Net Neutrality

May 27, 2008 — xanthippa

This is a very important issue.  Net neutrality is essential to maintaining the freedom of speech.

Unfortunaltelly, this issue often gets confused and muddled…  A clarification is needed.

‘Net Neutrality’ is the principle that it is the user who legitimately pays for the use of the internet OUGHT TO be the one who decides on the content, application or platform of their choice, without artificial limits imposed by either governments or by the internet access providers.  Here is a quote from Wikipedia on three different definitions of ‘net neutrality’:

Absolute Non-Discrimination: Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: “Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.”

Google’s “Guide to Net Neutrality”: “Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days… Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.”

Cardozo Law School professor Susan Crawford states that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality of service considerations.

 It does not mean that internet access should be free of charge, rather, it should be free of restrictions.

Let me give you a real life example:  There is an internet provider in my geographic location that is a large company with many divisions.  One of the divisions is an ISP (Internet Service Provider).  Another division rents movies.  Then they started a third division, which provides digital phone service.

As an avid internet user, I paid for the ‘highest’ level of internet access possible – ‘unlimited bandwidth’.  No, it is not cheap – but I do not begrudge my ISP a healthy profit, IF they provide me with excellent service.

Now, there came a time when a real-life legitimate company opened an online movie rental service.  It is all proper, above the board, royalties are paid and all that – we are not talking about pirated content here.  How do they distribute the movies?  Via BitTorrents!

At about this time, surprisingly enough, my ISP provider begun ‘trafic management practies’ which effectively blocked ALL BitTorrent communications!

Their argument was that they, as the provider, had the right to ‘regulate traffic’.  The fact that the means through which they chose to do this effectively prevented me (and any other customer) from using the internet service purchased from their ISP division fromlegitimately conducting business with a direct competitor of their ‘movie rental’ division’ – well, that was just accidental…..  Yeah, right!

But the timing was even more curious than that!  At this time, they also introduced their ‘Digital Phone’ service – something which required quite a bit of bandwidth.  Yet, they had not really built extra capacity in – that would cost money….  So, by limiting my access (along with that of many other users), they have, in effect, ‘freed up’ the capacity to introduce their phone service without any major start-up costs!

My son uses BitTorrents for gaming – and has not been able to partake of it at all since these ‘traffic management’ measures have been introduced.  I cannot purchase a legal service from my ISP’s competitor. And, I have found out, that my ‘unlimited’ access is only good until I reach a certain limit:  yet my ISP will NOT TELL ME WHAT THAT LIMIT IS!!!  Until I reach it, of course, and find myself without access for the rest of the month…..

Frankly, I do not think this is a good way to treat one’s customers.  Yet, the companies who own the ‘internet pipeline’ are few and many are related.  There is a real danger that they may adopt ‘industry-wide practices’ which severly limit the rights of their users. 

From there, it is only a small step to controlling not just the protocols and applications, but also the content of the internet.  And where a State might not be legally able to curb a point of view, an internet provider might have the means and ability.  And, if they claim they fear a lawsuit should they allow certain content through, who is to stop them from censoring free speech?

Today, there was a rally for support of ‘Net Neutrality’.  For those of us who get much of our news this way, it is an issue worth thinking about.

It has always appeared to me that the best way to protect the freedom of the many is to protect the freedom of the one.

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

Is this a trickle of reason?

May 20, 2008 — xanthippa

Democracy is a wonderfu ideal.  Yet, there will always be a question of how to exercise our democratic rights, while preventing a ‘tyrrany of the majority’?

To many people, the best answer is:

Protecting the rights of each and every individual, the minority of ‘one’,  is the best and only way to ensure the protection of the whole society from tyrrany by the State.

Yet, not everyone agrees.  The philosophy which seems to currently be gripping much of ‘the Western world’ turns its back to the individual, turns a blind eye to the violations of individual freedoms, in favour of collectivism.  I have wondered how much of this is a philosophical difference, how much is simply due to the attitudes inherrent in different political systems.

Many people today think that the best way to ensure peope are not discriminated against – the best way to promote tolerance and harmony within a society – is to put limits on the freedom of speech.  By instituting ‘hate speech laws’, these people argue, hate and prejudice will not be allowed to spread and will, eventually, be eliminated from our society.

I wish this would be so!

Time and time again, ‘hate speech laws’ have not only failed to reduce prejudice, I woud argue that they have allowed it to fester, until a time when it erupts in hateful and abominable acts.  What is worse, they have resulted in political institutions which are invariably used to opress, all in the name of preventing opression.  We have seen this happen many times in history, but we still seem unable to learn the right lessons from history!  

Let us consider the example of  Germany in the 1930’s.  After all, it is precisely to prevent atrocities such as the Holocaust that ‘hate speech laws’ are being instituted.  Yet, in Maclean’s, Mark Steyn (both he and Macleans are also being persecuted under ‘hate speech laws’) quotes Canada’s leading libertarian lawyer, Alan Borovoy, as saying:

“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

To the contrary!  Hitler, once elected, effectively used these laws to usurp power.

Should there be ANY limits on speech?  Mr. Levant, also currently being persecuted by the thought crime police, has videotaped part of his interrogation by the Alberta HRC.  He makes the most passionate, well reasoned speech on the attributes of free speech! 

But, is tide turning?

For the past several years, what would appear to be illegal behaviour in both its investigations and prosecutions by the HRCs in Canada has inexplicably been tolerated.  Now, this may come to an end. This week, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have announced they are opening a criminal investigatigation of some actions by the HRCs.  Ezra Levant has more information on this. 

Australia may also be changing its ideas with regard to limiting freedom of speech.  As Robert Jago writes on Dime a Dozen, Australia’s Liberal Party is calling for a change to its ‘hate speech laws’, because they have been shown to promote, not curb, divisions in their society! 

But, perhaps the best news comes from Erope! Czech Republic is a nation of reason (fully 59% of Czechs describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or non-believers) and their scepticism extends to other areas, as well.  Lubos Motl, one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists, writes that Vaclav Kaus, the President of Czech Republic, has vetoed an ‘anti-discrimination’ bill.  His justification?

“I consider the bill to be a useless, counterproductive, and low-quality bill while its consequences seem to be problematic….”

 Good on you, Czechs!

You can read the full, well reasoned and excellent speech here.  Mr. Motl writes that, ironically, “Because the bill has been “ordered” by the European bureaucrats and the country may face sanctions (let’s say it: the Czechs may be discriminated against) if the anti-discrimination bill is not approved”

Yes, the overwhelming bureacracies still want to control every aspect of society, including what we say and think.  But, little stories like this make me hopeful.  Perhaps these are the beginnings of a real change in attitudes:  one that will place more value on each and every individual, and treat all of us with the respect and equality in the eyes of the law that we deserve!

Has the dyke of opression finally sprung its first little leaks of reason?

 

P.S.  President Klaus’ book, ‘Blue Planet In Green Chains – What is Endangered:  Climate or Freedom’ is due for release in English this month.  

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

A Father with Real HONOUR!

May 19, 2008 — xanthippa

Oppression comes in many forms, all of them disgusting and condemnable.  All of them have something in common:  the willingness to sacrifice the rights and well being of an individual, a specific human being, for some higher principle.  The principle itself is less imoportant – and it varies from ‘the good of the society’, or ‘religious piety’, or, paradoxically, ‘family honour’.

The opressors smugly wrap themselves in the ‘cloak of righteousness’.  They truly and honestly believe their ends justify the means…which they NEVER do.

I planned to write about something else today, when I came across this  article on ‘A Chocoholic’s Piece of Mind’ blog:  Rand Abdel-Qader, a 17-year-old student, was murdered by her father an brother for being seen speaking to a Brit soldier….  She worked as an aid worker, and spoke English…translated and became infatuated.  No affair, no clandestine meeting, just a schoolgirl crush…and translating for him, as part of the volunteer work she did with refugee families. 

I wonder what another Rand, Ayn Rand, would have to say about this…her father’s reaction (quoting the article linked above) was:

‘Death was the least she deserved,’ said Abdel-Qader. ‘I don’t regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion,’

…

‘I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,’ he said, his voice swelling with pride. ‘My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.’

…

He said his daughter’s ‘bad genes were passed on from her mother’. Rand’s mother, 41, remains in hiding after divorcing her husband in the immediate aftermath of the killing, living in fear of retribution from his family. She also still bears the scars of the severe beating he inflicted on her, breaking her arm in the process, when she told him she was going.

…

Sources have indicated that Abdel-Qader, who works in the health department, has been asked to leave because of the bad publicity, yet he will continue to draw a salary.

And it has been alleged by one senior unnamed official in the Basra governorate that he has received financial support by a local politician to enable him to ‘disappear’ to Jordan for a few weeks, ‘until the story has been forgotten’ – the usual practice in the 30-plus cases of ‘honour’ killings that have been registered since January alone.

…

Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. ‘They are men and know what honour is,’ he said.

This is not honour, and we must stop thinking that just because people come from different parts of the world, they should not be expected to treat each other – including their daughters and wives – with respect.  Thinking these attitudes are too deeply entrenched is a very insidious and destructive form or racism, and we must all work together to show it is unacceptable!

Please, indulge me with a story about an Iranian man and HIS attitude towards his teenage daughter:

When I came to Canada as a teenager, I befriended an Iranian girl who arrived at about the same time.  They were devout Muslims.  At her apartment, my friend showed me the charcoal-gray hijab she was forced to wear in Iran – the very first one I ever saw – and I tried it on.  Her father was angry at the sight of the hijab.   What he said has made a deep impression on me, and is with me still.

He told me that the hijab was not part of Islam.  Not even a little bit.  He explained that when the Koran was written, the rights it granted women were much more than women had in that society before, and that it meant that the Prophet wanted to eventually bring full equality between men and women.  It just had to happen one step at a time.

The hijab, he went on, was a symbol of opression:  not just of women, but of all true Muslims by those who wish to have power over them.  He was very angry that they would do this, when the religion itself teaches the equality of all humans.  He was also angry that many young Mulsimas were brainwashed to think the hijab was a symbol of a proudly pious Muslima – he said teaching young women that was a crime against Islam, because it was a part of a doctorine that reduced them from humans to possessions.

He explained that in Iran, he had done well, a professional with his own business…but he left because he would not allow his daughter to be brought up in a society which would only treat her as cattle, or a piece of meat!  He wanted her to grow up a good Muslima who has confidence in herself as a person, and who is not a slave to anyone…in other words, as a real human being!

Now THERE is a FATHER WITH HONOUR!!! 

If only more men – Muslim or otherwise – would have enough honour to value their daughters as much as my friend’s father valued her!

Posted in freedoms, immigrants, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

‘First they silenced…’

May 16, 2008 — xanthippa

 The old saying says:

Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

Perhaps we should re-phrase it to:

Those who do not learn the right lesson from history are destined to repeat it. 

After all, learning the wrong lesson could be worse than learning no lesson at all!

This all goes back to my rant on how often people do not recognize the difference between ‘symptom’ on the one hand, and a ’cause’ on the other.  Are they really so difficult to tell apart?

Many years ago, I went through a period when I was reading a lot of eyewitness books about WWII and the political atmosphere in Europe following the war.  I came across something intersting that Barbara Amiel had written:   she spent her childhood in ‘wartime London’.  Following the war, there was a determination among her relatives that nothing like this must ever be allowed to happen again.  And because Hitler was perceived as being ‘right wing’, Ms. Amiel asserts, ‘everyone’ became suspicious of – and opposed to – everything that was deemed to be ‘right wing’.

In other words, the lesson this group of people learned was:

  1. Hitler = right wing
  2. Hitler = evil
  3. ergo, right wing = evil

This is almost as sophisticated reasoning as that used for forcing women to wear a hijab, so they would not tempt men to rape them – as uncovered meat tempts cats to eat it. In other words, that is not the correct lesson.  Yet, many very intelligent people still fall into this trap in one form or another.

Yet, lots of people do learn the right lesson.  This one may be exemplified by the ‘First they came for…’ poem, attributed to Martin Niemoller:

“First they came for the Communists, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Yet, even now, people are misunderstanding the poem!  So, please, in my never-humble way, let me pay homage to the right lesson here and write today’s version, as it could be.

“First they silenced the crackpot and nutcases, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a crackpot or a nutcase.

Then they silenced the bloggers, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a blogger.

Then they silenced the journalists, newspapers, magazines and books, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a journalist and didn’t write newspapers, magazines or books.

Then they silenced the Christians, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t religious.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left who was allowed to speak.”

If we fail to learn this lesson, this will be in store for us!  This is NOT HISTORY!  This is now, here, in OUR WORLD! 

This is what happens when people think a political party, or a particular political bend is the problem and fail to recognize that political oppression and governments who do not follow due process of law to achieve their ends that is the problem!!!  And if you are an adult, and not afraid to see a graphic example of the result of a state not bound by its laws is, here are some pictures that were too gruesome to print in a newspaper. 

But I warn you – do not look if you are sqeemish.  It took me a while to realize what part of the human body I was really looking at…

As it is taking so many of us to realize what type of oppression it is that we are facing!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Common law vs. civil law

May 15, 2008 — xanthippa

Humans form communities – that is one of our defining (and best) characteristics.  In order to coexist peacefully, we must agree on a set of rules to govern our interactions. Yet, different communities don’t always go about it the same way.

Some adopt ‘common law’, which takes the approach that all behaviours are permitted, except for those deemed to be harmful, which are then specificly forbidden under the law.  This suggests an underlying philosophy that each person is a free, independent individual.  People ought to be free to act according to their will, and only those behaviours that infringe upon the rights of other individuals within the community to enjoy thier freedoms are forbidden. The goal of laws is to ensure all individual members of the society are able to exercise their freedoms as much as possible.

Communities which develop one of the forms of ‘Civil law’ have a different point of view.  They specifically list the behaviours which are acceptable to the society and permits them, all others are forbidden.  This suggests a philosophy that it is ‘the society’ which is the ‘basic unit of worth’, not the ‘individual’.  As such, it is the goal for the laws to protect the society.

This is a really big philosophical difference. 

It seems to me that common law promotes individualism, while civil law seems more focused on collectivism.

Of course, this is a major simplification.  Also, there are several forms of civil law. This is not intended to be an exhaustive description…  Rather, it is meant to explore the differences in the philosophical undercurrents between societies which choose to govern themselves under civil or common law.  It is not meant to look at the specifics as they are, but at the patterns of thought that led to the differing attitudes of how we ‘ought to’ govern ourselves.

Common law (in its idealized state) sees the individual as the empowered one, the one with inherrent rights who chooses to lend some freedoms to the state in order to create a society.  The law is loath to interfere with these rights and freedoms of each one of its citizens and will only curb them with great reluctance.  It could be summed up by the sentiment: 

‘Upholding the rights of the one ensures the rights of the many.’

Civil law sees the society as the one with all the power.  ‘These are (or ‘ought to be’)  the customs of our society, thus codified here into law.  Do not stray outside of these behaviours, or you will have to answer to the state.’  And while many countries that practice civil law have accepted that an accused individual has the right to a fair trial, including a presumption of innocence, not all of them do.  It could be summed up by the sentiment:

‘Every one must adhere to these rules, because they are in the best interest of the society.’

Many modern countries do incorporate some aspects of both philosophies.  Rather than opposite sides of a coin, I see these as different ends of a continuous philosophical spectrum.  Most countries fall somewhere within this spectrum, and may move along it in one direction or another with time.

Yet, regardless where along this spectrum a particular state’s legal system lies at any specific time, these underlying philosophies will influence its attitude towards its citizens.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Of Cellphones and Hijabs

March 19, 2008 — xanthippa

OK, these two do not seem too closely related. Perhaps a more accurate title would have been ‘Of Passing Laws Which Ban The Use of Cellphones While Driving And Of Passing Laws That Force The Wearing of Hijabs‘, but, somehow, that seemed a little long…

Every now and then, another spot on Earth passes a law banning the use of cellphones while driving – or flirts with passing such a law. A flurry of debates and discussions follows, weighing the pros and cons of such a law…often mistaking appeals to emotions for objective reasons, confusing symptoms with causes.

Typically, the pro-ban side (or, as I affectionately call them, the ‘bannies’) cites reams of accident statistics (real or imagined) which occurred while the driver was indeed using the cell phone. They usually present one or another variation of the following argument:

1. Talking on a cellphone can be distracting to drivers.

2. Distracted drivers do have more accidents.

Therefore, cellphones cause accidents and laws banning drivers from using them must be passed, in the interest of preventing those horrible car accidents. After all, anything less would be irresponsible!

Q.E.D.

Those opposed to the alarming increase in behaviour-engineering legislation usually put forth some silly nonsense like: “If a car is being driven badly, cops already have the right to ticket the driver, so a law specifically prohibiting cellphones is not only superfluous, it is redundant. Why pass two laws to cover one misdeed? If cops don’t apply one law they have, why give them a second one that does the same thing?”

These little arguments fall on deaf ears of the ‘bannies’. Usually, they counter with more statistics (but not those that show that even after cellphones were banned, the overall accident rates are pretty much unchanged in the long run). And if one begins to worry about the intrusiveness of the law, they invariably point out that drunk-driving is already banned, so why not cell-driving?

Perhaps it is commendable that the ‘bannies’ are looking out for us all – by banning all that is, or could potentially be, a source of harm to us. But what is not commendable is their basic mindset of attempting to legislate ‘common sense’, while they themselves fail to display an iota of it. So, I suppose it would be legislating ‘common nonsense’, n’est-ce pas? Having been in a debate with a vociferous ‘bannie’, I was unable to make her comprehend the difference between a chemically impaired judgment and a ‘distraction’…

Yet, that is not the only failure to apply logic in the ‘cellphone debate’. The real fallacy is in completely misunderstanding the nature of ‘distraction’: it is the driver’s responsibility not to become distracted by anything while driving. The cellphone is a symptom, not the cause of a driver’s distraction….only one of the many possible ways of abdicating responsibility to focus on driving. And as history has taught us, banning the symptoms never alleviates the underlying problem, it only masks it.

Which brings me to the hijab part… Please, consider this unfortunately real ‘reasoning’:

1. The sight of a beautiful woman arouses men.

2. An aroused man will want to have sex.

Therefore, the sight of a beautiful woman causes rapes and laws banning display of feminine beauty must be passed, in the interest of protecting women from those horrible rapes. After all, anything less would be irresponsible!

Q.E.D.

Yes, this is real! These are some of the reasons put forth in support of laws that require women to wear a hijab, a burka, or similarly concealing ‘modest dress’. Don’t believe it? The Mufti of Copenhagen Sahid Mehdi said in 2004 that women who do not wear the hijab are ‘asking to be raped‘. Australia’s Mufti in October 2006 was much the same thing, but in much cruder terms – comparing unveiled women to ‘uncovered meat‘….and how could you blame cats who came to eat it? And unless I am much mistaken, an Egyptian Imam said much the same thing in England (though I could not find a very good original article on this…happened too long ago).

But rape is not the only threat to women who do not don the veil: Palestinian broadcasters live under a death threat for wearing makeup and not covering their faces while on camera – I guess it is not so easy to rape a TV image, so the islamofascist ‘bannies’ content themselves with threatening to kill them a firebomb their houses instead.

The ‘reasoning’ in both cases – cellphones and hijabs – is eerily similar.

It may seem a chasm from banning the use of cellphones while driving to forcing the hijab on women, but bigger gulfs have been bridged, one little step at a time….each one facilitated by complacency and happy little ‘bannies’!

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

A Soldier’s gift

February 27, 2008 — xanthippa

Most of the world is watching the circus leading up to the US elections, whether they want to or not, because our media is inundated with it.  And, while 0.01% of what they beam at us may actually be interesting, many important things which will impact our daily lives remain barely covered.

OK, OK, so this is happening in Canada….

But, to all you Americans out there, please, pay attention!  Why?  Because more often than not, Canada serves as USA’s political ‘canary in the mineshaft’…  Yet it took months before even the Canadian media raised its sleepy head and, bleary-eyed, began to sip its ‘Timmy’s coffee’ and realize what is actually going on. 

So, if you have missed this story so far, here is a quick recap:

Long time ago, when hippies just began to leave outdoor concerts and started applying their activism to setting up bureaucracies, Canada saw the establishment of these so called ‘Human Rights Commissions’:  each province got one of its own, but to be sure, one overarching ‘Canadian HRC’ was set up as well.  And, as many drug-inspired dreams, while the intent was good … the practice sucked.

And unquestionably, the intent was good.  Really good.  The HRC was to serve as a kind of a ‘small claims court’ for protecting human rights.  People who were not allowed to rent an apartment because they happened to be black, or not served in a restaurant because they were ‘Oriental’ (which had actually happened to my friends in the 1990’s) could go there and get help, without the stress and strain of getting a lawyer and launching an expensive lawsuit.   In other words, the HRC’s were to make sure that justice was not denied to anyone.

But, as the saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. 

These ‘Human Rights Commissions’, however well intentioned, were drafted up in a bit of ‘purple haze’, with predictable results.  And while it may or may not have been so intentioned, their constitutions’ ‘Section 13’ actually prohibits communication (even private) or anything else “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.  Translation:  Section 13 bans ‘thought crime’!!! 

These HRC’s are not proper courts:  once they receive a complaint, their officers investigate, draft a report with recommendations, and then the HRC announces their ruling.  To show how effective this ‘investigator-prosecutor-judge’ system is, to date, the federal Human Rights Commission enjoys 100% conviction rate…  Hey, what are all these kangaroos doing in Canada?

Currently, there are two very high profile cases under investigation by the various HRC’s. 

  1. The newsmagazine Macleans published an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book.  This included a quote from an Imam in Norway, where the Imam boasted that the birth rate among European Muslims was very high:  the IMAM used the phrase that the Muslims were ‘multiplying like mosquitoes’….  Decidedly, this is disrespectful:  which is why it is important that we all realize that an Imam would actually say that!  I read that article when it first came out, and the quote was duly attributed.  Yet, a complaint was laid at the HRC against both Macleans and Mr. Steyn for spreading hate against Muslims for printing that quote.
  2. Two years ago, worldwide violence broke out because a Danish paper published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad AND because some Danish mullahs manufactured some even more offensive cartoons and distributed them in the Middle East, claiming them to be part of the ‘Danish cartoons’.  The reactions were vitriolic and violent, people were murdered, churches set on fire, yet very few ‘Western media’ saw it fit to let us know what the subject of this violence was actually about.  In Canada, The Western Standard was one newsmagazine that dared to publish them.  In no time at all, the magazine and its editor, Ezra Levant, were being dragged in front of one of the HRC’s…..and a $100,000 in legal fees later, the Western Standard is only online and Mr. Levant is still trying to defend himself.

Mr. Levant did a very clever thing:  he actually taped his interrogation in the HRC’s modern-day dungeon.  Parts of it are now on YouTube…my favourite ones are ‘Attributes of Free Speech’ and ‘I don’t answer to the state’.  And, I read his blog, where there are many updates on this, as well as other ‘stuff’ about the HRC’s and the state of freedoms in our Western society.

Which is where I came across a letter, written to Mr. Evant, from a Canadian soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan….a true hero.  I must admit, it left me speechless…and touched me in places I thought I had long ago walled off with cynicism.  The soldier has some very deep insights, and though he is not rich, he donated $1,000 of his danger pay to help Mr. Levant’s defence fund!  Please, take a few moments and read that letter….it puts so much into perspective…

Thank you.

Posted in freedoms, human nature, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 3: HOW we ought to tolerate

February 20, 2008 — xanthippa

Everyone is calling for ‘tolerance’ these days.  But, really deep down, what do we mean?

It seems to me that there are several different types of ‘tolerance’, and they don’t all mean the same thing.  There is a whole spectrum of ‘tolerance’!  Let me highlight the ‘good extreme’ and the ‘bad extreme’, with the understanding that most of the time ‘tolerance’ – as practiced in our society –  falls somewhere in between the two.  I just hope we’ll try to aim towards the ‘good’ end of the spectrum…  

 

 

The ‘GOOD tolerance’ 

I suspect that is what most of us mean when we say ‘tolerance’.  This form is the ‘respectful tolerance’, and it requires that both sides ‘acknowledge the differences’ and then CHOOSE to respect the choices the others make.

 

That is by no means easy.  All sides (this is never as easy as just two or three sides) have to take the time and effort to actually educate themselves on other peoples’ views and beliefs, then consider each others’ positions objectively, then judge ‘the other sides’ to be worthy of respect….and that is not always possible.  For, how can one truly respect a view or belief which may be contrary to one’s core values?

 

The answer, of course, is with an utmost exercise of self-control and intellectual detachment…but remember, this is one of the extremes, an ideal we ought to aspire to live up to.

 

 

The ‘BAD tolerance’ 

This tolerance is not nice tolerance at all.  It is the dismissive kind:  ‘oh, let them do their thing, we could never hope to civilize them’ kind of tolerance…  ‘Oh, why would we want to bring democracy there, these people are just too backward – they could never understand equality.’  ‘Their women don’t know any different, so why give them ideas of what we live like – they’re just too tribal to change.’  You know, this is the ‘they could NEVER be equal to US’ tolerance….which permeates the separatist and racist underbellies of every society.

 

Not only does it dismiss the side ‘to be tolerated’, it treats people as unworthy of the expectations that one has of the members of a civilized society….  It inevitably leads to the alienation and isolation of the ‘tolerated’ side, socially and eventually economically, forcing them to become second class citizens.  It is dispicable!

This position is difficult to eradicate for two major reasons:  one, it is often deeply held, because it makes the person holding such views feel somehow ‘superior’ and way more ‘special’;  it is also often really hard to recognize, because it is so adept at masking itself…as real, proper, respectful tolerance!

What is even worse is that among those who practice this ‘patronizing tolerance’, there are often despicable busybodies who consider their actions to be noble, a showcase of how tolerant we all ‘ought to’ be, wrapping themselves in ‘the cloak of righteousness’.  These busybodies wreak havoc in many ways. 

One of the most destructive is by appointing themselves the ‘guardians’ of those ‘to be tolerated’.  In this role, they look for ways in which the ‘mainstream culture’ differs from the original culture of the unfortunates whom they’ve decided to ‘shield’, and demands exemptions for them.  This may be from sport-team rules and other minor things to cultural practices, or even to exempt them from some actual laws of the land.  Of course, this may please some of the newest arrivals (or those within the immigrant community who wish to control them), but overall, it denies the newly arrived immigrants the right and the very ABILITY to integrate, bullying them into perpetuating the very cultural practices they are trying to escape from by coming here….

Another extremely destructive thing these ‘busybodies’ do is to bully the mainstream culture into tolerating all kind of excesses perpetrated by some people in the ‘target minority’, into tolerating behaviours unacceptable by our laws and our cultural standards.  This, of course, is done in the name of ‘educating us all’ to the ‘sensitivities’ we must be mindful of when we tolerate these excesses and illegal behaviours….

How could this unwelcome and obstructive meddling do anything but breed resentment on all sides?  How could we all be blind to it?  How could we allow ourselves to be duped and bullied by these busybodies?

It would be naïve to think that we can ever fully get rid of the ‘bad tolerance’…it’s part of our human nature.  But, could we not try to minimize it?  Could we not try to aspire to actually respect each other?  Could we not hope to reach higher on the ‘kind of tolerance’ spectrum?

Gosh, I hope I’m not too naïve for hoping we can!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 2: What we ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’ tolerate

February 19, 2008 — xanthippa

In order to have a functioning society, we need to agree on a common set of rules according to which we interact with each other.  (I ranted on a bit about this in my ‘Dogged by Dogma’ post.)  Some of these rules are codified into laws, others govern what we consider to be polite day-to-day behaviour.  Though the rules change from country to country, the basic principle remains the same:  without a common set of rules, there is no ‘society’.

We all, as humans, have the innate right to freedom of speech and thought.  So, let’s start by agreeing to tolerate that.  This means not denying it to anyone, even people we disagree with…or people who hold unpopular views.

From the freedoms of speech and thought flows the freedom of religious belief.  That, too, needs to be respected.  Most ‘western’ cultures are pretty good at protecting this one – usually, it is entrenched in the constitution.  But while we may be free to hold every belief we want, and are free to worship every deity (or absence thereof) we choose to, it is essential that we all understand that only those actions and behaviours that are legal under the laws of the land may actually be performed, whether based on religious conviction or not.

It is essential that we recognize that being tolerant of a belief is not the same as tolerating each and every behaviour that stems from it!

If it were, we would all need to tolerate human sacrifice.  And frankly, if we do tolerate illegal behaviour which stems from religious belief, in a very real sense, we WILL indeed be making a ‘human’ sacrifice! 

Asma Jahangir, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, has on many occasions reported that she has seen over and over situations where minority groups within a society demand special rights onto themselves, in name of religious freedoms – only to use these special rights to then oppress its own internal minority.  This kind of abuse of special rights is more common than we would like to think:  Ezra Levan’t has actually posted photos of Robina Butt, a woman who was assaulted by intruders into her own home after she and two other women complained of the financial improprieties at her own Mosque.  It is horrid!

So, let’s be clear.  We must tolerate each other’s beliefs.  

At the same time, we absolutely must not tolerate illegal behaviour, however motivated.  This is as much for the protection of the greater society as for the protection of the individuals within any specific minority.  If someone chooses to self-limit certain behaviours, good on them (provided they do not impact the society as a whole or diminish the rights of other individuals).  If they choose to self-impose rules which preclude them from enjoying certain privileges (such as people who refuse to have their photograph taken must be prepared to give up privileges for which a photo-i.d. is required – say, a driving license), they MUST be also prepared to give up such privileges.  Forcing them to comply with the conditions would be just as wrong as granting these privileges without compliance.

What is more:  not respecting these rules, granting special privileges to some but not others, will mean that the most basic rule of society is broken.  I may be repeating myself, but…without common rules, there is no ‘society’.  Doing so would breed resentment and hostility among various segments of the population…and how could unequal treatment by law not result in just that? 

We all need to keep this in mind the next time we are tempted to exempt one group or another from the laws which must apply equally to all of our citizens.  

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »

And we are…..?

February 12, 2008 — xanthippa

“Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be preferable to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”
                                                            – C.S. Lewis 

So, where exactly does that put us?

Posted in freedoms, human nature, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »