The protagonists of the celebrated comedy “Miś” have a brief dialog with each other, which I remember the first time due to its apparent absurdity, but showing a simple mechanics that tells a man to stay low. president Ochodzki and manager Hochwander say (in this order): “- Tell me, what is this bear for? - Why exactly? “That’s right, no 1 knows why, so you don’t gotta worry about individual asking.” What's hatred speech? Well, nobody knows either. And nobody asks due to the fact that you gotta pretend you know. Or that you can't see you don't know. I would like to urge to the readers of the portal a book that they will no longer know what this speech is. And that's not an accusation to a book or to a reader. This book will explain why no 1 knows what a hatred speech is and that it is an crucial feature of it. It is very useful for those who want to ban it.
The book of Counselor Rafał Dorosiński “The Speech of Hate” – a horse of the Trojan Cultural Revolution She talks about the history, application, consequences and ambiguities of “the speech of hatred” and its criminality. Despite many footnotes and references to legal acts, the author is able to carry out a communicative I understood a language that does not require cognition of "legal jargon", and erstwhile he appears, it is explained precisely what the layman should realize from it. A large advantage of the book is its definitely substantive content and conducting arguments with concrete postulates through an assessment of akin effects that have already been implemented in another countries.
I don't want to discuss the full book, but a fewer aspects that the mec has raised. Dorosiński was interesting adequate that I would like to callback them.
Motte and Bailey
It's the title of tactics that extremist activists frequently usage to push their demands, but in the event of opposition to claim that they are afraid with a mostly acceptable truth. This is something that the opponents of progressive activists see, Mr Dorosiński described thoroughly confirming that we are absolutely right erstwhile we perceive manipulation. Let's turn it over to mec.
The way of spreading the explanation of “hate speech”, which is based on a rhetorical run, is simply a manipulation called “motte and bailey logic error”. The name comes from a medieval defence strategy of this name, utilized mainly in England and France. Motte was a dormant, difficult-to-get, fortified and uninhabited hill (a fortress) that was the final point of defence where you could be sheltered while the opponent was pushing, and from which you could fire arrows. Bailey, in turn, is simply a production area around the fortifications, containing stables, workshops and another little safe locations from attacks.
In verbal battles, the motte and bailey strategy works as follows: first (1) the arguer puts forward a controversial claim or explanation that may encounter opposition (bailey) and then, (2) erstwhile challenged, (3) withdraws to an easy-to-defence position, replacing (reforming) the subject substance of the dispute and adopting a defensive stance of completely uncontroversial postulates (motte). At the end of the dispute, preferably (4) after the discouraged opponent's departure, the argumentator returns to the abandoned area (bailey), announcing to the planet the triumph of his controversial demands. In another words, the individual who uses the bar is pushing an utmost position, but erstwhile he resists, he claims that from the beginning he advocated only moderate.
An example of motte and bailey strategies can be black lives substance (motte) and Black Lives substance (bailey), 2 very different concepts that can be almost unnoticed replaced. A lower-case phrase is an apparent fact to which 1 can safely retreat in the case of criticism of an organisation of the same name. The version written in capital letters is simply a political movement whose program includes negation of capitalism, pushing queer explanation and destabilizing household structure. As a result, people motivated by good intentions – as well as companies signaling their social engagement and another organisations – may feel opposition to expressing criticism of Black Lives Matter, fearing that they will be accused of questioning the apparent fact that black lives matrix, as if the first was the same as the second.[1]
It is clear that this strategy is very popular among activists of the far left and the elites representing it. The fight is always about equality, the “right of women”, the right to “visit in hospitals”, and it is fought with racism, violence, hatred. Non-controversial goals, and opponents are mostly understood to be evil. And erstwhile it turns out that these concepts are utilized to advance the elimination of full social structures, capitalism, police, or the request for impunity of certain groups, which origin resistance, it turns out that it is only about what non-controversial slogans actually mean. And so until the enemy's fatigue, which ceases to see the meaning of "kicking with a horse".
Who's what?
The book besides explains why this “speak of hatred” like racism would only work 1 way. I mean, hatred speech towards others due to the alleged protected features (Ministry of Justice works to add sexual orientation and sex identity to them) as nationality, gender, spiritual religion, skin colour is met with condemnation, but in practice the victims of specified speech can be representatives of minorities (even if it is not a number in an arithmetic sense like women), alternatively than a dominant group (although it has no real power over anyone). Absolutely unrestrained, this is stated by prof. Richard Delgado, who himself stated:
‘Move critical race explanation (CRT) brings together activists and scientists active in the survey and transformation of relations between race, racism and power. [...] Unlike the conventional civilian rights discourse, which emphasizes gradual progress, critical race explanation It questions the very foundations of liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, rationalisation and neutral constitutional law.”[2]
And besides (between the quotes below, explanations of the author of the book):
Delgado stresses: “Unlike any academic disciplines, the critical explanation of race has an activistic dimension. It seeks not only to realize our social situation, but to change it; it aims not only to find how society is organised according to racial lines and hierarchy, but besides to transform it for the betterIt’s okay. ” [It's fundamentally Marx's paraphrase saying that it's not about describing the planet but changing – A.P.] Pointing to CRT's intellectual inspiration, Delgado admits that "The critical explanation of race is based on the achievements of the 2 preceding movements, critical legal studies and extremist feminism [...]. It besides derives from any European philosophers and theorists specified as Antonio Gramsci and Jacques Derrida“160. In a word, CRT is simply a explanation with a very unambiguous ideological profile.[3]
Prof. Mari Matsuda, who utilized the notion of hatred speech first
"in his 1989 loud article, Public consequence to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story. It concluded that the defining elements of “racist, hateful statements” include:
- (a) the indication of racial inferiority (message is of rational inferiority), this characteristic “contrary to the humanity of persons belonging to a given group. All its members are considered inferior’,
- b) addressing historically oppressed groups – this feature "recognises the link between racism and force and subordination",
- (c) the persecuting, hateful and degrading nature of the statements.
At the same time, as Matsuda points out, “[citations of hatred, feedback and anger directed by representatives of a group oppressed against members of a historically dominant group are not covered by the definition of hateful statements presented here”.[4]
This explains perfectly what “Razprozak” describes in his “Anti-communist Manifesto” how the militants for racial equality state that only white can be racist and public racist statements, only that towards white people they pass without echo or with the applause of mainstream media. And frequently these are statements from academic staff. He besides translates anti-Catholic incidents on “Paradises of Equality” or during the manifestation of “Women's Strike”. After all, the Church is simply a dominant group, so it cannot speak, not even attacked. This is not a science-fiction novel, these are the salons of the Western world. People like Delgado and Matsuda train youth in the spirit of combating racism, which uses (acceptable as much as possible in their optics) racism towards those who, as the only ones, may be racists according to their theory. And the same is actual of LGBT groups. As a oppressed group, they can attack, and oppressive heterosexuals can't even defend themselves. Of course, it besides creates the impression that a oppressed number is truly the victim of the top oppression and can sale apparent fake news, believe in the word of activists and LGBT organizations take statistic on their treatment.
In line with specified ideological demands and after seeing trends in legislation, for example, the UK, as the author besides describes, it is expected that, in fact, the rules in the penal code on hatred speech would be a baton on any preservative ointment that would be forced to self-censor through many processes. According to Herbert Marcuse and his 1964 essay "Repressive Tolerance", left-wing views would be tolerated, and right-wing intolerance, as the editor-in-chief of “Political Criticism” Sławomir Sierakowski erstwhile wrote: “The goal of the left is not, as can be heard, to fight exclusion as specified [...]. The aim is not to make an unrealised plurality, but to make a space where certain practices, considered harmful by the left, will become unacceptable.”[5]
There are specified declarations, but again on the basis of “Motte and bailey”. If specified a thesis were pointed out by the right-winger, he would hear that it was a conspiracy explanation and it was a conflict for equality and pluralism. If any supporter of the left would come across the above quote would explain to himself either that Sierakowski is simply a radical, but in general it is about equality or that it is most likely out of context or exaggeration and no 1 will let specified a thing to be accomplished. And in front of us, there's a dangerous plan. Formally, we will have freedom of speech, but any of the subjects will only be spoken in a certain way. This besides reminds me of the concept of deliberal democracy, where at the outset certain views must be adopted and discussed only within them.
About spiritual Fanatics
Counselor Rafał Dorosinski is an worker of the Ordo Iuris Legal Culture Institute. Thus, his book in many circles will be judged (if not withheld) as a extremist opinion, addressed to a circumstantial reader. Ordo Iuris besides has a “do-over” of a fundamental organization that will bring us back to the mediate Ages. I even remember the magazine covers that even suggested that Ordo Iuris was any kind of sect-maphic that has large influence in the government and will take freedom from average people. This, of course, increases erstwhile this organization is effective. If it were actually a group of fanatics who preach any "moon theories" it would not be so fiercely attacked. Since it is the organisation of professional lawyers who, through their law analysis, participation in court proceedings, etc., are able to influence case law and sometimes legislation. And this is unbearable for opponents of freedom of speech, household and Polishness. The more substantively they talk and work effectively, the lawyers from Ordo Iuris, the more they are attacked as detached from reality and driven by superstition. Since they have excellent arguments in the discussions, they should be attacked (from the position of progressives) outside substantive debates, disgusted in the eyes of the "normals" so that no 1 would want to be associated with them and not trust on their opinions. As well as the independency of the OI from state grants, it makes it worth rooting for them, besides by purchasing the book discussed here as much as possible. It is 1 of the books that perfectly points out the mistakes of supporters of closing their mouths in the fight against the indefinite “talk of hatred”. Those who are frightened by catchy clichés fear the actions of Ordo Iuris, as it will take their freedom, do not usually announcement erstwhile they are actually taken away. It is besides in their interests to fight against the "speak of hatred" or, in fact, freedom of speech.
Rafał Dorosinski“The Speech of Hate” – a horse of the Trojan Cultural Revolution, Institute for Legal Culture Ordo Iuris, Warsaw 2024.
Footnotes:
[1]Dorosiński R., “The Speech of Hate” – a horse of the Trojan Cultural Revolution, Warsaw 2024, pp. 119-120.
[2] Ibid. p. 69.
[3] besides p. 70.
[4] Ibid. p. 71.
[5] Ibid. p. 68. It is besides worth reading a footnote with a broader quote from ed. Sierakowski.
