Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

  1. #1
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Australia's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has been progressing a new piece of federal legislation - labelled the Religious Discrimination bill - that would "attempt to secure extra protections from state-based discrimination laws. In recent years, many states in Australia have passed, or are due to pass various pieces of legislation strengthening protections for minority views from discrimination - in the view of Mr Morrison's Federal Government, these pieces of law have come at the expense of individual's right to make statements of religious belief.

    What prompted the legal clarification?
    As is often the case, a high profile sports player is involved. Over a period of years, multi-sports professional Israel Folau made a series of judgemental public statements on LGBTQI and other issues via Twitter and other platforms. In response to each, his then employer, Rugby Australia, initiated code of conduct proceedings. First he was warned not to make similar statements again or risk being in breach of contract, later they culminated in the termination of his contract. The termination resulted in loss of direct earnings, as well as the cancellation of sponsorship arrangements - the ultimate value of which went into the tens of millions of dollars.

    The final straw, as it was, for Rugby Australia was a tweet Folau made in response to a law change in Tasmania, which made provision for individuals to amend the gender reported on their birth certificate: "The devil has blinded so many people in this world. Repent and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free". The seemingly personal statement on his feelings about the law change resulted in a predictable media storm, Folau doubled down on Instagram, posting a meme miss-quoting 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "WARNING Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolators HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”. Folau's position was that he was making "statements of faith" and thus not discriminating as defined in his code of conduct. Rugby Australia, who were seeking to expand their game to attract LGBTQI players at the time, thought otherwise.

    During the public legal proceedings that followed his sacking, there was intense public debate over the nature of his statements, and whether an individual can, as a public facing representative of a business or organisation, express sentiments that go against the code of conduct of that organisation or business without consequence. The public debate reached fever pitch. But the ultimate compromise settlement between Rugby Australia and Folau placed blame on neither party and otherwise kept the settlement private. It left neither party entirely happy, and didn't resolve the issue in the eyes of the public.

    What's in the law
    The new legislation would seek to formalise and safeguard an individual's right to make genuine statements or expressions of religious belief. It would clarify exactly where and how statements of genuine faith can and can't be considered discriminatory. "For example, the bill says it wouldn't be discrimination if a religious primary school required all of its students and staff to practise its particular religion, meaning it could turn away people who don't." the same rules would apply to other institutions such as universities or hospitals which are owned or managed by a religious body and to those whom profess atheism or other variations of non-specific-religious belief. On the other hand, the new bill also clarifies what a statement of belief might legitimately be "It wants to make sure "statements of belief" are not considered discriminatory, as long as they don't threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or would be considered malicious to a "reasonable person". An early draft of the bill, would have explicitly given protection to someone in Folau's place, who might be sacked for making a statement of belief. But that element has since been removed after significant public backlash from minority rights groups.

    Say no to gay cake.
    The case echoes the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Supreme Court case in the US - which tested limits to the free exercise of religion where a business sought to actively discriminate whom they offered services to based on a religious belief. The supreme court ruled in favour of the business over the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and noted that the Commission had not been maintaining neutrality towards religious belief.

    The debate over the case in Australia has referenced the US Supreme Court decision. But while there are elements within Australia's various constitutional frameworks that reflect similar ethics to the First Amendment, most are conventions rather than specific rights - there is no direct parallel. The new legislation seeks to draw a clear line where a religious belief can and can't be the basis of discrimination - while ironically not addressing the specific circumstances that led to it's creation. It also doesn't address areas where its provisions might conflict other workplace legislation, and as such, may in reality achieve little. I'm not convinced the legislation is necessary, as the original Folau case resulted in a settlement which justified existing legal checks and balances, but as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case illustrated, when governments seek to over-control freedoms they do overreach and I'm wary of state laws to protect relatively recently enfranchised groups, if they disenfranchise others.

    A couple of questions:

    This is an international forum, and there are numerous examples of how religious freedoms are permitted or protected around the world. While the US Constitution is the most obvious example of the enshrinement of free expression, even there we're now seeing conversations that certainly weren't envisaged by its writers - it is still the living document that all others are compared to, and thanks to a robust courts system, will continue to be the benchmark. Are there better constitutional protections elsewhere?

    In general, how should we define the grey areas where one person's freedom of expression might actively harm or prevent another's?

    Should corporations and businesses have the right to influence what their spokespersons do or say in public?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  2. #2
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    My feeling is Folau is a stupid footy player, trying to follow his faith. He may have deliberately chosen to do a bit of trolling at the bidding of attention seeking coreligionists, but quoting scripture is fair enough. I mean I do it I don't even believe in Christ.

    He's been done in because most people find religion uncomfortable in Australia and sponsors are worried a "firm stance" on some moral belief by their poster boy (and he was a gun player) will cost them sales.

    Its pretty wearisome for sexual minorities to have to be harangued yet again. Some have been haranguing back, and some Christians I know are heartily sick of it (though to their credit most turn the other cheek over and over).

    As with the capitalist motivated sacking this legislation seems to be driven by attempt to appease an almost non existence antipodean MAGA electorate. Old Mate Murdoch has been desperately trying to cobble together a conservative/coal/gun/religious faction buts its been tough, the fairly moderate liberal party has been handed a 10 years national government but they fritter through PMs like facemasks and they look like getting gutted around the country.

    The legislation probably won't happen. We're mostly lazy grillers here, and the centre wobbles this way and that: at the moment we are wobbling away from the coal shills and the more religious people are suffering for their association.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  3. #3

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Speech can't cause real harm to other people(being "offended" isn't being actually harmed), so the line should be drawn, at well, any speech. Any call for limit on speech is an attempt to limit society's capacity to exchange ideas and should be viewed accordingly - as an attack on intellectual freedom of society as a whole.

  4. #4
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Speech can't cause real harm to other people(being "offended" isn't being actually harmed), so the line should be drawn, at well, any speech. Any call for limit on speech is an attempt to limit society's capacity to exchange ideas and should be viewed accordingly - as an attack on intellectual freedom of society as a whole.
    I guess the grey area in this case, isn't freedom of speech itself. Nobody is banning anyone from saying anything - that would be a misreading of the situation being discussed. Rather the issue is when someone is acting as an agent for someone else or an organisation.

    When you're the public face of an organisation, you're no longer representing your own views, but theirs as well. In this scenario, you are still free to say what you want - Folau had/has his own voice and made statements on his own views... but should you expect the person or organisation who is paying you to be their representative to be forced to continue to pay you if you're saying things they disagree with (E.g. a genuine interpretation of a religious belief)? Should your right to free speech override theirs, or their right to decide how to represent themselves?

    And in this case, it goes a step further. Should those organisations be able to select or exclude their members, representatives or staff or contributors (or what ever) based on things they have expressed - E.g. Should a private religious school be able to exclude a child who has publicly stated they are not religious? or conversely, should someone be excluded from a private school because they have made a public statement of religious expression when the school is expressly forbids it?

    As expressed in the Folau case: We all agree he has the right to say what he wants. That isn't the issue. But should he expect his employer (Rugby Australia) to continue to pay him if he makes a religious influenced statement that is in direct contradiction of the code of conduct he signed when he took a job with them? Or is the onus on him for taking on the job with a code of conduct attached in the first place?
    Last edited by antaeus; November 30, 2021 at 06:19 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  5. #5
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    There's this basic principle of democracy that people seem to forgetting with increasing regularity: "your rights cease when exercising them would prevent another from exercising his rights". You don't have the right to force the confectioner to make you a gay cake if it goes against his beliefs and there are others who would make you the cake and the confectioner does not have the right to refuse you service if he is the only business in town.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; December 01, 2021 at 04:01 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  6. #6
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    There's this basic principle of democracy that people seem to forgetting with increasing regularity: "your rights cease when exercising them would prevent another from exercising his rights". You don't have the right to force the confectioner to make you a gay cake if it goes against his beliefs and there are others who would make you the cake and the confectioner does not have the right to refuse you service if he is the only business in town.
    As I just said, in the post immediately preceding yours. Nobody is refusing anybody's right to do or say anything. That is a misreading of what's going on here. Even the "gay cake" scenario ended up confirming exactly your sentiment.

    Rather...

    Quote Originally Posted by Antaeus
    As expressed in the Folau case: We all agree he has the right to say what he wants. That isn't the issue. But should he expect his employer (Rugby Australia) to continue to pay him if he makes a religious influenced statement that is in direct contradiction of the code of conduct he signed when he took a job with them? Or is the onus on him for taking on the job with a code of conduct attached in the first place?
    This isn't about your right to free expression, it is about how your right to free expression is responded to by others: E.g. Should a private school be able to deny a student enrolment specifically because they have made a public statement against a religious belief?

    Rugby Australia didn't care whether Folau was expressing a religious belief, they were concerned that someone they paid to be a spokesperson went and said something that brought them into disrepute. Folau's case ended with a settlement - which to me showed that there are already accountability mechanisms in place to deal with these kinds of conflicts.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  7. #7

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    As I just said, in the post immediately preceding yours. Nobody is refusing anybody's right to do or say anything. That is a misreading of what's going on here. Even the "gay cake" scenario ended up confirming exactly your sentiment.

    Rather...

    This isn't about your right to free expression, it is about how your right to free expression is responded to by others: E.g. Should a private school be able to deny a student enrolment specifically because they have made a public statement against a religious belief?

    Rugby Australia didn't care whether Folau was expressing a religious belief, they were concerned that someone they paid to be a spokesperson went and said something that brought them into disrepute. Folau's case ended with a settlement - which to me showed that there are already accountability mechanisms in place to deal with these kinds of conflicts.
    Free expression is as much cultural as it is legal. In the not too distance past, eccentric, off-colour or controversial expressions were largely tolerated under the expectation of reciprocity (one never knows when they’ll find themselves in a minority position). That understanding is now dead. It cannot be resuscitated by legal means, even if there was the will for it. Not only are contemporary expressions tightly policed, but activists will now go out of their way to unearth historic “offenses” in order to exact retroactive punishment. Athletes and sporting institutions are especially vulnerable because sport is one of the most effective mediums for communicating with the public.
    Last edited by Cope; December 01, 2021 at 11:14 AM.



  8. #8

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Free expression is as much cultural as it is legal. In the not too distance past, eccentric, off-colour or controversial expressions were largely tolerated under the expectation of reciprocity (one never knows when they’ll find themselves in a minority position). That understanding is now dead. It cannot be resuscitated by legal means, even if there was the will for it. Not only are contemporary expressions tightly policed, but activists will now go out of their way to unearth historic “offenses” in order to exact retroactive punishment. Athletes and sporting institutions are especially vulnerable because sport is one of the most effective mediums for communicating with the public.
    A son could be punished for something a father said 4 decades ago:

    "Lilly Diabetes has pulled its sponsorship of Conor Daly's No. 6 car in the NASCAR Xfinity race at Road America, citing a racially insensitive remark made by the driver's father in the 1980s that surfaced this week."
    https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/xfinit...ry?id=57392058

  9. #9
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Free expression is as much cultural as it is legal. In the not too distance past, eccentric, off-colour or controversial expressions were largely tolerated under the expectation of reciprocity (one never knows when they’ll find themselves in a minority position). That understanding is now dead. It cannot be resuscitated by legal means, even if there was the will for it. Not only are contemporary expressions tightly policed, but activists will now go out of their way to unearth historic “offenses” in order to exact retroactive punishment. Athletes and sporting institutions are especially vulnerable because sport is one of the most effective mediums for communicating with the public.
    The situation in Australia has certainly been influenced by this nostalgia for a time where "I could say what I want about the gays/blacks/women/Irish/etc amongst my community and not be held to account for it". But the overall conversation has tended to anchor around the influence of conservative religious organisations on broader society. Specifically it has a high profile because Australia's Prime Minister is a member of a Pentecostal church, and there has been a lot of sympathy for Folau amongst the various Evangelical and Pentecostal churches in Australia (Folau is also a Pentecostal - but from a different community). There has been significant pressure on the Prime Minister to look at legal protections for people who can justify saying abhorrent things as genuine statements of religious faith - thus the new law outlining specific rights for people or organisations.

    The Folau case was settled through the courts and he was compensated. There was a public pile-on to burn him at the stake for saying inflammatory things - but the system worked. Rugby Australia retained their right to not have to employ someone they disliked (they are a self-described progressive organisation), and Folau received an undisclosed (but likely significant) compensation for his dismissal. To me, specifically legislating some types of speech as free-er sets a dangerous precedent. The legislation has clearly come out of our present culture wars - as a shot back at those twitter progressives who like to police anyone of high profile who steps outside their idea of new societal norms. But even conservatives in the Prime Minister's own party have questioned the need for this legislation - given the issue that sparked it has been resolved.

    I think the idea of reciprocity is an interesting one to dig into - maybe there's a thread in it somewhere. If as you say, off-colour or controversial expressions were tolerated based on the expectation of reciprocity, are the cancellations we're seeing now simply the results of past exchanges that weren't viewed as reciprocal by those now doing the cancelling? - a balancing of norms? E.g. If free speech is informally policed by norms within a culture or community, and then all of a sudden that community is expanded to include new or different views, would the norms not also expand to include those of the new additions - and would the expanded community drop norms that exclude the new additions to the community? That feels a lot like what we're seeing now. Historically disenfranchised groups pushing for inclusion of their norms by broader society, and dropping of norms that exclude them. Certainly a balancing would occur, but there will always be friction as we approach a new normal - as those on both sides of the balance who think things have gone too far, or not far enough jostle to establish where the new normal will sit. Infidel's quoted article above is one example of this jostling.
    Last edited by antaeus; December 01, 2021 at 06:08 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  10. #10
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    I'll refer to Popper's tolerance paradoxon. Complete freedom of expression is a myth and shouldn't be something desirable either. Libel, slander, and incitement to crime, including and especially violence against people for their colour of skin and religious beliefs are and should be liable.

    The way I see it the case presented in the OP isn't exactly incitement of hatred though and thus doesn't necessarily fall under it. Tolerance has these days been usurped and redefined: "You have to not only tolerate my views, but accept them as your own, but I have to do neither of the sort."

    I don't see this as a left vs right issue, but as an authoritarian view vs one that can recognise that when you set a precedent in one direction you can never be sure it won't be used against you in the future. As said by cope one can never know when he or she will find themselves on the wrong side of in the future. Something many feminists have had to realise after having partaken in the cancel culture themselves. Or if TERF isn't your thing or you think it doesn't affect societal norms as long as you don't partake in culture wars yourself, just look at Craig Murray, the journalist who got released just 2 days ago after having been sentenced in the UK - literally for doing his job. Also hardly right wing or even center.

    Pseudo left wingers agitating for oppression already have no problem with it hitting their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  11. #11

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    The situation in Australia has certainly been influenced by this nostalgia for a time where "I could say what I want about the gays/blacks/women/Irish/etc amongst my community and not be held to account for it". But the overall conversation has tended to anchor around the influence of conservative religious organisations on broader society. Specifically it has a high profile because Australia's Prime Minister is a member of a Pentecostal church, and there has been a lot of sympathy for Folau amongst the various Evangelical and Pentecostal churches in Australia (Folau is also a Pentecostal - but from a different community). There has been significant pressure on the Prime Minister to look at legal protections for people who can justify saying abhorrent things as genuine statements of religious faith - thus the new law outlining specific rights for people or organisations.

    The Folau case was settled through the courts and he was compensated. There was a public pile-on to burn him at the stake for saying inflammatory things - but the system worked. Rugby Australia retained their right to not have to employ someone they disliked (they are a self-described progressive organisation), and Folau received an undisclosed (but likely significant) compensation for his dismissal. To me, specifically legislating some types of speech as free-er sets a dangerous precedent. The legislation has clearly come out of our present culture wars - as a shot back at those twitter progressives who like to police anyone of high profile who steps outside their idea of new societal norms. But even conservatives in the Prime Minister's own party have questioned the need for this legislation - given the issue that sparked it has been resolved.

    I think the idea of reciprocity is an interesting one to dig into - maybe there's a thread in it somewhere. If as you say, off-colour or controversial expressions were tolerated based on the expectation of reciprocity, are the cancellations we're seeing now simply the results of past exchanges that weren't viewed as reciprocal by those now doing the cancelling? - a balancing of norms? E.g. If free speech is informally policed by norms within a culture or community, and then all of a sudden that community is expanded to include new or different views, would the norms not also expand to include those of the new additions - and would the expanded community drop norms that exclude the new additions to the community? That feels a lot like what we're seeing now. Historically disenfranchised groups pushing for inclusion of their norms by broader society, and dropping of norms that exclude them. Certainly a balancing would occur, but there will always be friction as we approach a new normal - as those on both sides of the balance who think things have gone too far, or not far enough jostle to establish where the new normal will sit. Infidel's quoted article above is one example of this jostling.
    Rights are reciprocal by definition; their value is in their collective security. If there isn’t a level playing field, then the right or freedom isn’t being realized. Free speech/expression has no value if protections (including social/cultural tolerance) are not extended to those with unfashionable or offensive perspectives.

    Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance.

    Chomsky
    Corporate identity politics and language policing is the appropriation and monetization of “social justice” activism. Conformity with elite lib/prog discourse (esp. w/regard to identity priorities) acts both as a protection from criticism and as a distraction from an increasingly unequal market place. Morrison’s attempts to legislate against this trend will never serve as an adequate replacement for a society which accepts dissenting views in good faith.



  12. #12

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    I think the fact we’re already taking solace in the legal system as the last line of defense to save people from the mob is indicative of just how toxic things have become. Likewise, instinct to react negatively to attempts to legitimize state mechanisms as de facto thought police may be called “nostalgia,” but people have already lost more than just the ability to be offensive in public, so characterizing rational alarm as counter revolutionary reactionism shows just how far the overton window has already shifted. Tbf Folau’s commentary is fairly extreme and possibly heretical by Biblical standards, blaming Australia’s wildfires on divine punishment for homosexuality in particular. Even so, it’s troubling for him to have his fundamental rights nearly abrogated at the discretion of commercial interests virtue signaling to the mob, which was the kind of logic behind private businesses being able to racially discriminate.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; December 02, 2021 at 12:08 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  13. #13

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I guess the grey area in this case, isn't freedom of speech itself. Nobody is banning anyone from saying anything - that would be a misreading of the situation being discussed. Rather the issue is when someone is acting as an agent for someone else or an organisation.

    When you're the public face of an organisation, you're no longer representing your own views, but theirs as well. In this scenario, you are still free to say what you want - Folau had/has his own voice and made statements on his own views... but should you expect the person or organisation who is paying you to be their representative to be forced to continue to pay you if you're saying things they disagree with (E.g. a genuine interpretation of a religious belief)? Should your right to free speech override theirs, or their right to decide how to represent themselves?

    And in this case, it goes a step further. Should those organisations be able to select or exclude their members, representatives or staff or contributors (or what ever) based on things they have expressed - E.g. Should a private religious school be able to exclude a child who has publicly stated they are not religious? or conversely, should someone be excluded from a private school because they have made a public statement of religious expression when the school is expressly forbids it?

    As expressed in the Folau case: We all agree he has the right to say what he wants. That isn't the issue. But should he expect his employer (Rugby Australia) to continue to pay him if he makes a religious influenced statement that is in direct contradiction of the code of conduct he signed when he took a job with them? Or is the onus on him for taking on the job with a code of conduct attached in the first place?
    The whole idea of holding a individual or group "accountable" for speech(their own or "representative" of them) just comes off as neurotic and irrational to me. I mean let's fast-forward this a few decades ahead, when public opinion on sexual freedoms changes again, like it does all the time, would a mirror of such situation (private company firing a sportsball player for saying that its okay to be gay and criticizing Canaanite mythology because it hurts profits by pissing off alleged majority that disagrees)be acceptable or "grey area"?
    This exercise is very helpful in understanding why 0 tolerance to limits of freedom of speech is very important.

  14. #14
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    I think the fact we’re already taking solace in the legal system as the last line of defense to save people from the mob is indicative of just how toxic things have become. Likewise, instinct to react negatively to attempts to legitimize state mechanisms as de facto thought police may be called “nostalgia,” but people have already lost more than just the ability to be offensive in public, so characterizing rational alarm as counter revolutionary reactionism shows just how far the overton window has already shifted. Tbf Folau’s commentary is fairly extreme and possibly heretical by Biblical standards, blaming Australia’s wildfires on divine punishment for homosexuality in particular. Even so, it’s troubling for him to have his fundamental rights nearly abrogated at the discretion of commercial interests virtue signaling to the mob, which was the kind of logic behind private businesses being able to racially discriminate.
    This is hardly a new situation though. How many people lost their careers during the McCarthy era?. There is irony that the pendulum has swung from lefties being shut out to lefties doing the shutting out. But the mechanism itself isn't new, and probably existed in Neolithic communities. But I also think this is going on in both conservative and progressive parts of society. I think it is much harder to express a desire for compromise amongst all parts of the political spectrum, and I think within conservative communities there is a purging of moderate views. Certainly it is more visible amongst self proclaimed 'progressives' simply because of the prevalence of those perspectives in Hollywood or New York or other big communications towns, but in conversations with my conservative father in law, there are plenty of bad-guys who are ruining society, and most of them don't look like him.

    I also don't think 'taking solace in the legal system as a last line of defence' is a fair way of describing the situation - as at any point in time, it is the only pathway of defence for someone who is dismissed under questionable circumstances. And people have been getting fired for saying stupid things since day dot. It's not like we all of a sudden have to fall back on the courts or formal mediation. That has always been the only appropriate pathway to settle employment disputes.

    I like Cookiegod's reframing in particular, as I tend to also think this isn't about whether you think in progressive or conservative terms, but rather whether you engage with your society in an open way with empathy, conciliation and compromise, or whether you seek to enforce your will on society without thought to compromise. There are those on both the left and the right who express the former and the latter. We're really good at spotting those we don't agree with when they cross that line, but less so those on our own team.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    The whole idea of holding a individual or group "accountable" for speech(their own or "representative" of them) just comes off as neurotic and irrational to me.
    I agree with you an extent. But the counter to this is (as others mention above): You are always accountable for what you say. If you deliberately antagonise me to the point of rage, you'll get punched in the nose. Or to reference Cookiegod again, if you tell a lie about me in public, and I lose my job because of it, I can sue you for defamation - speech has consequences.
    Last edited by antaeus; December 02, 2021 at 09:27 PM. Reason: It's all good to die with your boots on when fighting for your beliefs... unless your beliefs die with you.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  15. #15

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    I don’t think comparing left wing institutional dominance to McCarthyism is the “both sides” argument one might want it to be. For one thing, I’m sure the GOP would be delighted if “anti-McCarthyist” came into popular use as a description of their agenda. For another, support for McCarthyism enjoyed broad popular support until high profile false accusations undermined his credibility, tumbling from record highs to record lows within a matter of months as declining popular support snowballed with institutional backlash.

    Today it’s nearly the opposite. In 2020-2021, 60% of Americans agree the obsession over offensive language has gone too far. A similar number report they have political views they’re afraid to share publicly (a number that is growing), with self identified liberals being the standout exception. Over 60% of Americans agree the press favors the Democrats. Over 30% worry about being negatively impacted in the workplace if their political views become known, including some 40% of those with advanced degrees. Yet liberal orthodoxy enjoys strong institutional support that grows stronger the more vicious the purity spiral becomes. So yes, this is a new situation, and a grave one at that, since the phenomenon is increasingly immune to the kind of swings in public opinion or institutional accountability that rapidly took down McCarthyism.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; December 02, 2021 at 11:06 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  16. #16
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    I don’t think comparing left wing institutional dominance to McCarthyism is the “both sides” argument one might want it to be. For one thing, I’m sure the GOP would be delighted if “anti-McCarthyist” came into popular use as a description of their agenda. For another, support for McCarthyism enjoyed broad popular support until high profile false accusations undermined his credibility, tumbling from record highs to record lows within a matter of months as declining popular support snowballed with institutional backlash.

    Today it’s nearly the opposite. In 2020-2021, 60% of Americans agree the obsession over offensive language has gone too far. A similar number report they have political views they’re afraid to share publicly (a number that is growing), with self identified liberals being the standout exception. Over 60% of Americans agree the press favors the Democrats. Over 30% worry about being negatively impacted in the workplace if their political views become known, including some 40% of those with advanced degrees. Yet liberal orthodoxy enjoys strong institutional support that grows stronger the more vicious the purity spiral becomes. So yes, this is a new situation, and a grave one at that, since the phenomenon is increasingly immune to the kind of swings in public opinion or institutional accountability that rapidly took down McCarthyism.
    You're being too literal with your comparison when the intent is to show simply that these kinds of things aren't unique, or specific to any one political party or ideology. Don't be so defensive.

    For what it's worth, I could have used anti-war sentiment during one of the world wars, or witch hunts in the 17th century... history is littered with attempts to coerce public behaviour by those who are of a more authoritarian personality.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  17. #17

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    You're being too literal with your comparison when the intent is to show simply that these kinds of things aren't unique, or specific to any one political party or ideology. Don't be so defensive.

    For what it's worth, I could have used anti-war sentiment during one of the world wars, or witch hunts in the 17th century... history is littered with attempts to coerce public behaviour by those who are of a more authoritarian personality.
    This seems to be an admission, first that the slide toward authoritarian speech standards is real, and second that this slide constitutes a negative development. Censorship and viewpoint discrimination being the historical norm is what makes the decline of free speech all the more alarming. The culture of speech tolerance and open dialogue isn't something that can simply be restored overnight.



  18. #18
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This seems to be an admission, first that the slide toward authoritarian speech standards is real, and second that this slide constitutes a negative development. Censorship and viewpoint discrimination being the historical norm is what makes the decline of free speech all the more alarming. The culture of speech tolerance and open dialogue isn't something that can simply be restored overnight.
    It is an acknowledgement that there are people on all sides of the political spectrum who seek do do things their way at all cost. That there are definitely authoritarian progressives out there trying to co-opt public dialogue to promote their desires - but as I am literally stating above - this isn't a progressive methodology. There are people of all political persuasions who will seek to co-opt political ideology to coerce. They are all dangerous. I am not naïve or one-eyed as to deny the dangers of authoratarian thinking amongst those I might be ideologically sympathetic towards. It is however interesting to see others who may be.

    I am in full agreement with you regarding the dangers of coersive social pressures on free expression.
    Last edited by antaeus; December 03, 2021 at 01:17 AM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    - Freedoms can't collide, any more than truths can. If Rugby Australia is a private organization, then they have a right to fire Polau for any reason, whether it's his religion, his politics or his ethnicity. No one has a right to a private-sector job.

    - It's clear that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, which describes same-sex sexual activity as an abomination and states unequivocally that those who participate in such acts won't inherit the kingdom of God.

    - Given that most Australians are unrepentant sexual sinners themselves, it's not surprising that Polau's words would grate at their conscience. It's also unsurprising they'd seek to punish him, since no one likes being reminded of their sin. But people's unwillingness to accept the truth has no bearing on the truth itself, nor should it discourage Christians from continuing to preach the truth for people's own good. There's no gospel or "good news" (forgiveness of sin) without the bad news of acknowledging that you're a sinner in need of forgiveness.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  20. #20

    Default Re: Where freedoms collide... should freedom of belief justify freedom to discriminate?

    Freedoms can't collide, any more than truths can. If Rugby Australia is a private organization, then they have a right to fire Polau for any reason, whether it's his religion, his politics or his ethnicity.
    Idk how it works down under but conceptually, the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act would like to have a word with you.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •