A WINNABLE WAR

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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