Tag Archives: freedom

Divided we fall

2 Replies

I’ve restarted writing this three times now. I’m not going to try again. I’ll let the ideas flow and just see where I end up.

I wish that I was surprised. I’m not. I’m disappointed. I’m saddened. But I’m really not surprised.

There are some amazing countries where freedom and equality are almost synonymous. There are countries where political differences do not polarize people into opposing factions. The United States of America is not one of them.

Why does it matter to me, a Canadian? Because ideas are memes that travel beyond borders. Because our biggest and only neighbour seems to be on the precipice of four years of strife, unease, and constant political banter. Because representation matters and I’m not a fan of what’s being represented.

We are entering an era of division. A polarized world where I have more questions than answers. Questions about global battles in Europe, the Middle East, and potentially Asia. About the battle for rights based on gender. A constant battle of words between ‘the left’ and ‘the right’.

I don’t foresee unity, I see a great divide. I foresee a constant and painful to watch news cycle that is filled with vitriol and malice. I hope not to see a loss of freedom, a ‘loss of Inalienable Rights’, which should be an oxymoron, but might not be. I hope for the best… I’m just not expecting it.

Ending discrimination

Leave a reply

This article was in my inbox this morning: Premier’s, attorney general’s, parliamentary secretary’s statements on International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Niki Sharma, Attorney General, said:

“We all must do our part to fight racism in all its forms. But words are only as good as the actions that follow, which is why we will be introducing anti-racism legislation in the coming weeks to address systemic racism in government programs and services, and launching more supports for racialized people. On this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, please join us in standing up against racism to create a more equitable and safer province for everyone.”

Imagine a world where we cared as little about skin colour as we do eye colour. A world where bodily autonomy wasn’t controlled by religiously biased policymakers. A world where entire groups of people were not disenfranchised or discriminated against based on how they looked or where they came from.

If you asked me 25 years ago, I might have said this was possible by now. Ask me now and I fear we are much more than 25 years away from this. How have we gone backwards? What will prevent a further slide? There will not be an end to discrimination in my lifetime, but I do hope it’s possible in my kids’ lifetime.

Intolerance for bad faith actors

Leave a reply

I have always been a pretty strong advocate for free speech. To me it’s the underpinning of a robust democratic society. We don’t have to like what someone says, but they have a right to say it as long as it isn’t hate speech or harmful to someone. We shouldn’t allow racism, threats, and doxing, but we should allow differences of opinions and even angry rants when they are not threatening to a person or group of people.

But I’m struggling with the lack of good faith that I’m seeing. In our country, I see a lot of protests and anger towards our Prime Minister. I believe people should be allowed to protest and share their concerns, but when I see articles like, ‘Attack on Trudeau unsurprising, experts say, warning of future violence against politicians‘ stating that he was “pelted with gravel while at a campaign stop in London, Ont.” Or I read that he was heckled so loudly that he couldn’t continue a speech… Then that is going way too far. This isn’t protest, it’s fascist, it is intolerant and oppressive.

There is a difference between voicing concerns and harassment. There is a difference between protesting and threatening, there is a difference between peaceful, civil behavior and what seems to be happening today.

If I was to describe my politics, I’m definitely left of center. And while I fundamentally disagree with many things Ben Shapiro thinks and says, I get upset when I read articles that he can’t even speak at a university because of safety concerns… And that was 6 years ago! Things are even worse now. Much worse.

When I recently read, “The presidents of three of the nation’s top universities are facing intense backlash, including from the White House, after being accused of evading questions during a congressional hearing about whether calls by students for the genocide of Jews would constitute harassment under the schools’ codes of conduct.” I am deeply concerned. Should students be allowed to protest? Absolutely! Should they be allowed to promote genocide of any person or people as part of their protest? Absolutely not.

It’s an easy line to draw. Absolutely not. That’s acting in bad faith. That’s undermining our democracy and our freedoms.

We need to differentiate how we handle protests and free speech by people who are acting in good faith from those acting in bad faith. The very rights and freedoms we are given in a free and democratic society depend on us doing so. When we give those freedoms to people that abuse them, we subvert our own liberty. We diminish our freedoms and allow others, with harmful words and actions, to impose less civil values on us.

When free speech is misused, it harms us all. When violence is advocated or permitted; when protests prevent civil conversation and debate; when harassment is permitted; we all suffer. We can’t let people acting in bad faith weaken our civil liberties. We can’t just expect people to act in good faith, the minority who don’t will be too disruptive. We need to squash the bad faith actors. The trick is that we need to do so with legal actions. We need to have zero tolerance for intolerance, and we need to create laws that clearly restrict and penalize threats, hate crimes, and malice.

This is known as the paradox of tolerance, “The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”

Instead, what I am seeing is things like this happening:

People who have caused over a decade of harm to others do not deserve a social media platform. That’s not censorship, that’s prevention of further malice, pain, and suffering to innocent people. As I contemplate leaving Twitter, news like this makes me lean towards shutting down my account. But I don’t pretend that will have any meaningful impact beyond my own peace of mind.

The acceptance of bad faith actors has been building over the past decade, and we are deep into the consequences now. Free speech should only be a right for people who act in good faith. There can be disagreement, there can be discourse, there can even be civil arguments and protests. What there can’t be are bad faith actors and activists using free speech as a mechanism to promote harmful ideas, hate, violence, and disruptions to public discourse. For this we need zero tolerance.

Related: Ideas on a Spectrum

Free speech in a free society

There are a few people I really hate to listen to. They annoy me with their persuasive rhetoric and popular-sounding rifts and quotes that speak to a target audience and to no one else. That said, I don’t think I have a right to silence them. I can be outspoken about what they are saying that I think is wrong. I could choose to block them on social media platforms, and I can even call them nasty names, if that’s a game I want to play, (I don’t), but I don’t get to shut them up.

On the other hand, I think hate speech has no place in a good and decent society. In other words, we should only be intolerant of intolerance:

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

And so when I see news like this, it upsets me. It doesn’t matter what your politics are, whether you are on the left or right, or whether or not you think our Prime Minister is doing a good job or not… He should not have to shorten an event because of angry protesters.

I will defend anyone’s right to protest. Not screaming protesters preventing a speech they don’t want to hear, not things being thrown at speakers, and not disrupting a planned event and making the event impossible to run. Unless the person speaking is spouting hate, we need tolerance. The only thing that should be disrupted is hate speech and intolerance. That’s it. That’s all.

We undermine our own freedoms when we prevent people with different views from speaking. We don’t have to give them a platform ourselves. We do have to recognize their rights and freedoms to think differently than us. Don’t like the the Prime Minister? Then be active in the next election. Do research and speak from a knowledgeable place about his policies you dislike and promote another candidate. Share your opinion, dedicate your time, and change things in the next (free) election. But don’t heckle, scream, and disrupt that person’s planned event. Want to hold up signs and protest, go ahead. Want to share your opposing opinion on social media? Go ahead. But don’t be a jerk and prevent a planned event from happening… save that for groups with names like Hitler Loving Nazis. If that’s a hate group giving a talk, the paradox of tolerance comes into play, and by all means disrupt and prevent that hate speech from happening. Anything less than that, then preserving free speech is far more important than anything you have to say in a disruptive protest.

1984 in 2024

First they came…

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me.

~ German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

— — — — — — — —

I watched a short video about a school board voting down an attempt to ban books. I thought it was an American video about the the ultra-conservative movement in Florida. I was wrong. This was in Manitoba, and while the book ban was denied, I was struck by the realization that this was something being voted on in Canada.

There is hate in this world. It is driven by fear. It’s driven by the idea that someone getting more rights, more choice, and more opportunity somehow removes those things from someone else… from someone privileged.

I salute the community of Brandon Manitoba for standing up against such prejudice and hate. I salute everyone who speak out against hate, tyranny, prejudice, and ignorance.

Over the past few months I’ve rolled my eyes and wondered how the ‘land of the brave and home of the free’ down below our southern border could become so much more fearful and so much less free? Banning books, stripping away women’s rights, and creating policies based on ignorance and hate… This isn’t conservatism, it’s fascism. It’s oppressive and un-democratic.

In Florida you won’t find George Orwell’s 1984 in school libraries any more. They’ve entered an era where a dystopian novel about government control is being banned by the government; an era where history is being whitewashed; an era where hospitals can deny needed services that don’t meet the ruling party’s oppressive guidelines. And these ideas are spreading.

The people of Brandon Manitoba got to say ‘No’! No one in Florida was given the same choice. I could name a few countries in the world where I’d expect to see this, none of them on this continent until now. I fear that the US election in 2024 is not about political parties, it’s about democratic ideology… it’s a choice between living in an open and free society or a state controlled and restricted society.

The interesting thing in both Canada and in the United States is that these battles are not just being fought in national elections, they are being fought municipally in local elections including school board elections. We saw it here in my city when, last year, I broke my non-partisan ‘it’s your duty to vote’ message to speak out against a (fringe, close minded) group of school trustee candidates. (They all lost their bid.)

We can’t wait until deeply un-democratic but politically active people take away our books, and our rights and freedoms, before we act. We need elected officials like the ones in Brandon Manitoba to be in the positions they were in. And if we can’t step up, we need to vote for the ones who do.

In Canada voter turnout has decreased since 2015. It dropped from 48.8% in 2019 to 44.5% in 2021. The voter turnout rates were much higher in the close race of 2020 in the US, but 1/3 of the eligible population still didn’t vote. In both countries local municipal elections have even less people turn up to vote. If ever there was a time to show up and vote, if ever there was a time to step up and take on an elected position, this is it.

The beauty of a democracy is that everyone has a voice… the scary thing about a democracy is that everyone has a voice.

I may not want a Orwellian 1984 government, but I do want my future grandchildren to be able to read that book in their public school library. I want my grandchildren to learn about multiple historical perspectives. And I want my grandchildren to live in an open, inclusive, and accepting society, not one that limits their rights and freedoms.

We need to speak for them, and for everyone who is having their liberties stripped away, before our chance to speak up, even to vote, is lost.

Profit and greed

Watching the price of gas top $2.30 a litre and knowing that big oil companies are making billions in profit is maddening. Never waste a good crisis. Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with a company taking profits, but I really wonder where the world is headed when company shareholders care more about increasing profit than anything else.

I think too many people confuse democracy and capitalism. They think a free world should include unfettered opportunities for business and profit. But a model where corporate value is tied to how much returns shareholders can get for their investment is not designed to make the world better or more free. It’s designed to put more wealth into the hands of the rich, who can afford to buy stocks and shares in companies.

Greed is the underlying driver of such a system. Not democracy, not freedom, greed.

‘This approach isn’t as good for the environment, but it is more profitable.’

‘We could pay our employees a better living wage, but that would hurt our profits.’

‘If we lay people off and increase efficiency, we can meet our targets and get our bonuses.’

There are stories like this one, where a boss decided that every employee will get at least 70k a year, and the company is still thriving 5 years later. And there is a local company run by Paul Macdonald that donates 50% of corporate profits to charity.

But these stories are anomalies. They shouldn’t be. There shouldn’t be a reason that the world we live in is driven by profit and greed. I hope to see more people doing what these guys are doing. They are earning a good living, and making the world around them better. That shouldn’t be a novel idea, it should be what drives us.

Inequity analogy

Imagine you are a praying mantis. You are male and you mate with a female. You know there is a chance that she will decapitate you during mating:

You take a chance of dying every time you mate.

What an unjust world that one sex has so much control over another; that your life completely falls in the decision-making of the other sex. This might be ok for the praying mantis, but it would be completely unacceptable for humans.

Or would it?

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLnebuFv/

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLneTA2a/

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLne3y9p/

How does something like this happen in 2022 in a nation that is supposed to be a model for the free world? Free for who?

And they irony in using this analogy is that people were praying for this to happen.

The free world

The free world isn’t free. It’s not. When a privileged few get to decide what people can and can’t do based on their out-dated beliefs, that’s not free.

More Than 1,500 Books Have Been Banned in Public Schools, and a U.S. House Panel Asks Why

“Most books being targeted for censorship are books that introduce ideas about diversity or our common humanity, books that teach children to recognize and respect humanity in one another,” said the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Rep. Jamie Raskin.

When believers of religious dogma limit the choices of non-believers, that’s not free.

We don’t live in a free world, we live in a world of privileged and unprivileged. A world of bias. A world of inequity.

If I took headlines of today, like the article above, or headlines on abortion laws, or on free speech on college campuses, or on lack of social programs, and I stripped away today’s date, in 25 years you wouldn’t know when the article was written dating back as far as 75 years ago. It’s 2022 but if I told you that the article above was written in the 50’s, 60’s, or 70’s, you’d believe me.

Think about that. How much freer have we become? How much more civilized?

Freedom, censorship, and ignorance

This is an interesting time that we live in. I find myself in a position where I need to question my own values. I don’t do this lightly. I don’t pretend that my values have suddenly changed. It’s just that present circumstances put me at odds with my own beliefs around freedom of speech.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I think that when a society sensors speech, they are on a dangerous path. I take this to an extreme. Except for slander, threats, and inciting violence, I think people have a right to say and believe what they want. I believe that taking away such freedom puts us on a perilous path where a select few get too much control, and can undermine our freedoms.

An example where I take this to the extreme would be agreeing with Noam Chomsky.

That has been my stance for a very long time. But the spread of misinformation on social media has me second guessing this. There is a fundamental difference between someone standing on a soap box in a town square, and a nut job with a massive audience spreading lies.

So now, even as an ardent defender of free speech, I find myself agreeing with YouTube’s decision to ban vaccine misinformation:

YouTube doesn’t allow content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm by spreading medical misinformation about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and by the World Health Organization (WHO). This is limited to content that contradicts local health authorities’ or the WHO’s guidance on vaccine safety, efficacy, and ingredients.

Two, four, eight, or sixteen years ago when YouTube began, I would have screamed ‘Censorship!’ at the idea of a platform banning free speech. Even now it bothers me. But I think it is necessary. The first problem is that lies and misinformation are too easily shared, and spread too easily. The second problem is that the subject area is one where too many people do not have enough information to discern fact from fiction, science from pseudoscience. The third problem is that any authentic discussion about these topics is unevenly biased towards misinformation. This last point needs explanation.

If I wanted to argue with you that Zeus the Greek God produces lightning and thunder when he is angry, I think everyone today would say that I was stupid to think such a thing. However, if I was given an opportunity to debate a scientist on this in a public forum, what inadvertently happens is that my crazy idea now gets to have an equal amount of airtime with legitimate science. These two sides do not deserve equal airtime in a public, linkable, shareable format that appears to give my opinion an equal footing against scientific evidence.

Now when dealing with something as silly as believing in a thunder god is the topic, this isn’t a huge issue. But when it’s scientific sounding, persuading and fear mongering misinformation that can cause harm, that’s a totally different situation. When a single counter example, say for example a person having adverse effects from a vaccine, becomes a talking point, it’s hard to balance that in an argument with millions of people not having adverse effects and also drastically reducing their risk of a death the vaccine prevented. The one example, one data point, ends up being a scare tactic that works to convince some people hearing the argument that the millions of counter examples don’t matter. And when social media platforms feed similar, unbalanced but misleading information to people over and over again, and the social media algorithms share ‘similar’ next videos, or targeted misinformation, this actually gets dangerous. It threatens our ability to weigh fact from fiction, news from fake news, science from pseudoscience. It feeds and fosters ignorance.

I don’t know how else to fight this than to stop bad ideas from spreading by banning them?

This flies in the face of my beliefs about free speech, but I don’t know any alternative to prevent bad ideas from spreading faster than good ones. And so while I see censorship as inherently evil, it is a lesser evil to allowing ignorance to spread and go viral. And while it potentially opens a door to less freedom, and I have concerns about who makes the decision of what information should be banned, I’d rather see a ban like this attempted, than for us to continue to let really bad ideas spread.

I thought in this day and age common sense would prevail and there would be no need to censor most if not all free speech. However it seems that as a society, we just aren’t smart enough to discern truth from cleverly said fiction. So we need to stop the spread of bad ideas, even if that means less freedom to say anything we want.

Choosing or observing?

How much of our lives are passive?

We observe the world, watching through our eyes, hearing through our ears, feeling through our skin, and tasting in our mouths. Each of these senses giving us feedback about the world around us. But how much time do we spend really choosing what those senses share with us, versus passively accepting what those senses are exposed to?

It is our action or lack of action that determines what our senses observe or endure. Is there a hobby you’ve always wanted to try? A food you’ve always wanted to taste? A place you’ve always wanted to visit? (Maybe somewhere you can walk or hike to, while travel is restricted.)

How much time do we spend being observers of this world, mere victims of our circumstances, versus creators of our world, choosing our path and seeking out new experiences, new things that our senses can take in?

This is a choice. Not realizing this is also a choice.