Abdullah Khadr back in court March 16th

[FiveParadox]

No, Jay — please take care not to misconstrue my arguments.

To be clear, I believe that freedom of speech is a right. However, the Parliament of Canada has the right to place moderate restrictions on that right, provided that they are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (as per Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982).

I completely agree with that premise — we have the right to say whatever we want, however, we must ensure that there are measures in place to prevent us from using our speech to spread hatred or hate propaganda. Freedom of speech, as I have said before in other threads, is not tantamount to an obligation[/b] to speak. Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want — but in some instances there may be consequences for doing so.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Abdullah Khadr back in court March 16th

No, Jay — please take care not to misconstrue my arguments.

To be clear, I believe that freedom of speech is a right. However, the Parliament of Canada has the right to place moderate restrictions on that right, provided that they are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (as per Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982).

I completely agree with that premise — we have the right to say whatever we want, however, we must ensure that there are measures in place to prevent us from using our speech to spread hatred or hate propaganda. Freedom of speech, as I have said before in other threads, is not tantamount to an obligation[/b] to speak. Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want — but in some instances there may be consequences for doing so.

Stepping on people's right to freedom of speech because they don't agree with certain aspects of history is not in anyway "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". That is the simple part.


I'm not misconstruing your meanings here....what is happening is people are misconstruing what freedom of speech means.

You are describing it as privilege, not a right.

Who gets to determine what is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"? It certainly can't be Conservatives. Our super powers can only be used for good.

People who support this are good old fashion book burners. Don't burn books Paradox...read them.

 

[Mogz]

I don't see how in one breath you understand freedom of speech and other hand deny it to people....but oh well, so now I enjoy 99.5% of your posts instead of the 100% a few minutes ago.

I support free speech, to a point. I feel that everyone has the right to express themselves PROVIDED they do so in a manner which respects society. Denying the holocausts and being an outright NAZI is not, in my opinion, conductive to a healthy society. Yes Free Speech is a RIGHT, but a right that has limitations. Just like the right to bear arms in the states doesn't give the gun owner the explicit permissions to shoot people; freedom of speech does not give a person the right to spread hateviews.

With that all said a done Jay, I don't expect anyone to ever 100% agree with me. By you not agreeing with me on this issue, that makes you human.

 

[FiveParadox]

I am certainly not a "book burner," Jay.

I have made it quite clear that I believe free speech is a right — however, I also believe that for the good of society, limits must be placed on rights; hence, my support for Sections 1 and 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982. You make it sound as if I am opposed to freedom of speech and expression altogether — this is quite frankly not the case and I would appreciate if you would cease from your incessant practice of attempting to call into question my character.

 

[Jay]

I'm not calling into question your character, Paradox. I'm engaged in a debate with you about freedom of speech. If the side you take is compromising your character, I suggest you take my position on the issue.

I'm saying people (apparently) like you are responsible for dumming down freedom of speech and eroding our rights. They have introduced (very recently) hate speech laws (which should be deemed unconstitutional) and have had people deported because of things they have said.

I wouldn't be caught dead doing that…..it's so retro it's seventieth century.

If the Charter supports this BS, then it is just another reason to ditch it. We need a constitution to protect our rights not reject them when it's fashionable to do so.

 

[FiveParadox]

I would assert that the Supreme Court of Canada would not rule against the hate propaganda laws in the Criminal Code of Canada, in light of Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and in keeping with the precedent set by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Russel v. Her Majesty the Queen.

 

[Jay]

I would then argue we were freer without the Charter and we should scrap it.

I would also argue the Supreme Court is full of shit and isn't doing its job, but instead is promoting allowing the government to tell us what we can and can not say and engineering society. It is tantamount to judicial activism.


PS...I can't find a linky to support Russel v. Her Majesty the Queen, do you have one by any chance?

 

[FiveParadox]

Jay, I completely support the Court and would defend them vehemently from charges of activism; they interpret the laws put into the Statutes of Canada by the Parliament Assembled and, therefore, they can only work with what they have. If we are not satisfied with the rulings of the Court, then we should amend the legislation in question.

And yes, Jay, click here for details of the case from Wikipedia; I checked, but the Supreme Court of Canada Web site doesn't have case details, since this particular case was heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Canada's highest Court at the time).

 

[Jay]

Thanks for the link.

But I can't agree with you, my little book burner, because the supreme court has in the past knocked down legislation that is unconstitutional....to not knock down hate propaganda laws, is judicial activism meant to prop up the governments attempts to limit free political speech and deport people who don't tow the Liberal line of thinking.

May I call you my little book burner?