Mike had two other criticisms, expressed rather hysterically, but which deserve a response, nonetheless. He seemingly felt that I - along with certain bloggers, and certain mainstream media reporters at Canadian Press and the CBC - had (a) suggested that Keith Martin was a Nazi and (b) we had been wrong to link to a neo-Nazi web site, or mention it, when pointing out how Keith Martin was drawing unwelcome support for his private member's bill.
No, Warren. I suggest you tried to imply that he was sympathetic. Now, since your response here is presented in an honest light, I will respond to it in an honest light.
The last point first, because it's fair criticism. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that I have written two books about anti-Semitism and bigotry - one focussing on the Far Left (Unholy Alliances, 1992), the other focussing on the Far Right (Web of Hate, 1994, 1996 and 2001) - and I did not hesitate, in either case, to alert my readers to instances where expressing bona fide points of view (on immigration, on anti-taxation movements, on gay rights, on the Holocaust, on free speech, on what have you) inadvertently gave encouragement to the forces of organized racism. That neo-Nazis will disproportionately benefit from the elimination of reasonable limitations on expression is, I acknowledge, no basis for clamping down on all expression. But the haters will benefit - and that, I submit, is a consequence that always needs to be considered. It is therefore fair and appropriate to draw people's attention to the fact that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are deliriously happy about Keith Martin's proposal, to me. "Rubbing people's noses in the reality of hate," I wrote in Web of Hate, is sometimes necessary. I know lots of good people get upset by that - but that ostrich-like tendency is the problem, here: too many folks in the blogosphere are forming opinions on hate propaganda, on violent pornography and other hateful expression, in the abstract.
Warren, you need to really expand on your points here. If you're going to say that neo-Nazis will disproportionately beneft from the repeal of section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, then you need to establish exactly how and why.
To be honest, it seems that you are simply appealing to emotion in your argument. I do however think the basis of your argument is valid to the debate: which outcome will cause more harm? It is an interesting question, and I think it is the fundamental question which is at the center of this debate.
I contend the opposite, that not repealing section 13(1) will cause more harm. My reasoning is that, while I generally agree with you, that not having it will allow hate groups more freedom as it were, it will also have the wider benefit of avoiding potential abuse by the state.
Now, on the surface, that argument may seem weak. But I think it goes far beyond that high-level description.
The state potential for abuse is not necessarily in H.R.A. 13(1) itself, but in the fact that such provision is legally tenable in general. For example: the interpretation of reasonable limitations on fundamental rights is judged culturally, in this way, not objectively.
I would argue that there is a political element to fundamentalist Islam that must be challenged. Yet, this legal precedent, has been invoked in such a way that it calls into question, whether or not you can challenge it, based on the identity politics surrounding it.
A man is cooling his heels in a jail cell in Belarus for republishing the Danish Muhammad Cartoons.
You'll excuse me if I consider the potential risk of the state having the power to do such a thing, to be larger than the potential risk of allowing neo-Nazis to have a website that ten people read. Because, absolute rights, protect us from Nazis too, Warren.
Which sort of leads me to Mike Brock's first criticism, which is spurious. If the Canadian Press, or me, had evidence that a Member of Parliament was a National Socialist, you can rest assured that we would not hesitate to publicize that revelation. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that Keith Martin is a Nazi. Instead, I am simply saying that Keith Martin and many others seem to be recklessly indifferent to the harm that will be caused by finally doing what the neo-Nazis have agitated for, for decades. And Keith Martin and his conservative acolytes need to think about why that is so, and the consequences for all of us, and the flourishing, vibrant multicultural society that we have all built in this place
As I said above, it's not that you've called him a Nazi, but it's that you and others have left the impression that he is a Nazi sympathizer, even if you didn't come out and expressly say it. I contend that this is an Reductio ad Nazium argument, that simply says: "If the Nazi's like it, it must be wrong!".
This contrarianism is foolish, and it distracts from the honest debate that we should be having.
Warren, you believe that the potential for harm is the inverse of what I think it is. Fine, make that argument. But stop pointing to what neo-Nazis have to say on the subject. I think in doing so, you give them too much credit for being able to form valid opinions. And the way you've gone about it, has simply painted Mr. Martin in the wrong light.
So I contend that your response to me is a step in the right direction and it would be nice to see more of that.
32 comments:
You will. On one thing, all of us can agree: 2008 is the year of the Great Speech Debate!
Now back to the game!
Section 7 of the CHRA, huh? I quote:
7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
A little shift of focus, it seems.
Sorry, fixed. Meant to be Section 13(1)
Ah. Thank you for that. But here's the thing about 13(1). The only "victims" of this section are neo-Nazis.
Again, I note: all this hand-wringing over the fate of fascists, but not of mainstream scientists shut down by the Harper regime, is suggestive.
Harper is having scientists charged under Section 13 of the CHRA? ZOMG!!!!11
That is Dr.Dawg for you, like most lefties, he deflects the arguement to something entirly different.
The debate is about the HRC not what Harper is doing, that can be another debate.
They do the same about executions in Iran, as soon as some rational person makes a comment about executions of teenagers or women being stoned in Iran, they come back with " well the U.S executes prisoners as well why are you not commenting on that.?"
Dawg -" but not of mainstream scientists shut down by the Harper regime, is suggestive."
Provide examples of what you just said here, please.
- interesting how lefties can just throw out statements and use words that, by their context, mean exactly what they are arguing against.
For example - "regime" gives the impression of the "Hitler regime" - which seems to be the very thing they are getting upset at being called.
What is good for the goose seems not to be good for the gander here.
What is good for the goose seems not to be good for the gander here.
My point exactly. And I'm sorry that I can't provide any examples of hand-wringing about Harper's muzzle over here on the starboard side--because there aren't any.
As for the broader point, my observation was not a comment about the rightness or wrongness of the repealist position, although my views on that should be clear. It was, rather, that those so apparently upset by the "attack" on freedom of speech posed by the mere investigation of a citizen complaint against Levant don't seem nearly so upset when something of much greater proportions, posing a much larger threat, is perpetrated by Stephen Harper.
He didn't have to use Section 13(1). He (or his Minister, but there is only one person really in charge these days) simply issued a command.
So now you're off cheering the proposed repeal of a section of the CHRA that has only been effectively used against Nazis. Meanwhile,the Levant complaint is being dealt with in a completely different jurisdiction.
It's a bit like--come to think of it--bombing Afghanistan when they guys who attacked you came from Saudi Arabia. Have at it, by all means. At least no one's dying this time.
If you wanted a less heated debate, you should think about challenging all the defamation and vilification I see in your comments section.
Otherwise, you just appear to be preaching to the choir and re-hashing the same arguments all of us have heard, ad nauseam, before.
And I'm sorry that I can't provide any examples of hand-wringing about Harper's muzzle over here on the starboard side--because there aren't any.
Curious, innit?
There is of course another reductio in play here - "If Nazis say it, people less intellectually robust than me (which includes virtually everyone, and certainly everyone who disagrees with me) will believe every word and immediately don jackboots and paint crude, livid swastikas on their off-the-rack black polyester sport coats. They (and here I mean "I") therefore must be protected from themselves."
Occam's Carbuncle
Mike, you're an internet guru, a free speecher, and an entrepreneur: why not hold a series of debates on free speech matters, videotape them, post them on the internet, and profit from the advertising (asks the lazy unskilled anonymous guy :-)?
Would I and others pony up a $100 ante to sweeten the pot to see the anti-free speechers have their lunch handed to them, publicly, on video, for the world to see? I can't think of a more pleasurable way to spend a c-note.
Let's leverage 21st century technology and settle this once and for all with a public debate among the very best and the very brightest.
Mike,
The people who have made it their business to pursue Canadian Nazism (not just Warman, But B'nai Brith and the CJC) have all attested to the fact that section 13 is an important weapon in that fight. More generally, the notion that taking away a legal tool designed to use against Nazis will have no effect on the ability of Nazis to go about their business is a bit ridiculous. Do you really think Paul Fromm et al support Martin's notion because they are PRO free speech? That, after the blacks, aborigonals, and etc. are kicked off the continent, whoever's left will be allowed to speak freely.
And, no, I was certainly not suggesting that Martin is a Nazi sympathizer. I AM suggesting he is naive to talk about "fighting against" Nazis (as he has done) while trying to take away one of the legal tools employed in that fight. Again, you have this thing with fake outrage.
bigcity... you clearly glazed over this part of my post before writing that, as I addressed this:
I contend the opposite, that not repealing section 13(1) will cause more harm. My reasoning is that, while I generally agree with you, that not having it will allow hate groups more freedom as it were, it will also have the wider benefit of avoiding potential abuse by the state.
Well, Mike, now you have evidence that it will casue more harm, and also evidence that it has decreased harm in the past. I am intrigued by this argument that you would allow real harm so as to stave off the possibility of potential abuse. Trading a bird in the hand for two in the bush, as it were. I don't think that argument will play too well.
And frankly, it is a horrible argument to claim that because something happened in freaking Belarus its likely to happen here.
Publishing those cartoons may have taken courage on other parts of the planet. Here in Canada it was an act of intellectual thuggery.
And frankly, it is a horrible argument to claim that because something happened in freaking Belarus its likely to happen here.
So you actually read what I wrote this time?
I read it both times. You wanted evidence, I gave you evidence. Interesting that you then go onto claim that, even if evidence became available, you would find some other way to make your argument that sidestepped the evidence.
I read it both times. You wanted evidence, I gave you evidence. Interesting that you then go onto claim that, even if evidence became available, you would find some other way to make your argument that sidestepped the evidence.
I'm not being facetious when I say: I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
You basically ask Warren (or anyone) to provide you with evidence that repealing 13 will cause harm, and then claim that, who cares what the evidence is, the potential harm in not repealing 13 will certainly be greater.
The AHRC over played their hand.
Well, so far, s 13 and its provincial clones have been used to silence or attempt to silence - purported neo-Nazis, people who quote the Bible, people who don't like homosexuality, a Catholic newsmagazine, a Jewish publisher and Canada's national magazine - were it just a tool for silencing neo-Nazis I would object to it on pure free speech grounds but might be willing to lose the argument. Its extension into rather more contentious areas of free expression has really underscored its potential for real political harm.
So, wait.. the argument is that "section 13 makes it easier to fight Nazis"?
Well, yes. I imagine it would be. It would also be easier to fight crime (including hate crime) if the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" were jettisoned and something along the line of "balance of probabilities" were erected in its place.
Most democratic states (like Canada) don't do that, however, because it is recognized as violating a fundamental right, no matter how convenient.
Same with s.13. Convenience and usefulness is immaterial if it unjustifiably restricts fundamental freedoms.
By the way, I once again notice the trend of Mr. K. availing himself of other people's comments threads, while not providing his own.
Fascinating, that. If sadly inconsistent.
The AHRC hasn't done anything yet except investigate a complaint by one citizen against another.
were it just a tool for silencing neo-Nazis I would object to it on pure free speech grounds but might be willing to lose the argument.
Jay, that's one reason I like you--you can be disarming at times. But of all the examples you cite, shouldn't you note which have been successful and which haven't even been adjudicated?
Sure Dawg...
purported neo-Nazis: Done
people who quote the Bible: Done
people who don't like homosexuality: Done
a Catholic newsmagazine: Pending
a Jewish publisher:Pending
Canada's national magazine: Pending
[By the way I am not in love with the sourcing on those links but I am really busy and can't be arsed to get more neutral links.]
Jay:
Boissoin actively promoted hatred in an small community where a gay-bashing subsequently occurred--not directly attributable to the good pastor, but indicating how vulnerable gays and lesbian people are in that place. If anyone ever deserved to be reined in, it was this foaming, hateful man of the cloth. It was incitement in slo-mo.
The Beaumont case has been disingenuously misrepresented by the Right. She was (and is) a neo-Nazi, and the Leviticus quotations were part of one message out of some 30 or so. So put her in the "neo-Nazi" category, Jay, leaving only Boissoin, who is sui generis.
Dawg, I was not thinking of the Beaumont case but rather of the Owen case in Saskatchewan.
As for Boisson I do not recollect his having called for anyone to bash any gays. He certainly made his disapproval of gays clear but, so what. And, as you say, the gay bashing incident a few weeks later had no connection. (Though, for some reason it is always brought up.)
My point being that both cases were clearly going rather further than denying Nazis the right to speak.
Jay,
You posted a link to Beaumont. Could you put up one to Owen?
Never mind. It's "Owens." And the courts re-set the bar.
Dawg, you can get the details here.
And, yes, the Court did indeed reset the bar by telling the HRC that the speech section involved was limited to extreme utterances. A tep in the right direction but at huge cost as the matter went on appeal.
I note that this decision did not seem to make much difference in the Boisson matter.
I also note that this was hardly a neo-Nazi case.
Why has't Richard Warman gone after Islamic extremists like Elmasry? Isn't calling for the death of innocent jews hate speech? He chose to represent Elmasry instead. Also why exactly has he been so connected with the ARA? They have attacked police, stabbed innocent victims and wave communist flags.
I seen a similar Post on Youtube in the comments section of a Warman speech and I was waiting for someone to answer. Instead the post disappeared. The funny thing is there are some racist comments that remain.
Post a Comment