Time Immortal

I echo BCF’s question: can’t they both lose?

Fred Phelps is the lunatic in command of the Westboro Baptist Church, a lunatic-fringe religious cult (I refuse to call them “Christian”) that runs websites with such lovely names as “God HatesFags”, “GodHatesCanada“, and so forth. A more hateful man — and a less fitting witness for Christ — you would be hard-pressed to find. The Westboro cult are known from their habit of protesting the hell out of everything they disagree with.

They revel in the deaths of American soldiers, proudly proclaim that the space shuttle Columbia was destroyed by God, and claim that homosexuals are “worthy of death.” Not a nice bunch.

Conversely, Darren Lund is the anti-Christian activist and wannabe censor who hauled pastor Stephen Boissoin before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The complaint was decided in his favour, and pastor Boissoin was essentially ordered to renounce his Christian beliefs as a result (an order he has not complied with, of course). Also not a nice sort.

And it looks like there’s going to be an activist vs. activist cage match in Red Deer, Alberta, coming up!

WBC will picket The Laramie Project - at
6:30 to 7:30 p.m. - Friday & Saturday,
August 8 & 9 - at The Matchbox Theatre,
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Darren Lund is organizing a counter-protest.

Oh, this should be good. Someone, please get this on camera!

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Blazing Cat Fur writes in a brief note regarding this post and Warren Kinsella’s response to the article I quote therein.

I see Kinsella tried to debunk the citizen article

I think the operative word, O Reader, is “tried” — you can read Kinsella’s piece for yourself, but here are the meaty and relevant parts, I think.

Gardner’s column is worth reading, but - in my world - quantitative data will always trump a census statistic and a few anecdotes. If it wasn’t out of print, then, I would recommend that you all pick up a copy of Hate on Trial: the Zundel Affair, the Media, and Public Opinion in Canada, published in 1986 by my friend Professor Conrad Winn. Conrad, who is a polling expert at Carleton University, sampled public opinion during the 1985 trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. He found the trial not only alerted people to the fact of the Holocaust, it turned them against Zundel in droves.

In a poll of 1,054 respondents taken right after Zundel’s trial, Canadians proved the media libertarians wrong, as they often do. Half (47 per cent) said their feelings toward Jews were unchanged by the trial, while one quarter (24 per cent) said they became more sympathetic toward Jews, and only 2 per cent reported less sympathy.

Kinsella would seem to be attempting to state, based on the above, that it was because Ernst Zundel was tried that public opinion shifted still further against his anti-Semitic rantings. This is a dangerous conclusion to draw, because it can lead one to think, erroneously, that it is through acts of censorship perpetrated by government agencies and courts that “the people” can be made to think “correctly.” And indeed, that would seem to be the conclusion that Kinsella, a self-confessed censor and an advocate for the existence of the HRCs, draws.

That would mean, O Reader, that Canadians either did not change their opinion of Jews or became more sympathetic toward Jews out of fear of government reprisal.

This would seem, then, to fly in the face of Dan Gardener’s observations about how allowing Fred Phelps to speak his hate openly has, in the end, only served to inspire Kansans (not exactly known for being of a progressive bent) to side not with Phelps, but with those Phelps denigrates.

But in fact, Kinsella’s story does not quite mean what he thinks it means, nor does it actually fly in the face of what Dan Gardener says — in fact, it affirms it. Zundel was a nobody with a small audience to begin with — few Canadians had even heard of him, and hardly anyone gave him the time of day. When he was put on trial, more and more people were able to become aware of his views. And in an analog to the case of Phelps and Westboro in Kansas, it was in hearing discussion about Zundel’s opinions that inspired nearly 25% of Canadians to become even more sympathetic to persons of Jewish descent than they already were. The fact that it took a trial for Zundel to gain a wide enough audience is an interesting little factoid of history, but also irrelevant.

The Zundel trial and its ouctomes, at least as regards public opinion toward Jews, proves the freespeecher arguments valid — given the chance, Canadians will tend to make the right decisions when they hear someone uttering hateful speech. So why not give people the opportunity to be as open in their hatred as they can possibly be? As was the case with Zundel, many of the haters won’t even find a wide enough audience to have any impact on public opinion (and thus will not be a threat). And the ones that do will, for the most part, either make people shrug their shoulders in dismissal or inspire people to move their own opinions away from those of the haters.

That’s the beauty of the “marketplace of ideas.”

I wonder how Kinsella missed that? And I wonder if it was his intent to argue in favour of government coercion of citizen opinion?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Opponents of true freedom of expression in Canada sometimes use the excuse that there are certain forms of speech which are universally unacceptable and must be censored/restricted/punished by law. The freespeecher response to that is that evil withers in the light of the day: give even hateful opinions their moment in the Sun, and average Canadians will make their own decisions about who is speaking the truth and who is talking a line of bull. The haters will be ignored, pushed to the sidelines, and marginalized.

Who is right, then?

Well, the proof is, as they say, in the pudding:

Here’s a fascinating statistic: In Kansas, the number of same-sex couples willing to identify themselves as such in the American census has risen rapidly. In 2000, it was 3,973. In 2005, it was 6,663.

Now, some readers may not share my enthusiasm for this statistic. The number of self-declared same-sex couples in Kansas? For Canadians, the relevance of this data may not be immediately apparent.

…

Why Kansas? Why gay couples? Because the fiercest, loudest, most energetic anti-gay bigot on the planet lives in Kansas. His name is Fred Phelps.

…

Fred Phelps is on a holy crusade against homosexuality and the main weapon in that war is the picket. “God hates fags” is Phelps’s signature sign, but they have many others. All drip with hate.

…that makes Kansas a natural experiment in the effects of hate speech.

Has Phelps generated support? Did he poison the climate? Are gays worse off now than before he launched his campaign?

The answer to all these questions is no. Kansas is rock-ribbed conservative country but Kansans despise Fred Phelps. He has virtually no support. He has no converts to show for all his effort and today, as always, his congregation almost exclusively consists of his extended family. Phelps happily acknowledged this to me. “Blessed are you when all men shall revile you and say all manner of evil falsely,” he said with a smile.

That’s not to say Phelps’s hate hasn’t had any effect. It certainly has.

The people of Topeka rallied. They organized. They raised awareness. Bigotry toward gays was exposed and talked about for the first time and even conservative Christian churches stepped up to denounce it. Fourteen years after Phelps started his crusade, a lesbian activist personally targeted by Phelps was appointed to fill a vacant seat on Topeka city council.

…

“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit - the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” — J.S. Mill

Underpinning the anti-free-speech rhetoric is the assumption, by the Warren Kinsellas and Richard Warmans out there, that they, the enlightened few are the sole guardians of proper thought and reasonable speech in Canada — all the rest of us rubes have no idea what’s good for us, and need our perpetual nanny (the state and its censorship commissions) to constantly help us discern between what is and is not proper to say. Ordinary, individual Canadians are not to be trusted with the role of forming their own opinions.

Most Canadians view neo-Nazis and bigots like Phelps as minor and rather pathetic figures, Kinsella sees them everywhere, threatening the good consciousness of our happy land. If something is bad, goes the liberal theory of society and human nature, then ban it. The central conceit of modern liberalism is that the average person is incapable of governing their own affairs…The Human Rights Tribunals are the culmination of the liberal conceit. If you can’t be trusted to save for your retirement, or educate your children, how can the average citizen be expected to think for themselves?

Canadians do not need their “betters” to think for them, nor do we need the government to operate human rights commissions in order to keep us from having the harsh words of bad men and women reach our virgin ears. We’re made of sterner stuff than that. We can — and must — think for ourselves, choosing to ignore the hateful bigots in our midst…but always giving them the right to speak, so that we can know their hateful bile for what it is and reject it as such. Or, better still, we can follow the example of Kansas, and turn our actions, creatively, toward those things which not only reject the viewpoints of the bigots, but fly openly in their face.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: SDA)

Update: Welcome, Steynians!