Comments on: Slippery slopes

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:07:10 +0000

The last time my comments were casual and glib; this time they wont be. Culture is not made by individuals but by society as a whole. The conversation here revolves around ideas of individualism that are ludicrous: the delusion and scientific pretense of ‘synchronic’ analysis, the lone rider theory of intellectual life. It’s why I prefer history. It’s silliness to claim ‘paternalism’ about every attempt at maintaining some sense of order. You want to go mumble gibberish out in the desert ~~or the Great White North~~ go right ahead. I like rules because I like language. I value sophistication; and sophistication is impossible without some level of coercion. Libertarianism on the other hand, in it’s delusions, is a cultural wasteland. You can read The Fountainhead, I’ll stick with Shakespeare and Mozart. And if you think either of them operated in a rarefied world of isolated individual activity you’ve a fool. We live in collectives. Collectives are systems and systems must be coercive in order to function. Language is coercive. Education is coercive. Without it there is chaos. There was a funny Andrea Dworkin story a few years ago about a shipment of one of her books being confiscated at the Canadian border. The novel included a description of a violent rape, meant to serve as an ‘illustration’ of violence against women, but the language was judged to be pornographic under the standards of the law that she and Catherine McKinnon helped to pass. Not a very sophisticated thinker/ Not a very sophisticated law.

By: Taras Bulba

Taras Bulba — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:12:56 +0000

My comments about Rwanda were more directed at Ophelia, who seemed to be using the Rwandan case as a club against “free speech absolutists”. Also (and please correct me if I’m wrong on this point; I’m by no means an authority on the Rwandan genocide), but weren’t the majority of the inflammatory broadcasts made from government-run stations, rather than private broadcasters? (i.e., it’s not the Hutu version of Rush Limbaugh shouting “go out and kill ‘em!”, it’s the Rwandan equivalent of the Emergency Broadcast System …) If I’m correct in this detail (again, not certain of the facts here), that’s a further argument against the relevance of a hate-speech kind of law, since it’s a situation where the very entity that would be expected to enforce said law (the state, or at least the Hutu power structure within the state) is the entity that’s breaking it …

By: David W.

David W. — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:51:39 +0000

I was treating the Rwanda discussion as an interesting sideline, not directly connected to the main affair. I wasn’t trying infer a position on the great Canada question one way or the other.

By: a Canadian

a Canadian — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:00:51 +0000

” I strongly suspect this is a result of not having strong First Amendment protections.” And I strongly suspect you know very little about the Canadian civil rights. I also suspect you know even less about Canadian mainstream culture.

By: Taras Bulba

Taras Bulba — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:14:29 +0000

It seems to me that talking about the radio broadcasts in Rwanda, interesting (horrifying) a topic as it is in itself, doesn’t have much to do with an argument about Canadian-style content-based speech restrictions. Is Ophelia’s argument that had such a “hate speech” law been in place in Rwanda, the radio broadcasts in question wouldn’t have occured? I’m not that up on the pre-1994 Rwandan legal system, but I’m assuming that there were in fact laws against murder (such as hacking your neighbor to death with a machete), but that these laws proved ineffectual and were not enforced (to put it mildly). What reason is there to think that laws restricting what could be broadcast on the radio would have been any more effective? (i.e., in the midst of that sort of carnage, who exactly is going to arrest the broadcasters?) Further, I think the whole argument is kind of a red herring, in that the speech contained in the radio broadcasts is more along the lines of a bank robber with a shotgun pointed at your head shouting “give me the money or I’ll kill you”. Nobody’s going to buy a free-speech defense for the bank robber, but I don’t think many people would argue that bank robberies would be dramatically reduced by passing speech-laws against threats made during robberies, either.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:46:40 +0000

A Canadian (November 11, 2003 05:12 PM), You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the private discrimination and public (state) discrimination. “Antisemetic immigration laws” are a form of public discrimination. As long as the state claims a monopoly on the administration of law and the use of force to uphold it, it has an ethical obligation to treat people equally, without regard to race, gender, religion, etc. Private individuals and organizations have no such ethical obligation. Since I reject positive rights, I don’t believe that anyone is entitled to housing, education, or a job, so there is no good reason to prohibit private discrimination in these areas. I’m more than pleased to live in a place which demands that people treat eachother in a particular way – even if it forces some people to be do things they don’t want to do. They should be doing these things anyway. Forcing racists to to be fair and just is a good thing. I don’t care what racists and antisemites want to do. I prefer freedom over paternalism, even when that freedom is used in ways that I don’t particular like or approve. There is also the risk that giving the government the power to restrict the freedoms you don’t like will often result in restrictions placed on freedoms you do like. First they came for the anti-Semites, and all that jazz. We’ve both been plauged by sexism and racism, so don’t claim the US constituation is superior. I do claim that the US Constitution is superior, in that the UK and Canada seem to be much more willing to place content-based restrictions on speech than the US. I strongly suspect this is a result of not having strong First Amendment protections.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:54:32 +0000

Well I’ve found this, anyway – >* Forcibly stop the broadcasting of specific incitements to kill or injure minorities or other targeted groups by jamming the airwaves or providing the equipment and political support for others to do so. It’s one of a list of recommendations by Holly Burkhalter on behalf of Physicians for Human Rights testifying before Congress about what should be done in cases like Rwanda. The implication at least is that radio-scrambling wasn’t done. The link is here.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:20:32 +0000

Thanks, David. I’ll see if I can find more about that on the PBS site. I’m pretty sure I saw that Frontline, but forgot that bit. I think I’ve forgotten (some might say ‘suppressed’) a lot about Rwanda. I’ve just been re-reading Gourevitch’s book, and there is a lot I’d forgotten. The US wasn’t content just to refuse to send troops itself, it actually persuaded other people not to send troops either. Oy, oy, oy…

By: David W.

David W. — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:51:38 +0000

Ophelia, I think I heard that on the PBS Frontline special on the Rwanda genocide.

By: a Canadian

a Canadian — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:12:15 +0000

I am a Jew and I would not want there to be a law that prohibits anti-semites from firing me on account of my ethnicity/religion Sorry to lower the level of discussion, but that’s disgusting. I suppose you wouldn’t have a problem with being refused housing, education or perhaps being subject to antisemetic immigration laws. How about you square off your home and just put up a sign that says “Welcome to my Ghetto – please wipe your feet”? I’m more than pleased to live in a place which demands that people treat eachother in a particular way – even if it forces some people to be do things they don’t want to do. They should be doing these things anyway. Forcing racists to to be fair and just is a good thing. I don’t care what racists and antisemites want to do. It’s trite, but sometimes the freedom of a few must be restrained so that we may all live in a better society. I’m happy that I live in a place where it is against the law to refuse space to a potential tenant based on race or pet ownership. Welcome to Canada – where Peace, Order and Good Government is to be found. We’ve been around for a while and we’re certainly not less free than the United States. We’ve both been plauged by sexism and racism, so don’t claim the US constituation is superior. They’ve yeilded a fairly similar result, only our history is less bloody.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:06:55 +0000

Shai, My views are certainly extreme in some areas (such as freedom of association), but not very extreme with regard to free speech – I rarely disagree with the ACLU on a free speech issue. On to your questions: if i’m fired from my job after my boss learns i voted republican, where entirely irrelevant to the responsibilities expected in the job description, you don’t see anything wrong? No. You were never entitled to your job. Without a long term contract, either party should be free to exit the contract for any reason, no matter how frivolous, without penalty. If you were an employee and you found out that your boss is a nasty Republican, and this did not make you happy, is there anything wrong with you quitting? shouldn’t i have some sort of positive right to associate freely where there is no conceivable harm to the employer, the employees, or the business? Of course not. Why should you have any positive right to associate with people who do not wish to associate with you? assume i’m gay, and assume being gay is less like a choice and more like a natural predisposition. you don’t see anything at all wrong with unfair dismissal based on natural sexual orientation, with emphasis on the case where it’s irrelevant to the duties of and capacities demanded from the job? No, I don’t see anything wrong in these kinds of cases, in the sense that the law should prohibit discrimination. I am a Jew and I would not want there to be a law that prohibits anti-semites from firing me on account of my ethnicity/religion.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:35:33 +0000

“I beleive someone in the US government, not sure which branch, trotted out the “free speech” argument when the idea of scrambling these broadcasts came up. I seriously doubt this argument was presented in good faith.” Really?! Wow, I didn’t know that, or if I did I’d forgotten it. Does anyone know any more about that? I’ll have to try to research it… [The broadcasts in question are the ones in Rwanda that ordered and directed the genocide, in case anyone’s lost.]

By: raj

raj — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:03:50 +0000

Markus: Germany doesn’t just have speech limitations regarding Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols. It also has legislation prohibiting speech considered Volksverhetzung. Volksverhetzung might be considered “incitement,” except that it has been applied against at least one political party in connection with some rather benign signs that they posted in the recent mayoral election in Berlin.

By: Henry Farrell

Henry Farrell — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 06:17:25 +0000

Brian – it’s nice to have someone who knows their stuff posting comments on this. A quick query about something that I’ve been wondering about – what are the implications of the striking down of the “false news” law in the Zundel case for this set of issues, and for the interpretation of the Charter in cases involving free speech? I have my own ideas, but I’m not a lawyer …

By: Jonathan Ichikawa

Jonathan Ichikawa — Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:40:08 +0000

Sorry to chime in late here, but isn’t there conceptual space for a society to be both totalitarian and democratic? How does the fact that there are democratic countries with free speech restrictions relate to the question of totalitarianism? It seems to me that democracy is very much not the issue here.