Do people have the right to be racist?

[Scotty]

Some might argue that in many cases, giving up freedom of speech could eventually prove more dangerous than what some people consider dangerous speech.

Any laws which hinder freedom of speech need, of necessity, to be extremely tightly defined and be of demonstrable urgency. That is not the case with the human rights legislation, though it could be arguably so with hate speech.

[Scotty]

I just want to reply to the people who say we should censor hate speech because it causes violence.

You realize we already have laws against violent acts right? The concept of preemptive action to prevent crime/etc. is what spawned the entire Iraq war and will probably be used to start a war in Iran.

True enough. However, suppose we have an extremely influential, charismatic person who is making thunderous speeches about the evil of, say, blonde people. And suppose that his followers, often of a low intellect and sophistication, have, on numerous occasions, attacked and harmed blondes. He himself has made no physical attacks on anyone, nor can he be connected with any prior knowledge of his followers attacks. He merely makes speeches. Do you suggest he should be permitted to go on making his speeches while the rabble which laps up his nonsense like ultimate truths act violently against blonde people? Should he be permitted to go on inspiring violence and hatred against blondes?

[PlayItLoud]

True enough. However, suppose we have an extremely influential, charismatic person who is making thunderous speeches about the evil of, say, blonde people. And suppose that his followers, often of a low intellect and sophistication, have, on numerous occasions, attacked and harmed blondes. He himself has made no physical attacks on anyone, nor can he be connected with any prior knowledge of his followers attacks. He merely makes speeches. Do you suggest he should be permitted to go on making his speeches while the rabble which laps up his nonsense like ultimate truths act violently against blonde people? Should he be permitted to go on inspiring violence and hatred against blondes?

No... what you do is do the exact same thing, raise awareness of how blondes aren't inferior.

By the way, I'm not necessarily against governmetn action. What the gov. could is release PSAs or encourage schools to invite speakers to raise awareness about equality.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think any poster who thinks the term visible minority is racist loses credibility to talk about racism. That's particularly so when that poster is a zealous advocate for a party in his own nation which is undeniably racist.

..and I think any poster who rabidly defends such a racist term is clearly ignorant of the inherent reasons why the term is considered to be racist, including Canada's much beloved United Nations:

UNITED NATIONS - Canada's use of the term "visible minorities" to identify people it considers susceptible to racial discrimination came under fire at the United Nations Wednesday - for being racist.

The world body's anti-racism watchdog says in a report on Ottawa's efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in Canada that the words might contravene an international treaty aimed at combating racism.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802

Defining and labeling groups in terms of differing "visible" attributes (non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour) is inherently racist. "Non-white in colour"....you gotta be kidding!

[Tilter]

True enough. However, suppose we have an extremely influential, charismatic person who is making thunderous speeches about the evil of, say, blonde people. And suppose that his followers, often of a low intellect and sophistication, have, on numerous occasions, attacked and harmed blondes. He himself has made no physical attacks on anyone, nor can he be connected with any prior knowledge of his followers attacks. He merely makes speeches. Do you suggest he should be permitted to go on making his speeches while the rabble which laps up his nonsense like ultimate truths act violently against blonde people? Should he be permitted to go on inspiring violence and hatred against blondes?

True enough. However, suppose we have an extremely influential, charismatic person who is making thunderous speeches about the evil of, say, blonde people

How about if Trump tells a "blonde" joke?

[Scotty]

No... what you do is do the exact same thing, raise awareness of how blondes aren't inferior.

Do we rely on blondes to defend themselves, or must the government undertake some sort of blonde is beautiful campaign on behalf of whatever group some lunatic is attacking? And what happens if it's not as effective and blondes are being attacked in the streets?

No, I have reluctantly come to accept the need for hate speech laws so long as they are tightly defined and used only against the most dangerous people who just won't keep their bile inside themselves.

By the way, I'm not necessarily against governmetn action. What the gov. could is release PSAs or encourage schools to invite speakers to raise awareness about equality.

It does that already. But one can't deny the danger of demagoguery designed to inflict actual damage on identifiable groups.

Hurt feelings don't count, of course, or at least, shouldn't. Be as offensive as you like and I will be offensive right back at you. That oughtn't to be an issue.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Scotty

[Scotty]

..and I think any poster who rabidly defends such a racist term is clearly ignorant of the inherent reasons why the term is considered to be racist, including Canada's much beloved United Nations:

Oh please. As if you or your party have the slightest respect for the Unite Nations and anything it says or does or wants or wishes.

You're simply being quarrelsome for the sake of being quarrelsome.

[Scotty]

How about if Trump tells a "blonde" joke?

Trump is hardly one to make fun of anyone else's hair...

[cybercoma]

Do we rely on blondes to defend themselves, or must the government undertake some sort of blonde is beautiful campaign on behalf of whatever group some lunatic is attacking? And what happens if it's not as effective and blondes are being attacked in the streets?

No, I have reluctantly come to accept the need for hate literature, so long as it is tightly defined and used only against the most dangerous people who just won't keep their bile inside themselves.

By the way, I'm not necessarily against governmetn action. What the gov. could is release PSAs or encourage schools to invite speakers to raise awareness about equality.

It does that already. But one can't deny the danger of demagoguery designed to inflict actual damage on identifiable groups.

Hurt feelings don't count, of course, or at least, shouldn't. Be as offensive as you like and I will be offensive right back at you. That oughtn't to be an issue.

All of this presumes that psychological abuse is not as damaging or worthy of punishment as physical abuse. We're learning that it is as damaging, if not worse.

[Bryan]

I'd rather have the truly crazy and hateful people, books, and websites be right out in the open.

Knowing up front who those people are makes it a lot easier to avoid them. Strong laws that go so far as to outlaw their opinions regardless of action only puts these people underground. Their actions become subtle enough that you can't see who to avoid upfront.

Example: when applying for a job, I'd much rather have them tell me up front that they hate whatever box they're choosing to put me in, than wonder for years why I never get a promotion or a raise, etc. Or why I didn't get the job in the first place!

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh please. As if you or your party have the slightest respect for the Unite Nations and anything it says or does or wants or wishes.

My party? I am not the member of any political party. Canada worships the UN, but finds itself at odds on this point. The term "visible minority" will soon be gone.

You're simply being quarrelsome for the sake of being quarrelsome.

My observation is straightforward and logical, and the "quarrel" has been well documented by others. If you don't like my posts, please ignore them.

[sharkman]

I'd rather have the truly crazy and hateful people, books, and websites be right out in the open.

There may be something to that. The internet has allowed the crazies to stay under their rocks and network/spread their hate like nothing in history.

[PlayItLoud]

Do we rely on blondes to defend themselves, or must the government undertake some sort of blonde is beautiful campaign on behalf of whatever group some lunatic is attacking? And what happens if it's not as effective and blondes are being attacked in the streets?

No, I have reluctantly come to accept the need for hate speech laws so long as they are tightly defined and used only against the most dangerous people who just won't keep their bile inside themselves.

By the way, I'm not necessarily against governmetn action. What the gov. could is release PSAs or encourage schools to invite speakers to raise awareness about equality.

It does that already. But one can't deny the danger of demagoguery designed to inflict actual damage on identifiable groups.

Hurt feelings don't count, of course, or at least, shouldn't. Be as offensive as you like and I will be offensive right back at you. That oughtn't to be an issue.

You understand when there are radical groups that rise up or already have risen up, police usually start investigating it immediately (especially since 9/11) to keep an eye on them. If they were to start planning attacks on blondes, their plans would be stopped immediatly.

[PlayItLoud]

There may be something to that. The internet has allowed the crazies to stay under their rocks and network/spread their hate like nothing in history.

The internet is the greatest example of how limited government intervention of discussion works.

[Tilter]

Oh please. As if you or your party have the slightest respect for the Unite Nations and anything it says or does or wants or wishes.

You're simply being quarrelsome for the sake of being quarrelsome.

The UN has earned anyone's respect in the last 30 years?

I don't think so--- not since the admittance of the group from the middle east who vote as a block when anything "western" or Israeli is proposed or anything that smacks of lauding non-Islamic countries or organizations. The idea of fairness or democracy has long flown the coop.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Tilter

[g_bambino]

The UN has earned anyone's respect in the last 30 years?

I don't think so--- not since the admittance of the group from the middle east who vote as a block when anything "western" or Israeli is proposed or anything that smacks of lauding non-Islamic countries or organizations. The idea of fairness or democracy has long flown the coop.

How can you simultaneously complain about the influence wielded by a majority in the UN while, in the same breath, lamenting the demise of democracy in the UN?

[Scotty]

How can you simultaneously complain about the influence wielded by a majority in the UN while, in the same breath, lamenting the demise of democracy in the UN?

Is democracy always a good thing? What if 90% of the group are made up of killers rapists and cretins? Is it still a good thing?

[Scotty]

You understand when there are radical groups that rise up or already have risen up, police usually start investigating it immediately (especially since 9/11) to keep an eye on them. If they were to start planning attacks on blondes, their plans would be stopped immediatly.

But we're not talking about a radical 'group'. We're talking about a radical preacher who preaches his hate to the masses, and thus has some impact on cretins who think he or she actually telling the truth (witness FOX news advocates). Suppose he's out there pounding the pulpit castigating blondes as the demons of hell come to destroy us all, and that only with the absence of blondes do we have a hope of paradise? He's not a group. He's not plotting or planning anything. But some of those who watch and hear him go out and murder blondes on a regular basis because of what he says.

Should we just let him go on talking?

[PlayItLoud]

But we're not talking about a radical 'group'. We're talking about a radical preacher who preaches his hate to the masses, and thus has some impact on cretins who think he or she actually telling the truth (witness FOX news advocates). Suppose he's out there pounding the pulpit castigating blondes as the demons of hell come to destroy us all, and that only with the absence of blondes do we have a hope of paradise? He's not a group. He's not plotting or planning anything. But some of those who watch and hear him go out and murder blondes on a regular basis because of what he says.

Should we just let him go on talking?

He might not be a group or plotting violence, but him saying that only the absence of blondes will lead us to paradise is direct incitement of violence, which would be illegal.

And like I said, free speech exists on both sides. Just as he can spread hate, you can spread love.

And I seriously doubt FOX viewers think it's necessary to rid the world of Leftists to make it better.

[PlayItLoud]

Is democracy always a good thing? What if 90% of the group are made up of killers rapists and cretins? Is it still a good thing?

That's why we have a Constitution that limits the actions of the majority. Whoever told you we lived in a lawless society where government could do whatever it wanted?

[jefferiah]

That's why we have a Constitution that limits the actions of the majority. Whoever told you we lived in a lawless society where government could do whatever it wanted?

He is talking about the UN, not our democracy in Canada.

[Tilter]

How can you simultaneously complain about the influence wielded by a majority in the UN while, in the same breath, lamenting the demise of democracy in the UN?

it's not the influence wielded I'm complaining about it's the stupidity of the people involved. the UN gives countries who were proclaimed that last week the same credence as countries that actually have a government. The ragtag countries in Africa who have never paid a cent of their dues to the UN are running it.