Troll around the left-end of the Canadian blogosphere and browse the posts on Steyn, Levant and their investigation and prosecution by Canada’s Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. For the most part what you’ll find is a bunch of cheerleaders for the cops.
Their arguments range from the ’sophist’icated Jason Cherniak:
As a matter of principle, I support this law [subsection 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act]. Hate messages should not be protected expression. Indeed, they are an attempt to silence the free expression of others by removing their individuality. At its heart, I believe that freedom of expression, and the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is about protecting the individual. People who attempt to use their individual rights to remove the individual rights of others should not be surprised when they end up on the wrong side of the law.
To the unintentionally insightful Omar Soliman:
Amidst the alarmist [Anti-HRC | Pro-Free Speech] rhetoric is a simple, overlooked fact: The libertarian view of free speech is a distinctly American political tradition, not exactly a Canadian one. And even then, Thomas Jefferson, who as the author of the Declaration of Independence has perhaps a slightly more prominent claim to liberty than Levant and gang, believed that the press should be “responsible for abuse of an unrestrained freedom to publish.”
Unfortunately, people today are seldom riled to a defense of free speech on the basis of one or another philosophical tenets. Nope, today’s defenders of free speech are more often driven by a passionate hatred for the objects of their disapproval.
The smear common amongst all the left bloggers is that the opponents of the HRCs are - by definition - hate mongers.
I’m not going to convince the partisans, but I want to speak to their readers. In order to convince you to change your minds on the HRC thing and join us in opposing subsection 13.1, we, on the right have tried shouting at you, calling you stupid, calling you fascist and worse. Well those tactics haven’t worked for Ron Paul and they’re not working for us. So what I want to do is to get someone on your side to calmly explain our point of view, and hopefully get you to at least look into your position.
As I said above, Omar Soliman was unintentionally insightful. I’m referring to this statement: “the libertarian view of free speech is distinctly American political tradition, not exactly a Canadian one.”. I think he’s right - I don’t accept that the situation is right, but Mr. Soliman has a point. Canadian culture isn’t strong on free speech.
So best to start with Americans. I’ve contacted a number of prominent left-wing American writers, editors and thinkers to get their point of view on Free Speech, and the Steyn and Levant cases. I’ll be posting them over the next few weeks.
The first one I’ll start with is Noam Chomsky. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but I know that he is well respected by young people on the left. I asked him this:
A number of prominent right-wing Canadian authors are before my country’s various human rights tribunals and human rights commissions. One of those authors is Ezra Levant, who is charged with publishing the “Muhammad Cartoons”. The other is Mark Steyn, charged with a number of offenses amongst them quoting a European Imam on demographic predictions.
What is your opinion on these Human Rights Commissions and other government restrictions on “hate speech”? Are you generally supportive of these types of measures, or do you oppose them?
Here is his reply:
There should be a very heavy burden of proof on any effort to restrict freedom of speech. I strongly oppose the measures you describe. I do not think the burden of proof is even approached, let alone met. In this respect I agree with the US Supreme Court, which, in the 1960s, set what i think is a proper standard for protection of freedom of speech.
Noam Chomsky
That argument alone shouldn’t convince you to oppose the HRCs. But if this is someone you respect, then just take some time to reconsider your position and see if you can answer these questions: What is your position based on - logic or cultural bias? Can you defend it? If we on the right are hate-mongers for wanting to re-write or scrap the hate speech laws, then don’t you have to apply that same label to people like Chomsky?
More to come.
Filed under: Politics |
Tags: free speech, Human Rights, levant, noam chomsky, Steyn
-
- SteynonLine.com
- MatthewGood.com
- Daimnation
- EzraLevant.com
- SmallDeadAnimals
- Genxat40
- CanadianCynic
- AbandonedStuff
- GarthTurnerUnedited
- FiveFeetofFury
- SteveJanke.com
- GhostofaFlea
- The Shotgun Blog
- Bene Diction Blog
- Big City Lib
- Steynian
- Red Tory
- The Galloping Beaver
- JayCurrie
- DavidAkinontheHill
- RightGirl
- ActionDinosaur
- AprilReign
- WarrenKinsella
- Dawg’sBlog
Updated June 30, 2008.
June List
May List
April List
March List
February List
January List
December List
November List
October List
Chomsky really bowled me over.
I’m left wondering if the man’s reputation isn’t being unfairly tarnished by the excesses of his acolytes.
Kind of like Islam’s reputation vis it’s “defining” radicals.
Both Chomsky and Islam should probably do a quick “gut-check” to see if they like the direction that their “followers” are leading them in.
I’ll start by saying I’m on the Canadian left. I’ll be voting NDP or Liberal in the next Alberta provincial election, and likely the same in the next federal.
I also agree 100% with what your ideas here. Free speech means defending speech you disagree with, not just the stuff you like. Democracy requires absolute freedom of expression, even if that leaves some offended.
I never imagined that I would ever agree with Chomsky about anything, but this time he’s really hit the nail on the head.
Adolph Hitler and his Nazis would be proud of many of the provisions that have been slipped into Canadian Human Rights legislation. They are such a quietly efficient Final Solution to the existence of the degenerate idea of free speech that I can almost hear the Brownshirts chanting ‘Seig Heil’ at one of his Nuremburg rallies.
You should get this more widely published. Send it to Ezra, Steyn, etc. Get Kate to post it as a topic. Force Kinsella, et al. to respond to it.
Nice work, a good idea to invite leading opinion makers of the left to comment on these cases and a good catch to get Chomsky’s thoughts.
I think you’ve made a serious effort to move the debate forward, I hope that your work gets widely read and considered by those that so far have opposed the efforts to reign in the HRC’s.
/polite applause
I’m not a big fan of Chomsky, but it is pretty cool you could get a response from him. Have you tried Michael Moore?
Yep. Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Paul Kurtz, Richard Dawkins etc… They’re slowly coming in. Funny thing is that Canadian commentators aren’t writing back. The Americans, no problem. But the Canadians?
I’ve dealt with something similar in business, where Sony and Starbucks will return calls but the owner of the little clothing company down the street with 3 workers and no turnover gets all imperious and hangs up.
It’s bugging me. But thanks for the complements.
To be specific, the “smear” among left wing bloggers is NOT that those who oppose section 13 are hate mongers but that section 13 was designed to catch hate mongers and that repealing it will help hate-mongers get along more easily.
This is objectively true.
BCL - I think when Soliman writes “today’s defenders of free speech are more often driven by a passionate hatred for the objects of their disapproval.” or when you read Kinsella, you are left with the impression that these writers think the opponents of 13.1 are themselves hate-mongers. So I’ll quarrel with you on that point.
On your second point that the elimination or modification of 13.1 will make life easier for actual hate-mongers. I don’t dispute that and think it is a reasonable conclusion.
My point here is that, to butcher a phrase, I’d rather a thousand hate-mongers go free than a single innocent person go to jail. And that’s where I think the real debate should be.
“My point here is that to butcher a phrase, I’d rather a thousand hate-mongers go free than a single innocent person go to jail. And that’s where I think the real debate should be.”
Good on you. I am glad to see that some on your side of the issue are starting to realize that their views, if implemented, have consequences (hate mongers run free). Its taken about two weeks to get you guys to this point.
I’m a political lefitst (more of a social conservative) and a Muslim, and I still strongly disagree with one of the cases and argued fairly extensively with one of the lawyers involved online. I’ve seen a lot of Muslim and left wing blogs taking Steyn’s side on this, too.
That being said, many, many violations of free speech principles that go unnoticed by the right don’t involve Muslims, and I doubt that’s a coincidence, because it’s open season on us in most media. I’d love to see the principled Muslims and Lefties (not the same thing but in coalition on certain issues and not others) who have denounced the legal actions against McLean’s etc greeted by a greater number of rightists who advocate a principled denunciation of the alarmist bigotry of Steyn and people like him. I don’t expect this to happen though.
There seems to be a basic philosophical difference in the approach to ‘hate-mongers’:
One side wants to silence them, lest what they say is hateful.
The other side wants to let them speak, lest they stay hidden and continue to spread hate undetected and unmasked.
A careful look at history will show that curbing the freedom of speech does not curb the presence of ‘hate-mongers’… To the contrary: repressing the freedom of speech gives dissenting voices no peacful platform and leads to armed conflict in place of a debate.
I object to this debate being framed as a left vs. right issue, because the erosion of free speech is largely the work of extremists of any cloth. Extreme liberals may support a hate speech law and call its detractors hate-mongers, but extreme conservatives will just as quickly support anti-obscenity legislation and call their detractors pornographers.
The simple fact is, free speech upsets people. This single point is what makes defending free speech so hard for its supporters, because you inevitably face challenges to it from your own ranks.
My only point is this: Don’t get caught in the minutia. This isn’t about liberals vs. conservatives. Because next week the tables will turn, the debaters will entrench on opposite sides of the field, and the threat to free speech will be just as real then as it is now.
No, it won’t happen because Mark Steyn is not a bigot. Not that Mark Steyn of all people needs anyone to defend him, but I think it’s fair to say that he does not, shall we say, appreciate Islam or how it is practiced by some Muslims. Nothing bigoted about that. He very well could be “alarmist”; only time will tell.
What violations of free speech principles have gone unnoticed by the right?
What Muslim blogs are not in favor of these complaints? I have found exactly two Muslim bloggers who are not in favor, Ali Eteraz, a British Muslim and Abdiel, a Canadian Muslim. Salim Mansur and one other well known Canadian Muslim associated with the Muslim Canadian Congress, whose name escapes me, have spoken out against the complaints.
Islam is under the microscope and will be for decades to come. Islamic extremism has unleashed a torrent of fear and anxiety in the West. Muslim demands for religious accomodation in the public sphere alienate citizens who are accustomed to practicing their faiths in private. Muslim activists have partnered with the left to dramatically increase demonization of the United States, Israel and Jews, on our campuses and on our public streets, in front of businesses owned by Canadian Jews. The Canadian Arab Federation is now taking a campaign to demonize Israel into our high schools!
So, who is it open season on? The answer to that depends on your point of view.
Well, Chomsky is a wilting, hypocritical useful idiot, but on free speech matters he’s been consistent. After all, he’s invoked it to applaud neo-nazi Holocaust deniers in Europe (yes, you read that right), and good on him. It’s his right, although it’s not exactly something the self-loather likes to publicize on this side of the pond. Anyway, the reason why so many on the far left, far right, and center agree is because this is a no-brainer, folks. I’m not surprised at all Steyn and Chomsky may be on the same page here. They make their living in the free market of ideas (although I’m not sure steyn can yet command $70,000 per speaking engagement like the vanguard socialist does). It would be a sad world when Steyn (and yes even Chompsky) and hence, everyone in between are muzzled because someone you’ve never met or spoken to claims to have their feelings hurt.
I am insulted by any and all comparisons to Chomsky.
Jason,
Aaaaaannnnd….. this relates to the blog post how?
To Saalon:
“This isn’t about liberals vs. conservatives. Because next week the tables will turn, the debaters will entrench on opposite sides of the field, and the threat to free speech will be just as real then as it is now”
First of all, the terminology of “liberals” vs. “conservatives” is quite out of whack for quite a while. The term “liberal” used to mean something quite different from it’s current misguided usage (btw. - in Europe where they stuck with the traditional meaning, Wolfowitz and others are called not “neo-cons” but “neo-libs”). Rather than “liberals” and “conservatives”, we should talk about insulated leftist elites disconnected from and their indoctrinated followers not yet mugged by reality vs. people living in and willing to see the real world as it is.
Second, among the the “conservatives”, one can certainly find a few fringe nutters who might call for censorship. But among the “liberals”, it’s a fair number of rather prominent personalities (e.g. W. Kinsella) and individuals in positions of power (judges, HRC representatives) willing to expressly support and effectively promote it. And the vast “silent majority” is silent, indeed, while the few brave and decent souls willing to speak out for freedom of speech are regretfully far and between.
robert,
i’m am not affiliated with any political party but find myself banging my head against a brick wall when trying to convince some liberal friend of the importance of this debate - can hardly get to the mechanics - and if i do get to the mechanics - they look at me as if i have two heads!. i’m with you on this one - beneath much of the hubris lies a non-partisan issue of where to start and how to re-define the hrc role in free speech rights - which was never their mandate to begin with. imho - writing mp’s to support dr. keith martin’s motion makes the most sense as a departure point. we can get to any heavy lifting in due course.
i will suggest that human rights cannot and should not be prioritised as set out by the language of the charter. the question at the bottom is: are canadians capable of deciding for themselves what they should read, write or watch? i optimistically and enthusiastically say yes - with the understanding that individuals are responsible for their actions under the law - ignorance not available as a defense. not that it ever was.
Why are you people so surprised that Chomsky, whose every other position on every other topic is gall and wormwood for you, should agree with you on this?
It’s because Chomsky is “the enemy”, and you people are so consumed with hatred that you CANNOT BELIEVE that anything your enemy says could be right.
You are doubting your own wisdom here because of your prejudices.
Despite the fact that you truly, honestly, completely believe in the Mak Steyn/Ezra Levant take on Free Speech, IF CHOMSKY SUPPORTS IT YOU ARE BEGINNING TO DOUBT that completely Kosher?
Now what if I tell you that Muslims are against abortion; c’mon now, you hate Roe v. Wade; admit that your enemies are right on this!
How about giving sex-ed to kids in kindergarten? How about giving religious-ed in schools? How about Muslim women being allowed to wear what they like on their heads although it be the diametric opposite of the trash/slut outfits you allow your pre-teen daughters to prance about in?
No?! Our enemies can’t be right on the things we are right on?! Chomsky’s support of Steyn/Levant stinks to high heaven?!
No, gentleman! Your oh-so-exposed prejudices do! The “LEFT” has been driven mad, and the “RIGHT” is following them off the cliff of hatred. So here, as medicine for that, is an aphorism from a true hero, burned at the stake for daring to suggest that the Bible could be read by common people if it were translated into languages other than the dead Latin which only the privileged understood. Jan Huss said:
“We had rather, in the ways of Good, follow our enemies, than in the ways of Evil, walk with our friends.”
Once you have your ideas of Good and Evil, follow them, and don’t be surprised if you sometimes meet your “enemy” doing what you’re doing.
Saalon had a great point about the extreme wings of either party. They are both guilty of trying to squash speech in one form of another be it with the sort of ridiculous ‘hate crime’ (read: thought crime) legislations being bandied about or the ‘you may be 18 but you can’t decide whether or not its OK to see a picture of a boob’ law.
I can’t speak for Canada, but I know I hope that the extreme partisan politics in the US would fade again into the mist. There are constant bills brought up in the US to pass this kind of stuff. I only hope the SCOTUS does the right thing and deems them ALL unconstitutional.
Congratulations on writing to Chomsky and posting his reply! When this story became big news a few weeks ago, I wondered what his opinion would be on it, if he ever got to hear of it. I’m glad you took the initiative to elicit an opinion, and it will be interesting to see if this makes an impression, especially on the Canadian media, who haven’t been too vociferous to date. Like him or not, Chomsky’s opinion on practically anything is news, and it will be interesting to see if it makes it into the Canadian media.
interesting that in canada the left is blamed for supporting government interference with free speech. in the US the free speech protections we’ve won since the ’20’s have largely been the work of leftists, with the US supreme courts of the 60s and 70s being in the leadership. when the state of colorado retaliated against ward churchill for his political speech, the right wingers were celebrating.
There goes my whole reactionary attitude that if Chomsky is fer it, I’m a’gin it. I’m going to have to come up with a whole different approach to truth now…damn, that one was working so well, too.
Most speech could be considered “hate” speech by some thin-skinned crank.
Until it crossing into action, or is an imminent “Fire in a crowded theater” or “Kill that person now!” form of incitement, no speech can be “forbidden”.
Those doing the forbidding appear to hate thought.
Which is a form of “hate speech”, in itself, ironically.
They should implode of their own (unrecognized) internal self-contradictions and illogical absurdity.
I hate that.
Freedom of speech protects not just your right to be heard but also everyone’s right to hear.
In other words to take away the right to publish is de facto preemptive book burning!
Asking Chomsky to comment on this issue is a lot like asking a chimpanzee to solve a calculus problem. If he comes out with the same result as you get then it is only natural that you question your own results. It has nothing to do with “hating” the chimp. It has to do with his competence based on what one knows of the capabilities of chimps. Such is the esteem in which the noted dictator fellator Noam Chimpsky is held by those who value freedom and human rights. When he can bring himself to criticise Chavez and his ilk with the frequency and passion that he does Bush then he will be on the road to recovering his standing amongst free men of goodwill.
I find it extremely interesting that you would actually use Chomsky for the liberal “litmus test”.
What would the HRC think of Chomsky’s views on the Cambodian genocide by the Maoist Khmer Rouge. In case you had forgotten, or were unaware he declaimed it as “a noble social experiment”. Imagine that, the slaughter of millions is considered a positive.
Now, let’s hypothetically bestow Canadian citizenship on him. Do you think he be hauled in front of these show trials? Nah…me neither.
ASL, the criticism was not about asking the execrable Mr. Chomsky to comment, so much as it was a warning shot to all Republicans that we cannot afford to play the “I hate all things …(add your pet peeve!) and nothing (my pet peeve) says or does is Good or Right!”.
Again, the author of this piece seems shocked, surprised, and,like you, positively peeved about the fact that he can actually agree on something with Chomsky!
“Oh! Chomsky believes in Free Speech; I believe in Free Speech; I hate Chomsky; what is wrong with ME?”
Why is that? Here’s you saying that you absolutely refuse to listen to the man’s speech until he becomes like you, thinks like you, votes like you. He is your enemy, you hate him, and HE CANNOT POSSIBLY agree with you without YOU doubting your own beliefs, sanity, reasoning.
Have I got news for you! Do you hate Roe v. Wade? So do Muslims! Do you want religious instruction and no sex-ed for kindergartners; well so do the Muslims! Are you now going to insist that they all become like you before you accept that there are values that you share with your erstwhile enemies?
And now for your chimp argument. I don’t know of sane person in this wide world, BUT YOU, who would ask a chimp to solve a calculus problem; and from what you write I think you’d probably fare no better than the chimp. If Chomsky fared no better either, would that make all three of you agree that the problem was the calculus and not the intellectual deficiency of the problem-solvers?
BCL~
you’ve nailed it.
there probably ARE close to 1000 hate mongers in Canada.
so, what? let them hate. let them “run free”. let them be ridiculed into obscurity. why should my liberty and free speech suffer because of whackjobs few, if any, heed?
the only remedy for too much free speech is more free speech. when this standard isn’t upheld, we head toward an arbitrary, Statist fascism by default.
point out the bogeymen. Zundel? Ahenakew? …and 988 guys like this? you cheapen your argument. indeed, your argument is spent.
RE: 26
There is no right to be heard, only the right to speak. The “right” to be heard necessarily requires someone to be forced to listen, or to be forced to finance the publication. That’s a good test for legitimacy of the assertion of a right, by the way. If it forces someone else to be deprived of liberty or property, it isn’t a legitimate right.
“…when the state of colorado retaliated against ward churchill for his political speech, the right wingers were celebrating.”
If by
a) “state of colorado” you mean UC Boulder,
b) “retaliated against” you mean fired for cause,
c) “political speech” you mean plagiarization, lying on a resume, and fabricating his ethnicity, and
d) “celebrating” you mean experiencing mind-blowing, pleasurable schaudenfreude,
then yes, everything you say is absolutely true.
correct, but what i say is also true if the terms are given their ordinary meanings. keep in mind that state institutions have the same responsibility to uphold free speech that states do, and that the presence of a pretext does alter the fact of retaliation.
Free speech and academic freedom are separate issues. If you want to learn more about the latter, I suggest checking out this debate on ‘The Agenda’.
yeah, they’re separate issues. in churchill’s case they’re both issues, because he was an academic, and also the target of government retaliation for the content of his speech.
thanks for the link - i’ll check it out.
I think those who support these commissions might have second thoughts if it were people of another political persuasion who sat on them. If all the members deciding what constituted hate speech were conservative, would the current supporters still endorse them? If so, Steyn and Levant would not be the ones having to defend themselves. Instead it would be militant feminists, frustrated socialists, outspoken humanity professors (hmmm…. didn’t I cover that one with frustrated socialists?), and almost every muslim preacher and muslim association in Canada. It all depends on who gets to play God and decide what speech is allowed and what is not allowed.
Personally, I think Canada and all western countries need to have written constitutions worthy of the name with a strong set of rights put down on paper much like the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Then kangaroo courts like the one in this case would never see the light of day. What I see happening throughout the West is a gradual erosion of the rights of individuals in the name of multiculturalism and not offending the most thin-skinned complainer who raises his hand and whines. Your rights and liberties are being stolen from you right from under your noses. My compliments to our blog host, who is fighting the good fight.
I am far to the left on some things(universal minimun wage for all Canadians), and far to the right on others(we should all be allowed to carry sidearms),..
The most important freedom we have as Canadians is the right to free speech, we must defend that whereever there is abuse of the system. Section 13 must be repealed! and that islamofascist imam should be made to pony up Mr. Levant’s legal fees.
Anyone who attempts to use the system for their own profit(prophet) should be procecutable, and anyone who aids them should also be held accountable.
“Personally, I think Canada and all western countries need to have written constitutions worthy of the name with a strong set of rights put down on paper much like the Bill of Rights in the U.S.”
We have one already - it’s called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, brought in by Liberal PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
//
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
//
Read a bit further on in Trudeau’s constitution and you’ll find section 33, which nullifies every one of those rights by legislative fiat:
Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights permits Parliament or a provincial legislature to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7-15 of the Charter (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights, and the right to equality).
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm
Those acts are limited to 5 year terms (S 33(3)), and have to be reinstated to continue (S 33(4)). I think the notwithstanding clause was meant for times of emergency, but good point.
Haven’t we learned by now?
The only safe power, authority, or precedent to grant to the government is that power, authority, or precedent which you’d be comfortable being exercised by the opposite political party!
Those of you on the right in the U.S.: Are you comfortable granting George W. Bush’s administration the authority to eavesdrop on phone conversations where one party is in the U.S.? You are? Very well; are you equally comfortable granting Hillary Clinton that same authority?
If so, you’ve no fundamental reason to oppose such legislation. But if Hillary having that power gives you pause, then reconsider the precedent you set by granting that authority to the president under a right-leaning administration. For, once set, the precedent will remain, and you know perfectly well you won’t win every election.
People of the U.K.: Are you comfortable granting the role of state-supported religion to Anglicanism? Really? Very well: Are you equally comfortable with Islam as state-supported religion? For of course demographics change, and should there come a day when the Muslims who’re politically-organized and motivated enough to care outnumber the Christians who’re politically-organized and motivated enough to care, it’s not unreasonable to assume your courts will decree that state-funded mosques are only fair.
People of Canada: Are you comfortable granting to your government the role of deciding what speech is hate speech, and what speech is a protected “dissenting point of view?” Keep in mind that societies change over time, but the precedent for use of that power will remain intact. How comfortable would you be a hundred years hence when solid majorities favor radically different points-of-view? Would you be comfortable having your freedom of expression mediated by a Canadian version of Le Pen? A Canadian version of G.W. Bush? A Canadian version of Ahmadinejad? A Canadian version of Hugo Chavez? Of Putin? A century is a long time and any society can swing through more than one of these extremes over such a period.
Decide now what authority you grant to your government, and how you will restrain it.
The next election may not go your way.
this goes to show that you guys should read chomsky a little closer. He got in some hot water a while back for supporting an academic from france who wrote a book denying the holocaust. Chomsky basically said the guy’s book was garbage but joined together with others who claimed that the the academic shouldn’t lose his job for expressing is views. Also, I reckon anybody whose name ended up on one of those CIA watch lists in the 60s is going to wind up on the side of free speech
I would like to enlighten you with something you might find interesting. It has to do with the use of the tern ‘illegal immigrant’. I can remember a time when this term was not used. People use to say ‘illegal alien’. As far as I can tell, it is not used anymore. ‘Illegal immigrant’ is now the only thing you here; from the local and national news, to the Democratic Debates. The liberal media has slowly wiped it out to down play it’s hard edged effect on peoples outlook about illegals in the United States. There is power, as a whole, in the words that we use. And simple changing the word ‘alien’ to ‘immigrant’ has made the average American perceive this illegal act as something that doesn’t seem so wrong. And American’s are buying it, dismissing the law and our soveranty. The funny thing is, this term did not even exist. It is not in any Dictionary, and is very hard to look up on the internet. You might find it on a sight that deals with word usage, but most word banks will refer you strait to the term ‘illegal alien’ and its definition. ‘Legal alien’, in contrast, also does not exist. Now the term ‘illegal immigrant’, in my opinion, is kind of an oxymoron unto itself. An ‘illegal alien’ is a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country’s authorization. That means the act of being an alien in the United States is an illegal act, under the law. Now an ‘immigrant’ is a person who migrates to another country, usually for ‘permanent residence’. This definition is more vague, though we all understand the process which one goes through to become a ‘permanent resident’. That is to legally apply and then be accepted to enter. That means the act of being an immigrant in the United States is a legal act, under the law. Illegally crossing the border or purposefully overstaying your visa does not in anyway, shape, or form make one an ‘immigrant’. Being naturalized by the federal government does. Therefore, there is no such thing as an ‘illegal immigrant’. I think I made my point, but I just want to add that evil is out there using every little thing that they can make up to divide this country. And people need to know and understand that we have to enforce the law and uphold the constitution. Something even our president has not done very well, at least when it comes to our situation with ‘illegal aliens’.
While I don’t agree with everything Chomsky says, he have opinions on almost the most, many more things than he is qualified on. I wasn’t in any doubt about his firm position on free speech. That is probably noting one can say of today heated up free speech defenders that only defend the free speech of opinions they approve of. Not Hitchens, he obviously is on the right track. When the Faurisson affair was hot stuff there was a lot of left wingers that took Chomsky’s word in their mouth but they have balked.
Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression
Chomsky October 11, 1980
(…)
Then we must conclude that the person in question believes that the petition was “scandaleuse” because Faurisson should indeed be denied the normal rights of self-expression, should be barred from the university, should be subjected to harassment and even violence, etc. Such attitudes are not uncommon. They are typical, for example of American Communists and no doubt their counterparts elsewhere. Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States, which is why there has been nothing like the Faurisson affair here. In France, where a civil libertarian tradition is evidently not well-established and where there have been deep totalitarian strains among the intelligentsia for many years (collaborationism, the great influence of Leninism and its offshoots, the near-lunatic character of the new intellectual right, etc.), matters are apparently quite different.
For those who are concerned with the state of French intellectual culture, the Faurisson affair is not without interest. Two comparisons immediately come to mind. The first is this. I have frequently signed petitions — indeed, gone to far greater lengths — on behalf of Russian dissidents whose views are absolutely horrendous: advocates of ongoing U.S. savagery in Indochina, or of policies that would lead to nuclear war, or of a religious chauvinism that is reminiscent of the dark ages. No one has ever raised an objection. Should someone have done so, I would regard this with the same contempt as is deserved by the behavior of those who denounce the petition in support of Faurisson’s civil rights, and for exactly the same reason.
…
A second comparison also comes to mind. I rarely have much good to say about the mainstream intelligentsia in the United States, who generally resemble their counterparts elsewhere. Still, it is very illuminating to compare the reaction to the Faurisson affair in France and to the same phenomenon here. In the United States, Arthur Butz (whom one might regard as the American Faurisson) has not been subjected to the kind of merciless attack levelled against Faurisson. When the “no holocaust” historians hold a large international meeting in the United States, as they did some months ago, there is nothing like the hysteria that we find in France over the Faurisson affair. When the American Nazi Party calls for a parade in the largely Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois — obviously, pure provocation — the American Civil Liberties Union defends their rights (though of course, the American Communist Party is infuriated).
These comments for the most part sicken me, you’re all idiots. Obviously Chomsky is right about this, like he is right about a lot of things that don’t involve an understanding of economics.