Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[ToadBrother]

With all due respect (and I usually respect your views despite my diametrical opposition to many of them) there is no more inclusive country than the U.S. Or else how did a member of a once-ridiculed and/or feared minority wind up being popularly elected President. Remember, in your country Kim Campbell was elected party leader of a dying party and was not elected in her own right.

We have a much better diversity record than Canada has.

This has been my point for some time. The United States has progressively become more inclusive, despite having the most liberal speech protections on the planet. The US pretty much demonstrates the sheer inanity of these laws.

[Smallc]

If these things are so damned important, why aren't they in the judiciary, as opposed to some bizarre quasi-world, in other words legislatively created pseudo-courts?

As I said, this isn't the only example. Occupational Health and Safety fine administration comes to mind. I do think that there are examples though (such as the one you mentioned) of the HRCs going too far.

[Smallc]

This has been my point for some time. The United States has progressively become more inclusive, despite having the most liberal speech protections on the planet.

And so have we....usually faster...with these speech laws.

[ToadBrother]

As I said, this isn't the only example. Occupational Health and Safety fine administration comes to mind. I do think that there are examples though (such as the one you mentioned) of the HRCs going too far.

I think it's more a matter that they shouldn't exist at all. If someone has done something so awful (sexual discrimination for instance), then bloody well take them to court. That's why we have civil and criminal courts, with proper rules of evidence and enforced ethical rules for all players.

[ToadBrother]

And so have we....usually faster...with these speech laws.

Really? I don't recall a black PM. But are you saying that freedoms should be dispensed with in the name of expediency?

[Smallc]

Really? I don't recall a black PM. But are you saying that freedoms should be dispensed with in the name of expediency?

I don't know what the first thing proves, and the second thing is a leading question that's really not based on any true premise. As I said, I accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of things. You don't...but it's really up to you to prove that they're wrong, since what they say is the accepted intepretation of things.

[bush_cheney2004]

This has been my point for some time. The United States has progressively become more inclusive, despite having the most liberal speech protections on the planet. The US pretty much demonstrates the sheer inanity of these laws.

Correct....I can't recall any stirring cries for "Liberty!" in Canadian history.....but I'm willing to learn.

[Smallc]

And I have said that I find the provincial HRCs troubling. I find that the federal one has well defined rules.

[ToadBrother]

I don't know what the first thing proves, and the second thing is a leading question that's really not based on any true premise. As I said, I accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of things. You don't...but it's really up to you to prove that they're wrong, since what they say is the accepted intepretation of things.

They're wrong because they give officers of the state the power to censor speech. It's that simple. The state should have the most extreme limitations in this area. The US does not have infinite free speech, but it is far more liberal than we are, so I'm wondering what we've gained for these limitations.

I certainly don't want the responsibility of what is appropriate and in appropriate to say, and just as equally neither do I want you to have that power.

And how is my second question leading? You said our visible minorities got safer quicker, so I can only assume you think laws limiting speech somehow create a situation where visible minorities are safer.

Edited April 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

Well, that's one opinion, but I also believe that Canada prides itself on being an inclusive place, and as part of that, we've decided that there are limits to how free speech can be.

We did? Who's this we? Was there a referendum I missed?

[Smallc]

They're wrong because they give officers of the state the power to censor speech.

Why is it 'wrong'? The limits are considered reasonable by them and by most people I've asked about it. Freedom of movement has limits. Your arm can extend until it hits my face. The same goes for words in this country. You don't have the right to verbally attack or incite violence against groups of people, just as you can't physically attack those people.

It's that simple. The state should have the most extreme limitations in this area. The US does not have infinite free speech, but it is far more liberal than we are, so I'm wondering what we've gained for these limitations.

I dont really care what they do, as I've said many times. This is not the United States.

I certainly don't want the responsibility of what is appropriate and in appropriate to say, and just as equally neither do I want you to have that power.

Well, form what I know, neither you or I have that power or responsibility.

As to whether speech laws make visible minorities safer...it certainly makes them far less fearful. They do not have to fear being taunted by every bigot on every corner, and if they are, they have recourse. Hatred can very much be a criminal act....it's even Constitutional.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

We did? Who's this we? Was there a referendum I missed?

The representatives that we elected..or have you forgotten how things work here?

[ToadBrother]

We did? Who's this we? Was there a referendum I missed?

Apparently we were passed out or something while a bunch of guys got together and decided the best way to guarantee minority rights was to stop bad people from saying bad things about them, by setting up pseudo-courts with weak standards of evidence to make sure bad guys, like comedians who make fun of drunken lesbian hecklers, are punished for daring to say things that might make the sensitive ear ring.

[Argus]

I happen not to agree with the person you are attacking on this thread. Her posts, though, are serious and thoughtful ones, even if I disagree with them.

Thoughtful? Belabouring a ridiculous point with an absurd interpretation of whether a man is or is not representing his office when he sends an warning notice is thoughtful? The only thought AW puts into posts when she gets like this is that under no circumstance whatsoever will she ever cease her ludicrous defense of an indefensible position.

That attack was needless and should be withdrawn.

A silly defense deserves a silly attack.

[ToadBrother]

Why is it 'wrong'? The limits are considered reasonable by them and by most people I've asked about it. Freedom of movement has limits. Your arm can extend until it hits my face. The same goes for words in this country. You don't have the right to verbally attack or incite violence against groups of people, just as you can't physically attack those people.

And I keep telling you guys that there have been laws on the books for centuries to deal with people using speech to plot violence.

I`ll ask you explicitely. Why do we need new laws? Why can't conspiracy laws deal with someone plotting attacks on minorities?

[Smallc]

And I keep telling you guys that there have been laws on the books for centuries to deal with people using speech to plot violence.

And I will tell you, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Saying to a crowd that all the fags should be killed wasn't always a crime.

I`ll ask you explicitely. Why do we need new laws? Why can't conspiracy laws deal with someone plotting attacks on minorities?

Again, that's not what we're talking about.

[Argus]

The representatives that we elected..or have you forgotten how things work here?

You know, when I bought this computer, I did so because I wanted a computer that would do certain things for me, like browse the internet, and do accounting and text editing, maybe even play a few video games. But it came loaded down with so much redundant software I never know half of what's on it or in it or what it's for. There are programs I have no use for, never wanted, but they came with the package.

I don't think any government ever put any proposal for limitations on free speech, or for these human rights commisions before the electorate in any election, ever. I don't believe they ever even spoke about them in any election. People voted for government, and among the thousand or ten thousand programs that came with that government, this slipped in too.

That's how these things work.

[Smallc]

That's how these things work.

Well, we haven't elected a political party that was against them it seems, so I suppose we approve.

[Argus]

And I will tell you, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Saying to a crowd that all the fags should be killed wasn't always a crime.

Perhaps not, but if someone went out and killed a bunch of fags there were certainly laws on the books to punish the guy who started the riot/mob scene/lynch mob or whatever.

[Smallc]

Perhaps not, but if someone went out and killed a bunch of fags there were certainly laws on the books to punish the guy who started the riot/mob scene/lynch mob or whatever.

Right....and the idea of this law is, why wait till they're dead?

[Argus]

Well, we haven't elected a political party that was against them it seems, so I suppose we approve.

The problem is that there hadn't been a conservative government in office in the last thirty years - until now. And the conservatives are a minority facing a left wing opposition desperately looking for anything they can use (in place of say, policies or ideas) to attack them with. They're looking for controversy, for issues that they can use to resurect secret agendas and charges of bigotry and intolerance. The Tories, needless to say, are extremely wary of such charges given their unstable hold on power. Closing down the HRCs is just not a can of worms they want to open right now. However, I think there's plenty of support for at least trimming the HRCs back and for giving those who are forced before them a better opportunity for redress in cases where the charges are disproved. Personally, I think any time the government charges you with anything and it's disproved they should be instantly liable to paying all the bills you incured because of that charge.

[Argus]

Right....and the idea of this law is, why wait till they're dead?

For the same reason we wait until someone hits someone - or at least tries to - before arresting them for assault.

Don't get me wrong. I'm actually (reluctantly) in favour of limited laws against determined incitement. That does not mean charging some guy who says we should kill all the fags, however. But it does mean shutting down someone who gets obsessive about it. I'd certainly shut down Godhatesfags.com for example.

[Smallc]

For the same reason we wait until someone hits someone - or at least tries to - before arresting them for assault.

Don't get me wrong. I'm actually (reluctantly) in favour of limited laws against determined incitement. That does not mean charging some guy who says we should kill all the fags, however. But it does mean shutting down someone who gets obsessive about it. I'd certainly shut down Godhatesfags.com for example.

That's really the spirit of the laws. As I've said, the HRCs in particular go too far at times, and perhaps the laws there should be more defined, but I don't see getting rid of them entirely as being good.

[bloodyminded]

THere is a huge difference between the expression of opinion by the President of Columbia about Imadinnerjacket and warning him (or her) about illegality, or allowing mobs to interfere with free and safe access.

The one, only, sole piece of "evidence" we have that "mobs [were allowed] to interferw with free and safe access" are the unsubstantiated claims of Coulter's organizers.

That's it.

No one else is making that assertion, interestingly.

And my remarks about Columbia's president supporting whichever dictator his government supports, and chastising those that it doesn't, still stands.

Edited April 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

For the same reason we wait until someone hits someone - or at least tries to - before arresting them for assault.

Don't get me wrong. I'm actually (reluctantly) in favour of limited laws against determined incitement. That does not mean charging some guy who says we should kill all the fags, however. But it does mean shutting down someone who gets obsessive about it. I'd certainly shut down Godhatesfags.com for example.

I wouldn't (and this, if anything, buttresses Toadbrother's argument), because I have not seen any whiff of dangerous incitement that has resulted from that church's lunatic antics.

In fact, it's one of those sweetly rare cases that has united the separate poles of the political spectrum against it.

If anything, I think that allowing Godhatesfags to spew their bile underlines the claims made by Toadbrother(and, I believe, yourself): that allowing free expression can serve to expose and marginalize the crazies.