Freedom of Speech
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
So what do you say about the Westboro Baptist Church carrying signs saying "God Hates Jews" and "God Hates Fags" wanting to come to Canada?
If you're a true proponent of free speech, "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I personally laugh at Canadians view of free speech... it's a serious joke.
[youtube]MK6eIeuOfmo[/youtube]
If you're a true proponent of free speech, "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I personally laugh at Canadians view of free speech... it's a serious joke.
[youtube]MK6eIeuOfmo[/youtube]
Last edited:
I say bring it. They're nuttier than squirrel ****, and easy to debate into an angry screaming mess.
Hell, a local morning show host, whose debate skills are fairly limited, made them look like utter fools with little effort.
That's the great thing about letting the perpetually buggered rant in the open. They're so easy to prove wrong and embarrass. It usually causes those paying attention to avoid making the same mistakes.
It's no laughing matter.
... or issue death treats to the President or Prime Minister (depending on your country), or yell bomb at an airport.
The tribunals are not useful because they made/allowed just about everything under the sun to be a tort. Every "offense", real or perceived, are given equal weight. Were it treated like a real tort, the overwhelming majority wouldn't see the inside of a courtroom.
"Hate speech" should not be a crime, period because that is a very dangerous path to be on.
If you believe in Free Speech, you don't.
You have the right to turn off your TV, you have a right to leave the room, close the book or not to listen. Walk away..
Of course if free speech crosses a line and becomes libel, then you sue. Checks and Balance.
Calls to commit crimes listed in the CCoC, ie; murder, assault, arson, destruction of property.
The CCoC already covers the bulk of this.
Section 13 and other ridiculous speech limiting legislation, is simply feel good nonsense. Used and abused to shut down actual dissent.
I'll agree that the whole procedure left a lot to be desired, but getting a reprimand from the tribunal was much better than getting a criminal record, as the following people would:
Actually, that is still a crime in Canada. Ergo, why I said this isn't freedom of speech.
A real perfect example of Freedom of Speech, Rush Limbaugh's view of women. He had the right to say what he said, exposed him as the chauvinistic asshole he is.
People pulled advertisements and stopped listening to his show..
In this case Freedom of Speech buried him alive.
But Freedom of Speech is important, it gives you the right as a citizen to voice/protest against the government without fear of persecution.
Could you imagine if the Speech Police came to this forum with all the Harper Haters here.. see ya!
People pulled advertisements and stopped listening to his show..
In this case Freedom of Speech buried him alive.
But Freedom of Speech is important, it gives you the right as a citizen to voice/protest against the government without fear of persecution.
Could you imagine if the Speech Police came to this forum with all the Harper Haters here.. see ya!
A reprimand? More like a punitive hit to your bank account.
Actually, there's good case law that has taken some teeth out of Section 319 of the CCoC.
Which is as follows...
PUBLIC INCITEMENT OF HATRED
... / Wilful promotion of hatred / Defences / Forfeiture / Exemption from seizure of communication facilities / Consent / Definitions / "communicating" / "identifiable group" / "public place" / "statements".
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. In R v. Ahenakew, his conviction was eventually overturned on appeal, the Sask Provincial Court Judge sighted the fact that though his commentary was disgusting and untrue, it didn't promote hatred.
___________________
I see lots of room in the context of Section 319 of the CCoC for wiggle room as to what constitutes promoting hatred. But I still think it should be amended to remove its remaining teeth and ambiguity.
That isn't about free speech. It's about disobeying a civil order.
Well, in retrospect, what I said was quite an understatement; still, a huge fine is still better than a huge fine and a jail term.
I think making it a tort is a somewhat better idea. The problem with that idea is that if someone goes around calling for the eradication of the muslims from the Canadian population, and a muslim takes him to court and he loses, do we stop other plaintiffs from similarly charging him? Then again, I only think laws like this should exist when libel laws exist, and I am not even sure that I think libel laws are a good idea.
I mean, laws should not exist because people say, "Sure, I would never be influenced by this person's speech, but some people are not as smart as me, so lets censor it." That is basically (grossly oversimplifying) the justification of defamation laws.
I have to disagree. The civil order was to keep protesters at a safe distance from clinics, and impede their ability to abuse the rights of others.
Not stifle their ability to present their message.
They were free to convey that message at a distance of 50metres from several Toronto clinics.
No. Nobody is free to advertise wherever they please. You cannot just plant a placard on my front lawn, for instance.
I think the fine is $1000CDN upon conviction. The term of five years is excessive for simply berating a section of society IMHO.
Either or, it still stifles the ability to speak freely.
If the case law supports that, yes.
I agree.
Nif answered that quite well.
Fallacy of equivocation no less! My mailbox might be my property, but my mailbox is not my lawn.
For your interest, you have the right to place advertisements in my mailbox because it is a traditional form of advertisement and only so long as your advertisement is not obscene, not targeted and you do not have a restraining order from me.