Opinion
Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.
This article submitted by Levi Kump
It is news to exactly no one, that Sunday night, Will Smith responded to a contentious, and arguably tasteless joke, by walking on stage at the Acadamy Awards and slapping the the offending party, one Chris Rock, across the face. Much has been made already about whether or not the incident was staged, though the ensuing furor has rendered that debate largely moot. Many people have chimed in on the issue, some saying the Smith was unequivocally wrong, and some, including no less than The National Post’s Barbara Kay, coming down on the the side of a face slap being fair play.
Let it be known, I believe Smith and Kay, are both wrong. First and foremost, because one of the tenets of civilization in general, is the old adage that, “ones right to get angry, stops at the next fellow’s nose”. Nothing new here. Setting aside for a moment that the slap was to the cheek/jaw area, I believe that notion still holds water. Genuine or not, this incident implies that there are some statements for which the only possible rebuttal, is the fist. The challenges with this way of thinking are legion, and until only a few years ago, seemed to have already been worked out in western society. Not the least of said problems is this: if words are violence itself, and answerable as such, then we no longer have any reason to use words. When one equates the verbal with the somatic, it is a very quick descent indeed, to using violence in any given situation. Why struggle for the ‘mot juste’, when one can move stright to a head kick?
Following this line of reasoning, we end up back, hundreds of years, to the time of, “might makes right”; which again, our civilization had once worked out, but now seems to be forgetting. One of the more common lines of reasoning for the “speech as violence” crowd, is that disparities in power give far more weight to some people’s words, than others. In the Smith/Rock debacle, this is hardly worth a mention, as both men are of the same demographic, read: multi-millionaires of the same skin tone. Though there are those who will point out, as did Barbera Kay, that the target of Rock’s joke, was not Will Smith himself, but rather his wife, Jada, who does in fact suffer from an auto immune disease, and whose hair loss is by no means her own fault. A powerful comedian making jokes about a/an (equally powerful?) woman’s physical condition should be off limits, or so goes the argument. The easy reply here is that there are
those, myself among them, who do not believe that anything should be off limits in speech.
Noting here that, not unlike our separation of words and action, society did away with the idea of ‘lese majest’ some time back. There are yet some who do not believe in this, and who think that the relative power of two parties (and exactly how do we quantify this?) matter to a verbal exchange. That the words of the more powerful party are in fact so weighty, that again, the only fair response, is a physical one. This begs the question, that if the words of the powerful are
unfairly weighted, how much more so are thier blows? It is to me, an untenable position. Slapping a man for speech only ends badly for everyone. Until very recently, we all seem to have understood this.
There was once a common convention, that words, for all their power, are clearly not violence. The fact that this is now somehow considered up for debate, does not bode well for society writ large. Any reasonable person will admit that words can be incredibly hurtful, damaging, and cruel. To deny this is foolish. Physical violence however, has all those dangers, along with a side order of split lips, contusions, and concussions. Indeed, whatever “damage” one suffers from words, one is still left with the ability to speak in rebuttal. A solid blow of any kind can not only dissuade retort, but neuter it completely. Perhaps this is what the proponents of violent response are after in the first place? If so, its disappointing. As I said, i thought we had worked this out.
Levi Kump is a former competitive international Muay Thai champion.
From LifeSiteNews
Quebec’s Secularism Minister, Jean-François Roberge, introduced Bill 9, ‘An Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Quebec,’ in the province’s National Assembly on Thursday, November 27.
The government of Quebec has tabled a new bill which, if passed, would ban public prayer and funding for religious schools, and more severely oppose public displays of religious symbols.
Quebec’s government now has its very own Secularism Minister, Jean-François Roberge. He introduced Bill 9, ‘An Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Quebec,’ in the province’s National Assembly on Thursday, November 27. Critics have warned that it is an attack on people’s religious rights. Nevertheless, Quebec says it will use the notwithstanding clause to ensure that the legislation remains law, thwarting any legal challenges made against it.
Six years ago, Quebec passed a law that banned teachers, judges, police officers, and other officials from wearing religious symbols. However, Roberge has told reporters that the new legislation is needed because people have “advanced.”
“Quebecers have advanced since 2019, which means it is necessary to strengthen our model of secularism,” he said, adding that the new law would be “ambitious, but moderate.”
This August, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Quebec announced that it was looking to ban prayer in public places; Muslim groups had begun praying in Quebec streets and parks.
Earlier this year, Quebec expanded its so-called religious symbols ban to include all school staff, meaning no one who works at a school would be allowed to wear crucifixes or crosses of any kind.
RELATED: New Quebec bill would prohibit teachers, school staff from wearing a crucifix
This new law would also ban the wearing of hijabs and turbans for those working in schools, daycares, and universities. It could prevent teachers from wearing crucifix jewellery even in a Catholic school and ban any religious symbol from appearing in any communications from public institutions. It would also ban prayer rooms in public institutions.
Quebec Premier François Legault fully backs the new law, saying earlier this month there is a threat in his province from “radical Islamists.”
Earlier this year, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Montreal’s Catholic Archbishop Christian Lépine condemned Quebec’s proposed prayer ban and said it was like banning thought.
“Prayer, in its simplest form, is an inner impulse,” he wrote. “It is a thought turned toward God who is goodness, a presence in the world, a way of seeking peace. However, some recent proposals to ban public prayer raise serious concerns about respect for fundamental freedoms in a democratic society.”
From the Fraser Institute
The stiffer carbon tax will make Alberta’s oil sector more expensive and thus less competitive at a time when many analysts expect a surge in oil production. The costs of mandated carbon capture will similarly increase costs in the oilsands and make the province less cost competitive.
As we enter the final days of 2025, a “deal” has been struck between Carney government and the Alberta government over the province’s ability to produce and interprovincially transport its massive oil reserves (the world’s 4th-largest). The agreement is a step forward and likely a net positive for Alberta and its citizens. However, it’s not a second- or even third-best option, but rather a fourth-best option.
The agreement is deeply rooted in the development of a particular technology—the Pathways carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project, in exchange for relief from the counterproductive regulations and rules put in place by the Trudeau government. That relief, however, is attached to a requirement that Alberta commit to significant spending and support for Ottawa’s activist industrial policies. Also, on the critical issue of a new pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, there are commitments but nothing approaching a guarantee.
Specifically, the agreement—or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)—between the two parties gives Alberta exemptions from certain federal environmental laws and offers the prospect of a potential pathway to a new oil pipeline to the B.C. coast. The federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the oil and gas sector will not be instituted; Alberta will be exempt from the federal “Clean Electricity Regulations”; a path to a million-barrel-per day pipeline to the BC coast for export to Asia will be facilitated and established as a priority of both governments, and the B.C. tanker ban may be adjusted to allow for limited oil transportation. Alberta’s energy sector will also likely gain some relief from the “greenwashing” speech controls emplaced by the Trudeau government.
In exchange, Alberta has agreed to implement a stricter (higher) industrial carbon-pricing regime; contribute to new infrastructure for electricity transmission to both B.C. and Saskatchewan; support through tax measures the building of a massive “sovereign” data centre; significantly increase collaboration and profit-sharing with Alberta’s Indigenous peoples; and support the massive multibillion-dollar Pathways project. Underpinning the entire MOU is an explicit agreement by Alberta with the federal government’s “net-zero 2050” GHG emissions agenda.
The MOU is probably good for Alberta and Canada’s oil industry. However, Alberta’s oil sector will be required to go to significantly greater—and much more expensive—lengths than it has in the past to meet the MOU’s conditions so Ottawa supports a west coast pipeline.
The stiffer carbon tax will make Alberta’s oil sector more expensive and thus less competitive at a time when many analysts expect a surge in oil production. The costs of mandated carbon capture will similarly increase costs in the oilsands and make the province less cost competitive. There’s additional complexity with respect to carbon capture since it’s very feasibility at the scale and time-frame stipulated in the MOU is questionable, as the historical experience with carbon capture, utilization and storage for storing GHG gases sustainably has not been promising.
These additional costs and requirements are why the agreement is the not the best possible solution. The ideal would have been for the federal government to genuinely review existing laws and regulations on a cost-benefit basis to help achieve its goal to become an “energy superpower.” If that had been done, the government would have eliminated a host of Trudeau-era regulations and laws, or at least massively overhauled them.
Instead, the Carney government, and now with the Alberta government, has chosen workarounds and special exemptions to the laws and regulations that still apply to everyone else.
Again, it’s very likely the MOU will benefit Alberta and the rest of the country economically. It’s no panacea, however, and will leave Alberta’s oil sector (and Alberta energy consumers) on the hook to pay more for the right to move its export products across Canada to reach other non-U.S. markets. It also forces Alberta to align itself with Ottawa’s activist industrial policy—picking winning and losing technologies in the oil-production marketplace, and cementing them in place for decades. A very mixed bag indeed.
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Carney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
Climate Climbdown: Sacrificing the Canadian Economy for Net-Zero Goals Others Are Abandoning
Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data
‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer
-
Business2 days agoBlacked-Out Democracy: The Stellantis Deal Ottawa Won’t Show Its Own MPs
-
Alberta2 days agoPremier Danielle Smith says attacks on Alberta’s pro-family laws ‘show we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways’
-
Agriculture1 day agoHealth Canada pauses plan to sell unlabeled cloned meat
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoGoogle denies scanning users’ email and attachments with its AI software
-
Alberta2 days agoNew pipeline from Alberta would benefit all Canadians—despite claims from B.C. premier
-
Crime1 day agoB.C.’s First Money-Laundering Sentence in a Decade Exposes Gaps in Global Hub for Chinese Drug Cash
-
COVID-192 days agoCrown seeks to punish peaceful protestor Chris Barber by confiscating his family work truck “Big Red”
-
Crime1 day agoFBI Seizes $13-Million Mercedes Unicorn From Ryan Wedding’s Narco Network