The Shotgun Blog
« Lemieux: Garry Breitkreuz’s Bill C-301 | Main | Al & Mike Show - Episode 55 - Incoherence »
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Supporting freedom of expression is good policy - always
Dr. Dawg brings our attention to the incident at Carleton chronicled here. Students in a campus group -- Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) -- wanted to put up this poster:
I can't say I find the poster that offensive, but I do think it is stupid. Likely, I wouldn't agree with the members of SAIA about much of anything, except maybe that people getting killed is generally a bad thing. At the same time, we can all recognize that it's going to offend some people.
But if I were in charge, I'd still say, "Let them put up the stupid poster."
That's not what happened at Carleton. The administration informed SAIA that the "image could be seen to incite others to infringe rights protected in the Ontario human rights code" and prohibited them in no uncertain terms from putting the poster up anywhere on campus.
Yes, indeed. The administration called upon "human rights" to justify the suppression of speech.
The parallels between this incident and the one at the University of Calgary are hard to ignore. In that incident, students protesting abortion were forbidden from displaying signs that compared abortion to genocide. They were later charged with trespassing when they ignored the university's unjust policy and stood up for their freedoms anyway.
I think it's tacky to compare abortion to the Holocaust. I also think the whole concept of "Israeli apartheid week" is tacky. But that doesn't really matter. If you're pro-choice, you should stand behind the students at the University of Calgary, and if you're pro-Israel, you should stand behind the members of SAIA at Carleton.
Censorship should be opposed. And universities should be shining examples of the benefits that accrue from the unhampered, free exchange of ideas -- even bad ideas.
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 18, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Apart from being schmaltzy and grossly one-sided (Hamas targets Israeli civilians specifically and exclusively), the post is tactically inaccurate. The missile being fired at the figure in the foreground is an AGM-114 Hellfire, a powerful armour-piercing missile designed specifically for destroyed armoured vehicles. It would not be wasted on a human target. A rocket from one of the outboard cylindrical pods would be the thing to use, or a short burst from the 30-mm cannon. And that's assuming the pilot of an Apache helicopter would bother to engage a human target at all.
All activists have is their outrage. They don't know beans. And that goes double for students, who really ought to know better.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-18 8:29:10 PM
P.S. I would have allowed the poster. I'm always happy to let others make fools of themselves.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-18 8:30:04 PM
Shane,
Ha, well done about the missile. I'm sure the Hellfire looked more "dangerous" or something, but it was probably just ignorance.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-18 8:32:43 PM
Can someone start a group called Students Against Hamas Terrorism?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-18 8:41:42 PM
Shane- Are they heat-seeking, or lazer guided? It seems to be homing onto the target.
Posted by: dp | 2009-02-18 9:34:16 PM
dp, the first generation of Hellfire missiles (still in service) is laser-homing; they ride a laser beam to the target, which must be continuously illuminated by the beam until the missile hits. A more modern version uses a high-resolution, fire-and-forget radar seeker, but is carried only by the Longbow version of the Apache (and the Apache in the poster is not a Longbow). No version of the Hellfire is heat-seeking.
In all likelihood the radar version would be unable to find something as small as a human amid the surrounding ground clutter. The laser-homing version could do it (provided the pilot can hold the targeting laser that steady), but it would be like using a cannon to kill a fly in your kitchen.
In any case, it would be an extremely poor use of resources. The Hellfire is your quick-draw weapon against armoured vehicles that can swat you from the sky; you don't waste them on humans.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-18 10:26:17 PM
Terence - I agree, but you are too kind to Dawg.
I'll take him seriously when he defends the students at UC (to my knowledge he hasn't). And, don't forget, he supports section 13, which hardly makes him a consistent defender of free speech.
Posted by: Craig | 2009-02-18 11:36:56 PM
Great post, Terrence, but since my libertarian foundation is showing cracks, I have to ask some questions.
TW wrote: "I can't say I find the poster that offensive..."
Me neither. But let’s say that you had found the poster offensive -- would a ban be in order? I ask only because the authority to decide what is appropriate and what isn't must rest with someone or some group. It can rest with the property owner(s) (based on property rights), or it can rest with the public (democracy) or it can rest with you (dictatorship). Is this really only a matter of your tastes and preferences, or public tastes and preferences? Or should property owners make these judgements? (If the latter is the case, it still makes censorship on publicly-financed campuses a tricky matter, unless I’m missing something.)
TW wrote: "Censorship should be opposed."
It is not clear to me why censorship should be opposed. Don’t we all censor all the time...in our homes, in our businesses, on our blogs, etc? If property rights are not central to free speech and expression, on what grounds do we support free speech, or limit it?
I associate censorship with state restrictions on free speech and expression (Canada's human rights laws, for instance) -- but if we can not draw a distinction between state action and private action (and some self-described libertarians say we can’t, I understand), then deleting comments on the Western Standard blog amounts to censorship. Should this private censorship be opposed? That would make moderating and editing this website impossible. It would also prevent us from giving the Western Standard a voice, as that demands that we exclude people and perspectives.
TW wrote: "And universities should be shining examples of the benefits that accrue from the unhampered, free exchange of ideas -- even bad ideas."
Again, it is not obvious to me why a university should encourage the “unhampered, free exchange of ideas – even bad ideas” and how these bad ideas accrue benefits. Universities no longer offer courses in anthroposcopy and no one is seriously suggesting that we allow Nazi youth movements to organize on campus, for instances. We all believe in censorship, it would seem.
Again, free speech and expression, in my view, is only a corollary of property rights. (I borrowed that from Rand.) So it’s less a question about the unhampered exchange of ideas and more about who has the authority to censor ideas. In fact, applying the “unhampered exchange of ideas” philosophy without limitation would violate free speech and expression if it means private publishers (property owners) are forced to accommodate these ideas.
Curious in Calgary
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-02-19 1:07:06 AM
I know you directed these questions to someone else, Matthew, but as there has been no answer as yet, allow me to take a stab:
1. Whether the poster is offensive or not is irrelevant. Any nit can get offended. If the poster was obscene, you might, for public-decency concerns, have a case to reject it, but it isn't. Of course property owners may decide what gets displayed on their property, but universities are publicly-funded property.
2. It's a question of degrees. You have freedom of speech, but not to shout fire in a theatre (unless it's true). You have freedom of expression, but abuse leaves you open to libel. And most societies have public-morality guidelines that offer a rough guide as to what may or may not be displayed in the open.
3. I would support the right of neo-Nazis or the KKK to operate peacefully on campus. Freedom of expression is intended to protect unpopular ideas, not popular ones (which generally need no protection). If these groups attempted to organize intimidation or violence, however, that is a criminal act and punishable by law.
4. Private publishers are not required to accommodate anything. An author's freedom of expression does not extend to a right to strong-arm others into helping him do the expressing. Publishers may publish or reject as they see fit, for any reason they desire. If they do so for bad reasons, only their own reputation will ultimately suffer.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-19 7:40:48 AM
The poster should go up but there also needs to be a "Palestinian Nazism" week.
The links between the Palestinians and Nazis are a lot stronger than those between Israel and Apartheid.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2009-02-19 8:13:02 AM
And Dr. Dawg who hates to be called an antisemite is a fat hypocrite for insisting that demonization can only go one way.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2009-02-19 8:14:12 AM
And greenmamba is a skinny little liar for claiming that I have ever done any such thing.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2009-02-19 8:23:36 AM
Dawg you have a passion for pointing the finger when anyone is called an antisemite for "criticizing" Israel. It's an obsession with you and you find it wrong.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2009-02-19 8:29:24 AM
And your point is...?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2009-02-19 8:30:16 AM
Dawg: Calling you an antisemite for your views is no worse than linking Israel to Apartheid.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2009-02-19 8:43:57 AM
Never mind Desmond Tutu, then--what does he know?
Meanwhile,as I write this, the government of Israel is demolishing homes in the recognized Bedoouin village of Bir Hadaj. This little village, starved of land, is surrounded by Jewish ranchers who have obtained huge land grants.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2009-02-19 8:57:29 AM
Dawg: Citing Tutu cuts no ice with me. I even diminished my affection for Mandela when he suggested Bush and Blair were racist. Tutu is wrong on this. (Let’s use our own brains and stop quoting.)
It’s no good trying to draw me into an argument about whether Israel is or is not “Apartheid.” Obviously some of the tactics they use can be likened. Hitler used demonization against the Jews to unite Germany into a war machine. The Apartheid slur is being used to delegitimize Israel. (May I call you a Nazi?) The fact is Israel does not intend to be an Apartheid state as was South Africa but it does exist in an environment where Jews are persona non grata. Witness the actions of the Arab League in expelling Jews and the very “peace” negotiations are inherently about getting Jews out of “Palestinian” lands AND getting as many Arabs as possible into Israel.
I’m against the use of demonization and that’s the argument. It’s hypocritical of you to rail against being called an antisemite and keep up this Apartheid stuff.
(The “fat” referred to your hypocrisy – I should have used “richly hypocritical.” Thanks for calling me skinny though.)
Posted by: greenmamba | 2009-02-19 9:36:56 AM
And Hezbollah and Hamas continue to demolish homes with their rocket attacks. The problem with you, Dawg, is that your outrage is indeed one-sided. Like most "progressives," you blindly and instinctively support the underdog, no matter how vile he may be. What you really resent is success.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-19 9:37:31 AM
shane, in the three week conflict in gaza:
* 1300 palestinians killed (majority civilian, at least 800-900)
* 13 israeli killed (majority 10 out of 13 military)
yes, every death is tragic, but treating deaths equally means showing empathy to the clear victims in this case, the civilians, which whether you like it or not are all palestinians.
there have been 30 israeli deaths prior to the gaza offensive from qassams, during that same period 3000 palestinians were killed in gaza by tens of thousands of heat seeking missiles, laser guided munitions, tank shells, artillery rounds, DIME explosives, cluster bombs, etc.... (i.e. qassams aren't the only missiles/explosives flying in the region, israel has been doing its fair share as well)....
if you can justify a 100:1 ratio of deaths as legitimate self-defense, then well there's nothing to talk about...
Posted by: basmati | 2009-02-19 11:09:26 AM
It is funny that students can't wear IDF T-shirts on campus but for decades it is OK for other students to wear a Che Guevera T-shirt.
Posted by: Faramir | 2009-02-19 11:22:26 AM
basmati, your logic is akin to assigning blame after a car accident, to the least injured, without considering anything else.
BTW, were it important to the argument, your numbers and descriptions are highly contestable.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2009-02-19 11:44:03 AM
Basmati,
1. The number of deaths on each side is irrelevant. The Palestinians were the initial aggressors. They had an opportunity to extend a truce; instead, they chose to fire rockets. That they got the worst of the following conflict is undeniable, but they were the instigators, and so cannot complain. If you're a 98-pound weakling, you don't backhand Arnold Schwarzenegger.
2. A truly staggering number. It almost makes you wonder when Hamas is going to realize it's outmatched and stop their useless attacks. Or when the Gazans are going to wake up and realize that their leaders are bringing this rain of fire down on their heads. The Israelis in all likelihood would leave alone, if left alone. But that's not in the cards, is it?
3. It is neither I nor Israel that has to justify that 100:1 death ratio. It is Hamas and the other terrorist brigades who continue to prolong the violence that engenders it. Israel has nothing to justify so long as Palestinians continue their terrorism and base them out of civilian neighbourhoods. I've come to the conclusion that Palestinians like getting slaughtered. Otherwise, they'd stop provoking slaughters.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-19 2:40:44 PM
They can carry their dumb posters on campus. Can I wear my "I love Israel" or my "Proud Netanyahu supporter" shirts on campus? At San Francisco State, Hamas supporters and their allies forced the end of a anti-Hamas rally by the College Republicans. Strangely, I heard nothing about the College Democrats being involved in the anti-Hamas rally. Could the Democrats be as big a pack of cowards in challenging islamic fundamentalists as the Liberal Party of Canada has been? Be careful Canada! I know that the National(with Peter Mansbridge) news program wants to promote the lovefest of Obama in Canada. Heck, the Canadian media gives the view that Canadians would prefer to have Obama as Prime Minister. However, the glimmer is starting to come off Obama's image in the U.S. His approval ratings are dropping steadily. There is already talk that a second stimulus package being discussed. Polls are showing that most people oppose Obama's plans to both nationalize banks and bailout the auto companies. There is already talk that the Republicans will be in a much strong position for the 2010 elections. There are two governor races up in 2009(Virginia, New Jersey). The main Republican candidates are now in the lead in both. I have heard that the Republicans are expected to win most of the governors races in 2010(Currently, 22 Republican and 28 Democratic governors). Also, significant gains in congress are predicted in 2010.
Posted by: David | 2009-02-19 9:44:47 PM
A question: If a student group puts up a poster that the Ontario Human Rights Commission doesn't like, is it the university that gets dragged before the commission or is it the student group? If it's the university then I can't blame them for wanting to remain outside the commission's glare. After all, I don't think legal costs for students' constitutional challenges are included in the price of tuition and student fees. On the other hand, if it's the student group that would get dragged before the commission then the university shouldn't have any right to use OHRA as an excuse to censor the poster. It would be up to the student group to defend themselves against the OHRA, not the university.
Posted by: anonymous | 2009-02-20 1:09:13 PM
"If you're a 98-pound weakling, you don't backhand Arnold Schwarzenegger." Devil's Advocate Mode: Either side of the dispute could stretch that analogy to justify their own position. Say the 98-pound weakling lives in a small house next to Arnold Schwarzeneggar's mansion. Say Arnie and The Weakling both claim ownership over The Weakling's property. They can go to court to resolve the issue. But there is no court that can legitimately rule over the "Gaza question". So, what would The Weaking and Arnie do if they had no legal recourse to resolve their dispute? What if Arnie blocks off The Weakling's driveway so he can't go out and buy groceries, or cuts off The Weakling's water and electricity, should The Weakling just take it cuz Arnie's so big and strong? Say The Weakling tries to dig a tunnel to the alley, should Arnie blow it up? Say The Weakling throws a molotov cocktail over Arnie's fence, should Arnie retaliate by leveling the Weakling's hovel? Why does Arnie want The Weakling's shitty property anyway? If we stick with the analogy, Arnie seems unwilling or unable to get rid of the Weakling entirely (I guess the neighbours would complain too much), so why not just build a bigger fence and let The Weakling deal with his own problems?
Posted by: anonymous | 2009-02-20 1:26:52 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.