We, humans build communities. As our societies grew, since the dawns of history, so did the size of our communities – and we reaped a lot of benefits from this. Yet, the ‘scaling up’ process -while raising our standard of living – has some costs associated with it, too…
Part 1 of this series looked at the significance of Dunbar’s number (about 150): the number of people who comfortably fit into our Monkeysphere (that is, the people we relate to as individuals, rather than statistics). This is about the maximum size of our community, before we start ‘scaling up’ by perceiving ‘others’ as concepts, rather than individuals….the reason why the suffering of our parent or child ‘touches’ us more than that of a stranger.
In Part 2 , I tried to demonstrate how scaling our communities up meant heaving to sacrifice some of our individuality (having to interact with more people than can fit into our Monkeyshpere – and whose Monkeyspheres we cannot fit into) but that the benefits of this, specialization and greater productivity, benefits us by allowing us to reach a higher standard of living. The side-effect of this scaling up of communities is the emergence of governance structures.
Here, I would like to look at one of the many implications of scaling governance structures up – and the emrgence of a specific group of people to administer them: the ‘civil servants’.
I cannot remember which king is said to have uttered: ‘I AM the State!’ – perhaps there were many. Yet, most ‘states’ (and here, I use the word state to mean a political association with sovereignity over a defined geographic area) today are not ‘a person’. ‘State’ is a concept which only exists when real flesh-and-blood people act as its agents.
In other words, a ‘state’ cannot ‘do’ anything ‘physical’, because it is not a corporeal being in and of itself. A ‘state’ cannot pick up a stapeler, or a gun – or write a constitution. It is individual people, the agents of the state, who act on behalf of the state: they carry out the actions necessary to establish the state’s existence and perform the physical actions needed to fulfill the obligations of the state in the social contract between it and the the polulace which created it.
As we have already seen in the earlier parts, as we, humans, get more successful at ‘community building’, our communities get bigger and we can no longer decide each ‘common position’ in the same way we used to: we no longer know every other member of our society personally, so the methods of the ‘smaller scale community’ are no longer applicable.
By ‘scaling up’ our communities, through our social contract, we have chosen to give away some of our individual decision-making choices and agreed, in certain areas of our life, to abide by the decisions that ‘the group’ has arrived at. The group may choose to accept the decisions of its leader, or each citizen may be able to vote on every desision, with the majority opinion becoming binding on the group – or any number of other methods…but that is not the point of this post.
The point I am making is that once this ‘group decision’ is achieved on a specific topic, it becomes the ‘law’ (OK, I am simplifying the process – but not the principle) or ‘policy’ of the ‘state’. This ‘group decision’ is implemented/enacted/put into practice/fulfilled through the governance structures of the state – with ‘the civil servants’ acting as ‘the agents of state’ who carry out the actions necessary to enact (enforce, fulfill, etc.) it.
In democratic systems – and I am specifically referring to our ‘Western Democracies’ – it is not likely that every citizen will agree fully with every ‘law’ or ‘policy’ of the state. And, in our Western systems, that is a good thing, because it is through open debate that we grow. (OK, so this bit is more theoretical, lately, than most of us would like, but in principle…)
And this is where we run into a real problem, a bit where the ‘scaling up’ of our community creates a moral dilema: what happens when the civil servants – the very agents whose actions are the only means for the state to act in order to fulfill its social contrats with its citizens – what happens when these agents of the states personally disagree with what they are obligated to implement?
While they are ‘off the clock’ as private citizens, they have every right to be the individuals they truly are. Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state – what should govern their behaviour? Their inividual views and opinions, or the policies/laws the society has agreed to accept?
Difficult question, to say the least.
IF they should follow the ‘social contract’ mindlessly, they risk becoming the very agents of injustice, of ‘tyranny of the majority’ – and atrocities like the Holocaust could NOT have happened without ‘agents of the state’ refusing to enact immoral policies, blindly putting into practice the unthinkable. Never again!
On the other hand – what happens if the majority of the citizens approve a just law, yet one which is not favourable to the civil servants? What if it is designed to protect a minority – but not a minority that (for some unknown reason) the majority of civil servants do not respect? Or, what if it is meant to curb the intrusion of civil servants into citizens’ lives? It is not unprecedented that most of the agents of the state would be morally opposed – or, at least, personally unwilling – to bring these policies/laws into practice…
So, where does the balance lie?
At which point should the civil servants set aside their individuality – and their morality – in order to perform the will of the group?
Difficult question, to say the least.
Without the civil servant’s denial of their individual morality, while acting as agents of the state, the state cannot effect its will – and so it will effectively cease to exist. Yet, without applying their ‘morality’ to their actions, the civil servants may be empowering immoral laws or policies.
Where does the balance lie?
In my never-humble-opinion, the civil servants are the ‘last check’ on the state: they cannot but evaluate their own actions based on their personal morality. Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state, they may not act upon this personal morality. It is up to them to weigh the balance between continuing to act as agents of the state – or not. If they choose to no longer act as agents of the state, they must abdicate their role of ‘agent of the state’….
In other words, if enough civil servants resign over moral objections by refusing to enact the will of the state, the state will cease to exist. This must be a heavy weight on the conscience of each and every civil servant!
It is inconcievable that a 13-year old should be publically executed.
It is unthinkable to stone a woman to death for the ‘crime’ of having been raped.
My mind is having incredible difficulty wrapping itself around the fact that both of these happened to the same person – Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow!
What happened to this child is outrageous, and inexcusable and we must all work hard to make sure it never happens again! And the way Aisha’s execution (can it even be called ‘execution’ when we are talking about a 13-year-old child?) is being reported – that is a crime in itself!
Just in case you are not familiar with this child’s suffering and murder, I wrote about it earlier. She had been gang-raped, and when she sought ‘justice’ by filing a complaint with the police, she found out the hard way that her town had just come under ‘Sharia law’. Her complaint menant that she was ‘admitting’ to have ‘engaged in extramarital sexual inercourse’, and that ‘justice’ demands that she be stoned to death…
Sharia is NOT an acceptable ‘law’ for any human being to be subjected to! (Pay attention, all Brit readers, you have recently stripped human rights from a group of your own citizens, living in Britain – including a friend of mine – their only crime was being a Muslima!!! Every single one of you should be ashamed of yourselves, until you get this abomination overturned!)
So, let us hear what life under Shari REALLY is…
How could it happen that the ‘legal courts’ would think that a 13-year-old can even ‘commit adultery’? A ‘child’ can be abused by someone, but she cannot ‘commit adultery’! Only an adult woman can ‘commit adultery’ – and then, only if she consents to a sexual act.
How can it be that under Sharia, a 13-year-old would be considered ‘adult woman’? Is this just some sort of a mistake? Or, is it that under Sharia, it is perfectly legal for 13-year-old children to be ‘wives’??? After all, some ‘western’ reports called her ‘MRS. Aisha Dhuhuluw’…
So, what exactly is this ‘baby-wife’ ‘special case’?
But, that was a Christian’s interpretation. He could be ‘twisting’ Islam… To be fair, we should listen to what Islamic experts on marriage have to say on this topic:
Of course, this is only happening in the ‘far away’ countries ‘nobody cares about’!!!! Right??? Oh, yes – and Britain – because Britain has instituted Sharia ‘law’ for British Muslims as the legal code for such things as ‘family law’ – which includes ‘marriages’.
Here is what ‘marriage’ under ‘Sharia’ is like, from the child-wife’s point of view:
IF you are one of those sick enlightened people who think it’s OK for women in ‘far away’ places to suffer – and, please, do NOT count me among these people – then think again:
Far from being slowly but surely eradicated – these ‘Sharia attitudes’ are NOT the norm in fewer and fewer places…. To the contrary! They are spreading, as Islamists (NOT respectable Muslims, but Islamists) spread their hateful and opressive ways throughout the world.
It is up to us, the adults, to protect our children. All our children. It is too late for Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow – but it is not too late to save others from Aisha’s fate! If Sharia ‘law’ permits THIS to happen to children, then it is up to every single one of us to oppose this abomination perversely called Sharia ‘Law’!
Update: The people who committed this crime against Aisha may have largely been funded by Brits!
All right, we’ve all heard the gripes about how ‘things’ are distorted and what ‘gets reported’ is not always a factual, unbiased account of the events. But this, this has got to be some of the most bizzare collection of distortions I have seen so far.
Or, at least, that I am aware that I have seen…
As far as I can piece this together (and I am NOT certain of the complete facts), it would appear that 13-year-old girl-child, Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow, was gang-raped. She went to register the crime with the courts, presumably expecting the police to find and arrest her rapists.
However, last August, Aisha’s home town of Kismayo – a port in Southern Somalia – had been taken over by Islamist forces and Sharia law had been imposed. When the child came to file her complaint with the police, she was asked ‘if she is sure this is what really happened’. Aisha confirmed that she had, in fact, been gang-raped and asked for justice.
This last bit came back to haunt her, her family, and anyone with a conscience! At this ‘admission of engaging in extramarital sexual intercourse’ and ‘demands to be punished’, the police officials had ‘no choice’ but to arrest her. The ‘Sharia Court’ (if you can call it a court) had heard the case and had ‘no choice’ but to sentence her to death by stoning. After all, she herself ‘freely admitted her guilt’ and ‘demanded justice to be done’!!!
Dressed in black, with a green veil (green – the colour of Islam and peace), she was brought into a large stadium filled with about 1000 people. Reporters, based on her ‘appearance’, guessed her age to be about 23 yearsof age, were forbidden to use their cameras, but radio broadcasts were permitted.
Here, the child was bound hand and foot and – while screaming and pleading for her life – Aisha was buried up to her neck in a hole in the ground.
It would appear that the crowd – or at least some of the people within the crowd – tried to intervene and save the unfortunate child. The ‘guards’ opened fire on the crowd, shooting a child dead.
50 men then started to throw stones at Aisha’s head (the only part of her above ground). When they thought she was dead, they dug her up – but a check showed she was still alive, so they burried her again and continued to throw stones at her. They had dug Aisha up 3 times to check if she is dead yet….and then burried her again to stone her some more…
Her family is distrought and angry. Her father confirmed her age to be 13 years.
This, in itself, is a horrible story. It is a nightmare!
I truly don’t know if there are words strong enough to express my anger and outrage!
But, it would appear, my reaction is not all that usual. At least, if one were to go by what is being said in the many ‘official’ reports of Aisha’s suffering and murder lawbreaking and execution.
MOGADISHU (AFP) — Thousands of people gathered Monday to witness 50 Somali men stone a woman to death after an Islamic court in the southern port of Kismayo found her guilty of adultery, witnesses said.
Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow, who had been found guilty of extra-marital intercourse was buried in the ground up to her neck while the men pelted her head with rocks.
“Our sister Aisha asked the Islamic Sharia court in Kismayo to be charged and punished for the crime she committed,” local Islamist leader Sheikh Hayakallah told the crowd.
“She admitted in front of the court to engaging in adulterous sexual intercourse,” he added.
“She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply.”
The execution was carried in one of the city’s main squares.
…
Did you notice the mention of the fact she was a rape victim? No, because this was not mentioned. But you might have noticed how her ‘demand for justice’ was explained by the local Islamist leader Sheikh Hayakallah!!!
Good reporting, AFP, making sure we hear the ‘proper’ side of the story! Good reporting, AFP, for ‘digging for the details of what really happened there’! Bang-up job, you are doning! Truly!
But they are not the only ones reporting on this murder of Aisha along these lines…
Surely, that ‘most extreme-right-wing-media outlet’, Fox News, will have done a bit of digging around to find out what was happening, right? If so, it was not mentioned in their article, ‘Somali woman stoned to death for adultery’!
No verification with her family, or Amnesty International, which also seems to have had no trouble learning Aisha’s true age – 13, not the 23 admittedly arrived at by a reporter’s ‘guess’….
No explanation that the ‘adultery’ in question consisted of being gang-raped….
WHAT THE F$*&Q^#$*&!!!!!!
How about other sources?
The ‘neutral’ and award winning Sky News reported: ‘Cheating’ woman stoned to death. I suppose the ‘Cheating’ – being in quotation marks – constitutes ‘neutrality’ (also in quotation marks). And, they do report that while the officials explained she demanded this punishment herself (!), they do quote witnesses that heard her scream and saw her struggle….and they hint that only the guns of the guards – who killed a child in the process – kept the crowd from freeing poor Aisha. But, not the correct age, not a peep about the fact that she had been the victim of rape….except those quotation marks around ‘cheating’, that is…
It is a most fun day – kids (young and old) plan fun costumes for weeks and decorate their houses. Yet, the ‘Politically Correcet Creeps’ have started casting their shadow over even this innocent fun.
Children are discouraged (or actively forbidden) from wearing costumes, Halloween-related activities are not happening, the spark of joy is being choked out of yet another beautiful tradition.
Why?
Because, we are told, some ‘Wiccans may be offended because it is a religious holiday for them’….
Well, I know many active Wiccans – and every single one of them is offended that Halloweeen should be replaced by ‘black and orange day’!!! It may be a cross-quarter day – but the fun festivities and celebrations that everyone partakes in according to their taste and likes enriches the holiday experience for everyone, not takes away from it – in the eyes of Wiccans.
After all, it is not a religious holiday for others, so why should it bother Wiccans how they celebrate it? They’re happy people are finding time to have a little fun, because Wicca teaches that joy and sharing and finding pleasure in the ‘big and little things’ is a very important part of life!
‘Sanitizing’ all forms of fun – THAT is offensive!
Deciding FOR the Wiccans that they ‘ought to’ be offended – then censoring everyone else to spare them this offence –THAT is offensive!
Sorry, I just loose it when I see bullies, banning and censoring everyone around them, claiming to do it ‘on behalf of’ someone else….without actually caring what that ‘other one’ thinks, because it really is just a convenient vehicle to drive their own agenda and nothing else… Ok, so I don’t like bullies in any shape or form…and people who bully others and are not even aware they are doing it (or try to dress the bullying up so that they hope you will not realize you are being bullied) – well, they drive me mad.
So, what about other reasons being used to sour this sweet holiday?
Bad nutrition…. Yeah, pull the other one!
My kids LOVE ‘getting’ candy on Halloween! It is fun, exciting and they spend hours with their friends trading this tid-bit for that one…. and, I usually throw 90% of it out during Christmass cleaning… I honestly don’t know anyone who actually eats ALL the Halloween candy and chips they get!
Though, I have seen many kids donate sealed ‘semi-nutritious’ snacks to their schools’ ‘forgotten lunch pantry’ – where kids who forget their lunch can get someting to tide them over. And, since my older son is too old to trick-or-treat, but he does walk his brother through the neighbourhood for safety, my younger son automatically splits his loot between them when they get home! So, in effect, getting rid of ‘trick-or-treating’ is going to reduce our kid’s ability to be charitable and sharing, from things that are their own. ‘Wonderful’ lesson…
Oh, but costumes are too expensive for some families.
OK, here is what I paid for my son’s costume: $1.99 for face paints (Enough for a few kids’ faces), $2.00 for 2m of fabric (bought on sale at a fabric store for $1.00/m). $0.99 for an elastic waistband. That’s it. I already owned some thread, a needle, some scissors…. And, some years in the past, we used ‘outgrown clothes’ for materials to make the costumes out of. One year, we made a fancy cape by ‘borrowing’ a tablecloth and 2 pillows….once through the wash, all were ‘good as new’!
Plus, sewing costumes is ‘OK’ for boys, as well as girls! So, now my boys have acquired a skill… not that they boast of it. But, they HAVE it!
My first Halloween in Canada (I was too old to ‘trick-or-treat’, but a few of us dressed up to chaperone my friend’s younger brother as he went around. I was MOST impressed that my friend’s step-mom had also dressed up – and unabashedly had fun! That was most excellent – it was OK to be silly!
I had a ball! But, my family was VERY short of cash then….so I had to borrow some makeup (my friend’s step-mom had fun ‘doing me up) and I used our curtains and drapes to make a ‘fancy ghostly gown’ for an evening, uning clips (no cutting, no sewing, no pin-holes allowed)! Cost? $0.00. Fun? 100%!
Which brings me to the last major objection: immigrants might be unfamiliar and alienated.
As an immigrant, who was completely unfamiliar with this Halloween custom prior to arriving in Canada, let me put these fears to rest. THEY ARE NONSENCE!
Halloween was EXCELLENT for me! By teaching me about it, and helping me get my costume together, I got WAY closer to the people who would eventually grow to be my friends! It was ‘an opening’ to talk to me – an opportunity to talk about more than just math homework… My classmates felt good telling me all about Halloween. Doing this, they were including me – all the while they were proud to show off this most fun holiday – and now I was PART of ‘IT’!
It was just what was needed for this awkward, shy immigrant kid was to no longer just keep her head burried in a textbook and watch everyone from the sidelines – people MADE me PART of the celebrations! I had fun!
I truly felt included!
If anything, NOT celebrating Halloween will REDUCE the oppotunities for newly arrived immigrants to socialize, to make friends, to successfully integrate! And it will suck another bit of enjoyment out of living…
So, what do I have to say to those who would erode yet another cultural icon?
As many Canadian bloggers are being targetted for ‘lawfare’ – using real courts or the semi-judicial (but just as legally binding) Human Rights Commission/Tribunals in order to bully them with the threat of stressful, expensive and long-term legal battle – we have a legal precedent that might serve to curb at least some of these.
For example, Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury is being dragged in front of the HRC for having linked to a site which contained something that was ‘potentially offensive’. She, and many others like her, may now have a new weapon in their defense: the precedent set in a BC court (a real court – unsurprisingly, is not as random as the HRCs!).
In this case, Jon Newton (p2pnet) was being sued for publishing a link – the argument being that the link itself constituted ‘re-publishing’ the offensive material.
Following a landmark decision by British Columbia Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher, p2pnet is the victor in a case in which Vancouver businessmen Wayne Crookes, once an important federal Green Party of Canada official, tried to claim I defamed him by linking to articles he didn’t like.
That amounted to publication, he maintained.
The full decision can be found here (from p2pnet) and the actual pdf is here.
As most Canadians are aware, the ‘Steyn verdict’ came out yesterday: Steyn and Macleans have been acquitted. If you are not aware of the situation:
Macleans is Canada’s oldest news magazine.
Macleans reprinted, as an article, an excerpt from ‘America Alone’, a book by Mark Steyn.
In this excerpt, Mark Steyn quotes a Norwegian Imam as saying that (I am paraphrasing) Muslims will win Europe without ever raising the sword, because they will outbreed the indigenous Europeans.
The term the Imam used was that ‘Muslims are breeding like mosquitoes’…
There was never a question that this is an accurate quote, the Imam has confirmed saying this
Despite this, 3 different ‘courts’ – Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals in Canada have charged Steyn/Macleans for ‘spreading hate against Muslims’ for pritnitn this quote.
The Human Rights ‘courts’ do not follow the rigorous rules and procedures of a regular court, but their rulings are no less binding. And, ‘double jeopardy’ (in this case, triple), where a person can only be charged once per offence, do not apply, nor does ‘innocent until proven guilty’, nor is truthfulness of the comment an acceptable defence: they do not decide truthfullness, but ‘hurtfulness’ of a comment.
Their defence bill (not reimbursable, not allowed to even sue to be reimbursed for court costs) has topped 7 figures.
So, finally, yesterday, they were aquitted of the charges. Here is an MP3 podcast of an interview where Mr. Steyn describes the experience in his own words. Here’s the audio [mp3] (via Western Standard’s shotgun blog)
Many people are having a difficult time deciding how to vote, because it seems like we are having to decide between bad and worse….a discouraging proposition at best. We see the ‘left’ as wanting to raise taxes and we can see how this will cripple the economy – and make us poorer. We see the ‘right’ as ‘in bed’ with big business, not concerned with the well-being of the little guy, namely us. And the ‘middle’ – we have seen the corruption there and it turns our stomachs…
What to do?
Big part of the problem is that we have been lookning at ‘politics’ as ‘left’ and ‘right’. But, that only captures one aspect of the political spectrum, and not a very good one at that.
We need to re-define the way we view political party platforms and policies, but according to a different set of criteria. Namely: individualism versus collectivism.
Collectivism is correct in recognizing that together, we can achieve more that each one of us could alone. We should pool all our resources, and ‘the collective’ decides how we use them together in the best way.
Of course, this is true – to a degree.
The problem is that when ‘everything’ is decided by the collective, there is no longer such a thing as an individual – only ‘member of the collective’. Thus, the good of the collective is placed above the good of any member. The voice of the collective is placed above the voice of any member. The will of the collective is placed above the will of any member.
The difficulty with this is obvious.
There is an old saying that the ‘collective intelligence’ of any group of people is defined by the average intelligence of each person in the group – divided by two.
‘Collective decisions’ are usually stupid – there is no denying it. And in a setup where individuals are not heard, nobody can sound a warning against stupid decisions or doing counterproductive things. To the contrary – anyone attempting to sound a warning will be perceived as opposing the collective and mercilessly torn to bits by a collective which transforms itself into the mob it inevitably becomes.
Individualism is correct in recognizing that every single one of us has a will and the ability to use it. It places the individual as the ‘responsible’ ‘decision-making’ unit. Sometimes, individuals may come together to pool their efforts and resources, but these are all voluntary arrangements and any individual has the right to opt out of them at any time. In other words, there is no coersion to pool one’s resources with others.
Again, there is an obvious difficulty with ‘total individualism’.
We do not live in isolation. We may be a group of individuals, but we are still a group and, as such, need the means of acting as a group.
We are a nation, a political entity – we need to pool our resources to protect ourselves and maintain order, etc. And if most of us contribute towards maintaing order which all enjoy, those who ‘opt out of contributing’ are getting ‘free ride’. This sets up a bad precedent and a bad dynamic. Eventually, the ‘free loaders’ become resented… and could become just as torn to bits as the ‘member of the collective who speaks up’ in the ‘collectivism’ example, but this time by a bunch of individuals who ‘voluntarily’ form a ‘temporary mob’.
So, what we need to do is find a balance: to form a sufficient collective to allow us to pool our resources and achieve those things we need to do ‘together’, but still retain enough individualism to not get lost in the process. Achieving this balance is the difficult part.
Before you protest that these are the same distinctions as ‘right’ and ‘left’, take a moment to look at history. Yes, it is true that traditionally, ‘left wing’ idealizes ‘collectivism’. But, just as having a ‘red square’ does not mean that a ‘circle’ must be ‘blue’, ‘right wing’ parties can – and often do – also embody the principles of ‘collectivism’: Nacism, for example, is perceived as being ‘right wing’ – but it is very much ‘collectivism’. It’s long name is ‘national socialism‘ – and socialism is a form of collectivism.
Similarly, George W. Bush’s policies are more collectivist than individualist – yet he is perceived as ‘right wing’!
This was the difference between the Canadian ‘right wing’ parties: ‘Reform Party/Canadian Alliance’ were no more ‘right wing’ than the ‘Progressive Conservative Party’. But where Progressive Conservatives were collectivists, the Reformers were fiercely individualist. After the parties merged, the resulting party is somewhere in between…
Yet that is the difference between the current Conervatives in Canada and the current conservatives in the US – despite the US emphasis on the individual, it is the Canadian Conservatives who are actually (and very slowly) returning some of the decisionmaking to the individuals. THAT is why the current financial crisis sweeping the US is not nearly as bad up in Canada – there simply aren’t enough individuals who had made as bad choices as some of the groups south of the border.
OK, this IS an oversimplification – and an intentional hyperbole. But the principle meant to be demonstrated by it is the correct one – and ONE of the factors in this.
So, if the ‘individualist’ ways are so much better, why are most successful political parties ‘collectivist’?
In order to succeed in the political arena, a party has to present a unified image, stand for one thing that voters across the country can recognize and identify with. A ‘Party Brand’, if you will. This is easily achieved with a group of people who believe their individual voices are nowhere near as important as the voice of the collective.
If you have a group of people who are fiercly individualist, this becomes much more difficult. The term ‘herding cats’ comes to mind! The individualist will not hesitate to speak up when the party’s policy does not reflect their personal view of something. That is what makes them individualists!
And that is what makes the ‘individualis’ parties look disorganized, not ‘together’. That is why it is difficult for people to figure out what they stand for.
And THAT is why most parties that value ‘individualism’ tend to be less successful than parties made up of collectivists.
So, when you go to vote this time around – and if you are not sure whom to pick – take a look at the policies and ideas from this, slightly different point of view: who will allow you the most individual freedom? Who will respect you as an individual? Is it the right ‘balance’ you seek – or as close to it as you’d like?
Perhaps if you do, you may arrive at a decision you will be happy with.
Many of us who are 100% ‘free speechers’ wave our hands dismissively and tune out when somebody raises the issue of ‘fair use rights’ on copyrighted materials. This is a mistake.
Just as ‘free speechers’ are not just a bunch of racists and rednecks, no matter how loudly their opponents laber them as such, ‘fair use rights’ advocates are not just a bunch of ‘pirates’ and ‘thieves’. If they were, they would simply steal the content – and certainly not bother to stand up and fight for their rights.
What we need to recognize that these issues are connected: both revolve around finding the ‘right’ balance of rights versus limitations. Once we recognize the similarities between these two seemingly separate issues, we can better understand how to arrive at a balance we can all be satisfied with – at least a little bit.
Just like we are willing to put limits onto ‘free speech’ – the proverbial ‘yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre’, and similar limits – it is also justifiable to place limits on the use of ‘music’, ‘movies’, books’ and other intellectual content meant for consumers. In the first case, ‘public safety’ is threatened. In the second case, the rights of the creators of this ‘IP content’ need to protect their investment and their ability to reap a fair compensation for having created it.
This does make sense. The trick is, and always has been, in finding acceptable balance of rights.
The problem arises when the laws are written so as to only protect one side’s rights, at the expense of the other. It is no less oppressive than having unreasonable limits placed on one’s freedom of speech, in order to protect some from ‘hurt feelings’.
But there is another connection, a very fundamental one, between these two issues: both seek to restrict communication. Limiting freedom of speech imposes limitations on an individual as to what they are, or are not, free to communicate. So called ‘fair use’ laws seek to control the means of communication….
Recently, I watched a program that drove home the difference. It is one-hour long (and part 2 of a 2-part series), but it is well worth watching. Here, in brief, is the background…
In Sweden, there used to be different ‘fair use’ laws than in North America. Under Swedish laws, it was legal to set up a company called ‘Pirate Bay’ – even though this was, at that time, illegal under US laws. The ‘Hollywood industry’ used its influence to pressure the White House, which, in turn, pressured the Swedish government, into police raids and materiel confiscation against ‘Pirate Bay’, even though their own attorneys advised the government that the operation was perfectly legal….. Part 1 of the show, ‘Steal This Film’ deals with this. I found the segments of it on YouTube here, here, here, and here.
Part 2 discusses the very interesting issue of how these ‘fair use’ laws are (and are not) balanced – and why. And yes, how this directly impacts ‘freedom of speech’. Very interesting, the whole lot of it. The links for the YouTube version are here, here, here, here, here and here.
While Part 2, section 2 has a comprehensive history of ‘copyright’ and its implications from book printing on (and thus VERY much worth watching), it is Part 2, section 4 that sums up – in my mind – the essence of this debate. It is not just about IP – it is about the control of the means of delivering ‘culture’ to us all… And whoever controls the means of delivery also controls which voices will be heard.
I suppose one could see the ‘fair use’ battle as the corrollary to the ‘free speech’ battle. While one is a battle to allow one to speak freely, the other one is the battle to allow one to be heard freely. After all, if one is allowed ‘free speech’ – but only in isolation, where what one says is not actually heard by any other human being – it is a hollow victory…
Trying to paint himself as a supporter of the arts during this election campaign, NDP leader Jack Layton has accidentally demonstrated his contempt for Canadian artists with this election promise:
Mr. Layton promised that if elected Prime Minister, he will use the CRTC (the government tool used to reign in radio and TV stations in Canada and ensure their content is appropriately censored) to force all TV networks to only show ‘Canadian content with Canadian actors’ during prime time viewing hours. (I could not find the audio clip of when I heard him speak – the link above is to an article reporting it….but the article had watered down his statement. If you find the clip, please, let me know and I will edit the post to insert it here. Thanks.)
What is this man thinking?
Yes, some say this is a mute point, as he will never win enough votes to be the next Prime Minister (even as a leader of a coalition, which he seems to be striving for now) – but his very suggestion normalizes this type of action and makes it seem less extreme the next time someone suggests it. And I don’t like it.
Why?
Aside from this being a terrible insult to Canadian artists (the ‘soft’ or ‘condescending’ type or ‘snobby prejudice’ – “they are so pathetic, without MY help here to eliminate all their competition, they could never make it on THEIR merits…..because they have NONE!”), he also made a call to heavily fund these ‘artists’. Let’s follow the chain of consequnces here. Step by step…
Government subsidizes (pays for) ‘Canadian art’
The government, of course, has to be ‘accountable’ for this spending, and so must select what bits of ‘Canadian art’ are actually worthy of being paid for
Government forces the privately owned TV networks to show nothing but the ‘Canadian arts content’ during prime time TV viewing hours
In order to be eligible for this ‘Canadian content’ (and thus eligible to be broadcast during these crucial-for-survival time slots), the ‘Canadian art’ will have to be certified as such by the government’s very own agency, CRTC
In effect, the government pays for the ‘Canadian art’ it first approves, then forces the TV networks to only show the bits it approves of the most. Thus, the government has 100% control over what we get to watch! (During prime time only, of course…)
HOW could any artist in Canada stand for this type of subjugation?
This turns every artists who would qualify for the label ‘Canadian content’ to be, in effect, a civil servant! We have seen in the past Canadian hockey teams, starring Canadian athletes, in a Canadian sports league, be refused (by CRTC) the label ‘Canadian content’ on the grounds that ‘sports’ did not qualify (perhaps because people like to watch sports….and it is hard to slip in ‘approved social messaging’ into a hockey game ‘dialogue’…)
The only ‘art’ we would be allowed to watch would be produced by ‘de facto’ civil servants!
And we have seen what has happened to our doctors, when THEY were turned into ‘de facto’ civil servants: the government, through various means, attempts to deny them even the freedom to act according to their conscience! Frankly, I don’t think the government is wrong to demand that its employees/contractors provide all the services the government pays them to – the problem is that doctors should never have been made into government employees/contractors in the first place.
There are several types of blogs. Some, much like ‘old-style newspaper’ editorials, present views and thoughts. Others, much like ‘old-style newspapers’ themselves, bring you a collection of posts from other places by giving a little intro with a link. There are other types of blogs, but this combination is usually quite effective in spreading news and ideas through the blogosphere.
I like to think of the two types I described above as ‘articles’ and ‘newspapers’ – in the old fashioned ‘way’. (In my own mind, I call the blogs who specialize in providing links to interesting places ‘blinks’ – ‘blogs+links’.) And people learn which is which, and come to these sites with specific expectations.
Usually, I leave the ‘blinking’ to others much better at it than I….but when I came across this at Dime-a-Dozen, I didn’t quite know what to think…..
Robert writes:
Some random photos found on Flickr from a protest in 2006 – recognize the woman at the top? Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party. This is from the notorious anti-Israel/pro-Hezbollah rally in Toronto during the Lebanon War. Scroll below to see why that rally was notorious.
This appearance of hers likely slipped under the radar as no one knew who she was back then. We know who she is now, so doesn’t she have some explaining to do?
The sign reads: ‘Down with Zionism, USA, UK’
The fellow in the turban is Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah. The flag of Hezbollah is obscured by the kid with the keffiyah headband.
The t-shirts read “Hezbollah”
I still don’t know what to think: Elisabeth May, the leader of a ‘national party’ in Canada – and who had gained herself a spot at the ‘nationla leaders’ debate’ as such – featured speaking at a pro-Hezbollah rally???
By the way – did you know that green is the sacred colour of Islam? Talk about a ‘hidden agenda’….
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 