waldo Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 For the record, I found your racist posting to be refreshing and revealing of your true mindset. In America, we call that free free-to-hate speech, but in Canada, it's called hate speech. FIFY - you're welcome Quote
The_Squid Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 Hate speech? No. Scotty can stand on a street corner and pontificate his racist ideas all day long in Canada. But his racist remarks are not allowed on this forum. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 Hate speech? No. Scotty can stand on a street corner and pontificate his racist ideas all day long in Canada. Really. That wouldn't fall into the category of "inciting hate?" Quote
guyser Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 Really. That wouldn't fall into the category of "inciting hate?" ..only if he added to his corner sermon " it is up to you and I to beat up the ----- (insert race etc here)" One has to advocate for harm to be done to the other party Quote
Scotty Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Posted February 10, 2012 Sorry...I stand corrected. The inference that slavery was/is good for "black" Americans led me to think otherwise. Then why did you make that inference? No one else did. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Posted February 10, 2012 Hate speech? No. Scotty can stand on a street corner and pontificate his racist ideas all day long in Canada. But his racist remarks are not allowed on this forum. You don't seem to know what racism is. I don't think you know what an idea is either. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
The_Squid Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 You don't seem to know what racism is. I don't think you know what an idea is either. You seem to be the only one claiming that those remarks are not racist. The concensus seems to be that you made racist remarks. But keep on trying!! Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 ..only if he added to his corner sermon " it is up to you and I to beat up the ----- (insert race etc here)" One has to advocate for harm to be done to the other party But "inciting hatred" and calling for violence are two different things; hate can exist without threats, and the law says "inciting hatred" is illegal. This case, I believe, illustrates that inciting hatred, even without saying "it's up to you and I to beat up [gays]," is against the law: Bill Whatcott was charged with promoting hate after he distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002 calling homosexuals sodomites and child molesters. He was found guilty by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 and ordered to pay $17,500 to the complainants. There's nothing there about a call for violence, only inciting hatred. Quote
The_Squid Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal Human rights tribunals do not enforce criminal laws. http://www.saskhrt.ca/about.htm The Tribunal conducts public hearings of complaints that have been referred to it by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and reviews dismissed complaints at the request of a Complainant. Discrimination complaints may be based on race, colour, age, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, marital status, family status, place of origin or ancestry. The Human Rights Code covers discrimination in a variety of contexts, including tenancy, employment, employment advertisements, publications, public services and facilities, purchase of property and discrimination by unions or associations. The four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission relating to flyers that were published and distributed by William G. Whatcott It is a bit confusing.... and certainly the Human Rights Tribunals have a broad mandate and have been know to overstep their bounds, but what people are referring to is the criminal code of inciting hatred. However, this case is currently in front of the SCC, so may be overturned and HRC's might be reigned in.... or not. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1069541--free-speech-must-prevail Quote
The_Squid Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 However, free speech laws in Canada are neither here nor there when someone breaks the rules of this forum by posting racist remarks... Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Human rights tribunals do not enforce criminal laws. The four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission relating to flyers that were published and distributed by William G. Whatcott It is a bit confusing.... and certainly the Human Rights Tribunals have a broad mandate and have been know to overstep their bounds, but what people are referring to is the criminal code of inciting hatred. However, this case is currently in front of the SCC, so may be overturned and HRC's might be reigned in.... or not. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1069541--free-speech-must-prevail As you pointed out, the Supreme Court has not issued its ruling yet, so it remains to be seen... However, free speech laws in Canada are neither here nor there when someone breaks the rules of this forum by posting racist remarks... Agreed. But certainly if they break Canadian law, they would not be allowed here - that would be a given. Edited February 10, 2012 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Then why did you make that inference? No one else did. I doubt that....the association is not subtle. Black Americans were not "lucky" to make it to America...they helped to build it. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 But "inciting hatred" and calling for violence are two different things; hate can exist without threats, and the law says "inciting hatred" is illegal. This case, I believe, illustrates that inciting hatred, even without saying "it's up to you and I to beat up [gays]," is against the law: Bill Whatcott was charged with promoting hate after he distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002 calling homosexuals sodomites and child molesters. He was found guilty by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 and ordered to pay $17,500 to the complainants. There's nothing there about a call for violence, only inciting hatred. I bolded the important part. The legal definition of hate-speech requires the act to be carried out repeatedly, like making harassing phonecalls. In the case you mentioned, he was inciting hatred by disseminating hateful literature that would bring contempt upon a targeted group (which is also part of the wording of the law). Section 31(2) of the CHRA was added to consider posts on the internet as repititious communication. So, there's a couple things going on in that case. It's the reptitious communication of thoughts or ideas that incite violence, hatred, or contempt towards an identifiable group that is protected under the Charter. Clearly he was inciting hatred and contempt repeatedly by disseminating literature to that effect. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 There isn't a doubt in my mind this thread will be closed. Why on earth would make a post to repeat the things that got you suspended and invite others to do the same? If the comments got you suspended the first time, do you think they'll slide this time? Quote
August1991 Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) After a quick read through this thread, and with no knowledge of the specific case, here are my thoughts. Long ago, I left this forum (a flounce) in defence of a banned poster. Then, I thought again. I've come to suspect the moderation of this site is based largely on the ideological and political beliefs of the posters.On the contrary. Moderation on this forum is "loosey-goosey". I reckon that such moderation can work because the forum is so far under the radar that it's invisible. Hey, this is a "private" forum with rules enforced by the owners. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Another member compared the US president to a "turd", but that was OK. It is what it is.In libertarian terms, this was my first conclusion. We post here at the forum's discretion - it's a private venture despite funding from the University of Lethbridge.No doubt Charles has a life of his own and enough on his plate making a living. The same would be true of any others who share his position.Despite the competing claims on their time, I think Charles and Greg are doing an admirable job.They are certainly not wasting their time when managing it. This forum is the hidden secret of Canadian politics and on some days, I fear its broader discovery. Edited February 11, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 This forum is the hidden secret of Canadian politics and on some days, I fear its broader discovery. The spammers sure have found it - I wonder what's up with that? There never used to be spam on this forum. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) The spammers sure have found it - I wonder what's up with that? There never used to be spam on this forum. I know! Like we need great deals on Chinese car rentals, Bangkok massage parlours or rhino-horn aphrodisiacs. Edited February 11, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest American Woman Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 I know! Like we need great deals on Chinese car rentals, Bangkok massage parlours or rhino-horn aphrodisiacs. You mean to say you don't find those ads helpful? Good Lord. What a waste of people's time. I can't help but wonder how much they are getting paid for posting that crap, much less 100+ times on the same forum - and who actually thinks anyone pays it any attention, so that they'd pay someone to do it? Quote
waldo Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 You mean to say you don't find those ads helpful? Good Lord. What a waste of people's time. I can't help but wonder how much they are getting paid for posting that crap, much less 100+ times on the same forum - and who actually thinks anyone pays it any attention, so that they'd pay someone to do it? see spambots Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 see spambots Yeah that's what I was thinking too. Those are probably not real people at all, it's just software from some annoying hack. But the software has learned how to log in by creating new accounts on this system. There are ways to prevent this, by using software that makes it more difficult for spambots to register. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Whatever/whoever is doing it, it's getting really bad. I assume spambots have been around for quite some time - yet this is a pretty recent problem. Perhaps if new registrations needed approval the problem would be less severe? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 may the force be with you So who's supposed to pay for it? This site isn't actively maintained any more. Quote
August1991 Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 The spammers sure have found it - I wonder what's up with that? There never used to be spam on this forum.There's always been spam on this forum - or at least, there's been spam for several years. It's not new.The forum administrators are good at deleting spam posts; report it when you see it. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 There's always been spam on this forum - or at least, there's been spam for several years. It's not new. The forum administrators are good at deleting spam posts; report it when you see it. I do report it when I see it. I've been on this board for several years, and there would be the occasional spam but nothing like there is now. That is new. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.