Liberalism needs protection

[ModlrMike]

There's a broader question here:

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



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

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good discussion.

There's a broader question here:

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

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

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

 

[Griffon]

"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!"

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

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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

 

[Griffon]

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

Edited to add:

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

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

 

[pbi]

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

Edited to add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pbi]

There's a broader question here:

Should people be sanctioned for what they think, or what they do (or incite others to do)?
I think most of us would say the later. Unfortunately, recent examples have focused on the former.

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

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

 

[observor 69]

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

 

[Griffon]

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

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

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

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

There's a broader question here:

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



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

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

Plus, who doesn't commit thought crimes  ;D

 

[Griffon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Griffon]

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

And I would say that such a protest should not be allowed, and is in fact illegal:

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

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

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

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

 

[pbi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

And I would say that such a protest should not be allowed, and is in fact illegal:

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

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

 

[Griffon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kirkhill]

And I would say that such a protest should not be allowed, and is in fact illegal:

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

...

Really interesting discussion and I'm enjoying following it.


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

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

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

 

[Griffon]

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

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