Politicaly Incorrect old news.......

[gerryh]

Gerry, I am saying that part of his probation is learning about Islam, and it is counter
productive. If you use the law to force someone to learn about something they are
opposed to or they have already made up their mind based on opinion, hatred or
anything else is not going to change anything, it will merely make the person more
entrenched in the opposition they are already committed to.
Probation could say he cannot make anti Islamic statements during his probation but
I believe it is in fact counter to the charter of rights and freedoms to force someone
to learn about anything against their will. I myself have some criticism of the Islamic
faith, and the way they are anti democratic and intolerant of others, but I don't hate
these people I am merely critical of their belief system in a democracy especially
when they hide behind their religion. Of course I am critical of Christians and others
when they hold beliefs counter for democracy in our society, and again they use
religion to skirt the law. It is my opinion that all religions should be bound first by the
laws of the land like any other group or person. Religion should not be exempted
from obedience to the law of the land regardless.
I think as a legal requirement, the law should determine the difference between what
is criticism and what is hate speech. If there is probation for this guy, it should not include
learning anything about the people he offended because he is not going to change
anyway. Forcing someone to learn about people he hates is a waste of time, because
when the probation is done nothing will change. Give him a fine or a short jail sentence
and move on, all this decision does is make more precedent and restrict people freedoms
even more.

disagree. If the asshole isn't willing to learn, then lock the son of a bitch up till he does.

 

[Niflmir]

Something similar to this happened in the US: The Volokh Conspiracy » Church as Alternative to Jail. This clearly infringes on Harding's freedom of religion, whether it is justifiable under section 1 is up to the courts to decide----if Harding can afford the lawyer.

The part where "...during the sessions nothing negative could be said about Islam or its prophet, Muhammad" is especially egregious, since it turns it from a dichotomy of a) learn about Islam or b) go to jail into a) learn about Islam while giving up your freedom of expression or b) go to jail. But again, it is up for the courts to decide if this passes a section 1 analysis.

It is funny for me to hear about Harding again, having often used him to juxtapose the human rights tribunal. The Conservative's being so proud that they got rid of the human rights tribunal, which is only allowed to hear about this sort of thing when it happens on the internet, why can they not be consistent and scrap the criminal hate speech laws as well? I'd be even happier to see true freedom of speech return with them scrapping libel & slander crimes.