OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Hate Speech Again

Entry 2139, on 2021-07-08 at 20:52:21 (Rating 4, Politics)

According to Plato: "No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth."

It is always dangerous to take these adages too literally, even when they come from someone as revered as Plato, but I think they often contain an element of truth, and at the very least they serve as a useful starting point for discussion of a subject.

So the subject I am introducing here is free speech, truth, and censorship, which are issues which have become popular here in New Zealand, after the government released a "discussion document" about new "hate speech" laws they intend to introduce in the future. As well as that, free speech is a popular topic I like to cover in this blog.

The main excuse for this new form of repression (which is almost inevitably what this will eventually become) is the Christchurch Mosque Shooting of 2019 (for my reaction to that event, shortly after it happened, see "Mosque Attack Reaction" from 2019-03-19). In fact, that event has been used as an excuse for other ineffective, repressive reforms as well, but I am going to stick to the free speech issue in this post.

So the government wants to introduce new laws with harsher penalties for hate speech, along with increasing the number of groups which will be "protected" from such speech. They have distributed a discussion document (which I have read) which makes a lot of unsupported claims, and states opinions as if they were facts. Of most concern is the fact that they have been conspicuously unable to define what hate speech really is, and that is always the most critical point when this type of intervention is examined.

In reality, this type of legislation is likely to be used to silence genuine critics of groups who might currently enjoy special protections because of some political fad. For example, at this point in history trans people, followed native people, then Muslims, and then women seem to get the greatest level of support. Straight white men are at the bottom of the list, of course, but we are used to that.

So my first question would be: why do we have to list certain categories of people for legal protection. Isn't hate speech against any group, whether they have a specific race, ethnicity, religion, or gender identity on the list just as bad as that against any others? Apparently not.

So that is my first criticism: if hate speech is wrong (and that's a big "if") then surely it should be wrong no matter who it is used against. Why do we need to list categories such as sexual preference, religion, and race as particular categories?

More concerning is the loose definiton of hate speech. No one seems to really know what it is, although during one interview it was said "you would know it when you see it". That is both ridiculous and dangerous. We won't know it when we see it at all. Some people will see hate speech where others will see legitimate criticism, while others might see a humorous but politically incorrect comment.

So my second criticism is that we don't know what hate speech is, because no one seems to be able to define it. And even if someone could define it, what chance is there that we would all, or even a majority of us, agree with the definition?

Then there is the question about whether anyone should be prosecuted - and possibly suffer a penalty of imprisonment more harsh than for some genuine assault crimes - for just saying or writing something. No doubt there are situations where inaccurate or severe comments can directly lead to violence, but those are the minority of cases. You might create an argument where that type of speech should be curtailed, but what about the less obvious cases?

So my third point is that repression of speech should be minimised, even if it isn't possible to eliminate restrictions on it completely. The government's proposal seems to tend to the opposite: they want less discussion of awkward subjects, not more.

Look back through this blog and you will find many posts where I might be accused of hate speech. For example, I have criticised feminism, Islam, trans sport, and leftist politics. Is any of that hateful? Well, according to my understanding of what might happen, it might be.

But there is no hate for individuals or groups in my comments. I criticise actions, even though those are often associated with groups, it is the actions and not the groups I am expressing distrust for. I do concede that as a shorthand I sometimes use the group as a placeholder for the activities associated with that group, but either way, the comments are made in the spirit of fair criticism rather than hate.

So I think that Islam is a problematic belief system because it is arguably the greatest source of repression and violence in the world today. But I don't view individual Muslims with any negativity. If I found they wanted to repress other people or partake in terrorism I would certainly criticise that aspect of their personality then, and I would associate the bad behaviour with their religion, but that isn't hate towards the person. Or is it? Maybe hate speech laws could be used against me in that case.

But is criticising some of the underlying violence inherent in Islam a bad thing? If there are systemic issues with a belief system then surely we should be discussing them. Note that far more hateful campaigns exist against alleged systemic issues with white culture, along with genuinely hateful rhetoric, but no one seems to think that should be stopped.

So, yet again, there seems to be an uneven treatment of different groups in this area. Either we treat all hate speech the same, no matter who it is aimed at, or we completely throw out the whole concept. Clearly I would prefer the second option.

I think it is important to allow free discussion of these ideas. If anyone is offended then they should just avoid being exposed to that discussion. If someone makes a controversial comment which is wrong, then have someone come in and show where it is wrong. If a comment directly leads to violence against any group or individual, then look at potential penalties, but only then.

Repressing speech doesn't fix any problems. It just drives those ideas into echo chambers where there is no control or contrary opinions. And what if the point being made might be considered hateful but is also true? There are plenty of examples of that, at least in my opinion.

Stopping people exercising what should be a right to free speech is never a good idea, except in extraordinary circumstances. These laws would have made no difference to the Christchurch Shotting, for example.

Finally, there is another point, which strangely, seems to be completely ignored. That is, is the alleged "hate speech" true? For example, if someone says Islam is a big problem in the world, shouldn't we ask whether that is true or not, before we try to suppress it? It seems today that the truth really doesn't matter much any more.

These new hate speech laws are far more dangerous than any of the hate speech they claim to eliminate. We must resist them as much as we can.

Comment 1 (6786) by Anonymous on 2021-07-09 at 13:18:22:

It's a tough issue. I don't think anybody would argue that the goal here is to stop people saying nasty, hurtful things about others.

Is this something a Government CAN accomplish? I don't think so. I think society does this over time, and I think we've done well to stop using words and terms that are now considered (by consensus) inappropriate. I too have concerns about the proposed legislation in this area... mainly because I don't think this will change anything except possible put restraints on free speech. And don't get me started on Microaggressions...

Comment 2 (6787) by OJB on 2021-07-09 at 14:39:45:

No, it isn't about stopping *all* hateful speech; it's about stopping it specifically against certain groups. Either stop it completely, or allow it completely. This is the worst possible form.

They can accomplish suppressing open speech and persecuting people who express certain views. They can't stop the underlying attitudes which lead to those views. In fact, I would say they will make them worse. Again, the worst possible outcome.

Comment 3 (6791) by Anonymous on 2021-07-18 at 11:50:45:

Several good points in my opinion. Especially about the discriminative categorisation of groups that need to be protected while everybody else apparently can be “badmouthed”. Another issue worth considering: is hate speech the same as offending speech? A whole rat tail of issues and questions is linked with this conundrum whether they are related, connected, identical.

Comment 4 (6792) by OJB on 2021-07-18 at 14:59:42:

Yes, if hate speech was just offending speech then we really would be in trouble. Free speech would be completely gone, then. I don't think it will be though, in general. I'm guessing there will be some cases where people are persecuted for no good reason, plus it will just add to the already common situation were people just don't present their opinion because of fear of repercussions.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.