What John Galliano Deserves
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
March 3, 2011 at 1:25pm
Voilà John Galliano:
Very bad taste, no doubt. He is obviously drunk. It is perfectly condign that he lose his job and find himself unwelcome among attractive people. The ritual exile to the Elba of rehab is a fitting public humiliation. I am glad Europe and the fashion world still have the decency to be offended.
But the idea that he will stand trial--and face prison charges--for this is grotesque. Is the United States the only country left in the world that gives a toss about freedom of speech?
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
He should be put in jail for the way that he dresses and does his hair.
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
We may indeed be the only country where speech is protected. And who knows how long that will last? Consider the remarks of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html. The liberals are only interested in freedom for speech for those who agree with them.
Nov '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
We all have limits to speech; praising Hitler in many parts of Europe is still much the same as crying "Fire!" in a crowded theatre here. They lived under him, we (on the whole) did not.
Nov '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
It's another chilling sign of Western society being prepared to violate individual autonomy to pander to collective preferences.
Not only are people decreasingly entitled to the funds they hold and earn--these must be confiscated by force to remedy cosmic injustices--they are decreasingly entitled to the opinions they endorse and express--these must be censored by force to safeguard delicate feelings.
“I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
“I do think at a certain point you've had enough say."
Doesn't the same totalitarian impulse underlie both claims?
Bastiat defined the state is the great fiction through which everybody contrives to live at the expense of everybody else. But it is also becoming the great fiction through which everybody contrives to secure the respect of everyone else.
Overlooked is the fact that the state powerful enough to provide people with everything they want--by guaranteeing access to other people's money and respect--is also powerful enough to take away everything they have--by guaranteeing other people access to their money and respect.
The same tether people would use to bind others ends up binding them too.
May '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
I am looking forward to President Obama proposing anti-blasphemy laws in next years SOTU message...
Jan '11
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
We're not that far away. The recent Mead v. Holder decision to uphold Obamacare contains the seeds of disaster. The judge declares: "As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."
She's probably right, but only in the same sense that there are few precedents addressing things that have just always been taken for granted. If an individual "decides" at 9am to rob a bank, but changes his mind before the bank opens at 10am, has he committed a crime? Is his decision itself a crime? No. We take that for granted.
Our legal system philosophically relies on the common law tradition, which depends on precedent. But precedent can be misleading. If the reason that an issue hasn't been addressed is because it has been assumed, as we've always assumed that the government has no right to regulate thought (i.e., the essence of the first amendment), then the lack of previous law is itself a compelling fact. The lack of precedent is the dog that doesn't bark.
May '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Do we take that for granted? What is a "hate crime" but a "thought crime." Here the government has decreed that it is able to read the political thoughts of personal bigotry of an individual at the time of a crime and tack on additional punishments. Thus white on black crime or straight on gay crime is deemed demonstrably worse than the crimes of others. Even though no science has yet to prove that it can read minds in the present tense, let alone the past.
Jan '11
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Agreed. I happily stand corrected. As I say, we're not far away, meaning from losing the right to free speech and free thought.
It's scary. Can you imagine being forced to think like Al Franken, Ed Schultz, or Sheila Jackson Lee?
Edited on March 3, 2011 at 4:37pmDec '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
KC Mulville:
She's probably right, but only in the same sense that there are few precedents addressing things that have just always been taken for granted. If an individual "decides" at 9am to rob a bank, but changes his mind before the bank opens at 10am, has he committed a crime? Is his decision itself a crime? No. We take that for granted. · Mar 3 at 6:34am
But what, Mr. former Jesuit, does the Catholic Church say about that?
May '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Foxman
KC Mulville:
She's probably right, but only in the same sense that there are few precedents addressing things that have just always been taken for granted. If an individual "decides" at 9am to rob a bank, but changes his mind before the bank opens at 10am, has he committed a crime? Is his decision itself a crime? No. We take that for granted.
But what, Mr. former Jesuit, does the Catholic Church say about that?
One can sin in the heart. Thoughts can be sins when one willfully indulges in an offense against love in one's imagination, because even thoughts can shape a person into someone unloving. Even thoughts can be a way of excluding God from our lives.
But there is obviously a difference in the severity of offense if one imagines onself committing adultery, for example, versus actually committing adultery.
Jan '11
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
LOL! Well, top o'the morning to you too!
First, thank goodness, the civil government of the United States abides by different principles than a church. What's appropriate for one isn't appropriate for the other.
Second, the church doesn't regulate thought. The church, following the teachings of Christ, exhorts believers to self-discipline their own thought. And when one's thoughts stray, the church offers reconciliation and absolution, not prison.
Third, when a teacher's thoughts are heretical, the church's response is to withdraw the church's authority from the teacher, not prison.
If nothing else, the arrogance of the church's past has taught us the futility of trying to criminalize thought. Liberals in Europe and some in the United States rail against the Inquisition and yet are headed for that same mistake and atrocity themselves.
How ironic.
Dec '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Aaron Miller
Foxman
KC Mulville:
She's probably right, but only in the same sense that there are few precedents addressing things that have just always been taken for granted. If an individual "decides" at 9am to rob a bank, but changes his mind before the bank opens at 10am, has he committed a crime? Is his decision itself a crime? No. We take that for granted.
But what, Mr. former Jesuit, does the Catholic Church say about that?
But there is obviously a difference in the severity of offense if one imagines onself committing adultery, for example, versus actually committing adultery. · Mar 3 at 8:08am
That is not what I was taught.
Aug '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
What if he were doing this in NYC, and instead of the anti-semitism, he was spouting the n-word ?
The same outrage ? Well, there are only a few people who can be directly accused of genocide. Other than some recent Ruandans, I doubt whether there are any blacks among them.
So PC is in the eye of the beholder ?
Claire, it is confusing, but it's right there on page 578 of the EU constitution , paragraph four, under Regulations regarding camembert dimensions. Is this the same country that just said you have to charge people the same for auto insurance regardless of the real data concerning accident frequency by gender ?
Jan '11
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Perhaps. But can we agree, for this thread at the least, that the idea of a civil government regulating thought is a really bad move?
Does anyone, other than the historically oblivious, really want an American Inquisition?
Edited on March 3, 2011 at 5:25pmDec '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Hymietown?
Edited on March 3, 2011 at 5:29pmDec '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
KC Mulville
Perhaps. But can we agree, for this thread at the least, that the idea of a civil government regulating thought is a really bad move?
Does anyone, other than the historically oblivious, really want an American Inquisition? · Mar 3 at 8:24am
Edited on Mar 03 at 08:25 am
No KC, I do not want another inquisition. I do not advocate these things. In fact I am much opposed to thought police. I was merely pointing out some inconsistencies.
Jun '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Being Canadian, I couldn't read past Robert Kennedy, jr's. description of the kind of news coverage we enjoy. The only newspaper worth reading in the country is the National Post. The CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation) is so liberal as to be idiotic. My local news papers aren't worth the paper they're printed on. To get the full flavour of the situation locally one paper's mast head describes itself as "Seriously West Coast," whatever the Hell that means. As for the national and provincial censors that come in the guise of the various "Human Rights" commissions, well you can forget about them being open to free speech. What is most disturbing about Kennedy's drivel is his assertion that Fox News lies. Why this disturbs me is that he does not cite one lie. If a news company in a 24/7 news/internet world lied once, surely there would be evidence. Sans such citation the only conclusion I can reach is that Robert Kennedy is himself a despicable liar trading on a name tied to booze, drugs, hookers, assassination, and Chappaquiddick. And here we thought Charley Sheen was a loser.
Dec '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Foxman
KC Mulville
Perhaps. But can we agree, for this thread at the least, that the idea of a civil government regulating thought is a really bad move?
Does anyone, other than the historically oblivious, really want an American Inquisition? · Mar 3 at 8:24am
Edited on Mar 03 at 08:25 am
No KC, I do not want another inquisition. I do not advocate these things. In fact I am much opposed to thought police. I was merely pointing out some inconsistencies. · Mar 3 at 8:35am
Actually, I was just having a little fun with you.
May '10
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Foxman
Aaron Miller
But there is obviously a difference in the severity of offense if one imagines onself committing adultery, for example, versus actually committing adultery.
That is not what I was taught.
The difference is consequences. In the case of actual adultery, there is the added consequence of encouraging another person to sin. But I was not suggesting that imagined adultery is a negligible offense.
In any case, government should not be acting as thought police. And I share EJ's disgust with hate crime legislation. Whether a murder was committed for racial hatred or for personal hatred, the punishment should be the same.
Jan '11
Re: What John Galliano Deserves
Yeah, I know. Not to worry. I almost never take things personally. Except that one time ... back in 97 ... but I paid my debt to society ... OK, too much information ...