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.
Not really.
Like I said, racists will still find private or semi-private forums to affirm their hatred. Also, at least down here in the land of public hatred, most racists or bigots I knew inherited their views from their parents anyway. So it sounds to me like the whole "teach it in schools" idea would have a greater effect anyway, and without all the pesky limitations on individual liberties.
Christ, you guys are being idiots about this. Limiting freedom isn't a bad thing at all, and I don't know where you generally non-idiotic people get off holding a position that is completely absurd. The CHRC is a constitutional, quasi-judicial body which has been empowered by Parliament to deal with hate speech. Aside from the Act establishing it, it gains it's legitimacy from Section 1. of the Charter, which reads:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
That's the first clause besides the preamble in the Charter. The second clause lists the fundamental freedoms each Canadian enjoys, they are:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
All of which are subject to the limitations as imposed by Section 1.
Furthermore, in Section 15 of the Charter, there is a very specific and strong clause that prevents discrimination, which is very important for the case of Ezra Levant. It reads:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In Canada, when you publicly spread hate speech, you violate not just the various criminal prohibitions against hate speech, but fundamental principles in the Charter. Specifically, by spreading hate speech, a person is infringing the rights set out in Section 2. of the Charter of those who are subject to the hate speech. This is constitutionally forbidden. Sections 1 and 15 of the Charter are the two sections which allow the government to help ensure the continued enjoyment of Section 2 rights by all citizens. First by imposing reasonable limits upon all citizens' ability to exercise those rights, and second, by enacting judgments and policy to work against any form of discrimination which would impede the ability of a citizen subject to such discrimination to exercise their Section 2 rights.
In Canada, hate speech, specifically the bullshit published by Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, violates the letter, and more importantly, the spirit of the law.
Finally, all of these clauses within the Charter are tempered by Section 6, clause 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which constitutionally mandates that Parliament, through it's legislating, must provide good government. Specificially:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada
Even leaving aside the basis in the Charter, this alone gives justification for the existence of the CHRC.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
How exactly does Hate Speech violate Section 2 of the charter, if I may ask? I'm not seeing it. There's no 'freedom from hearing/encountering hateful expression' specified in that section of the charter.
Yes, issues like this should be in the human rights commission scope.
Where would you draw the line between between what the CHRC should and shouldn't consider to be "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt?" What's just on each side of that line?
Edit: saggio, do you want to address the same questions?
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.
Posting the laws themselves and justifying their existence as declared from your charter doesn't make them any less retarded or the people who disagree with them 'idiots.'
Posting the laws themselves and justifying their existence as declared from your charter doesn't make them any less retarded or the people who disagree with them 'idiots.'
I was under the impression that the people in this thread held that the CHRC and the reasonable limits imposed by Parliament and the courts was unlawful. My point is that they are not unlawful. If you wanted to talk about freedom philosophically I would be happy to oblige - but that doesn't seem to jive with what the OP was interested in.
How exactly does Hate Speech violate Section 2 of the charter, if I may ask? I'm not seeing it. There's no 'freedom from hearing/encountering hateful expression' specified in that section of the charter.
Subsections (a) and (b) are the big ones that are usually violated by hate speech. I should have noted earlier that it depends a great deal on the content of the hate speech, in terms of Section 2.
How exactly does Hate Speech violate Section 2 of the charter, if I may ask? I'm not seeing it. There's no 'freedom from hearing/encountering hateful expression' specified in that section of the charter.
Subsections (a) and (b) are the big ones that are usually violated by hate speech. I should have noted earlier that it depends a great deal on the content of the hate speech, in terms of Section 2.
I'm not seeing how. Regardless of what I say, you still have the freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or to respond in kind provided you have access to your own soapbox (and, speaking specifically of religions, they most certainly do, no?).
Also, I'm failing to see how hate speech violates the equal protection clause of Section 15 as quoted, since we're talking about a private publication or a private group or merely an individual. I don't see how anything I say suddenly denies somebody equal rights or protections under the law. Unless they are forbidden from responding in kind, or perhaps if I'm actually advocating that those equal rights/protections be stripped.
I was under the impression that the people in this thread held that the CHRC and the reasonable limits imposed by Parliament and the courts was unlawful.
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
I'm not seeing how. Regardless of what I say, you still have the freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or to respond in kind provided you have access to your own soapbox (and, speaking specifically of religions, they most certainly do, no?).
Not necessarily. By, say, publicly stating hate speech against Muslims, you are requiring them to either defend themselves or allow untruths to stand - which can impact the ability of Muslims in Canada to practice religion. Just look at the whole business in Herouxville and the reasonable accommodation debate - it had its basis in racist attitudes and there was a whole flurry of hate speech against Muslims as a result. If you can't practise your religion without racist and discriminatory remarks being made against you, you don't think that it impedes the ability of a person exercise their Section 2 rights?
Then, of course, there's the whole "security of person" which is also guaranteed in the Charter.
Also, I'm failing to see how hate speech violates the equal protection clause of Section 15 as quoted, since we're talking about a private publication or a private group or merely an individual. I don't see how anything I say suddenly denies somebody equal rights or protections under the law. Unless they are forbidden from responding in kind, or perhaps if I'm actually advocating that those equal rights/protections be stripped.
Subsection (2) is the important bit. That's one of the places where the CHRC gains its constitutional legitimacy.
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
I have. Or do you consider the notion that enlightenment thinkers were right to be an American constitutional attitude and not applicable to the proud Canadian tradition?
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
I have. Or do you consider the notion that enlightenment thinkers were right to be an American constitutional attitude and not applicable to the proud Canadian tradition?
I don't think I understand the question, here. Are you asking me why Locke is considered to have American constitutional attitudes?
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
I have. Or do you consider the notion that enlightenment thinkers were right to be an American constitutional attitude and not applicable to the proud Canadian tradition?
I don't think I understand the question, here. Are you asking me why Locke is considered to have American constitutional attitudes?
I'm asking you why you think using Locke as part of/a basis for the argument is an American constitutional attitude.
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
I have. Or do you consider the notion that enlightenment thinkers were right to be an American constitutional attitude and not applicable to the proud Canadian tradition?
I don't think I understand the question, here. Are you asking me why Locke is considered to have American constitutional attitudes?
I'm asking you why you think using Locke as part of/a basis for the argument is an American constitutional attitude.
...Because Locke's political theory was basically copied verbatim in the American constitution? It wasn't in Canada's constitution, which has a different and distinct philosophical basis.
In Canada, when you publicly spread hate speech, you violate not just the various criminal prohibitions against hate speech, but fundamental principles in the Charter. Specifically, by spreading hate speech, a person is infringing the rights set out in Section 2. of the Charter of those who are subject to the hate speech. This is constitutionally forbidden. Sections 1 and 15 of the Charter are the two sections which allow the government to help ensure the continued enjoyment of Section 2 rights by all citizens. First by imposing reasonable limits upon all citizens' ability to exercise those rights, and second, by enacting judgments and policy to work against any form of discrimination which would impede the ability of a citizen subject to such discrimination to exercise their Section 2 rights.
In Canada, hate speech, specifically the bullshit published by Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, violates the letter, and more importantly, the spirit of the law.
If I sounded angry earlier it's because I was frustrated by what I perceived as an assumption that our constitution outlines the same philosophical principles as Americans think of when they hear the word "freedom". Yes it is similar, but there are key, fundamental differences.
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.
Not really.
Like I said, racists will still find private or semi-private forums to affirm their hatred. Also, at least down here in the land of public hatred, most racists or bigots I knew inherited their views from their parents anyway. So it sounds to me like the whole "teach it in schools" idea would have a greater effect anyway, and without all the pesky limitations on individual liberties.
The fact is you can only do so much to try to get people to be tolerant, and you're not likely to convince a grown man to change his opinions on certain people who are different than him. All we can do is try to prevent people from promoting hateful ideas and messages in a public context, while equipping younger generations with the skills and values needed to live together in a culturally diverse society. For the most part, it seems to be working.
My uncle is free to tell everyone who'll listen in my father's enormous Mormon family that Canada should buy a bunch of nukes from the Americans and turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. And some of them might even buy into his hateful bullshit and spread it to their friends. That's private, and whatever ideas or feelings people choose to exchange in private are their business. It's when they go public with their hatred, publishing such views in nationally-circulated magazines or stating them in forums of public discourse such as the media, that these laws might apply.
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
I have. Or do you consider the notion that enlightenment thinkers were right to be an American constitutional attitude and not applicable to the proud Canadian tradition?
I don't think I understand the question, here. Are you asking me why Locke is considered to have American constitutional attitudes?
I'm asking you why you think using Locke as part of/a basis for the argument is an American constitutional attitude.
...Because Locke's political theory was basically copied verbatim in the American constitution? It wasn't in Canada's constitution, which has a different and distinct philosophical basis.
Okay, so I can't argue against regulating what people can and can't express with enlightenment philosophers because they're too similiar to the US. Gotcha. What else is out of bounds in the debate?
Also, I'm failing to see how hate speech violates the equal protection clause of Section 15 as quoted, since we're talking about a private publication or a private group or merely an individual. I don't see how anything I say suddenly denies somebody equal rights or protections under the law. Unless they are forbidden from responding in kind, or perhaps if I'm actually advocating that those equal rights/protections be stripped.
Subsection (2) is the important bit. That's one of the places where the CHRC gains its constitutional legitimacy.
You've lost me. We're talking about subsection 2 of Section 15 that you quoted there, right? As I'm reading it Section 15 says two things:
(1) Everybody has the right to equal protection and benefit under law, and in particular forbids discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc.
(2) This does not preclude activities/laws/etc. that discriminate in favor of a disadvantaged group.
Now, subsection 2 would seem to clearly support giving preferential treatment under law to disadvantaged groups. I get that. So, as an example, preferential hiring for minorities...or mandating that businesses make accommodations for prayer times (and not requiring the same for those not in a disadvantaged minority, which would otherwise violate subsection 1).
What I don't see is how subsection 2 validates violating the fundamental rights named under Section 2 (namely subsection (b), specifically expression and the press) of bigots. Really, the only justification I'm seeing is in Section 1, with the whole "subject only to such reasonable limits...." bit. Which is really more than enough; this portion of Section 1 seems to be vague enough to allow for all manner of restriction.
So, while I don't agree with your reasoning (I don't think Section 15, subsection 2 has anything to do with it), I agree that this would seem to be both legal and constitutional in Canada. Which is why you haven't seen me argue otherwise.
EDIT: Note that Section 15, subsection 2 does justify uneven application of any such restrictions; so for instance pursuing complaints made by a minority against a majority but ignoring the complaints of those in the majority...which otherwise would violate equal protection. It just doesn't (by my reading) justify the restrictions themselves.
And I'll point out that freedoms, even the "fundamental" ones, aren't absolute down here either. We just generally apply a much higher standard as to when limiting them is necessary. Which I think is just a difference in attitude both of our populace and our constitution; the presumption down here is that individual rights aren't to be abridged by the government, and that the burden is to show such restrictions are necessary, and not merely "reasonable" or perhaps "justified."
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
I have. Or do you consider the notion that enlightenment thinkers were right to be an American constitutional attitude and not applicable to the proud Canadian tradition?
I don't think I understand the question, here. Are you asking me why Locke is considered to have American constitutional attitudes?
I'm asking you why you think using Locke as part of/a basis for the argument is an American constitutional attitude.
...Because Locke's political theory was basically copied verbatim in the American constitution? It wasn't in Canada's constitution, which has a different and distinct philosophical basis.
Okay, so I can't argue against regulating what people can and can't express with enlightenment philosophers because they're too similiar to the US. Gotcha. What else is out of bounds in the debate?
No, you are misconstruing what I'm saying. You can argue all you want with Enlightenment philosophers, but many of them - Locke in particular - don't have a leg to stand on. We can have that discussion if you want. However, if we are talking about the philosophical standing rather than the legal standing of freedom, there is no use in referencing either constitution. Don't be purposefully obtuse.
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.
Not really.
Like I said, racists will still find private or semi-private forums to affirm their hatred. Also, at least down here in the land of public hatred, most racists or bigots I knew inherited their views from their parents anyway. So it sounds to me like the whole "teach it in schools" idea would have a greater effect anyway, and without all the pesky limitations on individual liberties.
The fact is you can only do so much to try to get people to be tolerant, and you're not likely to convince a grown man to change his opinions on certain people who are different than him. All we can do is try to prevent people from promoting hateful ideas and messages in a public context, while equipping younger generations with the skills and values needed to live together in a culturally diverse society. For the most part, it seems to be working.
My uncle is free to tell everyone who'll listen in my father's enormous Mormon family that Canada should buy a bunch of nukes from the Americans and turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. And some of them might even buy into his hateful bullshit and spread it to their friends. That's private, and whatever ideas or feelings people choose to exchange in private are their business. It's when they go public with their hatred, publishing such views in nationally-circulated magazines or stating them in forums of public discourse such as the media, that these laws might apply.
I am curious as to where you think the line should be drawn, you keep mentioning tolerant. So do you think I should be able to publish opinion pieces with any of these attitudes?
Irish are the white version of terror.
Irish should be kicked out of the country.
Irish should be the primary rulers of the country.
I think we should round up all the Irish and hang them.
Irish is the best race.
Irish are inferior to the rest of the races.
Irish are smarter than all other races.(what if I wanted to conduct a study to prove this, is that allowed?)
Irish men have small dicks.
Also, I'm failing to see how hate speech violates the equal protection clause of Section 15 as quoted, since we're talking about a private publication or a private group or merely an individual. I don't see how anything I say suddenly denies somebody equal rights or protections under the law. Unless they are forbidden from responding in kind, or perhaps if I'm actually advocating that those equal rights/protections be stripped.
Subsection (2) is the important bit. That's one of the places where the CHRC gains its constitutional legitimacy.
You've lost me. We're talking about subsection 2 of Section 15 that you quoted there, right? As I'm reading it Section 15 says two things:
(1) Everybody has the right to equal protection and benefit under law, and in particular forbids discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc.
(2) This does not preclude activities/laws/etc. that discriminate in favor of a disadvantaged group.
What I don't see is how subsection 2 validates violating the fundamental rights named under Section 2 (namely subsection (b), specifically expression and the press) of bigots. Really, the only justification I'm seeing is in Section 1, with the whole "subject only to such reasonable limits...." bit. Which is really more than enough; this portion of Section 1 seems to be vague enough to allow for all manner of restriction.
Bigots largely target minorities. That's all there is to it, really. There seems to be a much higher likelihood of disadvantaged minorities being the target of discrimination in all forms, not just hate speech, and subsection (2) allows the government and the CHRC to deal with it. The clause empowers the relevant governmental authorities to give special scrutiny to discrimination against minorities.
EDIT: Note that Section 15, subsection 2 does justify uneven application of any such restrictions; so for instance pursuing complaints made by a minority against a majority but ignoring the complaints of those in the majority...which otherwise would violate equal protection. It just doesn't (by my reading) justify the restrictions themselves.
The unevenness of the application of such restrictions is itself subject to Section 1. So, I'm not sure if there would ever be a point where the complaints of the majority would be ignored in favour of the minority, without any other extenuating circumstances. The reasoning here is that Canada is made of minorities, and it is important to protect those minorities from discrimination and disadvantage, which, when done correctly, will lead to a more free and equitable society.
Which restrictions are we talking about? Section 1 and reasonable restrictions? Those certainly have an intellectual debt to the passage I quoted from the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as government policy with regards to multiculturalism. I need a bit more clarification to give you a proper response, though...
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.
Not really.
Like I said, racists will still find private or semi-private forums to affirm their hatred. Also, at least down here in the land of public hatred, most racists or bigots I knew inherited their views from their parents anyway. So it sounds to me like the whole "teach it in schools" idea would have a greater effect anyway, and without all the pesky limitations on individual liberties.
The fact is you can only do so much to try to get people to be tolerant, and you're not likely to convince a grown man to change his opinions on certain people who are different than him. All we can do is try to prevent people from promoting hateful ideas and messages in a public context, while equipping younger generations with the skills and values needed to live together in a culturally diverse society. For the most part, it seems to be working.
My uncle is free to tell everyone who'll listen in my father's enormous Mormon family that Canada should buy a bunch of nukes from the Americans and turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. And some of them might even buy into his hateful bullshit and spread it to their friends. That's private, and whatever ideas or feelings people choose to exchange in private are their business. It's when they go public with their hatred, publishing such views in nationally-circulated magazines or stating them in forums of public discourse such as the media, that these laws might apply.
I am curious as to where you think the line should be drawn, you keep mentioning tolerant. So do you think I should be able to publish opinion pieces with any of these attitudes?
Irish are the white version of terror.
Irish should be kicked out of the country.
Irish should be the primary rulers of the country.
I think we should round up all the Irish and hang them.
Irish is the best race.
Irish are inferior to the rest of the races.
Irish are smarter than all other races.(what if I wanted to conduct a study to prove this, is that allowed?)
Irish men have small dicks.
I'll see you in whichever Province's HRC will take my case sir! I can't lose, the odds are in my favor (100%)!
I am curious as to where you think the line should be drawn, you keep mentioning tolerant. So do you think I should be able to publish opinion pieces with any of these attitudes?
Irish are the white version of terror.
Irish should be kicked out of the country.
Irish should be the primary rulers of the country.
I think we should round up all the Irish and hang them.
Irish is the best race.
Irish are inferior to the rest of the races.
Irish are smarter than all other races.
Irish men have small dicks.
Most of those statements are discriminatory remarks aimed against Irish people, although some are very nebulous. For the ones which are blatantly inflammatory, and since it is public speech, and not satire or parody, most of those opinions could qualify for being hate speech. They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
(what if I wanted to conduct a study to prove this, is that allowed?)
Try getting approval from the ethical review board, and then we'll talk.
They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
What about a private publication?
What do you mean by 'private publication?'
So you don't think we should be able to study the differences between the races? Is it ok to study why Japanese are shorter than Africans?
Well, first of all, I disagree with the entire concept of "races." If you mean study the differences between different ethnic groups, then I have no problem with it. But in your original statement, it was worded in such a way so as it was looking to prove the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That isn't science, and such experiments would be unpublishable, and I don't think would even get approval from an Ethical Review Board to actually happen. It's a bit of a non-sequitur.
They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
What about a private publication?
What do you mean by 'private publication?'
So you don't think we should be able to study the differences between the races? Is it ok to study why Japanese are shorter than Africans?
Well, first of all, I disagree with the entire concept of "races." If you mean study the differences between different ethnic groups, then I have no problem with it. But in your original statement, it was worded in such a way so as it was looking to prove the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That isn't science, and such experiments would be unpublishable, and I don't think would even get approval from an Ethical Review Board to actually happen. It's a bit of a non-sequitur.
A paid newsletter or even magazine that is privately owned.
They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
What about a private publication?
What do you mean by 'private publication?'
So you don't think we should be able to study the differences between the races? Is it ok to study why Japanese are shorter than Africans?
Well, first of all, I disagree with the entire concept of "races." If you mean study the differences between different ethnic groups, then I have no problem with it. But in your original statement, it was worded in such a way so as it was looking to prove the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That isn't science, and such experiments would be unpublishable, and I don't think would even get approval from an Ethical Review Board to actually happen. It's a bit of a non-sequitur.
A paid newsletter or even magazine that is privately owned.
They don't need to be privately owned, publicy traded companies still have private property rights over their subscription based services.
I am curious as to where you think the line should be drawn, you keep mentioning tolerant. So do you think I should be able to publish opinion pieces with any of these attitudes?
Irish are the white version of terror.
Irish should be kicked out of the country.
Irish should be the primary rulers of the country.
I think we should round up all the Irish and hang them.
Irish is the best race.
Irish are inferior to the rest of the races.
Irish are smarter than all other races.
Irish men have small dicks.
Most of those statements are discriminatory remarks aimed against Irish people, although some are very nebulous. For the ones which are blatantly inflammatory, and since it is public speech, and not satire or parody, most of those opinions could qualify for being hate speech. They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
(what if I wanted to conduct a study to prove this, is that allowed?)
Try getting approval from the ethical review board, and then we'll talk.
There is a line between free speech and incitement, and determining where that lies on a case-by-case basis is the reason we have a Human Rights Commission in the first place. Cases involving hate-speech laws are not a matter for regular courts, because it is obviously a very involved and nuanced topic. Instead, we pay people who are experts on this issue and have years of relevant education under their belts, specifically to deal with individual hate-speech cases.
So those statements alone are just, as saggio pointed out, discriminatory remarks, and whether they qualify as hate speech would likely depend on the content of the argument being made to support such theses.
They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
What about a private publication?
What do you mean by 'private publication?'
So you don't think we should be able to study the differences between the races? Is it ok to study why Japanese are shorter than Africans?
Well, first of all, I disagree with the entire concept of "races." If you mean study the differences between different ethnic groups, then I have no problem with it. But in your original statement, it was worded in such a way so as it was looking to prove the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That isn't science, and such experiments would be unpublishable, and I don't think would even get approval from an Ethical Review Board to actually happen. It's a bit of a non-sequitur.
A paid newsletter or even magazine that is privately owned.
Well, all newspapers and publications in Canada are privately owned. Ownership of a publication doesn't have much to do with the content of what is published, which is what the issue is.
They don't need to be privately owned, publicy traded companies still have private property rights over their subscription based services.
Possibly. I don't know enough about it to really say one way or another, but I do know that property law (which isn't considered a right under the Canadian constitution) is different in many respects than American property law.
They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
What about a private publication?
What do you mean by 'private publication?'
So you don't think we should be able to study the differences between the races? Is it ok to study why Japanese are shorter than Africans?
Well, first of all, I disagree with the entire concept of "races." If you mean study the differences between different ethnic groups, then I have no problem with it. But in your original statement, it was worded in such a way so as it was looking to prove the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That isn't science, and such experiments would be unpublishable, and I don't think would even get approval from an Ethical Review Board to actually happen. It's a bit of a non-sequitur.
A paid newsletter or even magazine that is privately owned.
Well, all newspapers and publications in Canada are privately owned. Ownership of a publication doesn't have much to do with the content of what is published, which is what the issue is.
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?
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.
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.
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. I've said before that I don't know what the law says on this front, but I have no problem with public expression being regulated for hate speech. The government doesn't regulate in any way private discussion or private correspondence. I'm sure you can have a house party with a hundred people and talk about those damn dirty jews all you like - if it's in private. But the rules change as soon as you enter the public square. I don't know why you find this concept so jarring.
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.
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.
Military Publications? Government Publications? These are not Private.
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.
Military Publications? Government Publications? These are not Private.
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.
I don't know what I was getting at with that post. I agree with you 100%. :oops:
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.
Posts
Like I said, racists will still find private or semi-private forums to affirm their hatred. Also, at least down here in the land of public hatred, most racists or bigots I knew inherited their views from their parents anyway. So it sounds to me like the whole "teach it in schools" idea would have a greater effect anyway, and without all the pesky limitations on individual liberties.
That's the first clause besides the preamble in the Charter. The second clause lists the fundamental freedoms each Canadian enjoys, they are:
All of which are subject to the limitations as imposed by Section 1.
Furthermore, in Section 15 of the Charter, there is a very specific and strong clause that prevents discrimination, which is very important for the case of Ezra Levant. It reads:
In Canada, when you publicly spread hate speech, you violate not just the various criminal prohibitions against hate speech, but fundamental principles in the Charter. Specifically, by spreading hate speech, a person is infringing the rights set out in Section 2. of the Charter of those who are subject to the hate speech. This is constitutionally forbidden. Sections 1 and 15 of the Charter are the two sections which allow the government to help ensure the continued enjoyment of Section 2 rights by all citizens. First by imposing reasonable limits upon all citizens' ability to exercise those rights, and second, by enacting judgments and policy to work against any form of discrimination which would impede the ability of a citizen subject to such discrimination to exercise their Section 2 rights.
In Canada, hate speech, specifically the bullshit published by Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, violates the letter, and more importantly, the spirit of the law.
Finally, all of these clauses within the Charter are tempered by Section 6, clause 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which constitutionally mandates that Parliament, through it's legislating, must provide good government. Specificially:
Even leaving aside the basis in the Charter, this alone gives justification for the existence of the CHRC.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Where would you draw the line between between what the CHRC should and shouldn't consider to be "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt?" What's just on each side of that line?
Edit: saggio, do you want to address the same questions?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I was under the impression that the people in this thread held that the CHRC and the reasonable limits imposed by Parliament and the courts was unlawful. My point is that they are not unlawful. If you wanted to talk about freedom philosophically I would be happy to oblige - but that doesn't seem to jive with what the OP was interested in.
Subsections (a) and (b) are the big ones that are usually violated by hate speech. I should have noted earlier that it depends a great deal on the content of the hate speech, in terms of Section 2.
I'm not seeing how. Regardless of what I say, you still have the freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or to respond in kind provided you have access to your own soapbox (and, speaking specifically of religions, they most certainly do, no?).
Also, I'm failing to see how hate speech violates the equal protection clause of Section 15 as quoted, since we're talking about a private publication or a private group or merely an individual. I don't see how anything I say suddenly denies somebody equal rights or protections under the law. Unless they are forbidden from responding in kind, or perhaps if I'm actually advocating that those equal rights/protections be stripped.
No, most of us are simply arguing that they aren't reasonable, and shouldn't be lawful.
Not necessarily. By, say, publicly stating hate speech against Muslims, you are requiring them to either defend themselves or allow untruths to stand - which can impact the ability of Muslims in Canada to practice religion. Just look at the whole business in Herouxville and the reasonable accommodation debate - it had its basis in racist attitudes and there was a whole flurry of hate speech against Muslims as a result. If you can't practise your religion without racist and discriminatory remarks being made against you, you don't think that it impedes the ability of a person exercise their Section 2 rights?
Then, of course, there's the whole "security of person" which is also guaranteed in the Charter.
Subsection (2) is the important bit. That's one of the places where the CHRC gains its constitutional legitimacy.
All I've seen is a bunch of Americans paraphrasing their own constitution and constitutional attitudes about why freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. I haven't yet seen an argument without reference to the American constitution that attempts to make the point that unregulated freedom of speech is better (somehow) than regulated freedom of speech.
I have. Or do you consider the notion that enlightenment thinkers were right to be an American constitutional attitude and not applicable to the proud Canadian tradition?
I don't think I understand the question, here. Are you asking me why Locke is considered to have American constitutional attitudes?
I'm asking you why you think using Locke as part of/a basis for the argument is an American constitutional attitude.
...Because Locke's political theory was basically copied verbatim in the American constitution? It wasn't in Canada's constitution, which has a different and distinct philosophical basis.
If I sounded angry earlier it's because I was frustrated by what I perceived as an assumption that our constitution outlines the same philosophical principles as Americans think of when they hear the word "freedom". Yes it is similar, but there are key, fundamental differences.
My uncle is free to tell everyone who'll listen in my father's enormous Mormon family that Canada should buy a bunch of nukes from the Americans and turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. And some of them might even buy into his hateful bullshit and spread it to their friends. That's private, and whatever ideas or feelings people choose to exchange in private are their business. It's when they go public with their hatred, publishing such views in nationally-circulated magazines or stating them in forums of public discourse such as the media, that these laws might apply.
Okay, so I can't argue against regulating what people can and can't express with enlightenment philosophers because they're too similiar to the US. Gotcha. What else is out of bounds in the debate?
You've lost me. We're talking about subsection 2 of Section 15 that you quoted there, right? As I'm reading it Section 15 says two things:
(1) Everybody has the right to equal protection and benefit under law, and in particular forbids discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc.
(2) This does not preclude activities/laws/etc. that discriminate in favor of a disadvantaged group.
Now, subsection 2 would seem to clearly support giving preferential treatment under law to disadvantaged groups. I get that. So, as an example, preferential hiring for minorities...or mandating that businesses make accommodations for prayer times (and not requiring the same for those not in a disadvantaged minority, which would otherwise violate subsection 1).
What I don't see is how subsection 2 validates violating the fundamental rights named under Section 2 (namely subsection (b), specifically expression and the press) of bigots. Really, the only justification I'm seeing is in Section 1, with the whole "subject only to such reasonable limits...." bit. Which is really more than enough; this portion of Section 1 seems to be vague enough to allow for all manner of restriction.
So, while I don't agree with your reasoning (I don't think Section 15, subsection 2 has anything to do with it), I agree that this would seem to be both legal and constitutional in Canada. Which is why you haven't seen me argue otherwise.
EDIT: Note that Section 15, subsection 2 does justify uneven application of any such restrictions; so for instance pursuing complaints made by a minority against a majority but ignoring the complaints of those in the majority...which otherwise would violate equal protection. It just doesn't (by my reading) justify the restrictions themselves.
And I'll point out that freedoms, even the "fundamental" ones, aren't absolute down here either. We just generally apply a much higher standard as to when limiting them is necessary. Which I think is just a difference in attitude both of our populace and our constitution; the presumption down here is that individual rights aren't to be abridged by the government, and that the burden is to show such restrictions are necessary, and not merely "reasonable" or perhaps "justified."
No, you are misconstruing what I'm saying. You can argue all you want with Enlightenment philosophers, but many of them - Locke in particular - don't have a leg to stand on. We can have that discussion if you want. However, if we are talking about the philosophical standing rather than the legal standing of freedom, there is no use in referencing either constitution. Don't be purposefully obtuse.
I am curious as to where you think the line should be drawn, you keep mentioning tolerant. So do you think I should be able to publish opinion pieces with any of these attitudes?
Irish are the white version of terror.
Irish should be kicked out of the country.
Irish should be the primary rulers of the country.
I think we should round up all the Irish and hang them.
Irish is the best race.
Irish are inferior to the rest of the races.
Irish are smarter than all other races.(what if I wanted to conduct a study to prove this, is that allowed?)
Irish men have small dicks.
Bigots largely target minorities. That's all there is to it, really. There seems to be a much higher likelihood of disadvantaged minorities being the target of discrimination in all forms, not just hate speech, and subsection (2) allows the government and the CHRC to deal with it. The clause empowers the relevant governmental authorities to give special scrutiny to discrimination against minorities.
The unevenness of the application of such restrictions is itself subject to Section 1. So, I'm not sure if there would ever be a point where the complaints of the majority would be ignored in favour of the minority, without any other extenuating circumstances. The reasoning here is that Canada is made of minorities, and it is important to protect those minorities from discrimination and disadvantage, which, when done correctly, will lead to a more free and equitable society.
Which restrictions are we talking about? Section 1 and reasonable restrictions? Those certainly have an intellectual debt to the passage I quoted from the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as government policy with regards to multiculturalism. I need a bit more clarification to give you a proper response, though...
I'll see you in whichever Province's HRC will take my case sir! I can't lose, the odds are in my favor (100%)!
Most of those statements are discriminatory remarks aimed against Irish people, although some are very nebulous. For the ones which are blatantly inflammatory, and since it is public speech, and not satire or parody, most of those opinions could qualify for being hate speech. They wouldn't qualify if you held and discussed them privately.
Try getting approval from the ethical review board, and then we'll talk.
So you don't think we should be able to study the differences between the races? Is it ok to study why Japanese are shorter than Africans?
What about a private publication?
What do you mean by 'private publication?'
Well, first of all, I disagree with the entire concept of "races." If you mean study the differences between different ethnic groups, then I have no problem with it. But in your original statement, it was worded in such a way so as it was looking to prove the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That isn't science, and such experiments would be unpublishable, and I don't think would even get approval from an Ethical Review Board to actually happen. It's a bit of a non-sequitur.
A paid newsletter or even magazine that is privately owned.
They don't need to be privately owned, publicy traded companies still have private property rights over their subscription based services.
So those statements alone are just, as saggio pointed out, discriminatory remarks, and whether they qualify as hate speech would likely depend on the content of the argument being made to support such theses.
Well, all newspapers and publications in Canada are privately owned. Ownership of a publication doesn't have much to do with the content of what is published, which is what the issue is.
Possibly. I don't know enough about it to really say one way or another, but I do know that property law (which isn't considered a right under the Canadian constitution) is different in many respects than American property law.
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. I've said before that I don't know what the law says on this front, but I have no problem with public expression being regulated for hate speech. The government doesn't regulate in any way private discussion or private correspondence. I'm sure you can have a house party with a hundred people and talk about those damn dirty jews all you like - if it's in private. But the rules change as soon as you enter the public square. I don't know why you find this concept so jarring.
Interrobang.
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.
I don't know what I was getting at with that post. I agree with you 100%. :oops:
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.