Free Speech in Canada, a myth?

[Mr.Canada]

Are you of the opinion that there should be no responsibility for what one says?

Not at all, exactly the opposite. People should be held responsible for what they say but shouldn't be limited by law of what they can say for fear of being arerested or dragged in front of a tribunal.

I want to hear what every crack pot has to say without limits.

[ToadBrother]

...

I want to hear what every crack pot has to say without limits.

A good start would be recording yourself.

[Smallc]

If a Muslim can file a Human Rights case over his being offended by a cartoon,

I believe that was a provincial HRC. Overall, I do not agree with their mandate. It's too far reaching.

[Smallc]

This is a red herring, though: Individuals (not groups) are equal before the law; thus, a homosexually-aligned person should be, and is, as far as I know, as protected from threats of violence as anyone else. That is something completely different to expecting the law to stop people from criticising homosexuality because it causes gay people some offence.

[c/e]

Groups are protected under the law from threats and promotion of violence against them. They are also protected from discrimination for being part of a particular group. It's not a red herring at all.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Hate laws, it strike me, like human rights tribunals/commissions, seek to take things that clearly do not meet the standard of dangerous criminal behavior and make them crimes.

Since hate laws are in fact contained within the criminal code, I don't see how your point can stand. Hate laws go a bit farther than threats, yes, but they are still considered a remedy for dangerous criminal behaviour in Canada.

[Smallc]

Are you talking about Coulter or Parliament? Was anyone in the mob charged? If not, then they did not "rule." Groups of people can assemble and they can shout at each other as long as they want so long as it is peaceful. In Coulter's case, they were protesting as they had every right to. So they were exercising their rights on many fronts. Call it what you want, but they were exercising their rights.

Thank you. This debate seems to be centred on freedom of speech....but what about the other constitutional protected rights?

[blueblood]

you're playing out your fantasy - the debate never occurred - Levant shut er down!

When the cops suggest to do something, its a good idea to listen to them.

your penchant for personalization is well established... in your case, there's certainly been no need for anyone to challenge you... on any level in climate change related threads. You've openly acknowledged your desire, your want, your need, to rely on others to speak for you... you're a non-issue in climate related threads

Riverwind articulates my exact position on climate change, and does so better than I can. Why should I waste bandwidth saying the same thing twice?

Judging by my poll the only non-issue is your pathetic debating skills.

- you've never engaged in a debate you so feel a need to trumpet the rights for! It would seem the poster you openly offered your proxy to has gone MIA... so keep touting that poll that you to this day refuse to even attempt to qualify arguments and positions for. Clearly you have difficulty in articulating for yourself -

Your idea of debate is shouting down people who disagree with you, and name calling, hoping to silence others through intimidation and thuggery. You suck at debate and the results speak for themselves.

The only thing I have to articulate is that you and others like you are pathetic at debating. And I have done that in spades. 22-7 people think you are a horrible debater, the numbers don't lie. In your eyes anyone who poses an idea opposite to yours gets shouted down as a "denier" or a "fascist" and you don't debate their arguments. I will keep touting that poll whenever you think you "pwn" someone in a debate by shouting them down and calling them a "denier" and/or a "fascist".

And another thing 28 people out of 29 understood the poll. 97% of respondents are smarter than you are. There's dumb and then there's you.

hence your continued whiny pissant displays; notwithstanding you haven't the balls to engage in actual debate/discussion on the subject of climate change... but don't let that stop you from rallying the cause for "free speech debate" denied!

Your idea of debate is shouting down people in an effort to silence them. You are no better than those protesters who feel the need to shout down and intimidate because somebody has an idea that is different.

You engage in personal attacks on Climate Change skeptics and try to make them look like fools, I made a poll about your debating skills, and have made you look stupid.

Mission Accomplished.

crikey, over the top... much!

Nope, and various critics agree with me.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Which is exactly the reason given for our free speech zones. There is no difference in theory or in practice.

[ToadBrother]

Since hate laws are in fact contained within the criminal code, I don't see how your point can stand. Hate laws go a bit farther than threats, yes, but they are still considered a remedy for dangerous criminal behaviour in Canada.

Know, they are criminalizing of speech an ideas. They are certainly laws, but they are bad laws by shortsighted cowardly people too inadequate to the task of actually tackling vile ideas head on.

I've got to ask, why does some speech frighten you? Do you think you could be turned to evil by what some people say? I'm not frightened of ideas, even the most vile. I can be disturbed and offended, yes. But frightened? Surely after all this time, it should be very clear that fear of ideas only gives them a power and mystique. You won't destroy evil by suppressing evil speech. You'll drive it underground, where it gains a kind of power far worse than having it in the light of day.

Hate laws are for the intellectually craven. It's sad to see that you're one of them.

[eyeball]

Mr.Canada provides constant comic relief...I love watching crazy people in action!!!

I've always taken Coulter to be a butch version of Larry the Cable Guy and about as funny.

Speaking for myself, I'm utterly amazed at the reaction and debate this twit has provoked. As a couple I saw on the news put it, she's too stupid to be taken seriously.

[Smallc]

Hate laws are for the intellectually craven. It's sad to see that you're one of them.

Hate laws don't stop any type of reasonable debate, because they don't affect anything that isn't done with negative intent or that is true. There's nothing intellectual about saying, I think we should kill all of the fags. There's nothing intellectual about saying that I think we shouldn't rent that woman an apartment because she's black. The laws don't stop ideas or debate, they simply punish idiots who spread propaganda and hatred.

If a bunch of people get together and say, "I think we should kill all of the fags," well, that does scare me, and it's disturbing that you don't understand why.

[ToadBrother]

Hate laws don't stop any type of reasonable debate, because they don't affect anything that isn't done with negative intent or that is true. There's nothing intellectual about saying, I think we should kill all of the fags. There's nothing intellectual about saying that I think we shouldn't rent that woman an apartment because she's black. The laws don't stop ideas or debate, they simply punish idiots who spread propaganda and hatred.

Surely you must see the circular nature of your definition of "reasonable debate". At any rate, why should any free speech be limited by what you, I or anyone thinks is reasonable? I mean, that's so subjective as to be worthless, unless you more honestly define it as "people are free to talk about things providing I approve".

In fact, it looks to me like you'd probably have even more restrictive hate laws. I can't tell whether that's because you're a would-be tyrant or just intellectually weak.

If a bunch of people get together and say, "I think we should kill all of the fags," well, that does scare me, and it's disturbing that you don't understand why.

If a bunch of people get together to plan a crime, there are longstanding remedies in both common and civil law. Why would you need to invent a new category of crime when you have criminal conspiracy laws?

[Smallc]

ToadBrother, you are usually quite informed, and I often respect your opinion...but I'm going to go with the Supreme Court of Canada on this one, when specifically talking about hate speech laws (though it also applies to some extent to the HRC of Canada).

The effects of s. 319(2) are not of such a deleterious nature as to outweigh any advantage gleaned from the limitation of s. 2( B ). The expressive activity at which s. 319(2) is aimed constitutes a special category, a category only tenuously connected with the values underlying the guarantee of freedom of expression. Hate propaganda contributes little to the aspirations of Canadians or Canada in either the quest for truth, the promotion of individual self‑development or the protection and fostering of a vibrant democracy where the participation of all individuals is accepted and encouraged. Moreover, the narrowly drawn terms of s. 319(2) and its defences prevent the prohibition of expression lying outside of this narrow category. Consequently, the suppression of hate propaganda represents an impairment of the individual's freedom of expression which is not of a most serious nature.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990scr3-697/1990scr3-697.html

Edited March 26, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

ToadBrother, you are usually quite informed, and I often respect your opinion...but I'm going to go with the Supreme Court of Canada on this one, when specifically talking about hate speech laws (though it also applies to some extent to the HRC of Canada).

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990scr3-697/1990scr3-697.html

I'm well aware of the justifications. But I don't agree with them. I don't think the state has any business restricting free speech, save within the most limited category of immediate threat (shouting "fire" in crowded theaters and the like). Trying to shut me up by quoting the ludicrous arguments of the Supreme Court seems a waste of time, no? It's almost as if you're saying "I can't/won't debate you, here's the SC's apologetic!"

As I said, there are longstanding ways to deal with people who plan criminal acts, whatever the justification, ranging from conspiracy through to sedition and even treason. Why invent new laws where long-standing ones are already there, and probably offer far more punitively effective remedies?

Edited March 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Muddy]

FMJ is a fantastic movie. Offended? Not in the least. Drill Sergeants can deliver some tough love.

I love it! I remember well my first day in basic. Got a hair cut,a bunk then piles of kit. Had a couple of minutes so I thought and started to write home to Mom as promised. Some guy walks by and asks if I am writing home. Yah says I. What he says?,Are you deaf Bud say I!! I then got introduced to Corporal M. You get on your feet and put your heels together when you talk to me you bloody diseased civilian! All the basic drill NCO`s had the greatest lines to berate you with and make you laugh. Of course you laughed and you got into more crap.

we started out with about 40 guys and ended up with about thirty when we passed out of basic. You sure were a proud Soldier on that day. Unlike in the film clip they were never allowed to touch you harmfully except in self defence. To offer harm to one of those guys was a really big mistake. Enjoyed myself once I got into the game of basic training. Learned how to take care of myself. great life lesson. I enjoyed the clip. Only thing they were not allowed to call you was a bastard or a SOB. This was forbidden out of respect for Mothers.

[Smallc]

Trying to shut me up by quoting the ludicrous arguments of the Supreme Court seems a waste of time, no? It's almost as if you're saying "I can't/won't debate you, here's the SC's apologetic!"

What, now you're accusing me of infringing on your freedom of speech?....

I hardly see how bringing facts into the debate stifles the said debate. The reality is, there is one body that has the authority to meaningfully interpret the Constitution and deliver a final verdict. That body has determined that the limits are reasonable. I'm not sure who brining it to the attention of the broader discussing audience is an example of me trying to shut you up. I am more inclined to agree with them than you, and that it what I said. Others can make their own judgements based on whatever they want to. I look at this judgement as a very clear and reasonable justification of the laws.

This only further proves to me what I already believed. Hate speech and propaganda as well as discrimination add very little to a discussion.

[ToadBrother]

What, now you're accusing me of infringing on your freedom of speech?....

I never said that.

I hardly see how bringing facts into the debate stifles the said debate.

It causes a problem when I disagree with the "fact" in question. I know the SC's opinion. I disagree with it. Quoting it to me doesn't exactly convince of me anything. I mean, if that was all it would take, I'd be on your side of the debate already.

The reality is, there is one body that has the authority to meaningfully interpret the Constitution and deliver a final verdict. That body has determined that the limits are reasonable. I'm not sure who brining it to the attention of the broader discussing audience is an example of me trying to shut you up. I am more inclined to agree with them than you, and that it what I said. Others can make their own judgements based on whatever they want to. I look at this judgement as a very clear and reasonable justification of the laws.

Well of course you do, because you agree with it.

This only further proves to me what I already believed. Hate speech and propaganda as well as discrimination add very little to a discussion.

And why should that be any kind of standard?

[Smallc]

And why should that be any kind of standard?

This is silly. If we aren't going to talk about anything other than how we feel then I don't see the point.

[ToadBrother]

This is silly. If we aren't going to talk about anything other than how we feel then I don't see the point.

Is that an admission that you don't really have a way of defending your point?

I think I've made my point clear, whether you agree with it or not. The only standard I feel that can be applied to whether speech should have criminal consequences is if it can be demonstrated to have immediate tangible harm. Some blowhard saying "Hitler should have killed all the Jews" does not, so far as I can tell, constitute immediate tangible harm.

I mean, did you call the cops over any of Lictor's posts?

[Smallc]

Is that an admission that you don't really have a way of defending your point?

What type of defence would you like me to provide? I've told you that I consider the current laws to be reasonable, I've shown you legal decisions that say that they're reasonable, and I've told you why I think they're reasonable (because hate speech adds little, if anything, to a discussion, and such speech can be dangerous). What would you like me to say.

I think I've made my point clear, whether you agree with it or not. The only standard I feel that can be applied to whether speech should have criminal consequences is if it can be demonstrated to have immediate tangible harm. Some blowhard saying "Hitler should have killed all the Jews" does not, so far as I can tell, constitute immediate tangible harm.

I'm not sure why you keep citing that case, since in the end, the court agreed with you. I'd say that saying that is terrible, but it doesn't quite constitute hate. If he were to have suggested that people should kill all of the Jews because Hitler was right, that would be a different story.

I mean, did you call the cops over any of Lictor's posts?

No, I simply didn't respond to Lictor (or very seldom) because in my view, he added nothing to the discussion. I have the same view of a few people on here. You most certainly aren't one of them. It's simply that our definitions of reasonable are different.

[ironstone]

Go ask George Galloway.

I tried to ask him but he was busy helping Hamas and Hezbollah.

[scorpio]

Not at all, exactly the opposite. People should be held responsible for what they say but shouldn't be limited by law of what they can say for fear of being arerested or dragged in front of a tribunal.

I want to hear what every crack pot has to say without limits.

So you're okay with slander?

[Mr.Canada]

So you're okay with slander?

Sure, I'm ok with anything. Say whatever you want. That doesn't negate responsibility for your words or mine for that matter. people should are responsible for what they say but shouldn't be censored or made to feel that thye cannot say certai nthings.

[Argus]

or Mustafa Barghouti... or as someone mentioned in the other thread... Bill Ayers.

the poor persecuted right-wing conservative! Oh the humanity!

If I've got your rebuttal down right what you're saying is that the Right doesn't respect free speech either because it won't let your terrorists speak. Is that right?

[Argus]

Hitler loved free speech as well to incite hatred...

Why is that all the idiots who repeatedly bring Nazis and Hitler into debates very obviously and clearly demonstrate their complete lack of knowledge and education on the subjects?

In point of fact, Germany had "hate speech" laws, and Hitler was imprisoned under them. All the laws did was serve to make him a martyr and draw more attention to him. And when he got in power he used those same laws against Jews, Communists, intellectuals and anyone else who disagreed with him. Such laws are dangerous because they're so wide open to interpretation.

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy