-
Website
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-twist-on-old-story.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
going to that church for assistance if they are thought of as servsnts of the devil?
it would be like a black person going to a klan meeting for fellowship
Al Jazeera?
going to that church for assistance if they are thought of as servsnts of the devil?
This is why I am wary of continued funding of "Faith-based" initiatives. While the religious entity might not actually discriminate in terms of who receives assistance, aren't needy people who have a different religious viewpoint going to feel they might be disrespected or badly treated at this church? So in the end, they just end up serving their own rightwingnut believers.
I think a sign like this would be legal in Canada, as well (though I am not a lawyer). There's no direct incitement to violence, and even if an argument can be made that a sign like this would lead people to do violence, the church could easily argue that this is a religious belief (which is exempt from hate speech laws).
I'm a strong advocate that hate speech laws are a justifiable limitation to free speech, but I don't think this sign, alone, crosses the line into illegal territory. It's close, though.
They're legal as long as they meet zoning and building codes. The state or municipality can regulate them on those standards, but not for content.
Coincidentally, the Senate is debating an expansion to existing federal hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation. Several conservative groups are saying that doing so will "have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans -- that homosexuality is sinful." A few of points; first, they don't cite any proof that a majority of people think homosexuality is a sin, and second, even if they did, using a religious standard as the basis for secular law is questionable. Second, the hate-crimes laws don't govern speech, they govern actions. You can say what you want, but if you act on those words or incite others to do it, then you've committed an actionable crime.
Now, if it said, "Adherents of Islam should be killed because they're the Devil", you'd be a LOT closer to hitting our hate speech laws.
Objectionable though it is, I think it would fall under freedom of expression here in Canada, and given that it's expressive of a belief rather than incitement to violence, I'd probably be in agreement with that assessment. Similarly, that jackass Phelps would be less objectionable if he'd just stick to saying queer folk are the devil. It's the "queer folk should be killed" stuff that gets my back up.
That said, I'd happily join in protests to try and convince those who'd put the sign up that its sentiment isn't welcome in my community, using my own freedom of expression to try and convince them that their statement is divisive and hurtful, and that I doubt that lovely Jesus guy with his "let's be nice to everyone" words would approve much of it. Because it is a truly objectionable statement to make, and it's quite reasonable to react to it by objecting to it.
No, I forgot. I'm an idiot -- my apologies, Alex. I'm so sorry!
The post has been updated with the byline.
And how do you define hate speech, I ask because I've heard at least 5 different definitions.
So - you wanna hang around and be a Shaker, not have people think you're just Summer's Eve of a trolly old troll of a troll, maybe do your own research. :)
Oh and can you tell me then how I'm supposed to ask for clarification without being labeled a troll?
Otherwise, you come off either as lazy, or as provocative. If you want someone to define something for you, you need to do more than just challenge them for a definition. You need to give some sense that there's a reason for your asking, and that it's more than just to stir up shit or because you're too lazy to do it yourself.
Tone and phrasing matter - there's a lot of space between a challenging, aggressive, demand and a polite request for clarification on a specific point. If you're not sure of the difference, or unsure of your ability to convey the difference in your writing, then you might want to err on the side of caution and ask yourself if you honestly need to ask the commenter or the other posters for the information. If the answer isn't a clear yes, lurking may clarify the situation or at least give you a better feel for the direction of the conversation.
In your particular case, here, your first contribution to the thread is a blunt demand for information with no indication of why you want to know it. Wouldn't it be rude if someone walked up to a conversation in progress, and interrupted the discussion by asking someone define their terms - with no introduction, no explanation, nothing? Well, that's in effect what you've done. Some people (trolls) do this with the goal of derailing the conversation or provoking a fight, and, unfortunately, that puts the burden on you to figure out how to not inadvertently look like one. Being open and honest about your intentions, and a bit humble in the beginning when you're new, helps a lot.
Call me cynical (many do), I expect frank conversation in that vein would fall to deaf, pious ears.
A wonderful post alexmac.
In terms of Canadian law, the relevant sections I was thinking of in my original comment are sections 318 and 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
You know, maybe it's because I am atheist, but honestly, I don't see why this exemption exists. I'm dead serious about this, because I've seen it be present in numerous such laws internationally. Why is it that religions get a free-pass when it comes to spewing hate? Why is it that religions get to demean, dehumanise, and spout whatever irrationalities and lies about any group they want to? What is so special about them that they get a legal right NOT to behave as civilly and respectfully as the rest of us?
Personally I do feel that this is hate-speech, and would be covered under such laws in some parts of Europe. This is because despite not outright calling for violence against a group (in this case Muslims), they are contributing very strongly to the dehumanisation of said group, which is a direct and causal factor in such violence. They are welcome to think and believe it all they want, but outright calling for such hate against a group? I just don't see why they should get an 'out' on this one.
But in this specific case, given that the term of opprobrium only applies as odious if you're religious, that it should fall within those protections. That is, if they'd said "Islam is of the Evil", that'd be quite different than saying it is "of the Devil" (besides being less mainstream English). Evil is a non-religious term, with meaning to all speakers of English. Call me the Devil? What the poop should I care? I don't believe in the Devil, I find the whole idea hilarious, and I don't find it the least bit insulting.
It is a fine point, I recognize, but on such points does the law turn, as ever. And I do tend to fall on the side of protection of free speech, not least because as a queer woman, my own speech would be among the first censored if we started allowing more infringements on that freedom. While it's not very common for people to be put in jail or killed for expressing sentiments that agree with the religious majority of a place, it is unfortunately very common for queer authors, authors of colour, and other oppressed groups to be squashed flat when trying to express that minority opinion.
As a writer, I do believe that words have power, certainly. But that, to me, also implies that the words I speak have power too, and since I don't get to grab much power any other way, I hang on grimly to my right to that small amount of it.
While you and I wouldn't think "Pat Buchanan is a douchebag fuckneck" or "I'm so sick of being oppressed by white men" are hate speech (for obvious reasons - oppression is discrimination plus power), can we be so certain that the majority - or a judge, worse - would agree with that assessment?
That's why I'd give this a pass on the legal front.
I would still, as I said, quite happily join the protests out front of this place, using that same freedom of expression to point out how awful they're treating their fellow humans.
Now, if you wanted to argue that a church shouldn't have tax-free status unless they can prove that the main purpose of their existence is their charitable work? There, I'm right beside you, sister. I'll go to the barricades for that one in a heartbeat. I think there are many churches in both our countries which exist largely for the purpose of political organization, and that such organizations should not be tax-exempt.
That's the thing tho, CC ... as a lesbian woman myself I tend to view it that we (and by 'we' I mean minority groups in general) are more likely to be the targets of those that would hide behind the myth of free speech. Free speech really tends to benefit those with more power in society than those that do not have such. Hence I tend to fall on the side of protection of minorities, not of speech.
As to the language, I get the point you're making about the fine line, and I agree, that is how the law falls and stands. However, what I would say is just because they are using religious language to say something that in a more secular phrasing would be considered incitement towards, does not get them an 'out. I mean, if religions themselves should not be exempt from hate speech laws, why should religious language? Why should what it is couched in change what it is doing? Sure, I too consider the 'Devil' to be a laughable idea, but that does not change the root meaning in this sign.
I guess I just don't see 'free-speech' in the same light you do here.
FT: "and she didn't specifically single out the hate speech laws in Canada she just said hate speech laws"
Fionnabhair (to which you were allegedly responding): "I think a sign like this would be legal in Canada, as well (though I am not a lawyer)."
Now - if you can't be bothered to even read the comments you claim to be responding to accurately enough to recognize simple statements of fact, how can anyone take you seriously as someone who wants to learn? As well as Rana's brilliant explanation of interrupting a conversation, you're interrupting a conversation to which you're apparently not even willing to listen!
That's the thing though CC, 'free-speech', particularly as it is practised here in the US, doesn't actually work in protecting the rights of the voices of the disenfranchised ... rather I would argue it is a veneer of a freedom of speech behind which those with power can hide and just continue to impose their degradation of those without power.
Speech laws that are crafted as though all members of society are on a level playing field only prolong the existence of a lack of a level playing field. In other words, free-speech laws that do not acknowledge the inability of everyone in a society to have the same access to, or ability of, speech, due to the structural arrangements of inequality of society, only contribute to the maintenance of that inequality; ie pretending everyone is equal when everyone is not does not produce equality.
Yes, Suu-Ski, the Dalai Lama, Wilde, Mandela were imprisoned because of their speech. But the reason we know about their words is not because of free-speech laws, but the recognition that those with power need to assist and help those without such to get their words out, so that they might in turn gain power. That's not 'free-speech', that's the enactment of power to protect individuals and groups.
Equating such with the speech on the sign above only diminishes the ability to do such in my mind, and that's what so-called 'free-speech' laws do, I would say.
In the end, I guess we can keep fighting for our rights in our own ways. And on most other issues, I reckon we'll be beside one another at the barricades, so it's all good. :)
The bill wanted to include sexual orientation as a bias for which the hate crime statues I mentioned, above, could be applied. Focus on the Family (and likely other like-minded interest groups) whined, saying that if that protection passed, the bible could be considered hate speech. Enter a religious text exemption.
I'm trying to find out what that exemption looked like before C-250, but my Google-fu, so far, has failed me.
And yeah, definitely know where I'll be standing at those barricades ... right at your side *smile*
"moar of this pleez!" says the woman whose neighborhood Yahoo list is currently embroiled in a nasty mess after someone had the audacity to point out that a posted event was hosted by an extremely conservative church and that some of us (LGBT & non-Christian neighbors) might not want to go where we weren't welcome. :::argh:::
(3)No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
[...] (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text
Subsection 2 reads:
(2)Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
However, there is another section that the religious exemption does not seem to apply to. It reads:
(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
So, communicating statements that promote hate against an identifiable group is subject to a religious exemption. If those statements also advocate violence (which is how I'm understanding that "breach of the peace"), the religious exemption does not apply. So, essentially, the religious exemption is not as broad as I originally thought, and I think it's also a fair compromise between freedom of religion, and the hate speech laws. It means that religious statements and religious texts, alone, are exempt from the law, but if those statements also advocate violence against an identifiable group, then a person can still be charged.
(The section 318 law- which says that advocating genocide against an identifiable group- is not subject to any exemption, and I support that, as well.)
Not to continue a possible de-rail, here, but I think this is important. Often when I'm writing a comment for this site, I re-write it two or three times, working on its tone and trying to avoid -ist language (as do others, as they've noted before). I do this to contribute to a safe, positive, progressive space, not because I'm a wimp or a pushover or anything like that. It's a deliberate choice to perpetuate the well-meaning, supportive space I've found here. This is difficult for me, because I can be quite assertive, loud, and forward in real life. But it's also important to me. For those who are accused of trollish behavior (FatherTime), you might want to consider this approach.
P.S. Did you see what I did, there, FT? Instead of saying 'check your tone' in a demanding, bossy voice, I toned it down, phrased it as a suggestion, and gave you some space. That's the sort of thing that tends to get respected and well-received around here.
Ha! Take that, you foul beasts who claim Shakesville doesn't allow dissent or disagreement! :)
Also, the pastor's own daughter, as well as others former members, speak out against the church as being cult-like, with social isolation and extreme emphasis on obedience.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090719/ART...
One of the things my family noticed when they moved down here was the preponderance of conservative churches. While I now identify as an eclectic pagan, I grew up in a fairly liberal United Methodist church, and my mother no longer even goes to church because she couldn't find a church within reasonable distance of my parents' home that wasn't way too far right for her tastes. (I'm not terribly certain of my stepfather's spiritual path, but I'd hazard a guess that he's on the agnostic end of the spectrum.) My daughter (who is almost 17) attends a Methodist church that is reasonably liberal (although she has had some struggles with church members making unpleasant remarks about her open bisexuality and I would not be terribly surprised to see her do as I did in my late teens-early 20s and turn away from Christianity entirely); that church is a bit of a distance from the house but she rides with her best friend and the best friend's family.
My mother commented shortly after they moved down here that a lot of the churches in the area looked uncomfortably like cult operations, just from looking at the way the church grounds were arranged. There are QUITE a few churches with large real estate properties and very often the church buildings are WELL back from the road and isolated from view at least by shrubs and trees and often by actual fencing or walls. Many of these churches operate schools, usually teaching pre-kindergarten through at least 8th grade, if not all the way to 12th. What a way to control people! Maude help us.
I looked around a bit to see if there was anything online indicating a time and place for any further peaceful demonstrations against the sign, and I couldn't find anything. If anybody knows if, where, and when any more demonstrations will take place, I will try to be there as a voice of non-Christians who object to the sign.
It's an interesting one this. In the UK we have a law against "incitement to racial hatred", which theoretically encompasses more than direct violence or encitement to direct violence. Whilst I used to be lawyer, this wasn't my field so I don't know whether this could be caught. Any other English/Welsh/Scottish lawyers care to chime in?
Anyone care to venture Who might have been the target audience for the sign?
My thinking being Satan (versus "the DEVIL") would seem aimed more directly toward Islam.
She said
"I'm a strong advocate that hate speech laws are a justifiable limitation to free speech, but I don't think this sign, alone, crosses the line into illegal territory. It's close, though."
Hate speech laws could mean Canadian or any hate speech law so I wanted clarification.