Quebec radio host encourages caller who declared Holocaust ‘the most b

[login]

It's my problem, but I'm still not sure what you mean. Harassment is an offence. At least, I imagine it is. Can't say I've ever come across it, but I'm sure it is. But you seem to be saying that the violent response of those who disagree with something said by others is okay. I can't agree with that.

Public incitement of hatred

• 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
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    

  [*] Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

  (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
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    

If pursuit of the charge is under indictment, then use of force to apprehend is justified. If flight occurs use of lethal force is justified.

Watch your mouth and recommend to others to do the same.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ate-crimes.html

a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. It applies when the victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done

harm

/hɑrm/ Show Spelled [hahrm] Show IPA

noun

1.

physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.

2.

moral injury; evil; wrong.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[Guest]

It's funny, if you incite hatred, it has to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, but if you simply promote hatred, it does not. Both punishable by up to two years.

What a silly law.

I don't need to watch my mouth, because I never seek to offend. (I suppose speaking the truth sometimes offends, but what the hell)

Edited December 2, 2012 by bcsapper

[login]

It's funny, if you incite hatred, it has to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, but if you simply promote hatred, it does not. Both punishable by up to two years.

What a silly law.

I don't need to watch my mouth, because I never seek to offend. (I suppose speaking the truth sometimes offends, but what the hell)

It doesn't have to be willful

It just needs to be communicated...

Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place

Don't read into that too much.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[Guest]

It doesn't have to be willful

It just needs to be communicated...

Like I said, silly law. That's the argument, right, if we go back a few pages? Hate speech laws are wrong. In my opinion. Not yours, obviously.

Hate crime laws are wrong too.

Edited December 2, 2012 by bcsapper

[Guest]

its verbal assault, it incites violence.

being critical or offering dialogue is one thing, insulting people and being offensive is another.

I'd support killing offensive people before making intentionally offensive speech legal.

I was back a page and I saw your edit.

Good one.

[login]

Like I said, silly law. That's the argument, right, if we go back a few pages? Hate speech laws are wrong. In my opinion. Not yours, obviously.

Hate crime laws are wrong too.

I don't think its silly, jerks and a-holes deserve to get beaten up.

Of course people standards and classification may differ on this.

That is what are the reasonable limits.

My standards are likely different than yours.

Quite frankly I see how it connects and I'm tired of the social nuissance of tasteless people. So my standards in some respects may be much lower than yours on what constitutes speech which creates a public nuissance and degrades social cohesion and effectiveness in peace and orderly undertakings.

So yes I'm advocating idiots get beaten up.

I feel it is justified incitement however because it is for the public good.

A reasonable person should understand, I don't expect an idiot to.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[Guest]

Should hate crime laws apply to idiots? By that, I mean, if you get beaten up for being an idiot, the law would apply the same as if you were beaten up for wearing a turban, or being gay. It seems to me that hate is hate.

[cybercoma]

The problem with racism and inciting violence towards an identifiable group is that it threatens social cohesion.

[cybercoma]

It's funny, if you incite hatred, it has to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, but if you simply promote hatred, it does not. Both punishable by up to two years.

Promoting hatred in a free and open manner legitimizes violence against the hated, which makes it more likely that they will be targeted. There's a point in civilized society where we mustn't stand for such attacks on society beyond merely shrugging it off as everyone being entitled to their opinions. This implies that people are entitled to promote hatred towards groups. You're not any more than you're entitled to issue death threats to particular individuals. Edited December 2, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Peeves]

It's funny, if you incite hatred, it has to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, but if you simply promote hatred, it does not. Both punishable by up to two years.

What a silly law.

I don't need to watch my mouth, because I never seek to offend. (I suppose speaking the truth sometimes offends, but what the hell)

That's it. If you tell the truth and that offends someone, or if you perhaps burn a religious book or write a book and it offends someone. That's your right. That someone is offended is just too bad.

We have laws that deal with libel or slander, there's no law saying you can't offend someone. Those that were protesting 'our' (apparently not their), remembrance day were offensive to most, but a demonstration, a non violent demonstration isn't breaking the law, offensive though it may be.

[Guest Peeves]

Watch what you say. Idiots who just run their mouth off deserve a good slap. Ignorance is not a defence.

And then they have broken the law.

If the offense is habitual it is intent to harass, and is criminal conduct.

If it DOES IN FACT break the law. Simply by offending it does not.

There are grey areas on what is considered offensive, but you used the term offensive speech, so the context of the offense is not in question.

It is not acceptable. It is likely criminal or a breech of law (tort, libel, defamation, or harassment)

Offensive speech is not legally acceptable.

Yes it is if it's not breaking a law. Verbally or written offense is not contrary to our laws.

Freedom of speech is there for "expression" not offence.

Our laws on free "speech" are different than the Americans,and I suggest less inclined to allow free speech, but, they still do not deny the right of offensive speech.

Now someone who says something that is unintentionally offensive, or culturally ambiguous creates problem areas, but calling someone a dog and inviting their entire culture to be exterminated are two clearly different things.

If I speak about behavior that I consider inappropriate in a culture or religion, it may well offend others but that's my right.

People need to understand hate speech is not acceptable and it is illegal.

We always had laws for slander and the like. Hate laws are different only in that they might result in a harsher sentence.

There's much in your post that would not rise to a violatoin of law.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Peeves

[Argus]

Watch what you say. Idiots who just run their mouth off deserve a good slap. Ignorance is not a defence.

Did you just insult and threaten bcsapper in the same sentence? Ever seen our cooler?

Offensive speech is not legally acceptable.

Drivel.

Freedom of speech is there for "expression" not offence.

Free speech sometimes offends. Tough.

People need to understand hate speech is not acceptable and it is illegal.

It doesn't appear you have much of a clue what hate speech is.

[Argus]

It's funny, if you incite hatred, it has to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, but if you simply promote hatred, it does not. Both punishable by up to two years.

The standard for laying charges is quite high, despite what others might imply. No one has ever been charged for an internet posting. Generally speaking, the only people ever charged are extremists who basically devote their lives to attacking others, mostly to attacking Jews. Even there it's rare for a charge to be laid, and rarer still for a conviction which is not overturned.

There's also this:

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; ( if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; © if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. - wiki

Edited December 2, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

It doesn't have to be willful

It just needs to be communicated...

Yes, in fact it does have to be willful.

[Argus]

So yes I'm advocating idiots get beaten up.

I feel it is justified incitement however because it is for the public good.

Has it occurred to you that there are likely people, perhaps even on this site, who think you're an idiot?

[Guest]

Quite a few, I imagine...

I'd support killing offensive people before making intentionally offensive speech legal.

[login]

That's it. If you tell the truth and that offends someone, or if you perhaps burn a religious book or write a book and it offends someone. That's your right. That someone is offended is just too bad.

We have laws that deal with libel or slander, there's no law saying you can't offend someone. Those that were protesting 'our' (apparently not their), remembrance day were offensive to most, but a demonstration, a non violent demonstration isn't breaking the law, offensive though it may be.

The issue with book burning is publicizing it, or publically displaying an act of gross sacrilege.

It isn't respectful.

While I think there is a level of rationality.

If canada doesn't outlaw the religion in which their standards are not the standards of society, society must instead accept the standards of that soceity in terms of religious practices and acts of offence against that religion.

It is complex but one can question, why is nudity issued? Why is public intoxication with no other offences issued? Why is drunk driving an issue without an accident existing? Why is speeding illegal without an accident.

Now why is burning the bible or Quran or a Torah scroll issued? Why is me calling bcsapper words I can't post on this forum issued?

The fact is, it violates social acceptability, based upon social structure, and cultural identity - as what response the act is likely to create in soceity, thus damaging the social order.

Now we can go all libertarian, and I am libertarian, so I support the freedoms, but I equally support a non idiotic public that knows that inciting hatred and contempt and anger isn't justified liberty.Now there are reasonable limits. I think for book burning it is.. are you privately burning books or publically burning books. Private burning is "ok" much like me being nude in my home. But as soon as it becomes a public display, individuals who have different beleifs that are deemed lawful and acceptable, and their rights to liberty and peaceable existentence become endangered, I must stop my liberty because others peaceable existence is brought into question by my acts.

Now it would be great if society got down to business and said what is acceptable, but I think it is a reasonable limit to prevent offensive acts, so as long, as society agrees on what is offensive, and I think that perhaps the bar should be a little higher than the religious right, but the fact is religion is not outlawed so we are accepting those religions be they christians or hinduism. We have conceeded that we accept their standards for their own practice, and they have a right not to have their own practices infringed... but this of course comes to the middle ground when it contradicts our own religious practices. These are issues of multicultural society, much like non representative first past the post democracy, some people don't get their way.

The law exists as a middle ground of social acceptability. Even if I don't agree with the law, my liberty is an act of war if it violates others standards that are exercised in law. It just isn't hate speech but other forms of self expression and liberty that are not per se offensive intent but offensively received. It isn't what you mean, it is what they get from it.

That is unfortunate but I'm clothed right now... if it wasn't the case it wouldn't matter. Walking around on a 30 degree day naked wouldn't be issued for me. It might be issued for the people I were to encounter on the way. I'd probaly encounter cops trying to arrest me faster than if I were walking down the street burning holy books. I'd be willing to bet money on the fact I could probably get away with burning every holy book for every major world religion without a single cop showing up if I wasn't causing a display.

Edited December 3, 2012 by login

[Guest]

Why is me calling bcsapper words I can't post on this forum issued?

Just so you know, I don't give a toss what you call me.

[login]

Yes, in fact it does have to be willful.

no it doesn't. read the law.

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
  
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  

IT IS CALLED Public incitement of hatred

It is not absolute there are some reasonable defences...

]Defences[/b]

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

• (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
  
• (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
  
• (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
  
• (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
  

That is why it is ok for me to suggest offensive idiots who won't keep their mouths shut get smacked up a bit to smarten them up. Because it is is a. true. b. in good faith on religious grounds c. relevant to the public interest and d. and it aims to remove hatred

Now genocide arguments, might be able to meet those same criteria but I'd have to hear that argument and it'd have to be really good. People living in Gaza might be able to make a convincing case, meanwhile Israeli jews living across the border might be able to make an equally strong case.. but this is a case that will likely not be universal argument such as my idiots argument.

Since normally you can't call for greivous bodily harm or death to accomplish a civil remedy, unless it is to prevent indictable offences.

The issue is however sacrilege,,... IS AN OFFENCE... or was atleast need to check on the currency of that one.

Punishment of libel known to be false

300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 264.
  

Geuss what, it is indictable.. meaning it can be defended by death or greivous bodily harm if it is not submited to.

Meaning the offender who does not submit to arrest can have force used against them, and if they attempt flight lethal force can be used to stop their flight.

So yes, if someone posted lies about me online I could arrest them, and if they resisted I could beat them into submission and if they tried to flee I could kill them. With my actions fully defended at law. Now getting the police to get involved would be safer, but if the police failed to respond I would be justified to prevent the continuance or furtherance of the offence.

So the offensive line is generally drawn at.. is it true or not, is it for "respectful discussion" or not. If it is niether true nor to further respectful discussion then it is illegal. Beleive it or not.The offense can be stopped by whatever reasonable force is required to subdue the offender and bring them to justice, even to the point of lethal force if circumstances require it.

The internet is considered a point of publishing at law.

Edited December 3, 2012 by login

[Guest Peeves]

Truncated for brevity.

"The issue with book burning is publicizing it, or publically displaying an act of gross sacrilege."

"It isn't respectful."

"but I think it is a reasonable limit to prevent offensive acts, so as long, as society agrees on what is offensive,"

While sacrilege may still be a crime in Canada, it is unlikely to ever be pursued.

And defining many 'offenses' or using censorship requires selectivity by the labeler of such.

Society will never agree on what are offensive acts nor on what should be prohibited, but, we have laws to address slander and libel and definitions of same, i.e. "slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed."

Now offending on the other hand is not against the law.

I might well produce an art piece that offends someone, or state an opinion on something they revere. That they are offended (and usually others aren't), is not denying them anything to which they are legally entitled.

No one has a right not to be offended.

[Guest Peeves]

Just so you know, I don't give a toss what you call me.

OK then.........

[guyser]

So yes, if someone posted lies about me online I could arrest them, and if they resisted I could beat them into submission and if they tried to flee I could kill them. With my actions fully defended at law. Now getting the police to get involved would be safer, but if the police failed to respond I would be justified to prevent the continuance or furtherance of the offence.

Wait a sec...arent you the one who advocates a slap to stupid arguements....you know for the greater good of the puvblic?

In that case, slap yourself silly because what is posted above is that...silly if not stupid/

Arrest someone for lies? No

Beat into submission? No and you are the one committing a CCC violation

Kill if they flee? Oh do have fun in the PMITA joint.

Utterly ridiculous ascertions.

[login]

Truncated for brevity.

While sacrilege may still be a crime in Canada, it is unlikely to ever be pursued.

And defining many 'offenses' or using censorship requires selectivity by the labeler of such.

Society will never agree on what are offensive acts nor on what should be prohibited, but, we have laws to address slander and libel and definitions of same, i.e. "slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed."

Now offending on the other hand is not against the law.

I might well produce an art piece that offends someone, or state an opinion on something they revere. That they are offended (and usually others aren't), is not denying them anything to which they are legally entitled.

No one has a right not to be offended.

What like today hearing someone who was evangelizing the mo- movement (movember) saying everyone who had a mustache looked like a pedofile meanwhile the only person in the room with a mustache felt a little defamed.

When someone says you look like a criminal that is pretty offensive speech and defamatory, and is not acceptable.

I honestly felt like hitting the guy for suggesting some innocent guy molested children for thrills. I had to settle for just plain out saying your speech is defamatory (and retorting that mustached men were masculine hunters of women, meat eaters - reminding him that it was European military tradition to sport the mustache). To end his giggly banter on the character of mustached men.

It is effecitely a hate crime against every mustached person.

(This of course the day after I post up to MLW on hate crimes and offensive speech)

Calling everyone who has a mustache a child molester is pretty f**king offensive and defamatory.

Edited December 4, 2012 by login

[Guest]

Acceptable is in the eye of the one asked to accept. What you might find unacceptable, others might find funny, or rude, or ignorant, whatever.

Nevertheless, none should be against the law.

Having said that, any intimation or direct accusation that someone was a child molestor is quite likely to lead to violence upon that person, and would be slander, so it would be illegal to do it without proof.

Edited December 4, 2012 by bcsapper

[login]

Wait a sec...arent you the one who advocates a slap to stupid arguements....you know for the greater good of the puvblic?

I think you may be misreading my statements.

In that case, slap yourself silly because what is posted above is that...silly if not stupid/

Nope, sorry try again.

Arrest someone for lies? No

Yes there are multiple charges where lies are illegal and criminal.

Beat into submission? No and you are the one committing a CCC violation

Nope I have a defence.

Kill if they flee? Oh do have fun in the PMITA joint.

Learn the law,someone flees while in commission of commiting an indictable offence lethal force can be used to prevent the flight.

Utterly ridiculous ascertions.

Thats the law.

This is no joke, it is really the law.

We are entitled to stop the commission or continuance of indictable offences and to use reasonable force to do so there are defences for use of force that justify its use such as prevention of the commission of the offence.

What is so weird about this for you. Someone rapes someone in the street you find it issued if you kick them to the ground, and if they try to run away you pull out a gun and shoot them to prevent a rapist from getting away?

Maybe rape is ok for you but ruining someones life with lies isn't? Well the fact is both are indictable offences, meaning people were put to death for the level of offence in the past. It isn't trivial, so once you have been victimized by these sorts of offences you will shut your mouth nod and smile because morally i am right and you are ignorant of the seriousness of these crimes against good.

http://yourlaws.ca/c...mission-offence

Notice the "everyone"

Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

( to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

Code. By the terms of section 494(1), anyone may arrest without warrant a person whom he or she:

• finds to be committing an indictable offence;17 or
  
• believes, on reasonable grounds, has committed a criminal offence and is escaping from and freshly pursued by those with lawful authority to arrest that person.
  

If you didn't know defamation is an indictable offence.

I'm not saying you go out walk behind the crook pull a handgun out quietly place it behind their head and pull the trigger judge jury and executioner, but you can use reasonable limits of the law to both protect your security and to stop criminals who have committed criminal acts or to stop crimes from being fullfilled. What is so "bizarre" about this to you? It is you who seems a little out of touch here.

This could be you or your neighbour

cheez factor sorry lots of pizza in me.

----

There are many other regs (such as public weapons laws) but if you follow them citizens can exercise much the same ways as police to prevent crime including application of force if justified for the public good.

Edited December 4, 2012 by login