Originally written by John Bunch on June 6, 2008 5:28 PM Thank God for the U.S. Constitution and 1st Amendment !

Yup. As Noam says, the US has the most free press in the world. His opinion on France: Post #124548.

Jacek

It depends on what you mean by "free" as well as by "press."  The mainstream press (e.g. New York Times and CNN) is largely free from official governmental interference, but it is largely controlled by narrow corporate interests who dramaticly restrict what is covered and the range of opinions presented.

But more importantly, "freedom of the press" is only one aspect of the more expansive concpet of "freedom of expression," which includes, among other things, the right to express oneself in art.  In that respect, the U.S. is one of the MOST restrictive of western countries, as works which address sex or eroticism are subject to many constraints that inhibit creativity.  Countries such as the Netherlands and Germany allow a wider range of artistic expression.

Not the mainstream press; the press I mostly quote from.

"freedom of expression," .... In that respect, the U.S. is one of the MOST restrictive of western countries,

Yes.

Jacek

As for walking with a beer, what you say is true for most American cities, but not in New Orleans, or at least in the French Quarter, (and at least before Katrina hit).

Several problems arise with your differentiation between the print medium and "public artistic speech."  First, you introduced an element of publicness that I did not include; American law censors artistic speech even when made in private for private consumption.  And the "press" is also curtailed on the argumetn that it is foisted upon the public; broadcast television and radio (which is treated as "the press") is censored on the theory that people can unwittingly tune in to offensive material (the Supreme Court held this in a case in which it upheld a fine against a radio station which had aired George Carlin's famous "Seven Dirty Words" bit).

Even more fundamentally, however, is I think you miss the point that free speech is not limited to the press; in fact those are two separate freedoms, and both of which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...").  Note that "freedom of speech"is something different from, and seems to have priority to, freedom of the press.

Art is perhaps the most important field of human expression, for it is there that our humanity can most accurately and movingly be revealed.  Great works of art can echo through the ages, whereas very few newspaper articles are remembered.  And ultimately, there can be no free political speech if there is no free artistic speech.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 6, 2008 11:28 AM The Brigitte Bardot case in France is similar: fines for words. Are we in the West heading toward totalitarian rule (even if it is in a softer form than the USSR with its gulags) ? Will free speech in future be a thing of the past ? It appears that in Canada and France, it already is. Thank God for the U.S. Constitution and 1st Amendment !

John,

I posted a similar article about Internet restrictions in the name of 'common good', it is in French and can be found here. Curiously enough, I also dared to compare these 'vacuum-cleaning' regulations to Stalinism.

It looks like we're heading for a Western society directed by some ilk of political hypercorrectness, the question being: Who will control the controllers? or, more correctly: To whom will the crime benefit?

Laurent K. 

Originally written by John Bunch on June 6, 2008 5:08 PM "The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson The only way to beat political correctness and ridiculous puritanism on both the right and the left is to: a. Vote and vote for candidates and judges who will fight it ...

A big problem is that there are very few candidates who do this, and even fewer who win.  The problem with most Americans, and most people, is that they don't really believe in freedom in the abstract sense, but rather believe in freedom for themselves and suppression (or even enslavement or imprisonment) of others; Mr. Jefferson was certainly an archetypal figure in this regard, as he wanted to be free from the obligation to pay a share of his income to the British, but wanted to generate that income through the forced labor of his slaves.

John, could you bring to the table an intelligently written article that actually says something?  If you take out the adjectives and hyperbole we're left with this:

A writer wrote a book.  People of an ethnic group felt targeted and filed a complaint, which is their legal right.  The court is obligated to investigage the complaint. That's what happens in democracies.

I have no idea what the man wrote, what the objections were.  The nature of the plaintifs should not matter, and words like "radical" are immaterial.  If someone is a victim then he is a victim regardless of who he is.  Murder of a premier, prince, prostitute, priest, painter is murder.

I generally don't read the Ottawa Citizen.  I don't have time to do the research. Would you care to do so before you attack my country again?

Good heavens, man - there hasn't even been a ruling yet!

Maxi

"Are we in the West heading toward totalitarian rule?"

I believe we are. Britain is heading the same way, and for the same reason: the insistence of immigrant Moslem communities that they be considered to be above the law of the land. Recently, two Christians handing out religious leaflets in what is referred to by some people as a 'Moslem area of Birmingham' (I prefer to think of it as a British area of Birmingham) were warned off by a Moslem 'police community support officer' (!), who effectively threatened them, saying that if they were attacked 'it would be their fault'.

There is no freedom of speech in what are now Moslem no-go parts of Britain. And this is only one example.

Please don't pay too much attention to the usual sniping at the USA from the usual suspects on this site. Their bias and agenda is very well known to most of us. You and I know that the USA is the best bulwark, perhaps the only bulwark, the West has against totalitarian rule.

The idea that freedom of speech and human rights are mutually exclusive can only come from a hard-line communist or islamist or suchlike. The two go hand in hand. When one goes, the other follows. The human rights of free people in the West are disappearing under a tidal wave of suppression of free speech.

"being in Gibraltar (souther Spain)"

Err ... Gibraltar is not in Spain. It is British. 

I've lived in Canada or the United States most of my life. So, I'm reasonably familiar with the culture and the political climate.

On my way to the Philadelphia Flower show, I noticed a huge banner hung from the Philadelphia Museum of Art: FIGHT FOR PEACE

Can you fight for peace?

I prefer the bumper sticker I bought at the Yardley Friends' Meeting House.

THINK PEACE

Nanna

Is this just the same old, same old, or ?

From a June 5 online posting attributed to Mustafa Abu al-Yazid:

"This is what has been promised by Sheikh Osama bin Laden when he said, "If there is no control of your press freedom, so let your hearts be open to our acts of freedom. The answer is what you see, not what you hear, and many of our mothers will grief for us if we do not help the messenger of Allah (peace and blessings for him) '.

Yes you can, and sometimes you have to,

although it is as paradox as starting one fire to stop another one.

Nevertheless, you don't see firemen running around with matches..

1. Peace can be a state of harmony or the absence of hostility.
2. "Peace" can also be a non-violent way of life.
3. "Peace" is used to describe the cessation of violent conflict.
4. Peace can mean a state of quiet or tranquility — an absence of disturbance or agitation.
5. Peace can also describe a relationship between any people characterized by respect, justice, and goodwill.
6. Peace can describe calmness, serenity, and silence.

Such an idea can ONLY come from such a source?  Have you asked all of the planet's six billion inhabitants in order to conclude this?  The world has a greater diversity of thought than is dreamt of in your apparent absolutist philosophy.

Yes, I am certain that it could be described thus in the Tao.

From the American Friends Service Committee http://www.afsc.org/about/default.htm

"We recognize the grievous harm done to societies who come to rely upon the use of force to solve their problems, as well as the damage done to those they attempt to coerce. "

------

Nanna

So the concept that all concepts are merely illusions must be an illusion, too.

Hence it is too contradictory to make sense, so it is probably wrong,

while peace is not necessarily an illusion..

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo  I`m a Dodo!

I thought you guys were extinct!  Glad to have you back.

But even on our own level of illusions, isn't the world full of contradictions?  Everyone I know has contradictory aspects of their behavior.  More fundamentally, every notion must be contradicted, otherwise it can not exist (again, in our illusory world).  To posit the existence of "X" is to simultaneously posit "not X."  If something cannot be contradicted, it cannot be noticed to begin with and cannot be conceived of.

A bit of Zen for a Saturday morning.

Maxi, in your view...

John, I have no view because I have no facts.  You have given a link to an adjective-ridden article that describes the issues thus:

Somebody wrote a book.

Maxi

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on June 7, 2008 12:53 PM Originally written by David Kallans To posit the existence of "X" is to simultaneously posit "not X." To posit the existence of "X" is to simultaneously posit the possibility of "not X". It would not make sense to posit anything which would obviously be self-contradictory.

We obviously have fundamental differences with regards to metaphysics - or rather I would say there is the illusion that we do   I would also say that there is no distinction between the existence of X and the possibility of the existence of X, as all possible things exist in the universe, much in the same way that in physics all possible positions of an electron are obtained, even though at any one time we can only see one of them.

But I am afraid I now have the illusion that we are seriously off-topic.

Hold that thought!

Does Stuff Exist, Or Not?

Schrodinger Said:

"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid.

[…]

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html

or for those of you interested in Quantum Mechanics

Nanna

Originally written by John Bunch on June 7, 2008 12:04 AM I have heard this argument many, many times....

John,

If this is true, unless you are paid to say all this as a PR job, you seem not to have made much progress in alternative thinking about whether Roman war maxims of a few thousand years ago are necessarily the only option today and thus should be applied unchanged to our 21^st c. world. Did you see our discussion about how contemporary views on power may differ from the 16^th c. ones (Post #147521 ff)?

Here are snippets from a review of

THE UNCONQUERABLE WORLD:
Power, Nonviolence and the Will of the People
By Jonathan Schell
433 pages. Metropolitan Books. $27.50.

[snip] Undoubtedly ''The Unconquerable World'' is Mr. Schell's most ambitious, and over time will be regarded as his most significant work. Although it can be read as a timely and provocative commentary on the militarization of American foreign policy during the Bush presidency, its concerns run far deeper, challenging the strong linkage between national security and war that has dominated both political consciousness and international relations for centuries. The timeliness of the book is accentuated by the widely shared view, especially in the United States, that the American government had no alternative to war in dealing with the challenge from Al Qaeda.

The book mounts perhaps the most impressive argument ever made that there exists a viable and desirable alternative to a continued reliance on war and that the failure to seize this opportunity will bring catastrophic results to America and the world. …

In Mr. Schell's words, ''Arms and man have both changed in ways that, even as they imperil the world as never before, have created a chance for peace that is greater than ever before.''

President Bush has used almost identical language in talking about creating a peaceful global order. But the Bush vision depends crucially on indefinitely sustaining American military dominance. Such a geopolitics of warmaking has been recently moralized by Jean Bethke Elstain in her book ''Just War Theory'' (Blackwell, 1990).

Mr. Schell views such a course of action and thought as disastrous. His path to peace is based on the degree to which social change and the resolution of conflict can be achieved by an embrace of nonviolent tactics and ideas, combined with his assessment that a combination of nuclear weaponry and ''people's war'' has rendered war essentially obsolete as a rational political instrument. The most fascinating portions of the book present Mr. Schell's evidence for rethinking history from a nonviolent perspective, arguing that dramatic and unpredictable changes have often been managed without a violent challenge to the established order. In other words, our war-mindedness is a consequence of a massive dose of cultural brainwashing.

Mr. Schell brilliantly depicts some of the great revolutionary upheavals, including the Glorious Revolution in England, as well as the French and Russian Revolutions from this angle, showing that these revolutions were themselves mainly nonviolent and that it was only their aftermaths that turned out to be bloody. In many respects, Mr. Schell's real gurus are the architects of resistance in Eastern Europe, especially Vaclav Havel, the playwright and former Czech president; the Polish journalist Adam Michnik; and the Hungarian novelist George Konrad, whose ideas and related movements brought totalitarian regimes to their knees by nonviolent cooperative action. He is also astute in describing the collapse of the Soviet Union and the miraculous, almost bloodless, transformation of the South Africa of apartheid. … BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Waging a War of Words On the Very Idea of War

Jacek

You can be a proponent of non-violence without wishing to leave yourself open to being robbed and raped: not allow another person to do you harm without defending yourself. Nevertheless, if we want to stop war and violence, we have to start thinking in different ways. If we always shoot first and ask questions later, the chance to have a dialogue is lost forever.

Nanna

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 7, 2008 5:36 PM Well... This started with freedom of speach and now it is about war... OK. As a Dodo, I hope I may ask some dodoish questions. Is "freedom of speech" just a right to vote? Is "freedom of speech" applicable to those using it to offend and insult others? Isn`t making wars an extreme kind of "freedom of speech" and a "human right"? Nah... I think war is just an excuse of loathing decent work...

Indeed the question of what is meant by "freedom of speech" is quite complex and has been the subject of countless books and an issue that courts in many countries have grappled with for centuries.  But in answer to your specific questions:

"Is "freedom of speech" just a right to vote?":  I have never heard anyone suggest that it should be understood so narrowly.  Furthermore, these are separate, if related, rights.  In the U.S., for example, everyone has the freedom of speech, but only some people have the right to vote (i.e. people who don't live in the District of Columbia, are over the age of 18, are not a felon, and registered).

"Is "freedom of speech" applicable to those using it to offend and insult others?":  To some extent, yes.  Almost all speech is capable of offending someone, and we don't want a society where the most sensitive person has a veto over all would-be offensive speech.  However, in the U.S. there is the "fighting words" doctrine, which says that speech which will lead a reasonable person to immediately fight you (physically) can be supressed.  Other types of offensive speech may also be proscribed, such as obscenity, child pornography, and defamation, and each of these areas is full of nuance and concerns about freedom.

"Isn`t making wars an extreme kind of "freedom of speech" and a "human right"?":  This seems to be the oppositie of your first question; the first question construed the freedom very narrowly, this one construes it very narrowly.  This points to the interaction of speech with action.  These are separate concepts, although quite connected.  Some, perhaps all, action contains a speech component; one makes a comment about one's attitude towards the world in whatever he choses to do.  Taken to its extreme, then if all action is speech, then no action could be proscribed without also curtailing speech, and all laws would become problematic.

John, could you state the pertinent facts of this case, why the ruling was made?  Given the facts, do you maintain that the ruling should not have been made?

Do you know what this was about, or are you against the ruling on principle of freedom of speech?

Maxi

Good idea indeed. But can works that have been written some centuries ago be considered as offensive to any group, as the Western societies are supposed to be evolved?

Why stop at Shakespeare and not make in absentia trials for most of the writers we learned to like? And was e.g. Martin Heidegger a Nazi and a Fascist, just because some politically correct left-wingers found out that it had to be so? Then why not question JP Sartre, who was inspired by Heidegger's philosohy - as it happened in the French -and most Socialist- eighties?

Laurent K.

While waiting for the answer I posed to my question, here are the pertinent facts and thoughts.

The human rights principle at stake is the following.  What is prohibited is anything that:

I, for one, disagree with hate crime laws.  It is true that it is a loss of freedom for someone to be beaten or murdered.  It is also true that there are already laws against these crimes.  Beatings and murders should be prosecuted regardless of the reasons for them, and I deeply resent the implicit statement that there are some reasons to beat or murder someone that are more justifiable than others.

I also don't understand the case at issue.  The law, as quoted by you, did not include "sexual orientation," so what is the basis of the case?

You point precisely to the danger of hate crimes laws.  They are a major threat to intellectual development and academic discourse.  The remedy to hate speech is counter-speech, not censorship.

I also think we need to be careful on how we phrase things.  "Groups" cannot be offended.  Only people can be offended.  Any group is likely to consist of people with a diversity of views, some of whom will be more readily offended than others (or to put it somewhat more accurately, will be quicker to feign offense than others).

Of course for Malthusians (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Malthusians) and futurists (http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/manifesto.html) a different optics is also possible, namely that war is “the world’s only hygiene.” BTW, isn’t this an option Sufis might also entertain as an alternative way of thinking?

Jacek

I have a suggestion.  Let's change the title to "abstract discussions on the concept of freedom of speech, possibly in the way the expression is used in the United States of America".  There has been no serious attempt to discuss the subject at hand.

Paula has written once what this is actually about, and was ignored.

I wrote what the second thing was about, and that's ignored too.

Why bring Canada into it, since it's not about anything specific over here.  We're back to American values and a very specific issue in that country - a very specific way the term is used over there.  That is one single country in a vast, vast world.  At least keep my country out of it if you will not even bother defining what values are being upheld through the present case.  Not to mention the present case.

Maxi

As it happens, I review books for an international legal journal.  Two summers ago, I reviewed The Case of the "Traitors"; this dealt with a 20-year-long Canadian case that set the standard for freedom of political speech under Canadian law (about the author, see link below).  Canada's standard is in some respects more "civilized" than our own, but it's certainly less robust, Canada having nothing like our First Amendment.  So, you know, time to dismount from your high horse...?

http://www.rmc.ca/academic/history/personnel/gendron_e.htm

I just read the Danish translation of the story below in a Danish newspaper. If it wasn't so scary, I'd say this borders on the ridiculous...

They haven't noticed yet that Denmark isn't part of Pakistan? That our religion in Denmark is NOT Islam?

Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression

By Tahir Niaz
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.
They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression.
The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.
They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.
Sources said that the delegation would also hold discussions on inter-religious harmony during its meetings with the EU leaders.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C08%5Cstory_8-6-2008_pg7_14

Well...I'd say that Poland, which spent most of the 20th century as an autocracy (and decades as a Soviet-aligned one) probably has little of use to impart to us Americans on the subject. 

France and...Belgium?  They have a jurisprudential record of more than 200 years in the area of freedom of expression? 

You've really outdone yourself this time....

"David" has some "interesting" notions.

You think not! All these ministers of the interior and the exterior with their polite and diplomatic language, which is merely a foil for, 'if you don't do what we "ask" then we'll blast you all to kingdom come.' No virgins!

Nanna

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on June 9, 2008 12:00 AM First of all, Nanna, I am sorry about the car-bomb attack on the Danish Embassy in Islamabad a few days ago, as a continuation of our Death threats against Danish illustrators saga. Second comes the natural question: When are you guys going to bomb Pakistan?

What do you mean: a continuation? I forgot! That thread is frozen. I think the header suddenly constituted a problem, or something like that. 

Øh...well now. If you can pledge for Poland to stand with Denmark, then we'll handle that first. Next, I'm sure that I can then convince Fogh Rasmussen to stand with Poland against the United States... 

Nanna

What does any of this have to do with the Canadian ruling brought out by John which was supposed to violate human rights, dealing with a letter published in a newspaper inciting people to hurt homosexuals, which people then did?

And has anybody in this thread highlighted what in particular was said in the book which is the object of the current investigation (not even judgement, for crying out loud!) which is supposed to be the object of this sensationalist title?

Everything under the sun is being discussed except for the subject at hand. 

The title deals with Canada.  It has to do with values upheld by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  Nobody is discussing whether these are good values or bad values being upheld.  Nobody is discussing the contents of the book.  Nobody is discussing the other issue John has brought up. 

By the way, how did France get into the picture?  I'm not sure how Denmark did, but it's not the object of the subject line.  France is.

Maxi

Here is an article actually discussing aspects of the case, citing lack of professional integrity and irresponsible journalism as a major concern in regards to Steyn's article: http://jsource.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=2514

If a translator wrote a bunch of gobbledygook that got published, and this got investigated, has his freedom of speech been violated?  Or does obligation for responsiblity mean something?

Let's bring this thread past the tabloid level.

Maxi

Unbelievable - 8 pages without ever addressing the topic at hand.

Of course I assume the real purpose of the item had nothing to do with interest in Canada, its philosophies or affairs.  It is summed up in the last sentence of the opening post:

Thank God for the U.S. Constitution and 1st Amendment!

I am curious - Do the US Constitution and 1st Amendment prevent the protection of people from hatred-induced violence?  Have they no equivalent to our HRC's principles?  How about the principles of responsible journalism, which I understand is an issue at stake.  The US Constitution and 1st Amendement will do away with responsible journalism?  Anything can be reported as fact?

These are the issues.  The person posting the article did take the time to inform himself thoroughly of the issues before making gross statements about an entire country's attitude to liberty, did he not?

Maxi

John, do me a favour and read the facts.  I found them for you.  Let's discuss this intelligently.  The second Canadian "attack" involves a letter inciting people to violence, and that violence did take place.  Our laws protect people's safety.  Words can lead to harm due to incited acts of hatred and that is what the Commission is about.

The book that you refer to is irresponsible journalism, thus unprofessional, because it presents false conjectures as fact, and it creates distrust and hatred of an entire ethnic group.  In this country we don't care much for hatred of peoples of any "category".  How is it in yours?  Have you no laws for that kind of thing? 

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 9, 2008 2:34 AM By the way, how did France get into the picture? I'm not sure how Denmark did, but it's not the object of the subject line. France is.

Thanks, Maxi, for elaborating on John's original Canadian link which was http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2025924/posts. As our recent poll confirmed, it is unlikely that people will open links that are not clickable, which may explain the low interest in that case.

No link whatsoever, and no feedback from France, may explain why you, in turn, don't know how France got into the picture. The link I provided at one point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot#cite_note-24, was also not clickable. From it you would have learned that "During the 1990s [BB] became outspoken in her criticism of immigration, Islam in France and homosexuality, and has been convicted five times for "inciting racial hatred ". Mrs. Bardot is actively involved in defending the rights of stray dogs, instead, and "In 2008, she was convicted of inciting racial/religious hatred in relation to a letter she wrote, a copy of which she sent to Nicolas Sarkozy when he was Interior Minister of France. The letter stated her objections to Muslims in France ritually and cruelly slaughteringsheep by slitting their throats without stunning them first." As much as this is all important, we've been through that before in other threads, so I am not sure whether inisting on dealing with Mrs. Bardot's pro-animal and anti-human activism here is necessary.

Instead, cases of other countries were brought up because the title of this thread the way I read it is "Freedom of speech, under attack in the West." The parenthesis that follows contains examples of countries that are meant to illustrate the main thesis. As we have seen, those examples have a hard time accomplishing that task because of all the underlying layers of hatred. Perhaps we should look, then, for examples of attacks on such freedom of speech in the West that does not promote hatred to better understand that phenomenon? Freedom of speech as illustrated in RE: Pretty Fair Thumbnail Portraits of Major U.S. Daily Newspapers can be exercised in a very peculiar way in the United States too. Hence the criticism of that particular variation of it.

Jacek

By way of background:

"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly."

Can we all agree with this fact for starters?

And from the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech:

Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'free speech' it has been argued that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. A well-known example is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"

[...]

Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:

[...]

Specific recent examples that may involve freedom of speech include:

If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 18.1-255; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)

[...]

In the United States, there is no freedom of speech whatsoever in the private sector. For example, per the terms of at-will employment, an employee can be fired for stating an opinion that the employer disagrees with.

On March 6, 2008 Associated Press published article called 9/11 attacks harm First Amendment[1] in which its President and CEO Tom Curley states that The shadow of the Sept. 11 terror attacks is eclipsing press freedom and other constitutional safeguards in the United States.

No link whatsoever, and no feedback from France, may explain why you, in turn, don't know how France got into the picture

Thank you, Jacek, for your well written and even-toned post.  I guess I could not find how France had anything to do with Canada's Human Rights Commission, since they are two different countries with different laws.  I am not familiar with the French system and if they have such a commission.  In fact, I don't know if the US has such a commission since I'm not as well versed in that country as I am in my own.  I have asked John about it twice since as an American I assumed he would know.

It has been hard to quite figure out what this thread is about.  It seemed to be about an investigation that is in the process with no conclusions about a published book, initially with no information whatsoever about the contents of that book - which of course is necessary for a discussion.  And suddenly we have France and an actress, which tells us nothing about that book.

Maxi

I have a children's book from the 1940's in my posession called "Ursula und ihr Maedel".  I keep it as a reminder of how subtle and inocuous propaganda can be, how human minds can be shaped by using acceptable values to create inacceptable attitudes by linking them with a twist.  The book describes the stay of a teen-age girl in a children's camp where she is a youth leader, and it reads like a description from a Girl Guide book. 

In this book there are various activities, social acts by the children helping grandmothers across the street, and the like.  It models attitudes and behaviours that we all would approve of and is obviously meant as a guide to children.  A lot of parents would approve of what it represents and is trying to do, if read on the surface.

There is also the antithesis, a child who does not fit in and does not behave in these ideal ways.  Ursula is very sad about this, and tries to get this girl to fit in. At the end she sadly realizes that she will have to have this girl kicked out and ostracized by the others.  Some must be punished and excluded.

The book was put out by the Nazi party.  It was designed to turn children into young Nazis.  I'm not sure whether it says that the girl to be ostracized was Jewish.  However, if she was Jewish, being ostracized from a Guide type of camp would have been the least of her worries. 

Is it possible to have a response which does not immediately go into flame-type emotionalism?  I hold up a second set of vaues that a country holds dear, in addition to Freedom of Speech.  That is the freedom to be safe from published writing designed to promote prejudice and hatred of any particular group.

Maxi

Originally written by Jonathan Ellis on June 9, 2008 1:39 PM Where do we draw the line?

At common sense?

Re: Maxi's postings, yes, John, it smacks of the pot calling the kettle black. While the United States seems to have an absolute freedom of speech (in fact, its president can lie about reasons for a war and that can only get him reelected, with a little help from the military "reporters" free to cover the news the way they please like in RE: Pretty Fair Thumbnail Portraits of Major U.S. Daily Newspapers), yet the example of that Virginia law shows that the states do put limits on the absolute freedom:

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on June 9, 2008 11:43 AM Virginia Law - § 18.2-416. Punishment for using abusive language to another. If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 18.1-255; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.) [...] On March 6, 2008 Associated Press published article called 9/11 attacks harm First Amendment in which its President and CEO Tom Curley states that The shadow of the Sept. 11 terror attacks is eclipsing press freedom and other constitutional safeguards in the United States.

"Congress steps back from its constitutional role of executive oversight. Civilian oversight of the military wanes. A Justice Department interprets laws in ways that extend police powers. More drastically, prisons are established in places where government or military operatives circumvent due process or control trials," Curley said in accepting the foundation's First Amendment Leadership Award. "It's at moments like these when a free press matters most," he said. Curley was selected for his role in pushing for more openness in government and for emphasizing reporting on First Amendment issues. That includes efforts by the AP to establish the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a news media coalition that presses for strengthening Freedom of Information laws and for greater government openness. http://crinchpin.blogspot.com/2008/03/ap-chief-911-attacks-harmed-first_06.html

Jacek

While I understand Maxi's stubborn determination to focus things exclusively on Canada

Jonathan, no, I don't want to focus things exclusively on Canada.  I would like to see the topic under discussion being discussed at least once.

We start with a sensationalist statement that freedom of speech is under attack in Canada, ending with a statement by the author that he is glad he doesn't live in my country.  The article itself is sensationalist and says nothing.  Thereafter opinions and emotions are vented when we still know nothing.

It is typical of the journalism itself, and it is a journalistic style that I am deeply against.  Numerous items of this type have been brought forward. These items are empty on purpose, and manipulative.  If you actually try to study them for content and reasoning, you discover there is none.  However, these articles are full of intellectual words depicting concepts that we hold dear, and they use emotional adjectives to paint parties or events.

You come away from such articles and new items with the same impression that you would have if you had actually learned of some facts and drawn conclusions.  You believe you understand something but you understand nothing, because nothing has been given.  Peoples are manipulated in that way. Sometimes they begin to turn against people and groups, and you begin to see the spawning of hatred and intolerance.  Those who were once friends no longer are.  In fact, we have seen it happen.

I submitted the Nazi propaganda booklet for teen girls as an extreme case, but this booklet in fact is one that any parent would approve in his or her home if they did not look more deeply into it or notice its author.  It upholds values that are dear to all of us.  We know what happened in Nazi Germany.

What I have a hard time with are discussions that dither around the same tired concepts put out by the media that "we are all concerned with" because we have all been manipulated to be concerned with, and we never, ever look at real things.  I cannot stand the shallowness of the original premise.

There are two sets of values at work here.  Canada is mentioned.  We champion pluralism and while the US has a "melting pot" we have "patchwork quilt" and celebrate out differences.  We go a mare usque ad marem instead of e pluribus unum.  The value represented by the HRC is guarantee of safety of any individual regardless of (insert category).  This is a very important value.  Freedom and safety.

By leaving the discussion at the level that it is currently held, and putting Canada in the title, without ever discussing Canada's value, we are not discussing anything at all.  In that case, get Canada and France out of the picture and discuss what is being discussed.

How many times have I asked whether the US, whose superiority is touted in the opening gambit, has anything in place protecting people in like manner.

If you wish to discuss this issue under the premise of what is happening in Canada, then you must discuss what is at stake, and possibly extend this worldwide.  What is at stake are two fundamental values: freedom and guarantee of safety.  Where does one end and the other begin?  Does one curtail the other?  If so, which has priority, if either?

This would lead to an intelligent and deep discussion.

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 9, 2008 2:29 PM [...] What I have a hard time with are discussions that dither around the same tired concepts put out by the media that "we are all concerned with" because we have all been manipulated to be concerned with, and we never, ever look at real things.  I cannot stand the shallowness of the original premise. [...]

I've just finished reading a piece of the worst sensation-seeking journalism I've seen in a long time. Thinking that it was a bad translation, I've looked on the Net, but cannot find any mention of it so must, sadly, tentatively conclude that the piece was written in Danish: http://politiken.dk/udland/article520715.ece

I have written to the editor-in-chief. That's about all I can do and I don't think my misplaced effort will have any effect. Ask me why I haven't written to the journalist...

What you seem to be saying is that most of us are not discerning in any way and that we swallow hole, eat it up raw, everything we read or hear in the media. That we do so because we are manipulated to never look at real things. You also seem to be saying that you, alone, are exceptional. I read your posts as though you are taking us all to task.

Nanna

Maxi,

I agree with your sentiments and thoughts....entirely.

Now, consider this: who is playing you guys? Remember what I said about anonymity? It applies here. I do not believe that anonymity and free speech can co-exist peacefully.

Everyone one of you who has posted here are known quantities with fine professional and public reputations. Yet, we find that there are people who "puxa conversa" (Brazilian slang for pulling one into a conversation), who might very well have neither of those qualities. Persons who are not looking for a honest discussion in a public forum in the light of day. Meanwhile, you honest folks have been pulled in making statements about free speech, its limits etc. in your own names, while the person who started this post remains in the shadows. It's what I call the perversity of anonymity. Those who names are known are always at a disadvantage .....

Best wishes.

What you seem to be saying is that most of us are not discerning in any way ...

I never, ever make statements or judgements about people, let alone my colleagues.  I am unhappy about media manipulations, and I am unhappy about how this topic has been presented.  Were I to think my colleagues incapable I would not bother to write.

A topic has been presented on this forum with no effort to present what it was actually about, and then we were supposed to discuss it.  We are invited to hover around the same tired old stereotypes and never go further, never go deeply into the issue.

If Canada's actions are representative of values, we must first find out what is at stake in Canada.  This was not touched upon at all in the presentation on the forum.  How, then, can we discuss it?

Maxi

Originally written by Jane Lamb-Ruiz Remember what I said about anonymity? It applies here. I do not believe that anonymity and free speech can co-exist peacefully.

To the contrary, anonymity is imperative for free speech.  Many influential writers and sources, from Voltaire, Mark Twain, or the "Deep Throat" who brought down Richard Nixon, operated either anonymously or under pseudonyms.  In many cases truth can only be stated behind the shield of anonymity, because there are powerful people who are opposed to the truth who can exact a very heavy price - even physical violence or murder - on those who speak out.  I for one use a pseudonym so that I can state what I think without fear of reprisal against me, my family, or business.

Yes, that's exactly what sterile discussions, with no alternatives allowed, are all about.

If Canada's actions are representative of values, we must first find out what is at stake in Canada.  This was not touched upon at all in the presentation on the forum.  How, then, can we discuss it?

It only makes sense to me that a Canadian or two would contribute to such a discussion what they can find out at their end. Which is what you did, Maxi, but you should not blame at the same time the rest of the world that they have never heard about a Steyn and not knowing details of his case cannot thus formulate any informed opinions.

Jacek

I think we can agree on this.  In the United States, the Supreme Court famously outlined areas of speech that are not protected in 1942 in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where it said:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Other areas of speech that are not protected include false or misleading advertising and some kinds of child pornography (a big issue now with virtual porn on computers).

The Supreme Court has considered hate speech and ruled that such speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.  See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), in which the Court reversed the hate-speech conviction of a teenager who had burned a cross on the lawn of a black family.

Originally written by John Bunch But please just consider what these "human rights commissions" do. We don't have anything like them down here. ... The really odd thing in the Steyn case is that even the invocation of truth is not a defense in front of these HC courts. Traditionally in British/American ("Anglo") law, journalists have wide latitude to write about issues of import to society (politics). And truth is an absolute defense to slander.

There are actually "human rights commissions" in the U.S.; at the federal level there is the EEOC and many states, counties and cities have similar bodies.  Their jurisdiction is more limited than what seems to be the case in Canada, however, as the American bodies generally consider only discrimination in the fields of employment, housing, and commercial establishments that are "places of public accomodation."

Also, your conflation of "British/American law," -- and I think it would be more accurate to say "English/American" law (Scottish law is quite different) obscures some important differences between the two countries with regards to defamation law.  Truth is technically not a "defense" in America; instead, the plaintiff must prove that the statement is false.  In England, however, a defamatory statement is presumed to be false, and the defendant has the burden of proving truth.  This may seem like a minor distinction, but it leads to big differences in outcome on the two sides of the Atlantic.  Furthermore, and rather interestingly, traditionally in Anglo-American law truth is irrelevant to a defamation claim.  The doctrine of defamation focuses on damage to someone's reputation, which can happen regardless of whether (and especially when) a statement is true.  In the 18th century there was even a legal saying "the greater the truth, the greater the libel." 

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2008 5:18 PM I also don't understand the causal chain between someone writing words on paper and then someone committing a violent act.

I don't know about paper but what about graffitti in dark alleys of inner cities? Look at the animals described in http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/ap_on_re_eu/euro2008_arrests. Had I been driving through Klagenfurt yesterday as a tourist (which I indeed used to do in the past at this time of the year), would I have liked to meet any of them? I think that scum, which by definition doesn't think as it has no brain, gets set off very easily and thus can be easily incited to violence with hate words sprayed on walls. Why would anyone want to tolerate psychopaths' graffitti? In the name of an absolute freedom of speech?

Jacek

Originally written by John Bunch | I also don't understand the causal chain between someone writing words on paper and then someone committing a violent act. In traditonal law in the West, the act only is punished, not the original writing at the front of the alleged causal chain, which supposedly started it. And I think that that causal chain is hard to prove. For instance, I have read Mark Steyn's book and the articles that his alleged "crime" is based on, and I have not committed any acts of violence. So that breaks the chain right there, right ? If 1 million people read his articles and 1 commits an act of violence "based on it", does that "prove" that his original writing has "incited violence" ? That seems incredibly weak to me, to subject an entire society to such suppression of speech and expanding the power of the state.

"Proof" is a question of fact generally left to juries.  Whether a causal link has been proven in any particular case is to be established by evidence submitted accoridng to established rules.  Making up hypotheticals about one million people not being affected by something is not evidence.  It could be proven that someone was incited to violence by someone's writing.  How?  Question:  "Why did you hit him?"  Answer:  "Because I read a book that told me to."  That constitutes legally sufficient proof to establish causation.  But that isn't the end of the matter.  Just because causation has been proven, doesn't mean that liability automatically follows.  It just means one element of the crime (or tort) has been established.  Other things, such as the intent of the defendant, what it was reasonable to believe would happen, and so forth also are to be considered.

I don't think those statements are hyperbolic; they're banal.

But if anyone would like to try...name a country with a longer uninterrupted tradition of press freedom than the US.  Name a country with 200+ years of jurisprudence on the subject.  Name a country where that press freedom is guaranteed constitutionally, and is not merely the result of legislative act, order in council, fatwa...what have you.

When you've found the lone country that satisfies my criteria, let me know.

Noam Chomsky has been saying this for years and I am happy with his opinion.

This was also the first thing that came to my mind when opening The US is a great country thread.

This certainly doesn't mean we want to get complacent about the state of the Republic today or impose its model in all details on other countries...

Jacek

This is a silly exercise, as the terms you use are too elastic to allow absolutist claims.  What is meant by "tradition of press freedom"?  What is meant by "uniterrupted"?  Was the U.S. tradition of press freedom not "interrupted," for example, when the Supreme Court upheld a fine against a radio station in 1978 for broadcasting George Carlin's act?  It may certainly be said that the US has a long-established and robust tradition of protecting the press, but superlatives are not possible unless terms are given some more precise meaning.  The same can be said of your challenge to name a country where the freedom is "guaranteed constituitonally, and is not merely the result of legislative act..."  The problem with this statement is that in many countries constitutions are legislative acts, so this is a distinction that exists in the U.S. but not necessarily elsewhere.  Second, the term "press freedom" is in the English language and is part of an American tradition; in many countries the concept is wrapped up in "freedom of expression" or some similar phrase.

But these points aside, freedom of the press has constitutional protection in numerous countries, including the two that are the nominal subject of this thread.  The French constitution of 1958 incorporates the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, which provides for freedom of the press.  In Canada, Article 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that:

"2.- Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ...

b. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

This right is so important in modern democracies, says Wikipedia, that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

• The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.

• In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.

• In the 1988 Brazilian constitution, article 5, section LVII states that "no one shall be considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable penal sentence".

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.

Incidentally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is almost 60 years old. The Guinness Book of Records describes the UDHR as the "Most Translated Document" in the world.

Alphabetical Listing of All UDHR Translations (335): http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/navigate/alpha.htm

Originally written by John Bunch Regarding the George Carlin thing, I mean, that was, according to that specific case, obscenity, and not political speech, right ? ...

The George Carlin case was not about obscenity, that was why it was so significant.  His act was not obscene, in that it was not pornographic (obscenity is sexually graphic material that meets certain criteria, but not all pornography is obscene).  It was arguably political speech, as it was about state regulation of speech (very self-referential).  But that was not the issue.  The issue was that the FCC banned the use of "indecent" speech which is something short of obscenity.  What was the basis then, for banning indecent speech?  The Court reasoned that the airwaves belonged to the public and that because the broadcast spectrum was limited, only a limited number of programs could be broadcast, and the state was justified in imposing requirements on what could be broadcast.  This case become the basis for the distinction between broadcast and cable television in the US (although the Carlin case involved radio), which to this day are treated separately for first amendment purposes (the court's argument about the limited nature of the broadcast spectrum does not apply to what is essentially unlimited cable capacity).

The slip from obscenity, to "indecency," and more recently to "child pornography" and the new legal concept of "obscene child pornography" shows how exceptions can continually expand and chip away at cherished freedoms.  Eventually you end up with the case like the one in Canada that launched this discussion.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2008 2:47 PM I want to also add that many countries have federal structures which directly mimic the U.S.'s approach. Southern Germany for instance has a lot of the elements of U.S. federalism, and many of the norms, which were directly "adopted" (to be diplomatic) after 1945.

"Southern Germany"? 

It is true that the Bundesrepublik is a federalist state, but it is significantly different from the American system, notably in the fact that the various Lander (I can't find an umlaut on this keyboard), unlike the U.S. states, are not themselves sovereign entitites.  In Germany, only the Bund is sovereign, whereas the U.S. has a complicated system of dual sovereignty that rests both in the United States per se as well as in the various states.  It should also be recalled that Germany has a tradition of federalism that long predates the U.S. in the form of the various German states that made up the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the model of the nearby Swiss Confederation.

The Alien and Sedition Acts (four of them) is what you were looking for.

Yes, there have been some abridgments to freedom of political speech in the US.  But thank goodness the chances of having a "human rights" commission adjudicating on political speech are remote for us.

Jacek: Poland's inability to competently stage elections in the late 1940s is also our fault?  Can the depths of our evil be plumbed?

Anyway, back on point.  Here's a letter Steyn wrote this month about his case (.pdf file):

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/0081932

I see.  I deduce that you've tired of making Bush/Hitler analogies, and have now begun to make Bush/Stalin ones?  Anyway, I would have thought you'd approve of the latter, since your own politics seem to be one part Mao, one part Ulrike Meinhof....

Anyway...ever read Churchill's account of the negotiations between the Polish factions and the Soviets in the 1944-45 period?  (Hint: this is in a book, not in a Wikipedia article.)

And what did you think of Steyn's letter?

Bush? I thought his name was still Rasmussen.

ever read Churchill's account ....

As for Nobels in Literature I prefer poetry to prose.

....of the negotiations between the Polish factions and the Soviets in the 1944-45 period?

I bet Iraqi factions negotiated with Bush too.

(Hint: this is in a book, not in a Wikipedia article.)

The relevant Wikipedia is also a book in case you didn't notice (Post #144171)

And what did you think of Steyn's letter?

Neither Mao nor Ulrike Meinhof would have such interests.

Jacek

Thank you for your response, John.

Actually, Canada is different from the United States linguistically.  I have never heard any American president address his people in French.  The very fact of this bilingualism ends up going deeply into our psyche and culture and creates a difference in our countries.  Consider that every one of our leaders makes himself vulnerable by daring to speak in the language of the Other, haltingly, never as well as he speaks his own language and in our eyes is the stronger for it.  There is a tradition of tolerance and openness to otherness in that very fact.  Almost every speech is usually made in both languages, so that Trudeau and Chretien spoken English with a French accent, while Mulroney spoken French with an English accent - but they all spoke both languages.  Every one of our civil servants must learn both languages, and must serve the public in both languages if they possibly can.  While not perfect, this tolerance of the Other is deep in our psyche, and different from the US which has one language, one culture, e pluribus unum. 

I will argue that the written word is a powerful thing.  If wielded by a person of authority it can do a lot of harm.  If 10,000 people read something written by a person who claims to cite the facts, or if that person uses language that is likely to induce emotional unthinking reactions, then the attitude of these people can begin being changed.  Then real people get frightened or hurt.

I understand your defence of a value which is very important to the Americans - freedom, and freedom of speech.  Your country was born out of war and violent rebellion against control by others.  This is not our history.  Ours had a quieter start.

As I wrote before, we have an additional set of values, and that is what is at stake in this tribunal: the tolerance I have written about.  The acceptance and protection of the Other.

In regards to history, was the American constitution not heavily influenced by the system and philosophy of the Six Nations who had a sophisticated and far reaching political system, different from the monarchial and hierarchical British system that your people were rejecting?

The question is whether this man's book does violate the spirit and intent of our human rights.  As I understand it, the findings are not yet in.

Words are powerful things.  It is not for nothing that we are told that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Maxi

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 10, 2008 9:51 AM There`s no such thing as freedom of speech. Anywhere!

In fact, David's comment resounds as very true even in the context of this discussion forum:

Originally written by David Kallans on June 9, 2008 4:31 PM In many cases truth can only be stated behind the shield of anonymity, because there are powerful people who are opposed to the truth who can exact a very heavy price - even physical violence or murder - on those who speak out.

Your chronology is correct, Jacek.  However, I think that by almost any measure, the French political system - with its five republics, two empires, and various Bourbon restorations, has had more "interruptions" over the past two years than the U.S. has had.

It was, however, an era of "material wellbeing" for many people (again, not so much for certain groups, blacks in particular).  It was in this decade that America and Europe's culture of mass consumption was born.

Snippets from http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/10/liberals/?source=newsletter:

The counterrevolutionary right failed first in the "culture war." From the '60s onward, conservatives lost every major battle. Conservative Republicans paid lip service to opposition to abortion and appointed strict constructionists to the federal bench. But the Supreme Court has not repealed Roe v. Wade and, because of its allergy to repudiating precedent, is not likely to do so. (Yes, even if John McCain appoints the next justice or two.) Nor has it restored prayer in public schools. What is more, in 2003 the Supreme Court struck down anti-gay sodomy laws nationwide. Conservatives responded by successfully supporting many state laws or state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, in addition to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enacted in the Clinton years. The recent state Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in California may yet be overturned by a popular initiative. But many of the goals of the gay rights movement have been achieved far sooner than anyone could have imagined as recently as the 1990s. Meanwhile, conservative campaigns to censor movies and TV and music were doomed first by cable TV and then by the Internet. ...

The counterrevolution is over. For 40 years the radical right has sought to uproot and overturn the American domestic and global order created by centrist liberals of both parties between the 1930s and the 1970s. Liberalism has survived, while the right is not only defeated but also demoralized, dispersed and diminishing....

No doubt about it but I am still wondering about John's "tradition." For example, Poland's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_May_3,_1791 (the world's second modern codified national constitution) guaranteed tolerance of, and freedom to, all religions, even though it acknowledged the Roman Catholic faith as the "dominant religion." Personally, I feel this very strongly as a historical constitutional legacy of 217 years despite all the interruptions in this tradition. Do the French culturally feel their 219-year legacy of freedom of press despite the various empires and Bourbon restorations?

Jacek

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 9, 2008 2:49 AM Here is an article actually discussing aspects of the case, citing lack of professional integrity and irresponsible journalism as a major concern in regards to Steyn's article: http://jsource.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=2514

For the record, thank you, Maxi, for providing on p. 8 of this thread a link to the incriminated article which should have been supplied at the beginning. 

His argument rests on four questionable premises, none of which is attributed to sources or accompanied by reliable evidence.

Premise #1: “Demography is the most basic root of all. A people that won’t multiply can’t go forth or go anywhere. Those who do will shape the age we live in. Demographic decline and the unsustainability of the social democratic state are closely related.”

Premise #2: Islam has serious global ambitions, and it forms the primal, core identity of most of its adherents.”

Premise #3: “The modern multicultural state is too watery a concept to bind huge numbers of immigrants to the land of their nominal citizenship. So they look elsewhere and find the jihad.” (He also says that while not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorists, “enough of them share their basic objectives.”)

Premise #4: “On the continent the successor population is already in place and the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be…Native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic.” ...

While Polish press I read does not stoop to this level of panic-mongering, there are many titles, including magazines, that would print Steyn's article and I would see no problem with that.

Jacek

That article does not say a single thing but uses a lot of words to not do so. 

It manages to isolate one fact, without understanding.  The "mosquitoes" quote refers to Steyn's contention that Muslims will take over the West because by sheer birth ratios the population ratios will shift.  The critic I quoted before states that statistical impossibility of this, so that something incorrect has been presented as fact.

What is more important is that people are induced to be suspicious of an entire people and see them as a threat, and this is potentially harmful to both groups and individuals.  The contention does not concern a quote about mosquitoes, but the implications.

I'm not for or against.  Simply noting that the article is meaningless and doesn't say anything.

Maxi

The article says nothing about Danish cartoons.

The article says that our HRC is considering a complaint by a group of Canadian citizens who fear a violation of one of our guaranteed human rights to our citizenry.

Then it goes about interpreting actions and projecting motives, labeling people, just like the other article.  Can we not please finally get above the level of tabloid journalism?

 “If I hate what you say, I’ll accuse you of hate.”   What the blazes is that supposed to be?  Somebody actualy uttered those words?  I sincerely doubt it.

Jacek, thank you for highlighting the pertinent points. 

Maxi

John,

I have now read the second article, and would like to isolate the letter written to the magazine:

We need to keep in mind that freedom of expression is not the only right in the Charter. There is a full set of rights accorded to all members of our society, including freedom from discrimination. No single right is any more or less important than another. And the enjoyment of one depends on the enjoyment of the other. This means if you want to stand up and defend the right to freedom of expression then you must be willing to do the same for the right to freedom from discrimination

That is what I have been saying all along.

Maxi

Here is a link to the Canadian Charter of Rights, since that seems to be under discussion, or at least, ought to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Jacek, we had our national debate in 1984 at which time we entrenched the values that we found important, and which defines our nation.  Tolerance and protection of the other is a deeply rooted Canadian value which is at a par with liberty.  It is strange to see other countries decide to redefine the values that we have adopted as a nation, and I might add with no attempt to try to even understand what these values might be. Nothing dreadful has happened to either Steyn or the magazine.  In fact, I would think that they have profited from this.  Just imagine how many people no know of the book who would not have done so.  Can you think of any better advertisement?

I have never understood people who are afraid of words. If you or I are offended by something, then so what?! Toughen up! And then form an eloquent arguement to respond to the words you do not like. That is what living in a liberal democracy is about.

Life is full of things that I do not like and that offend me to the core.That is the price I pay for freedom. I for one am quite willing to to be offended if it means keeping my freedom and not replacing it with a Sharia state.

The original post is right. No one has a right to not be offended. I agree with John Bunch. Thank God for the US Constitution and the first Amendment!

Rebecca

Rebecca, I am not a citizen of the United States, nor subject to its constitution.  I am a Canadian citizen.  I was a young woman when our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was debated and adopted and I am happy and comfortable with it.  You are under no obligation to move to Canada and adopt our values, and neither is Mr. Bunch. 

What the blazes does a Sharia state have to do with anything?  Surely you don't buy into that nonsense!

Here are a couple of realities.  Because of this constant portrayal of a people for a decade, with the poison spreading to our borders despite our values, there are ordinary hard working people who are now struggling against poverty.  Once they had businesses and now people are reluctant to come.  They cannot get jobs as they used to do.  Why?  Because of their last name, an accent, or not an accent.  There is nothing "radical" about these people and they have not changed their behaviour from what it was 15 years ago.  The only difference is that they have been portrayed a certain way, people's attitudes have been swayed by that portrait, and who they really are does not count.  This is not acceptable in my eyes.  And "toughen up" doesn't cut it.

I will not see the values that this country has adopted be trivialized in this manner.  Nor should our country be subject to the values of another.  Tolerance of the other is central to our character.  Inclusion of all citizens as they are, rather than melting them in the proverbial pot, is something we have striven for, though not always achieved.

Have a look at the "suffering" of this journalist.  The sales of his book must be sky high. 

I hope too that no one here advocates One Big World Government with One Freedom Standard for all non-mosquitoes.

To make change, she explained, you don’t have to necessarily change the institution. You just have to change how one person thinks about the institution: http://www.utne.com/2008-06-08/Media/Media-Conference-Thousand-Kites-Project.aspx?blogid=34&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

Here’s a quick list of resources to keep track of reality vs. rhetoric, hate group vs. think-tank: http://www.utne.com/2008-06-07/Media/Media-Conference-Getting-Hate-Speech-Off-the-Dial.aspx?blogid=34&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

“As journalism goes, so goes democracy,” renowned PBS host Bill Moyers told the crowd at the National Conference for Media Reform. And right now, journalism is in trouble. In his serious and eloquent style, Moyers warned the crowd of the “mighty armada of power and influence” that threatens the media and democracy today—propagating junk news that dominates the national discussion and forces out more legitimate and competing storylines. http://www.utne.com/2008-06-07/Media/The-Freedom-That-Makes-Freedom-Possible.aspx?blogid=34&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

Maxi,

You wrote.."Tolerance of the other is central to our character."

That is great. But what is "tolerance" after all? 

There can be no tolerance of the other, if the opinion of the other is not respected. Tolerance is not just about the exeterior of the human being but also about interior thought and beliefs which are expressed. Tolerance cannot exist in any society if the act of writing or speaking one's opinion is subject to a politically correct litmus test or worse, the dictates of the state.

And yes, that is what dictatorship and Sharia states are about.  

You also wrote…”Why?  Because of their last name, an accent, or not an accent.  There is nothing "radical" about these people and they have not changed their behaviour from what it was 15 years ago.  The only difference is that they have been portrayed a certain way, people's attitudes have been swayed by that portrait, and who they really are does not count.  This is not acceptable in my eyes.  And "toughen up" doesn't cut it.”

Actually, “toughen up” does cut it, because it requires ALL PEOPLE to form an argument other than using simplistic rhetoric like crying “hate speech” at every turn. That is not enough in my eyes.

Cheers,

Rebecca

We should further define the terms of this debate in the sense that it only seems logical to me that one should do in Rome as Romans do: If sharia is law in country X and we go there, we have to obey it whether we like it or not. If it is not law in country Y, any visitors or immigrants must respect that fact too. Apart from that, any other laws or institutions of individual states can certainly be discussed by foreigners the way we do it here, but only citizens of the given country have the power to influence them so ours are just opinions that have no real bearing on reality and should be understood as such.

I am also happy that we have so thoroughly discussed US and Canadians standards here. This only helps to better understand them, but obviously none of us can in any way influence the standards of the other. (Dick would disagree, of course.)

Jacek

Hi Jacek,

I always enjoy reading your comments.

May I be so bold as to slightly disagree with you on one point ( then I'll get back to work

You wrote, "Apart from that, any other laws or institutions of individual states can certainly be discussed by foreigners the way we do it here, but only citizens of the given country have the power to influence them so ours are just opinions that have no real bearing on reality and should be understood as such."

In theory I understand what you are saying, but I think a collective responsibility toward the concepts of general human rights are the concern of all people, whether or not they live under a particular system or not. The UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for instance.Within it, it states:

            Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I think the world body can and should influence such states where this concept is not respected. How effective that will eventually be is another matter.

Ok, I'm off to work.

Cheers,

Rebecca

 

A world body yes, by all means.

(I am sure we could further fine-tune our ground rules...)

Jacek

In any case, this is beyond silly.  A commission investigated a concern and ended up writing a letter to a publication essentially saying, "We must balance the values of freedom of speech with the values of citizenry feeling free from prejudice and hatred." while the author whose work was investigated stands to increase his prophets due to the publicity.

The conclusion from this state of affairs is a cry of dictatorship and for some bizarre reason the scenario of a foreign set of religious laws being imposed out of the blue.  It's like something out of a badly written fiction.  It makes you wonder if the world has lost its marbles.

Maxi

Maxi,

The subject was freedom of expression, was it not? About a journalist being brought before a Canadian Human Rights Commission for daring to write an article that some Muslim group didn't like. Right?

Now you are talking about some mysterious family with no name. What exactly are you talking about!?!?

You wrote:

"A man and his family have been Canadian citizens since the 1960's.  They are not religious, and they are not political.  The man has a shop.  Then these portraits of a people begin south of the border and they start creeping up.  People begin being afraid of those of a certain nationality.  They stop going to the shop.  Business suffer and he is close to bancruptcy.  Meanwhile his wife tries to reenter the work force after a child becomes school age.  Nobody will hire her even though she never had problems before.  One of the kids reports that he's being subject to xenophobic slurs.  The atmosphere has changed from the one they once knew.  It feels weird."

A man and his family...ok...do you have a name? A article to cite? Sources?

Stick with facts. A group of people in your country are attempting to hush a member of the press simply because they do not like what the journalist had to say. Shame on them! Shame on Canada!

It reminds me of the blogger in Egypt who was jailed in recent months for daring to... write a blog! That is dictatorship Maxi.  Is that the kind of country and society Canadians want?

By the way, one of my best friends is Canadian, from Vancouver, and she and her husband are disgusted by this kind of thing in Canada.

Rebecca

Yes, I have names. No, my acquaintances have not decided to go to the press so there is no article to cite.  Yes, it is factual.  There are people who are bewildered and need to make life decisions - such as returning to a country they left some 30 years ago, among customs and a mindset that has become foreign to them because by now they are thoroughly Canadian with Canadian values.  Fortunately xenophobia has not reached the same heights in this country as it seems to have reached elsewhere, and I hope it stays that way.

A group of people in your country are attempting to hush a member of the press simply because they do not like what the journalist had to say.

No such thing has happened.  An investigation was made because concern was expressed, and at the end of that investigation everybody went their merry way, with sales  of the book in question probably skyrocketing because of the brouhaha.

I deleted my responses that you have quoted because I realized we were moving into fantasyland, and I am not interested in that level of conversation.

Maxi

Maxi,

An "investigation" should never have taken place to begin with.

Cheers,

Rebecca

Rebecca,

It should have, and it did.

Maxi

Originally quoted by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 11, 2008 2:54 PM "We must balance the values of freedom of speech with the values of citizenry feeling free from prejudice and hatred."

Sounds fair to me as far as a foreign country is concerned, and should I visit it, I would submit myself to that review process, even though, as I said, in my country that article would not be blocked (by certain media I don't follow anyway).

Is the magazine going to be penalized in any way by the Canadian authorities in fiscal or licensing terms? Let's wait and see and take it from there. For the time being, as Maxi said, crying blue murder only translates into more $$$ for the author of the book...

Originally written by Rebecca Lyne on June 11, 2008 2:55 PM A group of people in your country are attempting to hush a member of the press simply because they do not like what the journalist had to say.

A group of people tried to get the Danish government to condemn similar cartoons, but they failed. Why don't we wait and see whether any sanctions are going to be imposed against that particular magazine or, generally, the freedom of speech in Canada. For the time being I don't see any problem with groups of people lodging complaints against whatever. It's a free country, after all, isn't it? Would you like to see your right to complain curtailed?

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 11, 2008 3:11 PM I deleted my responses that you have quoted

As usual, you shouldn't have.

Jacek

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 11, 2008 2:52 PM I suppose it is OK until this stays inside my head.

I will try to quote a book I am reading on human mind one of these days, but suffice it to note that our mind filters trillions of stimuli into a concise digest for our very restricted consumption. So whatever passes through our heads in terms of instincts, impressions, etc., is subject to a constant change due to that bombardment, and whatever we subsequently make of it is a completely different story. The former (instincts) is our legacy of millions of years of animal evolution, the latter (decisions) shows to what extent we are able to be humans. What passes through your head will do so anyway, so calling it freedom is mixing apples with oranges. It is only when you (seemingly) consciously decide to act on it that it will be (partly) up to you to decide how you want to exercise your freedom to say it for example. And where and when.

Jacek

Hi Jacek,

You wrote:

" It's a free country, after all, isn't it? Would you like to see your right to complain curtailed?"

Of course not. The problem is not in the complaining. One can complain, condemn, and engage in all manner of dialogue and debate. But debate, if I am not mistaken, was not their goal in the case of this journalist.

The Danish cartoons are another excellent example. Uphoalding freedom as the Danes have done under the law, was the right thing to do. The problem is that with certain groups today, we see clearly that debate, as we know it and appreaciate it in liberal democracies, is not what some are after.  Their goal is not dialogue, but rather the supression of freedoms based on their personal sensibilities. As the original post indicated, the battle cry becomes "hate speech!" simply because they hate what is said. I say, too bad! That does not wash in a liberal democracy.

When the Danish cartoons were upheld, what happened? The creator of the cartoons now has a death threat on his head and lives in fear. Is that freedom? I am sure you agree it is not. That is not the kind of society I want to live in. Every inch given, every complaint given an ounce of legitimacy in federal courts or councils based on the whinning of some group who at their core do not believe in freedom to begin with,  erodes our freedom.

I also find it strange, in the USA at least, that many of those people like Maxi, who take the side of condemning the creative community, in this case a journalist, for their commentary on Islam, have over my lifetime been oddly silent when the negative commentary is directed towards Christianity and Judaism.

Cheers

Rebecca

My mind stalls when forced into chaos.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 11, 2008 4:36 PM Maxi, I just think that it is going to be hard to argue for suppression of free speech on a website and forum such as this one, for writers and translators (!).

It is amazing how difficult it is for speakers of various varieties of English to understand each other, on a website and forum such as this one, for writers and translators (!). My Polish understanding of Maxi's Canadian explanation of the goals of their HRC is completely different from the way she was understood by Americans and another Canadian. Hers was not for me an argument "for suppression of free speech" at all. She described institutions, procedures and their rationale, pleading for moderation and trying to see the point of the complainants. That's what I focused on in my reading. Maxi did talk about hatred and inciting to violence because that's how she sees potential consequences of Steyn's article, but instead of emotionally calling "for suppression of free speech" she tried to show how one particular culture tries to deal with these racially charged issues. Others who read about mosquitoes taking over the West because of sheer demography may see no traces of hate speech and fear mongering there, and that's fine. Each of us has a different perspective, sensitivity, level of fear, irrationality, racism, etc. The fact is that we will have to increasingly walk through these swarms of mosquitoes (yes, because of sheer demography) so it would be nice to think for a moment how to deal with the issues other than through insect repellents. I found Maxi's clarifications about the ideals behind the functioning of HRC very informative in this respect. Then Paula added her side of the story, so we have a more complete picture of this institution. It's been a useful exercise.

Now, John, what do you mean by that highlighted passage:

these human rights commissions in Canada have been in business for 31 years, and no one has ever been acquitted by one [which to me is the hallmark of courts in totalitarian states like Cuba or North Korea],

I have no clue what sanctions can be imposed by HRC (can anyone explain???), but I have a hunch that they may be different from "courts in totalitarian states like Cuba or North Korea." This is based on my observations of communist courts in Poland which, when manipulated for political purposes, could easily ruin your life. Is the life of the Canadian writer and/or magazine editors really likely to be ruined by the HRC ruling, whenever it is handed down? (Has it already been handed down, can anyone explain???) What is the sentence likely to be? Five years in prison like in Cuba? Twenty-five years in prison like in North Korea? Can anyone explain, please??? Without the answers to all these questions I am afraid we are back to square one of this thread:

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 9, 2008 4:17 PM A topic has been presented on this forum with no effort to present what it was actually about, and then we were supposed to discuss it.  We are invited to hover around the same tired old stereotypes and never go further, never go deeply into the issue.

John, if yours is not just sterile trolling, can you please also explain what you mean by this:

these commissions have to basically 'invent' cases to justify their own continued existence. This is the reason why they have brought McClains, a magazine to [show] trial.

I don't understand. I thought that there was a group that lodged a complaint. Now you are saying (so you must know) that the HRC has invented this case itself for a show trial. Which one is it?

Jacek

In truth, I am thoroughly confused. I never thought that Maxi was arguing "for suppression of free speech", and while I don't completely share her view, it's impossible to even consider that Maxi could or would argue for the suppression of free speech.

As well, it would lessen the confusion considerably if John used quotes or if he replied to the post he is answering, but such is not the case. I have been going back and forth through the various posts looking for the one that Maxi wrote (the one that John is replying to), and where, please, is it?

Nanna

"A man and his family have been Canadian citizens since the 1960's.  They are not religious, and they are not political.  The man has a shop.  Then these portraits of a people begin south of the border and they start creeping up.  People begin being afraid of those of a certain nationality.  They stop going to the shop.  Business suffer and he is close to bancruptcy.  Meanwhile his wife tries to reenter the work force after a child becomes school age.  Nobody will hire her even though she never had problems before.  One of the kids reports that he's being subject to xenophobic slurs.  The atmosphere has changed from the one they once knew.  It feels weird."

I am always on the look-out for first-hand experience, so I cannot just pass over this story about unwanted mosquitoes and certain attitudes begining "south of the border and .... creeping up." Since I suspect that not everyone has had a chance/time to click on my link in Post #147862, here is an excerpt from http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A259169:

Fear, mistrust and hatred of foreigners and things foreign have been with us throughout the ages. The ancient Greeks had a name for it: xenophobia. When fear gains the upper hand, people do fearsome things. American history is littered with episodes committed in haste and repented for in the long, second look.

First we feared the French. The ink had hardly dried on the U.S. Constitution when an anti-French sentiment swept the country. Their warships lurked just over the horizon, harassing our merchant marine. President John Adams called a special session of Congress, and as a result, our military might was doubled, and it became illegal to speak ill of the commander in chief. Congress authorized Adams to imprison and deport enemy aliens, similar to our current system of whisking "combatants" away to secret prisons. Only when Thomas Jefferson was elected did alien and sedition laws end.

Then we feared the Irish and Germans. Starting in the 1820s, they arrived in waves but received a bitter welcome. They lived in shantytowns and were hired only at the least-paying and most arduous jobs. Newspapers described them as a "mongrel mass of ignorance." Protestant ministers preached against the dangers of "Irish whiskey and German beer."

Boston adopted a literacy test to bar the Irish from the ballot. In 1849, Nativists in New York formed a secret anti-immigrant society, the Order of the Star Spangled Banner. Members were instructed to reply "I know nothing" if asked about it, hence the Know Nothing Party. Membership spread, and by 1855, 43 Know Nothings were elected to Congress. The Know Nothings later adopted the name American Party, eventually dissolving over the slavery issue.

Next we feared the Chinese. Transcontinental railroad companies brought them in to lay tracks across the High Sierras. The job complete, the Chinese returned to the coast to compete for work during a period of high unemployment. But when employers chose the lower-paid Chinese, much like today's companies that hire the cheapest labor—Mexican and Latin American immigrants—the public outcry was "The Chinese must go." Attacks on Chinese flared from Los Angeles to Seattle. The Chinese were driven out of almost 30 towns, usually with violence. California responded by making it illegal for a Chinese person to testify in court against a white.

In 1882, Congress made it illegal for "Chinese laborers" to come to the United States; the act was soon amended to target not only "laborers" but "all persons of the Chinese race." The law stayed on the books until the end of World War II.

Then we went after the Germans. The United States and its allies were fighting Germany, among other Central Powers, and Montana made it illegal to speak German; publications in that language were banned. Those of German heritage constituted the state's largest ethnic group, and many opposed the war against Germany. Agent provocateurs were hired to frequent German beer halls and provoke discussions. Some 78 Montanans were convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Some of the inmates' children were shipped to Oregon to be adopted.

Finally, in 2006, the Montana governor pardoned the Germans who had been arrested.

In the 1920s, we turned our hatred to the Russian-Jews. Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia, and in the United States, an anarchist blew himself up outside the home of U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Other anarchists detonated bombs in the financial section of Manhattan.

On the night of Jan. 2, 1920, the FBI cast a dragnet over 33 cities and caught more than 4,000 supposed radicals. Within days, 6,000 more were rounded up. Although government agents searched homes, they found no bombs and only three handguns. Many were imprisoned in squalid conditions, then released after close questioning. Three hundred-fifty of the 10,000 or so arrested were deported, some questionably.

A New York Times correspondent wrote recently that his mother and father were likely targets: Russian immigrants, Jewish, labor organizers, living in sin. His mother was released after a few days, his father after several weeks (and several beatings). But the trauma never left. Years later some FBI agents called on the correspondent, who wasn't home. When he returned, his mother, pale and agitated, said: "The Palmers have been here" [an understandable slip of the tongue]. What have you done?"

We then cast our hateful eye to the Japanese. At the outbreak of World War II, 112,000 persons of Japanese ancestry resided on the Pacific coast. The U.S. government forcibly uprooted them from their homes, moved them across the mountains to desolate places, and there, detained them in jerry-built shacks behind barbed wire. Military authorities assured President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court that this barbarity was necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage.

The military was wrong. After the hysteria died down, Congress appointed a blue ribbon panel to investigate the circumstances. The panel reported that the evacuation and detentions "were not driven by analysis of military conditions" but instead flowed from "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."

Bottom line? The feelings driving the attack on mosquitoes at hand have been with us for ages. I am far from accepting David's invitation to love everyone. I admit I am only capable of tolerance. Looking around me, realistically, I do not expect people to change the content of their heads, modify their grey cells and start thinking differently. But do we have to get hysterical?

Since no one has addressed my numerous doubts, I am stuck with the following big IF:

Originally written by Paula Rennie on June 11, 2008 4:42 PM If this group is allowed to succeed in their complaint, it will cast a chill over all expression in this country.

WILL SOMEONE, PLEASE, LET ME KNOW, EITHER PUBLICLY OR BY PM, ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THIS AFFAIR?

THANK YOU!

Jacek

You've made my day, Paula. I have looked for an executive summary there, something I could spend 2-3 minutes on to find out all I need, but have found no such digest. If this brouhaha were at the center of my life, I would be duly perusing all the "329 matching documents" found under Steyn (I even have a hard time memorizing the guy's name and the name of the magazine). It is not.

Jacek

Your point being?