My free speech, your hate speech

[quintessentone]

So you are talking about morals or ethics rather than merely about laws. That’s good, for so am I.

What, then, do you think about the following statement?
 

You probably recognise those words. Do they reflect your thinking? 
 

*     *     *

The above is really all I want to focus on. Still, a few more points for us to ponder:
 

And when we find ourselves in a moral quandary where the facts are obscure or impossible to establish, yet a decision is urgently wanted, what shall we do then?
 

So you don’t believe in taking relevant personal, social and historical factors into account when dealing with someone? If you tried that in real life, you would soon find yourself in trouble!
 

Were these programmes created to deal with inequality of treatment, or with inequality of opportunity? What does that distinction imply in terms of the position you have adopted?

Why do you regard the programme results as ‘artificial and arbitrary compensation’? The people who design such programmes see nothing artificial and arbitrary in their decisions, but believe they are following a rational, evidence-based process. Reams of statistics and paperwork are generated to establish what are judged to be the facts in each case. 

By the way, the process they follow is essentially means testing, a widely established bureacratic procedure for determining who qualifies for assistance under state welfare programmes. The arguments, it seems to me (again, correct me if I am wrong) are over what factors should be tested for, and how much weight should be given them.
 

You believe rights are not natural but conferred by those who govern society? In that case, shouldn’t we just accept whatever we are given and not complain?

On a personal note, I used to attend a boarding-school, so I know exactly what it feels like to have no natural rights and be obliged to accept whatever one is given without complaint. I didn’t like it, but some boys were happy and comfortable under the monastic regime we all had to endure. Interesting, no?

I am just spring-boarding a thought off your post.

In the news recently, native aboriginals are pushing for the criminalization of residential school denialism as hate speech, similar to the criminalization of holocaust denialism.

It is astounding to me that not only is that type of denialism within government still existing but that with all the evidence of generational trauma within those communities, that it was not reconciled decades ago.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/a...lism-hate/

We now see what happens when bureaucratic procedures are followed without examining or oversight of those bureaucrats' morals and ethics and procedures, which are perhaps unchanging or were originally created due to them being created out of prejudice and/or hate.

I highly doubt government considered their specific personal, social and/or historical factors in their decision-making historically and will it still continue that way going forward? Does it take more than evidence to do the right thing for the right cause? It would appear something is missing in some cases to compensate those that were wronged.

[ArMaP]

So you are talking about morals or ethics rather than merely about laws. That’s good, for so am I.

What, then, do you think about the following statement?
 
You probably recognise those words. Do they reflect your thinking?

 

I don't recognise it and I don't understand it. I've read it several times but it never makes sense to me.
 

 And when we find ourselves in a moral quandary where the facts are obscure or impossible to establish, yet a decision is urgently wanted, what shall we do then?

 

If we don't have more information than we have to work with what we have, but mark in some way that situation as incomplete, so we can look (or ask) for the missing information.
 

 So you don’t believe in taking relevant personal, social and historical factors into account when dealing with someone? If you tried that in real life, you would soon find yourself in trouble!

 

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about giving equal opportunities and treatment to everyone in general. Like in employment or study opportunities, for example, where nobody should be treated in a different way because of their social status, race, religion, whatever. Obviously, special cases could have special treatments in specific situations, but I also see that as part of equal treatment and opportunities.

One example: my elder sister is a teacher, and she once worked on a school that was near a poor neighbourhood, and a few of her students were very poor. One used to go to school almost in a state of drunkenness, because their family bought wine but no milk (cheap wine is very cheap in Portugal, so it's a kind of tradition in Portugal to feed children of poor families bread soaked in wine, what we call "sopas de caval cansado", "tired horse soup"). Obviously, a 13 or 14 years old that is not fed as they should is not starting in the same conditions as the others, so the school paid them their breakfast.

As a kind of PS to the above, in that same school my sister had a student (Zenaide Gomes) that wasn't good at any topic except sports and that became the winner of 2 gold medals in the European Indoor Championships and another 2 in the World Indoor Championships. It's great that people get opportunities in sports, too bad there aren't as many people looking for students that are good at other things to give them the opportunities.
As you probably already noticed, I see treatment and opportunities as a whole, so if we want everyone to have the same opportunities we may have to give some different treatment to some people.
As I said before, things in real life as never as black and white as we would like.

Were these programmes created to deal with inequality of treatment, or with inequality of opportunity? What does that distinction imply in terms of the position you have adopted?

As I said above, I think both are linked, but are presented at different times of a person's life.

Why do you regard the programme results as ‘artificial and arbitrary compensation’? The people who design such programmes see nothing artificial and arbitrary in their decisions, but believe they are following a rational, evidence-based process. Reams of statistics and paperwork are generated to establish what are judged to be the facts in each case. 

I didn't say the results were "artificial and arbitrary compensation", I said the programs were created with that intention.
And they may be based on lots of scientific studies and complex statistics, but it's still an arbitrary decision, as they do not apply to everyone that needs that kind of support and, most important, do not correct (or even try) the source of the problem, the existence of the inequalities.

By the way, the process they follow is essentially means testing, a widely established bureacratic procedure for determining who qualifies for assistance under state welfare programmes. The arguments, it seems to me (again, correct me if I am wrong) are over what factors should be tested for, and how much weight should be given them.

My main problem with those programs (and any other similar program anywhere) is that they are reactions to a situation, not actions to try to prevent the situation from existing.
 

You believe rights are not natural but conferred by those who govern society? In that case, shouldn’t we just accept whatever we are given and not complain?

If we want to live in society (and that applies to any level of organisation) we should accept that society's rules or the possible consequences of going against them.
In Portugal, for example, we had a dictatorship that lasted 48 years. Most people accepted the rules, but some thought they were not fair. Of those, some just broke some rules (like my father, that used to read forbidden books and was once arrested because someone told the police about it. He only staid one night in jail because they couldn't find any evidence of any illegal books in his possession (a co-worker saw the police enter the store where they worked and took the book from my father's jacket that was on a hook the in employees section)). Others were more active and tried to bring the government down, but that only happened on April 25, 1974, when the military took over and eventually brought us democracy.
During those 48 years many people died trying to change the regime, many more had to leave the country.

In societies that are not under a dictatorship, we not only have the possibility of complaining, we have the (moral?) obligation of pointing to the things we think are wrong so those in power have the knowledge that some things should be corrected. We also have the possibility of trying to reach a position in which we can make the change, and sometimes that happens at what looks like a very low level.

Another Portuguese example (the only country I really know): we have lots of civil societies (associations, clubs, etc.), the oldest founded in the first half of the 19th century (the oldest association in Almada, where I live, was founded in 1848). They were originally created to compensate for things the government didn't provide, like social services, schooling and cheaper food. They work like any organisation, with statutes and internal regulations. Myself and my sisters are associated to one of those local associations, and one of my sisters decided to join as part of a candidate list. As that list won, she shares the capacity of deciding what the association will do for the next 2 years.
These associations can be created by any group of people and can have any purpose (as long as it doesn't go against Portuguese law), so even at such a local and low level anyone can have the possibility of changing things.

Short version: yes, we should accept the rules, but not blindly, and should complain when we do not agree with them and even try ourselves to do that change.

On a personal note, I used to attend a boarding-school, so I know exactly what it feels like to have no natural rights and be obliged to accept whatever one is given without complaint. I didn’t like it, but some boys were happy and comfortable under the monastic regime we all had to endure. Interesting, no?

Some people prefer to have their choices reduced. I suppose they feel it's easier to accept things and not think about it. Dictatorships live mostly because of those people.

[Astyanax]

I don't recognise it and I don't understand it. I've read it several times but it never makes sense to me.

Perhaps it will be more familiar, and more comprehensible, in Portuguese.
 

Aja como se a máxima de tua ação devesse tornar-se, através da tua vontade, uma lei universal

It is Kant’s categorical imperative, the distillation of his ethical philosophy into a guide to action. It means that every action one takes should not just seem to be right according to the circumstances of the moment and the persons involved, but should be right whenever and wherever someone chooses to act that way, and regardless of whoever the action affected.

My question to you is, simply: do you agree with this principle? And if you do not agree, what principle would you substitute for it in order to ensure a better moral outcome by your actions?
 

That’s really all I want to know from you. Is there, in your opinion, a universal ethical principle that applies to all cases, or should our principles change with the persons and circumstances?
 

*     *     *

 

It seems to me that you have not yet thought your way through to a consistent answer.

 

I was talking about giving equal opportunities and treatment to everyone in general.

Is that always right and just? Is it right and just to give a homicidal maniac free access to a lethal weapon, as the US State of West Virginia so confidently does?
 

Like in employment or study opportunities, for example, where nobody should be treated in a different way because of their social status, race, religion, whatever. Obviously, special cases could have special treatments in specific situations, but I also see that as part of equal treatment and opportunities.

Nothing obvious about it. The two sentences directly contradict each other. The second is also prima facie fallacious: special treatment cannot also be equal treatment. 
 

I didn't say the results were "artificial and arbitrary compensation", I said the programs were created with that intention.

 
Forgive me for misunderstanding. So the programmes were intentionally artificial and arbitrary? How are you so sure of that? Did the programme designers say so? Or was it a judgement that you made in your own mind, imputing motives to the designers without any proof of them? 
 

It's great that people get opportunities in sports, too bad there aren't as many people looking for students that are good at other things to give them the opportunities.

Clearly you feel this was unfair. But if we apply the same criterion of fairness to the drunk kid and his schoolfellows, what is the result? There probably were kids in that school whose families were just as poor but got no assistance from the school simply because they never fed their kids wine for breakfast. How fair was it to single out that one child? Also, to return to the case of Senhora Gomes and the students that are ‘good at other things’, what about the students that aren’t good at anything? Are they not equally deserving of assistance?

Your see, if we bring the question of what people deserve into our calculations, we destroy the concept of equality altogether.
 

*     *     *

Problems like this arise, my friend, when we allow our thoughts and actions to be governed by feelings rather than principles. I think you regard yourself as a rational – perhaps even an unusually rational – person; at any rate, it is clear that you feel most comfortable in a rational world, one in which people base their ideas and actions on factual realities rather than feelings and unexamined propositions. I am just like you in this, but I am not so lucky as you: I am not so confident that I am a rational person myself.

Indeed, I have found that when people are found clinging unreasonably to the lifebelt of reason, it is because they fear their own suspected irrationality. And in many cases, they are quite right to be afraid. 

[Astyanax]

I just don't necessarily have a one-size-fits-all answer on this occasion.  

Thank you, Andy. I shan’t trouble you any further. I do hope, though, that not having such an answer ready to hand troubles you anyway, and leads you to think a bit more about the sources of your own ethics, and how reliable those sources really are. Not because I think you stand in particular need of that examination, but because I think we all do – particularly those who are most confident of their moral principles.

Otherwise, we wouldn’t really know ourselves, would we? We wouldn’t be able to rely on ourselves to do the right thing in any situation.

[andy06shake]

Thank you, Andy. I shan’t trouble you any further. I do hope, though, that not having such an answer ready to hand troubles you anyway, and leads you to think a bit more about the sources of your own ethics, and how reliable those sources really are. Not because I think you stand in particular need of that examination, but because I think we all do – particularly those who are most confident of their moral principles.

Otherwise, we wouldn’t really know ourselves, would we? We wouldn’t be able to rely on ourselves to do the right thing in any situation.

That's ok Astyanax, no trouble at all, i wish i had a better answer.

But all i have is that our morality emerges from a combination of reason, empathy, and our own lived experiences. 

I agree that examining the foundations of our ethics is valuable.

None of us should assume our moral beliefs are beyond question.

I suppose the trick is to challenge our own assumptions.

But there is little point in becoming paralysed by constant doubt.

Otherwise, we simply struggle to make decisions.

Which can be rather problematic if time is a factor...

[Astyanax]

Native aboriginals are pushing for the criminalization of residential school denialism as hate speech, similar to the criminalization of holocaust denialism.

I see you are talking about Canada. I know that only because the source you quoted is a Canadian newspaper. I have no idea what ‘residential school denialism’ is, so I cannot pronounce on the rights and wrongs of it.

Holocaust denial is against the law in about twenty countries. It is certainly not illegal in my country. In Canada, it has been illegal only since 2022. 

In Muslim-majority countries it is actually a commonly held belief, socially acceptable and by some lights praiseworthy.
 

We now see what happens when bureaucratic procedures are followed without examining or oversight of those bureaucrats' morals and ethics and procedures...

Is this really what we see? I’m afraid I do not see it.

Aren’t prospective recruits to the Canadian administrative services screened by the Public Services Commission, taking into account their former work experience and references, their credit records, their police records if any and so on, before they are appointed? Aren’t they also subject to periodic performance reviews once appointed? And don’t all legal and administrative procedures proposed by these bureaucrats need approval from your Parliament before they can be implemented?

What more than this do you feel could be done? Should the Canadian government maintain dossiers on all its civil servants, as the Stasi did for East German ones? Or should you reintroduce something like the old Test Acts, which (though British in origin) also applied to the citizens of British North America?

Of course the criteria would have to be different; perhaps all bureaucrats should sign a statement, ‘I believe in the residential schools!’ (or whatever the appropriate formula might be) while simultaneously taking a polygraph test? 

I am eager to hear your suggestions, and still more eager to learn how you justify them.
 

...which are perhaps unchanging or were originally created... out of prejudice and/or hate.

Why ‘perhaps’? Aren’t you a Canadian citizen? Legislative changes in your country are a matter of public record. Why can’t you find out for yourself whether the relevant bureaucratic procedures have changed or not?

What do you mean by ‘created out of prejudice and hate’? Are you suggesting that the Canadian government deliberately oppresses indigenous Canadians, and does so with malice aforethought?

Frankly, your post seems highly prejudiced to me. You appear to have made up your mind about the Canadian government and its bureaucrats on the basis of absolutely zero factual information (although factual information is in fact readily available), attributing to them deeds that you do not even know were done, and motives that you cannot possibly even guess at.

You are clearly quite satisfied with your own morals and ethics. I envy you.

[ArMaP]

Perhaps it will be more familiar, and more comprehensible, in Portuguese.

Thanks, it is more comprehensible but not familiar, I don't like philosophy. Had it in school for one or two years and even got decent grades, but that was because I understood the kind of answers the teacher liked, I don't think I learned a thing about it.
 

It is Kant’s categorical imperative, the distillation of his ethical philosophy into a guide to action. It means that every action one takes should not just seem to be right according to the circumstances of the moment and the persons involved, but should be right whenever and wherever someone chooses to act that way, and regardless of whoever the action affected.

My question to you is, simply: do you agree with this principle? And if you do not agree, what principle would you substitute for it in order to ensure a better moral outcome by your actions?

I do not agree.
I don't think there's a right "principle" applicable by anyone to any situation. I agree that we should have some basic principles, like trying to avoid negative effects and increase the positives for everyone and everything involved, but then we should adjust to specific situations when needed.
 

That’s really all I want to know from you. Is there, in your opinion, a universal ethical principle that applies to all cases, or should our principles change with the persons and circumstances?

Our principles shouldn't change, but we should adapt to the circumstances, if needed.
 

It seems to me that you have not yet thought your way through to a consistent answer.

[Astyanax]

I don’t like philosophy.

To paraphrase what somebody somewhere said, you may not be interested in philosophy, but philosophy is interested in you. You can’t avoid it: every time you have a thought that isn’t of direct, practical relevance to the moment you are living in, you are practising philosophy. I’m afraid there’s no escape. 
 

I don't think there's a right "principle" applicable by anyone to any situation.

You don’t believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics? How about the law of gravity? Or don’t you think these are philosophical principles? Science was invented by philosophers. Its old name used to be ‘natural philosophy’. 

But enough teasing. Since you don’t like philosophy, let’s take the ideas you have expressed and apply them to the practical, real-world issue that inspired this thread.

It seems to me that what you have said on the subject may be summed up as follows:

• Principle One: treat everyone exactly the same.
  
• Principle Two: ignore Principle One when it seems right to do so.
  

Does this offer us a practical guide to action? It mandates selectivity in applying the principle of equal treatment for all. Such a ‘philosophy’ – by which I mean the perceptions and beliefs that govern your actions – is of absolutely no help in deciding how to interpret the principle of free speech when applied to Israeli writers, or to writers who support the Palestinian cause. It allows us to extend or withdraw the right of free speech to either party just as we please.

Besides, how do you decide when to invoke Principle Two? Do you have a reliable method for that? Ah yes, you mentioned it before: you make a decision based on the ‘facts’ of a situation.

And how do you judge what the facts are? How do you decide what course of action they indicate? How do you judge the relative importance of different, often countervailing facts?

Ask two bystanders to describe an accident; you may end up wondering whether they both witnessed the same event. And it’s worse when we come to abstract considerations such as fairness and justice; everyone has their own set of ‘facts’ – as well as their own interpretation of them. So you see, if you don’t have a moral philosophy, you cannot help playing God.

If equality and fairness are your goals, you cannot reach them by this route. Please note that this isn’t an abstract matter, a subject for the schoolroom. It has direct bearing on the life you live and your character. If you go through life without a clear set of morals, or a well-defined set of ethical principles, you will end up doing something terrible sooner or later, most likely to yourself.
 

*      *     *

Thank you for your generous post, Armap. To address most of what you say would take us over ground we have already covered, but I am happy to clarify the following:
 

Sorry, I don't understand what do you think I felt was unfair.

The special treatment and opportunities afforded to gifted athletes like Zenaida Gomes. You wanted other gifted persons to get similar special treatment. Which gifted people, I wonder – do you have a Favourites list?
 

He wasn't "singled out", all poor children get that support. I was using that extreme case as an example.

Wouldn’t that come under the heading of ‘artificial and arbitrary compensation’, which you object to? At any rate, if the poor kid isn’t a singular example, your argument dissolves.
 

*      *     *

And so, unless you have anything specific to add, we come to the end of our discussion. I hope it has been of some assistance to you in a raising your consciousness about a very important matter that you have clearly been avoiding. You are uncomfortable dealing with feelings, both your own and others’, and clearly wish other people would leave you alone and stop making emotional demands on you. Well, wouldn’t we all. But if you try to live like that, you don’t actually gain autonomy; you lose it, giving up your own power to shape events to others who will have no hesitation in taking it away from you. Eventually you will end up hiding under the bed. Or worse, you will sleepwalk yourself into participating in some crime or atrocity.

With luck, this discussion will help avert that terrible possibility.

Don’t be what the KGB used to call a useful idiot, ArMap: think actively about what you believe and why, and live up to it. It is shameful to live any other way.

[Astyanax]

SO WHAT DO I THINK?

Earlier in the thread, I promised that I would make clear my own position on the free speech issue as it affects Israeli and Israel-supporting writers on one hand and Palestinian or Palestine-supporting ones on the other. I am writing this post to make good on that promise.

Here is my position, bluntly stated.

1. All those who speak and write in support of Palestine, even to the extent of calling for the dissolution or destruction of the state of Israel, should be free to do so. This, incidentally, is also the general position articulated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   
   
2. All those who speak and write in support of Israel, even to the extent of calling for the extirpation of Hamas and the annexation of Gaza, or even of the whole of Palestine by Israel, should likewise be free to do so. As a general principle, this would apply to Israelis as well as to non-citizens of Israel.
   

This seems to me the only just way to resolve the issue fairly while preserving the principle of freedom of expression, to which – as a writer and artist – I am very strongly committed.

What then of the rights and wrongs of the specific case, in particular the matter of Gaza? Although I have deliberately declined to let myself be drawn into the Palestine v. Israel question (not only on this site, but everywhere online and in real life, too), I do have my own views on the subject. Publicly, I have always refused to take a side, but that changed when the razing of Gaza began. My views, too, changed at that time; not that I switched support from one side to another, but my thoughts on the subject were forcibly clarified.

Even so, I am not going to argue any aspect of this rolling geopolitical disaster on this thread other than the question of what to do with writers and public speakers who take up the subject. All I will say here is that the pursuit of justice does not require the infringement of anyone's free-speech rights.

My grateful thanks to all who humoured me with their participation. I hope the discussion continues, but my own involvement will necessarily be less, since I hope to commence work on a new book on Monday, and shall have very little time or energy to devote to Deny Ignorance after that.

[quintessentone]

I see you are talking about Canada. I know that only because the source you quoted is a Canadian newspaper. I have no idea what ‘residential school denialism’ is, so I cannot pronounce on the rights and wrongs of it.

Holocaust denial is against the law in about twenty countries. It is certainly not illegal in my country. In Canada, it has been illegal only since 2022. 

In Muslim-majority countries it is actually a commonly held belief, socially acceptable and by some lights praiseworthy.
 

Is this really what we see? I’m afraid I do not see it.

Aren’t prospective recruits to the Canadian administrative services screened by the Public Services Commission, taking into account their former work experience and references, their credit records, their police records if any and so on, before they are appointed? Aren’t they also subject to periodic performance reviews once appointed? And don’t all legal and administrative procedures proposed by these bureaucrats need approval from your Parliament before they can be implemented?

What more than this do you feel could be done? Should the Canadian government maintain dossiers on all its civil servants, as the Stasi did for East German ones? Or should you reintroduce something like the old Test Acts, which (though British in origin) also applied to the citizens of British North America?

Of course the criteria would have to be different; perhaps all bureaucrats should sign a statement, ‘I believe in the residential schools!’ (or whatever the appropriate formula might be) while simultaneously taking a polygraph test? 

I am eager to hear your suggestions, and still more eager to learn how you justify them.
 

Why ‘perhaps’? Aren’t you a Canadian citizen? Legislative changes in your country are a matter of public record. Why can’t you find out for yourself whether the relevant bureaucratic procedures have changed or not?

What do you mean by ‘created out of prejudice and hate’? Are you suggesting that the Canadian government deliberately oppresses indigenous Canadians, and does so with malice aforethought?

Frankly, your post seems highly prejudiced to me. You appear to have made up your mind about the Canadian government and its bureaucrats on the basis of absolutely zero factual information (although factual information is in fact readily available), attributing to them deeds that you do not even know were done, and motives that you cannot possibly even guess at.

You are clearly quite satisfied with your own morals and ethics. I envy you.

The examination needs to dive deep into whether equal representation existed, which it did not and I would hazard a guess that where a person does not bother to explore others' realities, then, of course, no true equal representation can exist without the input of the others'.

So, you see, the sources one chooses makes all the difference.

----

"No, Canadian Aboriginal peoples have never had equal representation in government.  Historically, they were systematically excluded from federal and provincial voting rights and subjected to assimilationist policies that stripped them of political agency. 
Historical Exclusion and Disenfranchisement

• Denial of Rights: Following Confederation in 1867, Indigenous peoples were largely barred from voting in federal and provincial elections. The Indian Act and other legislation treated Status Indians as wards of the state, denying them full citizenship rights. 
  
• Limited Early Access: While some Indigenous veterans gained the right to vote in 1917, and Métis were granted the franchise in 1920, Indigenous peoples living on reserves remained disenfranchised. Inuit were not granted the federal franchise until 1950. 
  
• Full Federal Suffrage: Universal adult suffrage for all Indigenous Canadians was not achieved federally until 1960, when the Canada Elections Act was amended to allow all Indians to vote regardless of status or residence. 
  

Persistent Under-Representation

• Numerical Minority Status: Even after gaining voting rights, Aboriginal people remain numerical minorities in all federal electoral ridings, making it difficult to influence election outcomes through standard voting. 
  
• Low Election Rates: Since Confederation, only a small number of self-identified Aboriginal people have been elected to the House of Commons (e.g., 13 between 1867 and 1994, and 17 by 2020).  This stands in stark contrast to their population share and historical governance traditions.
  
• Lack of Guaranteed Seats: Unlike some other jurisdictions that have reserved seats, Canada has no guaranteed electoral districts for Indigenous peoples. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) recommended special representation, but this was not implemented constitutionally. 
  
• Political Alienation: Many Indigenous communities view the Canadian political system with distrust due to its colonial origins. Some reject electoral participation as a continuation of assimilationist agendas, preferring traditional governance structures or self-government agreements negotiated outside the Indian Act. " (AI snippet)
  

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...D03DEF0F39

I question my morals and ethics, somewhat, specifically those derived from Roman Catholic teachings because of the same lack of equal representation as sourced above, but then I do have empathy and compassion, which is a prerequisite IMO in moving forward for the examination, understanding and reasoning of others' situations as a whole.