Ottawa man fined for online hate

[ScottSA]

"Hate" is not something tangible, like ink or oil, that "spreads." Only in the totalitarian neo-liberal mind is an idea, in and of itself, dangerous.

Don't think I agree with you there. Certain unfounded racial/ethnic stereotypes have been known to spread very virulently, and have been known to result in very unfortunate events.

Not at all. You're refering of course to the holocaust, but you'll find, I think, with a deep reading of the times, that anti-semitism was no more widely held in Germany than anywhere else in the west. The difference is that a party took power...not because of its anti-semite policies, but in spite of them. I think you'll find that between 1928 and 1937, and in particular between 1933 and 1937, Hitler was virtually silent about anti-semitism. His "race laws" of 1935 were essentially slipped under the carpet and for the most part ignored until 1938. General anti-semitism in Germany neither increased nor decreased in Germany in the general public, nor in the rest of the west. The holocaust was a Nazi event, not a German event.

Either way, it was not the result of the "spread" of anti-semitism.

[Rue]

One wonders why the campaign doesn't seem to include the virulent hatred coming from Islam.

It could given the precedent that seems to have been established.

I myself find this a slippery slope. There's a fine line between expressing an opinion on a forum in a discussion and going the next step and encouraging people to hate people and engage in violence against them.

That is precisely why forums have moderators though. I appreciate how hard it is to draw that line.

[Rue]

"Hate" is not something tangible, like ink or oil, that "spreads." Only in the totalitarian neo-liberal mind is an idea, in and of itself, dangerous.

Don't think I agree with you there. Certain unfounded racial/ethnic stereotypes have been known to spread very virulently, and have been known to result in very unfortunate events.

Not at all. You're refering of course to the holocaust, but you'll find, I think, with a deep reading of the times, that anti-semitism was no more widely held in Germany than anywhere else in the west. The difference is that a party took power...not because of its anti-semite policies, but in spite of them. I think you'll find that between 1928 and 1937, and in particular between 1933 and 1937, Hitler was virtually silent about anti-semitism. His "race laws" of 1935 were essentially slipped under the carpet and for the most part ignored until 1938. General anti-semitism in Germany neither increased nor decreased in Germany in the general public, nor in the rest of the west. The holocaust was a Nazi event, not a German event.

Either way, it was not the result of the "spread" of anti-semitism.

I would have to agree with Scott's opinion because certainly the preponderancy of historic texts indicate just that.

I think what the holocaust teaches, is that the NAzis could not have engineered and engaged in such a wide spread and organized mass execution without the collaboration of many people in many countries. I think what the Nazis did is simply bring to a culmination a wide spread feeling. It in fact it picked up on a wide spread feeling and exploited it and quite frankly a lot of the holocaust fell into place like a snow-ball or cascading effect kind of like a wave in a crowd. It gained momentum because of the Nazis who led it, but it could have happened without collaborators from many nations.

History shows a deep and continual link between Christian teachings and anti-semitism and so I think it is fair to say wherever there was a strong organzied religious institutional presence it existed just as where you look for the genocide of aboriginals or the slave tarde you find it present as well influencing people into believing their fellow humans are infidel and so can be wiped out since they are less then human.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Rue

[ScottSA]

I would have to agree with Scott's opinion because certainly the preponderancy of historic texts indicate just that.

I think what the holocaust teaches, is that the NAzis could not have engineered and engaged in such a wide spread and organized mass execution without the collaboration of many people in many countries. I think what the Nazis did is simply bring to a culmination a wide spread feeling. It in fact it picked up on a wide spread feeling and exploited it and quite frankly a lot of the holocaust fell into place like a snow-ball or cascading effect kind of like a wave in a crowd. It gained momentum because of the Nazis who led it, but it could have happened without collaborators from many nations.

With some caveats, I agree with you here. But I'd like to return to a previous post of yours on another thread...I'm not sure if this is the right thread to do it in, but it's as good as any I guess...and ask how you can justify the above statement in light of the following statement.

This is precisely what fuels this line of caucasian anxiety arguements. Its simply people projecting what they want to see in situations. It is necessarily subjective not objective and therefore can not be rational or logical.

It is precisely because humans like to project and be subjective to simplify the world and make it less frightening that also breeds intolerance because the labels we use to try understand things, also can be used to avoid having to understand things. I think in this case the labels are being used not to try understand but to avoid having to understand and that is precisely Dancer's point.

We have, across the world, in both caucasian and non-caucasian populations, a significant number of "anti-caucasians." When examples of the fruition of that hatred were shown, both you and Momo scoffed at it, claiming it's something else entirely. You called it "projection," while Momo went further afield in claiming it has to do with wealth.

As for Momo's point; that Zimbabwe and SA are economic genocides, one could as easily make the same claim about the detention and dispossession of the Jews...indeed Hitler did...claiming that the Jews held the wealth of Germany hostage. And, like all Goebbelian half-truths, he was half-right...the Jews in Germany did hold a disproportionate amount of wealth.

But your point is even harder to defend. Like Germany in the early 20th century, there is in post-colonial African countries a widespread sentiment against Caucasians...something whipped up by African politicians to be sure...but there nonetheless. This sentiment is shared by many non-Caucasian populations across the globe, and indeed by a significant portion of the Caucasian population itself (I can almost guarantee, for example, that some lilly white neo-liberal will pop up here and justify murder and mayhem against himself by an appeal to alleged historic wrongs). With the advent of the one-world victim mentality that pervades the west and, as a correlary, the UN, anti-Caucasian sentiment is rampant.

Africa is a microcosm of the future in the west if floodgate immigration levels continue. Because of historical economic patterns, caucasians will hold the preponderance of economic power, but the day will come when they no longer form the majority of the population. What then, and why is it "projecting" to look at historical examples as a light shining into the future? I would think that a Jew of all people would understand my concerns here. Are you "projecting" when you advocate keeping Israel's borders closed so that Jews don't become a minority in Israel? Are you "simplifying" and "labelling" and "breeding intolerance?" Or could it be that you are just not insane?

[Proud Canuck]

The fine should have been $4,000 a month for the rest of his life!

Edited July 28, 2007 by Proud Canuck

[EchoesofMourning]

The fine is completely ridiculous. We are supposed to be able to voice our opinions in an open way - they are personal opinions, and everyone has a right to them. For example, I might hold a prejudice against Native people. As long as I don't act on the belief - meaning that I don't perform any acts of discrimination - I have every right to hold that belief and profess it in any public forum.

The wonderful thing about free speech is that when one professes beliefs that are irrational, unfounded, or otherwise unfair, it is the responisbility of everyone who is exposed to them to go to every length to show the flaws in the argument.

What is happenning now is a vocal minority and the government is sticking it's ugly tentacles into one more aspect of everyday life.

Remember this - if you remove the right to free speech, you are on the road to removing the right to think for yourself.