Not an unproblematic statement, I would agree, but neither is it quite the bullshit it appears. Offending bigots is mandatory to some. Including me in my more belligerent moments.
The problem is that the extreme proponents of free speech actually mean "consequence-free" speech. At the extreme it can mean "If I say something outrageously offensive and you are offended, your reaction is nothing to do with me." Which rather begs the question "What was the point of saying it, then."
Unfortunately there are comedians who hide behind this thinking - "You have no right to be offended."
Can you give any specific examples of people arguing in favor of consequence-free speech? I am probably one of the more pro-free speech folks on the Ship, and I don't for a moment expect speech of any sort to be consequence-free.
I think you're wrong about comedians who tell offensive jokes - they may say people have no right to be offended, but they in fact are depending upon giving offense.
This quote from Stephen Fry was at the back of my mind as I typed. Fry is widely perceived as a humane Humanist and something of a sage.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what."
That seems to me to be promoting consequence-free speech - if you accept that offending others is a consequence, that is.
Well; I think it might depend on who's offended, and why. If a comedian mocks someone's racial group and the target gets offended, that's a consequence I would lament and want to avoid. If they mock someone's religion, that's not something, by itself, that really bothers me, since a religion promotes certain beliefs and values, about which there can be legitimate disagreement in society.
I think he is saying that the truthfulness of one's statements is an entire defence, and if someone finds the truth offensive, that is their problem, rather than the speaker's.
He is very capable of clearly saying what he means. He is extremely eloquent.
I have no reason to think that his intelligence and eloquence failed him here.
Ship’s Commandment #5 states: “Don’t easily offend: Don’t easily take offence”. I think that encourages moderation and discourages gratuitous insults.
It’s my view that a worthwhile purpose of legislation against hate speech is to prevent “punching down”, whether by politicians, comedians or anyone else, particularly when those doing the “punching” are powerful and the recipients are lowly or widely persecuted.
It’s my view that a worthwhile purpose of legislation against hate speech is to prevent “punching down”, whether by politicians, comedians or anyone else, particularly when those doing the “punching” are powerful and the recipients are lowly or widely persecuted.
Right. That's why I was asking about a "commonsensical" denial of protection to Anglicanism under the UK's hate laws, and also wondering at what point in the procedure it would be applied. I assume there is no officical list of "up" and "down" groups that the authorities have on hand to decide whether to proceed with prosecutions.
It’s my view that a worthwhile purpose of legislation against hate speech is to prevent “punching down”, whether by politicians, comedians or anyone else, particularly when those doing the “punching” are powerful and the recipients are lowly or widely persecuted.
Right. That's why I was asking about a "commonsensical" denial of protection to Anglicanism under the UK's hate laws, and also wondering at what point in the procedure it would be applied. I assume there is no officical list of "up" and "down" groups that the authorities have on hand to decide whether to proceed with prosecutions.
I think the point is that Anglicans very rarely are threatened with violence for being Anglicans in the UK.
There are serious threats to particular communities and so they are considered to be the ones that need protecting, although sometimes they believe that they have more protection than they actually do.
For understandable reasons, Jewish people and facilities feel very threatened and so anything which looks even gesturing in the direction of violence and harassment is typically dealt with very robustly. At the other end of the scale, Far-Right marches consisting of self-identifying neo-Nazis tend to be contained providing they do not confront vulnerable groups.
Northern Ireland has its own whole set of unique circumstances, but generally speaking large groups of noisy sectarian marches tend not to be shut down across the UK unless there is considered to be a direct threat of violence. So the banning of a march in advance I mentioned before is extremely unusual.
Northern Ireland has its own whole set of unique circumstances, but generally speaking large groups of noisy sectarian marches tend not to be shut down across the UK unless there is considered to be a direct threat of violence. So the banning of a march in advance I mentioned before is extremely unusual.
Yeah, it would be awfully tempting to tell the bowler hats and sashes brigade to fuck off rather than letting them shut down chunks of Glasgow city centre for their hate marches.
It’s my view that a worthwhile purpose of legislation against hate speech is to prevent “punching down”, whether by politicians, comedians or anyone else, particularly when those doing the “punching” are powerful and the recipients are lowly or widely persecuted.
Right. That's why I was asking about a "commonsensical" denial of protection to Anglicanism under the UK's hate laws, and also wondering at what point in the procedure it would be applied. I assume there is no officical list of "up" and "down" groups that the authorities have on hand to decide whether to proceed with prosecutions.
I think the point is that Anglicans very rarely are threatened with violence for being Anglicans in the UK.
There are serious threats to particular communities and so they are considered to be the ones that need protecting, although sometimes they believe that they have more protection than they actually do.
Right. But I was wondering at what stage in the process a member of Christian Voice, for example, would be told to sod off by the authorities were he to call in a complaint about a comedian vilifying old-school Christians in the way that antisemites villified Jews. Does everyone from the local PC to the Law Lords just tacitly understand that Christians don't need the same kind of protection as other groups?
For understandable reasons, Jewish people and facilities feel very threatened and so anything which looks even gesturing in the direction of violence and harassment is typically dealt with very robustly. At the other end of the scale, Far-Right marches consisting of self-identifying neo-Nazis tend to be contained providing they do not confront vulnerable groups.
Do you mean that the far-right groups in your second example get more leeway for their speech rights than the antisemites in your first example?
If so, that would be my amateur analysis of the situation in Canada as well, ie. antisemitism and other forms of more "traditional" prejudice get more immediately recognized as hate-speech than other forms of bigotry.
Northern Ireland has its own whole set of unique circumstances, but generally speaking large groups of noisy sectarian marches tend not to be shut down across the UK unless there is considered to be a direct threat of violence. So the banning of a march in advance I mentioned before is extremely unusual.
Yeah, it would be awfully tempting to tell the bowler hats and sashes brigade to fuck off rather than letting them shut down chunks of Glasgow city centre for their hate marches.
I wonder if Orange marches in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK have ever been challenged under hate-speech laws.
As far as I know, the Glorious 12th is still commemorated on a small scale in parts of southern Ontario, and despite the lodges' historical association with outright violence back in the day(examples available upon request), no one ever seems to launch legal complaints. I suspect if someone were to call the police, there'd be a bit of initial confusion at the cop-shop about what the parade even signifies, much less how it was harming Catholics, and then someone would check wikipedia and conclude that nothing like the horrors discussed there seems to be happening in Brampton, and that would be the end of it.
So I'm wondering if an Orange march in Glasgow would still be viewed as threatening by the local Catholic community.
It’s my view that a worthwhile purpose of legislation against hate speech is to prevent “punching down”, whether by politicians, comedians or anyone else, particularly when those doing the “punching” are powerful and the recipients are lowly or widely persecuted.
Right. That's why I was asking about a "commonsensical" denial of protection to Anglicanism under the UK's hate laws, and also wondering at what point in the procedure it would be applied. I assume there is no officical list of "up" and "down" groups that the authorities have on hand to decide whether to proceed with prosecutions.
I think the point is that Anglicans very rarely are threatened with violence for being Anglicans in the UK.
There are serious threats to particular communities and so they are considered to be the ones that need protecting, although sometimes they believe that they have more protection than they actually do.
Right. But I was wondering at what stage in the process a member of Christian Voice, for example, would be told to sod off by the authorities were he to call in a complaint about a comedian vilifying old-school Christians in the way that antisemites villified Jews. Does everyone from the local PC to the Law Lords just tacitly understand that Christians don't need the same kind of protection as other groups?
For understandable reasons, Jewish people and facilities feel very threatened and so anything which looks even gesturing in the direction of violence and harassment is typically dealt with very robustly. At the other end of the scale, Far-Right marches consisting of self-identifying neo-Nazis tend to be contained providing they do not confront vulnerable groups.
Do you mean that the far-right groups in your second example get more leeway for their speech rights than the antisemites in your first example?
If so, that would be my amateur analysis of the situation in Canada as well, ie. antisemitism and other forms of more "traditional" prejudice get more immediately recognized as hate-speech than other forms of bigotry.
I mean there's a recent history of violence against Jews so there's an immediate zero tolerance of anything that even smells like violent anti-Semitism.
The neo-Nazis have got cleverer in recent decades and have been able to largely stay on the right side of the law. As long as they do not directly threaten Jews in particular, they have been given more leeway than other groups. Of course some are too stupid to know when to shut up and do end up in prison but they are able to congregate and shout and throw things at police in ways that other groups are not.
So I'm wondering if an Orange march in Glasgow would still be viewed as threatening by the local Catholic community.
Just to put my cards on the table, where I'm going with this is...
Assuming that an Orange march in Glasgow wouldn't be legally considered hate-speech, is this because:
A. Almost everyone just assumes that Catholics in Scotland aren't facing any serious oppression and/or violence anymore, or...
B. Even if Catholics ARE still at a disadvantage in Scotland, Orange parades are just considered "part of the furniture", culturally speaking, so banning them would just not be the thing to do?
I think the police are worried that it would turn into a riot if they tried to stop it. But I don't live in Scotland or NI where this is a lived reality.
I think the police are worried that it would turn into a riot if they tried to stop it.
Interesting hypothesis, because one of the main arguments for BANNING hate-speech is to prevent violence. But, in this case, the police would be ALLOWING hate-speech in order to prevent violence.
But I don't live in Scotland or NI where this is a lived reality.
For the record, my question was specifically about Glasgow, where I assume that on a scale of sectarian combustibility running from Londonderry to London Ontario, the situation would be at least somewhat closer to the latter.
So I'm wondering if an Orange march in Glasgow would still be viewed as threatening by the local Catholic community.
Just to put my cards on the table, where I'm going with this is...
Assuming that an Orange march in Glasgow wouldn't be legally considered hate-speech, is this because:
A. Almost everyone just assumes that Catholics in Scotland aren't facing any serious oppression and/or violence anymore, or...
B. Even if Catholics ARE still at a disadvantage in Scotland, Orange parades are just considered "part of the furniture", culturally speaking, so banning them would just not be the thing to do?
Scottish sectarianism is... weird. It's not really about religion any more, it's about identity markers, and most of the neds on either side never darken the door of a church, but there are hidden seams of anti-Catholic sentiment buried beneath the surface. The Kirk is ostensibly liberal and ecumenical in outlook, but there are plenty of older elders and ministers with deeply sectarian views (a minister here, 25 ish years ago, denounced from the pulpit attendees who attended an Episcopal communion service).
Probably 70-80% of folk would be glad to see Orange marches disappear, but most wouldn't see them as dangerous enough to be worth the aggro of banning.
Comments
Well; I think it might depend on who's offended, and why. If a comedian mocks someone's racial group and the target gets offended, that's a consequence I would lament and want to avoid. If they mock someone's religion, that's not something, by itself, that really bothers me, since a religion promotes certain beliefs and values, about which there can be legitimate disagreement in society.
He is very capable of clearly saying what he means. He is extremely eloquent.
I have no reason to think that his intelligence and eloquence failed him here.
It’s my view that a worthwhile purpose of legislation against hate speech is to prevent “punching down”, whether by politicians, comedians or anyone else, particularly when those doing the “punching” are powerful and the recipients are lowly or widely persecuted.
Right. That's why I was asking about a "commonsensical" denial of protection to Anglicanism under the UK's hate laws, and also wondering at what point in the procedure it would be applied. I assume there is no officical list of "up" and "down" groups that the authorities have on hand to decide whether to proceed with prosecutions.
I think the point is that Anglicans very rarely are threatened with violence for being Anglicans in the UK.
There are serious threats to particular communities and so they are considered to be the ones that need protecting, although sometimes they believe that they have more protection than they actually do.
For understandable reasons, Jewish people and facilities feel very threatened and so anything which looks even gesturing in the direction of violence and harassment is typically dealt with very robustly. At the other end of the scale, Far-Right marches consisting of self-identifying neo-Nazis tend to be contained providing they do not confront vulnerable groups.
Northern Ireland has its own whole set of unique circumstances, but generally speaking large groups of noisy sectarian marches tend not to be shut down across the UK unless there is considered to be a direct threat of violence. So the banning of a march in advance I mentioned before is extremely unusual.
Yeah, it would be awfully tempting to tell the bowler hats and sashes brigade to fuck off rather than letting them shut down chunks of Glasgow city centre for their hate marches.
In a divided republic, that joke can get really confusing.
Right. But I was wondering at what stage in the process a member of Christian Voice, for example, would be told to sod off by the authorities were he to call in a complaint about a comedian vilifying old-school Christians in the way that antisemites villified Jews. Does everyone from the local PC to the Law Lords just tacitly understand that Christians don't need the same kind of protection as other groups?
Do you mean that the far-right groups in your second example get more leeway for their speech rights than the antisemites in your first example?
If so, that would be my amateur analysis of the situation in Canada as well, ie. antisemitism and other forms of more "traditional" prejudice get more immediately recognized as hate-speech than other forms of bigotry.
I wonder if Orange marches in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK have ever been challenged under hate-speech laws.
As far as I know, the Glorious 12th is still commemorated on a small scale in parts of southern Ontario, and despite the lodges' historical association with outright violence back in the day(examples available upon request), no one ever seems to launch legal complaints. I suspect if someone were to call the police, there'd be a bit of initial confusion at the cop-shop about what the parade even signifies, much less how it was harming Catholics, and then someone would check wikipedia and conclude that nothing like the horrors discussed there seems to be happening in Brampton, and that would be the end of it.
So I'm wondering if an Orange march in Glasgow would still be viewed as threatening by the local Catholic community.
I mean there's a recent history of violence against Jews so there's an immediate zero tolerance of anything that even smells like violent anti-Semitism.
The neo-Nazis have got cleverer in recent decades and have been able to largely stay on the right side of the law. As long as they do not directly threaten Jews in particular, they have been given more leeway than other groups. Of course some are too stupid to know when to shut up and do end up in prison but they are able to congregate and shout and throw things at police in ways that other groups are not.
Just to put my cards on the table, where I'm going with this is...
Assuming that an Orange march in Glasgow wouldn't be legally considered hate-speech, is this because:
A. Almost everyone just assumes that Catholics in Scotland aren't facing any serious oppression and/or violence anymore, or...
B. Even if Catholics ARE still at a disadvantage in Scotland, Orange parades are just considered "part of the furniture", culturally speaking, so banning them would just not be the thing to do?
Interesting hypothesis, because one of the main arguments for BANNING hate-speech is to prevent violence. But, in this case, the police would be ALLOWING hate-speech in order to prevent violence.
For the record, my question was specifically about Glasgow, where I assume that on a scale of sectarian combustibility running from Londonderry to London Ontario, the situation would be at least somewhat closer to the latter.
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/video-ten-arrests-as-police-seal-off-marchers-and-protesters-after-sectarian-riot-in-glasgow/
Scottish sectarianism is... weird. It's not really about religion any more, it's about identity markers, and most of the neds on either side never darken the door of a church, but there are hidden seams of anti-Catholic sentiment buried beneath the surface. The Kirk is ostensibly liberal and ecumenical in outlook, but there are plenty of older elders and ministers with deeply sectarian views (a minister here, 25 ish years ago, denounced from the pulpit attendees who attended an Episcopal communion service).
Probably 70-80% of folk would be glad to see Orange marches disappear, but most wouldn't see them as dangerous enough to be worth the aggro of banning.