Socially acceptable hate speech in Canada

I think Solberg writes his fair share of hate speech. He makes my left eyelid twitch.

I think all religions are fair game for attack and a government has no business arbitrating what criticism is "okay" and what criticism is "not okay".

I read the quotes as well. I understood them to refer to those who believed/claimed their faith allowed "honour killings" etc. not Islam.

Are we really saying that the government believes that Islam condones things like "honour killing"? Not only do I think that this is not accurate (Islam does not condone these and the government has not made that connection), I am concerned that if an attack on "honour killing" and extreme applications of sharia law such as stoning etc. is taken as an attack on Islam then the offense against Islam is being made here not by the government. It is not just the government that needs to be careful about these associations-- we do as well.

Given who was writing, I am sure that there is no intended slight but everyone should be careful about making these connections including those of us who consider ourselves progressive. We all need to be sure of what we are reading before writing so that we are not becoming part of the problem. Nor should we allow ourselves in our disgust with this current government, to contribute to the very things we want to fight against.

On the other hand, I don't see any reason to hate fundamentalist Islam less intensely than fundamentalist Christianity.

Sean is right. Violence against women is not a value of any culture or faith. It is Islamophobia and racism to suggest that perpetrating violence against women is a part of Islamists' belief system.

Religious extremism and fundamentalism, otoh, is valued by the US miltary and CIA according to US whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. Western governments and mainly the USA have been aiding and abetting religious fundamentalism and hundreds, perhaps thousands of madrassas/madarsas churning out a specific kind of extremist Muslim in Central Asia for a number of years and continuing to do so.

I am sorry but I can't agree. Solberg is not making the connection  to Islam. He is NOT saying, implying or suggesting that sharia law and "honour killings" are a reflection of Islam. The article linked in the OP does not make such a connection. The worst it does is fail to underline that the connection does not exist but you could argue that to have to underline that in itself would be deeply insulting -- if we assume that most thinking people already make the distinction.

I can't stand Solberg, his politics or his point of view but if Islam is not implicated there, then it is also the reader's responsibility not to equate extremists with an entire faith. Just as we would not expect an attack on people like those of the Peoples Temple as being representative of the Christian faith. Please reread the article Solberg wrote-- the connection is not there-- not at all.

Now Solberg, may or may not have an undertone of dislike for immigrants in general but that is not clear from the article. This is the thinnest of arguments against the Cons who from time to time actually do take the mask off. When we attack them let's at least get the facts straight and be right about this. There are times when such charges of racism (or more accurately bigotry in this case) from them are true.

There is a stronger argument that it is this thread that is being bigoted rather than the Sun piece in the opening post. All the offensive connections to Islam have been made here; none in that article. People here should find that deeply disturbing especially considering that the connections were made in apparent defence of Islam and without intent. The fact that racism or bigotry is often carried and spread unintentionally should give us all pause.-- Islam, a religion, has never been confused with a concept of race either-- I am somewhat reluctant to point that out given that the entire concept of "race" is in itself a fraud.

Sean, you are a fool if you believe the term "honour killing" refers to any other religion but Islam in the popular imagination.

Sean, I understand your point. I don't agree with it. You are giving Solberg far too much credit, and you end up defending xenophobia and racism. Solberg is not concerned with what Islam actually is. He is concerned with exploiting deep-rooted cultural prejudices about the enemy of the West, serially represented in our Western press as the Muslim. He makes lazy and vague gestures toward "honour killing" and "Sharia Law" (would that be the Christians' Sharia Law, then?) knowing that his readership will draw the unstated but insisted connection between those practices and those-who-we-know-practice-them. Solberg is talking in code--a code I know and a code the "great silent majority" know. It is not a subtle language.

Sean in Ottawa,

You are justifying the bigotry, xenpphobia and plain lack of decency and civility Solberg displayed. According to your justificative logic, a person or a group who misinterpret a faith automatically invent a new one, parallel to the other. Thus, Solberg is not calling this Islam ugly but rather calling the other Islam ugly, no! not that one, the other beside it. Well, should we, Sean call them Islam A, Islam B, Islam C etc.. to make it easier for you and Solberg to justify the unjustifiable?

 "Nowhere he mentions Islam"? That is precisely what he would say. For, maybe like you he would not mind insulting people's intelligence.  Now, who says that there are no bigots, xenophobes and racists amongst progressives on this board. I have not mentioned any name. 

No a misinterpretation is a misinterpretation -- never said it was a new religion. Now you are just making up positions for me that I never said. Your entire first paragraph is built on a series of assumptions about my post, the original article and the understand of the public that is quite false. A lot of progress has been made seperating people from false assumptions about Islam-- this line of thinking is undermining that.

To equate a misinterpretation with an entire religion is problematic-- isn't it? So because others make this equation, it is okay to perpetuate it, repeat it, reinforce it directly when it was not even there?

Your comment  saying I do not mind insulting people's intelligence-- I have no polite response for, so you can imagine it for yourself. Your insinuations in your final sentance are far, far, far more direct than anything Solberg said. It is hypocritial to acuse one person of hiding behind insinuations and then use the same tactic on someone else.

I agree with Catchfire, Sean. You are excusing the inexecusable. Let's review, once more, the quote:

It is unmistakable he is referencing not ugly faiths but an ugly faith--singular--and then he connects that ugly faith with life or death over their own families (the cultural racism itself is staggering) with Sharia law and honour killings.

And you don't think that is intentional or racist? I do. I'm not sure how you miss it. And keep in mind this went through an editing process.

Sean, are you actually arguing that "honour killings" are not a Muslim-only phenomenon? I don't see anyone disagreeing with you here. The problem is not what an honour killing actually is--violence against women dressed up as a religious problem rather than a masculine one--but what semantic weight the term itself actually carries. In the final analysis there is no such thing as an "honour killing." There is only the meaning we ascribe to the term.  Language does not develop or exist in a vacuum--the article doesn't need to explicitly state that honour killings and Islam are connected, it only needs to encourage you with a wink to do so yourself. The feat is accomplished daily by the Western media whenever it mentions Islam or honour killings. That's how language works.

As for your suggestion that when we point out Solberg's xenophobic and hatemongering rhetoric, we are repeating the same occult connections he is making (although you suggest, incredibly, that he is not making them), this is possibly true--and a problem, certainly, in fighting racist discourse. Judith Butler makes the point more fully in Excitable Speech. How do we fight hate speech without repeating it, institutionalizing it and normalizing it? Is there another way to defang it?

But before you get to this interesting question, you have to get over the elementary question of whether or not Solberg is trying to stir up hate. It's a no-brainer, Sean. See how much you have to steel yourself not to draw the right conclusion.

You are completely losing yourself here, Sean, in attempting, again, to excuse the inexcusable. Go back and read the quote. The offensive aspect was the connecting of an ugly faith that gives the power of life and death to Sharia law which is exclusively Islamic. You can't argue that.

No kidding! That is why ascribing it to that "ugly faith", in my opinion borders on hate speech. Further, I think you're having a bad day. I haven't accused you of defending anything despite your clearly infering my post was bigotted. I said you're excusing the inexcusable as in Solberg's clear, to me and obviously others, reference to Islam as an "ugly faith". And then you do it again:

What disassociates Islam from abhorrent cultural practices moreso than declaring the association hate speech?

I'm sorry, Sean, but you have your head up your ass on this one.

Of course, The Liberal Party of Canada are almost as bigoted as the Conservatives. They propped up Monty's party something like 79 times in Parliament. Political and social views harbored within both parties are compatible for the most part. Monty and the Harpers have been in good company.

You know, Sean, if Solberg had said: "Likewise, we condemn those whose ugly faith makes them justify every war crime of Israel as being divinely willed, and those others whose ugly faith makes them deny women's freedom of choice and the rights of queer people, and of course, those whose ugly faith allows them to whitewash every aggressive action of NATO and its member countries."

... then I might be more sympathetic to your point. Under the circumstances, however, if you can't tell a racist ultra-right xenophobic article for what it is, I think we need to have a little more discussion.

No, Fidel, not piling on Sean. Merely debating with a fellow progressive the best approach to counter xenophobic statements of the Solberg genre.

About the Tories, it is clear that Canada, under their administration has hit the bottom credibility and prestige-wise  -among many other things- things can only get better. Actually I was reding about a recent poll indicating that the NDP is gaining what is being chipped from the Cons and Fiberals.

Actually, Sean, why are we talking about Islam at all? Solberg didn't attack Islam (you're correct). He attacked Muslims.

I personally think Islam, as a belief system, is nonsense - likewise with Judaism and Christianity and other (well-named) faiths - and I will and do write against them as I please. But, as Catchfire noted, Solberg doesn't give a damn about theology. He is invoking xenophobia against Muslims (obviously) in order to peddle his ultra-right agenda.

I remain convinced that the point of the article is not so much about Muslims or Islam in particular (which is partly why I objected in the first place for making connections where they were not explicit and where I felt it was adding more harm by doing so).

I suspect the real point here is to create more concern and fear about immigrants in general- that people come to Canada with incompatible ugly belief systems-- I don't think that Solberg cares which religion they may be associated with. Other things he has written have lead me to believe that his problem is with immigration in general. This was just another opportunity to make that point. If we fall in to  the trap of making a connection from a fringe element with a particularly offensive view to a more mainstream religion that captures more people all the better. If we don't and just remain wary about immigration in general then his job will have been done.

I had a friend who became a citizen and watched the ceremony presided over by a judge and Kenny at the museum in Gatineau. I came away convinced that Kenny was basically anti-immigrant and really did not care where they were from (except the UK or US immigrants). I read the article making the connection in terms of the attack to immigrants rather than to a single religion.

Fidel I think the high-ranking neocons would rather beat down people who are already here into the low wages. While it is true that they become a source for over-qualified low wage labour the neo-cons have managed to believe that immigrants as a group cost the system more than they contribute to it-- that this is false does not stop them believing it.

That's a leap.  By saying all religion should be open to criticism, I'm now advocating free speech absolutism?

I agree with you as well on his intentions-- where we did not agree was on completing a connection he did not make explicit. I think that is more harmful than beneficial to indulge in such a connection. For that reason I would have preferred to call him on something else. There are many angles we could have taken-- one is the anti-immigrant posture of this government-which I agree is rooted in racism. And this includes the desire to close the door as tightly as possible with the exception of renting bodies from off-shore to produce low-wage labour from people who will have no ongoing right to remain in the country. The wording of the article was as much a defence of restrictions in immigration as anything else.

The government has quietly reduced family reunification quotas for 2010 to the lowest numbers since the Cons came in to office- a restriction of almost 20% this year alone at a time when the wait is now getting close to ten years for parents and grandparents from some countries. The argument is that demand to come to Canada is being reduced-- although they do not acknowledge the role of these extremely long waits when elderly relatives may not live long enough to be able to come to Canada, in the demand. What is clear is the signal this decision is sending that the government never wants the time-line to come to Canada to shorten.

Another angle addressing the honour killlings and Sharia law comments is the focus of this issue. Honour killings and some of the results of sharia law can and should be addressed in the wider issues of women's equality and violence against women.This is another reason why I did not want to reinforce a false connection to a religion because I do not want to label all those who speak out against these practices as racists and bigots.

This government's record currently and historically is dismal when it comes to violence against women. That far, far, far, more women in Canada are killed by white male partners and former partners than by honour killings raises some questions about the government's motives in raising the issue in this way since they certainly are not for the reduction of violence against women or the protection of our society as a whole. There are issues here that do relate to the approach to the long gun registry as well as the overall diminishing of women's equality rights by this government.

The long gun registry itself ought to be debated in the context of violence against women. What replacement measures for its removal are being contemplated? Should we consider what citizens appear to be saying -- that in rural communities the registry should be scrapped while allowing the urban communities allowed the right to have them maintained-- meaning you could have an unregistered gun in rural Sask but be required to register it on moving to Toronto. I don't know if this is a compromise but at least the issue of violence rather than inconvenience and cost needs to enter the debate. You could take my conversation as a digression but in fact it is this touching on an important issue (violence) for a different political agenda (immigration) that angers me. Everything this government does is calculated.

Then we will agree to disagree as I think he was quite explicit. In fact, I don't know how his words and meaning could be interpreted any differently. It was he who introduced the idea of faith and religion into his conversation. It was he who linked a singular "ugly faith" to honour killings. And it was he who made sure the reader linked the one faith raised to Islam through reference to Sharia Law. I think he is a very sophisticated politician and writer and I think his words were carefully chosen.

Well, not to take away from the 'open season' on Muslims, but really Christians and especially Catholics have been fair game for awhile too. In fact, it's really just Judaism that is 'hands off'.

I just read a stat, in passing, which suggested that 7% of all homicide in Syria is honor-related, and it came with the disclaimer that the real number is likely much higher, given that the crime is rarely reported.

In other news, Syria recently changed its laws to ensure that rather than a one-year maximum, a man who kills his wife, sister, daughter or mother for talking to a man or using Facebook will now receive a minimum sentence of two years. Whopping sentences like that should change those numbers real quick.

Here's a quick question for anyone in the know: while Islam does not, as noted, condone honor killings, does Sharia, or any official Islamic doctrine, condemn it explicitly? Sorry, but the elephant in the room is that honour killlings (especially of the man-kills-sister or man-kills-daughter variety) seem disproportionately likely to take place in self-identified Muslim families. It might be handy if Islam were as clear about killing your wife as it is about, say, drinking alcohol. How is it that the most orthodox Muslim states (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Syria, etc.) seem to also have the most lenience, almost to the point of tolerance, for honour killings? I think that's a reasonable question (and I don't think the answer is "North Americans kill women too!!")

By immigration I do not mean temporary working (exploitation) visas. I beleive this government would like to close the door as tight as possible to immigrants and throw the door wide open for second class citizens-- temporary workers who have no right to stay here or obtain things Canadians get like health care. The Cons want Kleenex people not immigrants.

Apparently, it is just accidental that we process people from countries like the UK and the US much faster than anywhere else. This is apparently just a mismatch of embassy staff not a prejudice against people from other countries. No, we would not do that. I you sort the countries of origin into so-called races and look at how long it takes to get to Canada, some patterns appear. But these are just coincidental-- of course.

The government does not turn over people to be knowingly tortured either.

Now-- if the Cons found that they were able to get the votes of certain immigrants from certain countries--perhaps we might see a new pattern emerge. Would not surprise me at all. If they thought ethnic community A would vote Con adn Ethnic Community B would not-- I'd bet that they would find the resources to put into our embassies so that Ethnic group A would come in faster. Of course miraculously, the resources would be cut back for ethnic community B. This would all be for the purpose of encouraging multiculturalism and unity -- to help us all get along better.

I'd like to see this government do one thing that does not have a political calculation attached or a political score to settle.

Does any religion condemn honour killings explicitly?

Some experts have noted that honour killing may have been be condoned by the Klingon religion. But these pro-Federation experts have been critisized by many Klingons.