Free Speech in Canada, a myth?

wyly · March 26, 2010

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.

maybe we should turn that thought around and ask them "why do you want the freedom to incite hatred against minorities or other identifiable groups?"..."are you ok with other countries having the same freedoms in regards to Canadians?"

Jack Weber · March 26, 2010

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.

Small,while I agree with you the reference to the U.S.S.R. and Venezuela are over the top(And I could point out a few Fascist dictatorships of the 20th century to even the totalitarian thing out),it's a sad day for this country.We are not a socialist dictatorship at all,but I've noticed a very scary creeping PC elitism into the public discourse in this country.Because of it,I am in the personally loathesome position of having to defend folks like Ezra Levant and Anne Coulter.The main reason is that I never want to see this country ruled by so called "progressives" or "intellectuals" because it seems quite evident that they simply don't have the intellectual capacity and/or courage to deal with someone on the other end of the political spectrum.

Over at the lefty reaffirmation excercise(rabble),many are chortling gleefully that they shut down "The Fascist"...I doubt Coulter is a Fascist,and no matter how much of an odious boor she can be,she should have every right to say what she wants to say.That same place has a few saying they are "Proud of the young Canadian patriots"...All I can say is "Wow!".If that's their version of patriotism,and it is this ethos that is driving the "free" speech provisions in the charter,the charter needs to be amended!There was talk of the bedwetters burning Coulter's books..It may not be that serious on the face of it,however I still find that a little disturbing.I know my history pretty well,and I remember reading about another place that burned books that the regime found unacceptable in their eyes...

I find myself getting quite annoyed with these mental midgets who seem to live in a culture of being constantly offended.I guess that's because they think if they say their offended loud enough,and often enough,that they'll get their way and only read and hear what only they want to hear.As I said,mentally weak.In my opinion,free speech(like democracy) can be messy and ugly.That means that I do not have the right to squelch those who I disagree with.It does give me the right to either ignore them,or better yet,challenge their ideas.Unfortunately,the lefty dimwitted thugs are unable to effectively challenge what they dislike so they try to shut it down.How childish!It's just petty,weak,and,just plain sad.

For those lefties who think they've done the country a service by acting the way they have,and feel a sense of patriotic duty fulfilled,you've only sullied yourselves.I would classify myself as Tommy Douglasesque,old time CCFer(exculding the pacifism).That probably makes me a conservative with most on the new and improved "progressive left".That should tell you just how far off the rails you've gone...

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

Smallc · March 26, 2010

I don't agree with many of those things that they're saying. I do however, respect their right to say those things, just as Coulter has a right to say what she wishes (both within the law). I don't personally find it unreasonable to outlaw incitement and promotion of hate or discrimination. I realize that some do, and I realize that some are overjoyed that they were able to stop her from speaking at the university (I support their right to peaceful assembly also - peaceful), but that doesn't (and hasn't silenced her.

You're right, the wacky right is scary as hell. I don't want to be lumped in with that.

Alta4ever · March 26, 2010

You're right, the wacky right is scary as hell. I don't want to be lumped in with that.

So is the lunacy on the left careful not get lumped in with that either, ahh the mushy middle ground.

Jack Weber · March 26, 2010

I don't agree with many of those things that they're saying. I do however, respect their right to say those things, just as Coulter has a right to say what she wishes (both within the law). I don't personally find it unreasonable to outlaw incitement and promotion of hate or discrimination. I realize that some do, and I realize that some are overjoyed that they were able to stop her from speaking at the university (I support their right to peaceful assembly also - peaceful), but that doesn't (and hasn't silenced her.

You're right, the wacky right is scary as hell. I don't want to be lumped in with that.

You might be missing the point...While I made a reference to NAZI Germany and book burning,I made the reference to point out a sort of scary,creeping,totalitarianism of thought that has seeped into the Canadian public discourse.I find it like a growing cancer that all of us sane people should be having a serious conversation about.To me this is NOT right/left issue.I have absolutely zero time for the wacko right in this country either,but they have every right to their collective wackyness...Or I suppose,"individual wackyness..."

wyly · March 26, 2010

Small,while I agree with you the reference to the U.S.S.R. and Venezuela are over the top(And I could point out a few Fascist dictatorships of the 20th century to even the totalitarian thing out),it's a sad day for this country.We are not a socialist dictatorship at all,but I've noticed a very scary creeping PC elitism into the public discourse in this country.Because of it,I am in the personally loathesome position of having to defend folks like Ezra Levant and Anne Coulter.The main reason is that I never want to see this country ruled by so called "progressives" or "intellectuals" because it seems quite evident that they simply don't have the intellectual capacity and/or courage to deal with someone on the other end of the political spectrum.

Over at the lefty reaffirmation excercise(rabble),many are chortling gleefully that they shut down "The Fascist"...I doubt Coulter is a Fascist,and no matter how much of an odious boor she can be,she should have every right to say what she wants to say.That same place has a few saying they are "Proud of the young Canadian patriots"...All I can say is "Wow!".If that's their version of patriotism,and it is this ethos that is driving the "free" speech provisions in the charter,the charter needs to be amended!There was talk of the bedwetters burning Coulter's books..It may not be that serious on the face of it,however I still find that a little disturbing.I know my history pretty well,and I remember reading about another place that burned books that the regime found unacceptable in their eyes...

I find myself getting quite annoyed with these mental midgets who seem to live in a culture of being constantly offended.I guess that's because they think if they say their offended loud enough,and often enough,that they'll get their way and only read and hear what only they want to hear.As I said,mentally weak.In my opinion,free speech(like democracy) can be messy and ugly.That means that I do not have the right to squelch those who I disagree with.It does give me the right to either ignore them,or better yet,challenge their ideas.Unfortunately,the lefty dimwitted thugs are unable to effectively challenge what they dislike so they try to shut it down.How childish!It's just petty,weak,and,just plain sad.

For those lefties who think they've done the country a service by acting the way they have,and feel a sense of patriotic duty fulfilled,you've only sullied yourselves.I would classify myself as Tommy Douglasesque,old time CCFer(exculding the pacifism).That probably makes me a conservative with most on the new and improved "progressive left".That should tell you just how far off the rails you've gone...

ok Mr free speech..."are you ok with other countries having the same freedoms in regards to Canadians?" ...would you be ok with some egyptian shit disturber inciting his people with "kill the canadians" "kill all Canadian leaders and convert them to Islam!" "nuke the christians, turn their countries into glass" are you going to be ok with that? are you going to be comfortable being a tourist in Eygpt after that?...is that the kind of free speech you're happy with don't give me any sanctimonious BS that you are...

Jack Weber · March 26, 2010

ok Mr free speech..."are you ok with other countries having the same freedoms in regards to Canadians?" ...would you be ok with some egyptian shit disturber inciting his people with "kill the canadians" "kill all Canadian leaders and convert them to Islam!" "nuke the christians, turn their countries into glass" are you going to be ok with that? are you going to be comfortable being a tourist in Eygpt after that?...is that the kind of free speech you're happy with don't give me any sanctimonious BS that you are...

Well,I think a radical Islamist would'nt differentiate between any particular Judeao/Christian nation,unless you're Osama Bin Laden who does like being specific.However,we have radical Imams in Tornto saying many things along the lines of the things you've just said,and nothing happens.And I don't think anything should.We have laws to prosecute those who would commit violence against Canadian society.

I've been to Egypt,and SubSaharan Africa where dissenting opinion is not tolerated...I have never had a problem...

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

Shwa · March 26, 2010

I've noticed a very scary creeping PC elitism into the public discourse in this country.[\quote]
Really? Where? Do you have some sort of statistic or study or something along these lines that you can share? Hopefully to show that this "PC elitism" affects all public discourse because we all know that "PC elitism" is really bad.

Because of it,I am in the personally loathesome position of having to defend folks like Ezra Levant and Anne Coulter.The main reason is that I never want to see this country ruled by so called "progressives" or "intellectuals" because it seems quite evident that they simply don't have the intellectual capacity and/or courage to deal with someone on the other end of the political spectrum.

Very well said, and I think most reasonable people would have to agree.

Over at the lefty reaffirmation excercise(rabble),many are chortling gleefully that they shut down "The Fascist"...I doubt Coulter is a Fascist,and no matter how much of an odious boor she can be,she should have every right to say what she wants to say.

And she did as evidenced by her speaking engagement at Western and again last night in Calgary.

That same place has a few saying they are "Proud of the young Canadian patriots"...All I can say is "Wow!".If that's their version of patriotism,and it is this ethos that is driving the "free" speech provisions in the charter,the charter needs to be amended!

Oh, oh. I suspect Mr. Canada-isms sneaking into the text now...

There was talk of the bedwetters burning Coulter's books..It may not be that serious on the face of it,however I still find that a little disturbing.I know my history pretty well,and I remember reading about another place that burned books that the regime found unacceptable in their eyes...

Of course you are referring to Birmingham in 1966? No, that was records. You must have been referring to one of these incidents. Of course the burning of the Harry Potter book in Michigan was just the tip if the iceberg. They even burned a Coneheads DVD! The Coneheads for gawdsakes!

I find myself getting quite annoyed with these mental midgets who seem to live in a culture of being constantly offended.I guess that's because they think if they say their offended loud enough,and often enough,that they'll get their way and only read and hear what only they want to hear.

I see. So you will defend to the death Coulter's right to speak, but would silence those who disagree with her? Or silence those who disagree with you? It sounds like you are the one that is offended and only want to read and hear what you want. How does that work again? Freedom of speech or freedom of choice?

As I said,mentally weak.In my opinion,free speech(like democracy) can be messy and ugly.That means that I do not have the right to squelch those who I disagree with.It does give me the right to either ignore them,or better yet,challenge their ideas.Unfortunately,the lefty dimwitted thugs are unable to effectively challenge what they dislike so they try to shut it down.How childish!It's just petty,weak,and,just plain sad.

Read 'Crowds and Power' by Elias Canetti. The handful of people that showed up to cause problems were exploiting a power which usually indicates a decent degree of mental acuity and discipline. If you are going to hate them get to know them because they know you pretty well already.

g_bambino · March 26, 2010

I don't personally find it unreasonable to outlaw incitement and promotion of hate or discrimination.

But why must "discrimination" and "hatred" be eliminated by the law, though? The HRCs and their ideological cohorts seem to believe it's necessary to maintain a civil, democratic society. But, that shows to me a mistaken interpretation of "democracy" as a synonym for "absolute equality" and "civility" for "nobody ever offend anyone else". Democracy feeds off of debate, which can't take place unless there are opposing sides, and opposing sides may well hate each other's philosophies. Further, discrimination can't be eradicated without removing all hierarchy from every facet of our lives, leaving us unable to make choices. Some autocrats and oligarchs have attempted to impose mass group-think on a society - the USSR, North Korea, Cambodia - hatred and discrimination eliminated by having all people believe the same thing (despite the irony that anyone who wishes to think differently is hated and discriminated against); regard how well they turned out.

Born Free · March 26, 2010

That's because limits on free speech in Canada span from sea to shining sea.

There are limits in the US as well Mr. dogbreath...live with it.

Born Free · March 26, 2010

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.

Perhaps you didnt understand what the limitations are.

GostHacked · 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.

I think this is what we call a conundrum of sorts.

Smallc · March 26, 2010

So is the lunacy on the left careful not get lumped in with that either, ahh the mushy middle ground.

I must have been tired. I meant to say left.

Smallc · March 26, 2010

Democracy feeds off of debate, which can't take place unless there are opposing sides, and opposing sides may well hate each other's philosophies.

The debate on whether or not these particular groups are equal has already taken place though. Are we going to revisit it and decide that it is in fact ok to advocate killing homosexuals? Nothing is gained in a debate by people hurling insults or threats.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Smallc

GostHacked · March 26, 2010

That's because limits on free speech in Canada span from sea to shining sea.

It looks swell on international television....just like Coulter said..."bush-league".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

You can have your free speech, but over there where no one can hear you.

waldo · March 26, 2010

For those lefties who think they've done the country a service by acting the way they have,and feel a sense of patriotic duty fulfilled,you've only sullied yourselves.I would classify myself as Tommy Douglasesque,old time CCFer(exculding the pacifism).That probably makes me a conservative with most on the new and improved "progressive left".That should tell you just how far off the rails you've gone...

it's simply optics, played to advantage by Ezra Levant. Carry those optics to an alternative end where the meeting hall was allowed to fill to capacity... would you be any more accepting to a room full of attendees, in their seats, some of who might shout out an occasional rally call... or wave banners... or boo the speaker... or shout back at her over something she says... or influence the types of questions that might be asked. Because that was the alternate outcome that Levant didn't want played out for the media. So Levant shut it down... and the Coulter who wouldn't have known a HRC from another hole in her head, begins to spout off about filing a complaint with the HRC... go Ezra, go!

Jack Weber · March 26, 2010

it's simply optics, played to advantage by Ezra Levant. Carry those optics to an alternative end where the meeting hall was allowed to fill to capacity... would you be any more accepting to a room full of attendees, in their seats, some of who might shout out an occasional rally call... or wave banners... or boo the speaker... or shout back at her over something she says... or influence the types of questions that might be asked. Because that was the alternate outcome that Levant didn't want played out for the media. So Levant shut it down... and the Coulter who wouldn't have known a HRC from another hole in her head, begins to spout off about filing a complaint with the HRC... go Ezra, go!

I realize there is a game going on here and Levant is behind it.And he has lost a little credibility on the free speech issue because of his actions,as well.To his larger point about these HRC's and the ethos behind them...he makes a compelling case.If a Muslim can file a Human Rights case over his being offended by a cartoon,then Coulter(through Levant) should be able file the same case that his rights were infringed upon by,what looks like an unruly (sp),ideologically driven mob?I assume that will be the thrust of his/her complant.This will be an interesting test for the Human Rights Commission in that,we are going to find out if they are driven by a certain ideology or if they are in fact fair and equal,as they claim to be.

As far as the cancelled event...David Suzuki,Stephen Lewis,Al Gore,et al have a vetted audience where even the questions that can be posed to them are vetted.I don't think that's a very helpful sutation,in terms of fostering debate,however that's how things are done.I've been to many all candidates meetings where the hall is filled with partisans of all types.Usually,there are "rules of engagement" for the participants and the audience.One of those rules is to keep quiet and let the people on the podium say their piece,and no advertizing(banners,placards) is to be seen inside the hall.It's called decorum...I suspect that the organizers of the event heared that there were rumours of groups of these people barging in and attempting to shout down the participants on the stage...Not what one would call the most intellectual response from the "progressives" and "intellectuals" who dislike the likes of Coulter and Levant.Why not try questioning Coulter and Levant in their own forum,an hoisting them on their own petard?

Jack Weber · March 26, 2010

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.

Spot on!!!!

waldo · March 26, 2010

whaaa! The kind of free speech Levant, Coulter and organizers prefer...

the "message" sent to those that pre-registered for the Coulter Calgary meet:

While there will be a Q&A to ensure open, intellectual discussion between attendees of the event and Ann Coulter, the Question and Answer period will be moderated, and any sort of ranking, heckling, or otherwise disrupting of the event will result in removal by security and/or police," wrote event organizer, the Canadian branch of the International Free Press Society. "As well, individuals caught recording this event will be removed."

forcibly limiting the free speech of all attendees - oh my! Hey Shady, did you get this same restriction to your free speech at UWO? :lol:

Jack Weber · March 26, 2010

whaaa! The kind of free speech Levant, Coulter and organizers prefer...

the "message" sent to those that pre-registered for the Coulter Calgary meet:

forcibly limiting the free speech of all attendees - oh my! Hey Shady, did you get this same restriction to your free speech at UWO?

Well...I guess what's good for the goose is only occassionally good for the gander...That's a little inconsistent,to say the least.

waldo · March 26, 2010

hopefully... Coulter won't be too inconvenienced in filing her complaint

PSAC condemns the Harper government's decision to close Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax.

Canadians living in British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces will no longer have access to walk-in or telephone services at a CHRC office even remotely close to where they live. The urban centres where the CHRC offices are being closed represent a high percentage of racialized people. In fact, 60 per cent of all racialized people in Canada live in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax.
In B.C., residents will no longer have access to a human rights commission of any kind, as the B.C. Human Rights Commission was dismantled by the provincial government five years ago.

PSAC sees the closures of the CHRC offices as part of a broader trend by the Harper government toward self-regulation - something that puts both public safety and human rights into question. By severely hampering the Canadian Human Rights Commission's ability to adequately deal with complaints throughout the process, the federal government is relying on employers to voluntarily meet employment equity obligations and address discrimination. But with no mechanisms for enforcement, the CHRC's mandate will be reduced to mere suggestions.

Jack Weber · March 26, 2010

Let's play a little game...

I was thinking about what or where I could find the most politically incorrect,over the top,offensive speech...And remembered the scene below.It is all of those things,but it's also extremely funny.Beyond that if someone wants to say things like this,in my opinion,they can go right ahead.That does'nt make it something I,or anyone else,should agree with.

And with the mod's indulgence...

The game is....

Who finds this offensive AND who thinks it should'nt be seen?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V40464qXoCg

(Many thanks to the late,great Stanley Kubrick...)

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

blueblood · March 26, 2010

Let's play a little game...

I was thinking about what or where I could find the most politically incorrect,over the top,offensive speech...And remembered the scene below.It is all of those things,but it's also extremely funny.Beyond that if someone wants to say things like this,in my opinion,they can go right ahead.That does'nt make it something I,or anyone else,should agree with.

And with the mod's indulgence...

The game is....

Who finds this offensive AND who thinks it should'nt be seen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V40464qXoCg

(Many thanks to the late,great Stanley Kubrick...)

Well done sir.

groupeii · March 26, 2010

Free speech exists but so do criminals who make criminals of people speaking.

The country is only as free as the courts and legislature.

People of course can choose to be branded criminals by oppressive laws.. the people have that prerogative even in the face of draconic authoritarianism.

waldo · March 26, 2010

Well done sir.

yes, very well done... clearly, Levant and Coulter should have been open to the possibility of receiving that kind of motivational... inspirational... message from attendees at UofO. Very well done, indeed.