Free Speech in Canada, a myth?

[M.Dancer]

This is sad and laughable at the same time.the fact that even in a forum where the question is posed -is freedome of speech a myth in canada ?. i cannot freely speak .this should be the end and answer to this topic.it is obvious we do not have freedom of speech in Canada

You have the freedom to speak and I have the freedom to ignore, or laugh.

[Loyalista]

I seem to have been given a break thanks to this new member. They have found someone new to poke for a while...hehe. I believe this poster is either very young or didn't finish high school.

Now onto the topic. Yes, many of us here believe that there isn't freedom of speech in Canada. I think people should be allowed to say whatever it is they want to say. That doesn't mean their wouldn't be consequences for their words and actions. You seem to be confusing these two things.

Jack said something earlier in this thread, something like, let them say what they want so we can identify and dismiss those with extreme views right away. As it is now it can take a long time to find out who has those views.

The Reform party suffered greatly from this as some MP's used racial epithets and had to removed from the caucus, it's not against the law to use them but people are responsible for their words. Reform never recovered from this and was forever labeled. Even though they had some really good non partisan ideas, it didn't matter. The label had been placed. These are some of the consequences I was speaking of.

This board isn't Canada or any country. It's intellectual property and is governed by the Admins. They are free to set up any guidelines they wish in order to post here. It's the same at any forum across the internet. I don't agree with the hate laws in this country but at the same time I don't see how using "hate speech" or racial epithets in our discussions here would help foster meaningful debate and discussion.

[M.Dancer]

And some have the freedom not to figure out how the quote and reply function work.

[Loyalista]

I am fairly young and yes i did drop out of highschool.Now that that is outta the way.I in no way have broughtup this peticular example to casue a debate on racism.Of course not all things said freely are going to be warmly welcomed.I didnt care to be called out for any reason based on assumption.As per my reactions you can all see that I take others freedom to express quite well.I am in agreement that I could have used any other example to prove the point i was trying to make but!!It is the not so socially or politically correct speech that is written off as racism as seen here,or ignorance as seen here.Yes with expression of ones speech based on whatever ideals there are consequences.I felt i needed to use an example to bring to light my point,when its not socially acceptable or politically correct one loses their freedom to express.As aparent i do not condone hate speech in any way shape or form.

[M.Dancer]

I am fairly young and yes i did drop out of highschool.Now that that is outta the way.I in no way have broughtup this peticular example to casue a debate on racism.Of course not all things said freely are going to be warmly welcomed.I didnt care to be called out for any reason based on assumption.As per my reactions you can all see that I take others freedom to express quite well.I am in agreement that I could have used any other example to prove the point i was trying to make but!!It is the not so socially or politically correct speech that is written off as racism as seen here,or ignorance as seen here.Yes with expression of ones speech based on whatever ideals there are consequences.I felt i needed to use an example to bring to light my point,when its not socially acceptable or politically correct one loses their freedom to express.As aparent i do not condone hate speech in any way shape or form.

Screed notwithstanding, you failed to prove your point. Wingnuts and whackjobs are free to say what then want provided they don't advocate genocide, murder etc.

Just because someone say something doesn't mean they will automatically receive credibility, attention, respect or anything else. More often that not, when someone opens thir mouth they only confirm they are an idiot.

[Jack Weber]

I am fairly young and yes i did drop out of highschool.Now that that is outta the way.I in no way have broughtup this peticular example to casue a debate on racism.Of course not all things said freely are going to be warmly welcomed.I didnt care to be called out for any reason based on assumption.As per my reactions you can all see that I take others freedom to express quite well.I am in agreement that I could have used any other example to prove the point i was trying to make but!!It is the not so socially or politically correct speech that is written off as racism as seen here,or ignorance as seen here.Yes with expression of ones speech based on whatever ideals there are consequences.I felt i needed to use an example to bring to light my point,when its not socially acceptable or politically correct one loses their freedom to express.As aparent i do not condone hate speech in any way shape or form.

Fair enough...

[wyly]

Not so!.I would( speak freely among staff and fellow volunteers) if i wasnt slandered on the grounds of political correctness and therefore relieved.It may not pretty and not what we want but it is myth that Canadians have freedom of speech.We have the freedom as long as someone isnt offended?

it's not about "offending someone" it's protecting people from hate crimes, libel/slander and incitement to violence against minorities...

it's you perception of "freedom of speech" that is wrong...

the "myth" is that we have the absolute freedom to say anything you want without consequences, that's never been the case...before there were laws regulating what you could say or write there were physical consequences for slander and libel which could cost a person imprisonment or even their life...

[waldo]

apparently... as evidenced by MLW status update messages... the term 'denialism', particularly in a climate change context, constitutes egregious disrespect. Words... when does the free usage of a generic term impugn a historical account?

[ToadBrother]

it's not about "offending someone" it's protecting people from hate crimes, libel/slander and incitement to violence against minorities...

We already had laws to deal with these things. Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries.

it's you perception of "freedom of speech" that is wrong...

the "myth" is that we have the absolute freedom to say anything you want without consequences, that's never been the case...before there were laws regulating what you could say or write there were physical consequences for slander and libel which could cost a person imprisonment or even their life...

You think libel and slander laws exist so people don't kill people who spread vicious lies about them? Where did you get your history of law from, a Crackerjack box?

No one says there is absolute freedom, but in a free society, the line of infringement should be very small, and should be extraordinarily concrete. Shout "fire" in a crowded theater and be prosecuted. Plot to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, that's conspiracy. Muse with some friends about what it would be like to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, well, as nasty as it may be, should not be prosecuted.

The state's capacity to limit speech should be exceedingly limited.

[Jack Weber]

We already had laws to deal with these things. Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries.

You think libel and slander laws exist so people don't kill people who spread vicious lies about them? Where did you get your history of law from, a Crackerjack box?

No one says there is absolute freedom, but in a free society, the line of infringement should be very small, and should be extraordinarily concrete. Shout "fire" in a crowded theater and be prosecuted. Plot to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, that's conspiracy. Muse with some friends about what it would be like to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, well, as nasty as it may be, should not be prosecuted.

The state's capacity to limit speech should be exceedingly limited.

Nothing like the wacko left and it's more cuddly,softer version of absolutism,eh Toady?

[wyly]

We already had laws to deal with these things. Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries.

show me those laws going back centuries...slavery was legal violence against a minority still in the 19th century in Canada, plotting legal/government backed violence against native americans was common place

You think libel and slander laws exist so people don't kill people who spread vicious lies about them? Where did you get your history of law from, a Crackerjack box?

where did you get your knowledge of history from out of your ass?...societies laws come out of a need to prevent disputes escalating to violence...common agreed upon legal arbitration/intervention prevents persecution, honor killings and feuds...

No one says there is absolute freedom, but in a free society, the line of infringement should be very small, and should be extraordinarily concrete. Shout "fire" in a crowded theater and be prosecuted. Plot to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, that's conspiracy. Muse with some friends about what it would be like to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, well, as nasty as it may be, should not be prosecuted.

The state's capacity to limit speech should be exceedingly limited.

one man's freedom ENDS when it infringes upon another's freedom... Edited April 2, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

show me those laws going back centuries...slavery was legal violence against a minority still in the 19th century in Canada, plotting legal/government backed violence against native americans was common place

And you think limiting speech cured these evils?

where did you get your knowledge of history from out of your ass?...the need societies laws come out of a need to prevent disputes escalating to violence...common agreed upon legal arbitration/intervention prevents persecution, honor killings and feuds...

That goes for all laws. Libel and slander laws were created as a civil means (note that now, a civil means, not a criminal) to seek reparations. How you think that libel laws are analogous to hate speech laws is quite beyond me. If I say "Bob is a child molester", and Bob isn't, it's not the state that takes me to court, it's Bob.

one man's freedom ENDS when it infringes upon another's freedom...

Saying nasty things about some group is hardly infringing on their freedoms. They are quite free to respond. That's the nature of free speech. If you don't protect unpopular, even vile speech, you don't actually have free speech.

Edited March 31, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Born Free]

And you think limiting speech cured these evils?

Thats not what he was writing about.

You wrote "Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries."

He was asking you to show him the laws to which you were refering.

[Oleg Bach]

JUST follow the guide lines set out by the crimminal code..DO not - threaten bodily harm or death ----THEN say what ever the hell you want. SOME important things are thought but never said..political correctness has one weapon---poverty..If you say the wrong thing and it effects the powers that be in an adverse manner---you incrimentally become poor and ineffective ..trust me on that one---I insulted the right people with the right words and ended up in the wrong place...CANADA has a punitive and tacit system of getting people back in line. We are still quietly colonial and commoners are not to go above their station- even with words.

[Shwa]

As a courtesy to other forum members, why don't you learn to use the quote feature properly, so that people can figure out who and what you are replying to without reading the whole thread?

Because it doesn't matter. I use the quote feature as I see fit and sometimes that includes a focus on the idea, not the poster. If you need to see who the originating poster is or gain some sort of context, then read the thread and figure it out for yourself. If you're too lazy to do that, don't blame others because you can't be bothered or are unable to catch up or follow along.

[wyly]

Thats not what he was writing about.

You wrote "Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries."

He was asking you to show him the laws to which you were refering.

it's avoidance he won't, because he can't...

[ToadBrother]

Thats not what he was writing about.

You wrote "Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries."

He was asking you to show him the laws to which you were refering.

http://www.starchamberproceedings.ca/html/criminal_code.html

Essentially conspiracy allows the Crown to lay near-equivalent charges for planning an offense as if one was actually going to commit offense. Let's just say I was planning to burn down a Jewish community center. If the cops got wind of it, and gathered the evidence, they could charge me long before I ever poured the gasoline on the floor, and the punishment would be equivalent to having actually burned down the building.

As has often been observed, there are already plenty of the statutes on the books that can be applied to those things called "hate" crimes. Beyond that, long before hate crimes, a judge could consider a convicted individual's motivations in sentencing, so I see nothing that hate laws do that couldn't be accomplished with judicial latitude. If someone attacks a black man and the Crown demonstrates that the motivation was racial hatred, then the judge can take that into account as an aggravating factor.

[Born Free]

http://www.starchamberproceedings.ca/html/criminal_code.html

Essentially conspiracy allows the Crown to lay near-equivalent charges for planning an offense as if one was actually going to commit offense. Let's just say I was planning to burn down a Jewish community center. If the cops got wind of it, and gathered the evidence, they could charge me long before I ever poured the gasoline on the floor, and the punishment would be equivalent to having actually burned down the building.

As has often been observed, there are already plenty of the statutes on the books that can be applied to those things called "hate" crimes. Beyond that, long before hate crimes, a judge could consider a convicted individual's motivations in sentencing, so I see nothing that hate laws do that couldn't be accomplished with judicial latitude. If someone attacks a black man and the Crown demonstrates that the motivation was racial hatred, then the judge can take that into account as an aggravating factor.

So you really didnt mean to write the word centuries in your assertion... "Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries."

... I'm OK now.

[wyly]

So you really didnt mean to write the word centuries in your assertion... "Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries."

... I'm OK now.

or how he took my "incitement to violence" and turn it into "plotting violence" there is a difference..

[Dithers]

Now Ann Coulter isn't allowed to speak either, yet Canada likes to say we have free speech.

Not allowing her to spew her venom is not a sign of our rights being stripped from us. It's a sign that we will not allow our minorities to be vicmitized by those who would advocate harm against them.

[Born Free]

Not allowing her to spew her venom is not a sign of our rights being stripped from us. It's a sign that we will not allow our minorities to be vicmitized by those who would advocate harm against them.

Actually she was allowed to speak. Her decision to not speak was her own. Yes the decision was clealy influenced by the earnestness of the protesters, it wasnt due to any Canadian authorities intervention.

To suggest that Canada doesnt have free speech based on the episode with that attention whore from the US is ...in the words of General Hillier..."Ludicrous!"

[Argus]

I do believe that freedom of speech in this country is myth.The very fact that the Nationalist Party of Canada cannot gain ground on the political scale should say it all.Its not that they cannot say as the wish but they cannot stand up and be a recognized party BECAUSE they say what their ideals are.

Freedom of speech allows any party to say whatever it wants. It does not guarantee them that anyone will pay attention.

[Argus]

Not so!.I would( speak freely among staff and fellow volunteers) if i wasnt slandered on the grounds of political correctness and therefore relieved.It may not pretty and not what we want but it is myth that Canadians have freedom of speech.We have the freedom as long as someone isnt offended?

You have the right to speak your opinion. That rigt does not guarantee that people will not be offended by your opinion. Nor does it guarantee you that they won't see you as a wack-job and no longer wish to associate with you.

All it means is you can state your opinon without anyone arresting or assaulting you.

And while I agree that right is threatened, and that the hate and speech crimes are unjust that does not mean free speech is dead - merely endangered.

[Argus]

the very guidelines of this forum do not permit slander or discrimination.

There is nothing in the guidelines forbidding discrimination. There is nothing in the guidelines that stops a white-power advocate from speaking freely as long as he does not violate the hate-speech provisions of the criminal code. As for slander, your opinion of another poster is not all that relevent in most cases, and hardly necessary for you to speak your piece.

Of course, there is nothing in the guidelines that says people have to respect your opinion if it sounds like it came from a semi-literate cretin either.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

The Reform party suffered greatly from this as some MP's used racial epithets and had to removed from the caucus,

I can't recall that ever happening. You have examples?