Support Free Speach

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Canadian free speech:

Protests greet Bush's first speech as ex-president



''More than 100 protesters chanted "war criminal" and flung shoes in Calgary on Tuesday, angry that former U.S. President George W. Bush was in the Canadian city to give his first speech since leaving the White House.''









That's why so many Yanks love Canada!!!!

How disrespectful goper..

But in all due respect, if our ex-Prime Minister would go South, how much attention would any attract ?

And realistically this has happened to who else ? We have had Reagan up here, Clinton, Bush Senior with no such incident..
 

einmensch

Electoral Member
Mar 1, 2008
937
14
18
AP – In this combination of an originally transmitted image,top, and a digitally altered image that appeared …
Israel cabinet--wipe out the females--what do these 2 female cabinet ministers say??--Israeli truth?
We are even free to wipe women out--free speech-and Canada supports it --
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
#6
"What surprises me is that the free speech crowd is so silent."

What is there to say, you say whatever you want. It is only when you actively try to suppress free speech that there is a problem. As was mentioned the individual media reporters are bias, we should be able to read everything then make up our own bias, racist, bigoted minds. If we try and suppress any speech, how can we hope to learn a truth.

What is the difference between free speech and censorship? Should some form of censorship be permitted to protect certain age groups?

Those are the questions that should be addressed.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
There are laws that someone believes he has broken. He hasn't been found guilty, only ordered to make his case in front of the tribunal to see if the law was broken. If he so convinced that what he has written is not hate speech then what's his worry and why bother asking others to fight his battle?

In 30 years no one.....that is NOT ONE.....person has been acquitted of charges under section 13, the hate speech legislation.

Something is very wrong here.

The Hate Speech laws and the Human Rights Commissions need to be eradicated......done away with, thrown out, put down, liquidated with extreme prejudice.......... :)

I know, it is my obsession this week, but buy and read Ezra Levant's thin book Shakedown......wow!
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
In 30 years no one.....that is NOT ONE.....person has been acquitted of charges under section 13, the hate speech legislation.

Something is very wrong here.

The Hate Speech laws and the Human Rights Commissions need to be eradicated......done away with, thrown out, put down, liquidated with extreme prejudice.......... :)

I know, it is my obsession this week, but buy and read Ezra Levant's thin book Shakedown......wow!

If you write lies about a person with the intent of damaging their reputation, that is libel.

If you write lies about a people with the intent of damaging their reputation, that is section 13.

Perhaps the wording of section 13 is more broad than many people would like, for instance truth not being a defense. Of course, a list of irrelevant facts used to support an outrageous opinion could still be interpreted as libel.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
If you write lies about a person with the intent of damaging their reputation, that is libel.

If you write lies about a people with the intent of damaging their reputation, that is section 13.

Perhaps the wording of section 13 is more broad than many people would like, for instance truth not being a defense. Of course, a list of irrelevant facts used to support an outrageous opinion could still be interpreted as libel.

Unfortunately, this is not true.

There is no reference in section 13 to truth..........you can be convicted under the section even if what you say is completely true......

Explain to me, please, exactly when the gov't gained the right to interogate citizens on the correctness of their political thought???????? Because that is exactly what is going on.

It is Stalinist.........

Read the book.

Even Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and a founder of HRCs, has come out against them and Section 13.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Unfortunately, this is not true.

There is no reference in section 13 to truth..........you can be convicted under the section even if what you say is completely true......

...

... section 13 is more broad than many people would like, for instance truth not being a defense. ...

Hop off the soap box dude, I think we are on the same side here, although our views of it may be different. I honestly think that the two laws are quite similar, except that the law espoused by section 13 is too immature.

As for the interrogation bit, the same thing happens with libel litigation:
1. X doesn't like what Y wrote, although it was true.
2. X takes Y to court, under claim of libel.
3. After costly battle, Y wins, but cannot reclaim money lost.

Should we therefore throw out libel and slander law? No, but we should certainly reform it as there are clear examples where libel litigation infringes on freedom of speech.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
Hop off the soap box dude, I think we are on the same side here, although our views of it may be different. I honestly think that the two laws are quite similar, except that the law espoused by section 13 is too immature.

As for the interrogation bit, the same thing happens with libel litigation:
1. X doesn't like what Y wrote, although it was true.
2. X takes Y to court, under claim of libel.
3. After costly battle, Y wins, but cannot reclaim money lost.

Should we therefore throw out libel and slander law? No, but we should certainly reform it as there are clear examples where libel litigation infringes on freedom of speech.

But But.....I love my soap box.:cool:

You are, I am afraid, incorrect......

First of all in libel or slander cases, truth, or even a reasonable belief of truth is a defence......or if the accused was innocent of knowledge that the allegedly libelous statement was false,

Secondly. "fair comment" and "opinion" are both defences to charges of libel.

Third, libel charges are civil, not criminal, in all but the very rarest of cases.

Fourth, if someone charges you with libel wrongfully, it is fully expected in civil court that the accuser will pay part, if not all, costs.

Fifth, Libel charges are made in real court, with conflict of interest rules, rules of evidence, public access, disclosure etc. HRCs are not courts, have no rules, and routinely ignore the most basic individual rights.

There is a huge difference....I can't make that clear enough....a massive divide between libel charges brought to court and the Stalinist Star Chambers of the HRCs.

Hate laws are a travesty of justice, as are the HRCs.

Read the damn book. It is short. :)
 

einmensch

Electoral Member
Mar 1, 2008
937
14
18
A government panel in Canada has recommended that the country scrap its notorious Section 13 laws against “hate speech”, enforcement of which pretty much boils down to punishing white people for criticizing non-whites, Jews, Muslims, and homosexuals. But after the Moon Report recommended the repeal of Section 13, the Canadian Jewish Congress demanded that the government ignore the panel, and keep outlawing free speech.http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Videos.php/2009/03/28/gaza-war-crimes-drone-plane-kills-civili
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
A government panel in Canada has recommended that the country scrap its notorious Section 13 laws against “hate speech”, enforcement of which pretty much boils down to punishing white people for criticizing non-whites, Jews, Muslims, and homosexuals. But after the Moon Report recommended the repeal of Section 13, the Canadian Jewish Congress demanded that the government ignore the panel, and keep outlawing free speech.


Ya know what.....every time I think that Colpy has convinced me to join his side of this argument...... you open your mouth and we're back to square one.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
No, I'm right, but I don't think you really understand my position.

In fact, in Canada, even the truth isn't a defense if you have malicious intent. Fair comment is vague and malicious intent ruins it as a defense as well. Opinion isn't a defense at all. Read it, it is a short section, although written in legalese.

As to point 4, although you may be awarded "reasonable" charges for the litigation if and only if it was found frivolous, often legal costs surpass what the courts will deem as reasonable, as "extra" work done by solicitors will not be covered by the courts. These excess charges can cripple many individuals financially. Furthermore, there is no guarantee of getting the fees back, otherwise, who but the very rich would take someone to court over libel given the chance that they might not be able to successfully prove it.

Read some of the successful cases tried under the genocide and inciting hatred part of the criminal code, tried in the criminal courts of Canada (not the HRC pre-court). When you know who Keegstra is, we can talk. The difference is not nearly as large as you make it out to be.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
Ya know what.....every time I think that Colpy has convinced me to join his side of this argument...... you open your mouth and we're back to square one.

:)

Definitely being on the same side of the fence as Einsmech is much tougher than trashing him.......and not nearly as much fun.

He is right about the CJC and B'nai Brith.....both use Section 13 and the HRCs to swat political thought they find unacceptable.

I'd rather just let einsmench and that crew openly reveal themselves to be the fools they are.....
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
No, I'm right, but I don't think you really understand my position.

In fact, in Canada, even the truth isn't a defense if you have malicious intent. Fair comment is vague and malicious intent ruins it as a defense as well. Opinion isn't a defense at all. Read it, it is a short section, although written in legalese.

As to point 4, although you may be awarded "reasonable" charges for the litigation if and only if it was found frivolous, often legal costs surpass what the courts will deem as reasonable, as "extra" work done by solicitors will not be covered by the courts. These excess charges can cripple many individuals financially. Furthermore, there is no guarantee of getting the fees back, otherwise, who but the very rich would take someone to court over libel given the chance that they might not be able to successfully prove it.

Read some of the successful cases tried under the genocide and inciting hatred part of the criminal code, tried in the criminal courts of Canada (not the HRC pre-court). When you know who Keegstra is, we can talk. The difference is not nearly as large as you make it out to be.

Naw, I don't think we're on opposite sides of the fence......you're standing right on top of it... :)

Accusers pay nothing in HRCs, you and I pay it all......and the defendant always pays all his own bills.

"Truth" is the ultimate defence to libel........it is NEVER a defence in an HRC.

I know who Keegstra is fer God's sake, I even know Eckville is in Alberta...
:roll:

Talk to me after you've read Levant's book....you know who he is, don't you?
 

einmensch

Electoral Member
Mar 1, 2008
937
14
18
:)

Definitely being on the same side of the fence as Einsmech is much tougher than trashing him.......and not nearly as much fun.

He is right about the CJC and B'nai Brith.....both use Section 13 and the HRCs to swat political thought they find unacceptable.

I'd rather just let einsmench and that crew openly reveal themselves to be the fools they are.....

Colpy the trash man--trash truth

No one is out to prove Williamson or others said something untrue --just trash them and be ignorant-
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
Colpy the trash man--trash truth

No one is out to prove Williamson or others said something untrue --just trash them and be ignorant-

Okay, this is from the article on Elie Weisel.....the only piece of this odiferous garbage I could be bothered to pry open, my hands firmly over my nose:

by Eric Hunt
On February 1st, at approximately 7:30 p.m., I attempted to get a confession out of the “Pope of the Holocaust religion,” Elie Wiesel. We were in an elevator in the Argent Hotel in San Francisco. He was on his way to the 36th floor Penthouse. I had planned to bring Wiesel to my hotel room where he would truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his non-fiction Holocaust memoir, Night, is almost entirely fictitious.

After ensuring no women would be traumatized by what I had to do (I had been trailing Wiesel for weeks), I stopped the elevator at the sixth floor. I pulled Wiesel out of the elevator. I said I wanted to interview him. He protested, grabbed at his chest as if he was having a heart attack. He then screamed HELP! HELP! at the top of his lungs. This is someone who in his public appearances, speaks so softly, that when he appeared on Oprah, they had to use subtitles throughout. Wiesel had dropped this phony persona and assumed his actual personality, of an insane lunatic.
I told him, “Why, you don’t want people to know the truth?” His expression changed, and he began screaming again. HELP! HELP! So, after pulling him about fifteen feet out of the elevator, alerting a few floors, I decided that it was time for me to go. He was no use to our worldwide struggle for freedom if he had a heart attack. I fled from the scene, confident that the police would arrive soon and search the city looking for the insane person who attempted to forcefully interrogate a poor old “Holocaust Survivor”, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and most recently, “knight of the British Empire.”
I had planned on either: getting Wiesel into my custody, with a cornered Wiesel finally forced to state the truth on videotape, getting arrested, or fleeing, and either way, exposing the “Pope of the Holocaust religion” for being nothing but a genocidal liar. However, a funny thing happened, Wiesel apparently never called the police.

(my emphasis)

Elie Weisel, in February of 2008, was a Holocaust survivor in his eightieth year.

This Nazi lunatic stalks the guy for "weeks", attacks him, by his own admission, drags him against his will off an elevator and down a hall..........and expresses outrage that Weisel was upset!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He attacked a tiny, little old man, who had suffered unimagineable brutality in his life..........OMG, it is beyond description.

I only wish it had been me....the Nazi **** would be missing major body parts.....but of course it is only little old Jews this psychotic creep wants to terrorize......

Einsmench, this stuff is insane....your support of it makes you look like a complete, drooling moron.......which is why I think the "Radical Press" HA! should be left to their own devices.

Nobody could do them more harm than they do themselves......
 
Last edited:

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Naw, I don't think we're on opposite sides of the fence......you're standing right on top of it... :)

Accusers pay nothing in HRCs, you and I pay it all......and the defendant always pays all his own bills.

"Truth" is the ultimate defence to libel........it is NEVER a defence in an HRC.

I know who Keegstra is fer God's sake, I even know Eckville is in Alberta...
:roll:

Talk to me after you've read Levant's book....you know who he is, don't you?

I don't think you should so strongly defend libel given your stance on hate propaganda, since you don't seem to understand libel law very well. Here's a quote for you:

The distinction between ss. 300 and 301 of the
Criminal Code is that the Crown must prove that a person
charged under s. 300 knew that the published defamatory libel
was false. Falsity is not a necessary element under s. 301.
A person may be found guilty under s. 301 of publishing a
defamatory libel even if that person honestly believed that
the published defamatory matter was true and even if it was in
fact true.

Truth is not the ultimate defense in libel, regardless of how strongly you want to believe it is. I don't want to repeat myself a fourth time, please drop your stance that truth can always save you in a libel case. I asserted it once, backed it up with the actual legislation and now backed it up with case law and a direct quote from a legal expert.

I won't buy anything from Levant, and they won't have it in a library here in Germany. He gives the same tired arguments and is only moderately famous due to his choice of timing. I find his writings about as enjoyable as cold coffee, and the only reason I ever read them is due to curiosity about how this issue is panning out.

What I am trying to point out here is that you are not against legislating censorship, you have come up very much for it; in fact the link I have provided quotes the Attorney General of Saskatchewan as admitting as much in regards to libel law, and such quotes are not hard to find in libel cases. People routinely try to save themself with the defense of free expression in libel cases and section 1 kills them: "... freedom of expression cannot be absolute." (ibid).

In fact your only complaints are procedural ones and hyperbole, that is why we are on the same side of the fence.