No Obligation to not Offend?

With mainstream media attention recurring weekly, scrutiny of human rights commissions has been unprecedented in 2008. But not any more. Now it’s just about daily. Even on Saturdays and Sundays.

Nothing even suggests abatement. Instead of subsiding, mainstream criticism is escalating. Swelling. And today it might be just about to burst. Because, as the Post’s Joseph Brean announced,

.. Tuesday, at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Ottawa, one of Canada's most prominent white supremacist propagandists.. will put the country's entire human rights bureaucracy on the witness stand… The curious thing.. is that Mr. Lemire, the last president of the now defunct neo-Nazi Heritage Front, enjoys the qualified support of a Liberal MP, PEN Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- even a leader of B'nai Brith Canada.

Which so goes to showing and telling how questionable the antics of human rights bureaucracies seem to Canadians. By all means -- let’s find out. This day the interrogators get interrogated.

How has it come to this? Why do we regard human rights commissions with such suspicion? How have human rights bureaucracies heaped such undivided public disrepute upon themselves?

The Star’s Haroon Siddiqui would like us to believe shameless detractors have got nothing to object but justified limitations to free speech. That’s the only reason why detractors, as he alludes,

.. argue that human rights commissions have no business limiting free speech. [Despite how] by law it is the business of several of these tribunals to assess and curb hate speech…

What nonsense, Mr. Siddiqui. We get that speech must sometimes be constrained. As when shouting “Fire!” in crowded theatres. And we totally get how justified tribunals are to curb hate speech. What we do not and should not get is these tribunals hurdling from curbing hate speech to imposing false obligations to not offend on Canadians.

That’s what we do not and should not get. How, as Darren Lund warned, these tribunals test the limits of expression:

[Far as tribunals are concerned] ..the test is fairly straightforward: Freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people.

Because, should Mr. Lund be right as we suspect -- that kind of testing isn’t just wrong. It’s evil. Nobody is invulnerable to hatred and violence. When it comes to human rights, expressing hatred and calling for violence must always be limited. Always. Not just when these tribunals deem whatsoever expression to be against the vulnerable -- i.e., by the invulnerable or not so vulnerable.

Tests for limiting expression must absolutely never fail to address real distinctions between hate speech -- and speech which is merely offensive. Regardless who speakers are deemed to be. All hate speech is offensive. But not every offensive expression qualifies as hate speech. For how invariably offensive are inconvenient and troubling truths? Just so. By failing to distinguish hate from offensive speech, by creating false obligations to not offend, what will tribunals most particularly silence? Most particularly: inconvenient and troubling truths.

Tribunals must cease curbing people from shouting “Fire!” in crowded theatres whenever there actually are fires in crowded theatres. Regard for truth must be understood to contradict allegations of hatred. Hatred entails some sufficiently reckless disregard for truth. Otherwise, if identity of speakers suffices for tribunals to conclude hatred absent any disregard for truth in speech, then tribunals assail the most basic fundamental values and principles of Canadian society.

Invulnerability of speakers? Vulnerability of listeners? For how long? If tribunals keep hinging hatred on identity, how long before Canadian society becomes stratified by systems of enforced deference? How long until regard for truth ceases to protect against allegations of hatred or defamation? How long until we cease daring expressing any truth to power?

Hinging hatred on identity is precisely contrary to human rights. Contrary to the basic fundamental rights of each, every and all Canadians. That’s why we must resist tribunals imposing obligations to not offend on Canadians. Guard against tribunals’ inquisitorial character. Because this is how the long and slippery slope to totalitarianism spirals. With initially isolated scapegoating and witch-hunting. But only to start with.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Image above screenshot from here.

Failing Economics

Now there's a story at the Globe & Mail about how "Canada begins tracking U.S. into slump". The implication being we need not worry -- it's only going to be a "slump".

Meanwhile, there's opinions published at the Globe about how "Global capitalism teeters on the brink". Meaning that economies everywhere aren't just slumping or flirting with recession or depression. Nope. Economies are teetering. On the brink of what? Destruction? Annihilation? Obliteration?

Fair enough. Nobody knows how bad the economic news will get. In Toronto everything seems fine. Across Canada inflation is down while consumer demand, housing starts and home prices are all up. But by this time next year? Who knows.

Other than soothing present anxiety, there's not much point even trying to predict economic futures. However. Is it possible to avoid economic disasters? Can we learn anything from this one? Who is to blame?

Back in August 2007, the Globe ran a piece suggesting we ought to blame our economic disasters on 77 year-old widows living on social security and refinancing their homes in order to pay for medical bills. Because, by unwittingly stepping into the arcane world of subprime lending, Ms. Barron was, in fact,

.. helping to set in motion a chain of events that has rocked financial markets around the world and left few investors untouched.

And it didn't sound like they were kidding. But why would Globe editors run any story insinuating "The face of the global credit crisis" belonged to Ms. Barron? As if any global crisis should ever get blamed on elderly widows? As if refinancing homes to pay for medical bills happened so frequently often as to demolish whole economies? Why, other than as a truly sad joke, would Globe editors run stories blaming Ms. Barron's demographic?

No clue. Ought to call and ask why. Except, going by what happened last time -- better not to call or ask them anything at the Globe.

Best guess? Globe editors prefer blaming anyone but those actually responsible. They’d blame medically distressed elderly widows living on social security if it meant turning blind eyes to the real source of North-American irresponsibility.

It wasn’t the medically distressed elderly poor. Nor was it just the rich getting too greedy. Let's stop pointing such false fingers. Regardless whether in illness or good health, for richer or relatively poorer -- it continues to be across every North-American demographic that we’ve become irresponsibly and obscenely greedy.

Whether using our home equities as ATM machines. Or lending no money down. Or securitizing bad lending practices. North-Americans across every socio-economic spectrum are fully to blame.

Not to say all speculating is wrong. To the contrary. But liquidating our own homes? Securitizing our debts? Hedge-funding our obligations? When we agree to do so across every demographic? How can consequences not assume biblical proportions when we so shamelessly rob and sacrifice the future to our all-consuming, devouring greed?

The irresponsibility of North-American greed. It is not just natural or regular greed. Economically, ecologically, personally and culturally -- it is obscene. And while I fear the pragmatic consequences like anyone else -- in principle, I am glad. Almost eager to observe the spillage from this tempest we’ve been brewing in each and all our cups. Just maybe we’ll learn something.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Image above screenshot from here.

No Right to Not be Offended?

We all know the joke.

“How does one identify Canadians in international crowds?”
“Easy. Step on everyone’s toes. Only Canadians apologise when their toes get stepped on.”

Funny how true that is. Applies most remarkably to distinguishing Canadians from other North-Americans. The more brash, outspoken or vulgar our southern neighbours get, the less offensive we get. As if it were our job to make up for their exuberance. Provide countervailing balance to North-American culture. Be prim as proper church-ladies at Jerry Springer choir auditions.

No Jerry beads for us -– but thanks for offering.

Our correctness isn’t just political. It is by long and distinguishing cultural tradition that Canadians remain inoffensive.

Nevertheless, Canadians are fully committed to freedom of expression. Regardless what absurdities human rights commissions might consider. Absurdities so aptly summarised by Darren Lund:

Freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people.

Nonsense, Mr. Lund. Freedom of expression must always be limited whenever expressing hatred, calling for violence or defaming. Always. No person is invulnerable to hatred, violence or defamation. And it is precisely the apprehension of bias such as yours that has brought tremendous public disrepute to human rights commissions proceedings.

Nobody should ever be presumed invulnerable to hatred, violence or defamation. Not in any free, democratic or minimally just society. Because societies turn totalitarian when rejecting human rights as fundamentally and inalienably inhering to each and every member. When basic human rights become privileges to which only some get entitled. Regardless whether those entitled to basic human rights on any particular day be deemed as sufficiently vulnerable, sufficiently powerful, sufficiently virtuous or whatever else. Either human rights remain fundamentally inalienable -– for all -– or we subject and subjugate human rights to expedience, to circumstance and to group dynamics.

Either basic human rights -– or special privileges. Not both. Either everyone gets protected from express hatred, violence or defamation. Or some get granted special privileges to not be offended while we open seasons to targeting the rest. As if the rest were either invulnerable or -– if vulnerable -– not human. Not entitled to having their human rights protected.

Why would Mr. Lund even suggest human rights commissions become special privileges tribunals? No doubt due to some confusion rather than any plain evil. Distributive social justice requires recognizing and assisting materially vulnerable people. Most likely, Mr. Lund went leaping from the concept of assisting some to notions of denying the human rights of everyone else. The sort of leaping so reflexive among those devoted to ideologies of gender, race and class struggling. But the justice of socially assisting some must not and can not mean denying the basic human rights of others. The very possibility of justice hinges on human rights enduring for all Canadians.

Mr. Lund might conceivably be correct that human rights commissions become special privileges tribunals. Thus, precisely due to our apprehensions of the bias entailed, Canadians have repeated affirming there is no right to not be offended –- and no obligation to not offend. And our apprehensions of bias must be vast indeed. Wouldn’t have been as surprising coming from other North-Americans. Or from Danish cartoonists. Or from Israeli troops. But from Canadians?

No right to not be offended? No obligation to not offend? What more terrifies us as Canadians than giving offence? We don’t really mean it. We can’t. Not as any sort of cultural principle. Canadians just aren’t ready to start seriously offending each other.

We can’t mean it as any sort of cultural principle when saying there’s no right to not be offended. We might mean it as a common legal principle -- but so what? Legal principles become meaningless when too culturally dissonant. Archaic legal principles are meant to be ignored.

What do we mean by our unanimity against rights to not be offended, then? Simply this: that granting special privileges inconsistent with basic human rights would totally contradict Canadian cultural principles. It is necessarily corollary with our cultural principles that there be no right to not be offended. It means we stand against everything totalitarian –- and on guard for our free, democratic and multiculturally just society.

Protecting against express hatred, violence or defamation must never hinge on special dispensation, entitlement or privilege. Protection must not be restricted according to whom commissions, tribunals or Mr. Lund might deem deserving on any particular day. Let's always make certain to protect everyone. No one has the right to not be offended. Everyone has the right to be protected from hatred, violence and defamation.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

[The image above is a screenshot of the Ontario Human Rights Code website, whose preamble reminds us that "The Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") is for everyone."]

Culture & Multiculture 14: Why talk about Culture?

Despite every denial, Antarctica melts ever faster in the south. Greenland and the arctic melt ever faster in the north. Devastation of genetic diversity and natural habitat accelerates past every point of not returning. Biotoxic mercurial and other poisons contaminate lakes, rivers, streams and oceans to the molecular bone. And while some fish species “can continue to be enjoyed by consumers as part of an occasional meal” -- for how much longer? How much longer before there are no more species left to consume? Before oceans not just rise but boil off all trace of living? When we finally tip the Earth over the irrevocable edge to becoming like either Mars of Venus. Lifeless.

Rays of hope are dimming fast. While we keep believing ourselves entitled to slashing and burning every single food chain we’ve so unnaturally lurched to the top of since hefting that damn club of Moon-Watcher’s. While we keep acting like the Earth and its creatures were god-given us for indiscriminate consumption. To play with like every living thing was meant to be our food. As if the Earth was meant to be crushed beneath our feet and we were meant as lords of anything but false creation stories.

Rays of hope are dimming fast. Better get them while supplies last. For how much longer can we shop before we drop?

International emission targeting accords like from Kyoto or Bali might scratch some veneer off our unnatural habits and habitating. But not so as to brighten much hoping. Not even if the far greater part of greenhouse gassing -- just for instance -- were emitted by large scale economic activity. Rather than by the hordes of us personally. For even if the greatest part of greenhouse gassing were subject to carbon taxing, emerging economies must have every opportunity to emerge precisely as the G7 or 8 or 20 did. Despite how much worse each and all things ecological now are. Regardless how much better we now know. Like, what doom thus emerging entails. Totally regardless. Leading economies have had every fair chance to despoil the Earth. Emerging economies must get their chance as well. Fair is only fair.

And. Even were none of it so. Our hopes for the future -- for any future -- would still keep dimming. Dimming inexorably. Because we can’t even look to the future. We can’t pay attention to how we destroy everything natural. We are far too utterly distracted fighting amongst and against ourselves.

Neither our shared responsibility since 10,000 years B.C. -- ever since we got serious about extincting other species -- nor any collective future doom can mean anything while we so universally keep fighting amongst and against ourselves.

Do the leading edges and cracks of doom not approach precipitous enough? Then why, accelerating to collective doom, do we continue escalating fighting amongst and against ourselves?

Hard question. The roots of human conflict, we insist, lie in material causes. Whether in social, academic or diplomatic circles -- we insist on material root causes. But that’s just nonsense. Causes are rarely material at the roots of human clashing. However constrained by physical causes, human choice and action gets determined and entailed by reasons. Human clashing is rooted in reasons. Entirely cultural reasons.

Cultural consequences, whether clashing or working together, are found in all our ways as people. Yet culture can not in itself originate from material causes -- such as similarities or differences in ethnicity, gender, class, caste, costuming, technology or what recipes we cook. Culture can only originate in our most basic and fundamentally shared principles. Since only cultural accords defined by sharing fundamental values and principles enable societies working together despite every material divergence in our prior experience. And only cultural discords defined by fundamentally conflicting principles compel human populations to clash despite every kind of experience shared in common.

And that’s the whole point. We must begin understanding the cultural reasons for conflict -- not just keep rooting after causes. Rooting as if human actions were physically and causally determined like rocks bouncing and billiard balls rolling downhills. What hoping remains for the future of all things great, small and naturally evolved, hinges specifically upon unprecedented conflict resolution possibilities arising between clashing cultures. On learning to span the categorical gaps and contradictions between cultures by narrative instead of force.

The question can no longer be whether cultures clash. We must start asking if and how, for the first historical time ever, human cultures might cease clashing. Because the issue has gone too far past mutually assured destruction. There are no options remaining but to stand together -- united against the great unravelling of nature we have loosed in every land, in the oceans and in the air.

Hence this “Culture and Multiculture” series. Dedicated to the meanings and consequences of cultural diversity (not only) in the world’s most multicultural city. Since, both culturally and ecologically -- if we can’t make it here then we can’t make it anywhere.

[Battle cat image by giddygoose and used via Creative Commons license.]

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Culture & Multiculture 13: Globe & Mail Comments Closed?

Canadian media leapt right up in arms a few weeks back. Leapt all over the Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant Human Rights Commissions Affairs. I heard Christie Blatchford expressing her say on CFRB. Seen Rex Murphy performing his. Not much left to be said. Not by me. Particularly not after reading the thoroughly insightful Eye Weekly editorial concluding:

Human Rights Commissions.. need to be reined in. They should have no jurisdiction to restrict or stand in judgment of freedom of speech and of the press.

Indeed. There was no point me saying anything. No need. Not once the public and press got unanimously moving heaven and earth. Swelling the very ground demonstrating how our tolerant, free and democratic multicultural principles must not get stretched and torn beyond total absurdity. There’s no right to not be offended. There’s no duty to not offend.

That’s why the withdrawal of the complaint against Ezra Levant came as no surprise. It requires powerfully principled courage to persist despite mainstreaming media full-blowing gales of public opinion. Also why not much significant will emerge from the complaint against Mark Steyn. We were mostly born before yesterday. There’s no right to not be offended. There’s no duty to not offend.

But a thing of potentially greater significance occurred on February 13th, 2008. Something mainstream Canadian media will neither crane nor ostrich to note. Something mainstream media will not sufficiently acknowledge to wilfully ignore. Despite how plain the evidence of it having happened remains for all to see.

Evidence found at one popular -- unusually highly recommended by over 100 votes -- Globe article. About how Major Danish newspapers republish Mohammed cartoon. In order to express “unconditional solidarity” with democratic culture against threatened terror. Soon after Danish police arrest suspects in plot to kill cartoonist.

At second glance or third reading nothing much appears out of place. There is no option to comment on this Globe article -- but that’s not in itself unusual. As regular contributors to Globe commentaries well know and often bitterly bemoan, Globe editors have increasingly withheld options to comment articles addressing controversial subject matter. And what could possibly be more controversial than major newspapers anywhere -- at any time -- republishing so-called “Mohammed” cartoon(s)? However rightly or very wrongly, there is nothing particularly unusual in Globe editors having provided no option for readers commenting.

But hold on. One moment, please. What’s this here? Why.. it sure looks like a comments page titled “Major Danish newspapers republish Mohammed cartoon”. It really totally looks just like a dedicated comments page. Specifically dedicated to the Globe article in question -- the title of which it shares. The one at which there was no option to comment. Which must mean there had initially been available the option to comment -- and that commentary was only subsequently closed. Except.. that can’t be right either. For if there had been option to comment earlier then, presumably, there would continue existing standard links as from any article to its own commentary page. And there aren’t. No such linking exists. There is absolutely nothing forward-linking the originating article to what appears its own comments page.

Moreover, there is not one single comment at the comments page. There is nothing but the standard notice provided whenever commentary gets closed:

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor… Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

Say, what? “No longer accepting submissions”? “Report an abusive comment”? What comment? There’s nothing there -- whether to report or merely to read. Where are all the comments posted prior submissions ceased getting accepted? What has happened here?

What happened was, to my alter-ego’s long Globe-commenting experience, a novel and complete first.

It happened the morning of February 13th. Some time between seven and eight A.M. As often if not usual on rising, I checked online news (not only) at the Globe. Wondering what our time-space sector had been getting into during my absence. That’s when I found the “Mohammed” cartoon re-publishing article and read all about it. Subsequent to which reading I sat slightly stunned. Like, seriously? Our time-space sector was getting into those so-called “Mohammed” cartoons? Again?

Meanwhile, however, my Globe-commenting alter-ego -- Lie Detector -- was gathering neither moss nor wool. Checked immediately to see whether commenting was permitted. Which it was. Permitted -- and booming. The article had been posted at 3:31 A.M. and, already, by between seven and eight that morning, the number of comments was poised near exceeding the first hundred.

Took reading maybe fifty comments or so for Lie Detector to start itching at my fingers. I could feel him taking over parts of my mind -- no doubt formulating contributory arguments. But I stopped him cold. Got up. Stepped into my boots. Threw my jacket on. Stumbled outside, grabbed a shovel and pushed record-breaking amounts of snow off the sidewalk. Came in and fed cats. Took maintenance cat-food outside and filled up the stray-animal dishes. Went out back and clambered bird-feeder from tree. Filled bird-feeder. Clambered it back up the tree. Returned inside, sat my selves down and prepared giving Lie Detector free reigning.

We wondered -- Lie Detector and I -- how many new comments had accumulated. That’s why we were so unprepared. Because, given how hot the subject, we were expecting significant further accumulation. Not what we discovered when refreshing the comments page. The way it blanked right out. Like, tabula utterly rasa. No comments there whatsoever.

There was still a (closed) comments page there -- just no comments. And we thought for a moment that we’d imagined or hallucinated all the comments we’d read. But no, we weren’t going nuts or anything. Absent all commentary, why would there even be any comments page? Clearly, comments had been closed and, unbelievably, all prior commentary had been purged. Purged of each, every and last comment. Just eradicated.

Thinking it could only be a glitch, we re-loaded the original article and moused around seeking any the three standard links leading from articles to commentary. But -- nope. All gone. Links to comments had been razed just as well. Equally as thoroughly. All that remained was this blank limbo-floating comments page. Inaccessible as ghosts or quarks from our time-space sector. Except for the captive URL later found archeologically deep in our browser’s cache.

Lie Detector vanished too. In a puff of terminal disgust. Purging by revisionist retroactive censorship struck him too totalitarian. Contributing commentary at the Globe had been his whole reason for being around. Once he figured what shameless mockery of public space had been foisted by the Globe on its public -- he had no reason left for being. So he stopped.

I’m not like that, though. I don’t go leaping that hasty to my conclusions. However unlikely -- what if it all turned out to have been a long series of coinciding glitches? Or what if, albeit not personally conceivable to me, someone at the Globe had a perfectly reasonable explanation for purging public commentary?

That’s why the following day, on Thursday, February 14th, I called the Globe & Mail. Canada’s national newspaper. To find out why.

“What happened to that comments page,” I asked. “How come it vanished so traceless?”

I was passed down, sideways and up the hierarchy. Eventually, I was told I needed to speak with Executive Editor Jim Sheppard. I was also told, namelessly and insistently off the record, that the comments page had been eradicated because commentary at it had “diverged into wild racism.” This was a good thing -- being told this off the record. First, because of how laughable it was by way of rationalization. Second, because it confirmed how conclusively commentary purging had been due to no glitch. Eradication had been totally intentional.

Remaining eager to hear what rationale there officially was on the record -- opposed to off the record rationalization -- I nervously recorded my question with Mr. Sheppard’s answering service. He was away from his desk at that moment. And then naïve silly me waited by the phone a couple hours. For the Globe & Mail’s Executive Editor to return my call and answer my question. Subsequent to which couple hours I recorded my question at Mr. Sheppard’s again -- since he was away from his desk at that precise moment as well. And then I hung around waiting the next day. Friday, February 15th. As if the Globe’s Executive Editor had nothing better to do.

Doesn’t matter. Commentary had been intentionally purged. And it’s just ignorant rationalizing such indiscriminate purging of public commentary for some blithely alleged racism. There’s no excuse alleging or even mentioning racism in the first place. Not when disputing is cultural. Because it isn't easy conceiving any better working definition for 'racism' than falsely believing all dispute, hatred, conflict or clashing as a function of race. Too much hatred? Fine -- eliminate those comments expressing hatred. But declaring any and all disputing -- even outright hatred -- as racist? When issues in dispute so obviously cross all our ideologically constructed false discriminations of race, gender and economic class? No. That has got to be a joke. Or ignorance. Potentially even racist.

Doesn’t matter. I really wanted to ask whether Globe editors had ever purged public commentary so brazenly before. But never mind. Whether or not they had. Whether on or off the Globe’s record. There’s huge problems with doing so. Ever.

Danish papers re-publishing any so-called “Mohammed” cartoon was major international news, right? Regardless who became offended. Regardless whether “mobs of youths torch[ing] cars.. in Danish cities” had anything to do with it or not. Of course it was big news -- as per the Globe’s carrying the story of it all the way over here in Canada.

Perhaps, when it comes to a so-called “Mohammed” cartoon, Danish papers went too far defending democratic culture. But globally censoring all comment whether Danish papers went too far defending democratic culture? That also goes too far. Goes even farther -- the opposite way. It utterly offends against democratic culture if or when Canada’s national newspaper gets censoring that spectacularly -- like, completely censoring the very public it invited to comment that “Mohammed” cartoon.

Rather than engaging yet farther and further in such spectacular censorship, the Globe would do far better not to provide any forum for free speaking and free public expressing whatsoever. This is not in any way to intimate that Globe message boards legally constitute anything other than private proprietary space. However. There can be no doubt the Globe derives great benefits, both economic and otherwise, from public participating. Further. As Canada’s national newspaper, the Globe itself relies upon principles consistently applied throughout our free and democratic society: freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Therefore, the Globe must not engage in extravagant censorship. Doing so harms not only Toronto, Canadian public spheres -- but calls into doubt how any future of Canadian press can remain free. For what is more likely to restrict freedom of speech, expression and the press in Canada? Human Rights Commissions of questionable jurisdiction arriving at occasionally absurd decisions? Or Canada’s national newspaper repeatedly engaging in exaggerated censoring? Yeah. Obviously. That’s why Canada’s national newspaper had better cease and desist repeating disproportionate censorship.

And it absolutely was spectacular, extravagant, exaggerated and disproportionate censorship. Partially or fully moderating public commentary? Vital. Removing, as warranted, comments specifically reported as abusive? Necessary. Indiscriminately purging all commentary from comments pages -- while razing electronic linkage in order to eradicate the evidence of having done so? Unbelievable. So not Canadian. So.. gulag.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

[Globe comments image above is a screen capture from here.]