[this] raises an interesting point. If I was, for example, renting a room and did not want to rent to a Black, the safest course would be to simply not rent them the room and keep my mouth shut over the reasons
Mr. McKeever has been kind enough to respond in my comments section, and his remarks were extensive enough and coherent enough (unusual for this blog) to merit a post of their own. Opinions expressed etc. are not those of the blog owner. Take it away Mr. McKeever
BCL: I saw your post and noted your last paragraph. Your insight is sound on this. Racists, sexists, and others who are landlords or employers can and do deny accommodation/jobs to people all of the time, with impunity, by keeping their views to themselves (or, at least, by trying not to let the would-be tenant/employee know the reason for the refusal of accommodation/employment).
This is why, in effect, human rights legislation is not really legislation that effectively forces racists/sexists (etc) to rent/hire those they dislike/hate. The actual effect of the legislation is that it censors the expression of racist/sexist or other irrational views.
I would not go so far as to suggest that those who drafted the legislation intended it to censor speech. Rather, I would argue that the effect (not the intention, but the effect) has been censorship.
Having worked as a human rights lawyer for almost 11 years now, I can tell you this: the act is largely ineffective for most instances of racism/sexism. However, its ineffectiveness is not due to the subject matter (i.e., irrational discrimination). Rather its ineffectiveness is due to the fact that force cannot effectively change a person's beliefs/thoughts. Physical force/coercion can govern action, but it cannot govern thought (i.e., it is physically, hence philosophically, impossible).
At the end of the day, human rights legislation has functioned - more than anything else - as an official state rejection of the ideologies that prevail in racist, sexist, anti-homosexual (etc.) jurisdictions.
The money would be better spent, in my view, on doing a much better job teaching children that a person's genetic make-up has nothing to do with the value of the person; that the irrational person - including racists, sexists, and other such tribalist - are morally inferior to those who judge each individual's value rationally (hence, without regard to race, sex, etc.).
Cheers, PM
BCL again. If the spelling in any of this is a bit shaky, its because I am still having Blogger problems and can't get spell-check to work.
12 comments:
It strikes me that there are many who not only discriminate, but do so openly.
The point of human rights legislation is not only to redress discrimination, but to express society's disapproval.
Much crime goes uncaught and unpunished as well. We do not legalize theft in order to have Jonny the cat burglar do his work in the open so we can criticize him for it.
Laws aren't perfect, and they are evaded, but that is not a reason to do away with them.
I'd also like to point out that in many cases that come before HRCs the discrimination is quite open and overt, because the person accused is quite proud of their bigotry.
If nothing else, human rights legislation has let bigoted scum know they are not part of decent society.
I think McKeever's point is quite valid. We cannot change a person's belief through force.
I also think this goes to the 'quick fix' idea many people have - we can fix society by passing a law. If we outlaw something, then it will go away. Yes, apply that logic to abortion, drugs, and yes, theft and see how it works. It doesn't.
I agree with McKeever that there are more effective, albeit slower, longterm ways to fight racism, sexism etc than passing disapproving laws with the effect of censorship, even if that is not the intent.
There are certainly other ways to let the bigoted scum know they aren't part of decent society than by legislating speech and expression.
The left errs on the side of government control over thought, speech and expression.
The right errs on the side of freedom and liberty.
It's as simple as that. It's no coincidence that every position BCL has taken on this issue has been from the anti-free speech perspective.
There is precious little western liberalism that is today's "Liberalism".
There's a reason why "Liberal Fascism" has remained on the New York Times top ten bestseller list for so long (going on four weeks now) - it's the most insightful analysis of today's left's totalitarian tendencies and alliances.
Posts like this and others from BCL only show just how prophetic Goldberg's thesis is.
I agree with McKeever that there are more effective, albeit slower, longterm ways to fight racism, sexism etc than passing disapproving laws with the effect of censorship, even if that is not the intent.
And how long should we ask the victims of this behaviour to wait until society changes sufficiently for these actions to become unthinkable?
They'll wait forever, in other words because this stuff never changes. Bad behaviour is fundamental to being human, and the only thing we can do is ensure we're protected from it.
We cannot change a person's belief through force.
Again, I feel I have to challenge this sloppy thinking. Making the consequences of behaviour explicit is not forcing anyone to do anything...in fact, it's the fundamental premise of law and justice.
What has disappointed me the most with these rightwingers fighting for the freedom to spew hate and bigotry is that there are really interesting issues they could choose to communicate articulately and effectively if they wanted to...everything from the principled conservative critique of liberalism to the thorny issues surrounding multi-culturalism and immigration. But that's not what they're doing and that's not what they want to keep on doing. They want the freedom to pander to the ignorance and petty hatreds of the average person and amplify the message of the truly unreachable fascists in a dishonest propaganda campaign to weaken what is fundamentally a liberal and progressive society.
The principled conservative voices have been drowned out in the last few years by the irresponsible, defamatory, screechy rhetoric from the Right and an equilibrium has to be restored and maintained.
Aggressive ignorance such as this:
There's a reason why "Liberal Fascism" has remained on the New York Times top ten bestseller list for so long (going on four weeks now) - it's the most insightful analysis of today's left's totalitarian tendencies and alliances.
Posts like this and others from BCL only show just how prophetic Goldberg's thesis is.
...poses a real threat. And since hunting Chuck down and putting my boot so far up his arse he'd be flossing with my shoelaces is counter-productive, we do need legal recourse to challenge the horrifically bad ideas churned out by the likes of Jonah Golberg and the rest of the proto-fascists.
About the spell-check... back in the olden days, people used to use a tool called a "dictionary" and a technique called "rereading what you just wrote".
Sheesh, kids these days! I bet you can't do math without a calculator, either. :)
I can't do math WITH a calculator.
Indeed it can be difficult to prove discrimination before a human rights tribunal, especially when dealing with a saavy respondent. As said above, that doesn't lessen the validity of the goal, it just makes it less likely to be successful. I see no reason why $ can't be spent on teaching children that discrimination is wrong AND having commissions which can address the wrongs of its most egregious, real world examples. In fact, tribunals and education can be complementary: Commissions sometimes release reports regarding the state of human rights within their jurisdiction, and in BC the school ciriculum was adjusted to be more gay friendly as part of a human rights settlement (and boy did that upset the extreme right!)
Change their beliefs? Sorry, I'm no Christian. There's no possible redemption for people like Marc Lemire and Connie Fournier. It's about protecting society from being infected with their sickness, not about curing them.
They can, and if there's a God will, rot in hell.
Uhm, Chuckles? I'm a lefty. So much for your thesis.
And 'Liberal Fascism' is a bunch of a-historic tripe that no serious historian or political scientist takes seriously. Its on the best seller list because idiot fan-boys like you buy it like good little minions. Popular doe snot mean correct.
At least when Ti-Guy and I have a difference of opinion, we debate the issue, not launch into personal ad hominems and broad generalizations. But then, we aren't blindly obedient automotons...
Good point Mike.
I can only hope to one day be able to rise to the level of non-personal true debating discourse that you and ti-guy demonstrate.
Why it was just on this thread that I watched ti-guy write:
"And since hunting Chuck down and putting my boot so far up his arse he'd be flossing with my shoelaces"
and thought to myself 'man, if I could only string together such pursuasive points based on facts and logic without resorting to invective, like ti-guy does, I'd be really able to debate'.
But alas, it was never meant to be. But thank you Mike for reminding me of what I can aspire to if I watch and learn from the likes of ti-guy.
Most adults just spell properly on their own.
I can only hope to one day be able to rise to the level of non-personal true debating discourse that you and ti-guy demonstrate.
If you honestly think the stupidest book ever written presents a reasonable thesis, there's no hope for you at all.
...pursuasive...
...and learn how to spell.
Post a Comment