The concept of justice often gets depicted as a pair of scales.
It's meant to represent a fair, impartial weighing the evidence
where all parties are held to the same standards.
Justice can be uncomfortable — and elusive
Some of us might instinctively want to push for special leniency
when we or the people we love transgress against others
and push for special severity when people transgress against us.
Given the chance to reflect
fair-minded folks will concede that holding people to different standards
defeats the whole concept of justice.
But some folks are forcefully determined to tip the moral scales —
consistently minimising their own guilt and smearing the moral image of innocent parties.
A prime example would be narcissists —
unyieldingly self-absorbed and callous to the needs and feelings of others.
But even otherwise fair-minded individuals can have their moral sense
thrown off balance by a distorting influence —
for example if they're recruited by a dogmatic ideological group.
To mistreat people while maintaining a sense of moral righteousness
calls for some hefty conceptual distortions.
Jo is a narcissist who becomes romantically involved with Mo.
After a short-lived honeymoon stage
Jo becomes increasingly abusive, throwing insults and false accusations.
Mo tries to explain to Jo that these aggressive outbursts are harming the relationship.
In response Mo is accused of being a control freak
who has no respect for people's freedom of expression
Jo asserts: "You're no better than me."
Jo is attempting a form of psychological manipulation known as levelling.
This is where a person or group whose conduct is significantly worse than another
on any objective analysis of the situation
tries to assert equal moral standing
claiming a false equivalence in the conduct of both parties
by adding bogus elements to their opponent's side
and denying awkward elements on their own side.
Jo is trying to draw a false equivalence between objecting to abuse and being abusive.
Narcissists often make levelling statements
when they're confronted with inescapable evidence of their abuse.
They might claim that there are 'faults on both sides'.
Of course no one is devoid of faults
but the insinuation here is that both parties' faults have equal weight
which is sometimes far from true.
They might claim that there are 'two sides to every story'.
Again, the insinuation is that both sides have an equally valid perspective
They might claim they and the person they've abused ‘just see things differently’
implying that whether or not abuse has occurred is just a matter of perception.
In all cases the aim is to blur responsibility — and thereby avoid it.
The hypocrisy of these levelling statements becomes even clearer
when it's the narcissist complaining about being wronged.
Try telling them that there's 'two sides to every story'
but stand well back first.
Language is all about effective communication.
It expands to allow us to describe our experiences with greater precision.
For example killing is divided into subcategories like murder, justifiable homicide and assisted suicide
in recognition of the huge differences in circumstance and motive.
Language allows us to distinguish different quantities as well as qualities.
We'd get in a real mess
if whenever we ordered soup in a restaurant
we got 14 bowls when we wanted one.
But that's the kind of mess levelling and false equivalences produce.
They corrupt language — blurring quantities and confusing concepts.
And they come at us from all directions.
Frauds who peddle fake medicine often claim it's just an equally valid alternative
to scientifically authenticated treatments.
They do indefensible harm to people in desperate positions
who often end up not pursuing effective treatments.
In some misguided couples therapy and mediation
the idea that making judgements about behaviour is practically taboo
Deliberate abuse might get reframed as ‘miscommunication’ or ‘a personality clash’.
This kind of overzealous emphasis on neutral language encourages levelling.
When dogmatic political groups declare ‘You're either with us or against us’
they falsely equate legitimate selective criticism with total opposition.
On the flip side, support is falsely equated only with total uncritical approval.
Many of us are familiar with intolerant individuals and groups
who've grown very comfortable persecuting other people
whose only offence is being different from them.
But when their persecution is challenged
they claim they're being persecuted
and that their opponents are being just as intolerant.
These are examples of what could be called hawk and dove interactions.
The hawk selfishly aggresses against others
while the dove acts to reduce that selfishness and aggression and promote fairness.
These are not equivalent positions.
And hawks only add to their unreasonable behaviour by claiming that doves are ‘no better’.
Some folks who construct false equivalents fail to realise
that by adding bogus baggage to their opponent's side
they can end up adding to their own.
This happens when atheism is falsely equated with religion —
as some religious theists persist in doing.
Of course atheism bears no resemblance to religion.
It's just a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
It has no doctrine
no ritual
no system of worship
no symbolism
no scripture
no mythology
no sacred objects or concepts
no faith.
Anthropologist Clifford Geertz gives one of the loosest available definitions of religion
describing it as ‘a system of symbols
which acts to establish powerful, persuasive and long-lasting moods and motivations
Formulating conceptions of a general order of existence
and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality
that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.’
Still coming nowhere near atheism.
It's instructive to note that theism isn't a religion either.
You can believe gods exist without being a member of any religion.
Theism shares some overlap with the theistic definition of religion:
the belief in a superhuman controlling authority.
Nonetheless, it doesn't qualify as a religion.
And if theism doesn't qualify how can atheism possibly qualify?
Atheism and religion are foundationally different things.
Some atheists have built up a large body of refutations
against flawed arguments and claims for the existence of gods.
But refuting arguments and claims doesn't amount to doctrine or faith.
It's just a response to other people's attempts at persuasion.
Calling atheism a religion is a false equivalence
designed to level a non-level playing field.
It's often done to try and saddle atheists who made no truth claims
with a false burden of proof to match the burden of proof on religious claims.
Or to try and make both religion and atheism seem like faith positions
when atheism isn't.
The attempt to level atheism and religion as false equivalents fails.
But it's worse than that.
Religious theists are only theists in relation to the gods of their own faith.
In regards to every other god, they're atheists.
If not believing in gods was a separate religion in and of itself
that would mean these theists were practicing two religions
Their own faith and the religion of their non-belief in all other gods.
This is the kind of mess people get into
when they start trying to level the playing field with false equivalents
It is interesting when certain religious people use labels
like ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ in mocking ways.
Have you ever heard a scientist or sceptic try to belittle religions
by referring to them as scientific or sceptical?
The one-sidedness here is quite revealing.
Using words like ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ as pejorative labelling terms.
only serves to undermine religion.
Some try to equate atheism with totalitarian ideologies like Stalinism
and they fail for exactly the same reason
as those who try to belittle atheism with the label of religion.
Atheism is not an ideology.
It has no system of doctrines.
Simply being an atheist is no predictor of your moral values.
Some people — including folks who really should know better —
have tried to equate the violent, immoral excesses
of certain non-theistic totalitarian regimes
with secular humanism.
Secular humanism is naturalistic
rejecting supernatural views of reality
and it does have a set of organising principles.
But its principles diametrically oppose the principles of totalitarian ideologies.
Secular humanism emphasises fairness
well-being, meaningful living, democracy
and emancipation from systems of high control.
It champions the value of reason, evidence, skepticism, scientific methodology, and free enquiry —
unobstructed by religious or political correctness.
Equating secular humanism with totalitarian regimes only reveals a lack of understanding.
People who use false equivalences to downplay their own violence
often perform the most elaborate verbal and mental gymnastics
to dress up their barbaric practices as respectable or even noble.
In April 2019 the sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah
presented to the European Parliament
what he referred to as an aide-memoire
to explain the implementation of his country's Syariah Penal Code Order, or SPCO.
In the document, Bolkiah sought to defend his decision
to introduce stoning to death as punishment for adultery and anal sex
alongside amputation for theft.
He declared these punishments were not manmade but ordained by the islamic deity Allah —
a bizarre claim to present to non-muslims who don't believe Allah exists.
The fundamental nature of theistic religions
is that they all operate by appealing to an authority that no one outside the religion recognises.
Point one of the document states:
‘Strong religious values with rich heritage of tradition and culture
form the very foundation of the unique Bruneian identity
— loving, peaceful and respectful community —
which are important to be preserved
and hence the country is fondly known as the Abode of Peace.’
Promoting laws that advocate the sadistic killing of consenting sexual partners
while touting yourself as loving, peaceful and respectful
is classic levelling
— erasing the brutality from the picture as if it didn't exist.
When we hear the title ‘Abode of Peace’ what expectations come to mind?
Imagine two societies.
In society A, the laws of the land make no moral sense.
They forbid a range of harmless activities
and dispense unequal freedoms to different subgroups.
Secret law enforcement agents mingle anonymously among the population.
Disobedient citizens are seized in the night and taken away to await execution.
In society B, citizens enjoy equal freedoms
and receive a moral education that fosters empathy, compassion and respect.
Laws are transparent, minimal and confined to cases of clearly identifiable abuse.
Transgressions are addressed with an emphasis on restitution and rehabilitation
Outwardly people's behaviour in both societies is strikingly similar.
Crime is equally rare
and public displays of respect and civility are the overwhelming norm.
Would we consider both societies ‘Abodes of Peace’?
Is a social foundation of violent coercion equivalent to one of voluntary cooperation?
Is peace just about superficially smooth social order —
even if it's achieved through fear and oppression?
If our definitions of peace don't match
we could be in for some nasty surprises
when we find ourselves in an ‘abode of peace’.
Bolkiah's definition of peace remains in question.
Point 8 of the Bolkiah document states:
‘The SPCO aims to respect and protect the legitimate rights of all individuals...’
This is more dishonest levelling language.
Bolkiah paints himself as respectful and protective of individual rights
while he implements laws that grossly disrespect and violate individuals.
Point 9 states:
‘The Syariah criminal law system focuses more on prevention than punishment’
and ‘Its aim is to educate, deter, rehabilitate and nurture’.
Trying to equate death threats with education, rehabilitation or nurturing
is again a perversion of language.
Point 10 states:
‘The SPCO does not criminalise nor has any intention to victimise a person's status
based on sexual orientation or belief, including same-sex relations’.
As members of Brunei's gay community have pointed out
when your neighbours are encouraged to believe you deserve to be stoned to death
you become less human in their eyes.
Bolkiah's claim that there was no intent to harm status is more hollow levelling
showing him to be staggeringly obtuse
or staggeringly disingenuous.
Point 10 goes on to state:
‘The criminalisation of sodomy is to safeguard the sanctity of family lineage
and marriage of individual Muslims, especially women.
In fact, criminalising forms of sex violates the sanctity of relationships
by trying to dictate what consenting adults can and can't do with each other.
It's intrusive and infantilising to all adults, regardless of gender
Point 12 states that the
‘sentences of hadd — stoning to death and amputation
imposed for offences of theft, robbery, adultery and sodomy
have extremely high evidentiary thresholds
requiring no less than two or four men
of high moral standing and piety as witnesses....’
A government could introduce a death penalty for whistling on a Tuesday
and claim it will only implement the death penalty
if the evidence for the whistling is really high.
Standards of evidence aren't the issue here.
It's the barbaric nature of the punishments
and the fact harmless behaviour has been irrationally criminalised.
Bolkiah uses the phrase "men of high moral standing"
to give the impression of virtue
but men of high morals would have nothing to do with these barbaric laws.
Maybe the most disingenuous statements by Bolkiah
were made in point 3 of his April document which read:
‘It must be appreciated that the diversities in culture, tradition and religious values in the world
means that there is no one standard that fits all"
Superficially, Bolkiah appears to promote an appreciation of diversity.
But his actions don't match his words.
By imposing Islamic law on non-Muslims
he denies them religious freedom.
Bolkiah calls for tolerance, respect and understanding from others
but fails to demonstrate these qualities himself.
In early May of 2019
days after the document's publication
it was widely reported that Bolkiah said that he wouldn't enforce the death penalty
following a global backlash against his legislation.
What he actually said was that there would be a moratorium on the death penalty
which just means a temporary postponement or prohibition.
He also stated that there are many questions and misperceptions about the implementation of the SPCO
and that once these were cleared
the merit of the law would be evident.
Bolkiah's statement isn't the reassuring message some have interpreted it to be.
All he's said is that there'll be a temporary period of no implementation, while misperceptions are corrected
after which time he expects the law to be widely recognised as praiseworthy.
Let's examine the use of this word ‘misperceptions’.
This is a common gaslighting technique.
When abusers want to deny their abuse
they'll often claim their actions have been misunderstood or misperceived.
Rather than admitting and correcting their harmful behaviour
they try to get us to question our perceptions of it.
But stoning people to death for having sex
is not some cryptic concept ordinary people have trouble understanding.
And maintaining barbaric laws under a temporary suspension is not equivalent to abolishing those laws.
Bolkiah doesn't have some special insight here
which we'd all agree with if only we just perceived it in the right way
His proposals are morally reprehensible
and his attempts to defend them are hypocritical, dishonest and manipulative.
Brunei has been heading into extremism for some time.
These recently implemented punishments are only the newest phase
in the application of its 2013 Syaryah Penal Code Order
which has been introduced in stages
Around five years ago
Bolkiah began phasing in death sentences for apostasy
adding Brunei to the list of countries
where being an ex-Muslim is a capital offence.
It's been suggested that Bolkiah's introduction of Syariah
is just an attempt to attract business from wealthy islamic nations
and that secretly he has no intention of ever enforcing it.
But — if that was true — what happens when he dies?
What if one of his successors decides to activate all the legislation he's so helpfully put in place?
Introducing these laws has put lives at risk.
It has been sobering to watch these backward steps into ignorance and brutality.
But backwards is the predictable direction
of individuals and ideologies
that falsely equate innocence with guilt
and vice with virtue
It's important to keep distinct concepts separate
and not allow them to be blurred by false equivalences.
It's only by accurately reflecting reality
that we can build fairness into our interactions and our moral systems
As long as we take care to challenge flaws and prejudices in our thinking
making judgements about behaviour is completely appropriate and not something to avoid.
Evaluating behaviour
— our own as well as other people's —
is how we develop a moral sense.
Not all attitudes and behaviours are morally equal.
Some are worse than others and deserve criticism.
Trying to equalise unequal attitudes and behaviour
because of self-serving motives
or a fixation with appearing non-judgemental
degrades our moral compasses.
In this era of weaponised manipulative tactics
if we want to move closer to truth and justice
it pays to be extremely mindful
of levelling and false equivalents.