Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Argus]

No, because there would seem to be grounds for charging incitement at that point. Not for potential, which is in the eye of the beholder; but for actuality. The Godfather is as culpable (if not moreso, in my view) as is the hitman. (And I consider the gangster analogy to be apt enough to pass.)

The Godfather actually gives orders for things to be done. That's not the case here. And let's say the charismatic figure is not actually telling anyone to attack a given group at all. Let's say instead his speeches are laden with fear mongering and hate mongering depictions of this group as a terrible threat to all we hold dear. Then there's no incitement. A number of people are merely influenced by him to hate a particular group, and take it into their own hands to attack that group.

[bloodyminded]

The Godfather actually gives orders for things to be done. That's not the case here. And let's say the charismatic figure is not actually telling anyone to attack a given group at all. Let's say instead his speeches are laden with fear mongering and hate mongering depictions of this group as a terrible threat to all we hold dear. Then there's no incitement. A number of people are merely influenced by him to hate a particular group, and take it into their own hands to attack that group.

Then I don't see how his speech could be repressed. The actual criminals are the only, well, criminals. They can certainly still be charged, and should be. And would be.

[Pliny]

And a distinct lack of education, knowledge, intelligence or judgement.

Tea-baggers are an illiterate mob of cretins whose absence would increase the IQ of America by a noticeable percentage.

Doubtful. I think they are mostly middle class Americans concerned about big government and a loss of individualism and freedom not to mention the disregard for their Constitution. They didn't like a lot of things Republicans did to grow government and they see the trend escalating with Obama.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think Lictor is one of the groups that they were referring to....and saying that adds nothing to a conversation. What if someone follows your advice?

Then they do, and if there is sufficient evidence that I was part of a conspiracy, as opposed to just mouthing off, then I could be charged. You know, a *criminal* offense.

[ToadBrother]

Then I don't see how his speech could be repressed. The actual criminals are the only, well, criminals. They can certainly still be charged, and should be. And would be.

So can someone now explain to me how hate laws have any purpose at all?

[bloodyminded]

So can someone now explain to me how hate laws have any purpose at all?

I believe you're asking the wrong man.

[Born Free]

So can someone now explain to me how hate laws have any purpose at all?

To treat all identifiable groups fairly and promote in those groups a sense of their security and safety in the Canadian community.

[Pliny]

Then I don't see how his speech could be repressed. The actual criminals are the only, well, criminals. They can certainly still be charged, and should be. And would be.

Precisely.

You cannot forcefully violate the sanctity of person and property. Only government has that ability by law.

Now if the speaker is just mouthing proven falsehoods and lies he should be shut down.

[ToadBrother]

To treat all identifiable groups fairly and promote in those groups a sense of their security and safety in the Canadian community.

Wouldn't it be just as useful to charge those who are inciting violence, rather than trying to censor speech? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with a liberal, democratic state?

[Born Free]

Wouldn't it be just as useful to charge those who are inciting violence, rather than trying to censor speech? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with a liberal, democratic state?

Hate laws dont censor speech.....just like the armed robbery laws dont censor or prevent armed robberies.

Hate laws are intended to target people for punishment who have been proven to advocate or promote genocide; incite hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace;

Edited April 5, 2010 by Born Free

[Pliny]

To treat all identifiable groups fairly and promote in those groups a sense of their security and safety in the Canadian community.

Sorry sounds nice but it doesn't do that. White anglo saxon males in Canada are noticeably slighted these days.

[ToadBrother]

Hate laws dont censor speech.....just like the armed robbery laws dont censor or prevent armed robberies.

Hate laws are intended to target people for punishment who have been proven to advocate or promote genocide; incite hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace;

Sounds like censorship to me. If someone is actually fomenting violence against anyone, the actual plotting is clearly conspiracy. Any violent criminal acts are, well, criminal acts. Hate laws seem specifically designed to criminalize certain kinds of speech.

[Born Free]

Any violent criminal acts are, well, criminal acts. Hate laws seem specifically designed to criminalize certain kinds of speech.

Indeed. However, not all criminal acts are violent.

[Pliny]

So can someone now explain to me how hate laws have any purpose at all?

It gives Canadians a feeling of self-righteousness and morality. It places us on a higher plateau than some other countries that we can look down upon with indignation - er...well....whom if we continue to look down upon will really hate us and further fuel our indignation and self righteousness. It could start a war.

[Born Free]

...whom if we continue to look down upon will really hate us and further fuel our indignation and self righteousness. It could start a war.

... to some extent it did on this web forum...

[ToadBrother]

Indeed. However, not all criminal acts are violent.

I never said they were. But we're talking a chief justification being inciting violence. Incitement to violence has long been a criminal act, usually the charge being predecated on who or what violence is being incited against. At any rate, some fire-and-brimstone preacher shouting "Fags are going to pay!" may be making some sort of a veiled threat, but unless you can prove some conspiracy to attack homosexuals, I don't think a liberal democracy should be charging him, or even having fake courts to punish him for unpopular speech.

[Born Free]

...some fire-and-brimstone preacher shouting "Fags are going to pay!" may be making some sort of a veiled threat, but unless you can prove some conspiracy to attack homosexuals, I don't think a liberal democracy should be charging him, or even having fake courts to punish him for unpopular speech.

Let me put it this way to you....I'm betting that the preachers statement wouldnt be considered to have contravened the law.

[ToadBrother]

Let me put it this way to you....I'm betting that the preachers statement wouldnt be considered to have contravened the law.

IF he said "Take up your weapons and kill fags!" then, even without hate laws, he would have been inciting violence. That has been criminal in our system for centuries. So what precise purpose do hate laws serve?

[Born Free]

IF he said "Take up your weapons and kill fags!" then, even without hate laws, he would have been inciting violence.

You must think I'm Barry Scheck.

The courts may define the motivations of hate, bias or prejudice as aggravating factors when sentencing an offender for other offences, such as assault, damage to property, threatening, or harassment. The result is usually a more severe punishment.

Hope this helps.

As an add on....here is a brief history of the early start of Canada's criminal code...

When the Provinces of Canada were confederated in 1867, the first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald was adamant that Canada would not suffer the disparate criminal law system inherited from England for long (at that time, each province had its own criminal law). Macdonald believed strongly in the need for a single, uniform regime of criminal law for the entire country. In fact, the Canadian constitution which he helped write, gave the federal government the explicit authority to codify the criminal law. An initial set of nine statutes was passed by the federal House of Commons in 1869 to at least consolidate the law for coinage offences, forgery, offences against the person, larceny, malicious injuries to property, perjury and procedure.

A complete Criminal Code was finally achieved in July, 1892, under the leadership of the Minister of Justice and soon-to-be prime minister Sir John Thompson. This was a major event in Canadian legal history. "Just think of it," wrote one judge to Prime Minister Thompson, "Canada in the van! The first to enact a complete codification. It is far and away the best measure of the kind ever submitted to any legislature."

[Born Free]

White anglo saxon males in Canada are noticeably slighted these days.

Only in your mind....

[Pliny]

Centrists, just so.

My centre is a little to the right of yours.

I don't read any political blogs whatsoever.

So you listened to Ann Coulter say this herself?

And critics of his regime. And "potential subversives," which is sweetly Orwellian.

He had political prisoners, who were tortured. He oversaw assassinations of citizens. He was by definition opposed to freedom.

There is more to freedom than the economic realm, in a vacuum. To think otherwise is a purely materialist belief, at the radical fringe of extreme Marxism.

If you are killing citizens--based solely on your unsubstantiated claims that they are all "Marxist guerillas" (and in fact, we know this was not true, thanks to the historical record); if you hold and torture political prisoners; if you "disappear" citizens...then yes, by definition you are opposed to freedom. Probably a lot moreso than the enemy Marxist rebels, actually. They probably had superior democratic credentials. They certainly couldn't have been much worse.

He was a Dictator. Understand that political forces are not the same in Canada as they are in most Latin american countries. They are more violent. Communist guerillas do not exist here but I am sure they would be put down and jailed if they attempted to overthrow the Canadian government. Would they be political prisoners then?

Pinochet used force to gain and maintain power. He would not get away with that in Canada. I'm sure we would all like to live peaceably without violence and with respect for the sanctity of person and property. All well and good but certain forces would like to engineer and have us live our lives as they feel we should. They are political forces. It takes a little more force in Latin American countries to hold onto power than in first world countries. In Canada if you are nice you will kill your political career. In third world countries be nice politically and your dead.

But a murderous, torturing dictator doesn't?

Seriously?

He is to a degree against freedom and especially to the left but the political scenario is an entirely different dynamic.

We can look at other countries and say how right we are about our human rights and how our governments are democratically elected by the people but clearly that is a political evolutionary step that has not yet arrived in other countries. Is there freedom in North Korea or Iran. Don't disagree politically and there is the same as in Chile under Pinochet. Here we can disagree politically without consequence but we

cannot use violence or force to wrest political power.

As long as the government respects the sanctity of our person and property and we limit their power to act we won't be subject to violent overthrows. It is only when government has unlimited or whimsical powers that they get overthrown and citizens are subject to it's atrocities.

The power must remain with the individual. Socialism gradually erodes the power of the

individual and centralizes the power of the State. We will find ourselves living in third world circumstances if we continue to give the State increasing powers and domination over our lives.

Self-description is a poor way to go about it. My own mother calls herself "conservative"...and you would consider her a "left-wing socialist."

I probably would.

And every big government right-winger, in Canada and in the U.S., calls him or herself a "conservative." Even though--by your repeated definitions and admonitions--they are certainly not. You have stated this yourself.

Right, you are. There is a certain socialist pervasiveness in both countries. I would consider Canada left wing and the US slightly left of centre. The term conservative embodies different concepts at different times as does the term liberal. I would be considered a classical liberal but not a liberal of today. Conservatives and liberals have swapped sides of the political spectrum over the past century. Only the terms remain on the same side.

[Born Free]

Conservatives and liberals have swapped sides of the political spectrum over the past century. Only the terms remain on the same side.

The ONLY difference between the two is that at any given point in time, one of them is running the government.

[bush_cheney2004]

And a distinct lack of education, knowledge, intelligence or judgement.

Tea-baggers are an illiterate mob of cretins whose absence would increase the IQ of America by a noticeable percentage.

Well then...I guess we can count you as an elitist too. The "IQ of America" has seen it in good stead for many years. It's a fair trade for simpering obedience.

[Guest American Woman]

Fair enough. I should have said that the complaint against Moore was based on an incident that had already occured, as opposed to speculation that he might break the law in the future.

And yet it seems to me it would have made more sense to warn him about Canada's election laws and let him know that charges could be brought against him if he said something that could be construed as "actively campaigning" since it was an election year. I think that would be a natural thing to do since he's a "foreigner" and all. Why take it for granted that everyone knows that Canada has more restrictions on free speech than we do in the States? I think most people assume that anything they can say here can be said there.

I don't think it would have been trying to censor him, or insult him, or stifle him, or proof of bias against liberals, or any of the other things people have gotten all worked up about regarding Coulter. I think it would have been a very understandable thing if he had been informed ahead of time of Canada's laws. And I doubt he would have gone all ballistic the way Coulter and conservatives have.

You say you are defending her right to speak even as you don't like her, knocking people who call her a "blonde bitch" or referring to her Adam's apple, but if she were a liberal, it would be a different story. Let me remind you what you said about Hillary:

I found myself unable to relate to that asexual, defeminized woman running around in her shitty lime-green pant-suits and trying to act like an angry little dude with little-man issues.

And now Moore is a "fat-assed foreigner," but of course your views/comments aren't partisan at all.

We don't have free speech in Canada during elections.

I'm beginning to believe that you don't have free speech; posters here, including you, confirm that.

Unlike Coulter's right to speak her mind, which is limited only by the ability of the crown to prove incitement of hatred, Moore was involving himself in an election campaign, and therefore up against Canada's complicated and restrictive election campaign laws, which are highly limiting of 3rd-party advocacy during elections. Sorry, the standard is completely different.

Who says the standard is different? You? Sorry, that means nothing to me. Coulter most definitely had to watch her mouth and not say anything that could have brought up charges against her. Which is why it made sense to warn her that Canada's laws are different from the States'. Seems to me that's no more 'restrictive' of her speech than to wait until she says something questionable and have charges brought against her.

To make a long story short: if Canadians are to be stuck with these restrictions, it is imperative that these restrictions be applied fairly.

Or, as the guy in the article put it, the only thing worse than a gag-law is a gag-law that is selectively applied.

Yes, I can tell by the student's remark, the one who made the charge, that it's all about "fairness." That's why he said Canada shouldn't allow "socialists" into Canada.

If it were a conservative millionaire, Netajian might not have spoken out, but someone else undoubtedly would.

Yeah, he "might" not have. Of course. Because liberals and conservatives all act the same way. Poor Coulter wasn't singled out. It's not just liberals who act this way or that. All sides do.

I don't think the young man in the article was acting a free speech advocate (that battle had been lost repeatedly when challenges to Election Canada rules were turned down.) He was acting as someone attempting to ensure the rules applied to the left too.

He was acting as someone who didn't want "a foreign socialist millionaire to show up in our country and try to spread his propaganda." Nor surprising that you would see it differently.

Edited April 5, 2010 by American Woman

[Kissinger]

Lot's of ways to spew hate and laugh at Canada's hate speech laws!

Fine....take the assault charge and be out in less than a year. After all, we are in Canada!

Doing our right proud I see.