The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Liberals, White Supremacists, and Human Rights
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.