Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Another one of those classic Worldnutdaily headlines:
Obama ripped for plan to bring back 'inquisitions'
OMG, Obama is bringing back the Inquisition? He's going to start putting people on the rack and torturing them if they don't convert to Christianity or accept the authority of the One True Church? I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that neither the headline nor the article has more than a tenuous connection to the real world.
Not content with the term "inquisition" they also call it a "witch hunt." What are they talking about? The new hate crimes law, of course. But as the right wing nearly always does, they're confusing hate crimes laws with hate speech laws. They are not even remotely the same thing. And they're basing it all on the Boissoin case in Canada:
The lawyer who handled the years-long battle by Pastor Stephen Boissoin over "hate speech" charges for a letter he wrote to the editor of a local newspaper that cited the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is forecasting a nationwide "witch hunt" in the U.S. prompted by an expanded "hate crimes" law signed by President Obama.Gerald Chipeur, who supervises law offices across Canada, worked from his Calgary headquarters on the defense of Boissoin, who was accused by a university professor of instigating hate against homosexuals with his letter to the editor.
As WND reported, an appellate court in Canada recently reversed the decision by an administrative judge that Boissoin was to pay $5,000 and give a written apology to the professor.
How many ways could this be utterly illogical? Let us count the ways.
First of all, the Boissoin case took place in Canada, not the United States. The US does not have hate speech laws; Canada does. The US has this thing called the First Amendment, which would strike down any hate speech law even if one was passed; Canada doesn't. But despite that, the Canadian courts still overturned his conviction.
So the one example on which they're basing this dystopic fantasy is from another country, could not happen here and didn't even end up happening in that country, for crying out loud.
And of course, there is the conflation of hate crimes and hate speech. The hate crimes bill that just passed does not define any new crime that is not already a crime. All it does is authorize the federal government to help state and local law enforcement through grants and joint investigations in cases where local resources may not be enough. That's it.
Nor does it criminalize speech in any way. A violent crime has to have been committed before the law kicks in at all. If a violent crime has been committed and there is evidence that it was motivated by bias or hatred based on the usual factors (race, religion, sexual preference, etc), then and only then does the law kick in. And then it only allows the federal government to assist state and local governments in investigating what is already against the law currently. Nothing that was not a crime before the bill is a crime after the bill. And speech, no matter how hateful, is not a crime before or after the bill. And the bill even includes an explicit exemption for religious speech:
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
As usual, the right wing is flat out lying about what the bill does. And they're doing so for a specific reason, to create unjustified fear in the minds of their followers and demonize their opponents.
I am as staunch an opponent of hate speech codes as you will ever find. I stood up for Boissoin for years despite his repulsive beliefs. But hate speech laws and hate crimes laws are not the same thing. And the US isn't Canada.
Politics
Comments
I would like to announce the formation of a new charity, CPFW (Cocoa Puffs For Wingnuts). Our goal is to supply wingnuts with a steady supply of free Cocoa Puffs so that they may finally break the circle of cuckoo that seems to have afflicted so many. For less than the price of a cup of coffee a day you can lend a hand to someone in desperate need. Please help.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 15, 2009 9:41 AM
From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Can we please stop this myth in the US that Canada and many other countries don't have something equivalent to the first amendment. Its not true and it stinks of American exceptionalism.
However we can criticize the courts for not holding to the consititution strongly enough in various things including hate speech laws, which I find do not accomplish anything useful enough to justify their restrictions on free expression.
But such criticisms of weakness in constitutional judgements can also apply to US courts in various areas of US law.
This does not mean I think the Canadian constitution is perfect. I detest the not-withstanding clause, rarely used as it is. But I can't stand claims of exceptionalism of the rights provided by the US constitution.
End rant.
Posted by: Fuzzy K | December 15, 2009 10:20 AM
For the record, the only case I know of that the government is currently even contemplating using the newly expanded hate crimes statute is that of Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado, a 19-year-old resident of Puerto Rico, whose burned and dismembered body was found a few weeks ago. Who exactly is the target of this "Inquisition"?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | December 15, 2009 10:34 AM
Hitchen's discussion of hate speech laws in Canada is still probably one of his best talk ever.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603#
Posted by: Copernic | December 15, 2009 10:39 AM
I think you're misusing the phrase "American exceptionalism," which is an idea that means that America is exceptional in every conceivable way and infinitely better than any other nation that has ever existed. That's too stupid to take seriously. And it's not the same thing as merely pointing out that we might be better in one area while other nations are better in others.
Yes, I am well aware that Canada has a similar guarantee of free speech. The problem is that it has never had the relative importance that the First Amendment has in the United States and it is contradicted by other laws in place that allow people to bring others up before tribunals solely over speech that offends them. The Boissoin case ultimately turned out the right way, but the mere existence of "human rights" tribunals that can be used to punish speech that one finds offensive is clearly contradictory to any guarantee of free speech.
That doesn't mean America is perfect in our defense of free speech, of course. But the courts have for many decades been very zealous in maximizing the protections for free speech, striking down attempts to censor even the most appalling and repulsive instances (such as the Nazis marching in Skokie or the burning of a cross on the lawn of a black family in RAV v St. Paul). I think we really do put more of an emphasis on free speech when it comes to allowing bigotry to be expressed - and I regard this as a very good thing, not a bad thing.
That doesn't mean America is perfect; I spend the bulk of my time on this blog criticizing my government's violations of human rights, after all. Canada is far ahead of the US on a great many things, including things like equality for gays and lesbians, which I care about very much.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 15, 2009 10:51 AM
Usually when I encounter a statement like:
The US has this thing called the First Amendment, ...; Canada doesn't.
its part of a American exceptionalist screed (this is my personal experience, your mileage may vary). That said, from your comment I understand now what it is you were trying to say and agree with it. I would just prefer you could have said it as well in the your original blog post as you did in your comment.
Without being able to see exactly what you were thinking the statement
The US has this thing called the First Amendment, which would strike down any hate speech law even if one was passed; Canada doesn't.Isn't accurate, I think you needed to indicate that you meant lack of zealous protection from the current courts in Canada, because the above statement reads as if there is no kind of constitution protection at all.
Posted by: Fuzzy K | December 15, 2009 11:11 AM
They're going after hate crime now? Soon we wont have any freedoms left.
If they go after Lovecrime then I'm gonna flip my shit. Oh wait. They did for like a thousand years. They called it the inquisition. That's where a bunch of Holy men crammed baroque devices into the rear ends of young men to "punish" them for being homosexual (among other offenses).
What a weirdly ironic world we live in. An inquisition against the believers? Everyday the republicans seem more and more irrational. It's crazy that they ever had as much political power as they did, and frightening that they could get it back.
Posted by: Brain | December 15, 2009 1:04 PM
Ed Brayton: "But the courts have for many decades been very zealous in maximizing the protections for free speech, striking down attempts to censor even the most appalling and repulsive instances (such as the Nazis marching in Skokie or the burning of a cross on the lawn of a black family in RAV v St. Paul)."
Wait, shouldn't the burning of a cross on a lawn take place on private property, thus not counting as protected speech?
Posted by: Funnyguts | December 15, 2009 1:44 PM
Funnyguts-
It's an odd ruling. They said that the actions could be prosecuted as a property crime such as trespassing, or as a violation of the fire code, but not for the content of the message being sent.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 15, 2009 1:59 PM
Posted by: Scott Simmons | December 15, 2009 2:03 PM
Ed, if I'm remembering that case correctly, it could have even been prosecuted as assault for threatening the residents, but the law he was charged under specifically banned croos-burning, which you can't do and the statute of limitations was up by the time it hit the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | December 15, 2009 3:26 PM
Once again, Brayton, WHO CARES? It's not like these cavemen would have more of a point if they were about to be thrown in jail. They get what they deserve. In this female-dominated day and age, encouraging heterosexual families to such a degree is worse than beating up a homo.
Posted by: Bro | December 15, 2009 4:30 PM
Bro-
I care, because I care about freedom enough to defend it even for those whose views I despise. If you don't care, feel free to fuck off.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 15, 2009 6:04 PM
Wait... What?
Posted by: DaveL | December 15, 2009 6:23 PM
Female dominated? Care to define this? Major corporate and public leadership positions are held by men. Majority of material wealth, controlled by men. High level research and university positions, dominated by men. So please, characterize this, and remember this is coming from the guy who was shredded for using the word "girl" as a negative reference a couple of days ago.
Second, how does "encouraging heterosexual families" have anything to do with this? How does protecting people from violent crime and providing additional funding to assist local law enforcement in their efforts to protect people from violent crime have anything to do with heterosexual families? What do gay people have to do with heterosexual families?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 15, 2009 6:25 PM
Going off of his comment in the context of the original entry, Bro seems to define a "female-dominated day and age" as one in which women have any right to autonomy, and "encouraging heterosexual families" as the right to terrorize (and possibly murder) gays.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 15, 2009 6:29 PM
Wow--bringing back the Inquisition.
Nobody would expect that.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 15, 2009 7:36 PM
Did he get the Comfy Chair?
Posted by: Badger3k | December 15, 2009 9:39 PM
It's scary that Democrats have so much political power, and could hold on to in 2010. These are the same people that have no respect for science, Obama, the leader of your party, shut down Yucca mountain because it's not safe? No re-processing because it leads to nuclear weapons? What happened to science? These people are denying us something that we know could switch our entire energy grid over to be carbon free - how irresponsible!
Oh wait, we are attacking Republicans here, for disagreeing with a hate crime law. A hate crime law which only applies to hate crimes perpetrated against minorities. If a Latino kills a white person because he hates white people, it would not be prosecuted as a hate crime (according to Erik Holder). It seems to me, a persons life should be valued equally regardless of race. This law, as the Obama administration interprets it, does not. Of course, you don't even consider that point, you just jump on the least informed most extreme amongst your opposition, because it's an easy rhetorical point, just as Rush Limbaugh does. You guys are blind partisans as well, you just happen to be cheerleaders for the opposite team.
Sure, the people you cite saying this is an attack on free speech are engaging in silly hyperbole! But that's hardly a quality unique to Republicans. Over the last eight years we heard constantly about Bush's attacks on the first amendment, or how the patriot act was the road to fascism (never mind that Obama renewed the patriot act, who cares about such details). That military tribunals were a travesty of justice contrary to American ideals (never mind they were used in WW2), never mind as well that Obama continued them as well.
Posted by: Bruce | December 15, 2009 10:41 PM
A more general point, if we're going to consider the intersection of politics, science and culture war, what about Ted Kennedy and other Democrats crusade against vaccination? That is actually at risk of killing people. Unlike the teaching of evolution alongside intelligent design at some backwards Texas school districts (where other states have already said they will not use the Texas school books, so the argument about it being a national risk is so much BS). Curiously, I never hear much about Bill Mayer and other liberals war against vaccines, guess the real point here is the election of Democrats? If so, move over to DailyKOS.com (which is a fine place) or Democratic Underground, and be open in your goals.
Posted by: Bruce | December 15, 2009 10:49 PM
Bruce - you are really whipping those strawmen in your head. Man are you tough; I'm really scared. I had no idea Bill Maher (not Mayer) spoke for science-advocates and liberals regarding vaccinations, especially since nearly every kid in our town got vaccinated this year for H1N1. I guess our town's liberals snuck one past him for some reason.
Bruce, are you a creationist or a so-called intelligent design advocate?
Do you accept the general findings reported in the latest IPCC report on climate change?
Have you ever studied up on the types of rhetorical fallacies used by those dependent on them in lieu of cogent arguments? If so, can you count how many are in your post? How many do you count? How many do you count in mine? I'll give you a hint; there's more than zero given I found no rational reason to directly rebut all your points.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 15, 2009 11:01 PM
Bruce, are you a creationist or a so-called intelligent design advocate?
Do you accept the general findings reported in the latest IPCC report on climate change?
Nice straw-men, intelligent design, creationism, climate denial. Very impressive. I can't deny you have a monopoly on straw men.
No, I'm not arguing Bill Maher speaks for science advocates, but I'm wondering how this fringe article on world net daily (itself a fringe website with a smaller number readers then Daily KOS which itself has many anti-science diaries) represents Republicans any more then Bill Maher does. There are many posts here which attack various fringe right wing groups, with little mention of mainstream anti-science positions of Democrats, such as their opposition to nuclear power or the large number of elected democrats who demonstrate anti-vaccine bias.
Bill Maher is more worthy of an attack, given the number of his followers, then this world net daily article is. Yet I see no mention of him here. Hence my conclusion: Many blogs here are political push blogs with a secondary concern for science. At the least, they are not equal opportunity.
Bruce - you are really whipping those strawmen in your head. Man are you tough; I'm really scared. I had no idea Bill Maher (not Mayer) spoke for science-advocates and liberals regarding vaccinations, especially since nearly every kid in our town got vaccinated this year for H1N1. I guess our town's liberals snuck one past him for some reason.
That's good to hear, must be different there, unlike NY state where 25% of health workers say they will not get H1N1 vaccine. Obviously, your anecdotal story about all the kids having gotten the vaccine far outweighs empirical evidence to the contrary. In other news, my family in Texas uses a biology book that teaches evolution, obviously all these worries about intelligent design being taught in school is really not a problem after all. :)
Posted by: Bruce | December 15, 2009 11:14 PM
Bruce:
Political thought is inherently anti-scientific. I don't like it any more than you do, but politicians are driven by incentives to consider what is popular, not what is true (or most likely to be true).
The Democrats suck. The Republicans also suck. I don't have a solution to this problem.
Posted by: James K | December 15, 2009 11:19 PM
Political thought is inherently anti-scientific. I don't like it any more than you do, but politicians are driven by incentives to consider what is popular, not what is true (or most likely to be true).
The Democrats suck. The Republicans also suck. I don't have a solution to this problem.
True that. I just have a problem with people here who see Democrats as a panacea, but don't hold them accountable for their anti-science energy policy (nuclear scaremongering) and irresponsible endorsement of various pseudo science junk like vaccine paranoia.
Posted by: Bruce | December 15, 2009 11:55 PM
Bruce,
Quite simply, take a browse through the archives here. You'll find that Ed certainly excoriates some low-hanging fruit (WND, that Pat guy, etc), but you'll see that he also doesn't let Obama and any number of Democrats off the hook when they act like idiots or Republicans.
Once you're done, please feel free to return here and halt your attempt at hijacking this thread with your straw-men insults directed at Ed and his readership.
Posted by: sinned34 | December 16, 2009 12:03 AM
Bruce wrote:
I can't imagine what the fuck this has to do with me. I've been blasting Obama on this blog from the moment he took office for his use of the state secrets privilege, his support for renewing the Patriot Act, his flip flop on the FISA bill last year, his continued use of the same anti-4th amendment surveillance tactics, his refusal to reverse Bush policies on transparency, his fevered work to prevent access to the courts by victims of the government and many other issues. You're arguing with the Ed in your head, not the real me. I am the last person who can be accused of applying different standards to Obama and the Democrats than to Republicans.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 12:54 AM
The plain text of the law says no such thing, and it's hard to see how a court could manage to interpret it that way.
Cite?
Posted by: DaveL | December 16, 2009 5:56 AM
DaveL:
The citation is another WND article which cites Rush's analysis of an exchange between AG Holder and Sen. Sessions - of course that's not what AG Holder said or even implied.
Bruce's analysis equally misstates the law. White people (a race) and Christianity (a religion) are as equally protect as any other race or religion. The problem with Sen. Sessions' question was he placed the perpetrator and victim in "opposing" groups but said nothing as to the motivation for any crime being committed; actually he implied the motivation was something that was said, rather than it being membership in a protected group. AG Holder even tried to clarify that point. Bruce at least made an attempt to say the Latino is motivated to murder because of the victim's race - which would be covered.
Ed: What are your thoughts as to the idea that if WND and others continue to misrepresent the hate speech-hate crime issue, we'll actually benefit from a reduction in hate speech? In effect, a self-imposed gag order...to escape something that doesn't exist?
Posted by: NABCN | December 16, 2009 9:08 AM
Bruce,
This is another strawman argument for two key reasons.
First, the Democrats aren't seen as a panacea here by any stretch of the imagination. I would argue that many, if not most, of the liberals here aren't members of the Democratic party and that the majority who do vote Democrat do so because the alternative to a bad Democrat is a worse Republican. Personally I see Obama as president along the lines of being shot in the foot versus being shot in the groin. I'm not really happy that we don't have an actual progressive agenda or administration, but I'll take what we've got over how bad it could have been.
Second, the policy positions you claim are "democratic" aren't official party or administration platforms. You do have liberals who are completely anti-nuclear and anti-vaccine, but those aren't the official positions of the party. On the other hand the idiocy of the WND crowd is increasingly becoming indistinguishable from official GOP platform/policy positions. When you have the House leadership for one of the parties actually giving speeches and supporting the Tea-Party idiots on the foot of the capital building, you have a problem. When the Democratic leadership is openly, actively giving speeches supporting fringe elements of liberal movements, then we can make a legitimate argument that they've both gone nuts, until then the Democrats are marginally, note I said marginally, better than the Republicans.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 16, 2009 3:45 PM
At the risk of being accused of portraying the Democrats as a "panacea", I would just point out that there are degrees of suckiness.
The statement "The earth is flat" is incorrect. The statement "The earth is a sphere" is also incorrect. You don't have a solution to that problem? I do: The Earth is far more sphere-like than plane-like, and if I need to explain the shape of the Earth to someone who doesn't understand the words "oblate spheroid", I'm not going to just flip a coin and say "flat" or "sphere" on a whim, I'm going with sphere. Every time.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 16, 2009 3:50 PM
Right. The Democrats are the less of two evils.
Global warming is a serious problem, and we have just elected a man who for all practical purposes opposes the one thing that could provide us CO2 free energy: Nuclear power. Instead, he is entrenching traditional fossil fuels while giving them a veneer of being clean by putting up a few wind mills and some solar panels that amount to a rounding error in energy production.
But, at least he doesn't maybe kind of favor teaching intelligent design in schools. Whew, what a relief! You people surely do have your priorities straight!
the idiocy of the WND crowd is increasingly becoming indistinguishable from official GOP platform/policy positions
So, the GOP platform is that Obama is bringing back the inquisitions? Oh wait, nope. On the other hand, the worst sort of anti-nuclear scaremongering and pie in the sky anti-war utopian dreams are actually part of the Democratic parties platform. Eg. a world without nuclear weapons (Obama) or a belief that Yucca mountain is not a safe repository for nuclear waste.
Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2009 4:17 AM
You're arguing with the Ed in your head, not the real me. I am the last person who can be accused of applying different standards to Obama and the Democrats than to Republicans.
Nope. I'm arguing with you. You might take him to task for those things now, but where were you taking him to task for his clear anti-science positions during the campaign. You took Palin to task for her anti-science church, but ignored Obama's. You never take the Democrats to task for their clearly anti-science energy policy, which distorts the reality of Yucca mountain, the safety of nuclear energy and the (non) practicality of "renewable" energy. In short, you are a partisan.
I should have noticed earlier, you were an attendee at YearlyKOS. Nothing wrong with that, I'm a Democrat as well and favor UHC. But it annoys me when people pretend to be motivated by a pure concern for science, when what it really comes down to are social and economic issues. It muddies the water.
Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2009 4:24 AM
Ah ok, after looking around at more blogs here, I realize this place is not really science blogs, but blogs with science. It's more a collection of people pushing their political biases with some science thrown in, rather then blogging about science with some politics thrown in. In the latter case, there would be a point in arguing. But in the former it would be a waste of your and my time. You have your agenda, I'm not about to change it.
Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2009 4:57 AM
Bruce's analysis equally misstates the law. White people (a race) and Christianity (a religion) are as equally protect as any other race or religion. The problem with Sen. Sessions' question was he placed the perpetrator and victim in "opposing" groups but said nothing as to the motivation for any crime being committed; actually he implied the motivation was something that was said, rather than it being membership in a protected group. AG Holder even tried to clarify that point. Bruce at least made an attempt to say the Latino is motivated to murder because of the victim's race - which would be covered.
Sessions question may have not been clear enough, but Holder's answer was:
"people who have a history of being discriminated against... there is a historic basis to show that groups of people are attacked are targeted because of who they are"
Furthermore, he also lists various minorities which he feels are potentially covered by this. And Eric Holder is no minor person either, he's the attorney general, so I'll respect his opinion when it comes to the interpretation and intent of this law. Don't take my word for it, listen to Holder, he is clear enough (relevant portion is around minute 70):
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3943
Perhaps history of such crimes does not matter. But Holder does think that such a "history" must exist for a hate crime to be judged as such and therefore a crime against a white person would not qualify as a hate crime. Anyway, your debate is with him, not with me.
Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2009 5:32 AM