Frum on Gay Marriage in Canada
Society
| June 18, 2003
| Tim
David Frum from the NRO comments about the recent legalization of gay marriage in Canada. I bring this to your attention not because of the gay marriage issue per se, but rather because we are living in a time when "political correctness" can now employ the government's monopoly on force to criminalize "unpopular" speech.
To whit, quoting Frum (emphases his):
So today Chretien promises that his government will never compel churches, synagogues, and mosques to sanctify same-sex marriages. That would be more reassuring if1) the Ontario human rights commission had not ruled in 2000 that religious conviction was no defense against a charge of discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation;
2) a Saskatchewan court had not held in 2002 that a man could be punished under the province?s hate-crime statute for publishing a newspaper ad in which the only text were four verses from the Bible condemning homosexuality;
3) and a bill were not pending in the Canadian House of Commons write now to make anti-gay "propaganda" a criminal offense.
In Canada they're not debating whether homosexual couples have equal legal status with heterosexual couples. Instead, the issue is whether anyone should be allowed to speak an opposing view.
The prevailing answer seems to be "no".
Anti-Jew propaganda is illegal. Limiting freedom of speech was supported by the Supreme court, because criminilizing hate was deemed a "reasonable limit" in any Democratic society. Does Frum support legalizing it? After all one could argue that someone doesn't have to be Jewish. You can't tell by looking at someone, and if they wanted to they could convert. I bring this up because this is the absurd argument used all the time by those who oppose homosexuality. Espousing hate is not an opinion. Being pro-life or pro-choice is an opinion, and yes it is an equally volatile subject. But support on either side of this issue does not constitute the marginalization of an entire group of people. Preserving the right of all people to live in piece is more important that preserving the right of one person to spread hate. That is the difference. So I wonder again, would Frum want to legalize anti-Jew propaganda?
Anti-Jew propaganda is illegal.
What country are you talking about? Here in the U.S., as excerable as most of us would find the notion, tripe like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion still gets passed around or posted to web sites, legally. Also last I heard, nobody had arrested Louis Farrakahn for the antisemetic vitriol he spouts.
Perhaps you could provide a clearer definition of what you mean by this, and some documentation to support your view?
Limiting freedom of speech was supported by the Supreme court, because criminilizing hate was deemed a "reasonable limit" in any Democratic society.
I'm not also aware certain emotions had been criminalized. If so, why are frothing-at-the-mouth Bush-haters still wandering loose in society (and getting plenty of air time)? ;-)
Does Frum support legalizing it? After all one could argue that someone doesn't have to be Jewish. You can't tell by looking at someone, and if they wanted to they could convert. I bring this up because this is the absurd argument used all the time by those who oppose homosexuality. Espousing hate is not an opinion. Being pro-life or pro-choice is an opinion, and yes it is an equally volatile subject. But support on either side of this issue does not constitute the marginalization of an entire group of people.
Militant feminists would disagree with you, friend. Opposition to abortion is the marginalization of women, last I checked. So are traditional Jewish, Christian, and Muslim "patriarchal" family structures.
Preserving the right of all people to live in piece is more important that preserving the right of one person to spread hate. That is the difference. So I wonder again, would Frum want to legalize anti-Jew propaganda?
I'm aware of several specific rights enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. One is the right to speak freely, which, as you probably mean to allude, certainly does have limits. For example "fighting words" and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theather are not protected speech. But not the limits you imagine:
Hate speech -- in this country, principally racist and anti-Semitic speech -- has always been recognized as First Amendment-protected. There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech, so unless it fits into one of the other pigeonholes -- libel, obscenity, or fighting words -- it receives the same guarantees as any other speech.
Sixties liberals summed this ideal up by quoting Voltaire, to the effect of: "I disagree completely with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." The idea is that we must tolerate forms of speech and ideas which we find unseemly or disagreeable so that we ourselves can be guaranteed that own voices will not be silenced, should we someday find ourselves holding an unpopular opinion.
If you are a U.S. citizen, the I would admonish you to learn more about the country you live in, and it's actual laws, history, and ideals (e.g. the reasoning behind those laws). Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. Also, look to the examples of those like Oliver Cromwell, who were so zealous for one particular view that they persecuted all others. Examples like these are why our founding fathers did not criminalize the expression of views which they found personally reprehensible. Learn their lesson or repeat the tyrannies they sought to avoid.
If you not a U.S. citizen, then I welcome your contribution, and must simply admit I believe the freedom of speech we have here is a very, very wise idea -- even if it gives free speech to men like Farrahkhan. I will oppose him by trying to convince people my ideas are better (this is called "competition"), not by having him thrown in jail for saying something I think is wrong, nor by making his alleged thoughts and emotions towards Jews (hatred) a matter for state control.
Of course, many these days would prefer the thought police, but only as long as they got to decide who to toss into jail... the problem is, it never works out that way. Again, learn your history -- and from historians, not liberals.
Hey Tim
Yikes! didn't mean to make you angry, Friend. But, since the article lead-in for my response was about Canada, I assume we're talking about Canada. Here in Canada, we have freedom of speech, but the Supreme court has at times voted to "limit these freedoms" when "hate speak" is aimed at one or more groups specifically protected under the charter of personal rights and freedoms. ie. we are all protected from discrimination on the basis of age, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability. In the U.S., I'll admit I don't know if you have protection of personal rights and freedoms, but in Canada we do. And again, the above article is about Canada. So again, I was speaking only about Canada. Secondly, marginalization of women as a group would mean something that relegated women as a whole to a lower social standing. Since not all women are militant feminists than pro-life propaganda does not marginalize an entire group of people, it simply flies in the face of the opinions of militant feminists. Perhaps you don't understand the definition of marginaliation but, again we are talking about protecting the basic rights and freedoms of discriminated segments of our society (Militant feminists, don't qualify (IN CANADA)). Finally, based on the above response I don't think you'going to agree with the Canadian ideology that, freedom of speech is important but not when it supercedes the freedoms of a segment of it's people, so on this point I'm going to agree to disagree. Peace Friend.
Neither Canadian Members of Parliament nor present-day Canadian judges are the ultimate authority on the lawful definition of marriage in Canada.
The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« French Outrage du Jour |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Stupid Criminals »
|
Anti-Jew propaganda is illegal. Limiting freedom of speech was supported by the Supreme court, because criminilizing hate was deemed a "reasonable limit" in any Democratic society. Does Frum support legalizing it? After all one could argue that someone doesn't have to be Jewish. You can't tell by looking at someone, and if they wanted to they could convert. I bring this up because this is the absurd argument used all the time by those who oppose homosexuality. Espousing hate is not an opinion. Being pro-life or pro-choice is an opinion, and yes it is an equally volatile subject. But support on either side of this issue does not constitute the marginalization of an entire group of people. Preserving the right of all people to live in piece is more important that preserving the right of one person to spread hate. That is the difference. So I wonder again, would Frum want to legalize anti-Jew propaganda?
Posted by: Darrin Simmons on July 10, 2003 10:47 AM