There is one odd thing about the whole cartoon thing: if the illustrators felt free speech gave them the protection to spread libel about a faith and make its practitioners feel unwelcome, shouldn't they also feel that the letters making them feel unwelcome are free speech?
Libel is a very specific term, referring to a cause of action in court. What the cartoonists did was not libel in any sense. In any case, the cartoonists have done nothing to prevent the publication of letters opposed to their point of view. The only thing they object to is state censorship.
There is one odd thing about the whole cartoon thing: if the illustrators felt free speech gave them the protection to spread libel about a faith and make its practitioners feel unwelcome, shouldn't they also feel that the letters making them feel unwelcome are free speech?
Libel is a very specific term, referring to a cause of action in court. What the cartoonists did was not libel in any sense. In any case, the cartoonists have done nothing to prevent the publication of letters opposed to their point of view. The only thing they object to is state censorship.
And being told that their head should adorn a pike. Written in all caps.
There is one odd thing about the whole cartoon thing: if the illustrators felt free speech gave them the protection to spread libel about a faith and make its practitioners feel unwelcome, shouldn't they also feel that the letters making them feel unwelcome are free speech?
Libel is a very specific term, referring to a cause of action in court. What the cartoonists did was not libel in any sense. In any case, the cartoonists have done nothing to prevent the publication of letters opposed to their point of view. The only thing they object to is state censorship.
And being told that their head should adorn a pike. Written in all caps.
That fits under "incitement to violence", I think.
I tend to like the way we do things here in the USA. Hate speech is protected by the first amendment, so long as the hate speech does not incite to cause harm. Further, I prefer it when this criteria is interpreted broadly. I'm always weirded out by the European laws about hate speech and Holocaust denial.
Hatred is commonly defined as "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action."
That is what we are talking about when we say "hate speech".
Not "Jews are good with money," or "Chinese people are bad drivers," the sort of harmless Family Guy bullshit that stupid alarmists think will be made illegal by hate-speech legislation.
We're talking about "Jews should be gassed." And "Nuke the Arabs." That sort of thing.
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews. Or if someone is overheard at a bar telling their friends how much they hate fags, and later beats a gay man half to death, they should be punished more severely than if it were simply a random beating, if it can be proved that their actions were motivated by their hatred of homosexuals. The fact is that motivation is a critical part of criminal proceedings, and this is no different.
That's what hate speech legislation is about. Hatred is fundamentally at odds with the core philosophies that frame and motivate Canadian society. I think we should discourage those who seek to undermine those philosophies because I think they are objectively moral and logical.
Hatred is commonly defined as "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action."
That is what we are talking about when we say "hate speech".
Well, I was speaking specifically to the law mentioned in the OP which (assuming the OP is accurate) prohibits speech likely to expose somebody to "hatred or contempt." It's that second part that I find to be a far too broad.
Not "Jews are good with money," or "Chinese people are bad drivers," the sort of harmless Family Guy bullshit that stupid alarmists think will be made illegal by hate-speech legislation.
We're talking about "Jews should be gassed." And "Nuke the Arabs." That sort of thing.
I suppose. Really, I don't see anything wrong (legally...obviously morally they're despicable) about either of those statements. I mean, unless the person in question or their audience has access to gas chambers or nuclear weapons. Idle talk, though, isn't something I think the government should concern itself with unless it turns into (or appears it will imminently turn into) action.
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews.
I tend to like the way we do things here in the USA. Hate speech is protected by the first amendment, so long as the hate speech does not incite to cause harm. Further, I prefer it when this criteria is interpreted broadly. I'm always weirded out by the European laws about hate speech and Holocaust denial.
Hatred is commonly defined as "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action."
That is what we are talking about when we say "hate speech".
Not "Jews are good with money," or "Chinese people are bad drivers," the sort of harmless Family Guy bullshit that stupid alarmists think will be made illegal by hate-speech legislation.
We're talking about "Jews should be gassed." And "Nuke the Arabs." That sort of thing.
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews. Or if someone is overheard at a bar telling their friends how much they hate fags, and later beats a gay man half to death, they should be punished more severely than if it were simply a random beating, if it can be proved that their actions were motivated by their hatred of homosexuals.
That's what hate speech legislation is about. Hatred is fundamentally at odds with the core philosophies that frame and motivate Canadian society. I think we should discourage those who seek to undermine those philosophies because I think they are, objectively, moral.
Do you not see how spraypainting something and beating a man to death are slightly different? If only by a few degrees? Most all reasonable people would agree that motive should be included in the charges and such. It's one of the reasons we have so many degrees of murder even though the end result is a corpse all the same. When you move beyond that, though, and apply it to idiots talking about how 'Hitler had the right idea' or whatever, you've stepped outside the boundaries of not censorship and viewpoint discrimination.
I tend to like the way we do things here in the USA. Hate speech is protected by the first amendment, so long as the hate speech does not incite to cause harm. Further, I prefer it when this criteria is interpreted broadly. I'm always weirded out by the European laws about hate speech and Holocaust denial.
Hatred is commonly defined as "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action."
That is what we are talking about when we say "hate speech".
Not "Jews are good with money," or "Chinese people are bad drivers," the sort of harmless Family Guy bullshit that stupid alarmists think will be made illegal by hate-speech legislation.
We're talking about "Jews should be gassed." And "Nuke the Arabs." That sort of thing.
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews. Or if someone is overheard at a bar telling their friends how much they hate fags, and later beats a gay man half to death, they should be punished more severely than if it were simply a random beating, if it can be proved that their actions were motivated by hatred of homosexuals. Hatred is fundamentally at odds with the core philosophies that frame and motivate Canadian society.
How did you make the leap from hate speech to violence and vandalism? Their is a fundamental difference between saying "Jews should be gassed" and spraypainting a swastika on a school. And again, where do you draw the line with hate speech? Some people think 'fag' is hate speech. What about 'I hate the French'. Is that hate speech? I think hatred is at odds with the core philosophies of most countries, it doesn't hurt Canada more than it hurts any other country.
Beating a person up because they're gay is a hate crime, and America has those too. Hate speech is what we're talking about though.
Azio, do you want to weigh in on the topic in the original post? Do you think the human rights commission should be considering these issues? Oh fuck it, what do you think about the CBC's focus that white supremacists support Keith Martin's private members bill?
AngelHedgie, I know you're a believer in the theory of judging a man by his friends, what's your opinion?
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Hatred is commonly defined as "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action."
That is what we are talking about when we say "hate speech".
Well, I was speaking specifically to the law mentioned in the OP which (assuming the OP is accurate) prohibits speech likely to expose somebody to "hatred or contempt." It's that second part that I find to be a far too broad.
I am fairly confident, based on recent observations, that our court system has the common sense to deal with these cases -- especially cases as high-profile as these -- in a reasonable and non-robotic fashion. People give the Canadian justice system way too little credit. I blame the Americans for having such a fucked-up justice system, along with incessant bombardment of American news and right-wing libertarian slant upon the Canadian population. Because our society is in many ways indistinguishable from the Americans', I think it's hard for those who are less politically engaged to tell where one justice system ends and the other begins. All of these things, combined with our natural (and healthy) tendency to question the government at every turn leads to assumptions about the way our courts work that I feel are alarmist.
Azio, do you want to weigh in on the topic in the original post? Do you think the human rights commission should be considering these issues? Oh fuck it, what do you think about the CBC's focus that white supremacists support Keith Martin's private members bill?
Assuming the thread doesn't fall off the front page, I'll get back to you on that tomorrow. Right now I have to sleep.
edit: I keep going back to polish this one so I'll just say quickly that I agree with Jason Cherniak's blogposts:
In the case of hate speech, a person might claim that all Muslims believe in terrorism. The person might claim that this is an inherent problem with the Muslim religion and that all Muslims should be discounted when they argue otherwise. Ultimately, that person would be attempting to remove the right of Muslims to be Muslim. That person would be using free expression to remove the right to freedom of religion. Should a person be able to claim that removing the freedom of another is justified because he is only exercising his own freedom? I think not.
Last week, I wrote an article in defence of laws against hate speech. My thesis was that while we all have freedom of expression, we do not have a right to use our free expression to attempt to remove the freedom of expression from others on the basis of discriminatory grounds like skin colour or religion. I must admit that I was quite surprised by the response. Apparently, we Canadians are living in a police state where we are all constantly at risk of being thrown before undemocratic Human Rights Tribunals that can take away our freedom of expression. You would never know that we still have regular elections and that almost nobody in Canada will ever see the bad end of a Human Rights complaint.
...
With HR Commissions, you end up with a government funded organization that investigates the matter and gives both sides the opportunity to have their say in a less formal manner. Before you get to the tribunal stage, which is similar to a trial, it is possible that accusations will be thrown out for lack of evidence or the HR commission will help reach a settlement. In contrast, if you could get sued for discrimination in court, then you would be stuck with an official law suit - legal bills and all - from day one.
...
In 1982, the British Parliament passed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gave Canadians legal rights that supersede the majority rule of Parliament and provincial legislatures. You can argue till you are blue in the face that we always had moral rights, but that does not change the fact that the Charter gave us our legal rights. Since the Charter was passed, courts have considered whether HR commissions are unconstitutional and the answer is that they are not. Any argument to the contrary is simply wrong.
I think that Human Rights Tribunals, as they are being implemented in Canada, are a fundamentally good idea.
I am fairly confident, based on my own observation, that our court system has the common sense to deal with these cases -- especially cases as high-profile as these -- in a reasonable and non-robotic fashion. People give the Canadian justice system way too little credit. As usual, I blame the Americans.
Good to see that Canada is a bit more reasonable on no-knock searches/warrants than we are down here, as an aside. And while I have little doubt that the Canadian justice system will carefully consider such a case, and that it's entirely likely that they fill find reasonable, I still have a problem with the fact that there is a case at all to be considered. Nobody should have to go through the trouble of legal proceedings to defend speech, no matter how bigoted, that doesn't actually harm or call for harm (particularly feasible harm...again, even "nuke all the Arabs" probably doesn't qualify in my book) to anybody.
Or, going back to the OP:
Should speech that is, "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", be regulated at all?
No, not at all. Not even "hate speech." Luckily, down here we have the first amendment which deals with this quite handily. Because making it illegal (or at least a legal hassle) to be racist publicly, or in print, doesn't suddenly make hatred go away, it just introduces the idea that speech isn't really all that free. Not worth the tradeoff. As it stands, even with the more or less unrestricted to be as racist or despicable as you please down here, we've still managed to make it largely socially unacceptable (with a few exceptions, of course).
Also, I think it's a low blow to focus on the fact that white supremacists are supporting the Martin's actions; unfortunately, sometimes in defending people's rights you make even the "bad" people happy...because, you know, they have those rights too.
Edit: I do think it's important to point out it took people like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin to get us to the point we're at now, and maybe this is the start of something similar for Canada?
More to the point, they were arrested for what Lenny Bruce said (well, in Carlin's case it was failure to produce ID when the club got raided).
They aren't complaining against the views or the speech presented in the article, but they claim to be victims to the fact that they aren't allowed to be published in the magazine.
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews. Or if someone is overheard at a bar telling their friends how much they hate fags, and later beats a gay man half to death, they should be punished more severely than if it were simply a random beating, if it can be proved that their actions were motivated by their hatred of homosexuals. The fact is that motivation is a critical part of criminal proceedings, and this is no different.
That's what hate speech legislation is about. Hatred is fundamentally at odds with the core philosophies that frame and motivate Canadian society. I think we should discourage those who seek to undermine those philosophies because I think they are objectively moral and logical.
No. They are thought crimes legislation, and morally reprehensible that a person can be punished more severely for what they think. It does not compute to me that beating someone out of indifference is somehow less of a crime than someone being beaten for being black. It's the former asshole I'd be more concerned with, in fact.
I see no reason why what mens rea (intent) is should factor into prosecutions and be grounds for increasing punishment/penalties. The fact that it exists is sufficient enough.
I'll agree that the trend of no-knock warrants is troubling and should only be used when there is no other reasonable option. However, the topic in the OP is outside of the realm of criminal and civil law. That's why I thought it would make for a good thread.
Don't worry, I'm sure there will be no problem keeping this thread on the first page no matter what opinion people have. Personally, I'm more interested in opinions than on making any particular point.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
The Canadians have a charter of rights which contains a right to free speech. One assumes that there hasn't been a challenge to the constitutional validity of the CHRC, or if there has that "hate speech" has been interpreted as falling beyond those rights guaranteed by the charter.
They aren't complaining against the views or the speech presented in the article, but they claim to be victims to the fact that they aren't allowed to be published in the magazine.
What. The. Fuck.
If the CHRC is investigating the matter under its s13 power, I don't see how that's possible.
EDIT: Or are charters non-binding? My memory fails me.
Zsetrek on
0
Options
OtakuD00DCan I hit the exploding rocks?San DiegoRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
Repeal the article and protect free speech. We're free to ignore the white supremacists after all.
I also learned that most political parties with "Liberal" as part of their name tend to not be, in fact, Liberal.
The problem is when the courts distinguish between criminal prosecutions and civil liability, and see that as an opening to erode free speech because it's not the government censoring what people say. Like having the full weight of the law isn't abetting the same result.
Good to see that Canada is a bit more reasonable on no-knock searches/warrants than we are down here, as an aside. And while I have little doubt that the Canadian justice system will carefully consider such a case, and that it's entirely likely that they fill find reasonable, I still have a problem with the fact that there is a case at all to be considered. Nobody should have to go through the trouble of legal proceedings to defend speech, no matter how bigoted, that doesn't actually harm or call for harm (particularly feasible harm...again, even "nuke all the Arabs" probably doesn't qualify in my book) to anybody.
Sorry, you'll have to go back to the bottom of page two. I can't help but continually muck about with my posts after I submit them.
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews. Or if someone is overheard at a bar telling their friends how much they hate fags, and later beats a gay man half to death, they should be punished more severely than if it were simply a random beating, if it can be proved that their actions were motivated by their hatred of homosexuals. The fact is that motivation is a critical part of criminal proceedings, and this is no different.
That's what hate speech legislation is about. Hatred is fundamentally at odds with the core philosophies that frame and motivate Canadian society. I think we should discourage those who seek to undermine those philosophies because I think they are objectively moral and logical.
No. They are thought crimes legislation, and morally reprehensible that a person can be punished more severely for what they think. It does not compute to me that beating someone out of indifference is somehow less of a crime than someone being beaten for being black. It's the former asshole I'd be more concerned with, in fact.
I see no reason why what mens rea is should factor into prosecutions and be grounds for increasing punishment/penalties. The fact that it exists is sufficient enough.
Motive always has played a key role in criminal proceedings, especially in sentencing. To deny that what someone is thinking as they commit a violent act is pertinent to the way they are dealt with by the justice system, is only correct if you are operating a strictly punitive justice system that pays no regard to rehabilitation. Again, the motivation of the accused has always been relevant to criminal proceedings. Why do we distinguish between premeditated and second-degree murder? Motive is context and context matters.
Motive always has played a key role in criminal proceedings, especially in sentencing. To deny that what someone is thinking as they commit a violent act is pertinent to the way they are dealt with by the justice system, is only correct if you are operating a strictly punitive justice system that pays no regard to rehabilitation. Again, the motivation of the accused has always been relevant to criminal proceedings. Why do we distinguish between premeditated and second-degree murder? Motive is context and context matters.
Interesting tidbit: in the American criminal justice system (and likely in many others as well), all crimes have an associated mental state. This is why accidents aren't crimes (unless you're negligent), and why insanity is a defense.
The Canadians have a charter of rights which contains a right to free speech. One assumes that there hasn't been a challenge to the constitutional validity of the CHRC, or if there has that "hate speech" has been interpreted as falling beyond those rights guaranteed by the charter.
There have been many challenges to the constitutionality of HRC's and courts have always ruled that it is constitutional.
In 1982, the British Parliament passed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gave Canadians legal rights that supersede the majority rule of Parliament and provincial legislatures. You can argue till you are blue in the face that we always had moral rights, but that does not change the fact that the Charter gave us our legal rights. Since the Charter was passed, courts have considered whether HR commissions are unconstitutional and the answer is that they are not. Any argument to the contrary is simply wrong.
Everyone in this thread really needs to read those two blog posts, they give a lot of perspective and additional information that some of you clearly lack as you blather away about your "right" to get on a soapbox and proclaim that Muslims are terrorists. Although most of those people are just American libertarins who are completely ignorant of Canadian politics and social values, and are just trying to spread their ham-fisted approach to personal liberties and their view of Canada as an oppressive socialist nightmare where everyone's thoughts are regulated by the iron fist of unconstitutional, wishy-washy, PC human rights commissions. Do you think we're the fifty-first state or something? We have a different constitution than you. Your Constitution may work for you but that does not make it the best, and just because we live nextdoor does not mean we have to toe the American line on everything.
Canadians are free to think hateful things, because what goes on in your skull is your business and nobody else's. However it is simply inappropriate, and in some cases illegal, to circulate such opinions in a public context. It's not like these asswipes -- and trust me, Ezra Levant is an uncompromising, neoconservative asswipe and a whiny shit -- were hauled before a tribunal the second they thought to publish those cartoons in their right-wing rag. There's a process, there's consultation, plenty of careful consideration and deliberation takes place before a case is considered worthy of the HRC's attention.
Consider this statement, part of the criteria by which the star chamber determines when a Section XIII crime has occurred. What does it look for as evidence?
"Messages that make use of allegedly true stories, news reports, pictures and references to apparently reputable sources in an attempt to lend an air of objectivity and truthfulness to the extremely negative characterization of the targeted group have been found to be likely to expose members of the targeted group to hatred and contempt."
I've personally never liked how we Canadians handled Speech-Laws, and the latest crop of CHRC cases hasn't really given me any hope that these quasi-judicial bodies will ever be put to good use.
The Canadians have a charter of rights which contains a right to free speech. One assumes that there hasn't been a challenge to the constitutional validity of the CHRC, or if there has that "hate speech" has been interpreted as falling beyond those rights guaranteed by the charter.
The Charter guarantees rights and freedoms, subject to s.1 which states that rights and freedoms are not absolute and can be subject to limits, as long as those limits are justifiable in a free and democratic society. Beyond that, the Charter also allows parliament to invoke s.33 and basically say "we know this violates the charter, but we're doing it anyway". Of course, s.33 raises red flags and has never been used federally.
That said, I don't like the restrictions and typically err against majority opinion and "will of the people" bullshit, but on a larger scale it carries some benefits. By creating this dialogue between the courts and the legislature we avoid the problem in the U.S. where a more absolutist Constitution results in headbutting between the two. I think it lets the Charter do more good in the long run.
I honestly cannot understand how someone could support something like this. I'm not a Canadian, but I am close enough to the border that I know a lot of you folks and watch a lot of the hockey that you kindly broadcast for us, but sometimes you just do crazy things. Once you are an adult, no one has the right to tell you what opinions you can or cannot say or hear, which is what this seems to be doing. It is ok when my mom did this when I was 10, it is not ok when the government does it when I am grown up.
The ACLU goes to bat for the KKK's right to free speech, even though, as an organization, they are probably the least likely to agree with them on anything. You never know when that same right might be turned against you and your own when you call the government out about any number of bad things they're doing or can do. Incrementalism is always the most dangerous thing people should be wary of when it comes to government censorship.
Is it really too far a step to say that hate speech can be made against the government, and could then be shut down?
I could just be way too involved with the ACLU. They've had some hard years recently...
I honestly cannot understand how someone could support something like this. I'm not a Canadian, but I am close enough to the border that I know a lot of you folks and watch a lot of the hockey that you kindly broadcast for us, but sometimes you just do crazy things. Once you are an adult, no one has the right to tell you what opinions you can or cannot say or hear, which is what this seems to be doing. It is ok when my mom did this when I was 10, it is not ok when the government does it when I am grown up.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Please read the fucking thread, read the different things people have linked, learn the definition of hatred, educate yourself on the issue and the laws in question before coming in here and spewing your half-baked platitudes. Nobody is being told what they can or cannot think, nobody is being tried for thinking or saying hateful things.
The laws are against publicly spreading messages that promote hatred, which is "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action," towards a particular group. They are pretty clear on this and the courts have so far interpreted them in a reasonable fashion. It might at first seem "crazy" to you, it may offend your libertarian sensibilities, but if you actually take the time to read the laws and learn how the CHRC works, it's all quite reasonable and makes sense, especially if you understand the values and themes that comprise the philosophical foundation of our society. Canadians, as a general rule, value cultural diversity and mutual social understanding, and our government tries to reflect that. Those who promote hatred against a particular group, whether they say Muslims are terrorists or Jews should be gassed, are undermining and weakening those values.
In Canada, we do have criminal hate crime provisions and the courts are pretty good "about interpreting them in a reasonable fashion." This thread is about the CHRC.
The two cases in the OP would never have made it to a trial in a criminal or civil court.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Everyone in this thread really needs to read those two blog posts, they give a lot of perspective and additional information that some of you clearly lack as you blather away about your "right" to get on a soapbox and proclaim that Muslims are terrorists.
Down here it's not a "right." It's a right. Just sayin'.
Although most of those people are just American libertarins who are completely ignorant of Canadian politics and social values, and are just trying to spread their ham-fisted approach to personal liberties and their view of Canada as an oppressive socialist nightmare where everyone's thoughts are regulated by the iron fist of unconstitutional, wishy-washy, PC human rights commissions. Do you think we're the fifty-first state or something? We have a different constitution than you. Your Constitution may work for you but that does not make it the best, and just because we live nextdoor does not mean we have to toe the American line on everything.
Easy there, Scooter. Calm thy righteous Canadian rage.
I know damn well you have a different constitution than we do, and honestly I don't give much of a fuck what it says. And trust me...no, really, trust me...I know that our Constitution is not by any means the best. However, I'll go ahead and state my firm opinion that if this policy is actually constitutional in your country, then on the issue of free speech at least ours is indeed better than yours.
Canadians are free to think hateful things, because what goes on in your skull is your business and nobody else's. However it is simply inappropriate, and in some cases illegal, to circulate such opinions in a public context.
And I'll say again: that's a bad thing. Well, the illegal part. Obviously it's inappropriate, but down here we have the right to be inappropriate.
It's not like these asswipes -- and trust me, Ezra Levant is an uncompromising, neoconservative asswipe and a whiny shit -- were hauled before a tribunal the second they thought to publish those cartoons in their right-wing rag. There's a process, there's consultation, plenty of careful consideration and deliberation takes place before a case is considered worthy of the HRC's attention.
I'm sure there was. But if the publication of those cartoons in any way contributed to their being subjected to such proceedings, then Canada is still a fucked-up place. I've seen the cartoons. We're not even in "nuke all Arabs" territory here. But then, it seems more than a few Canadians seem to think this is an issue as well, so maybe it's not entirely a case of us arrogant Americans trying to enforce our will on you or anything.
I'm terribly sorry if the big bad Americans saying something bad about Canada made you go cry in a corner or something. Buck up, soldier, overall Canada is a pretty rockin' place. But 'round here sometimes we talk about the fucked up policies other countries employ, and every now and again Canada is bound to be one of those countries. Just because an American says something Canada does is fucked up doesn't mean we see you as a 51st state or anything, just as we don't see France or Lithuania as a 52st or 53rd state when we criticize their actions.
We bitch about things that the American government does here all the time, and Canadians, Brits, Australians, and everybody else always seem to feel free to get in on the gang-bang. Seems like a few (or at least a) Canadian wanted to discuss something relating to your country...are Americans somehow not invited now?
What are your opinions? Should speech that is, "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", be regulated at all? Should issues like these be in the human rights commission scope?
Yes, speech like that should be regulated.
Yes, issues like this should be in the human rights commission scope.
IMHO, it is a stretch to say that speech that seeks to take freedoms from a person under the law equals "1984". I actually see it as the opposite, preventing hateful propaganda to continue unchecked till it becomes a part of the culture, ingrained through repetition. I keep seeing "freedom of speech" brought up as an excuse for people to not actually have a dialogue with each other, like acting uncivilly is actually going to get anyone anywhere. Freedom of speech should not include harassment or cultures of hate.
I've seen what hateful speech can do in the communities I've lived in, its poison. It should not be tolerated at all, to the point where it can be prosecuted, so that non-tolerance of it has teeth and hate-filled groups or individuals keep it to themselves to prevent it spreading out of control. If I stood up in a crowded room and yelled out (lets be clear, I would never actually do this, I don't even think this way, I am using it as an extreme example) "I hate those niggers!" and then someone who heard that acted on it, by say, even spitting on or pushing around or verbally abusing a person with darker skin let alone beating them up or killing them, I would be culpable, an accomplice to the act of hate.
Stop the hate, it shows love. How does that saying go again, isn't it something like "When good men do nothing..."
Someone mentioned highschool before and a picture popped into my head of a scene from a tv show, where a teenage girl is standing on tall gym roof, about to commit suicide, and one of the students below yells "Jump!". She jumps and dies. Do you think that the student below had a right to say such a hateful thing? Do you think that student had no responsibility in what happened next, even if they were commited by another person?
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" I call BS.
I honestly cannot understand how someone could support something like this. I'm not a Canadian, but I am close enough to the border that I know a lot of you folks and watch a lot of the hockey that you kindly broadcast for us, but sometimes you just do crazy things. Once you are an adult, no one has the right to tell you what opinions you can or cannot say or hear, which is what this seems to be doing. It is ok when my mom did this when I was 10, it is not ok when the government does it when I am grown up.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Please read the fucking thread, read the different things people have linked, educate yourself on the issue and the laws in question before coming in here and spewing your half-baked platitudes. Nobody is being told what they can or cannot think, nobody is being tried for thinking or saying hateful things in a private context.
The laws are against publicly spreading messages that convey hatred, which is "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action." They are pretty clear on this and the courts have so far interpreted them in a reasonable fashion.
Be nice. He didn't say anything about 'thinking thoughts' or 'private context', and he understood the thread just as well as anybody else.. Many people have made the case that "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action" is an extremely broad and ridiculous benchmark for anything, and it's only going to be used to silence unpopular voices, and that's not a healthy step for any free society.
A call to incite violence is one thing, saying something people really don't like is another.
I know Canadians have a different view of society, but really, how is removing freedom from people you don't like a step towards freedom?
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews. Or if someone is overheard at a bar telling their friends how much they hate fags, and later beats a gay man half to death, they should be punished more severely than if it were simply a random beating, if it can be proved that their actions were motivated by their hatred of homosexuals. The fact is that motivation is a critical part of criminal proceedings, and this is no different.
That's what hate speech legislation is about. Hatred is fundamentally at odds with the core philosophies that frame and motivate Canadian society. I think we should discourage those who seek to undermine those philosophies because I think they are objectively moral and logical.
No. They are thought crimes legislation, and morally reprehensible that a person can be punished more severely for what they think. It does not compute to me that beating someone out of indifference is somehow less of a crime than someone being beaten for being black. It's the former asshole I'd be more concerned with, in fact.
Here's a suggestion - go look up mens rea, and then realize how your argument would gut that concept.
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" I call BS.
You do not have a right to not be offended. I do, however, have a right to offend. It is one of the very founding principles of representative government that all people have the freedom and right to express their views. No matter how unpopular they may be.
IMHO, it is a stretch to say that speech that seeks to take freedoms from a person under the law equals "1984". I actually see it as the opposite, preventing hateful propaganda to continue unchecked till it becomes a part of the culture, ingrained through repetition. I keep seeing "freedom of speech" brought up as an excuse for people to not actually have a dialogue with each other, like acting uncivilly is actually going to get anyone anywhere. Freedom of speech should not include harassment or cultures of hate.
How does preventing somebody from saying anything disparaging about another culture foster any kind of dialogue? Seems like it would keep things rather one-sided. I have little problems telling racists and bigots exactly why they are wrong, and in fact may be horrible people.
I've seen what hateful speech can do in the communities I've lived in, its poison. It should not be tolerated at all, to the point where it can be prosecuted, so that non-tolerance of it has teeth and hate-filled groups or individuals keep it to themselves to prevent it spreading out of control. If I stood up in a crowded room and yelled out (lets be clear, I would never actually do this, I don't even think this way, I am using it as an extreme example) "I hate those [edited]!" and then someone who heard that acted on it, by say, even spitting on or pushing around or verbally abusing a person with darker skin let alone beating them up or killing them, I would be culpable, an accomplice to the act of hate.
By the way, a certain word starting with 'n' is censored here, as per our hosts' request. Just so you know.
And do you honestly think that by standing up in a crowded room you would be the deciding factor in whether another person decides to harass a minority? Do you think they weren't already bigoted and hateful before that, and you pushed them over the edge? And that such people don't already have private and semi-private places to get together and affirm each other's hatred?
And say what you want about American society, but standing up like that in a crowded room and saying you hate any particular group (even, for the most part, Muslims or gays...who are probably the two groups its most acceptable to publicly dislike down here) the only likely result is that a lot of people will look at you like there is something fucking wrong with you.
Stop the hate, it shows love. How does that saying go again, isn't it something like "When good men do nothing..."
You've stopped no hate. You've mere gagged it. Yet, despite the fact that I acknowledge that there is a process for bringing forth such proceedings, I still can't help but think this kind of thing must have some chilling effect on speech that isn't hateful, but merely critical. Because most people, and certainly most businesses (like media outlets) are pretty risk-averse.
Someone mentioned highschool before and a picture popped into my head of a scene from a tv show, where a teenage girl is standing on tall gym roof, about to commit suicide, and one of the students below yells "Jump!". She jumps and dies. Do you think that the student below had a right to say such a hateful thing? Do you think that student had no responsibility in what happened next, even if they were commited by another person?
Yes, because actively encouraging a distressed person to kill themselves and drawing Mohammad with a bomb in his turban are exactly the same thing. In case you're wondering, I do indeed think somebody in the situation you're mentioned should face stiff legal consequences. Because they told somebody directly to do something.
Which is why saying "we need to string up some Arabs" is generally not protected speech down here. Saying "we ought to nuke those Arabs" is, but only because neither the speaker nor the audience have the actual ability to do that.
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" I call BS.
You do not have a right to not be offended. I do, however, have a right to offend. It is one of the very founding principles of representative government that all people have the freedom and right to express their views. No matter how unpopular they may be.
This is, apparently, not true up north. They must grow them with thinner skins up there.
EDIT: I went ahead and bolded a part that I thought was pertinent to the thread at large, so it doesn't get lost in the wall of text.
I honestly cannot understand how someone could support something like this. I'm not a Canadian, but I am close enough to the border that I know a lot of you folks and watch a lot of the hockey that you kindly broadcast for us, but sometimes you just do crazy things. Once you are an adult, no one has the right to tell you what opinions you can or cannot say or hear, which is what this seems to be doing. It is ok when my mom did this when I was 10, it is not ok when the government does it when I am grown up.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Please read the fucking thread, read the different things people have linked, educate yourself on the issue and the laws in question before coming in here and spewing your half-baked platitudes. Nobody is being told what they can or cannot think, nobody is being tried for thinking or saying hateful things in a private context.
The laws are against publicly spreading messages that convey hatred, which is "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action." They are pretty clear on this and the courts have so far interpreted them in a reasonable fashion.
Be nice. He didn't say anything about 'thinking thoughts' or 'private context', and he understood the thread just as well as anybody else.. Many people have made the case that "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action" is an extremely broad and ridiculous benchmark for anything, and it's only going to be used to silence unpopular voices, and that's not a healthy step for any free society.
A call to incite violence is one thing, saying something people really don't like is another.
I know Canadians have a different view of society, but really, how is removing freedom from people you don't like a step towards freedom?
He said, "no one has the right to tell you what opinions you can or cannot say or hear". And yes, that remains the case in Canada. Hate speech laws and the HRC work to prevent people from spreading and promoting hatred. This is because hatred is understood to be a human psychological weakness. It's contagious. It spreads through communities like a meme and poisons the social fabric, which is especially dangerous in places that are as culturally heterogenous as Canadian cities.
Now remember: in Canada everyone is free to hold hateful opinions. It is, however, against the law to publicly spread hateful opinions. There is a clear distinction here and if you are not seeing it then you are being obtuse.
When you publish cartoons of an angry Prophet Mohammed throwing bombs, in my opinion you are saying that all Muslims are terrorists. You are not only saying this, but you are doing so in a nationally-circulated magazine that is read by millions of people. You are publicly promoting a hateful message. Why is it hateful? Because to say all Muslims are terrorists is to suggest that their freedom of religion should be taken away, because you never know when one of those crazy Arabs might blow themselves up in a coffee shop.
Of course, this particular case with the cartoons has yet to be seen by a tribunal and, in all likelihood, it never will. CHRC cases go through a process that assesses whether they are likely to be prosecuted before they go to the tribunal. That way the tribunal isn't wasting its time on long, bitter battles with uncertain outcomes. As you can see, this one is more of a grey area, so it will probably die somewhere in that process.
The thing that you keep failing to realize is that our courts are responsive and our laws are broad enough that they can be applied reasonably, in a variety of different situations. For example, in America when you have the case of a mentally handicapped person being taken advantage of and used as a drug mule, he goes to jail for twenty years because of your idiotic drug laws with mandatory minimums which tie judges' hands and prevent them from using their discretion in different cases. If that case were tried in Canada the court would consider the accused's mental state, because the relevant laws are sufficiently broad and don't enforce mandatory sentences, freeing judges to apply discretion where appropriate. That's why the legislation seems broad to you.
We bitch about things that the American government does here all the time, and Canadians, Brits, Australians, and everybody else always seem to feel free to get in on the gang-bang. Seems like a few (or at least a) Canadian wanted to discuss something relating to your country...are Americans somehow not invited now?
I'm not saying that, I'm just asking some of the people in this thread to inform themselves before posting on this subject because most of them are completely unaware as to the context and are just burning down the right-wing strawman that represents hate-speech laws.
Now remember: in Canada everyone is free to hold hateful opinions. It is, however, against the law to publicly spread hateful opinions. There is a clear distinction here and if you are not seeing it then you are being obtuse.
We can see it extraordinarily clearly. We also see it as a horrible law that limits or prevents the rights of expression and press. Popular speech isn't the one that needs protection.
I understand that it's legal to think and not to say. Neaden understand that. Nobody has contested this idea so stop bringing it up. You say "well you can think hateful thoughts" like that's some sort of consolation prize. My issue is that it's such a matter of opinion as to what qualifies as 'hatred' that it's just begging to be stepped up. It's like a kindergarten society, say nice things.
Stop the hate, it shows love. I think this is hippy bullshit. Telling a racist person to shut up doesn't make less racist people. Making it illegal doesn't make it go away, it makes it go underground.
If someone makes a website to show their racist views in Canada, they can go to jail. That kind of government censorship and policing smacks of China's policies.
Free society with racist people > Less free society with jailed racist people
One of the complainants against me is someone I would describe as a radical Muslim imam, Syed Soharwardy. He grew up in the madrassas of Pakistan and he lectures on the Saudi circuit. He advocates sharia law for all countries, including Canada. His website is rife with Islamic supremacism — offensive to many Canadian Jews, gentiles, women and gays. But his sensitivities — his Saudi-Pakistani values — have been offended by me.
And so now the secular government of Alberta is enforcing his fatwa against the cartoons.
It's the same for Mohamed Elmasry, the complainant against Maclean's magazine for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. Egyptian-born Elmasry has publicly said that any adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for a terrorist attack, a grossly offensive statement.
Both the Canadian and B.C. Human Rights Commissions are now hearing his complaints against Maclean's.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
One of the complainants against me is someone I would describe as a radical Muslim imam, Syed Soharwardy. He grew up in the madrassas of Pakistan and he lectures on the Saudi circuit. He advocates sharia law for all countries, including Canada. His website is rife with Islamic supremacism — offensive to many Canadian Jews, gentiles, women and gays. But his sensitivities — his Saudi-Pakistani values — have been offended by me.
And so now the secular government of Alberta is enforcing his fatwa against the cartoons.
It's the same for Mohamed Elmasry, the complainant against Maclean's magazine for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. Egyptian-born Elmasry has publicly said that any adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for a terrorist attack, a grossly offensive statement.
Both the Canadian and B.C. Human Rights Commissions are now hearing his complaints against Maclean's.
Who would have guessed that such a broad law would give unfair coverage. Zany. Do they just have forms that say "I've been offended!" and then the government can step in and play mom?
I understand that it's legal to think and not to say. Neaden understand that. Nobody has contested this idea so stop bringing it up. You say "well you can think hateful thoughts" like that's some sort of consolation prize. My issue is that it's such a matter of opinion as to what qualifies as 'hatred' that it's just begging to be stepped up.
Which is why we have an extensive process for deciding whether something actually qualifies as hatred before it goes before the fucking tribunal Jesus Christ how many times do I have to say this.
Stop the hate, it shows love. I think this is hippy bullshit. Telling a racist person to shut up doesn't make less racist people.
Sure it does, because racism is such a contagious idea, and silencing racists helps to prevents their message from spreading. If you don't think racism and hatred is contagious then maybe you should read up on psychology, and for a great historical example look up German history 1920-1945.
If someone makes a website to show their racist views in Canada, they can go to jail.
Uh, no, that's not the case at all. Please educate yourself on the actual workings of this system before you make a ridiculous claim like that.
Stop the hate, it shows love. I think this is hippy bullshit. Telling a racist person to shut up doesn't make less racist people.
Sure it does, because racism is such a contagious idea, and silencing racists helps to prevents their message from spreading.
Except that you aren't silencing racists, for one, and for two, you aren't spreading the notion that racist or otherwise hateful ideas and messages are wrongheaded, just that they are unacceptable in public spheres.
Stop the hate, it shows love. I think this is hippy bullshit. Telling a racist person to shut up doesn't make less racist people.
Sure it does, because racism is such a contagious idea, and silencing racists helps to prevents their message from spreading.
Except that you aren't silencing racists, for one, and for two, you aren't spreading the notion that racist or otherwise hateful ideas and messages are wrongheaded, just that they are unacceptable in public spheres.
I think the latter sort of implies the former. But there are other things, namely our school system, that try to instill the idea of tolerance and mutual understanding.
Stop the hate, it shows love. I think this is hippy bullshit. Telling a racist person to shut up doesn't make less racist people.
Sure it does, because racism is such a contagious idea, and silencing racists helps to prevents their message from spreading.
Except that you aren't silencing racists, for one, and for two, you aren't spreading the notion that racist or otherwise hateful ideas and messages are wrongheaded, just that they are unacceptable in public spheres.
Posts
Libel is a very specific term, referring to a cause of action in court. What the cartoonists did was not libel in any sense. In any case, the cartoonists have done nothing to prevent the publication of letters opposed to their point of view. The only thing they object to is state censorship.
And being told that their head should adorn a pike. Written in all caps.
That fits under "incitement to violence", I think.
That is what we are talking about when we say "hate speech".
Not "Jews are good with money," or "Chinese people are bad drivers," the sort of harmless Family Guy bullshit that stupid alarmists think will be made illegal by hate-speech legislation.
We're talking about "Jews should be gassed." And "Nuke the Arabs." That sort of thing.
So spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish school, that should be punished more severely than just tagging it because the perpetrator is essentially threatening Jews. Or if someone is overheard at a bar telling their friends how much they hate fags, and later beats a gay man half to death, they should be punished more severely than if it were simply a random beating, if it can be proved that their actions were motivated by their hatred of homosexuals. The fact is that motivation is a critical part of criminal proceedings, and this is no different.
That's what hate speech legislation is about. Hatred is fundamentally at odds with the core philosophies that frame and motivate Canadian society. I think we should discourage those who seek to undermine those philosophies because I think they are objectively moral and logical.
Well, I was speaking specifically to the law mentioned in the OP which (assuming the OP is accurate) prohibits speech likely to expose somebody to "hatred or contempt." It's that second part that I find to be a far too broad.
I suppose. Really, I don't see anything wrong (legally...obviously morally they're despicable) about either of those statements. I mean, unless the person in question or their audience has access to gas chambers or nuclear weapons. Idle talk, though, isn't something I think the government should concern itself with unless it turns into (or appears it will imminently turn into) action.
This I absolutely agree with.
Do you not see how spraypainting something and beating a man to death are slightly different? If only by a few degrees? Most all reasonable people would agree that motive should be included in the charges and such. It's one of the reasons we have so many degrees of murder even though the end result is a corpse all the same. When you move beyond that, though, and apply it to idiots talking about how 'Hitler had the right idea' or whatever, you've stepped outside the boundaries of not censorship and viewpoint discrimination.
How did you make the leap from hate speech to violence and vandalism? Their is a fundamental difference between saying "Jews should be gassed" and spraypainting a swastika on a school. And again, where do you draw the line with hate speech? Some people think 'fag' is hate speech. What about 'I hate the French'. Is that hate speech? I think hatred is at odds with the core philosophies of most countries, it doesn't hurt Canada more than it hurts any other country.
Beating a person up because they're gay is a hate crime, and America has those too. Hate speech is what we're talking about though.
Going to jail for saying or writing something wildly unpopular is absolutely absurd..
AngelHedgie, I know you're a believer in the theory of judging a man by his friends, what's your opinion?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Assuming the thread doesn't fall off the front page, I'll get back to you on that tomorrow. Right now I have to sleep.
edit: I keep going back to polish this one so I'll just say quickly that I agree with Jason Cherniak's blog posts:
I think that Human Rights Tribunals, as they are being implemented in Canada, are a fundamentally good idea.
Good to see that Canada is a bit more reasonable on no-knock searches/warrants than we are down here, as an aside. And while I have little doubt that the Canadian justice system will carefully consider such a case, and that it's entirely likely that they fill find reasonable, I still have a problem with the fact that there is a case at all to be considered. Nobody should have to go through the trouble of legal proceedings to defend speech, no matter how bigoted, that doesn't actually harm or call for harm (particularly feasible harm...again, even "nuke all the Arabs" probably doesn't qualify in my book) to anybody.
Or, going back to the OP:
No, not at all. Not even "hate speech." Luckily, down here we have the first amendment which deals with this quite handily. Because making it illegal (or at least a legal hassle) to be racist publicly, or in print, doesn't suddenly make hatred go away, it just introduces the idea that speech isn't really all that free. Not worth the tradeoff. As it stands, even with the more or less unrestricted to be as racist or despicable as you please down here, we've still managed to make it largely socially unacceptable (with a few exceptions, of course).
Also, I think it's a low blow to focus on the fact that white supremacists are supporting the Martin's actions; unfortunately, sometimes in defending people's rights you make even the "bad" people happy...because, you know, they have those rights too.
What. The. Fuck.
No. They are thought crimes legislation, and morally reprehensible that a person can be punished more severely for what they think. It does not compute to me that beating someone out of indifference is somehow less of a crime than someone being beaten for being black. It's the former asshole I'd be more concerned with, in fact.
I see no reason why what mens rea (intent) is should factor into prosecutions and be grounds for increasing punishment/penalties. The fact that it exists is sufficient enough.
And yet quite common outside of the United States.
Don't worry, I'm sure there will be no problem keeping this thread on the first page no matter what opinion people have. Personally, I'm more interested in opinions than on making any particular point.
Edit: Holy late post. I was talking to Azio.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
If the CHRC is investigating the matter under its s13 power, I don't see how that's possible.
EDIT: Or are charters non-binding? My memory fails me.
I also learned that most political parties with "Liberal" as part of their name tend to not be, in fact, Liberal.
Funny. They tend to be more liberal than American "little l" liberals.
Motive always has played a key role in criminal proceedings, especially in sentencing. To deny that what someone is thinking as they commit a violent act is pertinent to the way they are dealt with by the justice system, is only correct if you are operating a strictly punitive justice system that pays no regard to rehabilitation. Again, the motivation of the accused has always been relevant to criminal proceedings. Why do we distinguish between premeditated and second-degree murder? Motive is context and context matters.
Interesting tidbit: in the American criminal justice system (and likely in many others as well), all crimes have an associated mental state. This is why accidents aren't crimes (unless you're negligent), and why insanity is a defense.
Everyone in this thread really needs to read those two blog posts, they give a lot of perspective and additional information that some of you clearly lack as you blather away about your "right" to get on a soapbox and proclaim that Muslims are terrorists. Although most of those people are just American libertarins who are completely ignorant of Canadian politics and social values, and are just trying to spread their ham-fisted approach to personal liberties and their view of Canada as an oppressive socialist nightmare where everyone's thoughts are regulated by the iron fist of unconstitutional, wishy-washy, PC human rights commissions. Do you think we're the fifty-first state or something? We have a different constitution than you. Your Constitution may work for you but that does not make it the best, and just because we live nextdoor does not mean we have to toe the American line on everything.
Canadians are free to think hateful things, because what goes on in your skull is your business and nobody else's. However it is simply inappropriate, and in some cases illegal, to circulate such opinions in a public context. It's not like these asswipes -- and trust me, Ezra Levant is an uncompromising, neoconservative asswipe and a whiny shit -- were hauled before a tribunal the second they thought to publish those cartoons in their right-wing rag. There's a process, there's consultation, plenty of careful consideration and deliberation takes place before a case is considered worthy of the HRC's attention.
I've personally never liked how we Canadians handled Speech-Laws, and the latest crop of CHRC cases hasn't really given me any hope that these quasi-judicial bodies will ever be put to good use.
That said, I don't like the restrictions and typically err against majority opinion and "will of the people" bullshit, but on a larger scale it carries some benefits. By creating this dialogue between the courts and the legislature we avoid the problem in the U.S. where a more absolutist Constitution results in headbutting between the two. I think it lets the Charter do more good in the long run.
Is it really too far a step to say that hate speech can be made against the government, and could then be shut down?
I could just be way too involved with the ACLU. They've had some hard years recently...
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
The laws are against publicly spreading messages that promote hatred, which is "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action," towards a particular group. They are pretty clear on this and the courts have so far interpreted them in a reasonable fashion. It might at first seem "crazy" to you, it may offend your libertarian sensibilities, but if you actually take the time to read the laws and learn how the CHRC works, it's all quite reasonable and makes sense, especially if you understand the values and themes that comprise the philosophical foundation of our society. Canadians, as a general rule, value cultural diversity and mutual social understanding, and our government tries to reflect that. Those who promote hatred against a particular group, whether they say Muslims are terrorists or Jews should be gassed, are undermining and weakening those values.
The two cases in the OP would never have made it to a trial in a criminal or civil court.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Down here it's not a "right." It's a right. Just sayin'.
Easy there, Scooter. Calm thy righteous Canadian rage.
I know damn well you have a different constitution than we do, and honestly I don't give much of a fuck what it says. And trust me...no, really, trust me...I know that our Constitution is not by any means the best. However, I'll go ahead and state my firm opinion that if this policy is actually constitutional in your country, then on the issue of free speech at least ours is indeed better than yours.
And I'll say again: that's a bad thing. Well, the illegal part. Obviously it's inappropriate, but down here we have the right to be inappropriate.
I'm sure there was. But if the publication of those cartoons in any way contributed to their being subjected to such proceedings, then Canada is still a fucked-up place. I've seen the cartoons. We're not even in "nuke all Arabs" territory here. But then, it seems more than a few Canadians seem to think this is an issue as well, so maybe it's not entirely a case of us arrogant Americans trying to enforce our will on you or anything.
I'm terribly sorry if the big bad Americans saying something bad about Canada made you go cry in a corner or something. Buck up, soldier, overall Canada is a pretty rockin' place. But 'round here sometimes we talk about the fucked up policies other countries employ, and every now and again Canada is bound to be one of those countries. Just because an American says something Canada does is fucked up doesn't mean we see you as a 51st state or anything, just as we don't see France or Lithuania as a 52st or 53rd state when we criticize their actions.
We bitch about things that the American government does here all the time, and Canadians, Brits, Australians, and everybody else always seem to feel free to get in on the gang-bang. Seems like a few (or at least a) Canadian wanted to discuss something relating to your country...are Americans somehow not invited now?
Yes, speech like that should be regulated.
Yes, issues like this should be in the human rights commission scope.
IMHO, it is a stretch to say that speech that seeks to take freedoms from a person under the law equals "1984". I actually see it as the opposite, preventing hateful propaganda to continue unchecked till it becomes a part of the culture, ingrained through repetition. I keep seeing "freedom of speech" brought up as an excuse for people to not actually have a dialogue with each other, like acting uncivilly is actually going to get anyone anywhere. Freedom of speech should not include harassment or cultures of hate.
I've seen what hateful speech can do in the communities I've lived in, its poison. It should not be tolerated at all, to the point where it can be prosecuted, so that non-tolerance of it has teeth and hate-filled groups or individuals keep it to themselves to prevent it spreading out of control. If I stood up in a crowded room and yelled out (lets be clear, I would never actually do this, I don't even think this way, I am using it as an extreme example) "I hate those niggers!" and then someone who heard that acted on it, by say, even spitting on or pushing around or verbally abusing a person with darker skin let alone beating them up or killing them, I would be culpable, an accomplice to the act of hate.
Stop the hate, it shows love. How does that saying go again, isn't it something like "When good men do nothing..."
Someone mentioned highschool before and a picture popped into my head of a scene from a tv show, where a teenage girl is standing on tall gym roof, about to commit suicide, and one of the students below yells "Jump!". She jumps and dies. Do you think that the student below had a right to say such a hateful thing? Do you think that student had no responsibility in what happened next, even if they were commited by another person?
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" I call BS.
Be nice. He didn't say anything about 'thinking thoughts' or 'private context', and he understood the thread just as well as anybody else.. Many people have made the case that "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action" is an extremely broad and ridiculous benchmark for anything, and it's only going to be used to silence unpopular voices, and that's not a healthy step for any free society.
A call to incite violence is one thing, saying something people really don't like is another.
I know Canadians have a different view of society, but really, how is removing freedom from people you don't like a step towards freedom?
Did I answer that question in my previous post?
Here's a suggestion - go look up mens rea, and then realize how your argument would gut that concept.
You do not have a right to not be offended. I do, however, have a right to offend. It is one of the very founding principles of representative government that all people have the freedom and right to express their views. No matter how unpopular they may be.
How does preventing somebody from saying anything disparaging about another culture foster any kind of dialogue? Seems like it would keep things rather one-sided. I have little problems telling racists and bigots exactly why they are wrong, and in fact may be horrible people.
By the way, a certain word starting with 'n' is censored here, as per our hosts' request. Just so you know.
And do you honestly think that by standing up in a crowded room you would be the deciding factor in whether another person decides to harass a minority? Do you think they weren't already bigoted and hateful before that, and you pushed them over the edge? And that such people don't already have private and semi-private places to get together and affirm each other's hatred?
And say what you want about American society, but standing up like that in a crowded room and saying you hate any particular group (even, for the most part, Muslims or gays...who are probably the two groups its most acceptable to publicly dislike down here) the only likely result is that a lot of people will look at you like there is something fucking wrong with you.
You've stopped no hate. You've mere gagged it. Yet, despite the fact that I acknowledge that there is a process for bringing forth such proceedings, I still can't help but think this kind of thing must have some chilling effect on speech that isn't hateful, but merely critical. Because most people, and certainly most businesses (like media outlets) are pretty risk-averse.
Yes, because actively encouraging a distressed person to kill themselves and drawing Mohammad with a bomb in his turban are exactly the same thing. In case you're wondering, I do indeed think somebody in the situation you're mentioned should face stiff legal consequences. Because they told somebody directly to do something.
Which is why saying "we need to string up some Arabs" is generally not protected speech down here. Saying "we ought to nuke those Arabs" is, but only because neither the speaker nor the audience have the actual ability to do that.
51st-stater.
This is, apparently, not true up north. They must grow them with thinner skins up there.
EDIT: I went ahead and bolded a part that I thought was pertinent to the thread at large, so it doesn't get lost in the wall of text.
Now remember: in Canada everyone is free to hold hateful opinions. It is, however, against the law to publicly spread hateful opinions. There is a clear distinction here and if you are not seeing it then you are being obtuse.
When you publish cartoons of an angry Prophet Mohammed throwing bombs, in my opinion you are saying that all Muslims are terrorists. You are not only saying this, but you are doing so in a nationally-circulated magazine that is read by millions of people. You are publicly promoting a hateful message. Why is it hateful? Because to say all Muslims are terrorists is to suggest that their freedom of religion should be taken away, because you never know when one of those crazy Arabs might blow themselves up in a coffee shop.
Of course, this particular case with the cartoons has yet to be seen by a tribunal and, in all likelihood, it never will. CHRC cases go through a process that assesses whether they are likely to be prosecuted before they go to the tribunal. That way the tribunal isn't wasting its time on long, bitter battles with uncertain outcomes. As you can see, this one is more of a grey area, so it will probably die somewhere in that process.
The thing that you keep failing to realize is that our courts are responsive and our laws are broad enough that they can be applied reasonably, in a variety of different situations. For example, in America when you have the case of a mentally handicapped person being taken advantage of and used as a drug mule, he goes to jail for twenty years because of your idiotic drug laws with mandatory minimums which tie judges' hands and prevent them from using their discretion in different cases. If that case were tried in Canada the court would consider the accused's mental state, because the relevant laws are sufficiently broad and don't enforce mandatory sentences, freeing judges to apply discretion where appropriate. That's why the legislation seems broad to you.
I'm not saying that, I'm just asking some of the people in this thread to inform themselves before posting on this subject because most of them are completely unaware as to the context and are just burning down the right-wing strawman that represents hate-speech laws.
We can see it extraordinarily clearly. We also see it as a horrible law that limits or prevents the rights of expression and press. Popular speech isn't the one that needs protection.
Stop the hate, it shows love. I think this is hippy bullshit. Telling a racist person to shut up doesn't make less racist people. Making it illegal doesn't make it go away, it makes it go underground.
If someone makes a website to show their racist views in Canada, they can go to jail. That kind of government censorship and policing smacks of China's policies.
Free society with racist people > Less free society with jailed racist people
What a strange place Canada is
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Who would have guessed that such a broad law would give unfair coverage. Zany. Do they just have forms that say "I've been offended!" and then the government can step in and play mom?
Which is why we have an extensive process for deciding whether something actually qualifies as hatred before it goes before the fucking tribunal Jesus Christ how many times do I have to say this.
Sure it does, because racism is such a contagious idea, and silencing racists helps to prevents their message from spreading. If you don't think racism and hatred is contagious then maybe you should read up on psychology, and for a great historical example look up German history 1920-1945.
Uh, no, that's not the case at all. Please educate yourself on the actual workings of this system before you make a ridiculous claim like that.
Except that you aren't silencing racists, for one, and for two, you aren't spreading the notion that racist or otherwise hateful ideas and messages are wrongheaded, just that they are unacceptable in public spheres.
Not really.