Mediaboss Marketing

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) announces the launch of a new resource, Art Censorship Index: Post-October 7th, documenting the recent spike in censorship of art and artists invoking Israel or Palestine.

Artworks and artists referencing the subject of Israel and Palestine have long been subjects of controversy and/or censorship, but following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent retaliation in Gaza, arts censorship incidents have risen dramatically. This new map tracks instances of censorship specifically affecting audience access to the arts in the United States, whether visual, performance-based, or literary.

Our cultural sphere is at its richest when artists and cultural institutions are able to reflect upon challenging social and political issues of our time, said Elizabeth Larison, Director of NCACs Arts and Culture Advocacy Program. By documenting these instances of art censorship, we hope to inspire greater accountability and dialogue within the artistic community and beyond.

Through this initiative, NCAC aims to raise awareness of this most recent trend of art censorship, advocate for the protection of artistic freedom, and empower individuals and organizations to identify and resist censorship efforts.

The map will be continually updated with relevant art censorship cases as they arise, providing a real-time resource for researchers, journalists, activists, and policymakers interested in understanding and addressing this pressing issue.

The NCAC invites artists, cultural workers, and the general public to explore the map, share their experiences, and contribute to the ongoing conversation about artistic freedom and censorship.

The Index can be found at: https://ncac.org/art-censorship-index-post-october-7th

See the original post:
National Coalition Against Censorship Launches Map Tracking Art Censorship Since October 7th - Blogging Censorship

Human cognition deals with chaos like a person sorts laundry: by putting things in bins. Lower animals do this in rudimentary ways. Lizards instinctively toggle between five responses to whatever appears in their perceptual field: fight, flee, eat, mate, or ignore. Human beings, too, make instinctive determinations. But while lizards can only hiss or bleat, man, as Aristotle says, possesses logos, whose meanings include word, speech, thought, reason, account, order, proportion, and ratio. Through language, and especially through politicsthe unfettered public exchange of a broad range of opinions and argumentshuman beings discern, articulate, and produce social orders that make possible not just life, but the good life.

Today, however, free speech and politics are under concerted assault in the liberal democracies of the West. The public-private consortia directing that campaignwhat has been called the Censorship Industrial Complexwas the topic of a conference at the end of June in London.

The Westminster Free Speech Forum was organized by Michael Shellenberger, one of the authors of the Twitter Files and CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin. The gathering was private and off-the-record to ensure that participants would not be persecuted. (This was a serious concern: Brazils attorney generalBrazilshad accused Shellenberger of having committed a probable crime after he published the Twitter Files.) The conference brought together more than 50 journalists, publishers, academics, parliamentarians, philanthropists, and free-speech activists to discuss the problem of ever-expanding censorship in Western democracies. Experts from the United States, Germany, the U.K., Brazil, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and the Czech Republic reported on how governments are cracking down on free speech in their home countries and around the world.

Speakers documented the coordinated efforts of the UN, EU, World Health Organization, Organization of American States (OAS), and U.S. government to police opinions and facts that interfere with their political goals, and to punish those who promulgate them. They mapped the immense governmental bureaucracies that have implemented a whole of society approach to censorship, leveraging opaque networks of agencies and offices with a mind-numbing multitude of acronyms. They explored the concerted effort among foreign policy and intelligence communities, philanthropies, the news media, NGOs, and universities to stop supposed disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. And they reflected on ways to counter the alarming growth of a culture of censorship among the young and those on the left, majorities of whom support regulating speech.

The war against free speech is being fought with treaties and official agreements with wording as broad as a shotguns blast. One of many examples is the OASs 2013 Inter-American Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance. Article 1 of the Convention includes in its definition of intolerance disrespect, rejection, or contempt . . . [for the] opinions of others, while Article 4 states that the duties of the [35 signatory] states include [to] prevent, eliminate, prohibit, and punish, in accordance with their constitutional norms . . . all acts and manifestations of discrimination and intolerance. But what is disrespect? What constitutes rejection of an opinion? Is, say, discussion of the connection between Islam and violence punishable intolerance? There are no clear answers to these questions, because the censors never define their terms. The vagueness deliberately encourages self-censorship by communicating an implicit warning: caveat loquens, let the speaker beware.

As European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen explained, Hate is hate. In other words, Hate is what we say it is. In Europe and across the developed world, such sentiments quickly becomes censorious policies. Say the EU wishes to deem racism a national crisis. It calls for studies and selects and funds NGOs to produce them. The surveys ask anonymous respondents whether, for example, theyve been subject to, or witnessed, racism. The results provide independent evidence of a social emergency, which the Censorship Industrial Complex leverages to justify speech restrictions. This phenomenon plays out wherever there is censorship. Using endless up-escalators of money and power, the CIC creates agenda-driven crises, which it uses to justify further crackdowns on free speech. This is the kind of self-perpetuating system that political scientists call SLICC, a self-licking ice cream cone.

Athenian democracy, as one Forum speaker observed, was characterized by isegoria, equality in the exercise of freedom, and parrhesia, frankness. The CIC rejects these core democratic values. Its notion that legal but harmful information must be censored presupposes that the citizens of liberal democracies cannot think for themselves.

As a result, the CIC infantilizes the public. Police Scotlands creepy Dont Feed Hate campaign, for example, features a furry Hate Monster with an angry expression, suggesting so-called hate speech is little more than the tantrum of an ill-bred child. The Hate Monster, Police Scotlands website explains, represents that feeling some people get when they are frustrated and angry and take it out on others, because they feel like they need to show they are better than them. The website encourages citizens to report (anonymously, if they wish) any hate crimes they witness. Its totalitarian Sesame Street for adults.

American citizens, too, apparently need commissars to babysit them. In 2021, Nina Jankowicz, who would later head the Department of Homeland Securitys now-disbanded Disinformation Governance Board, posted to TikTok a bizarre video of herself made up like Mary Poppins, singing Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, whose lyrics shed rewritten to explain disinformation. For a while, Jankowicz performed her shtick on a platform called Alethea (from the Greek aletheia, truth),which helps companies detect and mitigate disinformation and misinformation. She has also co-founded a nonprofit, the American Sunlight Project, which seeks to combat false or misleading information by ensuring that that citizens have access to trustworthy sources. This corporate branding exemplifies Orwellian doublespeak: darkness is sunlight, and falsehood is truth.

The most potent weapon against these would-be censors is the very one the CIC targets: free speech, which Frederick Douglass called the dread of tyrants. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech, Douglass proclaimed in 1860. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. In the same address, he shrewdly observed that the suppression of free speech limits educational possibilities, and so violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It even harms the know-it-all censors, whose refusal to entertain substantial opposition to their own assumptions and arguments deprives them of a rare and fleeting opportunity to develop intellectual humility.

The good news is that the CICs dishonesty has been extensively exposed. Claims that the government, the intelligence community, and the media repeatedly dismissed as conspiracy theoriesthat Covid originated in a Chinese lab; that vaccines were ineffective in preventing its spread and carried significant risks of their own; that the infamous laptop really did belong to Hunter Biden; and that Joe Biden is suffering cognitive declinehave all, in rapid succession, turned out to be true. We can only hope that these revelationsand the vigilance of defenders of free speech, including those who participated in the Forumwill yet stymie our would-be censors.

Photo: z_wei / iStock / Getty Images Plus

See the original post here:
Shut Up, They Explained - City Journal

Key Takeaways

Censorship resistance is the ability to make financial transactions without interruption from third parties. Unlike traditional banking systems, which rely on intermediaries that can freeze accounts or block payments, censorship-resistant systems allow individuals control over their finances.

This concept is central to the cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology systems. Censorship-resistant systems aim to create a more fair and open financial landscape by removing the need for trusted intermediaries.

Blockchain technology uses several mechanisms to achieve censorship resistance:

Censorship is harmful because it weakens important ideas that make a society work. By stopping free speech and controlling the flow of information, censorship holds back innovation, changes history, and gives too much power to a small group of people.

Censorship slows progress by stopping the sharing of ideas. It also keeps influential people in control by silencing those who disagree. Manipulating information through censorship can lead to wrong results.

While blockchain technology helps to prevent censorship, its not entirely protected from problems. Issues like network centralization, government control, and new ways to watch people could weaken these benefits.

The blockchain ecosystem must keep improving and changing to resist censorship. Developments in privacy-enhancing technologies, such as zero-knowledge proofs, are important for securing user data and preserving the decentralized nature of blockchain networks.

Understanding the risks of traditional finance, such as government interference and bank failures, helps us appreciate the importance of censorship resistance. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology provide a solution by decentralizing financial power and protecting individual rights.

However, its important to recognize that the way to a fully censorship-resistant financial system is ongoing. Challenges like regulation and new technology will continue to change the landscape.

Read the original here:
Censorship Resistance in Blockchain Technology - UseTheBitcoin

Published by

20 de julio, 2024

Censorship, traditionally associated with dictatorships and political totalitarianism, is disturbingly expanding in Western democracies. At the forefront are the governments of Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and the European Unionwith movements and laws that try to prevent content that does not suit themfrom reaching citizens. Always, of course, under pretexts of defense for great causes such as democracy itself or children.

This week, Elon Musk denounced that the European Commission, the executive branch of the old continent's political alliance, accused X of "lack of transparency" and "misleading users" as a vendettafor the mogul's refusal to agree to censor certain speechesdiscreetly as required by European politicians themselves.

In a tweet, the European Commission EU Digital Age Officer and Competition Commissioner,Margrethe Vestage, pointed out that the body could even sanction the social network withheavy fines for the infringements detected.

Despite being the closest current case of an attempt to impose a single discourse, silencing those who disagree with it,that of Europe is not the only one. The Covid pandemic was a great testing ground for politicians such as Biden to accustom the media and, especially, social networks to publish or hide postsas they direct.

The Administration's interest in Biden is such that, despite the fact that the current rulingprohibited officials or senior officials from pressuring large platforms to censor speeches, it resumed contacts with them during the oral argument phase at the Supreme Court.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the executive signed onAndy Volosky on July 8 as deputy director in the Office of Digital Strategy. Preciselythe agency from which orders went out to social media platforms about dealing with content or people whose ideas the White House does not like, and threats if they resisted or were not diligent enough in implementing the instructions as well as fornot giving preferential treatment to President Biden.

But when it comes to censorship, Trudeau is making his colleagues appear as amateurs. His law C-63, officiallydrafted to protect children from digital harm and currently before Parliament, provides for punishing people who have thought about committing a crime.

The content of the rule has led psychologist Jordan Peterson to describe it as "the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West." The rule further breaks with legal traditions by giving police "the power to retroactively search the internet for violations of 'hate speech' and arrest offenders, even if the crime occurred before the law existed."

Follow this link:
Censorship spreads in western governments: Biden, Trudeau and EU leaders - Voz Media

Introduction

Welcome to the Quillette podcast. Todays guest is me. And by this, I dont mean that Ill be interviewing myself, as scintillating a prospect as that may be to a very tiny minority of you.

Rather, what youll be listening to is me being interviewed by Indian-Canadian podcaster and author Kushal Mehra for his Crvka Podcast. It was a fun conversation and, with my friend Kushals approval, Ive produced an edited version for Quillette listeners, seeing as how we talked about a lot of Quillette-type topics.

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts - Parliament of Canada

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts - Parliament of Canada

Specially, we spoke about the threat to free speech in Canada, India, and the wider world more generally. On the Canadian front, Kushal wanted to talk about Justin Trudeaus Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63, which, if passed into law, would impose an array of unsettling limitations on Canadian speech rights. Many critics have called the law unconstitutional, and worry that it will be selectively applied against political heretics who blaspheme against the quasi-sacred dogmas of social justice. As youll hear, Kushal sees unsettling parallels with Indian censorship lawsespecially Section 295A of the Indian Penal Codewhich outlaw more traditional forms of blasphemy.

Kushal Mehra: Please explain what Canadas Online Harms Act is

JK: There are actually some things in it that maybe a lot of people would find sensible Im sure a lot of countries do this where they take a lot of different kinds of legislation and they lump it into one bill to make it more difficult for their political opponents to vote against itbecause then they could say Aha, youre an opponent of our sunshine and apple pie provisions. And then the opposition has to say, No, we love those provisions. What we hate is this other thing. And thats what Justin Trudeaus Liberals have done.

So there are provisions in this bill that increase the severity of penalties against child porn and all sorts of online material that we all agree is [high] risk. And then on top of that, they added some completely outrageous stuff, for instance letting human-rights tribunals and government officials essentially muzzle people even before they have spoken, and saying, We believe that you were about to say hate speech, so they can be dragged in front of a tribunal, and [get ordered to wear] ankle bracelets and tracking devices. Also, for some reason the law says that [a judge can order you not to use] drugs or alcohol during this period.

Essentially, its an injunction preventing people from opening their mouths. If somebody comes forward and says, I fear that this or that person is going to say something hateful And then theres also an increase in the criminal penalties for hate speech. Canada already has a law against hate speech, but its very rarely applied and the standard is quite high.

Its Section 319 of our Criminal Code, and its been on the books for decades. I think maybe its been [applied] maybe half a dozen times, and usually its against people who say stuff thats really horrendouspromoting the killing of minorities and stuff like that, However, this Online Harms Act would extend that, insofar as you can now get life in prison for [a wide variety of hate speech]. And it looks like hate speech might be more broadly defined than in the past.

Under this bill, should it become law, saying something [deemed hateful] could land you in jail for the rest of your life. Which, as a lot of people have noted, is pretty crazy because typically [even] murderers and rapists in Canada dont go to jail for the rest of their life.

KM: And under the interpretation and application, it says:

Now, let me connect this with something that has recently been passed by the TDSB [Toronto District School Board] around Palestine, and a lot of Jewish groups were protesting against thiswhere basically they have now created a subcategory, which is called anti-Palestinian hatred.

Rahim Mohamed: TDSBs anti-Palestinian racism plan is unnecessary and troubling

Proposal is so vague, it could target Jewish students who support Israels existence

They keep creating these imaginary [protected] groups

JK: So you mentioned the TDSB. And as this example shows, youre making policy on the basis of whats fashionable. So if its politically fashionable to support a certain geopolitical cause, then you say, Were going to carve out this special provision that says you cant say bad things about Palestinians.

One thing I always try and emphasise when I have this conversation is that when you create policies and laws like this, youre creating a tool that your political opponents can use. For instance, in Canada, as in other places, youve got people who are Palestinian supporters, and they shout things like From the river to the sea. The meaning of that is contested. A lot of people, including a lot of Jewish people, would say what youre advocating is a Jewish-free region where all the Jews have either been killed or expelled from the area that is now Israel.

A lot of people interpret that as a kind of genocidal hate speech. And I try and tell people, including my progressive friends, if a law like this passes, [remember that] Justin Trudeau is not going to be in power forever. And maybe a year or two years from now, theres going to be a Conservative government and theres going to be a Conservative attorney general, because under this Online Harms Act, the Attorney General has a lot of power to determine what kind of prosecutions or cases go forward.

And do you really want a government that is prosecuting Palestinian-rights activists for what Zionists interpret as genocidal hate speech? So some 19-year-old undergraduate student gets up on a soapbox and says From the river to the sea. And do you want the government to have the power to take that person and throw them in jail for the rest of their life, which is literally what this law would theoretically mandate?

Sometimes, the people who put in place these policies and laws, theres a kind of fantasy that their side will be in power forever. And they like the idea that they can just shut up their opponents and threaten them with jail. But I try and remind them: extend your event horizon beyond the next 20 minutes. Think about how this law will be applied in a year, or two years, or five years. Never give the government powers that you would not want the enemy to have.

KM: I couldnt agree more with you You know, I am famous or infamous, I dont know [which], for being an absolutist when it comes to free speech in India.

And what I see in Canada I see all the patterns of Indian lawsor Indian-[type] laws when it comes to speech creeping into Canada.

And all these laws have been on the statute books in India for a while. For example, there is something which is called 153A. Section 153A basically [bans], and I want to read this for you,

Do you see the similarities, the eerie similarities between [this and the Online Harms Act]?

JK: I think the Indian one is worse. The words that jumped out at me were harmony, tranquillity, and insecurity.

KM: Yeah. How do you define that?

JK: Also, is there a single person in either India or Canada who would say to somebody who was doing a survey, who asks Would you say that you exist in a state of harmony and tranquillity without any insecurity whatsoever about your opponents? Like, what percentage of people would even answer yes to that question, especially in the age of the internet? A lack of harmony and a lack of tranquillity and an existence of collective insecurity among different groups is par for the course. Like when you open up Twitter or Facebook or whatnot, the algorithms are calculated to show you things that make you feel insecure and disturb your tranquillity or harmony.

Look, maybe theres 17 gurus living without the internet who exist in a state of harmony and tranquillity. But for the majority of people, thats not the case. So any government could say, The populace is existing in a state that lacks harmony and lacks tranquillity. Fortunately, we have a law

Of course, these things are always applied selectively. And no one listening to this is going to get a gold star for figuring out which groups [are likely to] disturb the harmony and tranquillity in, [Narendra] Modis India or in Justin Trudeaus Canada or in Donald Trumps America in November.

Podcast #239: Justin Trudeaus Ominous Online Harms Act: Minority Report Comes to Canada

Jonathan Kay talks to Atlantic Magazine staff writer Conor Friedersdorf about a censorious government bill that would allow officials to investigate Canadians for things they havent done yet.

That said, the language [in the Online Harms Act] is curated to appeal to parents. What parent of, say, a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old isnt concerned about their kid having an unsafe experience with a stranger on the internetidentity theft, phishing, scams, revenge porn theres all kinds of terrible things out there. Online harms do exist.

I think we all agree that these are problems to take seriously. But its quite another thing to then give the government powers with an incredibly vague law that allows the government to throw people in jail for the rest of their life for chanting things like From the river to the sea.

I have a huge problem with that, and I absolutely dont trust Justin Trudeau or Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader who may well take over as prime minister soon. I dont trust either of those two to make determinations about what kind of political speech would produce online harms for 40 million Canadians.

KM: There is a blasphemy law in India called 295A. You cant say [negative] things about religion. Religion is protected. And the way things are going in Canada

JK: I have some sympathy for governments in a place like India or Pakistan or whatnot that have these laws, because you sometimes see, in small towns or regional capitals, where some person is accused of burning the Quran or desecrating the Quran in some way. And theres a riot and people get killed. And so the governmentnot necessarily theocratsthey want to protect the Quran [simply] because they dont want to have to deal with public riots every couple of months.

I love history. And if you look at the history of early 16th-century England, there were all these proto-Protestants, evangelicals, Lutheranspeople who were challenging Catholic doctrines. And the government started prosecuting these people viciously. In some cases, literally burning them at the stake. And if you look at the logic of the government, its not that the government was run by crazy Catholic theocrats, but [rather] the government wanted a system where there was public order, and they saw religious pluralism as a threat to public order. They wanted priests on Sunday to deliver one message. They wanted it to be a message of compliance with what the government said was the one true faith. And to be fair, the situation in 16th-century England was maybe a little bit like the situation in 21st-century Pakistani villages, where some random guy could start preaching something that people find weird, and thered be a riot.

Its like those official state-recognised religious bodies you see in communist countries, right? China did this for a while, where there was a church, but it was a state-recognised church. So the Chinese were like, okay, you can believe in Christianity, but it has to be the official Chinese-sanctioned version of Christianity. And the Russians do this with Orthodox Christianity. So its not necessarily a theocratic impulse. Its basically an autocratic authoritarian impulse that says youre not allowed to do [anything] outside the official system.

KM: So what is the history of 295A in India? In the early 1920s, there was a Muslim who wrote a book against [the Hindu goddess] Sita. In response, the Hindu side wrote a book about Muhammad. The Muslims murdered the Hindu who wrote the book. But the Hindus didnt do anything. That led to riots because the Hindus then responded to the Muslim attack then the British were like, We dont want to deal with this. Lets bring in this law.

So 295a is a British law. But then nobody in the Indian state wanted to remove it. Now they had a tool to control these people.

I once used this law to make a mockery out of it. Somebody made a random comment about a Jain guru. I went to the police station. I said, My feelings are hurt. Theyre like, Are you a believer [in Jainism]? I was like, No, Im an atheist. And theyre like, Hang on how can your feelings be hurt? I was like, Give me the legal reason why I cant file a complaint. Guess what? They had to file a complaint. And I was mocking the law all the time.

JK: The Canadian human rights system is similar. There was a widely disliked and properly revoked section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I think it was Section 13, which was essentially a censorship provision.

The history of Section 13, the controversial hate speech law the Liberals just revived

Section 13 is being reborn as part of the Liberals online harms bill. Heres how the hate speech law was killed last time

But as with many areas of human rights law, you wouldnt have to show personal injury to bring an action with section 13. What you just said, that scenario would be taken seriously by a human rights tribunal. And there were several instances of people actually being paid damages. You would get maybe $10,000 or $20,000. Essentially, youre like a human-rights bounty hunter, where youre getting cash for taking the time to fill out a three-page human rights complaint.

Justin Trudeau is essentially trying to bring back that section of the Human Rights Act. And by the way, the reason they got rid of this section is because half of the complaints were being brought forward by one guy.

So what you did as a prank was financially incentivised under the Human Rights Act provision that the previous Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, got rid of. And now Justin Trudeau, in his political desperation, is trying to bring it back.

KM: Yeah. Its very interesting. This bill says it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals

JK: If I say, We have biological sexes. Theres male and theres female If I say that, there are a not insignificant number of Canadian academics and activists who regard what I just said as a form of hate speech.

Because I have erased the identities of people who claim to have no biological sex or claim to be gender fluid in some way that utterly destroys the concept of sexual dimorphism. There are people, again, who see from the river to the sea as hate speech. There are people who see Zionism as hate speech. There are people who see Hindu nationalism as hate speech. So this can be read very selectively.

And by the way, one thing we havent talked about yet: the Online Harms Act goes well beyond this, because one of the provisions threatens people with the possibility of life imprisonment if, in committing a breach of any other act of parliament, they are motivated by hate. It doesnt have to be a criminal act. It could be you used a provincial or national park in an improper way, or you filed your tax return in the wrong way or something like that In theory, you could go to jail for life.

I should say, though, that the human rights stuff and the other backdoor provisions in the bill actually worry me more [than the criminal law provisions] because human rights tribunals are not governed by the same high constitutional standards of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that criminal law is governed by. So its very easy to harass someone, even if these human rights complaints dont go anywhere.

Under Canadian human rights law, the complainant typically doesnt have to get a lawyer. So the complainant just files some form online and says, Oh, yeah, this guys a hatemonger. And then often the person whos the alleged wrongdoer, they often have to get a lawyer. So even if they are ultimately judged to be innocent, they still might be out of pocket for $50,000 because they hired a lawyer to defend themselves against these spurious charges.

My fear is that the next prime minister will simply take this illiberal [law] and use it for his own ends. However, Im optimistic enough to say that the next prime minister may be more principled, and hell return Canada to a more classically liberal understanding about what youre allowed to say and do.

KM: I want to warn Canadians that the trajectory of something like the Online Harms Act Is going to be actual blasphemy laws in Canada

JK: Im not sure about that. In my experience as a Canadian, the kind of people who come to CanadaMuslim, Hindu Many of them hate [religious fundamentalism] because they were disgusted by the idea of living under a theocracy [in their home country].

And so Im a little bit more optimistic than you. When Im online, some of the people who are my most strenuous defenders when Im defending free speechtheyre often not people who were born in Canada. In many cases, these are people who were born in communist countries or in Islamist-run countries or China or people who come from countries where you cant say what you think.

And that fills me with hope, right? You hear people say, I came from a country where you had to spout government propaganda if you were going to be considered a good citizen To be be a good Iranian, you had to say death to Israel, and you had to say Long live the Ayatollah, and stuff like that. And they dont want to live in a country like that.

Whereas, its often the white Canadians [born in Canada], theyre often the ones who pick up the religion of social justice, and theyre the ones who are policing everybodys thoughts, and ideas, and speech the most aggressively.

KM: My next book is literally going to be called Blasphemy. I will literally explain why as a Hindu, I believe blasphemy should be legal and allowed in every single country on planet Earth.

JK: Um, whats your security budget for your book tour in India?

KM: Yeah, a lot of people have told me, Why are you doing this!? But I just cant help it. I have to make the intellectual case for blasphemy

JK: Hey, you could become a refugee here in Canada. And I dont know, maybe youll have to stay at my place or something like that.

KM: But they might come after me over here, too

JK: Oh, then Im rescinding my invitation. I dont want to get involved in that!

KM: But before we wrap up, I will say that I truly believe there is hope. The state was never supposed to be my mom and dad. The state was supposed to be, at best, a helper, not a mom and dad. This is when the state tries to parent you.

JK: So thats one aspect of this. But Im a little bit of a technological deterministin the sense that I think a lot of these things emerge from technology.

And the internet has allowed people to exist [in silos], with the expectation that everybody around them will agree with them, and that if somebody disagrees with them, the universe is out of whack and you need a law to correct the universe.

So when I was a kid, if you were on a university campus or a similar marketplace of ideas, you just took it for granted that youd be surrounded by people who agreed with you, and also by people who didnt agree with you. People had to learn to get along a little bitoften unsuccessfully, but at least they had the expectation that in the course of their daily intellectual life, they were going to have to deal with people they disagreed with. And they couldnt solve that problem by just accusing everyone who disagreed with them of being hate criminals. Because then theyd accuse 17 different people per day of being hate criminals.

And so I think a lot of it is now people spend a ton of time in Twitter silos, Facebook channels, where they have developed the implicit expectation that if somebody disagrees with them, its a weird thing, its unusual.

And yeah, its the nanny state. But that nanny state to some extent has emerged because politicians arent stupid. Theyre like, Hey, theres this whole generation of kids and 20-somethings and 30-somethings who have grown accustomed to the belief that the universe isnt in its proper state if some rando disagrees with them. And so we have to have a law against that rando. Politicians are responding to the technological change.

I think human beings are still trying to figure out how are we going to live in that world. And how are we going to break down those silos, and try and convince people, Hey, just because in your Twitter silo, everyone believes the same thing, it doesnt mean you live in a country where everyone believes the same thing. That to me is the challenge that principled politicians have to face.

KM: Yeah, I actually agree with you. When I look at a video of a fire somewhere in India, the algorithm will go on showing me videos of fires everywhere in the world, based on my search location. And so my reality, if I go online, is that the whole world is burning, but actually its not.

JK: Another example is Shark Week. I think its on the Discovery Channel. When Shark Week started, people were terrified that theyd jump into a river or a freshwater lake and get attacked by a sharkbecause they were just watching Shark Week all the time. Theres a psychological term for this. I think its called the availability heuristicwhere if information is available to you, and fear and anxiety are available to you, that just dominates your thinking.

So, its the same with hate. In Canada, the progressive hothouse has convinced itself that neo-Nazis are around every corner. Theres this tiny group called Diagolon, which is like, seven people who run a podcast, and progressives are convinced that the diagolonians are going to take over Canada. Thats their Shark Week. They think that theres going to be this diagalonian Nazi revolution. And unfortunately, this seeps its way into mainstream left-of-centre politics, and so we get things like the Online Harms Act.

KM: I want to ask you a question from a live viewer: Is it fair to say that diverse societies that are not fully socially cohesive will tilt towards draconianism? Is national cohesiveness a non-negotiable [element] for free speech?

JK: A lot of it has to do with whether our politicians feel like they can gain more points by exacerbating tensions or by bridging them.

And I think, Canada is at this inflection point... Trudeaus political memoir was called Common Ground. He came into powerthis was almost a decade agoexplicitly on the idea that he was going to bridge [the countrys] differences.

And, by the way, back in those days, that primarily meant bridging separatist differences in Quebec because hes like me, hes from Quebec And so his big political challenge was overcoming Quebec political separatist sentiment, because he and his father Pierre famously were federalists.

They wanted to keep Canada together. So common ground was French, English, Catholic, Protestant, whatever, were one people But then, during a very short historical period, during the course of his tenure as prime minister, the narrative flipped. To be an enlightened Canadian in some circles now consists of rejecting the idea of common ground. Theres Us, were enlightened people. And then theres all those mouth-breathing conservatives who believe in all kinds of crazy things. And they probably like Donald Trump and they want Donald Trump to be the prime minister of Canada and theyre anti-vaxxers and so forth.

The practical question is, how do we create a politics where mainstream politicians are not incentivised to exacerbate the worst instincts that we now have, to separate into political tribes.

KM: Before we go, is there anything else in the law specifically that you think we did not cover?

JK: Once this law, if it ever comes to pass, if it is a law, the courts will probably deem it unconstitutional. So I dont want people to panic and say, Oh, my God, Canada has become a police state and I have to take down all my social media posts. I dont want to be dystopian. You can still largely say what you want in Canada. So if you are Canadian, use your free speech power to oppose this law.

Visit link:
Podcast #243: The Freedom to Blaspheme - Quillette