Slashdot Mirror
Author Faces Canadian Tribunal For Hate Speech
An anonymous reader writes "A Seattle Times editorial notes that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will put author Mark Steyn on trial for his book 'America Alone,' which has angered Muslims in Canada. Steyn is a columnist for the Canadian magazine Maclean's. According to the editorial, British Columbia bans all words and images 'likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.' Steyn is unapologetic, and is advertising his book as a 'Canadian Hate Crime' and daring the tribunal to 'pronounce him bad.'" The Canadian tabloid the National Post has coverage of what it calls "a media storm."
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/
Great flick.
Political Correctness is about doing the wrong thing for seemingly proper reasons.
Or, it's passive aggression writ large.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
People have the right to engage in offensive speech. It's an absolute right, though not one recognized by the Canadian Constitution. You have NO right to to not be offended by someone's speech. Don't like it, don't read it.
If you are not just trolling and really believe the crap you just spewed then I am highly offended by your attitude and plan on taking you to court. You obviously hate people who believe in Free Speech and you should be duly prosecuted under the laws you seem to think are a good idea.
There are some egregious examples of our (US) government overstepping their bounds, of course, but by and large, this sort of worry is not a current concern for most first-world citizens. But all you have to do is look to a country like China, where *real* political censorship and oppression occurs, and you then see how easily things can go astray.
Are people in China inherently more susceptible to authoritarian regimes, or somehow less capable of existing in a democracy than other peoples? Do they desire freedom less than we do? I suspect not, but I fear too many people simply assume that it could never happen to us. I'm not talking about some tin-foil hat government conspiracy, but a slow and gradual erosion of our rights - a slowly boiling pot to the frog, as it were.
I'm always astounded at those individuals who, while at the same time espousing fear of government censorship, are all too eager to cede so much power to the government in various guises: social programs, education, health care, financial control, and taxation. Power inevitably tends to corrupt, yet people are so easily deluded into thinking "yes, but we'll use that power to make our world better!" All the good intentions in the world won't prevent a powerful government from becoming at best bloated, inefficient, and uncaring, and at worst, tyrannical.
It's pretty easy to see with an example like this how well-meaning intentions can go so badly astray. Only foolish reactionaries talk of radical change the government. Such changes will likely never happen, and while I'm sure it feels great to take a principles stand, it affects nothing in the long run. Instead, the true battle is incremental - every new power ceded to the government must be carefully questioned... Will this really make the lives of our citizens better in the long run, or is this just another potential method for a government to oppress and control it's population?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.
So a privately-owned business should be forced by government to give away wordspace because of some peoples' hurt feelings? Do you know much about this issue? Do you know the conviction rate of the HRCs? Are you aware of the tactics used by the HRCs?
I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender. I think he's doing the best thing here by taking the fight to them instead of sitting back and letting it happen to him.
You know, what gets me about this is that some groups deserve to be hated. What about Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il? I have no problem whatsoever with exposing them to ridicule or hatred because, well, they've brought it on themselves. Even the "protected classes" from the story have members that have it coming to them, such as people whose sexual orientation is toward children or animals, or maybe the Kansas school board who wanted to teach creationism in science class because of their beliefs.
You can't be free unless you're able to hate someone and convince other people to do the same. It's not pleasant and usually not good, but it's still a necessary evil.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I would suggest checking out the blog of Ezra Levant, mentioned in the National Post story. Levant was brought up before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Danish cartoons and follows the "human rights" commissions closely.
Here is a short video from his interrogation and a quote from his blog: "And after I made [my point], [Human Rights] Officer [Shirlene] McGovern said 'you're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure.' Well, actually, I'm not, am I? That's the reason I was sitting there. I don't have the right to my opinions, unless she says I do."
And here is another video from the interrogation in which Levant expresses his disgust at being directed to answer to the government and characterizes the human rights officer as a thug.
I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender.
Actually, if you are an author, I think quite the opposite is true. Nothing will make people want to read your book more than being told by the government that they aren't allowed to. I'm sure the publicity resulting from all this nonsense has done wonders for the sale of his book in Canada.
But on to the larger point. I think it is perfectly legitimate for public opinion to have an influence on sales. In a free society, I don't think government should be deciding what books you are allowed to read, but the public does have a right to an opinion, and consumers have the right to decide whether to follow it or not. That's as it should be.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
It takes a pretty god damned insecure individual to feel threatened merely because someone does not like him/her. "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling" is NOT a threat. I'm really tired of how fragile and candy-assed and otherwise cowardly people are becoming. It is a trend that does not bode well.
Now that hypothetical example would constitute an actual threat. That example goes far, far beyond merely disliking or hating someone.
The Nazis are an instance where the size and power of the state spiraled out of control. The persecution of the Jews and the Reichstag fire and the climate of fear and distrust were means to that end -- if they were unsuccessful, different means would have been used. Having a "tribunal" of people who can decide whether you have committed a thoughtcrime or not (face it, this is what "anti-hate" laws are) is another means to increase state power. The Nazis would have approved.
How about we instead expose the unstated assumptions that are behind all of this? All of it assumes that just because you hear an opinion, you have zero choice but to believe it and to act on it. All of it assumes that just because you dislike or even hate someone or something, that you have no choice but to act on those feelings without regard to the harm that it might cause. In other words, you're all mindless idiots with no hope of deciding anything for yourselves.
Or, from the politician's point of view: "some of you seem to think you should be able to think for yourselves; well that might interfere with the expansion of state authority and the uniform, homogenous society it demands, so we have set up a tribunal to tell you what thoughts you may express and which thoughts are thoughtcrimes and have given it the power to persecute anyone who says something too controversial. That way, we can get you to think in terms of emotional outrage and whether or not you are 'offended' which suits us far better than if you were to think in terms of facts and reasoning. Rest assured that this is all for your own good and that our motives are entirely pure and that this power will never ever be abused." Will we ever wake up and get tired of this?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
...a Canadian citizen filed a formal charge against the members of one of the Human Rights Commissions alleging that they are violating his human rights by limiting his ability to read material he would like to read? No, seriously, I'm not joking. It sounds like anyone may bring charges against anyone else, so what would happen if someone actually did this? Would it have to enter the court system? Who would hear such a case?
Hate crime is when an act was done in order to create hatred, violence or fear towards a group. When a white guy beats a black guy up because the black guy took his wallet that's normal assault, when a white guy beats a black guy up because he's black that's a hatecrime as it depends on an arbitrary trait of the victim that is shared with a crapload of people. Hatecrimes are worse than regular crimes because the perpetrator will likely do it again when encountering another member of the target group or may be attempting to get others to do the same.
Inciting a riot is against the law even if it is just attempted, the same goes for inciting hatred to cause violence.
If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.