This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Interest
{Great discussion, redacted for length}
Good points, although a running theory for Ebola is that it is also initially zoonotic from bats or primates in the region.
This is true. Apparently according to
this video
(which is a good watch - it's interesting to see how outbreaks stack up), the first patient got infected by a bat. However, since then the transmission has been more or less human to human, which is a easier to handle than insect-based transmission and the like (if Ebola was transmittable by insects a good number of places would not be safe...)
Post by
Squishalot
http://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/2km4et/tifu_by_making_a_stupid_assumption_about_my/
I don't normally read reddit, but this popped up on my Facebook feed, and was far too much clickbait for me not to read.
Edit: In fairness, this should probably belong in the RB, but I think this thread needs a bit of lightening up.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Maurvyn
Oops.
At least they are maintaining a positive attitude about it..
Actually, this reminds of when the Planetary Society "lost" their experimental solar sail after launch. They also "lost" their Mars Microphone in the Polar Lander 'mishap'.
NASA has not had a good run with managing launches of other people's stuff.
Post by
Interest
More voices of reason, blah blah
.
I'd post some (blatantly) political news regarding the GOP and voting fraud, but eh....
Maybe next post.
Post by
Maurvyn
Je suis Charlie
Not being French I had only even heard about this paper after the first threats a few years ago.
Many news outlets are choosing to censor the Charlie Hebdo comics in their reporting, which is in direct opposition to the whole point of the magazine's stand, though I understand their trepidation.
But, I can't relate to the claim of being "offended". To my way of thinking, if you are "offended" by something, it is because you hold your own opinions and sensibilities in such high regard that no one should ever be allowed to disagree with you. It is a sign of rampant egotism.
A person's right to free speech should not be limited by someone else's megalomania. The rest of us should not have to worry about one individuals, or even any specific groups, issues and insecurities.
Post by
Rankkor
Many news outlets are choosing to censor the Charlie Hebdo comics in their reporting
how so?
On a personal note, I've never been a fan of satirical outlets, who's only purpose is to make fun of everyone. Even when they're poking fun at things I actually hate, I still find it tasteless. That being said, silencing them is not the answer. Not reading them is.
When I find something offensive, I simply don't read it and call it a day. Censoring them, or worse, killing them is a horrible response that makes the perpetrators even worse than the satires themselves.
Here in Venezuela, there used to be several weekly newspapers similar to Charlie Hebdo, who poked fun at both political parties and just about every single politico in venezuela. I never read it, even when they made fun of the very same people I despised. But I was still saddened when the PSUV closed them down and arrested their chief editors with 30 years of jail time.
Its a sad day when the right to express yourself is met with violence and/or censorship.
Besides, it tends to have the opposite effect than what the ones wishing to shut them up desire. I believe its called the
Streisand effect.
. If you just ignore them, they stay small, and inconsequential. If you try to censor them, or heavens forbid, respond with violence, all you do is give power to their voice.
As someone very accurately said on tweeter: "These terrorists wanted to kill Charlie. All they did was made it Immortal."
Very very true.
Still very horrible the loss of life caused by 2 very deranged extremists. Not only for the journalists, but also for the police officers and several innocent people caught in the crossfire.
/frown
Post by
Maurvyn
Many news outlets are choosing to censor the Charlie Hebdo comics in their reporting
how so?
On a personal note, I've never been a fan of satirical outlets, who's only purpose is to make fun of everyone. Even when they're poking fun at things I actually hate, I still find it tasteless. That being said, silencing them is not the answer. Not reading them is.
When I find something offensive, I simply don't read it and call it a day. Censoring them, or worse, killing them is a horrible response that makes the perpetrators even worse than the satires themselves.
Here in Venezuela, there used to be several weekly newspapers similar to Charlie Hebdo, who poked fun at both political parties and just about every single politico in venezuela. I never read it, even when they made fun of the very same people I despised. But I was still saddened when the PSUV closed them down and arrested their chief editors with 30 years of jail time.
Its a sad day when the right to express yourself is met with violence and/or censorship.
Besides, it tends to have the opposite effect than what the ones wishing to shut them up desire. I believe its called the
Streisand effect.
. If you just ignore them, they stay small, and inconsequential. If you try to censor them, or heavens forbid, respond with violence, all you do is give power to their voice.
As someone very accurately said on tweeter: "These terrorists wanted to kill Charlie. All they did was made it Immortal."
Very very true.
Still very horrible the loss of life caused by 2 very deranged extremists. Not only for the journalists, but also for the police officers and several innocent people caught in the crossfire.
/frown
Several of the news agencies were posting pictures of the editor who was killed, and in the photo he was holding a copy of his magazine, but they cropped out or blurred the actual magazine in the photo. And others are declining to post examples of Charlie's images that may have been catalysts to this issue.
It is interesting to hear about this from your perspective, and unfortunate that you have first hand experience in exactly the kind of journalistic censorship that outlets such Charlie Hebdo fought against.
I am a big fan of Voltaire, and although his satire was much more subtle than that of Charlie and The Onion, I think satire is often a useful check on our society. It is a way to prevent us from taking ourselves too seriously, and laugh at ourselves when do.
Post by
Monday
I can kind of understand why they're censoring it, even if I don't really agree. For a lot of people, safety comes first. Nobody wants to see a copycat attack.
Post by
asakawa
On a personal note, I've never been a fan of satirical outlets, who's only purpose is to make fun of everyone. Even when they're poking fun at things I actually hate, I still find it tasteless. That being said, silencing them is not the answer. Not reading them is.
Satire "punches upwards", that is it seeks to ridicule and undermine those with power and influence, never those who lack it. Of course comedy is very subjective and some stuff you may just not appreciate, but the ability of satire to keep the powerful in check is incredibly important and our free ability to produce satirical work, uncensored, is vital in a free society. Also the first thing that is restricted in a non-free society.
When the Danes published cartoons depicting Muhammad, papers and news outlets around the world should have printed them too - firstly because they were central to the news being reported and secondly in solidarity with free press around the world. What they actually said was "The Danish paper shouldn't have printed the pictures and we wouldn't be so reckless".
When Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses (a simple work of fiction that makes mention of some passages that have been removed from Quranic canon) and a bounty was put on his head, not by individuals or even extremist groups but by states(!). Political and religious leaders in my country and around the "free world" (states where freedom of speech is law) didn't decry the fatwa and all that espoused it, they called Rushdie a reckless blasphemer.
Terrorism seeks to change our society, not through democracy and discourse but through violence and fearmongering. When I see, not just news outlets but whole states, so intimidated that they won't publish cartoons or denounce those that are upset by simple cartoons or works of fiction, I see our societies and the tenets we hold most dear eroded from without. If we have freedom of speech this this stuff must be published. If it cannot be published, even for fear or retribution, than we
are
terrorised and our society is not what we think it is.
Post by
Rankkor
On a personal note, I've never been a fan of satirical outlets, who's only purpose is to make fun of everyone. Even when they're poking fun at things I actually hate, I still find it tasteless. That being said, silencing them is not the answer. Not reading them is.
Satire "punches upwards", that is it seeks to ridicule and undermine those with power and influence, never those who lack it. Of course comedy is very subjective and some stuff you may just not appreciate, but the ability of satire to keep the powerful in check is incredibly important and our free ability to produce satirical work, uncensored, is vital in a free society. Also the first thing that is restricted in a non-free society.
I agree wholeheartedly. Satire done right can be hilarious, but to my taste, a lot of satire involves vulgar humor, or gross humor (For example, I would LOVE South Park if only they could tone down the toilet humor and the poop jokes).
My solution (on a personal level) is to just not listen to them. If there's a show I find unfunny, I don't watch it. If there's a satirical magazine that I find offensive, I don't buy it or read it. Calling out for their censorship or worse yet, lashing out in violence at their producers is a serious affront to one of my core beliefs about the freedom to express oneself.
So while I'm not a fan of satiric outlets, I'm still saddened when they're suppressed, just as I am saddened when any form of expression is suppressed. Be them forms I like or dislike. After all, I live in a horrible place where this form of suppression happens every single day, to every form of journalism imaginable. So its easy to understand why I'm such a staunch opposer to censorship and suppression.
Post by
cayleb
Been lurking on the forums for a while and figured I might throw my two cents in here.
When the Danes published cartoons depicting Muhammad, papers and news outlets around the world should have printed them too - firstly because they were central to the news being reported and secondly in solidarity with free press around the world. What they actually said was "The Danish paper shouldn't have printed the pictures and we wouldn't be so reckless".
I agree with much of what you say. And I think suppression of speech through fear of death of other dangers is terribly wrong. But I'm not so certain that for all of those papers it was truly a matter of wishing to avoid recklessness. There are other issues here that they may be concerned about.
Let me give you a slightly different example. Gay people, of which I happen to be one, are roughly the same percentage of the US population as Muslims. It is indubitably the right of any organization—news or otherwise—to create and/or distribute content that the vast majority of gay people would find offensive. It is also indisputably the right of any organization—news or otherwise—to create and/or distribute content offensive to Muslims.
When a (mentally unbalanced) guy went into and shot up the lobby of an anti-gay hate group based out of DC, it made the news, and rightfully so.
What didn't get redistributed were all the terrible and hateful things that group said about gay people.
Now I fully realize that slandering a group of people based on an immutable personal characteristic is a bit different than purposely offending a group of people based on their cultural or religious identity. That said, it still seems like a news organization wouldn't really need to choose to repeat those insults to Muslims or gays just because those who were attacked were engaged in speech that was unquestionably offensive to large numbers of people in both groups.
Consider also this: The thorny nest of violent fundamentalist extremism doesn't in fact ultimately benefit from non-Muslims ceasing to offend Muslims, however. The people who attacked Paris, much like the people who attacked the World Trade Center, were not hoping that their attack would provoke groveling, and apology, and a promise to never depict their prophet again in a cartoon.
They wanted revenge.
The people who trained them wanted increased alienation of "Westernized" Muslims, increased persecution of those Muslims that emigrated to or travel in "Western" nations, and increased conflict. In the end, only that will gain them more recruits and less "risk" of peace with the "West."
If I were a newspaper editor, it would be a tough call. Do I reprint something that may, in the end, actually benefit those that enabled the violent massacre of my fellow journalists? Do I reprint something that a certain percentage of my audience may find offensive or percieve as Islamophobic? Do I consider the safety and well-being of the staff and their families? This—finally—is the hardest question... If it were just me, safety wouldn't be a question, were I an editor. But is it fair to ask a much larger group of people, including the family and friends of my employees, to risk the danger and grief and loss that could result from retaliation for making so provocative a point? Or from making their point in such a provocative way? Because surely, cartoons of their prophet aren't the only manner in which one could offer criticism of violent religious fundamentalists. Yet it was precisely that mode of criticism that evoked another spasm of violence from religious fundamentalists...
There is more than one factor in play here. But in the end it is an editorial decision and ultimately that decision is, and should be, up to each individual paper. Only a few of which engaged in blaming the victim for what was ultimately a completely legitimate exercise of their rights. Very, very few of those papers actually said or—I think—implied that the Danish paper was reckless. For the ones that did, it is their right to say so, no matter how much you and I disagree with the morally bankrupt act of victim-blaming.
A guy I like for some of the very wise things he said is known for a particular phrase: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." The staff of Charlie Hebdo chose to live by the pen. May their murderers and their accomplices find no shelter or comfort until each and every one is brought to justice. May the families of the slain find all the peace they can to comfort them in their grief and loss. And may we all hope and strive for a world where swords and guns are no longer required to protect those who chose to eschew the sword.
Post by
asakawa
Consider also this: The thorny nest of violent fundamentalist extremism doesn't in fact ultimately benefit from non-Muslims ceasing to offend Muslims, however. The people who attacked Paris, much like the people who attacked the World Trade Center, were not hoping that their attack would provoke groveling, and apology, and a promise to never depict their prophet again in a cartoon.
They wanted revenge.
I disagree. I'm sure that revenge is a part of it and might fuel the immediate moments of violence but the goal of such uses of terror is to constrict and suppress. To alter societies through fear.
If I were a newspaper editor, it would be a tough call. Do I reprint something that may, in the end, actually benefit those that enabled the violent massacre of my fellow journalists? Do I reprint something that a certain percentage of my audience may find offensive or percieve as Islamophobic? Do I consider the safety and well-being of the staff and their families? This—finally—is the hardest question... If it were just me, safety wouldn't be a question, were I an editor. But is it fair to ask a much larger group of people, including the family and friends of my employees, to risk the danger and grief and loss that could result from retaliation for making so provocative a point? Or from making their point in such a provocative way? Because surely, cartoons of their prophet aren't the only manner in which one could offer criticism of violent religious fundamentalists. Yet it was precisely that mode of criticism that evoked another spasm of violence from religious fundamentalists...
The decision you would make, with the safety of those to whom you are responsible in mind, is the result of terrorism. You have successfully been terrorised. A few publications have reprinted material that has been deemed controversial but the point is that
everybody
should be reprinting it. This makes clear that the reaction is unconscionable with a unanimous voice, providing security through solidarity. It's kinda all or nothing. We basically got nothing.
This is why I love that "Je suis Charlie" has become the slogan in France. It says,
you may not like the content he made. We may not even care for it that much. But we all universally stand together and say that the right to make that content is important and if you want to attack people who stand up for freedom of speech then I'm next.
It's a wonderful gesture of solidarity and exactly what is needed.
Islam is an ideology. An ideology with so many adherents (and I'm aware that there's a massive range of adherence within the total number of self-identifying Muslims) is in a position of tremendous power, and power like that must never go uncriticised. All ideologies, whether they be political, religious or otherwise must be open to free criticism and ridicule is a legitimate form of criticism. We must not be told by any religion that they are holy and that it is taboo or blasphemy to criticise them. They are a collection of ideas, some good and some bad. A light must always be shone upon bad ideas.
This notion is central to the freedom of speech upon which we have built a society and I find it terrifying that it is given up so easily. Your example equating LGBT and Islamic criticism shows the difference; the news outlets at the time didn't choose not to reprint the anti-gay material out of fear of further violence, they exercised their freedom of speech by not printing it. They weren't forced to make a decision either way out of fear. They weren't terrorised by the mad man.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Squishalot
The decision you would make, with the safety of those to whom you are responsible in mind, is the result of terrorism. You have successfully been terrorised. A few publications have reprinted material that has been deemed controversial but the point is that everybody should be reprinting it. This makes clear that the reaction is unconscionable with a unanimous voice, providing security through solidarity. It's kinda all or nothing. We basically got nothing.
That's on the assumption that they're doing it as the result of terrorism. It could be also that they simply don't agree with the content / material / humour.
Islam is an ideology. An ideology with so many adherents (and I'm aware that there's a massive range of adherence within the total number of self-identifying Muslims) is in a position of tremendous power, and power like that must never go uncriticised.
I question the supposed need for criticism, in the satirical sense. What light are you shining upon bad ideas by depicting the satire? Most satire tends to be critical for the sake of being critical, rather than being constructive. That, I think, is the difference between the satire in your mind, and the unconstructive or even abusive satire that exists under the name.
There was a big hullabaloo over the 'right to be bigots' in Australia, coming from proposed changes to our anti-discrimination laws that would effectively allow journalists to write racist hate pieces. While there may be a sense of right to a freedom of speech (or equivalent, in those countries that don't necessarily have a bill of rights), the execution of those rights has to be balanced against an individual or community's right to live in peace without being discriminated or hated against. When satire becomes the equivalent of recording racist slogans and playing it them 24/7 in a cultural hub and calling it freedom of speech (which is effectively what some of the satirical comics are - cultural abuse, rather than constructive criticism), then I think we've grossly missed the point, and are putting too much emphasis on a single right at the expense of others.
Post by
asakawa
The decision you would make, with the safety of those to whom you are responsible in mind, is the result of terrorism. You have successfully been terrorised. A few publications have reprinted material that has been deemed controversial but the point is that everybody should be reprinting it. This makes clear that the reaction is unconscionable with a unanimous voice, providing security through solidarity. It's kinda all or nothing. We basically got nothing.
That's on the assumption that they're doing it as the result of terrorism. It could be also that they simply don't agree with the content / material / humour.This was in response to Cayleb who laid out their own reasons, those being fear of retribution. To be clear I'm tremendously sympathetic to the notion, of course the safety of those to whom you're responsible is of the utmost importance, but I'm trying to say that the response needs to be societal.
Islam is an ideology. An ideology with so many adherents (and I'm aware that there's a massive range of adherence within the total number of self-identifying Muslims) is in a position of tremendous power, and power like that must never go uncriticised.
I question the supposed need for criticism, in the satirical sense. What light are you shining upon bad ideas by depicting the satire? Most satire tends to be critical for the sake of being critical, rather than being constructive. That, I think, is the difference between the satire in your mind, and the unconstructive or even abusive satire that exists under the name.
As a strong proponent of freedom of speech I don't expect to be the one that gets to decide between good or bad. I don't expect anyone to decide that. I expect that people are free to voice their ideas and we accept the bad with the good. However, the antidote to bad speech is more speech. The right of the Phelps clan to do what they do must be protected but the perfect response is the people who stand next to them with their
own signs and placards
.
There was a big hullabaloo over the 'right to be bigots' in Australia, coming from proposed changes to our anti-discrimination laws that would effectively allow journalists to write racist hate pieces. While there may be a sense of right to a freedom of speech (or equivalent, in those countries that don't necessarily have a bill of rights), the execution of those rights has to be balanced against an individual or community's right to live in peace without being discriminated or hated against. When satire becomes the equivalent of recording racist slogans and playing it them 24/7 in a cultural hub and calling it freedom of speech (which is effectively what some of the satirical comics are - cultural abuse, rather than constructive criticism), then I think we've grossly missed the point, and are putting too much emphasis on a single right at the expense of others.
"Discriminated or hated", these are different things. Discrimination is not freedom of speech. I do believe though that freedom of thought and speech are important enough that you take with them the bitter pill of freedom to hate. If all hate and disagreement in the world were freely and openly expressed with placards, protests, pamphlets and angry articles instead of guns and explosives then I would call that a big win, even if we saw more Westboro-style tastelessness. We don't attack Westboro, we defend their rights but we sure hate what they do.
That said, personally I'm only interested in satire that, as I said earlier in the thread, "punches upwards", attacking powerful and influential. Any material, satirical or otherwise, that attacks a downtrodden or powerless minority becomes a test of conviction for freedom of speech rather than something I would actually support. But defend it and its right to exist I absolutely do. As I said regarding
Je suis Charlie
, it's not about thinking the material is laudable or even has any value. It's about saying that as a society we discuss, we satirise, we protest and that can not (must not!) be stopped or stifled by threats and violence.
Post by
Squishalot
I do believe though that freedom of thought and speech are important enough that you take with them the bitter pill of freedom to hate. If all hate and disagreement in the world were freely and openly expressed with placards, protests, pamphlets and angry articles instead of guns and explosives then I would call that a big win, even if we saw more Westboro-style tastelessness. We don't attack Westboro, we defend their rights but we sure hate what they do.
I have to disagree with your view. I don't think there's a place for Westboro-style tastelessness anywhere, to be honest. I think that the impact of exercising freedom of that sort of speech, leading to mental health damage for those who are in the powerless minority (and to that, I include all of the 'moderate' Muslims in the Western world) and the loss of standard of living or even life due to suicide, more than warrants its prohibition. It's the reason why we (justifiably, IMO) ban non-physical bullying and verbal abuse at schools. It's why we have anti-discrimination and anti-bullying laws to prevent this sort of behaviour in workplaces.
I seem to recall that your wife is / was a teacher, I think? (Could be majorly wrong in that regard and thinking of someone else on the forums, apologies if I am.) With that the previous paragraph in mind, and considering the level of teenage depression and suicide, do you think children at schools should be penalised or otherwise influenced to stop exercising a freedom to hate and bully others? Should they be defended? Should they be penalised for plying non-phyiscal abuse onto teachers? And if those are actions that should be dealt with and censured, why should that example not extend to adults?
Edit: My main point is, I don't believe freedom of speech is so important that it trumps other 'freedoms' such as the freedom to live in peace without harrassment. To me, your freedom of speech is only worth defending up until it actively takes away from another person's freedoms.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
My wife is a teacher yes. Even as such, I don't know enough about interpersonal issues of children to give an informed opinion on how to handle them. I know there's an awful lot of physical confrontation that goes on and aggressive speech that spills over into threats and other restricted behaviours. I imagine that the occasions where no physical abuse has taken place and no threats made would be extremely difficult to arbitrate. I further imagine that this is why the awareness-raising regarding bullying in its many forms is important, to try and prevent the kind of bullying that really can't be seen and prevented.
What we're talking about here isn't threatening material. I totally agree that the rights of person A end at the tip of person B's nose. I'm not convinced that person B is affected by satirical cartoons, however much they might claim to be. This is the common claim made by religious organisations with which I take umbrage. Their own adherents may be required to abide by internal rules of blasphemy but the same requirements cannot be made of those outside of the organisation. However much a Muslim may claim to be personally injured by the depiction of Muhammed in the media, they are, in our illustration, now Person A impinging on Person B's right to express them self.
Essentially, I'm not suggesting that free speech trumps other rights. We have laws about harassment and threat that limit people's freedom of speech in ways that I (largely though not unanimously) support. Hebdo's work fell well within these laws as did the Danish cartoons (It was demanded that the Danish Prime minister remove the cartoons but they would have been breaking their own free-speech laws to do so) and Rushdie's novel. We have systems of democracy that allow for these lines of demarcation to be moved and I support people using their free-speech to call for this. I am appalled when people's ability to express themselves freely is limited through fear and terror.
Post by
Dragalthor
Unfortunately due to having a very new family and not enough time in the day, I cannot jump in and take an active interest in the current topic of conversation in this thread, there are two things that spring to mind right now that I would like to throw into the mix, if I may, (and please feel free to completely ignore me as I cannot spare the time to participate fully).
The first thing in the current case of the horrific atrocities carried out against the Charlie Hebdo magazine personnel is the Voltaire quote -
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I think that this bon mot should be at the forefront of everybody's minds at a time when freedom of speech is being attacked, whether by terrorists or our own governments.
The other is a Facebook meme that I saw the other day, though I cannot find it right now. The premise of the meme was a picture of
Anders Breivik
with a tagline stating the number of people he murdered and the fact that he identified as a Christian and that comparatively, in the media furore, there was a vast difference in ascribing him as being 'a Christian' as there was to fact that the perpetrators of the Hebdo atrocity were 'Muslim'.
Post by
asakawa
Voltaire is, indeed, my feeling on the matter.
I haven't looked into Breivik much but my understanding is that his reasons were more motivated by hating (and wanting rid of) other cultures (including religions) rather than in defence or for the cause of his own. He was basically a white racist and nationalist I think, though I'm sure he gained some conviction and permission from his religious views. I think the point you're making is that if you describe some people involved in an act of terror as "Muslim" then this is basically short-hand for "those crazy people that do this stuff while shouting Allahu Akbar" and people hearing this immediately fill in the blanks with all their prejudices and presuppositions. While I think this is fair criticism of the way that news can be very reductive, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that the perpetrators of the recent terror in Paris would freely identify as Muslim and shout to anyone that would hear that their motivation is their faith. As such it seems fair to report that directly without great concern that ignorant people take that as permission to hate all Muslims.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Squishalot
I am appalled when people's ability to express themselves freely is limited through fear and terror.
I firstly want to say that I agree unanimously with this. However, this isn't the discussion that we've been having (or at least, not the one I wanted to engage in); we've been talking about the role of satire generally, and whether it should be tolerated / defended / encouraged.
We have laws about harassment and threat that limit people's freedom of speech in ways that I (largely though not unanimously) support. Hebdo's work fell well within these laws as did the Danish cartoons
Perhaps, perhaps not. Lawyers in Australia suggest that Hebdo's work wouldn't survive in Australia's legal framework. Mostly in reference to your earlier point:
What we're talking about here isn't threatening material.
Australia's legal position on this, and one that I generally support, is that it doesn't need to be threatening, per se. Our Racial Discrimination Act (which is the closest that I can find that deals generally with the question of restricting freedom of speech) notes the following:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Key thing to note here is that there doesn't need to be a threat as such, but focuses on the act of offending, insulting, humiliating and/or intimidating others.
Why do we consider this to be important, and not just look to threats which can be dealt with under other criminal codes? We can look to the earlier parts of the act:
Racial discrimination to be unlawful
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
The goal of this law to limit people's freedom of speech isn't purely about direct harrassment and threats. The goal is to prevent people from using their freedom of speech to impair the life of others. While I agree with you that the line can be moved and that it should be open for discussion (as it recently was in Australia, to institute a definition that is perhaps closer to what you believe is reasonable - inciting hatred against or causing fear of physical harm), I think that the line where Australia currently has it marked out is perfectly reasonable and protects against the non-physical damage that discrimination, as often caused by satire, can cause.
Post by
asakawa
Okay, hehe, I wrote a whole thing here about how Section 18-1a is flippin' insane and stupid but then noticed the "and" at the end of the line. "Race, colour or national or ethnic origin" is not religion. While I personally am for absolute freedom of expression I don't care enough to argue against a law this specific. Stop people from producing and distributing pamphlets that say the Asian family that runs the small shop in the street are stinky and bad? Fine, go for it. You have my my blessing ^_^
However, bend the clear intention of this law to prevent me from openly criticising Christianity and you have a fight on your hands. (If Hebdo's work ever satirised race or ethnic origin then you'll have to link it because I don't know the work remotely)
I do still think that the use of "offend" in 18-1a is dangerously vague but that's for Australia to worry about. Offence is such a vague and subjective thing, I don't see how you would avoid having all sorts of crazy stuff being brought to a judge to decide if it's reasonable or not. The fact that you would seek that law as protection from criticism of religion shows that.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.