Do people have the right to be racist?

PlayItLoud · January 1, 2012

That's a great point. That's probably the best argument for why it should be illegal. Hate speech is not directly harmful, but it spreads hatred, and hateful thinking (itself harmless) leads to hateful acts.

The slope slides both ways. A person can spread hateful speech just as well as a person spreading opposite.

eyeball · January 1, 2012

The slope slides both ways. A person can spread hateful speech just as well as a person spreading opposite.

That's a slant, not a slope.

eyeball · January 1, 2012

Take this for example, if I tell a woman that her husband is cheating on her and she decides to kill him for it, why should I be responsible for how she reacted to that information?

You shouldn't. How could you know?

Would your first experience prevent you from doing the same thing to the next betrayed woman you met?

PlayItLoud · January 1, 2012

You shouldn't. How could you know?

Would your first experience prevent you from doing the same thing to the next betrayed woman you met?

I may, I may not. It doesn't matter because we're not talking about the morality of things. There's no doubt that racist acts or exposing people that usually result in violence is immoral, however it shouldn't be illegal.

jefferiah · January 1, 2012

That's a great point. That's probably the best argument for why it should be illegal. Hate speech is not directly harmful, but it spreads hatred, and hateful thinking (itself harmless) leads to hateful acts.

The problem with that is, when you go beyond that speech which does not directly call for violence, who gets to decide what speech is hateful? What negative statements and generalizations can possibly lead to violence? How about people who said hateful things about George Bush? Or Octomom? Or the Toronto Maple Leafs?

People who wish to allow the government control over such things, which are open to so much interpretation, may eventually find themselves among the ones who regret it most.

Edited January 1, 2012 by jefferiah

jacee · January 1, 2012

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.

Can you cite the court case/ruling?

The Criminal Code of Canada specifies

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

2) Every one who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or ...

"Inciting..." and "promoting..." hatred are more complex than simple expression of racial hatred which is, itself, apparently not against the law and thus a matter of free speech.

Edited January 1, 2012 by jacee

Scotty · January 1, 2012

That's a great point. That's probably the best argument for why it should be illegal. Hate speech is not directly harmful, but it spreads hatred, and hateful thinking (itself harmless) leads to hateful acts.

It could. But what you're actually supporting here is the suppression of ideas you find distasteful or dangerous. Societies have a long history of suppressing such ideas, either because they were blasphemous, or, in more modern cases, because they were considered dangerous to the public good.

There was a case I recall of a rabble rouser who was put on trial for his anti-democratic views once. He had dangerous ideas. Two of his followers/students had twice briefly overthrown the government and instituted reigns of terror in which thousands had died. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.

His name was Socrates.

cybercoma · January 1, 2012

The problem with that is, when you go beyond that speech which does not directly call for violence, who gets to decide what speech is hateful? What negative statements and generalizations can possibly lead to violence? How about people who said hateful things about George Bush? Or Octomom? Or the Toronto Maple Leafs?

People who wish to allow the government control over such things, which are open to so much interpretation, may eventually find themselves among the ones who regret it most.

I take your point, but I think you're looking at it as though there's a one-size-fits-all judicial "plan" for hate-speech. It shouldn't be that way, nor should anything else judicial, imo. 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." There's a big difference in assault charges and convictions from a woman at a bar throwing a drink in your face, two drunks brawling outside a bar, a man killing his adulterous wife's lover after walking in on them, and carrying out a planned pre-meditated murder on a victim. The same variety of offences and varying degrees of punishment out to apply to hate-speech as well.

cybercoma · January 1, 2012

It could. But what you're actually supporting here is the suppression of ideas you find distasteful or dangerous.

No. It's the suppression of dangerous public incitements and promotions of oppression and violence against identifiable minorities. It's not an opinion thing. We use the term "reasonable" in law all the time. If a reasonable person would find that the things a person says, prints, publishes, or otherwise communicates are meant to harass, intimidate, or threaten people, and/or those things are meant to promote or incite others to those things, then there is no opinion about it. It is dangerous. Distasteful really has nothing to do with it, as that's just a dysphemism you're putting on it to make it seem like hate-speech holds some sort of equality to other types of speech and to make it seem like few people only personally object to it.

January 1, 2012

Legally, no.

It should be qualified to ; "Within Laws"

I support free speech and voted yes, but speech or demonstrations that break the law cannot be reasonably accommodated.

PlayItLoud · January 1, 2012

No. It's the suppression of dangerous public incitements and promotions of oppression and violence against identifiable minorities. It's not an opinion thing. We use the term "reasonable" in law all the time. If a reasonable person would find that the things a person says, prints, publishes, or otherwise communicates are meant to harass, intimidate, or threaten people, and/or those things are meant to promote or incite others to those things, then there is no opinion about it. It is dangerous. Distasteful really has nothing to do with it, as that's just a dysphemism you're putting on it to make it seem like hate-speech holds some sort of equality to other types of speech and to make it seem like few people only personally object to it.

That's not really true.

If you look at people like Ezra Levant who published a cartoon of Mohamed or something along those lines, the police were called and Ezra was brought to interrogations with the Human Rights Council because Muslims felt too offended by his cartoons. To my understanding, the cartoons had no violent content, only mocked Islamic religions.

cybercoma · January 1, 2012

That's not really true.

If you look at people like Ezra Levant who published a cartoon of Mohamed or something along those lines, the police were called and Ezra was brought to interrogations with the Human Rights Council because Muslims felt too offended by his cartoons. To my understanding, the cartoons had no violent content, only mocked Islamic religions.

The Human Rights Commissions hear cases that violate legislation. In that case, The Alberta Human Rights Act was the act in question, but the commission dropped the case, probably for the reason you state.

Ezra Levant may want to complain about the cost of litigation, but I don't believe he has a valid point. Human Rights bills are legal acts in Canada and must be tried. If you're taken to court, but found not guilty, you still have to bear the costs of your trial. I'm not sure why litigation under this act should be any different. Calling the human rights courts a "petty tyranny" is an absurd claim that he might as well be pointing at any court where someone's case is dismissed. His criticism doesn't make any sense.

Edited January 1, 2012 by cybercoma

jefferiah · January 1, 2012

I take your point, but I think you're looking at it as though there's a one-size-fits-all judicial "plan" for hate-speech. It shouldn't be that way, nor should anything else judicial, imo.

I think you misinterpret.

Laws about hate are going to be open to a lot of interpretation, and no matter what you think the limits should be, you do not get to determine those limits for any given case. Suppose the judge is someone who accuses a fellow forum poster of promoting genocide for suggesting that people who can't afford kids should be encouraged to make informed decisions to forego having them. To accuse someone of promoting genocide in that case is plain ridiculous, but there people who see hate crimes at every corner and they can get law degrees. Quite simply, I do not trust you to decide the limits of my speech.

You argued that spreading hatred or negativity could conceivably influence hatred in others and push them over the edge to commit violent acts. Why should any group be protected anymore than the individual for that? Is it less a crime if it is one person? Could negative things said about George Bush apply? Maybe some people would have liked to commit violence on Bush. How about a fellow forum poster's signature which seems to glorify pushing Conservatives down stairs so they bleed? Could that be considered hatred? Insert the name of a visible minority in place of Conservatives in that signature.

Edited January 1, 2012 by jefferiah

Big Guy · January 1, 2012

I think that the problem and danger with “hate” crimes or “hate” speech is that it is the intent which defines the transgression. Any evaluation of intent of a statement or action is subjective in nature and open to another individuals opinion, sensitivity and possibly his/her personal agenda. I believe that we had crossed the line when we decided that there were people, cultures, religions or events that were “special” and criticism of them be as “hate” to discourage discourse.

There is no room in true freedom of speech to provide “special” protections for “special” individuals or groups.

We are all and none of us are “special”.

cybercoma · January 1, 2012

You argued that spreading hatred or negativity could conceivably influence hatred in others and push them over the edge to commit violent acts. Why should any group be protected anymore than the individual for that? Is it less a crime if it is one person? Could negative things said about George Bush apply? Maybe some people would have liked to commit violence on Bush. How about a fellow forum poster's signature which seems to glorify pushing Conservatives down stairs so they bleed? Could that be considered hatred? Insert the name of a visible minority in place of Conservatives in that signature.

Hatred of individuals is a problem, but it's not a threat to society in the same way as levelling that hate at a person's heritage. One cannot help if they are born into a Muslim, black, or aboriginal family. When you promote hatred of a group, you incite violence, contempt, or hatred towards an entire segment of society. This is a far greater threat to society than hating an individual, although no less irrational.

Saying things about George Bush do not apply, unless they are death threats or Bush himself is being harassed. The example of the signature about Conservatives does apply to some extent. It's shameful to suggest an entire group of people should be harmed because they vote a particular way or belong to a certain political party, but again Conservatives are not identifiable on the surface. This thread is about racism. So it's about inciting violence towards an identifiable group. With my above examples, you wouldn't be able to identify most Muslims, but if someone looked racially Arabic, the type of hatred that's promoted against Muslims might lead people to ostracize that person, regardless of the fact that they may be in Canada to escape persecution from other Muslims. Those that can pass as not being Muslim and don't have to talk about it, may hide. Promoting hatred forces them to hide their faith, so that unreasonable people won't presume they're terrorists, wife-beaters, or otherwise a threat to society based on the ignorant stereotypes used to ostracize them.

jefferiah · January 1, 2012

Hatred of individuals is a problem, but it's not a threat to society in the same way as levelling that hate at a person's heritage. One cannot help if they are born into a Muslim, black, or aboriginal family. When you promote hatred of a group, you incite violence, contempt, or hatred towards an entire segment of society. This is a far greater threat to society than hating an individual, although no less irrational.

You are making your own rules now.

Hatred is hatred. How can you argue differently? Hatred of the individual is just as bad. It does not matter if you hate someone for something they can not help, or for choosing to drink Pepsi.

You made the point that spreading hatred causes more hatred. That is a noble sentiment on your part. You think that the law should be able to protect people from hatred on the basis that it could influence crimes. I can understand that. But since when do we only protect people from crimes based on a group they belong to. If you are concerned enough that a man's speech could cause another to commit a crime against another, why are you not defending individuals from that? Is murder of an individual any less a crime? Or is it that you do not see people as individuals but as groups?

Edited January 1, 2012 by jefferiah

cybercoma · January 1, 2012

Sorry, but we're at an impasse if you can't understand how promoting hatred of an identifiable group is not only different, but more dangerous to society than hatng an individual.

bush_cheney2004 · January 1, 2012

Sorry, but we're at an impasse if you can't understand how promoting hatred of an identifiable group is not only different, but more dangerous to society than hatng an individual.

OK...but I'm still trying to figure out how "Arabic" is a "race", when clearly it is not. Ignorance is even more dangerous.

jefferiah · January 1, 2012

Sorry, but we're at an impasse if you can't understand how promoting hatred of an identifiable group is not only different, but more dangerous to society than hatng an individual.

You are at an impasse because you have no explanation.

Once again, you argued that we must nip hatred in the bud when it could conceivably cause violence. How can you possibly determine whether or not one's speech can cause violence, and since when do we only protect "identifiable" groups from that violence?

You also say its different if a person is born into the group. So basically, when the preppy kids at our school beat the freaks, that is not as important? Why is race such a magical construct for you? If you want to stop racism in this world, you should begin with the one thing you can control, before you think of legislating others.

Edited January 1, 2012 by jefferiah

cybercoma · January 1, 2012

You are at an impasse because you have no explanation.

I explained it to you. You don't like the explanation. That's your problem, not mine.

Once again, you argued that we must nip hatred in the bud when it could conceivably cause violence. How can you possibly determine whether or not one's speech can cause violence, and since when do we only protect "identifiable" groups from that violence?

Since we passed Human Rights legislation federally and in the provinces. If you want to know what hate-speech is, refer to the legislation.

You also say its different if a person is born into the group. So basically, when the preppy kids at our school beat the freaks, that is not as important? Why is race such a magical construct for you? If you want to stop racism in this world, you should begin with the one thing you can control, before you think of legislating others.

It's not a magical construct for me. It's written into our laws and it doesn't just apply to race. Why don't we substitute "homosexuals" for freaks and the legislation applies to your example.

It's not about stopping racism because people will have those opinions regardless. The OP and the legislation were talking about hate-speech, marches, and inciting hatred and violence towards a specific group. If you don't see how inciting or encouraging violence towards hundreds if not thousands of people is more dangerous than for individuals, then there's not much else to say to you. We're talking about levelling hate at a characteristic that many people may share, such as skin colour. It should be pretty obvious why that's a greater threat to society than hating an individual for some sort of personal reason.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

It's not a magical construct for me. It's written into our laws and it doesn't just apply to race. Why don't we substitute "homosexuals" for freaks and the legislation applies to your example.

Do you agree with that legislation? Why should it not also apply to people who choose to dress differently or to people who vote Conservative? Do they not deserve as much protection? How is it more dangerous to hate those who belong to a group by birth than for any other reason? Why even some haters could make the argument that by belonging to a group they hate by choice makes them more deserving of the violence.

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

If you don't see how inciting or encouraging violence towards hundreds if not thousands of people is more dangerous than for individuals.

So define what is inciting or encouraging. Does one have to directly encourage that? The poster went on to mention more cases than just neo-nazi marches. If we substitute an identifiable minority for Conservatives in a certain forum poster's signature, do we have a case?

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

Scotty · January 2, 2012

Ezra Levant may want to complain about the cost of litigation, but I don't believe he has a valid point. Human Rights bills are legal acts in Canada and must be tried. If you're taken to court, but found not guilty, you still have to bear the costs of your trial. I'm not sure why litigation under this act should be any different. Calling the human rights courts a "petty tyranny" is an absurd claim that he might as well be pointing at any court where someone's case is dismissed. His criticism doesn't make any sense.

There are a number of differences. For one thing, if you cannot afford legal representation the state pays for it in a court. You have no such help at the HRTs. Another important part is that the Crown examines the case first. In the case of HRTs the decision to prosecute is made by a poorly trained hireling who is in all likelihood already biased, and then is heard before a tribunal or adjudicator who might well be biased, as well - and just as poorly trained in matters of law. Thus the HRTs can be used by anyone to launch spurious attacks on those they disagree with, as was the case here.

Scotty · January 2, 2012

Sorry, but we're at an impasse if you can't understand how promoting hatred of an identifiable group is not only different, but more dangerous to society than hatng an individual.

I would think otherwise. Individuals are easier to target. And a face on the 'enemy' often incites more violence. If you point at an individual and label him as dangerous, and ramp up the hyperbole, there's more chance some idiot will act on it than if you're ranting against some group or other.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

There are a number of differences. For one thing, if you cannot afford legal representation the state pays for it in a court. You have no such help at the HRTs. Another important part is that the Crown examines the case first. In the case of HRTs the decision to prosecute is made by a poorly trained hireling who is in all likelihood already biased, and then is heard before a tribunal or adjudicator who might well be biased, as well - and just as poorly trained in matters of law. Thus the HRTs can be used by anyone to launch spurious attacks on those they disagree with, as was the case here.

That's just it. This case should not have been entertained. It would not have been in a regular court.