Free Speech in Canada, a myth?

[Argus]

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.

The problem is that even when reasonable men agree that there need to be some limitations on freedom of speech - based purely on the desire to avoid violence - there are people - like most of those on the Left on this topic - who insist on taking the censorship further. It isn't enough to merely prohibit people who advocate violence and killing. Now we must also prohibit speech which offends or insults.

And they make no distinction between the two! Anne Coulter who offends and insults but is by no sane person's estimation someone who advocates genocide is lumped in with Hitler, for Gods sakes! You cannot give an inch to these people if you want to defend freedoms for their terror of opposing viewpoints drives them to unrelenting vigour in their determination to supress speech they dissaprove of.

[Argus]

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?

Again we see where the Left equates freedom of speech with being permitted to stop or shout down others. They really and truly do not understand the underlying concepts behind freedom of speech because their minds are incapable of grasping the idea that others should be permitted to express opinions with which they disagree.

[Argus]

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.

It's not the least bit inconsistent. It says that there will be questions and answers and it does not require those questions be cleared ahead of time or even be on a particular subject. What it does say is that decorum will be maintained, and screaming, shouting and disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated. I'm unaware of any setting where that sort of thing IS tolerated.

[scorpio]

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.

That "made to feel that they cannot say certain things" kind of flies in the face of Christianity don't you think, golden rule and all? I'm all for free speech, but it is contingent on us to censor ourselves, and act within well understood decorum and respect for others. Simply put, you can't just say whatever the hell you want. Or maybe you want a society replete with endless intolerant verbal free-for-all?

Edited March 27, 2010 by scorpio

[wobbly]

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.

For those who oppose zionist s murdering regular people it is now against the law to speak out. and do not blame what will cure our ills: socialism. We are in a hole and should we all try leaping up or getting together and climbing on one anothers shoulders reach the top. think about the placement of your heart, on the left. Venceremos

[Michael Hardner]

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.

What is this ? It's commonly known that Hitler was imprisoned for participating in a coup, isn't it ?

[eyeball]

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?

What do you mean either, Jason Kenney didn't deny Coulter entry into Canada but he did deny George Galloway.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I for one believe that free speech is a vital concept for a nation. That does not mean that the concept should be applied in any manner that would serve to cause harm to any group of, or individual person.

[Argus]

What do you mean either, Jason Kenney didn't deny Coulter entry into Canada but he did deny George Galloway.

The government has a general policy of keeping out terrorists and terrorist supporters. I don't have a big problem with that. I've already said that incitement to violence is one of the very few grounds where I believe it is acceptable to limit speech.

[eyeball]

The government has a general policy of keeping out terrorists and terrorist supporters. I don't have a big problem with that. I've already said that incitement to violence is one of the very few grounds where I believe it is acceptable to limit speech.

The government also has a general policy of aiding and abetting friendly dictators which is no different than supporting terrorists or inciting violence. Do you support that?

[Michael Hardner]

What is this ? It's commonly known that Hitler was imprisoned for participating in a coup, isn't it ?

Argus ? Do you have a response ?

[bloodyminded]

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.

"Progressives" aside, Canda, like the US and many others, decidedly IS run by "intellectuals." For better or worse.

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...

But it's disturbing to many only because of the totalitarian impulse to act this way, by regimes and organizations (notably Christians). However, in a relatively free society, it is symbolic only, and doesn't really mean anything that I would find terribly frightening. People burning books appears to have a whiff of censorship, even of violence, but in reality it's no big deal.

People once held a public burning of Noam Chomsky's books; he shrugged it off as unimportant, and in fact supported their right to do so.

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...

I think this notion of a massive, leftish overly-PC movement is a misapprehension. First of all, things have improved, not worsened, in these matters since the early nineties; that is, twenty years ago, there was more left-leaning political correctness, not less. That's when the term itself became popularized (and was in fact coined by the left as a poke at their own over-the-top seriousness on matters of identity politics.)

But even then, as the political right--always more adroit and organized at political attack and propaganda--began spelling out individual cases, an interesting, and telling, circumstance arose. Most of the cases of evil politically-correct "thought police" were exaggeraitons and even outright fabrications, though a few were no doubt real. Even some of the erstwhile "victims"--ie professors fired for undue remarks or dubious sexual harassment claims--objected that their so-called Derfenders and Supporters were manipulating the truth in order to deligitmize the "progressive left."

So it was all exaggerated, wildly, and it still is.

Indeed, we get the impression that some entty called "progressives" are de facto rulers of the country, a notion so preposterous that it should give even the claimants themselves pause.

It's not that identity politics aren't real; they are. It's not that they aren't stifling, or at least irritating to a lot of us; they can be. But it has nothing--nothing whatsoever--to do with "the left," or whatever we are supposed to think comprises this "left." It's just poitics as usual. Hell, look down south to Sarah Palin's ongoing campaign; she's been ALL about identity politics, and from the very beginning: "hockey mom," (a meaningless demographic if ever I've heard one), "rural leader," brave mother--or I should say Mother, as it is capitalized by implication--of a special needs child, trotted out as proof, in some mysterious way, of her innate Goodness.

It's not juts her, of course, by a long shot. And I agree it's unpleasant, even stupid. But it's unrelated to "the left," a group, such as it is, delegated to the margins and yet expected to symbolize the sins of the entire political spectrum.

Why should we hold this "progressive left" entity to such a higher standard than everyone else...to the point where we explicitly imply that they are the only ones doing what everyone, in fact, is doing?

[bush_cheney2004]

Hell, look down south to Sarah Palin's ongoing campaign; she's been ALL about identity politics....

Of course, as keeping your eyes in Canada would not find such a campaign in scale or impact, as it would be DOA.

[bloodyminded]

Of course, as keeping your eyes in Canada would not find such a campaign in scale or impact, as it would be DOA.

Ok, sport.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, sport.

Of course it's "OK", as you didn't even bother to muster a viable set of conflicting political elements without referring to the "south". Canada's political landscape pales in comparison.

[Smallc]

Canada's political landscape pales in comparison.

And yet you spend so much time here talking about it.

[eyeball]

Some 14,500 posts on irrelevancy...it's phenomenal.

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet you spend so much time here talking about it.

Exactly....as it is mostly like a not so remote outpost of American discourse, parroted by Canadians instead. I mean, c'mon, Sarah Palin is still gobbling up bandwidth here long after her rise and fall from grace as a viable national candidate in another nation. Is there no Canadian "Sarah Palin", or "Noam Chomsky", or "Barack Obama", or name any other low hanging American fruit strangely but consistently used to illustrate issues affecting Canadians. Is there far less veracity if the "south" is not invoked?

Free speech issues in Canada are an old story, never finding my interest until the Gomery hearings reporting fiasco by an American blogger. But yet again the comparisons are made, if only to define just whyand how Canada instantiates "freedom of expression".

[bush_cheney2004]

Some 14,500 posts on irrelevancy...it's phenomenal.

But each engaged by other members....relevant to somebody, eh?

[bloodyminded]

Of course it's "OK", as you didn't even bother to muster a viable set of conflicting political elements without referring to the "south". Canada's political landscape pales in comparison.

You're a one-note man, little guy. Though I do enjoy these mini-lectures offered up by nationalist hypocrites.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're a one-note man, little guy. Though I do enjoy these mini-lectures offered up by nationalist hypocrites.

What else would you do in the absence of same?

What other "nation" would form the foundation of your definitions if not America?

[Born Free]

What else would you do in the absence of same?

What other "nation" would form the foundation of your definitions if not America?

Take a guess...

[bush_cheney2004]

Take a guess...

It doesn't matter....the point is that is would still be another nation instead of domestic culture and body politic in/for its own right. After several years here at MLW, I'm convinced that it is not so much the lack of domestic references and definition, but the overwhelming torrent of American pop and political culture delivered to a barren media landscape.

So it is just easier to embrace and invoke the American example, not only because it exists and defines (even as a foil), but because a fellow Canadian is also more likely to be aware of the very same American reference over anything at home. Accordingly, the American Palins, Chomskys, Dukes, Kent States, etc. are immediately offered up because anything less might be too obscure or less polarizing, or not exist at all.

[bloodyminded]

What else would you do in the absence of same?

What other "nation" would form the foundation of your definitions if not America?

And...the record continues to skip, skip, skip. That repetitive drone we hear is the sound of an inferiority complex hiccupping with aggrieved patriotism. No doubt accompanied by little red, white 'n blue tears at the sheer affrontery of those (ie the Earth) who disagree with the combative little pussies of the American Right.

[bush_cheney2004]

And...the record continues to skip, skip, skip. That repetitive drone we hear is the sound of an inferiority complex hiccupping with aggrieved patriotism. No doubt accompanied by little red, white 'n blue tears at the sheer affrontery of those (ie the Earth) who disagree with the combative little pussies of the American Right.

Even in anger...you invoke the Americans! Splendid! :)