Gay Doper Pits Jailing of Homophobe

The BBQ Pit
1

I’m queer as a three legged Portugese drag queen taxidermist, but I find this absolutely despicable:

There’s a visceral part of me that loves the notion of some homophobic blowhard (of course in my mind’s eye it’s a Falwell or Robertson type, or Fred Phelps even) turning red and screaming his head off in protest while being handcuffed and shoved into a squad car, but that’s simply a run of the mill revenge fantasy. I think this is a very dangerous thing that makes me glad I’m not French. Today you can’t say anything against gays, tomorrow… you can’t say anything about the president? The church?

Did they really think this one through? Was there just no real debate on the matter? I just can’t imagine even the most liberal member of the National Assembly thinking this is anything like a good idea.

A very mild pitting, but a pitting no less. One thing I fear is that gays in France and Canada will come to be more hated than ever due to their sacred cow status.

2

From the article:

"…he called gays a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say homosexuality was dangerous “only that it is inferior to heterosexuality and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”

My basis of thought is to change the words. For instance:

he called JEWS a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say JEWS were dangerous “only that they are inferior to Christians and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”

or

he called BLACKS a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say BLACKS were dangerous “only that they are inferior to WHITES and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”

So, do you still find his words harmless and not worthy of legal action?

3

I can’t agree, Sampiro.

I’ve got qualms with the whole hate crime definition, both abroad and here in the US. But France has had it’s hate speech laws in place for years and years, AIUI. Simply expanding the defition to include another minority doesn’t seem to be making gays a sacred cow.

When a public figure is calling any group a “threat to humanity” (from your linked article.) I think that does seem to meet the definition of hate speech. Maybe it’s just the way that I tend to use the Holocaust as my automatic comparison for what can happen when hate is marketed for political power, but when we’re talking about a minority that has been historically abused and used as scapegoat for most of history - that kind of comment comes damned close to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Or to inciting riot.

Or simply saying, “Will no one rid us of these troublesome fags?”

4

I know it’s hard for you American folks to get behind hate speech laws, what with the ideology an’ all, but I don’t see anything wrong with this, based on what little information is presented.

I’d like to see: a) His exact remarks. b) The law he’s run afoul of.

Someone in power arguing that an entire class of people is subhuman and represents a threat to humanity? Not something I’m comfortable with. Glad there’s laws against it.

I’m so used to American folks freaking out because we have hate crime laws in Canada. “Anything less than Absolute Freedom of Speech is tyranny!” Then you look at the laws and see that the only speech that is criminalized amounts to “Hey! Let’s get those black/jew/queer bastards!” etc.

Freedom of speech is great, but there’s a balance between “freedom to” and “freedom from.”

I’ll take freedom from dehumanizing over freedom to dehumanize any day, thanks.

I don’t know how the french legislation is crafted, but here in Canada you don’t have to worry about it unless it can be shown that your speech itself represents a tangible threat to real, live human beings.

5

The linked article is remarkably content-free - some links to his speeches would have helped - but the statements therein show a marked lack of imagination on his part. I can see his POV: ‘If too many people were gay, then too few would reproduce and the human race would die out very rapidly.’ However, he’s ignoring that many gay people do want children - some here have talked about being approached about becoming sperm donors.

6

Wow, this is like some horrible authoritarian train wreck.

In a civilized and free society you should be free to say whatever you want as long as it’s not something that could be seen to cause immediate harm (ie, yelling fire in a crowded theatre being the classic example.)

Calling a class of people subhuman should be this man’s right. Sure, it’s reprehensible and disgusting, but it is also reprehensible and disgusting that there’s a society that thinks it’s perfectly okay to jail people for the words they speak.

To paraphrase a really bad Michael Douglas movie, “Part of a democratic society is having to allow someone to stand up and say something that makes your blood boil, and not only allow it but fervently and passionately defend their right to do so.”

7

I’ll never understand how Canadians can take the “moral high ground” on issues like marijuana legalisation, when you guys punish a true victimless crime like publich speech.

8

I’m not speaking up in favor of Hate Speech legislation. As I said in my first post, I have some grave qualms about the whole Hate Crime concept.

However, since France has had this law on the books for a while before it was amended last year to include homosexuals as a group that can be considered for it - I don’t see the inclusion of homosexuals as being any different from including Jews, Blacks, Arabs, or Basque.

9

Spot on. While I don’t appreciate being labeled a threat to humanity [though it’s rather amusing], free speech doesn’t just apply to the speech I happen to like.

10

Something I think a lot of people don’t realize is Americans take the hokey phrase, “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” pretty damn seriously.

It’s good to know I was born in the right country, and not a country that doesn’t allow freedom of speech for its politicians nor even freedom of expression in its public schools.

11

How about reading for comprehension?

I know this is contrary to the steady drumbeat of misinformation from a certain flavour of conservative Americans.

The law is designed to apply to public speech like “Kill all the Christians!” “Gays are to blame for high gas prices! Beat 'em up for fuel economy!”

Here’s the legislation. Examine it and craft an example of victimless public speech that you could expect to get into trouble for. It only provides protection against promoting simple, unreasoning hatred against people based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation.

Fred Phelps could bring his “Love Crusade” down here and not break a sweat, because even his despicable drivel meets the very broadly defined test of sincere public discourse. “God hates fags! Leviticus says they’ll burn in hell and every Canadian will too for giving them legal protection!” is perfectly acceptable speech, so far as the law is concerned.

“The world will not be safe until every last limp-wristed homo is dead” is going to get you into trouble, if you broadcast it. Don’t worry about being dragged away by the gestapo if you express that opinion in private, though.

The approach is to target speech that is harmful in a real way, while protecting the right to diversity of opinion.

It’s not a new concept, and I think you’ll find American laws that limit your freedom of speech similarly. You can say “You’re a loudmouthed asshole,” but you’re going to get in trouble if you say “If you open your mouth again I’m going to cut your fucking throat.” It’s just speech – but it’s better to make it an actionable offense than to say everything’s o.k. until the guy’s bleeding out.

“Sticks and stones” isn’t entirely true. RTLM in Rwanda was “sticks and stones.” There were already laws on the books that made the massacre of almost a million people a bit of a no-no, but they didn’t help much. Sometimes speech has real consequences. Any protection against that kind of insanity is a good thing.

It can happen here. Masses of people are bugshit crazy.

12

I think those statements would fall under ‘incitement to violence’ and not be protected in the US either.

“319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”

What is “breach of the peace”? Is that violence and only violence? Or is people yelling at each other on a streetcorner “breaching the peace?”?

13

It’s not surprising that the French have trouble with this concept, given how foreign it is to their philosophical history ;).

I’m with Sampiro on this: if you jail this guy, the thought doesn’t magically go away. Instead, having the thought becomes the mark of an intellectual rebel, a martyr, someone who’s willing to defy the state in order to speak his mind. Why make ignorance so sexy?

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Daniel

14

Holy crap, but this make absolutely no sense at all. . .but in a spectacular way.

15

That’s right. Plenty of times, I wish someone would just shut up and disappear, but to have that as law would be dangerous. Who gets to decide? What sort of speech is outlawed? What speech is allowed? There is no way I can avoid “slippery slope” on this.

16

For me it’s not so much slippery slope as it is a strong mistrust of the folks making the laws. Frankly, I think the people who end up with power are the people who most want power, and those are the people that I least want to have power. If I thought anarchism were workable, I’d go back to my youthful anarchist ways in a heartbeat.

I don’t think anarchism is workable, but I still don’t trust the Powers that Be to decide which speech is okay and which is (heh) verboten. Here in the US, land of free speech zealots, our government has created Free Speech Zones, and is currently condemning those who leaked stories about the government spying on its citizens. If our government could outlaw speech, what kind of speech do you think would be outlawed?

Daniel

17

Sure they did. It has been a huge and long debate (it’s a recent law). You see, in France, inciting to racial hatred, for instance is a crime. The debate wasn’t on the principle (should one be sentenced for hate speech), this was already a given and is widely accepted. The only issue was whether or not homosexuals should be one of the protected groups. The liberals(*) (not to mention homosexual organizations) widely supported the new law.

(*) Using here “liberals” with the american, not european, meaning of the word.

18

OK. And in a free society, should public insults thrown at you personnaly in public be protected too ?

19

OK. And in a free society, should public insults thrown at you personnaly in public be protected too ? Should I be allowed to say in a public speech ** Martin Hyde ** is a threat to humanity and should be killed"?

20

clairobscur, personal insults should be protected. Calls to violence should not. Did this guy say that homosexuals should be killed?

Daniel