Culture War
The greatest worry for all parents of schoolchildren is bullying. The government agrees and hence all schools must have an anti-bullying policy. All parents know that the worst course of action is to appease bullies. Yet this is precisely what European governments are doing to the Islamic bullies in their communities. For instance,
1. Jacqui Smith, the UK Home Secretary, has declared in truly Orwellian style that all future Islamic terror atrocities will be referred to as ‘un-Islamic‘. Quite why she seeks to speak on behalf of her Muslim constituents is beyond me. Or quite how she would know is also a mystery. Still, there you have it. Islamic terrorist attacks are now to be known as ‘un-Islamic criminal acts’. Terrorists have been defeated by Labour as they have been re-branded criminals. And Ignorance is Truth.
A survey for Policy Exchange revealed that 1 in 8 young British Muslims support terror groups such as Al-Qaeda and 1in 3 believes that apostates (Muslims who leave their faith) should be killed. So yes – it’s not a majority, but it’s not exactly a trifling minority either. It’s like calling the Spanish Inquisition ‘un-Catholic’.
2. Next up is the case of Hani Ramadan, a schoolteacher in Geneva. He wrote an article in French newspaper, Le Monde, stating that adulterers should be stoned. He was sacked. However, a Court of Appeals has just reinstated him and awarded him two years pay in damages.
3. And then there’s the Dutch. Looking at Holland and its Muslim population is akin to peering ten years into the future for England (and possibly a generation for Australia). Tensions are already elevated in Holland following the murder of Theo van Gogh three years ago by a Muslim extremist for dissing the Koran.
Enter stage left Geert Wilders, bonkers leader of the far-right Freedom Party and not a man known for his ability to smooth troubled waters. Geert has made a film about the Koran. No surprises for guessing that it doesn’t exactly portray Mohammed and the Koran in a positive light. In fact, Geert himself stated that his film will show the Koran as a “source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror”. Right on queue and without a trace of irony, the Grand Mufti of Syria has indicated that Geert will be ‘responsible for inciting wars and bloodshed‘.
Nothing surprising so far. Just another example of Europe’s big, big problem. But here comes a shocker from Dutch Foreign Minister, Maxime Verhagenstated,
“Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend”
Chew on that oh-lovers-of-liberty and start preparing your kids for a real culture war.
45 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
Shem Bennett on Adopted by homosexuals 
Tim Andrews on Pacific Rim Policy Exchan… 
boacledob on Internet filter developme… 
papachango on Surreal in Cuba 
. on Pacific Rim Policy Exchan… 
P.M.Lawrence on Burn that book? 
TerjeP on Adopted by homosexuals papachango on Surreal in Cuba 
'Nuke' Gray on Surreal in Cuba 
Tim R on Surreal in Cuba
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum September 11, 2010
- Warming to the TaskI went along yesterday to see Alan Moran in the Lion’s Den. Well, not really a lion’s den; more like an opportunity to form a circular firing squad with everyone shooting at the only person in the room trying to tell them that they are asking for $500+ electricity bills with all other prices scaled [...]
- Ongoing shocks around ChristchurchA scary map that show the battering that Christchurch has continued to suffer since the first big shock. The figure in the first column appears to be the strength on the Richter scale. Courtesy of Barry Williams of the Ausralian Skeptics.
- Andrew Norton
- Skills matching for recent graduatesAndrew Carr asks if I can compare the skills mismatch of international and local students. To re-cap, a study of former overseas student migrants in 2006 found that: 18 months after their arrival found the skills match for former overseas students at the following levels: accounting 35%, business/commerce 5%, education 31%, engineering 23%, IT 35%, [...]
- Should the government change migration laws to suit universities?Australia’s universities are in a bit of a panic. With international student applications down, and much bigger drops in the ‘feeder’ colleges, the next few years are looking particularly grim. While issues such as the high dollar, student safety and more intense competition for even-more broke universities in the UK and US are affecting th […]
- Australia’s still surprisingly secure workersThe ABS released their labour mobility survey yesterday, and as I predicted two years ago Labor’s legislated job security provisions, which took effect about five months into the survey, did not stop retrenchments going up. 3.7% of workers who were employed in the year to February 2010 were retrenched, compared to 1.8% under WorkChoices in [...]
- Skills matching for recent graduates
- IPA news
- Expect Libs to go in for the kill September 7, 2010Despite calls for consensus politics, for the next three years Australians should expect a Liberal-led opposition to...
- Minority government gridlock good for the ALP September 7, 2010Labor lost the war. But it won the reconstruction handily. Nobody thought the Gillard team could come together as it did...
- A cynical look at parliamentary reform September 6, 2010We're usually a distrustful lot. When it was revealed Andrew Wilkie had asked for federal funds to redevelop the Royal...
- Expect Libs to go in for the kill September 7, 2010
I don’t think Hani Ramadan should have been sacked at all. I don’t see what the problem is with having outrageous opinions is if you can still do your job professionally.
Historically, Freedom of Speech has always meant that the Government didn’t have a right to censor your speeches, but it has never meant that you could say anything without any consequences. If, for instance, you voluntarily signed a nondisclosure agreement, you couldn’t use Freedom of Speech as an excuse to get out and blab.
However, that doesn’t seem to be the case with Hani- he’s just a throwback to a more violent age.
However, I can see the logic behind the Un-Islamic label. Here I will defend the speechwriters of George Bush, who write about radical islamists, because plenty of muslims in America have integrated successfully. To use the label Islamic Terrorists implies that most muslims are terrorists, and might alienate otherwise-happy people. And I think that in Britain, they have further impediments to muslims feeling they are British, like having an established Church, and a flag composed solely of Crosses!
I am fairly sure most established churches disown Popes, zealots, terrorists and periods of history they are not proud of. Several Popes have been “de-Poped”, Victoria Cross recipients have been disowned by the King at the gallows and the history of the reformation and counter reformation are not without venial motives.
Nothing wrong if social pressure lightens up the “vengeful God” parts of a religion. If only it happened sooner or more often.
But the tone of this article is right – the prevailing attitude about social mores cutting into rights is BS. If all my neighbours are pacificists, or hopefully not, passivists, it doesn’t stop me being able to use reasonable force to defend myself.
Ultimately, such a social more is hypocritical – the passivists would need state sponsored coercion to enforce their rule, and taking away the right to free speech is more offensive than anything someone can say to another.
Conrad
I don’t see what the problem is with having outrageous opinions is if you can still do your job professionally.
You either don’t have children or you’re one relaxed dude! I, for one, would be fairly concerned if my son’s teacher expressed such a view
Even the most ardent libertarian accepts constraints on freedom of speech. For instance defamation, slander, breaking a confidentiality agreement and crucially, inciting violence.
If Hani had expressed his distaste for adultery, then i would have suggested a very stern word with the headmaster (adultery is not illegal and hence a teacher is outside their rights to condemn it) but no action needed.
However, he didn’t. He told a classroom of children that it is perfectly acceptable to stone to death an adulterer. Condoning murder in front of a classroom of impressionable young minds is simply not OK.
“Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend” ?
Now there’s a dilemma for the arts intelligensia !
Gonna make a heck of a chant at the next rally of ‘Artists, Writers and Academics in Solidarity with Oppressed Minorities’, isn’t it ?
“What do we want ? No freedom of expression that allows offence to certain minority groups – but does not apply to our freedom of expression to provoke, challenge and offend the ruling paradigm ! When do we want it ? NOW !!”
I can’t wait
My comment about an established Church is that it is not a Mosque, and a Mosque-attender might have trouble with such a union of Church and (his?) state. Could this be why the USA has more success at integrating muslim immigrants?
Nicholas
To use the label Islamic Terrorists implies that most muslims are terrorists
I disagree. The vast majority of terror acts are committed by Muslim fanatics. It just isn’t a Christian, Jewish, Hindhu or a Buddhist problem. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. Why should they be offended?
Nearly all rapes are committed by men. However, not all men are rapists. The argument has no logic.
Nicholas
Muslims emigrated to Britain with the full knowledge that England has an Established Church. Unlike in their homeland, this Church allows full respect for other religions to practice. Again i don’t see the problem. Britain has a large Hindhu and Sikh population from India. They have no issue with the flag. Why do Muslims?
Kevo
The ‘Artists, Writers and Academics in Solidarity with Oppressed Minorities’ are the ‘ruling paradigm’!
Pommy
going on your own words, he didn’t talk to the class about adultery. he wrote an article in the paper about it. I don’t see what the problem is. There are probably libertarian teachers who believe cocaine should be available from your neighbourhood pharmacist. I happen to hold that view myself. Should I be barred from teaching?
I don’t see how this constant obsession you have with things Islamic has anything to do with libertarianism, much less endorsing the sacking of someone for their opinions. It would be altogether different if he was teaching this in school.
Jason
Are you really comparing dabbling in drug use to condoning the stoning of adulterers?
I don’t see how this constant obsession you have with things Islamic has anything to do with libertarianism
Because Sharia Law is the polar opposite to libertarianism.
Freedom of speech does include the freedom to offend.
Freedom of speech also includes the right to suggest that adultery should carry the death penalty (a suggestion I personally find offensive).
Freedom of speech is not violated if the government sacks an employee who says offensive things.
Terje
The former chief of staff of your hero Ron Paul is on record as supporting capital punishment for adulterers, homosexuals and children disrespectful to their parents. Go Google Gary North if you think I’m making this up. That is enough to make me not want to vote for Ron Paul (but apparently not you) but would it be enough for me to support sacking him if he were a public school teacher simply for writing these views somewhere else outside his profession? No
Just to be clear I did not say I would or would not favour any given sacking. I merely said it would not constitute a violation of free speech. A sacking on the grounds of offensive remarks may constitute a violation of other important principles but this would depend on the circumstances.
Jason I don’t generally expect you to just make stuff up. So while I will google the details it won’t be with the expectation of finding you to be deliberately dishonest.
My point, Pommy, is that Un-islamic terrorism might be a way of speaking which they hope won’t enflame anyone’s sensitivities. And my point about Britain was to wonder if British Muslims have a harder time assimilating than Americans Muslims do, because of these features of British life. I certainly agree that these points can’t be the whole argument, because France has no Established faith, and a bland flag, and still has troubles with muslims. (I suppose the trouble is that they try to teach that French history is always glorious, and Algerian immigrants might disagree with that.)
Pommy,
If you ban people saying that they want to stone adulterers it forces the speech underground. Let it out in the open so it can be properly debated and ridiculed.
That’s the principle behind the belief that no speech is verboten.
Ben
I’m a great believer in ridiculing rather than banning offensive speech. But my point here is that this schoolteacher has crossed the line from being offensive to inciting violence. He is encouraging violence against adulterers rather than merely stating his distaste for adulterers. It’s a hazy line, for sure.
A different way of looking at this is to imagine the response if his article had said that ‘all blacks should be stoned’. Do you still think he would have been re-instated? Should the same principles of let-and-let-live then apply?
Nicholas
I agree with you that this is the govt’s line of thinking. I just think it’s dumb.
But it’s an interesting question as to why Muslims have assimilated better into life in America than Europe. Possibly due to the US’s long history of immigration, its lack of a centuries-old aristocracy, greater opportunities for workers?
Jason – google is not taking me anywhere overly useful today. I did find a few references that indicated that Gary North was on Ron Pauls staff for a “brief period” around 1976. It didn’t indicate that he was chief of staff but he may have been. Also it did not indicate if he was expressing views about the death of gays or adulterers at the time or if he ever gave Ron Paul reasonable grounds for a sacking. Many articles I found did implicate Gary North in such public statements but that seems to have been long after he worked for Ron Paul. What do you know about the specifics of it?
In any case the notion that homosexuality is a mortal sin worthy of death was unfortunately quite prevalent in the 1970s. When aids came along many people unfortunately regarded it as gods judgement. The last 40 years has entailed a truely remarkable process of consciousness raising and enlightenment. It was only at the beginning of the 1970s that the medical profession ceased regarding homosexuality as a mental illness. Tasmania was still locking up homosexuals for long jail terms in the 1980s.
My mistake – worked on congressional staff, not Chief of Staff.
But the charges against him are correct
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
But in case you don’t trust the New Republic on what North belives (the fact that he has worked for Ron Paul is common knowledge)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html
North himself still hangs around Rockwell
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north-arch.html
Terje
I tried sending you some links but your comments system has eaten them up so I can’t help you even if I wanted too.
My mistake – he worked as one of Ron Paul’s congressional staff but he wasn’t Chief.
He is still associated with Rockwell – look up his archives on Lew Rockwell and therefore still associated with the paleos.
As for his beliefs, try Walter Olson’s Reason article (google gary north reason or something like that) as well as Kirchik’s recent TNR piece. You may not trust the Kirchik piece which kicked off the recent newsletter scandals so I’m also recommending the Walter Olson Reason piece (which is a few years old) as backup.
I didn’t say he advocated this stuff *on Ron Paul’s time* but that he advocated this stuff period and his beliefs as Christan reconstructionist when he was employed and he still hangs around Rockwell, etc today.
Interesting that you’re now trying to whitewash his record because he is a Chrisrtian and Ron Paul supporter and Paul has never distanced himself from him – never mind.
Pommy
you are sounding increasingly authoritarian.
if calling for the stoning of adulterers is an incitement for violence that should be banned, then how about calling for jail terms for people who use illicit drugs? Jailing someone is as much a form of violence as stoning someone. How about calling for increased taxes? If you don’t pay your taxes you canget jailed, if you try to escape you get shot. Therefore I would suggest that John Howard and Harry Clarke and Theodore Dalrymple should be put in jail for inciting further violence against drug users and both the Liberal and Labor parties should be hung from the lamp posts for advocating violence against taxpayers.
Jason
Not following you. Not quite sure what this has to do with taking smack. People who inject heroin are stupid but probably shouldn’t be in jail.
Jailing someone is as much a form of violence as stoning someone
Don’t be ridiculous, Jason. Jailing someone is an appropriate punishment for someone who has committed a violent crime. Stoning them isn’t.
Jason – If Gary North says that adulters, gays and disobedient kids should be killed then no argument he is putrid. And he is putrid whoever he supports politically.
Pommy, just to clarify… are you saying that people should be banned from calling for adulterers to be stoned, or you you simply saying that the school was within their rights to sack the teacher for making such comments?
Freedom of speech means freedom to offend.
But freedom of speech also means freedom to take offense and disassociate oneself with an individual.
The line is foggy because schools are usually government owned, but I think government entities should be given the same privileges as private entities when it comes to hiring/ firing policies.
In this case, I think the government has overstepped its bounds in demanding the reinstatement of a teacher. Each school should be given the autonomy to fire and hire, even if government owned. A school shouldn’t be over-ruled if it decides to fire an adulterer, for example.
I don’t think the speech of the teacher should be banned, or made illegal. But any entity, privately or publicly should have the right to disassociate with the teacher.
As for the term “un-Islamic”, I think it’s an example of over-PCness. But I also think that “terrorist” is a descriptive enough term, “Islamic terrorist” is not needed. We call people “rapists” not “white male rapists”, despite the fact that the majority of rapists are white males… “Islamic terrorist” is just a sensationalist term used by politicians and the media that biases people against a certain group.
Fleeced
I’m saying that the headmaster of that school was perfectly within his rights to fire the teacher.
Poms – that’s what I thought… in which case, I agree with you.
I tend to find that the average migrant to this country has enough trouble integrating into our society with the differences in language and culture, without suffering attacks from the mainstream population. So stop picking on my mate Pommy.
Nicholas, the un-islamic label may have some virtues in disassociating peaceful Islam from islamofascism, however it is authoritarian for Jacqui Smith, the UK Home Secretary to decree what something will be called. Such edicts have no place in a free society.
Muslims in America as an issue was dealt with in the Pew report on that subject and I have found a reference to it which may be of interest: -
I have seen another reference to the easier access to the welfare state in Europe allows Muslim youth to have lots of time on their hands to spend in internet cafes checking out aatolla Google, for extremist websites.
a
If I was running the school, I would probably sack him too. Either way, the government certainly shouldn’t be forcing the school to give him his job back.
However, in response to another point made by pommy — I am certainly against defamation laws and I think that people who support free speech should be against them. Your reputation is what other people think of you. You do not own what other people think of you. People own their own thoughts… even if they’re wrong. And lying is rude, but it should not be against the law (unless it is the basis of a contract, in which case it is breach of contract).
I’m not too sure John… I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently. Verbal abuse is no less abuse than physical abuse. Both cause harm, both cause trauma. Why is punching someone in the face worse than verbally assaulting them, morally?
Don’t give me “sticks and stones” bullshit, if you can use “mind over matter” to ignore insults then you can use “mind over matter” to ignore pain.
If the intent is to cause damage, and the action DOES cause damage, should it matter whether the action is speech or throwing a punch?
I’m not saying defamation, libel, slander, etc should be illegal in the criminal sense, but claiming for damages should be an option.
If people own their own ideas then why do we have copyright, intellectual property, etc? If I see something and then have an idea based off that thing, or copied from that thing, surely that idea is now my own property if what you said holds true?
Shem, there are other methods of dealing with abuse, they are not as intellectual as those you have in mind, but they work just fine and quickly.
And lying is rude, but it should not be against the law (unless it is the basis of a contract, in which case it is breach of contract).
This is certainly defensible if you come in from a ‘David Friedman style ‘ anarcho-capitalist position. I personally don’t believe this position is watertight as it neglects the fact that all human relationships are an exchange of value to mutual benefit, at least in a libertarian society. If you come in from a more ‘Rothbard style’ social contract anarcho-capitalist ( or ‘individual anarchist’ ?) angle then I would argue that people uphold the tenets of civilised society because they are given certain rights like personal freedom and property. This makes it worth their while to adhere to the society’s values. If you promote a society where it is acceptable to destroy the opportunities available to a hard-working, moral person by deliberately spreading lies, then productive and moral people will resist that society and not want to partake in it. Productive and moral people tend to be the backbone of any society! What would ultimately result wouldn’t exactly be the pinnacle of civilisation, and I know a society where deliberately deceitful behaviour was a legitimate way of increasing your influence would be quite repugnant to me. Furthermore, it’s not like a saying ‘a society that promotes values like gay marriage is not a society whose values I want to uphold’, because people entering into gay marriage does not affect my interface with that society, however people who spread misinformation about me do affect the way I interact with that society and could well deny me sufficient opportunity that discarding the values of that society is now worth my while.
From an Objectivist angle I would say that what you are doing is removing reward from the producers, and giving it to the liars. For example, if I’m providing goods, services or even just something of social value, then you can take some of my business by two ways. Either you can compete with me in the market place by providing a superior product or service, and therefore deliver more value to society than me, or you can spread lies about me and then try to legitimately pick up more of my business in the market, even if your product, service or social contribution is inferior. One advances society (and therefore, of course, the individuals in it) and one is destructive as it ultimately provides less value to society than if you didn’t behave that way.
Some people, particularly from the ‘David Friedman style’ anarcho-capitalist side, will argue that a liar will develop a reputation, and so will the productive person. True, but this doesn’t stop lying being a valid modus operandi, as people will get cleverer in how they do it much like advertising has got more sophisticated over time and keeps evolving to remain relevant. The fact remains that deliberating misleading people is morally wrong in any civilised society and therefore this morality should be reflected in law. By this I’m not referring to individual morality, such as it’s morally good to be nice to people, but rather social morality or the key values we need if we are to interact peacefully to mutual benefit.
Actually, you just need “mind” to ignore insults – you don’t need mind “over matter”. You can’t think your way out of broken bones, but how you feel about something is entirely within your control.
Also, offense is subjective, physical injuries are not. This seems bleeding obvious – and I’m surprised you have to ask what the difference is.
This, I don’t really object to… though for such a claim to be valid, it would have to be provable, measurable damage (none of this, “it caused stress” bs)
but how you feel about something is entirely within your control.
Drugs are needed to control depression and other serious psychological illnesses. There’s obviously a chemical side to what we “think”. That seems to me to put it, partially, beyond our control. Pavlov’s dog wasn’t be able to control salivating at a bell ring and despite possessing a higher level of reasoning than a dog, classical conditioning still has a lot of control over humans.
Now, that doesn’t warrant government intervention or suppression of free speech. But I do think it’s important to acknowledge the harm that words can cause.
If I own a coffee shop and you spread lies saying I use cat piss in my coffee and I can prove 1) you were lying, 2) you negatively affected my business and to a lesser extent 3) you intended to hurt my business then I should be able claim for damages.
In which case, people can hardly be held responsible for someone else’s internal mental state.
Not the best example, but if you can establish those three things, then perhaps… but we’re not talking about hurt feelings anymore are we?
BTW, the example you gave with the coffee shop… I should be able to say you use cat’s piss anyway – since a reasonable person is likely to assume I’m speaking figuratively (“Their coffee tastes like cat’s piss”), so you should probably add a 4th provision before damages can be awarded (ie, a reasonableness test)
A better example would be if I spread a rumour saying that this store owner was convicted child molester. This would no doubt hurt their feelings – but that’s neither here nor there – the loss of business however is a tangible negative which can be objectively measured.
Under no circumstances should hurting someone’s feelings, by itself, be considered a crime.
Aren’t there other cases where aggravating an existing condition (in this case depression) is cause for claiming damages?
We’re pretty much on the same page, I think. My examples were just bad :p
My point was just that free speech, while something to be defended by the government, doesn’t mean that you can get away with saying anything with no repercussions.
Possibly… but is it reasonable (there’s that word again) for someone to know the mental state of another person? (Mostly not, but I in some cases possibly).
As an aside, we have the case in the US where a 13-year old girl committed suicide after a myspace “prank” allegedly perpetrated by her next-door neighbour.
OK Fleeced says your coffee tastes like cats piss. Is he going to stop there? In my experience, no. People like this tend to do such things because they are the sort of miserable bastards who can only feel better about themselves by pulling others down in order to brighten up their drab wretched lives. (Fleeced, I don’t think you would do this, its only an example)
Flushed from his success and all the attention he got, he then goes on to claim that Sutcliffe burgers taste like shit, Humphries fried chicken has high cholesterol, and Petersens Fish Shop sells the mercury that leaks out of their product.
His reputation will be the one destroyed, then it will not matter what he says. In libertarian terms his product, (disparaging words) becomes unmarketable owing to the poor quality control. That is, unless Sutcliffe Burgers do taste……………………………………
I’d never give you a shit sandwich, Jim!
“His reputation will be the one destroyed, then it will not matter what he says. In libertarian terms his product, (disparaging words) becomes unmarketable owing to the poor quality control.”
The left spreads misinformation about capitalism all the time – and ultimately destroys or damages many a business in the process. Maybe we can sue for damages.
That’s like:
‘Waiter! Waiter! I can’t tell if this is tea or coffee. It tastes like dirt.’
‘Oh then it’s tea sir. The coffee tastes like cats’ piss.’
Boomboom.
I know you wouldn’t Mick, I should have exempted you along with Fleeced, Probably the other two as well although I don’t know them as well.
Well, at least you haven’t cottoned on as to what goes into MY burghers! Thank you, Mrs Lovatt! And Mr. Todd!!