"Forcing" someone to apologise. What's the point?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Hi There,

There’s an interesting series of videos (interesting to me, I should say) on YouTube, where Canadian conservative Ezra Levant answers questions from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, about why he published cartoons in one of his periodicals that depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad, something considered offensive to (at least some) Muslims.

Levant makes the following quote in this video, in relation to the possibility that he might be ordered to apologise for publishing the cartoons:

And it got me thinking.

Of what use is an apology if everyone involved knows that it isn’t sincere?

Can the state really force someone to apologise in certain instances, even when everyone knows it wouldn’t be sincere?

Wouldn’t such a “punishment” amount to a forced pantomime?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to “force” someone to re-declare their views, or even more sense not to force them to say anything at all?

2

The offended parties can pretend it’s sincere. It’s not to correct the thinking of the offender, but to assuage the inflated ego of the offended. Anyone who is truly mollified by such an apology is delusional.

It’s wrong because it damages everyone involved. The apologizer is humiliated and forced to tell a whopping lie, which he or she would never do of his or her own volition; it ruins the credibility of the enforcer (the apologizer’s boss, the government, whomever) and casts it/them as frightened ninnies; and it feeds the apologizee’s fantasy of importance and victimhood, perpetrating their skewed view of the world and their place in it.

On the other hand, when I forced my son to apologize to our neighbor for vandalizing the man’s tool shed, it taught my son humility and character, caused my neighbor to respect me and my son, and made me a good father. Didn’t it?

3

As a parent, this is tricky, isn’t it? I think most forced apologies can be divided into two groups: I need you to say you’re sorry and** I need you to be sorry**. We need to teach our kids when you should say you’re sorry even if you don’t mean it in order to prepare them to live in the real world. It’s just like we need to teach them to lie when fat Aunt Edna wears a sofadress or to cover their tracks when throwing an unauthorized party. It sucks as a parent to realize that you have to teach your kids how be effectively dishonest, but you do. You mostly teach them that stuff by example and by punishing them when they don’t do it, and so they learn to do it. You may think you’re teaching them not to throw unauthorized parties, but you’re not; you’re teaching them how to be sneakier about it.

So sometimes we need to say we’re sorry when we’re not, so we can continue to enjoy the benefits that come from living in civilized (lying) society.

The second form of forced apology is when I need you to *be *sorry. If my kid tortures a cat, I really really need him to understand why that’s not okay and he needs to *be *sorry about that, not just say it. That’s, of course, nearly impossible to police. We can explain consequences, implement punishments, try to educate our kids about other people’s point of view, but at the end of the day, there’s no way I know of to make a person feel guilt or regret if they don’t.

But the thing all forced apologies have in common is that they’re not about the apologizer, or even the person getting the apology. They’re about the “I” - the parent, the company, the publisher, the government - who’s enforcing the apology. As a parent, you’re responsible for your kid vandalizing property. Your forcing him to apologize isn’t really about him - after all, he may or may not really be sorry - and it’s not about your neighbor - after all, he’s suffering the vandalism with or without the apology - it’s about YOU. It’s about demonstrating to your neighbor that you are being responsible as a parent and that you have enough control over your son to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. It’s a three way power play, not between your son and your neighbor, but between you and your son and you and your neighbor.

4

Aside from kids, that’s kind of the point. I know someone who used to do this. The entire purpose is to humiliate the other person and make them know and admit that they’ve lost.

It’s pretty much a dick thing to do.

5

It seems to me that in this case, it was a public relations move. It didn’t make Levant any more contrite, but it made Canada appear so.

6

And thanks again to** WhyNot** for an well thought out post that is going in my “Figuring it out along the way” parenting book for future use. :slight_smile:

ETA: are the Muslims at it, again? Darn! Themost annoying thing about those guys is that every public declaration is not spoken on a personal basis, but as an adress on behalf of some imagined fundie power base. it is as if Joe Average wouldn’t be able to open his mouth in front of a camera without thinking " what I’m going to say now should not offend everyone who voted for Sarah Palin" .

7

The point in the situation in the OP is to “send a message,” a phrase I really, really hate.

When an enforcer (the state) “sends a message,” the enforcer is declaring to the world that Behavior X (publishing offensive cartoons) is something our society does not permit. Whether our society *actually *permits it or not is not the point; the point is that we understand the enforcer has the power to say so, and that crossing the enforcer on this point may be a losing battle. The enforcer believes enough of the society agrees (that we should not permit Behavior X) that the declaration will enhance the enforcer’s political power.

8

I think it isn’t different. Forcing your son to apologize has exactly the same flaws you outlined in the case of the OP. The only plus, IMO is the part I bolded . And I suspect it’s also the case in the OP’s example. The state wants to be perceived positively by the third party and forces someone to apologize.

It is my contention that forced apologies are worthless and pointless, including in the case of children (actually, especially in the case of children, because it’s the only situation I’m familiar with and have thought about).

9

Children do need to have behavior modeled for them as part of the process of learning. Does a grown adult need anyone else to teach them “humility and character”, especially the government?

I don’t object to parents punishing their children for mouthing off or acting offensively, but I sure do object to the government trying to tell adults what they can say - even if it hurts someone’s precious widdle feelings.

10

Practically speaking, what happens if the ‘offender’ immediately holds a press conference or publishes an essay after the apology declaring his insincerity? How about wearing a shirt that says “The court has forced me to lie.” Can he be forced to apologize again? Could this go back and forth?

What happens if he refuses to speak? Is there some other, worse, punishment?

11

Agree and disagree. I think that forcing an apology out of children serves a modeling function as lavenderviolet suggests. The message sent to the child is “this is the sort of thing you’re supposed to apologize for, if you do this again you should apologize then as well.” It’s also a very targeted punishment; I can ground you or beat you for anything, but I can only humiliate you by making you apologize if you actually break Suzy’s window.

In the case of an adult it might be more of a dick thing, but only if we have a lot of respect for the maturity of adults. I just see no reason we should ahem humans are silly ahem.

12

Oh, no, I totally agree, that’s what I meant by aside from kids. :slight_smile: It’s like correcting manners: It’s only appropriate to do with a kid, and correcting an adult is at least as bad as the original offense.

13

I think with most children there is a slight difference though.

AFTER the fact they often realize they were in the wrong when it is explained to them by adults. Its not so much that the apology isnt meaningful or hearfelt to them, its often that it is a very UNPLEASANT and embarassing thing to do and they would rather just forget about it. Its like a child having to do public speaking, only worse.

So, the forced apology is somewhat different for them.

The towel head cartoon guy on the otherhand, DOESNT believe in an apology, and isnt even embarrassed to say he ISNT.

14

Ezra Levant is the biggest tool on earth. It’s possible that he might be right about something, but highly unlikely.

15

Eh, even a stopped cock is right twice a day. :wink: An apology from him would mean less than nothing.

16

ahem

Even my perverted brain can’t make that make sense :slight_smile:

17

Yeah, it was one of my more obtuse attempts. “Stopped” as in, they don’t want him to say that shit and “cock” as in, well, he’s a cock. And “right” as in, an apology from him at this point will not mollify anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

And so there’s this saying, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day,”…okay, nevermind. I’ll put that into the Fail column. :smack:

18

How exactly is Levant being “forced” to do something? Is there physical torture involved? Or does he just not like other people stating their opinion about what he should do? That’s what it sounds like. “Those people should stop saying things about those things I said, waaaa.”

I think it would cost him nothing to apologize and that seems to be what a large number of people think he should do. He could do the old “I’m sorry if I offended anyone” apology that everyone understands the true meaning of - Then his government can save face. Or he can stick to his guns, say things others don’t like and accept that, just maybe, other folks might want to say things he doesn’t like.

There are lots of reasons to insist that someone apologize, generally because it’s the right thing to do. The only issue is whether he is really being “forced” or is he a publicity hog (I vote for this one.)

19

He’s a tool - I’ll send Dread Pirate Jimbo in so he can tell you about Ezra and his threatening to sue the University of Calgary paper, The Gauntlet, when Jim was an editor there.

20

And here I am! :slight_smile:

Let’s be clear – he didn’t threaten to sue The Gauntlet; he DID sue The Gauntlet… unsuccessfully. Way back in the early-mid 90s, I was a writer for the student newspaper, mostly covering the men’s basketball beat, but also doing some cartoons and I eventually worked my way up to sports editor and finally up to managing editor. When I started writing there, Ezra was the editor of the classified ads page, know as Three Lines Free (or TLFs). I’d say I met him a number of times while he was TLF editor when I popped up to the office to drop off a story, but I don’t honestly recall him ever deigning to actually speak to me – the volunteer staff was unworthy of being directly addressed by him while he was in the midst of one of his many lectures on the state of the universe. Something I very rapidly discovered about Ezra: he doesn’t have conversations, so much as dissertations on his world view with people occasionally interrupting his flow with questions and debate points that he would generally ignore unless they gave him an opening to go on another long monologue. Yes, the guy pulling down a whopping $40/week stipend to select a couple dozen posts to drop in his space in the paper was entirely too important to acknowledge the rabble with even so much as a nod – he was a pompous egomaniac even then.

Fast forward a couple years. Ezra has long since been removed from his editor’s position and has moved on to University politics and I am now the sports editor. In mid-February, 1993, we published a letter to the editor discussing an event that had occurred earlier that particular month where Ezra and a couple of his buddies had a public “debate” on whether homosexual rights should be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The three of them enthusiastically insisted that homosexuality is a choice, not a predisposition and that matters of choice should not have any special rights attached to them. The letter was run under the title, “Levant, Anders and McKinsley spread hate, claims reader.” * Anyway, realizing that such a racy title might come back to harm their future dreams of political careers, the three of them filed a $10,000 libel suit against The Gauntlet in the hopes of forcing us into a public retraction. As luck would have it, we had at our disposal one of the top libel lawyers in Western Canada and the suit was eventually dropped.

So getting back to the OP, Ezra has been a bigoted, arrogant ass for as far back as I can remember. He has been unapologetically so and projects this persona whenever he can splash his stupid face and stupid glasses across a newspaper article or, better yet, a TV program. The reactionary right adore him, naturally – he’s fiscally conservative, hates on every race, religion and creed, and he loves to talk over anyone who makes the mistake of trying to have a discussion with him. The image he projects in public, so far as I can tell, is completely genuine – he is an utter tool.

Is he apologetic for printing that cartoon? No, absolutely not. Should he be publicly shamed by being forced to make an apology anyway? I say hell yes, he should. It’s bad enough that he has more than a decade of hate mongering under his belt without him being able to continue to do so without any consequences. While I generally agree with the perspectives of the parents in this thread, I do believe there is a time and a place for forcing adults to make apologies that we all know to be insincere. I do believe that a little public humiliation for the jerks of the world is a good thing in some situations. And I do believe that Ezra Levant fully deserves this slap on the pee-pee, even if it might also serve to give him one more opportunity for self-aggrandizement on a national stage. YMMV. :slight_smile:

  • Yes, the Anders mentioned there is Rob Anders, now a Calgary MP (I sincerely apologize to the rest of Canada for that)