radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (02/23/86)
> The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi > who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly > and repeatedly that > 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. > 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. > 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. > This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature > and supports and is financially supported by > a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting > hatred against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. > (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) > > It is certainly not clear to this reader why such an example equates the > censorship of the media in Canada to the USSR. As other submissions have > indicated, there is no such equivalence. > > Name: Richard Snell The above is correct, except that Zundel was convicted of "spreading false news", not inciting hatred. The "news" referred to was the claim that the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax. (He was acquitted on the charge referring to the "international Jewish consipiracy", not because he didn't believe in one of course.) I agree that censorship in Canada is not equivalent to that in the USSR, but I do not think that is a reason for complacency. It is disturbing that a law designed to prevent statements causing panic in the population can be applied to claims concerning events of forty years ago, unaccompanied by any suggestions for immediate action. The conviction of Jim Keegstra a few months later was perhaps even more disturbing. Keegstra is a crackpot who, I am certain from personal knowledge, actually believes what he says (including claims that the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated). Furthermore, he does NOT promote hatred on racial grounds; he's more of a religious nut who doesn't like Judaism the religion, at least as practiced by modern Jews, and opposes the Jewish culture. If this is illegal, then presumably anyone who states that the Aztecs performed human sacrifices also runs the risk of jail. Radford Neal
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/23/86)
In article <162@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >> The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi >> who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly >> and repeatedly that >> 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. >> 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. >> 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. >> This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature >> and supports and is financially supported by >> a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting >> hatred against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. >> (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) [Richard Snell] > >The above is correct, except that Zundel was convicted of "spreading false >news", not inciting hatred. The "news" referred to was the claim that the >Jewish Holocaust was a hoax. Most of the verbiage that goes out over the net about Zundel is based on things the poster read about Zundel (a) on the net, (b) in the newspapers. The people who depend on source (a) are doomed to repeat each other's mistakes, most likely with volume and vehemence increasing over time. Source (b) is generally lacking in relevant details, making it impossible for the reader to form an informed opinion. (When the newspapers do manage to provide the reader with enough information to make a decision, they are accused of bias. They just can't win, eh?) The people who favour censoring Zundel generally call what he wrote hate literature. Those who oppose censoring Zundel are more likely to call it false news, or something similar. The difference between hate literature and false news is the difference between "The Jews are vile sub-human scum, let's kill 'em" and "The holocaust never actually happened, it's all a gigantic hoax". In order to find out the real facts of the case, it would be necessary to lay hands on the court transcripts and Zundel's book (in order to decide whether it's hate literature or false news). I vaguely recall that transcripts are hideously expensive. (Can anybody tell us what the cost is? In addition to the cost, a great deal of spare time for reading is required.) Zundel's book can't be obtained legally, and I have no idea how to go about obtaining it illegally. Two important pieces of evidence that one might use to judge the government's actions are quite difficult to obtain, and it's the government's actions that have made them so. Hmmm. -- David Canzi "I wept because I had no woman, until I met a man who had no hands."
phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (02/24/86)
I think that here in Canada, everyone is entitled to their own personal views on something, no matter what the majority believes is true. This is "private" and "legal". I think the problem occurs when someone begins to express his opinions. This too, is legal. It is when you decide that everyone else must believe what you believe and when you spread your opinions as the truth and not as opinion, when you remove the possiblity of dissent, then you have abuse your right of freedom of speech. That, I believe, is illegal. (And morally wrong, to boot.) Please note: the above statements are *my opinion* and you may agree with them or disagree with them as you choose. Let's talk. -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) ---"A man should live forever...or die trying." ---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/03/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 24-FEB-1986 18:05--------------------- >I think the problem occurs when someone begins to express his opinions. This >too, is legal. It is when you decide that everyone else must believe what >you believe and when you spread your opinions as the truth and not as opinion, >when you remove the possiblity of dissent, then you have abuse your right of >freedom of speech. That, I believe, is illegal. (And morally wrong, to boot.) > >-- > The Phoenix > (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) I have cut part of this out. The part we both agree upon. No government has the right to stop someone from expressing his opinions. If someone truely believes or even doesn't believe but says it anyway that is that persons right. What the government does have the right to stop is someone acting upon those opinions. Such as the Klu Klux Klan killing blacks who aren't "good boys" this governamt can stop and must stop. The right of the Klu Klux Klan to express these belives should never be abridged though in anyway. The government should protect the right to disent any and all opinions no matter how vulger or disgusting they may be. Personally I dislike the Klu Klux Klan, communism, Zundel and what he stands for and most other extremist positions. I still believe though these beliefs have the right to be professed by anyone anywhere at anytime. If the government takes away these rights then the government must be stopped from doing so. Brian Mahoney
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/03/86)
> I think that here in Canada, everyone is entitled to their own personal views > on something, no matter what the majority believes is true. This is > "private" and "legal". > > I think the problem occurs when someone begins to express his opinions. This > too, is legal. It is when you decide that everyone else must believe what > you believe and when you spread your opinions as the truth and not as opinion, > when you remove the possiblity of dissent, then you have abuse your right of > freedom of speech. That, I believe, is illegal. (And morally wrong, to boot.) > Define the difference between "truth" and "opinion" in a manner not open to abuse, please. Incidentally, you refer to labelling opinion (or I presume, even lies) as truth as "remove the possibility of dissent". And you think banning a book and locking someone in prison is less severe a restriction on dissent than publishing lies as truth? > Please note: the above statements are *my opinion* and you may agree with > them or disagree with them as you choose. Let's talk. > Talk? Will the Canadian Government allow it? (In spite of their best efforts, the American Government will.) > -- > The Phoenix > (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) >
hammen@puff.UUCP (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (03/03/86)
> ..many lines of discussion on censorship, Canada, USSR, etc. > ... Once more, with feeling: Can we please move this discussion OUT of net.columbia? It obviously has no relation to the purpose of this newsgroup, and I'm sure that there are others who are sick and tired of reading this. If I wanted to discuss censorship, I'd subscribe to net.politics. PLEASE refrain from posting more material on this subject. Thank you. Robert J. Hammen {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!uwvax!puff!hammen U. of Wisc. CS Dept. !gumby!hammen U. of Wisc. Plasma Physics Dept. hammen@puff.wisc.edu Manta Software Corp. hammen@gumby.wisc.edu
drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) (03/11/86)
In article <43@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > >> Similarly, fraud can be committed merely through the verbal misrepresentation >> of, say, a product as something it's not--again, the sale of such an item is >> not, of itself, an illegal act; what is illegal is the fraudulent >> misrepresentation of it. > > Again, although your statement is correct, your intent is not. It is, in >in fact, the misrepresentation of the truth which is criminal here, not the >words that are said, or the act of speaking them (or writing them). > This is a pretty tricky distinction. Let's explore it further: Nick Shyster distributes flyers on the local street corner announcing that authentic gold Swiss watches are on sale at his shop for five bucks a crack. Upon investigating, police discover that said watches are actually Lithuanian, and made of sheet metal. Hauled before a judge, Nick loudly protests that he is not committing fraud at all, and that the watches really ARE gold and Swiss-made. As evidence, he produces a letter, convincingly written in green crayon by a Mr. Bob Gonuv of Vilna, Lithuania, which asserts that the watches in question are, indeed, handcrafted in Zurich from twenty-four-karat gold. Presumably, the court may choose to believe that Mr. Shyster is honest, and has himself been duped, or that he is deliberately repeating falsehoods which he knows are false. In either case, however, Mr. Shyster is unlikely to escape punishment. In short, Mr. Shyster's intention might lessen the severity of his deed, but it does not change its essentially criminal nature. By making false statements (which he reasonably OUGHT to know are false, whether he does or not), in a manner that, were everyone allowed to do likewise, would severely hurt society (without deterrence of fraud, commerce would surely grind to a halt--there is NO other justification for outlawing fraud, as opposed to simply letting "caveat emptor" prevail), our hypothetical ripoff artist has committed a crime, regardless of the honesty of his intent. >>And, of course, there's the classic "shouting 'fire' >> in a crowded theatre" example. False bomb threats, made by telephone, are >> mere words--nothing more. Should they be legal? > > No, nor are they. However, again, its the misrepresentation which is illegal >, not the utterance of words. In each case, it is the intent to cause havoc, >which in turn has the potential to cause loss of life and limb, or property, >which is considered harmful, not the utterance of the words themselves. > Norm Nutcase distributes flyers on the local street corner announcing that a bomb will go off at 3 PM today in City Hall to protest society's mistreatment of zucchini. Hauled before a judge, he asserts that he saw a brown rat climb to the top of the stairs of his apartment building and squeak three times, and that this was certain proof to him that just such a bombing would be carried out. It was, he argues, just an attempt to warn people, as well as to open their eyes to the predictive power of zucchini- casting, particularly if used in concert with brown-rat-gazing. Once again, the issue will not be whether Mr. Nutcase intended good or evil from his propagation of falsehoods, or even whether he knew that the falsehoods were false. The issue will be whether he ought to have known that his words were false, and to what extent his falsehoods would injure society if they were permitted. > > So in other words, if one group's opinions are judged by society to be >"hateful" (I wonder if you could accurately and specifically define the >criteria under which "hatefulness" is to be judged?) then they haven't the >right to voice their opinions? *gee*, does that mean that if I publish, or >otherwise disseminate information that makes hateful claims about >Nazis, I am in violation of the law? Does this mean that if my opinions manage >to offend a suffciently large number of people, that they can judge my >opinions to consititute a danger to society, and incarcerate me, and censor >my opinions? Sounds very Orwellian to me... Well, as I have said, if your name is Nick Shyster or Norm Nutcase, then society has ALREADY deemed your "opinions" a danger to society, and has ALREADY chosen to reserve the option of censoring your opinions, and of incarcerating you for expressing them. And you would probably grant that, in those cases, society is justified. The point is that you have recognized the very obvious dangers of allowing the above gentlemen to speak their minds, but you do not feel that the dissemination of hate literature carries similar dangers. Now, for another example: Ernst Zundel distributes flyers on a local street corner asserting that the Holocaust never happened, but that the evidence of its occurrence was cooked up by a worldwide conspiracy of Jews. As in the previous cases, the issues are: 1) Was he making false statements? 2) Ought he ("reasonably") have known that they were false? 3) To what extent is society endangered by his falsehoods? The first issue hardly needs to be discussed here. Frankly, I don't think the second needs any discussion either. The real question, therefore, is the last: is hate literature a danger to society? Certainly, the question is open to debate, but, as before, society must make that decision for itself. In Canada, we have decided that its effect is very serious indeed. > > > It seems to me that censorship is wrong, period. The problem with censorship >is that once we grant the government the right of censorship, we can no longer >control it. Who is to decide what the limits are to be? If those who oppose >those limits are censored, then the issue cannot be debated freely. No, I >am sorry, but you are wrong. Government censorship is unacceptable. This is an important issue. When does the prevention of damaging speech interfere with the ability of society to make democratic decisions, including those about what constitute damaging speech? We all more or less agree that outlawing fraudulent misrepresentation of goods will not significantly reduce the free flow of ideas necessary for democratic decision-making; does the criminalization of hate propaganda against particular racial or ethnic groups have a serious "chilling effect" on that flow of ideas? In Canada, we think not. I'm sorry you disagree. > >==================================== > >tom keller >{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 > Daniel R. Simon
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (03/22/86)
In article <1725@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bartok.DEC writes: >... I am still against the idea of the law but I am not as hardened >as I was before. > > Brian Mahoney Ok. Brian, you're a born sceptic :-), but I'm going to try one last time to convert you. > This is what I was trying to show [the danger of censorship] and > my point is that to even start allowing the government this power > is starting on the road to trouble. This comment is indicative of a "model" held by most posters to the net. I think that underlying your thinking is a conceptual model of how democratic governments turn totalitarian. I'm not sure if you formally recognize the model that you've based your arguements on but I think it exists and I have a coarse understanding of it. Pardon me if I take the liberty of dubbing it the "slippery slope" model (sorry Clayton :-). See figure 1 below: ___________________________________________________________________________ | _____________ \ <---- social anarchy | |//////////// <-- democratic \ | | range \ <---- "democracy" | | \ | | \ | | \ <---- "totalitarianism" | ///////////| <-- totalitarian range | figure 1: "The Slippery slope" | figure 2: "The Bistable Model" ___________________________________________________________________________ In the "slippery slope" model democracy must keep a constant fight to keep from slipping down this slope to the pit below. This model would predict that *ANY* erosion of rights is a movement to the bottom. All through out the discussion that we've been having I have also had a "model" of this process, although I have never "formalized" it until now. I'll call this the "Bistable Model" and it features two essentially stable states. This is a rough approximation of what I believe - a more accurate model looks something like electron transitions to various energy states in an atom. I have not included anarchy in this abbreviated version of my model since it is a transitory state and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I shall now try to justify why I believe my model is correct. Not having a strong background in history my evidence will be somewhat scant (more room for you to flame :-). 1) If it were possible to define an absolute scale of democracy, I believe that most countries would cluster about two poles of freedoms. My own "naive" impressions are that this is indeed the case. There are no countries that I can think of that have a mixture of totalitarian and democratic laws. This constitutes some weak empirical evidence. 2) A strong arguement can be made for the mutual exclusion of various types of laws and systems. Totalitarian laws are incompatible with democracy, and democratic freedoms are incompatible with a totalitarian regime. Consider if you will, total freedom of the press in any totalitarian country - not too likely is it? The gap indicated in diagram 2 could also be considered the point where the government ceases to represent the people in favor of some other cause or, usually, its own self interest. Thus in a totalitarian system the government makes laws which protects the government, in a democratic system, laws are made which protect the people. In between the lower range and the upper range lies a great gap because these laws are incompatible. Any movement into this range will result in a quick polarization to one end or the other; and under normal circumstances the movement is back to the closest pole. The polarizing force is usually either public outcry, or government crack down (consider Poland and Solidarity for the latter). 3) Not only are these two states mutually exclusive, they each have their own inherent stabilities. These stabilities arise from self interest on behalf of either of the two parties. In a totalitarian state the government serves and protects itself. Any movement towards freedom results in a government "crack down" (again consider Solidarity in Poland). This is done because any and all freedom can threaten a totalitarian government. In a democratic system politicians are at the whims of their voters and are unlikely to antagonize them unduly. Any extreme measures are usually met with public outcry and the politicians standing in the unemployment line :-). Now, after hypothesizing this I still haven't discussed a mechanism for the transition between the two states. I don't believe that a society can drift too near the edge and drop like a barrel over Niagra Falls. I firmly believe that the stability arising from self interest and democratic values serves as an "anchor". How then do democracies make the transition? This topic can't adequately be covered by this or any article but I can make some crucial observations. 1) Nearly all the governments that have shifted to a totalitarian state have done so violently. There are few if any that simply legislated themselves into existence. 2) Very few democratic governments shift into a totalitarian state. Nearly all governments that have adopted some form of totalitarianism have merely changed their form of dictatorship. 3) Of the few democratic governments that have shifted, nearly all the transitions have been imposed externally - few had done so on the basis of internal politics and pressures alone. 4) Of the very few governments that had changed "spontaneously" there was a set of "exceptional" circumstances involved. The only case of this spontaneous transition that comes to mind is NAZI Germany. But I have a tidy explanation for this below. Evidently, self interest and democratic values have a very strong anchoring effect! Now, I have have managed to dichotomize the causes into two classes - internal and external. There is no need to consider external causes since they are beyond the bounds of the current discussion. So, we now consider internal causes but first I must make a mandatory digression. There seems to be a strong societal instinct in almost every human being. This manifests itself most clearly in times of great threat to a society. In times of war the people "pull together", hardships like rationing are taken with patriotic pride, laws get very restrictive and civil liberties are interpreted in light of the current threat to society. This is all done for the benefit of the society. I believe that this is instinctual and was evolved since it has great survival value for those people who shared a common gene pool. This "societal threat response" has been abused, and is continually being abused. Recent cases of abuse in Canada include the internment camps for Japanese Canadians during the second world war. Here, normal civil liberties were restricted because a threat was perceived from this group, so their freedom of movement was restricted for the duration of the war. I'm not sure, but I think that the same thing happened in California. Another example is the McCarthy era. People were whipped up into a frenzy about the "Communist threat", the political climate was very chilling and the Soviets were doing some pretty nasty things in Europe. The society at the time was responding to a perceived threat and the result was effectively a suspension of some civil rights without even a question that the government was "doing the right thing". (EOD) *end of digression* I believe that this was the mechanism by which Hitler was able to secure a totalitarian grip on his government. First he instilled a strong sense of group identity (patriotism) - this makes the threat response much greater. Next he introduced the threat. By accusation and some real economic suffering (Germany was the hardest hit by the world recession and had many reparations to make from WWI), a threat was perceived by the society. This enabled Hitler to centralize the control of power. By starting a war, that threat was given a basis in reality thus the civil austerity measures were able to be sustained. We'll never know if Hilter could have maintained a totalitarian government in the absence of the threat response, but even during the war some of the people in his own government began to realize that the real threat was within and not external. Today this threat response is used quite handily by many totalitarian governments. This was the force that helped hold the Iranian government together shortly after the fall of the Shah. By blaming all their troubles on the American government, the people banded together even under the repressive government of the Ayatolah (sp?). Current if it weren't for the war with Iraq it is questionable whether they could hold together as a society. Numerous other examples could be made but I've belabored the point already. So, how do I relate this to censorship in Canada? I'm glad you asked that :-). It seems to me that the major objections held by most "netters" is not the intent of the law but the fear that it could open the door to government abuse and eventual totalitarianism. As you can see from my model, I don't believe that this could happen. This law is within the normal range of variation for a democratic society. "Isn't this law an erosion of democratic values", you might ask, "won't this weaken the stability of democracy". A certain amount of deviation within the democratic range is harmless and even when this range is pushed to its limits, a stress situation is required for the transition. In addition, this law is not an erosion of democratic values in the sense that it's based on the belief that no minority in the society should be victimized by government or by other groups. In this light, the law is an affirmation of democratic beliefs *NOT* their erosion. As an aside, I would like to point out that there are numerous other forces that stabilize a political system. These are things like, long standing traditions and neighboring countries, economic ties, etc. These also help to stabilize the two different types of political systems. I would welcome any comments about the above model. As it stands it's only an approximation, but I believe that we have enough evidence to either prove or disprove the predictive value of the bistable model. I think that it's time we put the "Myth of the Slippery slope" to rest. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (03/24/86)
In article <858@alberta.UUCP>, ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) writes: > > This is what I was trying to show [the danger of censorship] and > > my point is that to even start allowing the government this power > > is starting on the road to trouble. > > I think that underlying your thinking is a conceptual model of how > democratic governments turn totalitarian. > Pardon me if I take the liberty of dubbing it the "slippery slope" > model (sorry Clayton :-). See figure 1 below: > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > | _____________ > \ <---- social anarchy | |//////////// <-- democratic > \ | | range > \ <---- "democracy" | | > \ | | > \ | | > \ <---- "totalitarianism" | ///////////| <-- totalitarian range > | > figure 1: "The Slippery slope" | figure 2: "The Bistable Model" > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > In the "slippery slope" model democracy must keep a constant fight to > keep from slipping down this slope to the pit below. This model would > predict that *ANY* erosion of rights is a movement to the bottom. > > All through out the discussion that we've been having I have also had > a "model" of this process, although I have never "formalized" it until now. > I'll call this the "Bistable Model" and it features two essentially stable > states. I agree with both models. The "Slippery slope" model represents the ideology of the people. The "Bistable" model represents the institutions of society. You are right that societies cluster in the two camps - it is hard to imagine free speach and torture coexisting - but the ideological basis of a democracy can vary quite a lot. Consider voting. One justification is that men are free individuals who have a right to a say in how they are governed, through the vote. Another justification is that society as a whole has priority over individuals, with the will of society being determined by voting. Both ideologies seem to oppose dictatorship, but the second can easily be streached to justify totalitarianism - just substitute another judge of society's will. > The gap indicated in diagram 2 could also be considered the point where > the government ceases to represent the people in favor of some other cause > or, usually, its own self interest. Thus in a totalitarian system > the government makes laws which protects the government, in a democratic > system, laws are made which protect the people. In between the lower > range and the upper range lies a great gap because these laws are > incompatible. Any movement into this range will result in a quick > polarization to one end or the other... I think this is rather naive - "laws are made which protect the people". Really? 90% of the laws in democracies are there to provide special priviledges to those with political clout. Elections are a very crude means of *limiting* the amount of damage done by politicians. The basic purpose of government, plunder, is the same in both systems. It's just more tolerable in a democracy. > How then do democracies make the transition? My answer: They slide down the ideological slope to a totalitarian state of mind, and the institutions follow sometime later, often triggered by some shock. > 1) Nearly all the governments that have shifted to a totalitarian state > have done so violently. There are few if any that simply legislated > themselves into existence. Not surprising. Impatience will lead to action while there are still a few people willing to resist. > 2) Very few democratic governments shift into a totalitarian state. > Nearly all governments that have adopted some form of totalitarianism > have merely changed their form of dictatorship. > > 3) Of the few democratic governments that have shifted, nearly all the > transitions have been imposed externally - few had done so on the basis > of internal politics and pressures alone. > > 4) Of the very few governments that had changed "spontaneously" there > was a set of "exceptional" circumstances involved. The only case of this > spontaneous transition that comes to mind is NAZI Germany. But I have a > tidy explanation for this below. Evidently, self interest and democratic > values have a very strong anchoring effect! > There seems to be a strong societal instinct in almost every human being. > This manifests itself most clearly in times of great threat to a society. > In times of war the people "pull together"... > This "societal threat response" has been abused... > I believe that this was the mechanism by which Hitler was able to secure > a totalitarian grip on his government... I largely agree (based on no great depth of historical knowledge :-) > So, how do I relate this to censorship in Canada? > It seems to me that the major objections held by most "netters" > is not the intent of the law but the fear that it could open the door to > government abuse and eventual totalitarianism. As you can see from my model, > I don't believe that this could happen... If there is a "Slippery slope" in ideology, then it can. Hate literature laws weaken the view that truth is for citizens to determine, not the government. They can be used even in a largely democratic system to stifle debate. Of course, they should also be opposed because they are morally wrong. > "Isn't this law an erosion of democratic values", you might ask... > A certain amount of deviation within the > democratic range is harmless and even when this range is pushed to its > limits, a stress situation is required for the transition. In addition, > this law is not an erosion of democratic values in the sense that it's > based on the belief that no minority in the society should be victimized > by government or by other groups. In this light, the law is an affirmation > of democratic beliefs *NOT* their erosion. And here we have an illustration of the Slippery Slope. The above seems to be based on an ideology that looks at *groups*, not *people*. If minority groups can be harmed, then surely they can also *do* harm. Now in the case of the Jews... > Ken Hruday > University of Alberta Radford Neal
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/26/86)
> This comment is indicative of a "model" held by most posters to the > net. I think that underlying your thinking is a conceptual model of how > democratic governments turn totalitarian. I'm not sure if you formally > recognize the model that you've based your arguements on but I think it > exists and I have a coarse understanding of it. > Pardon me if I take the liberty of dubbing it the "slippery slope" > model (sorry Clayton :-). See figure 1 below: > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > | _____________ > \ <---- social anarchy | |//////////// <-- democratic > \ | | range > \ <---- "democracy" | | > \ | | > \ | | > \ <---- "totalitarianism" | ///////////| <-- totalitarian range > | > figure 1: "The Slippery slope" | figure 2: "The Bistable Model" > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > In the "slippery slope" model democracy must keep a constant fight to > keep from slipping down this slope to the pit below. This model would > predict that *ANY* erosion of rights is a movement to the bottom. > > All through out the discussion that we've been having I have also had > a "model" of this process, although I have never "formalized" it until now. > I'll call this the "Bistable Model" and it features two essentially stable > states. This is a rough approximation of what I believe - a more accurate > model looks something like electron transitions to various energy states in > an atom. I have not included anarchy in this abbreviated version of my model > since it is a transitory state and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. > > I shall now try to justify why I believe my model is correct. Not having > a strong background in history my evidence will be somewhat scant (more room > for you to flame :-). > > 1) If it were possible to define an absolute scale of democracy, I > believe that most countries would cluster about two poles of freedoms. > My own "naive" impressions are that this is indeed the case. There are > no countries that I can think of that have a mixture of totalitarian and > democratic laws. This constitutes some weak empirical evidence. > Countries which are in between the two categories of totalitarian and democratic: Mexico (one political party controls almost all governmental bodies, but is otherwise relatively free); South Africa (very oppressive of political dissent, press censorship, but relatively tolerant of differing opinions PROVIDED YOU DON'T EXPRESS THOSE BELIEFS TOO LOUDLY). Actually, many of the world's countries are intermediate. > 2) A strong arguement can be made for the mutual exclusion of various > types of laws and systems. Totalitarian laws are incompatible with > democracy, and democratic freedoms are incompatible with a totalitarian > regime. Consider if you will, total freedom of the press in any totalitarian > country - not too likely is it? > Democracy and freedom aren't necessarily identical. A democratic state can be quite hostile to individual freedom -- consider the antebellum South. > The gap indicated in diagram 2 could also be considered the point where > the government ceases to represent the people in favor of some other cause > or, usually, its own self interest. Thus in a totalitarian system > the government makes laws which protects the government, in a democratic > system, laws are made which protect the people. In between the lower > range and the upper range lies a great gap because these laws are > incompatible. Any movement into this range will result in a quick > polarization to one end or the other; and under normal circumstances the > movement is back to the closest pole. The polarizing force is usually > either public outcry, or government crack down (consider Poland and > Solidarity for the latter). > Only if the change is rapid; slow liberalization or repressive change is tolerated because the number of people who remember the old system is small. > In a democratic system politicians are at the whims of their voters and > are unlikely to antagonize them unduly. Any extreme measures are usually > met with public outcry and the politicians standing in the unemployment > line :-). > Unless, of course, all the political choices are in agreement and in opposition to the will of the people. (55 mph in the United States). > Now, after hypothesizing this I still haven't discussed a mechanism for > the transition between the two states. I don't believe that a society can > drift too near the edge and drop like a barrel over Niagra Falls. > I firmly believe that the stability arising from self interest and democratic > values serves as an "anchor". How then do democracies make the transition? > This topic can't adequately be covered by this or any article but I can > make some crucial observations. > > 1) Nearly all the governments that have shifted to a totalitarian state > have done so violently. There are few if any that simply legislated > themselves into existence. > Examples, please, rather than just vague generalities. > 2) Very few democratic governments shift into a totalitarian state. > Nearly all governments that have adopted some form of totalitarianism > have merely changed their form of dictatorship. > Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Peron's Argentina? > 3) Of the few democratic governments that have shifted, nearly all the > transitions have been imposed externally - few had done so on the basis > of internal politics and pressures alone. > Examples, please. > 4) Of the very few governments that had changed "spontaneously" there > was a set of "exceptional" circumstances involved. The only case of this > spontaneous transition that comes to mind is NAZI Germany. But I have a > tidy explanation for this below. Evidently, self interest and democratic > values have a very strong anchoring effect! > > Now, I have have managed to dichotomize the causes into two classes - > internal and external. There is no need to consider external causes since > they are beyond the bounds of the current discussion. So, we now consider > internal causes but first I must make a mandatory digression. > But external causes ARE significant, because democratic states are subject to external pressures. Your argument is equivalent to saying, "Water can never freeze. (Let's ignore temperature changes.)" > There seems to be a strong societal instinct in almost every human being. > This manifests itself most clearly in times of great threat to a society. > In times of war the people "pull together", hardships like rationing are > taken with patriotic pride, laws get very restrictive and civil liberties are > interpreted in light of the current threat to society. This is all done for > the benefit of the society. I believe that this is instinctual and was > evolved since it has great survival value for those people who shared a > common gene pool. > My instincts must be damaged. I don't consider external threats reason to become oppressive of my countrymen. > This "societal threat response" has been abused, and is continually > being abused. Recent cases of abuse in Canada include the internment camps > for Japanese Canadians during the second world war. Here, normal civil > liberties were restricted because a threat was perceived from this group, so > their freedom of movement was restricted for the duration of the war. I'm > not sure, but I think that the same thing happened in California. > > Another example is the McCarthy era. People were whipped up into a frenzy > about the "Communist threat", the political climate was very chilling and > the Soviets were doing some pretty nasty things in Europe. The society at > the time was responding to a perceived threat and the result was effectively > a suspension of some civil rights without even a question that the government > was "doing the right thing". (EOD) *end of digression* > Thank for providing so many examples of why "slippery slope" is a real world problem. > I believe that this was the mechanism by which Hitler was able to secure > a totalitarian grip on his government. First he instilled a strong sense of > group identity (patriotism) - this makes the threat response much greater. > Next he introduced the threat. By accusation and some real economic suffering > (Germany was the hardest hit by the world recession and had many reparations > to make from WWI), a threat was perceived by the society. This enabled Hitler > to centralize the control of power. By starting a war, that threat was given > a basis in reality thus the civil austerity measures were able to be sustained. > > We'll never know if Hilter could have maintained a totalitarian government > in the absence of the threat response, but even during the war some of the > people in his own government began to realize that the real threat was within > and not external. Today this threat response is used quite handily by many > totalitarian governments. This was the force that helped hold the Iranian > government together shortly after the fall of the Shah. By blaming all their > troubles on the American government, the people banded together even under > the repressive government of the Ayatolah (sp?). Current if it weren't for > the war with Iraq it is questionable whether they could hold together as a > society. Numerous other examples could be made but I've belabored the point > already. > > So, how do I relate this to censorship in Canada? I'm glad you asked > that :-). It seems to me that the major objections held by most "netters" > is not the intent of the law but the fear that it could open the door to > government abuse and eventual totalitarianism. As you can see from my model, > I don't believe that this could happen. This law is within the normal range > of variation for a democratic society. > > "Isn't this law an erosion of democratic values", you might ask, "won't this > weaken the stability of democracy". A certain amount of deviation within the > democratic range is harmless and even when this range is pushed to its > limits, a stress situation is required for the transition. In addition, > this law is not an erosion of democratic values in the sense that it's > based on the belief that no minority in the society should be victimized > by government or by other groups. In this light, the law is an affirmation > of democratic beliefs *NOT* their erosion. > A non sequitur. You say that the erosion of democratic values won't push a society down the slope. Then you say a stress situation is required for the transition. The two are unconnected. The law may be an affirmation of democracy -- that's not anywhere near the same as freedom. > As an aside, I would like to point out that there are numerous other > forces that stabilize a political system. These are things like, long > standing traditions and neighboring countries, economic ties, etc. > These also help to stabilize the two different types of political systems. > That's what revolutions are all about -- the collapse of traditions. > I would welcome any comments about the above model. As it stands it's > only an approximation, but I believe that we have enough evidence to > either prove or disprove the predictive value of the bistable model. > I think that it's time we put the "Myth of the Slippery slope" to rest. > > Ken Hruday > University of Alberta You've done a more persuasive job than I can of demonstrating that "slippery slope" is the more realistic model. Clayton E. Cramer
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/27/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 21-MAR-1986 22:04--------------------- >In article <1725@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bartok.DEC writes: >>... I am still against the idea of the law but I am not as hardened >>as I was before. >> >> Brian Mahoney > > Ok. Brian, you're a born sceptic :-), but I'm going to try one last >time to convert you. > >> This is what I was trying to show [the danger of censorship] and >> my point is that to even start allowing the government this power >> is starting on the road to trouble. > > This comment is indicative of a "model" held by most posters to the >net. I think that underlying your thinking is a conceptual model of how >democratic governments turn totalitarian. I'm not sure if you formally >recognize the model that you've based your arguements on but I think it >exists and I have a coarse understanding of it. [An excellent article follows this. I will cut out much of it for brevity] > > In the "slippery slope" model democracy must keep a constant fight to >keep from slipping down this slope to the pit below. This model would >predict that *ANY* erosion of rights is a movement to the bottom. > This is exactly as I see it. Your article has done a lot to change my mind. I still think as responsible people we must watch our government but your many points show it is not easy to slip and slide to dictatorship. > > I shall now try to justify why I believe my model is correct. Not having >a strong background in history my evidence will be somewhat scant (more room >for you to flame :-). I do have a strong background in history (I was a history major at one point) and what you say has many merits. Your point on Germany I think fits into this model perfectly since the German people did have a history grounded in totalitarian rule. > Another example is the McCarthy era. People were whipped up into a frenzy >about the "Communist threat", the political climate was very chilling and >the Soviets were doing some pretty nasty things in Europe. The society at >the time was responding to a perceived threat and the result was effectively >a suspension of some civil rights without even a question that the government >was "doing the right thing". (EOD) *end of digression* > This is were I fear that the law will be abused. Say people right nice things about the Communists. This can be seen as hate literature towrds capitalists and the US. I know this is stretching kind of far but so didn't Joe McCarthy. > > So, how do I relate this to censorship in Canada? I'm glad you asked >that :-). It seems to me that the major objections held by most "netters" >is not the intent of the law but the fear that it could open the door to >government abuse and eventual totalitarianism. As you can see from my model, >I don't believe that this could happen. This law is within the normal range >of variation for a democratic society. > Can you show how this is true? If oyu can then I will have no problem with supporting this law. > > I would welcome any comments about the above model. As it stands it's >only an approximation, but I believe that we have enough evidence to >either prove or disprove the predictive value of the bistable model. >I think that it's time we put the "Myth of the Slippery slope" to rest. As a model I believe it has great merit. I am more and more leaning towards some support of the law. I have some many good arguments for it such as it is more a slander law then anything else. That the government is stopping a definable group from being slandered. Your ideas need to be thought about and present a good argument against the fears of turning into a dictatorship. > > Ken Hruday > University of Alberta Brian Mahoney