Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Hate-Speech Law Violates Charter of Rights
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."
...this sets an example for people that insist anything NOT PC speech in the US should be suppressed.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I have always been suspicious of hate speech legislation. It seems ideal for creating slippery slopes.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
You can only take it.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"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...".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
Freedom of speech requires we allow assholes to say offensive things. Even the idiots who hate free speech should have the right to speak their moronic opinions ;)
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
Ah, "leftie". You're so 1980.
Americans don't even know what "left" is, because your right wing republicans are a bunch of fucking nuts who believe secret prisons, Jesus, and Homeland Security are the way to go.
Your "leftist" democrats are a bunch of corporate shills, and are basically old republicans who discovered that rights for gays and minorities are okay.
People at this very moment are screaming that socializing health insurance will destroy the American health care system... which is actually just a bunch of hugely profitable HMOs deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. Yes, that's so much better. Why find common ground that's best for the public when you can get together mobs of people and storm the debates to disrupt them. American politics provides no end of entertainment to the rest of the world.
Anyway, back on track to the article. Whatever the content of the site of the complainant, it's good to see a law being revisited. If only laws were created with expiration dates of less than a generation. Make the politicians work for their money, and keep the legal system consistent with social development.
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
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0513-11.htm
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/united-states-v.-brett-bursey
http://www.blogd.com/archives/000743.html
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?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yes, it means you should be able to say all that. The alternative is being able to say only that which the current $POWER thinks you should be allowed to say. That alternative is far, far worse than any of the examples you cite.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that just because you *can* say a thing, it doesn't mean you *should* say it. However, it's a long, long, long way from there to "you should be legally prohibited from saying it." If free speech is allowed so long as that speech toes the line of political correctness, it's not free at all. Sure, that means people can deny the holocaust. Advocate child molestation (NAMBLA, anyone?). Print Nazi and KKK literature. Promote radical Islam. Etc. Offend, insult, infuriate the whole of society. Yes, they should be able to do that. The test of free speech isn't the middle ground. The test of free speech is the corner cases, and if you don't allow those, you don't have free speech. There's a reason why the amendment to the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech is first; it's the most important. Without free speech and a free press, you don't have a free society. You don't have a democracy. You don't have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Sure, there's a good argument that we've gotten pretty far away from that already, and to a great extent, it walks hand in hand with restrictions (whether legal or social) on what sorts of speech should be allowed.
In most societies, people who say those sorts of things are going to have to stand the heat for it, so it's not for the faint of heart, but people should be legally able to state their beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are. You can't have partial freedom of speech; it's all or nothing.
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.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
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.
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.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
>or to cause to be so communicated
>to hatred or contempt" based on characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on
The issues are very complex. My family goes well back into Canada's roots on both sides and, as a family we reside pretty much country wide.
Canada's heart lies in the idea of a cultural mosaic, maybe that came from our bilingual heritage and the more orderly development of our frontiers. Maybe it came from it being just to fucking cold to bother to with hate, and, hockey got rid of the aggressive edge. I think it was J. Cartier who said, "This must be the land God gave to Cain." What is certain is that Canada as a country bound to the idea of a cultural mosaic has always been deeply attentive to the rights of minorities and not without reason. Mackenzie King, one of Canada's longest reigning PMs, who held seances with the spirits of his dead mother and his dead dog fought against immigration into Canada by the mountainous Shik people of northern India because our climate would be too inhospitably cold for them (not as cold as the Prime Minister's shoulder).
I think what's new to the mix is a shift in demographics, a shift in political tactics and maybe the first hint of a Brave New World. The European stock that initially invaded North America has been recently outnumbered and, last year, Asian immigrants were the most prevalent. The shift in demographic to a truly multi racial, multi cultural mix probably has heightened the likelihood and exposure of racial hate. The law was to some extent enacted to combat racism doing more than rearing it's hydra heads. Political Correctness, OTOH, has become a witch hunt captained by any cavalier politician seeking power at any means. It's amusing that the Harper Government, presently in power, openly, passionately uses "attack ads" while posing as politically correct. It's all very relative.
The problem Conservatives in Canada and Republicans in America face is that both parties have taken a Sophist, relativist approach to gaining and holding power. In a Godless world both parties have embraced the religious right and pretty much any other splinter group in an attempt to cobble together enough votes to gain power. Rove in America, like Harper in Canada embody the philosophical, relativist road to power by any means. Hate speech legislation is just another iteration of the political rights perennial attempt to position themselves as the voice of what is right, proper and politically correct at the expense of freedom of speech.
In an ever shrinking, heavily populated world of limited resources Hate Speech legislation is a card that will probably be repeatedly played as countries come to terms with a Brave New World. As a species we're creatures of context and thus there's ample evidence to suggest something akin to Hate Speech legislation can be effective, even if people like myself view it as voodooism.
ideopath @ play
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.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." --Noam Chomsky
"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.)
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
WTF? That is marked 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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
Hi there! I'm a bigot. I do not have the time in my adulthood to attempt to understand all classes of people that offer me an immediate reason to dislike them.
I also find the ability to be a jerk has it's uses in life.
Racist? I think that is a funny made up term to attempt to define a society by classes based on the color of skin pigmentation. We human beings, regardless of our skin color and/or ancestry, are fully sexually compatible with each other for procreative means. Plus, speaking as a bigot, it just seems better to hate a person for a reason they offer you, rather than to hate a person because their skin is a certain color.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
They are just kids. It only seems problematic when you think of them as adults.
21 is adult in a legal sense only. Most people don't start achieving a truely adult level of maturity for another decade or so.
Though I DO wonder if this is just because most college kids have spent their entire lives under their parent's wings, and in school. I am willing to accept that it isn't age so much as experiencing the hardships of real life in the real world that make someone grow up.
And there you are. Bigotry comes in all flavors. Somebody will always hate somebody without warrant. Not all Republicans are "Fascist, Warmonger, Hatemonger, Criminal, Deviant, Brain-Dead" but yet you stereotyped them. It's part of the human condition, deal with it. Laws won't fix it either. Everyone knows where the line is and that's harm to another.
"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer"- Jack Thompson
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 distributed evenly amongst income lines.
The report on IQ difference is flawed, seriously flawed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As a white male it's not possible to claim "Hate Speech" in the US. It's a one-way street.