,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A PPC candidate has called for more hate speech, arguing when there's consequences for hate speech, those people will become violent. Here's why this argument, often presented without evidence and popular w/ the intellectually susceptible, is wrong cbc.ca/news/canada/sa… 1/ 
We monitor what happens today when hate groups lose their online platforms and flee to others, and we know, historically, what has happened when they face legal sanctions for the worst examples of hate speech. In short, it works. 2/
Individuals ready to be further radicalized have a harder time accessing materials, people, and online forums. Many don't transition to new platforms. Individuals, when exposed, often stop their activities due to social pressures. 3/
Are they reformed? No. But at least they aren't as connected and coordinated when targeting women, people of colour, critics, etc. with targeted harassment and death threats, or preying on children, radicalizing them and ruining their lives. 4/
This is a cultural cold war that's heating up. It's about social norms. They want to make it OK (or at least relatively low-consequence) to make coded racist statements, openly racist statements, publicly demonstrate against the humanity of Muslim Canadians (and others), etc. 5/
That's the bigger picture. When we reintroduce social consequences for hateful speech, when we convince venues and platforms not to put a megaphone in front of hate speech, that plays a role in establishing anti-racist, anti-hate values. 6/
To say that if we don't allow hate groups, their supporters & sympathizers to push their agenda, dehumanizing our neighbours and making harassment and violence towards them easier, with fewer consequences - that those individuals will drop the pretense and start killing cont. 7/
It's often a veiled threat, and also by and large untrue. There are pre-conditions for hurting or murdering people because of their gender, skin colour, etc. First they must be dehumanized and made an enemy. If we stop it there - at radicalization - it doesn't reach violence. 8/
To those who are already partially or fully radicalized, making it clear that their actions are condemned by the majority and there will be consequences is a powerful deterrent, and why so many try to stay anonymous. 9/
To drive the point home here: we monitor radicalized individuals and we have not observed that they start planning violence when they have fewer opportunities for hate speech. It's the opposite. They get discouraged. 10/10
Postscript: Of course there will be rare exceptions, and hopefully we (the entire anti-racist community) can prevent tragedies by being vigilant. By & large though, the best way to prevent violence is to stop hate propaganda at its sources, before it radicalizes children. END
