Natalie Solent, from the always good Samizdata.
The typical member of the British ruling class of yesteryear was complacent, arrogant, and a hypocrite. However his public school had at least imbued him with one particular virtue, or, failing that, had imbued him with the desire to appear to have that one virtue, which does well enough for most purposes. He wanted to be seen as a good sport. A chap who played the game. A chap who would not shoot a sitting duck or a grouse out of season, and who would never hit anyone who by reason of sex, age or any other cause, could not hit back.We have dispensed with all that foolishness now.It is contempt of court for a juror to ever to describe the deliberations of the jury of which he or she was a member.
Thus the members of the jury held up to public scorn “…a fundamental deficit in understanding … in 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this stage, never” by Mr Justice Sweeney for asking stupid questions cannot defend themselves.Not playing the game, sir, not playing the game at all.
Hypocrisy is the social acknowledgment — or tax, if you are an economist — that vice pays to virtue. Although the person is a thoroughgoing scondrel, he (or she) must appear not to be so.
But when standards are for the little people, evil has no check. And there is little left to protect us. For any speech, any action, can be deemed hateful — and for that “not sporting” is not a sufficient comment.
When Finley spoke on the bill last June, he said Section 13 has jeopardized freedom of speech in Canada.
“The broad scope of this section and the wide investigative powers and quasi-judicial independence granted to human rights commissions places too much power in the hands of unelected officials,” he said. “These commissions have, in the last decade at least, run roughshod over the civil liberties of Canadians. Political correctness has run amok.
“The abuses of both provincial and federal human rights commissions cannot be allowed to continue unabated,” he said. “The censorship of politically incorrect statements in publications is not only wrong but also contrary to our democratic principles.”
But Bill C-304 faces stiff opposition from Liberals led by Senator Jim Munson, a former television journalist. In October, Munson told the Senate Section 13 “plays a crucial role in promoting tolerance and respect among Canadians.”
Section 13 and the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada “are a necessary complement to one another,” he said, noting the higher burden of proof required by the Criminal Code.
Munson described the debate on Section 13 as “the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country.”
The elite want us at their mercy. We need to beg their forgiveness, or inattention, to do but the most simple things.
The old name for this was fascism: now it is called the anti-harassment policy, and instead of brownshirts we have have human resources.
The lady who gave the main presentation was careful to begin and end by expressing her respect for the faculty and acknowledging that the number of troublemakers are few. She assured us (unprompted) of their commitment to giving due process to the accused. She downplayed the blatantly discriminatory form of the rules (dividing “protected” classes from everyone else) by including examples of unacceptable behavior going the other way (e.g. a female teacher propositioning a male student). The rules, at least as they were presented and quoted to me, allow an extremely radical interpretation, but the lower level enforcers seem to be trying to maintain another interpretation, the most reasonable one that the text will allow.
With the greatest respect to Bonald, who writes for the Orthosphere (and whose old blog, Throne and Altar, was well worth reading) the reasonableness of the woman from HR is not the point. She is interpreting the rules gently. But that is her discretion. She can interpret them… quoting from the same essay
The official rules, set by the state and highest levels of the university system, authorize a reign of terror by the human resource bureaucrats over the faculty. There are official “designated protected classes” who are placed utterly above criticism, in that “insults” to them are deemed a punishable offense. It is indeed expressly denied that academic freedom gives any warrant to engage in such “insults”. The incuriosity of academics on certain topics is not surprising. Sexual harassment is defined extremely broadly to include almost any unwanted behavior, including things as trivial as standing in front of a woman and “moving one’s eyes up and down”. (Seriously.) Given the vagueness of the rules for what constitutes “offensive behavior”, an aggressive human resource / equal opportunities office could consider they have a mandate to effectively purge the university of unattractive heterosexual men.
As an unattractive middle aged man of the heterosexual and melatonin-deficeint persuasion I am quite unimpressed.
The elite are placing a heavy burden on us. Not by limiting our amusements, nor by starving our bodies. But of limiting the questions we can ask, placing certain questions beyond the pale of polite conversation, and increasing the rules on the wage slaves, who they treat as peasants or narod, while they, the progressive elite, or nomenkultura, can do as they please.
This is not sustainable. And what cannot be sustained… will stop. Pray that the elite realize this before it happens.
Otherwise, it will become fascist season. Again.