Storms in teacups over hurt, not harm

Three men are in the news and under state scrutiny. Jason Neo, for captioning a photo of a school bus filled with children ‘Bus filled with young terrorists’. Christian Eliab Ratnam, for posting a photo on Facebook that some believe insult Islam. Donaldson Tan, for sharing another offensive image and declaring it flamebait. Then came the calls for police investigation and use of the Sedition Act.

Is this an overreaction? Absolutely.

Yes, feelings were hurt. People – not necessarily just Muslims – felt offended by their deeds. From their perspectives, to themselves, their feelings are completely justified.

But no harm was done.

These three remarks are one-off comments. None of the three are engaged in a calculated campaign to incite ill-will against Muslims. They are not engaged in harassing or bullying Muslims. None of the remarks they have made can reasonably be argued to incite others to violence. Donaldson Tan said he wanted to warn people that a certain image will attract a flame war – which probably means he acted in good faith. There are no race riots raging on the streets, and no sign that one will erupt any time soon. Nobody is using these comments as propaganda or to justify violence against anybody. Not even the terrorist comment, because it did not state, explicitly or otherwise, that violence against those children were justified.

For all the right or wrong of what the bloggers did, their comments did no harm. No potential or actual physical damage can be attributed to their remarks, and there is no sign that they harbour true malice towards Muslims. Malice, not prejudice – the difference being that the former is a will to violence and ill-doing, while the latter is thinking less of somebody else.

Feelings were hurt, but no harm has been done or will be done. This means that it should not be a police matter.

In democracies, laws that govern speech and expression have two purposes: preventing harm, and punishing harm. A man may spout all manner of angry words about Islam. He’s hurting feelings, but he’s not harming anyone. But a propagandist who spreads a message of violence towards Islam is inciting others to violence. That means he could harm someone through his deeds, and should rightfully be punished to minimise the damage done.

Using the law to prosecute someone for causing harm does social good. Using the law to prosecute someone for hurting feelings does social harm.

Firstly, it is not the job of the state to protect feelings in cases when hurt feelings do not cause harm. The state’s objective is to provide core services and protect the people from harm. There are all kinds of people living in the state, all of whom are unique. They have different experiences, mindsets and beliefs, which means they have different emotional responses to a given situation. The state can’t possibly account for them all. At the same time, the law must apply equally to everybody. Protecting hurt feelings is impossible: you need to accurately measure degrees of hurt, decide appropriate punishments, create objective tests for subjective feelings – all this in an environment where different people react differently to different things. The state cannot serve everybody by prosecuting people who hurt feelings. What the state can do is serve people at the level everybody has  in common: that of physical safety. If physical safety is not threatened, the state should not intervene.

Secondly, it drives undesirable elements underground. Calling down the police every time someone makes an offensive remark has a chilling effect. Very few people, if at all, will want to voice an opinion that would earn them police attention. This won’t eliminate racism or other negative -isms. It simply means that true believers will go elsewhere to share their opinions, out of public view, where they won’t be monitored and criticised. In the best case scenario, it will be that much harder to reach such people and persuade them to change their minds. So they’ll pop up again when the police crackdowns end – and their views would be hardened by the crackdowns, as they see themselves with The Ultimate Truth standing against a hostile, ignorant society. Do this too many times, and the racists and other -ists may just decide that the state poses a threat to them, and use violence against other people.  Using the power of the state needlessly, on cases where no harm is or will be done, is therefore counterproductive, and can backfire.

Thirdly, it strangles public discussion. This is in addition to people not wanting to speak up because they don’t want to get arrested. By using the power of the state to clamp down on ‘offensive’ points of view, the community is sending a message that those stances are not tolerated. The more often and more widely such moves are taken, the narrower the message becomes, to the point where the message is, effectively, there is just one acceptable point of view. We’re already seeing this in Singapore: it is completely unacceptable to say anything negative about any (government-defined) race or (mainstream) religion – say anything negative and you risk the hammer of the law coming down on you. Never mind that negative comments about races or religions in Singapore haven’t actually sparked any hate crimes. The trouble with having just one perspective causes public discussion to stagnate. That perspective is created, not through mutual consent, but through mutual fear. This means very few people will want to say anything that contradicts the One True View, which leads to stagnation. Locked in stasis, the mainstream view will not evolve to suit changing times. This is how autocrats, dictators and tyrants maintained power – not just by silencing everybody who disagrees, but by shaping the discourse so everybody thinks that the right course of action is to support the ruler.

Fourthly, this isn’t just about racism. It’s about rules of engagement on all topics. Someone’s point of view may hurt feelings. But it does not mean it is automatically wrong. Telling a bunch of good ol’ boys in the American Deep South, circa 1920, that all races are equal may hurt their feelings. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that statement is wrong. As my contact Rory Miller likes to say, people confuse emotion with truth. That is, many people believe something is right because they feel it is right – never mind the truth of the matter. By letting the state defend hurt feelings, such people will be allowed to dominate public policy debate by getting the police to arrest people who disagree with them.  This distorts freedom of speech and expression and causes stagnation of debate. It also allows people to push through pet agendas without having to consider reality, leading to waste of time, energy and money. We’ve already seen cases like this – minus the state punishing people who disagree – in Singapore’s Social Development Unit (Lee Kwan Yew’s gentle eugenics program), moral panics, and Satanist scares. By refusing to defend hurt feelings, the state is refusing to needlessly meddle in the marketplace of ideas, and allows people to speak truth to power.

If people’s feelings are or can be hurt by remarks, they can be handled without needing the police to intervene. This is what comment policies are for – to encourage and enforce a civilised discussion. This is what public discussions are for – to understand where people are coming from, and to generate consensus instead of imposing a point of view. This is what public statements are for – to tell people about your particular stance and to indicate what you feel is offensive and what is not. The police don’t and shouldn’t have to step in unless harm is imminent.

Freedom of speech and expression applies to everybody. Not just the people you agree with. If they offend you, you have the freedom to let them know exactly how you feel. If no harm is done, there’s no reason to call the police.

Post script

I received an e-mail from Donaldson Tan about his thoughts on the controversy surrounding him. With his permission, I’ve reproduced a section of the e-mail.

If I were a Muslim, this action would be appreciated by the Muslim community as being watchful and civic-minded. However, my action were interpreted otherwise as I am not a Muslim. It looks like to be a whistleblower over Muslim affairs, one has to be a Muslim.
You guys might recall Noor Firdaus. He posted Jason Neo’s photo that carried the remark “future young terrorists” on several Facebook pages which include The Online Citizen, Young PAP and the public pages of some MPs. He and I essentially did the same but I am being castigated online because I am not trusted to be a whistleblower by a certain faction of netizens.
The bit on censorship was subsequent reaction to the use of implied threat by my detractors. I held my ground against cyber-bullying of these individuals.It is essential to take note that I didn’t commit hate speech at all. I also stress that I didn’t author the controversial photo.
I’m not going to comment on what he said. I’ll leave it up to you to decide.
Storms in teacups over hurt, not harm

8 thoughts on “Storms in teacups over hurt, not harm

  1. Singaporeans should learn a lesson from Americans – look at what happened to Charlie Sheen or John Galliano for remarks a lot lesson vituperative than Donaldsons or Jason

  2. Allow me to rebut you on all your points.

    1) You say that is not the role of the state to interfere in matters of the ‘heart’. That unless physical harm is committed, no real action can be taken. However, I would think that an effective police force is one that can ‘prevent’ the crime before it is committed, an organisation that sniffs out potential criminals and stops them before they do real damage. After all, would you not report a drunk driver to the police? Or do you much prefer to let him kill someone first? The comments made by the trio may have seem trivial to some, but they had the potential to severely strain race/religion ties in our country. In fact I think they already have.

    2) Which is why the police needs to be equipped to handle these “undesirable elements” as well. If a group of radical Muslims had decided to break away from mainstream society and fester underground, would you not want the state to have the right tools to catch them wherever they are? Your point here assumes that if the cops catch these troublemakers in broad daylight, they’ll go where they can’t be found, police will not catch them. Isn’t this line of reasoning flawed?

    3) Were the trio hoping to spark off a public discussion with their comments? Or were they simply looking to push some buttons? If we are truly sincere about discussing race and religion and learning from one another, I don’t see how calling the police to clamp down on seditious comments can result in public discussion strangulation. In fact, the reverse may happen. If you’ve already called my kids terrorist trainees, why should I sit down and speak civilly with you? Surely some degree of restrain is necessary if we are serious about picking each others brains in a social setting.

    4) You’ve got it all muddled up here. Muslims are angry with the comments made, especially those of Neo and Ratnam, precisely because truth has been sacrificed on the altar of free speech. Terrorists? Authoritarian political doctrine? It is not a case of what was said is true, and therefore it hurts, it is because what was said is grossly untrue, hence the hurt.

    We are not against freedom of speech. We are against the protection of irresponsibility on the notion of freedom of speech. Some controls must be in place for that freedom to make any sense or bring about progress. Are you truly ‘free’ if you tear down the highway at 100 mph but your brakes don’t work?

    Also, please do not think that just because we report the actions of the three to the police, we are therefore closed off to any future dialogue. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    1. I have to disagree with you on every point. Right from the start, it seems that you’re conflating hurt feelings with harm. As I’ve mentioned, it’s not the role of the state to get involved when feelings are hurt. The police can only get involved if there is actual harm. This isn’t a case of me saying this should happen; this is an actual description of how the judiciary in democratic countries operate, and how the courts will interpret the law. (Unless political factors get involved, which so far I haven’t seen any evidence of.)

      1. You’re acting as though the trio have committed a crime. That’s not technically accurate. Because the laws are vague, and because they have committed no harm, the police needs to investigate the behaviour and the judicary needs to make a judgment call. As of time of writing, no decision has been made. Ergo, they are not criminals. Although you said they have already ‘severely strained race/religion ties in our country’, you’ve provided no proof that this is so. Since there is no evidence of harm, potential or realised, they’re not criminals.

      2. The police already are equipped to handle undesirables. You’re assuming that I’m assuming they aren’t. By ‘underground’ I don’t mean going to where the police can’t find them. I mean going to places where the average citizen won’t frequent, places where the community leaders normally aren’t expected to go, places where they are safe from criticism and have the social support to ridicule and drive away people who do criticise them. Places like specialist websites and fora, gatherings that cater to people of similar views, groups that meet regularly to reaffirm everybody’s beliefs. These areas aren’t immune to the law. Frankly, they’re under more surveillance than other equivalents.

      3. Just because they didn’t intend to spark a public discussion doesn’t mean there isn’t one. The moment someone starts talking about something in public, it’s a public discussion. If you’re going to discuss hot-button topics in an open environment, sooner or later somebody will make a controversial statement. Getting the police to clamp down on that person will silence discussion along those lines, making it a blunt instrument. Yes, there will be increased discussion – about the police action, not about the statements. Like right now: much of the discussion on this issue is about whether police intervention is justified, and what blogs are saying about the matter. Not about what the trio did, beyond general and widespread condemnation, with occasional defences. If a person makes actual seditious comments, police action may be justified. But ‘sedition’ is not defined by hurt feelings. ‘Sedition’ means overt conduct that tends to stir up rebellion against the state. If that comment merely hurts feelings, it means that the commentator is insensitive – but not seditious.

      4. I thought I made it clear that I wasn’t discussing this issue in this point. I was discussing the implications of freedom of speech in general, not necessarily about this topic.

      Once more, you are conflating hurt with harm. Someone making hurtful statements is not the equivalent of screaming down the highway without working brakes – it’s someone modifying his engine to make maximum noise and flipping off everyone who complains. Irresponsible, yes – harmful, no. The former case can lead to harm. The latter, while irritating, does not harm anyone. There already are existing laws to ensure freedom of speech isn’t abused to harm society. But that is where the law ends, because the law has no business deciding the measure of hurt feelings for the general public.

      Finally, please do not think that I do not think that a police report is mutually incompatible with discussion. I know they aren’t – how am I even discussing this issue otherwise? – but I don’t think the police is needed in a case where hurt feelings are involved.

  3. Thanks so much for this. I’m a writer coming from Dallenwil, Switzerland and what you’ve
    said here on could not be said much better.
    Perusing this article kinda reminds me of my old
    roomie, Tanesha. He persistently kept preaching about this.
    I will definitely send these ideas to him. Pretty sure he will have a good time reading this.
    I appreciate you for posting this.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top