• 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

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

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

I'll bet another group would show up with signs saying "Segregation is dumb." Voila! Freedom of expression reigns.
 
Griffon said:
ballz said:
I think you are reaching quite a bit here. I don't think if a bunch of numpties held up signs on a street corner that said "Segregation works best! Black and white people shouldn't use the same toilet!" it would pass the litmus test for "inciting hatred."
Try it and let me know how it goes for you.  I'm sure I'll hear about it in the evening news.



;D    >:D

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

>:D
 
Kirkhill said:
Really interesting discussion and I'm enjoying following it.


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

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]"

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

What benefit would there be, either to society or to individuals, if we supported prejudiced discrimination?  I think that creating an environment where there is acceptance, or at least tolerance, in diversity, where individuals feel safe in expressing who they are without fear of being oppressed by others, is a greater goal of liberalism than holding freedom of speech above all else.  Public prejudiced calls to action fly in the face of this ideal, which is why I oppose it.
 
Griffon said:
For the record, the University did not suppress free speech, they just chose not to provide the forum for it.

I don't see the difference. It had the same effect to all intents and purposes. A sin of omission, if you will.
 
Griffon said:
I think that creating an environment where there is acceptance, or at least tolerance, in diversity, where individuals feel safe in expressing who they are without fear of being oppressed by others, is a greater goal of liberalism than holding freedom of speech above all else.  Public prejudiced calls to action fly in the face of this ideal, which is why I oppose it.

Where's the tolerance in someone wanting to express to the world that they are an ignorant bigot? You can't regulate or force your belief system on someone. That just makes them push back against the system that's "trying to keep them down". If you allow them to speak, and rationally dismantle their argument then you've both allowed free speech, and shown your tolerance and support for anyone that wants to be what that bigot hates.
 
ModlrMike said:
I don't see the difference. It had the same effect to all intents and purposes. A sin of omission, if you will.
He was still free to say his piece off campus, so his freedom of expression was left intact.  Like I said, I wasn't there, so I don't know what the atmosphere on the campus was like, or what kind of feedback from faculty and students the administration received.  I don't know the basis of their decision, but it was still their right to not listen to what he had to say on-campus.  We may not agree with that decision, which is our right, but it was theirs to make.
 
Griffon said:
He was still free to say his piece off campus, so his freedom of expression was left intact.  Like I said, I wasn't there, so I don't know what the atmosphere on the campus was like, or what kind of feedback from faculty and students the administration received.  I don't know the basis of their decision, but it was still their right to not listen to what he had to say on-campus.  We may not agree with that decision, which is our right, but it was theirs to make.

That's a mighty fine hair to split. They provide the place for "free speech" but choose who gets access. Still censorship.
 
PuckChaser said:
Where's the tolerance in someone wanting to express to the world that they are an ignorant bigot? You can't regulate or force your belief system on someone. That just makes them push back against the system that's "trying to keep them down". If you allow them to speak, and rationally dismantle their argument then you've both allowed free speech, and shown your tolerance and support for anyone that wants to be what that bigot hates.

I never said people didn't have the right to demonstrate their ignorance or their bigotry. I have a problem with it being acceptable to attempt to organize an action against an identifiable group, whether it be race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other, on the basis that one or some of those in the group are perceived as a threat.  See earlier posts...
 
Protesting against, actually even saying "we should protest about" temporary foreign workers, would also fit your definition of "unacceptable."

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

The only reason you can justify not allowing someone to say, on TV, "We should petition to demand that black people and white people use different water fountains" is that it might offend someone. You seem to be use the word "acceptable" as if it means the same thing as "legal," this is definitely not the case...
 
ballz said:
Protesting against, actually even saying "we should protest about" temporary foreign workers, would also fit your definition of "unacceptable."

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

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

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

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

Acceptable - I would accept it. I could tolerate it. No further action required. That does not mean I condone, promote, or share the ideal/belief/statement.  Our laws lay out what our society has deemed to be acceptable, and not.
 
Griffon said:
such an action would most definitely result in a less than peaceful confrontation.

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

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

We don't need to restrain people's freedom of expression to prevent something we already have a law against.
So we, as a society, should be accepting of public hateful speech, such that a reasonable person ought to have known that it would lead to a breach of peace? What benefit does that provide? And if it is nothing but deleterious to society, why condone it?

You hold the freedom of the individual to such high regard; what about the rights of the victims of such acts?
 
How do you know which given set of speech will lead to a breach of the peace?
 
Griffon said:
You're right, the mere existence of a law doesn't mean it should.  I do agree with the existence of this particular law however, as I believe that individual freedoms cannot override the rights of others, including the right to security.  That is not to say that I believe people have a right to not be offended, that's just ridiculous.

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


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

Is there a hierarchy of rights?

I believe and assert that there is.

I think we need to distinguish between fundamental rights and other (optional?) rights. I have, fairly consistently, I hope, explained that I believe that there are only four fundamental rights: the rights to life, liberty and property, as defined by John Locke in 17th century England and the right to privacy as defined by Warren and Brandeis in 19th century America. Those four rights are, I assert, inalienable and belong to each individual, regardless of race, creed, citizenship or status, and it is the duty of the state to protect those rights against all comers, including the state and its agents. Some of those rights can be broadly or narrowly interpreted, and that's why e.g. many American scholars suggest that a woman's right to have an abortion is found within the Warren/Brandeis explanation of the right to privacy. All the other rights, including, the right to security and, indeed, to the rights to free expression are less than absolute and some rights ~ see e.g. the bottom half of the United Nations Universal declaration Human Rights, for example ~ are rubbish rights and are unworthy of consideration.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
How do you know which given set of speech will lead to a breach of the peace?
You don't always, that's a judgement call. But sometimes it's pretty obvious. That's why I used the wording I did regarding a reasonable person, and why the law uses the word "likely".


ERC, how would you rank the individual freedom of expression against the collective right to security?
 
But there is no "collective right to security", just as there are no "collective" rights to anything.

So long as every individual can be assured their four fundamental rights are being respected by others (a cultural issue) and protected by the State (a legal and political issue), then the polity as a whole is secure. If an individual breaches the rights of another or many other individuals, then there is an obligation to act.
 
Griffon said:
For the record, the University did not suppress free speech, they just chose not to provide the forum for it... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or:

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


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

Sorry, typo; I meant to say private.

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

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

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

Except for the "I will strike them down" part, this has said by many people.  That part of the example could be considered uttering threats...but the rest is just a personal opinion (that I do not agree with), and in nearly all cases should be totally protected as the individual's freedom to have and share.
 
This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail illustrates the "free speech" vs "hate speech" issue:

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

How one Jewish leader defended a neo-Nazi and stayed true to his community

BERNIE FARBER
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Apr. 20 2014

What do you do when your most strongly held beliefs come into conflict with your deepest loyalties?

Defending the free-speech rights of hatemonger and Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel both epitomized the career of Alan Borovoy, Canada’s best-known defender of civil rights, and confronted this very question. In a new memoir, Mr. Borovoy writes poignantly of his deep conflict with the Jewish community in this ultimate conflict between free speech and hate speech.

His roots in this community were deep. This was where Mr. Borovoy, famous as a human-rights champion after he became General Cousel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, first began to ply his trade as an activist. Having studied at the University of Toronto, he recounts, in his new memoir At the Barricades, his anger at the development of communism as a destructive force. It was during this time that political schisms most dominated the Canadian Jewish scene.

He recounts his verbal battles with young communists on campus while struggling in his own mind with the vehemence of the burgeoning McCarthyist anti-communist movement: “For me, the challenge had become how to achieve a responsible anti-Communism that avoided the pitfalls of the American hysteria.”

It was always this balance that Mr. Borovoy fought to attain. His skills were honed as an executive member of the Toronto Jewish Youth Council in 1951, the same year I was born. It’s not hard to understand the level of commitment he had to the community. Very often these issues – the struggle for civil liberties and the defence of the Jewish community -- were in consonance but when they parted ways Alan Borovoy, true to his principles, never faltered.

Mr. Borovoy recalls his time as editor of a Jewish university newspaper where, despite his opposition to communism, he advocated strongly in favour of a letter written by a communist sympathizer. The establishment came down on him like a ton of bricks but he held strong.

It was this stubborn adherence to civil-liberties values that would intersect his life in the next six decades. And his decision to support the free expression of hatemonger Ernst Zundel was perhaps his most profound test.

Mr. Borovoy was quick and sure in labeling this Holocaust denier a “repugnant individual” whose denial of the Jewish genocide provoked unbridled anger within Canadian Jewry. “The very repugnance of Ernst Zundel and his message effectively guaranteed that any CCLA effort to oppose legal censorship in this case would ignite a firestorm of controversy,” Mr. Borovoy writes. “And that of course is exactly what happened.”

Alan Borovoy carried on despite the fractures his position caused both personally and between the CCLA and the Canadian Jewish Congress (I was an executive in the CJC during this period). He still had a deep and abiding respect for the CJC, and in fact he continued to sit as a respected member of the CJC’s community-relations committee.

He lamented the hurt his position caused Holocaust survivors but found a way to put some balm on the pain. As recounts, Mr. Borovoy, as a guest on an open-line radio program, was confronted with a caller—none other than Ernst Zundel himself. Mr. Borovoy immediately seized the opportunity and announced on-air: “While I feel obliged to defend Mr. Zundel’s legal rights, I have no comparable obligation to treat him with respect.”

In the end, though, the scab that formed as a resultof Mr. Borovoy’s Zundel defence never fully healed. As his tenure continued with the CJC, Mr. Borovoy became, by his own admission, the “minority voice” of the organization.


Throughout all this, Mr. Borovoy was there to speak to us on issues of government privacy, the war on terrorism, racism and discrimination and free speech, and he always shone his light in the darkest of corners. His new book tells the story of a man of principle, who never compromised his principles, even under the most stressful of circumstances.

Bernie Farber, a former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, writes on human and civil rights matters. He is currently senior vice-president of Gemini Power Corp.

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

alan-borovoy-lawyer-for-canadian-civil-liberties-association.jpeg
 
Outstanding. As usual, ER, you have struck the right chord. I wish I was as smart and well read as you, but I do the best I can. ;)

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

I guess this is what I was trying to say.

or:

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

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

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