My partner-in-blogging, Jason Kuznicki, has posted yet another reminder of why I think his voice is such a vital one. In a long and brilliant essay he takes on many subjects related to gay rights and equality. In the process, he hits on the situation in Canada with Stephen Boissoin, an anti-gay minister who is up on human rights charges. Jason, as always, stands on principle:
Look, I'm as gay as they get. And I'm even an atheist. Yet all the same, I have to feel sympathy for the guy. Something terribly wrong is being done to him-even while, yes, he really is saying something that I find terribly wrong. Neither point should ever obscure the other; the freedom to be offended implies the freedom to offensive, and vice versa.
To my gay friends: It's nothing personal. It's just that the freedoms of conscience and of speech are the foundations of your rights, too. Once, not so long ago, your speech was generally thought every bit as loathsome as Mr. Boissoin's is today. And because my loyalties, my deepest and most profound loyalties, are with the system of free inquiry and free self-discovery, I must support him even as I have supported you. I daresay I'm even doing you a service...
We've seen his kind before. The way to deal with them is not prosecution, but mere civic ridicule, which gives them all of the scant dignity that they deserve. Back when Anita Bryant came peddling this stuff, it almost made sense. But now, with gays and lesbians raising more children than ever before, the best way to fight Mr. Boissoin might simply be for gay and lesbian parents to speak up against him. Perhaps one fine Sunday morning they could show up at his church in droves-and pray (another "democratic right") that he change his views.
Hate-crimes laws, and all solutions like them, are wrong, but not because the conduct they penalize is good or legitimate. These laws are wrong because they short-circuit the process of discovering what loathsome is; they are wrong because they isolate us from it and thereby weaken the defenders of the good. They are a shortcut that seeks to obtain the results of muddling through, in little victories here and there, without ever having to fight the fight at all, at least not properly speaking.
If it's a question of either turning back the clock or legislating that all must instantly think in the way that I now do-well, I'll take the third option every time. And quietly, hopefully, I'll change the world.
He's right. Those who think they are gaining something by giving government the power to punish speech they don't like are fooling themselves, especially when their views and lifestyle are considered anathema by such a substantial portion of the population. We live in a nation where state governments openly consider whether to ban books by gay authors. Give government the power to punish offensive speech and it is more likely to be used against gays than against those who are anti-gay. That's why gay people, of all people, should be standing on the principle of freedom of conscience, no matter how painful it may be to see it used in hurtful ways. If you put someone else's freedom of speech at risk in this manner, you surely put your own at risk as well.
- Log in to post comments
Similar incidents and reaction at the University of Virginia.
I left a comment over at Jason's web site and I won't repeat it here. The Boissoin case occurred in Canada. As the Germans would say, Andere Laender, andere Sitten: other countries, other practices. I do not understand the apparent conflation of Canadian practices with US practices.
Doesn't matter raj.
This kind of repression of speech freedom (even if aimed at reprehensible ignorant ranting) is not acceptible for any country. The laws are different, the history is different, but the principles are universal.
And that is speaking as a Canadian.
raj wrote:
There is no conflation going on here. No one has suggested that it's not happening in Canada. But that has nothing at all to do with the argument being made by either Jason or me. The principle of freedom of conscience does not stop at lines drawn on a map, it is universal.
Dave S. at October 18, 2005 01:59 PM
And that is speaking as a Canadian.
Then you are in a position to try to get the Canadian law changed. Good luck.
I don't know the details of this case, but more than a few Western countries have laws against incitement. They may call them by different terms. In the US they may be "disorderly conduct." In Germany (another country with which I am familiar) they are referred to as Volksverhetzung." Freedom of speech wherever and whenever has never been a right, not even in the US. I will merely cite you the 1787 Alien&Sedition acts, which were an obvious violation of the US Constitution's 1st amendment. I will also cite you the cases of US v. Schenck and US v. Frohwerk, which were obvious violations of that amendment.
Unlike the case that is being referred to here, the Schenck and Frohwerk cases were not "incitement" to potential violence against a potentially despised minority--gay people. The cases merely re-affirmed that the US government could limit not only speech (Schenck), but also the press (Frohwerk). The US's "holier than thow" attitude in regards cases like this is becoming quite grating. Perhaps the US should clean up its own act before it regales against others.
raj wrote:
raj, I'm not "the US"; I'm me. And I'm just as critical of my own country when it violates this principle as I am of any other country. I only have to be consistent with myself, for crying out loud, not with someone else.
I commented before on this situation - it may have been on another blog. Forgive me, I ve got a 57 year old brain.
The letter was pretty disgusting, and i must say, I have some empathy towards prosecuting this case, even though it goes against my core values. What I can t understand is why the newspaper which printed this letter is not facing the same music. After all, the editor selects the letters to be printed, he or she should have a much better idea of what statements are hateful in the eyes of the law, and the offense appears to be dissemination of these comments, which would be the newspaper is doing, not the author. Basically, this human rights legislation has good intentions, however, according to the old cliche, I could have a kick-ass skateboard ride to a nice warm all-inclusive this winter if I so decided...
Ed Brayton at October 18, 2005 08:02 PM
Ed, I know, you are you. I did not suggest otherwise. But the people who seem to be complaining about the Canadian case appear to be USians (Americans).
But the USians' "holier than thou" responses seems to portray the thought that the US really does have freedom of speech and of the press. Sorry, but the USians have a long way to go to prove that. NB: I only learned a couple of days ago that the NYTimes company has broadcast licenses. Who do they have to kow-tow to to maintain those licenses? You would be correct if you mentioned "the Federal Communications Commission" another Republican dominated body.
Point: if you don't want to dismiss them out of hand (I pretty much do) be very, very skeptical of what they produce. I get most of my news from foreign sources, who are not obviously beholden to the US FedGov.
I'm actually surprised at the dearth of comment in the US media about the Volksverhetzung attack by a far right-wing political party in Berlin in the last mayoral election.
Then you are in a position to try to get the Canadian law changed. Good luck.
Yes I am, and I have. Thanks.
I don't know the details of this case, but more than a few Western countries have laws against incitement.
This law is a little more vague than that, IMO.
You can read the actual text HERE
I understand the intent, and I agree it is well meaning. But in my opinion it, and in particular Article 319, just goes a little too far. Others may not agree.
raj wrote:
Many Canadians are complaining about the law too, and they are right to do so. I find this attitude baffling, as if somehow the truth changes when a border is crossed. The only thing I care about is whether what I say is true and valid. If what I say would be true if I was a Canadian, then it's also true when I'm an American. Evaluate arguments and ideas, not the status of the person making them. I am as justified in criticizing the Canadian government for violating someone's rights as I am in criticizing the Iranian government for executing a bunch of gay teenagers a few months ago. Because those actions are wrong. Period. The wrongness has nothing at all to do with my nationality, it has only to do with their actions.
"But the USians' "holier than thou" responses seems to portray the thought that the US really does have freedom of speech and of the press."
And what country should the US aspire to emulate as far as freedom of speech?
It's hardly 'holier than thou' to point out violations of freedom of speech in other countries even if the US is not perfect. Are Americans holier than thou when they point out the lack of basic rights for women in certain countries because the US for example still has a gender gap for wages between men and women with equal jobs and is not perfect? Nowhere in the posts did I see 'Canada should be more like the US'.
I think the points from Ed and Jason stand on their own. I at least didn't say to myself, wait a minute, Ed's an American so he's 'regaling'. I assume that by the same 'logic' that Americans shouldn't have been so holier than thou in donating money to the tsunami victims; surely we could have spent that money on hungry and homeless people in our own country. Yeesh.
satire and parody notwithstanding-- Isn't it nice how we citizens of the US have coopted the entire Western Hemisphere as our own by claiming we are the only americans; not even those damned Canadians can be amerikans. Be that as it may:
The Nazi White Supremicist rally in Ohio this past weekend called into question a number of these concepts. A state entity(state in the generic government sense) issued a permit to allow in essence hate and prejudice to be spewed on a local population inciting to a certain extent the subsequent riot. Should the state have issued the permit?? Yes of course, for to silence speech violates our most basic of rights. Should the state have redirected the rally to be held in a different location?? Maybe, in that the freedom of speech would have been protected, and the right to assemble still upheld, just in a less dangerous and less visible location. But that might also be understood to be restricting of the rights of those who wished to show their personal inhumanity, it is a tough call isn't it.
I read the applicable Canadian statute from the link posted by Dave S. It does, indeed, appear to be something of an "incitement" statute. That is not unusual, even in the US. The Canadian law may be applied a bit more broadly than you might like, but the fact is that it appears to be an "incitement" statute. Just look at the first paragraph of section 319.
BTW, the incitement isn't regarding "hatred against any identfiable group," it is "where such incitement is likely to lead to breach of the peace."
On another matter: Ed, you can feel free to opine on any subject that you wish to, and I'm sure that you will. I've posted on other web sites, also occupied by Canadians, who prefer the current situation there. My point regarding the US is that the US should clean up its own act, which it hasn't done, before preaching to others..
Regarding Spyder's point, if people just ignored the American Nazi marchers in Toledo, they would probably eventually just go away. It's the same thing as Skokie IL a number of years ago. The American Nazis had some 30 marchers. It is the several thousand protesters yelling and screeming that brings in the press. If the 30 marchers were ignored, it is likely that eventually that the press would ignore them, and that the Nazis would just stop doing this silliness. Actually, it makes me wonder whether the American Nazis bring in protesters to protest their parades so that they will get press attention..
raj wrote:
But this still isn't "the US" preaching to anyone. It's me. And I'm consistent in my criticism, of my own country or any other. When "the US" has a blog, it might be appropriate to remind them, whoever they are, of their own hypocrisy.
Ed Brayton at October 20, 2005 11:31 AM
Sorry, Ed, I know that you are you. But US based religious-supplied lawyers are backing the people in Alberta Canada. This isn't the first time it has happened in Alberta, either.
A few years ago, there was a case in Alberta in which a conservative protestant minister was sanctioned for (as the US news media put it) erecting billboards that had quotations from the bible against homosexuals. As it turned out, the full story was that the billboards also had graphics that suggested that homosexuals should be killed. And that was what he was sanctioned for.
Don't believe everything that you read in American media.
raj wrote:
But if those lawyers are right about the issue - and they are - that's all that matters. Just like the fact that I'm right about the issue is all that matters, not what country I was born in. Truth matters, raj, not birthplace.
Do you really think that I do? There is no ambiguity here. I've read the letter that was published. While I find it ridiculous and offensive, there is nothing in it that should trigger anything more than derision and mockery. It's not an incitement to riot or injure anyone, it's not even close. And those facts - again - are entirely independent of where I was born, where it was published, what color paper it was printed on and what I had for breakfast this morning. The only consideration that matters is whether my statements about it are true. And they are.
But if those lawyers are right about the issue - and they are - that's all that matters.
Ed, lawyers are advocates for their clients' positions. It appears that lawyers have started putting out press releases into the public sphere to try to sway public opinion. In so doing, they often omit certain facts that might be detrimental to their client's case, and that is certainly the case in the earlier Alberta case that I mentioned.
Don't believe everything in a newspaper report based on a press release by a lawyer.
NB: It should be evident that US newspaper reporters have gotten very lazy, and are little more than conduits for press releases from interested parties.
raj-
For the 400th time, this has nothing to do with press releases or newspaper reports. I've SEEN the letter that was published. I have a copy of it, exactly as it was published. That's all I need to form my considered opinion that any threat of government punishment for writing that letter is oppression, plain and simple.