Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

And what of the person who made the statement? They could be charged with incitement to violence in some places. The difference is, we have the same types of laws for groups.

Which makes the whole affair quite silly. Not only is it inconsistent, it is arbitrarily applied based mostly on media attention. When does it stop? Shall we include violent ideas from performance art, books, music (e.g. infamous anti-aparthied song), grafiti, or Bazooka Joe comics on bubble gum wrappers?

If a person utters such words but no violence ensues, are they not guilty of the same crime?

[Smallc]

If a person utters such words but no violence ensues, are they not guilty of the same crime?

As I've already said, the law specifically deals with words intended to be hateful to the named groups.

[bush_cheney2004]

As I've already said, the law specifically deals with words intended to be hateful to the named groups.

OK...we can have even more fun with this.

If I utter..."Kill everyone"....no crime is apparent under such a law. Only when I embellish my homicidal rant with a named group or groups do I invite the wrath of the Canadian Hate Police.

And of course, linking to another thread on abortion, it is perfectly legal to shout "Kill all the effing (name a group) fetuses!!"

Edited April 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

If I utter..."Kill everyone"....no crime is apparent under such a law. Only when I embellish my homicidal rant with a named group or groups do I invite the wrath of the Canadian Hate Police.

Those would be the normal police, and that's correct. Kill everyone is a meaningless statement. It is not a threat or an incitement of any kind. It would have to be directed.

And of course, linking to another thread on abortion, it is perfectly legal to shout "Kill all the effing (name a group) fetuses!!"

Of course it is. They haven't proven they're alive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those would be the normal police, and that's correct. Kill everyone is a meaningless statement. It is not a threat or an incitement of any kind. It would have to be directed.

Good....I'm setting up more absurdity for such a law. I can rant "Kill all people with a postal code of K0B 1B0 (CHUTE A BLONDEAU ONTARIO), and still beat the hate speech police.

Of course it is. They haven't proven they're alive.

OK...good again...because this would be a viable (pun intended) strategy for hate groups. Go after a group's fetuses...they are not protected in Canada and can be slayed with impunity!

[Smallc]

Good....I'm setting up more absurdity for such a law. I can rant "Kill all people with a postal code of K0B 1B0 (CHUTE A BLONDEAU ONTARIO), and still beat the hate speech police.

No, but you'd probably get charged with something else then...possibly. It still isn't very specific. Hate speech laws are very specific, and they're meant to be so.

OK...good again...because this would be a viable (pun intended) strategy for hate groups. Go after a group's fetuses...they are not protected in Canada and can be slayed with impunity!

Well, You'd have to hurt someone else in order to do that.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, but you'd probably get charged with something else then...possibly. It still isn't very specific. Hate speech laws are very specific, and they're meant to be so.

Grrrrrrrreat.....I'm thinking of a Java app that could easily make a mockery of such laws. How about car color? Or maybe length of hair? Lot's of ways to spew hate and laugh at Canada's hate speech laws!

Well, You'd have to hurt someone else in order to do that.

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

[Kissinger]

While I'm not normally a fan of limitations on free speech, in this case I say cultural differences have to be respected.

Canadians don't hold freedom of speech to quite the same pedestal we do. I say that without a hint of negativity. It is quite normal for countries to prioritize their rights in different ways seeing as how many rights inherently contradict one another.

[kimmy]

It is during an election, I realize that, but since he was never charged, much less found guilty, I'm wondering where the claim that "he broke Canada's laws" is coming from.

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.

It isn't really cut and dried. Did Moore "induce" electors to not vote for Harper?

How many electors were "induced". You are giving Moore more credit than he deserves. Any of his documentaries could induce voters to vote a particular way and if electors saw it during an election period then Moore could have broken the law.

I think "induce" must imply a direct influence upon how a person votes and not just a suggestion or statement about how he thinks they will or should vote.

I guess we would need a formal definition of what is considered an "inducement" to know for sure.

"Induce" would have to carry the same connotation/burden of proof as "incite" regarding the hate law. I figured those defending Coulter, saying she has a right to say whatever she wants in spite of Canada's hate law, and that nothing she's ever said has violated it, wouldn't be defending Moore's right to say what he wants because of the Election Law (or whatever it's called), and that of course he did break Canada's election law, no doubt about it.

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

Clearly a double standard. Free speech for Coulter, but not for Moore. Benefit of the doubt regarding Coulter and Canada's law, but not for Moore.

Canada's right-of-center has fought against Canada's rules regarding speech during campaigns a number of times, and been defeated each time. If Canada's right-of-center had its way, Moore would have been free to do as he wished during the election.

These rules are vigorously defended by Canada's left, justified by the belief that they prevent the "elite" from using their wealth and influence to overwhelm opposing voices during elections. They have been used to prevent groups such as the National Citizens Coalition from advertising during elections.

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.

Edited to add: I love the student's quote-- "There's no excuse for a foreign socialist millionaire to show up in our country and try to spread his propaganda."

I wonder if it would be ok if he were a foreign conservative millionaire?

If it were a conservative millionaire, Netajian might not have spoken out, but someone else undoubtedly would. Given the success of Canada's left in using these rules to silence groups like the NCC, that's a given.

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.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Well what's a left wing socialist then if Bill, Hillary and Al do not define them? I take it you believe them to be right wing or minimally centrists.

Centrists, just so.

You have listened to her more than I have. Unless you haven't listened to her at all and are just parroting some left wing blog putting things in the proper left wing partisan context.

I don't read any political blogs whatsoever.

Pinochet was a dictator and spent a lot of effort fighting left wing guerilla groups.

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

Admittedly, his regime was brutal but he was for a free market economy and thus not by definition opposed to freedom, as you say.

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 just didn't tolerate any Marxist Communism which I think by definition opposes freedom.

But a murderous, torturing dictator doesn't?

Seriously?

Several polls have found this. Only about 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. But then again you think Bill and Hillary and Al are not left wing socialists so how could you even argue it is untrue?

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."

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.

Edited April 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

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.

Yes, that works if the crazies really are crazy. But what if the crazies are charismatic and concvincing? Oh they might not convince you, but what if they appeal to a certain demographic, be it uneducated, unemployed angry young men resentful towards a minority group or members of a minority group resentful about their failures within Canada? If a Mullah starts preaching the death of Jews or how non-Muslims are beneath contempt and starts to gain a following would you be as sanguine about letting him continue to preach?

[Argus]

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100403003041479

I guess according to some of you here, free speech doesn't exist in the US.

I could point out there is a difference between the university itself inviting an unrepentant ex terrorist to speak on social justice, then cancelling when it realized it was going to look bad, and a private organization inviting a controversial but law-abiding figure to speak and then being forced to cancel by a mob and the threat of violence.

[Argus]

Can't refute what I said, eh?

No, AW, It's just that no one sane accepts your point, however stupidly and stubbornly you cling to it, and so it does not need to be disputed further.

[Argus]

"Actively" campaigning?

And since Coulter had made hateful comments, the "warning" regarding Canada's hate law was entirely legitmate.

According to a law professor at the UofO nothing Coulter has ever said came close to violating the hate speech provisions. I think the hate is more usually directed at her than from her.

[Argus]

Yes, but I was only expressing faint surprise that someone as intelligent as Kimmy might like Coulter, whose admirers tend to be unintelligent. But no doubt there are a handful of exceptions to the general brigade of drooling, elitist knuckledraggers.

One can defend the rights of others without agreeing with the positions taken by those others. In fact, those with foresight and a care for real human rights do it all the time.

[Argus]

Where was the violence?

Hell, where can you find even reports to the police of violence, for that matter?

There is some excuse for Dithers. He wasn't around at the start of this topic and I doubt he's read over a hundred pages of comments and posts. You, however, were.

It has already been stated innumerable times that while there was little in the way of violence prior to Coulter arriving, there was - according to the statements of protestors themselves, people breaking into the building, dodging security guards, and looking for ways to cause trouble. The police "gave Coulter's people options" for what they could choose to do, one of which was to cancel the speech. Police do not give options to speech organizers in any case but their fear that violence was likely once the demon herself arrived and the lefties all went bananas. In addition, Coulter's organizers were required to take out insurance which would be responsible for paying for any damages to the building which resulted - said insurance would no longer be in effect if the organizers disagreed with the police and went ahead with the speech.

[Argus]

Jesus...this thread just keeps on giving. This time it's yet another example of stupid ass gag laws in Canada!

And you don't think you have anything similar in your country?

[Argus]

It isn't really cut and dried. Did Moore "induce" electors to not vote for Harper?

How many electors were "induced". You are giving Moore more credit than he deserves. Any of his documentaries could induce voters to vote a particular way and if electors saw it during an election period then Moore could have broken the law.

I think the law is fairly clear in its desire to prevent foreigners from coming here and campaigining for or against a given candidate, or trying to persuade people to vote for or against a given candidate. I think Moore clearly broke the law but the government decided it would be more trouble than it was worth to arrest his admittedly enormous ass and charge him.

[Argus]

Clearly a double standard. Free speech for Coulter, but not for Moore. Benefit of the doubt regarding Coulter and Canada's law, but not for Moore.

How is it a double standard? Not a single person has ever suggested that had Coulter actually violated the hate speech provisions she should not have been charged. The position on the conservative side of things is merely that she should be given the right to speak.

The double standard appears to be you suggesting she shouldn't be while defending Moore.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, that works if the crazies really are crazy. But what if the crazies are charismatic and concvincing? Oh they might not convince you, but what if they appeal to a certain demographic, be it uneducated, unemployed angry young men resentful towards a minority group or members of a minority group resentful about their failures within Canada? If a Mullah starts preaching the death of Jews or how non-Muslims are beneath contempt and starts to gain a following would you be as sanguine about letting him continue to preach?

I would not be as sanguine about it, no. But I would still say let him speak. Free speech does not come at zero cost and risk.

[bloodyminded]

One can defend the rights of others without agreeing with the positions taken by those others. In fact, those with foresight and a care for real human rights do it all the time.

Yes, I already apologized to Kimmy for my wayward remark.

[Argus]

Tea Baggers have nothing to do with tghe Lieberal Adscam cock-up, and resulting fall from grace. Didn't need no steenkin' commies this time around....just Lieberal elitism and corruption.

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.

[Argus]

Seriously? All of this over Anne Coulter?

You do realize that she literally eats this kind of attention up.

Few here care about Ann Coulter one way or another. The discussion is not about Ann Coulter, it's about freedom of speech and expression.

[Argus]

I would not be as sanguine about it, no. But I would still say let him speak. Free speech does not come at zero cost and risk.

So you have a charistmatic man and hundreds of young men believe in what he says. Attacks on minority groups start taking place, traced to these young men. A number of these individuals are arrested, but the man keeps making his thunderous cries for the destruction of this minority group - whatever it was. And as things escelate you still think this man should be permitted to continue to make his speeches and draw crowds of the disaffected without sanction because he himself didn't commit any violence?

[bloodyminded]

So you have a charistmatic man and hundreds of young men believe in what he says. Attacks on minority groups start taking place, traced to these young men. A number of these individuals are arrested, but the man keeps making his thunderous cries for the destruction of this minority group - whatever it was. And as things escelate you still think this man should be permitted to continue to make his speeches and draw crowds of the disaffected without sanction because he himself didn't commit any violence?

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.)