Do people have the right to be racist?

[PlayItLoud]

I've asked people about this and it's surprised how many told me no.

To be clear, I'm not asking if a person have racist thoughts, I'm asking if a person has the right to express this thought. To give an example, do you think the KKK should have the right to march down the streets to make their point? And not just racism either, do you believe people should have the right express hateful/racist/etc. speech in the public?

Yes, no, why?

BTW I'm not a racist, my parents are from Taiwan so it's not like I'm not an easy target for racism.

[PlayItLoud]

Just replying to add a poll.

[cybercoma]

Legally, no.

[August1991]

"Being racist" and "expressing hateful speech" are different.

People discriminate in many ways in the choices that they make: for example, think of how people choose a spouse, or where to buy a cup of coffee. Whether life-changing or mundane, to choose means to discriminate. And to make our choices, we use information or signals. I would be surprised to learn that Canadians don't use race (among other signals) to make their private choices.

As civilized Canadians, we don't want the State to discriminate as we have the right to do in our private choices: for example, the State should not treat women and men differently.

As to expressing hateful speech, IME, Canadians in general are polite.

Edited December 31, 2011 by August1991

[WWWTT]

I find this to be an odd thread.

Fist off your title asks if ppl have the right to be racist.But then the sub title/and your clarification mentions public speech.

I believe we are all entitled to our thoughts,but if you were to actually create/publish/distribute material you could end up in hot water!

WWWTT

[Guest Manny]

People discriminate in many ways in the choices that they make: for example, think of how people choose a spouse, or where to buy a cup of coffee.

The OP is talking about whether people have the right to publicly express racist and hateful speech, such as the example of the kkk. NOT, where to buy a cup of coffee. The questions pretty clear.

For example if the coffee shop is run by the kind of people you don't like, you might not go there. But that is an internalized decision. It's not the same as standing on a soap box and shouting out antisemitic slogans.

Short answer is no. Not in this country. Hell, merely writing a pamphlet questioning certain things can get you deported.

[Moonlight Graham]

Do they? No. Should they, IMO I'm torn, but would lead towards making it legal.

Speech is speech, and shouldn't be regulated IMO. I'd argue that only actions can truly harm someone. But then, I suppose hateful speech could harm someone (ie: verbal abuse), and the victim could sue etc.. So maybe banning hate-speech nips that in the bud

[dre]

Do they? No. Should they, IMO I'm torn, but would lead towards making it legal.

Speech is speech, and shouldn't be regulated IMO. I'd argue that only actions can truly harm someone. But then, I suppose hateful speech could harm someone (ie: verbal abuse), and the victim could sue etc.. So maybe banning hate-speech nips that in the bud

I dont see a way around having these kind of laws. They didnt just get written in a vacuum, they exist because we have a rich history of persecuting various diferent ethnic minorities. Allowing it would basically allow political campaigns to be organized against various minorities. The people that incited and spread hatred against german jews before world war one were excersizing "free speech" as well.

If we were better people I guess we wouldnt need these laws.

[PlayItLoud]

Okay, to clarify more, I don't mean businesses should or should not be allowed to say no blacks allowed, I'm asking if the KKK should be allowed to march on the streets or some blogger should be allowed to make blog posts about how Jews are inferior or something.

[PlayItLoud]

I dont see a way around having these kind of laws. They didnt just get written in a vacuum, they exist because we have a rich history of persecuting various diferent ethnic minorities. Allowing it would basically allow political campaigns to be organized against various minorities. The people that incited and spread hatred against german jews before world war one were excersizing "free speech" as well.

If we were better people I guess we wouldnt need these laws.

You should understand there's a difference between state sponsored racism and racism by regular civilians. I'm not either is great, but I do believe free speech should exist absolutely. Just because people think that certain speech is despicable or hurtful doesn't mean it ought to be criminalized. We don't have free speech laws to protect our right to discuss the weather, it's for saying controversial issues.

[jacee]

Mixed feelings here too. People have a right to have and exercise their opinions eg by not going to certain stores, renting from someone they don't want to etc., but storekeepers, landlords, etc that serve the public do not have a right to refuse service because of race. Organizing a march against a race(s) however, seems different to me as it is purposely trying to publicize and spread your racism to others, and incite hatred and action against people based on their race. Likewise, harassing someone solely because of race isn't acceptable to me as it is a form of assault, imo.

I think this is the balance that Canadian law strives to maintain, between the right to free speech and the responsibility not to victimize others due to their race. As- believe Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, your rights end where someone else's rights begin.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm asking if the KKK should be allowed to march on the streets or some blogger should be allowed to make blog posts about how Jews are inferior or something.

"Expressing hateful speech" and "speech inciting hatred" are two different things. I would say the former seems to be a "right" in Canada.

Ex-KKK leader featured on Muslim group's website

A Canadian Muslim group is making no apologies for its Internet site, which features a video address by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. In the 12-minute video on the Canadian Shia Muslims Organization website, Mr. Duke espouses conspiracy theories about what he calls "Zionist running dogs.”

[PlayItLoud]

"Expressing hateful speech" and "speech inciting hatred" are two different things. I would say the former seems to be a "right" in Canada.

Ex-KKK leader featured on Muslim group's website

A Canadian Muslim group is making no apologies for its Internet site, which features a video address by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. In the 12-minute video on the Canadian Shia Muslims Organization website, Mr. Duke espouses conspiracy theories about what he calls "Zionist running dogs.”

Well, actually apparently not, because the courts ruled that any speech is deemed "too hateful" can be censored even though that kind of judgment clearly goes against the Constitution. I'm just asking about what people think about it.

[Rick]

Okay, to clarify more, I don't mean businesses should or should not be allowed to say no blacks allowed, I'm asking if the KKK should be allowed to march on the streets or some blogger should be allowed to make blog posts about how Jews are inferior or something.

Have you met Bob?

For the record though, I voted yes in your poll because freedom of speech, the rights to protest and speak our minds are quickly being eroded these days living in this increasingly right wing, fascist, growing police state.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Rick

[PlayItLoud]

Have you met Bob?

For the record though, I voted yes in your poll because freedom of speech, the rights to protest and speak our minds are quickly being eroded these days living in this increasingly right wing, fascist, growing police state.

Is that some kind of saying or is Bob an actual person?

[Rick]

Is that some kind of saying or is Bob an actual person?

Bob is a 'username' here that would definitely have an opinion on anyone who posted these three words in a sentence

Jews are inferior

[Scotty]

I think one of the issues with prohibiting racist speech (one cannot, of course, prohibit racist thoughts) is in describing both the harm and the speech. We've seen here on this site numerous declarations of racism and bigotry which don't appear to follow the dictionary term very clearly. Some think holding a poor opinion of Muslims constitutes racism, for example, despite Muslims not being a race. It's a pejorative term which tends to get flung around a lot, often by the ignorant.

Second, it's difficult, in most cases, to describe why one should be prohibited from exercising a basic right. Hurt feelings or offense is not sufficient reason to ban one from speaking ones mind.

Generally, in Canada, you have the right to express your racism fairly completely, if that is your desire, and I agree with that right. The only brake on this is that if you are attempting to 'incite' others towards some harmful action or goal towards your target and are doing so in a consistent and public manner. That is to say, if you tell people at the pub you hate Jews (or Blacks or Pakistanis or Arabs or whatever) that's perfectly legal. However, if you set up a web site and start giving speeches calling for them to be put in concentration camps or forced out of Canada, you'd likely be guilty of "hate speech", which is a criminal act. This, at least, is my understanding.

Now in other countries, notably the more leftist ones in Europe, you have no such right, and can be prosecuted and imprisoned for expressing your racist feelings (Britain and France come to mind). Thus far, such state intervention to stamp out racism has, of course, done exactly the opposite. Violent racism seems more prevalent in those states which have striven the hardest to be politically correct.

[Scotty]

Bob is a 'username' here that would definitely have an opinion on anyone who posted these three words in a sentence Jews are inferior

And you would not?

[PlayItLoud]

And you would not?

That wasn't what I said.

[PlayItLoud]

To give the whole quote...

Okay, to clarify more, I don't mean businesses should or should not be allowed to say no blacks allowed, I'm asking if the KKK should be allowed to march on the streets or some blogger should be allowed to make blog posts about how Jews are inferior or something.

[Scotty]

That wasn't what I said.

I realize he simply took your words out of the context of the sentence. However, if stated alone as it was, that would certainly cause issues with any number of posters here, including myself.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, actually apparently not, because the courts ruled that any speech is deemed "too hateful" can be censored even though that kind of judgment clearly goes against the Constitution.

I don't think so; the law isn't against "hateful" speech but speech that incites hatred. As I understand it, saying 'I hate whites, Muslims, Christians, etc.' isn't against the law but inciting others, encouraging others to hate, is. I would think the source I cited would back that up.

I'm just asking about what people think about it.

I believe people have the right to say what's on their mind.

[WWWTT]

Well, actually apparently not, because the courts ruled that any speech is deemed "too hateful" can be censored even though that kind of judgment clearly goes against the Constitution. I'm just asking about what people think about it.

This is a false statement.

Hatefull speech must be censored in order to "protect" constitutional rights!

We all have the right to peacefully live within our country without being threatened/harased etc etc.

Literature,speech,publication and many forms of broadcast including internet are well documented forms of communication that can be used to harm people.

A good cross analogy would be saying that no one in Canada has the right to drive impaired.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Second, it's difficult, in most cases, to describe why one should be prohibited from exercising a basic right. Hurt feelings or offense is not sufficient reason to ban one from speaking ones mind.

What if that person with the "hurt feelings" ends up commiting suicide?

I believe there have been several recent cases involving the internet and people from alternative lifestyles.I am not sure of all the details of the different cases but I believe criminal charges have been layed and I believe successfully convicted.

WWWTT

[sharkman]

Have you met Bob?

For the record though, I voted yes in your poll because freedom of speech, the rights to protest and speak our minds are quickly being eroded these days living in this increasingly right wing, fascist, growing police state.

Thanks for your thoughts, this helps me understand you better. You see everything through the lense of your extremist leftwing views and feel desperate about Canada under the Tories. Understanding your perspective will help interpret your posts in the future.

As far as hate speech goes, it hasn't really been defined as yet by the thread starter and this could be a tricky issue. When one says hate speech is okay, their personal definition of hate speech might differ from another who wouldn't allow it at all. Personally I have a dim view of hate speech and think that those who would speak or write such have some deep issues. But I also am hesitant to give a government the right to arrest people based on this since the definition can be changed by legislation to become something completely different.