• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberalism needs protection

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."

 
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:
 
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.

The idea that that people should be punished with boycott or losing their jobs over having wrong beliefs hobbles the flowering of tolerant classical liberal market cosmopolitanism.

There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!"

That has a different feel than: "I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn't agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don't think you should be arrested for it."

A stern insistence on boycotting or refusing any truck or barter with those who hold different beliefs or practice different ways of life (peacefully) does not directly implicate specifically libertarian questions about rights or freedom. No one's freedom in the true libertarian sense is harmed by people trying to drive them from society or the market because of their beliefs or creed as long as it is done through mere refusal to associate, or advocacy of refusal to associate. We have no right for others to do business with us or to tolerate our beliefs or practices as long as said intolerance does not turn to violence.

But regularly acting on the idea that those with wrong ideas deserve to be driven from society in any conceivable non-violent way might, I suggest, make for a less lovable, rich, and peaceful world. When we start regularly restricting people's opportunities in commerce or association over differing beliefs, what could be peaceful ideological differences start to tip over into people fighting for what they can understandably see as their metaphorical life--their social or economic life. It's a dangerous game and if pursued vigorously and across the board by everyone who disagrees with everyone else on issues or practices they consider vital, will make everyone worse off.

Centuries after the Enlightenment, most people's notions of "free thought and expression" still amount to: it's OK to think and express OK things. It's a limited view that can lead to a less varied, vital, and livable culture.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
I think it's time to buy some new duck calls and remove some stations from my lineup.
 
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.
 
>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&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.

“There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show,” the insider told EW. “We’ll figure out a solution. It’s just not going to happen overnight. Everybody will take a break for the holidays and regroup afterward. That’s probably the smartest thing for everyone to do. Time heals a lot of wounds.”

While A&E’s suspension could have included pulling not-yet-aired episodes of the show that include Phil Robertson, it now appears it will only affect episodes that have not yet been shot. Assuming there is an ultimately reconciliation between the network and the Robertson family, this could mean an uninterrupted viewing experience for fans of the show.
 
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.

Far fewer than half the number needed by March 1 have signed up for Obamacare.
If it fails, it will be because millions of Americans' passive resistance brought it to its knees.
Despite federal law that bans marijuana, Colorado has de-facto nullified it.

In his excellent book, Two Cheers For Anarchism, Professor James Scott writes:

One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called 'Irish Democracy,' the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

That seems to be happening right now, in two very different areas. In one area, we have the refusal of people to sign up for Obamacare in anything like the numbers that were predicted, or needed to make it work. Writing in the Washington Post back in November, Jennifer Rubin observed:

It is a coin flip, at best, for the president as to whether his signature achievement, his only achievement, will fail. It will be repealed in essence by a popular referendum: The mass refusal of people to go along with Obama's top-down, compulsory system that was set to transform a sixth of the economy. That possibility should traumatize and probably is traumatizing the White House. ... The political implications of this are almost too enormous to calculate.

Now, as February draws near, things don't look much better. Far fewer than half the number needed by March 31 have signed up. And, as it turns out, most of the people signing up for Obamacare aren't the uninsured for whom it was supposedly enacted, but people who were previously insured (many of whom lost their previous insurance because of Obamacare's new requirements). "At most," writes Bloomberg's Megan McArdle, "they've signed up 15% of the uninsured that they were expecting to enroll. ... Where are the uninsured? Did hardly any of them want coverage beginning Jan. 1?" It looks that way.

In fact, there seem to be more uninsured than there were before Obama took office, leaving Jonah Goldberg to ask, "So what was the point of Obamacare again?"

If the program fails, it won't be because Republicans stopped it, despite all the House votes and defunding efforts. It will be because millions of Americans' passive resistance brought it to its knees. Irish Democracy, indeed.

Meanwhile, on the marijuana front, the people of states like Colorado are engaging in an odd, 21st century variety of nullification. Unlike the 19th century John Calhoun version, state laws legalizing marijuana don't purport to neutralize the still-extant federal laws banning cannabis. But the state, and millions of Coloradans, are simply ignoring the federal law and, in essence, daring the feds to do something about it.

State laws, of course, can't neutralize federal law, as the Constitution's Supremacy Clause makes clear. But, bloated as it is, the federal law enforcement apparatus isn't up to the task of prosecuting all the marijuana users in Colorado. And if it tried, it would have to bring them to trial before juries in Colorado, who would probably acquit most of them. There would also be massive political backlash, amplified in the coming 2014 and 2016 elections because Colorado is a swing state. And in response to Colorado's example, other states look likely to follow suit, making the feds' problem much bigger.

So, despite all the federal laws on the books, Colorado has de facto nullified them, and started a process that may very well snowball, all without directly attacking the federal laws, or the federal government, at all. Meanwhile, millions of Americans may be in the process of effectively killing Obamacare simply by staying home.

As we struggle, mostly in vain, to rein in the metastasizing power of a federal government that has grown out of control, perhaps Irish Democracy offers a solution. Sometimes it seems like that's the only kind of democracy that's likely to make a difference.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.
 
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.

Alexis de Tocqueville reported that “Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. . . . Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.” Tocqueville went on to observe that these civil associations serving every imaginable end were the product of what he called “self-interest well understood.”

Tocqueville reflected that “the beauties of virtue were constantly spoken of” in “aristocratic centuries,” but he doubted that men were more virtuous in those times than in others. In the United States, he had observed, “it is almost never said that virtue is beautiful.” Rather Americans “maintain that . . . [virtue] is useful and they prove it every day.” This is what Tocqueville meant by “self-interest well understood,” which he illustrated with this quotation from Montaigne: “When I do not follow the right path for the sake of righteousness, I follow it for having found by experience that all things considered, it is commonly the happiest and most useful.”

Twenty-first century Americans have forgotten this ancestral insight—that “self-interest well understood” “forms a multitude of citizens who are regulated, temperate, moderate, farsighted, masters of themselves; and if it does not lead directly to virtue through will, it brings them near to it insensibly through habits.” Perhaps “self-interest well understood” sounds too much of Adam Smith’s invisible hand for present day Americans whose habit, like the French of Tocqueville’s time, increasingly is to look for solutions not to private collaboration but to an omnipresent government. Nineteenth-century Americans who turned to both neighbors and strangers in pursuit of mutual interests would be puzzled at the hard and fast boundary their twenty-first century descendants draw between public and private interest.

Young people applying to colleges know that their prospects for admission will be enhanced if they have a record of public service. They also know that volunteering for a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the needy or preserving the environment qualifies as public service, and that working for a profit-making business, even if as an uncompensated intern, does not count as public service. This distinction conforms to one of the standard dictionary definitions of public service: “something that is done to help people rather than to make a profit.”

Other definitions of public service include the supplying of what economists call public goods (e.g. clean air, national defense, street lights) or what might be described as public necessities (e.g. water, electricity, sewer, transportation) and the work that someone does as an employee of government (more commonly called the civil service in this country). These forms of public service are like the first in that they describe things done for reasons other than profit. The non-excludable and non-rivalrous nature of public goods prevents them from being supplied for profit. It would be unseemly if not immoral to allow anyone to profit from the provision of public necessities. And government is by definition a not-for-profit activity.

Politicians often tout their record of public service as a reason they should be elected or reelected. Often that record includes previous elective office or government employment. Many government employees similarly profess that as public servants they warrant special consideration and respect because they are engaged in public service. The implication, if not explicit declaration, is that they have somehow sacrificed their personal self-interest for the good of the public.

In some cases this claim of personal self-sacrifice is true. Members of the armed forces, particularly those whose assignments put them in harms way, risk the ultimate personal sacrifice and warrant both our gratitude and respect. The same is true of law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and emergency response personnel. Although it is also true that career military and public safety personnel often have generous compensation and retirement benefits, their core mission of protecting others from harm surely warrants both generous financial rewards and recognition.

We might also include among those who sacrifice for the public good those legislators who receive meager salaries—the remnant of a bygone era of citizen legislators who supported themselves and their families through parallel private pursuits. With legislatures meeting more frequently and spending ever more time on legislative business between sessions, it is often no longer possible for elected representatives to maintain a private sector career. In some states, these folks have a legitimate claim that they have sacrificed for the public good, although many are happy to do so in return for the satisfactions of exercising power, and others have personal wealth (the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in 2010, 42 percent of U.S. House Representatives and 66% of the U.S. Senators were millionaires).

There are probably others who qualify as self-sacrificing public servants, but for the overwhelming majority of government employees, including public school teachers, there is really nothing to distinguish them from their fellow citizens employed in the private sector. Indeed, if most public employees have anything that distinguishes them, it is that, on average, their compensation (including benefits) is more generous and their work hours more regular than those of private sector workers.

I do not mean to suggest that public employees should not be respected and fairly compensated for the work they do, or that the work they do is unimportant. Nor do I mean to assert that public employees do not contribute to the public good. Rather, my point is that a public employee is not any more of a servant of the public good than are many, if not most, who work in the private sector.

In legal terms, a “public servant” is simply a public employee. The term derives from the traditional common law description of employers as masters and employees as servants. A master-servant relationship exists where the employee serves at the will of the employer (subject to a steadily growing array of legislative and regulatory limitations) and the tasks performed by the employee are under the direction and control of the employer. The relationship is distinguished from that between a principal and agent, where the agent is authorized to act on behalf of the principal in relation to third parties, and that between an employer and an independent contractor, where the independent contractor employs his own processes and methods to perform work prescribed by the employer.

In the context of public employment the term servant persists but has come to suggest a self-sacrificing individual dedicated to serving the public good. Government workers take pride in being called public servants. But in the private sector, no employee aspires to be called a servant, presumably because of the inferior status often associated with those called servants (think “Upstairs, Downstairs” or “Downton Abbey”). 

Given modern sensitivities and our pervasive egalitarian inclinations, it is entirely appropriate that we have abandoned the practice of calling those who provide domestic services servants. It is, on the other hand, unfortunate that we do not think of those who work in the private sector generally as public servants—or at least as people serving the public interest in important ways.

How do private sector workers contribute to the public good? An obvious answer is that they volunteer their time outside of work as soccer coaches, den mothers, museum docents, and deliverers of meals on wheels. And many of the most successful in the private sector—people like Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet—establish philanthropic foundations serving many public ends.

To be sure, our communities and our nation are better off for all of these private voluntary contributions, but there are even more important things most private sector workers do to promote the public good. They invent, innovate, invest, and labor. They take risks, celebrate success, and pick themselves up after failure. They are entrepreneurs, managers, computer programmers, office workers, and laborers who provide for themselves and their families while producing goods and services to meet a dizzying array of human needs and desires. And together they create the wealth that makes it possible for governments to function.

It is probably natural that we should think of the actions of government and voluntary associations as serving the public and the actions of business as serving private interests. Business, after all, must make a profit to survive, and providing for oneself hardly qualifies as volunteerism. Government, on the other hand, exists to serve the public, though its immense powers are too often put to the service of private interests.

Somehow we have accepted and made a part of our civic culture this distinction between doing good for others and doing well or just providing for oneself. Profits are often viewed as excessive and unearned, and therefore fair targets of regulation and taxation without regard to the reality that they are the lifeblood of business. And we ignore that business is the lifeblood of employment, philanthropy, and government.

It is admirable that at least since the New Deal our national government has encouraged particularly our youth to volunteer their time or accept modest compensation for service to others. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps built public facilities that still provide pleasure and public pride. President Kennedy established the Peace Corp and President Johnson the Job Corps, Vista, and the National Teacher Corps. More recently, President George H. W. Bush launched the Points of Light Foundation and President Clinton created AmeriCorps. These are all noble and well-intentioned initiatives, but without funding they wither, and without profit-making businesses there is no funding.

Beyond tax revenue, the public interest in private enterprise rests in the human fulfillment that comes with providing for oneself and collaborating to solve mutual problems and achieve shared goals. While there is at least temporary comfort in support from government, there is pride in providing for oneself and helping others. And in a society where government has assumed responsibility for providing for those in need (though with mixed success), those individuals who provide for themselves and for others relieve government from assuming that burden.

In less than two centuries we have allowed the world described by Tocqueville to be turned on its head. Where we once understood that fulfilling our own interests depended on working with others in pursuit of their own interests, and that through such private collaborations we helped build a strong community, we now believe that the pursuit of self-interest is selfish at best and destructive of the public good at worst. We teach our young people that the public good is the exclusive domain of government and that public service requires self-sacrifice. We teach them that business is about profits and self-interest. We teach them that only government and self-sacrificing volunteerism serve the public good.

Tocqueville recognized what nineteenth-century Americans understood and practiced—the public good is served by the individual pursuit of “self-interest well understood.” Among our most public-spirited citizens are those who work with others, without the intervention or aid of government, in creating and sustaining the businesses upon which our economic and social prosperity rest. We should celebrate their public service.

James Huffman is dean emeritus and formerly the Erskine Wood Sr. Professor of Law at Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon. He served as dean of the law school from 1993 to 2006. Huffman serves on the boards of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Western Resource Legal Center and the Classroom Law Project and is a member and former chairman of the Federalist Society Property and Environment Practice Group. He is the author of two books published in 2013 by Palgrave Macmillan: Private Property and State Power and Private Property and the Constitution. Huffman is a visiting fellow of the Hoover Institution.
 
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/
5178-NationalPostLogo3.jpg

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

Rex Murphy

April 12, 2014

par1756915.jpg

Brandeis University said in a statement that Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali would no longer receive an honorary
degree, which it had planned to award her at the May 18, 2014, commencement.
MARTIN BUREAU/AFP/Getty Images


Brandeis University in Massachusetts showed itself to be gutless and pharisaical this week by revoking an invitation to award the international advocate for women’s rights under Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an honorary degree.

Hirsi Ali is the remarkable woman whose life story she has told in three books (Infidel, The Caged Virgin and Nomad). Born among the poorest of the poor in Somalia, genitally mutilated at the age of five, a refugee as a young woman fleeing an arranged marriage, she immigrated to the Netherlands and in but a few years, having learned the language, became a distinguished member of parliament.

Those who talk of “role models” for young women can search the globe, and will not find a more dignified, accomplished and courageous exemplar. In the Netherlands she was constantly under siege from radical Islamists and others, but courageously continued her public life speaking for the rights and dignity of women — especially, as she saw it, for the rights of women trapped in Islam.

Her friend Theo van Gogh, a locally famous filmmaker, made a short film (Submission) on Islam and women. Shortly after he was stabbed to death, murdered in a public street, and a note threatening Hirsi Ali was pinned — with a knife — to the dying man’s chest. It read in part: “Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you will break yourself to pieces on Islam.” Not even that horror stopped her.

From that time on, her life has been under constant threat and she has necessarily been accompanied by bodyguards everywhere she goes. I interviewed her for The National; in Toronto some years back. Two huge (and friendly) bodyguards followed her every step from the side doors on John Street to the studio. On the way out they went ahead to check the street before she exited. They were not there for ornament.

So, here is a woman of some earned fame and widely noted achievements. She has been variously lauded by some of the strongest advocates on the planet — I’ll just instance the late Christopher Hitchens as an example. But after extending its invitation, Brandeis received protest from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) branding her (in their delightful cant phrase) “a notorious Islamaphobe.” And students at the university, deploying the other cant formulation for unacceptable ideas —  “hate speech” — collected 85 names from a 350-person faculty petitioning the offer be rescinded. Their petition carried the now-familiar prissy, hollow whines that some students would be “uncomfortable,” would “not feel welcome,” if Ali, with her learned views on Islam and women — derived mainly from her personal life experience, mind you — were to be honoured.

Is this what Western thought and philosophy at the university has come to —  setting up  intellectual quarantines lest the immature and frightened be made uncomfortable or to feel unwelcome? Is this university or daycare? Giving into such adolescent whimpering is despicable; giving in to in on a university campus is unforgivable.

Why in Aristotle’s name do institutions dedicated to higher learning tolerate these rags of verbal flannel — uncomfortable, unwelcome — from putative adults? Damn it, a university exists to unsettle, to throw down established attitudes, to shine the searchlight of reason on all ideas. Universities are supposed to be bold, confident, courageous institutions, whose biggest duty to their students is to expand the range and depth of their ideas, not confirm their prejudices.

Brandeis, on this account, is a failure. It cringed at the first criticism. It suggested Ali somehow offended its “core values” — and what would those be? Surrender at first fire, perhaps, and gaudy specious rationalizations afterwards? — and had the gall to talk of respecting debate.  I agree absolutely with the American writer and editor of Commentary, John Podhoretz, who called the decision the act of a “gutless, spineless, simpering coward.”

Universities are losing their halo. They are now factories for reinforcing received opinions, what the market holds as right and true — so-called “progressive” ideas. They have a deep hostility to ideas and opinions that wander outside their small circle of acceptability. They choose which protests they endorse and which they deplore. Oprah can get 10 honourary degrees and a winsome reception for her third-rate psuedo-therapies. But a real warrior in the cause for woman’s rights — a woman who truly rose by virtue of her courage, intelligence and industry — must walk, shamed, away from the platform she was invited to.

Every other university on the continent should have something to say about Ali’s treatment, but very few will. Because they are all of the same timid herd: great trumpeters of intellectual freedom and courage, which when faced any real test of independent thought or challenge to comfortable assumptions are sheepish, intimidated, closed shops.

National Post


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:

muslimACTIVISTS.jpg


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

"OK, line up! Here's your sign." ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..) >:D

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.
 
: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.
 
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.

 
Back
Top