Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise

Good commentary by David Butt on Canada’s hate speech law:

For a prosecution to go ahead, all of these conditions must be met:

1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;

2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;

3. It must be public;

4. It must be deliberate, not careless;

5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;

6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;

7. No prosecution can proceed without approval of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.

Even with these limits, the Canadian hate law still clearly curtails free expression. But the Supreme Court has not struck it down. Why? Four main reasons. First, our constitution protects not only free expression, but multiculturalism and equality as well. So to read the constitution holistically, we cannot permit one protected freedom to undermine other rights and freedoms enjoying equal status.

Second, the Supreme Court recognized the insidious impact of propaganda campaigns that gain social traction and incrementally dull our rational faculties and empathy. Perhaps paternalistic, but the court is saying sometimes we need to be protected from our baser and stupider selves.

Third, the courts have said that even if a hate speech prohibition is never used, it has symbolic value, like that framed mission and values statement on the wall of most businesses, that stares silently down at the workers while they work.

Fourth, hate speech has no redeeming value.

….So it may be that our hate speech law was a silent point of resonance with the values, not the legal obligations, that motivated the media outlets who chose not to publish.

Is that sufficient reason for our hate speech law to exist? Sufficient reason for a law that can impose jail for speaking out? If we take these questions back to our social media haunts, our office water-cooler chats, and our classrooms, freedom of expression in Canada will come out a winner regardless of how opinion is, or is not, divided.

Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise – The Globe and Mail.

Why Orwell Still Matters – De-radicalization Example

On the enduring importance of Orwell:

Maajid Nawaz, however, claims a different Orwell novel – Animal Farm – led him away from radical Islam:

It was while in prison, surrounded by several prominent jihadist leaders, that Nawaz realized he wanted to take a different path. He was reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm and came to a new understanding of “what happens when somebody tries to create a utopia.”

“I began to join the dots and think, ‘My god, if these guys that I’m here with ever came to power, they would be the Islamist equivalent of Animal Farm,” Nawaz says. He says he began to see that it’s “impossible to create a utopia.”

“I’m living up close and seeing [the radicals’] everyday habits and lifestyle, I thought, ‘My god, I wouldn’t trust these guys in power,’ because when I called it, back then, and said, ‘If this caliphate, this theocratic caliphate, was ever established, it would be a nightmare on earth,’” Nawaz says.

Why Orwell Still Matters « The Dish.

Couillard est insensible en matière de laïcité, dit Legault

The Quebec debates start again:

Le premier ministre Philippe Couillard ne doit pas utiliser les récents attentats terroristes de Paris pour repousser le débat sur la neutralité religieuse de l’État, a déclaré mardi le chef de la Coalition avenir Québec, François Legault.

Selon M. Legault, il est plus que temps de régler la question de la laïcité dans les institutions publiques en imposant des balises.

«Philippe Couillard n’a pas raison d’attendre, c’est inacceptable qu’on attende, on a déjà trop attendu dans le dossier de la laïcité au Québec, a-t-il dit. On doit agir, on doit mettre en place des balises dans une charte, dans une loi, on doit mettre ce dossier derrière nous.»

M. Legault reconnaît que la lutte à l’intégrisme est une question distincte de la laïcité, mais il juge que M. Couillard fait fausse route en repoussant le débat parce qu’il veut éviter d’amalgamer les deux sujets.

«J’ai beaucoup de difficulté à suivre Philippe Couillard, a-t-il dit. Philippe Couillard est vraiment insensible à tous les dossiers qui touchent l’identité québécoise. C’est une insensibilité qu’il montre depuis qu’il est élu.»

Couillard est insensible en matière de laïcité, dit Legault | Alexandre Robillard | Politique québécoise.

From the Government side, a focus on identifying best practices to counter radicalization:

On cherchera surtout à détecter ceux qui flirtent avec les organisations fondamentalistes.

Le but poursuivi sera de «nous protéger collectivement, protéger les familles qui sont à risque avec un enfant qui se radicalise, et protéger le public», a fait valoir Mme Weil.

Pour mener à bien sa tâche, Mme Weil est entourée des ministres de l’Éducation, Yves Bolduc, de la Protection de la jeunesse, Lucie Charlebois, de la Sécurité publique, Lise Thériault, de la Famille, Francine Charbonneau, et de l’Emploi, François Blais.

Les organismes communautaires et religieux, notamment musulmans, sans compter bien sûr les corps policiers (municipaux, Sûreté du Québec et Gendarmerie royale du Canada), seront mis à contribution pour soutenir l’action gouvernementale.

Québec dit vouloir s’inspirer des meilleures pratiques mondiales en ce domaine et présenter des mesures concrètes «pour détecter, contrer la radicalisation» de certains jeunes.

Le bouquet de mesures sera réuni dans un plan d’action interministériel et intersectoriel.

Le travail de déblayage du dossier a déjà été fait par les fonctionnaires. Vendredi, une première réunion ministérielle devrait permettre de préciser le cadre de travail et l’échéancier.

Le plan d’action devrait être rendu public «dans l’année» en cours, a promis la ministre Weil, en s’engageant à ce que le processus ne s’étire pas pendant «trois ans, disons, pas deux ans».

«On ressent tous qu’il ne faut pas fermer les yeux, qu’il faut y travailler. Il ne faut pas rester passif par rapport à ce phénomène-là», a-t-elle dit, un phénomène «pas très bien compris».

Intégrisme religieux: Québec s’engage à intervenir

Jewish life in Europe is about much more than anti-Semitism

Different angle on the antisemitism in Europe and the vibrancy of Jewish life in Europe:

But very little has been reported about what constitutes French Jewish life beyond all of that: synagogues, cultural events, kosher restaurants and new initiatives such as the opening of a Moishe House in the center of Paris last summer. Moishe House is an organization which subsidizes housing all over the world for Jewish young professionals, who then open the doors of their apartments to create “a hub of Jewish life for their peers and community members,” according to their website.

Do not misunderstand what I’m saying: anti-Semitism is a plague, in France and in many other European countries. It is even more so because in Europe Jews are often living in the very same places where their ancestors were persecuted and massacred 70 years ago, and multiple times before that. But it is not the extent of European Jewish life, in the very same way living in Israel is not all about the geopolitical tensions.

To be fair, speaking about European Jews as a single community is not exactly accurate. European countries are very diverse, and the same is true of their Jewish communities. France hosts the biggest one, with about half a million Jews, followed by the United Kingdom (300,000) and Germany (100,000). Every country, and sometimes even every city, neighborhood and congregation has a different story, and the examples of vibrant and meaningful Jewish life are countless.

…European Jewish life involves studying, celebrating Jewish holidays, going to shul, attending cultural events, gathering for both happy and sad occasions.

It may be less interesting to report than issues related to anti-Semitism, to people making aliya, to politics. However Israelis and American Jews should not forget it.

Nor should European Jews themselves. That would be terrorists and anti-Semites’ greatest victory.

Jewish life in Europe is about much more than anti-Semitism – Opinion – Jerusalem Post.

Marc Champion: British imams offended by call for help against extremism

The debate in the UK prompted by a letter to UK Imams from Communities Minister Eric Pickles:

Ultimately, though, I think this is all weirdly theoretical. It is surely accurate that parents, faith and political leaders are better placed to influence young Muslim men than is the state. Read without hostility, that’s what the letter from Eric Pickles, the wonderfully named British minister for local government and communities, said.

Who else can convince young men who are infuriated by Israel’s policies in Gaza that this has nothing to do with individual Jews? Who else can convince them that the best way they can protest against British foreign policy in Iraq, or the use of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, is at the ballot box or using other lawful tools of protest available to them as U.K. citizens?

Most British Muslims already know this — as do French Muslims — and it’s why they find it offensive when the government demands they prove themselves. Yet a few don’t, with horrific consequences. Like it or not, this creates a special burden. It helps nothing to take instant offense, or to resurface long-aired complaints over foreign policy. Better to tell the government: Of course, we’re already on board, because we’re more worried about our sons and daughters than anyone else can be.

Marc Champion: British imams offended by call for help against extremism  

Charlie Hebdo just meeting demand for Islamophobia | NCCM

Not convinced that Abbas Kassam NCCM has done its homework and actually looked at Charlie Hebdo seriously, beyond a simplistic “no depiction” of the Prophet perspective:

Yet, the magazine and its supporters are just meeting the market demand for Islamophobia. It is now popular in our discourse to pitch western values against radical Islamists (no matter how empty these terms are). Charlie Hebdo met this demand in the worst possible way.

It is questionable whether the cartoons were even satirical. Satire is a classical tool of those without power to shed light on the weaknesses of the powerful. Satire is not about perpetuating negative stereotypes about a disenfranchised minority. Ultimately, Charlie Hebdo was promoting the very stereotypes it was supposedly trying to satirize. This might work as a business model, but it is detrimental for society.

…. It is essential that we also collectively reject the demand for Islamophobic material because it harms our valued social cohesion. As Canadians, we are living in a society that promotes tolerance and cohesion, not discrimination. However, Islamophobia stigmatizes Muslim communities, disenfranchises and isolates them from the mainstream. This creates conditions ripe for extremist radicalization, which has proven to be a danger to all of us, including Muslims themselves. And violence then creates demand for a response. This reaction can sometimes lead to the erosion of civil liberties and decreased freedoms for everyone.

Much of Canadian media should be lauded for their principled stand in declining to print the magazine’s incendiary cartoons. We can take a cue from their decision. As democratic societies we need to demand mutual respect and understanding, and reject the purveyors of intolerance. This may not sound as interesting or exciting as the clash of civilizations framework, but it is a long-term investment in our shared future.

After all, satire on the activities of fundamentalists and their political views is not necessarily Islamophobic, just as criticism of fundamentalist advocates of greater Israel is not necessarily antisemitic.

Charlie Hebdo just meeting demand for Islamophobia | TorontoStar.

For a more serious look at Charlie Hebdo, see Arun with a View for a range of commentary:

Understanding Charlie Hebdo

Shining Light On The Underground Railroad « The Dish

Interesting to see how the historical interpretation has changed over the years, and how recent research essentially changes the simpler narratives for a more complex and varied narrative involving both whites and blacks:

In a review of Eric Foner’s new history of the Underground Railroad, Gateway to Freedom, Jennifer Schuessler reflects on the various ways scholars have understood the way slaves escaped north to freedom:

The first scholarly study of the Underground Railroad, published by Wilbur Siebert in 1898, named some 3,200 “agents,” virtually all of them white men, who presided over an elaborate network of fixed routes, illustrated with maps that looked much like those of an ordinary railroad. That view largely held among scholars until 1961, when the historian Larry Gara published “The Liberty Line,” a slashing revisionist study that dismissed the Underground Railroad as a myth and argued that most fugitive slaves escaped at their own initiative, with little help from organized abolitionists. Scholarship on the topic all but dried up, as historians more generally emphasized the agency of African-Americans in claiming their own freedom.

But over the past 15 years, aided by newly digitized records of obscure abolitionist newspapers and local archives, scholars have constructed a new picture of the Underground Railroad as a collection of loosely interlocking local networks of activists, both black and white, that waxed and waned over time but nevertheless helped a significant number reach freedom.

Shining Light On The Underground Railroad « The Dish.

EU Parliament’s Israel-relations czar defends removed anti-Semitism definition

More debate on whether or not the definition of antisemitism should include criticism of Israel or not (see What is anti-Semitism? EU racism agency unable to define term):

“However, I think the definition represented a landmark in combating anti-Semitism that should pave the road to effective institutional responsibility” in the fight against all forms of discrimination and intolerance, said [Fulvio] Martusciello [of the Group of the European People’s Party], who assumed the chairmanship of the delegation in October.

Set up in 1979, the delegation is among the European Parliament’s oldest and is responsible for maintaining and developing parliamentarian ties between the Knesset in Jerusalem and its counterpart within the European Union.

Blanca Tapia of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency said the definition of anti-Semitism was removed last year “together with other non-official documents,” and that her organization had in fact never viewed the document as a valid definition. She said her organization was unaware of any other official definition of the phenomenon and that it was not able to define it.

EU Parliament’s Israel-relations czar defends removed anti-Semitism definition | The Times of Israel.

Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam

More on the progressive voices within the Muslim communities, this time by Asra Nomani, who has been advocating that women should be able to pray in the main halls of mosques, rather than segregated spaces, and a fairly extensive list of how this and similar discussions has been subject of efforts to be shut down:

Beyond these statements, though, we need a new interpretation of Islamic law in order to change the culture. This would require rejecting the eight schools of religious thought that dominate the Sunni and Shiite Muslim world. I propose naming a new one after ijtihad, the concept of critical thinking, and elevating self-examination over toxic shame-based discourse, laws and rules. Such a project could take the power out of the hands of the status quo clerics, politicians and experts and replace it with a progressive interpretation of faith motivated not by defending honor but acting honorably.

Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam – The Washington Post.

We Have Lost | Turkish Reaction to Paris Attacks and Implications

Thoughtful commentary on Turkey’s lack of full condemnation for the Charle Hebdo attacks, and lack of support – and understanding – of free expression.

And if this is the tenor of Turkish debate and understanding, as the conclusion notes, not the cheeriest but perhaps most realistic way to start the new year:

I could go on, but hopefully by now you get the point. A NATO-member country, with massive commercial and defense links to the U.S. and Europe, whose leaders speak English and many of whom have been educated in the U.S. and Europe, should know better. It should know that terrorism against civilians must be condemned full-stop, that drawing offensive cartoons does not mean that you deserve to be killed, that the Mossad did not just engage in a deadly false flag operation, and that no government is killing its own people in order to gin up anti-Muslim sentiment and create a pretext for persecuting its own Muslim population. When it doesn’t seem to know these things, it means we have lost the battle of ideas, and the extremists are winning. Not insignificant numbers of educated and sophisticated people in the Middle East genuinely believe that what happened in Paris is part of a larger conspiracy to frame Muslims for violent acts, that the U.S. created ISIS as an excuse to launch new military operations in Iraq and Syria, that 9/11 was a false flag operation designed to further a clash between the West and Islam, and on and on. The debate over whether the appropriate approach to combating jihadi terrorism is a military one or a law enforcement one is the wrong debate, because it misses the point. Neither approach is going to do the job, because this is a war of ideas, and so killing or prosecuting terrorists will only get you so far. People need to be convinced that extremism is both futile and the wrong way of seeing the world, and I don’t know how best to wage that battle, but I am pretty confident it is the one that needs to be waged.

One of the widespread techniques used when teaching international relations to undergraduates is to look at the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War and apply different schools of international relations theory toward explaining this earth-shattering event. If you are a realist, you point to the fact that U.S. military spending and economic superiority were too much for the Soviets to overcome, and they were brought down by overwhelming American hard power that can be measured. If you are a constructivist, you look at the battle of ideas and trace the way in which Communism became so discredited in the face of Western liberal democracy and capitalism that the entire Communist edifice collapsed as it lost its legitimacy. I have always been more drawn to the latter explanation for a number of reasons, but most of all because it wasn’t just the Soviet Union that disappeared overnight, but Communism itself. Yes, small pockets of it remain (and no, China is not Communist today in any meaningful way), but for a political and economic system that controlled nearly half the world to just disappear is remarkable, and it wouldn’t have happened had the only blow been the fall of its largest state patron.

The same thing needs to happen when it comes to the philosophy of extremism motivating the type of jihadi terror as we saw in Paris last week. There is no way to prevent these types of attacks from a logistical perspective; Paris was not an intelligence failure, and while the French police can deploy thousands of soldiers and police to protect nearly every potential Jewish target in France, there is not enough manpower to sustain that permanently. Even if there was, it wouldn’t be a failsafe solution. Until attitudes change in a major way, until jihadi extremism is discredited, until more extremists believe that there is a better way, and until the ideas animating jihadi extremist terror are demonstrated to have failed abjectly and completely, we will continue to lose. Pretty depressing way to start the new year, huh?

We Have Lost | Ottomans and Zionists.