start throwing rocks? Or just until they start chanting? Should anybody be allowed to go about inciting whatever they want, regardless of consequences? Remember, we aren't talking just about the world of academic debate by educated and civilized individuals. We are talking about the right of anybody to say anything, anywhere. The speaker may have bad intentions, and the audience may just be looking for the words of an "authoritative" speaker to justify their actions. Again, I think these are no-brainers for reasonable limitations. What are reasonable limitations? Society has to keep on working that out, between the legislatures and the courts, until we reach something we can live with.

To me, a truly "civil" society is one in which there are reasonable limits on all of our actions, including speech, such that no legitimate group (especially minorities) feels personally endangered by the acts and words of another group. (there is a thin, grey line between "endangered" and "offended" and I'm not smart enough to know where it lies) If you consistently and intentionally allow one group in society to terrorize another, you don't (IMHO) have a civil society. Worse, you may find that the threatened group abandons civil discourse and retaliates by other means. The fact that pretty well all civilized western nations have some sort of restriction in this regard suggests to me that the requirement is recognized and tolerable. The restriction is better than the probable outcome of its absence. The fact that some people encourage silly, cowardly restrictions on what certain people can say in certain circumstances does not, in any meaningful way that I can see, undermine the need for reasonable restriction, any more than the abuse of any reasonable restriction means we should dump it.

On the issue of property rights, I'm not sure how wise this is in all cases. It works for us (altough it is certainly interpreted differently in different parts of the liberal Western democratic world) but I don't know that forcing it on societies where it doesn't exist is going to be useful, or if we might just be engaging in cultural engineering that is a bridge too far. If there  is nothing in a society to support a concept such as property rights, are we really going to ram it down their throats, or is it better to let it evolve naturally, as it did in Western society (you don't see too many feudal societies in Europe anymore, right?). To me this is like fast-tracking women's rights in male-dominated, misogynist societies-will it really help the women and the society, or just make the women into targets for backlash?

Finally, if we are going to make this into a crusade for Western liberal values, then we better make damned sure that we (the collective "we"-not just Canada) lead by example and avoid practices that make a mockery of these values. Probably the only thing more irritating and ineffective than a foreign moral crusader is a hypocritical foreign moral crusader.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> While I agree with much of this article, I wonder about a couple of things.
> 
> So, what would this mean in reality? Are we prepared to let radical imams preach freely in mosques in our cities and suburbs? Only if they don't preach violence? Well, then-if you believe that, you believe in reasonable limitations on free speech. Are we prepared to make sure that everybody gets a chance to speak freely, not just people with lots of money and media access (although, to be fair, access to the Internet has rapidly changed that playing field...). If you believe that, then "everybody" means "everybody", not just the people we like to hear or who make us feel good. And how do we make sure that the objects of hateful or threatening speech have the ability to reply with equal strength?
> 
> ...



Slightly off your points but, while I agree with you, especially with your last paragraph, I think: We, the _liberal_ West including Canada, came to our ‘reasonable limits’ through a long, *steady* process of trial and error going back 2,500 years.  That process is unique to a handful (out of 200± UN members states) of _liberal_ societies – almost exclusively founded in North-West Europe.

It is vital to point out that *conservative* (mostly Asian) societies also have very acceptable _socio-political_ values – they are different from ours but in no way can they be ‘unacceptable.’

The problem lies in *illiberal* societies.*  They have little, often none, of the _liberal_ traditions we take for granted.  Some (many? most?) have, in fact, traditions which make it hard for _liberal_ or _conservative_ values to take root and find nourishment.

It may be better, even necessary, to introduce simple, basic values – like ‘free speech’ and then watch, patiently, as the illiberal society learns that it must find and impose reasonable limits.

Here at home (where I think your concern lies) I agree, broadly, that ‘who governs least governs best' and so I worry about each and every ‘limit’ but there must be some ‘reasonable’ limits on most things – including speech.

----------
* a phrase adapted from Fareed Zakaria in a 1997 _Foreign Affairs_ aricle


----------



## pbi (29 May 2007)

Roger that.

Cheers


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 May 2007)

Seems to me that arguments against completely free speech focus on "reasonable limitations" in response to the idea that minority rights would be endangered.

So the question to be asked is this.  Do you believe the only thing preventing a majority of people in our society from abusing minority rights are our so called "hate laws"?  In other words would the majority of people you know call blacks n*****s if they could get away with it?  Would they let someone else get away with it?

The answer is of course not, but the mentality of those who preach for censorship is pessimistic to the extreme and somehow they believe that absolute free speech will only ever be used by racists, radicals and fear mongers to incite riot, hate and the dissolution of our way of life. 

If all we ever do is deny racists the right to speak out then we also deny individuals and our society the opportunity to expose the racist to the full force of the derision he or she deserves.  

As a result racism exists as an open secret, it is taught and learned, and on those rare occasions when the racist crosses the invisible line of "hate" the issue becomes a matter of law and disappears from the public consciousness.  

The majority give it no further thought, and as a result most likely have an imperfect understanding of why racism is so wrong.  Meanwhile other racists are free and clear to believe what they will and blame the censorship on their minority of choice without ever hearing just how wrong they are.

Of course as has already been pointed out these "hate laws" are also used by people trying to stifle legitimate speech on the grounds that offense does indeed constitute endangerment.

_"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." _ John Stuart Mill


----------



## pbi (29 May 2007)

> So the question to be asked is this.  Do you believe the only thing preventing a majority of people in our society from abusing minority rights are our so called "hate laws"?  In other words would the majority of people you know call blacks n*****s if they could get away with it?  Would they let someone else get away with it?



No, I don't believe that, but that argument is inherently tricky. In fact, I think it is probably true that what generally keeps us all acting in a civil manner (more or less...) toward each other is not just laws and police alone, but rather a general willingness to believe that we should behave in a certain way. If, for example, all 2.5 million people in Toronto decided to disobey the law, the 7,000 or so Toronto police could do little about it before they collapsed from exhaustion. But, fortunately, that is a very unlikely scenario in a civil society that works. Still,  I believe that we still have to account for human nature, and the need for society to be able to sanction those individuals who decide to act in a non-civil or threatening way. This sanction process (laws, courts and police) does not replace civil good will and decent behaviour: it underpins it, and backs it up when needed.

If we follow the argument to its ultimate conclusion, we can easily say that no law by itself really stops bad behaviour of any sort: it just contributes to an atmosphere in which law abiding is more acceptable and encouraged.  Does this mean that laws are then inherently useless? Should we get rid of laws against murder and dangerous driving because-- what the hell-- people will kill each other and drive like idiots anyway, laws or not? 

Probably not, and that really isn't the focus. Sadly, the human experrience seems to indicate that even with the sanctions we have in place (and some societies have more than others) we still have people who do use the communication of ideas in ways that threaten or frighten people who may not have adequate ways of responding. Worse, these ideas can be (and have been) expressed in ways that legitimize and encourage violence against other people in the same society. To me a civil society is not about absolute freedom: in fact the two things are probably incompatible.A civil society (IMHO) is about reducing risk and insecurity while striking a balance with individual liberties. This is a dynamic balance and varies from place to place and age to age, but I do believe that it includes reasonable limits on expression.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2007)

I would say the argument against hate crime laws was pretty clearly laid out in the editorial; the ability to arbitrarily silence speech (for any grounds whatsoever) is actually one of the objectives of our enemies, and as was seen in the "Danish Cartoon" affair, or earlier on with Saloman Rushdie being sentenced to death for the book "The Satanic Verses", they would enthusiastically use any means possible to carry it out. Offering the armed power of the State to our enemies to suppress speech is hardly the way to advance the cause of free speech or protect it in our own society.

The other thing we need to consider is since the enemy is going to use extreme measures to advance their cause, we need to consider how far we must go to defend our way of life, harness our cultural power and offer a better alternative when attempting to "disaggregate" radicals from the masses. If they are offering an "all or nothing" package and we can only respond with half measures, then we will hardly be able to keep our own side resolute and committed, much less attract their best and brightest to our side.

My own personal fear is simply this: we can win this war, but we may end up going down the path of Fascism in order to harness our resources to win. What sort of victory would that be if we loose our soul in the process? Far better to harness the best parts of our culture and trust the lessons of over 2500 years of Western Civilization (rather than the illiberal notions of "political correctness" that are now in vogue).


----------



## pbi (31 May 2007)

Surely we are able to duistinguish between the moral cowardice represented by PC and the need to have reasonable limits on behaviour in a civil society?

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> Surely we are able to duistinguish between the moral cowardice represented by PC and the need to have reasonable limits on behaviour in a civil society?
> 
> Cheers



We were able to historically (both PC and so called "Hate Crime" legislation only dates back to the second half of the 20th century, and really only came to the fore within our own lifetimes), and I suspect the author(s) of the editorial were of the opinion that social norms regulating behaviour are part of our cultural inheritance and much stronger and more effective in the long run than arbitrary laws and regulations.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Jun 2007)

First, >applause< for the article.

Second, ref hate laws, we are driven to using the law to silence these type of people.  There was a time when a person who said nasty things about others was silenced by public censure or force.  A man called your wife a (bad name) and asked why she wasnt in the kitchen, you knocked his teeth in.  A man made a reference to your background based on visible features or the way you spoke, he better back it up with strength.  These people learned to use the law and 'free speech' to their benefit to express publicly contrary and often unacceptable ethics and morality.  Now, the general public who do not accept these extreme beliefs or comments are forced to push back with further definitions on what is and is not acceptable public language.  

Its no different than profanity on t-shirts.  In the 1960's it was unthinkable that a person would walk around with a shirt that said 'F*** It" or any of a hundred different sayings now available.  Although they are free to do so on their own and in their social group, they must realize that they risk offending others who dont agree with their slogan.  Hence the display of these types of shirts is now restricted in the workplace, schools and other areas.  If people wont use common sense, we'll damn well do it for them!


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> If people wont use common sense, we'll damn well do it for them!



The problem is who is "we" and what defines "common sense". The Taliban would be quite pleased to apply thier version of common sense and damn well do it to you! Hence the warning against arbitrary use of State power.


----------



## KevinB (2 Jun 2007)

FWIW Michael Ignatieff's Book "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an age of Terror" has some good points about this.


----------



## pbi (4 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The problem is who is "we" and what defines "common sense". The Taliban would be quite pleased to apply their version of common sense and damn well do it to you! Hence the warning against arbitrary use of State power.



I think the question of "who" will always keep changing. At one time in Canada (say up until the 1960s) this was IMHO decided very much by ruling elites (we could go all the way back to the Family Compact if we want an extreme example) who had a pretty tight grip on what could be said or published. Then, as electronic media (and literacy) became universal across Canada starting in the 1960s, I think that that public opinion became much more of a force in shaping what was considered to be acceptable, and the making of laws tended to reflect these public feelings. Now, with the Internet allowing even greater expression, the impact might even be greater. So, the "who" question is probably best answered by "whoever can generate the most effective pressure at the moment". That, IMHO, is always a moving target that will be reflected, in arrears, by our laws.

As to the "what": that changes too. At one time, speaking out against the Crown could see you in court. At the same time, nobody really cared much if people publicly characterized Jews as shifty thieves and blacks as monkeys or children. (If you doubt this, just pick up various Canadian publications from the 1920s and 30s and do a bit of research. I have a copy of the Cdn Defence Quarterly from 1936 that refers to a Jewish businessman as a "Shylock".) Today, the situation is completely reversed. Twenty years from now it will have changed in some other way.

To me the objective should not be to have no reasonable restrictions on speech, nor to legitimize hate speech by giving it a platform, but to see existing laws applied in an intelligent way.  And that, of course, is the challenge for our entire legal system, on all sorts of issues.

Cheers


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The problem is who is "we" and what defines "common sense". The Taliban would be quite pleased to apply thier version of common sense and damn well do it to you! Hence the warning against arbitrary use of State power.



That is always the danger isnt it? Who is the right 'we'?


----------



## Bobby Rico (4 Jun 2007)

Good article.  I especially like the notion of removing hate legislation from the criminal code.  Though I'm not a proponent of hatred toward any individual or group, I believe in freedom of speech, all speech, even if that speech may be harmful.


----------



## pbi (5 Jun 2007)

Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> Good article.  I especially like the notion of removing hate legislation from the criminal code.  Though I'm not a proponent of hatred toward any individual or group, I believe in freedom of speech, all speech, even if that speech may be harmful.


Really? What if the result of that speech is violence? After all, ideas are not expressed in a vacuum, nor without some objective. Maybe the audience is an intelligent group of restrained, moderate citizens who will identify hate and dismiss it or counter it intellectually. Or maybe the speaker's words will  crystallize and legitimize hatreds and resentments the audience already hold.  Maybe the objective of the expression is to illuminate and educate and engage in intelligent debate, or maybe it is to encourage violence, discrimination, and marginalization of people the speaker doesn't like. An idea, once expressed, is very difficult (almost impossible...) to prevent from being translated into action. In fact, in a good sense, this is the strength of ideas and beliefs. Because of this great strength, I think we need to apply reasonable limitations.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2007)

And let's not forget that it's happened.

Less than 100 years ago, one of the most _cultured_ and _enlightened_* societies in the world put itself into the hands of hate filled, slobbering, savages and, even when they knew that their own virtues were being crushed by their own leaders, they 'went along.'

The role of propaganda and 'hate speech' in the success of Hitler's Nazis must not be minimized.  It was well crafted propaganda - designed to feed upon the combination of people's sense of grievance and their pride in their own accomplishments.  The fact, however, is the Germans were a _moderate_, educated, _enlightened_ people and yet they (mostly) still 'went along.' 

----------
* Influenced primarily, by the 'French enlightenment (Voltaire, Diderot, etc),' not, sadly, by its more rigorous Scottish predecessor (Hutcheson, Hume, Smith, etc).


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> Really? What if the result of that speech is violence? After all, ideas are not expressed in a vacuum, nor without some objective. Maybe the audience is an intelligent group of restrained, moderate citizens who will identify hate and dismiss it or counter it intellectually. Or maybe the speaker's words will  crystallize and legitimize hatreds and resentments the audience already hold.  Maybe the objective of the expression is to illuminate and educate and engage in intelligent debate, or maybe it is to encourage violence, discrimination, and marginalization of people the speaker doesn't like. An idea, once expressed, is very difficult (almost impossible...) to prevent from being translated into action. In fact, in a good sense, this is the strength of ideas and beliefs. Because of this great strength, I think we need to apply reasonable limitations.
> 
> Cheers



Causing a public disturbance is still punishable by law.  Threatening violence, uttering death threats and inciting a riot are also punishable.  Free speech is not the only thing that does not occur in a vacume our laws are not enforced or envisioned in a vacume either.


----------



## pbi (5 Jun 2007)

Well said E.R.C. BTW, I certainly don't mean to support the point of  view that says you never say anything to offend people: that would  be nonsense, and that most definitely _IS_ P.C. which IMHO is moral and intellectual cowardice. What I do believe, very strongly, is that examples such as you provided (and a sad slew of others) show us that there have to be limits against speech that is clearly aimed to drum up intimidation through threats of violence, or stir up hatred. 

 For example, it is one thing to state (factually) that:  "The majority of firearm homicides in the city of Toronto in the last two years involve Canadians of Jamaican descent shooting each other." This is unpleasant, possibly offensive to some, but sadly very true. It is quite another to state: "Those ******* n******s are a threat to our white society and we should round them all up and ship them to ******". That, IMHO, is hate. Is there a clear, iron-clad dividing line? No, but issues like this IMHO will never have such clear distinctions. That in itself is absolutely no reason  not to establish some reasonable limitations through our legal and legislative systems.

Cheers


----------



## cameron (6 Jun 2007)

Eloquently put E.R. Campbell and plus+1 pbi.


----------



## Bobby Rico (6 Jun 2007)

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that words can spark action that can cause harm.  At the same time, words are words, not actions.  Telling someone you're going to punch them isn't the same as actually doing it.  Yes, you can get charged for uttering threats to someone, but you can't get charged for something like aggrivated assault or assault causing bodily harm or something, both of which are greater offences.  

Just from my personal train of belief, I don't like the idea of selective censorship.  Why?  Well, lets take this example- Obviously, the word ni__er is taboo at the very least, racist at the most.  Collectively, one particular quarter of society decided it was such, and as a result, the word is considered racist almost universally.  Okay, well lets say hypothetically speaking the word 'dude' one day offends people because maybe it has some connotations to something negative, or so someone decieds.  So another select quarter of society collectively decides that the word dude is taboo, or racist or whatever, and comes to the decision that it shouldn't be used and so the majority adopts this way of thinking.  What this gets down to is people start taking offense to anything under the sun, and the individual becomes marginalized as a result.  We can't use words like 'dude' in public anymore because someone may find it offensive (emphasis on the word may).  You begin losing colorful expression or even whole ways of thinking and expressing yourself because a few people, not even necessarily the majority, has decided that this word or that phrase or this train of thought is no longer acceptable.  Is this a bad thing?  Well, depends on your point of view I suppose.  Personally, I think it's garbage.  Okay, this may all sound a little bit extreme, but face it, it's happening.  There are certain words that we can't say anymore that were common place not even a ten or twenty years ago.  We're forced to 'tolerate' certain social cliques because we've basically been told we have to.  While you or I may not have issues with tolerating one clique, maybe someone else does.  But then at the same time, other social cliques still exist that we don't tolerate and are not expected to.  Frankly, it drives me nuts.  We as individuals shouldn't be dictated to what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't.  Freedom of speech is a big part of that.

 Like a song says "If this offends you, turn it off!"  Don't take it off the air.


----------



## pbi (7 Jun 2007)

I take issue with several of your points.



> At the same time, words are words, not actions.  Telling someone you're going to punch them isn't the same as actually doing it.  Yes, you can get charged for uttering threats to someone, but you can't get charged for something like aggrivated assault or assault causing bodily harm or something, both of which are greater offences.




This, to me, is an example of "reasonable limitations" on freedom of expression. Going around uttering violent threats doesn;t do much to contribute to a civil society, but we don't treat uttering the same we treat actually smacking somebody. This is the "reasonable" part. But if we are speaking about the public expression of ideas we have to go much farther than the example of one individual person saying a particular thing to one other individual person, which may or may not have any influence or effect on anybody other than those two. We have to consider the effect of ideas on public action, by groups against individuals or groups.



> I don't like the idea of selective censorship



Selective censorship is the only type that makes sense if we are going to apply "reasonable" limitations. We restrict only those specific things that are considered to be unacceptable or harmful. Blanket censorship would be pointless and anyway, just about impossible to enforce in Canada.



> Collectively, one particular quarter of society decided it was such, and as a result, the word is considered racist almost universally.



You are trivializing the process that led to restriction on the use of this word in Canada. IMHO it took many decades (if not centuries) for this word and words like it, to drop out of civil usage: it still has not completely disappeared in some circles. And, if I might suggest, I think that it was a lot more than "one particular quarter" of the population who came to believe that it was a good idea that we stop using words like this in normal public expression. We got to this state, I suggest, because through hard experience we realized the power of ideas expressed as speech, newsprint, or electrons.



> Okay, well lets say hypothetically speaking the word 'dude' one day offends people because maybe it has some connotations to something negative, or so someone decieds.



Yes, you're right. The way I see it, this is called the process of social change. We don't act, speak, think, eat, drink, or live the same way today that people in this country did 100, 50 or even 30 years ago. For every word or idea that gets dropped or restricted, we liberalize our approach to others. IMHO it's based on what most people are willing to accept at any given time, but today it's also heavily influenced by ideas about human rights.



> and the individual becomes marginalized as a result.



I disagree. Most individuals are probably far less likely to be marginalized in a civil society with reasonable limitations on expression, than in a society that lacks these protections. Think of a Jew in Germany (or a few other places...) in the 1930s, a Chinese in Canada in the first half of the 20th century (the "Yellow Peril" reaction), or a gay person in Russia today. I have a feeling that maybe you are using "marginalized" when perhaps what you mean is "pissed off because they can't say whatever they feel like".



> You begin losing colorful expression or even whole ways of thinking and expressing yourself



You might. But IMHO you are far more likely to lose harmful, stupid and simply outdated ways of thinking and expressing yourself.  And anyway, as one expression dies, three more appear in the language to take its place. Remember: I am NOT defending "PC": I have already stated that twice. I am defending, very strongly,_ reasonable _ restrictions on public expression.



> We're forced to 'tolerate' certain social cliques because we've basically been told we have to.  While you or I may not have issues with tolerating one clique, maybe someone else does.



True: we do have to force some people to be tolerant. But IMHO being "tolerant" is not the same thing as "censorship" or "PC" or anything else. And being "tolerant" does not mean that we shouldn't be able to express reasonable, factual concerns as long as these don't tend to incite violence, hatred or other stupid behaviour. If you have a moral objection to homosexuality, or Islam, or the NDP, you should be able to say so in a reasonable manner. What you should not be able to do in a society that consider itself to be "civil" is to say we should jail/deport/burn/kill/ etc those groups. And, BTW, I extend this reasonable limitation to those same potential targets. Simply being a member of a threatened minority does not, IMHO, give anybody a right to preach hatred or violence.



> We as individuals shouldn't be dictated to what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't.  Freedom of speech is a big part of that.



IMHO if we don't tell people what society will tolerate, then we leave it open to individuals and groups to decide. Are you sure you want that? Should we go back to the 1960's, when certain well-known private clubs in Toronto excluded Jews? Should we stop Catholics from voting and owning property, as Britain did before Catholic Emancipation?  As I see it, simply because we "tolerate" does not mean we "embrace" or "accept" or "agree with", and does not mean that we are prevented from questioning in a civil, intelligent way.



> Like a song says "If this offends you, turn it off!"  Don't take it off the air



To me it isn't really about "offending", as I stated in an earlier post. It's about reasonable limitations on public expression. A civil society simply can't have total freedom of expression, any more than it can have total freedom of behaviour.

Cheers


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Jun 2007)

So would the Danish cartoon fiasco be considered a reasonable limitation?

Obviously I'm trolling for the answer we all know is true which is "Of course not"  

The point is that a protion of society deemed it to in fact be a reasonable limitation and due in part to the fact that "hate" legislation existed they tried to impose a similar limitation based on their cultural belief.  Some even threatened our society with violence in order to impose their version of "hate" speech on us, indeed in some parts of the world that violence was manifest and threat and intimidation suceeded in limiting free speech.

Our hate laws armed those who sought to impose their dogmatic restrictions on the rest of society.

Yes, without hate laws and in a true free speech society it would be perfectly legal to say 
*a.*  "I think "XYZ" are subhuman" 

but it would be just as legal to say 

*b.*  "You are a racist, bigot and an idiot, everyone knows that "XYZ" are people and deserve the same rights as any other person."

The status quo would have us beleive that people can be expected to say *a*, but can not be trusted to say *b*.


----------



## pbi (7 Jun 2007)

> The status quo would have us beleive that people can be expected to say a, but can not be trusted to say b.



Sadly, this is exactly correct, and it is IMHO based on long experience.



> and due in part to the fact that "hate" legislation existed they tried to impose a similar limitation based on their cultural belief.  Some even threatened our society with violence in order to impose their version of "hate" speech on us, indeed in some parts of the world that violence was manifest and threat and intimidation succeeded in limiting free speech.
> 
> Our hate laws armed those who sought to impose their dogmatic restrictions on the rest of society.



A lot of excitable people in the Islamic world got very upset about these cartoons, and a number of them went out and did the same sorts of stupid and violent things that they tend to do in response to all sorts of things they don't like, urged on (no doubt...) by people with other agendas. Probably some "reasonable restriction" on their speech and behaviour was required there. It wasn't very civil behaviour, but then many of them don't live in very civil societies anyway. 

But, that aside, I don't  see any connection whatsoever to their behaviour and our hate laws, or to the idea of reasonable restrictions on expression. I don't recall any example of any Islamic Canadians (or any other Canadians, for that matter) bringing charges against any Canadian media outlet for displaying the cartoons. The government, as far as I know, never stepped in to stop any outlet from publishing anything they wanted to about the matter. Some outlets chose not to, as a form of self-censorship. But then that happens every day in every editorial board room in Canada. Were these decisions driven by fear of hate laws? fear of civil suiits? fear of not being "PC"? I don't know. But, whatever the reason, by their actions these media outlets demonstrated that they also believe that there must be some limitations to what is expressed.

For example, I have no huge  problem with a person who says: "I don't believe the Holocaust happened" or "I can't find any evidence to show that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis". These statements are probably silly, if not just  outright wrong, but they can be tolerated. What can't be tolerated, IMHO, are statements such as: " bloody good thing about the Holocaust, eh?" or "should've finished the lot of them". those are hateful and, to me at least legitimize violence if they don't directly encourage it.

To me expression is a form of behaviour. We accept (more or less...) that unrestricted behaviour is not a good thing in society: unrestricted expression is, IMHO, no better.

Cheers

PS: Maybe Mods should split this off?


----------



## pbi (7 Jun 2007)

I checked the Criminal Code and here is what I found under "Hate Propaganda":




> Hate Propaganda
> Advocating genocide
> 
> 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
> ...



Note the requirement to demonstrate that the incitement must be likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Note also the defences available. These, to me, are reasonable defences, and this hate law is a reasonable restriction.

Cheers


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> But, that aside, I don't  see any connection whatsoever to their behaviour and our hate laws, or to the idea of reasonable restrictions on expression. I don't recall any example of any Islamic Canadians (or any other Canadians, for that matter) bringing charges against any Canadian media outlet for displaying the cartoons.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/13/cartoons060213.html#skip300x250
Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature. 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/02/13/20060213-cartoons.html
Syed Soharwardy of Calgary, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said that making jokes about religion should be off limits and he is willing to test that theory in court. 



> The government, as far as I know, never stepped in to stop any outlet from publishing anything they wanted to about the matter. Some outlets chose not to, as a form of self-censorship. But then that happens every day in every editorial board room in Canada. Were these decisions driven by fear of hate laws? fear of civil suiits? fear of not being "PC"? I don't know. But, whatever the reason, by their actions these media outlets demonstrated that they also believe that there must be some limitations to what is expressed.



Self censorship is the most pervasive and dangerous form.  "Ooh, better not say _that_ because _they_ will get upset." "Hmmm, best not draw attention to _this_ or _they_ will do that."  You find yourself arguing in ever diminishing circles about what you can and can not say.



> For example, I have no huge  problem with a person who says: "I don't believe the Holocaust happened" or "I can't find any evidence to show that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis". These statements are probably silly, if not just  outright wrong, but they can be tolerated. What can't be tolerated, IMHO, are statements such as: " bloody good thing about the Holocaust, eh?" or "should've finished the lot of them". those are hateful and, to me at least legitimize violence if they don't directly encourage it.
> 
> To me expression is a form of behaviour. We accept (more or less...) that unrestricted behaviour is not a good thing in society: unrestricted expression is, IMHO, no better.
> 
> ...



But by not forcing people with beliefs like the one you make example of about the holocaust to defend their stupidity they are in fact left to believe it.  They get away with being a bigot and racist because no one will debate the _points_ they try to make.  As a result they continue to believe such unadulterated crap and teach it to their children.

The default result of "hate" legislation is not that hate is eliminated but that it is allowed to exist just as long as we don't have to deal with it.  It is the ultimate ostrich response to a truly vile and disgusting practise.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jun 2007)

I had always thought that "genocide" meant murder of a race.  Of all the qualifiers for identifiable group, "religion" and "sexual orientation" seem strangely out of place (given the origin of the word genocide).  I'm surprised that given these two that "gender" is not a basis for identifiable group.


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Jun 2007)

> [3](b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;



Jesus, pardon my language... but doesn't this give some the *right* to spew "hate".

So when Priest Z says that some book says we should kill all the f*** then that's okay because he's reciting religious doctrine?  But, if you speak out and tell the followers of Priest Z that they are bigots and should get out of Canada if they really think that *YOU* could be charged.

I'm having a "stop the planet, I want off" moment.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jun 2007)

This whole "Free speech" vs. "hate laws" really burn my griddles.  Some things can be hidden by religion ("it's my religious right to call for the immolation of Israel!"), others cannot.  My own 2 cents would be fully free speech.  Now, inciting to riot, threatening someone, etc, is not a matter of statement of opinion, but right now we have people going to jail for saying "I believe that x", and in my opinion, that is wrong. Sure, Ernst Zundel is a big fat goof, but worthy of all those court costs, etc?  We should have broadcast him FOR FREE, so that EVERYONE could see what a big fat idiot he was.  Who really cares if this idiot believes that Greenhouse Gases will kill us all, or that the Holocaust was a consipiracy, or that everyone on the planet except me is behind the 9/11 attacks.  Idiots are idiots and no amount of legislation will alter that simple fact.  I say "let them talk"!  Sure, there is the danger of the collective idiocy (re: greenhouse gases), but hey, at one time we thought that the sun went around the earth, right?  Right?  ("It's so OBVIOUS, dude!  Look!  There's the sun, it's moving dude!  how can you say that it's otherwise?")


----------



## pbi (7 Jun 2007)

Ahh! the fox is amongst the chickens now! ;D



> Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature



And well he might seek. The law is there for everybody. Whether he and his group can ever assemble a case that meets the criteria, or the case ever comes to trial, or results in a finding of gulity, or a dismissal, or whatever, we have yet to see.  But, iif we have laws (and I most definitely believe we should in this case) then its by the process of trial and precedent that we find out what they actually mean. 
This doesn't bother me much, because I don't think he really has a case. But I'm not a judge.



> Syed Soharwardy of Calgary, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said that making jokes about religion should be off limits and he is willing to test that theory in court.



Good for him. He had an opinion and he expressed it. Many people think many things should be against the law. That doesn't mean that they ever will be. If he chooses to launch a court case, so be it.



> You find yourself arguing in ever diminishing circles about what you can and can not say.



If this was the universal reaction of all media, the effect you are describing might be a real risk. But tell me, honestly, that across the board this is what happens in Canada as result of having reasonable restrictions on expression, as opposed to being a result of PC or having a particular constituency (ie: readership) that one wants to please. You could equally argue that when media outlets self-regulate to avoid civil  libel action, that the risk to free speech is so great that we shouldd not have libel laws.




> But by not forcing people with beliefs like the one you make example of about the holocaust to defend their stupidity they are in fact left to believe it.  They get away with being a bigot and racist because no one will debate the points they try to make.  As a result they continue to believe such unadulterated crap and teach it to their children.



They may very well be left to be bigots, and to teach stupid things to their children. I don't care. A person's private beliefs, private expressions and what they privately teach their children aren't the object of my discussion. I don't think you could realistically ever effectively control this, nor would I suggest it. You cannot control what people think. But you can sure as hell regulate how they behave in public, and that is my point.



> It is the ultimate ostrich response to a truly vile and disgusting practise.



If legislating against the public expression of hateful ideas is "ostrich-ism", then why legislate against any anti-social behaviour at all? Why have laws against domestic violence (for example), when we know that lots of women and children still get beaten up in the privacy of their homes, instead of on the street as was once acceptable in some places (and may still be today in other places). 



> I had always thought that "genocide" meant murder of a race.



The Criminal Code defines "genocide" as:


> 2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
> (a) killing members of the group; or
> 
> (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.





> Jesus, pardon my language... but doesn't this give some the right to spew "hate".



I don't really know, but I don't think so, any more than the right to self defence using minimum reasonable force automatically gives you a right to kill somebody who steps on your lawn. The facts of that defence would have to be established, just like any other. The question that would have to be decided in the courts would (I think) be whether something was actually the tenet of a religion, the interpretation of it, or something else altogether.  



> right now we have people going to jail for saying "I believe that x", and in my opinion, that is wrong. Sure, Ernst Zundel is a big fat goof, but worthy of all those court costs, etc?


Really? Who has been jailed in Canada for this? What was Ernst Zundel actually punished for? Saying "I believe (x)", or spreading ideas that violate the hate law, which the Crown would have to have proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Actually, he wasn't charged under "Hate Propaganda". He was charged under Section 181, "Spreading False News":



> Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.



You can look over the case at:http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/supreme-court/. He was found guilty on appeal in Ontario court. The cae wwas appealed to the Supreme Court. Part of the appeal was based on the question of whether or not the law violated the Charter right to freedom of expression: it was decided at Supreme Court that it did, and the appeal was dismissed. So, as far as that goes, the Supreme Court actually protected the right to say things that some find offensive, _in a particular case_. So, I would say, the system worked.



> Who really cares if this idiot believes that Greenhouse Gases will kill us all, or that the Holocaust was a consipiracy, or that everyone on the planet except me is behind the 9/11 attacks.



Not me. I couldn't care less what he believes. What I care about is what he, or other people like him, achieve when they actively incite hatred, racism, social violence or other crap we don't need. And, like I said, it matters not to me what colour/race/creed/relligion/etc the offenders are.



> at one time we thought that the sun went around the earth, right?  Right?



Yes, but I could scarcely call the actions of the Roman Catholic Church in attempting to suppress opposing theories as "reasonable restrictions to maintain a civil society". It was patently unreasonable, because the theorists were not advocating harm or violence or marginalization. They were advancing a theory, and one with pretty good evidence. The Church felt its power threatened, so it tried to stop the expression of the idea. But, obviously, not every case will be so clear cut, such as the example of a person who genuinely voices an actual religious belief against an identifiable group.  The only fully acceptable way we have of deciding is to run a case through the courts, maybe even appeal to the Supreme Court. To me the way to decide is not to just let people do or say whateever they want, in the hopes that somehow it will all turn out right in the end.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2007)

While your arguments are rigorous and well thought out, PBI, I will still stand on the side of totally free speech simply on the grounds that using legislation to define "hate" is trying to parse arguments with a chainsaw. Yes, people said and did things 5, 10 and 100 years ago that make people today cringe with shame or embarrassment, but I am sure that our children might have the same feelings about some things we commonly say or do today. While we have seen examples of people attempting to use "Hate crime" laws against Canadian media outlets (like the Western Standard magazine) I also find it disturbing that people in the environmental movement are using terms like "deniers" to describe people who are not on side with their arguments and to shut down debate _on a matter of science_. Since the process of science is built on debate (i.e. theories must be constantly proven against all data), this sort of censorship of ideas can seriously damage our society.

The best argument _for_ free speech is that it acts like a dose of sunshine on the darker side of our society, and although most people may not take option "B", there are enough of them (and us) who will get on that charger one last time and take aim at the windmill. (The contrary is also true, most people will not be spewing hate regardless of laws for or against). Forcing hateful speech underground does not get rid of it, and indeed it may spread undetected for a long time so long as practitioners feel the need to stay underground. Indeed it may act in the opposite direction, purveyors of hate can make the argument "This is so astounding that the powers that be are trying to suppress it! Only really switched on people [like you] can be trusted to hear it." Once these sorts of ideas are exposed to the sun, they generally shrivel up and become marginalized, although never completely eliminated.


----------



## pbi (7 Jun 2007)

> While your arguments are rigorous and well thought out, PBI, I will still stand on the side of totally free speech simply on the grounds that using legislation to define "hate" is trying to parse arguments with a chainsaw.



Well, I would say that we don't use legislation to define it. We use legislation to establish a reasonable start point: we end up defining what is or is not "hate" by trial, error and precedent. Just like we end up determining what is a reasonable use of minimum force, what is or is not racial discrimination, or (in our case, for example) to what extent we balance provisions of the Charter against military law.



> that our children might have the same feelings about some things we commonly say or do today.



For sure. In fact, I think I said that. It merely points out that the collective view of what is acceptable will always evolve, unless we get trapped in some sort of society that prevents social change. It doesn't, in any way that I can see, support the point of view that we must either have totally free expression or nothing at all.



> I also find it disturbing that people in the environmental movement are using terms like "deniers" to describe people who are not on side with their arguments and to shut down debate on a matter of science. Since the process of science is built on debate (i.e. theories must be constantly proven against all data), this sort of censorship of ideas can seriously damage our society.



I agree 100%, as I stated in my Catholic Church dogma example below. But your example here, as irritating and stupid as the tree-huggers' behaviour may be, is not what I'm talking about, and not what Canadian hate law is about (or not as far as I can make out).



> The best argument for free speech is that it acts like a dose of sunshine on the darker side of our society



It certainly can do that: the institution of a free press is one that I believe is vital to a successful democracy. But unfettered public expression can actually promote and legitmize the dark side of our society, which I think is the reason that most western nations have reasonable restrictions on it.



> Once these sorts of ideas are exposed to the sun, they generally shrivel up and become marginalized, although never completely eliminated.



They might, although I think the process appears to be much slower than you might give it credit for. They might just as easily thrive, gain strength and incite behaviours we neither want nor need. To me I guess the question goes like this: If we accept that the basis of a civil society is the reasonable limitation of total freedom of behaviour for the members of that society, why is it that public expression (which is  most definitely a behaviour, and one intended to have a result of some sort if it is not just babbling) should be exempted from reasonable restriction? On what grounds?

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2007)

I need to get back to my point: *Culture Matters*.*

We can _manage_ ‘free speech’ (or not so free, not free enough, anyway, depending upon one’s point of view) because we have a _cultural_ predisposition to respect the rule of law.  That cultural predisposition is at the very root of democracy – it is far, far more important than e.g. majority rule.  There might be other suitable ways to ensure that governments have the consent of the governed but there is no way to ensure that democratic government works if people are not _culturally_ predisposed to  respect the laws.

People whose cultures are rooted in traditional theocracies have great difficulty with the rule of law because they are accustomed to the idea that some deity or person can and does arbitrarily decide on _right_ and _wrong_.  Those who come from societies with strong Greco-Roman roots have less difficulty because they are accustomed to the idea that men make laws for themselves.  People with strong Greco-Roman roots may also have strong religious beliefs and they may mix up the relative importance of their cultural roots vs. their religious roots.  The former are, I think, far more important than the latter – and I acknowledge that Greco-Roman _cultural_ traditions and Judeo-Christian beliefs have been tightly intermingled for about 1600 of the past 2000 years.

I think that liberalism and democracy, with all that both imply – including the _ability_ to ‘manage’ (limit) free speech for example – are not easy for many societies to accept.  That’s why Singapore, for example, is a _conservative_ democracy.  Many people don’t think Singapore is a _real_ democracy because it is pretty much a one party state.  It is a democracy in every single important respect but because it is a democracy in a very _conservative_ society it is a democracy with very conservative values – and a degree of socio-political _collectivism_ is a conservative value.  (Ditto Japan and Taiwan.)  I doubt that either liberalism or real democracy – government with the consent of the governed based on the rule of law – can develop in or be transplanted to most Arab/Persian Muslim countries.  Islam is not the problem – Muslim countries, like Malaysia, can be democratic because they have cultural values which allow democracy, albeit conservative democracy, to develop and survive.  The problem is with the culture in the Arab/Persian _world_ – it needs a religious _reformation_ and a socio-cultural _enlightenment_ before democracy will be a natural fit.  Many Canadians of Arab/Persian cultural extraction have difficulty separating their civic culture from their religion – they may have been born and raised in Canada but they cannot participate, fully, in the cultural life of the country or quite _believe_ in liberal-democracy because their religious traditions get in the way.  So long as one *believes* that a god makes laws for men it is impossible to understand liberalism.

Am I suggesting that some cultures are inferior to others?  *Yes*.  Am I, consequently, suggesting that some peoples, some nationalities, some races are inferior to others?  *No*.  In my experience, six plus decades on seven continents, *people are pretty much alike – cultures are different*.  People can break free of their cultural roots – not all choose to do so. 

----------
* And see the excellent book, _Culture Matters_ Lawrence E. Harrison and  Samuel P Huntington _eds_, 2000, New York


----------



## Bobby Rico (7 Jun 2007)

Good arguements all across the board.  I'm not going to say anything more to attempt to back up my beliefs, but I think everyone here has good arguments, and definitely food for thought.  Good stuff.


----------



## pbi (7 Jun 2007)

ERC: I think you are on to something. What is "reasonable" and "acceptable" is probably always going to vary from culture to culture, and from age to age.

And I, for one, would not call your reasoning "hate speech" because it is a thoughftul analysis in support of an idea that (most importantly) doesn't urge violence, hatred, or marginalization. It urges people to look at unpleasant facts and think logically:, it might even offend some people. I had the same intent with my earlier comment on homicides in Toronto.

Cheers


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Jun 2007)

As an example of the worst sort of free speech, let's look at former Grand Chief David Ahenakew and his comments on Jews.

He said 





> "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries. ... All I know is what the Germans told me. Of course, I believe them. I saw the Jews kill people in Egypt when I was there. The Palestinians, Arabs. I saw them (Israel) f---ing dominate everything. ... I don't support Hitler. But he cleaned up a hell of a lot of things, didn't he? You would be owned by the Jews right now the world over. Look, a small, little country (Israel) like that and everyone supports them. Who the hell owns many of the banks in the states, many of the corporations? Look at here in Canada. Izzy Asper (chair of CanWest Global, the owner of The StarPhoenix). He controls the media. What the hell does that tell you? That's power. That's f---ing power. ... The hell with the Jews. I can't stand them. And that's it. I don't want to talk about them. ... My great grandson goes to school here in Saskatoon. These goddamned immigrants -- East Indians, Pakistanis, Afghanistan, whites and so forth -- call him a dirty little Indian. He's the cleanest of the old goddamn works there. That's what I'm saying. It's starting right there, at six years old."
> Saskatoon StarPhoenix, A1, 14 December 2002.



Now Ahenakew is no closet racist, here is a man of stature in his community, a leader of his people.  What happened immediately after his comments?  I mean immediately, before any charges were laid under the hate legislation.

He was called to account by the media, by private citizens and by his own people.  He was labeled an anti-Semite, a racist and was politically ostracized. His attitudes, thoughts and ideology were held up to ridicule.  

In the end it is that example, the disgust of people from all across this country the open chastisement of a racist for his ignorance that exemplifies the virtue of free speech.

Edwards point about culture is certainly valid and I would probably not expect truly free speech to work in any system other than a mature liberal democracy but we aught to be able to agree that Canada has that going for it at least.

NB:  Although Ahenekew never advocated genocide against the Jews he was still charged under Canada's hate legislation.  Why do you think that was...  I'd say it was because it was there.


----------



## pbi (8 Jun 2007)

Actually, Recce -you're right: on reading it closely, Ahenakew doesn't really preach genocide. He certainly seems to support it, but I don't think he could be found guilty of incitement to it. He said some stupid, ignorant and very offensive things, but I don't think the courts could have got him on genocide. Encouraging "hate": probably. And I do admit that this is where the tricky part comes in: deciding in each case what "hate" is without violating the Charter provision for free speech. Like I said, it can't be pinned down by some nice neat textbook definition: it has to be established by weighing of evidence and establishing precedent. If you look at the Zundel appeal decision, you can see that the Supreme Court was very concerned about protecting free speech under the Charter. IIRC, Keegstra got off through this system, so it doesn't automatically mean a crackdown on every demagogue with something nasty to say.

Anyway, I think I'm done. Good fight, all. There truly are some smart folks on this site, even if we don't always agree. Kind of like pig wrestling: everybody gets dirty, but the pig loves it.

Oink. ;D

Cheers


----------



## cameron (10 Jun 2007)

I was going to reply to Bobby Rico's post, but you did an excellent job pbi, cheers.


----------

