Pam Frampton, Saltwire Network

The following counter op-ed was NOT published in The Telegram (Newfoundland, CN).  In fact, that newspaper did not respond to it.  Pam Frampton, Outside Opinions Editor for SaltWire Network (corporate owner of The Telegram), kindly responded though not at all to the points made in it...

...............................................................

The Real Problem with “Hate”

The “hate” narrative serves an important and troubling purpose:  CENSORSHIP and SELF-CENSORSHIP.  What Pam Frampton fails to evoke in her op-ed, "Is there a cure for hate?," is the highly subjective nature of the very term “hate.”  Canadian, American, and European governments don’t seem to comprehend that fundamental problem.  For some people, truth and facts can actually constitute “hate.”  Criticism of government immigration policy can be considered racist “hate.”  Criticism of the Qur’an can be considered racist “hate,” even if factually critiqued.  Criticism of the op-ed itself could be considered “hate.” 

Evoking facts, regarding George Floyd, for example, who Frampton mentions, could be considered racist “hate.”  Even placing “St.” in front of Floyd’s name could be considered racist “hate.”  Merely questioning and challenging the Floyd narrative could be considered racist “hate.”  Was kneeling on a resisting-arrest suspect’s neck in line with training protocols, for example?  Did Floyd die from the heavy amount of drugs in his system and consequent heart failure, as noted in the autopsy, or from asphyxiation due to strangulation?  Why should Floyd be anointed a hero, while many others who die or are murdered are not?  Why should his family receive $25 million in taxpayer funds for Floyd’s death?  Now, am I a racist filled with “hate” for simply evoking those questions?

Does not the accusation of “hate” serve to keep citizens from openly speaking or writing truth, as they perceive it?  Frampton poses the question:  “Can it [hate] be identified and addressed before it spreads further?”  Well, governments in Canada and Europe have done that via hate-speech legislation, which serves to encourage citizens to self-muzzle and not speak truth that might counter the narrative.  Declaring a person to be a hater constitutes kill the messenger in an effort to avoid his or her message—in essence, to eliminate the necessity of cogent counter-argumentation.  That in itself ought to be a reason why we need to stop knee-jerk proclaiming that which we do not like as “hate.”  Such assertions are intellectually lazy and facile.  People need to learn to think, as opposed to echo-bellow racism, racism or sexism, sexism or simply “hate”!    

  Frampton notes that Izzeldin Abuelaish, medical doctor and professor of global health at the University of Toronto, instigated her op-ed and concludes with his statement that “The global community must recognize hatred as a public health issue in order to move from the management of hatred to the active prevention of its root causes through promotion, education and awareness. We must measure it and if unable to prevent it, mitigate it.”  

What Abuelaish states, however, is in itself frightening:  how not to think of communist re-education camps and forced groupthink, not to mention today’s Marxist cultural-race theory metastasizing in institutions of education, both higher and lower, which essentially teaches racist-hate against whites?  The fundamental problem is the highly subjective nature of the term “hate,” as well as the fact that such terms serve to replace critical thinking.  What might constitute “hate” for you might be facts and reality for me… and vice versa…  

The Telegram

The following letter to the editor was rejected by The Telegram (St. John's, Newfoundland), which seems content to publish only positive remarks on the public libraries in its vicinity.  Certain subjects like libraries and poetry are rarely, if ever, criticized in the Mainstream Media.  Surprisingly, The Telegram did publish a critique I wrote regarding the poetess laureate of St. John's.
.....................................................................................................

Testing the Waters of Democracy… at the Public Library

Just how free are public libraries really?  Are they free, as in wide-open to criticism and real debate?  That fundamental question was not posed by (axed College of the North Atlantic President & CEO) Bill Radford in his letter to the editor, “The public library – medicine for the soul and the cradle of democracy.”  

If indeed the public library is a “cradle of democracy,” why then, for example, did my neighborhood library permanently ban me without warning or possibility of due process?  After all, is not due process  a fundament of democracy?  If indeed the public library is a “cradle of democracy,” why will not one library in the entire library system, where I live, subscribe to the nonprofit 501c3 journal of literature, democracy, and dissidence I’ve been publishing since 1998?  In fact, my neighborhood library refused a free subscription offer.  Is that democracy in action?  How many other such journals and books are denied access to the shelves of public libraries, including those in St. John’s?  

"I think that we all hold to the vague notion that libraries are repositories of knowledge and thus should be protected but we seem to forget that they are also public spaces that offer places to meet, to interact, to encounter, with significant health benefits,” argues Radford.  But from my personal experience dealing with library directors, I’ve come to a very different conclusion:  libraries are gatekeepers of knowledge, keeping some knowledge, especially that critical of libraries, out of libraries.  How does that constitute a repository of knowledge, as if all knowledge?  Why protect an institution that acts as a gatekeeper and rejects hardcore criticism with its regard?  The American Library Association, for example, absolutely refuses any criticism with its regard!  It’s magazine, American Libraries Magazine, refuses to even respond to such criticism.  

“Many communities have recognized the galvanising and positive effects that a library ‘hub’ can have on the wellbeing of the entire community,” argues Radford.  Entire community?  My very civil rights are being denied in my community because I am not permitted to attend any political or cultural events held at my neighborhood library!  How many others have had their civil rights denied by their neighborhood libraries?  Well, we’ll never know.  My local newspaper will certainly not report on it!  

“This is the time to invest in a space that will bring us together in the context of societal fragmentation, incipient populism and the erosion of our basic freedoms,” argues Radford.  But what happens when libraries themselves are partly responsible for the erosion of our very basic freedoms?   Why should we support them in that case?  “We need a place to meet each other, debate, discuss, construct and learn, the library is that place,” declares Radford, sounding quite like a PR spokesperson for libraries.  What happens when library directors outright reject debate and discussion?  How does that make the library the prime place for such activity?  At another library, I offered to buy a bulletin board to be used for freedom of speech postings by all citizens in the community.  The offer was simply rejected.  

“There is no better investment of our public dollars,” argues Radford.   Well, rather than a library I’d much rather have public dollars invested in a free speech center, one that, unlike libraries, not only brooks hardcore criticism but actually encourages it.  Far too often, blind praise is accorded to some institutions, mostly cultural, including libraries, poetry organizations, and art festivals.  But blind praise only serves to cover up intrinsic faults.  Criticism on the other hand serves to reveal those faults and force the faulty to contemplate them.  If one never personally tests the waters of democracy, including freedom of speech, then one will likely never really know what the de facto reality boundaries are and will end up pushing common tropes, as in the public library, “cradle of democracy.” 

Finally, rather than cite industrialist Andrew Carnegie, as Radford does, why not instead cite a rare librarian who dared speak rude truth in front of librarians?  Charles Willett, Founding Editor of Counterpoise, did that at the Fifth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries:  “In almost all the 45 libraries studied here, and probably hundreds and hundreds more across the country, we have failed our professional duty to seek out diverse political views. [...] These books are not expensive. Their absence from our libraries makes a mockery of ALA [American Library Association]’s vaunted ‘freedom to read.’ But we do not even notice that we are censoring our collections. Complacently, we watch our new automated systems stuff the shelves with Henry Kissinger’s memoirs.”  So, what about the St. John’s libraries?  Might one of them be willing to subscribe to the journal I publish and include it in its repository of knowledge?  Hmm.

Martha Muzychka

Killing the Messenger

Martha Muzychka presented an interesting analysis of the Don Cherry speech incident in “Free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want without consequences.”  Her account, however, presents a fundamental flaw.  Muzychka stipulates:  “His comments hurt a lot of people.”  But whatever happened to the old adage, “sticks and stones will…”?  Why encourage people to be hurt by mere words?  Why not instead encourage them to stand up and manifest backbone?  From the Age of Reason, we seem to have headed into the Age of Self-Censorship.  Why not permit Cherry, instead of censoring and shaming him into oblivion, to explain himself and thus create a forum for vigorous debate,  cornerstone of a thriving democracy.  Self-censorship and pc-groupthink are also cornerstones, but of totalitarian systems!  Democracy depends on a citizenry with backbone.  It falls when the citizenry instead whines about being hurt by words and counter opinions, including the one Cherry presented.   

Muzychka argues, “But we need to recognize and accept that when we do wrong, when we behave inappropriately, when we hurt people, there are consequences.”  But “inappropriately” is a  highly subjective term.  Indeed, who determines what is “inappropriate”?  Is my criticism regarding her criticism “inappropriate”?  Perhaps that is precisely what she’d conclude, though hopefully not.  Will the editors of the Telegram deem my comments “inappropriate,” thus deserving to be flushed into the pipes of oblivion?  [Well, apparently, they did.]

In fact, the very problem with the concept of “hate speech” is its subjective nature, which is precisely why the US has continued to deny the concept a legal backing.  Hate for you might not be hate for me and vice versa.  And do we really want faceless bureaucrats to determine what is and what is not hate speech?  It seems that is precisely what is occurring in the provincial human rights courts in Canada.  Muzychka mentions free speech is protected by Section 2 of the Charter Rights and Freedoms, but does not mention the provincial human rights courts and flexibility in the Charter that can make hate speech prosecutable, thus de facto illegal, even if de jura legal.  In most European countries, hate speech is illegal and that designation has been used, for example, to eliminate criticism of government immigration policy.   Cite the example of Tommy Robinson, arrested and incarcerated for such criticism in Britain.  

Minorities don’t need government protection and protected class status.  They need to build backbone.  They need, not to engage in name-calling, as in Nazi, white nationalist, islamophobe, or whatever.  They need instead to present cogent counter arguments based on factual evidence.  Sadly, Western democracies are heading in the wrong direction today with that regard.  

Finally, Muzychka concludes, “When you abuse the privileges you have been given, you should not be surprised when you lose them. The only surprise is how long it’s taken for systems to start recognizing the long term implications of tolerating behaviour — be it racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist.”  Again, she employs highly subjective terms!   Bellowing “racist” is NOT a cogent counter argument at all.  When I was teaching at an all black college in North Carolina, I, a white professor, had sketched critical cartoons of black professors and black administrators and published them in the student newspaper.  What was the response?  “Racist”!  Yet I had sketched many more cartoons on white professors and white administrators.  Did those who bellowed, “racist,” examine the crux of the message in each cartoon and issue a counter argument based on factual evidence?  No!  Sadly, intellectual laziness has become the best, most effective, response today.  

Now, will I be dismissed as a “sexist” because I dared criticize an article written by a woman?  Perhaps.  And, well, I don’t really give a damn if that happens.  Why not?  Well, because my mother taught me “sticks and stones…”