Topic: Respect our values or Leave

[zipperhead_cop]

I just read this transcript, and thought it was a pretty straight forward bit of dialoge from a politician:


Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm

Broadcast: 23/08/2005

Respect Australian values or leave: Costello
Reporter: Tony Jones

 
TONY JONES: On the morning of the Prime Minister's Islamic summit, Mr Howard was greeted by his Treasurer's surprising contribution to the debate on the front page of The Australian newspaper. The headline read: "Costello tells firebrand clerics to get out of Australia".

Well, early in the day Peter Costello was not suggesting that any of the firebrands be deported. But by the time he spoke to us, that notion appeared to have matured.

His latest intervention into topics of national interest comes only days after his speech to the Australian-American leadership dialogue in which he focussed on growing anti-Americanism in the world. "That phenomenon", he later told the Sunday program, "Can easily morph into anti-Westernism, which picks up and encapsulates Australia and threatens our interests as well."

So was he suggesting that our close relationship with America makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? I spoke to Peter Costello in our Melbourne studio earlier this evening.

Peter Costello, thanks for joining us.

PETER COSTELLO: Good to be with you, Tony.

TONY JONES: Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment?

PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.

TONY JONES: It sounds like you're inviting Muslims who don't want to integrate to go to another country. Is it as simple as that?

PETER COSTELLO: No. I'm saying if you are thinking of coming to Australia, you ought to know what Australian values are.

TONY JONES: But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it.

Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values.

TONY JONES: I take it that if you're a dual citizen and you have the opportunity to leave and you don't like Australian values, you're encouraging them to go away; is that right?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option.

TONY JONES: But isn't this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio? Essentially, the argument is if you don't like it here, you should go back home.

PETER COSTELLO: No. Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.

TONY JONES: Who exactly are you aiming this at? Are you aiming it at young Muslims who don't want to integrate or are you aiming it at clerics like Sheikh Omran or Abu Bakr both from Melbourne?

PETER COSTELLO: I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.

TONY JONES: But you're not moving to the next stage, as they have in Britain, of actively seeking out clerics who teach what they regard as dangerous philosophy to young Muslims and forcing them to leave the country?

PETER COSTELLO: The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society.

TONY JONES: All right. But the situation now, as far as you're concerned, if they are to leave, it should be completely voluntary.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'm just saying if they object to a secular state with parliamentary law, there might be other countries where the system of law is more acceptable to them.

TONY JONES: Alright. Could that situation change? I mean, the voluntary nature of it at least, could you compel people to leave, including radical preachers, if there were a terrorist attack in Australia, as there was in London not so long ago?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, where a person has dual citizenship, Tony, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship where they could just as easily exercise a citizenship of another country. That might be a live possibility.

TONY JONES: You mean to force them to leave?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, you could ask them to exercise another citizenship.

TONY JONES: But you would only do that if there were a terrorist attack in the aftermath of it. You wouldn't do it, for example, if there were a thwarted terrorist attack as ASIO has told us there has been in this country?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I am not going into individual circumstances. I just make the point that where people have dual citizenship and they're not comfortable with the way Australia is structured, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

TONY JONES: Forcibly?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.
 

I couldn't find if Mr. Costello was still the Treasury Dept.  Imagine that kind of straight talk here in Canada.  Half the GTA would have to be hospitalized from the "fits".

[E.R. Campbell]

Maybe it’s an age thing, I pretty much qualify as a grumpy WASPish senior citizen with all that implies, but Peter Costello’s comment that my edits “…this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by … Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then [this country] is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.”  (That being said I deplore his sentence structure or, rather, lack of same.)

I need to state a few biases here.  I have lived and worked in many places on several continents; I believe that race and creed are useless in predicting brains or behaviour – black Africans and Arabs produce precisely the same proportion of geniuses, fools, saints and charlatans as do Europeans and Asians.  Culture (which is at the root of what Sam Huntington described as a Clash of Civilizations) is another matter; different cultures do, in my opinion, produce people with distinct, measurable differences in large scale civility* which might be described as how we view our society.  My personal experience indicates, to me, that democracy, for example, is easily transferred to any society but the foundations which make a modern, secular liberal (or conservative) democracy work – respect for the rule of law, respect for the rights of individuals and groups, ingrained beliefs in equality at law and the merit principle – are far more difficult to transfer; they may not be as natural as we think.  It may have taken our 16th, 17th and 18th century reformations and enlightenments in European (and their Asian equivalents) to make these attributes (is that the right word?) normal and natural.

I believe those civic attributes are acquired; they do not spring up, naturally from small scale (family/village) civility.  I think the processes of acquiring these civic attributes make each culture, indeed each country and even each province distinct.  Thus, I believe that while Québec, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Texas all share a large base of common European civic attributes each has built is own distinct civil society – none is better than the other but each is more comfortable for those who grew up in it.  It is easy, however for a Texan to move to the Netherlands and for a Québecer to move to New Zealand – the large scale civic “virtues’ are, essentially, the same.  Conversely, it is hard for a Somali or a Saudi to integrate into Oslo or Orillia, especially, as is increasingly the case, the citizens of, say, Atlanta, Brisbane or Copenhagen are unwilling to adapt their large scale (traditional, even ingrained) civic attributes to accommodate the special needs of the Somali or Saudi immigrant.

We can (and many Canadians pride themselves on their ability to) tolerate differences but, as I think I have mentioned before, tolerance is something of a back-handed ‘virtue’.  We tolerate that which, implicitly, is less desirable – if something is equal to our better than what we have we would do more than just tolerate it, we would accept or even embrace it.

We should be able to accord each person the degrees of privacy necessary to allow them to live according to their beliefs – so long as their beliefs do not intrude (markedly) into the privacy of others.  That extends to allowing religions to preach and proselytize when, as I believe is the case for both Christianity and Islam, that (spreading the gospel and converting other before it is too late) is central to one’s faith.  It does not extend to requiring others to adapt their social and political institutions in order to do more than tolerate and respect social privacy.

Tolerance and respect for social privacy must be sufficient unless and until the whole of society is ready to change itself.

Those who do not share our civility have a right, perhaps even a duty to tell us why we might be wrong and how and why we should change our ways.  Some of us might even listen.  Those who cannot accept the society into which they have migrated and which is unwilling to change to suit them must either accept their fate or move on.

I think Costello is right when he says: my edits ”I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people [here], one the [national] law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in [here]. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law [here]. It's the law that's made by [our] Parliament … and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in [here] and [this country] expects its citizens to observe it.”

----------
* I am of the view that we all, regardless of race, creed, etc, share very, very similar small scale[/i] civility values: those related to family, friends, maybe even clan or village.  It is my belief that the sort of larger scale civility which produced classical Greece and Rome, classical and modern China and the European Renaissance and so on did not grow, naturally, out of the family and village.  I believe that European, South Asian and east Asian cultures had distinct events and actors which (who) sowed the seeds of our large scale civility.  The seeds were not sown equally, in time, space or density, and each sub-culture made different use of the product. 

[GO!!!]

Not knowing much about aussie politics, perhaps this Costello fellow is making a run at the leadership of a conservative or right wing party?

[3rd Herd]

I quite enjoyed it. It is a simple straight forward statement. Obey the laws or leave. Given some of the problems Australia has been having with their Muslim neighbour to the north it could be read as a political warning not to try and mess with our domestic affairs. His comments about pan anti Americanism seem logical enough given we are often lumped in with our neighbours to the south. I seem to recall and if Westy is around they have been having some immigration issues for a number of years. In all a good reminder of the separation between church and state. To bad our politicians some times forget that.

[E.R. Campbell]

The current furor over the Danish cartoons falls, loosely, into this category.

In my opinion the original publication, in the Danish paper falls into the category of benign ignorance – we, most of, being human, are regularly ‘guilty’ of making benign errors, especially when dealing with cultures with which we are less than fully familiar.

I then note three reactions:

•   Some Europeans, notably Le Monde (France) and Die Welt (Germany) take the view that their national laws which mandate secularism (witness the French ban on headscarves, etc) somehow require that they republish the offensive (we know that, now, don’t we?) cartoons, presumably, to prove the sanctity of the civil law;

•   Other Europeans, notably the ever provocative British tabloids, decline to publish because, they say, they see no reason to give gratuitous offence to their (Muslim) readers – good manners, according to them;

•   Still others – mostly North Americans, I think - decline to publish because ‘hate laws’ prevent them.  These declare, I guess, that they would be principled and rude if allowed.

I repeat that I share Mr. Costello’s views re: the (absolutely essential) supremacy of the national laws over sectarian rites and rituals; but I also repeat that I believe we are all entitled to (and have) a right to privacy which allows us (within some well understood, common law, limits) to preach and practice our own beliefs and which ought to extend to suggesting (but not requiring) that we be allowed to be Anglicans, Buddhists or Catholics down to Zoroastrians without suffering interference from or being gratuitously insulted by our compatriots.

On balance: the original Danish publisher made a benign error which Muslims, of “good faith” may deplore but which should be tolerated if not forgiven; the French and German newspapers have a right to publish but they are morally wrong to do so – good manners tells us that the UK tabloids are right.  Hate laws may prevent the Canadian papers from behaving badly but they are too high a price to pay for social peace.

[Good2Golf]

+2 for Edward, one for each of his previous posts!

Duey

[Kirkhill]

In general principle I agree with Edward but.....

Herewith a response that I posted on a blogsite pertaining to this issue.

I was of two minds on this controversy until I saw the BBC interview James Zogby of the Arab American Institute last night.

I don't think that the cartoons should have been created in the first place. I find the concept as objectionable as showing disrepect to Christians in Nebraska, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Thailand, Animists in Africa or Shintoists in Japan.

The keys to a functioning society are civility and politeness - concepts that were thrown out in the 1960's as hypocritical. However, without those to smooth the rough edges of discourse then the resulting friction generates heat and ultimately fire.

The cartoons should not have been created nor published because it would have been the polite thing, the civil thing to do: to show respect.

Having said that Zogby got up my nose. He opined that they should not have been published because of their consequences. Essentially he was suggesting that we should have known that it makes no sense to laugh at an armed, unstable man. The sensible thing to have done would be not to annoy him.

Frankly, I think that would have been a great example of doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

In the first instance that action is taken from a position of personal strength: I can but I won't because it's wrong.

In the second instance the action is taken from a position of personal weakness: I can but I won't because I'm afraid.

Zogby has just pushed the argument from a matter of morality to a challenge as far as I am concerned.

And in that case, I think that every paper in the world, bar none, should re-run those cartoons. Heck print them on sticky posters so that I can put them up in my front window.

If its a matter of pokey-chest - bring it on.

OK - so perhaps I am as guilty as the other guy of over-reacting to a slight but acting, or refusing to act out of fear of the consequences is just plain wrong.

[zipperhead_cop]

I repeat that I share Mr. Costello’s views re: the (absolutely essential) supremacy of the national laws over sectarian rites and rituals; but I also repeat that I believe we are all entitled to (and have) a right to privacy which allows us (within some well understood, common law, limits) to preach and practice our own beliefs and which ought to extend to suggesting (but not requiring) that we be allowed to be Anglicans, Buddhists or Catholics down to Zoroastrians without suffering interference from or being gratuitously insulted by our compatriots.

I would agree to this in principle, but the problem is in the "within some well understood, common law, limits".  These special interest groups are constantly pushing for more legally protected rights that may end up affecting us all.  Maybe you live next door to a mosque.  No big deal, right?  Then one day they decide that it is their right to broadcast their calls to prayer, five times a day, at 100+ decibels.  Maybe your religious tolerance will be a bit diminished when your new born is woken by a howling guy in a tower every day, five times a day.  "But your Catholics have church bells, I don't like them either". 
Or who wants their municipal taxes to go up when the Islamic School Board in your area is established and has to build all new oriented-east schools?  "But the Catholics have their own school board?".
[BTW, I am Catholic neutral, just using them for reference]

If Canadians, collectively, don't mind this stuff, then it is just another "these times, they are a-changin'".  But if this bugs anyone, then people have to start getting on their elected Representatives to let them know that their own personal line is being crossed.  Don't expect the politicians of any party to just "do the right thing" if it has any whisper of political incorrectness or there is the ever so slightest chance that it will get spun into a "you are an intolerant racist".

[Dare]

On balance: the original Danish publisher made a benign error which Muslims, of “good faith” may deplore but which should be tolerated if not forgiven; the French and German newspapers have a right to publish but they are morally wrong to do so – good manners tells us that the UK tabloids are right.  Hate laws may prevent the Canadian papers from behaving badly but they are too high a price to pay for social peace.

I do not think it is morally wrong to publish those cartoons. How often do Muslim controlled newspaper cartoons mock other religions and societies? This whole debacle reeks of hypocracy. Which generates more hate? A video of beheading an innocent human being, or a cartoon? Why should we let people who view the latter more hateful dictate our rules? These newspapers are free to print what they wish. If the horde wants to behead all Danes now, it should be the Danish governments responsibility, not to apologize, but protect freedom of speech. To stand up for what they value rather than bending to the will of foreign customs. No one forced anyone to buy those papers. "Hate crimes".. pfft. Those doodles don't even come close.

Bottom line: When I see the kinds of action taken against the Danes recently switched to the terrorists, I'll be impressed. Now at least no one can say that large masses of Muslims are unable to mobilize when they *truely* want to. The fact they haven't mobilised to this extent against those who supposedly perverting their religion may be a demonstration of what a real "hate crime" is.

[zipperhead_cop]

Ohhh, kay...I don't know how the cartoon thing keeps coming up.  I was kind of just referring to our values in Canada.  I could kind of care less what the Danes do.  I find it kind of refreshing that some Euro-weenie country is taking heat for a change. 
The last Danish-cartoon threat got locked and warned off.  I am officially indicating that I am not trying to resurrect it.

[Dare]

Ohhh, kay...I don't know how the cartoon thing keeps coming up.  I was kind of just referring to our values in Canada.  I could kind of care less what the Danes do.  I find it kind of refreshing that some Euro-weenie country is taking heat for a change. 
The last Danish-cartoon threat got locked and warned off.  I am officially indicating that I am not trying to resurrect it.

I don't post enough to notice that there was a previously locked thread. Not trying to resurrect anything either.

[E.R. Campbell]

I do not think it is morally wrong to publish those cartoons. How often do Muslim controlled newspaper cartoons mock other religions and societies? …

It seems to me, Dare, that you are suggesting that we should adopt the moral standards of the Muslim street.  I disagree.  We know, because our cultural values – developed over 2,500 years – tell us, that giving gratuitous offence to others is morally* wrong; it may well be that other cultures do not share our moral values; that is no reason for us to change.  I agree that Muslim newspapers routinely run disgraceful anti-Semitic cartoons and propagate hateful anti-Semitic propaganda.  They are wrong, morally wrong to do so and we – people with enlightened values – should call them to account for their immoral actions; we should not emulate them.

This goes back to what I see as Mr. Costello’s central point: ” This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.”  He was talking about Australia but I repeat the same thing for Canada.

We may tolerate the attitudes of other cultures but that doesn’t mean that we agree with them and it certainly doesn’t mean that we would allow those attitudes to pervade our society.

I think you are right, however, when you say:

… Why should we let people who view the latter more hateful dictate our rules? These newspapers are free to print what they wish. If the horde wants to behead all Danes now, it should be the Danish governments responsibility, not to apologize, but protect freedom of speech. To stand up for what they value rather than bending to the will of foreign customs. No one forced anyone to buy those papers. "Hate crimes".. pfft. Those doodles don't even come close …

Maybe, with the exception of my contention that, in an enlightened society, morals ≈ good manners, we are in violent agreement.
----------
Moral = concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles

[Shec]

And that's +3 for Edward Campbell.   Much wisdom complemented by an injection of common sense in his  obviously well thought out comments.   

[SeaKingTacco]

Mr Campbell,
Excellent series of posts.  As always, you have crystalized this debate in my mind.

Have you ever considered running for national public office?

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'd vote for you Edward,....and unlike high-priced spin doctors I can be had for wings and beer at the Black Bear....

[Jungle]

Add a plate of nachos in there... you can count me in !!! 

[48Highlander]

It seems to me, Dare, that you are suggesting that we should adopt the moral standards of the Muslim street.  I disagree.  We know, because our cultural values – developed over 2,500 years – tell us, that giving gratuitous offence to others is morally* wrong; it may well be that other cultures do not share our moral values; that is no reason for us to change.  I agree that Muslim newspapers routinely run disgraceful anti-Semitic cartoons and propagate hateful anti-Semitic propaganda.  They are wrong, morally wrong to do so and we – people with enlightened values – should call them to account for their immoral actions; we should not emulate them.

This goes back to what I see as Mr. Costello’s central point: ” This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.”  He was talking about Australia but I repeat the same thing for Canada.

We may tolerate the attitudes of other cultures but that doesn’t mean that we agree with them and it certainly doesn’t mean that we would allow those attitudes to pervade our society.

I think you are right, however, when you say:
Maybe, with the exception of my contention that, in an enlightened society, morals ≈ good manners, we are in violent agreement.
----------
Moral = concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles

If you truly beleive that being polite is part of "our" moral code, I respectfuly suggest that you must not have been paying attention to recent events.

One has only to look at the conduct of our politicians during the recent election campaign to realize that insults, lies, and misrepresentation of others is still a large part of our society.  Or, look at Carolyn Parish's reaction to "those American Bastards".  We've just shifted targets.  Instead of attacking other religions or races, we attack people based on political beleifs, and a large segment of our society sees nothing wrong with continualy insulting and belittling our souther neighbours.

Your post was very well written, and very nice and idealistic and warm and fuzzy.  But it doesn't live up to reality.  There's nothing polite about our society, we're just not as extreme as some others.

[Brad Sallows]

Politeness is certainly a Canadian value, and Canadians are stereotyped by many others as a generally polite people.

48H has a point that politeness is not, however, a "Canadian Value".  Widespread loss of politeness and consideration of others in public discourse represents a shift in values.  As I've written before, however we may seek to evolve our values we must not lose the enabling values which got us to where we are today.

[zipperhead_cop]

Could it be that this "polite Canadian" persona is part of the problem?  I agree that there is really no need to go "eye for an eye" with the extremists on bad taste journalism (thats what the Toronto Star is for) and you will only generate grief with ripping on Muslim religion.  Ours (if we still consider ourselves more or less Christian based) is a religion of forgiveness.  Other religions require killing (remember Salman Rushdie?).  It's like dealing with a violent schizophrenic with turrets syndrome.  If they are shouting and swearing at you, there is really no point in doing the same back.  You know better. 
But the politeness is tying our hands, too.  It is this uber-polite mind set that has been the pointy end of the stick leading political correctness.  For a politician to come out and say "if you don't like how things run in our country, please feel free to make your way to another country" that would seem impolite, despite the fact that I believe that is the way that most of us feel.  Special interest groups rely on this soft handed approach so if someone even whimpers contrary to their views, all they have to do is scream "intolerance" or "racism" or "player hater" or whatever and people are cowed. 
Because who wants to seem impolite?

[E.R. Campbell]

If you truly beleive (sic) that being polite is part of "our" moral code, I respectfuly (sic) suggest that you must not have been paying attention
…
Your post … doesn't live up to reality.  There's nothing polite about our society, we're just not as extreme as some others.

Politeness or good manners or behaviour based on the principles of right or wrong is, indeed, a characteristic of our modern, secular, liberal, democratic society.  Some people, including e.g. John Ibbitson in his recently published The Polite Revolution (Toronto, 2005) mistakenly think it is a Canadian attribute; not so – it is, I suggest, a product of the enlightenment and a necessary component of most successful Western urban societies.

The tolerance (which, I repeat, is a rather back-handed virtue, being based on an implicit sense of superiority over those being tolerated) which might be the sine qua non of placid multi-cultural societies is, really, nothing more than the good manners which I content is based on a general acknowledgement of a right to personal privacy, which I suggest is part of our common law heritage.

The fact that some (many?) in our society behave badly now and again, more often than we would wish to be sure, is neither here nor there.  The overarching fact, I think, is that our society has institutionalized ‘good manners’ and, in many cases, adapted ‘good manners’ into everything from traffic laws to (harmful) hate crimes legislation – zipperhead_cop is correct when he says that, ”It is this uber-polite mind set that has been the pointy end of the stick leading political correctness.” It is possible to be too polite, to allow ‘good manners’ to get in the way of common sense.  Going back to the original point, I think Mr. Costello was refreshingly clear, direct and correct and I do not think he was rude or that breached some imaginary rules of multi-cult etiquette.  The key point is that while we need not be, should not be politically correct we should respect the privacy of others and, I would argue, that extends to not offering intentional gratuitous insults to others which is why I qualified the original Danish acts as being benign errors while I regard the actions of Le Monde and Die Welt as being unnecessarily and gratuitously insulting and, therefore, ill mannered and, ultimately, reduced to the lowest common cultural level.

I repeat: while, in my personal view, all people are equal in all things, the cultures which shape their attitudes and actions are unequal.  I posit that our enlightened, secular, liberal, democratic culture is ‘superior’ to most others in that it is best adapted to and most likely to prosper in the 21st century global village.  One of the attributes of our culture, one of the reasons we are ‘better’ is that we have institutionalized ‘good manners’ – we are polite because our moral code acknowledges that behaviour based on the principles of right or wrong is essential to the social peace and order which allows us to work together for out common good, etc.

We are polite because it is more efficient and productive (see Adam Smith, et al) to be polite, that is the reality of the West for the past 500 years – for about as long has ‘we’ have dominated the world.
 

[48Highlander]

Personaly I think you're confusing politeness with fear and social pressure.  From what I can see, people are no less likely to insult certain grups than they were a century ago, the only difference is that now they insult groups that don't have many defenders.

Hell, scratch my last, it's not any different.  5 decades back it was alright to insult blacks because everyone could get away with it.  There was no social outcry against it, and the blacks generaly didn't fight back.  I'm sure the more "enlightened" individuals had a problem with it, but they were in the minority, so it didn't matter.  Today, the same situation exists but with a new target group.  Americans and Jews are both insulted and belittled on a daily basis, largely because there's no public outcry against it, and because they don't fight back.  Sure the more "enlightened" individuals have a problem with both, but they're still in the minority, so it doesn't matter.

Try an experiment, go to York University and yell "DEATH TO ALL AMERICANS" or "DEATH TO ALL JEWS".  Then come back the next day and yell "DEATH TO ALL BLACKS" or "DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS".  If you're right about how enlightened and polite our society is, then any one of those statements should generate the same response.  However, I gaurantee you that you'll get a much different response using the latter two than the former.



I do understand what you're saying when you speak about our society being superior because we're more liberal and understanding.  I agree, those values which our society is based on ARE what seperates us from more destructive (and self-destructive) cultures.  However, there's a big difference between having a tolerant culture, and having tolerant citizens.  And it's hypocritical to allow insults against one group while ignoring insults against another.  Yes, the cartoons were impoilte and misguided.  But no more so than cartoons in our own "tolerant" news publications which paint Americans as oil-hungry violent war-mongers.  And BOTH are an allowed form of self-expression.  If we attempt to control either, we're infringing on peoples rights to express their own beleifs.  Where do you draw the line?  If my girlfriend is offensive to a muslim because she doesn't wear a burka, should my moral, tolerant, and polite values dictate that I ask her to put one on?

[Kirkhill]

Edward I think this might be a reference of interest:

"Refined and Refinement: these were important words for the Scottish Enlightenment.  They went together with another term that Hutcheson (Francis, 1694-1746) picked up in Dublin, when he turned to the writings of Molesworth's patron, Lord Shaftesbury.  That word was politeness.  Shaftesbury took a term associated with the world of jewelers and stonemasons (as in polished stones and marble) and elevated it to the highest of human virtues.  Being polished or polite was more than just good manners, as we might say.  Politeness for Shaftesbury encapsulated all the strengths of a sophisticated culture:  it keen sense of understanding, its flourishing art and literature, it self-confidence (emphasis added), its regard for truth and the importance of intellectual criticism, and, most important, an appreciation of the humane side of our character.....Kindness, compassion, self-restraint, and a sense of humour were, for Shaftesbury,  the final fruits of a "polished" culture........Shaftesbury also explained where the highest and most sophisticated polite cultures came from. The answer was simple: liberty. "All politeness is owing to Liberty," he wrote.  "We polish one another, and rub off our Corners and rough Sides by a sort of amicable Collision." ... How the Scots invented the Modern World, Arthur Herman, 2001.

The concept of politeness was in direct and conscious contradiction to Hobbes vision of life as nasty, brutish and short.  It did not imply softness however.  The same school of thought embraced the ideas of Adam Ferguson, chaplain of the Black Watch, who also saw the need to maintain a degree of savagery in a civilized society.  His ideas can be said to have been invoked to justify the Second Amendment in the US constitution, the right to bear arms and more importantly the need for the citizenry of any society to be involved in its own defence - the need to balance politeness with a willingness to be savage when the occasion warrants.

As with most other aspects of the Enlightenment the watch word was moderation - not in the sense of standing in the middle but actively choosing, as situations demanded, when to be savage and when to be polite.

Put it another way.  It costs nothing to be polite.  It allows you to better pick your battles.

[E.R. Campbell]

Personaly I think you're confusing politeness with fear and social pressure.  From what I can see, people are no less likely to insult certain grups than they were a century ago, the only difference is that now they insult groups that don't have many defenders.

...

I’m not about to argue that there is not a double standard in our society.  I read, this morning I think – but I’m not going to search the trash (or the Internet) for the article, a bit about a cartoon which won an award in Britain.  It showed Ariel Sharon eating a (Palestinian) baby.  (It was a grossly distorted caricature and reference to the old blood libel, part of its effectiveness was, I presume that it was, clearly, a caricature of Sharon and of our own ingrained anti-Semitism.)  In any event someone asked the representative of the group which gave the cartoon an award: why that one? Why not an anti-Arab terrorist cartoon?  The answer was something like: “Jews don’t issue fatwas.”

My problem with your position, if I understand it, and part of Dare’s, too, is that it appears to me that you suggest that we ought to race to the bottom, that we should, just because we can, do what we (rightfully) deplore when others do it.  I don’t accept that position – we are ‘better’ than that.

...  If we attempt to control either, we're infringing on peoples rights to express their own beleifs.  Where do you draw the line?  If my girlfriend is offensive to a muslim because she doesn't wear a burka, should my moral, tolerant, and polite values dictate that I ask her to put one on?

This is one of the issues which, I think led to the original Danish ‘test’ of the limits of free speech.  (I think that’s what the Danish editors had in mind according to what I have read/heard.)  A Danish lawyer argued, in a rape trial I think, that the Muslim defendants should be acquitted or punishment should be mitigated because they were inflamed by the immodest actions and attire of young Danish women.  They, the rapists, were ”offended” by the social mores of the country to which they had, voluntarily, migrated.  There was, I think, considerable outrage amongst ethnic Danes, as there should have been – I suspect the ever polite, cultured, tolerant Danes even took to the streets and waved placards saying ‘Denmark for Danes’ and so on.

I have consistently supported Costello when he says: adapt or move on.  (Which is about the same as saying, ”America: love it or leave it!”)  What I suggest, however, is that those who do adapt are entitled to their privacy which I take to include a right to preach and practice their religion and live their lives without gratuitous insults from others, including the mainstream or majority.  The same applies to homosexuals and members of the flat-earth society.  Good manners, alone, demand no less.

----------
By the way, the old elementary school rule is: 'I' before 'e' except after 'c' or when sounded as ‘ay’ as in neighbour and weigh.

[48Highlander]

I just stumbled across an excellent article that does a good job of explaining what I was trying to say.  Unfortunately I can't edit my own posts at the moment, otherwise I would have just added it to my last one   Anyway, here it is:

"I know the evil of my ancestors because I am those people. The balance is delicate in the extreme. I know that few of you who read my words have ever thought about your ancestors this way. It has not occurred to you that your ancestors were survivors and that survival itself sometimes involved savage decisions, a kind of wanton brutality which civilized humankind works very hard to suppress. What price will you pay for that suppression? Will you accept you own extinction?"
-- The Stolen Journals of Leto II (F.H., God Emperor of Dune)

.....

Human psychology is pretty constant across cultures and has remained pretty much the same throughout history, and anyone who believes for a second that Westerners are intrinsically above these sorts of shenanigans is kidding themselves. Every age and every society has always had its peculiar heresies. And there is no better way to disabuse oneself of the notion that Muslims are somehow special in their capacity for savagery than to simply study history –- life through much of human history has been nasty, brutish and short, and it is only in the last few centuries that we have begun to pull ourselves out of the proverbial muck. The past century alone has witnessed enough bloody wars and shameful predations against minorities even among "civilized" nations that it renders risible the very notion that "those people" are somehow intrinsically different from us.

No, the authoritarian mindset lurks within many of us, and anyone who doubts that tribalism is our default psychological mode should watch a soccer riot, or go spend a few hours reading the comment sections of various extremely partisan political weblogs.

But it's not merely the ideologues and hooligans that we need to be wary of. In the General Social Survey, Americans were asked how they felt about the following statement: "People should not be allowed to express opinions that are harmful or offensive to members of other religious or racial groups." A total of 42% either agreed or strongly agreed. Liberalism does not come naturally to humans, and its true friends are few.

And yet, here we are. We live in the most wealthy, tolerant, pluralist, liberal society ever to exist on Earth. Taking the long view is enough to make one marvel that such a thing is even possible, and feel a mild sense of terror at how fragile and precious the social environment we take for granted suddenly seems. So how did we get here? How our part of the world get to be so different from that one over there?

Simply put, we've spent a very long time building up social mores and legal rules that bind our innate psychological tribalism. Another interesting data point from the GSS is that people were subsequently asked whether they agreed with the following statement: "Under the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, people should be allowed to express their own opinions even if they are harmful or offensive to members of other religious or racial groups." When the questioners phrased it this way, the median response suddenly became a lot more friendly to free speech. As Bryan Caplan puts it:

"The median person agrees with free speech if you link it to the Constitution. Otherwise, the median person could take it or leave it. . . . While many people seem to think that the Constitution always favors whatever policy they prefer, there are actually quite a few people who prefer whatever policy they think the Constitution favors."

An older friend of mine from Iowa remarked to me years ago that Americans have their own religion -- they worship the Constitution. Only recently have I come to understand what he meant. The median Westerner's support for free speech arises more out of a sense of tradition and group identification than a well-considered commitment to liberal values in themselves.

You see this same sort of dynamic among the conventionally religious: to take one example noted by Razib, there is a substantial minority among the Roman Catholic laity who, if asked, will profess a belief in some form of Creationism. When informed that the official Papal doctrine for the past few decades has been that natural selection is in fact wholly compatible with the Catholic faith, they'll typically switch their position to the doctrinally correct one.

This is not irrationality; this is just humans being their boundedly rational selves, relying on salient focal points and epistemic authorities on which to anchor their beliefs so that they can get on with the business of life. For all but those on the rightmost intellectual tail of the bell curve, their most basic assumptions about the world and society are largely matters of faith.

Read more here


The key point there being that human nature does not change.  Many members of our own society are quite capable of being irrational, bigoted, and violent.  The only thing holding them in check is a sense of tradition, and "societal values".  However, when you have a target group which isn't protected under those values, there's nothing to restrain their behaviour.  You see that at any anti-war protest you go to.  We see ourselves as accepting and understanding, and under our current rules of conduct that means we don't insult minority groups.  But human nature being what it is, instead of truly becoming tolerant and understanding large segments of our society instead turn on other groups for which there are no taboos against attacking.

So you're right, the values of our society DO set us apart from "them", however, the values of our society do not accurately reflect who we really are; rather, they reflect what we picture ourselves to be, and what some of us strive to become.  Whereas "they" make much less of an attempt to hide their (very human) nature.

How does this relate to the cartoons?  Well, it's more of an argument against your views that we should encourage politeness in all things.  If we accept that a large segment of our society does not truly believe in the liberal values which our society is based on, but rather only give in to them because of social pressure, then it becomes obvious that we're fighting a losing battle when we condemn those who speak out aggressively against more regressive societies.  When you have millions of Muslims protesting against these cartoons, AND you've got half of our own society arguing that such speech should be forbidden, you are helping reinforce the perception that it's wrong to offend Muslims.  This perception automatically creates social pressure, and people quickly jump on-board.  Meanwhile, when Muslims attack our society and our values in much the same way, it makes very little difference that you're also going to be against their "hate speech" against us.  Your voice simply gets lost in all the noise.  If you view it as a propaganda war, you're adding your support to their defence, while being overpowered by their attack.  Like I said, it's a losing battle.

That's one of the reasons I believe in near absolute freedom of speech.  It's not just that I believe in true liberty, although that's certainly a major part of it.  As it relates to the current clash of civilizations though, I would rather give people the liberty to verbally attack ANY group they chose, than forbid them from attacking only those societies which are in direct competition with our own.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between the current conflict and the pre-WW2 attitudes of the Germans and the "allied countries" respectively.  Germany allowed and encouraged extreme propaganda meant to glorify the German people while dehumanizing Jews and "others".  Meanwhile, the rest of the world was split between condemning German attitudes, and making apologies for them.  The "polite" individuals amongst us went to great pains to ensure the rest that the Germans really wanted peace.  The side of the war that we eventually ended up fighting in was massively fragmented before it began, and that certainly aided the Germans in making massive advances before facing any real opposition.  Eventually, before we achieved victory, we ended up indulging in the same sorts of propaganda campaigns and the same de-humanization of our enemies, because it became necessary in order to achieve victory.  How much different would things have been if we hadn't been so fragmented to begin with; if we hadn't been so eager to accept or ignore their attitudes and actions, while simultaneously pooh-pooing those who suggested that the Germans may be a threat?


P.S.  You can stop correcting my spelling mistakes, I took the time to run this post through a spell-checker   And yes, I am quite aware that I nearly always misspell the word "believe", thanks.

[E.R. Campbell]

It is, perhaps, a question of ‘base.’  My ideas are based on Locke, Hume, Smith and Mill; I think Hobbes got it wrong.  You appear to differ.

With respect to ” near absolute freedom of speech”: how near?  Is shouting fire in a crowded theatre still over the line?  Isn’t hurling gratuitous insults at anyone in the same category, if you understand that it might inflame passions?

I also wonder if we understand ‘true liberty’ in anything like the same way.  I believe that liberty is defined in terms of the sovereign individual against all collectives: the state and its minions, churches and their minions and, indeed, the majority when it rules.  I also believe that true liberty is accompanied by responsibilities to secure and protect that same liberty for others, even for those who abuse it.

Absolute liberty to do anything is, it seems to me, just more Rousseauistic drivel: an excuse to not try harder, to simply drift down to the lowest tolerable societal level.  I mistrust the concept.