Freedom of speech debate sparked by draft law to ban use of ‘Nazi’ in Israel | World news | theguardian.com

Interesting debate on freedom of speech and the proposed ban of “Nazi” in Israel. The US was often criticized in a variety of Holocaust and antisemitism fora for its invoking of the First Amendment as an explanation for not having hate speech laws unlike many countries in Europe and Canada. Always a fine line between freedom of speech and anti-hate speech, although generally better this be handled by social norms and discussion what is acceptable and what is not.

Freedom of speech debate sparked by draft law to ban use of ‘Nazi’ in Israel | World news | theguardian.com.

Anti-Semitism Should Not Be Criminalized « Commentary Magazine

Commentary magazine on the dangers of criminalizing hate-speech and antisemitism. It was always interesting to listen to the US delegation at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance explain the US First Amendment, to general scepticism of the other countries, largely European but that like Canada, had hate speech laws or equivalent.

But in general, agree that antisemitism and other forms of racism and discrimination need to be defeated by society, and what is considered acceptable discourse, to have more widespread impact:

But those ideas–when they remain ideas, and not battlefield cries–should be defeated by a society, not outlawed by the government. Jailing anti-Semites for their opinions won’t reduce anti-Semitism. Incarceration can deter action, but it’s unlikely to alleviate grievance, and anyway it is an unjust method of changing minds. The same goes for the government banning “comedians” whose act offends basic notions of decency.

It’s also worth reminding the Jews of Europe that their religious beliefs contain ideas that the modern secular left consider offensive as well. They may find that a heavyhanded government enforcing a standard of righteous thought is on their side this time. If they think it will stay that way, then they, too, have unlearned the lessons of the past.

Anti-Semitism Should Not Be Criminalized « Commentary Magazine.

Counter-extremism is getting smarter

Commentary on the new UK counter-terrorism strategy, praising the broadening of focus to tackle extremism of all kinds, not just radical Islam, and ongoing serious effort to reduce anti-Muslim prejudice:

no counter-extremism strategy will unite us all. Such work lies at the notoriously fragile intersection that separates civil liberties from national security. But for the first time in a long while there are signs that we are moving in a better direction, and have acknowledged some failings in the past. While this week’s recommendations provide us with a foundation rather than a coherent strategy, they are a useful starting point for us all.

Counter-extremism is getting smarter | Matthew Goodwin | Comment is free | The Guardian.

And from the other side of the political spectrum, The Daily Mail takes this tack, which reads it into a broader critique of multiculturalism, defined in UK terms as promoting separateness:

David Cameron: Mistake of multiculturalism aided extremists | Mail Online

For the actual report, well-thought out and written as most UK strategies, link below:

Link to UK counter-extremism strategy

Racism is prevalent, persisting and perpetually growing, experts warn

Interesting piece of perceived racism in the 905 communities of Bramptom and Mississauga (Toronto area), some of the most diverse communities in Canada. Bit long, and I think reality is a bit more nuanced than some of the results and commentary would indicate (Globe did a series on Brampton a number of months ago):

Racism is prevalent, persisting and perpetually growing, experts warn.

Why racial hatred laws are vital to Australian multiculturalism

Australia’s new government is following the lead of the Canadian government in scaling back hate and racism provisions. Canada repealed s. 13 of its Human Rights Act earlier this year, not without some debate between civil liberties advocates in favour of repeal, and some communities who wanted it maintained. Hate speech remains, however, in the Criminal Code; the threshold, however, is higher than the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Why racial hatred laws are vital to Australian multiculturalism.

‘Hate speech’ no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act …

WHEN DOES CRITICISM OF ISLAM BECOME ISLAMOPHOBIA? | Pandaemonium

Good opinion piece by Kenan Malik on trying to provide some criteria for distinguishing between legitimate public debate and discussion and when this crosses over into islamophobia. Similar discussions and criteria take place with respect to criticism of Israeli policies and antisemitism:

Much of the problem arises from the way that the debate about Islam is filtered through the lens of the ‘clash of civilizations’, the claim that there is a fundamental civilizational difference between Islam and the West that will, in the words of Samuel Huntingdon, the American political scientist who popularized the term, set the ‘battle lines of the future’, unleashing a war ‘far more fundamental’ than any ignited by ‘differences among political ideologies and political regimes’. The ‘clash of civilizations’ is a threadbare argument, but it is part of a genuine academic debate. It is also the frame through which the ‘otherness’ of Muslims is established, a frame within which both popular discussion and the arguments of the bigots, including tellingly those of Islamists, have developed.

The academic arguments need challenging. So do popular perceptions, and the arguments of the bigots, too. The academic debate is clearly distinct from the popular discourse which in turn is separate from the claims of the bigots. Yet not only does each shade into the other, but the academic debate also provides the intellectual foundation for both the popular discussion and for the arguments of the bigots.

WHEN DOES CRITICISM OF ISLAM BECOME ISLAMOPHOBIA? | Pandaemonium.

Book Excerpt: Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias in Inside Policy

My excerpt, from the Anecdote or Evidence chapter, of my book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, in The MacDonald-Laurier Institute‘s bimonthly publication, Inside Policy. Direct link to November issue (pdf, see page 30 for excerpt below):

Inside Policy November 2013

Jackson Doughart: Canada’s scary intolerance obsession

A good discussion on freedom of speech and intolerance by Jackson Doughart. While I would not go quite as far as he does in his arguments, excessive political correctness is  harmful to society. So enjoy your Halloween.

Doughart comes up with his own variation of Godwin’s Law:

Perhaps we need a construction of our own to fight back against the commonplace manifestation of the intolerance obsession. The industry of manufactured offense, after all, has produced a replete share of inanities, including the recent campaign to remove the imagery of Hallowe’en in schools because of its purported intolerance. This is a silly non-issue, but one which shows how the tolerance doctrine has become the universal solvent into which all public arguments are dipped. And as the case of Professor Somerville shows, the use of the bigotry label as a means of censoring disagreement is far from unimportant or ineffectual.

Enter what we might call Doughart’s Law, or the “reductio ad bigotrum”, which declares any person who accuses her political opponent of bigotry or intolerance as the loser of a debate. Once a person has been caught, the argument is over. Just imagine how much more congenial and effective public discourse would be if empty accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and so on, were off limits.

Jackson Doughart: Canada’s scary intolerance obsession | National Post.

Canadian anti-Muslim sentiment is rising, disturbing new poll reveals – Macleans.ca

Another in a series of polls that demonstrates discomfort with Islam, not entirely unexpected given the number of domestic and international stories on terror-related incidents, plus the normal discomfort with more recent waves of immigration.

And not surprisingly, while the hijab is largely accepted in English Canada (65%), in Quebec the figures are reversed (63% oppose allowing public servants to wear the hijab). But opinions converge less on the niqab than I would have thought; while 90% in Quebec would not allow the niqab in public sector workplaces,  only 62% shared that view in English Canada. I suspect should a co-worker show up in a niqab in English Canada, the reaction would be less tolerant.

Canadian anti-Muslim sentiment is rising, disturbing new poll reveals – Canada, Capital Read, Editor’s Picks – Macleans.ca.

http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Canadians-view-non-Christian-religions-with-uncertainty-dislike.pdf

Quebec Muslims facing more abuse since charter proposal and other Charter-related articles

Not surprising, that Quebec Muslims are reporting more abuse following the proposed Charter. Playing identity politics invites that. It will be interesting to see if these anecdotes of increased abuse show up in the official Stats Canada Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2011 (there is always a time lag), as police-reporting is a higher threshold and allows more consistency among groups.

Quebec Muslims facing more abuse since charter proposal, women’s groups say – The Globe and Mail.

Femmes voilées: «augmentation dramatique» des agressions

And signals from the Quebec government that no exceptions to the proposed Charter will be allowed, whether for Montreal, universities or the health sector:

Charte: Québec songe à abolir le droit de retrait

Some interesting commentary today, starting with Humera Jabir, a law student at McGill, noting her own history of considering the hijab as a political symbol as much as a demonstration of her faith, and in the end stopped wearing the hijab, given that her spiritual grounding was not strong enough:

Quebec is wrong to treat the hijab as a political tool

Michelle Gagnon of CBC notes some of the paradoxes of the proposed Charter with respect to Catholicism  (of which there are many). A good illustration of yet another government being driven by the politics of the anecdote, rather than sound evidence, and I pity the public servants that had to provide “fearless advice” as the government proceeded down this path. Would love to see the briefing notes!

Is Quebec more Catholic than it likes to think?