Other ways I use my time when I tire of updating my resume or convincing strangers on the phone that I am really a barrel of laughs who will make their workplace amazing and totally awesome… May 29, 2008
Posted by thomas in : Uncategorized , trackbackOver HERE they’re talking about Mark Steyn and human rights commissions and all that fun exciting stuff (hush - no need to try and hide your excitement, I know many of you absolutely feed on this sort of thing). Anyway, since I’ve moved past my Yo Gabba Gabba and haiku unemployment phases (or here’s to hoping) I’ve recently taken to leaving inordinately long blog comments. My comment on Mr. Steyn’s alleged hate speech is posted below to incite your rage/approval and I invite you to join the discussion/debate by clicking here, or that other “HERE” up there, in line number 1.
I don’t think that Steyn’s article can fairly be classified as hate speech, although I would be interested to hear what others think of it as well.
Now to try and explain why can be difficult and tricky…maybe a good question to ask would be if I were a Muslim would I feel the same way? Do I not see this as hate speech simply because I’m not part of the group that Steyn is afraid of (as a good ol’ Bible believing evangelical Christian)? However, from my position as a “good ol’ Bible believing evangelical” (and here, I know I’m using a tired and oft-repeated argument) there have been, for example, massive runaway bestsellers decrying my particular religious group (along with Muslims and others) as child abusers due to a shared belief in hell. I have not been clamoring for human rights councils to take a Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to task and issue a statement that evangelicals and other religious believers are not in fact dim-witted, ignorant, intrinsically violent by nature of our belief systems and eager to psychologically torment young children and that such stereotyping is not beneficial for social discourse and the creation of “… a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person…” (from the Ontario Human Rights Code).
Rather than decrees from a commission on what constitutes unfair stereotyping and the dissemination of hateful ignorance there have been a boatload of articles and books (from believers and non-believers alike) exposing the flaws in such stereotypes and the arguments made. It seems to be a more credible way to critique and deal with such stereotyping and ignorance - through argument rather than by decree.
Now, this sort of comparison might not be entirely fair as evangelical/Christian westerner might have a bit more clout in dealing with “the new atheism” than the Muslim westerner has in dealing with her critics. However, was this a case of a hateful critic beating up on a group completely unable to defend itself? Would the Canadian Islamic Congress be unable to critique Mark Steyn and Macleans without a vicious backlash from the Canadian population at large? Was taking the issue to a human rights tribunal the only option? I don’t know. Perhaps Canadians would have risen up in deep seated anger and discrimination against the Canadian Islamic Congress for daring to criticize Steyn’s stereotypes and argument if they had done so without the strength and authority of the Human Rights Commission as their support. However, at least speaking for myself, such a scenario seems extremely questionable.
What I find a slightly disturbing about this whole situation is the role that the Commission has played in the conflict between Macleans and the Canadian Islamic Congress. In the letter the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission wrote to Macleans as a rebuttal for their critique of the Council’s statement she stated, “That [taking controversial positions] is inevitable because we have a mandate to promote change – away from unfair stereotypes and discriminatory behavior and towards a culture of human rights.” Why this seems troubling to me is that I’m not sure the Ontario Human Rights Commission does have “a mandate to promote change.” You only need the most basic understanding of hermeneutics (or history) to question whether we want an authoritative bureaucracy so eagerly embracing a self-defined agenda and excitedly trying right the word’s wrongs. They do have a mandate to protect minorities against discrimination, but is it their responsibility to advance the debate? I’m not trying to trash minority rights at all, but I don’t know if we want government commissions taking it upon themselves to not only protect minorities from mutual attack, but to advance the battle on behalf of one group or another. In addition to its potential for abuse, I question whether such an approach is really effective in producing societal and cultural change and acceptance.
To return to the earlier example of the new atheists and some of their Christian and atheist critics - the question is would we want the Ontario Human Rights Commission to take the role of Alistair McGrath or Richard Dawkins in a debate, or does it seem more fitting that it play the role of moderator - setting time limits, cutting off the mike when one debater embarks on a profanity laced tirade or makes off-color remarks about the other’s mother and choice of tie? The Human Rights Commission’s willingness (or eagerness judging by the Commissioner’s comments) to step into the podium and pontificate (to continue with the debate analogy) is probably more disturbing for me than Mark Steyn’s article.
All that said, I don’t think Steyn has it right in his vision of some dystopian future and he does make some unfair stereotypes, some racist/xenophobic insulations, and too easily jumps on a readily available scapegoat for the decline of some western ideal. I don’t find his position particularly convincing or helpful (although, granted, I haven’t read his entire book, only the article, so I hope I’m not putting my foot too far up inside my mouth). But this comment is already ridiculously outside the bounds of acceptable length, so I will offer a brief critique of Steyn’s article on my own blog…
Glancing back over my comment I’m not sure I’ve made a particularly convincing argument that Steyn’s article is not hate speech…but here’s to hoping that some more people jump in with some comments…
Comments»
be the first to offer a crushing critique, bestow glorious praise or spout random absurdities...