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

[Michael Hardner]

I understand your position, but any lies or hate should be countered, not ignored.

Countered ? Yes. But not 'debated' as in a moderated debate that presumes both sides are coming to the debate in a state of intellectual honesty and good faith.

[login]

A Quebec radio host is apparently quite simpatico with a caller who believed that the Nazis were right. The one thing that I agree with these two beasts is that they both have the right to express their opinion. I do not believe that they should be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences.

I'd rather debate this kind of scum in the open. Link to article, excerpts below:

Quebec radio host encourages caller who declared Holocaust ‘the most beautiful thing to happen in history’

MONTREAL – A veteran Quebec radio host nicknamed “the king of the night” is facing disciplinary action after he encouraged an anti-Semitic caller who declared the Holocaust to be “the most beautiful thing to happen in history.”

During his midnight to 5:30 a.m. broadcast on Cogeco’s 98.5 FM Thursday, Jacques Fabi, took a call from a woman identifying herself as Maria. She said she was of Arab origin and was distraught that her “brothers and sisters” were dying in Gaza.

She then invited Mr. Fabi to participate in a quiz, trying to guess what animal she was thinking of. When he guessed dog, she replied, “Exactly, it’s an Israeli” and laughed.

She then asked him whether he knew about Hitler and the Holocaust. “For me, it was the most beautiful thing to happen in history,” she said.

Instead of cutting the line or confronting her, Mr. Fabi affirmed that she had the right to say what she had said but she should be careful.

There is a fine line between rascism for review, and hate speech.

http://www.parl.gc.c...tions/856-e.htm

Under s. 318 of the Criminal Code, everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment

http://laws-lois.jus...e-153.html#h-92

• 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
  
• Marginal note:Definition of “genocide”
  (2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
  
  • (a) killing members of the group; or
    
  • (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
    

  [*] Marginal note:Consent

  (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

  [*]Definition of “identifiable group”

  (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318;
  
• 2004, c. 14, s. 1.
  

What gets me is that the attorney general is the one who gets to decide who can be killed legally en masse...

s. 13, making it a prohibited discriminatory practice to use the telephone to communicate race hatred.

It was clearly criminal conduct, and the host didn't seem to understand the line was very much crossed.

I'm thinking the caution was warrented, however, I couldn't comment more until I actually hear the recording but "Maria" is clearly open to breaking the law and represents hate of Israeli's. I'd give the host a little more room on this because of the caution, none the less, it clearly is a violation of the law.

Canadians just seem to have trivialized the harsh realities faced by their ancestors some 60 years ago.

It is like putting people on the air suggesting cloning Mohammad so genocide can exist for Muslims too. It is just a sensative subject that people should know isn't acceptable speach to support killing lots of people on identifiable grounds.

Although the wide array of people Arabs call dogs doesn't make that anything special, (Its like me calling someone a Turd) I think the problem here is advocating the holocaust because it supports genocide of Jews, and that is not only a crime but an indicatble offence in Canada, which means that anyone saying that stuff endangers themselves.

It really creates inhumanity in the mind like suggesting Maria go to the concentration camps and ovens with her family, and perhaps to realize how grave the issue is insure she comes back alone. But those types of thoughts are just stupid and not the type of mindframe Canadians should be in. This is nothing special. But if we are to move beyond the hate of the past we must rationalize that it is specific individuals not everyone that should be corrected. Afterall some Israeli's don't like what is happening in Gaza or the invasion, not every Jew or Israeli is the same much like not every Arab is like Maria.

If we just start being all mean to each other we wouldn't be making any baked goods other than yesterdays minority.

Come on everyone should realize Genocide isn't socially acceptable, because it changes the game. (even though I do support killing off the willing criminals, I don't beleive in race, it is just culture much like nationality only exists as an aspect of culture and the laws judged as qualifiers of being that nationality) I know people who are Israeli, which includes Arabs.. so I find the whole line of the issue just stupid.

You know Maria there are Arab Israeli's too...

Edited November 27, 2012 by login

[bleeding heart]

Ask Ezra Levant and McLean's Magazine, which were tortured in proceedings over far milder content. On the other hand maybe the Quebec HRC's agree with this listener.

The HRC's are toothless until an official complaint is lodged. As draconian as I personally believe them to be, they don't have actual policing powers (good thing, too!).

That said, we have to stand up for smarmy little creeps like Steyn and Levant; grotesque as they are, there should never have been any proceedings against them, as their remarks cannot be reasonably construed as "incitement."

So they hurt some people's feelings?

So what? i say.

Edited November 29, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Evening Star]

Not by millions in Canada. And we can simply explain to people why these ideas are incorrect without requiring a response, i.e. a `debate`.

Dismissed ? Yes. Responded to ? Yes. But not 'debated'. A "debate" requires two sides discussing a real item in good faith. So, depending on what we mean by discussion we may not need discussion.

I really disagree. It seems very unfair to just decide politically that some ideas deserve to be discussed and others are so dumb that people do not even have the right to express them. Individuals can certainly decide that some ideas are not worth their time but it is another matter to prohibit them altogether.

[Michael Hardner]

This is not true. You have the right to express them and to hold them.

[Evening Star]

Oh, maybe I misunderstood you, nm. I thought you were advocating that certain racist types of speech should be banned because they're obviously wrong to most people. You were just saying that they're not worth the energy of debating? We're on the same page then. I tend to oppose hate speech laws.

[Guest]

I oppose them too. Vile as his comments were, does anyone believe this man deserved 56 days in jail?

http://www.guardian....e-muamba-tweets

What about this statement from the Judge?

"I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done..."

Edited December 1, 2012 by bcsapper

[Argus]

The line between hate speech and free speech, for me, is where there is incitement. I don't care if you call someone names or use racial epithets. I don't care how offensive you are. You can mock Jews or Muslims, Blacks or Irishmen all you want. You can tell obscene and racist jokes till your hair grows gray and beyond, for all I care. What you can't do is to campaign for violence to be done to them. And that is where, in the public sphere, once you get on a stage, or behind a podium, or go on the internet, radio or television, society has an interest in restricting what you have to say. It's not always a black and white issue, no pun intended.

I don't think the radio host's words or actions qualify as hate speech, though I strongly suspect he hates Jews (and the caller surely does) and seems to be lamenting his inability to say bad things about them. But as a one-time thing, it's no big deal. If it were repeated and his show had a habit of putting on such praises for the Holocaust then clearly that would be another issue.

[Argus]

I oppose them too. Vile as his comments were, does anyone believe this man deserved 56 days in jail?

http://www.guardian....e-muamba-tweets

What about this statement from the Judge?

"I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done..."

I think its absurd you can go to jail for something as silly as that. The British really have clamped down on free speech in the name of not offending anyone. And that has accomplished nothing, of course. There is more racism and ethnic division in the UK than ever, not less.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, maybe I misunderstood you, nm. I thought you were advocating that certain racist types of speech should be banned because they're obviously wrong to most people. You were just saying that they're not worth the energy of debating? We're on the same page then. I tend to oppose hate speech laws.

Debating the holocaust is a waste of time, an exercise in the obvious and only gives an opportunity for hate zealots to recruit the stupid.

So I support hate speech laws. Expressing an opinion is not the same as broadcasting an opinion. Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of the press.

[Guest Peeves]

Debating the Holocaust or the blood libel or 9-11 is certainly a waste of time with any hard headed conspiracy theorist or anti-Semite, but.

If one is faced with the promotion of such ideas in public forums where such are being promoted should there be no challenges made?

When * "during a Saskatoon speech at a gathering of First Nations leaders meeting to discuss aboriginal health care, Ahenakew launched into a barely comprehensible diatribe and made a number of anti-Semitic remarks. He accused Jews of starting the Second World War." Should not someone openly have challenged his remarks or left them just stand as ravings?

Were I there I would have called him on his racism.

[Michael Hardner]

If one is faced with the promotion of such ideas in public forums where such are being promoted should there be no challenges made?

I think we answered that above - yes, ideas should be challenged but the type of challenge/response is the question.

When * "during a Saskatoon speech at a gathering of First Nations leaders meeting to discuss aboriginal health care, Ahenakew launched into a barely comprehensible diatribe and made a number of anti-Semitic remarks. He accused Jews of starting the Second World War." Should not someone openly have challenged his remarks or left them just stand as ravings?

Were I there I would have called him on his racism.

Yes, that type of response isn't in question.

What kind of challenge/response should there be ? Should there be a moderated debate that assumes that these points of view are valid and should be given serious consideration ? That was the case in the 1930s but today anybody who has questions should just be pointed to the history books.

[Guest]

What kind of challenge/response should there be ? Should there be a moderated debate that assumes that these points of view are valid and should be given serious consideration ? That was the case in the 1930s but today anybody who has questions should just be pointed to the history books.

There doesn't need to be any response. Or there can be, if someone wants to respond. That's not the point. The point is that people should be able to express an opinion, no matter how offensive, without the state stepping in to shut them up/punish them.

That's not to say that any medium should be obligated to propogate their opinions, or continue in a relationship with the person expressing the opinion. In the example I cited, Twitter has no obligation to allow the man to keep his account, and his university has no obligation to keep him as a student, (although one might expect a university to support freedom of expression) but the state has no right to shut him up, or punish him.

[login]

There doesn't need to be any response. Or there can be, if someone wants to respond. That's not the point. The point is that people should be able to express an opinion, no matter how offensive, without the state stepping in to shut them up/punish them.

That's not to say that any medium should be obligated to propogate their opinions, or continue in a relationship with the person expressing the opinion. In the example I cited, Twitter has no obligation to allow the man to keep his account, and his university has no obligation to keep him as a student, (although one might expect a university to support freedom of expression) but the state has no right to shut him up, or punish him.

I would agree with this is people were faithful but for me to say things like "I'm going to blow your head off. I can't wait till you go to sleep BCSAPPER. I'm hunting you" Etc.. these are reasons for concern. Calling for the genocide of a group of people ain't really that different.

Sicne threats can preempt physical attacks,and threats are deemed reasonable for a physical defence. Supporting threats such as genocide isn't good because it entitles the party subject to the threat to kill the person making the threat. We have the right to security, and this entails being free from persecution and endangerment. The world ain't perfect government still exists as a persecutor and endangerment to the public, but is anarchy a better answer. I would agree with you personally but I doubt most of society supports that. The murder rate would skyrocket.

Edited December 1, 2012 by login

[cybercoma]

I always find it funny when these threads go on and on for pages and nobody ever posts the legislation that they are referencing. The conversation would probably be a lot more fruitful if someone posted the full text of the laws as a starting point for the debate. Just sayin...

[Guest]

I would agree with this is people were faithful but for me to say things like "I'm going to blow your head off. I can't wait till you go to sleep BCSAPPER. I'm hunting you" Etc.. these are reasons for concern. Calling for the genocide of a group of people ain't really that different.

Sicne threats can preempt physical attacks,and threats are deemed reasonable for a physical defence. Supporting threats such as genocide isn't good because it entitles the party subject to the threat to kill the person making the threat. We have the right to security, and this entails being free from persecution and endangerment. The world ain't perfect government still exists as a persecutor and endangerment to the public, but is anarchy a better answer. I would agree with you personally but I doubt most of society supports that. The murder rate would skyrocket.

I agree entirely. There are laws concerning threatening or inciting that are perfectly capable of taking care of those types of comments. I'm talking about offensive speech.

[Guest]

I always find it funny when these threads go on and on for pages and nobody ever posts the legislation that they are referencing. The conversation would probably be a lot more fruitful if someone posted the full text of the laws as a starting point for the debate. Just sayin...

I have no idea what the full text of the law is, but as the guy was sentenced to 56 days in jail I imagine it's on the books somewhere.

[Guest]

Interesting article (actually a book review) on the disappearance of freedom of expression on American university campuses. It touches on British institutions too, and from reading the news, I know Canadian universities are no better.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/reviewofbooks_article/13130/

It's distressing that the one place where free and open discussion ought to occur, actually bans it.

[jbg]

The HRC's are toothless until an official complaint is lodged. As draconian as I personally believe them to be, they don't have actual policing powers (good thing, too!).

"Toothless" agencies can force their opponents to ring up huge legal bills.

[login]

I agree entirely. There are laws concerning threatening or inciting that are perfectly capable of taking care of those types of comments. I'm talking about offensive speech.

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.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[Guest]

its verbal assault, it incites violence.

If it can be show to deliberately incite violence, that's one thing. If it's just your opinion that it does, that's another. The Danish cartoonists incited violence. You're not suggesting they should have been prevented from publishing their cartoons, are you?

[login]

If it can be show to deliberately incite violence, that's one thing. If it's just your opinion that it does, that's another. The Danish cartoonists incited violence. You're not suggesting they should have been prevented from publishing their cartoons, are you?

You called it offensive speech, how much more clear can it get.

Defence for

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

Bear in mind the goal is not to cause death, disfigurement, or disability just to stop the provocation.

Ideally one should remove themselves from the threat however, in some instances it may be harassment as well, or in a situation where ones own personal liberties, or security of person are effected is discrimination is present for instance in a work place, or public place, where should a persons rights to access to space be violated then it would be harassment or an endagerment of their liberties. So preventing the offensive behaviour would be warranted, should the police not arrest the offender(s) for harassment, since failure for police to respond, entitles the individual to act in their own defence.

Of course in this instance the caller committed an indictable offence and the Radio show host, may have abbetted it partially. So use of force to apprehend would be allowable.

I endorse beating the crap out of people who harass others intentionally should the police not get rid of them for the victim.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[Guest]

You called it offensive speech, how much more clear can it get.

I don't understand your point here.

Offensive speech should not be forbidden by law, in my opinion. Deliberate incitement to violence should be.

No-one has a right not to be offended. Anyone who reacts to being offended with violence is 100% to blame for the violence.

Edited December 2, 2012 by bcsapper

[login]

I don't understand your point here.

Offensive speech should not be forbidden by law, in my opinion. Deliberate incitement to violence should be.

No-one has a right not to be offended. Anyone who reacts to being offended with violence is 100% to blame for the violence.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[Guest]

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

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

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.