What Happened? What Happened? He Spoke 'Fifi!'

Matt Welch | October 12, 2004

The Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein points out an appalling free speech case in Canada, where the Quebec Human Rights Commission has fined a used car salesman $1,000 Canadian for warning some guy's friend that the guy was a "fifi," which the CBC helpfully points out is "a french word that amounts to 'fag.'" This comes as potentially confusing news to me, since that's my French wife's nickname. She reports that the word means something more like "girlie-girl" back in the homeland, but the Quebecois do have a pretty funny way of talking.

Comments

|10.12.04 @ 11:03AM|#

Is anyone surprised? Canada is straight up backward, what can be said for a country with 1/10 the US population and more natural resources and is still teetering on 2nd world status?

|10.12.04 @ 11:19AM|#

Was Black Jacques Shellaque involved in this incident?

|10.12.04 @ 11:25AM|#

This comes as potentially confusing news to me, since that's my French wife's nickname.

I wonder if French men with American wives named Nancy feel the same way.

|10.12.04 @ 11:40AM|#

"...still teetering on 2nd world status?"

Canada might joing the Warsaw Pact?

Jay Jardine|10.12.04 @ 11:49AM|#

The best Quebec swear words are the religious ones (ostie, calisse, tabernac), as an anglo-Ontarian I can attest they really do have the same therapeutic effect as dropping an f-bomb.

Thing is, they don't translate literally well into english (Church, communion, choir!!)

Jay Jardine|10.12.04 @ 11:50AM|#

The best Quebec swear words are the religious ones (ostie, calisse, tabernac), as an anglo-Ontarian I can attest they really do have the same therapeutic effect as dropping an f-bomb.

Thing is, they don't translate literally well into english (Church, communion, choir!!)

|10.12.04 @ 11:55AM|#

Since the salesman was fined for using the word fifi, is CBC going to be fined for using both "fifi" AND "fag"?

Why use the derogatory term "fag" when you could say "gay" or "homosexual"? Obviously, someone at CBC has problems, and must be punished.

Jay Jardine|10.12.04 @ 12:02PM|#

Tabernac! Double post...

raymond|10.12.04 @ 12:03PM|#

I'm just curious. What would the reaction of readers here have been if the car salesman had whispered "kike" or "jungle bunny".

Free speech is an interesting problem. I'm not sure a case couldn't be made in favour of laws forbidding "verbal assault".

Far more shocking and "straight up backward" - to me, at least - is Martha Stewart's imprisonment. If ever one needs first amendment privileges/rights, it's when talking to the feds.

|10.12.04 @ 12:09PM|#

RC, because it doesn't translate as "homosexual." The term, apparently, has the insulting, rude connotation.

If you translate the Yiddish(?) word "schwatze" as "African American gentleman," you've mistranslated the word.

|10.12.04 @ 12:09PM|#

WTF is "verbal assault"?
-K

|10.12.04 @ 12:12PM|#

what you just did.

|10.12.04 @ 12:18PM|#

So are the Canadians coming to get me now?

raymond|10.12.04 @ 12:28PM|#

I did a google search on "fifi", since it's not in my dictionaries. (I presume it comes from "fille-fille", but that's just a guess.) I ran across a letter to Les Francs-tireurs - a show on Télé-Québec. The author of the letter seems quite upset that one of the "animateurs" of the programme used the word "fifi" twice in 50 minutes.

assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.

Try calling a cop who has stopped you for speeding a "queer" or a "fag" some time, Karl. And then, right aftwards, cite your 1st amendment rights. I'd enjoy hearing how things turn out for you.

|10.12.04 @ 12:35PM|#

Great raymond. I'll base all my decisions about what should fall into the realm of law enforcement based on what certain actions will get me in some interaction with a guy with a gun and a small man complex.

You'll not convince (as far as I'm able to acertain - I suppose it's theoretically concievable) that calling someone names, however vile or reprehensible, should be grounds for involving the law.
-Karl

|10.12.04 @ 12:43PM|#

joe, are you utterly humorless?

Don't you see the humor (black though it may be) in an ordinary shmoe getting fined for using a derogatory term in conversation, while a broadcaster gets a free pass on using not one, but two derogatory terms broadcast to millions?

|10.12.04 @ 2:55PM|#

So we know what a fifi is, now hat's a gigi?

|10.12.04 @ 2:55PM|#

So we know what a fifi is, now what's a gigi?

raymond|10.12.04 @ 3:19PM|#

You'll not convince ... that calling someone names, however vile or reprehensible, should be grounds for involving the law.


Incitation à la haine

When this law first came into effect, I was troubled. I thought it was an abridgement of freedom of speech. But my thinking has changed somewhat.

Among the fundamental human rights is the right to Dignity.

Actions - including the actions of speaking and writing - which violate fundamental rights are not protected by the first amendment (to put this into American terms).

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the provision of this law which forbids revisionism, because I think Europeans have a tendency to forget, and a nice revisionist scandal is always an effective way of reminding everyone what violating the right to Dignity can result in. However, the way the law is written ( pour la même raison), I can live with my slight discomfort.

Injure

This law is interesting, too. I imagine it was the Québec version of this law which was applied in the case talked about above.

----------

I'm no jurist. If someone can't figure out what these pages mean from the babelfish translation, I'll clarify - to the best of my ability - what needs clarifying. (If RandyAnn doesn't do it first.)

fyodor|10.12.04 @ 3:40PM|#

So now's there a "right" to Dignity?? With a capital D, no less??

dignity:
1. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.
2. Inherent nobility and worth

Among clearly less applicable definitons.

No one has a right to being worthy of esteem or respect. Some people are worthy and some aren't, that's my decision to make, not the government's and not yours.

Why don't you admit what this is really about, the right to not be offended. But as soon as such a right is recognized, you can kiss the 1st Amendment goombye.

|10.12.04 @ 3:57PM|#

fyodor,

Goombye? :)

There are classes of speech which are not protected by the First Amendment; these include "fighting words," libel, etc. In other words, the First Amendment is not as absolutist as you appear to imply.

raymond|10.12.04 @ 4:35PM|#

Capital D, as in DoI usage. Yes.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

UDHR

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

dignity

1. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.

2. Inherent nobility and worth

respect

To avoid violation of or interference with

All men are created equal. All men have equal worth. In the same way that all men are endowed with the rights to Life and Liberty, they are worthy of respect.

Assuming you were revolted by the photos of what went on in abu Ghraib... What right was being violated there? When your agent put the leash you paid for with your taxes on the prisoner, which right was she violating? When she and your other agents forced the prisoners to masturbate for the camera, which right were they violating?

|10.12.04 @ 4:59PM|#

"She reports that the word means something more like "girlie-girl" back in the homeland, but the Quebecois do have a pretty funny way of talking."

So if you call a guy that, you're calling him a girlie-boy? Governor Schwartzenegger please note.

|10.12.04 @ 5:49PM|#

raymond-
I think you are a tool. This in no way deprives you of liberty or property. You just may not like it and perhaps it makes you feel sad. Suck it up. Clearly those poor soles in abu Ghraib were deprived of liberty. This is a far cry from having their feelings hurt because someone let them know they didn't like them or their lifestyle. Please explain what a 16yr old Iraqi boy getting ass raped has do with your perceived right to some self esteem.

raymond|10.12.04 @ 6:13PM|#

I think you are a tool.

I presume that's some sort of insult. Are you very very young? Just curious.

Try reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights again. Try reading what I actually wrote. "Self esteem" isn't the issue. Nor are "hurt feelings".

Would you please define "liberty" as you are using it above?

When the Declaration says "among these", does it mean "only these"? The way "unalienable" means "alienable"?

|10.12.04 @ 9:00PM|#

�I presume that's some sort of insult. Are you very very young? Just curious.�
You presume? Those that don�t think to good shouldn�t think too hard. Young? No, just crass. Call the thought police; raymonds dignity is on the line.
�When the Declaration says "among these", does it mean "only these"? The way "unalienable" means "alienable"?�
Your premise not mine. However, like many others you have taken the ninth to extend to the patently absurd. It is irrelevant how you chose to interpret the declaration. I noticed you avoided addressing my abu G. comments above, please to respond. As far as my definition of liberty; the ability to act of my own volition without imposition from the state. In my perfect world we would all be able to do whatever we chose save for those things that forcibly interfere with said liberty of others. My right to carry my sign reading �fag�, �nigger�, �kike� whatever ends at your doorstep. Granted, carrying these signs would make me an asshole, but lets be absolutely straight about what you are proposing. The state will have the power to penalize its citizens for voicing unpopular opinions. Opinions that others deem offensive and belittling. Go ahead, it�s not that arbitrary right? Certainly not, these are things that YOU find offensive, belittling and antithetical to dignity. Give me a break. Liberty means we will all be faced with opinions that are disgusting. Hateful, repugnant opinions. In the context of the first amendment the state has an overwhelming interest in penalizing speech that directly leads to violence or property damage. Where is the states interest in making sure raymond is not offended?

|10.12.04 @ 9:53PM|#

Canada might joing the Warsaw Pact?

Don't be ridiculous.

... the Warsaw Pact nations are much too friendly with the United States these days. :)

|10.12.04 @ 10:01PM|#

Heh heh heh.

Heh heh.

Heh.

raymond|10.13.04 @ 3:44AM|#

Sort of a waste of time, but...

Where is the states interest in making sure raymond is not offended?

"Straw man" . Thanks for the (repeated ad nauseam) example. (btw, The only valid "state interest" is securing the rights of the people.)


The state will have the power to penalize its citizens for voicing unpopular opinions.

Another straw man.

If you read the laws I've linked to (and they are not unique in Europe) and the UDHR, you will note that it is not the expression of "unpopular opinions" which falls under their purview.

I hasten to add... You may have the right to free speech, but I have the right not to have to listen. But that's another discussion entirely.

I noticed you avoided addressing my abu G. comments above, please to respond.

They are completely unintelligible to me. Perhaps it's the lack of paragraphing.

Clearly those poor soles in abu Ghraib were deprived of liberty.

Not just the soles. The whole damn foot!

You have defined "liberty" as "the ability to act of my own volition without imposition from the state". I define it as "the ability to choose".

I won't go into a long explanation of my ideas on freedom here or a critique of your definition. Nobody's interested, and you wouldn't read/understand anyway. I do believe that psychological torture is an infringement on the right to Liberty; and so yes, I agree that their liberty is being violated in a very real way.

However, in this particular case we object not only to the infringement of liberty (if we are even capable of recognising it) but to the violation of... human dignity. To confuse this humiliation with "hurt feelings"...

you have taken the ninth to extend to the patently absurd.

You mean the patently absurd way people demand the right to picket funerals with "god hates fags" and "he deserved to die" signs? The way people demand the right to own and carry howitzers? The way people demand the right ritually to kill defenseless human beings? The way people demand to be allowed to turn right on red?

Human Dignity. "Patently absurd."

|10.13.04 @ 3:56AM|#

Goombye-ya, my Lord
Goombye-ya
Goombye-ya, my Lord
Goombye-ya
Goombye-ya, my Lord
Goombye-ya
Oh, Lo-ord
Goombye-yah

|10.13.04 @ 4:55AM|#

I'm not sure that 'Fifi' means anything in the homeland, but a diminutive for 'Philippe'. Not in my part anyway. It could be an interesting regional variation.
Now, Maupassant's 'Mademoiselle Fifi', is definitely effeminate, (but not gay). Does the quebecois meaning comes from here ?

raymond|10.13.04 @ 6:01AM|#

fifi s. m.

Favori, chouchou, chéri. Le maître lui donne des bonnes notes parce que c'est son fifi.

Doublement de l'interjection de mépris fi.

(http://amisdeguignol.free.fr/texte/dico/dicoF.htm)

In the Quebec-French dictionary, the word is feminine. "Maudite fifi" is the example given.

|10.13.04 @ 7:47AM|#

I'm with you 100%, raymond.

|10.13.04 @ 9:56AM|#

Thanks Raymond ! Du parler lyonnais, I didn't know.

Martine|10.13.04 @ 10:44AM|#

"the Quebecois do have a pretty funny way of talking."

Matt, link to any American slang or French argot dictionnary and you could say the same about Americans or French. The joke is easy but issues of free speech are more complex than that.

|10.13.04 @ 11:19AM|#

'You have defined "liberty" as "the ability to act of my own volition without imposition from the state". I define it as "the ability to choose".'

Liberty is the choice between exercising free speech and fines/imprisonment? Strange definition.

Evan McElravy|10.13.04 @ 11:48AM|#

"She reports that the word means something more like "girlie-girl" back in the homeland, but the Quebecois do have a pretty funny way of talking."

I can't claim to be a master of Qu�b�cois argot but I always got the impression that fif/fifi isn't quite necessarily "fag" but covers the semantically neigbouring zone of wimpiness ("pussiness" in English, I suppose) as well. "What do you mean you don't want to come out in the -40� weather? Don't be such a fif," or at least that's how a lot of Mtl. anglophones use it. The Qu�b�cois have a related adjective maumon, which was defined to me as "anyting dat ave to do wit being omosexual" but not really literally -- vaguely like "queer," I guess. I think the example I was furnished was men wearing capri pants....

raymond|10.13.04 @ 12:04PM|#

If anybody cares...

Every Canadien film/series I've ever seen on French tv has been subtitled.

I think it's cute.

And oh! I have seen American commercials dubbed on Brit tv.

fyodor|10.13.04 @ 12:19PM|#

Oh "Jason," you and your sophistry!

Yes, I know the 1st Amendment is not "absolute." But I was not implying what you imagine I was. Only keeping my post short!

But in the examples you list, some sort of infringement of rights is directly effected by the speech in question. Or at least it better be for the law to be involved, or else I'm against the law being involved! (And just because case law or the Supreme Court says it's one way doesn't mean I have to agree that it should be that way!) And in this case (what the original post is about), there is simply no damn "right to Dignity" and no right not to be offended, and therefore no reason why, in short, the government should step in or, as the cliche goes, the avowedly bad speech shouldn't best be remedied by more speech. Set the precedent that actionable speech is based on it giving offense, and you have a much slipperier slope than prohibiting speech that has a direct effect on infringing rights!

Oh, and I think one of my parents sometimes said "goombye." :-)

fyodor|10.13.04 @ 12:56PM|#

raymond,

What are you quoting there?

As for, "All men are created equal. All men have equal worth. In the same way that all men are endowed with the rights to Life and Liberty, they are worthy of respect."

Clinton jokes notwithstanding, words often have more than one meaning, and respect can also mean:

To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.

This is obviously the meaning being used in the definition of dignity, since it is used in conjunction with "esteem." Certainly I believe all individuals who have not previously violated someone else's rights should have their rights to Life and Liberty respected. But that doesn't mean all people are inherently worthy of the type of "respect" that resembles "esteem." Now, I would go so far as to say it's a nice thing to grant people inherent dignity, but there's a big difference between that and saying people have an inherent right to dignity.

"Assuming you were revolted by the photos of what went on in abu Ghraib... What right was being violated there?"

Since the prisoners at abu Ghraib did not want to be treated in the way they were, and since it was not necessary for holding them for trial or interrogation, it was an infringement of their right to liberty, their right not to be coerced into doing something they didn't want to do (regardless of how they described why they didn't want to do it; that's their own business).

Additionally, just because behavior is legally just or acceptable does not make it the best or "right" way to behave. Again, granting dignity to prisoners in their captivity is a good way for our penal system to work, but that doesn't imply a right to it such that saying something contradictory to someone's dignity should be an actionable offense.

|10.13.04 @ 2:12PM|#

Just to clarify. The Quebec Human Rights Commission investigates alleged breaches of the Quebec Charter. The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal adjudicates alleged breaches of the Quebec Charter. As I read this news report, and I agree it is not clear, the Tribunal has not ruled on this case. As of today, the Tribunal web site ( www.lexum.umontreal./ca/qctdp/en/ ) does not have any links to this case. ( The Website was updated today) It may be that if this case goes before the Tribunal no breach of the Quebec Charter will be found.

raymond|10.13.04 @ 3:00PM|#

1. Sometimes people are stubborn. Take people who refuse to understand any meaning of "dignity" other than "high esteem". Even when presented with the UDHR, which uses the word several times in the way I'm using it, some people are incapable of giving an inch. Sorry. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make a silk purse out of him.

2. Since the prisoners at abu Ghraib did not want to be treated in the way they were, and since it was not necessary for holding them for trial or interrogation, it was an infringement of their right to liberty,

Maybe the Canadian guy didn't want to be treated the way he was treated. Maybe he didn't want to be called "fifi". According to your statement above, "it was an infringement of their right to liberty". I don't agree with you but hey. We use words differently, so maybe "liberty" means... "dignity". Who the heck knows, from reading your posts.

fyodor|10.13.04 @ 4:11PM|#

raymond,

First of all, I asked you what you were quoting, and instead of answering me you get mad that I'm not impressed by it. Okay, by googling I see that it's the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sigh. Well y'know, just because the UN says something is so doesn't make it so. Perhaps this is a good example of how said document departs from classic liberalism.

Next, you added the word "high" to my definition of dignity, but no matter, I was going by what was listed in dictionary.com. As I stated previously, all the other definitions shown there are clearly less appropriate to the issue at hand. Now, if you feel that "dignity" has some meaning other than what was listed there that better applies, please by all means feel free to say what that is.

Next, obviously the guy didn't want to be called a fifi, and frankly I don't blame him. But the relevant point here is that that did not violate any of his rights, including his right to liberty. I.e, no one made him (either directly or by threat of force) do something he didn't want to do as was the case at abu Ghraib.

You say we use words differently. Well that's exactly why I quoted the dictionary. Again, feel free to define dignity how you're using it, if you like. No, I am clearly NOT using liberty to mean dignity. In fact, here's an applicable definition of liberty:

The condition of being free from restriction or control.

Quite different from the definition of "dignity," no? That's what was violated at abu Ghraib but wasn't by calling someone a fifi. Sure there's some gray areas in this matter that I'm glossing over, but I'm not writing a book for chrissake. These are the most immediately relevant points which explain what was different about the two situations.

Sorry you don't find my posts clear. I think they make articulate and cogent points. Your latest post, however, seems to reflect short-tempered frustration and exasperation rather than any sort of reasoned argument. Well, hope your day gets better!

fyodor|10.13.04 @ 4:17PM|#

raymond,

Y'know, this all comes down to what your mother told you to say when someone called you a name as a kid:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

raymond|10.13.04 @ 5:01PM|#

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
Undermining security: violations of human dignity, the rule of law and the National Security Strategy in "war on terror" detentions (Amnesty International, 9 April 2004)

Taken at face value, the USA�s National Security Strategy similarly commits the United States to an approach that has human rights at its core. For example, it emphasises that the path to a safer world must include "respect for human dignity". Indeed, it mentions the words "human dignity" no less than seven times in its 31 pages. In doing so it echoes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in response to years of "disregard and contempt for human rights" and which has at its heart a vision of a world in which the dignity of every human being is respected.

President George W. Bush claims to be a staunch defender of the Universal Declaration. He told the UN General Assembly that: "As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to fulfil the UN�s stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals. The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."(7) In all three of his State of the Union addresses, as well as in his inaugural speech, he has asserted that the USA was founded upon and is dedicated to the cause of human dignity.(8) In a recent speech at the International Institute of Strategic Studies on peace and security, he said that "We believe in...the duty of nations to respect the dignity and the rights of all."(9)

Let's see. Me. The United Nations. The Pope. And omg. Even... George W Bush. We _all_ use the word "dignity" in pretty much the same way.

"Look at my son fyodor. All the soldiers are out of step except my son!" (Another maternal kind of saying.)

Here. Go look this over, too.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

I've thought of that saying several times during this discussion.

I work with kids. That saying is just plain stupid. Believe me.

fyodor|10.13.04 @ 5:56PM|#

raymond,

What is your point? That people use the word, "dignity?" I said there is no right to dignity because there is no right to being "worthy of respect or esteem." If someone says there is such a right (based on this definition of "dignity"), I strongly disagree because being worthy of esteem or "deferential regard" is not inherent. That said, I also believe, as I said earlier, that it's a nice and good thing to treat people with dignity. Clearly, the used car salesman was not being very nice when he called the other guy a fifi. But he was not violating the other guy's rights, either. To recognize a right not to be offended would insert the state/society into the subjective minutia of interpersonal relations. Aside from the practical nightmare of such, I just don't think such a right exists, whoever else thinks otherwise. I do agree, however, that I was wrong to bring up that child's saying, for the simple reason that adults are not children. It is your formulation of this issue that would equate the two.

Now, perhaps the UN and George Bush and the Pope are meaning to say what I said about treating people with dignity being a good thing. Perhaps, OTOH, they are using the word in a sense that is not clearly defined in the dictionary. In one sense, meanings of words are all arbitrary, but in another they're quite real and important. The latter sense manifests itself when meanings slide into each other and become confused, or conflated. I think (and hope) that what the UN is probably trying to say about human dignity would likely be better expressed in the concept of recognizing individual sovereignty, such that one has the sole right to control oneself without interference from others, unless one has already violated that right in another.

Since insulting someone does not control them, no right has been violated. I do confess now that my sense of horror at what you said was a reflection of my understanding of rights being steeped in the US Constitution and classic liberalism and of my ignorance of the UDHR. But, bottom line, if the logical extension of the UDHR is to penalize those who non-threateningly offend others, then I'm against it! What if someone really is a jerk? Should it be illegal to say so?!?

Again, there are gray areas in this matter such that one who verbally insults another has opened himself up to verbal criticism himself. But state coercion is a quite physical thing, and unless someone's crime is likewise physical (or implies the threat of such), the force of the state should not be brought to bear on the perpetrator.

raymond|10.13.04 @ 7:15PM|#

dignity

1. the quality or state of being worthy : intrinsic worth ex: UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary - Unabridged

If all human beings do _not_ possess intrinsic worth, then the rights to Life, Liberty, Property... are really not worth bothering about. (Which probably explains slavery.)

what the UN is probably trying to say about human dignity would likely be better expressed in the concept of recognizing individual sovereignty

It's unfortunate you weren't there to guide them.


I actually (oh horror!) believe that I have the RIGHT to walk down the street without being ridiculed, humiliated, insulted, abused, assaulted, bullied, tormented. I believe that everyone has this right. I have the right to be left alone.

As I said above, I work with kids. Their right to walk down the street free from your harrassment (hypothetical) trumps your right to free speech any day. And so does mine.

Calling someone a jerk might not injure him. But calling a kid "queer" and "fag" over and over... "Free speech" just might be one explanation for the high suicide rate among gay youth.

I can hear your answer already. "Ah yes. But they choose to kill themselves." Yeah well.

People in prison - including those in abu Ghraib - have the right not to be humiliated. Little old ladies walking to church have that right. We all have the right not to be dehumanized. Because we are human beings.

This is not a question of "oh poor little raymond's feelings are hurt." This is a question of human dignity.

You talk about "rights". You pretend to defend freedom of speech. In fact, what you are defending is your "right" to force me to hear things I don't want to hear. You seem to think that the Bill of Rights obliges me to listen to you. You defend the "right" to destroy a reputation or peace of mind.

I'll give you this: If Fred Phelps wants to stand in his toilet and chant "God hates Matthew Shephard", heck. I don't care. I'll defend his right to speak like that. He can do that till he dies. But as soon as he wants to do this where I have no choice but to hear him, then No!

So. I think the Swiss laws I linked to above are just fine.

btw, I now understand the real power of free speech. If you keep setting up straw men and repeating them enough, your interlocutor gets so worn out he doesn't have the strength to care any more.

|10.14.04 @ 9:59AM|#

I guess most of the libertarians on this board seem to not really care much about the sovereignty of the Unitied States. That's what I've noticed about previous threads also, especially the ones about illegal immigration.

Well, what goes around comes around. You want the UN to over-rule our Constitution with it's gun-control schemes (not discussed here) and it's Universal Declaration on Some Bullshit. Apparently, from what Raymond says, it declares that yes sticks and stones can break your bones and words can hurt your dignity making them illegal.

Raymond, you're a Statist Tool. I don't think you'd have any problem if we scrapped the entire first Amendment to the Constitution in order to comply with an edict developed by the majority of nations of the UN (incl. China, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, and the wonderful Sudan territory). What Koki Annin says, I guess ... Sure ...

We're definitely not giving up the guns, now ...