Rulers and Demgoguery
Now that everyone and their grandmother has waded in on the Lemire matter there is one voice I have not heard and it is Elizabeth Moore. An outline of her narrative can be found here and note this – this is a Canadian narrative.
For a person to even be interested in joining a group like the Heritage Front they must have a certain level of pre-existing racism. And, admittedly, I was racist before I was introduced to the group. Many people think that racism is mostly learned at home, and for many it is. However, both my parents are fairly liberal in this regard, so most of my racism was learned at school. I had white friends who complained bitterly about the “chinks” taking over our neighborhood. But, I also experienced the other side of the coin: I felt I was the victim of reverse racism. I was called names, pushed into lockers, and intimidated in my classes. At the time, I did not understand where my non-white classmates’ rage was coming from, so their abuse only served to intensify the racism developing in me.
Five years ago, when I was in grade 12, I met a guy named Hans. Hans was different from other people I knew. He was German-born, for one, and a couple of years older than the rest of the class. I helped him with his assignments because he still had trouble with English grammar, and he, in turn, slowly introduced me to National Socialism. Eventually, he gave me a couple of flyers about the Heritage Front. He told me that they were “the white man’s answer to muticulturalism.” The flyers said they were a group of ordinary men and women concerned about the future of Canada, and persecuted by the Human Rights Commission for speaking out.
When I explain why I joined, I always feel torn because I want to believe I joined solely for political reasons: concern about the future, about immigration, about freedom of expression. But I realize now that that was only part of it. That was what was going on in my head. But what made me different from any other well-meaning, but ignorant, citizen, was what was going on in my heart.
I have an internal ruler I use when I encounter discussions on immigration, free speech and multiculturalism. Does the ’speaker’ speak from a sense of personal grievance based on ‘reverse racism’, does the speaker lament the loss of their alleged ‘cultural’ dominance? Does the speaker seek to vilify and demonize other races/cultural groups by suggesting a sense of intellectually or culturally inferiority? Does the speaker suggest ‘immigrants’ are the cause of whatever societal peril they perceive we are facing? And finally ask yourself does the speaker speak to our highest hopes or deepest fears concerning other cultures and immigration?
Ask then ask yourself why is Free Speech such an concept of enormous importance to the modern inheritors of the Nazi movement and what do they gain by openly preaching their dogma on a soapbox in the light of day rather than being confined to the outer reaches of the dark fabric which makes up the human psyche? Are we really that much better than the good volk who let madness sway them? History is literally littered with demagogues who ran nations a muck.
Ask then ask yourself why is Free Speech such an concept of enormous importance to the modern inheritors of the Nazi movement and what do they gain by openly preaching their dogma on a soapbox in the light of day rather than being confined to the outer reaches of the dark fabric which makes up the human psyche? Are we really that much better than the good volk who let madness sway them? History is literally littered with demagogues who ran nations a muck.
I guess that makes America’s founding fathers Nazis, huh? Free speech is an important concept, period. Not just to neo-Nazis. Weimar Germany didn’t swirl the drain solely because Hitler was a smooth talker and was allowed out in public. It went down the tube for literally dozens of reasons, including:
- Its postwar economy was a hyperinflationary mess
- The bulk of the populace didn’t actually believe Germany had legitimately lost the Great War. They thought the politicians had sold them out, and that they didn’t deserve to be paying reparations.
- Its democratic government was weak and ineffectual, suffering from major structural issues in its founding statutes.
- The government did not have a monopoly on violence (Hitler had his own private enforcers, the SA).
- Hitler persuaded Germany’s 80-year-old, semi-senile president to sign a law granting him dictatorial powers.
Take away a couple of those factors and what you get is an aged but powerless kook screaming nonsense at Yonge & Dundas. Free speech didn’t make or even abet fascism. Poor governance and a very particular set of circumstances did. Whatever we may think of the worthiness of our current crop of leaders, the fact is this is not a country with the severe financial, societal and governmental dysfunction of Weimar Germany.
What keeps stupid ideas at bay is not having them swept under the rug by bureaucratic fiat; it is having the stupid ideas aired in public and subsequently destroyed by fact and better logic. Elizabeth Moore’s own account is an excellent example of this, as she was unable or unwilling to defend her Holocaust denial logic with Bernie Farber.
I guess that makes America’s founding fathers Nazis, huh? This is not what I said or suggested. Post-WW2 Germany suffered from many things. Perhaps its best if I put it this way – what do groups like the Northern Alliance or the former Hertiage Front or even the Radical press profit from Free Speech in its purest most form – what do they hope to gain?
I am not against responsible free speech in the public arena but what I am suggesting that absolute free speech is also a weapon which can be used to render the fabric of society apart. Take the Brothers Gracchi from ancient Rome who would incite the crowds from their soap box using nothing more than ‘free speech’ in its purest forms. In Iraq, violence closely followed from the soap box of certain Imam’s speeches in the mosques. The pattern is repeated in Israel, and often the violence closely follows the speeches of the more radical Palestinian leaders speeches. Violence often flows from absolute free speech.
The Sages teach us that lashon hara (evil tongue) “kills” three victims – the speaker, the listener, and the subject of discussion. Absolute free speech leads to bad consequences – history is littered with examples and this is playground dynamics 101. People laughed when Adolph Hitler first got up on his soap box at the German equivalent of Yonge & Dundas and look where we all ended up.
All it takes is one charismatic individual with a ’cause’ and a golden tongue to do untold damage. There is hardly been a mob which has not been incited by someone using employing free speech in its purest form. I think you would be hard pressed to find a mob which ran a muck which did not have someone airing grievances first.
And yes, I would take the wisdom of Talmud or Oral Law over the American founding fathers any day – absolutely and its not even a real contest.
We are hardly dealing with absolute free speech, Kateland. Section 1 of the Charter—which itself recognises reasonable limits on free speech—was not struck down. A provision of the CHRC’s empowering legislation has been struck, as it is understood to cause too much of a chilling effect on the Ordinary Joe’s reasonable free speech (even if we do not consider Lemire, in particular, to be an Ordinary Joe).
And yes, I would take the wisdom of Talmud or Oral Law over the American founding fathers any day – absolutely and its not even real contest even.
You are fully at liberty to do so. But you’ll forgive me for saying that I do not take the Talmud over the statues of the land where the public sphere is concerned. You and I are free to exercise our religious beliefs in private, but to spread their obligations into the public sphere to govern non-believers is, to be blunt, something that needs to be combatted. And that would be true regardless of the belief system in play. A nation’s laws should be crafted to suit all of its citizens, not just those of a particular creed.
On the contrary, this is exactly where the free screechers crowd are attempting to steer us and along the way – let’s ditch the laws governing libel as well
Don’t forget the alleged “Freedom Five” are being sued for libel and defamation. It’s not responsible free speech they want us to stand up for but the right to defame or libel anyone as the ultimate expression of exercising your absolute free speech right without legal ramification.
Let me ask you this – what exactly could be construed as an explame of ‘responsible’ free speech in action by either Lemire or even Arthur Topham?
I guess that makes America’s founding fathers Nazis, huh? This is not what I said or suggested. Post-WW2 Germany suffered from many things. Perhaps its best if I put it this way – what do groups like the Northern Alliance or the former Hertiage Front or even the Radical press profit from Free Speech in its purest most form – what do they hope to gain?
I am not against responsible free speech in the public arena but what I am suggesting that absolute free speech is also a weapon which can be used to render the fabric of society apart. Take the Brothers Gracchi from ancient Rome who would incite the crowds from their soap box using nothing more than ‘free speech’ in its purest forms. In Iraq, violence closely followed from the soap box of certain Imam’s speeches in the mosques. The pattern is repeated in Israel, and often the violence closely follows the speeches of the more radical Palestinian leaders speeches. Violence often flows from absolute free speech.
The Sages teach us that lashon hara (evil tongue) “kills” three victims – the speaker, the listener, and the subject of discussion. Absolute free speech leads to bad consequences – history is littered with examples and this is playground dynamics 101. People laughed when Adolph Hitler first got up on his soap box at the German equivalent of Yonge & Dundas and look where we all ended up.
All it takes is one charismatic individual with a ’cause’ and a golden tongue to do untold damage. There is hardly been a mob which has not been incited by someone using employing free speech in its purest form. I think you would be hard pressed to find a mob which ran a muck which did not have someone airing grievances first.
And yes, I would take the wisdom of Talmud or Oral Law over the American founding fathers any day – absolutely and its not even a real contest.
And Chris, But you’ll forgive me for saying that I do not take the Talmud over the statues of the land where the public sphere is concerned. You and I are free to exercise our religious beliefs in private, but to spread their obligations into the public sphere to govern non-believers is, to be blunt, something that needs to be combatted. And that would be true regardless of the belief system in play. A nation’s laws should be crafted to suit all of its citizens, not just those of a particular creed.
It’s all well and good to lecture me on need for secular rights to trumph all but that isn’t what I said. What I said was, and I quote – And yes, I would take the wisdom of Talmud or Oral Law over the American founding fathers any day – absolutely and its not even a real contest.
Well, what you appear to be saying is this:
The Sages teach us that lashon hara (evil tongue) “kills” three victims – the speaker, the listener, and the subject of discussion. Absolute free speech leads to bad consequences – history is littered with examples and this is playground dynamics 101.
…which looks an awful lot like a religious justification for squelching speech that your particular religious viewpoint would consider to be harmful to others. As opposed to say a study not based on religious beliefs. Or a precedent.
And no, in this case I do not consider Hitler to be a precedent without the pre-existing financial, social and political conditions in Weimar Germany that made his rantings seem attractive to too many people. Those preconditions were beer googles for the populace, if you will; I’ve already enumerated some of them. Take them away and he’s just a nut on a street corner. I am not sure how I can make that any plainer; we will just have to agree to disagree on that, I suppose.
Let me ask you this – what exactly could be construed as an example of ‘responsible’ free speech in action by either Lemire or even Arthur Topham?
I have no idea who Arthur Topham is, but in Lemire’s case I would say precious little would be what I would consider to be reasonable. That doesn’t mean I want a lid put on him any more than I want to put a lid on Communists, whose beliefs I consider unreasonable, are demonstrably harmful, and have also resulted in millions of innocent deaths. I want to know who the nutters in the neighbourhood are, the better to meet the nutty argument and destroy it. And for the secondary purpose of pointing and laughing.
If speech of the stunned is flat-out illegal, then it goes underground, is much harder to detect, and mighty enjoy the frisson of being both subversive and rebellious to authority. Some people are dumb enough to rebel against things just because somebody higher up happens to like it.
The best way to delegitimise a philosophy is not to pound the kitchen table and say “There will be no more talk of this!” but to say “Why do you believe this?” and then logically tear down the argument. Surely you as a mother know the “because I said so” routine does not always yield compliance or desirable results. Citizens have much less reason to be solicitious of their governing representatives.
As far as deconstructing libel laws go, you’ll have to ask Jay. That’s his deal, not mine.
You and I are discussing some what different things. I am discussing hate speech (defined easily by the demonization and vilification of the ‘other’ – which has generally always been subversive and rebellious to authority by nature) and you want to discuss political philosophy.
While you think you can ‘debate’ by the kitchen table the merchants of hate, it has been my experience that as long as their are not run to ground much like Saddam in his spidey hole, those same merchants of hate debating you are not trying to persuade or sway you and are completely impervious to all your calm measured arguments. What they want is a soap box in the public domain to reach the likes of Christopher Steven McBrides among us.
Sixty-one years later, and one of the most well documented human atrocities in modern history has yet to put this philosophy racial superiority to bed and nor has this hate been successfully reasoned into the ground. I rather protect people like David Rosenzweig from the likes of Christopher Steven McBride and the merchants of hate who helped create McBride.
Hate speech by nature is always subversive of the social fabric but more importantly, give me an example wherein hate speech which has been used to demonize and vilify the ‘other’ has been effectively countered and de-legitimized in the public domain just by ‘words’ or reasoned argument alone. I came of age where ‘gay-bashing’ was seen as a legitimate social activity. Instead of going to my high school prom I came to Toronto to protest discrimination against Gays and Lesbians in employment and housing. Reason alone did not change the social fabric to rule out gay bashing but the coercive power of the law against those who believed they had a god-given right to physically abuse or counsel another human being to demonize those who they judged ‘less’ than human. I won’t claim to understand homosexuality but to see Lemire lauded and have so many express concern with the alleged violation of Lemire’s right to unfettered free speech by the state, and yet, nary a thought to spare for targeted ‘other’ who has to live out the burden of Lemire’s hatemonger is beyond the pale for me.
You and I are discussing some what different things. I am discussing hate speech (defined easily by the demonization and vilification of the ‘other’ – which has generally always been subversive and rebellious to authority by nature) and you want to discuss political philosophy.
I think at this point we are done, since you are avoiding the points I raise merely to chuck another accusation. So, have fun with it.
Kateland wins.