Canadian Hate-Speech Law Violates Charter of Rights 651
MrKevvy writes "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has found that federal hate-speech legislation violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equivalent of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org, but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
Pffft! (Score:3, Funny)
"Hate" speech is Free Speech (Score:2, Interesting)
And if you don't like it, move back where your grandfather came from!
We shall do just FINE here, in the company of Voltaire and Jefferson.
Re: (Score:3)
Gotcha. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree.. I think we ought to encourage MORE people to speak their minds to make it easier to figure out who the bigots, racists, and just plain jerks are.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fascist, Warmonger, Hatemonger, Criminal, Deviant, Brain-Dead, Republican
You mean, like that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Politician, Politician, Politician, Politician, Politician, Politician, Republican
Why did you add a Republican? You are aware that they are Politicians too right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the post [slashdot.org] to which GP was replying, and then repeat after me loudly:
"Whooosh!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Laws won't fix it either"
I disagree. So does Parliament and so does the Supreme Court of Canada. As for the CHRC, that tribunal has no expoectation of judicial deference on appeal when it is interpreting the Charter.
This is Canada. It's *not* the USA. We do not have absolute rights here when it comes to freedom of expression. Those rights are tempered by the reality that such expression can bring about great social harm. The right to freedom of expression can be infringed if is necessary to serve the goals
Re:"Hate" speech is Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
It's slightly humorous, yes.
But to equate the Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, and the Communist Party is patently ridiculous.
I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic Party, though I'm liberal. The Democratic Party is Corporatist, just like the Republican Party. It's nowhere near Socialist or Communist. Yes, there are *some* socialist aspects to the Democratic Party, but these are far outweighed by the corporatist (quasi-fascist) elements.
And Communism is about as far as you can get from the Democratic Party. When was the last time the Dems made any effort to put control of industry in the hands of the people working in the industry?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
The cash for buying houses? Handouts to the banks. The cash-for-clunkers program? Handouts to the car companies and the banks.
Socialized medicine? We don't even know *if* there will be a public option (which doesn't make it a socialized system anyway), and if there is, you can bet it will be like Medicare, which is a boon to practitioners, no matter how much some of them complain about it.
Re:"Hate" speech is Free Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
"you made your post in English."
You say that like it's a good thing. Let us all be grateful for these linguistic abortions:
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce .
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse ..
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time
to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is now "Sticks and stones can be forgiven as a condition of growing up in a fatherless home in urban America. But words will land your but in court for both civil and criminal sanctions..."
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have laws against libel and slander for that. We don't need the state deciding what's "hate" speech.
That's exactly right. If I say "operagost touches little children" it's slander and you can sue me. If I say "operagost is a [insert racial epithet here]" that's just me being a dumbass. It doesn't harm you in any way and only serves to make me look like a complete moron. Why does the Government need to get involved here?
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was shocked the other day (I wish I had the links) when someone pretty much proved me wrong when I said that it was nice that in the US we had no hate speech laws.
Apparently we do...
I don't think we need them. And lynchings were illegal LONG before we had any semblance of laws inhibiting speech that was hateful.
Putting up a noose, or a nazi swastika....is just speech through a symbol. In and of itself, it is NOT threatening. Actions and actual threats against anyone, are threats and have been a crime for a long time. Using a noose on someone, is a crime, but, merely displaying it, while extremely, and understandably distasteful to many, is not and should not be a crime.
True freedom of speech (I'm not talking about things like Fire/Crowded Movie house) pretty much necessitates there there be no freedom from being offended.
You have to be VERY careful about this type thing. I can see good people having good reasons for it, but, once you let the cat out of the bag, you can get very screwy with this type of thing. One prime example of this.
There was reported in the past year or two, incidents of home owners, who were charged with crimes for putting up a hangman's noose in their front yards, as part of a macabre HALLOWEEN decoration set up. It had nothing to do with anything racial (PLENTY of WHITE people have been hung in the US, I'd dare say more whites that black have been hung in our nation's history), and yet, this guy was charged with a crime, I think he got off with a fine, but, really...is that right?
While I agree that anyone threatening anyone's well being, for ANY reason (I don't think threatening due to sex/race or whatever is a special case) should be a crime and be protected against, merely saying unsavory things, or even displaying unsavory symbols or whatever should not at all be a crime. If it is not a direct threat to you (ie:I'm gonna kill your honkey ass with this knife right now asshole), then there should be no rules or laws officially against it. If the general public wants to shun you due to it, well that is their right, but, the govt. should have NO say in setting the boundary for what you can say or publish or preach.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Funny)
You're a fool if you think putting up a noose isn't a threat. It's the 1920's Southern Man's pirate flag. It means "You will be hung".
Wait a minute... I thought all those e-mails I got were saying "You will be hung..." I think I am misunderstanding something somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pictures are hung...
People are hanged....
Speak for yourself, tiny.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you put up a noose, you're threatening to lynch someone. Moreover, it is obviously racially motivated.
Why? In the old west, white men were typically hanged quite often. Perhaps it is Halloween... The point is that YOU choose to see the noose as racial, regardless of what I am thinking if I put one up. In this case, it is less the action of the speaker than the interpretation of the listener.
Which is the same thing as if I choose to take your statement as a hatred of all white men, and you as attacking my rights to free speech.
People still get lynched, though it is becoming rarer.
And does killing hurt more if it is racially motivated? Lynching is illegal. Lets focus on evil actions, because there are plenty of those.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you put up a noose, you're threatening to lynch someone.
No, I'm hanging a noose. If I hang a noose and say "bring me that nigger over there!" then I'm threatening to lynch someone. Merely hanging a noose is not a threat. I find it ironic that many people on the left would passionately defend those who burn our flag while condemning those who would hang a noose in the middle of a protest. A noose is merely a symbol and absent some other threatening gesture it should not be illegal to use one as a prop during a protest. It's a disgusting gesture meant to invoke a primal reaction but I wouldn't regard it as a threat on it's own.
People still get lynched, though it is becoming rarer.
This won't be a popular opinion but lynching would never have been the problem it was if the targeted population hadn't been deprived of it's right to keep and bear arms as a result of racially motivated gun control laws. Would you go into a community and drag someone out of his house to lynch him if you knew all of his neighbors had shotguns and were willing to use them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"You'r wife's tits felt so good last night in my bed."
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope.
I saw a video on youtube where a guy was invited to a university to talk about immigration issues, and his own group's belief that the Mexico/Canadian borders should be closed, except for those who obtain a legal Visa for entrance. After about 10 minutes the students started shouting at him so he could no longer finish his prepared remarks, and he asked, "Don't you believe in free speech?" and one of them yelled, "Not when it's hate speech." The professor then walked-over and apologized to the speaker.
Since when is saying, "We should enforce the Congressional laws," considered hate speech? Also speech is not free, if you're only allowed to say what is "approved" speech by whatever group is in power (the students). That sounds like pure censorship to me - if you don't like what you hear, chain the person's mouth and shut him up.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Public university, I assume?
I wonder if the students were reprimanded in any way. It would seem that, for the most part, university "free speech" tends toward the PC side. Ok, not "tends." Is.
Try speaking out against abortion at a university some day.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Try speaking out against abortion at a university some day.
I don't do protests anymore, but when I used to encounter that kind of resistance, I followed this script:
- "If you're so certain that you are right, why are you afraid???"
- "I'm not afraid."
- "Then prove it. Prove you are not afraid by letting me speak."
If they quiet down I finish expressing my thoughts. If they are not quiet then I tell them point blank, "You are no better than the Iran Shah. He too is a coward. He too is afraid of other people's ideas. That's why he kills people to silence them, and you are no better than he is," and then sit down and wait until they leave the area.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
College campuses are notorious for that. They either engage in outright censorship (try organizing a students for concealed carry [concealedcampus.org] protest on your local campus and see how the campus powers-that-be respond) or they just drown you out when they don't agree with you. Rather hypocritical of a group that usually claims to value free speech and liberty so much, isn't it?
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does freedom of speech require that people not drown you out? That seems a rather interesting definition of freedom of speech. By that measure, people are required to assist you with your speech, not merely not punish you for it.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.
This has always been a problem with "free speech". It does tend to favor the loudest. Kind of like "freedom of the press" doesn't guarantee you a press. The quiet, the less wealthy, the less powerful or less popular do have a harder time making themselves understood.
In the case of a parliamentary assembly, however, it is vital for proper functioning that all present agree to forgo unlimited right to make themselves heard. This could be a government legislature, a board meeting of a business or charity, or even a "town hall" meeting. The assembly has the right to expel members who do not comport themselves within the standards of the organization. The loudmouths can then exercise their rights to scream like banshee outside the meeting hall/room/whatever. We've seen a lot of video lately of the failure of the process at US town hall meetings lately, and that's a shame.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the legal sense, no. But the freedom of intellectual inquiry that's a bedrock of the university requires tolerance for a diversity of views, which is unfortunately not popular among the current crop of students (and some professors).
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Does freedom of speech require that people not drown you out?
It does when you've been invited to a lecture, spent a lot of time preparing the speech and/or driving to the location, and then they shout you down. That's roughly-equivalent to inviting a person to a party and then when they show-up, you throw a bucket of paint on them (see Stephen King's "Carrie"). Another Example: I remember when I had a job interview, and I spent about an hour getting dressed, drove 2 hours (roundtrip) to get there, and it only lasted 5 minutes because the boss looked at the resume and said, "I don't think we can use you." That was just plain rude. He could have reviewed my resume before I showed up, or even phone-screened me first.
Anyway it was rude of the students to waste another person's time like that. He was invited, and he should have been shown the same respect as Al Gore would have received if he had been invited to discuss global warming. If they didn't like what he had to say, they could have left quietly instead of acting like junior high teeny-boppers.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Funny)
That's because you're mentally retarded! Everyone knows that the PC term is now Republican, and in (4) (8) years it will be Democrat! Don't be such a 'tard.
Here, let me connect the dots for you:
"Free Speech" == "Speech you agree with."
"Hate Speech" == "Speech you disagree with."
Taking out the common elements leaves:
"Free" == "agree"
"Hate" == "disagree"
See, it's really that simple.
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the people in the audience who wanted to hear the speaker and whom couldn't because of their classmates that can't stand an opposing point of view?
Re:Let's hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes: The students had the right to leave. By shouting him down, they prevented anyone from listening. That is censorship.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, I'm Canadian - I don't think hate speech should be allowed.
But what is hate speech, exactly? To me, it's a speech filled with anger or passion - a speech that incites hate from other people - and a speech that has its bases formed from hate rather than law or proven fact.
I saw a video on youtube where a guy was invited to a university to talk about immigration issues, and his own group's belief that the Mexico/Canadian borders should be closed, except for those who obtain a legal Visa for entrance. After about 10 minutes the students started shouting at him so he could no longer finish his prepared remarks, and he asked, "Don't you believe in free speech?" and one of them yelled, "Not when it's hate speech." The professor then walked-over and apologized to the speaker.
There is hate going on here, but not from the party you think.
The fellow is talking about a lawful yet controversial issue. This is protected under freedom of speech. If he were discussing deporting Mexicans already here because they
Re:Let's hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Especially if they're in a required lecture rather then something extracurricular.
Very few lectures in college are required. The students could have left. Or stuffed Ipods in their ears. Or whatever.
And in the rare case where this might have been a "required" lecture, there's a reason for it - because they prof wants the students to listen to the speaker's words. Therefore the professor should have told the students to shut-up, stop acting like teeny-boppers, and try to act like the adults they are. Or else, earn an automatic 25% reduction off their next exam.
And if they complained "that's not fair", then I'd tell them straight up, "No it isn't fair. It isn't fair that my friend here drove 2 hours and spent 1 or 2 hours preparing a speech, only to be shouted down. He is a GUEST to this classroom, and you have shown him disrespect. A 25% reduction is your punishment for being an asshole that lacks basic human manners. I don't tolerate rude behavior in my classroom or towards my friends/guests."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Def Lepard, nice...
To stay on the topic of both the article and the post I'm replying to, "Words are weapons, sharper than knives."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You Cannot Give Offense (Score:4, Insightful)
You can only take it.
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or mock them [youtube.com]. (Chasers' War, for those who've seen it before).
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been discharged a while (USMC) but that doesn't offend me at all.
It might be because I believe prayer to be a completely worthless means of getting anything done, but it also might be because I know that even though people have all sorts of beliefs I consider weird, very few of them have any actual impact on my life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't mean you shouldn't be offended by it, sure, but to go back the RobotRunAmok's original quote - "you cannot give offense, you can only take it."
They are doing something they know other people won't like to make a point. You find their actions deeply unpleasant and disrespectful. Fine. I actually agree with you, but that's beside the point. They know a lot of people will become angered by what they do, and that is their goal - to get people talking about them and help spread their message.
You are taking offense. They can't force you to be offended, offense is your reaction to their action. You control your reactions, not them. If you decide that they control that, then you have decided that they own a little teeny piece of you.
If you decide that their actions are worth anger and resentment on your part, then (a) you are taking offense, and (b) you are allowing their asshattedness to control you. You choose to take them seriously. They can't make you do so. You choose to mention their name in a discussion board. Guess what? That's what they want you to do. They want you to repeat their name as often as possible, and mention their actions. They are marketing, and you are giving them free ads. Don't take it personally, we all get manipulated this way.
If you decide that they are jsut a bunch of effing asshats and ignore them, then you are not taking offense, and they are not controlling you. You can still consider what they do offensive, but you can also choose to consider it irrelevant because they are asshats. You can stop mentioning them, and you can forget about them. If they do actual harm to someone, that merits a reaction, but reacting in their intended manner to their actions means they own you, at least a little. They win.
Your offense, ironically, justifies their actions in their minds. Ignoring them denies them the control over you they crave.
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:4, Interesting)
If I remember correctly, a woman got away from hitting one of them with her car in a fit of rage about a year ago. And, if it were your kid, I'll bet the jury would be pretty sympathetic with you if you went spider-monkey on them. (Not going to weigh in on whether that's human compassion or a perversion of justice).
AC 'cuz I've been modding in here.
-gnick
This happened in the early nineties in Topeka. A woman tried to run over the Phelpsies, In fact, she had to swerve onto the sidewalk to get at them. "Phred" and his gang are not well liked in their home town. The judge reduced the charges from assault/battery/attempted vehicular homicide to "inattentive driving".
I'm glad this is gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank god this is done with at last.
Hate speech requires a hate listener. Let's work on that problem, because that one doesn't violate anyone's rights.
Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
CHRT has no teeth on this. All they can say is "unlawful" and go on about their business about prosecuting people. If it was a real court we wouldn't be in this position now. What a pile of BS.
But...they can bury you in fines and ruin your life without ever having to be judged by the actual laws of the land. That type of stuff really pisses me off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's amazing how many people haven't read the ruling isn't it?
First off, it's a Tribunal - it means nothing WRT the law. Second, the ruling is that section 13(1) if the law - where you are fined monetarily - is unconstitutional. So, you can still be convicted under the Hate Speech laws in the kangaroo court, you just can't be bankrupted in the process. Plus that Wharman dweeb does not collect $200 for his posting hate speech under assumed identities.
rigour mortis (Score:4, Informative)
CHRT has no teeth ... If [CHRT] was a real court ... [immune to] actual laws of the land ... pisses me off
Surprised you find the mechanism of the court so perfect in every way that no other judicial mechanism should even exist, even ones sanctioned by parliamentary legislation.
From About the CHRT [chrt-tcdp.gc.ca]
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) was created in 1977 by an Act of Parliament.
_...
Parliament finally enshrined the Tribunal's independence in law and the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to formalize the CHRT's independence.
_...
As an administrative tribunal, the CHRT has more flexibility than regular courts.
One of the reasons given for this is that the defendant does not need to follow rules of evidence in his/her defence. Following the rules of evidence is an expensive process, maybe more so than the fines if convicted.
From Legal Definition of Administrative Tribunal [duhaime.org]
Between routine government policy decision-making bodies and the traditional court forums lies a hybrid, sometimes called a "tribunal" or "administrative tribunal" and not necessarily presided by judges.
These operate as a government policy-making body at times but also exercise a licensing, certifying, approval or other adjudication authority which is "quasi-judicial" because it directly affects the legal rights of a person.
This authority does not amount to hard biting surfaces?
From About the CHRT - The Vice-Chairperson [chrt-tcdp.gc.ca]
Mr. Hadjis received his Bachelor Degree in Civil Law together with his Bachelor Degree in Common Law from McGill University in Montreal, in 1986. He was called to the Quebec Bar in 1987.
That's as much training as most judges prior to their appointment. How many lawyers have equal training in both of Canada's legal traditions?
When I was eight years old I rode my bike on my way to school across the corner of someones lawn which in my small town was rather indistinct from the gravel boulevard which surrounded it. An elementary school classmate witnessed this and and yelled at me "get off my lawn or my dad will sue you".
That has ever since been my psychological template for people who regard human rights as a "shout off my lawn" free card.
I believe in absolute protection against unpopularity. In my eyes "abortion should be permitted until halfway through the third trimester" is protected speech. "Jews are verminous scum and should be gassed by the millions" is not.
Somehow we need to define a line between these speech acts. It's not going to be an easy task, we'll make many mistakes, and there will be much wailing and outrage.
Nevertheless, suck it up: it must be done. The only question is how to do it better rather than worse. The courts surely aren't perfect, and neither are tribunals. A tribunal leaves more scope for fine tuning than the formal court system.
If a person is cursing the scope for fine tuning the system (the flexibility of the tribunal) in my experience it's likely because the person doesn't wish to see the job done right in the first place. It's a bit of a straw man tactic. Once you lock this up with the inflexibility of the courts under the rubric of fairness, it becomes a simple matter to advance the case that the courts in their rigidness can't ever get this right. And that would likely be true in a generational time frame.
The fallacy of the slippery slope is the presumption that objects only ever slide down hill. If nothing ever went up the hill, we'd have no traditions worth respecting whatsoever.
If anything is important enough to push uphill, for as long as it takes, this would be it.
Hate speech serves no purpose (Score:2, Insightful)
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
Re:Hate speech serves no purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
That shouldn't mean you get to outlaw it though.
Re:Hate speech serves no purpose (Score:4, Funny)
Yes it does!! Hate speech is spoken by racists, and sexists, and homophobes, and bigots, and all those other people I don't like.
They are nasty people. Everybody knows it. They say such mean things and hurt people's feelings and make people upset, and they just want to make more people nasty like them! People are vulnerable to what they say; they could be brainwashed!! People need protection from these kinds of bad influences!
It's just like child molesters. You wouldn't let them speak freely would you?! Nobody would! These people are wrong, just so wrong. No one has the right to be so wrong! So they shouldn't be allowed to speak or enjoy the freedoms the rest of us do.
It's only fair.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if I said women shouldn't be infantry because they are weak and can't handle it?
As a sidenote, I don't believe either of the above statements, I am just trying to prove a point.
Re:Hate speech serves no purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
Please define "hate speech" in a way that is objective and clear and does not require knowing what is going on inside the mind of the person using it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Please define "hate speech" in a way that is objective and clear and does not require knowing what is going on inside the mind of the person using it.
How about the definition in UK law:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if-
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
This uses standard, clear and objective legal terminology such as "intend" and "likely" (note that just because these terms require judgement in their application does not mean they are not clear or objective - all criminal prosecutions require a determination of intent, the mens rea. This, of course, is not determined by spookily looking inside someone's head, but by applying reasonably human judgement to their observable actions).
The idea that hate speech is somehow subj
Re:Hate speech serves no purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
So, Martin Luther King, Jr. advocating and inciting the unlawful conduct of sit-ins, unlicensed Freedom Marches, and other demonstration actions directed at segregationist members of the U.S. South... is hate speech?
I would be certainly want to say "of course not", but your definition doesn't leave me much room.
No matter how well you want to codify it, much of the definition of "hate speech" is "I know it when I hear it."
Real issue is circumventing double jeopardy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because in the US that is what hate speech laws are being used for. Get off from a high profile case that "bothers" some politicians and you can be sure a hate speech charge will crop up. Been done in a few visible crimes around Atlanta, suddenly the Feds are brought in because there was enough to convict on the real accused crime.
The other point is that prosecuting under the guise of a hate crime can devalue the real crime. I don't care why they selected someone's house to rob/burn/etc, all reasons should be treated the same : equally bad. Yet we try to differentiate the crimes by assigning severity based on what they were thinking or what we think they were thinking?
Fortunately in both countries we can still each have our opinions, I just hope the Supremes start tossing the US version out as well... which reminds me, did the group who declared it wrong in Canada have the last voice on that?
Re:Hate speech serves no purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
Oh really? During the 1790s several Americans who criticized the John Adam's presidency were called a "hate speakers". Well they didn't have that term then, preferring to call it "seditious speech", but it was the equivalent - they labeled those criticisms as having no purpose and therefore people were jailed for exercising their opinions, including Benjamin's Franklin's grandson.
If you give government power to stop hate speech (or seditious speech), then you give government the power to stop ANY speech that they don't like - such as saying Bush's War is bogus (hello jail) or Obama's Healthcare is monopoly (hello jail again). The Democratic Party was born when Jefferson and others decided to take power and reverse the Sedition Act.
I find it ironic that the same party is now trying to restore the Sedition Act - a different name but still the same effect.
In honour of this event (Score:5, Funny)
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone really surprised that anti-hatespeech laws violate the basic 'free speech' right? I mean, either a person is free to say what they want or not.
I'm not condoning hate speech. I think it's still immoral and unethical... But it's still covered under 'free speech' no matter how much I hate it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The law itself was not really found to violate the 'free speech' right.
In a previous ruling the Supreme Court of Canada (I think) upheld said law.
This ruling found "the law was originally intended to be âoeremedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature,â rather than a means to hand out penalties."
It was really the punishment called for by the law that was found to be inequitable. Because of this problem no action will be taken though the defendant was found to be guilty of 'hate speech'.
A good day for Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Some characteristics of the Human Rights Tribunal (Score:3, Interesting)
- A single judge presides and decides. There is no jury and no multiple opinion.
- There are no rules of evidence. Anything can be presented.
- There is no right for the accused to confront or question the accuser.
- The person charged must prove their innocence. There is no "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" principle in effect. If the person charged does not show, he loses.
- All legal costs of the accuser are paid by the commission whether he wins or loses. All legal costs of the accused are paid by himself, whether he wins or loses.
- If the accused loses, the potentially life-destroying fine is given directly to the accuser.
All in all, a sick and twisted example of Kafkaesque evil.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot one point that is perhaps even more important than the rest:
- Truth is not a defense.
Yes, it doesn't matter whether what you say is true or not. So long as your speech "is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", you're screwed. This means that, for example, any scientific research, even if perfectly flawless and objective, that would expose differences between groups separated by racial, ethnic, cultural or religious criteria in areas where it is controversial (e.g. intellect
Humanity is divided on this issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Advocates call the law a necessary control on hate speech in an age where the Internet makes the spread of messages easier and faster. Opponents say it's censorship and has no place in a free society.
Not only are we divided on whether it should be legal, we are divided on what it should be.
Is it hate speech to call other races subhumans, but legal to note in a scientific paper that there IQ differences [news-medical.net] between [wikipedia.org] races [halfsigma.com], moral evolutionary differences [edge.org], or even that statistically, crime is not distributed evenly [colorofcrime.com] between all groups?
Half of scientists say race doesn't exist [pbs.org], the others [goodrumj.com] keep quiet.
The bigger issue here is what we're obscuring the pursuit of truth with all sorts of social pretense. Let's look at the facts and keep emotion (true hate speech) and censorship out of the debate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
race is a byproduct of borders and hate.
nad those papers are flawed in that they do not take culture into account.
Different peopel ahve different cultures, some embrace educations, and some do not.
Many poor people don't raise there children very well, and the children of the ones that are raised well are very seldom poor when they grow up.
It's clearly a culture issue.
All modern humans a re a sub species, as noted buy the term "Homo Sapiens Sapiens"
You are referring to the idea of infrasubspecies.
Crimes are
There are TWO kinds of hate-speech: (Score:3, Insightful)
The one that you're just a pussy for complaining about it.
And the one that causes physical pain and is known by the speaker to do so.
Yes, it's proven nowadays, that emotional pain is no different or less real than "real" physical pain to the brain. Same chemical reaction. Same everything. So being left by your girlfriend really hurts. And perhaps some painkillers would actually work!
So if you know it, and deliberately hurt someone, it does not matter in what way you are doing it. What matters is, if it hurts or not.
And the only reason we're discussing this at all, is that it is so hard, to prove emotional damage.
I believe others have said it best: (Score:4, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Evelyn Beatrice Hall (As a summary of Voltaire's beliefs.)
Re:aha (Score:5, Funny)
Future Canadian Ubuntu release names:
Busty Beaner
Crackhead Coon
Drunk Darkie
Flaming Faggot
Grumpy Gringo
Humping Homosexual
Jackin' Jiggabgoo
Klepto Kike
Limey Lobersterback
Morose Moonie
Nappy Nigger
Queefing Queer
Sleazy Spic
Transsexual Twinky
Weebly Wetback
Zany Zebra
Re:aha (Score:4, Insightful)
As a white male it's not possible to claim "Hate Speech" in the US. It's a one-way street.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, you are wrong. A significant number of hate crime convictions are for crimes against white people. From the FBI:
Of the 9,528 victims of hate crimes in 2004, 9,514 were associated with an incident involving a single bias. More than half of that number (53.8 percent) were victims of racial prejudice. Of those, 67.9 percent were victimized because of anti-black attitudes, and 20.1 percent were targets of anti-white sentiments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because conservatives have done nothing to increase the power of government. Come on, if you're going to criticize the left, use a criticism that cant be turned around and work just as well against the right.
Re:The tide is turning against lefties (Score:5, Insightful)
If I remember correctly, Trudeau and his government were the architect for this legislation. Not only was he the largest asshole to ever come out of Quebec. He thought all of Canada his personal playground, reguarlly believed he was unstoppable, and in general an asshole to the Canadian public. All while...people loved him, while he fawned terms similar to "hope and change".
Yeah...if you don't know how far the liberals have gone to get power in Canada you don't know squat. Including collapsing the government on a friday, using a non-confidence motion, after everyone had already gone home.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trudeau was incredibly popular with a large section of the Canadian population in the East and in Central Canada for his policies and his attitude. He's pretty much only reviled in Western Canada- and there was more than enough assholeish behavior on both sides of that relationship to go around. "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark", remember?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He is absolutely despised and hated in Québec, which he continuously belittled and paternalized. His repatriation of the constitution without Québec's assent was the biggest affront to Québec, and the charter of rights was directly aimed against Québec's language laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only was he the largest asshole to ever come out of Quebec. He thought all of Canada his personal playground, reguarlly believed he was unstoppable, and in general an asshole to the Canadian public.
In other words, he was the only honest politician we've seen in quite some time. He gets respect for that alone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
His popularity was entirely due to our ability to google pics of his wife's vag.
Re:The tide is turning against lefties (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, you do realize that lots of people bashing your exalted Dear Leader Bush were harrassed by the FBI
Citation needed.
Repugs
Repugs? Tell us what you really think of 33% of your fellow citizens.
Anti-hate speach legislation, while ill-founded, at least had at its heart the idea to stop the traditional practice of inflaming the mob's anger so as to go out and lynch minorities.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, you do realize that lots of people bashing your exalted Dear Leader Bush were harrassed by the FBI
Citation needed.
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=111986&SecID=2 [news8austin.com]
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0513-11.htm [commondreams.org]
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/united-states-v.-brett-bursey [ccrjustice.org]
http://www.blogd.com/archives/000743.html [blogd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Women don't have "teabags" [urbandictionary.com]".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
If the author means complaints against claims of hate speech, I'd say "and may have" is more appropriate. If that's not what the author means, the logic baffles.
I believe you have parsed the sentence you quoted incorrectly. While an additional "may" would have clarified I believe most people are capable of reading that sentence to understand that the "may" applies to both verbs following it in the sentence: "...may have....serve...".
Re:What is hate-speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a very slippery slope when defining what is hate-speech, and what is just parlance/slang. Even though my above statements could be construed as ignorant or hurtful, they can only be classified as hate-speech if they are delivered with the intent to hurt.
What the fuck is so harmful about speech delivered with the "intent to hurt"? Are people really so thin-skinned that they need protection from being called bad names? Please tell me that I'm not the only one that's sick of this politically correct nonsense.
Call me all the bad names you want. If you want to go the racial route you can call me a kike, kraut, polack, limey or mutt (probably your best bet). If you want to go the non-racial route you can call me fatty, geek, pimple-head, etc. None of those things are going to make me run crying to the police for protection from you.
Re:What is hate-speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Call me all the bad names you want. If you want to go the racial route you can call me a kike, kraut, polack, limey or mutt (probably your best bet). If you want to go the non-racial route you can call me fatty, geek, pimple-head, etc. None of those things are going to make me run crying to the police for protection from you.
Well, that was the problem.
Let's say I called you a kike, kraut, polack, limey mutt. In Canada, you could file a complaint with the HRC and they would fine me $10k - $100k in fines because I hurt your feelings as a ... you know, your parents got around. Anyway, the kike part would be enough to ruin my life financially.
You don't have the right to not be offended, but in Canada, up until yesterday, that right was being granted by the HRC.
A famous case was two women who went to an adults-only comedy show and heckled the comedian there. He shot back with some adult-themed comments including calling them dikes. They cried to the HRC and the comedian was dragged about the court for yelling at two people who were heckling.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080626/comic_humanrights_080626/undefined [www.ctv.ca]
Re:Worth noting (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure exactly what they're referring to in this decision, but the Supreme Court in R v. Keegstra and R v. Krymwoski that restrictions on hate speech were perfectly valid under S.1 of the Charter.
There are, however, a variety of differences between those cases and this; the primary one being that those were criminal complaints and this is not. That said, the Supreme Court and lower courts have long upheld the Human Rights Act and have often supported the decisions of the Human Rights Commission under that act, so I think the chances of this being overturned on appeal are slim. Any overturning would likely be procedural: the procedures do not provide sufficient safeguards, the Tribunal operated beyond its powers in this instance, etc.
I find it unlikely in the extreme that the Supreme Court would simply overturn the Act itself.
Re:Worth noting (Score:4, Informative)
No, what this finding is saying is that the HRC is going far above and beyond its scope and powers, and is violating Canadian Law. It is, quite frankly, the most important decision since the UK let us go in 1982.
The constitution is the overall ruling document in Canada, and NOTHING goes in front of it. The End. This finding means that, finally, the HRC agrees with the Constitution.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
The HRC has been abusing its position for years, and this might be the end of the abuse. I have the right to say and write offensive things, and some would say it is my duty to offend at least one person a day AND be offended in turn.
There are criminal offences for dealing with inciting violence; the HRC was going after people for writing something down with no intention behind it except their own ignorance. We already have the lottery system for fining the stupid; we didn't need another one.
For the Americans:
We had a court-like thing called "The Human Rights Commission" that had a 100% success rate in convicting people of hate crimes. Basically, it was ignoring the equivalent of the 1st amendment and fining people any time you communicated in a way that offended anyone, anywhere.
They've just looked at themselves and said, "wait, what the fuck are we doing? We've been ignoring the constitution."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We had a court-like thing called "The Human Rights Commission" that had a 100% success rate in convicting people of hate crimes. Basically, it was ignoring the equivalent of the 1st amendment and fining people any time you communicated in a way that offended anyone, anywhere.
They've just looked at themselves and said, "wait, what the fuck are we doing? We've been ignoring the constitution."
Not only that, but a former member of the CHRC (or CHRT - I forget which), one Richard Warman, the complainant in this case, has been responsible for something like half of all "hate speech" cases filed at the tribunal over the last several years. Anything this little snake finds on the internet that he decides is hateful, he files the complaint and looks to cash in. Ezra Levant has been doing a lot of legwork on exposing this corrupt little cesspool for what it is over the past couple of years, ever since
Re:Worth noting (Score:5, Informative)
Your comment is extremely misleading.
Firstly, the Constitution is the overall ruling document in Canada, but that does not mean nothing goes before it. In fact, public policy concerns often override Charter rights. This is entrenched in the Charter as S.1, and was elaborated on at great length in R v. Oakes and the subsequent follow-on cases.
The rights enumerated in S.2, specifically, 2(b), are not beyond constraint. They are constrained by S.1, which states, ultimately, that there are public policy rationales powerful enough to override individual rights, and the determination of whether or not they are sufficiently powerful is determined by the Oakes test.
Secondly, the HRT is not a court-like thing. It is a quasi-judicial tribunal, whose decisions are reviewable by the Federal Court and the FCA, etc.
Thirdly, the HRC's 100% conviction rate is incredibly misleading in and of itself. There is no way to be acquitted by a HRT. Complaints are either upheld or dismissed. Someone the subject of a complaint cannot be found innocent. That is not how the system works. In criminal justice terms, this would be vaguely akin to having a system where you were either convicted or had the charges dropped. Actually, of the complaints brought before the Human Rights Commission, 13.5% are referred to the HRT, and 86.5% are dropped. 60% of those complaints referred to the HRT are settled prior to the Tribunal issuing a decision. In total, all of approximately 8.1% of complaints are decided by the HRT, and the HRT has the legal authority, also, to dismiss complaints at that stage if it feels doing so is appropriate (but I haven't found statistics on that).
In short, you're either terribly misinformed or intentionally lying to significantly distort the facts of the case.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quebecois, vous pouvez aller les porcs sucer!
You do know that Google Translate doesn't work all that well, right?
Mange-toi du pain blanc, maudit bloke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
So if I hire ten guys to go beat you with sticks and throw stones at your head you think I should be free of criminal liability? After all, I just gave them money and spoke to them, neither of which hurt you directly.