Current Events - July 2019

July Links:          5                19           

---

July 5

"Minor bureaucrats indulging strange James Bond fantasies":
The testimony of Mark Steyn to the Justice Committee

Pre-Discussion:

About Mark Steyn and the Justice Committee

Long Back Story that is VERY easy to read

The nation of Canada is discussing the problem of  "online hate".  This conversation necessarily requires a deeper conversation regarding free speech and how to address unkind as well as hate-filled speech. Furthermore, one needs to ask is there a difference between unkind and hate-filled speech?  By what authority should the two be differentiated?  Who should have the right to determine that difference?

Essential to this discussion is the question whether  forced compliance to rules regarding speech (how and what one can say) are more dangerous than the rules themselves.

Why?  Because power has a predictable tendency to mask its motivation.  People in power are all too willing to use well-intended laws to shut up persons with whom they disagree. Difference of opinion may be the truer motivation for silencing the speaker than the so-named hate by which they are silenced. 

People that hold opinions of concern regarding silencing of free speech find themselves often in the minority and vilified (made out to be a villain) for their position.  Believed to be malignant and dangerous, persons who wish to defend the west's well-fought-for right to freedom of speech, are corralled into a simplistic and  stifling dime-sized  arena in which are found true haters of cultural difference.  A broad variety of opinions is amalgamated into a single noun: "alt-right".  The voice of the free speech advocate  becomes lost in this deeply dishonest association.  An association that, tragically,  is believed to be true by, seemingly, majority opinion.

By saying, "I think your silencing speech is more dangerous than the terrible things another may be speaking,"  the defender, all too  commonly, finds their own voice censored.  They find themselves relegated to the status of persons saying that which, above all else,  should not be spoken.  A fact that is shocking in light of the amazing gains free speech has granted humanity.  

Canada has had laws addressing hate speech since 1970.  However, in 2013 Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed.  It was found to be unconstitutional.  Section 13(1) at that time imposed restrictions against communicating in a manner that could expose a person to hatred.  Think about the sentence you just read:  imposed restriction against communicating in a manner that could expose a  person to hatred.  What about this statement is problematic?   Who is defining expose(s) a person to hatred?   Do you see the dangers in such a vague and passive statement?  There is no clarity to the action "expose a person to hatred."   Indeed, it was an open definition that allowed for a wide variety of interpretations.  Thus, it's being found unconstitutional.  "Hate-speech" was then limited to expression that advocates, justifies or threatens violence - behaviors clearly defined by the penal code.  

But now in 2019,  Canada finds itself, yet again, discussing hate-speech and how to eradicate it.  Specifically, they are wondering whether Section 13(1) should be re-instated - is it possible to insulate persons from being exposed to hate.  This discussion of non-exposure  necessarily leads to a discussion about free speech and aspects of free speech that are necessarily problematic.  People being allowed to say anything when anything can be deeply painful, unkind and unfair.

Questions to ponder when thinking about the debate regarding  free speech:  What about  free speech is a good thing?  What about it is a bad thing?  When is free speech more damaging than good?  

The  article we are studying this week is a quote from author Mark Steyn as he  addressed a committee of Canada's Parliament studying "online hate" .

However, prior to his remarks there was some drama in the committee meeting. 

A Conservative Party MP (Member of Parliament - a Canadian legislator), named Michael Cooper, read in the Justice Committee meeting  the actual words of the man accused of the mass killings of Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand (2019).   Furthermore, he spoke the actual name of the accused murderer.  He did so  in response to the claims of another  witness, Faisal Khan Suri - head of the Alberta Muslim Affairs Council, who in his testimony implied that   "conservative commentators" had inspired the  mosque shooter's behavior. 

However, MP Cooper, felt the mosque shooter's own words negated the truth of any such link and that, therefore, the witness's implication of blame on "conservative commentators"  was not true.  Conservative Party  MP Cooper, therefore,  quoted the accused murderer's actual own writing in an attempt to discredit Mr. Suri's, testimony.

This action resulted in the head of Cooper's own Conservative Party, Andrew Scheer, removing  MP Cooper from the Justice Committee where the tense exchange between the two had occurred.

In the statement announcing MP Michael Cooper's removal, Mr. Scheer said it was “unacceptable” for Mr. Cooper to have quoted from the manifesto written by the mass shooter who killed 51 people at two mosques in New Zealand in March. (pressprogress.ca)

Mr. Suri then asks that  Mr. Cooper be removed from the Conservative caucus entirely, and not just from the justice committee.  He felt this the right action for Mr. Scheer to make because, as leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Scheer  (who, also, happens to be running for Prime Minister in Canada's October 2019 elections),  said his party condemns “intolerance, racism and extremism of any kind.”

Mr. Suri's states, "What is deeply concerning is the fact that Mr. Cooper had the manifesto in his possession and read it in a parliamentary committee as a federal MP.”  “This is a document from a white extremist who murdered 51 innocent people. That is concerning.”

Please note that the document itself is what is concerning.  Not Mr. Cooper's analysis.  Although  Mr. Cooper felt the document proved that Mr. Suri's remarks were fundamentally incorrect and that the document was evidence for the untruth of Mr. Suri's remarks, the very presence of the manifesto was a far greater problem than a misleading argument. 

Mr. Suri's original statement argued  that  hate speech on the internet is an “enabler, a precursor and a deep contributor to not just real-life hate, but to murder.”  Mr. Suri then referenced the recent attacks in places of worship, before laying out the online history of the gunman who killed six Muslims in Quebec City in 2017.

Mr. Suri followed this with the  statement: “[The murderer] repeatedly sought content about anti-immigrant, alt-right and conservative commentators, mass murderers, U.S. President Donald Trump and about Muslims, immigrants living in Quebec."  It was this final statement that provoked MP Cooper's impassioned response.

Mr. Cooper told  Mr. Suri that he  “should be ashamed” for the comments that linked “conservatism with violent, extremist attacks. They have no foundation, they’re defamatory and they diminish [Mr. Suri’s] credibility as a witness.”

It was at this point that Mr. Cooper read a portion of the manifesto in which the Christchurch gunman points to his admiration for the political values of the Chinese government.  The document that Mr. Cooper read from has been banned in New Zealand following the attack.

Mr. Cooper’s reading  New Zealand-banned material prompted condemnation from other MPs at the hearing, which resulted in Mr. Cooper's removal from the Justice Committee.

“Reading the name and quoting the words of the Christchurch shooter, especially when directed at a Muslim witness during a parliamentary hearing, is insensitive and unacceptable,” Mr. Scheer, the Conservative Leader, said.

Mr. Cooper later apologized in a statement to Mr. Suri and to all Canadians:

“I quoted the words of a white supremacist, anti-Muslim mass murderer in an ill-advised attempt to demonstrate that such acts are not linked to conservatism. I absolutely should not have quoted these words nor named the perpetrator,” he said.

It was in a speech regarding immigration (in Toronto)  that  Mr. Scheer  had originally said “There is absolutely no room in a peaceful and free country like Canada for intolerance, racism and extremism of any kind. And the Conservative Party of Canada will always make that absolutely clear.”  The Prime Minister candidate was seeking  to dispel Liberal Party attempts to portray the Conservative Party as anti-immigrant.  In light of this commitment, Mr. Cooper was removed from the committee.

Randall Garrison, Democrat MP, asked then that all trace of Cooper's comments be removed from the committee record because of the "incendiary" ( capable of inciting dangerous behavior) day we live in and the power of social media. 

 "I am not opposed to people having ideas.  I am not opposed to people thinking ideas.  What I am opposed to is giving a public platform for the spread of those violent ideas and the spreading of hatred," were the words Mr. Garrison spoke as he asked that the video feed of the Justice Committee be cut.  

The Justice Committee then voted 6-0 to remove the name of the accused New Zealand attacker and a section of his manifesto that Cooper had read at the committee hearing. Conservative committee members abstained from voting.  (Adapted from Globe and Mail 6/2/2019)

And then Mr. Garrison added, "I'll move at this time that meeting not be televised any further."

10 - 0 the MPs voted to drop the feed.

It is in the midst of all of this, that three conservative commentators begin to give their witness addressing  on-line hate.  They are there to tell  their own experience.  One of the three witnesses is author and commentator Mark Steyn.  

Mr. Steyn  will reference Mr.  Cooper's removal from the committee.  He will say hello to Ms. Raitt - Lisa Raitt, a Conservative MP, with whom he has an acquaintance.  He will, also, mention listening to talk radio host, Evan Solomon.  He will greet the President in French.  Canada is  officially a bi-lingual country.  He will reference Jordan Peterson, a non-compliant-for the sake of compliance, speaker of historically-valued perspectives on  wisdom and truth; as well as, Lindsay Shepherd, a fellow witness on the panel.  Lindsay's testimony is available at The Post Millennial as well.  Furthermore, he will  mention Bernie Farber.   Mr. Farber is a social activist per the internet.

Finally, he will use the word:  defenestration.  de = "down/away from/off".  fenestra = "window".  The act of throwing something out of a window.  It is also used to describe the  swift dismissal or expulsion of a person from a committee or group.  Which is what happened to Mr. Cooper when he was quickly removed from the committee.

---

"Minor bureaucrats indulging strange James Bond fantasies":
The testimony of Mark Steyn to the Justice Committee

From The Post Millennial of Canada

Mark Steyn in his own words ...

"Thank you very much, Monsieur le Président, and also to the honourable members of the committee. I am honoured to be here.

"I would like to say a quick word—as much as I always enjoy seeing Ms. Raitt—about the defenestration of Mr. Cooper from this committee which I understand is the business of the members of the committee.

"I am concerned. I was driving into Ottawa listening to my old friend, Evan Solomon, on the radio who was arguing that in fact, it was perhaps time for Mr. Cooper to be booted from caucus.

"That is actually the age we live in, where people can have one infraction and their life implodes, their career implodes, they’re vapourized for it. That is actually one of the most disturbing trends on the free speech issue. The surviving vice-chair of this committee said recently that Jordan Peterson should not be permitted to testify to this committee. Bernie Farber, I believe just last night, said Lindsay Shepherd should be booted from appearing before this committee.

"Ms. Shepherd and Mr. Peterson are law-abiding Canadian citizens, and this practice of labelling people and demanding that they be instantly de-platformed, booted from polite society is, in fact, more serious than some of the other matters before this committee.

"I was here last time around, 10 years ago, when we got rid of section 13 because it was corrupt in absolutely every aspect of its operation from minor bureaucrats indulging strange James Bond fantasies and playing undercover dress-up Nazis on the Internet to pathetic rubber stamp jurists who gave section 13 a 100% conviction rate that even respectable chaps like Kim Jong-Un and Saddam Hussein would have thought was perfectly ridiculous.

"The worst aspect of it was secret trials, secret trials in Ottawa, not in Tehran (capital of Iran) or Pyongyang (capital of North Korea), but in Ottawa. I discovered it one evening before dinner and I emailed my friends at Maclean’s (a Canadian news magazine) and the eminent barrister (lawyer) Julian Porter whom I see the Prime Minister recently retained as his Q.C. (Queen's Counsel - honored justice of law), that’s how respectable he is. Julian, in a couple of hours, wrote a motion referencing Viscount Haldane and Ambard versus Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago..."  (referencing the legal writing of a man who dies in 1928 and an interesting case of an appeal from 1934 - Mr. Steyn's point is the clarity and lasting duration of true law - vs  the dangers of subtle, undefinable opinion-granted power that makes rulings based on amorphous (not-shaped; having no definite, clear, precise form) thinking).

Mr. Steyn continues...:  "real law, not the pseudo law of section 13.  Julian’s motion opened up that dank, fetid (terrible smelling) dungeon of pseudo justice to the public - to the people of Canada and after 20 minutes in the cleansing sunlight that John (Brassard, conservative MP)  talked about, the unimpressive jurist in that case, Athanasios Hadjis, decided that section 13 was unconstitutional and he wasn’t going to have anything more to do with it. Sunshine works."

"The most important aspect, while we’re quoting judges, John Moulton wrote a famous essay a century ago on the realm of manners. He said the measure of a society is not what one is forbidden to do, which is to murder and steal and rape, and not what one is compelled to do, such as pay the taxes or join the army or whatever, but you measure a society by the space in between (between what you can and cannot do), the realm of manners, where free people regulate themselves. Canadians do not bash gays, or lynch minorities because they are enjoined by the state not to do so. (They do not treat people the way they do because they are legally required to behave in an accepting manner).  They do so because they are operating in Lord Moulton’s realm of manners where free people, civilized people regulate themselves."  

More Mr. Steyn ..." That is where the internal contradictions of a fractious (rude and stubborn) multicultural society should be played out."

"The idea of bureaucrats once again getting into this business is deeply disturbing. They didn’t have enough work last time. ... Shortly before the Maclean’s case which was the one I was involved in, the senior counsel of the Canadian Human Rights Commission actually went to Toronto to speak to various groups to say they weren’t getting enough cases and that’s why people should file more complaints.

"Ultimately, free speech is hate speech, and hate speech is free speech. It’s for the speech you hate, the speech you revile. The alternative to free speech is approved speech, and that necessarily means approved by whom? Approved by yourself as a citizen, if you don’t want to have Lindsay Shepherd over to dinner, as Bernie Farber doesn’t, that’s fair enough, but once it becomes speech approved by the state, and speech approved by formal bodies, it effectively means the speech approved by the powerful.

The biggest threat to free speech at the moment is a malign alliance between governments and big tech doing the kinds of things Lindsay spoke of. The photograph that sums it up is the one of Mr. Trudeau (Head of Canada) with Ms. May (Head of UK), Ms. Ardern (Head of New Zealand)and President Macron (Head of France) sitting across the table from the heads of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple. Six woke billionaires who presume to regulate the opinions of all seven billion people on this planet. That is far more of a threat than some pimply 17-year-old neo-Nazi tweeting in his mother’s basement somewhere out on the Prairies. That issue is the real threat to genuine liberty in our society.

I cannot believe that a mere 10 years on we are talking about restoring this law. It was appalling and unfortunately, this committee and the House never actually confronted it in reality. I will finally say this on a personal note. I was born in Canada; I love Canada;  I would die for Canada; I am old-fashioned enough to take the allegiance of citizenship seriously, but no monarch, no Parliament, no government, and certainly no bureaucratic agency operating the pseudo-law of section 13 can claim jurisdiction over my right to think freely, to read freely, to speak freely and to argue freely. Thank you very much, sir.

---

---

July 19

Law and Manners

Delivered by the Right Honorable Lord Moulton

Pre-Discussion:

This article is completely self-evident.  An impromptu speech given at the Author's Club in London some time prior to Lord Moulton's death. (He dies in 1921).

John Fletcher Moulton was born November 18, 1944 and he died March 9, 1921.  He was a remarkably intelligent man from a fairly humble background.  He was, also, a brilliant mathematician studying at Cambridge, where he won numerous awards as the top mathematician of the university.

Here is how the Online Magazine Aleteia introduces Lord Moulton's most famous speech (4/11/2016):

It is not exactly clear when he gave the speech, but it seems very clear why he gave it.  In the early 20th century, John Fletcher Moulton was a brilliant British Lord with fluency in mathematics, electrical engineering and the law.  But in the British effort to arrest the onslaught of German aggression in World War I, Lord Moulton found his true expertise rested  with the creation and manufacture of explosives.  ... (In) the Great War (WW 1) ..., Lord Moulton had seen enough.  The ravages of militant German law, on one hand, and terrorizing anarchists on the other, offered instructive warnings to a British society ever-oscillating between unforgiving law and unapologetic freedom.  And so a few years before his death, Lord Moulton felt called to give a warning...

---

Prologue to The Speech in the Atlantic Monthly:

THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY published the following re-print of  Lord Moulton's speech in July, 1924. Three years after his death.  The article opens with:

A word of explanation seems desirable in regard to the form and the authorship of this paper. It is the verbatim record, by an accurate reporter, of an impromptu speech made by Lord Moulton at the Authors’ Club in London some years before his death. Because of its pertinent interest for present-day Americans ( in 1924), we count ourselves fortunate to be able to print it in the Atlantic at this time.

John Fletcher Moulton, first Baron, Minister of Munitions for Great Britain at the outbreak of the war, a noted Judge, a great Parliamentarian and administrator, may be fittingly introduced to Atlantic readers in the words of the Lord Chancellor before the House of Lords at the time of Lord Moulton’s death in 1921:

‘I choose my words carefully when I say that I greatly doubt whether it would have been possible for the war to have been brought to a successful conclusion when it was, but for the part Lord Moulton took in it. I hope the country will not soon forget the extraordinary work of this most remarkable man, whose memory his colleagues will long cherish.’

---

The Speech:

Law and Manners

Delivered by the Right Honorable Lord Moulton

In order to explain this extraordinary title I must ask you to follow me in examining the three great domains of Human Action. First comes the domain of Positive Law, where our actions are prescribed by laws binding upon us which must be obeyed. Next comes the domain of Free Choice, which includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy complete freedom. But between these two there is a third large and important domain in which there rules neither Positive Law nor Absolute Freedom. In that domain there is no law which inexorably (relentless, unstoppable, continuously marching forward) determines our course of action, and yet we feel that we are not free to choose as we would. The degree of this sense of a lack of complete freedom in this domain varies in every case. It grades from a consciousness of a Duty nearly as strong as Positive Law, to a feeling that the matter is all but a question of personal choice. Some might wish to parcel out this domain into separate countries, calling one, for instance, the domain of Duty, another the domain of Public Spirit, another the domain of Good Form; but I prefer to look at it as all one domain, for it has one and the same characteristic throughout — it is the domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable. The obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself.

One of the reasons why I have chosen this as the subject on which to speak is that I have spent my life as a commissioner for delimiting the frontier line which divides this domain from the realm of Positive Law. I have had to decide so frequently whether Law could say, ‘You must,’ or regretfully to say, ‘I must leave it to you.’ This is the land in which all those whom the Law cannot reach take refuge. It might be thought from such a description that I wished to annex that country and bring it under the rule of Positive Law. That is not the case. The infinite variety of circumstances surrounding the individual and rightly influencing his action make it impossible to subject him in all things to rules rigidly prescribed and duly enforced. Thus there was wisely left the intermediate domain which, so far as Positive Law is concerned, is a land of freedom of action, but in which the individual should feel that he was not wholly free. This country which lies between Law and Free Choice I always think of as the domain of Manners. To me, Manners in this broad sense signifies the doing that which you should do although you are not obliged to do it. I do not wish to call it Duty, for that is too narrow to describe it, nor would I call it Morals for the same reason. It might include both, but it extends beyond them. It covers all cases of right doing where there is no one to make you do it but yourself.

All these three domains are essential to the properly organized life of the individual, and one must be on one’s guard against thinking that any of them can safely be encroached upon. That Law must exist needs no argument. But, on the other hand, the domain of Free Choice should be dear to all. This is where spontaneity, originality, and energy are born. The great movements which make the history of a country start there. It covers a precious land where the actions of men are not only such as they choose, but have a right to claim freedom even from criticism. Men must keep safely guarded this right to follow the bent of their nature in proper cases and act as they would without anyone having the right to utter a word of dictation or command. This country forms the other frontier of the domain of Manners and delimits it on the side farthest away from that of Positive Law.

The dangers that threaten the maintenance of this domain of Manners arise from its situation between the region of Absolute Choice and the region of Positive Law. There are countless supporters of the movements to enlarge the sphere of Positive Law. In many countries — especially in the younger nations — there is a tendency to make laws to regulate everything. On the other hand, there is a growing tendency to treat matters that are not regulated by Positive Law as being matters of Absolute Choice. Both these movements are encroachments on the middle land, and to my mind the real greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of this land of Obedience to the Unenforceable. It measures the extent to which the nation trusts its citizens, and its existence and area testify to the way they behave in response to that trust. Mere obedience to Law does not measure the greatness of a Nation. It can easily be obtained by a strong executive, and most easily of all from a timorous people. Nor is the licence of behavior which so often accompanies the absence of Law, and which is miscalled Liberty, a proof of greatness. The true test is the extent to which the individuals composing the nation can be trusted to obey self-imposed law.

In the changes that are taking place in the world around us, one of those which is fraught with grave peril is the discredit into which this idea of the middle land is falling. I will give two examples. First, I will take freedom of debate in the houses of legislature such as our own House of Commons. For centuries the members had unrestricted freedom of debate, and no inconvenience was felt. But in recent times some members of this House have said to themselves: ‘We have unrestricted freedom of debate. We will use it so as to destroy debate. The absence of imposed restriction enables us to do it.’ This obstruction was developed, and it has destroyed freedom of debate, and, indeed, all useful debate in practically every legislature. The freedom due to absence of positive restriction has been treated by the individual members as leaving their use of debate a matter of Absolute Choice, fettered with no duty that they were bound to regard. They shut their eyes to the fact that the freedom was given to them in trust to help forward debate, and that it was incumbent on them so to use it. Clumsy and even mischievous regulations have necessarily been introduced which fetter debate but prevent its being absolutely stifled. The old freedom cannot now be entrusted to the members, because when they possessed it they did not respond to it by the exercise of that moral sense which would have led them to treat it as a trust, and not as an absolute possession, unburdened by obligations which they should compel themselves to regard.

It is not only the conduct of individual members of the legislature that furnishes an illustration. The conduct of the legislatures themselves furnishes an equally striking one. It is the fundamental principle of democracies to bow to the decision of the majority. But in accepting this we do not surrender ourselves to the rule of the majority in all things, but only in those things which are of a kind fit to be regulated by Government. We do not admit, for instance, the right of the majority to decide whom we should marry or what should be our religion. These are but types of a vast number of matters of great interest in life which we hold to be outside the decision of a majority, and which are for the individual alone to decide. But in form the power of a Government has no restrictions. It has the power to do everything, and too often it forgets that this limitless power does not leave the scope of its legislation a matter of absolute choice on its part, but a choice fettered by a duty to act according to the trust reposed in it, and to abstain from legislating in matters where legislation is not truly within its province. And what is true as to the scope of legislation is also true to a great extent as to the nature of that legislation. But there is a widespread tendency to regard the fact that they can do a thing as meaning that they may do it. There can be no more fatal error than this. Between ‘can do’ and ‘may do’ ought to exist the whole realm which recognizes the sway of duty, fairness, sympathy, taste, and all the other things that make life beautiful and society possible. It is this confusion between ‘can do’ and ‘may do’ which makes me fear at times lest in the future the worst tyranny will be found in democracies. Interests which are not strongly represented in parliament may be treated as though they had no rights by Governments who think that the power and the will to legislate amount to a justification of that legislation. Such a principle would be death to liberty. No part of our life would be secure from interference from without. If I were asked to define tyranny, I would say it was yielding to the lust of governing. It is only when Governments feel it an honorable duty not to step beyond that which was in reality, and not only in form, put into their hands that the world will know what true Freedom is.

The tendency of modern legislation is to extend the area ruled by Positive Law, and to diminish the area of action which is determined by the decision of the individual himself. But there is one great example in the opposite direction. In one instance the People have deliberately chosen to carve a domain out of that previously covered by Positive Law and to throw it into the domain where the individual can determine for himself his course of action. Take the legislation relating to Trades-Unions and Trade Disputes. Limitations on the power of combination have been swept away, and to a great extent that which was previously marked out by Law is now in the hands of the individuals themselves.

I am far from suggesting that this was a retrograde step, but to my mind the question whether it is dangerous, and whether it may and will become disastrous, depends on whether the masters of workmen who gained this freedom of action, not allowed them by the Common Law, look upon the change as justifying their treating the matters to which it relates as belonging to the realm of Absolute Choice, or whether as belonging to the realm where, though not restrained by Positive Law, they yet recognize the duty of obedience to the Unenforceable. Do they recognize that the increase of their freedom of action brings with it not unfettered choice but the corresponding responsibility of using that freedom? That many have failed to realize that this is the true effect of the change has already been made too clear. At the time of the general coal-strike many voices were heard which in a tone hitherto unknown to us cried: ‘We can by a universal strike bring the nation to its knees.’ It is a proof of the extent to which the sense of Duty ran in the nation, even at a time of such excitement, that this cry was not heeded, and that we came out of the crisis with little harm beyond some labor legislation which will probably have to be modified many, many times before it comes into working order — a very light price to pay for the experience.

I am not afraid to trust people — my fear is that people will not see that trust is being reposed in them. Hence I have no wish that Positive Law should annex this intermediate country. On the contrary, I dread it. Instead of the iron rule of law being thrown over it I would rather see it well policed by the inhabitants. I am too well acquainted with the inadequacy of the formal language of statutes to prefer them to the living action of public and private sense of Duty.

The great principle of Obedience to the Unenforceable is no mere ideal, but in some form or other it is strong in the hearts of all except the most depraved. If you wish to know how strong, remember the account of the Titanic disaster. The men were gentlemen to the edge of death. ‘Ladies first.’ Why was that? Law did not require it. Force could not have compelled it in the face of almost certain death. It was merely a piece of good Manners in the sense in which I have used the phrase. The feeling of obedience to the Unenforceable was so strong that at that terrible moment all behaved as, if they could look back, they would wish to have behaved. I have no fear of its strength, whatever be the class appealed to. Even if one takes the least educated, — the socalled lower classes, of whom so many are afraid, — one would find the same loyal obedience to unenforceable obligation in the relationships with which these classes are familiar. The danger lies in that by the growth of the democratic spirit they have newly come into much larger powers, and they have not yet learned that power has its duties as well as its rights. When they have become familiar with these powers, and when intercourse with those who have a wider outlook has taught them that the domain of obligation includes them in their use of them, I am satisfied that those who have been loyal to duty in the smaller lives that they have led will be loyal in the wider fields in which they are now able to exercise their power. It is this faith that makes me dread lest we should hurriedly let Positive Law come in and check the growth of self-reliance, check the growth of the sense of personal duty, and lead people to feel that, if they obey the Law, they have done all their duty. It is wiser to exercise patience and let them alone till increase of experience in life teaches them to appreciate better their true position, and to feel that it is still needful for them to see for themselves that they behave as worthy men should do. Now I can tell you why I chose the title ‘Law and Manners.’ It must be evident to you that Manners must include all things which a man should impose upon himself, from duty to good taste. I have borne in mind the great motto of William of Wykeham — Manners makyth Man. It is in this sense — loyalty to the rule of Obedience to the Unenforceable, throughout the whole realm of personal action — that we should use the word ‘Manners’ if we would truly say that ‘Manners makyth Man.’

Meet www.unherd.com   From their own 'about':

Our aim is to appeal to people who instinctively refuse to follow the herd, and we also want to investigate ‘unheard’ ideas, individuals and communities. We’re not a news site. We focus our journalism on the significant events going on in the world, filtering out the distractions to give our readers what they really need to know.

We have five big themes: capitalism, technology, flyover country, religion, and groupthink. We believe that good political coverage should go beyond what’s overheard in Westminster or on Capitol Hill and covering the economy should mean exploring the world beyond Wall Street and Davos.

UnHerd is non-partisan. We are home to fresh thinking and free minds from across the political spectrum. We want to challenge groupthink – particularly in the media – and to help our readers break out of their political echo chambers.

We’re always looking for new writers. So if you have an idea for an evidence-based comment piece, a thoughtful essay, or an article that brings to life a universal issue through local reportage then get in touch at sally.chatterton@unherd.com.

The article we are reading today was written by James David "J.D." Vance (8/2/84).  Mr. Vance is an American author and venture capitalist.  He is well known for his memoir 'Hillbilly Elegy.

Ms. Churchwell speaks of equality without defining it.  The United States has historically gone with Liberty and Justice.  Not Liberty and Justice and equality as the article mentions.  But equality of access versus equality of outcome is a very important matter to keep in mind when reading this article.  

The United States did not want a class distinguished, privileged people who were by definition treated differently than the less fortunate lives who were merely to be background - wall-paper at best - to their own privileged, real lives.  The internet has frighteningly led the United States even further away from the circumstances that Ms.  Churchwell is critiquing.  We now live in a world of followers and followed.  A world of privileged, above critique persons and the folk who find their identity in defending the privileged folk they follow.  

Somehow the unique promise of the United States has truly become lost.  We fight over the world "exceptional" never understanding its meaning.  Exceptional means out of the given, not taken for granted.  Doing things differently on purpose.

The author of the following article is no conservative.  She studied the term "American Dream" , interpreted her findings within the lens of her own understanding and wrote a book about it,  Behold America - a book that I think, were I to read it, I would have mixed feelings about.  And yet much of what this article is saying is important.  

© Copyright Learninghelps.com