Clarifying Free speech/Hate speech

[jacee]

27, 2013 OTTAWA The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down as too sweeping part of Saskatchewans human rights code banning any speech that ridicules, belittles, or affronts the dignity of any person or persons, and in doing so

has set out a guidelines for all provinces to use in determining what may be construed as hate speech.

The top court found that most of the provinces human rights code was constitutional, and so it ruled against a man who had distributed anti-gay pamphlets in Saskatchewan. It said that two of four types of flyers he handed out were, in fact, hate speech

The top court found that two of Whatcotts flyers identical reprints of a page of classified ads from a Queer publication, along with his hand-written note that sodomy shouldnt be legal in Saskatchewan were offensive but werent hate speech.

Offensive ideas are not sufficient to ground a justification for infringing on freedom of expression. While such expression may inspire feelings of disdain or superiority, it does not expose the targeted group to hatred, the justices said.

But the other two which equated homosexuals with carriers of disease, sex addicts, pedophiles and predators would be seen objectively as exposing homosexuals to detestation and vilification, the court added.

Makes sense to me.

Edited February 27, 2013 by jacee

[Peanutbutter]

All speech should be free no matter how vile.

[jacee]

All speech should be free no matter how vile.

Do you think you could manage to stay within the law as defined?

[jacee]

Take your pick of the headlines.

Looks like everybody's happy.

http://www.google.ca/news/i/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&topic=n

Welcome setback for rights tribunals Toronto Sun

Canada high court rules anti-gay pamphlets were hate speech Reuters Canada

Top court upholds key part of Sask. anti-hate law CBC.ca

Opinion: Supreme Court decision in Whatcott case is fair and balanced Montreal Gazette

Supreme Court upholds hate laws in case involving anti-gay proselytizer Globe and Mail

[TimG]

How about discussing the substance rather than the headlines:

As advice to future hate tribunals, the judges offered three main pieces of guidance.

First, these laws must be applied objectively, which is difficult in the case of subjective emotion, though not impossible, the judges ruled. The key is to focus on the effects of hate speech, not the intent of the speaker.

Second, hate must be understood to be the extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification,” but nothing less.

“This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects,” they wrote.

Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.

“The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination,” they decided.

“The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm,” the judgement reads.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/despite-supreme-court-hate-speech-ruling-anti-gay-activist-plans-to-continue-pamphleting/ Edited February 28, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...But the other two which equated homosexuals with carriers of disease, sex addicts, pedophiles and predators would be seen objectively as exposing homosexuals to detestation and vilification, the court added.

Makes sense to me.

So what's the problem? Some people are "carriers of disease, sex addicts, pedophiles and predators" regardless of sexual orientation. Obviously the ideas in question cannot logically be exclusively applied to homosexuals, and I am certain if the written content referred to "heterosexuals" no HRC interest would have ensued. Logical fail.....

[Moonlight Graham]

hard to make much of a judgement on anything here when they don't show the flyers in question, or what they say.

[scribblet]

Bill W., is a 'reformed' homosexual prostitute who found God and has become a zealot. He has a right to express his opinion as long as he doesn't advocate violence but in our society free speech and opinion is fairly limited to politically correct ideas.

He plans to continue his pamphleting and will likely end up in jail. The judgement says that there is a valid limit on freedom of expression ---- too bad we don't have the U.S. first amendment rights.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/despite-supreme-court-hate-speech-ruling-anti-gay-activist-plans-to-continue-pamphleting/

[jacee]

Bill W., is a 'reformed' homosexual prostitute who found God and has become a zealot. He has a right to express his opinion as long as he doesn't advocate violence but in our society free speech and opinion is fairly limited to politically correct ideas.

He plans to continue his pamphleting and will likely end up in jail. The judgement says that there is a valid limit on freedom of expression ---- too bad we don't have the U.S. first amendment rights.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/despite-supreme-court-hate-speech-ruling-anti-gay-activist-plans-to-continue-pamphleting/

I'll bet he'll continue without the two lying bs pamphlets.

[Peanutbutter]

I am personally not a homosexual but it's none of my business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. I have no ill will towards the gay community as long as they don't try to come onto me or do their sex in public. Sometimes at the Pride parade there can be some sexual touching and simulated sex acts. I have seen some penis grabbing and stroking at Pride as well as some breast massaging but that's it.

Saying that all gays are pedophiles is just wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

[Bryan]

hard to make much of a judgement on anything here when they don't show the flyers in question, or what they say.

I agree. Context is everything.

[Sleipnir]

All speech should be free no matter how vile.

No....I entirely disagree. We don't need west boro Baptist churches popping up like dandelions across Canada.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Sleipnir

[shortlived]

Makes sense to me.

Yeah I think calling someone a criminal simply for who they are is a form of defamation (I'm not sure about hate speech, I think this would depend on violence against these people or some form of social contempt. I think calling them pedos was the real issue here, they aren't pedos they are gay, while gay people can be pedos and some are, not all gay people are pedos, it appears some straight people are pedos too. You know some black or brown people might be pedos but not all nor a majority of black people have been pedos, while white people may be pedos not all white people are pedos, and a majority of white people probably just have missionary style or occasional kindy style sex. However, you know not only gay people preform sodomy. Some straight people, although I can't geuss a majority of straight people have performed an act of sodomy. Anyway. I think this is problematic because legally reasonable people should only use force, to prevent force or threat.

The court seems to be implying it is ok to marginalize "criminals" who are out of jail after they have served their sentence it is implicit that the court accepts this, or acknowledges this is happening, yet .. hold on wouldn't that be saying hate speech against pedos is happening? where are all these charges if they are reasonably aware this is what is happening?

the underlying meaning hear is problematic.

is it say that attacks against classes of people are OK?

or is it saying that these attacks occur and they are being brought to court, or what?

a reasonable person would view it as likely to expose a person or persons to “detestation and vilification"

what exactly is detestation and vilification, and if it is not socially acceptable conduct why do some classes of people get exposed to it, and it is ok for them to be exposed to it. Wouldn't it be a violation of their right to personal security? Or does being in these classes have the attached convention of loosing legal protection against vilification.

wouldn't then turning people into that class of people by exposing them as such by determination in court be a constitutional violation?

because the court itself in ruling is creating a situation of detestation and vilification outside the bounds of the sentence itself?

thus in the court ruling they are pedos, would it not then expose the pedos to vilification thus the courts ruling be a form of hate speech? and any publication of that ruling in media also be hate speech?

the constitution specifically states that the government cannot violate the constitution and any act is null and void if it does, so wouldn't this then make the criminal code null and void?

or atleast the sentencing provisions of the code

also media reports before sentencing would also be hate speech for associating people with those acts that would bring on vilification.

Edited February 28, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

Also apparently saying someone is vegetarian and doesn't like beef is hate speech in Alberta.

I have this feeling like there are some government publications on east Indians specifically Hindu's, buddhists and Jains that will be hate speech. Not even to mention the sheer number of books in alberta that may identify specific groups as cow lovers.

Edited February 28, 2013 by shortlived

[Bryan]

hard to make much of a judgement on anything here when they don't show the flyers in question, or what they say.

Found them. The transcript of the SCOC decision is found here:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do

Scroll to the bottom to see the "flyers".

Pretty tame compared to the furor they've caused. The SC's opinion on this one is Orwellian.

[jacee]

I am personally not a homosexual but it's none of my business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. I have no ill will towards the gay community as long as they don't try to come onto me or do their sex in public. Sometimes at the Pride parade there can be some sexual touching and simulated sex acts. I have seen some penis grabbing and stroking at Pride as well as some breast massaging but that's it.

You must have seen our friend Mr C there!

Saying that all gays are pedophiles is just wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

Agreed.

Maybe you should have said this first and skipped the bit about Pride.

Edited February 28, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

Yeah I think calling someone a criminal simply for who they are is a form of defamation (I'm not sure about hate speech)

You've touched on something that occurred to me too:

Defamation:

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1 guarantees the right of freedom of expression,this right has always been of a limited nature. One of those limitations can be found in Ontario legislation through the Libel and Slander Act (the "Act") 2 ,which prohibits the dissemination of defamatory comments,specifically,spoken or written words that discredit an individual in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

...

A statement that tends to injure the reputation of a person referred to in it. The statement is likely to lower that person in the estimation of reasonable people and in particular to cause that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred,contempt, ridicule,fear,or dislike. 5

...

i) Finally,the statement made must be considered defamatory,i.e. the statement must be false and disparages the reputation of the individual,corporation or organization.

It seems they are very similar, hate speech applying to specific groups and defamation applying to individuals and organizations.

The key word, in defamation, is "FALSE" statements.

Though I don't think the judge made that specific distinction in applying the law on hate speech, he seems to have made it in deciding which flyers were hate speech.

There's also the matter of crime:

I think it's fair that you can't falsely accuse someone of crimes just because they're gay.

I think what the judge did is reasonable.

Edited February 28, 2013 by jacee

[Argus]

I am very leery of hate speech laws, or anything else that interferes with freedom of speech. I don't like them and think they're dangerous, but I but recognize the necessity. However, they should be very tightly restricted, and I absolutely do not support human rights commissions being able to bring any kind of charges or level any sort of punishment because of any findings. If real hate speech is committed then the person should be charged by police and tried before a real court.

[shortlived]

"

The key word, in defamation, is "FALSE" statements."

Defamation isn't required to be true statements, just defame the individual.

However, judges don't determine true or false. They administer law, seeing anyone as a source of fact is problematic. This is in part why sometimes civil and criminal court cases determine facts to be different, likewise why an appeal can be different from the original case. A lot of judges sentence people on less than beyond a reasonable doubt, he said she said contexts.

I think here is the point though there was no conjecture about true or false. What is the reasonable threshold, it seems that yes Gay people did have a publically profiled HIV issue in the 80's. A lot of African people have gotten aids, the aids rate in places like Ukraine are very high. Is this to associate aids with those people wrong or hate speech?

I do think though that hate speech doesn't need to be false to be hate speech. It just needs to create HATE that is vilification etc..

I don't see where you are getting the true false aspect from.

So lets see if I bring in one gay pedo does that make a statement calling gay people pedos "legitimate and not hate speech"

I also have an issue with letting judges determine the validity of statements considering judges themselves are fallable and make errors quite often, and are overturned quite often. Them as the source of truth is problematic at best.

That is if contexts are not established by means other than a judge saying that I think that is issued to call it "truth"

Judges give opinions not truths.

This is how saying someone was convicted of pedophilia is much different than calling someone a pedophile.

Edited February 28, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

"

The key word, in defamation, is "FALSE" statements."

Defamation isn't required to be true statements, just defame the individual.

However, judges don't determine true or false. They administer law, seeing anyone as a source of fact is problematic. This is in part why sometimes civil and criminal court cases determine facts to be different, likewise why an appeal can be different from the original case. A lot of judges sentence people on less than beyond a reasonable doubt, he said she said contexts.

I think here is the point though there was no conjecture about true or false. What is the reasonable threshold, it seems that yes Gay people did have a publically profiled HIV issue in the 80's. A lot of African people have gotten aids, the aids rate in places like Ukraine are very high. Is this to associate aids with those people wrong or hate speech?

I do think though that hate speech doesn't need to be false to be hate speech. It just needs to create HATE that is vilification etc..

I don't see where you are getting the true false aspect from.

So lets see if I bring in one gay pedo does that make a statement calling gay people pedos "legitimate and not hate speech"

I also have an issue with letting judges determine the validity of statements considering judges themselves are fallable and make errors quite often, and are overturned quite often. Them as the source of truth is problematic at best.

That is if contexts are not established by means other than a judge saying that I think that is issued to call it "truth"

Pedophiles don't care whether they're boys or girls so long as they are children, available, and likely not to talk.

[shortlived]

Pedophiles don't care whether they're boys or girls so long as they are children, available, and likely not to talk.

I think this is an overly broad statement, I don't really know enough about the mind of pedophiles to refute your claim but I find it highly unlikely that all pedos like boys and girls, I would suspect some like girls, some like boys, and some like boys and girls, others likely like any object that can gratify them sexually.

If there are so many varieties of fetishes even in the straight crowd, I would suspect as many or more varieties exist within the pedo crowd.

Edited February 28, 2013 by shortlived

[Peanutbutter]

Pedophiles don't care whether they're boys or girls so long as they are children, available, and likely not to talk.

That is not true at all. Pedophiles have preferences of boys or girls.

[jacee]

Look it up.

[Peanutbutter]

Look it up.

Go read a man child love forum. You will see that they have preferences.

[jacee]

Go read a man child love forum. You will see that they have preferences.

No thanks.

Pedophiles are criminals.

Homosexuals are not.