How can this be true?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
How can in not be true?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Creepy... Extremely creepy. As they are just cubs and probably don't know anything other than what their parents spoonfed them.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: You've got to be taught to hate and fear You've got to be taught from ear to ear It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear You've got to be carefully taught
You've got to be taught to be afraid Of people whose eyes are oddly made And people whose skin is a different shade You've got to be carefully taught
You've got to be taught before it's too late Before you are six or seven or eight To hate all the people your relatives hate You've got to be carefully taught
I don't actually believe that's entirely true, but it certainly helps to produce that true-blue axiomatic hate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Avadaru, you're last link is broken. That might be good.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
So true... Hitler Smilie face shirts... arg...
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
The picture can be found under the link "Forum" on the girls' main page. They are modeling some t-shirts for a company called "Aryan Wear". You'll know which one when you see it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can I recomend you kill the links. No need to give a&^holes possible google linkage.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
That just makes me sad Those poor kids don't even have a chance to decide for themselves. They're being brain washed by their parents and aren't being exposed to other points of view in an environment where they can make their own choice. They may never get that chance. If there's any reason I could ever be against home schooling, this is it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Got that right, Synesthesia. And a very strong argument against allowing parents to keep their kids from ~1400hours per year of exposure to other kids with different beliefs at public schools via home or private schooling.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Um... wow... SCARY! Actually, makes me more disgusted than anything else. Poor girls. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, I saw that too.
I get a pretty good sense of how delusional the mom is just by skimming the blogspot site.
Especially where she talks about how courageous the girls are to play in venues where they are booed and protested.
This is 70% sad, 30% scary.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Question: how is what they're doing any different than most of mainstream rap, hip hop, and television?
It's ok for black people to call white people crackers and honkies (honkeys?) and basically rag on them for absurd stereotypes, to indict them for crimes of the past and to promote continued fear, but not ok for the white people to do the same? At least they aren't calling black people the N word.
This country has overcompensated for racism against black americans in petty, meaningless ways to the point of nausea. Congratulations, we can't say "n****r" on TV without it getting censored (unless we're black), we can't insult black people (unless we're black), but cracker, honky, jap, chink, fag, queer, dyke, and other miscellaneous pejoratives just...magically slip through the cracks?
It was earlier this year that Miss Cleo of New York City's Hot 97 aired the extremely racist, brutally outrageous clip in which she (a black woman) and her co-hosts (black men) repeatedly insulted asians, to the point of saying "Man, I'm gonna start shooting asians." Their punishment was...a two week suspension. Gee, I hope they learned their lesson. If the hosts had been white and the subjects black, their punishment would have been ten times as harsh. For some reason, it is continually okay to be a racist if you're not white, while white people are continually condemned for the slightest slip that might indicate they aren't completely fair minded about race.
Prussian Blue seems like a pretty natural reaction to me, especially the way they (and other white power musical groups) motivate: turn the fear into hate. American History X illustrated this point as well, in a reasonable way: where else are scared white kids going to turn?
It just seems silly that people are so shocked by this. The double standard always has and always will bother me.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not white.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: You've got to be taught to hate and fear You've got to be taught from ear to ear It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear You've got to be carefully taught
That's one of my all-time favorite songs. At least the way Mandy Patinkin sings it, paired with Children Will Listen.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
First of all, it's not really mainstream rap in a way, and second of all, both of these things disturb me, but somehow a pair of little girls singing about race wars scares me even more... I'm not white either, but it's not as if they are even acting on their own you know... They have only had one perspective on things, not much of an outside force, just constant, "your race is superior, your skin is your uniform" junk rammed down their throats all the time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's ok for black people to call white people crackers and honkies (honkeys?)
*looks around*
*fails to see anyone saying that's OK*
*wonders why it's relevant*
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Especially where she talks about how courageous the girls are to play in venues where they are booed and protested.
I haven't read that entry, but do you have a better term for it? Sounds courageous to me, whether or not it's misguided.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Go read it.
She's not delusional for saying their behavior was courageous (which you rightfully point out that it was). She's delusional because she paints them as victims. They don't get why anyone would have a problem with this music and she's shocked when their appearance at a community fair is cancelled.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It's ok for black people to call white people crackers and honkies (honkeys?)
*looks around*
*fails to see anyone saying that's OK*
*wonders why it's relevant*
Indeed... as Honky or Cracker as terms seems... softer somehow than the N word... Maybe because it doesn't have the history of people dangling from trees to back that up. I don't know... I'd rather do away with all slurs myself. I hate them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hmmmm... did anyone else notice that article considers the Olsen twins a pair of "singers"?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Synaesthesia basically just summarized why it's relevant, Dag.
Honky/Honkey/Cracker is softer somehow than the N word? They're all racial slurs used to degrade and debase people. The N word may have a history of people dangling from trees to back it up, but that's what it was: history. I'd be a lot more afraid in this day and age as a white kid growing up in a black community than as a black kid growing up in a white community. We're okay with movies called "White Men Can't Jump," but you can bet your ass there'd be a riot if they made one called "Black Men Can't Read."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But there's a difference between those two things... It's hard to explain what it is, but it's there... One is a stupid stereotype, but a joke. The other, just plan offensive.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Well... the Olsen twins did sing sometimes. Sold some songs and music videos, didn't they?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This is very sad. But
quote:And a very strong argument against allowing parents to keep their kids from ~1400hours per year of exposure to other kids with different beliefs at public schools via home or private schooling.
I have to disagree with this-- in some areas, kids have their parents' beliefs reinforced on the schoolyard as much as at home. And in any case, most home-schoolers don't do it in order to brainwash their kids into non-mainstream ideas.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Question: how is what they're doing any different than most of mainstream rap, hip hop, and television?
It's ok for black people to call white people crackers and honkies (honkeys?) and basically rag on them for absurd stereotypes, to indict them for crimes of the past and to promote continued fear, but not ok for the white people to do the same? At least they aren't calling black people the N word.
This country has overcompensated for racism against black americans in petty, meaningless ways to the point of nausea. Congratulations, we can't say "n****r" on TV without it getting censored (unless we're black), we can't insult black people (unless we're black), but cracker, honky, jap, chink, fag, queer, dyke, and other miscellaneous pejoratives just...magically slip through the cracks?
It was earlier this year that Miss Cleo of New York City's Hot 97 aired the extremely racist, brutally outrageous clip in which she (a black woman) and her co-hosts (black men) repeatedly insulted asians, to the point of saying "Man, I'm gonna start shooting asians." Their punishment was...a two week suspension. Gee, I hope they learned their lesson. If the hosts had been white and the subjects black, their punishment would have been ten times as harsh. For some reason, it is continually okay to be a racist if you're not white, while white people are continually condemned for the slightest slip that might indicate they aren't completely fair minded about race.
Prussian Blue seems like a pretty natural reaction to me, especially the way they (and other white power musical groups) motivate: turn the fear into hate. American History X illustrated this point as well, in a reasonable way: where else are scared white kids going to turn?
It just seems silly that people are so shocked by this. The double standard always has and always will bother me.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not white.
I can see where you're coming from, but some of us (*ahem* me) is also shocked and appalled by the racism and ignorance displayed by blacks in the mainstream media. Even if it's mere ignorance, it still speaks tons about that person's victim mentality, and their automatic suspicions against white people. Kanye West, in his latest album, claimed the government "administered AIDS." To me, that is ignorance that should be called on, but isn't. (Oh wait, we did call him on his "Bush doesn't care about black people" comment.)
So you are right in that people should be more critical of the mainstream rap and hiphop artists that preach hate. I wouldn't claim they're the same, however. I think blacks have suffered (and continue to suffer) hardships that these stupid little girls and their parents can't possibly imagine. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that minorities living in poverty need to step it up if they want to see changes, instead of continually blaming "the Man." But for these White Nationalists to preach so much paranoia when it is white people (specifically men, which goes nicely with their traditional beliefs) who are in power, and will probably remain in power for some time to come... it's just uncalled for in every way imaginable. At least those black rappers who grew up in the ghetto have somewhat of a difficult time, even if their rage is misdirected.
~M
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I saw part of the 20/20 thing. <shudder>
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
This is just sad. And honestly, what scares me more is that most of the people in their community--the girls' schoolmates, at least--seem to support them. Jeez . . . less and less lone whackos and more and more whole groups . . .
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: This is just sad. And honestly, what scares me more is that most of the people in their community--the girls' schoolmates, at least--seem to support them. Jeez . . . less and less lone whackos and more and more whole groups . . .
And worse of all they all congragate together, patting each other on the back. Confirming each others distorted point of view. Very depressing for me as I do not wish to be shot at by teenage girls. Like being stabbed to death by a kitten...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And in any case, most home-schoolers don't do it in order to brainwash their kids into non-mainstream ideas.
I don't know about that's true, and I'm not a fan of mainstream ideas or homeschool.
With respect to these girls, it shouldn't be that surprising. I don't feel powerfully any way. Let them do their thing and hope nobody gets hurt.
I agree with Kayne West's comments regarding Bush and black people, but it's not as if Bush is indifferent to black people exclusively, rather, I think he is just kind of indifferent to people he doesn't know or can't relate with, which includes a large gamut and black people are a subset of that group. And in his defense, the needs of texas oil millionaires aren't too high on my priorities either, so it's not as if I'm much better.
[ October 23, 2005, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
im not so much shocked that these girls believe what they do. I am disgusted..but not shocked. There are plenty of people out their that feel their race is "superior" over others. What shocks me most though is even if the girls/family believe that they are better....how can they trapse about ostentaciously flaring those shirts...That made me sick to my stomach seeing that. Its one thing to be ignorant about classes and superiority...its another to blatently wear something that could seriously offend...ooo say...everyone??
sigh
its amazing what parents can do to their children...
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I always find it funny that Hitler in no way corresponded to this Superior Race ideal that he and these white supremacists push, but he's still a hero to them.
Funny in a rather morbid, not funny way, of course.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:So you are right in that people should be more critical of the mainstream rap and hiphop artists that preach hate. I wouldn't claim they're the same, however. I think blacks have suffered (and continue to suffer) hardships that these stupid little girls and their parents can't possibly imagine. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that minorities living in poverty need to step it up if they want to see changes, instead of continually blaming "the Man." But for these White Nationalists to preach so much paranoia when it is white people (specifically men, which goes nicely with their traditional beliefs) who are in power, and will probably remain in power for some time to come... it's just uncalled for in every way imaginable. At least those black rappers who grew up in the ghetto have somewhat of a difficult time, even if their rage is misdirected.
My point (I think) is that NO racial slurs are ever more justified than others: no amount of historical or modern inequity merits the use of slurs, in either direction. This is why it bothers me so much that some are censored and considered so much more vulgar and taboo than others: to me, a slur is a slur, and if you use one, you're a bigot, regardless of what reasoning and justification you think you may have. Bigotry is wrong, regardless of what "justification" someone may feel they have. I therefore feel that it makes no sense to come down so hard on these kids, when their crimes are no greater (in my eyes) than the crimes perpetrated daily by rap, hip hop, and black american comedy.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Actually, it's still a bit different though... It's not as simple as this person is a bigot. Suppose you are someone who is gay that uses the word "queer?" Are you doing this out of self hatred, or to take back this phrase from those that use it against you? It's not that simple... and it's made more disturbing by the fact that it's children singing things like this and not grown people who have whatever motive (usually money) for doing what they do.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:And in any case, most home-schoolers don't do it in order to brainwash their kids into non-mainstream ideas.
In my experience, this assertion is, at the very least, questionable.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
In your experience.
Most people I know who homeschool do it because they are dissatisfied with the public schools available to them.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Well... I object to the term brainwash. Educate, or instruct, would be more appropriate. I have no problem with teaching non-mainstream ideas, and yes, many homeschoolers do it to shield their children from objectionable ideas that are the mainstream in the school system.
However, non-mainstream usually does not equal hateful, bigoted and violent. Therein lies the difference.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'd want to homeschool if I had kids... School can be a jungle sometimes. But, I doubt I'd teach them how to be racist biggest. I'd probably make them all have gardens and listen to Japanese music in between reading Wrinkle in Time for the thousandth time.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Wrinkle In Time, eh? I haven't read that one yet. It's one of my mom's favourite books.
But I digress.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Most people I know who homeschool do it because they are dissatisfied with the public schools available to them.
What does that mean? Does it mean that they object to the values and the priorities practiced in their public schools. Ketchupqueen, like I said before, I'm not a big fan of mainstream ideas or homeschooling, but I think that this statement:
quote:And in any case, most home-schoolers don't do it in order to brainwash their kids into non-mainstream ideas.
is suspect, to say the least.
quote:Well... I object to the term brainwash. Educate, or instruct, would be more appropriate. I have no problem with teaching non-mainstream ideas, and yes, many homeschoolers do it to shield their children from objectionable ideas that are the mainstream in the school system.
That's a fascinating dress, Dh. Educate is from the Latin ducere which means to lead, e or ex, out. Education, properly understood, is the leading out of the soul's knowledge, not the imposition or indoctrination of anything. This is tricky work, and I understand-- even if I don't agree with-- parents wanting to do this without the public schools influence.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am scandalized. That book is a classic. But Wind in the Door and Swiftly Tilting Planet are better. I'd read those if I were not already reading 50 books.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Whenever something like this happens, why do people always assume it is spreading hatred?
I'm inclined to think that if a given message is clearly wrong, expressing it publicly only makes it more obvious how wrong it is. I would suspect these girls make more people aware of the dangers of racism than they actually convert people to racist beliefs.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Actually, it's still a bit different though... It's not as simple as this person is a bigot. Suppose you are someone who is gay that uses the word "queer?" Are you doing this out of self hatred, or to take back this phrase from those that use it against you?
Groups using slurs directed at themselves are an entirely different story, but the inequities are still there. Example: homosexuals object vigorously to the use of the word "gay" as a pejorative (e.g. "Oh man, that movie was so gay" where "gay" is intended to mean "bad" or similar). They seem to forget that homosexual wasn't the original use of the word, and that it is no more "their" word than it is anyone else's. The same is true for black people and the word "n****r" and feminists and the word "c*nt": while I understand the reasoning and satisfaction in turning a pejorative into a badge of pride, all it does is encourage further use of the word, and it's silly to claim that any word is "your" word, and that it's only inoffensive coming from certain people.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Makes sense... The word "gay" used like that tends to annoy me, but I like the word Queer as it can describe all sorts of difference and deviance... Still, it does make sense, as a matter of respect not to use phrases like the n word if you are not black. I refuse to use that word myself. It is an ugly word. I have never liked it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I used non-mainstream because I thought someone might pick on me if I said "crazy". I should have said "crazy". Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: That's a fascinating dress, Dh. Educate is from the Latin ducere which means to lead, e or ex, out. Education, properly understood, is the leading out of the soul's knowledge, not the imposition or indoctrination of anything. This is tricky work, and I understand-- even if I don't agree with-- parents wanting to do this without the public schools influence.
(italics mine)
Indoctrination occurs in public schools, too. Recycling is unconditionally good! Global warming! Sex! Just because you happen to agree with the agenda, doesn't mean it isn't there.
And, to top it all off, most public schools do a really poor job teaching. They are so caught up in regulating the teachers, that the teachers have little chance to actually teach.
Indoctrination and little education in the public schools: that's why I will be homeschooling.
--Mel
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Educate is from the Latin ducere which means to lead, e or ex, out. Education, properly understood, is the leading out of the soul's knowledge, not the imposition or indoctrination of anything.
It doesn't really matter what the Latin meant. The English word educate is commonly used to mean things that could also be called indoctrination.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That sort of stuff is one reason I'm glad that we don't have unrestricted freedom of speech here in Canada.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Which sort, twink?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Incitement to genocide. That's an indictable offence here.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
But using "c" where "s" belongs is legal!?!
You people make me sick.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes, we speak the Queen's English here, thank you very much. You folks are just a crazy off-shoot.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I guess I missed it. Where was anybody inciting anybody to genocide?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That sort of stuff is one reason I'm glad that we don't have unrestricted freedom of speech here in Canada.
When you say something like that, does it ever enter the back of your mind that you are part of the problem?
The idea that people should be restricted from speaking because some find their opinions "disgusting", "sad", or even "scary", is very popular in many places.
Those on the left have their reasons to restrict speech, such as preventing feelings from being hurt, preventing alternate views of history from being propagated, etc. Those on the right have similar ideas, only they typically apply them to protecting the state from criticism.
I find the slant of the music in question to be quite disguting, but I would never imagine sending armed thugs out to stop them. "Incitement to Genocide"? What kind of ironic joke is that, to send armed agents of the state to stop people from expressing a certain opinion, and accuse them of inciting genocide?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Twinky, Is the accusation "Inciting genocide" pretty specific or is there a lot of room for interpretation?
Robespierre,
quote:The idea that people should be restricted from speaking because some find their opinions "disgusting", "sad", or even "scary", is very popular in many places.
I think inciting genocide is more than just a sad/disgusting/scary idea.
The way I see it, if you plot out someone's murder or some bombing but don't actually pull the trigger yourself, you're still guilty. Likewise, if you tell people to go out and kill someone for no better reason than that you don't like their race, I strongly feel you should be guilty of something.
Personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice certain perceived rights if it would result in making a few people's lives better.
[ October 24, 2005, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: camus ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Personally, I'm not self-righteous enough to believe that my right to incite genocide is more important than another's right to be alive.
Using language like that is a pretty good way to shut down discussion and start up a fight.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:When you say something like that, does it ever enter the back of your mind that you are part of the problem?
No, because the I don't think the slippery slope argument that follows from that line of thinking is valid. I don't see the Canadian people being oppressed.
Also, I thought some of the lyrical snippets quoted in the article linked in the opening post were clearly inciteful. Whether they would run afoul of our laws is doubtful -- the law is very clearly worded and requires violence to be a likely outcome of the incitement -- but it does remind me that I'm glad the laws are there. Added: Which is what I said in my first post, but I should have been more clear in my second. Sorry about that.
Essentially, I have a slippery slope argument that I think is valid: while this material appears to fall short of "go kill all of the non-white people," I think curtailing speech of this type that is likely to result in violence is perfectly justified.
In other words, I think your Second Amendment goes too far. I've said that before on this forum, though I don't expect many Americans here to agree.
Added: Or is it the First Amendment? I don't remember. The one about free speech, in any case. Added 2: Wait, isn't the Second the one about guns? So First, then.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Personally, I'm not self-righteous enough to believe that my right to incite genocide is more important than another's right to be alive.
I didn't realise these two things were in conflict.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Personally, I'm not self-righteous enough to believe that my right to incite genocide is more important than another's right to be alive.
Using language like that is a pretty good way to shut down discussion and start up a fight.
You're right. Really poor choice of words on my part that incorrectly reflects my point of view. I'm going to edit it to make it more appropriate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thank you. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Educate is from the Latin ducere which means to lead, e or ex, out. Education, properly understood, is the leading out of the soul's knowledge, not the imposition or indoctrination of anything. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't really matter what the Latin meant.
I disagree. Sloppiness regarding important words depicts a sloppiness regarding important thoughts, and your casual attitude towards this sloppiness portrays a disregard for history, wisdom, and character.
Sadly, it's a democratic thing to do, saying that the word means what most people think it means, as opposed to looking to the sense of what the word points to.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Sadly, it's a democratic thing to do, saying that the word means what most people think it means, as opposed to looking to the sense of what the word points to.
Yea you're right. What the word meant a thousand years ago is the relevant part, not what it means now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Language and words change over time. There's nothing wrong with that.
Words mean what they mean because that is what they are understood to mean. It's not like God has given us a dictionary of all possible words and what they "should" mean.
There is no "should" when it comes to the meaning of words.
One of my favorite examples: decimate. Originally it meant to kill one tenth of a population. Somewhere the meaning flipped to mean to destroy all but one tenth.
Now it means to destroy or kill a large portion. That's what it really means, because that's what people mean when they use the word, and it's what people understand when they hear the word.
It's history is interesting, but it would be silly to tell people that they are "wrong" for using the current definition of the word.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Irami, Those are pretty stong words from someone who's been wrong multiple times he's tried to say what the roots of a word are. If you're going to be a pompous jackass, you might do better to choose an area that you haven't made a fool of yourself in in the past.
And that's leaving aside the it's sloppier to assume that a word's entymological meaning supercedes it's use meaning. I don't any linguists that would say that the origin of a word are more important that what people use a word to mean.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: The way I see it, if you plot out someone's murder or some bombing but don't actually pull the trigger yourself, you're still guilty.
Guilty of what?
quote:Originally posted by camus: Likewise, if you tell people to go out and kill someone for no better reason than that you don't like their race, I strongly feel you should be guilty of something.
Something..... but what? Guilty of holding disgusting opinions? What you describe is a thought-crime.
quote:Originally posted by camus: Personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice certain perceived rights if it would result in making a few people's lives better.
Well you are free to remove your own rights, or place them in the hands of others, but please don't impose the same choice on everyone else.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Extreme example: What is Osama bin Laden guilty of, in relation to the September 11th attacks? After all, he didn't "pull the trigger himself."
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, because the I don't think the slippery slope argument that follows from that line of thinking is valid. I don't see the Canadian people being oppressed.
If they are subjected to such crazy laws that limit their speech to prevent un-popular opinions from being voiced, they are oppressed, in my estimation.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Also, I thought some of the lyrical snippets quoted in the article linked in the opening post were clearly inciteful. Whether they would run afoul of our laws is doubtful -- the law is very clearly worded and requires violence to be a likely outcome of the incitement -- but it does remind me that I'm glad the laws are there.
How can a law be clearly worded, but yet you don't kow whether or not the songs in question violate those laws? This demonstrates the capricious and political nature of such a law.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Essentially, I have a slippery slope argument that I think is valid: while this material appears to fall short of "go kill all of the non-white people," I think curtailing speech of this type that is likely to result in violence is perfectly justified.
Enforcing such a law is certain to result in violence. Violence is exactly what is used to execute the punishment to be determined for such an infraction.
Either way, why subscribe the slippery slope that such speech will eventually cause harm, but not the "slipper slope" that such laws will cause harm? Or can one hold both at the same time... possibly...
quote:Originally posted by twinky: In other words, I think your Second Amendment goes too far. I've said that before on this forum, though I don't expect many Americans here to agree.
Wow. Well, this thread isn't the place to discuss that one.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Added: Or is it the First Amendment? I don't remember. The one about free speech, in any case. Added 2: Wait, isn't the Second the one about guns? So First, then.
Oh okay. Well, I would start by saying that any such amendment should be considered null as the constitution as a contract between the original citizens of the USA and their government has been void for some time. Fedgov has failed to uphold it's end of the bargain from day one.
I am of the opinion that rights exist as a natural property of being human. Anything like a constitution, etc, can only clarify, codify, explicitly state, but never grant rights. I believe the right to free speech, is simply a subset of human rights, which can be summed up in their entirety as the right to own and use one's property without interference, so long as one does not interfere with others. With this understanding in mind, anyone should be free to say anything, while utilizing their own property, or the property of others who freely license them to say such things.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Extreme example: What is Osama bin Laden guilty of, in relation to the September 11th attacks? After all, he didn't "pull the trigger himself."
Quite possibly, nothing. I have no idea. I believe that he set up an organization with the explicit purpose of killing and destroying property, but I couldn't prove it myself, in a courtroom.
I don't think the girls in question are warming up the ovens or tying the nooses just yet.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:If they are subjected to such crazy laws that limit their speech to prevent un-popular opinions from being voiced, they are oppressed, in my estimation.
Well, we disagree with you. And by "we" I mean "most of the people living under this oppressive Canadian regime."
quote:How can a law be clearly worded, but yet you don't kow whether or not the songs in question violate those laws?
Because I don't know whether or not violence has ensued, and I certainly don't know enough to assume that it's likely. Anyone wishing to prosecute under the Canadian laws would have to have better information in order to construct anything remotely resembling a legal case.
quote:Enforcing such a law is certain to result in violence.
The laws are enforced here. Where's the violence?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Well, we disagree with you. And by "we" I mean "most of the people living under this oppressive Canadian regime."
Right, so popularity=morality?
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Because I don't know whether or not violence has ensued, and I certainly don't know enough to assume that it's likely. Anyone wishing to prosecute under the Canadian laws would have to have better information in order to construct anything remotely resembling a legal case.
So the guilt of the subject of the persecution by this law is entirely dependent upon the actions of others? Sounds less like law, and more like vengence. Why not limit punishment to those who take positive action to harm others?(by positive I mean some action, not merely wishing or speaking about wishing)
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The laws are enforced here. Where's the violence?
How are the laws enforced? Are [there] friendly letters posted to the accused?
[edit, grammar]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Right, so popularity=morality?
No, that doesn't follow.
quote:So the guilt of the subject of the persecution by this law is entirely dependent upon the actions of others?
No more so than in any other legal proceeding.
quote:Why not limit punishment to those who take positive action to harm others?
Because then you have to wait for the harm to occur. You're also implying that violence and/or death is the only meaningful kind of "harm," which I don't think is valid. If you issue a serious death threat, you force a person to alter his or her life in a more significant way than if you shove him or her out of your way in the hallway.
quote:How are the laws enforced?
How are laws enforced in the general case? In order to prosecute under this particular section of the Criminal Code, the additional constraint is the assent of the Minister of Justice as Attorney General.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:
Guilty of what? . . . Something..... but what? Guilty of holding disgusting opinions? What you describe is a thought-crime.
Because my knowledge of American laws is somewhat limited, I was purposely being vague. I don't know what the legal term is, but I do know that if you plot a murder, you're not completely innocent.
And I think telling someone to kill someone is no different than planning to kill someone yourself. And if you plan to kill someone, whether you are successful or not, I still think there should be some punishment involved.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, that doesn't follow.
So why point out that most Canadians agree that they are not oppressed? WRT the law in question, only the few who may be subjected to it, or who bother to print, sing, or say anything that may be construed as controversial would have anything to be concerned about. So because the law potentially effects a small amount of people directly, it shouldn't be considered oppressive?
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No more so than in any other legal proceeding.
According to your description, it is indeed more so than any other legal proceeding. If one were to sing a song about killing whitey, but no-one took note of it, one would not be considered guilty. If one person heard the song, and killed someone "because of" that song, the song writter would be guilty. Such a structure of placing respnsibility for the actions of individuals on other politically unpopular individuals is, in my opinion, unjust, and fairly unprecedented.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Because then you have to wait for the harm to occur.
Yes, typically a crime must be committed before it can be punished...
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You're also implying that violence and/or death is the only meaningful kind of "harm," which I don't think is valid. If you issue a serious death threat, you force a person to alter his or her life in a more significant way than if you shove him or her out of your way in the hallway.
A death threat is something beyond the scope of the law. A direct threat is something different than hateful speech. Telling someone you are going to kill them is similar to actually pointing a gun at them, and they have every right to defend themselves. However, saying that you don't like someone's race, religion, government, hair color, etc, is a very long way from making a death threat.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: How are laws enforced in the general case? In order to prosecute under this particular section of the Criminal Code, the additional constraint is the assent of the Minister of Justice as Attorney General.
Laws cannot be enforced without violence. Whether it is justified or not is another question. But to suggest that laws could be enforced, by a nation-state at least, in a non-violent way is incorrect. Even the imposition of a fine carries with it a threat of violence. Don't pay the fine, and men with guns show up to take the money.
So in a situation where the persecuted have taken no action but that of expressing an opinion, the agressors would be the canadian government, where they to impose some punishment upon the speaker.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Because my knowledge of American laws is somewhat limited, I was purposely being vague. I don't know what the legal term is, but I do know that if you plot a murder, you're not completely innocent.
Perhaps, but plotting a murder is very different from sing songs about one's racists beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by camus: And I think telling someone to kill someone is no different than planning to kill someone yourself.
Depending on the circumstances, it most certainly can be different. However, if the candian law could possibly be used to punish racist songs, it is either horribly misapplied or not related to making death threats, but to saying unpopular things.
quote:Originally posted by camus: And if you plan to kill someone, whether you are successful or not, I still think there should be some punishment involved.
Perhaps, but this is far from the issue at hand. Planning to kill someone, as you stated, can be seen as similar to making a direct threat, which a person has a right to defend him/her self from. Yet such threats are not in question here.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Added: Note that Section 318 is careful to avoid conflict with this.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
My little sis was really bothered by this.
I told her that they're irrelavent. What else can I say? *shrug*
--j_k
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Just so we're both on the same page, here you go.
Added: Note that Section 318 is careful to avoid conflict with this.
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [edit: the above mentioned crime]
Nothing in there about death threats. Only vague talk of inciting hatred. Of course, under this law, reporting the events of september eleventh could easily be considered illegal. What this law does, is provide a capricious AG the ability to play to the masses by punishing the unpopular.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Perhaps, but plotting a murder is very different from sing songs about one's racists beliefs.
Well, it all depends on what was stated. I didn't see the actual lyrics of the song mentioned at the beginning of this thread, but in general I feel that encouraging people to take a specific action, like a hate crime, is essentially the same as plotting it yourself.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Well, it all depends on what was stated. I didn't see the actual lyrics of the song mentioned at the beginning of this thread, but in general I feel that encouraging people to take a specific action, like a hate crime, is essentially the same as plotting it yourself.
So saying that murder in general, is a good thing, is the same as planning to kill some specific person?
Either way, this is way off point, as the law and the songs in question have nothing to do with death threats or encouragement to take specific actions.
I think this is a case of well-meaning people getting caught up in trying to look compassionate by rushing to demand punishment for the evil-doers.
The only crime that should be associated with the music afor-mentioned, is the crime of having bad taste.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [edit: the above mentioned crime] . . . What this law does, is provide a capricious AG the ability to play to the masses by punishing the unpopular.
This doesn't have to be considered punishing the unpopular. There are ways to voice opinions in ways that do not lead to a breach of peace.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Of course, under this law, reporting the events of september eleventh could easily be considered illegal.
That isn't true. Certainly not the "easily" part, as it's a huge stretch to even make that suggestion.
quote:What this law does, is provide a capricious AG the ability to play to the masses by punishing the unpopular.
It requires the Attorney General's consent. That doesn't imply that the Attorney General can go around prosecuting people willy-nilly simply by giving himself his consent. Frivolous prosecutions would come into conflict with the Charter.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: This doesn't have to be considered punishing the unpopular.
You can consider it building bridges to the moon if like, the imprecise nature of the law and it's uses remains.
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are ways to voice opinions in ways that do not lead to a breach of peace.
And if you are wrong about that, WRT a specific comment, you should be held criminally responsible? For example, reporting of the OJ Simpson verdict in LA California, which directly incited hatred which led to real property demage, riots, etc?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Either way, this is way off point, as the law and the songs in question have nothing to do with death threats or encouragement to take specific actions.
I think this is a case of well-meaning people getting caught up in trying to look compassionate by rushing to demand punishment for the evil-doers.
The only crime that should be associated with the music afor-mentioned, is the crime of having bad taste.
I think there are two different discussion taking place in this thread.
1. Should the government be able to restrict or limit freedom of speech in certain instances?
2. Is the song mentioned in this thread punishable, or merely bad taste?
Regardging 1, I feel the answer is yes, but only in very specific instances. Regarding 2, from what I can see, I would agree with "The only crime that should be associated with the music afor-mentioned, is the crime of having bad taste. "
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Isn't White Seperatism really just another mixed-up religion? I don't see a lot of difference between white/black seperatists and conservative religious types who think their religious culture shouldn't mingle with the rest of the world to keep the race/culture purse, such as marrying outside of the faith. The arguments for both boil down to pretty much the same thing, and both ignore the essential goodness of people outside of their group in favor of the imagined superiority of their own group.
In other words,
"This country/town is a Christian country/town"
and
"This country/town is a white country/town"
are the same thing, are they not?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That isn't true. Certainly not the "easily" part, as it's a huge stretch to even make that suggestion.
Not at all. I said "easily considered", not easily convicted. And in many cases, and indictment is as good as a conviction, at least where public opinion is concerned.
But it's easy for you to impute your own amendments to this law, such as the understanding that it shouldn't apply to news reporting, or perhaps to the teaching of history. But such unstated amendments don't prevent real abuses by AG's. Suppose a student went to a lecture about the holocaust, then became so filled with hatred towards Germans, that this student then went off and killed a german tourist in Toronto. Would the lecturer be guilty of a 319?
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It requires the Attorney General's consent. That doesn't imply that the Attorney General can go around prosecuting people willy-nilly simply by giving himself his consent. Frivolous prosecutions would come into conflict with the Charter.
And then what? The charter would rise up, having taken some living coporeal form, and defend itself? What if the entire legal establishment is in agreement? In my opinion, the law remains unjust.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:And if you are wrong about that, WRT a specific comment, you should be held criminally responsible? For example, reporting of the OJ Simpson verdict in LA California, which directly incited hatred which led to real property demage, riots, etc?
To be fair, you have to at least consider the motive of what is being said. In any case, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement saying that anything that may offend someone should be punishable. Rather, if you incite hatred with malicious intent, that shouldn't be ignored as just another opinion protected by free speech.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: To be fair, you have to at least consider the motive of what is being said.
And how can such a thing be discovered?
quote:Originally posted by camus: In any case, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement saying that anything that may offend someone should be punishable. Rather, if you incite hatred with malicious intent, that shouldn't be ignored as just another opinion protected by free speech.
Right, but by even having such a law written, the definitions of malicious intent, hatred, and other such non-specific and often unknowable things become tools by which governments can punish viewpoints which they disagree with.
I say that "inciting hatred" is such a non-specific and loosely defined term as to be entirely useless in predicting whether or not one's actions can be considered legal.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Isn't White Seperatism really just another mixed-up religion?
I would agree with that. In fact, if someone wants to write a book or sing a song about why they are proud to be white, fine with me. But when the purpose is to cause harm to the specific group, that's where I think a line should be drawn. Obviously it would be hard to determine a malicious motive, so that just reinforces the idea that government interference would be very limited, the prosecution would have to prove with undisputable evidence the guilt.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:The charter would rise up, having taken some living coporeal form, and defend itself?
The Charter carries the kind of weight in this country that the Bible carries with fanatical Christians. It is not to be trifled with. So yes, in a sense.
Additionally, as part of the Constitution the Charter takes precedence; if a law conflicts with the Charter then the law is unconstitutional. In such an event the courts can be expected to strike the law down.
quote:What if the entire legal establishment is in agreement?
In what country would such a thing occur? It certainly isn't this one. You [seem to] have a deep-rooted fear of governmental authority that in my opinion is unjustified with respect to Canada. If this law is so prone to abuse when interpreted in accordance with our Constitution, other laws, and legal precedents, then where are these supposed abuses? There aren't any.
"It might be abusable in this hypothetical and unrealistic context" isn't grounds for striking down a law. It's grounds for phrasing the law carefully, and I think that's what was done here. I certainly don't think the law is unjust; indeed, as I said at the outset, I'm glad it's there.
Added: Oops, I left out a "seem to," since I'm obviously not a mind-reader. I'll put it in.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Right, but by even having such a law written, the definitions of malicious intent, hatred, and other such non-specific and often unknowable things become tools by which governments can punish viewpoints which they disagree with.
I agree that there is room for government abuse of power, and I don't have a good answer as to how to determine what is legal and what is not or how to prevent its abuse.
Yes, the government can punish viewpoints they disagree with, but if that power is limited to such things as viewpoints towards ethnic cleansing and racial hatred, I don't see how that can be all that oppressive.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Obviously it would be hard to determine a malicious motive, so that just reinforces the idea that government interference would be very limited, the prosecution would have to prove with undisputable evidence the guilt.
Indeed, and as far as I'm aware only one person has been prosecuted under the relevant section of the Criminal Code.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You [seem to] have a deep-rooted fear of governmental authority that in my opinion is unjustified with respect to Canada.
The government of Canada operates on a voluntary basis?
The only reason I don't specifically fear the government of Canada is because I wasn't born there.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It's grounds for phrasing the law carefully, and I think that's what was done here.
So incitement to hatred is a careful phrase? What does it mean?
This law is similar in it's non-specificity to the Sherman Anti-Trust act in the US which supposedly protects us from monopolies. Of course, such a law is only employed when the monied interest supporting group A in government demand that their competitors be taken down for them. Any law which uses such dangerously vague terms as does the canadian anti-speech law, it becomes dangerous. While you may not see it being abused right now, all it takes is a few elections, and then those who may disagree with your political views could be sitting behind the wheel, using that law to punish history professors, et al.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: I agree that there is room for government abuse of power, and I don't have a good answer as to how to determine what is legal and what is not or how to prevent its abuse.
Nor do I, but a good start would be to remove your consent for the enforcement of such laws as anti-speech 319.
quote:Originally posted by camus: Yes, the government can punish viewpoints they disagree with, but if that power is limited to such things as viewpoints towards ethnic cleansing and racial hatred, I don't see how that can be all that oppressive.
You don't? So you don't see the typical Continental European(present in France, Germany, and others) laws which ban possession of swastikas or other hate symbols, and laws which punish any expressing revisionist opinions about the holocaust as oppressive? There was an incident in france where a professor was punished for writing a paper about the crimes of the Soviets in the Ukraine and Poland, because he was "diminishing the importance of the holocaust".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:So incitement to hatred is a careful phrase?
Incitement to hatred where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is a careful phrase, yes.
I understand your objection, I just don't share it.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Incitement to hatred where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is a careful phrase, yes.
Right. So what units do we use to measure the likelihood that incitement to hatred will lead to a breach of the peace? Do those measurements come in Bin-Ladens? Or Kilo-Farrakhans? Or Milli-Hitlers?
And what is the threashold of likely? Above 50%? 65%? 75%?
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Like homeschooling is the contributing factor to these children's indoctrination. Yep, here's another wacko homeschooler that made the news so lets single that out as the factor. These people would be wacked with or without homeschooling. News being the machine it is you usually only hear about the wackos. Not the hundreds of thousands of homeschoolers whose children are well-adjusted, well-educated and positive contributors to society.
Rant aside, when is the change over from merely repeating what we are taught and having those views become what we believe? I guess in other words when is the turning point?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: Like homeschooling is the contributing factor to these children's indoctrination. Yep, here's another wacko homeschooler that made the news so lets single that out as the factor. These people would be wacked with or without homeschooling. News being the machine it is you usually only hear about the wackos. Not the hundreds of thousands of homeschoolers whose children are well-adjusted, well-educated and positive contributors to society.
Exactly. We don't typically hear the phrase "...a public school graduate..." attached to every other story on the nightly news.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Likely" in the judgment of the court. It's analogous to the common use in laws of concepts like "reasonable" (reasonable doubt, reasonable limits).
Consider:
Every one who, by
1) communicating statements
2) in any public place,
3) incites hatred against any identifiable group
4) where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
is guilty of [the offence]
Of those, the first two have very specific definitions within the criminal code. I don't know if "incite" is defined somewhere outside the Criminal Code, but it is used frequently in the Code as well as in other laws, so my assumption is that it is either defined or has the weight of legal precedent behind it (or both). But there are also stipulations about valid grounds for convitction:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
So I don't see the "all it takes is a couple of elections" problem that you do. To my mind, they've covered their bases fairly well -- and if they haven't, it'll come up in court. But this has been brought before the Supreme Court in the past and it was ruled acceptable under the first section of the Charter. It was a close ruling, though, so it may well come up again in the future.
In the case in question, a schoolteacher was "teaching" his students a number of blatantly false things about Jews. He argued that he was allowed to do so under section two of the Charter, and it went to the Supreme Court, but he lost the case.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
"But Your Honor, it is TRUE that I dislike jews because they killed the son of god."
But I'm sure there's a rich and storied precedent to establish the legal meanings of these words to the Canadian government. Likely is left to the judgement of the court. Lovely.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:"But Your Honor, it is TRUE that I dislike jews because they killed the son of god."
Which doesn't garner an exemption under (b). "I dislike Jews" isn't grounds for anything apart from disliking Jews.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Which doesn't garner an exemption under (b). "I dislike Jews" isn't grounds for anything apart from disliking Jews.
So that's not an example of inciting hatred?
[edit: added below]
Even if a group of yahoos hears the statement and decides to go looking to avenge the savior's death by killing jews?
Also, it indeed would garner an exemption under A) as the statement communicated would be true.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Which doesn't garner an exemption under (b). "I dislike Jews" isn't grounds for anything apart from disliking Jews.
Well, that's a matter of perspective, isn't it, Twinky? In fact, that's what's wrong with the whole law is that it's a very subjective matter of perspective.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Jesus' supposed divinity isn't something you could prove in court, so no, it wouldn't garner such an exemption.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Which doesn't garner an exemption under (b). "I dislike Jews" isn't grounds for anything apart from disliking Jews.
Well, that's a matter of perspective, isn't it, Twinky? In fact, that's what's wrong with the whole law is that it's a very subjective matter of perspective.
No, it isn't [a matter of perspective]. "I dislike Jews" isn't legal grounds for anything at all.
Edit: I originally had "subjective" there, which isn't right at all.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Out of curiosity, if someone makes a statement in Canada that DOES lead to violence by someone else, how is the "someone else" punished? Are his/her crimes considered separate from the statement made, or is the statement taken into consideration somehow?
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Jesus' supposed divinity isn't something you could prove in court
Your faith in the objectivity of a legal system is refreshing. I'm sure you guys have your share of Judge Moores floating around?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Jesus' supposed divinity isn't something you could prove in court, so no, it wouldn't garner such an exemption.
The truth is inherent in the statement, the speaker does believe that the jews killed jesus. And the aformentioned clause B which protects opinions on religious matters prevents the speaker from having to prove anything about jesus being divine.
So where does that leave us?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: o, it isn't subjective. "I dislike Jews" isn't legal grounds for anything at all.
I just do not see the truth of what you're saying. I respect the fact that your heart is in the right place, but this law looks like a huge, gaping gate through which any manner of injustice can come stampeding through.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I sincerely hope the law functions in the absolute best way for your country.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote: We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'd say that's about the long and the short of it, Storm. And if it's ever misused I'll come back here and post something about eating crow. I've done that before in cases where I've said things that merited some tasty, tasty crow later on.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I seriously wonder what crow tastes like.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
black licorice.
Or so my husband claims. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, twink, people who say that the law isn't worded as well as it could be are probably right. Things aren't defined as well as they could be, which is the case of many of our laws. The difference between our courts is that there is a lot more emphasis on the rather nebulous "spirit" of the law as opposed to the "letter" or the law.
Or such is my understanding.
Not that I disagree with you. I like the law and my nanny state.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So under Canadian law, what would Grego have been charged with for inciting the villagers to burn the pequinino forest and mother tree?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'd say that's about the long and the short of it, Storm. And if it's ever misused I'll come back here and post something about eating crow. [Smile] I've done that before in cases where I've said things that merited some tasty, tasty crow later on.
Contrary to popular belief, these discussions aren't for points. I don't care. Laws in all countries get misused, just like freedom does.
I do have a question for you, though, now that I think about it. When has this law been used, in your opinion, correctly?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
BtL, that's more or less why I don't find Robespierre's examples compelling; it's clear what the intent of the law is and I expect the judiciary to apply it in accordance with its intent.
Storm, I think it was used correctly in the only instance of its use that I'm aware of. Here is a summary I Googled up.
Also, pH, I don't know the answer to your question. I know that motivation is a factor (in sentencing, for example), but I don't know if that's formalized in the Criminal Code itself.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Other than being very saddened by this story and the fate of these girls, one thing about the comments from people who surround them struck me:
quote:perfect age to start grooming kids
quote:To me, that's the best propaganda tool for our youth."
"grooming?" "propaganda?" Exactly what planet is this person living on that he can talk this way using the phrase "the grooming of youth" in a positive way? It just blows my mind.
Also: Aren't there hate laws that try to limit freedom of speech when it's abused in this way? I always thought there were but perhaps I'm getting confused. (I realise that it's very difficult to put laws like that in place without having difficulty with line-drawing, but there must be some laws, no?)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Teshi, have you read the last page and a half of the thread? Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:No, because the I don't think the slippery slope argument that follows from that line of thinking is valid. I don't see the Canadian people being oppressed.
I am a part of that large Canadian minority who disagrees with you. The oppression is perhaps soft and velvety, but it is a form of oppression nonetheless. There is definitely a deliberate attempt to stifle opposition and silence marginal voices in Canadian democracy, and it is more than a little disturbing at times.
As a matter of fact, I disagree, to varying degrees, with almost everything you've said in this thread. On the other hand, I'm behind you 100% about the Queen's English thing.
[ October 24, 2005, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: digging_hoIes ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Teshi, have you read the last page and a half of the thread? [Wink]
Errrrrm...
Apparantly not.
*cough*
EDIT: So, you're saying there are NO hate laws in America? So I can walk down the street and yell horrific insults and threats at people because of their religion, race, sexuality etc. and nobody could do anything about it? Could I get on the nightly news and do it? Could I become the president (hypothetically) and do it? Is there any line at all other than physically harming someone? Is it worse if I shoot a roomful of people because of race, religion or sexuality rather than abitrary selection?
O.o
And, if it wasn't clear enough, I know that things like hate laws are sometimes very tricky to navigate safely but I believe there should be a line to "free speech" just like there should be a line to all "freedoms".
Although of course they are all VERY IMPORTANT.
For instance, you don't have the freedom to shoot anyone just because they annoy you. That could be seen as a slippery slope too: "Look at this new law, Bernie, soon we won't be able to lock our doors so the robbers can't get in!" But we all know where the line is because we decided on it a long, long, long time ago.
[ October 24, 2005, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:As a matter of fact, I disagree, to varying degrees, with almost everything you've said in this thread.
That doesn't surprise me, but it's worth noting that this law hasn't been used to oppress people who share any of your views.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
What difference does that make? What kind of person would I be if I only upheld the principle of freedom of speech so long as that speech agreed with my views? There are some people who actually do take that view of freedom of speech, and I hold them in the utmost contempt.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I wasn't clear. You're saying you're being oppressed; I'm saying that the law under discussion is not an example of that, even if it's true.
Which, obviously, I don't think it is.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
I was perhaps unclear. I didn't say I was necessarily being oppressed. But there is a culture of quashing dissent in this country, and it is not limited to a single law.
Example : the youth wing of the Liberal Party recently voted to withdraw funding from any party who does not run candidates in every provinces. Translation : they were trying to kill the Bloc. Now, I disagree with virtually everything the Bloc says and stands for. But trying to silence them by tweaking political party laws to their detriment is completely despicable, and borders on a form of fascism.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sidenote: I personally consider the youth wing of the Liberal party a complete waste of time. I very briefly considered joining, read their website, was disgusted and quickly left. Please, please do not use the youth wing of the Liberal party as an example of anything good.
EDIT (actually from earlier post but eh I don't think it's going to get read up there): So, you're saying there are NO hate laws in America? So I can walk down the street and yell horrific insults and threats at people because of their religion, race, sexuality etc. and nobody could do anything about it? Could I get on the nightly news and do it? Could I become the president (hypothetically) and do it? Is there any line at all other than physically harming someone? Is it worse if I shoot a roomful of people because of race, religion or sexuality rather than abitrary selection?
O.o
And, if it wasn't clear enough, I know that things like hate laws are sometimes very tricky to navigate safely but I believe there should be a line to "free speech" just like there should be a line to all "freedoms".
Although of course they are all VERY IMPORTANT.
For instance, you don't have the freedom to shoot anyone just because they annoy you. That could be seen as a slippery slope too: "Look at this new law, Bernie, soon we won't be able to lock our doors so the robbers can't get in!" But we all know where the line is because we decided on it a long, long, long time ago.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote: Sidenote: I personally consider the youth wing of the Liberal party a complete waste of time. I very briefly considered joining, read their website, was disgusted and quickly left. Please, please do not use the youth wing of the Liberal party as an example of anything good.
I fully agree with you. The problem is, many of them later go on to be influential people in the Liberal Party. Like Prime Ministers and cabinet ministers and such.
I know, it's scary.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*sigh*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ah. I drew that implication when you said that you were in the minority and then said that the minority was being oppressed.
With respect to your example, have the federal campaign finance laws actually changed? Has Bill C-24 been amended or revoked? I do like Bill C-24. As far as Google can tell me, it hasn't gone anywhere. What is the impact of the youth wing vote on actual laws? Added: I should note that I certainly agree that the vote itself is a very bad thing. I'm not a fan of youth wings of political parties in the general case, and this is a good example of why.
I don't think we have a culture of oppression in this country. What we have is a proclivity for having strong centralized governments. That does not necessarily equate to or result in quashing dissent.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
In this case, the law was not changed, because no one would have gone for it.
On the other hand, I seem to recall Jean Chrétien enacting certain electoral reforms that had the effect of barring certain small parties from being able to register themselves as parties. Like the Rhinoceros Party, for example.
And no, the strong centralized government thing is another issue entirely.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:On the other hand, I seem to recall Jean Chrétien enacting certain electoral reforms that had the effect of barring certain small parties from being able to register themselves as parties. Like the Rhinoceros Party, for example.
I don't remember this, but it's entirely possible that it happened. Added: Nonetheless, there are still Marxist-Lenninist candidates (for example) in plenty of ridings.
However, on the, uh, third hand, Jean Chrétien also enacted Bill C-24, which has gotten the Green Party significant federal funding for the next election -- and has cost the Liberals significant funding for the next election as well.
Added 2: Unless Bill C-24 is what you're talking about. Here is a description of it.
[ October 24, 2005, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So, you're saying there are NO hate laws in America? So I can walk down the street and yell horrific insults and threats at people because of their religion, race, sexuality etc. and nobody could do anything about it?
I'm not sure how far the laws go in the U.S. go, but I think we certainly shouldn't have laws against any of these things - at least not if we pretend to have any real freedom of speech. To suggest that we can ban speech that offends people or that insights wrongful action is to essential negate the freedom of speech, because those are essentially the only cases where freedom of speech is actually needed. The majority wouldn't ban speech it considers nonoffensive and harmless.
We have the freedom of speech precisely so people can say things that the majority does not like to hear, and so people can encourage things that the majority doesn't want encouraged. That's the function of free speech. And it's value rests on the premise that truthfulness will ultimately rise above falsehood more in such an environment than it would in an environment where you aren't allowed to say what you believe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A threat that creates an reasonable apprehension of imminent offensive touching constitutes the tort of assault.
Also, there are crimes that are committed via speech. Harrassment, threats, extortion, and blackmail, for example, are all pretty much speech-only crimes.
Mail fraud can be seen as a speech only crime, as well.
It's clearly not correct to say "speech alone cannot constitute a crime." Some speech are considered acts of legal significance, and the legal system will judge them.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:truthfulness will ultimately rise above falsehood
My worry is that in the process of truth battling its way out there's a lot of collateral damage.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My worry is that in the process of truth battling its way out there's a lot of collateral damage.
Yes, indeed, especially if people are bothered more by words than they need be. But ultimately, I think this the collateral damage is worth it - when contrasted to what a lack of free speech can lead you to.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:especially if people are bothered more by words
Words can be unimaginably harmful.
quote:when contrasted to what a lack of free speech can lead you to.
I hate to come back to Canada but... it's not exactly a disaster of repression up here, as twinky has already pointed out (although d_h disagrees to a certain extent). I don't know of anyone who has had their free speech repressed or has felt limited.
That may be because they have been repressed, of course .
People are allowed to hate/fear all they want, they're just not allowed to go around trying to loudly convert others.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Words can be unimaginably harmful.
And often needlessly so. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, it would be lovely if everyone could shrug off racial, sexual, national, religious and personal slurs but unfortunately "sticks and stones" is a childhood chant, not a human condition.
Haven't you ever been bullied? What if the bully was just exercising his or her freedom of speech?
CHILD: "Teacher! Billy's calling Mary nasty names and he made her cry." TEACHER: "Oh, that's alright. Billy's shouldn't that, but he's just exercising his right to express himself so Mary will just have to put up with it and stay away from Billy." MARY: *sob*
It don't seem right!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
How about these two scenarios.
1. The Government doesn't make any hate laws but adds into the laws of the country a statement condemning hate, such as:
The United States hereby officially condemns people who <insert some carefully worded statement here> and reminds them of the <insert applicable bit of constitution/law/belief here>. The United States formally disagrees but defends the right to express opinions.
I feel this way the government is still upholding all the principles (I hope!) of the country.
2. Another possibility which I'll let you consider is laws dealing with the involvement of minors in hate propaganda. A law preventing children from being used in this way could be seen as being in the interest of children's protection from their parents- a kind of abuse law.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Yes, indeed, especially if people are bothered more by words than they need be. But ultimately, I think this the collateral damage is worth it - when contrasted to what a lack of free speech can lead you to.
Emotional abuse is just as serious as physical abuse. The only difference is that physical abuse heals faster.
And I don't think this issue has to be one of only two choices. There's a huge middle ground that can be explored. In fact it already is whether most people realize it or not. No matter how you want to interpret the U.S. constitution, people do not have the ability to say whatever they wish without possible repercussions.
For example, you probably wouldn't get away with saying that you have a bomb on a plane, regardless of whether it is true or not or how harmless your intent may be. You will not get away with saying that you're a police officer if you are not actually a police officer. You can't slander someone.
So as you can see, we are not allowed to say anything we wish. The Canadian laws, as I see it, is just an extension of limitations that we already face.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
There is a definite risk both ways. If you have unlimited free speech, you run the risk of having people like these bigoted white supremacist zealots convincing large numbers of people to adhere to their hateful ideologies. This has certainly happened before. This, I believe, is basically the reasoning behind all hate speech laws.
But I consider the risk of supressing free speech to be greater. If these people are not allowed to speak out for fear of convincing others, how can they ever be successfully exposed? We then live in a regime of hypocrisy, because if the disease is not brought into the light it cannot be successfully countered and destroyed. There is also the considerable risk of hate speech legislation going too far and oppressing people who are expressing legitimate beefs. This has also happened many, many times before. And the way I see it, we are currently in great danger of this here in Canada, and it is making me very uneasy.
So let the racists and bigots speak out. It's a risk, but all the better to ostracise them in the end. It's like an infection. Better to get it all out than leave it in.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:
Irami, Those are pretty stong words from someone who's been wrong multiple times he's tried to say what the roots of a word are. If you're going to be a pompous jackass, you might do better to choose an area that you haven't made a fool of yourself in in the past.
And that's leaving aside the it's sloppier to assume that a word's entymological meaning supercedes it's use meaning. I don't any linguists that would say that the origin of a word are more important that what people use a word to mean.
Dollars to doughnuts, those times you've thought I was wrong, I was right and I just didn't have the energy or will to comment to the accuser, or the issue is a properly problematic one in which there is no right answer and I was trying to raise the appropriate problem. I don't think I've been right all of the time. I just think I've been right more times than you think I've been right.
Look, it's not just about knowing Latin or the Greek or the German, it's about understanding what the word says, actually experiencing the phenomena that called for the word, which means fleshing out the mythos surrounding the word and the ontology of the people who were first inspired to use it because very often when a word survives in our language, some degraded part of all of that baggage survives in our thought, except it survives as a subconscious muddle.
That said, I stand by my posts on this thread and consider mph's statement a subtle, pervasive, and shameful strain of anti-intellectualism. I'm not an antiquarian. I didn't study Greek and Latin because I think that the languages are cool or exotic. I did it because it's important. I did it because it's who we are today. We are greeks, romans, and christians, by virtue of being aware Americans, and I'm tired of being among a community of people making a hash out our community and character, on hatrack, in politics, and in this difficult life. And with all of energy and effort and ink spilled concerning education, we should know what the word says, and at least get the problem right and give ourselves a chance at a wise solution.
[ October 25, 2005, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thought provoking.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with Tresopax.
-o-
Huh. That wasn't nearly as hard to type as I thought it would be. Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
You've broken the ice. It'll come ever easier after this, for good or for evil.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: For instance, you don't have the freedom to shoot anyone just because they annoy you. That could be seen as a slippery slope too: "Look at this new law, Bernie, soon we won't be able to lock our doors so the robbers can't get in!" But we all know where the line is because we decided on it a long, long, long time ago.
The difference is that the Classic Liberal philosophy has a simple and concrete root: you may do as you please with your life and property as long as you do not step on others' toes.
Under that philosophy, you will always be allowed to lock your doors if you want.
It IS a slippery slope in the other direction because once you start defining exceptions to what is allowed under the banner of unlimited free speech, other exceptions may be rationalized on the precedent.
quote:Haven't you ever been bullied? What if the bully was just exercising his or her freedom of speech?
Well, if you can prove damages, you could always sue the offending party in civil court... And if you can't prove damages, how could a law prohibiting it be justified?
quote: To suggest that we can ban speech that offends people or that insights wrongful action is to essential negate the freedom of speech, because those are essentially the only cases where freedom of speech is actually needed. The majority wouldn't ban speech it considers nonoffensive and harmless.
I agree with Tresopax.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I agree with Tresopax.
-o-
Huh. That wasn't nearly as hard to type as I thought it would be.
I know what you mean. I agreed with digging in this thread which completely turns over my theory that he is always wrong. I've had to adjsut it to digging is nearly always wrong.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:For example, you probably wouldn't get away with saying that you have a bomb on a plane, regardless of whether it is true or not or how harmless your intent may be. You will not get away with saying that you're a police officer if you are not actually a police officer. You can't slander someone.
quote:that we can ban speech that offends people
What about these laws, as camus pointed out. Your freedom of speech has already been curtailed. You can and you [/i]have[/i] banned speech that offends people; you are not allowed to maliciously and incorrectly portray a person (as in the case of slander). Slander cases go to court every year and they are always based on emotional damage...
Now, what if all the non-white people in America took these racists to court for slander- for maliciously telling lies about their entire races on a grand scale. They might even attempt to sue. Yes, it would be hard to prove in a straighforward manner but the point of this hypothetical example is that there are laws already in place that almost ban this.
Basically, these laws would be an extension of the slander laws- stretched from an individual or individuals to a race. Now, I think that would be a little wide, so you'd probably want to narrow that a lot, but you get the idea.
It doesn't even have to be an inprisonable offence, it can just be one that is restricted to private functions, or private living rooms. There are so many ways of creating a law that protects America's citizens as well as allows people to say what they want.
I understand your fears. They are well justified. You should be wary of creating new limiting laws. However, you should also be wary of creating hypocritical situations.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: I know what you mean. I agreed with digging in this thread which completely turns over my theory that he is always wrong. I've had to adjsut it to digging is nearly always wrong.
You agreed with me? Please tell me which part, because I'm afraid I may have to revise my opinion ; if you agreed with it, there's a good chance it's wrong, except if it's all those parts where I disagreed with Twinky.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I know what you mean. I agreed with digging in this thread which completely turns over my theory that he is always wrong. I've had to adjsut it to digging is nearly always wrong.
And now I'm agreeing with both jebus and digging_holes, which pretty much means the world is going to end tonight.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Nah, you're just both getting wiser. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I once, no, twice, agreed with King of Men. I thought it was the beginning of the apocalypse. Thankfully, where I agreed with him had absolutely nothing to do with religion, so I think that's what saved us all.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Wow.
I remember once or twice agreeing with Leto II. I thought that was bad enough. I have never yet had to agree with King of Men. That would be... I can't say what it would be, it's just unimaginable.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Added 2: Wait, isn't the Second the one about guns? So First, then. ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Those poor kids don't even have a chance to decide for themselves. They're being brain washed by their parents and aren't being exposed to other points of view in an environment where they can make their own choice. They may never get that chance. If there's any reason I could ever be against home schooling, this is it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)