Friday, February 01, 2008

Cherniak Weighs In

Also unfortunate. Jason appears to think that you can, and should, lock someone up for thinking Muslims are terrorists.

I hate to make slippery slope arguments, but you MUST be joking.

Edit: Jason Responds! Wasn't even sure he visited this darkened little corner.

Jason sez:

Not for thinking it! For communicating it in any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons is Muslim.

So you're allowed to think it.

You're just not allowed to SAY it, ever, even theoretically, because any utterance along those lines could be interpreted as "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons is Muslim".

Indeed, you've just nuked theological debate there. How is a Christian supposed to claim that "Jesus is the Way and the Light" (or whatever) without getting locked up for "exposing a person to contempt by reason of the fact that that person is [say] Buddhist"?

And what the hell is DAWKINS supposed to do? He's openly contemptuous of all religions and actively encourages others to be the same! It's not only possible that what he says is "likely to expose persons to contempt by reason of the fact that they're religious", that's what he's counting on! Is The God Delusion available on Canadian bookshelves or what?

(I mean, I knew customs agents blocking GBLT materials at the border for "obscenity" was one thing, albeit Warren-Approved, but I didn't think Richard Dawkins was Verboten!)

Yes, yes, I'm aware that the other sections (as far as I know) say that theological divisions or "matters of public interest that the accusers believe are true" are defenses under other sections of the law. But then you run into an even more serious problem, because almost every ridiculous anti-semitic accusation out there can be justified using that position. All that "they killed Jeebus!" nonsense is a matter of theology, and most of the other more conspiratorial accusations would be, as they would be serious issues in the public interest were they remotely true.

(They're not, naturally, being the products of cultural fear and fevered minds. But the question is BELIEF, and a fevered mind believes even more strongly for it.)

And if the "Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism" line? Again, nonsense, but were it true, it would be an issue of enormous public interest, just like the accusations that the Church of Scientology is a big ol' cult. Whether or not they're true is irrelevant... if they are believed to be true, and would be in the public interest WERE they true, then they're defensible, right?

Sorry, Jason, you don't get it both ways. Either the worst kind of vile anti-semitic nonsense is legal, and the hate laws (at least in regards to speech) are utterly irrelevant for almost anything involving faith. The stuff in the law about allowing people spaces and times to pray would still be fine, but that isn't what's up for debate here. What's up for debate is whether or not Richard Dawkins should be arrested were he to step foot in Canada, and whether there's a good enough reason.

So far, I haven't heard one.

(Edit. But then, there ISN'T a debate, is there? Certainly whatzisname isn't interested in one. He's too busy agreeing with Jonah Goldburg about being Socrates!

(Yep, that's right!

The same game of tarring by association that he's playing to try to "win" is also supporting the claims of a guy who calls him, personally, a liberal fascist! In ways that will, no doubt, be used to try to keep the White House for the Republicans this year, and ways in which dangerously minimize the impact and effect of North American fascist groups!

I know that he's perfectly happy having a reactionary conservative in 24 Sussex, but I thought he actually WANTED a Democrat in the White House. Welp, I guess not. He's too busy playing his little games, while the real anti-fascists do their real anti-fascist work, beating down that class of asshole that try to make the word meaningless.

Then again, he probably doesn't even know who Jonah Goldburg is. After all, if he knew anything about movement conservatives, he wouldn't be buddying up with their bestest friend in Canada, now, would he?)

No comments:

Post a Comment