Do people have the right to be racist?

Scotty · January 2, 2012

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.

I think the subject has been enlarged to whether freedom of speech is more or less important than prohibiting someone to speak dangerous opinions aloud.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

I think the subject has been enlarged to whether freedom of speech is more or less important than prohibiting someone to speak dangerous opinions aloud.

Some might argue that in many cases, giving up freedom of speech could eventually prove more dangerous than what some people consider dangerous speech.

PlayItLoud · January 2, 2012

I just want to reply to the people who say we should censor hate speech because it causes violence.

You realize we already have laws against violent acts right? The concept of preemptive action to prevent crime/etc. is what spawned the entire Iraq war and will probably be used to start a war in Iran.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

Racism is very real. If you want to live in a society where white people can't get a job, eat in the same restaurant, go to the same schools, or go to the same churches as everyone else because there's a vocal segment of society that says white people are primitive animals worthy of contempt solely based on the colour of their skin, then there's something seriously wrong with you. If you think it's ok that people hold these ideas with impunity and you can't see the type of society that this would create, then I would strongly suggest you open your eyes to how destructive racism has been in society. Take a look at how African Americans or Aboriginals have faired as groups. Oh sure, there's laws against violent acts, but what you're advocating here is that people out to be able to discriminate and encourage discrimination because they have freedom of speech. You don't seem to think there's a problem with excluding people from society and encouraging others to do so and you couldn't be further from the truth. It is a problem for the people facing the racism and their social exclusion is a problem for everyone else when it causes political and social unrest.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Racism is very real. .......... Oh sure, there's laws against violent acts, but what you're advocating here is that people out to be able to discriminate and encourage discrimination because they have freedom of speech. You don't seem to think there's a problem with excluding people from society and encouraging others to do so and you couldn't be further from the truth. It is a problem for the people facing the racism and their social exclusion is a problem for everyone else when it causes political and social unrest.

No one is saying it is good thing or that there is not a problem with such things. Some people just don't think legislating all problems is the best option.

Why do you think it is less of a problem when someone belongs to a group whose membership is not decided at birth?

As to your personal opinion, if a certain forum poster's signature referred to a visible minority rather than Conservatives, would you consider that an example of hatred one should be criminally liable for?

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

PlayItLoud · January 2, 2012

Racism is very real. If you want to live in a society where white people can't get a job, eat in the same restaurant, go to the same schools, or go to the same churches as everyone else because there's a vocal segment of society that says white people are primitive animals worthy of contempt solely based on the colour of their skin, then there's something seriously wrong with you. If you think it's ok that people hold these ideas with impunity and you can't see the type of society that this would create, then I would strongly suggest you open your eyes to how destructive racism has been in society. Take a look at how African Americans or Aboriginals have faired as groups. Oh sure, there's laws against violent acts, but what you're advocating here is that people out to be able to discriminate and encourage discrimination because they have freedom of speech. You don't seem to think there's a problem with excluding people from society and encouraging others to do so and you couldn't be further from the truth. It is a problem for the people facing the racism and their social exclusion is a problem for everyone else when it causes political and social unrest.

You're referring to a time when state-sponsored racism existed. You should understand there's a difference racism by private individuals and government racism. Certainly, they're both immoral and wrong, but one certainly should not be illegal.

PlayItLoud · January 2, 2012

Reposting just because I accidently deleted the tag.

Racism is very real. If you want to live in a society where white people can't get a job, eat in the same restaurant, go to the same schools, or go to the same churches as everyone else because there's a vocal segment of society that says white people are primitive animals worthy of contempt solely based on the colour of their skin, then there's something seriously wrong with you. If you think it's ok that people hold these ideas with impunity and you can't see the type of society that this would create, then I would strongly suggest you open your eyes to how destructive racism has been in society. Take a look at how African Americans or Aboriginals have faired as groups. Oh sure, there's laws against violent acts, but what you're advocating here is that people out to be able to discriminate and encourage discrimination because they have freedom of speech. You don't seem to think there's a problem with excluding people from society and encouraging others to do so and you couldn't be further from the truth. It is a problem for the people facing the racism and their social exclusion is a problem for everyone else when it causes political and social unrest.

You're referring to a time when state-sponsored racism existed. You should understand there's a difference racism by private individuals and government racism. Certainly, they're both immoral and wrong, but one certainly should not be illegal.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

As to your personal opinion, if a certain forum poster's signature referred to a visible minority rather than Conservatives, would you consider that an example of hatred one should be criminally liable for?

Do I think a forum signature should make someone criminally liable? Depends on a number of different factors. Given that there's only about 20-25 people that read this forum on a regular basis, I would say no. It's not a large enough audience for it to be considered an incitation. However, it's not my job to interpret the law. That's just my opinion. There have been people that were running forums dedicated to inciting hatred and they have been charged, which I agree with.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Do I think a forum signature should make someone criminally liable? Depends on a number of different factors. Given that there's only about 20-25 people that read this forum on a regular basis, I would say no.

So if he had a visible minority in there, and a complaint was lodged to the CHRC, you would rise to his defense?

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

PlayItLoud · January 2, 2012

Do I think a forum signature should make someone criminally liable? Depends on a number of different factors. Given that there's only about 20-25 people that read this forum on a regular basis, I would say no. It's not a large enough audience for it to be considered an incitation. However, it's not my job to interpret the law. That's just my opinion. There have been people that were running forums dedicated to inciting hatred and they have been charged, which I agree with.

Are you saying that it's okay for you to do, but not other people just because yours has a smaller size audience?

You realize people have been charged for what they put in their diaries, after someone else read because they misplaced it? Because if you write in a diary, you accept the responsibility that there's a chance someone will read it and react to it. And what's the audience size of the average diary? 1.

Exact same thing applies to you.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

You're referring to a time when state-sponsored racism existed. You should understand there's a difference racism by private individuals and government racism. Certainly, they're both immoral and wrong, but one certainly should not be illegal.

Racism was never state-sponsored in Canada (save for the Chinese head-tax). In some ways, this is what made it worse. Segregation was required by Jim Crow Laws in the South, but Canadians created an environment of segregation themselves without it being state-sponsored. In the 1800s, it was somewhat better in larger cities because people from minority groups could find others from their community and there was more acceptance of them, but this was not the case at all in smaller places. In fact, the abolition of slavery was encourage by judicial and political activism, namely by people like Simcoe in Upper Canada, as well as Chief Justices Monk (Lower Canada) and Blowers (Nova Scotia). So if anything there was resistance to racism by many who operated within the institutions of the state.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that there is a difference between racism by private individuals and government racism. However, there's also a difference between an individual being racist and that individual forming a racist organization and encouraging many other to be racist.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

Are you saying that it's okay for you to do, but not other people just because yours has a smaller size audience?

You realize people have been charged for what they put in their diaries, after someone else read because they misplaced it? Because if you write in a diary, you accept the responsibility that there's a chance someone will read it and react to it. And what's the audience size of the average diary? 1.

Exact same thing applies to you.

You have a link to that case?

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

So if he had a visible minority in there, and a complaint was lodged to the CHRC, you would rise to his defense?

No, because I see no reason to defend racism. I would be interested to see how the CHRC handled it though. I suspect they woudln't even bother hearing it. Edited January 2, 2012 by cybercoma

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

No, because I see no reason to defend racism. I would be interested to see how the CHRC handled it though.

It is not matter of whether or not you defend racism, it is a matter of whether you think someone should be held criminally liable.

So, if a case was filed by a CPC supporter, you would also not rise to his defense then?

PlayItLoud · January 2, 2012

Nevertheless, I agree with you that there is a difference between racism by private individuals and government racism. However, there's also a difference between an individual being racist and that individual forming a racist organization and encouraging many other to be racist.

You understand that you, conversely could easily turn around and do the exact same, create an organization that promoted the exact opposite?

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

It is not matter of whether or not you defend racism, it is a matter of whether you think someone should be held criminally liable.

So, if a case was filed by a CPC supporter, you would also not rise to his defense then?

If someone threatening a CPC supporter, I would certainly support them. Being a CPC supporter, however, does not make one part of an identifiable minority group. There's no way of looking at someone that walks into your shop and knowing they support the CPC. I've already said this much earlier. Part of the danger of racism and hate-speech is that it allows people to discriminate against someone based on a readily identifiable characteristic. On that note, if someone were to fire somebody because they found out the employee voted CPC, I absolutely would defend the employee taking their employer to court.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

You understand that you, conversely could easily turn around and do the exact same, create an organization that promoted the exact opposite?

That's irrelevant.

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

If someone threatening a CPC supporter, I would certainly support them. Being a CPC supporter, however, does not make one part of an identifiable minority group.

One does not have to be part of an identifiable group in order to be a victim of violence influenced by hatred. All it would require is for one to reveal his political leanings. One could go to a Conservative rally.

Why should we only protect identifiable groups from hatred against whole segments of society?

There seems to be something magical for you about color of skin.

Perhaps the racism problem you worry about begins closer to the heart.

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

How many times are you going to ask the same question that I've already answered several times?

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

How many times are you going to ask the same question that I've already answered several times?

Until you give a reasonable answer.

What difference does it make if the group is born that way?

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

Who said it just has to be skin colour? It could be gender, sexuality, or religion too. Racism is only one aspect of hate-speech legislation.

Edited January 2, 2012 by cybercoma

jefferiah · January 2, 2012

Who said it just has to be skin colour? It could be gender, sexuality, or religion too.

Certainly it can.

Now when you say religion do you only mean in cases when one is born into that religion?

Because if it is a choice, then it is no different than political leaning.

How about people who say negative things about Americans? Why are we not rounding these people up?

Americans are often born American.

Edited January 2, 2012 by jefferiah

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

Certainly it can.

Now when you say religion do you only mean in cases when one is born into that religion?

Because if it is a choice, then it is no different than political leaning.

Why are you asking me about the legislation. If you don't know what it is, go look it up.

cybercoma · January 2, 2012

How about people who say negative things about Americans? Why are we not rounding these people up?
Americans are often born American.

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