| Monday, October 11, 2004 |
20:57 - Now that is limp-wristed
http://www.livejournal.com/users/caerdwyn/16252.html#cutid1
|
(top)  |
Well, isn't this just loverly.
Quick summary: In Montreal, a used car salesman called a gay man "fifi", and the government fined him a thousand dollars for doing so. Disgusting.
Politkal Korrektness, comrade? What kind of limp-wrist pansy-boy goes crying to the government just because he's called "fifi"? Are Canadians that fucking weak? Or is it just Canadian gays? Wah, wah, wah, the bad man called me the name for a poodle, get him in front of judges! And what does the Canadian government think of its people, that they need to enact laws like that to begin with? They have a fucking tribunal to rule on name-calling?
At least he said it in French. I suppose that if the insult had been delivered in English, there would be an additional charge added.
Read the rest of it, too, as well as the original story. This problem is getting worse, not better... and it's coming here too. People mock America as being the land of the lawsuit. But now that people in countries with Big Daddy Governments have caught on to the idea that offensive speech is a crime worth calling in the courts for, the age of anyone being able to challenge an epithet on a man-to-man basis is pretty much over. Besides, why bother calling an ambulance-chasing lawyer to sue a corporation when you can just blow the whistle on someone using non-approved language whenever you want to hit the jackpot? Charter of Rights and Freedoms, my ass.
Apparently it's baffling to people in many parts of the world, the fact that we in this country not only don't pass laws muzzling "hate groups" and religious zealots and such, but take pride in that fact. I'm sure it must seem as though our government tacitly endorses such people, by failing to curtail their public expression the way they do in France or Sweden—maybe that accounts partially for why the U.S. is considered so "racist". But really, this is a very dear issue to our hearts: we believe in the marketplace of ideas, in the notion that if an opinion is abhorrent, we'll hound it from public view on our own. It's an article of faith in the decency of average citizens, and in the idea that we can police our own thoughts better than the government can, and thus entrust only ourselves with that task. We tend to get really, really touchy at even the insinuation that someone can be fined for something they say, for any other reason than "yelling fire in a crowded theater" sorts of cases where public safety is involved, or slander. Anything else is rather sacred... and we see it as such even within other borders.
I won't live in a country where people aren't allowed to call me a fag.
UPDATE: Kenny e-mails:
The idiocy of it all, is that free speech for *everyone* makes it harder for biggoted groups to gain traction. Sure, they might be fashionable at times or may be able to hook a few single-issue people, but in the end their ability to spew their bile ends up turning ordinary people off and they end up marginalizing themselves. Where are the KKK, the Black Panthers, the Arayan Nation, the Communists, the Anarchists? They can't build any momentum because their hate and idiocy are open for all to see. In contrast, the neo-Nazis are still a force in Germany. Why? Because they are specifically outlawed. Their repulsive ideals are not on display for everyone to ridicule and it's tempting for young people to eat of the forbidden fruit. In the U.S. they get mocked in movies like The Blues Brothers and very few take them seriously.
Yeah. Though the same argument can be used to show that things like drinking and drugs aren't as big a problem in Europe as they are here, because they're demystified for kids at an early age, and kept from becoming "forbidden fruit" the way bigoted groups are here. Different peoples, different priorities; and the more things like this come to light, the more different I realize our various countries really are. And all this time I'd assumed everyone was growing more and more similar.
Also, Paul Denton has comments on a somewhat related case.
|
|