Soapbox: hate-speech
27 Apr 2006 07:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kangeikoIt's a whole hour and a half before House, M.D., and while I have to have some dinner eventually, this has been bugging me for a significant length of time so I'm gonna say what I think about it, appearances be damned. (Yeah, that means no lj cut.)
A lot of you guys have been talking about free speech, and where it stands in relation to hate-speech. I'm talking about racist remarks, homophobic remarks, all of that, versus free speech. Many people have made some damn fine points about how homophobes and racists have used the cover of free speech to protect their hate-mongering, and that there should be laws against it. I'm going to argue the opposite.
I'm a member of a minority, albeit not a particularly oppressed one. I don't feel particularly oppressed, at any rate, but this could be because my friends and immediate surroundings are generally bi-friendly, female-friendly and foreigner-friendly. I have never been the victim of a hate crime, although I have been the victim of sexual assaults. I guess that puts me above average on the scale of oppression, so I want you to bear in mind that I have a very specific background when I argue this, and I'm not expecting everyone - or anyone, in fact - to agree with me.
I don't agree with passing 'speech' laws. I find the mere idea terrifying. There is a debate raging in Britain about the hate-speech legislation that Parliament is attempting to push through and I come down firmly on the side that thinks that passing such a law is immensely counter-productive to protecting the civil liberties of the people it is supposed to protect. One of the first groups that would run afoul of this bill would be cartoonists and comics, who make their bread from religious and political parody and ridicule. Case in point - the Danish cartoons. This bill would prevent those cartoons from ever being published. many would argue that this is a good thing, that it enforces a culture of respect. I don't believe that this is true: respect, when enforced at the point of a gun, is hypocrisy. It is npthing more than a papering over of old grudges, until there is a violent eruption.
This is not to say that I find hate-speech of any kind acceptable. I actively support the work of Amnesty International and Liberty and other human rights groups determined to protect the rights of those people who have had them taken away. It is the job of governments and the international community at large to intervene when a country's government or other state apparatus is being used to systematically strip away its citizens' rights; it is not the job of governments to restore civility alongside order. You cannot promulgate racial harmony by gagging people, and it will have more virulent effects the longer this bottle-neck goes ignored. By banning the BNF from speaking in an area where they have a lot of support, for instance, you will simply increase their support base, by raising people's hackles. Funnel, instead, more government funds into infrastructure and stimulating the local economy, and set in motion more culturally sensitive integration schemes, and the support will melt away. People don't become filled with irrational hate if they are happy and content. They begin looking for a scapegoat when their lives suck and they have no one else to blame. You won't find race riots in Chelsea, but in Bradford; not in Surrey, but in Brixton.
(I want to stress again that I am talking about hate-speech, rather than hate-crimes, which are an entirely different topic. Please don't take this as a manifesto that the best way to lower hate-crime is to boost the local economy - although, truth be told, it wouldn't hurt.)
So. To recap:
1. The mere concept of hate-speech makes me physically upset. I believe, however, that passing laws regulating what is and isn't acceptable speech is not the way to tackle the problem.
2. Indeed, passing these laws:
a) exacerbates racial tensions, as it prevents verbal releases of grievences and can provide the impetus to violence, and
b) restricts legitimate self-expression.
3. Instead, the govt should stop chasing what would be a cosmetic 'fix' and focus on developing a long-term solution. Long-term solutions to racial tensions can only be achieved with more investment in deprived areas, the stimulation of the local economies to provide jobs, and a more approachable police force so that any harrassment and violence is dealt with effectively. More more channeled into victim support and offender rehabilitation programmes also wouldn't go amiss.
In short, I believe that it is the duty of the local communities - including local councils and other bodies - to help manage any tensions that might arise in an area. Central government should not be involved, as a 'one size fits all' policy (or, worse, law) will simply make things worse.
And - yes, this is a discussion post. Please feel free to voice your opinions on this matter, even if you disagree with me - actually, especially if you disagree with me. I'd love to hear what other people think on this, and what your experiences of this have been. And let's keep it nice and polite, eh, guys?
(And, also here's an interesting article with many useful links: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hatespuk.htm .)
A lot of you guys have been talking about free speech, and where it stands in relation to hate-speech. I'm talking about racist remarks, homophobic remarks, all of that, versus free speech. Many people have made some damn fine points about how homophobes and racists have used the cover of free speech to protect their hate-mongering, and that there should be laws against it. I'm going to argue the opposite.
I'm a member of a minority, albeit not a particularly oppressed one. I don't feel particularly oppressed, at any rate, but this could be because my friends and immediate surroundings are generally bi-friendly, female-friendly and foreigner-friendly. I have never been the victim of a hate crime, although I have been the victim of sexual assaults. I guess that puts me above average on the scale of oppression, so I want you to bear in mind that I have a very specific background when I argue this, and I'm not expecting everyone - or anyone, in fact - to agree with me.
I don't agree with passing 'speech' laws. I find the mere idea terrifying. There is a debate raging in Britain about the hate-speech legislation that Parliament is attempting to push through and I come down firmly on the side that thinks that passing such a law is immensely counter-productive to protecting the civil liberties of the people it is supposed to protect. One of the first groups that would run afoul of this bill would be cartoonists and comics, who make their bread from religious and political parody and ridicule. Case in point - the Danish cartoons. This bill would prevent those cartoons from ever being published. many would argue that this is a good thing, that it enforces a culture of respect. I don't believe that this is true: respect, when enforced at the point of a gun, is hypocrisy. It is npthing more than a papering over of old grudges, until there is a violent eruption.
This is not to say that I find hate-speech of any kind acceptable. I actively support the work of Amnesty International and Liberty and other human rights groups determined to protect the rights of those people who have had them taken away. It is the job of governments and the international community at large to intervene when a country's government or other state apparatus is being used to systematically strip away its citizens' rights; it is not the job of governments to restore civility alongside order. You cannot promulgate racial harmony by gagging people, and it will have more virulent effects the longer this bottle-neck goes ignored. By banning the BNF from speaking in an area where they have a lot of support, for instance, you will simply increase their support base, by raising people's hackles. Funnel, instead, more government funds into infrastructure and stimulating the local economy, and set in motion more culturally sensitive integration schemes, and the support will melt away. People don't become filled with irrational hate if they are happy and content. They begin looking for a scapegoat when their lives suck and they have no one else to blame. You won't find race riots in Chelsea, but in Bradford; not in Surrey, but in Brixton.
(I want to stress again that I am talking about hate-speech, rather than hate-crimes, which are an entirely different topic. Please don't take this as a manifesto that the best way to lower hate-crime is to boost the local economy - although, truth be told, it wouldn't hurt.)
So. To recap:
1. The mere concept of hate-speech makes me physically upset. I believe, however, that passing laws regulating what is and isn't acceptable speech is not the way to tackle the problem.
2. Indeed, passing these laws:
a) exacerbates racial tensions, as it prevents verbal releases of grievences and can provide the impetus to violence, and
b) restricts legitimate self-expression.
3. Instead, the govt should stop chasing what would be a cosmetic 'fix' and focus on developing a long-term solution. Long-term solutions to racial tensions can only be achieved with more investment in deprived areas, the stimulation of the local economies to provide jobs, and a more approachable police force so that any harrassment and violence is dealt with effectively. More more channeled into victim support and offender rehabilitation programmes also wouldn't go amiss.
In short, I believe that it is the duty of the local communities - including local councils and other bodies - to help manage any tensions that might arise in an area. Central government should not be involved, as a 'one size fits all' policy (or, worse, law) will simply make things worse.
And - yes, this is a discussion post. Please feel free to voice your opinions on this matter, even if you disagree with me - actually, especially if you disagree with me. I'd love to hear what other people think on this, and what your experiences of this have been. And let's keep it nice and polite, eh, guys?
(And, also here's an interesting article with many useful links: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hatespuk.htm .)
