jefferiah

That was my bad though, because I think he used identifiable.

See here you seem to understand that we are not just talking about marches through the streets. You even make admission that you think people who make lesser hateful comments deserve legal punishment, just less than certain others. So obviously, for you it is more than just about marching through the streets, starting a group, and telling people to go home.

But those were not the only examples given throughout the scope of this thread. And you said that if a certain poster were brought before the CHRC and fined if his signature included visible minorities rather than a group that is not defined by birth, you would not defend him. That person would not exactly be leading a march through the streets.

So, to what degree, in your mind, does a site have to be offensive in order for it to be taken down? If let's say, it were a site where people made some hateful generalizations of Tories, or Americans....are you game for that?

Well, if someone generalizes that Americans are all bad and selfish for example. Such things could just as conceivably lead to hatred of Americans, that could cause someone to commit violence against an American. Is he at any less danger if he is not identifiable by skin color? It only takes a few words to reveal that you are an American.

I am asking you your opinion.

Certainly it can. Now when you say religion do you only mean in cases when one is born into that religion? Because if it is a choice, then it is no different than political leaning. How about people who say negative things about Americans? Why are we not rounding these people up? Americans are often born American.

Until you give a reasonable answer. What difference does it make if the group is born that way?

One does not have to be part of an identifiable group in order to be a victim of violence influenced by hatred. All it would require is for one to reveal his political leanings. One could go to a Conservative rally. Why should we only protect identifiable groups from hatred against whole segments of society? There seems to be something magical for you about color of skin. Perhaps the racism problem you worry about begins closer to the heart.

It is not matter of whether or not you defend racism, it is a matter of whether you think someone should be held criminally liable. So, if a case was filed by a CPC supporter, you would also not rise to his defense then?

So if he had a visible minority in there, and a complaint was lodged to the CHRC, you would rise to his defense?

No one is saying it is good thing or that there is not a problem with such things. Some people just don't think legislating all problems is the best option. Why do you think it is less of a problem when someone belongs to a group whose membership is not decided at birth? As to your personal opinion, if a certain forum poster's signature referred to a visible minority rather than Conservatives, would you consider that an example of hatred one should be criminally liable for?

Some might argue that in many cases, giving up freedom of speech could eventually prove more dangerous than what some people consider dangerous speech.

That's just it. This case should not have been entertained. It would not have been in a regular court.

So define what is inciting or encouraging. Does one have to directly encourage that? The poster went on to mention more cases than just neo-nazi marches. If we substitute an identifiable minority for Conservatives in a certain forum poster's signature, do we have a case?

Do you agree with that legislation? Why should it not also apply to people who choose to dress differently or to people who vote Conservative? Do they not deserve as much protection? How is it more dangerous to hate those who belong to a group by birth than for any other reason? Why even some haters could make the argument that by belonging to a group they hate by choice makes them more deserving of the violence.

You are at an impasse because you have no explanation. Once again, you argued that we must nip hatred in the bud when it could conceivably cause violence. How can you possibly determine whether or not one's speech can cause violence, and since when do we only protect "identifiable" groups from that violence? You also say its different if a person is born into the group. So basically, when the preppy kids at our school beat the freaks, that is not as important? Why is race such a magical construct for you? If you want to stop racism in this world, you should begin with the one thing you can control, before you think of legislating others.

You are making your own rules now. Hatred is hatred. How can you argue differently? Hatred of the individual is just as bad. It does not matter if you hate someone for something they can not help, or for choosing to drink Pepsi. You made the point that spreading hatred causes more hatred. That is a noble sentiment on your part. You think that the law should be able to protect people from hatred on the basis that it could influence crimes. I can understand that. But since when do we only protect people from crimes based on a group they belong to. If you are concerned enough that a man's speech could cause another to commit a crime against another, why are you not defending individuals from that? Is murder of an individual any less a crime? Or is it that you do not see people as individuals but as groups?

I think you misinterpret. Laws about hate are going to be open to a lot of interpretation, and no matter what you think the limits should be, you do not get to determine those limits for any given case. Suppose the judge is someone who accuses a fellow forum poster of promoting genocide for suggesting that people who can't afford kids should be encouraged to make informed decisions to forego having them. To accuse someone of promoting genocide in that case is plain ridiculous, but there people who see hate crimes at every corner and they can get law degrees. Quite simply, I do not trust you to decide the limits of my speech. You argued that spreading hatred or negativity could conceivably influence hatred in others and push them over the edge to commit violent acts. Why should any group be protected anymore than the individual for that? Is it less a crime if it is one person? Could negative things said about George Bush apply? Maybe some people would have liked to commit violence on Bush. How about a fellow forum poster's signature which seems to glorify pushing Conservatives down stairs so they bleed? Could that be considered hatred? Insert the name of a visible minority in place of Conservatives in that signature.

The problem with that is, when you go beyond that speech which does not directly call for violence, who gets to decide what speech is hateful? What negative statements and generalizations can possibly lead to violence? How about people who said hateful things about George Bush? Or Octomom? Or the Toronto Maple Leafs? People who wish to allow the government control over such things, which are open to so much interpretation, may eventually find themselves among the ones who regret it most.

If coaches were PR specialists, then guys like Tortorella would not get a job. Seriously though, it's not as if the Habs brass committed a heinous crime here. They appointed the assistant coach to take over as an interim head coach. Cunneyworth made an effort to speak some French after tonight's game as a matter of fact. That would not fly in today's NHL. More players are produced in some areas than others. This is an international game, now. And in recent years there are less and less star players coming out of Quebec, anyways. The Habs will survive this tempest in a teapot. While there is such thing as bad management that is worthy of criticism, a good manager (or even a bad manager) would have to be completely off his/her rocker to allow the crowd to dictate who gets to be coach. Businesses have to please their customers, but there is a point at which obeying their whims is nutty, and this is definitely it. The Habs definitely are a business. And for as many people are making a stink about this, there are fans who think it is ridiculous. As a business, there are other issues to be considered as well. If I am an unrestricted free agent or a prospective coach and I have an offer from the Habs and another city, this kind of media nonsense might turn me off from signing a contract with Montreal. And there have been Quebec-born, francophone players who have turned down deals to play with the Habs to play a little farther from the madding crowd.

deleted

To me, in the Elmo video, Katy Perry, while obviously quite attractive, comes across kinda deliberately dorky. She is not too cool to be a silly to entertain kids. I like that.

As far as that goes, he doesn't even need to know that much. The players speak English all over the league. The habs only have a few francophones. The Canadiens actually have more Americains than anything else.

I agree. But as a fan it still concerns me. Some of these mouthpieces work in the media and Cunneyworth has already taken a hit from the journalists. All this over a guy who has been hired as a placeholder. I know he is an adult and coaches anywhere have to distance themselves from media nonsense, but the nonsense around the Habs is always that much louder, and you have to wonder how stuff likes this affects.....well let's say the decision of another coach to sign here or a free agent.