Racist Comments in Canada

December 17, 2002 11:40 AM

Ahenakew Apologizes. In the interests of full disclosure, we Canucks have our own racist boneheads who embarass us as much as Trent Lott embarasses Americans. David Ahenakew is a former leader of the Assembly of First Nations and possesses Canada's highest civilian award, The Order of Canada. And just a few days ago he spewed vile racist comments... (more)
posted by five fresh fish (66 comments total)

..."When asked how he could justify the Holocaust, Ahenakew said: "How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?"

"The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war," Ahenakew told the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.

"That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe.

"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the God damned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."
posted by five fresh fish at 11:42 AM on December 17, 2002

He has apologized for his idiocy, but it is not enough. The CBC reports that the Canadian Jewish Congress has stopped short of accepting his apology.

He also hasn't handed over his Order of Canada. If he doesn't do it voluntarily, it is very likely that the government will take the unusual step of rescinding it.

And to put the final touch on it, the RCMP are investigating the matter as a potential hate crimes case. I doubt they'll find need to prosecute, but this is no less than the bonehead deserves.

So there you have it: Lott ain't the only jerk in town.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:45 AM on December 17, 2002

I think it would be wrong to prosecute this guy, since he's already lost all credibility. Removing his accolades should be the next humiliating punishment. In cases like this, freedom of speech needs to come first.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:53 AM on December 17, 2002

I don't believe that Canadians technically are granted freedom of speech. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
posted by mookieproof at 11:58 AM on December 17, 2002

How do you apologize for that? I don't fully understand what the point is of making apologies for these sorts of things. This is obviously what the guy thinks... So.. Hey everybody, I'm sorry I accidentally let it slip out that I'm the world's biggest asshole.. Can we go back to the time when I kept that sort of stuff to myself and you thought I was a good guy?
Maybe this isn't the best example of the 'apology for letting true nature slip out' that I'm thinking of, but they've always bugged me.
posted by imaswinger at 12:02 PM on December 17, 2002

mookie: Yep, you're wrong:

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982):

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

It's funny: I've run into a number of (I'm assuming you're a Yank, Mookie) Americans who think us Canucks don't have freedom of speech...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:04 PM on December 17, 2002

I feel and think a person should have the right to feel and think whatever they want to feel and think, and to vocalize those feelings and thoughts if they choose!
posted by LowDog at 12:04 PM on December 17, 2002

I don't believe that Canadians technically are granted freedom of speech. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

you're wrong.

anyways further proof that the order of canada should come with a side of fries or coleslaw. it's a worthless piece of crap which anyone can get as long as enough of your friends nominate you. personally i'm thinking of 3rd rate "jazz" musician guido basso when i say this, but the order list is rife with the undeserving.
posted by t r a c y at 12:05 PM on December 17, 2002

LowDog: as long as we get to feel and think and vocalise what we think about said thoughts in return...
posted by PenDevil at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2002

Canadians have a Charter right to Freedom of Speech, but it's much weaker than the First Amendment. It's routine for courts to impose publication bans, and for the press to be enjoined from publishing information that owuld compromise ongoing investigations. In the US, the press is free to publish such material, even if it endangers the lives of spies or undercover cops. I'm a Canadian, but I work for EFF, a US-based civil liberties group, and my experience has been that Canadians often experience limitations on expression that are far in excess of what Americans would expect.
posted by doctorow at 12:12 PM on December 17, 2002

From the linked article:

"The Saskatchewan government has asked the RCMP to investigate possible hate charges."

That's why Yanks often don't believe Canadians have freedom of speech.

Please tell me that 'the Saskatchewan goverment' is just talking out of its @#$ and there's not a chance of Ahenakew being convicted of any criminal charges.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:13 PM on December 17, 2002

I feel and think a person should have the right to feel and think whatever they want to feel and think, and to vocalize those feelings and thoughts if they choose!

LowDog: Er, yes, sure, but I think you might agree (one of) the issues here is whether a fellow espousing such views should be eligible for, or allow to remain a member of, a select club (the Order of Canada) meant to be "our country's highest honour for lifetime achievement." (From the GG's site.)

More to the point, not all speech is protected; Canada has hate-crimes laws which Ahenawew may have violated.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:17 PM on December 17, 2002

PenDevil: You do! You do! You SO DO! Or at least you should!
posted by LowDog at 12:19 PM on December 17, 2002

devilsadvocate, I really don't understand your point--could you possibly explain a little further?

I'm curious as to why the thread has become a little U.S. -centric. This is a Canadian issue, created by an Indigenous member of a Canadian First Nation (there's irony in this statement, somewhere, but anyway...). We have laws that we have accepted and live by. This man may have broken them and if so, should be prosecuted.
posted by ashbury at 12:21 PM on December 17, 2002

erm..... I noticed this name in the story......

Matthew Coon Come, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, had called on Ahenakew to step down from his position as an FSIN senator.
posted by quarsan at 12:24 PM on December 17, 2002

limitations on expression that are far in excess of what Americans would expect.

that's because canadians still refuse to admit that hate can't be legislated out of existence - most publication bans here revolve around what is considered hate material/speech. i personally prefer that over the american free-for-all hate-'em-up (not to mention shoot-'em-up). i've lived in both countries; would never return to the states under any circumstance.
posted by t r a c y at 12:25 PM on December 17, 2002

Please tell me that 'the Saskatchewan goverment' is just talking out of its @#$ and there's not a chance of Ahenakew being convicted of any criminal charges.

The provincial gov't is the left-wing NDP -- the rough equivalent of the American Greens -- so it's no surprise they came out with a hardline statement. (And the AG, Chris Axworthy, is known as a bit of a hot-head.)

That being said, as soon as this scandal dies down, the RCMP investigation will be quietly dropped. That's the Canadian way. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone who's been convicted of hate-crimes, except perhaps Ernst Zundel, a Holocaust denier.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:29 PM on December 17, 2002

maybe it's because we ignorant and backwards americans are trying to learn about and understand the unique and wonderful culture of our neighbors for a change.
posted by toothgnip at 12:31 PM on December 17, 2002

Lupus_yonderboy: We (in America) had a name for people that gave you something one minute, and later wanted it back, but I suppose that name is "taboo" in this feel-good world of today.
posted by LowDog at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2002

Lowdog: Yeah, it's called the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 'States; up here it's the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:43 PM on December 17, 2002

I just wanted to say that it was very big of five fresh fish to post this. It takes class to admit your faults. Kudos.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:47 PM on December 17, 2002

devilsadvocate (and others):

It's part of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Here's the relevant passage, in part:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

There are other sections as well, but as you can see from this one, the focus is mostly on distribution of said hate speech, not the speech itself. That's a common misconception, that it's somehow illegal to say it in Canada. You can spew it as much as you want on a street corner, but once you send it over the airwaves or run it in a pamphlet you'll run into trouble.

Yes, Ahenakew is a nutbar, but he's done nothing illegal. That someone who has fought against discrimination would spout this junk saddens me. It seems there are some who think discrimination only exists when it's against them.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:48 PM on December 17, 2002

The fool won't be prosecuted. The RCMP investigation is just a case of the government making damn sure that it's distanced itself from the freak as far as possible.

I think it's fair to say that Canadians are terribly embarrassed by this. There are things you just don't say in polite company, and ignorant spew about the Holocaust is a biggie.

Taking back his Order of Canada may be indeed be "Indian giving" -- but I don't think the First Nations are going to object to it.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:50 PM on December 17, 2002

ashbury: In the U.S., a law such as the Canadian one would never stand up to constitutional scrutiny. While some jurisdictions in the U.S. do have "hate crime" laws, they give a harsher penalty for something which would have been a crime anyway, if the crime is motivated by racial (or other specific types of) hatred. Someone convicted of assault might receive a harsher sentence if the assault were motivated by racial hatred, but the point is that the assault was already a crime in and of itself anyway, regardless of the motivation. This is very different from Canada's law where distribution of a specific opinion is potentially a crime.

GITM: Here in the U.S. such a law would never pass constitutional scrutiny. Distribution over the airwaves might be a bit murky, due to the whole "the airwaves belong to the people and are only licensed to companies or individuals" philosophy, but a law trying to prohibit distribution of racist pamphlets would be absolutely 100% unconstitutional. I suppose technically this is freedom of the press rather than freedom of speech, but it highlights that point that Canadian intellectual freedom rights, at least in this realm, are not as broad as U.S. intellectual freedom rights. This is perhaps why many Americans believe Canadians do not have freedom of speech--because they don't, at least as Americans understand the term.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:00 PM on December 17, 2002

Here in the U.S. such a law would never pass constitutional scrutiny.

Even in the U.S. not all speech is protected. You can be prosecuted for obscenity or libel, for example. During WWI, laws banning sedition were put in place. You can't incite a crime. Or cry "fire" in a crowded theater. And there's a long history of censorship in the U.S.--including banned films, books, and music. The ACLU's Freedom of Speech page is a good place to get an overview of some current issues. I don't see how you can argue that Canada is much more restrictive when it comes to free speech "as Americans understand the term."
posted by hyperizer at 1:27 PM on December 17, 2002

This is perhaps why many Americans believe Canadians do not have freedom of speech--because they don't, at least as Americans understand the term.

this is key. a lot of folks think a thing doesn't exist unless it exists as they know it; and if they believe they invented that thing, well, that muddies their world view even further.
posted by t r a c y at 1:30 PM on December 17, 2002

Devilsadvocate--thanks for explaining your laws to me. The point remains, however, that this is still a Canadian issue, not an American one, and should be regarded in a Canadian context. American views on the subject, while welcome, don't apply here.

Freedom of speech is an interesting thing. We welcome freedom of speech, except when it comes to hate-mongering, and very specific hate-mongering at that. I can only speak for myself but I think many Canadians would agree: I don't want to hear somebody, especially a person who has a relatively important position in society as well as government, spout off on things such as the properness of murdering six million people. When people who have the power to sway the thinking of others speak such things, I think that it's quite proper for somebody to step in and start laying down the law.

And what hyperizer said.
posted by ashbury at 1:30 PM on December 17, 2002

The Canadian way is that the case will get dropped, but not before the Sask. government makes some political hay out of it. He probably will also lose his Order of Canada, very quietly, a few months later, once the hoopla has died down.
posted by Salmonberry at 1:30 PM on December 17, 2002

Why not have that guy take Trent Lott's position as majority leader of our Senate?
Must one asshole in one nation become reprewsentative of an entire nation, be it the U.S. or Canada?
What I find disturbing but not unusual is that a representaive of a people long put upon by others should in turn badmouth another group put upon by others....
posted by Postroad at 1:35 PM on December 17, 2002

I don't see how you can argue that Canada is much more restrictive when it comes to free speech "as Americans understand the term."

Americans understand the term to mean that hateful speech is protected. You are quite correct to point out the many types of speech that are not protected in the U.S., but hateful speech is protected. Also, in the U.S. "speech" includes the distribution of such speech, as well as the act of speaking itself. Neither of these apply in Canada, so Canadians do not have the same freedom of speech that Americans have. Americans understand the term "free speech" to mean what it means in America. What Canadians have is something very similar, but different in a few particulars, and thus not "free speech" according to the common U.S. usage.

The point remains, however, that this is still a Canadian issue, not an American one, and should be regarded in a Canadian context. American views on the subject, while welcome, don't apply here.

They may not apply in the sense that they are not relevant to what will happen to Ahenakew, but they are certainly relevant in the discussion of whether hateful speech should be protected speech. And for us Americans to understand the Canadian concept of freedom of speech, it is certainly valuable to use the American concept as a starting point, since it is fairly well understood. It's easier for me to understand what freedom of speech means in Canada by learning how it is different from and how it is similar to American freedom of speech, than to pretend that I have absolutely no preconceived notions about freedom of speech and have to learn everything from the ground up.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:46 PM on December 17, 2002

What I find disturbing but not unusual is that a representaive of a people long put upon by others should in turn badmouth another group put upon by others....

What's also interesting, at least to me, is that Mr Ahenakew is of the generation of aboriginal leaders who fought for some form of liberation/emancipation from within the colonial context; many of them, like him, were motivated by their experience serving with the Canadian military in the Second World War. Briefly, many came home and thought: "Why did I risk my ass for the white man's freedom, as I have none for myself?"

(At the end of the Second World War, aboriginal Canadians could not vote, could not own property, could not agitate for political reforms and could not give money to someone else to agitate on their behalf, among other restrictions. Most needed passes, signed by the local (white) Indian agent to leave their reserves, if only for a night. They were forced to send their children to church or government run residential schools, where a good many died and almost all were abused. The long-standing rumour in aboriginal communities that the new South African apartheid gov't sent representatives to Canada in the 30s to figure out how to set up black homelands is not true, but it could have been.)

This is the first time I've heard a native leader of that generation make these kinds of remarks; most of them came back with finely-tuned senses of human suffering, oppression and justice.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:51 PM on December 17, 2002

I don't see how you can argue that Canada is much more restrictive when it comes to free speech "as Americans understand the term."

Re-reading my last post, the response I meant to make to this may not have been clear. I am not suggesting that Canada is more restrictive of speech overall than the U.S. is, and I certainly acknowledge that in many cases the U.S. has been and still is more restrictive of speech than I would like. What I am suggesting is that Canada is more restrictive than U.S. on hateful speech. Thus I wrote, "Canadian intellectual freedom rights, at least in this realm [meaning hateful speech], are not as broad as U.S. intellectual freedom rights"
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:54 PM on December 17, 2002

Freedom of speech in Canada means I can joke about taking my busload of passengers to the FLQ (du Front de libération du Québec). It means I can wear a t-shirt with Jean Chretian's head on it, with cross-hairs superimposed. It means I can take a picture of my kid in the bath without fear of the cops beating down the door.

It means that I can say and do most everything I could want except:
- teach hate;
- preach hate.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:55 PM on December 17, 2002

(oh, and there are a few others. Really stupid ones. Like various instances of gay & lesbian books being banned. I think we've gotten over that now.)
posted by five fresh fish at 1:57 PM on December 17, 2002

I don't want to hear somebody, especially a person who has a relatively important position in society as well as government, spout off on things such as the properness of murdering six million people.

See, that's exactly the problem. "Freedom of speech" is meaningless unless it includes freedom to say things that other people don't want to hear. The more unpleasant the speech, the more it needs protection; nobody needs laws to protect their freedom to say "I like everybody!" And please don't quote constitutions and charters, which are meaningless—the USSR under Stalin had the most liberal constitution in the world. Practice is all. (And for the logic-impaired: I'm not "comparing Canada to Soviet Russia," I'm giving a counterexample to the idea that constitutions prove anything about actual freedom.)
posted by languagehat at 2:01 PM on December 17, 2002

I don't want to hear somebody, especially a person who has a relatively important position in society as well as government, spout off on things such as the properness of murdering six million people.

You feel that you will somehow be better served not to know that these people believe these things?

Personally, I'd rather know where everyone stands.
posted by rushmc at 2:02 PM on December 17, 2002

OT:
"taking my busload of passengers to the FLQ"

They'd probably enjoy that. Most felquistes -- well, all the ones you'd ever want to know, really -- became Rhinos. Some went to on to the Marijuana party. One or two are still hatemongers or crack dealers, but they're easily avoidable.

No joke.

I know return you back to your regularly scheduled thread...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:04 PM on December 17, 2002

I'm glad I don't live in Kanada, and what rushmc said...
posted by LowDog at 2:08 PM on December 17, 2002

You feel that you will somehow be better served not to know that these people believe these things?

Let me be clear: yes, I would like to know if people have these sorts of values; I too, like to know where people stand. The point that I failed to make with my poor choice of words was NOT that I don't want to hear it but that if I do hear it, and depending on the circumstances, I want something done about it.

Lowdog, I'm glad that you're glad that you don't live in Canada, but what's your point? It sounds somewhat disparaging, to me.

...but they are certainly relevant in the discussion of whether hateful speech should be protected speech. --devilsadvocate

I wasn't aware this was at issue. It's a good issue, but I thought it was tangential to the thread. My apologies.
posted by ashbury at 3:14 PM on December 17, 2002

Point-schmoint. Geeze, I gotta spell it out?

Those Canadians seem to have less freedoms than we Americans do, and ours are dwindling fast.

Is that point enough?
posted by LowDog at 3:27 PM on December 17, 2002

Let me be clear: yes, I would like to know if people have these sorts of values; I too, like to know where people stand. The point that I failed to make with my poor choice of words was NOT that I don't want to hear it but that if I do hear it, and depending on the circumstances, I want something done about it.

But if speech is punished, then you will not hear it, but you want to hear it so it will be said, but then you will punish so it will not be said, but you.. Bzzzzzt Bzt

/robot explodes.
posted by thirteen at 3:40 PM on December 17, 2002

thirteen, not all speech, just speech that we as Canadians have declared to be unacceptable in Canadian society, which we have decided should be punishable under the law, and with the proper examination of all the circumstances. It's a long process that often goes to the Supreme Court, as it should.
posted by ashbury at 3:47 PM on December 17, 2002

So if there were just two people in the world, and one said "Yes!", and the other "No!" (about whatever), which one would be right? Which one would be wrong? Which way is it going to be?

But... if there were three people in the world, and one said "Yes!", and the other two said "No!", then the two could gang up on the one and force that one to do things their way.

Now kiddies, the moral of the story is this - might makes right - at least in America!
posted by LowDog at 3:58 PM on December 17, 2002

I find LowDog's comment much more interesting when I pretend he's actually a master of irony.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:03 PM on December 17, 2002

Ahenakew seems (to me) much more sincerely repenitent than Trent Lott, and so this whole post thread seems like a bit of a pile-up, in the sense that no one is asking the question: how did Ahenakew come to posess these opinions? They seem a bit unnatural for a Native American. Trent Lott? - of course! But a Canadian native american espousing nasty anti-semitic sentiments? This makes little sense to me, and so I am I inclined to view it as a mistake of ignorance. Usually, views such as this are held for a reason (which would normally translate into personal gain). I see no such motivation here. Great ignorance, yes, but....

.
posted by troutfishing at 8:06 PM on December 17, 2002

lowdog, allow me to exercise my right to freedom of opinion: you are an idiot.

Now, in proper Canadian spirit, I apologize to you for my rudeness and ad hominem attack and to the readers of the thread for my inability to leave trollbait alone.

troutfishing, i find your point to be quite interesting as well. I too would like to know how he came by these opinions.
posted by ashbury at 8:20 PM on December 17, 2002

ashbury - I attribute Ahenakew's opinions to a poor education (not his fault) in Canada (this would have happened in the US as well): then he was suddenly thrust into Germany and "on the moon", so to speak (in cultural terms). What was his point of reference for judging the validity of claims he encountered about recent European history? HE HAD NONE! His crime lay in his incuriousity. But was he malicious? Somehow, I doubt it - but this is merely my opinion.

My opinion is, however, based in direct, personal experience. Facism and intolerance extend their reach through the opinions of well meaning (but ignorant) individuals.

Somehow, I think that Israelis might be quicker to exonerate him than Canadians or Americans. Alas...
posted by troutfishing at 8:51 PM on December 17, 2002

His crime lay in his incuriousity.

An apt epitaph for much of humanity, it seems.
posted by rushmc at 8:53 PM on December 17, 2002

Facism and intolerance extend their reach through the opinions of well meaning (but ignorant) individuals.

His crime lay in his incuriousity.

An apt epitaph for much of humanity, it seems.

Sad and true statements that seem to apply too many people.
posted by ashbury at 9:14 PM on December 17, 2002

"Despit [sic] the apology by Ahenakew, criminal proceedings are necessary to deter others who may wish to make such grievous statements in the future."

I don't which saddens me more Ahenakew's comments or the fact that he may face criminal charges for speaking his mind. The end result of stifling speech is that people who hold unpopular views feel oppressed (and rightly so) and will find other,possibly violent,ways to express themselves.

Bring on the Orwell references cuz Da Thought Poilce is in da Hizzouse.
posted by MikeMc at 9:55 PM on December 17, 2002

Troutfishing: My wife suggests that Akehenaw may be suffering from the onset of old age dementia.

MikeMc: The end result of stifling hate speech is that we get to have a civlized society. You wanna hate Jews, you just go right ahead -- but keep your yap shut about it. No one needs to hear it.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:17 AM on December 18, 2002

The basic idea behind stifling hate speech is to deter its spread. If you can force the people who do believe this idiocy from teaching it to the next generation, then the next generation stands a better chance of not learning it. In a sense, it's an attempt to innoculate society against this sort of discriminatory thought. You're not going to change the people who believe it now, but you might just prevent others from picking it up.

It's a perfectly laudable social experiment that will ultimately fail. But it's nice that they're trying something. I think of all this as a practice run for when the real universe starts up. We'll be in great shape to do everything right then.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:00 AM on December 18, 2002

FiveFreshFish - That explanation makes sense to me. But Trent Lott? I'm afraid he still has command of all his faculties. Or does he?.
posted by troutfishing at 6:20 AM on December 18, 2002

ashbury: By all means, exercise your right to freedom of opinion. Feel free to feel, think, and speak anything about me you wish - even if it's NOT THE TRUTH.

I believe we all have certain basic rights that no gang (government) can "grant", and that no gang (government), whatever their cause, whatever their number, has the right to infringe on. However, no one, including myself, has the right to not be offended. While I find your name-calling somewhat offensive, I choose to not conger up some obscure reason to take legal action against you in an attempt to silence you, nor will I engage you in a name-calling contest. I would however, welcome the opportunity to try and convince you that I am not really an "idiot", but I won't do that here.

Good health be with you, and may you live long and prosper.
posted by LowDog at 7:00 AM on December 18, 2002

If you have the right to spew hatred, LowDog, does that mean I get the right to beat the shit outta you for it?

Lines have to be drawn. You'd choose to disallow physical violence, but allow hate-mongering. Me, I prefer to disallow both.

Happily, I live in a country that supports my preferences, and you live in one that supports your's. I note that my country has 1/3rd the murder rate and 1/5th the prison population.

On the whole, I quite like it here.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:29 AM on December 18, 2002

We seem to have strayed from the original subject.
posted by LowDog at 9:50 AM on December 18, 2002

Original subject: Canadians can be as moronic as Americans.

(scans posts, scratches head)

Uh, LowDog, when exactly did we go astray?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 1:27 PM on December 18, 2002

When we got into the name-calling.
posted by LowDog at 2:21 PM on December 18, 2002

The basic idea behind stifling hate speech is to deter its spread. If you can force the people who do believe this idiocy from teaching it to the next generation, then the next generation stands a better chance of not learning it.

Because the ideas are so complex and sophisticated that the uninitiated couldn't possibly come up with them on their own?

Better to teach all generations some basic reasoning skills so that their B.S. detectors are fully functional. That way you don't have to try to hide all the repugnant and preposterous notions of humanity from them--an impossible task, as they're like Doritos: they'll make more.
posted by rushmc at 9:33 PM on December 18, 2002

rushmc: Please note I wasn't advocating that particular line of reasoning, just explaining it. I do agree with it in one regard, though: people in general are just too intellectually lazy to think something up on their own. In the absence of a racist stimulus, I doubt many people would be creative enough to come up with the idea on their own - it's far easier for them to not think at all.

I prefer your educated bullshit detector idea much more. Instilling people with the ability to not only detect racist crap, but the will to confront it, would work wonders. We need to get to the point where the average people actually feels confident enough to tell a racist off to their face.

(and LowDog... wasn't that the point of this *entire* thread? Name-calling is the subject at hand.)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:19 AM on December 19, 2002

I just found it ironic that those who argued against name-calling felt it was OK for them to do it, but not for others - see ashbury's post of 12:17 p.m. on December 17th.
posted by LowDog at 5:18 AM on December 19, 2002

I meant ashbury's post of 8:20 p.m. on December 17th
posted by LowDog at 5:19 AM on December 19, 2002

Do both, Ghost/Rush: ban hate speech, and teach children to use their BS detectors.

Lowdog: er, you mean the post in which he applies your ideas regarding hate speech? Looks like you want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:00 AM on December 19, 2002

lowdog, stop making my point for me. I never said (at least, not in this thread, but that's another story) that I was against name-calling. I am against hate-mongering. It's not a subtle difference.

The reason why I called you an idiot is because of your statement "Now kiddies, the moral of the story is this - might makes right - at least in America!". It was one of a couple of remarks that I found to be ill-formed and, in this case, pointless to the thread, not to mention trollish in nature.

You did a great job of letting it slide off your back when you said, "I would however, welcome the opportunity to try and convince you that I am not really an "idiot", but I won't do that here," and I was impressed. Not letting it go is not impressing me at all, however. You have nothing to prove to me, nor I to you, so why don't you say we just let it go? Let's let bygones be bygones, shall we?
posted by ashbury at 11:03 AM on December 19, 2002

ashbury, we shall meet again :-) Merry Christmas!
posted by LowDog at 12:16 PM on December 19, 2002

And to you as well. :)
posted by ashbury at 1:11 PM on December 19, 2002