The “Alberta Human Rights Act” in Canada has enshrined multiculturalism as government policy. Their policy of discrimination covers any representation of discrimination which:
Section 3 (1):
a)Indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or class of persons.
b)is likely to expose a person to hatred and contempt.”.
The language alludes broadly to “a” “class of persons” but it dodges the most important questions: Why are some forms of classification legitimate and others illegitimate and why is their application legitimate in some circumstances and not others.
Contradicting itself, the bill goes on: “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with free expression of opinion on any subject.”(1) The legislation seems to suggests freedom consists only of acceptable behavior. With this underlying supposition, it’s not hard to see how they would slip into the apparent position that prejudiced opinions are not opinions at all.
The document repeatedly lists specific protected group, but never modified the suggestion any “class of persons” might not also fall under it’s purview:
“Race, color, ancestry, place of origin,religious belief, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation.”*
The parochial bigot can be opinionated – the degree to which he is opinionated that causes offence. According to the law, if it is his opinion there is no violation of the act. Yet at the same time, saying anything about “group membership” or using inferences based on such information is illegal. One can express themselves freely – only if such expression involves neither action nor speech.
We can anticipate to some extent, for instance, the results of adopting such approaches we saw in Europe. As Europe sought to avoid provocation with a silent media and aloof government, the result was the opposite: The threshold of provocation fell for Muslims, any excuse serving as legitimating acts of violence.
The legislation seems to speak not so much to harm but the legitimacy of the intention . It’s not at all clear that a criterion like membership at a golf club would be considered discrimination – even though there is no logical reason it not be enshrined. (Have you ever met sports fans? I thought religion was protected…)
A friend was to read his poetry at show of local artists hawking their esoteric wares.. It came to someone’s attention that he had written in defence of the free speech of an unpopular individual.. The Canadian indoctrination kicks in, a Social Justice crusade is speedily mobilizing the Dead Poet Busters. In this event they hotly insisted the bookstore owner ban the unfortunate poet. The store owner caved, and the poet was legally silenced.
Anti-discrimination laws are profoundly immoral, and I deny the legitimacy of these laws. They imply perversion, do evil and portend tyranny.
By construction, our minds rely upon landmarks, reminders, correctives. Many such functions are embodied in authority. So much so that we must sometimes be reminded that it evolved as an adjunct to underlying regularities, not their source. Established authority is not the sole source by which we orient ourselves. The phrase “free thought” introduces the subversive idea that it should not be so.
In this free thought blog, there is an interesting discussion on the controversy related to Google’s political culture.
I was lambasted for incoherence by some populist. I suppose there is nothing more shameful than ambiguity.
(until it’s time to undress, yes?)
As my shame worn out by overuse…. I will make an eminent son of nameless misattribution:
It is the spirit in which the song is written that imports, and not the topics. praises wine, roses, maidens, boys, birds, mornings, and music, to give vent to his immense hilarity and sympathy with every form of beauty and joy; and lays the emphasis on these to mark his scorn of sanctimony and base prudence. These are the natural topics and language of his wit and perception. But it is the play of wit and the joy of song that he loves; and if you mistake him for a low rioter, he turns short on you with verses which express the poverty of sensual joys, and to ejaculate with equal fire the most unpalatable affirmations of heroic sentiment and contempt for the world. Sometimes it is a glance from the height of thought, as thus:—“Bring wine; for, in the audience-hall of the soul’s independence, what is sentinel or Sultan? what is the wise man or the intoxicated?” And sometimes his feast, feasters, and world are only one pebble more in the eternal vortex and revolution of Fate:—
“I am; what I am
My dust will be again.”
“I don’t think we need to be in any hurry to hand over even more power to them… you should probably think a little harder about the costs you’re actually willing to pay for that.”
Free speech and the open exchange of ideas is built on a cultural substrate. You are right to be skeptical of the assumption that there is some immutable proviso that uniquely determines it. What is the extent to which free speech is useful and to whom? In what sense, for whom will it exist?
An apt analogy is the absolute Monarch of the Commonwealth. Any other agency claiming complete authority is illegitimate – since our acknowledged seat of complete political authority has ostentatiously little hold on our daily affiars. You could change circumstances so the law could persist while effective depotism reigned. This is uncannily like what has happened to tolerance.
I found these essays quite interesting in the context: https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
J.S. Mill: “…unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them.”
J. Haidt: “If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you.”
The human brain is rather limited in respect to the activity in which it evolves. Illusory completeness and coherence is a persistent feature of our experience. Our culture, our brains, our culture is filled with reminders that we forget what we knew. In effect, the operations we call consciousness extent into artefacts of prior events. Incongruity among representations is never fully reconciled.
From Google’s VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance [Pretty telling job title], “whether one can speak freely of these things at Google”
( like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender… it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages)”
I presume gender something to do with reproduction. And as we have ever reason to expect some neutral evolution and conflict is absolutely ruthless. And efforts to be honest met with outsized readiness to sieze upon one sees as defects. (Does romance anything to do with gender anymore? I honestly don’t know what the eternal doctrine is this week.)
It’s a psychologically predictable outcome that hostilities suprise us with the force of their own inertia once locked into the encounter. It’s like hurtling along in a car, one happy little family, until the driver belatedly discovers their trajectory is not the only one on the road. By then there’s no avoiding the purges and counter-purges.
Look at it from my eyes. A stupid person. I try to be nice, give the consideration people deserve, but I can’t be expected to understand every nicety. The best intentions occasionally stumble into a deadly ambush. Little misunderstandings https://soundcloud.com/rahma-ben-abdesslem/nina-simone-dont-let-me-be and faux pas have many times been the beginning of a bit of a romance. (Apparently the Lyrics were written by Horace Ott while he and wife-to-be had a falling out.)
Various purported objectives act in tension, even stark intractable opposition within even the “agency” operating in a single man. (The malevolent metonym strikes again!) Which ones benign and which malignant?
“Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds”. As our minds acquire resourcefulness, why would we fail to expect the resourcefulness of delusion? Haven’t you observed it around you? If you have removed it, you’re fooled. You just caught it leading you around by the nose.
When I was younger (is that ageism, I’m sorry, I just can’t keep up) I had observed the propagation of confusion in groups of students, which confusion annealed into decision. The effective memory of the principles guiding the crowd’s agitation appeared we not only unconscious in acting independently of notice, but also as being very transiatory, unreliably anticipated and unreliably remembered. The principle that was agreed as the animating force of it’s authority varied, but the pattern stereotyped.
So I will not expect that everything I say is relatable in the same way among different people. And you know what, we make those allowances in the context in our daily life. Much of it is handled by convention, by shared habits or turns of phrase.
As people discuss the esoteric secret, all I have really gleaned is that it is a basic human right for others to behave “correctly”. I am damned whoever specifies that requirement. Our Hell includes other people, and it is such who’d bring hell to me..
Opinions we agree with, find insightful lend a measure of social cachet. We are also more readily to make allowances when tied otherwise by bonds of affection. This is a lovely little process that can be inverted diabolically. The rate of exchange between reputation and candor is a multiuse instrument. What to one might be unobjectable error, to another seem a mean spirited defence of wickedness and bigotry.
I find it easier easier to get along than to go along to get along – because there are more degrees of freedom. In the latter case, it is for the most part not a decision on epistemological merits.
Parameters of correctness is patterned on their explanatory adequacy, (I see you scholars citing learned papers, far above my head and) it’s hard to overlook transparently mean spirit of controversy. The rules have been changed too fast to predend it’s aherence to pre-set principle. It is social reflex, it has happened before and it will happen again.
The standard of evidence is rather labile, however rigorous the scholarship. (it’s purported source or validation). In these conditions, by objective oriented calculation overcome impediments by forgoing certain calculations. The smug outrage, the name calling, the predictable lines of contention formed precisely because they are predictable not because they accurately delineate what is at stake.
Citizens and subjects of google recoil in fabricated horror at the indecency of a person who complains of intolerance (Awesome, a day off). The extent hypocrisy is loathsome I attribute to it’s noble designs. Hypocrisy is a badge of nobility.
- Nobility, that brings us to authority.
Authority can do many things for us. It offers many things. It can provide reference points, reminders, stores of information and guidance for our priorities. Reference authority may serve the part by over-stating it’s role. It becomes a force of agency, acting in the capacity of the stork given to frogs who wished for a king.
Bigotry and reliance on an authority or convention is necessary and useful. Fear’s usefulness as an indicator can be rendered ancillary for a time, but the authority of fear is indubitable.
The usefulness of being open to ideas is associated with proclivity to malignancy. Will google degenerate into a pitiless mire of sexism due to patriarchal misgendering? No, here the resistance is far worse than the disease.
James Damore’s critics are really widely attributing character traits which bear little resemblance to the man or his memo.
Apparently your opinions indicate who you’d rather see fired. That he was so frank helped make this more obvious. That’s a great merit of free speech, no matter who subsequently gets voted off the island.
a review in process…. [PS 2018 dec, It’s produced to malign him by ‘monsterizing’ every dark hint of his faculty of war. Remember Breitbart: #War]
It says Alex Jones has millions of people listening to his word as gospel. You know what? I don’t think it’s as revelatory as the Gospel, but along with the credulous, it has attracted great minds. It was a node for the proliferation and formation of other aggregation sites. It was around the Trump phenomenon I encountered the crudely named but “uncucked news aggregation”. It is a filter, but actually posts direct links from the various website posts. Make of it what you will, but The Occidental Observer is a critical link to the sort of publications which will shed light on “The Art of Bigotry” as will the use of the art and peudo-“science metrics” of judgement and morality.
July 12 2017 2:50 am
“Calgarians invited Bill, so why didn’t the border service let him in? Who’s he going to harm? No one. He disagrees with dogmas that make people run for their adult coloring books. If he blew up US soliders instead of being a cop, Canada would welcome him in with 10 million dollars.
Oh we’re going after the cheerleaders bro, don’t you worry about muslims. Muslims I can deal with. Islamophiles are degraded.
These people don’t give a hot egg about Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Earth – my home. And for all the good intentions, Islam is designed to be to be malignent in situations very much like our conditions. Making concessions, subsidising them, giving their ideas breathing space. We’re literally creating the problem we’re pretending we’re overcoming by paying it away. Calgary Muslim associations have excreted a number of men who joined ISIS fighters to Syria.
The truth hurts. Only in that sense will he be hurtful. The rest in annoyance. “Canada is a land united, nobody is annoying” says our annoying prime minister..
“Canada’s Border” a regulatory “pore” that is already letting in a steady stream of haphazardly criteria’d immigrants. The taxonomies by which people are judged are inherently incoherent. They disregard lightly bonds of kinship, they suppose religion doesn’t matter, or is just a bit of color and ritual. I’m not going to let the organization that virtually serving as real estate agent for the caliphate decide who I choose to make my guest. That’s not longer theirs to decide.
The border guards reading text files – It all reeks of a pretext, because these people have never grappled with the magnitude of the problem they’re merrily inviting in. I don’t lie to you, it is like a zoo where all the other animals look at each-other separate by glass and parallel lives. Do I think Nenshi (the Muslim Mayor of our city) was involved? On the background, not particularly likely, and there’s no evidence of it. In connection to the Mosque with a fecundity for ISIS fighters, he did give a video-taped message to the big “One Ummah” organized by international muslim groups. A Ted talk for the greater Jihad more or less.
Though I liked the fake bacon served at the Muslim Stampede breakfast here in town, I’d even do without the ethnic food, but now that we’ve got the recipe… I don’t believe hate laws are laws. It’s like passing a law that it is always the day time. You can only generate lies to mask it. It’s time to end this game of bad cop, didnt do nuffin cop. On this officer Wild Bill is bang on.
We know for a fact that Islamic inflammation has already created dire fanatics within our cities. These people are not meeting an evangelical an getting into a debate then thinking “By Allah! I need to go to butcher civilians in Syria.””
Addendum: The simplicity and calmness and subtlety with which the transformation of war proceeds is because This is what we do. Our cortisol increases eventually, but in the lull the drop in pressure then breeze of the displaced wind of the stormfront, We overestimated our own resistance to war. I tell you, we overestimated the cost of failing to the appropriate precautions for peace. The time is not too late, but the moral and strategic mistakes that we’ve made still haunt our civilization. Sometimes delayed is best. And that is our fond desire. But sometimes we must do what we do not like. I can’t wait until we want to go to war 4, we must distangle our quandary while the peace still stands. (Notice that last sentence invited misquoting in the first part of it. But then again, war is the father of us all.)
Such meetings as garner support for feeding arms to middle eastern combatants also occur among the neocon acolytes. But above all, it becomes embedded, distilling in the ordinary conduct of life. I say to you, the cold resolution is forged in the evening by the fire of the setting sun and in the dreams that shake you wide open, has risen starkly from your slumber while you yet slept.
A calmly delivered sermon can similarly buttress and catalyze armed camps of the IS. There is a first strike problem here for the West, less swift to mobilize because of internal resistances and divisions. Who knows what will happen do us. But I have been catylized
– 2018-12-24 00:25 am