5 ms·

UAE is an absolute monarchy; using this as an argument against hate speech legislation seems.. overreaching.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> UAE is an absolute monarchy It's actually a federal monarchy. "The country is a federation of seven emirates consisting of Abu Dhabi (which serves as the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Quwain. Each emirate is governed by a ruler; together, they jointly form the Federal Supreme Council. One of the rulers serves as the President of the United Arab Emirates." So in practice, the presiding monarch's power is checked by the other monarchs. Still far from democracy and of no use in a discussion about hate speech laws.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Sounds like a cartel.
vtail 8y ago
Grandparent’s is a universal argument, that applies to other countries / situations as well. Russia, which is technically not a monarchy, have the same problem with hate speech law. For obvious reasons, it’s harder to give an example from a more liberal country, but his/her point still stands.
- JBReefer 8y ago
  England has hate speech laws that produce _ridiculous_ outcomes, like a guy getting fined because he made a dumb gif of his dog Sig Heiling.
  - jamespo 8y ago
    If that's the only example it's not doing too badly
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Well, England is technically a monarchy...
    - samstave 8y ago
      I honestly can't understand this. They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I just don't understand why... The only thing I can see is "Because I said so, that's why", which doesn't seem to be a sound basis for government.
      - GW150914 8y ago
        The most popular argument I’ve heard is that the royal family actually makes more money for the UK than they cost, although those arguments seem to assume that abolishing royalty would mean bulldozing the artifacts and architecture which are the real revenue source. I think the real reason why is that the aristocracy does actually run a lot of things, if a bit indirectly. The House of Lords is a powerful, rich group of people, and who hands out the honors thst enobled them? How many in the House of Commoms aim to become lords and retire? Would they really vote to dismantle the institution which might make them lords?
      - scrame 8y ago
        I saw it once described as "the perfect split of politics and patriotism". People can love the queen and hate the PM.
      - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
        > They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I think that's kind of a backwards view of how it works these days. If anything, the royal family are a bunch of mascots that not only bring in billions to the UK, but also, for better or for worse, serve as a unifying identity for millions of people. If anything, I think most celebrities in the US serve as a bunch of vacuous narcissists, while at least the royal family understands "noblesse oblige" and their jobs basically involve making non-stop charity appearances.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... "Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to use a public communications network to send certain types of messages including those that are grossly offensive or threatening. The prosecution argued that by posting your video entitled “M8 Yer dug’s a Naazi” on to the Internet, you committed that offence. “The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase “Gas the Jews” over and over again as a command to a dog which then reacts. Sometimes the phrase is “You want to Gas the Jews”. You recite “Gas the Jews” in a variety of dramatic ways. “Gas the Jews” in one form or another is repeated by you 23 times within a few minutes. “On the whole evidence, including your own, applying the law as made by Parliament and interpreted by the most senior courts in this land, I found it proved that the video you posted, using a public communications network, was grossly offensive and contained menacing, anti-Semitic and racist material. “You deliberately chose the Holocaust as the theme of the video. You purposely used the command “Gas the Jews” as the centrepiece of what you called the entire joke, surrounding the “Gas the Jews” centrepiece with Nazi imagery and the Sieg Heil command so there could be no doubt what historical events you were referring to."
    - jrs95 8y ago
      Personally I find this legislation grossly offensive and threatening.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - praneshp 8y ago
      Thanks for the link, as well as the quote! Now watch people fall over each other to defend Nazi-themed dog gifs.
      - pathseeker 8y ago
        Defending free speech is not the same as defending or supporting the content itself. Free speech wouldn't need to be a right in the US constitution if it only applied to stuff that wasn't offensive to someone. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus
  - odessacubbage 8y ago
    i mean when you think about it, isn't being unjustly punished for speech the most english value of all?
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  Here's a great example from a more liberal country. Bill c 16 was wielded in this way by her university against Shepard less than a year after being passed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd Furthermore, her perceived infraction was as banal as presenting two sides of a debate over bill c 16 itself. The university's argument was that even presenting the opposing argument was in breech of university discrimination policies.
  - notafraudster 8y ago
    Bill C-16 was not wielded against her by the university -- your link demonstrates that an individual professor in the meeting mistakenly believed her conduct was against the "Canadian Human Rights Code" (not a thing that exists). That the subject of conversation that led to the meeting was Bill C-16 does not mean Bill C-16 was the authority the manager in question was using to argue her conduct violated rules. I think the principles of free inquiry are more important than Shepherd's feelings, and so correcting this misconception is important. Subsequently, she was not punished, and after she herself made the meeting a national issue by doing a sob story tour, the university ultimately cleared her. She then sued the university for being mean to her, which is exactly what you'd expect someone whose main argument is the principles of open, uncomfortable discussion are more important than hurt feelings. Shepherd then founded an organization on campus to promote open inquiry, and the first speaker she invited was, of course, a white supremacist who had just gotten fired for being a guest on a holocaust denial podcast. I mention this for no particular reason. If someone reading happens to infer that perhaps Shepherd's martyrdom was to a large extent inflated by Shepherd herself to raise her profile by courting controversy, I couldn't possibly be held responsible for that perception.
    - gnarbarian 8y ago
      Your interpretation of the situation is disingenuous and politically motivated (kinda like hate speech prosecution). Literally the first paragraph from the wiki article: >Shepherd was reprimanded in November 2017 for having played her communications class two clips from The Agenda with Steve Paikin, a TVOntario current-affairs program, which showed a debate with Jordan Peterson, a critic of political correctness, about the compelled use of gender-neutral pronouns.[2] The context of the debate was Bill C-16, a proposal to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground for discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act and as an identifiable group to the Criminal Code.[4] The bill became law in June 2017.[5] and regarding the Faith Goldy event from Shepard herself: >Originally, this event was supposed to be a debate about immigration in Canada–but every professor I invited to debate Goldy declined. One must wonder: if her arguments are so intellectually void and unreasonable, as critics claim, why was no one willing to take on her supposedly bunk arguments about white identity? Wouldn’t it be an easy win? >Running out of time and with no opposing speaker to represent the pro-open borders side, LSOI decided to launch the Unpopular Opinions Speaker Series, for which Goldy would be the inaugural speaker with her speech “Ethnocide: Multiculturalism and European-Canadian Identity.” >The series would feature speakers who are strong and articulate, yet polemical—speakers who discuss subjects that most might consider taboo. A central tenet of this speaker series, we decided, would be a robust open floor Q&A session at the end, so that the presenter’s views could be directly challenged and confronted. >I had my own questions for Goldy planned: wouldn’t a theoretical “white ethnostate” be rather dull and homogenous? Doesn’t a diversity of cultures in Canada enhance our perceptions of the world and understanding of one another? >I never got to ask my questions. >In fact, I never even got to hear Goldy speak a single word on her topic, as protesters pulled the fire alarm while the introductory remarks were still being made. And that was that; event over. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-i-invited-faith-goldy-to-laurier/ https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-i-invited-faith-goldy-to...
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  What problems does Russia share with UAE with respect to hate speech law? They seem pretty far apart.
  - vtail 8y ago
    I haven’t watch the full video, but this paragraph from[1] summarizes the issue well: “Following Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012, Russian authorities have increasingly used vaguely-defined, anti-extremism laws to suppress the work of human rights activists. Codified through the laws on Foreign Agents, LGBT Propaganda, and Hate Crime, the Russian authorities’ interpretation of extremism permits an arbitrary application of these laws, which allows a dangerous means of discrimination against peaceful groups.” [1] https://www.ned.org/events/hate-crime-and-hate-speech-legislation-in-russia-lessons-from-europe/ https://www.ned.org/events/hate-crime-and-hate-speech-legisl...
jrs95 8y ago
"X is okay only when a democracy does it" is not a compelling argument. In fact that argument by itself undermines the basis of a liberal democracy.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Not if the problem is with the implementation. The fact that some countries use their courts to jail political enemies is not a reason not to have courts, for example.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    No. But its still bad to create exceptions to the rule of not jailing your political enemies and then using democracy as a prop to pretend there's nothing wrong.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  Exactly. "tyranny of the majority" is the cited reason the United States adopted the bill of rights with the very first amendment cementing our freedom of speech. This is not coincidental.

> UAE is an absolute monarchy It's actually a federal monarchy. "The country is a federation of seven emirates consisting of Abu Dhabi (which serves as the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Quwain. Each emirate is governed by a ruler; together, they jointly form the Federal Supreme Council. One of the rulers serves as the President of the United Arab Emirates." So in practice, the presiding monarch's power is checked by the other monarchs. Still far from democracy and of no use in a discussion about hate speech laws.

rhizome 8y ago
Sounds like a cartel.

vtail 8y ago

Grandparent’s is a universal argument, that applies to other countries / situations as well. Russia, which is technically not a monarchy, have the same problem with hate speech law. For obvious reasons, it’s harder to give an example from a more liberal country, but his/her point still stands.

JBReefer 8y ago
England has hate speech laws that produce _ridiculous_ outcomes, like a guy getting fined because he made a dumb gif of his dog Sig Heiling.
- jamespo 8y ago
  If that's the only example it's not doing too badly
- ummonk 8y ago
  Well, England is technically a monarchy...
  - samstave 8y ago
    I honestly can't understand this. They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I just don't understand why... The only thing I can see is "Because I said so, that's why", which doesn't seem to be a sound basis for government.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      The most popular argument I’ve heard is that the royal family actually makes more money for the UK than they cost, although those arguments seem to assume that abolishing royalty would mean bulldozing the artifacts and architecture which are the real revenue source. I think the real reason why is that the aristocracy does actually run a lot of things, if a bit indirectly. The House of Lords is a powerful, rich group of people, and who hands out the honors thst enobled them? How many in the House of Commoms aim to become lords and retire? Would they really vote to dismantle the institution which might make them lords?
    - scrame 8y ago
      I saw it once described as "the perfect split of politics and patriotism". People can love the queen and hate the PM.
    - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
      > They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I think that's kind of a backwards view of how it works these days. If anything, the royal family are a bunch of mascots that not only bring in billions to the UK, but also, for better or for worse, serve as a unifying identity for millions of people. If anything, I think most celebrities in the US serve as a bunch of vacuous narcissists, while at least the royal family understands "noblesse oblige" and their jobs basically involve making non-stop charity appearances.
- pjc50 8y ago
  http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... "Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to use a public communications network to send certain types of messages including those that are grossly offensive or threatening. The prosecution argued that by posting your video entitled “M8 Yer dug’s a Naazi” on to the Internet, you committed that offence. “The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase “Gas the Jews” over and over again as a command to a dog which then reacts. Sometimes the phrase is “You want to Gas the Jews”. You recite “Gas the Jews” in a variety of dramatic ways. “Gas the Jews” in one form or another is repeated by you 23 times within a few minutes. “On the whole evidence, including your own, applying the law as made by Parliament and interpreted by the most senior courts in this land, I found it proved that the video you posted, using a public communications network, was grossly offensive and contained menacing, anti-Semitic and racist material. “You deliberately chose the Holocaust as the theme of the video. You purposely used the command “Gas the Jews” as the centrepiece of what you called the entire joke, surrounding the “Gas the Jews” centrepiece with Nazi imagery and the Sieg Heil command so there could be no doubt what historical events you were referring to."
  - jrs95 8y ago
    Personally I find this legislation grossly offensive and threatening.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - praneshp 8y ago
    Thanks for the link, as well as the quote! Now watch people fall over each other to defend Nazi-themed dog gifs.
    - pathseeker 8y ago
      Defending free speech is not the same as defending or supporting the content itself. Free speech wouldn't need to be a right in the US constitution if it only applied to stuff that wasn't offensive to someone. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  i mean when you think about it, isn't being unjustly punished for speech the most english value of all?
gnarbarian 8y ago
Here's a great example from a more liberal country. Bill c 16 was wielded in this way by her university against Shepard less than a year after being passed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd Furthermore, her perceived infraction was as banal as presenting two sides of a debate over bill c 16 itself. The university's argument was that even presenting the opposing argument was in breech of university discrimination policies.
- notafraudster 8y ago
  Bill C-16 was not wielded against her by the university -- your link demonstrates that an individual professor in the meeting mistakenly believed her conduct was against the "Canadian Human Rights Code" (not a thing that exists). That the subject of conversation that led to the meeting was Bill C-16 does not mean Bill C-16 was the authority the manager in question was using to argue her conduct violated rules. I think the principles of free inquiry are more important than Shepherd's feelings, and so correcting this misconception is important. Subsequently, she was not punished, and after she herself made the meeting a national issue by doing a sob story tour, the university ultimately cleared her. She then sued the university for being mean to her, which is exactly what you'd expect someone whose main argument is the principles of open, uncomfortable discussion are more important than hurt feelings. Shepherd then founded an organization on campus to promote open inquiry, and the first speaker she invited was, of course, a white supremacist who had just gotten fired for being a guest on a holocaust denial podcast. I mention this for no particular reason. If someone reading happens to infer that perhaps Shepherd's martyrdom was to a large extent inflated by Shepherd herself to raise her profile by courting controversy, I couldn't possibly be held responsible for that perception.
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    Your interpretation of the situation is disingenuous and politically motivated (kinda like hate speech prosecution). Literally the first paragraph from the wiki article: >Shepherd was reprimanded in November 2017 for having played her communications class two clips from The Agenda with Steve Paikin, a TVOntario current-affairs program, which showed a debate with Jordan Peterson, a critic of political correctness, about the compelled use of gender-neutral pronouns.[2] The context of the debate was Bill C-16, a proposal to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground for discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act and as an identifiable group to the Criminal Code.[4] The bill became law in June 2017.[5] and regarding the Faith Goldy event from Shepard herself: >Originally, this event was supposed to be a debate about immigration in Canada–but every professor I invited to debate Goldy declined. One must wonder: if her arguments are so intellectually void and unreasonable, as critics claim, why was no one willing to take on her supposedly bunk arguments about white identity? Wouldn’t it be an easy win? >Running out of time and with no opposing speaker to represent the pro-open borders side, LSOI decided to launch the Unpopular Opinions Speaker Series, for which Goldy would be the inaugural speaker with her speech “Ethnocide: Multiculturalism and European-Canadian Identity.” >The series would feature speakers who are strong and articulate, yet polemical—speakers who discuss subjects that most might consider taboo. A central tenet of this speaker series, we decided, would be a robust open floor Q&A session at the end, so that the presenter’s views could be directly challenged and confronted. >I had my own questions for Goldy planned: wouldn’t a theoretical “white ethnostate” be rather dull and homogenous? Doesn’t a diversity of cultures in Canada enhance our perceptions of the world and understanding of one another? >I never got to ask my questions. >In fact, I never even got to hear Goldy speak a single word on her topic, as protesters pulled the fire alarm while the introductory remarks were still being made. And that was that; event over. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-i-invited-faith-goldy-to-laurier/ https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-i-invited-faith-goldy-to...
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
What problems does Russia share with UAE with respect to hate speech law? They seem pretty far apart.
- vtail 8y ago
  I haven’t watch the full video, but this paragraph from[1] summarizes the issue well: “Following Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012, Russian authorities have increasingly used vaguely-defined, anti-extremism laws to suppress the work of human rights activists. Codified through the laws on Foreign Agents, LGBT Propaganda, and Hate Crime, the Russian authorities’ interpretation of extremism permits an arbitrary application of these laws, which allows a dangerous means of discrimination against peaceful groups.” [1] https://www.ned.org/events/hate-crime-and-hate-speech-legislation-in-russia-lessons-from-europe/ https://www.ned.org/events/hate-crime-and-hate-speech-legisl...

jrs95 8y ago

"X is okay only when a democracy does it" is not a compelling argument. In fact that argument by itself undermines the basis of a liberal democracy.

icebraining 8y ago
Not if the problem is with the implementation. The fact that some countries use their courts to jail political enemies is not a reason not to have courts, for example.
- jrs95 8y ago
  No. But its still bad to create exceptions to the rule of not jailing your political enemies and then using democracy as a prop to pretend there's nothing wrong.
gnarbarian 8y ago
Exactly. "tyranny of the majority" is the cited reason the United States adopted the bill of rights with the very first amendment cementing our freedom of speech. This is not coincidental.