Poll of the Day > Montreal man accused of spreading hate against Jews on far-right blog says...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...it was a 'joke'

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-man-accused-of-spreading-hate-against-jews-on-far-right-blog-says-it-was-a-joke-1.5800691

Morgan Lowrie The Canadian Press Staff Contact
4 minutes
A Montreal man accused of fomenting hate against Jews testified in his own defence on Tuesday, arguing that the blog post at the heart of his trial was a "joke" designed to upset people who are politically correct.
Gabriel Sohier-Chaput, who went by the online moniker Zeiger, is facing one count of wilful promotion of hatred in connection with a post from January 2017 on the far-right website Daily Stormer.
Sohier-Chaput, 35, told the court Tuesday he wrote or did research on between 800 and 1,000 articles for Daily Stormer beginning in 2016, including part of the blog post for which he is facing trial.
"We need to make sure no SJW (social justice warrior) or Jew can remain safely untriggered," the post read in part. "Non-stop Nazism, everywhere, until the very streets are flooded with the tears of our enemies."
Sohier-Chaput testified that he chose wording that was "exaggerated" and "poetic" in order to mock people who he felt were too sensitive and who branded those with whom they disagree as Nazis.
He said he felt Daily Stormer's mission was to "disarm the left" through irony, absurdity and humour, adding that a "rational" person would not take its content literally.
"Either they understand the joke and they laugh, or they find it terrible," Sohier-Chaput testified. "In that sense, the goal is to sap the politically correct by making extreme comments."
The blog post on the far-right website refers to a 2017 Global News article about Nazi posters showing up in New Westminster, B.C., and about a Holocaust survivor's reaction to

When crypto-nazis say too much they revert to being a troll again. It's never a joke. It's an "optics" thing. They're too cowardly to own their own beliefs.

"fomenting"?

Lokarin posted...

"fomenting"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foment

Sarcasthma posted...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foment

neat

I feel like that word didn't even exist until like 3 years ago and everyone started using it.

I don't think it was a joke, but I also don't think it's something that should be illegal. Free speech is the line between a civilized society and a dystopian hellscape.

Ozmose posted...

I don't think it was a joke, but I also don't think it's something that should be illegal. Free speech is the line between a civilized society and a dystopian hellscape.

Most countries (including the US) are able to have certain limits on the freedom of speech without turning into dystopian hellscapes. Threats, for example, are almost universally not protected. That's not to say exceptions shouldn't be carefully monitored to make sure they aren't overstepping their bounds, but exceptions can nonetheless exist safely.

kind9 posted...

I feel like that word didn't even exist until like 3 years ago and everyone started using it.

It was mostly archaic but we brought it back.

KodyKeir posted...

It was mostly archaic but we brought it back.

In a sense, we fomented it.

I always want to add an R to it, for some reason. Presumably the similarities to "ferment."

kind9 posted...

I feel like that word didn't even exist until like 3 years ago and everyone started using it.

Which word?

Ozmose posted...

I don't think it was a joke, but I also don't think it's something that should be illegal. Free speech is the line between a civilized society and a dystopian hellscape.

tbh, most nations don't have free speech, and -- for generally ill -- the US is increasingly headed in that direction.

adjl posted...

Most countries (including the US) are able to have certain limits on the freedom of speech without turning into dystopian hellscapes. Threats, for example, are almost universally not protected. That's not to say exceptions shouldn't be carefully monitored to make sure they aren't overstepping their bounds, but exceptions can nonetheless exist safely.

If you're punishing people on the basis of speech -- minus direct threats and things like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc -- you've already partway descended into a dystopian hellscape.

The_Viscount posted...

If you're punishing people on the basis of speech -- minus direct threats and things like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc -- you've already partway descended into a dystopian hellscape.

Given that those other countries have been "sliding down that slippery slope" for literally centuries and not actually descended by any measurable degree, I think it's okay and you're just being melodramatic.

adjl posted...

Given that those other countries have been "sliding down that slippery slope" for literally centuries and not actually descended by any measurable degree, I think it's okay and you're just being melodramatic.

Technically many of them never started from a position of freedom. They went from a monarchy under which speech was punishable by sentences up to and including death to other forms of government where speech was punishable by sentences coming short of death. There are many countries whose citizens never actually knew freedom so they think various forms oppression are natural or, in extreme cases, necessary. And governments have a vested interest in convincing people they shouldn't have rights, because governments put themselves above the people.

However, in many cases, most of the "slides" are actually very recent.

The_Viscount posted...

Technically many of them never started from a position of freedom. They went from a monarchy under which speech was punishable by sentences up to and including death to other forms of government where speech was punishable by sentences coming short of death.

So... they've gotten better? Interesting development, given what a dangerous precedent controlling speech in any capacity is supposed to be, but I'll take it.

The_Viscount posted...

There are many countries whose citizens never actually knew freedom so they think various forms oppression are natural or, in extreme cases, necessary.

Various forms of oppression are necessary. Anarchy doesn't work, and laws are inherently oppressive to anyone that wishes to break them. There are people in the world who consider "don't chop your daughter's clitoris off" to be oppressive. As a concept, that's not inherently a bad thing. if you're going to object to how oppressive something is, do so on a case by case basis, not with broad, pathos-ridden cries against "oppression" as a concept.

The_Viscount posted...

However, in many cases, most of the "slides" are actually very recent.

Not really. Most hate speech laws have had to be updated to cover online activity, for obvious reasons, but most are at least a few decades old, if not older. The issue's just getting more publicity because speech is more public in general now.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/racists-attacks-court-hate-crimes-1.5604912

In practice, it's still not particularly easy to get a hate crime conviction in Canada even if somebody has been assaulted or killed, let alone off of mere hate speech. People love to cry about slippery slopes and oppression and being thrown in jail for wrongthink, but the vast, vast majority of truly indefensible speech (unless you want to try defending people who accost passers-by with racial slurs to any level beyond "they have a right to do it") goes unpunished, which is a far cry from punishing defensible speech.

Once again, I think it's okay and you're just being melodramatic. Nothing's dystopian just because the occasional racist jackass might face consequences for their actions.