Should we abolish Canada's Human Rights Commissions?

[Argus]

That's typically the reflexive response I have as well. However, reflecting further on it, some individuals in history have, with free reign to speak, managed to persuade a helluva lotta people into believing some pretty nasty shit.

In democratic states? The only one I can recall was Germany, and that was in a state of devestation after the war, deep depression, and running street fights between Communists and Fascists.

[g_bambino]

In democratic states? The only one I can recall was Germany, and that was in a state of devestation after the war, deep depression, and running street fights between Communists and Fascists.

That's probably the most prominent example in modern history. But, similar circumstances in other democratic states led to the same result: a persuasive individual convinces the majority to believe in and accept the practices of an odious ideology. Italy and Spain in the 20th century come to mind, as well.

[c/e]

Edited March 24, 2010 by g_bambino

[jbg]

Because you think most people aren't as smart as you?

In democratic states? The only one I can recall was Germany, and that was in a state of devestation after the war, deep depression, and running street fights between Communists and Fascists.

In all of those cases we're not talking about countries with any pre-existing traditions of democracy. By that I mean that while their monarchs had advistory Parliaments and there were some forms of elections, there was no tradition of taking political disputes into a peaceful debate forum and resolving disputes without resort to either fiat or force.

Canada (and the U.S. and Britain) are different stories. In these socieities, stupid views should be ridiculed and debated away, not shut down.

[Michael Hardner]

In all of those cases we're not talking about countries with any pre-existing traditions of democracy. By that I mean that while their monarchs had advistory Parliaments and there were some forms of elections, there was no tradition of taking political disputes into a peaceful debate forum and resolving disputes without resort to either fiat or force.

Canada (and the U.S. and Britain) are different stories. In these socieities, stupid views should be ridiculed and debated away, not shut down.

That's an interesting take on it. It makes me wonder...

How much should we fear the return of the mistakes of the past ? How much should we try to protect against them happening ?

[g_bambino]

In all of those cases we're not talking about countries with any pre-existing traditions of democracy.

I would question how undemocratic the Weimar Republic was. But, still, even if the traditions of democracy weren't as deeply entrenched as they are in British-born countries, so long as there existed circumstances in which an exchange of ideas could take place, people had the option to choose from more than one ideology. I don't think Hitler fought against censorship to get his message to the German people.

[c/e]

Edited March 24, 2010 by g_bambino

[Gabriel]

Because you think most people aren't as smart as you?

Exactly.

[DrGreenthumb]

We don't need to abolish the commissions, there should just be a healthy penalty for frivolous complaints like Anne Coulter's. The law was not designed to protect bigots like her and her supporters.

[Gabriel]

We don't need to abolish the commissions, there should just be a healthy penalty for frivolous complaints like Anne Coulter's. The law was not designed to protect bigots like her and her supporters.

What about oversensitive ethnic groups? Could a person identified as a "white male" file a claim with the HRC on grounds of discrimination?

[Peter F]

What about oversensitive ethnic groups? Could a person identified as a "white male" file a claim with the HRC on grounds of discrimination?

Which ethnic group is oversensitive? Do you mean a claim from anyone deemed (by who-knows?) to be part of the oversensitive group would have any claim submitted held to a higher scrutiny than non-overly sensitive groups?

I imagine there would have to be some listing somewhere for which groups are to be considered oversensitive. Perhaps reviewed from time to time by the sensitivity review board...

White males can certainly file claims with the hrc on grounds of discrimination. Anyone can make such claims.

[jbg]

In all of those cases we're not talking about countries with any pre-existing traditions of democracy. By that I mean that while their monarchs had advistory Parliaments and there were some forms of elections, there was no tradition of taking political disputes into a peaceful debate forum and resolving disputes without resort to either fiat or force.

Canada (and the U.S. and Britain) are different stories. In these socieities, stupid views should be ridiculed and debated away, not shut down.

That's an interesting take on it. It makes me wonder...

Thanks for the compliment.

How much should we fear the return of the mistakes of the past ? How much should we try to protect against them happening ?

Whose mistakes and which mistakes? That would make your question easier to address.

I would question how undemocratic the Weimar Republic was.

I think its forms were very democratic. The problem is whether people are accustomed to free-wheeling debate as opposed to taking matters into their own hands.

In some ways it's similar to the situation that the U.S. under Bush created in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people now vote in reasonably fair and free elections. The problem is that far from all differences in these countries are sorted out through legal channels. Much of the stage for disagreements is the street and revenge killings of one variety or another.

But, still, even if the traditions of democracy weren't as deeply entrenched as they are in British-born countries, so long as there existed circumstances in which an exchange of ideas could take place, people had the option to choose from more than one ideology. I don't think Hitler fought against censorship to get his message to the German people.

[c/e]

See above.

The people of Weimar Germany were certainly electing their governments. Whether they reposed the degree of confidence and trust in those governments necessary to keep disputes out of the streets and the beer halls is another matter.

The fact that Hitler didn't have to fight against censorship to get his message to the German people is irrelevant. The fact that the German people were willing to buy into his scheme, which lacked any organized moral basis, is far more important.

[ironstone]

Which ethnic group is oversensitive? Do you mean a claim from anyone deemed (by who-knows?) to be part of the oversensitive group would have any claim submitted held to a higher scrutiny than non-overly sensitive groups?

I imagine there would have to be some listing somewhere for which groups are to be considered oversensitive. Perhaps reviewed from time to time by the sensitivity review board...

White males can certainly file claims with the hrc on grounds of discrimination. Anyone can make such claims.

Anyone can make claims to the HRC,but whether or not those cases get taken on is another matter.Some years ago in the Ottawa Citizen,there was a small article in which someone from one of the HRC's in fact said they won't accept cases from white males,since they are a privileged group.Of course they really meant heterosexual males but you get the point.I certainly wish I had saved that article.

Sadly,I think the HRC will only keep on gaining power.

[Michael Hardner]

Whose mistakes and which mistakes? That would make your question easier to address.

Well, we have mechanisms in place to guard against persecution of minorities, due in part to the experience with the Nazis. How much of that is rear-view mirror thinking ? Is it useless to protect against social ills in the past ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, we have mechanisms in place to guard against persecution of minorities, due in part to the experience with the Nazis. How much of that is rear-view mirror thinking ? Is it useless to protect against social ills in the past ?

What experience with the Nazis? This is laughable, as there is more than enough history in North America for home grown "persecution".

What is it with some of you guys and the goddamn Nazis?

[Michael Hardner]

What experience with the Nazis? This is laughable, as there is more than enough history in North America for home grown "persecution".

What is it with some of you guys and the goddamn Nazis?

You're proving my point. "Some of us guys" are worried they're coming back so we've set up committees of people who will interrogate you to make sure you're not one of them. Get it now ?

[bush_cheney2004]

You're proving my point. "Some of us guys" are worried they're coming back so we've set up committees of people who will interrogate you to make sure you're not one of them. Get it now ?

OK....I guess you're A-OK with Stalinists, Maoists, Romans, Canadians, Americans, Turks, Cambodians, French, British, Aztec, Inca, Japanese, Zulu, and Hutu.

Edited March 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

OK....I guess you're A-OK with Stalinists, Maoists, Romans, Canadians, Americans, Turks, Cambodians, French, British, Aztec, Inca, Japanese, Zulu, and Hutu.

I'm okay with Canadians, Americans, Turks, Cambodians, French, British, Aztec, Inca, Japanese, Zulu, and Hutu but stalinists, maoists and romans should get nutted.

(okay, not sure about the aztecs, incas or Hutu...)

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm okay with Canadians, Americans, Turks, Cambodians, French, British, Aztec, Inca, Japanese, Zulu, and Hutu but stalinists, maoists and romans should get nutted.

(okay, not sure about the aztecs, incas or Hutu...)

OK.....then it is settled....we can have mass murderers from each of those approved groups speak at Canadian universities without controversy. But for God's sakes....no Nazis!!!!!

[M.Dancer]

OK.....then it is settled....we can have mass murderers from each of those approved groups speak at Canadian universities without controversy. But for God's sakes....no Nazis!!!!!

Just to be sure, no one from Illinois...

[bush_cheney2004]

Just to be sure, no one from Illinois...

OK....I will let Obama know the bad news.

[M.Dancer]

OK....I will let Obama know the bad news.

I should pay attention more....I thought he was from Hawaii. Mind you, I though Hillary Clinton war from arrrghkansas

[Michael Hardner]

OK....I guess you're A-OK with Stalinists, Maoists, Romans, Canadians, Americans, Turks, Cambodians, French, British, Aztec, Inca, Japanese, Zulu, and Hutu.

Not sure where we're going with this... but sure... wheeee !

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure where we're going with this... but sure... wheeee !

I believe you....so focused on "Nazis" they be. Nevermind the other persecutions...if you can just keep those pesky Nazis at bay, all will be well.

[jbg]

Well, we have mechanisms in place to guard against persecution of minorities, due in part to the experience with the Nazis. How much of that is rear-view mirror thinking ? Is it useless to protect against social ills in the past ?

I guess I have to repeat myself. Those kind of prohibitions may be needed in countries and cultures without the traditions of robust debate. Perhaps modern day Germany and Poland, countries whose democratic histories go back 20 years (or maybe 60 years in the former West Germany) as opposed to the thousands of years in the English-speaking cultures. I think the development of a robust Nazi movement would be most unlikely in our culture.

An example is the KKK. The KKK, granted, is illegal since it not only advocates but participates in violence. In the U.S. its ideology gains little or no traction. When the Nazis fought a long, well-publicized legal fight to march in Skokie, Illinois (a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago) I believe less than a dozen came to the march.

Are hate laws really needed to deal with this kind of marginalia?

[jbg]

I'm okay with Canadians, Americans, Turks, Cambodians, French, British, Aztec, Inca, Japanese, Zulu, and Hutu but stalinists, maoists and romans should get nutted.

(okay, not sure about the aztecs, incas or Hutu...)

I think Amelkites and Jebusites should be utterly destroyed.

[g_bambino]

The fact that Hitler didn't have to fight against censorship to get his message to the German people is irrelevant. The fact that the German people were willing to buy into his scheme, which lacked any organized moral basis, is far more important.

Not entirely to my question, though, of how much freedom hate spewers should be given. You seemed to advocate giving them absolute freedom, expecting that they'll be quieted by the rational majority of the population. However, as I keep reiterating, there seem to be examples of otherwise sensible populations being won over by hate mongers. So, should we have legal limitations on speech in order to prevent eloquent lunatics from ever exploiting unstable economic and/or governmental circumstances in the future, or not? As I said, my reflexive thought is to simply let morons like Holocaust deniers speak their minds; the vast majority of the country simply won't pay them any real attention. However, I subsequently wonder if, without hate speech laws, there could actually come a point when, for whatever reason, people are taking more seriously those who were once considered kooks.