While I vehemently oppose such silly laws I wonder where the rest of you land. It seems to me silly to punish people for having ‘hateful’ thoughts. Whatever the hell that means. I’m sure the extant legal implementation such laws finds very little support amongst most of you but in principle would you support such laws?

I ask because some Canadian Muslims are throwing a tantrum because a pundit wrote several opinion pieces in a conservative magazine that hurt their feelings. As a result they used the Canadian Human Rights commission to force this magazine to publish their counter arguments. The human rights commission determined it could not do so because it’s not in its jurisdiction. Effectively these Muslims were trying to use the state to force a private company to do what they wanted, in this case publish their own counter editorials. Only because of jurisdiction did the state aperture fail in taking away a private company’s right to publish what it sees fit and force one set of beliefs over another set of beliefs.

No doubt the human rights commission was brought into existence to ‘protect’ minorities from hateful speech. But in my mind, such efforts are blatant attempts at censorship. One should be able to express hate towards any person or group of people. Such speech is obviously vile and unappealing but I accept that necessary noise for a free and functioning democracy. Some on the left have forgotten this basic law and as consequent attempt to criminalize some kinds of thoughts and ideas. Which oddly, is something up to just the last twenty or so years was the work of conservatives.

Someone explain to me why this is not a reasonable extension of the multiculturalism argument.

For five days now, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been chorusing: how do you solve a problem like Sharia? Ever since he suggested it is “unavoidable” – and desirable – for Britain to have Islamic courts ruling on Muslim family affairs, bashing the bishop has become a national sport. But this row shouldn’t be just about the pitiful contortions of the head of a dying Church. Rowan Williams has shown us why the doctrine of multiculturalism needs to abandoned.

If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of “cultures” that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools.

Several years ago me and a fellow coworker got into an argument about the implications homosexuality being determined biologically. Eventually a fellow coworker asked us to stop discussing because the content was making her uncomfortable. We complied immediately and went back to work.

A recent ruling at the federal level has decided that this woman could sue not just Duke but also me for creating a hostile work environment. The Volokh Conspiracy has the details:

Last week, the federal district judge in this case (Doe v. City of New York & Bruce Tefft) held that plaintiff’s case may go forward — that, if the facts are as the plaintiff alleges them to be, Tefft can be financially liable based on the anti-Islam/anti-Muslim/anti-Arab speech. Such speech could be, under the relevant legal standard, be “severe or pervasive” enough to create a “hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment” based on religion and ethnicity for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person. And the damages in such cases could easily go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

This, I think, well illustrates what I’ve been arguing for 15 years: In many (though certainly not all) contexts, hostile environment harassment law violates the First Amendment. Here a court is saying that speech can lead to massive liability because of the viewpoint that it expresses, and the offensive environment that the viewpoint causes. The speech doesn’t fit within any exception to First Amendment protection — for instance, it’s not “fighting words” (a narrow exception that’s limited to one-to-one speech likely to cause a fight, and that generally excludes political advocacy conveyed to a broad group of listeners), nor is it incitement to lawless action. The government isn’t just acting as employer to restrict speech by its employees (an area in which it has a freer hand); the court is enforcing a law created by the government acting as sovereign, a law that equally applies to private employers.

One of the reasons why I point this out is because me and Darwin have had countless arguments in this room and I’m sure some of the people were offended by the things we said. According to this new ruling, those people now have a legal avenue in which they could sue us for expressing our opinion to each other in a work place environment.

This is particularly ironic because many of me and Darwin’s discussion focused on whether the state should give additional rights to minorities because of their ‘status’. Obviously Darwin argued that minorities should be granted extra-constitutional rights. Well it seems in part the federal judge’s rationale for allowing people to sue those that create a hostile work environment was to protect minorities from being harassed by fellow coworkers. So in a roundabout way Darwin can now be sued for arguing in favor of granting extra-constitutional rights to minorities provide those minorities find that kind argumentation a harmful work environment.

Good work Darwin. Dismantling the first amendment one extra-constitutional minority right at a time.

Over at NRO Mark Steyn notes:

Gee, whiz. That’s a toughie. Wonder what the reason could be. But don’t worry, the University of Amsterdam is on top of things:

Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity.

Bingo! Telling young Moroccan men they’re closeted gays seems certain to lessen tensions in the city! While you’re at it, a lot of those Turks seem a bit light on their loafers, don’t you think?

The social stigma explanation has got to be one of the lamest explanations ever. Its the same explanation that has been used for minority failure in this country. African American’s do poorly because the ’system’ is against them. Woman do worse because the ’system’ is against them. Talk about a snooze-o-rama in explanation. A dog could offer more useful insight.

This is in reference to the laughable discrimination suit brought by the Imams that were kicked off a plane after acting suspicious.

According to a police report, the men were arrested because three had one-way tickets and no checked baggage; most had requested seat belt extensions; a passenger reported that they had prayed “very loudly” before the flight and criticized U.S. involvement with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and they were seated widely throughout the aircraft.

Montgomery said it is “dubious” that a reasonable person would conclude from those facts that the imams were about to interfere with the crew or aircraft. She said the plaintiffs had stated a plausible claim that MAC officers violated their constitutional rights.

One can’t help think before she got her law degree Judge Montgomery did stand up comedy.

LOL. Dubious. LOL

I wonder if she meant it. If she did its even funnier.

This poster is responding to a group of faculty members at Columbia denouncing the university’s administration decision on a sundry of issues. One of the issues was the way the President of Columbia strongly denounced the so-called President of Iran.

My question: Say that a Columbia department sponsored a forum, to which it invited a virulently homophobic, ethnically bigoted political leader — who was also big on using the power of government to suppress dissent — on the quite plausible theory that he’s an important leader and it’s valuable for Columbia students to learn such people. Imagine someone like David Duke, perhaps, only ideologically worse and more powerful. And say a University official forcefully but substantively criticized this leader’s speech at this forum, while of course allowing the leader to talk.

Do you think these Columbia faculty would or should condemn the University official’s behavior? Oh, wait, that’s exactly what happened here, except the person wasn’t named David Duke.

More on Columbia from a different poster.

Five students drinking Gatorade and water for a week are apparently all it takes to bring a major university to its knees. Columbia has had more than its share of lunatic events this year - the noose, the cancellation of the Minuteman speakers for the second time, inviting and then abusing the Iranian madman, and last week another controversy over a biased comment someone had scrawled into a library book. But the collapse of the university in the face of five student hunger strikers - the number was reduced to two students before the university folded - makes all the previous lunacies seem sane.

The strikers got most of their scattershot agenda. New faculty will now have to endure diversity indoctrination as part of their hiring. Columbia’s core curriculum, much too “Eurocentric” for the strikers, will now feature more more required courses on Asia, Africa, and Latin America. More money and staff will be added for ethnic studies. The Office of Multicultural Affairs will be expanded and another high-ranking diversicrat will be named to the administration. The collapse will cost Columbia at least $50 million.

Go multiculturalism. May you ruin everything.

In Japan one of the stars from the colossally slow and boring TV show Heroes went to Japan to get in the way of fisherman hunting dolphins. If you ask me some of those fisherman should had over to Hollywood and get in the way of the production of the next season of Heroes.

I guess on the bright side she is not a multiculturalist. Although, given that she is a big time actress she probably doesn’t realize the contradiction between respecting other cultures and getting in the way of culture hunting dolphins.

While surfing the web, I came across the film The Birth of A Nation. Shot in 1919, although it was a racist interpretation of America’s history it’s noteworthy as the first film to cinematic techniques like pan shots and jump shots. Its technical achievement has landed it in the annals of cinematic history as a film of great importance. For this reason, in 1992 the Library of Congress deemed it important enough to be placed in the National Film Registry.

This got me thinking about the previous discussion that broke out a month or so about President Ahmadinejad. There I took up the position that Columbia showed a lack of good judgment by allowing him to speak. This got me thinking.

Would the Library of Congress have demonstrated good judgment in refusing to add The Birth of a Nation to the National Film Registry?

Provided that this film represents a major technical achievement for cinema then it seems the good judgment lands on the side of adding it even with its deplorable racial content. As I thought about this further I realized my justification for over looking the blatant racism was rooted in the fact that the film had other merits. This got me thinking about the merits of Columbian inviting president Ahmadinejad.

The obvious merit, and the one most likely espoused by those that supported allowing Ahmadinejad speak is that it presents an opportunity to hear what he has to say. This can only be compelling if Ahmadinejad was to be candid and honest. Otherwise it’s simply a repetition of his anti American rhetoric softened up for consideration of his audience. Such talk is without merit. In such a case good judgment is not letting him speak.

Had Ahmadinejad taken the opportunity to denounce the Mullahs, or advocate for democracy in his country, I would’ve gladly seen merit in letting him speak. It would be good judgment to let an authoritative figure from the Middle East denounce the elements we deplore, and that sullies his culture.

As it was, he failed to embrace the values that make our culture superior and took the opportunity to claim homosexuals do not exist in Iran. And some of you actually disputed the notion that it’s good judgment to not let him speak. Good Grief.

Jamie notes in a previous post:

1.) How is it that you “proudly” say that you believe some cultures are inferior to others, and yet when I say that that is racism and biggotry you cry like a school kid? Why? Is that belief not racism? Isn’t that the essence of racism? Why the tears?

Arguing one culture is superior to another culture is not racism. The only way this could be considered racism is if I was using ‘culture’ as a substitute for ‘race’. I’m not. I have cleverly chosen the term ‘culture’ to convey the meaning culture and not race. Had I wanted to convey the meaning of race I would have cleverly used the term ‘race’.

If you are still skeptical I encourage you to go to this post, the one in which you accused me of being a racist. Using the command function of your browser do a search for race or any derivation thereof and you will find the only time ‘race’ is found is in your comment. This is because I didn’t use the word ‘race’.

One quick stop at Dictionary.com and we find the definition of racism:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Please note that all three definitions make use of the term ‘race’. Since, under my guidance you already searched for ‘race’ in my passage and failed to find the word you would be wrong to conclude that I’m a racist based off that passage. For someone that speaks so highly of deferring to the data I find your stubbornness in asserting my racism surprising.

Given that you are an intelligent person capable of concluding ‘race’ was never used in my passage the most charitable interpretation for disregarding the evidence is that you believe culture is de facto race. This conceit paints you as the simpleton you wish to equate me with. For you see in your agitation with my passage you blurred the ‘nuance’ between culture and race. In point of fact, in attempting to show why my summary judgment is problematic your actions, in fact, exhibits precisely why summary judgment can be problematic. Now that’s irony.

At the time I realized that you were agitated with what I was writing, it is controversial after all, and figured with some cool reflection you would realize the absurdity of your claim and drop it. Since you persist in calling me a racist I must ask for either a cogent argument showing my racism or an apology. Failure to make a persuasive argument forces me to conclude that you do not defer to the evidence or that you are a simpleton incapable of distinguishing between race and culture. Of course an apology tells me that cooler winds have finally prevailed and you are willing to drop something that’s patently false.

Recenly Bettina emailed me to say:

I have been rereading and rereading your latest dialogue with your roomate, and at the end of all this, I came to the conclusion that one label was missing, the anti-humanist label.

Basically Bettina thinks I’m an anti-humanist. Given what I know of humanism I think this is fair to say. Intrigued by the notion of humanism I clicked to wikipedia to get a more solid foundation of Humanism. Turns out there are lots of different flavors so I’m not sure which kind of Humanist Bettina thinks I’m opposed to. One that I found of interest was the so-called new-Humanism which have a set of core beliefs only a naïve child could believe is true.

Solidarity – defined as treating other people the way one would like to be treated

It’s probably obvious to say so, but a painfully ill defined proposition. There are many ways to attack this silly proposition, but perhaps the most effective is to say that on some fundamental level it’s simply not possible to accomplish. Imagine a triad in which treating one person a certain way ends up violating the way in which someone else wishes to be treated. How does humanism suggest we resolve this problem.

I must also state that I absolutely hate defaulting to the other person determining how they should be treated. There are obvious examples, like the tyrant that would not wish to be stopped, but there are more prosaic examples. Imagine a prospective student wishing to get into graduate school. He has nothing to offer why should he be the one to determine how the scientist should treat him? Since the scientist has something to offer he should be the one to determine he treats the student. If those demands become to onerous for the student then they should drop out of that lab.

If someone is doing you a favor they determine how they treat you. If that treatment negates the gain of the favor then simply reject the favor. How is this hard? It doesn’t require this quasi-Christian silly proposition that everyone should be actively modeling how others are to be treated and constrain their behavior accordingly. How silly.

Coherence – defined as thinking, feeling and acting in the same way.

Apparently those that crafted the main tenets of Humanism were unaware of the fact that people and circumstances change. This only reflects their jejune worldview.

Placing the human being as the central value and concern, in such a way that nothing is above the human being and no human being is above another.

Again, more childish thinking. It depends on what you mean by no human being is above another, but I can think of many people that are more important than me. Many writers, artists, architect, priests, and scientists are much more important than me. Hell some concepts are more important than human beings. I would gladly sacrifice myself in instance where I felt my freedom was truly being compromised. In this way I would argue the value of freedom is more important than humans. Come to think of it, some people are worthy of sacrifice just to protect objects like rare artifacts. We call them soldiers and they defend our culture.

Affirming the equality of all human beings.

Such a foolish canard that is demonstrably false.

Recognizing personal and cultural diversity, affirming the characteristics proper to each human group and condemning discrimination, whether motivated by economic, racial, ethnic, or cultural differences.

Again the problem here is that its just painfully naïve. Sure there are instances where respecting other cultures is warranted particularly in cases that don’t matter. But when cultures do things that do matter to your culture you must be willing to draw distinctions and classify according to good and bad. Cultures that are into oppressing woman and killing homosexual are bad. Cultures that are into “Recognizing personal and cultural diversity, affirming the characteristics proper to each human group and condemning discrimination, whether motivated by economic, racial, ethnic, or cultural differences are good.” Well at least according to some of you it is.

Developing knowledge beyond the limitations imposed by prejudices accepted as absolute and immutable truths.

This is pretty solid. Of course one must ask is there any reason not to treat these principles of Humanism as ‘absolute and immutable truths’? They sure are written that way. Of course that would mean this principle violates itself which in turn is a violation of the previous proposition ‘Coherence – defined as thinking, feeling and acting in the same way’. Seriously, only a child could genuinely believe this crap.

Affirming the freedom of ideas and beliefs.

Okay, I will stop caging that which has no corporeal form. Sounds good.

Repudiating violence in all its forms.

I will never repudiate violence committed against those I judge to be bad. Those that do, condemn themselves to a life of oppression and death. Again this proposition speaks to the utter juvenile nature of Humanism.

If humanism is to be defined this way, then I gladly, almost ecstatically, embrace anti-humanism. But then again most people become an anti-humanist by age 12.

If you ask me the problem with Humanism is that it took the argumentation for how the state should treat the citizens and applied it to a much larger scope. If you properly seat these propositions in the context of how the state should treat the citizenry I would agree with most of them. When we examine this more closely we see why humanism principles must be bound to the state. The state has a monopoly on coercion and these principles aim to insure that this force is not used in terrible ways by restraining that force.