Mr.Canada Posted March 25, 2010 Report Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) It would seem that we haven't had free speech in Canada in a very long time and these latest happenings only bolster the claim. First Pro Israel supporters aren't allowed to speak on campuses in Canada. Now Ann Coulter isn't allowed to speak either, yet Canada likes to say we have free speech. Israeli PM is barred from speaking at Concordia and Pro life groups are all but banned. It would seem the socialists who command us to be tolerant aren't very tolerant themselves and are nothing more than thugs who let mob rule. It would seem that Canada has free speech as long as what is said is progressive. Anything but is deemed hate speech...sad. Edited March 25, 2010 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
nicky10013 Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 It would seem that we haven't had free speech in Canada in a very long time and these latest happenings only bolster the claim. First Pro Israel supporters aren't allowed to speak on campuses in Canada. Now Ann Coulter isn't allowed to speak either, yet Canada likes to say we have free speech. Israeli PM is barred from speaking at Concordia and Pro life groups are all but banned. It would seem the socialists who command us to be tolerant aren't very tolerant themselves and are nothing more than thugs who let mob rule. It would seem that Canada has free speech as long as what is said is progressive. Anything but is deemed hate speech...sad. Yet you're able to post this without harm. Lest we forget, the constitutional right to free speech is a contract only between the government and the people. Private institutions for the most part do as they please. Also, you're pulling out these examples of "pro-life" groups being banned. I saw this in an op-ed from the Ottawa Citizen posted by someone else on the other thread. Besides the obvious example of the Israeli PM being banned from Concordia, I'd really like to see citations on which groups have been banned and when. It's really easy to make those claims, really hard to back them up. I graduated just last year and despite the rhetoric from right wing posters here, Hillel U of T is a strong group and there are pro-life groups all around. Indeed, someone I know from a trip is (if I'm not outdated) the current president of Hillel at U of O. Pro-life groups being less visible on campus doesn't mean they've been banned. Just means that there are less of them. Quote
eyeball Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Free Speech in Canada, a myth? Go ask George Galloway. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
BubberMiley Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Weird how when left-wingers exercise their right to free speech, right-wingers would rather claim there is no free speech than exercise their own right. But they exercise their right to free speech to say there isn't any. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
waldo Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Go ask George Galloway. or Mustafa Barghouti... or as someone mentioned in the other thread... Bill Ayers. the poor persecuted right-wing conservative! Oh the humanity! Quote
waldo Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Yet you're able to post this without harm. Lest we forget, the constitutional right to free speech is a contract only between the government and the people. Private institutions for the most part do as they please. Also, you're pulling out these examples of "pro-life" groups being banned. I saw this in an op-ed from the Ottawa Citizen posted by someone else on the other thread. Besides the obvious example of the Israeli PM being banned from Concordia, I'd really like to see citations on which groups have been banned and when. It's really easy to make those claims, really hard to back them up. I graduated just last year and despite the rhetoric from right wing posters here, Hillel U of T is a strong group and there are pro-life groups all around. Indeed, someone I know from a trip is (if I'm not outdated) the current president of Hillel at U of O. Pro-life groups being less visible on campus doesn't mean they've been banned. Just means that there are less of them. yes, it would be most helpful to have those citations from the OP... but let me help with one: Pro-Israel campaign The campaign, which encompasses 23 Canadian universities and partners with local Hillels and Jewish Student Association groups..... ... and just this week, McGill held an "Israeli Film Festival" and a couple of weeks back the McGill Hillel, JLSA and Ga’Ava presented, Itay Pinkas... who spoke about "Gay Rights in the Holy Land" (oops, so as not to further infringe upon the dainty minds of the persecuted right-wing conservative, perhaps I shouldn't have included this last reference, right? ) Quote
Born Free Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 It would seem that we haven't had free speech in Canada in a very long time and these latest happenings only bolster the claim. What a bullshit over the top unenlightened statement. The latest happenings had nothing to do with free speech. It had everything to do with people protesting against the crap that is constantly being spewed by an ignorant attention whore. Essentially, it is illegal in Canada to promote genocide OR to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. Nuthin' wrong with that. Unlike the US, I dont believe Canada has any laws concerning the establishment of "Free Speech Zones" using chain link fences. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Unlike the US, I dont believe Canada has any laws concerning the establishment of "Free Speech Zones" using chain link fences. Nope...chain link fences are saved for those special occasions like the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. LOL! :) Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Born Free Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Nope...chain link fences are saved for those special occasions like the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. LOL! :) All I can advise you is that Canada doesnt have "Free Speech Zones" enshrined into its law books. You guys do. Be proud of it young man. We just use fences to limit the actions of violent protesters. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 All I can advise you is that Canada doesnt have "Free Speech Zones" enshrined into its law books. You guys do. Be proud of it young man. That's because limits on free speech in Canada span from sea to shining sea. We just use fences to limit the actions of violent protesters. It looks swell on international television....just like Coulter said..."bush-league". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
blueblood Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 That's because limits on free speech in Canada span from sea to shining sea. Our "free speech" has some interesting variations. Some people slip through the cracks on both sides. You should hear how some MP's refer to long gun owners during question period. Par for Coulter's course as far as I'm concerned. It looks swell on international television....just like Coulter said..."bush-league". On the trolley tracks towards the USSR and Venezuela. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Smallc Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) On the trolley tracks towards the USSR and Venezuela. That's baseless and meaningless. These laws have been around for over 30 years. We aren't any closer to being socialist than we were before...in fact, we're probably farther away. Edited March 26, 2010 by Smallc Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Essentially, it is illegal in Canada to promote genocide OR to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. Nuthin' wrong with that. Of course, there's never anything wrong with limitations on speech when they don't affect you. To my mind, either we have free speech or we don't. If certain ideas are effectively censored by the state, then we do not have free speech. I'll tell you this. I'd sooner shed my blood defending a bigot's right to spew his hate than to defend someone who believes that free speech is a dangerous right. The former, is evil and vile as he is, cannot be held in contempt merely for expression, while the latter is just a vulgar autocrat who let's his own cowardice and inability to debate nasty people force him into this view that you can eliminate ideas merely by allowing the State to prosecute those who express them. Quote
Smallc Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) Of course, there's never anything wrong with limitations on speech when they don't affect you. To my mind, either we have free speech or we don't. If certain ideas are effectively censored by the state, then we do not have free speech. Then you are in pursuit of a hopeless goal. Are threats free speech? Should we allow threats to be uttered without consequence in the name of freedom of speech? In Canada, ideas are not censored by the state. Attacks and discrimination directed against identifiable groups are. There are cases of HRCs going too far, and that should be prevented, but that is not so mch an issue with the laws themselves. Edited March 26, 2010 by Smallc Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 ...In Canada, ideas are not censored by the state. Attacks and discrimination directed against identifiable groups are. There are cases of HRCs going too far, and that should be prevented, but that is not so mch an issue with the laws themselves. Really? Then I guess the Taliban and Al Qaeda can rest easy in Canada! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
msdogfood Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Weird how when left-wingers exercise their right to free speech, right-wingers would rather claim there is no free speech than exercise their own right. But they exercise their right to free speech to say there isn't any. that is so true!! Quote
wyly Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) Hitler loved free speech as well to incite hatred... the entire concept some people have of "free" speech in a "free" is bullshit, everything in life has limits that's how societies work they compromise there is not now, never has been or ever will be absolute freedom...those who do not obey societies rules are punished, you hurt someone you are punished, you slander someone you are punished, incite hatred against a group you should be punished and in Canada you will be... all these "free speech" morons think it can't happen here but hatred can be incited, notice the violence and death threats south of the border over healthcare? WTF! these are sick people they're a half a step away from murder by incitement from neo-con media assholes like coulter, sarah palin has a website with gun sites placed over democratic targets, what is that telling people?... Edited March 26, 2010 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) Then you are in pursuit of a hopeless goal. Are threats free speech? Should we allow threats to be uttered without consequence in the name of freedom of speech? In Canada, ideas are not censored by the state. Attacks and discrimination directed against identifiable groups are. There are cases of HRCs going too far, and that should be prevented, but that is not so mch an issue with the laws themselves. The reasonable test of whether speech should be restricted is the "crying 'fire' in the theater" test. In other words, if someone's speech could be shown to materially harm someone else (as causing a stampede in a theater surely would), then there would be grounds to charge a person (in a similar context, civil libel and slander only apply where what is said or written is false and is intended to harm someone's reputation, which is why you can't be sued for saying, say, that Elvis had sex with Rock Hudson, both men being dead, there's no reputation left to harm). However, if some speech only has some sort of nebulous, indeterminate or hypothetical ill effect on someone, to charge that person is effectively claiming the power of prescience. If someone says (as someone did day) that Hitler was right to kill all those Jews, as horrible, evil and vile as the statement is, it's hard to claim that the negative effect is concrete in any way. NOw, if he said "Let's finish what Hitler started!" in front of a few hundred people with rifles and pitchforks, then you could make a legitimate claim of immediate, concrete, demonstrable harm. That's the difference. Hate laws as constituted in this country aren't so much laws against harming certain groups as they are laws against certain groups being offended. Why on earth should giving offense be illegal? Edited March 26, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 Be proud of it young man. He's old. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 That's because limits on free speech in Canada span from sea to shining sea. You mean sea to sea to sea. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Alta4ever Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 That's the difference. Hate laws as constituted in this country aren't so much laws against harming certain groups as they are laws against certain groups being offended. Why on earth should giving offense be illegal? Thats a very good question, but the hate laws were not designed or envisioned to protect against offence. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
wyly Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 That's the difference. Hate laws as constituted in this country aren't so much laws against harming certain groups as they are laws against certain groups being offended. Why on earth should giving offense be illegal? there was a time if you libeled or slandered someone they would either be very civilized and challenge you to a duel or just kill you, but then we got really civilized and took it court before a judge if your reputation was damaged...should we go back to the old ways for the sake of FREE speech? and now in the USA incite to hate over healthcare has resulted in death threats...in a country with a history of political violence do you want to bet against it? how tight do you think security will be now for the President now that the US is experiencing it's own kristallnacht...all incited by unlimited free speech... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonlight Graham Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 First Pro Israel supporters aren't allowed to speak on campuses in Canada. Now Ann Coulter isn't allowed to speak either, yet Canada likes to say we have free speech. Canada doesn't "like to say we have free speech". We do, its legally enshrined in our Constitution in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 2. But sometimes people infringe on other people's rights, thats called breaking the law. If any people feel they have been wronged & their legal rights infringed, they should take it to the courts. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Smallc Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) If someone says (as someone did day) that Hitler was right to kill all those Jews, as horrible, evil and vile as the statement is, it's hard to claim that the negative effect is concrete in any way. NOw, if he said "Let's finish what Hitler started!" in front of a few hundred people with rifles and pitchforks, then you could make a legitimate claim of immediate, concrete, demonstrable harm. And? Perhaps you need to go back and examine the final verdict of the particular case you're talking about. You don't like the laws. That's fine, you have a right to voice that opinion. That said, the limits have been prescribed and are reasonable by the measures of many. The laws prevent the threat (or promotion) of violence or genocide against a identifiable group as listed and other laws protect those groups from discrimination. Now if you want to talk about the provincial human rights laws, some of those I have a problem with, but I (and I think many) consider discrimination or threats against groups to be outside of what is reasonable. You didn't really answer the question though. You said all or nothing...then you went on to put limits on speech that YOU consider reasonable. You can't have it both ways. Edited March 26, 2010 by Smallc Quote
scorpio Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 It would seem that Canada has free speech as long as what is said is progressive. Anything but is deemed hate speech...sad. Are you of the opinion that there should be no responsibility for what one says? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.