Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Liberals, White Supremacists, and Human Rights

124

Posts

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    I haven't read the thread, but I've heard about the tribunals in Canada and I think it is incredibly sketchy.

    Criticizing and mocking a religion is not "hate speech" anymore than mocking conservatives is "hate speech." I think this is an example of Muslims trying to foist their own religious legal system on everyone, using the guise of liberal laws.
    Read the thread. For my sanity. Please.

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    So a privately owned and operated newspaper or magazine which someone has to subscribe to in order to recieve their content can publish racist crap because it doesn't qualify for the hate speech laws, or it can't because it does?

    I'm leaning toward the second one. I don't think subscription has much to do with anything in terms of publication, but I just don't know what the law states on this matter.

    If that's the case then what the hell isn't a public discussion or public fora? You're free to be a bigotted idiot in private discussions so long as those discussions contain up to, but not exceeding, 3 other persons and within the confines of closed doors.

    Don't be foolish. Publication by it's nature is public! Look at the word - publication.

    Interrobang.

    So you are saying that publication does something other than make things public?
    No, but the handful of trade magazines I get are. My cable is. Any newsletter I'd subscribe to would be. How is getting something in the mail or having to buy it from a newsstand in order to have access to it a public fora? I'd say that's the definition of private. If you want the government to regulate its own publications, that's fine. I'd disagree on the basis of viewpont discrimination in a publicly garunteed space, but whatever. If you want it to regulate Playboy, or, hell, I Hate Jews Quarterly, that's bullshit.

    Limited distribution doesn't change the status of publication, as far as I know.

    What do you mean by viewpoint discrimination?

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I haven't read the thread, but I've heard about the tribunals in Canada and I think it is incredibly sketchy.

    Criticizing and mocking a religion is not "hate speech" anymore than mocking conservatives is "hate speech." I think this is an example of Muslims trying to foist their own religious legal system on everyone, using the guise of liberal laws.
    Read the thread. For my sanity. Please.
    Alright, I read most of it. Not sure what exactly your problem with what I said is, Azio.
    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.
    This is absolute horseshit. "All Muslims believe in terrorism" does not in any way equate with "you do not have the right to be a Muslim."

    I also object to the pejorativeness of the label "anti-Islamic." I think most rational and liberal people are anti-Islamic, that is why we do not believe in the Quran or support Shariah Law. Being extremely critical of Islam and its practitioners is not bigotry, and the idea that I may be held accountable to some government court for some vaguely-determined level of criticism of this religion is absurd and should be fought against.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    So a privately owned and operated newspaper or magazine which someone has to subscribe to in order to recieve their content can publish racist crap because it doesn't qualify for the hate speech laws, or it can't because it does?

    I'm leaning toward the second one. I don't think subscription has much to do with anything in terms of publication, but I just don't know what the law states on this matter.

    If that's the case then what the hell isn't a public discussion or public fora? You're free to be a bigotted idiot in private discussions so long as those discussions contain up to, but not exceeding, 3 other persons and within the confines of closed doors.

    Don't be foolish. Publication by it's nature is public! Look at the word - publication.

    Interrobang.

    So you are saying that publication does something other than make things public?

    Yes, it makes it available for mass consumption. Something is not necessarily a part of the public domain after having been published.
    No, but the handful of trade magazines I get are. My cable is. Any newsletter I'd subscribe to would be. How is getting something in the mail or having to buy it from a newsstand in order to have access to it a public fora? I'd say that's the definition of private. If you want the government to regulate its own publications, that's fine. I'd disagree on the basis of viewpont discrimination in a publicly garunteed space, but whatever. If you want it to regulate Playboy, or, hell, I Hate Jews Quarterly, that's bullshit.

    Limited distribution doesn't change the status of publication, as far as I know.

    What do you mean by viewpoint discrimination?

    Allowing local churches to pin up flyers for canned food drives and summer camps on a bulletin board at city hall but preventing a wicca group from pinning up their Hallow's Eve Spell Cast-o-rama flyers. Or allowing the Boy Scouts of America to march in Skokie but preventing the Nazis from doing so. Things like that.

    tea-1.jpg
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    moniker wrote:
    Yes, it makes it available for mass consumption. Something is not necessarily a part of the public domain after having been published.

    Public domain is a copyright term and has nothing to do with our discussion.
    Allowing local churches to pin up flyers for canned food drives and summer camps on a bulletin board at city hall but preventing a wicca group from pinning up their Hallow's Eve Spell Cast-o-rama flyers. Or allowing the Boy Scouts of America to march in Skokie but preventing the Nazis from doing so. Things like that.

    I can't think of any religious group being discriminated against like that in Canada. It's bound to happen, but I honestly can't think of a single example off the top of my head. Also, the Nazi thing is a bad example, because there is a very good chance that they would be promoting hate - which, as you know by now, is illegal in Canada.
    Qingu wrote:
    I also object to the pejorativeness of the label "anti-Islamic." I think most rational and liberal people are anti-Islamic

    You obviously know very little about Islam. Stop while you are ahead.

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2008
    A friendly reminder before this turns into a religion thread: The topic is the CHRC.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    moniker wrote:
    Yes, it makes it available for mass consumption. Something is not necessarily a part of the public domain after having been published.

    Public domain is a copyright term and has nothing to do with our discussion.

    Then explain to me how a subscription based service or even just a book sitting in a Barnes and Noble that one has to voluntarily gain access to is not private?

    tea-1.jpg
  • BrynjBrynj Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    So a privately owned and operated newspaper or magazine which someone has to subscribe to in order to recieve their content can publish racist crap because it doesn't qualify for the hate speech laws, or it can't because it does?

    I'm leaning toward the second one. I don't think subscription has much to do with anything in terms of publication, but I just don't know what the law states on this matter.

    If that's the case then what the hell isn't a public discussion or public fora? You're free to be a bigotted idiot in private discussions so long as those discussions contain up to, but not exceeding, 3 other persons and within the confines of closed doors.
    The law isn't very clearly defined for the specific reason of allowing the Commission to use common sense and discretion in prosecuting individual cases. We can't give you a clear definition of what exactly counts as a public discussion or forum because, well, it depends. That's the point of paying people to individually examine these cases.

    And that doesn't scare the hell out of you? To be prosecuted for a 'crime' without breaking specific, published guidelines is asinine at the least, outright dangerous at the most.

    Lets say I want to publish a academic paper on the role of religion on a diplomatic stage. While listing some negatives, I use the different interpretations of Islam as a key reason in some current conflicts going on in the Middle East. Now did I paint Islam with a negative light? Did I paint followers of Islam in a contemptable way?

    That's the point. I DON'T KNOW! You are stifling speech when you open up the possibility that your thoughts could be prosecuted with nothing to judge your thoughts other than the opinion of other people. Some people would simply not write the paper. Worse, people that want to attack the piece could file complaints to have it erased like it never existed.

    It's not the actual intent of the tribunal that's the problem. Its the very real possibility of not only abuse, but the complete lack of any kind of guidelines that makes it a problem.

    At least with hate crime laws in the US *which I do disagree with, but that's another thread for a different day* an actual crime is on the books. It only factors into sentencing.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2008
    Brynj wrote: »
    Lets say I want to publish a academic paper on the role of religion on a diplomatic stage. While listing some negatives, I use the different interpretations of Islam as a key reason in some current conflicts going on in the Middle East. Now did I paint Islam with a negative light? Did I paint followers of Islam in a contemptable way?
    No, and you're really really silly if you think that's a possibility.

    tmsig.jpg
  • BrynjBrynj Registered User
    edited February 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Brynj wrote: »
    Lets say I want to publish a academic paper on the role of religion on a diplomatic stage. While listing some negatives, I use the different interpretations of Islam as a key reason in some current conflicts going on in the Middle East. Now did I paint Islam with a negative light? Did I paint followers of Islam in a contemptable way?
    No, and you're really really silly if you think that's a possibility.

    No, I doubt it as well. Just picking an extreme example.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • BrynjBrynj Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Just to elaborate on the point. As Azio says, we are relying on others to make that determination which is legitimate and which is not. When has humanity EVER agreed on a single view on anything?

    Not to mention, something no one else has said yet, what happens with shifts in the political makeup? What happens if an ultra-religious government were to take power, lets say Catholicism. Suddenly anti-homosexual speech okay, anti-catholic bad? This group works on no specific terms and even if it did those terms are easily changed. The whole precedence for this type of court presents a problem.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Brynj wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Brynj wrote: »
    Lets say I want to publish a academic paper on the role of religion on a diplomatic stage. While listing some negatives, I use the different interpretations of Islam as a key reason in some current conflicts going on in the Middle East. Now did I paint Islam with a negative light? Did I paint followers of Islam in a contemptable way?
    No, and you're really really silly if you think that's a possibility.

    No, I doubt it as well. Just picking an extreme example.

    Then why are you using such an absurd example?
    Then explain to me how a subscription based service or even just a book sitting in a Barnes and Noble that one has to voluntarily gain access to is not private?

    Perhaps it has something to do with both existing in the market place, and requiring public interaction to obtain?

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Brynj wrote: »
    Just to elaborate on the point. As Azio says, we are relying on others to make that determination which is legitimate and which is not. When has humanity EVER agreed on a single view on anything?

    Not to mention, something no one else has said yet, what happens with shifts in the political makeup? What happens if an ultra-religious government were to take power, lets say Catholicism. Suddenly anti-homosexual speech okay, anti-catholic bad? This group works on no specific terms and even if it did those terms are easily changed. The whole precedence for this type of court presents a problem.

    First of all, the CHRC is a quasi-judicial body which means it is granted the same independence as full courts, such as the SCC. That means that Parliament, nor the Privy Council can influence and direct the operations of the CHRC without a change to the Act of Parliament that established it in the first place, which would require passing both the Commons and the Senate, and would be subject to judicial review by the SCC. If a government were to come to power in the Commons as you say, they would have to change the Act establishing the CHRC, as well as the Criminal Code to allow anti-homosexual hate speech - all of which are subject to the judicial review of the Supreme Court. If the law was changed to allow for anti-sexual hate speech, that would violate Sections 1, 2, and 15 of the Charter and would be struck down as unconstitutional.

    You are being purposefully alarmist, here. These hypothetical situations don't have a chance of occuring in our system.

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    You are being purposefully alarmist, here. These hypothetical situations don't have a chance of occuring in our system.

    When shit like the Jessica Beaumont case results in her not being able to quote the Bible, where Richard Warman (approx. 50% of the CHRC cases are filed by this man IIRC) is making it his goal in life to exploit the CHRC, then I think it's a little late to be 'alarmist'.

    Narian.gif
  • BrynjBrynj Registered User
    edited February 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    You are being purposefully alarmist, here. These hypothetical situations don't have a chance of occuring in our system.



    For the last 30 years since Roe v Wade, one of the big rallying cries during presidential election years in the US is, "how many Supreme court justices will this president seat during his term". Something that was made 'law of the land' over 30 years ago toppled with a different makeup of the court. Who would have predicted the Republican victory of 2000 after Clinton's popular term in office?

    They can happen in any system, not necessarily tomorrow, but you don't set precedence like this only worrying about the next day.

    Lastly, the tribunal does not have to find in the favor of the plaintiff *though I believe I've read they always have, I'll have to look that up*, anyone with a political axe to grind could use this as a form of harassment to the point its not worth fighting anymore. Someone mentioned before what lengths a group like Scientology could use a court like this for.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Narian brings up an interesting point. Richard Warman initiated a number of complaints while being a member of the CHRC. Somewhat unsurprisingly, he didn't lost any cases that made it to a tribunal.

    Pony wrote:
    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
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Brynj wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    The law isn't very clearly defined for the specific reason of allowing the Commission to use common sense and discretion in prosecuting individual cases. We can't give you a clear definition of what exactly counts as a public discussion or forum because, well, it depends. That's the point of paying people to individually examine these cases.

    And that doesn't scare the hell out of you? To be prosecuted for a 'crime' without breaking specific, published guidelines is asinine at the least, outright dangerous at the most.
    No, because I don't promote hatred in public spheres.
    Lets say I want to publish a academic paper on the role of religion on a diplomatic stage. While listing some negatives, I use the different interpretations of Islam as a key reason in some current conflicts going on in the Middle East. Now did I paint Islam with a negative light? Did I paint followers of Islam in a contemptable way?

    That's the point. I DON'T KNOW! You are stifling speech when you open up the possibility that your thoughts could be prosecuted with nothing to judge your thoughts other than the opinion of other people. Some people would simply not write the paper. Worse, people that want to attack the piece could file complaints to have it erased like it never existed.
    Is the paper hateful? Does it explicitly or implicitly promote violence or the abridging of the rights against a particular group? If not, then you are in the clear.
    It's not the actual intent of the tribunal that's the problem. Its the very real possibility of not only abuse, but the complete lack of any kind of guidelines that makes it a problem.
    You need to understand that Canadian governmental systems are not the same monolithic, impenetrable entities that American liberty nuts always visualize when they hear the word "government". There are guidelines. There are systems in place to oversee the procedures and to zero in on abuses if they take place. The various inner workings of the federal government and judicial system are all regularly evaluated by different oversight committees that are both effective and trustworthy. Our government operates slowly and methodically and gets things done in a careful, well-thought-out fashion, and having some familiarity with hate-speech-related human rights complaints I am not at all concerned about abuse in this case.

    For example, in 2004 the Liberal Party was entering its eleventh year of majority control of the government. One day, the Auditor General published a report that $100 million of a $250 million public advertising program was awarded to Liberal-friendly advertising firms for little to no work. The story is a little deeper than that, brown envelopes are involved, but that is basically the brief summary. This report generated a scandal so large that the the Prime Minister had to appear on television and apologize directly to the Canadian people, and in a pathetic display of humility, beg for mercy at the polls. The Liberals paid dearly for the Adscam as they are now finding themselves on the other side of the aisle, fulfilling the duties of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition, and we are facing the very real possibility of right-wing assholes taking majority control.

    I will now point out the ongoing case of Iraq. In the 15 months after Baghdad was conquered by the harbingers of democracy, the Coalition Provisional Authority orchestrated and paid for contracts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. They handed out billions of cash dollars to pay for construction, logistics, and all sorts of things. I say all sorts because the CPA rarely kept records of their transactions. In April of 2004, as a confident majority government in Canada fell apart over a paltry $100 million, a shipment of cash totaling one and one half billion dollars was loaded into Black Hawk helicopters and flown to the Kurdish region. The money was given to a courier to be used as bribes and payments. There is no record of the courier's name. Nobody knows what happened to the money. This clusterfuck has yet to cost George W. Bush or Dick Cheney anything. Nobody has apologized, or even admitted wrongdoing. No investigation or public consultation into the matter has taken place.

    In Canada, we destroy the credibility and power of 11-year political dynasties over a few greasy cheques stuffed into brown envelopes. In the United States, a half-retarded, coke snorting, 2.0 GPA hick gets to be president for eight years while his cronies disappear with quantities of cash money so large that they have to be loaded into Black Hawk helicopters.

    What I'm trying to say here is, our oversight systems work. Government wrongdoing rarely goes unpunished in Canada. I am confident that if an abuse of power takes place at the HRC, then those responsible will be investigated, ridiculed, and dealt with appropriately.

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    All of these wild examples seem largely pointless when the actual case involves reprinted satirical cartoons.


    Some may not see this as much a slippery slope at all. I think that with authors like Salman Rushdie and Cristopher Hitchens you need to protect the rights of the people who present contrary accounts and arguments, even if fictional.

    Personally, I would have liked if they'd have told the people getting their panties in a knot over the cartoons in the first place to fuck off.

  • whitey9whitey9 Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    Brynj wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    The law isn't very clearly defined for the specific reason of allowing the Commission to use common sense and discretion in prosecuting individual cases. We can't give you a clear definition of what exactly counts as a public discussion or forum because, well, it depends. That's the point of paying people to individually examine these cases.

    And that doesn't scare the hell out of you? To be prosecuted for a 'crime' without breaking specific, published guidelines is asinine at the least, outright dangerous at the most.

    No, because I don't promote hatred in public spheres.

    AMERICANS DO! ROBBLE ROBBLE ROBBLE!

    Apparently some Canadians enjoy regulated freedom of speech. I didn't realize this fact until today. If you think that makes your society better or safer, I think you're absolutely insane. You essentially have moral police. To say "it doesn't bother me because I don't promote hatred" doesn't solve anything.

    If I found out that the Westboro Baptist Church was thrown in jail for doing one of their lame-o protests, I would be bummed.

    photorallysi8.jpg

    llcoolwhitey.png
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your system runs itself, I assure you people run your government. Canadians are no different than the rest of the world, people are bastards. When people are involved they can corrupt any system they want and if you give them some vague powers that they define themselves, it makes it easier for them to fuck you.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Azio you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your system runs itself, I assure you people run your government. Canadians are no different than the rest of the world, people are bastards. When people are involved they can corrupt any system they want and if you give them some vague powers that they define themselves, it makes it easier for them to fuck you.
    People run the government, other people make sure those people don't abuse their power. It's called oversight. Surely you are familiar with this concept.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    whitey9 wrote: »
    Apparently some Canadians enjoy regulated freedom of speech. I didn't realize this fact until today. If you think that makes your society better or safer, I think you're absolutely insane. You essentially have moral police. To say "it doesn't bother me because I don't promote hatred" doesn't solve anything.
    We do not have moral police. We have a Commission that receives Complaints from citizens who feel their human rights have been violated, which undergo a lengthy Process to determine whether they are worthy of the attention of a Tribunal, which carefully determines and assigns guilt and doles out punishment in a reasonable fashion. The constitutionality of this system has been challenged mutliple times and found, in every case, to be sound.

    Your characterization of my position is a strawman and has no basis in the actual facts of the matter being discussed. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is just typical "FREEDOM GOOD! GOVERNMENT BAD!" chest-beating.

    It is not like Ezra Levant reprinted those cartoons and the next day the police were banging down his door. He was accused by an imam of fostering discrimination, and his magazine has therefore become the object of an investigation. And in the case of Mark Steyn, a similar investigation began when the Canadian Islamic Congress launched human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine claiming that the article "The future belongs to Islam", an excerpt from Steyn's book "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It," subjects Canadian Muslims to "hatred and contempt." And I tend to agree with the Islamic Congress, which is not something that happens very often.

  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Azio you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your system runs itself, I assure you people run your government. Canadians are no different than the rest of the world, people are bastards. When people are involved they can corrupt any system they want and if you give them some vague powers that they define themselves, it makes it easier for them to fuck you.
    People run the government, other people make sure those people don't abuse their power.

    Who are these people that are regulating what the CHRC is doing?

    Narian.gif
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Narian wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Azio you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your system runs itself, I assure you people run your government. Canadians are no different than the rest of the world, people are bastards. When people are involved they can corrupt any system they want and if you give them some vague powers that they define themselves, it makes it easier for them to fuck you.
    People run the government, other people make sure those people don't abuse their power.

    Who are these people that are regulating what the CHRC is doing?
    There are various systems in place that oversee the judicial system (I admit I am not intimately familiar with them but they do exist), not to mention the appeals system which is very robust. The most prominent example of someone examining the Human Rights Tribunal would be the Federal Court of Appeal which has seen cases challenging the constitutionality of Tribunal rulings.

    Remember that the Commission is just a body that examines complaints -- and these are mostly complaints concerning workplace discrimination and whatnot. Cases regarding expression are rare, and also very high-profile and get plenty of attention in the media and public discourse, which is why whitey's portrayal of the system and laws as "you essentially have moral police" is so ridiculous. The Commission determines whether cases should be forwarded to the Tribunal, where the actual decisions are made as to whether discrimination is taking place. And those decisions can be escalated to an appeals court just like any other case.

  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Allowing local churches to pin up flyers for canned food drives and summer camps on a bulletin board at city hall but preventing a wicca group from pinning up their Hallow's Eve Spell Cast-o-rama flyers. Or allowing the Boy Scouts of America to march in Skokie but preventing the Nazis from doing so. Things like that.

    I don't agree with the idea of censorship, but there's a reason the Klan wanted to march in Skokie, which is one of the reasons why I find them so reprehensible: Skokie was where quite a few Holocaust survivors and other Jews moved to after the war. The whole point was the publicity gained from acting like a bunch of giant douchebags fucking with history's favorite victims. The march itself was incidental.

    As for the former example, the Lemon and related Tests do a pretty good job distinguishing events incidental to religious activities (food drives) and outright proselytizing (spellorama). Like I said before, using the weight of government for implicit support of such activities is as ridiculous as censorship.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    whitey9 wrote: »
    Apparently some Canadians enjoy regulated freedom of speech. I didn't realize this fact until today. If you think that makes your society better or safer, I think you're absolutely insane. You essentially have moral police. To say "it doesn't bother me because I don't promote hatred" doesn't solve anything.
    We do not have moral police.

    Not trying to jump off topic, but oh yeah. Canada DOES have a moral police. It's called CBSA and has(arguably) the single most restrictive list of art you can not bring into a country in existence.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    whitey9 wrote: »
    Apparently some Canadians enjoy regulated freedom of speech. I didn't realize this fact until today. If you think that makes your society better or safer, I think you're absolutely insane. You essentially have moral police. To say "it doesn't bother me because I don't promote hatred" doesn't solve anything.
    We do not have moral police.

    Not trying to jump off topic, but oh yeah. Canada DOES have a moral police. It's called CBSA and has(arguably) the single most restrictive list of art you can not bring into a country in existence.
    I mean we don't have police officers who arrest people for saying things that are immoral. Unfortunately customs officers get away with all kinds of shit in these paranoid times, but this is the case in many other countries, such as Dubai, which is threatening up to four years jail time after airport customs discovered a piece of cannabis lighter than a grain of sugar stuck to the bottom of a British man's shoe. Or the United States, where a man was told by TSA officers that wearing a shirt with Arabic lettering on it was "like going into a bank with a shirt that says, 'I'm a bank robber'".

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Does not hate speech count as terrorism, "the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    You need to understand that Canadian governmental systems are not the same monolithic, impenetrable entities that American liberty nuts always visualize when they hear the word "government". There are guidelines. There are systems in place to oversee the procedures and to zero in on abuses if they take place. The various inner workings of the federal government and judicial system are all regularly evaluated by different oversight committees that are both effective and trustworthy. Our government operates slowly and methodically and gets things done in a careful, well-thought-out fashion, and having some familiarity with hate-speech-related human rights complaints I am not at all concerned about abuse in this case.

    For example, in 2004 the Liberal Party was entering its eleventh year of majority control of the government. One day, the Auditor General published a report that $100 million of a $250 million public advertising program was awarded to Liberal-friendly advertising firms for little to no work. The story is a little deeper than that, brown envelopes are involved, but that is basically the brief summary. This report generated a scandal so large that the the Prime Minister had to appear on television and apologize directly to the Canadian people, and in a pathetic display of humility, beg for mercy at the polls. The Liberals paid dearly for the Adscam as they are now finding themselves on the other side of the aisle, fulfilling the duties of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition, and we are facing the very real possibility of right-wing assholes taking majority control.

    I will now point out the ongoing case of Iraq. In the 15 months after Baghdad was conquered by the harbingers of democracy, the Coalition Provisional Authority orchestrated and paid for contracts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. They handed out billions of cash dollars to pay for construction, logistics, and all sorts of things. I say all sorts because the CPA rarely kept records of their transactions. In April of 2004, as a confident majority government in Canada fell apart over a paltry $100 million, a shipment of cash totaling one and one half billion dollars was loaded into Black Hawk helicopters and flown to the Kurdish region. The money was given to a courier to be used as bribes and payments. There is no record of the courier's name. Nobody knows what happened to the money. This clusterfuck has yet to cost George W. Bush or Dick Cheney anything. Nobody has apologized, or even admitted wrongdoing. No investigation or public consultation into the matter has taken place.

    In Canada, we destroy the credibility and power of 11-year political dynasties over a few greasy cheques stuffed into brown envelopes. In the United States, a half-retarded, coke snorting, 2.0 GPA hick gets to be president for eight years while his cronies disappear with quantities of cash money so large that they have to be loaded into Black Hawk helicopters.

    What I'm trying to say here is, our oversight systems work. Government wrongdoing rarely goes unpunished in Canada. I am confident that if an abuse of power takes place at the HRC, then those responsible will be investigated, ridiculed, and dealt with appropriately.

    The difference between these two examples is not systemic, it's personal. Your leaders had either the moral courage to admit they did wrong, or lacked the audacity to deny wrongdoing, depending on how you look at it. Our leaders demonstrate the opposite trait.

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Narian wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Azio you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your system runs itself, I assure you people run your government. Canadians are no different than the rest of the world, people are bastards. When people are involved they can corrupt any system they want and if you give them some vague powers that they define themselves, it makes it easier for them to fuck you.
    RTS
    People run the government, other people make sure those people don't abuse their power.

    Who are these people that are regulating what the CHRC is doing?

    The CHRC is responsible to two bodies. In terms of reviewing decisions and settlements reached by the Tribunal, it answers to the Federal Court of Canada, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada. The mandate, scope, and operating budget of the CHRC and all other quasi-judicial bodies at the federal level are determined by Parliament, with the mandate and scope being established in the Act of Parliament establishing the body itself, while the operating budget is, of course, determined each year by the sitting government.

    Being a federal body established by Parliament, the CHRC may also answer to the Auditor General, the Federal Privacy Commissioner, and the Federal Ethics Commissioner, all of whom are independent, arms-length officers of Parliament.
    zeeny wrote:
    Not trying to jump off topic, but oh yeah. Canada DOES have a moral police. It's called CBSA and has(arguably) the single most restrictive list of art you can not bring into a country in existence.

    Yeah, fuck those guys.
    Cabezone wrote:
    Azio you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your system runs itself, I assure you people run your government. Canadians are no different than the rest of the world, people are bastards. When people are involved they can corrupt any system they want and if you give them some vague powers that they define themselves, it makes it easier for them to fuck you.

    Our government is constitutionally required to provide good government for it's citizens through legislation. I know that it's a popular thing to be incredibly cynical about one's government, especially in the U.S., but the Canadian government, barring a few notable examples is a generally well run place. And when it isn't, there a number of mechanisms that allow for the problem to be brought to light and fixed - usually straight away, although this isn't always possible (see the current Mulroney/Schreiber affair).

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Separate agencies don't always work. The Iranian agency that revoked Zanan''s license didn't actually have that authority, as the powers to grant and revoke licenses are held by different organizations.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • whitey9whitey9 Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    whitey9 wrote: »
    Apparently some Canadians enjoy regulated freedom of speech. I didn't realize this fact until today. If you think that makes your society better or safer, I think you're absolutely insane. You essentially have moral police. To say "it doesn't bother me because I don't promote hatred" doesn't solve anything.
    We do not have moral police. We have a Commission that receives Complaints from citizens who feel their human rights have been violated, which undergo a lengthy Process to determine whether they are worthy of the attention of a Tribunal, which carefully determines and assigns guilt and doles out punishment in a reasonable fashion.

    And.. how is this not moral police?

    People who read the cartoon were offended. They weren't having their human rights trampled upon.

    Also, can someone explain why Canada even has a Nazi party if this these laws are in place? Isn't the idea to remove hate groups (and consequently speech) from the country?

    llcoolwhitey.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    whitey9 wrote: »
    And.. how is this not moral police?
    Policemen are men in uniforms that we pay to drive around in brightly marked cars and seek out and apprehend criminals. The CHRC is a government commission that receives and evaluates complaints regarding human rights violations, and refers them to the courts if deemed necessary. "Moral police" is a complete non-sequitur.
    People who read the cartoon were offended. They weren't having their human rights trampled upon.
    The cartoon has a message. That message is, "All Muslims are terrorists." It is intended to make Muslims the target of paranoia, distrust, discrimination, hatred and hostility. Use your brain. Who would go to the trouble of drawing a political cartoon if they do not intend for people to agree with and act upon their message?
    Also, can someone explain why Canada even has a Nazi party if this these laws are in place? Isn't the idea to remove hate groups (and consequently speech) from the country?
    Canada does not have a "Nazi party". One time there was a guy who ran a board on the Web called the Canadian Nazi Party and he was fined $4000 for "communicating messages that would likely expose people to hatred or contempt for being part of an identifiable group protected by law against discrimination", after some lawer filed a complaint against him with the CHRC. The judge was “not persuaded that the ‘Canadian Nazi Party’ ever existed in any form nor that it was anything more than Mr. Wilkinson’s alter ego” and deemed Bobby James Wilkinson solely responsible. I don't know where you got the idea that Canada has a Nazi party, unless it's something you just cooked up to prove your own point.

    There are really only a couple of legitimate white supremacist political movements left in Canada, and the rest have largely disbanded or gone underground -- way underground. Nobody has filed a human rights complaint against the Nationalist Party of Canada, so while they have been targeted and had leaders and members criminally charged with promoting hatred in the past, I assume they are allowed to continue to gather in private as long as they behave. They certainly don't promote and circulate hatred as widely as Ezra Levant chose to.

  • whitey9whitey9 Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    whitey9 wrote: »
    And.. how is this not moral police?
    Policemen are men in uniforms that we pay to drive around in brightly marked cars and seek out and apprehend criminals. The CHRC is a government commission that receives and evaluates complaints regarding human rights violations, and refers them to the courts if deemed necessary. "Moral police" is a complete non-sequitur.
    People who read the cartoon were offended. They weren't having their human rights trampled upon.
    The cartoon has a message. That message is, "All Muslims are terrorists." It is intended to make Muslims the target of paranoia, distrust, discrimination, hatred and hostility. Use your brain. Who would go to the trouble of drawing a political cartoon if they do not intend for people to agree with and act upon their message?
    Also, can someone explain why Canada even has a Nazi party if this these laws are in place? Isn't the idea to remove hate groups (and consequently speech) from the country?
    Canada does not have a "Nazi party". One time there was a guy who ran a board on the Web called the Canadian Nazi Party and he was fined $4000 for "communicating messages that would likely expose people to hatred or contempt for being part of an identifiable group protected by law against discrimination", after some lawer filed a complaint against him with the CHRC. The judge was “not persuaded that the ‘Canadian Nazi Party’ ever existed in any form nor that it was anything more than Mr. Wilkinson’s alter ego” and deemed Bobby James Wilkinson solely responsible. I don't know where you got the idea that Canada has a Nazi party, unless it's something you just cooked up to prove your own point.

    There are really only a couple of legitimate white supremacist political movements left in Canada, and the rest have largely disbanded or gone underground -- way underground. Nobody has filed a human rights complaint against the Nationalist Party of Canada, so while they have been targeted and had leaders and members criminally charged with promoting hatred in the past, I assume they are allowed to continue to gather in private as long as they behave. They certainly don't promote and circulate hatred as widely as Ezra Levant chose to.

    Stop attacking everybody and saying mean shit.

    I was going to put a point in there about the word 'policing' having two different meanings but I didn't think I needed to be so specific with such an obvious point. Policing doesn't mean police actually have to be involved. If an agency has the power to potentially put me in prison or fine me, and they do so on moral grounds... that's moral policing.

    The Canadian Nazi Party was something I found when I was looking through news articles about the subject. Here's the broader question: Is it illegal to be a hate group in Canada?
    It is intended to make Muslims the target of paranoia, distrust, discrimination, hatred and hostility. Use your brain. Who would go to the trouble of drawing a political cartoon if they do not intend for people to agree with and act upon their message?

    I happen to think you're being a little bit melodramatic here. And Ezra Levant didn't draw or conceive or do anything beyond reprint the cartoons. Doesn't mean he doesn't suck, but he's not like a criminal mastermind. He's like Rush Limbaugh. If Rush Limbaugh or Ezra Levant or any right wing moron actually inspired anybody to do actual harm, I would be absolutely amazed.

    llcoolwhitey.png
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    People who read the cartoon were offended. They weren't having their human rights trampled upon.
    The cartoon has a message. That message is, "All Muslims are terrorists." It is intended to make Muslims the target of paranoia, distrust, discrimination, hatred and hostility. Use your brain. Who would go to the trouble of drawing a political cartoon if they do not intend for people to agree with and act upon their message?

    Yeah, and I really have no problem with that. Neither with the cartoons that say that all Irish are drunks. Or all Jews are cheap. Or all Welsh shag sheep. If somebody is unable to see immediately that all of the above statements are false, then hey, who needs a brain anyway?
    The cartoon is outrageous on purpose. I'm trying really hard to use the little grey matter that's still left to me after the lobotomy, and it still seems like a bad attempt at humour through hyperbole. It fails. There is no way anyone should face any kind of punishment for drawing a crappy cartoon.

  • whitey9whitey9 Registered User
    edited February 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    People who read the cartoon were offended. They weren't having their human rights trampled upon.
    The cartoon has a message. That message is, "All Muslims are terrorists." It is intended to make Muslims the target of paranoia, distrust, discrimination, hatred and hostility. Use your brain. Who would go to the trouble of drawing a political cartoon if they do not intend for people to agree with and act upon their message?

    Yeah, and I really have no problem with that. Neither with the cartoons that say that all Irish are drunks. Or all Jews are cheap. Or all Welsh shag sheep. If somebody is unable to see immediately that all of the above statements are false, then hey, who needs a brain anyway?
    The cartoon is outrageous on purpose. I'm trying really hard to use the little grey matter that's still left to me after the lobotomy, and it still seems like a bad attempt at humour through hyperbole. It fails. There is no way anyone should face any kind of punishment for drawing a crappy cartoon.

    Yeah what he said. If the cartoon was simply a Muslim with the bomb in his turban, we wouldn't even be talking about it right now. The main catalyst was the fact that they represented Muhammad in print form, which is not allowed.. by someone. Somewhere.

    llcoolwhitey.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    whitey9 wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    People who read the cartoon were offended. They weren't having their human rights trampled upon.
    The cartoon has a message. That message is, "All Muslims are terrorists." It is intended to make Muslims the target of paranoia, distrust, discrimination, hatred and hostility. Use your brain. Who would go to the trouble of drawing a political cartoon if they do not intend for people to agree with and act upon their message?

    Yeah, and I really have no problem with that. Neither with the cartoons that say that all Irish are drunks. Or all Jews are cheap. Or all Welsh shag sheep. If somebody is unable to see immediately that all of the above statements are false, then hey, who needs a brain anyway?
    The cartoon is outrageous on purpose. I'm trying really hard to use the little grey matter that's still left to me after the lobotomy, and it still seems like a bad attempt at humour through hyperbole. It fails. There is no way anyone should face any kind of punishment for drawing a crappy cartoon.

    Yeah what he said. If the cartoon was simply a Muslim with the bomb in his turban, we wouldn't even be talking about it right now. The main catalyst was the fact that they represented Muhammad in print form, which is not allowed. by someone. Somewhere.

    I think a lot of people have forgotten about this. That really, most of the opposition to these cartoons is actually an attempt to enforce one religions laws onto those that don't practice it.

    Spoiler:
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    whitey9 wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    People who read the cartoon were offended. They weren't having their human rights trampled upon.
    The cartoon has a message. That message is, "All Muslims are terrorists." It is intended to make Muslims the target of paranoia, distrust, discrimination, hatred and hostility. Use your brain. Who would go to the trouble of drawing a political cartoon if they do not intend for people to agree with and act upon their message?

    Yeah, and I really have no problem with that. Neither with the cartoons that say that all Irish are drunks. Or all Jews are cheap. Or all Welsh shag sheep. If somebody is unable to see immediately that all of the above statements are false, then hey, who needs a brain anyway?
    The cartoon is outrageous on purpose. I'm trying really hard to use the little grey matter that's still left to me after the lobotomy, and it still seems like a bad attempt at humour through hyperbole. It fails. There is no way anyone should face any kind of punishment for drawing a crappy cartoon.

    Yeah what he said. If the cartoon was simply a Muslim with the bomb in his turban, we wouldn't even be talking about it right now. The main catalyst was the fact that they represented Muhammad in print form, which is not allowed.. by someone. Somewhere.

    No, they showed Muhammad with a bomb turban, thereby making out Islam as violent, which probably made the Muslims about as comfortable as a Catholic in Black and Tan barracks.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    whitey9 wrote: »
    Yeah what he said. If the cartoon was simply a Muslim with the bomb in his turban, we wouldn't even be talking about it right now. The main catalyst was the fact that they represented Muhammad in print form, which is not allowed.. by someone. Somewhere.

    No, they showed Muhammad with a bomb turban, thereby making out Islam as violent, which probably made the Muslims about as comfortable as a Catholic in Black and Tan barracks.

    Maybe, maybe not. For some reason these cartoons have caused more controversy than plenty of other anti-Muslim writings and cartoons though. Add in the story I saw on Slashdot the other day that apparently groups are trying to get pictures of the prophet removed from wikipedia (and we're not talking about offensive cartoons, we're talking about a simple drawing by Christians and at least one done by Muslims back before you went to hell for doing so) and I'm thinking that the "content" of the cartoons was perhaps less of an issue to many than their depiction of Muhammad.

    Spoiler:
  • whitey9whitey9 Registered User
    edited February 2008
    While they did show the bomb turban, the big deal was depicting Muhammad. It happens all of the time, just do a Google news search for Muhammad and I guarantee you'll see articles about people being killed and protests being staged because a certain group decided to show Muhammad in print form. The Danish newspaper had asked a bunch of cartoonists to show their representation of Muhammad. The cartoons are here. The bomb turban only represents one out of eleven total cartoons.

    The printings of the cartoons led to protests, some of which turned violent leading to many deaths, and most of newspapers that reprinted it received death threats. If the issue were just the bomb turban, I think they would have realized the supreme irony in issuing death threats. It was showing Muhammad.

    Relating this to the topic: If these were just cartoons representing an Islamic person, we would have never heard of them, and I think Ezra Whateverhisnameis wouldn't have attracted any attention by printing them.

    llcoolwhitey.png
Sign In or Register to comment.