(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Thanks to griffen for linking to this piece from the Los Angeles Times. I want to examine it.

Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality.

No, it's only her bigotry that compels her to speak out against homosexuality, because there is no commandment or requirement of the Christian faith to do so.

The only passages in the Bible on homosexuality relevant to Christians are Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6, and these indicate Paul's opinion that homosexuals do not have a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. They do not require Christians to speak out against them, just to avoid associating with them.

But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

What exactly is "religious expression"? Is that the right to wear a cross, or a burqa, or a pentagram? The right to spend a moment out of every day in class saying a prayer?

Does it include the right to make proclamations that, directly or otherwise, promote hatred?

There is no "right" to avoid being offended. All of us are exposed, all the time, to statements that offend us. We cannot ban speech on the basis that it offends someone.

And believe it or not, that is not the rationale behind bans on hate speech.

What makes hate speech problematic is not that it offends someone. What makes it problematic is that it promotes a social power imbalance rooted in violence, exploitation, and discrimination. A target of hate speech is not simply "offended" or "put-off;" hate speech can trigger a post-traumatic stress response, which causes anxiety and other major mental health issues.

Not only that, but it cultivates an environment where people feel safe and entitled to commit acts of aggression and even violence against members of an oppressed class. The homophobic sentiment in our society is so strong (and hardly needs bolstering) that fully 84% of queer people report being verbally harassed and insulted, and over a quarter are physically assaulted.

There is, whether some want to admit it or not, a social power imbalance favoring heterosexuality. Queer people are at a distinct economic disadvantage (in spite of the stereotype of queer people as affluent), are much more likely to be the targets of violence, and as a direct result of societal homophobia have a higher incidence of mental health problems.

So, what Ruth Malhotra wants, in effect, is the right to contribute to my mental illness, and to encourage people to beat, fire, insult, and marginalize me. And, taking that a step further, i think that she and people like her are quite aware of the effects her hate speech will have. They are in fact counting on it, because they want us to feel ashamed of who we are, they want us to go into hiding because that is most beneficial to them.

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

"Because it's not enough to have our religious holidays off, to have churches on every street corner, to have strong influence over the political party in power, to have our religious beliefs upheld as the foundation of our culture and society!"

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.

Like the old addage says, follow the money. In this case, it's not simply about privilege, it's also about profit. This issue is a huge moneymaker for the Chaliban. Organizations like these are in the business of promoting hatred, and so long as this will continue to win them big donations and profits, they are going to keep it up.

Queer people make an excellent target because we have so little in the way of resources to fight back. And when we finally do have some victory, however small, the Chaliban is right there "in the name of equality" to intimidate us into silence with statements that they know will trigger stress and anxiety in us. (See how this works?)

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

Why on earth are they wearing anti-gay t-shirts to high school?

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

I think many people do feel harassed, but i suspect that the whole "Christians are persecuted in the US" thing is a ploy to divert anger from where it should really be -- on the people who are actually harassing and oppressing them. Do you think it's me with my obscure blog, or is it corporations who have reduced employee benefits, promoted bankruptcy "reform," and who charge usurious fees and interest on credit?

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

It may be a choice, but that is still not an excuse to engage in oppression.

Suppose it is a choice. Suppose it is an immoral choice, one for which someone will actually be sent to hell. What is the most effective way to lead people out of sin? Is it to oppress them at every turn and browbeat them at every corner? Think about how effective it has been for me... do i strike you as someone likely to turn to Jay-zus any minute? So this strategy of harassing queer people does not even make sense.

It is only being done because people are making money at it.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists.

Where they belong.

He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

The tax-exempt status thing is worthwhile if churches are, you know, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor and comforting the distressed. When they become involved in politics, they're in a different business entirely.

"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."

Worse? Or BETTER?

Comments

[neosis.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, it has already been implemented. And the fact that it could even be questionable is disconcerting to me.

I looked around and as I understand it the person you are refering to is a) Swedish, b) Published a sermon on how "Good Christian Swedes would be condemned to hell if they didn't cast the gays out of the country" in the newspaper because not enough people showed up to his sermon.

He's a bit of a cause celebre in the States, because this "poor old 60-year old preacher" was sentenced to prison. Nevermind the fact he was telling people that all the gays should be killed or driven from their homes. How dare they jail a preacher, that's practically the same as crucifying Jesus.

Personally, I think Hate Speech laws represent fatique by relatively mainstream people of the assholes who want to stir up trouble. You want to fuck with my peaceful existence? No way, we'll give you some alone time to see how you like what you preach. And I specifically don't fall into any category that's protected by hate speech. I'm just tired of people who claim "it's my right to be a biggest asshole I'm allowed to be".

Rights get curtailed when people abuse them enough to piss people off. No I have to go work on my legislation that makes it legal for bounty hunters to bring spammers in "dead or alive".

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I looked around and as I understand it the person you are refering to is a) Swedish

That's another case, see my response to sophiaserpentia.

Personally, I think Hate Speech laws represent fatique by relatively mainstream people of the assholes who want to stir up trouble.

I don't care what the reason is, even though that is a pretty good one. Everything has a consequence, and one of the consequences of free speech is that assholes get to say asshole things. If we aren't willing to accept that, then we don't really want free speech. Many people are fine with that and I can understand that, but I'm not. Considering the abysmal state of the zeitgeist of our society, I don't like the idea that the popularity of an idea could become the basis for the legality of expressing it. Although we are talking about asshole speech here, it sets what I see as an unacceptable precedent.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Except that the issue isn't someone's right to be an asshole. I addressed that in the OP. Speech which consists of or implies threats against a whole class of people contribute nothing meaningful to society or to social dialogue. pretzelsalt's example was graphic, but conveys what i mean. Threatening to slice up someone's infant is not "speech" that deserves to be protected. And the principle applies when the threat extends to a whole class of people.

It is actually exceedingly difficult to prove that someone has committed a hate crime or disseminated hate speech. And it should be. The standard being applied is very specific.

I for one am not proposing that we use popularity or lack thereof as basis for the soundness of an idea. If that were the case, the civil rights movement would have gone nowhere. Rights protections for minorities are not popular, anywhere, ever. What guides my logic is a definably objective ethic, which i have set out in great detail over the last couple of years.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Except that the issue isn't someone's right to be an asshole. I addressed that in the OP.

But that's not an exclusive definition of hate speech. I must have missed that part of the OP, but the original story contained many examples of "hate speech" that contained no threats of violence .. but the article still subtly decried and criticised them under the same umbrella. I'll limit the concept of hate speech to threats when hate speech legislation (and proposed legilslation) does.

Violence is violence. Threats are threats. To attach greater penalty to violence or threats motivated by particular ideologies is to criminalize the ideology in addition to the violence or threat.

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Then you are talking about the Saskatchewan man who had this printed in the local newspaper:

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13

The guy who was fined $1,500 and ordered to apologize?

That certain seems to fall under the category of encouraging violence against a group of people.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Not him either. A pastor with a blog. No threats of violence, no Levitical quotes, just an opinion that someone took offense to.

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I don't believe that.