Do people have the right to be racist?

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Who said anything about merely saying "negative things"? I like how you mischaracterize things. It helps your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Well, if someone generalizes that Americans are all bad and selfish for example. Such things could just as conceivably lead to hatred of Americans, that could cause someone to commit violence against an American.

Is he at any less danger if he is not identifiable by skin color? It only takes a few words to reveal that you are an American.

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

Also, why are you suggesting people need to be "rounded up"? Who said anything about that? The tribunal has levied such crazy punishments as requiring racist websites to be taken down. No one has suggested that people be rounded up.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

Well, if someone generalizes that Americans are all bad and selfish for example. Such things could just as conceivably lead to hatred of Americans, that could cause someone to commit violence against an American.

If someone started a website solely dedicated to libeling Americans and promoting the oppression of Americans then you would have a point. An individual uttering nonsense about Americans is just that. It's hardly inciting others to violence against Americans. It's certainly not running an organization dedicated to the extermination of the "Yanks" and it's not marching in the streets demanding "Americans go home!"

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Also, why are you suggesting people need to be "rounded up"? Who said anything about that? The tribunal has levied such crazy punishments as requiring racist websites to be taken down. No one has suggested that people be rounded up.

So, to what degree, in your mind, does a site have to be offensive in order for it to be taken down?

If let's say, it were a site where people made some hateful generalizations of Tories, or Americans....are you game for that?

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

It's hardly inciting others to violence against Americans. It's certainly not running an organization dedicated to the extermination of the "Yanks" and it's not marching in the streets demanding "Americans go home!"

But those were not the only examples given throughout the scope of this thread.

And you said that if a certain poster were brought before the CHRC and fined if his signature included visible minorities rather than a group that is not defined by birth, you would not defend him.

That person would not exactly be leading a march through the streets.

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Someone that utters some sort of hateful statement should not be punished at all to the same extent as someone who spraypaints anti-semitic death threats on a synagogue, nor should they be punished as seriously as a white supremacist organization that hosts a parade and tries to recruit members to subjugate, oppress, and otherwise harass entire segments of society under the thin veil of racial "pride."

See here you seem to understand that we are not just talking about marches through the streets. You even make admission that you think people who make lesser hateful comments deserve legal punishment, just less than certain others.

So obviously, for you it is more than just about marching through the streets, starting a group, and telling people to go home.

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

bush_cheney2004 · January 2, 2012

...And you said that if a certain poster were brought before the CHRC and fined if his signature included visible minorities rather than a group that is not defined by birth, you would not defend him.

Ironically, the very term "visible minority" is itself racist.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Ironically, the very term "visible minority" is itself racist.

That was my bad though, because I think he used identifiable.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

So, to what degree, in your mind, does a site have to be offensive in order for it to be taken down?

I don't know. You're dealing with hypotheticals here. It depends on a number of circumstances, hence having a court or tribunal adjudicate these things

If let's say, it were a site where people made some hateful generalizations of Tories, or Americans....are you game for that?

What do you mean by some? What do you mean by hateful? What is the site's overall purpose? Whose running it? How many forum members are there? How many new members to they get in a month on average?

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

So what do you think? Should there be no hate-speech laws? No Human Rights legislation? No tribunals? What's your opinion?

bush_cheney2004 · January 2, 2012

That was my bad though, because I think he used identifiable.

But your point remains insightful....any nation that officially uses the term "visible minority" loses credibility for so called hate speech" policies designed to combat "racism" (among other things).

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

But your point remains insightful....any nation that officially uses the term "visible minority" loses credibility for so called hate speech" policies designed to combat "racism" (among other things).

Good thing we don't officialy use that term then, eh?

s. 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

bush_cheney2004 · January 2, 2012

Good thing we don't officialy use that term then, eh?

I'm pretty sure that Stats Canada is an official government function, and the term is officially used for employment law in Canada:

Visible minority

refers to whether a person belongs to a

visible minority

group as defined by the Employment Equity Act and, if so, the

visible minority

group to which the person belongs. The Employment Equity Act defines

visible minorities

as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour". The

visible minority

population consists mainly of the following groups: Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab, West Asian, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Japanese and Korean.

Derivation

Visible minority

is derived. It is derived from information on Population group and Aboriginal group. Respondents who report being Aboriginal are included in the category "Not a

visible minority

". All other respondents are classified according to their Population group.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

What do you mean by some? What do you mean by hateful? What is the site's overall purpose? Whose running it? How many forum members are there? How many new members to they get in a month on average?

How about what do you mean?

As I have shown, you are certainly open to punishing people based on speech that does not directly recommend violence or does not constitute marching up and down the square. Just to some lesser degree.

So you define legally punishable hatred for me?

If a certain person's signature referred to an "identifiable minority" rather than people with certain political leanings, would you defend that person if he faced fines from the CHRC?

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

I'm pretty sure that Stats Canada is an official government function, and the term is officially used for employment law in Canada:

Visible minority
refers to whether a person belongs to a
visible minority
group as defined by the Employment Equity Act and, if so, the
visible minority
group to which the person belongs. The Employment Equity Act defines
visible minorities
as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour". The
visible minority
population consists mainly of the following groups: Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab, West Asian, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Japanese and Korean.

Derivation

Visible minority
is derived. It is derived from information on Population group and Aboriginal group. Respondents who report being Aboriginal are included in the category "Not a
visible minority
". All other respondents are classified according to their Population group.

Try to stay on topic. We're talking about the Human Rights Act.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

How about what do you mean?

As I have shown, you are certainly open to punishing people based on speech that does not directly recommend violence or does not constitute marching up and down the square. Just to some lesser degree.

So you define legally punishable hatred for me?

If a certain person's signature referred to an "identifiable minority" rather than people with certain political leanings, would you defend that person if he faced fines from the CHRC?

"Punishable", as in cease and desist orders or taking down websites. You make it sound like we're talking about putting people in prison for the rest of their lives here.

bush_cheney2004 · January 2, 2012

Try to stay on topic. We're talking about the Human Rights Act.

Yes...I know. Human Rights Act as in Canada, the same government that administers Stats Canada and Employment Equity Act.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

"Punishable", as in cease and desist orders or taking down websites. You make it sound like we're talking about putting people in prison for the rest of their lives here.

I don't think I said anything that resembled "people being put in prison's for the rest of their life". When parents "punish" their children they do not put them in prison for life. People have their speech censored however, and they do face financial ramifications that make speech rather costly. That's a dangerous road to go down.

Who gets to decide what websites are hateful and which ones get to be taken down?

How about one's which say "hateful" things about Conservatives? Can we do that?

If we just take the Website down and don't put them in prison for life is that ok?

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

"Punishable", as in cease and desist orders or taking down websites. You make it sound like we're talking about putting people in prison for the rest of their lives here.

Try to stay on topic, I was asking you to define hateful.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

Who gets to decide what websites are hateful and which ones get to be taken down?

Canadians got to decide when we elected our government that passed the Canadian Human Rights Act. The courts get to interpret it.

How about one's which say "hateful" things about Conservatives? Can we do that?

How about you read more about the legislation yourself? This page will even tell you the history of it, why it was enacted, and the reasons for the internet being included.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/hoi_hsi/qa_qr/page1-eng.aspx

Is it against the law to target Conservatives?

Well that depends on whether they are "identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination," as the law says. According to the law the identifiable and protected characteristics are "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted."

So, it doesn't seem that Conservatives have been historically disadvantaged by discrimination and in need of protection from being unable to "make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society"

Tilter · January 2, 2012

Good thing we don't officialy use that term then, eh?

s. 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith

becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us,

he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else,

for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed,

or birthplace, or origin..

But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian...

There can be no divided allegiance here.

Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, isn't a Canadian at all.

We have room for but one flag, the Canadian flag...

And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Canadian people.'

Wilfrid Laurier 1907

Every Canadian citizen needs to read this!

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Is it against the law to target Conservatives?

So, it doesn't seem that Conservatives have been historically disadvantaged by discrimination and in need of protection from being unable to "make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society"

I am not asking if it is against the law, I am asking you if you agree with it. And what difference does it make how much someone has been targetted in the past. Crimes are crimes against anyone. If it is wrong to promote hate against one group which could lead to violent acts, then it ought to be wrong to do it to all.

If I were able to locate an "identifiable minority" in Canada for which there are no recorded incidents of "hate" against them, would it be reasonable to suggest that such a group should not be protected?

If saying "hateful" things about a certain group can possibly influence someone to commit violent acts against that group, then why should history matter. The same possibility for violence against a human being (or human beings) exists. If you hold someone liable for his words causing reckless endangerment to others, why would you not do this all across the board. How is it less of a crime if it happens to someone who is not a "visible" minority?

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

Scotty · January 2, 2012

Ironically, the very term "visible minority" is itself racist.

No it's not. And your ridiculous obsession with the term adds no value to this or any other discussion.

Scotty · January 2, 2012

But your point remains insightful....any nation that officially uses the term "visible minority" loses credibility for so called hate speech" policies designed to combat "racism" (among other things).

I think any poster who thinks the term visible minority is racist loses credibility to talk about racism. That's particularly so when that poster is a zealous advocate for a party in his own nation which is undeniably racist.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Scotty

Scotty · January 2, 2012

"Punishable", as in cease and desist orders or taking down websites. You make it sound like we're talking about putting people in prison for the rest of their lives here.

How about punishable by taking away people's houses?