Hate speech laws - It is good for Nazis to be terrified

[Ereshkigal]

The first, and most important, is to talk to these people. And I don't mean over the net and over the phone.

I mean drive out to where they live and talk to them.

The primary method utilized for maintaining the current status quo within these communities is a lack of direct communication with those from outside. They see examples on the TV, read examples on the net, but... how much do they see in person that they know of?

So, we go old-school. Face to face, door to door. Meet them in churches and public meetings. And talk. Let them see our viewpoints as being simply human. Not the fictional characters they see on TV, but simply people. And let them see how much variety there is.

I mean, sure, they're probably familiar with the gangbanger stereotype... but how many of those isolated communities do you think have met a real black person? How many of them do you think have sat down and had a real conversation with one?

There will be risks. There will be violence against us... and that is to our advantage. Let them see it. Let them realize the monstrous nature of their own beliefs. You can bet there will be communities who become very divided, and we will gain allies.

But the important part is to establish communication first. Not to advocate at first, but simply let them see us only as people. Associate us with living, breathing, "normal" humans in their minds. And then slowly bring in the other topics. If they ask questions, answer with simple language, and let them think over it.

And don't stop. Keep coming. Become part of their lives. Make them accept that their world is not isolated, and make them see us for the real people we are and not the caricatures they see in the media.

There is one thing that will definitely result from this: Economic benefits. They will see Trump on their TV talking about bringing jobs back... yet will know it's the gays, lesbians, black people, Asians, trans, and others who come to talk to them about something outside their experience that are actually handing over the money. That are actually bringing back part of their economies. And make certain they understand it's not done because of Trump, but in spite of him.

And make it clear how much of a threat Trump is to you with what he does if they ask questions about him once they know you. But in clear, concise, neutral language. Give them the information they need to question if, maybe, he's not the enemy and let natural human suspicion do the rest.

In short, become their friend, and let them come to care about you and what happens to you.

The greatest advantage there is in those who oppose equality is a lack of communication. They don't want people talking to each other. They don't want people in these small, isolated communities exposed to outside ideas. They want these people to see us as some nebulous enemy. That is a weakness, and I think it's time we exploit it.

 

[bobjr]

2/3rds of Trans people won't use a bathroom in public because of the risk of a negative event happening. And remember that there have been 0 events in a public restroom where a trans person has been to blame. That's what you're fighting. Irrational fears. Things that aren't proven but make sense in their heads, which have been manipulated in other sources. If you want to place nice and hope that things will get better it's a nice thought, but the people who need to hear it the most need to hear that they're wrong, that there should be consequences to being wrong, and that they need to openly admit to being wrong before they can actually educate themselves and become better people.

 

[chess-z]

If they don't care about seeing you as a human, then why would they listen to you if you sat down and talked to them nicely? Most conservatives don't care about my rights and are taking actives steps to strip me of them.

This whole idea about politcal correctness being useless strikes me as saying "Well eventaully it won't matter, so we shouldn't do anything at all." which is kinda evil. Goodness is unobtainable so why should we fight for it?

The hate speech laws in Australia and Canada seem to be working well, and they definitely aren't doing any harm, so why are you so opposed?

 

[GhostAnime]

Do you have examples of this working en-masse by chance? Like have people actually tried to speak to rural people about their livelihoods and it actually changed a conservative's viewpoint enough to vote differently?

I'm certainly glad you at least acknowledged the risk it would bring to us. It certainly is unfair to put all the burden on marginalized people to fight for their own humanity. It's like asking the abused person to calmly approach and explain to their abuser why they're a bad person. I've often heard solutions like this before and they make sense from a logical standpoint, but I still object to them morally because we shouldn't have to. Even if it works. If it's anybody's burden, it's the privileged. ie, white people need to talk about racism. Straight people need to talk about homophobia. cis people need to talk about gender and transphobia. Men need to talk about misogyny, etc. The problem is, getting the privileged on board enough to make a difference even when they're our friends and family is hard enough as it is. Think about sexism for example. How many family members and friends still remain anti-feminist even after you explain them the point of it? How can we thus expect a stranger to at the same rate?

I have to wonder this would have to be combined with destroying systems in the media, institutions, etc still that enforce these norms, because there's an entirely new generation of people who still show just as much signs of hate and spite as the generation before them. Yours works for individuals I guess, but I'm not sure if it's something that can be passed on as seamless as systems.

 

[Ereshkigal]

2/3rds of Trans people won't use a bathroom in public because of the risk of a negative event happening. And remember that there have been 0 events in a public restroom where a trans person has been to blame. That's what you're fighting. Irrational fears. Things that aren't proven but make sense in their heads, which have been manipulated in other sources. If you want to place nice and hope that things will get better it's a nice thought, but the people who need to hear it the most need to hear that they're wrong, that there should be consequences to being wrong, and that they need to openly admit to being wrong before they can actually educate themselves and become better people.

Take one look at the world we live in right now. In many areas, trans people using what the law considers to be the wrong bathroom for them can face some stiff penalties. What Presidential protections there were are stripped away. The people in power are the ones who oppose trans rights. It's questionable if the Supreme Court will even rule on the case, since the law that allowed it to proceed to them no longer exists.

We're at a point in time where it increasingly looks like the options all trans people, including myself, have are to either stand up for ourselves with no legal protections and no consequences for those who act against us, or be silenced and watch our rights fade away.

If they don't care about seeing you as a human, then why would they listen to you if you sat down and talked to them nicely? Most conservatives don't care about my rights and are taking actives steps to strip me of them.

This whole idea about politcal correctness being useless strikes me as saying "Well eventaully it won't matter, so we shouldn't do anything at all." which is kinda evil. Goodness is unobtainable so why should we fight for it?

The hate speech laws in Australia and Canada seem to be working well, and they definitely aren't doing any harm, so why are you so opposed?

I'm not suggesting we do not fight for it. I'm suggesting we change strategy in how we fight.

And I'm not talking about going to the politicians. I'm talking about going to the people who are their power base. The people who have little to no connection to the echelons of power and instead are primarily media-educated on what they should vote for. The people who make their choices based on their very isolated worldview.

I've done it in real life. So far, it's worked for me. And as I've highlighted earlier, our very strategy of fighting, our political correctness and our marches, are now weapons being used against us by the very conservatives you are talking about. They have their playbook for how to use our actions against them... so, I am looking at pulling the rug out from under them and forcing them to adapt to something they'll never see coming.

I answered my opposition to the issue of hate speech in this post. I see the laws as good in theory... But, then, I know American conservatives. They already have a playbook for how to turn that against the very minorities it's supposed to protect. It's what they do.

Do you have examples of this working en-masse by chance? Like have people actually tried to speak to rural people about their livelihoods and it actually changed a conservative's viewpoint enough to vote differently?

I'm certainly glad you at least acknowledged the risk it would bring to us. It certainly is unfair to put all the burden on marginalized people to fight for their own humanity. It's like asking the abused person to calmly approach and explain to their abuser why they're a bad person. I've often heard solutions like this before and they make sense from a logical standpoint, but I still object to them morally because we shouldn't have to. Even if it works. If it's anybody's burden, it's the privileged. ie, white people need to talk about racism. Straight people need to talk about homophobia. cis people need to talk about gender and transphobia. Men need to talk about misogyny, etc. The problem is, getting the privileged on board enough to make a difference even when they're our friends and family is hard enough as it is. Think about sexism for example. How many family members and friends still remain anti-feminist even after you explain them the point of it? How can we thus expect a stranger to at the same rate?

I have to wonder this would have to be combined with destroying systems in the media, institutions, etc still that enforce these norms, because there's an entirely new generation of people who still show just as much signs of hate and spite as the generation before them. Yours works for individuals I guess, but I'm not sure if it's something that can be passed on as seamless as systems.

The closest are the Freedom Rides, done by the Civil Rights movement to help reinforce the integration of buses. They pretty much had no protection a lot of the time when doing it, yet... look at things today. They got things done, even though it did cost lives.

And you're right; we shouldn't have to be the ones doing this. We shouldn't have to be the ones who are organizing and risking our lives. And in a reasonable world, we wouldn't be. This isn't a reasonable world anymore.

I think it would work. We would be fostering distrust of those systems simply by being living proof that they're not accurate. And if these communities start checking with each other and finding out that all of them are seeing the same thing, which they likely will, they'll start to question if, maybe, they've not been lied to. And, trust me, the last thing any politician from those areas wants to see is a group of angry farmers who figured out they've been conned. So, to a degree, it leverages how important the individual interaction is within those communities to undermine the institutions that keep them so isolated and misinformed. After all, it's easy for them not to care about what happens in some city miles away, but when it's someone they know personally and are friends with they care a lot. And the very values they've been taught, combined with their outrage, will ensure the message is passed down to the next generation.

Pretty much, right now we're dealing with a system that tries to reinforce the idea that the individual is worthless, and to be blunt that is pretty true of inner cities. At the same time, it tries to reinforce the isolation of the smaller communities, who are encouraged to pull together through a constant message of small town values... ostensibly, to keep outsiders from bringing in new ideas and disrupting the power base. The result is the often-divided liberals and the constantly-cohesive conservatives. But if we start going to those small communities and bringing in these other ideas, entering their social circles and making it clear we're people like them, then we can utilize the constant effort to get them to close ranks and work together against the people who want to strip our rights from us. Basically, utilize the Republican Party's own mechanism for keeping its power base intact against it.

But, unfortunately, there is going to be risk. Risk we shouldn't have to take. And it requires overcoming the view that the individual is powerless and those systems are so all-consuming. The very view the conservatives want you to have so you are not a threat to them and so they can continue building their perfect American autocracy.

 

[bobjr]

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/judge...uglasville-hate-crime/pHWEb5zXxdVqGBGxGNtorI/

So this is what Hate Speech laws would protect against. You might think this is an obvious crime already, but the police initially didn't even do anything, with the Judge pointing that out.

 

[lemoncatpower]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/jordan-peterson-national-gallery-canada-1.4005615

I'm really hoping Canada shuts this guy down. It angers me that someone would want to make a platform based on this topic. To me it just seems like he's having a temper-tantrum and apparently getting a platform for it.
Claiming free speech gives him a reason to not have to use proper pronouns for trans people.

 

[snorlax512]

For those of you who think the US should follow Canada or Australia's speech laws, free speech is already dead there.

In Canada it is illegal to not call someone by the gender the identify with, and with the recent motion-103 Islamophobia motion being passed, the government has the power to shut down anyone who critises Islam.

Australia is even worse. Under section 18C, it is illegal to offend people base on their ethnicity, race or nationality. You can't even vilify religion.

The SJWs with their bull**** PC agenda will try to do the same, but thankfully the US has the first amendment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/jordan-peterson-national-gallery-canada-1.4005615

I'm really hoping Canada shuts this guy down. It angers me that someone would want to make a platform based on this topic. To me it just seems like he's having a temper-tantrum and apparently getting a platform for it.
Claiming free speech gives him a reason to not have to use proper pronouns for trans people.

This is a prime example of the regressive left. Wanting other people to be shut down simply because you disagree with their views.

 

[GhostAnime]

Refusing to acknowledge the identities of people is not simply a disagreement on views, dude.

The SJWs with their bull**** PC agenda will try to do the same

and you still haven't learned anything from this topic. not one thing. no wonder you got banned.

 

[Pikachu52]

Australia is even worse. Under section 18C, it is illegal to offend people base on their ethnicity, race or nationality. You can't even vilify religion.

With respect, this is a misrepresentation of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. the actual provision provides that:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

To bring a claim under 18C three things have to shown:

1. A public act
2. reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate
3. done because of race, colour or national or ethic origin

Kiefel J in Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd provided that the operative words only applies to conduct that has "profound and serious effect, not to be likened to mere slights." The terms aren't considered in isolation either. in McGlade v Lightfoot the court made it clear that even though conduct was reasonably likely to "offend" and "insult." it did not breach the provision as it couldn't be found to "humiliate" or intimidate." The test employed is also objective - the question is whether the act is reasonably likely to have a profound and serious effect in all circumstances against the members of the group. It's not simply a matter of "offending" people in the ordinary sense of the term.

Furthermore the act has to be done on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. Religion is not covered by the section. They're are religious hatred laws in Queensland, the ACT, Victoria and Tasmania but the wording of those provisions is different to 18C.

18C cannot not be discussed without reference to 18D - this provision protects freedom of speech.

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

The Bropho case stated that this provision is to be read broadly.

Section 18D places certain classes of acts outside the reach of s 18C. The broad class of acts covered is ‘anything said or done reasonably and in good faith’ in the circumstances described in paras (a), (b) and (c) of that section. The immunities created by s 18D were described in the Second Reading Speech and in the Explanatory Memorandum as ‘exemptions’. It is important however to avoid using a simplistic taxonomy to read down s 18D. The proscription in s 18C itself creates an exception to the general principle that people should enjoy freedom of speech and expression. That general principle is reflected in the recognition of that freedom as fundamental in a number of international instruments and in national constitutions

There aren't that many complaints under 18C per year. Only 77 in the last financial year according to the Guardian newspaper. And of those the majority were in the areas of Employment, provision of goods and services and personal conflict. Less than 10 each concerned material on the internet, in the media or outright racist propaganda, which is where the usual claims of "free speech" and "expressing opinion" arises. In terms of outcomes, the majority of complaints - some 70% were resolved by conciliation. After that, most were terminated, withdrawn or discontinued. Fewer than 5% of complaints make it to court, and the majority of the ones that do end up dismissed.

To say that free speech is "dead" because of 18C is not supported by the evidence. And even if 18C were changed, there are still a plethora of laws in Australia that restrict freedom of speech.

18C has been part of our laws since 1995. For nearly two decades it's had more or less bipartisan support. It's only come under attack from almost entirely right wing media outlets and politicians because of 2011 against a Herald Sun commentator named Andrew Bolt the outcome of which has been seriously misrepresented.

In Canada it is illegal to not call someone by the gender the identify .

Which provision of Canadian Law actually says that?

 

[snorlax512]

Ah, thanks for clarifying, though I still disagree with 18C. I know that it only applies to "profound and serious effects", but in the end it is extremely vague and subjective. There is no objectivity whatsoever to offence taken.

Right now there may not be that many controversies (even though there certainly are some, and one case where the law is abused is one too many), 18C gives the government too much power to abuse. How do you know that a (perhaps less reasonable) government could come in and interpret this law in a way such that unreasonable restrictions are imposed on free speech?

Even if you like 18C, what about the religious vilification laws? I don't think any set of beliefs are above scrutiny.

Which provision of Canadian Law actually says that?

Bill C-16

EDIT: Also, what do you mean by the Andrew Bolt case being misrepresented?

Refusing to acknowledge the identities of people is not simply a disagreement on views, dude.

This isn't about whether you have the right to identify yourself as whatever you wish to be. This is about whether you have the right to force other people to adhere to your beliefs. Whether you agree with it or not, shutting him down because you don't like him epitomises the regressive problem on college campuses right now.

and you still haven't learned anything from this topic. not one thing. no wonder you got banned.

I presume you do fit the category that I was describing.

 

[chess-z]

For those of you who think the US should follow Canada or Australia's speech laws, free speech is already dead there.

In Canada it is illegal to not call someone by the gender the identify with, and with the recent motion-103 Islamophobia motion being passed, the government has the power to shut down anyone who critises Islam.

Australia is even worse. Under section 18C, it is illegal to offend people base on their ethnicity, race or nationality. You can't even vilify religion.

The SJWs with their bull**** PC agenda will try to do the same, but thankfully the US has the first amendment.


This is a prime example of the regressive left. Wanting other people to be shut down simply because you disagree with their views.

So, dude, my man, do you know any trans people personally? I'm betting you don't but I'll give you a chance to dig yourself further into this hole.

 

[snorlax512]

So, dude, my man, do you know any trans people personally? I'm betting you don't but I'll give you a chance to dig yourself further into this hole.

No, but it doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong either.

 

[Pikachu52]

Ah, thanks for clarifying, though I still disagree with 18C. I know that it only applies to "profound and serious effects", but in the end it is extremely vague and subjective. There is no objectivity whatsoever to offence taken.

That's not true at all.

It is apparent from the wording of s 18C(1)(a) that whether an act contravenes the section is not governed by the impact the act is subjectively perceived to have by a complainant. An objective test must be applied in determining whether the act complained of has the necessary offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidatory quality for it to be within the sub-section. The question so far as s 18C(1)(a) is concerned is not: how did the act affect the particular complainant? But rather would the act, in all the circumstances in which it was done, be likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or a group of people of a particular racial, national or ethnic group?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...nonyms=0&query=cth consol_act rda1975202 s18c

Right now there may not be that many controversies (even though there certainly are some, and one case where the law is abused is one too many), 18C gives the government too much power to abuse. How do you know that a (perhaps less reasonable) government could come in and interpret this law in a way such that unreasonable restrictions are imposed on free speech?

It's a civil provision. It relies on private parties to bring complaints. The government can't enforce it.

Bill C-16.

That bill doesn't have anything to do with pronouns. It simply adds gender identity and expression as attributes to pre-existing discrimination laws.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

 

[bobjr]

Just so you know not calling a trans person by the correct gender on purpose means you're saying "I literally could not respect you any less"

 

[GhostAnime]

This is about whether you have the right to force other people to adhere to your beliefs.

The belief that these people's identities matter...??? You're not making any sense. Why shouldn't you be forced to respect people? You think we should welcome disrespect? lol

Are you actually crying wolf because a guy doesn't have the freedom to go somewhere specifically to disrespect people?

 

[snorlax512]

The belief that these people's identities matter...??? You're not making any sense. Why shouldn't you be forced to respect people? You think we should welcome disrespect? lol

Are you actually crying wolf because a guy doesn't have the freedom to go somewhere specifically to disrespect people?

First off, not everyone refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns like zir or zey out of disrespect. They may do so because of the belief that gender is binary (whether this is true or not is an entirely different debate, but no scientific theory is above scrutiny).

Secondly, you shouldn't be forced to respect people. I believe that you should address a trans person by their preferred gender out of respect, but I am strongly against forcing people to adhere to your beliefs.

I can think of some really disrespectful things:
-Laughing at someone's funeral
-Speaking in a rude manner to your elders
-Burning a flag
-Flipping off someone who has just helped you
-Having intercourse with a man's wife

Should these things be illegal?

The question is not whether this is disrespectful or not, the question is should you have your assets seized and sued for being disrespectful? Should you potentially be charged for hate speech by being disrespectful?

This is also one problem I have with hate speech laws.

You get debates with valid arguments on both sides, and SJWs try to shut down any views they don't like by slapping a 'transphobia, bigotry, racism' label on everything. Jordan Peterson must not be denied a platform to express his views.

That's not true at all.

I'm not talking about the subjectivity of the complainant. Even if you ask every single person in that racial community for their opinion, offence is still entirely subjective.

Take this hypothetical scenario: what if the entire population became offended at the word potato, and had 'profound and serious effects' from hearing it? In this case, the word potato would certainly be likely to 'offend a particular group of people'.

If you're going to say 'Oh, but getting offended by the word potato is unreasonable', who gets to decide what is reasonable? Who can tell me exactly what is acceptable to get offended by, and what is not acceptable to get offended by?

It's a civil provision. It relies on private parties to bring complaints. The government can't enforce it.

As long as you have regressive liberals in a society who want to shut down free speech, and a government who has the same mentality, what is stopping them from abusing this power?

That bill doesn't have anything to do with pronouns. It simply adds gender identity and expression as attributes to pre-existing discrimination laws.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

My bad, I don't think Bill C-16 is the best example.

You can be found guilty of violating the Ontario Human Right's Code.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns#_edn1

1. Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

The VBP was sued 15,000 for misgendering a trans woman. The police officer was simply reading off her identification, he wasn't even trying to be disrespectful.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt54/2015bchrt54.html

 

[Bananarama]

So you're basically saying that effectively undermining and demeaning a person's identity isn't as big a deal as desecrating a flag? I fail to see why you can't at least try to respect one's pronouns in spite of your personal beliefs.

 

[snorlax512]

So you're basically saying that effectively undermining and demeaning a person's identity isn't as big a deal as desecrating a flag? I fail to see why you can't at least try to respect one's pronouns in spite of your personal beliefs.

Never said that. I'm saying that no one should be sued, or have their assets seized for disrespect.

Let's take the hypothetical situation that gender is binary. You're saying that refusing to lie should be illegal because people feel disrespected?

 

[Pikachu52]

First off, not everyone refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns like zir or zey out of disrespect. They may do so because of the belief that gender is binary (whether this is true or not is an entirely different debate, but no scientific theory is above scrutiny).

By that argument any form of harassment, bullying or inappropriate social interaction could be excused as a "difference of belief." And therein lies the danger.

Shouting and heckling women outside abortion clinics could (and always is) be rationalised as fair because of the speakers beliefs about abortion.
Heckling people outside places of worship could be legitimised as a "belief" about that communities religion.
The Westbro Baptists church and their placards of Military Funerals.

I'm not talking about the subjectivity of the complainant. Even if you ask every single person in that racial community for their opinion, offence is still entirely subjective.

Take this hypothetical scenario: what if the entire population became offended at the word potato, and had 'profound and serious effects' from hearing it? In this case, the word potato would certainly be likely to 'offend a particular group of people'.

If you're going to say 'Oh, but getting offended by the word potato is unreasonable', who gets to decide what is reasonable? Who can tell me exactly what is acceptable to get offended by, and what is not acceptable to get offended by?

I don't generally deal in hypotheticals.

As long as you have regressive liberals in a society who want to shut down free speech, and a government who has the same mentality, what is stopping them from abusing this power?

The Executive doesn't have any power to enforce 18C, beyond the Australian Human Right's Commission's power to receive and conciliate complaints. All litigation under 18C is brought by private individuals.

Laws that give government the sorts of powers that might best be described as "regressive" aren't hate speech or anti-discrimination laws. The best example of those would be Anti-terrorist statutes. ASIO for instance has the power to;

• Intercept telecommunications
• examine postal and delivery articles
• Use surveillance devices
• Remote access computers
• Obtain warrants to compulsorly question suspects - no right to silence, there is an offence for not answering questions
• Seize passports

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austr...igence_Organisation#Powers_and_accountability

These laws give much much more power to government than does any hate speech laws. They're also not the product of the so-called "regressive left". Anti-terror legislation usually passes with bi-partisan support. Yet we tend not to hear the sorts of outcries, particularly from the right, about civil liberties and personal freedoms that are raised in conversations about anti-discrimination and hate speech laws - probably because they're not perceived or represented as negatively impacting privileged groups in society the way anti-discrimination laws are.