Why It's Best To Be American
Do you think I suck? Maybe because I'm a writer, a redhead, because I was born Jewish, because I'm from Michigan, because I'm an atheist, because of what I write, or for any reason?
Well, I totally support your right to say so. In fact, I'll fight for it. And I can do that pretty easily in America, because the law is on my side. If only that were the case in other Western countries.
It turns out that speech in many countries in the West is not so free. And Muslims, when they aren't too busy killing murdering people for not worshipping Allah, are taking advantage of laws in Canada and other countries to squelch criticism of Islam and Muslims.
Take the sickening court case being brought in Canada against Maclean's magazine for daring to publish an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. In that excerpt, Steyn argues that the rise of Islam is a threat to Western values. (Well, duh!) Adam Liptak writes in the IHT:
Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."
Oh, boo frigging hoo. So, Muslims...your god, this Allah dude, is supposedly all powerful and all that crap, and your religion is, like, totally the greatest ever, but it can't withstand a little criticism?
Here's a thought: If you're too sensitive to live in Western society, why don't you all fucking leave? Go back to wherever you or your parents or grandparents were herding goats and beheading those in rival tribes before U.S. stupidity and shortsightedeness in the 70s allowed us to continue our dependence on Mid-East oil.
More from the Liptak piece:
Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined 15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.
Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps "basically a Puerto Rican program." The First Amendment, Justice Eve Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase "the general level of prejudice."
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."
There's a responsibility on the part of those who disagree or abhor speech to debate it. You don't make hate go away because you tell people they can't talk about their hatred. You simply send it underground. And sorry, but what you can't see can hurt you -- and ultimately, is probably more hurtful than what you can see.
Of course, I'm opposed to the notion of "hate crimes," anyway, on the grounds that the notion is just ridiculous. As a number of people on this blog and elsewhere have pointed out, what kind of murder isn't a hate crime? And policing people's supposed thoughts is extremely dangerous territory, since you can't really know what anyone is thinking.
Liptak's piece also addresses the "Supreme Court's insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence":
The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article - or any publication - aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.
Interestingly, the Quran would qualify as violence-inciting speech, as it does precisely that: commands Muslims to convert or kill the "infidel." (That would be us.) And it works!
And that's why Muslims strap on bombs and blow themselves and others up, and fly planes into the World Trade Center. (That and the fact that they're gullible fuckers -- believing, without evidence, the stories of the 72 virgins, 80,000 slaves, and the permanent woody they'll have in paradise.)
In the last months of the Clinton presidency, Bill &/or Hillary blamed some failure of theirs on "hate radio," a term new to me at the time.
I'd planned to say in this comment that we should be glad it hasn't stuck... But while Googling, I can't find a cite for the usage I recall, though there there are plenty of lefty websites that use the term without irony. So we shouldn't count the eggs until they're in the pudding.
Anyway, if anyone happens to remember the event, please speak up.
Crid at June 12, 2008 1:26 AM
"What kind of murder isn't a hate crime?": Reminds me of the rejoinder from the gruff 1970s chief detective, Gene Hunt, in the brilliant BBC TV series Life on Mars: "As opposed to a 'I really really like you murder'."
lizzylights at June 12, 2008 4:27 AM
And for the record, Amy, you don't suck. You rock.
lizzylights at June 12, 2008 4:29 AM
Crid - you're looking for the speech the philanderer-in-chief gave after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in OKC. Basically accused Limbaugh of inciting anti-government hatred.
Of course, there was never any proof offered, but there never is from the left. If you say something they don't like, you're evil and that's the end of the conversation.
brian at June 12, 2008 5:28 AM
The UK laws on it are crazy BUT they do have one slight good point. The new law (from the government website):
Makes it a criminal offence to use threatening words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred against any group of people because of their religious beliefs or their lack of religious beliefs.
Or lack of religious beliefs? So when nutty religious types tell me I'm going to hell is that a hate crime?
Sigh.
Simon Proctor at June 12, 2008 5:31 AM
So, why isn't it illegal to print the Koran in Canada? Or Europe? Seems like under their laws, it should be! Double standard, anyone?
Melissa G at June 12, 2008 7:00 AM
Oh, boo frigging hoo. So, Muslims...your god, this Allah dude, is supposedly all powerful and all that crap, and your religion is, like, totally the greatest ever, but it can't withstand a little criticism?
Our god's better than your god. If we beat you up, we'll prove he's better! It's not like there aren't plenty of medieval examples of other religions acting this way, but I've got a more recent example. Criticize Uwe Boll's movies, and he'll prove his worth as a film director by beating you senseless in a boxing ring. He's even challenged Michael Bay to prove who's a better director (of their fists). Similar neanderthalic thinking to protesting muslims, but it's funnier and doesn't result in people getting killed.
Jamie at June 12, 2008 7:38 AM
Makes it a criminal offence to use threatening words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred against any group of people because of their religious beliefs or their lack of religious beliefs.
What are "threatening words or behavior"? Isn't that dangerously loosey goosey?
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2008 8:14 AM
But Uwe Boll DOES SUCK. It's been proven empirically. He wanted to do a movie for World of Warcraft. The answer was "Especially not you."
Speech regulations are precisely the reason that Germany and France have resurgent neo-nazi groups. Sure, we've got white supremacy groups here. Everyone laughs at them.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Only in the shadows of government-imposed speech codes can these horrendous organizations thrive and become dangerous.
brian at June 12, 2008 8:33 AM
Brian, if only I had blogged negative reviews of Boll back when he made the initial challenge. I was in much better shape then, was training in a Muay Thai class - so I think I could take him. If I'd won, maybe I'd get to direct his next film!
I can guarantee that the pyrotechnics would have been AWESOME, regardless of the "plot."
Freedom of speech rocks, and I'll say all sorts of mean things about those who disagree with me. While defending their right to disagree with me.
Jamie at June 12, 2008 8:44 AM
Freedom of speech rocks, and I'll say all sorts of mean things about those who disagree with me. While defending their right to disagree with me.
Which is really what it's all about. And what the Muslims and their unenlightened sympathizers don't seem to get.
Flynne at June 12, 2008 8:54 AM
So, why isn't it illegal to print the Koran in Canada? Or Europe? Seems like under their laws, it should be!
Sure seems like it!
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2008 9:02 AM
The problem is "Double Standard". White guy says black family next door are a bunch of "water melon blah blah blah" in a public forum he will get railroaded. But a black guy can say that white people are the devil in front of large public audience and he will get cheered.
Religious groups like the Knights of Columbus say sorry to a gay couple using their meeting house for a wedding/commitment ceremony get fined and censored. But a gay bar can ban all straight people from a club.
It just gets silly. I would grudgingly accept some version of hate crime only if it was EQUAL. But remember all "Animals are equal. Some are just more equal than others."
I think we need to start calling the other groups out. I think all Muslim centers and papers and forums should be watched so when some Iman says "Jews are dirty" or "Women who are wearing bikinis are sluts" he can be brought before the proper "insert province" Human Rights Commission for hate crime.
John Paulson at June 12, 2008 10:01 AM
John Paulson you said it all with "Animals are equal. Some are just more equal than others" Welcome to our 2008 Animal Farm.
And Amy, you do rock.
belle at June 12, 2008 11:02 AM
Amy,I am with you on free speech rights!!! A free society treasures the ability to say (or print, or transmit) comments that may not necessarily be comfortable for many to hear.
I personally disliked the Rev. Wright's rants about America and whites, but I will fight for his right to say it everyday and in every way.
John's comment "The problem is "Double Standard". White guy says black family next door are a bunch of "water melon blah blah blah" in a public forum he will get railroaded. But a black guy can say that white people are the devil", is missing one of the main points of our laws. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect the rights of the minority of the population. The biggest danger in a democracy is the potential abuse of the minority - that's why Aristotle considerred pure democracy a deviant form of government. Kind of a mob rule. That is precisely why it is more socially acceptable for blacks to rail against whites, but not vice versa. It is one thing for the minority to rant at the majority, vice versa is more like bullying.(Note: socially acceptable does not necesarily equate to legality. A comment may be socially unacceptable yet be perfectly legal.)
steveda at June 12, 2008 11:53 AM
Does this thing even rise to the level of a "court case"? I was under the impression it was one of those fraudulent "Human Rights Commissions" they have up there.
Jim Treacher at June 12, 2008 12:49 PM
Amy,
I got this story from today's Jihad Watch. You have posted some of the individual stories cited in this article. The article addresses one very insidious aspect of the stealth jihad, the islamification of our nation's school textbooks. Begs the question, "Are we fighting them over there, so we can surrender to them here?"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/11/cstillwell.DTL
Ken at June 12, 2008 4:02 PM
"That is precisely why it is more socially acceptable for blacks to rail against whites, but not vice versa. It is one thing for the minority to rant at the majority, vice versa is more like bullying.(Note: socially acceptable does not necesarily equate to legality. A comment may be socially unacceptable yet be perfectly legal.)
Well, they're not going to be the minority much longer. And it's still ridiculous to say blacks (or hispanics) can say stuff about us but we can't about them. Maybe things are different up north, but down south I feel like te minority most of the time, and looking around me everywhere I go doesn't dispel that feeling, but reinforces it.
I really agree with free speech, and once that's gone America is over. They've already taken most of the rest of the bill of rights if not the entire Constitution. But free speech is free speech, for everyone, not just some.
momof3 at June 12, 2008 5:34 PM
Treacher said "Does this thing even rise to the level of a "court case"? I was under the impression it was one of those fraudulent "Human Rights Commissions" they have up there."
You are correct - this is not a court case, this case is being heard under the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body.
More in-depth proceedings blogged here by other Maclean's Magazine journalists: http://blog.macleans.ca/?s=macnaughton&submit=search
RS at June 12, 2008 7:36 PM
More on Canada's human rights laws and administration of same at the National Review. Here's an excerpt:
Keep in mind the tribunals' "judges" are not required to have formal credentials in law or administration of justice.
I don't agree wholly with the vehemence of Steyn's (or Amy's) characterisation of the Muslim faith, but as a Canadian I am concerned about the abuse of my country's use of human rights law to abrogate freedom of speech.
RS at June 12, 2008 11:11 PM
Leave a comment