I can relate to Warren Kinsella's passion to squash bigotry wherever it hides. But that's about it. Relating to, does not necessarily drive me to the same conclusions that Kinsella and Richard Warman have arrived at: that hate must be prosecuted, it must be criminalized, it must be hunted down.
Warren Kinsella would lead you to believe that the movement of libertarians out there, moving in to attack Human Right's Commissions, and criticize Richard Warman, are motivated to do so because they are informed by racism; that we have a stake in protecting our right to be racist and hateful.
Nothing could be further from the truth. What Kinsella either does not understand, does not want to, or simply prefers to misrepresent, is that people like myself believe that hate is best confronted in a free and open society. Let the decency of Canadians judge the bigots and racists in the "social society", as Ezra Levant put it.
In fact, it is the sincere belief of libertarians that "speech codes" and state interference in our fundamental right to expression will ultimately lead to undesirable and dangerous consequences.
There is no shortage of examples in history about the dangers of regulating the fundamental right to express yourself. From Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt, to Vladimir Putin's assault on independent media, the danger in regulating speech exists principally in the premise that society can regulate it.
For us "freespeechers", we are viewed as placing our right of expression above the virtue of civil society. The real question to ask your self is: when did civility become a virtue? When did being polite and falling into the status quo become something to aspire to. These are all old British loyalist concepts that should be happily forgotten.
The only reason why people were convinced that civility was a virtue, was not to offend the royalty's grasp on power. Of course, we convince ourselves that being civil is for our own collective good.
Maria Shriver said that "polite women never make history". It's an enlightened statement, but it should be expanded more broadly: polite people never make history. Offending the status quo is an essential condition for moving society forward, and providing for a healthy democracy.
The problem with Western society today, is we've allowed statist ideas convince us that democracy itself is the means by which we are afforded freedom. It's a flawed assumption, shared by the Bush Administration and his banal apologists. There is no democracy without free speech. The virtue of being free to speak, and express yourself, is the catalyst for democratic revolution. Not the other way around.
It's the ultimate flaw in socialism. When the well-being of the collective is valued over the individual, the very value of the individual is decreased implicitly. The body politic justifies extermination of problematic or dangerous expression of ideas on the grounds that doing so serves "the common good". This fundamentally destroys the cultural virtue of free speech, and undermines the value of democracy itself. Democracy is not a means by which to provide for free speech. Free speech is a means by which to provide for democracy.
Kinsella and Warman cannot understand this nuance. But neither can most of the rest of society.
People can flagellate about Ezra Levant's ego and his "grand standing" for the camera. But they do so, at great disservice to the point he has made, no matter why he chooses to make it. The very fact that there are those out to tear him down, and discredit him at every turn, while saying they support his cause are really trying to play two-sides of the same coin.
Given how little media attention this whole issue has received, I would wager, that if Ezra did not offend the sensibilities of the left by grandstanding, we would not even be having this discussion. So one might argue, that his "over-reaction" was fundamentally necessary to start this debate. Because sometimes, being rude is the only way you get people's attention.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Freespeecher: The New Leftist Pejorative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
Mike, I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. Best, W
The other problem is that for hundreds of years, we were taught that these rights are granted by God.
God is an abhorrent concept to many leftists. But they can't come up with as sound a source as "God" as the author of these rights. Somehow "the State" just doesn't cut it, and they know it, but they hate "God" even more, so they're left sputtering free form nonsensical "reasons" that merely reflect that day's received wisdom.
PS:
"To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures."
-- Flannery O’Connor
Kathy, I am not religious. But I agree with you, that belief in god is fundamentally attached to the freedom of expression issue. It's why we outline freedom of religion explicitly in the Charter.
Although I am not a person of faith, I always find it offensive when people on the left, try to suggest that it should not be permitted for people who are, to be informed by their beliefs in their political views.
This is of course, the "separation of church and state" argument taken to a more warped "freedom from religion". To say you have freedom from anything, be it religion or being "offended", is a ominously collectivist idea.
People sometimes fail to understand why I am so vigorous in my defense of freedom of religion as a secular person myself.
The fact they can't understand is the problem.
Everybody seems to think that society should reflect their own sensibilities.
Such thoughts ultimately culminate in tyranny.
So when I see religion under attack, I understand that even if it isn't my belief under attack, it's still my rights that are.
Terrific post Mike.
i hate those bastards
I've seen the civility issue come up before, as when I've posted something in my usual, er, robust manner.
Inevitably someone objects that I am doing XYZ cause "more harm than good" and that the "average Canadian is turned off" by mouthy/rude/outspoken/sarcastic/whatever commentary.
To date, none of these critics has accepted my challenge to send me the name, address etc of these turned off average Canadians, or the names and addresses of actual people who haven't voted GOP because 'Ann Coulter is so obnoxious'.
However, there are such things as "average Canadians" and I'd counter that such people would never be interested in the greater issues of the day, no matter how politely we wrote about these issues.
These Canadians care about their mortgage and their commute, about plasma tvs and lottery tickets. Worrying about 'turning off' these potential allies is a waste of time.
Consider what John Adams once claimed: that even in 1776, he estimated that one-third of the colonists favoured independence, one third opposed it -- and one third didn't even care.
We need to bear that in mind when we worry excessively about civility. Which is too often code for "accepting the status quo."
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
"
Well said. I think this post is true in every sense.
Thanks, Mike. Those seeking to improve the concept of freedom of expression remind me of that saying about "pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants." Stupid pygmies. Small minded pygmies. Lying, generally liberal pygmies. (my apologies to the pygmy community- i'm not that tall myself.)
Kathy, humanity hasn't changed.
Where once all of humanity was willing to abdicate decisions of morality to a god or a prophet now segments of society are willing to abdicate the same decisions to the "state".
The communists weren't all that far off . . . state is religion.
Cheers,
lance
Well said.
I'm sorry, Warren, but that's the best you can do? I'm sure Mike wasn't living in the hope that he'd somehow change your convictions with the strength of his rhetoric, but you couldn't find it in your lawyerly heart to formulate some defense of your belief?
Or are you confirming Mike's point that your preferred tone of social discourse is Thanksgiving dinner with the family, at the peril of government censure for causing an argument before pie is served?
It's rather insipid, if you don't mind me saying so.
Best, R
(Assuming, of course, that "Warren" was really Warren. If not, well, delete the "lawyerly" bit and the rest still stands. This whole fracas has long since passed the point of mannered discourse, and a good thing, too...)
if the individual is not free then the collective is also not free. only a fool would think otherwise.
«"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."»
Does that mean one can plant bombs in malls, restaurants, etc. in order to free oneself of a perceived oppressor?
I don't know whose quote you're citing, but without any qualification of that statement, you leave yourself open to all sorts of interpretation, including: here's an argument for legitimizing the actions of suicide bombers.
Perhaps I'm not as well-versed in the sophistries of such discussions as other paricipants in this "debate", but I find that quote alarming.
Ooops! "participants"
what is worse is that Kinsella et al insist that they be the ones who define who can and cannot hate.
Publish the cartoons is hate.
Use federal taxpayers money to stage art shows that have statues of Jesus floating in jars of urine . . . well that's good-to-go.
For Kinsella and his ilk the bigger problem is their blind adherence to Trudeaupian multi-culti ideals, where minorities cannot, by definition, be racist or hate filled and the old majority must be punished for their failure to bow down to the new racists and hate-mongers.
The Liberal Party has issues with this because they have manipulated these people for votes for so long they have become addicted to the power many minority groups wield.
The genius of the American system is that its founding document declares its citizens "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights".
Whether you believe in God or not, it's a brilliant move to ascribe human rights to something OTHER than the state. What the state gives, the state can take away. But in the U.S. the state has no right to your rights.
The whole question of free speech was summed up by the American jurist who said it was wrong to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. The implication must be that speech that causes emotional upset does not qualify as being against the civil code, it may be rude or mean but since the damage is subjective there is no true measurement, as can be seen by the arguments offered by those who are attacking Messrs Levant and Steyn. Much of the commentary by Kinsella and his ilk represents what might be called "Trudeauan speak" trendy, shallow and smacks of current socialistic thinking. Many of these people believe that Toronto is the centre of the world.
My problem with Ezra is he talks about free speech on the one hand and sues for libel on the other.
I don't think I'm being pedantic, anonymous one, but there is an actual difference between the two. And if you don't know what it is, perhaps arguing about Buffy episodes is more your speed.
I disagree with the fundamental argument in this post.
Civility and free speech are not mutually exclusive.
By saying "polite people never make history" you seem to misunderstand the word polite.
I have heard Nobel Laureates in science give talks that are exquisitely polite, yet it is the substance of the what they are saying that holds the real power to change minds.
Margaret Thatcher by most measures "made history", but most would argue that in general she was a polite woman, able to defend her ideas through strength and vision and courage, rather than rudeness.
I would argue that civility is in fact in rather short supply these days - look at Kinsella for a perfect example.
We live in a rather uncivil society, so by your argument free speech should be flourishing, no?
The real problem as I see it is not the witch hunt against free speech per se, but rather the witch hunt against *speaking the truth* on subjects that are critically important to society.
*THAT* in my mind is what will ultimately lead to a Big Brother Society, much to the joy of Kinsella and others.
So when I look at Levant and Steyn, and many others like them, I see people who are fighting for free speech with the assumption that it will in general be used to tell truths.
Free speech just for the sake of free speech in order to say anything one wants is a step backwards (the lyrics in rap music being a perfect example).
My 2 cents.
"Ezra likes free speech, but sues for libel." These are not contradictory: let the courts, not faceless bureaucrats, decide what is libel and what is not.
I don't think I'm being pedantic, anonymous one, but there is an actual difference between the two..
Libel is a rich mans weapon. So, yeah I guess it is different. Thanks for pointing that out.
Levant was wronged!
His Western Magazine had to fold due to unfair and unjust force.
I thought Ezra sputtered just a little more than was required, yet he had every correct justification to loudly protest.
No publishing rules or even special temporary laws were broken.
The cartoons were published before and it was news coverage.
No new cartoons were produced from the Western Standard Website.
Only original cartoons from Levant would be subject to review for intent.
And any review can be done from published evidence. There is no need for interrogation, fishing for criminal thoughts lurking between someone*s ears.
HRC laws apply to published hate material, not to private thoughts of any citizen. = TG
To Gabby in QC,
Your suicide bomber analogy doesn't work. They, who are doing such things are motivated by hatred and frustration courtesy of a brain-washing from birth.
They will get what their religious or totalitarian dictators determine they will get. I have noted that Muslims actually hate the idea of freedom. Splain that!
You cannot contrast the struggle for individual freedoms in a democracy with the insanity we see in the Muslim world.
I disagree with the fundamental argument in this post.
Civility and free speech are not mutually exclusive.
I wasn't advocating against civility. Nor was it my intention to imply that civility was a bad thing. I think my argument was a little more nuanced than that.
To be "civil" in a society is to conform to the cultural and political norms of that society. In a liberal democracy, what is "civil" is a very broad definition.
What is civility in an authoritarian society?
To go out and peacefully protest may be considered civil in our society, but not in another.
Obviously we would all like to like to live in a civil society. All I am saying is that we don't hold the banner of civility, higher than the banner of fundamental human rights, like freedom of expression. Because if we are justifying squashing those rights in order to maintain civility, then I believe we have crossed the line where they have become mutually exclusive.
Hi Mike. May I pick your brain?
I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying, but I do have to take issue with something you wrote: For us "freespeechers", we are viewed as placing our right of expression above the virtue of civil society. The real question to ask your self is: when did civility become a virtue? When did being polite and falling into the status quo become something to aspire to. These are all old British loyalist concepts that should be happily forgotten.
I would rather argue that free speech is part of the foundation of civil society, or that civility requires freedom of speech. Civility includes treating respectfully those with whom you ferociously disagree. It means permitting debate over contentious issues to take place rather than attempting to silence your opponents through means of state control. That's civility. That's what happens in a civil society rather than this notion of "I'm offended at what you're saying so I'm going to drag you before the Courts or the Rights Commissions." The civil society is precisely the free and open society in which hate can best be confronted.
I think your problem is that you define being polite as falling into the status quo. If that's the case, then I don't want anything to do with politeness. I would say that being polite includes allowing others the freedom to disagree. In that case, politeness and civility are something to which we should aspire.
The problem with lefties, then, is that they equate politeness with agreement. And that, coupled with their love for the nanny-state, results in their desire to make illegal whatever they find personally offensive. I don't see that as being the British tradition at all.
So I must disagree with your assumption that freedom of expression and civility are mutually exclusive or competing concepts. I'd say instead that, although distinct, they are inextricable from one another.
Que pensez-vous?
jerry o,
I have responded to this critique already. I thought people would pick-up on the fact that I was using "polite" in a very nuanced way, just as Maria Shriver was using it in a nuanced way.
I agree that free speech is a basis for civility absolutely. But I suppose that was somewhat implied by my libertarianism.
That's the problem with extremely nuanced writing, is that it's easy to misrepresent your meaning.
"That's the problem with extremely nuanced writing, is that it's easy to misrepresent your meaning."
And that is why we must develop the 'Vulcan mind-meld'.
Freespeecher as a leftist pejorative? Intriguing thought, but I've searched high and low and found no evidence of this term being used in this way. (There appears to be some white supremacist who uses it as a handle, but that's probably not what you meant.)
More troubling than this apparent nose-stretcher, however, is your selective defence of freedom of speech. You come down hard on Human Rights Tribunals, but mention none of the other legal limits placed on speech, including Criminal Code provisions forbidding blasphemous libel, defamatory libel and sedition. Nor do you make any objection to Canada`s defamation laws.
This latter omission is particularly telling, since Ezra, when he`s not playing free speech martyr, is a pretty enthusiastic litigant. I know of at least three cases in which he`s filed or threatened defamation actions, two of which involved publications which called into question his actions in the political field (which would seem to be the sort of speech we want to protect most of all).
Now, in my view, the HRT`s handling of hate speech provisions has more in common with a defamation action than a criminal action. After all, the human rights process is, at its heart, a dispute resolution process. While the commission investigates the complaint, commission counsel act doesn’t act on behalf of the complainant, who is free to employ his or her own lawyer. And the questions that human rights investigators ask, particularly those regarding the intent of the publication, are the same questions a defamation plaintiff`s counsel would ask on discovery, hoping to elicit an admission of malice that would defeat any claim of privilege.
So here`s a modest proposal. Maybe groups who think they`ve been targeted by hate speech should sue in defamation, just like Ezra would. After all, if they did that they would get the full benefit of those legal presumptions that assist a plaintiff in a defamation action – namely that the defamatory words are false and that they were published maliciously. They would face fewer defences than are available at the HRT. And most of the time, they wouldn`t even have to go to court; a lawyers letter and the threat of litigation -- and its associated costs – would effectively shut down the haters.
One small problem: at common law, you can`t defame a group. Or rather the members of a group seeking damages for defamation must be able to show that the defamatory words are about them in particular. Nor can an individual bring a defamation class action on behalf of a defamed group, as Donald Elliot discovered when he tried to bring suit against the CBC on behalf of some 25,000 former Bomber Command veterans who, in his view, had been defamed a particular episode of the documentary, The Valour and the Horror. The Ontario Court of Appeal, while sympathetic, agreed with the defendants that his statement of claim disclosed no cause of action.
Happily, it is in the power of the legislature to change the common law. Indeed, you could do so in the same bill that revoked the speech provisions of the human rights codes. No more bureaucrats investigating and asking Ezra impertinent questions; instead, lawyers conducting discoveries and asking impertinent questions . No more low-cost administrative process in a bland office building; instead, a full trial (with a jury if necessary) and legal bills in the $100,000-$500,000 range. As a lawyer, I think it has much to recommend it. Oh there may be some public policy concerns, but we can sort that out over time.
In the meantime, you would at least have a level playing field. Muslims would believed the Danish cartoons insinuated that their religion was a wellspring of terrorism would have the same rights as Ezra or Conrad Black or other litigious (and deep-pocketed) individuals eager to spend money to defend their good names against those who would criticize them.
BTW, it`s a bit rich for a nice Catholic girl like Shaidle to claim God is the fount of freedom of speech. Last I looked, her church had a long history of putting people to death for a particular form of speech – i.e. heresy.
I attribute it to Warren Kinsella: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080124-075741
Mike,
I think it is pretty clear from Kinsella's post that the term "freespeecher" is used ironically, not as a pejorative. He's not taking them to task for defending free speech, but for being hypocrites.
Besides, if that's your only evidence, you're either stretching the truth or crediting Kinsella with a lot more influence that he actually has.
There's no dishonesty here. I disagree with the premise by which Warren even defines freespeecher. He views somebody who engages in civil actions for slander, and who is against the state regulating speech, as being a hypocrite. Fine. I get that. I got that when I read it.
I disagree with him profusely, however. A civil action to seek damages for something is a far cry from the state itself being a party in prosecuting limits on discourse.
Of course, there is such a thing as criminal libel and slander, but we're not talking about that here.
Warren also seems to like to suggest that people who defend people's right to free speech, like the speech rights of say, David Ahenakew as being motivated by racism themselves.
So taking this little thing and running with it, is meant to make a point. I think I made it.
This post, ultimately, is not even about Warren using the term "free speecher", it's much more transcendent than that.
Mike, it seems to me that you're at an interesting crossroad in your blogging.
You always did waver between thoughtful pieces where you tried to figure something out, looking for the truth in the ideological cracks, and ideological pieces where you made grand, and often silly, generalizations about some undefined and amorphous entity called "The Left".
When pressed, you'd get truculent and defensive. When pressed harder, you'd actually talk like a person and not an ideological puppet.
Now, there are some interesting ideas in your post. It would be interesting to see them without the tedious, and quite silly, attempt to turn them into a Greand Pronouncement About The Left.
Just a friendly comment.
But you were also prone to pieces
truewest, as a lawyer how well you think the the Kids in the Osgood Hall would fare with a defamation libel suit, even with your suggested tweaking? Syed Soharwardy? He may have a better case but the Kids likely wouldn't get past the lawyer letter phase - that is if he could compose himself well enough to write it.
How about blasphemous libel? In Canada, I suspect not so well but perhaps you have a different take.
Sedition isn't even a consideration. But, even if it was, we haven't seen a case in 50 years.
I agree with what you suggest, move these complaints to a real court with all its arcane procedural nonsense, like discovery, evidence, precedence and yes, obscene legal fees.
That way we raise the legitimate stakes to the level they deserve but at the same time most of them wouldn't get past the starting gate and be resolved in all those comfy legal offices with all the fresh flowers and well coiffed yet, officious looking receptionists, for a fraction of what they cost us now. And, all those dollars you hope gain will be earned or returned and not squandered on the Human Rights Commission, Insult Division.
There is no leftist pejorative "Freespeecher."
There is also no discussion possible with vilifying fabulists.
God is an abhorrent concept to many leftists. But they can't come up with as sound a source as "God" as the author of these rights. Somehow "the State" just doesn't cut it, and they know it, but they hate "God" even more, so they're left sputtering free form nonsensical "reasons" that merely reflect that day's received wisdom.
Absolute garbage. Defamatory fabrication. Sin on the part of someone who must not care anymore whether she's hell-bound or not.
You conservatives disgust me.
Truewest:
I don't think 'haters should be shut down' and you seem to take it for granted that they should.
That's a big philosophical gap and one that can't be papered over by talk about court procedures.
You do realize that the burdens of proof etc in HRC complaints is the exact opposite of those in the 'real' legal realm??
Can you name the last time my Church 'put people to death', and give me an accurate figure as to the casualties? And what I could possibly be expected to do about these events at this late date.
'Torontonians' went after Jews at the Christie Pits riots in 1933. I live in Toronto. Shall I move away in protest? Do you consider me a 'hypocrite' or 'coward' if I don't, and continue to call myself a Torontonian?
Liberals are like the Pharisees of the Bible, who created unachievable standards of purity for others and then condemned them as sinners.
Gabby, if you don't know who Barry Goldwater was and can't figure out how to google a quotation by now, than maybe you'd better join anonymous with his Buffy boxed set.
There are too many anonymous posters on this thread. Can any of them explain why they are so wimpy?
A little sparrow caught in a freezing rain storm crash landed behind a cow. The little bird was frozen stiff and could not bend its wings. Not unexpectedly the cow lifted her tail and pooped all over the little bird. With only its beak above the manure the warmth left over from the cow thawed the little bird's wings and soon the bird felt so good it began to sing. A passing cat heard the bird's song, dug the sparrow out of the pile and there upon ate the tiny singer.
Moral of the story: Just because someone dumps a load on you does not make them your enemy.
Just because someone gets you out of doo doo doesn't make them a friend.
And for heaven's sake when you’re up to you eyeballs in it KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
One of the worst things a society can do is silence its people for any reason especially something as subjective as "offence". As a race we need everyone's opinion in order to find the true gems. I've known simple farmers whose wisdom I rate above any university professor. I've known factory floor workers that had a better grasp on reality than most politicians. I've known a street bum that could match wits with any lawyer.
I don't look on free speech as a "God given" right. I look on free speech as a “God mandated” necessity.
...silly, generalizations about some undefined and amorphous entity called "The Left".
That is a funny comment (to me anyway) because in my experience, every time I try
to discuss with someone on the left the Mohamed cartoons,
Islam,
terrorism,
immigration,
and a few other topics on which the left and right can not seem to ever agree, they end up accusing me, conservatives and the whole right of being a bunch of racists...
Oh, and the US Founders weren't even a bit Catholic but they too felt obliged to declare that our rights are granted by God.
These men were closer to these real and imagined "crimes of the Catholic Church" than you or I, and which seem to upset _you_ even at this late date.
Yet these men would have found your touchiness at the very idea of mentioning God in connection with rights either amusing or ignorant.
And I don't hold it against these men that they were Protestants (who have a history of persecuting Catholics). :-) I don't and can't use that as an excuse to dismiss their document as irrelevant.
Can you explain your very low level anger (disguised by sarcasm) at my reminding readers of this historically factual rights/God connection?
Are you really wiser than the likes of Thomas Jefferson?
Mike wrote:"A civil action to seek damages for something is a far cry from the state itself being a party in prosecuting limits on discourse."
If you mean that a defamation action is a far cry from a criminal hate propaganda charge, then you have point. If you mean a defamation action is a far cry from an human rights complaint investigated and adjudicated by an administrative tribunal, I think you misunderstand the process.
As I indicated in my earlier post, the human rights process has far more in common with the civil process than the criminal one. While the commission may investigate, each side retains, pays and instructs its own lawyers, calls its own witnesses and cross-examines witnesses from the other side. The difference is that the human rights process is cheaper, far less adversarial and results in far more modest damages than civil defamation action. And, unlike the common law of defamation, (some) human rights codes allow groups who have been targeted to seek some form of redress.
Now, you may be content to tell those people they can go pound sand and that the only reputations that matter are individual ones. It is a defensible position. But so is the notion that the reputation of a group of people, which can be affected by hate speech, has a profound impact on the individual members of the group and that there is a societal interest in maintaining a forum where those concerns can be addressed.
Anonymous,
I don't think you understand how heavily Canadian defamation law favours the plaintiff. If that law were amended by statute to allow groups to sue, I think our freedom of speech would be profoundly affected. (For the record, and for that reason, I don't support the idea; hence, A Modest Proposal).
You raise the question of how a civil action for group libel would play out the instant cases, should such a claim exist at law. I confess I haven't read Steyn's piece in Macleans (after suffering through his ass-kissing blogging on the Black trial, I promised I'd spare myself his particular brand of nonsense in future).However,
I can say with some confidence, that dealing with the CHRC will be less painful and expensive than dealing with even a reasonably well-prepared defence lawyer armed with the aforementioned presumptions, the right to claim for group libel and the time and budget to pick Steyn's story apart line by line. Truth is a defence in defamation law, but it's an awfully tough defence to make out, since most newpaper stories aren't written and presented with the same care and precision as a legal case.
Ezra would probably fare even worse. Not only do the cartoons suggest that Muslims are bomb-throwing terrorists, but his own readers, with a series of hateful posts, did a fine job of proving how much damage was done by the publication.
Despite what you suggest, if the law recognized group libel or defamation class action, neither case would be turned away from the courthouse door; it is far easier to dismiss as human rights complaint as being without merit than to strike out a defamation claim, which will be allowed to proceed as long as the complainant makes out a cause of action and as long as a judge finds the words or image printed would tend to harm the reputation of the plaintiff (or in this hypothetical case, the plaintiff class).
Nor would such actions likely be settled in well-upholstered lawyers offices. Think of how much money Levant, the publisher of a failed magazine, managed to raise for his defence. Now imagine how much a representative plaintiff could raise from a community -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian, gay, veterans, the list goes on -- that felt its good name had been harmed by some publication. With those kind of deep pockets and with "principle" on the line, a civil defamation action would not be not be cheaper or cleaner than a human rights case, Rather, it would be many many times more expensive and might be drawn out over years.
Seems to me that leaves us with two alternatives. Either we tell groups that are targeted with defamatory or hateful messages to suck it up and deny them any forum in which to seek redress. (Which given that we throw open the doors to a putz like Ezra when he is offended by people suggesting that hes a bad boss or a bad member of his riding executive seems a tad unfair) Or we allow some of the most egregious cases of hate speech to be adjudicated by a body that has relatively simple procedures, can award modest damages and whose decisions can be appealed to the regular courts.
Take your pick.
Kathy,
I don't think the "haters should be shut down". However, since Conrad Black and Ezra Levant and every other individual in the country has recourse if someone attacks their reputation, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to give groups such as Muslim and Jews that feel under attack some similar remedy, if one necessarily more modest in scope. The process may be abused from time to time, but probably not nearly as often as is defamation law.
Incidentally, your comment that "burdens of proof etc in HRC complaints [are] the exact opposite of those in the 'real' legal realm" has no basis in reality. It's not quite as loopy as your recent suggestion that HRTs were anti-Semitic -- in fact, most hate speech proceedings at HRTs have involved defendants who preach hate against Jews-- but it is running a strong second.
Nice post, Mike, but you make the mistake of taking anything Warren says seriously or as if it were offered with intellectual honesty, consistency or good faith. None of those things apply to anything he writes.
When you have one of those annoying, yappy little mutts chewing on your shoelaces and humping your ankle you don't try to reason with it. The only reasonable thing to do is to punt it off, hopefully into passing traffic.
Joe, I*ll go along with your comment, and you ended with. . .
**
I don't look on free speech as a *God given* right. I look on free speech as a *God mandated* necessity.**
To which I will add. .
And the West paid with the lives of a million young folks in several wars.
It continues today with 78 lost in Afghanistan. = TG
Seems to me that leaves us with two alternatives. Either we tell groups that are targeted with defamatory or hateful messages to suck it up and deny them any forum in which to seek redress.
Any legal forum. End of story.
Further to the above:
Truewest, you make it seem as if there were nothing easier than determining what a defamatory or hateful message is, whereas the entire Macleans kerfuffle revolves around the continual lowering of the bar with regards to what constitutes hateful or offensive behaviour.
Interesting post and comments.
I believe that everyone is over thinking the problem.
Yes free speech should not include the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.
However you should not be hauled before a government committee if you yell fire in a crowded movie house when the place is actually on fire.
"Liberals are like the Pharisees of the Bible, who created unachievable standards of purity for others and then condemned them as sinners."
Of course. Like those well known liberals Bob Barr, Mark Foley, Jimmy Swaggart, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Ted Haggard...shall I go on?
I reiterate the point I made to Mike - trying to recast every issues in the universe into the Left BAD, Right GOOD mold makes for bad thinking. But easy blogging, I suppose.
Mike wrote:
"Liberals are like the Pharisees of the Bible, who created unachievable standards of purity for others and then condemned them as sinners."
Balbulican, in replying, provided a simply perfect example of Mike's point:
"Of course. Like those well known liberals Bob Barr, Mark Foley, Jimmy Swaggart, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Ted Haggard...shall I go on?"
In case the point is lost on others, the abovementioned gentlemen were accused of ... yes, hypocrisy. Barr impeached Clinton but was an adulterer himself; Swaggart a televangelist and adulterous john; Limbaugh a firebrand pundit and prescription-drug addict; Giuliani a conservative mayor but serial adulterer, and Ted Haggard an evangelist and homosexual adulterer.
In each case, the man's sins and indiscretions were held by the Left to invalidate everything he said or wrote, though of course it did no such thing; something is true or false independent of the person propounding it. But a certain L-word ideological faction loves to make a huge deal of hypocrisy, because it gives them an excuse to avoid dealing with the actual argument. The same thing is now going on with Levant, and to a lesser extent Steyn.
Ann,
The Macleans kerfuffle doesn't involve a "continual lowering of the bar". It involves a complaint, not a determination. Not having read Steyn's piece, I can't comment as to merits of the piece, but my guess is that it probably won't go anywhere.
As for the difficulty in determing whether a message is defamatory or incites hatred, we're talking two different tests. My point above is that the test for defamation favours the plaintiff, since it presumes that if the impunged words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, then they are a) false and b)published maliciously. In other words, the publisher is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. No such reverse onus exists in the human rights setting; the complainant must show that the words were published with the intention of inciting hatred or contempt, which is a much more difficult task.
I'm afraid you missed the point, Murray.
Kathy (not Mike) accused "the left" of a behaviour that is not, in fact, pretty much shared by both sides of the political spectrum. I provided examples to illustrate the error of her assertion.
You then leaped in to ensure that the debate remained firmly on the sample simple-minded Manichean track I'm describing.
Thanks for the illustration.
Also, what Kevin wrote.
"Nice post, Mike, but you make the mistake of taking anything Warren says seriously or as if it were offered with intellectual honesty, consistency or good faith. None of those things apply to anything he writes."
The truth really isn't in Warren; for him, it's only a matter of kto, kogo? ("Who, whom?) as Lenin put it. Who is oppressing (offending, insulting) whom?
If who is a conservative, and whom a "progressive" or Liberal client group, Warren finds a pretext--no matter how flimsy or intellectually inconsistent--for condemning the conservative. Hypocrisy, guilt by association, speculated motives, you name the bad argument and he's used it. If the roles are reversed and Warren's good guys are who, he eagerly jumps in with his faux-punk hobnailed boots and starts "kicking ass". All in the name of principle, you understand.
Note: hypocrisy is not sincerely preaching morality while falling short yourself. True hypocrisy is preaching something you never believed in the first place because it's politically advantageous for you.
"Kathy (not Mike) accused 'the left' of a behaviour that is not, in fact, pretty much shared by both sides of the political spectrum. I provided examples to illustrate the error of her assertion."
You meant it is shared, right? And yes, I meant Kathy but got confused. Apologies to all!
But fundamentally, I do agree with Kathy here. Many of us conservatives are former lefties ourselves, so we know the thinking from the inside, as it were. And the charge of hypocrisy is held to be tremendously decisive by people on the left, as it simply isn't on the right.
(I mean, sure: Al Gore and movie stars who use staggering amounts of expensive energy while preaching restraint for the rest of us are certainly hypocrites, but that doesn't relieve us from the obligation to take their arguments on their merits.)
Also, on the transparency of your "Who, me? What, the Left?" positioning, see Norm Geras here: http://tinyurl.com/2zvseh
There are clear and identifiable distinctions between "progressive" and conservative presumptions about morality and human nature, and these lead naturally to the political differences we discuss on these forums. Like truewest's contention that groups qua groups deserve protection:
"Now, you may be content to tell those people they can go pound sand and that the only reputations that matter are individual ones. It is a defensible position. But so is the notion that the reputation of a group of people, which can be affected by hate speech, has a profound impact on the individual members of the group and that there is a societal interest in maintaining a forum where those concerns can be addressed."
Truewest, sad to say, doesn't mean a forum like this one or even private conflict-management counselling; s/he means a government-backed quasi-judicial process like the HRCs. I don't just disagree with this position, it almost makes no sense to me, so vast is the gulf between my conception of justice and truewest's. And that's why we can talk about "the Left" as Kathy does: because it constitutes a common and identifiable worldview. Mani doesn't even come into it.
Sometimes I feel like people in the blogosphere are arguing against made up enemies. I think you will be surprised Mike, that many people on the "left" believe in free speech.
The question for me is this - who gets to define what "hate" speech is? Is it the majority or the minority, who throughout history have been the target of that "hate" speech?
As for free speech being the precursor to democracy, I agree totally with you - but at the same time, can't the tolerance of free speech also be the downfall of democracy? I just read Chris Hedges book American Fascists and he makes a good point about pre-Nazi Germany and how the hateful speeches of Hitler were tolerated by Liberals based on the notion of free speech. We all know how that turned out.
Just some food for thought.
“Gabby, if you don't know who Barry Goldwater was and can't figure out how to google a quotation by now, than maybe you'd better join anonymous with his Buffy boxed set.”
Ms. Shaidle, I’ll learn how to google a quotation if you promise to learn the difference between these rudimentary words: THAN and THEN.
To spare you the time and trouble, since you're so busy thinking up insults to hurl at anyone who dares diverge from your POV, here’s the proper usage:
THAN:
«1. (used, as after comparative adjectives and adverbs, to introduce the second member of an unequal comparison): She's taller than I am.
2. (used after some adverbs and adjectives expressing choice or diversity, such as other, otherwise, else, anywhere, or different, to introduce an alternative or denote a difference in kind, place, style, identity, etc.): I had no choice other than that.
3. (used to introduce the rejected choice in expressions of preference): I'd rather walk than drive there.
4. except; other than: We had no choice than to return home.
5. when: We had barely arrived than we had to leave again.»
THEN:
«1. at that time: Prices were lower then.
2. immediately or soon afterward: The rain stopped and then started again.
3. next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.
4. at the same time: At first the water seemed blue, then gray.
5. next in order of place: Standing beside Charlie is my uncle, then my cousin, then my brother.
6. in addition; besides; also: I love my job, and then it pays so well.
7. in that case; as a consequence; in those circumstances: If you're sick, then you should stay in bed.
8. since that is so; as it appears; therefore: You have, then, found the mistake? You are leaving tonight then.»
"You meant it is shared, right?"
Yes, absolutely. You know and I know that as we write here, dozens of Canadian bloggers on the left and right are
- furiously accusing each other of "hypocrisy" because one or another politician, pundit or blogger has acted or written in a way inconsistent with their own assertion of principles;
- heroically claiming for themselves the mantle of Free Speech Advocates because they can point to an instance of censorship by disputants from the "other" side;
- asserting that these behaviours are somehow an intrinsic and inevitable aspect of the "other" side's belief system - that rightwingers are inherently fascist, that leftwingers are inherently hypocritical, that capitalists are inherently greedy, that socialists are inherently atheistic...yada yada yada.
As I noted above, this makes for easy, and intellectually lazy, blogging. It's back to the playground. Unfortunately, it means that potentially interesting topics get shunted into stupefyingly simple minded channels.
There's an excellent discussion on immigration going on at Dr. Dawg's blog right now. Lefties and Righties are exchanging informed and opposed views with civility, reason, humour, and insight. It's precisely the kind of discussion we COULD be having about the limits (or not) of free speech. But read the discussion at Dawg's, and then ask yourself, honestly: could this kind of discussion happen at either Small Dead Animals or My Blahg?
What I'm saying to Mike is that introducing a topic in within that mindless frame - i.e, here's more evidence that those lefties are awful - simply precludes the possibility of intelligent discussion from the get-go. It all depends on what kind of discussion you want to have. But we really need a good, conservative site where reasonable discussion can happen, and it COULD be here.
"And that's why we can talk about "the Left" as Kathy does: because it constitutes a common and identifiable worldview."
Does it? Really?
Well, let's assume I'm a "leftist". That seems to be a common assumption.
So tell me - how do I feel about nuclear power generation? Unions? Bruce Springsteen? Limits imposed by the CRTC on the carriage of FOX in Canada? The firearm registry? Jacques Derrida? Falun Gong? Penalties for child porn?
See my point? Bloggers and pundits have cretinized the notion of "left" and "right" to the point that the terms are meaningless. You can ascribe a position on any of those political, economic or cultural referents to me, based on what's assumed to be "the left", and you'd be dead wrong.
My point is it's much more useful to discuss an issue than its position in an imaginary and increasingly irrelevant continuum.
Top comment. Warren? . not WK. In any case. . no offense, but,
WK has been laid to rest. Let us not waste any more space and time.
Topics like..
How do we inform North America that Afghanistan is key to keeping Osama*s hands off Pakistan*s Nukes?
Would you buy a made in China *Cherry* car?
Only if it were electric and half the price of GM*s Volt.
Will Alberta*s Oil Sands projects really leave a scarred earth the size of Florida and dump more air pollution than the world*s biggest polluter, Africa*s massive coal liquifaction complex?
I think Ezra has the AB-HRC safely bagged.
Now on to Liberal Apointees trying to nail Harper with 15 year old Schreiver / Mulroney palm greasing.
And Liberal head hunters trying to hang Harper for Afghani police mistreatment of head chopper prisoners. = TG
"You know and I know that as we write here, dozens of Canadian bloggers on the left and right are..."
..rendering your argument meaningless? The very fact that you cite bloggers on the "left and right", and that these terms are understood almost universally to refer to specific sets of political and ideological ideas, and that almost no-one is confused or conflicted over which set of ideas is closer to their own, indicates that the terms do in fact signify something.
That's not to say that everyone on the "left" and "right" holds the exact same set of views on all issues, but in general, the base presumptions tend to lead to a large amount of agreement within each designation.
So to answer your question, I have no idea where you stand on the issues you mention, but I can predict with some confidence that people on the left are more likely to oppose nuclear power (due to the environmental movement's dominance by socialists), support unions (because unions provide a counterbalance to unbridled capitalism), slightly prefer Bruce Springsteen (because he is an outspoken man of the left), support CRTC regulations on Fox (because Fox is evil and homegrown culture is good), support firearms registries (because people cannot be trusted with dangerous weapons), believe Derrida (because of the postmodern movement's assault on the idea of absolute truths), support Falun Gong (one thing both sides seem to agree on), and support limits on child pornography (because of the second-wave feminist movement's opposition to porn of most kinds).
"You can ascribe a position on any of those political, economic or cultural referents to me, based on what's assumed to be "the left", and you'd be dead wrong."
I wouldn't dream of it. But humans are pattern-seekers and generalizers by nature, and the widespread understanding and tacit agreement of what is meant by the terms "left" and "right" means that you're peeing into the wind on this one.
"..rendering your argument meaningless?"
Heh. No, meaning that I'm adopting your terminology to dispute its validity.
"Humans are pattern-seekers and generalizers by nature, and the widespread understanding and tacit agreement of what is meant by the terms "left" and "right" means that you're peeing into the wind on this one."
Well, to address two of the three lines of thought this thread is morphing into:
a) I find the "tacit agreement" on what is meant by terms "right" and left" to be prevalent among writers and pundits too lame or lazy to actually discuss issues on their own terms, preferring the infinitely easier "challenge" of claiming virtue for their side and ascribing its opposite to their opponents. There's an interesting discussion to be had here, but it's not about whether the folks that you choose to classify as "right" and "left" (sigh...now, you see, you've made it necessary for me to distance myself from your political taxonomy) support or stifle free speech.
b) Yup, we're pattern seekers and generalizers. That's a relatively low level of analysis we share with bacteria and Republicans (sorry, couldn't resist. Okay, I'll be adult now.) It's certainly a skill that gets us through the day, but over-reliance on it leads certain members of our species to Auschwitz and Al Qaeda. There are better ways of thinking.
Sometimes the shortest comment packs the most punch and the most truth in them,
Larqs said,
Yes free speech should not include the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.
However you should not be hauled before a government committee if you yell fire in a crowded movie house when the place is actually on fire.
I agree completely with you if by that you mean we are not allowed to yell
"radical Islam is encouraging acts of terror against the west"
while radical Islamists are actually committing acts of terror against the west.
Friend of USA,
Bullseye! = TG
Frankly, I don't understand this purported disconnect between civility and free speech. The former is a natural product of having been raised properly, and a crucial ingredient in a functional society. The latter is the bedrock of a life worth living, an indispensable, inalienable and absolute right, without which civility, or any other virtue, becomes utterly meaningless. There is no conlict between civility and free speech for that portion of the population that is able to express its views, however caustic, without recourse to the language and mentality of the schoolyard. That portion does not, unfortunately, appear to be growing, and rarely seems to include those who would have the state as a surrogate mother.
Occam's Carbuncle
People, the difference between Libel and Human Rights tribunals is huge.
A libel suit is between two private individuals. The State doesn't have a dog in that fight. The state is neutral. Both parties stand to lose and can be made to pay both side's costs.
In Human Rights Tribunals, the State chooses sides, funds one side and uses its coercive powers to oppress the other. The state itself can instigate proceedings and where private individuals bring forth complaints, the state covers all costs of only the side it chooses to support. The complainant stands to lose nothing. The state then combines investigative, prosecutors, judge and jury under its sole power - almost always using the same person or group of people to do all of it.
Libel proceedings use constitutional protections and the rule of law. It's based on evidence and set procedure and the government is only an arbiter of the dispute and not a party to one side. The HRC's do not use set law, do not have procedural rules, the state is in a clear conflict of interest, etc.
No one has said there are NO limits to speech. Just that they should be minimal and based on real - not hypothetical - harm that must be proven to be used to limit speech. Someone's sensibilities and feelings are NEVER a basis for crushing the rights of others - especially in the glaring lack of the "reasonable person test." To prove libel, you have to prove a loss with a monetary value. You are not compensated for having your feelings hurt.
I fail to see how you could be unable to see the glaring differences between tort laws regarding slander/libel and HRC's.
But no, no, no, truewest.
I do like your modest proposal. I want to see groups involved in defamation suits. So then, when they claim defamation on behalf of a group, rather than hurt feelings on behalf of the individual (dead or alive), they will be forced to disentangle themselves from the more radical elements of the group. It's empowering for the silent majority, don't you see?
Some will then have the legal permission to eat their own as a solution to a problem, well, at least rhetorically. :-)
Jill,
Glad to you like the idea. Take it and run with it -- it's my gift to you. But beware the unforeseen consequences.
Warwick,
It's easy to stress the so-called ``glaring`` difference between a defamation action and an HRC hearing if you completely distort (or to be charitable, are wilfully ignorant of) the truth about the latter, as you have done.
Point by point:
1. In HRC proceedings, the state does NOT choose sides, nor does it fund one side and "oppress" the other. Everyone pays for his own lawyer, the state adjudicates. If anything, libel proceedings are more heavily weighted against the defendant (i.e. the publisher of in the impugned words) since there is a presumption that the words, if defamatory are a) false and b) published with malice. Hardly an even playing field.
2) The state CANNOT initiate proceedings. Under the Alberta statute at least, the commission, its officers and anybody employed by it are barred from bringing a complaing. Moreover, once a complaint is brought, different people investigate and adjudicate the complaint.
3) The HRC is bound by the same law as any court and operates under a set of rules that, while not the same as an ordinary court, must meet the same standards of procedural fairness as any other administrative tribunal. If he HRC strays from that law, its decision will be quashed on review.
4) You do NOT need to show a monetary loss to prove libel; libel is actionable per se. (With some exceptions, you do have to prove damage to bring an action for slander, i.e. defamation in its non-permanant form). This makes perfect sense if you consider that fairly ancient vintage of the tort; a gentleman of an earlier time would be appalled to think that his good name is only worth what he can trade it for on the market. Showing a monetary loss may increase your damages, but a court can and will award damages simply because your reputation has been damaged.
As Ronald Reagan once said, facts are stupid things, but if we're going to have a reasonable discussion about these issues, it is incumbent upon us to master them.
But don't feel bad, you're in good company. As I understand it, Mr. Brock and Kathy Shaidle, both of whom seem to believe in the same imaginary version of the HRC as you, are apparently going to share their wisdom with Michael Coren's listeners.
Balbulican said:
"Bloggers and pundits have cretinized the notion of "left" and "right" to the point that the terms are meaningless. You can ascribe a position on any of those political, economic or cultural referents to me, based on what's assumed to be "the left", and you'd be dead wrong.
My point is it's much more useful to discuss an issue than its position in an imaginary and increasingly irrelevant continuum."
Thievery! Brazen thievery! May your toenails yellow and drop off! A pox upon your spleen!
OC
Balb... Ok, so lets just take your assertion that there is no homogeneous group that can be called "the left" for a spin... Is there *any* group that can be identified? What I am asking you is; if there is any variability of thought inside a group do you believe it cannot be identified or even self-identified? If this is your contention, I will agree wholeheartedly. This is the very central idea that is at issue in this thread. There are no collective rights, because there are no collectives. Collectives are a tool used to cudgel people into handing power to those who purport themselves as representatives of said collective. The only minority is the individual and their rights must not be compromised.
In a larger sense, there are of course generalizations that can be made in order to make communication less tedious. By saying that someone is a leftist, it is generally saying that they support a larger role for government, believe in group rights, etc. It does not mean that there is unanimity of thought, it just means that we can have a conversation without it falling into a semantic mess. Identifying a world view is, however wholly different from being able to offer a single individual who can claim membership in any collective. That is simply nonsense.
Post a Comment