Letters to the Editor
-
@Mona
But preaching hate at people, and consequently some few acting on that message to kill, should not be illegal. I hate neocons. If someone reading my diatribes against them decides to off, say, Michael Ledeen, that is not my responsibility.
First. When an authoritarion with power feels you have become a serious burden, do you really think a ‘goddamn piece of paper’ will protect you from becoming a target of harassment, legal or illegally? Authoritarians don't feel bound by the rule of law. And if they want to do it legal, they always will find a way to throw the book at you.
Second. Our hate speech laws are not designed to protect ‘the population’ or ‘people’ in general. They are designed to protect minorities. These minorities are clearly described in these laws. When that minority is not mentioned in that law, the law is not applicable (and remember, our judges can not create jurisprudence and legislate from the bench). Neoconservatives are not part of these described groups. Not yet anyway ;-)
There are other laws available when you constitute a serious threat to Michael Ledeen I'm afraid. Harassment probably.
-
What happened to the good old days,
when we would simply publicly shame racists and bigots? Does anybody have to listen to David Duke anymore? no? thats because he was publicly shamed and discredited. I say let people say "nigger" all they want, that way at least you know where they stand. This sort of political correctness is what lead to our current media debacle; where everything, even racism and bigotry, is couched in vague and dishonest words, and hence everything is allowed. I like it the other way, where you simply allow anyone to say whatever they want, let the plebes figure out who's a total nutter.
-
Canadian exceptionalism
I'm in agreement with Canuckistan Bob on this one. I have great reservations about the federal law against hate speech and somewhat less concern about the human rights commissions, but the strong language Glenn uses to describe what is going on is way out of proportion to the reality.
Many Canadians, however, are prone to their own style of exceptionalism, as Glenn suggests, lulled by a misguided sense of superiority, especially to the US. Canadian governments have had a long record of turning on a dime to suppress political rights: King interned Japanese Canadians before the US followed suit; Trudeau imposed the War Measures Act against Quebec nationalists; the RCMP illegally spied and infiltrated protest groups during the Vietnam period. More recently, the Liberal government rushed through severe "security" laws in reaction to 911 and initially turned a blind eye to the actions of its own agents in the Maher Arar case. Canada even has its own version of "illegal combatant" status in the use of black-hole security certificates to hold terrorist suspects indefinitely. And there is a lot of concern over what the Harper government has in mind to enhance "security".
So there is a lot to be worried about. Still, if political freedoms are curtailed, I rather doubt it will happen through the vehicle of anti-hate laws and human rights commissions. It could be that they might soften up public opinion, but in all of the cases I'm aware of they have tended to have the opposite effect--of stimulating debates about political and speech rights rather than shutting them down.
-
Are we free to go around saying that Mr. Greenwald is a pedophile?
Are we free to go around saying that Mr. Greenwald is a dangerous pedophile and should be strung up? Maybe have a little march with pickets around his office and in his (Canadian) neighbourhood to "inform" everyone?
If not, why not?
Information and opinions are good, right? It's not "real" violence we do to him, just "free" speech. When someone won't hire him, or bashes him over the head with a bat one night, you can arrest those people, not us mere speakers.
Hate speech is simply an extrapolation of libel/slander laws, so does Mr. Greenwald go to court over the matter when he finds it has become an entrenched opinion, his retorts notwithstanding? Or does he again say:
"Using the power of the Government to force people to "justify" their opinions to government tribunals and face punishment for them is, by far, the most malevolent -- far more dangerous than the expression of any particular idea could ever be."
???
And if that woman is the face of fascism, jeez, bring it on. She is far more reasonable that the "rights are rights" fundamentalists like the guy in the video or Mr. Greenwald here. Obviously the man's intent in publishing the cartoons is as relevant as someone's intent in yelling "Fire!" in a crowded (Canadian) theatre. Unfortunate as it may be, we have to think and reason and, oh dear, talk and compromise in order to live together, not merely have faith and look to the stars (or constitution, or old French philosophers, etc.) for the one true (simplistic) answer.
Btw, I offer no opinion on the offensiveness of the matter at hand, merely the reasonableness of the procedure.
-
Hate speech in the Netherlands
Polderjongen, although I sympathize with your point of view (notably about the difference between common and civil law), you are not quite accurate in stating that the situation in Holland is all that free. The constitution guarantees freedom of the press (not of speech) with this caveat: "behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet", that is in my translation, "limited by every person's responsibility under the law" - including hate crime legislation. Wetboek van strafrecht (Criminal code) article 137c punishes deliberate insults against a group of people because of their race, religion or sexual preference. Article 137d punishes not only instigations to violence but also instigations to hate or discrimination of people because of race, religion or sexual preference. Article 147-147a goes furthest by punishing blasphemic expression that hurts religious people's feelings (this one is the most questionable as, unlike the other two, it does not protect minorities alone).
The reason I sympathize with your point of view is because there is a difference between freedom of expression and its use. The Danish cartoons were distasteful and, to my mind, even discriminatory, since the publication in question had previously refused cartoons lampooning Christianity on the grounds that they might offend religious people. Nonetheless, when extremists in the islamic world threatened violence, European magazines made a point of publishing the cartoons in defense of speech freedom, and that included left-wing publications like the French Charlie Hebdo which ordinarily would have deplored the double standards of the Danish editors. So despite the fact that European legislation - and certainly Dutch legislation, see Criminal code Art. 147-147a above - may punish hate and/or blasphemous speech, the cartoons were published. Not so in the United States, the only major Western country where the cartoons were not published - not because of the law but for reasons of self-censorship.
But perhaps instead of arguing who is more free (both sides have valid arguments) we should simply admit that all of us, in the US, in Canada and in Europe, are less free than we were ten years ago, and do something about it.