Being Nice to Bigots? Or, I'm almost fed up with this ...

I read another bigoted post on Facebook recently and I know that I should not take these things too seriously but ... well ... I do in the sense that I think they contribute to a culture of prejudice. At the least, they reinforce the views of those who are already prejudiced and this reminds me of friends and relatives of mine who have the same type of bigoted views. The question I have is: what to do about it? For a long time I ignored it ... well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration.  There were always posts that set me off to which I had to reply. And, I won't claim to be a long time aficionado of Facebook. But, in the time that I have been -- and, elsewhere in life -- I tended to ignore bigotry perhaps because it was upsetting or perhaps because I just thought it would go away. It didn't. And, this is one of the things that as I reflect on my job, my age, and what I used to think that confuses and upsets me. When I was the age of my students now, I used to assume -- as did many of my friends -- that bigotry was on the way out, in all its forms. Surely, we thought, even bigots recognize this and they are becoming a smaller and more vocal and idiotic-sounding group of racists whose only supporters were skinheads and KKK wannabes. To be clear, no one expected racism or sexism or homophobia to disappear right away but we had a sense that those of us who supported equality, who supported compassion, who supported kindness and progress were on the right side of history.

Current debates over refugees in Canada highlight the degree to which we judged incorrectly. I take a great deal of heart from the fact that overly bigoted people are a minority of the Canadian population. The vast majority of Canadians -- and the vast majority of people about whom I care and for whom I respect -- have risen to the challenge of helping people who need help; who recognize what it means to flee from ISIS or famine or militarized extremism in an unfortunately diverse range of forms.

But, I still can't shake the deep feelings of disquiet that haunt me when I read posts by people I know or even don't know who recycle sad clichés and try to pretend that they are not bigots all the while talking bigotry. The other day, for instance, I read a post reposted by a friend, a person who is a member of the same church I attend and who would self-identify as a Christian. This person frequently asks for prayer support and help because ... well ... she needs it owing to her current life circumstances. Fair enough. That is what she should do. I would do the same thing in her situation. But, she will also periodically posts bigoted and inaccurate statements, urging our support for prejudiced views. For instance, a couple of weeks ago she re-posted a complaint against Muslims not wearing motorcycle helmets while all good Canadians did. The post included a picture that showed supposed Muslims flaunting the law, riding what appeared to be ATVs, with long beards flowing. Her accompanying text complained that hard working Christians built this country and they were being treated as second class citizens (because these supposed Muslims could here be seen flaunting the law).

You know the story and you don't need my discourse analysis to highlight words like "hard working" attached to Christians but not others and the implications of that link. But, the image that was posted was all wrong. It showed Sikhs not Muslims at a parade, shriner-like. In other words, what looked like a service club having fun at a parade was politicized into an anti-immigrant statement. (I would, btw, strongly advise anyone to wear a helmet when driving a motorcycle).

This is just plain wrong. It is wrong because it is uncharitable; it is wrong because it is inaccurate; it is wrong because it asks us to think about groups of people and make judgements about them based on their heritage and not who they are as people.  It is wrong because it treats civic spirit as a crime and it is wrong because it distorts history and tells at best half truths ... .

Over the years, I've tried to approach these types of things in the way I have thought best: with reason and evidence. Years ago, I was chatting with another father on soccer pitch. He found out what I did for a living and began -- as people are often wont to do -- to tell me my job. He explained that when I taught about Canadian heritage I had to treat things in context (OK, yes), for instance, no one back in the day thought deporting Acadians was wrong and so we should not teach that it was wrong. I thought about this for a second and asked him "don't you think the Acadians thought this was wrong?"

My question was pointed but asked in an even voice and designed to highlight (a) that context is complicated; it is rarely a simple thing and depends on the perspectives of those who experienced that history (b) that he was violating his own rules by not taking account of context. I did not pause to call him a bigot or belittle his lack of knowledge of the Deportation. I tried to intimate that good relations between different communities could, in fact, be build on accuracy about history and that we should not excuse tragedy.

My question then, as often now, fell on deaf ears. Rather than continue the discussion, the other father walked away from me. And, I hate to say it, that is more often than not the response I get from people when I use the even keeled reason and evidence approach.

I get it. I am often not talking to the person to whom I am actually speaking but setting a model of reasoned engagement in public issues for others to follow and from which others can learn. But, I will also confess that I am getting tired of the barrage of racism and bigotry and if I am tired of it, how much more tired must be the people who actually experience this bigotry and racism?

What should we say to those people who do not want to help children fleeing sex slavery? Or, who don't want to see hospitals rebuilt because there might possibly be some sort of use to someone who does something wrong? Or, who feels that the reality of poverty in Canada means that Canadians should not help someone fleeing for their lives?

I ask these questions because they expose what I think was the fallacy of my old reasoning. I used to believe -- back in the day -- that reason would win out because the bigots and racists and sexists of the world simply did not understand the issue. At heart, I believed, they were good people who were misguided. Once they discovered that they had made a mistake, they would behave like I behave when I discovered that I made a mistake. They would correct it. They would be generous, support equality, not want to see innocent people hurt.

Was I wrong about that? I don't think so but the evidence is mounting. Every day I read posts from people -- including people who are Christian friends -- who ignore the tragedies of others' lives, who don't want to see Canada reach out to help and play a constructive role in world affairs, who ignore sexual slavery and torture as they complain about refugees who they treat as a bunch of slackers riding off the Canadian welfare state. They -- safe in their homes -- claim they are the aggrieved party -- the person to whom something wrong has been done -- and not the child about to die; not the man about be beheaded; not the woman about to be sold.

Perhaps, indeed, these people have grievances. Perhaps we should talk about their problems. But, we have that luxury. We can talk about their problems tomorrow. For the refugees that they stop at our borders ... the matter is somewhat more pressing. For the kid in Gaza who will die without medical treatment, the issue is someone more grave.

I don't agree with what she says but I almost  ... almost ... get why Rona Ambrose stands up in the House of Commons and distorts the truth. I'd urge her not to, if she cared about my views. I'd tell her that she could and should be a principled conservative who did not have to pretend that there were no implications to not providing medical aid in Gaza. I'd tell he that she did not have say that Israeli lives mattered but we can ignore Palestinians. She could play a leadership role in building a better and different type of conservatism in Canada and that she did not need to pander to the basest voices in our society. She could be better than this. I almost get it. She is trying to get votes and those votes don't come easy because she is selling a product, as it were and using a metaphor, that most Canadians don't want to buy. And, this is why she plays the politics of distortion.  I almost get it, even as I hope she'd be better and more responsible and more humane.

But, I don't get why others hold these views. What is so threatening about refugees who want to live? About women who want to be something other than abused? About religious minorities that want to practice their religion without fear of beheading?

What is most disturbing, of course, is the realization that there are people out there who simply do not care about others. Ambrose is playing a role for her own reasons, so we can leave her to one side, but what about those people who actually believe these things? When did they lose -- did they ever have? -- their sense of human decency, of kindness, or compassion? When did they start to argue that kindness and compassion were bad?

Racism is back and it is back with a vengeance. It has been broken free from the bounds of simple human decency to make the other not someone worth caring about. It is an ideological trajectory that runs, in my view, disturbingly close to fascism.

I have decided that I will be polite in most circumstances in response but I have also decided that people need to be "called" on their views. If a Christian friend of mine posts a bigoted statement I will say "this is not Christian". If a non-Christian friend or relative does the same thing, I will say "you are wrong" and in cases where people are being racist idiots ... I feel compelled to say "you are being a racist idiot." I am not at all certain that racists and bigots of all sorts should be let off the hook. I suspect, in fact, that bigots count on the reasonableness and proper behaviour of the rest of us. They assume that they will not be called on their points (or, if they are, they can dismiss us with their ready answer of "oh, you're a liberal" -- another thing that happened to me). If someone is making a stupid point ... should we be polite in response?

Likely yes and the model of those who suffer directly from bigotry but continue to make polite responses, continue to argue in reason, continue to try to animate the better nature of others, stands as a model. For me, however, every once in awhile, I think it is necessary to call things for what they are.

Anti-Gay Law in Kansas

The state government of Kansas is proposing a new anti-gay law, the likes of which must be deeply disturbing to just about anyone. You can find information on this law here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

I want to make several different points.

First, we need to ask this question: does the fact that you disagree "deeply" on "religious" grounds with someone legitimize state-orchestrated and supported discrimination against them? If the same law were proposed in, say, Saudi Arabia (I know nothing about Saudi laws, I am just using this as an example) but the terms were changed so that muslims were allowed to refuse service to any non-muslim, how would American conservative commentators react? The truth is that unless they reject this law, they do not have a leg to stand on because they themselves legitimize the principle that "deeply" help beliefs are legitimate grounds for discrimination (to fire people, to refuse to serve people, etc.).  I'd suggest that the fact that they wouldn't is a sign of hypocrisy: my prejudice is OK; yours is not.

Second, is this really what people in Kansas want to teach their children. If you believe something "deeply" discrimination is OK? If I believe that "deeply" that black people are the children of Ham (remember Handmaiden's Tale) and so one can refuse them service ... is that OK? In other words, where does it end? There are all kinds of things I believe deeply. Does that legitimize discrimination?

Third, is this the right use of "rights". Should rights be used to defend the marginalized, the oppressed, those who suffer violence? Or, should they be used to further marginalize, legitimize economic sanctions (because that is what firing is), and ostracize people who already suffer prejudice. Heath speaks of the "nobility" of rights when he asks this question. His question is simple: which is better: to use rights to promote equality, build community, and support integration or to use right to marginalize, oppress, and make violence more possible?

Fourth, as a Christian I am deeply concerned about this law because it has nothing to do with Christianity. Remember Jesus associated with the people who were marginalized and oppressed in their society. He defended those people who the mob wanted to stone, he used a Samaritan in the parable of the good Samaritan for a reason. How can anyone who claims to follow Christianity so flagrantly violate its basic tenets? Jesus told people that "all the law and all the prophets rest on two principles: love God and love your neighbour." Is this an example of loving your neighbour (for Jesus response to the question who is your neighbour, read the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus also specified that one should not judge others.  He noted that one will be judged in the measure to which one judges others. So the Christian supporters of this proposed law want to be judged ... intolerantly? BTW, Jesus also did not like hypocrisy.

I am glad I live in Canada when I read things like this.

Duck Homophobia: Lessons Learnt Part III

I am using the controversy surrounding the homophobic comments make by Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson to look at free speech and to point out a number of confusions that surround this conception. I have, in my first two blogs on this subject, tried to argue that:

1. Support for equality and respect of difference is now so strong that homophobes try to defend their "right" to make comments with recourse to "free speech." What is important is that in the past they would not have needed this recourse. They simply could have made the homophobic comments and no one would have questioned them.

2. Those who would easily condemn A & E for suspending Robertson might want to look at the facts of the case. No one wants to defend infringements on free speech. Whether or not this is the case in this situation, however, is another matter. Robertson's ability to get his anti-gay message out has not in any way been infringed. Indeed, he has garnered an unusual amount of news coverage.

But, more than that, there is a real question in my mind about whether or not A & E is required to provide a forum for rich individuals (which is, to be clear, what Robertson is) to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Is that free speech? This is the subject I want to address in this blog. A & E is not a public broadcaster. It is a privately owned company. Does a privately owned company have any rights in this situation? This is not the same question as "was Robertson's right to 'free speech' infringed?" but the other side of the coin. Instead of asking what rights Robertson has, I am asking what rights A &E has.

This is important because I don't doubt that Robertson can walk down the street saying whatever he wants to whomever will listen to him, sending emails to whomever will read them, etc. He can make YouTube videos that speak to whomever wants to hear what he has to say. That is not the question and we should not confuse it because no one is denying that right. What we are asking about is the rights of the owner of the medium. Reading some of the defenses of Robertson, you would think that A & E has no rights whatsoever, but is that the case?

This is a tricky question, for sure. In the past, I have argued that private institutions do have the right to regulate the actions of people entering those institutions. This is all within reasonable boundaries, of course, and we might want to think about what constitutes "reasonable" but for now the principle that I am articulating is the following: private interest are under a different burden than public interests. Private businesses, for instance, have a right to insist that employees dress a certain way; private schools can legally and constitutionally impose dress codes (even though dress codes are self-evidently a violation of freedom of expression and are, in fact, intended to be so). Privately owned movie theatres (we have one here in Sackville) can pick and choose what they want to show. They are not required to put any particular movie on the screen. Private networks, in the same way, are not required to broadcast anyone's views that they do not want to broadcast because they are private. For instance, if CTV wanted its news anchors to dress a certain way, they have every right to say "you will dress this way." There are clearly complications (and, the devil might really be in the details on this one) but the point I am making is this: yes private institutions can -- within limits -- regulate expression.

In making this case, we need to understand that private institutions make rules regarding expression for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, as in the case of Robertson and A & E, the reasons were political. Robertson articulated a political view with which the owners of the network disagreed and vehemently. They own the network; not him. They can decide whether or not he is an employee and they decided that he was ... well not, at least for a while. But, private institutions may make rules regarding expression for all sorts of reasons and this, too, is something that is important to understand before we condemn them for doing so. Many of these reasons have nothing to do with politics. For instance, some minor hockey associations limit the expression of fans at games (at least some of the signs I have see suggest this). They urge parents to be supportive, to not insult the referee or other players, and provide a good role model for their children. Some of the signs I have seen back this up with an implicit threat: if you violate these rules, we will ban you from the rink.

Here is situation where expression is clearly being violated but that violation has nothing to do with limiting free speech for any political reason (such as supporting equality for GLBT). Instead, minor hockey associations create limits in order to maintain order, encourage children to learn the game, and prevent potentially dangerous situations from getting out of hand. They are, in other words, not being political but focusing on public order and good manners (what we call sometimes sportsmanship). Those people who are arguing that Robertson's right to free speech has been violated would find themselves also opposed to sportsmanship and manners in minor hockey rinks. They may not like this equation but that is the logic of their positions.

Likewise, imagine that own a coffee shop. There are, in fact, a couple of nice coffee shops here in Sackville. Imagine, as well, that someone comes in and says "I want to play a set on Wednesday night." I say, "no, you can't do that." Have i infringed this person's freedom of speech. Technically, yes. I have stopped them from singing in my shop on Wednesday night. But, is that infringement without reason. Imagine that I stopped him from singing because I don't want to have live shows in my coffee shop because of the nature of my clientele? Do I have the right - as the owner - to make that decision? Again, the defense of Robertson people say "no." Anyone who walks up and wants to play can start doing it. I can do nothing about them or I infringe their free speech. Imagine, just to continue my example, that my coffee shop is a small business that is not opened on Wednesday nights because I cannot afford to pay staff (I hope to in the future, but have not yet built up enough of a business to do so right now). Am I required to open so that this person can sing?

The point I want to make is not to say that the owners of private interests have absolute right to do whatever they want. I hope that is clear because the logic of the argument I am trying to make is that those types of blanket statements really are to be avoided. I am trying to suggest that private institutions do have rights and so A & E did nothing inherently wrong in suspending Robertson.

To put this in other words, the suspension of Robertson -- however much it might grate some people - is not evidence in and of itself that Robertson's right to free speech has been violated. A & E -- as a corporate body -- retain rights. I think that those rights are not absolute -- and I'll get to those in another blog -- but for now I am suggesting that it private institutions can limit Robertson's (or, my) right to say things without necessarily violating constitutional protections of free speech.

Duck Homophobia (What we learn from) Part II

I will confess that I have watched Duck Dynasty. I can't claim that I did not find the show amusing and I pay enough attention to it, it turns out, that this new story caught my eye: Duck Dynasty's Phil-Robertson Suspended for Anti-gay Comments. In reading over the story, it struck me that this incident allows us to think about how we can and/or should respond to homophobia and how we can/should think about free speech. I stared to do that with my last blog. I'll continue with this one. In particular, I am interested in what we might learn from what I am calling "Duck homophobia." In my last blog I argued that we learnt something valuable: that homophobes generally don't want to be counted as homophobes. Instead, they want to be seen as defenders of free speech. I speculated that that was because they realized that the best before date on prejudice was coming due. Sure, there will always be bigots, but the day and age of easy prejudice with regard to GLBT is drawing to a close ... more rapidly in Canada than the US but even in the US -- judging from the defenses of duck homophobia -- those people who harbour prejudices understand that they can no longer just cast aspersions and have these accepted. They need to find some principle (free speech, in this case) to hide behind. Otherwise, I think they understand, they cannot carry the day and end up looking like a bunch of old rednecks.

A second thing we learn is that some people don't understand what free speech is all about, why we have it, and what it means. According to the news article cited above, some people are saying that Robertson's freedom of speech is threatened because A & E - -the Network that owns the rights to his TV show -- suspended him from the show. Is this an infringement of free speech? Perhaps ... but that is not a decision we can make without looking at the issue and we need to look at this issue. Robertson (the individual in question) likes to portray himself as a "redneck" and in his personal taste he might be. I don't actually know precisely what he means but if being a redneck signifies a fondness for hunting and wearing pseudo army gear, he qualifies. But, let us be honest. He is not. He is, in fact, a wealthy individual, one of the stars of a hit TV show whose family owns a company with multinational sales. In other words, this is not a case of a big bad network picking on a "little guy." This is a case where a rich and powerful individual used a platform afforded him by his celebrity to make prejudiced comments that were intended to marginalize a group of people who already suffer from prejudice (including violence). If he did not intend to marginalized LGBT ... why did he make those comments?

This is one of the things that we can learn that does not seem to be understood. Commentary on this issue -- particularly from American conservatives -- seems to have confused a character in a television show (a just plain rural hick with his homespun wisdom, a sort of Jed Clampett in army gear) with reality. The reality is that no one -- certainly not A & E -- is trying to stop Jed Clampett from stating his case to whomever wants to hear it. Whether or not A & E is required to provide a forum to rich celebrities who act like Jed Clampett because they make a lot of money from it and then use their celebrity to condemn marginalized groups ... well surely that is another question altogether, is it not? Disagree with me? Robertson himself has not been as blunt as I have been (the benefit of a blog) but he actually said almost as much. He has, for instance, pointed out that he is not a backwoods hick but a university educated and learned man

But, there is something else we should consider as well. The point I am making is that an easy condemnation of A & E is not so easy when we start to investigate the situation. The other thing we need to ask is whether or not Robertson's right to free speech has actually been infringed? I suspect Robertson can saying anything he wants and there would be host of reporters there to cover what he had to say. In other words, I don't think his ability to express his views and reach a very large audience has been in anyway infringed. To argue that it has, for instance, (and this is a point I have made before) one would need to argue that censorship was effective. The test of free speech is not, and never has been, the right to say anything, anywhere, any place, anytime. It is whether or not infringements on the right to say what one wants have been effective. Has A & E prevented Robertson from "getting his message out." The answer is: not at all and when that is the case, how can one argue that there is a violation of free speech? I suspect, in fact, that A & E's suspension of Robertson has nothing to do with trying to limit his right to say what he wants to say. I suspect that other considerations were at stake (and, perhaps, more on this in a future blog).

Thus, what we learn by looking at this issue is that there is some confusion and this confusion is important. What we have is rich individuals claiming that their right to free speech has been violated (or, others making that claim on their behalf) when, in fact, it has not. What has been infringed is their right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. And, that is something different from free speech. Indeed, what I find confusing is how people can confuse the two? What makes rich people think that a fundamental right has been infringed just because they cannot do whatever they want whenever they want.  The rest of us -- the 99% who enjoy no such privileges of wealth or access to media (GQ has never asked me for an interview) -- might pause to wonder about this because we live with a different reality.

Myths of Free Speech or Duck Homophobia

A little while ago I wrote a series of blogs about the "myths of  capitalism." It struck me that it might be a good time to write another series but not about capitalism. Instead, what I thought I'd do is draw together a series of thoughts I've offered over the years about free speech, what it means, what it entails, why it is needed, and its limits. In part, I thought I'd do this in response to something that happened in the United States that related to what I'll call "Duck Homophobia." If you have not been following the news, this story -- Duck Dynasty Star ...  is the trigger to these blogs. According to news reports, a cast member of the "reality" tv show "Duck Dynasty" has been suspended for making homophobic comments. The question that animates this series of blogs is this: What does this tell us about homophobia and free speech? In response to the suspension of this "star" from the show, notable American commentators -- such as Sarah Palin -- have argued that A & E, the network that shows "Duck Dynasty," is infringing free speech. Is it?

There are, I think, a number of things that we can learn form this minor cause celebre. Because there are a number of things to learn, a single blog (which I started to write last night) would end up being too long. So, instead, I'll offer a series of blogs. As always ... comments (but not flames) are welcome.

The first thing that we learn is that it is no longer OK to make homophobic comments. While there are a lot of people who view gays and lesbians as "sinners" and who cite passages from The Bible to justify their views, the field of force of culture has moved on. And, this is an important thing. It is, for instance, notable that people defend homophobic comments not on the basis of their accuracy but on the basis of "free speech." This shift might go unnoticed but it is important. What it indicates is that even those who hold negative views of GLBT people no longer feel that they have a "winning" hand in simply slagging them. Instead, they recognize that they need to find a moral high ground. This indicates that they understand on some level that the "gays are bad" approach has a limited -- and I would argue increasingly limited -- "play." Outside of its core constituency (who are, unfortunately, self-identify evangelical Christians), virtually no one subscribes to the old stereotypes of GLBT. Indeed, the only thing that these old stereotypes do is make those who hold them look like dinosaurs or rednecks.  Thus, the shift to free speech as a defence of homophobia is actually a good thing for those of us who support equality and want to end the marginalization of GLBT people. It show that a culture shift is already well under way and one that can only be considered positive. This is more true in Canada than the US but even in the US, evidence of increased respect for diversity, a willingness to accept the idea that believing in equality means supporting equality, and a shedding of stereotypes is underway.

Can it be reversed? This is another question but the fact that anti-gay people are responding to increased equality with such determination means that they feel (a) it can be but (b) they need to take action now. I don't believe society can function necessarily well on auto-pilot. I argue that those of us who support equality need to continue to do so and do so in the public fora. But, I also believe that time is now on the side of equality. The changes have gone far enough -- not far enough but ... well, there have been enough cultural changes  (I hope that is clear) -- that reversing them and returning to a day and age when discrimination and bigotry were easily accepted is going to be very difficult. Indeed, the very fact that the supporters of homophobia don't really want to argue for homophobia but instead argue for it by stealth is a good sign.