Racism And Hate Speech Will Not Be Tolerated On Vive

<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/12/jean-workers.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/12/jean-workers.html</a><br />
Quote from news item:<br />
Tory denies cattle call accusation<br />
Fort McMurray MP Brian Jean said he only wanted to put Canadians first when he suggested the federal government should come up with a strategy to help unemployed Atlantic Canadians move to northern Alberta, either temporarily or permanently.<br />
"Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,500 Chinese labourers will be coming in to northern Alberta to take jobs [that pay] between $80,000 and $120,000 a year, and take that money back home again to China," said Jean.<br />
"Canadians should have the first opportunity for those jobs."<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
Maybe, just maybe, if our Canadian provinces cooperated with the feds to create easier transportation policies, instead of the oneroous ones which make it very difficult for Canadians to travel in their own country, then perhaps Atlantic Canadians WOULD move to northern Alberta. And perhaps western Canadians and Torontonians would move, or at least visit ,French Canada and the Maritimes, and find out that they are just people, trying to make a living like all the rest of us.<br />
<br />
And perhaps there would be considerably less stereotyping...............<p>---<br>RickW<br />
<br />
"The purpose of economic competition is to eliminate competition"...." - John Kenneth Galbraith

With all due respect to this site and its rules (which I fully intend to abide by), here's my two cents worth on the subject: <br><br> Censorship is always a slippery ride, and censorship, however well intended will always be used to silence legitimate opinion. <br><br> For example, it is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of Israel, nor is it racially offensive to criticize the bad policies surrounding immigration. However, in both cases, calls of bigotry and hatred are often made whenever people legitimately speak out about these two subjects. <br><br> Even "nationalism" can be twisted into a dirty word, and who benefits from that? Canadians - no! <br><br> I came here from another forum where censorship is very limited (with only a few exceptions), and I'm very used to seeing all sorts of views, some of which would obviously not be tolerated at most forums. In my experience with free speech, allowing everyone to speak up freely has been many times more benificial than the concerns that it will cause harm. I am stronger and better informed as a result, not weaker or more ignorant. <br><br> If someone is racist, then we should be allowed to hear about it. The utopia of tolerance that we see in Canada is simply an illusion because you cannot censor thoughts. I'd rather see it all out in the open, which is far less dangerous, otherwise it'll just keep on spreading hidden away through word-of-mouth and other means. <br><br> I vehemently disagree with the hate laws of Canada. They are intended to shut people up and promote ignorance, not protect us. The same thing is happening with respect to "anti-terrorism" legislation, we have an ever encroaching government that seeks to control our evey move and even our thoughts. <br><br> For all our laws supposedly designed to protect us, all that's happening is we're getting shafted more, not less, and that includes ALL Canadians no matter what race and religion or whatever PCness you may consist of. <br><br> As the box we've been placed in gets smaller and smaller, sooner or later something will have to break.

I find that those who engage in racial slurs and epithets quickly grow quite boring, as they merely repeat endlessly their original postulations, adding nothing of value to any discussion past that point.

---
RickW

"The purpose of economic competition is to eliminate competition"...." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"However, in both cases, calls of bigotry and hatred are often made whenever people legitimately speak out about these two subjects."

Usually because the debator has run out of ideas. Other common tactics are to call your opponent 'soft on X..' or 'a liberal/neocon'. 'Unpatriotic' is another of my favouries. I've even been called 'traitor'.

Discussion of these and other subjects is not taboo, simply testing whether there is an intent toward 'discrimination' based on language, skin coulor, country of origin etc. is the key. And also a very difficult thing to do.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Just recently a Canadian (Albertan, I believe)is up on charges for "hate" crimes. He had posted "white supremacy" values on several forums and blogs. Some of these blogs were his own. We Canadians do get monitored and VIVELACANADA.ca as well.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

True, and if you try to censor certain opinions, you give the opinion far more legitimacy than it may deserve.

For example, I'll always defend people such as Ernst Zundel, not because I agree with what he has to say, but because he should have the right to say whatever it is that his censors are so afraid of.

If Ernst is really a nut case, then the best remedy is to simply let him speak so he can discredit humself.

By shutting him up using a secret and highly biased trial, it gives Ernst and his views legitimacy, because for one thing, it makes you seriously wonder if what he has to say actually is legitimate, else why go through so much trouble and expense just to shut him up?

"We Canadians do get monitored and VIVELACANADA.ca as well"

Yes, and this sort of monitoring followed by a few examples of unforgiving punishment by the state, gives pause to those who may be thinking they should speak out against disagreable government policies and actions.

Hate laws have a chilling effect on all speech that does not follow the party line, and IMO that's what these laws really are for, and the same thing applies to the new anti-terror legislation: increased police powers, secret trials, and domestic spying will have a significant chilling effect on all forms of expression.

If we don't speak out very loudly right now, tomorrow may be far too late.

The problem is of course that the terms "racism" and "hate speech" are interpreted differently by different people. We cannot intend or hope to change that.

We should be civil and sensitive enough to state our points without being incendiary, but also without fear of stating our points.

The printed media do not always follow those rules. The current Time Magazine (June 19) shows the face of al-Zarqawi on the front page, with a red bloody X through it. The outgoing Managing Editor (on page 6) describes it as a cover that he feels "makes sense". I disagree, and wrote a letter to Time Magazine last night, calling the cover "insensitive", comparing it to last year's Danish cartoons. Additional violence in Iraq in the next few weeks may well be blamed on this magazine cover.

I do not know if they will print my Letter to the Editor.

Vive should strive to be "better" than the media, in order to gain acceptance and keep credibility.

<blockquote> The problem is of course that the terms "racism" and "hate speech" are interpreted differently by different people. </blockquote> <br><br> You got that right. Not only is hate and racism interpreted differently by different people, those who get prosecuted for hate speech and racism under Canadian law, are primarily only those who attack certain specific “identifiable groups”. For example, the Time cover that was mentioned, would have been seen as "hate" had it shown a different individual of another religion and race who has been involved in mass killings. Right now, it's open season on Muslim's perhaps because the law is controled by those who view Muslim's as a problem**. <br><br> In fact, according to the text of Canadian law, the law itself is discriminatory in that only certain groups have the privilege of legal protection against "hate propaganda". <br><br> <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/267514.html">Here is the text of the law for those who may not know exactly what it says.</a> Look at the text carefully. For example, if you are <i>fat</i>, then you may legally be discriminated against for that reason alone, but not if you are Jewish or Muslim or homosexual, although if you are Muslim you may be less likely to be protected considering what we see going on right now.</a> <br><br> The whole "hate propaganda" system is rife with discrimination through unequal application, and the law by itself is a hypocrisy, in that while it is supposed to promote and protect the rights of all Canadians, it does the job through an unequal application given to a privileged group of people, and through intolerance directed against certain thoughts with "punishment" applied to those who do not remain silent (includes finaincial harm and acts of violence). <br><br> I'd rather learn to live with the bigots (who I can legally discriminate against ha ha!), than with a <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Paternal%20government">paternal government</a> that seeks to control what I am allowed to say, read, and listen to. <br><br> **Muslim's so happen to live on land full of oil and natual gas. Think about Iraq and Afghanistan and you can see why Muslim's are such a problem these days. <br><br> <i>"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery." -- Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister</i>

The problem is that when someone like Zundel speaks, it doesn't instantly discredit him to everyone. Instead, it helps him recruit those people who are either easily led, lack critical thinking skills or world experience, have a lot of anger and want a scapegoat for it, etc etc etc. And in many cases, particularly in cases where racist views are expressed, it can easily cross the line from simply speaking out about an opinion and into an excuse for or even encouragement to violence. There is also a big difference between expressing a well-reasoned, legitimate opinion and the empty repeated rhetoric, steroetypes/generalizations, and "jokes" about different races that often constitute racial "arguments".

I like Warren Kinsella's (author of Web of Hate) take on it all: "Is a bunch of people standing in a farmer's field, shouting ,'Death to the Jews,' expressing an idea? If a bunch of skinheads are painting swastikas on a synagogue, is that an idea? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. It's promotion of hatred and genocide and actions that are meant to cause feelings of unease and fear and foster a climate in which violence can flourish. I sleep easy with the knowledge that what these people are doing is not about free speech. They manipulate that concept to advance their foul ideas."

Anyway we still feel that Vive is pretty censorship free, considering how rare it is for a comment to be deleted or a forum thread to be locked. We do allow a huge amount of free posting of articles, free comment on those articles AND use of the forums and distribute moderation among all members to prevent it becoming all about the opinions of a few "elite" moderators. We've already allowed any number of comments that could be considered anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism and even racist and taken lesser actions like locking threads rather than deleting them or voting down and hiding comments as racist rather than deleting them. If you really want you can still read all of these on our site because we felt it was more important to state our strong opposition to them at the source and discredit them than simply delete them. However, you have to draw the line at some point or the site becomes a safe hang-out for people expressing certain views--and we do have to take legal requirements and the safety of members and just the general quality of discussion, and of course our mission and principles, into account. So people who continue to post the same unacceptable stuff over and over again risk bans.

We have also banned people in the past for hacking the site and in another for making physical threats in comments against one of the editor's family. Were those cases of us censoring free speech too? The board agreed no.

Remember, this site was built, is paid for, and continues to be worked on and run by a small handful of people and we're ultimately responsible for it. It's a priviledge, not a right, to post here in other words--users are extremely important to the site but they are also still guests in our house, to use an analogy posted in the past by our tech director Jesse.

As I said, anyone who wants to express their right to free speech can always start their own site AS WE DID. Or post to the sites already out there that explicitly post hate and racist views and claim that it is free speech. Or you can post to a forum where there are no rules at all, although having been to sites like that myself I'm well aware of all the pretty useless and unproductive discussion that goes on making it harder to find the worthwhile stuff. We just don't want Vive to go in that direction, and feel it's perfectly reasonable to ask that people abide by the house rules--put in place to keep the "house" as clean, safe, and pleasant to visit as possible--in return for the privilege of visiting.

---
"When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC

Although I don't always agree with the man, gotta quote <a href="http://www.warrenkinsella.com/words_extremism_hc.htm">Kinsella</a> again because he puts it so well: <P> <blockquote> ...ords and images do, indeed, have power. In every civilized community, as no less than John Stuart Mill put it some four hundred years ago, there has been a long-held consensus that the law, and civility, must occasionally impose limits upon certain communications between human beings. Child pornography, hate propaganda, extreme depictions of violence - all have been easily found to be forms of communication which are contrary to a civilized society’s best interests. For many years, laws and conventions which seek to prevent (and sometimes) punish such abusive, intimidating and harassing “speech” have been adopted by virtually every Western liberal democracy. <P> Virtually nowhere, these days, is seen any argument for a simple proposition: words and images have power. Words and images, therefore, can indeed cause harm. Expressions of hatred - for that is what child pornography and racist tracts and graphic depictions of inhumane violence usually are, hate - are designed to divide societies, and to generate fear, and to promote self-gratification (for a select few) with no regard for the consequences. Such hate should, and can, be stopped. As Mein Kampf - and the expression it found in World War Two and the Holocaust - amply demonstrates: there is indeed a connection between hateful words and deeds. Words can turn into bullets. Hate speech can kill and maim. <P> The experts agree that there is, indeed, a causal link between hate propaganda and hateful violence. From the Oklahoma City bombing (which was inspired by a book called The Turner Diaries, also not sold at Chapters), to extreme anti-abortion web sites (such as the Nuremberg Files, which a jury found to have incited violence against abortion providers), it cannot be seriously disputed that racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-choice “literature” has a profound impact. <P> This, perhaps, is the most important argument of all: fighting harmful "speech" is a moral necessity: Democratic institutions are not automatically sustained. They must be nurtured and protected. The libertarian or quasi-conservative proposition now being repeatedly promoted in Canadian media outlets - which, for brevity's sake, is something along the lines of 'harmful speech is not a problem, but if it is, it's not our problem' - is irresponsible. More-informed commentators know that abusive, intimidating, harassing or hateful speech poses a real and ongoing threat to modern democracies. <P> Silence or indifference to the suffering of others, to the infringement of their rights - as we all know - serves only to perpetuate injustice and conflict. </blockquote> <P> While I completely agree that we must always be vigilant about what our government does and does not allow us as citizens to say, we must also recognize that there is already no such thing as completely free speech. This is explained in a <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/">great article</a> on free speech I'd highly recommend that leaves it to the reader to decide where they stand. The actual quote from Mills is "All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed -- by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. (1978, 5)" <P> Re the comment "If we don't speak out very loudly right now, tomorrow may be far too late", that article I just mentioned also addresses the slippery slope argument really well: <P> <blockquote>The slippery slope argument is that we should not limit free speech because once we do we will slide our way into tyranny and censorship. Such arguments assume that we can be on or off the slope. In fact, no such choice exists: we are necessarily on the slope whether we like it or not, and the task is always to decide how far up or down we choose to go, not whether we should step off altogether. It is worth noting that the slippery slope argument can be used to make the opposite point; one could argue with equal force that we should never allow any removal of government involvement with the action of individuals because once we do we are on the slippery slope to anarchy, the state of nature, and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (1968, 186).</blockquote> <P> And what I like about the article is that it shows that determining what speech to allow is always a practical matter rather than one set in stone. In our case, I'd certainly argue that removing the little moderation and rules that already exist on Vive would mean that the quality of discussion and the quality of the site itself would deteriorate pretty rapidly, based on what we've seen posted as moderators and editors since the site was launched. <P> But I'd highly recommend the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/">article</a> regardless of your views because it covers all the arguments and ideas around free speech in a very clear and unbiased and informative way.<p>---<br>"When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC<br />

I agree that we do have to draw a line. No one is immune from bigotry and the crowd will follow. Unfortunatly choosing the right words may fail and there are those who will misinterpret any words. Trying to say the right thing and unabashedly voicing bigotry is where the line is drawn. I won't side with one simply because they are a minority but I do recognize our failure to give credit where credit is due. Often we hear that the minority is not given equal opportunity but we also hear where the minority was given preferential treatment. Racist and racism should be flushed down the toilet and we have to be tolerant but there are times we have to demand equal rights to "everyone".

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

I am going to make a racist remark:

I don't think that mixing races is a good idea.

Imagine what you'd get if you combined the Boston Marathon with the Indy 500?

Or the Irish Sweepstakes with the Tour de France?

It's not pretty.

Now imagine an NHRA dragrace with a wheelbarrow race, and it gets worse.

All goes to show that mixing races is generally a bad idea.

For those of you without a working sense of humour, the above was a joke.

However, in all seriousness, everyone bleeds tha same colour blood, breathes the same air, and feels the warmth of the same sunlight.

That some ignorant morons think that different skin shades, nose, and eye shapes somehow make someone better or worse than anyone else just goes to show us that stupidity is alive and well in the 21st Century.

If people like Zundel and others want to push their own forms of brain death, I say let them do so. Then those of us who know better can dissect them and their ideas in full view of whatever "converts" they may be trying to win over.

In short, at least to my way of thinking, the best way to eradicate racism is to let those who want it to speak out and let their own words be the weapons used against them.

Pushing them to the back of the bus, so to speak, only gives them the appearance of valid descrimination.

And martyrs, even on a bulletin board can be a bad thing.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

While I agree it is better to know what a person thinks then to push it into the closet most of the time, I think it becomes dangerous when people start to blame another group of people and no one disputes it. If vive becomes a forum for people to bash others for being 'a colour, an immigrant, or any other general term' then we risk losing real debate about the issues. If someone disagrees with something I say and they offer an argument for it, then I am apt to read it and think about their comments. If they call me names, I am apt to ignore their entire statement. If they attack me personally then I can defend myself. If they attack my entire race, or creed etc, I can even defend it, but if they attack another race that I have little knowledge of how can I defend it? Perhaps some people will accept a writers statement and even feel it has merit because it is on vive, even if it is untrue, racist or otherwise?

There are other websites for people to join in their bashing sessions. Vive has a commitment to Canadians and our country remaining sovereign. We should be able to discuss multiculturalism, immigration etc, without using racist language or blaming an entire group for our problems. The other problem, (I believe,correct me if I'm wrong here) is that vive could risk our ability to be a forum, if it becomes a forum for hate speech. We have an important message, and an important opportunity for Canadians to discuss critical issues, it would be a shame to sacrifice it.

Vive has a reputation just like any other established website, or news source. People have an expectation of a certain level of discussion, factual information etc. We risk our credibility by allowing a racist trend to escalate. The first time someone says something, people tend to ignore it, but as it is repeated time and again people do begin to believe. It has worked very well with mainstream press and it is no different here.

I also think it is different to have debates in person, as oppose to in print, once something is in print you can't take it back. You can say, well I was only joking, but the potential to incite others is still there.

So while I agree with freedom of speech, I wouldn't allow someone the freedom to curse in my house or use racist remarks or tell racist or anti-anybody jokes. We either raise the bar by saying it is unacceptable or we lower the bar and say anything goes. It has been my experience with language for instance, the first time someone said the 'f' word in front of me, I was shocked, it doesn't have the same affect on me today. The question for me is are the comments meant for debate, because I've never seen anyone actually debate a racist remark. It just seems that they are meant to inflame, distract and get people off the topic of the article. I don't see any value in it. When I read comments and there are maybe two or three opinions expressed, and the rest are bashing, racial slurs etc in 25 or so comments it becomes a waste of time.

If that trend continued, I would soon lose interest in reading comments and perhaps lose interest in vive. By allowing someone to make the site uncomfortable, or hostile to specific Canadians, in the name of free speech, we risk losing valuable insight. I sure wouldn't participate in a forum if it was bashing women all the time, I would feel my opinion wasn't respected and I wouldn't bother. Sometimes I get the impression that commenters think it is all about making sure people accept one person's opinion. I for one appreciate opposing views presented in a non-confrontational way, something that makes me think in a differnt way or gives me some insight into anothers point of view. I may not agree, but it is good to hear other voices. That is the real purpose of vive imo.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?