2blowhards.com: You Can't Say That !

In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links

Our Last 50 Referrers

« DVD Journal: "Twentynine Palms" | Main | Errant Thought »

April 18, 2008

You Can't Say That !

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

It's quite amazing that in some modern countries it's not just impolite but against the law to say unappreciative or critical things about various racial and/or ethnic groups. Why, you'd almost think that some powers-that-be are doing what they can to prevent certain key debates from occurring, wouldn't you? Reason's Jacob Sullum explains how the game works in Canada. In a nice touch, Sullum refers to Canada's "human rights commission" martinets as "kindly inquisitors."

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at April 18, 2008

Comments

The problem is the law was meant to prevent inciting others to commit hate crimes.
But you can not spell out every possible occurrence so of course you write the law in broad strokes and rely on reasonable interpretation. It is some one's interpretation backed up by some thin skinned whining that leads to unreasonable censorship in a law meant to prevent rallying speeches about how all blacks need to be lynched on Friday.

Posted by: TW on April 18, 2008 1:47 PM

It's gonna happen here too. Remember when Sen. Lindsey Graham remarked to La Raza that they were "going to shut the bigots up?" Was that just pandering to an ethnic audience? Or an unwitting admission that he (and most in DC) think there are some topics that are too inflammatory, and need to be suppressed?

Posted by: c.o. jones on April 18, 2008 2:07 PM

Here's the problem, TW:

At the time that the hate speech laws were enacted, the possibility of "speeches about how all blacks need to be lynched on Friday" actually occuring were about zero.

In the same way, the alleged notorious war against gays that supposedly resulted in millions of casualties at the hands of gay bashers was never demonstrated to have occurred... and I assure you that it did not occur.

Hate speech laws were passed without any demonstration that there was any need for them, or that anything would be accomplished by their enactment.

The 90s was an era of one hysteria after another, without any proof that the supposed bugaboo we were getting hysterical about actually existed. In order to prove what wonderful, tolerant people we are, we rushed off to solve the problems that we assumed in our hysteria existed.

In fact, the reality is that whites are many hundreds more times likely to be murdered or raped by blacks. Nobody avoids white neighborhoods in fear of violence. All of us know which neighborhoods we need to fear.

And gays did not die by the tens of thousands at the hands of roving mobs of murderous heterosexuals. They did die by the tens of thousands as a result of AIDS.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 18, 2008 2:07 PM

If and when we ever get to the point where ethnic cleansing is a distant memory, something you only read about in history books and such, then perhaps it will be time to think about repealing these laws.

Posted by: Kevin P. on April 18, 2008 2:30 PM

Will wonders never cease? I agree with Shouting Thomas on his main point, that there is little evidence that hate speech, and speech alone, is particularly effective in leading to hate crimes, which are a different issue. In relatively mellow Maine I can think of at least one murder of a gay man and another of one who was homeless carried out because the thugs who perpetrated the crimes (both white by the way – as were the victims) thought the victims deserved to die for their "aberrant lifestyle choices" ... if choices they actually were. [These crimes occurred quite a few years ago and, if someone does a thorough Google search and finds I've misremembered the details, I apologize.]

When you see situations like the one in Canada where republishing cartoons, which led Islamist fanatics to commit murder and mayhem after their initial publication, are used as an excuse to sue those republishing them by Muslim groups under the banner of limiting hate speech, one's head begins to spin.

Posted by: Chris White on April 18, 2008 2:58 PM

Kevin -

Perhaps you could enlighten me, and give me some examples of the ethnic cleansing that is going on in Canada or the USA. The only thing I can think of that even comes close would be what is happening in South Central L.A., with members of MS-13 and the 18th St. Gang shooting blacks for no other reasons than they're black.

Posted by: c.o. jones on April 18, 2008 3:06 PM

I know so many people who often say something like, "Well, in the Netherlands you can do this, and in Denmark you can do that, and.." and when I point out that America is still the best country in the world for Free Speech, well, they are often speechless.

I am not white-washing the problems that we have here. Still, I get so sick of those blindly Euro-Centric Hipsters.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on April 18, 2008 4:52 PM

Why, you'd almost think that some powers-that-be are doing what they can to prevent certain key debates from occurring, wouldn't you?

You would if you were a conspiracy nut, I guess. The simpler answer is that the powers-that-be are attempting to prevent bigotry. That this is a) impossible and b) counter to all notions of free speech is the problem. It's not like there's some secret cabal of powers that are trying to keep The Truth under wraps or anything.

You sound like a pothead ranting about how the government keep pot illegal because it's trying to prevent a peaceful revolution or something.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 18, 2008 5:26 PM

Anti-hate laws are a way for some white people to control other white people. No-one cares about black "hate" crimes, not because those crimes are not motivated by outright race hatred, but because blacks are simply not dangerous. Blacks are perpetual adolescents, and like teenagers everywhere, can't organize their way out of the proverbial paper bag. Hate crimes from blacks are simply individual adolescent anti-social eructations, and are to be handled in the usual manner. But whites...

Well, white people are dangerous. American white people in particular. Because white America is (still) so good at organizing, so good at managing things, at getting stuff done, should white America ever develop a collective hate-on for some group for whatever reason, that group is in serious, even fatal, trouble.

When a child screams, "I hate you!" you know it's not serious. When a teenager shouts, "I hate you!", it's more serious, but still only individually. But when adults quietly say, "I hate you", that's a serious matter indeed.

Black America is collectively adolescent, and is viewed as such by whites. White America is collectively adult, and is also viewed as such. So, who do you worry about more? People who can "go off" and pop a cap into a brain-pan or two? Or people who can get together, join forces, sacrifice for the home team...and organize your destruction?

I know which America I'm afraid of. And the one everyone else is afraid of, too. That fear is where anti-hate laws were born, and which keeps them around. You don't put chains on something you're not afraid of...

And like everybody, I'm afraid of whitey.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 18, 2008 7:44 PM

See this... (PDF alert)

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 18, 2008 8:48 PM

The above comments demonstrate that the left is pretty much through with liberalism, but then we've known that for a while haven't we.

I think we should ban speech that advocates the banning of speech.

Posted by: Brian on April 18, 2008 10:25 PM

Whether it is a conspiracy or not, one should recognize the power of the hate laws and their chilling effects. Ive dealt with groups that push these things, and the folks in these groups simply can't imagine an opposition to it, unless that opposition has a secret closetful of brown shirts.

These groups are coddled and promoted by the media, the corporate world and govt. Therefore, they wield a fair amount of power. These groups know the racial card, sometimes the gender card and increasingly the sexual-orientation card gives them power. From what I've seen, they don't seem to care if their power comes at the expense of others rights. It is all about them increasing their power, and they push that game whenever they can. I don't need to call that a conspiracy, but I wouldn't laugh too hard if someone else did.

Aside from these laws being a sort of scarecrow warning off others from venturing into fields of discussion which may touch on race, I would think they also hit the hardest on white criminals. If you're a white criminal who has done time, joined white gangs (your only option in prison, besides hoping for the best), you probably carry the tattoos and possibly a paper trail of that affiliation. So of course, any crime that you re involved with that affects a protected group, you can immediately have the hate statute thrown at you. If you have a swastika on your arm and you hit the black clerk, it is hate crime. If you re Tookie Williams, you take the white 7-Eleven clerk in the back of the store and boom -- well, that is just Crips' business.

I have even heard that in some areas actual outside groups help the police to determine what are hate crimes or hate crime policy. I think this was the case in San Diego and some other big Calif. city. However, I am not certain on that. If that is the case, it certainly seems wrong. Does anyone know? That might explain what seems to be its selective application.

Anyway, the real problem is that it is used to shut down debate, to further the balkinization of the country and to set up the further erosion of white people's rights to increase the power of select groups. You got a problem with that -- then you're a racist; and we all know racist thought can increase a penalty; is it really a leap to think it will soon itself be punishable?

Posted by: sN on April 19, 2008 1:28 AM

So lemme get this straight: If someone sees me in the street and notices my big nose and dark hair and decides to beat me up, they go to jail if they call me "Kike," but not "WOP."

Thus, we conclude Jews are superior to Italians.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on April 19, 2008 2:01 AM

I can think of some entertaining possibilities with regards to these kind of hate speech "crimes". Transhumanists and other people who advocate and conduct biotechnological research to cure human aging could sue the Canadian and European counterparts of Leon Kass and others who criticize the right of people to pursue the development of radical life extension. This is something that the European transhumanists should consider doing.

Also, libertarians and transhumanists in Europe could take a cue from the muslims and demand that they are also entitled to their own self-government enclaves where they can be free from the bureaucracy and taxation of the various European governments and E.U. Key among the freedoms we would seek is the right to medical freedom.

This kind of stuff cuts both ways, you know.

Posted by: kurt9 on April 19, 2008 2:51 PM

Ah, yes, the Left on its anti-racism crusade.

To get a glimpse at the reptile behind the liberal mask, read about the downs-syndrome kid in the UK who is prosecuted for racism.

This kind of totalitarian mindset isn't really something new. Their kind reappears every couple of generations. Thankfully many end up hanging on lamp posts.

Posted by: PA on April 19, 2008 8:13 PM

At the time that the hate speech laws were enacted, the possibility of "speeches about how all blacks need to be lynched on Friday" actually occuring were about zero.

Yes, the era of murderous mob action by whites directed against blacks ended about fifty years before the rise of hate crimes legislation.

"Hate speech" is , to state the obvious, in the eye of the beholder and an indicator of where social power lies. No one gets too upset when words like "redneck" and "white trash" are used. Why wasn't it "hate speech" when BO assured the wealthy leftists on Billionaires Row that small-town whites "cling" to guns, religion and hatred of foreigners because they are economic failures? Pathetic obstacles to progress!

Posted by: icr on April 21, 2008 7:58 AM