Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Hate-Speech Law Violates Charter of Rights

Posted by timothy on from the problem-with-liberty dept.

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."

42 of 651 comments (clear)

  1. Let's hope... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.........
    1. Re:Let's hope... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What ever happened to "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"

      It is now "Sticks and stones can be forgiven as a condition of growing up in a fatherless home in urban America. But words will land your but in court for both civil and criminal sanctions..."

    2. Re:Let's hope... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope.

      I saw a video on youtube where a guy was invited to a university to talk about immigration issues, and his own group's belief that the Mexico/Canadian borders should be closed, except for those who obtain a legal Visa for entrance. After about 10 minutes the students started shouting at him so he could no longer finish his prepared remarks, and he asked, "Don't you believe in free speech?" and one of them yelled, "Not when it's hate speech." The professor then walked-over and apologized to the speaker.

      Since when is saying, "We should enforce the Congressional laws," considered hate speech? Also speech is not free, if you're only allowed to say what is "approved" speech by whatever group is in power (the students). That sounds like pure censorship to me - if you don't like what you hear, chain the person's mouth and shut him up.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Let's hope... by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Public university, I assume?

      I wonder if the students were reprimanded in any way. It would seem that, for the most part, university "free speech" tends toward the PC side. Ok, not "tends." Is.

      Try speaking out against abortion at a university some day.

    4. Re:Let's hope... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      College campuses are notorious for that. They either engage in outright censorship (try organizing a students for concealed carry protest on your local campus and see how the campus powers-that-be respond) or they just drown you out when they don't agree with you. Rather hypocritical of a group that usually claims to value free speech and liberty so much, isn't it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Let's hope... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does freedom of speech require that people not drown you out? That seems a rather interesting definition of freedom of speech. By that measure, people are required to assist you with your speech, not merely not punish you for it.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    6. Re:Let's hope... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does freedom of speech require that people not drown you out?

      Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard.

    7. Re:Let's hope... by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have laws against libel and slander for that. We don't need the state deciding what's "hate" speech.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Let's hope... by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a right to free speech, but there is no right to an audience.

    9. Re:Let's hope... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have laws against libel and slander for that. We don't need the state deciding what's "hate" speech.

      That's exactly right. If I say "operagost touches little children" it's slander and you can sue me. If I say "operagost is a [insert racial epithet here]" that's just me being a dumbass. It doesn't harm you in any way and only serves to make me look like a complete moron. Why does the Government need to get involved here?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Let's hope... by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the legal sense, no. But the freedom of intellectual inquiry that's a bedrock of the university requires tolerance for a diversity of views, which is unfortunately not popular among the current crop of students (and some professors).

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    11. Re:Let's hope... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Try speaking out against abortion at a university some day.

      I don't do protests anymore, but when I used to encounter that kind of resistance, I followed this script:

      - "If you're so certain that you are right, why are you afraid???"
      - "I'm not afraid."
      - "Then prove it. Prove you are not afraid by letting me speak."

      If they quiet down I finish expressing my thoughts. If they are not quiet then I tell them point blank, "You are no better than the Iran Shah. He too is a coward. He too is afraid of other people's ideas. That's why he kills people to silence them, and you are no better than he is," and then sit down and wait until they leave the area.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Let's hope... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>Does freedom of speech require that people not drown you out?

      It does when you've been invited to a lecture, spent a lot of time preparing the speech and/or driving to the location, and then they shout you down. That's roughly-equivalent to inviting a person to a party and then when they show-up, you throw a bucket of paint on them (see Stephen King's "Carrie"). Another Example: I remember when I had a job interview, and I spent about an hour getting dressed, drove 2 hours (roundtrip) to get there, and it only lasted 5 minutes because the boss looked at the resume and said, "I don't think we can use you." That was just plain rude. He could have reviewed my resume before I showed up, or even phone-screened me first.

      Anyway it was rude of the students to waste another person's time like that. He was invited, and he should have been shown the same respect as Al Gore would have received if he had been invited to discuss global warming. If they didn't like what he had to say, they could have left quietly instead of acting like junior high teeny-boppers.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:Let's hope... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ""Hate speech" is typically threatening. If you call someone a nigger, that's one thing. And at least in the US, it's no crime. But if you put up a noose, you're threatening to lynch someone. Moreover, it is obviously racially motivated. That behavior cannot be tolerated, and laws were put into place specifically BECAUSE IT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL THE LAWS WERE PUT INTO PLACE AND ENFORCED. People still get lynched, though it is becoming rarer."

      I was shocked the other day (I wish I had the links) when someone pretty much proved me wrong when I said that it was nice that in the US we had no hate speech laws.

      Apparently we do...

      I don't think we need them. And lynchings were illegal LONG before we had any semblance of laws inhibiting speech that was hateful.

      Putting up a noose, or a nazi swastika....is just speech through a symbol. In and of itself, it is NOT threatening. Actions and actual threats against anyone, are threats and have been a crime for a long time. Using a noose on someone, is a crime, but, merely displaying it, while extremely, and understandably distasteful to many, is not and should not be a crime.

      True freedom of speech (I'm not talking about things like Fire/Crowded Movie house) pretty much necessitates there there be no freedom from being offended.

      You have to be VERY careful about this type thing. I can see good people having good reasons for it, but, once you let the cat out of the bag, you can get very screwy with this type of thing. One prime example of this.

      There was reported in the past year or two, incidents of home owners, who were charged with crimes for putting up a hangman's noose in their front yards, as part of a macabre HALLOWEEN decoration set up. It had nothing to do with anything racial (PLENTY of WHITE people have been hung in the US, I'd dare say more whites that black have been hung in our nation's history), and yet, this guy was charged with a crime, I think he got off with a fine, but, really...is that right?

      While I agree that anyone threatening anyone's well being, for ANY reason (I don't think threatening due to sex/race or whatever is a special case) should be a crime and be protected against, merely saying unsavory things, or even displaying unsavory symbols or whatever should not at all be a crime. If it is not a direct threat to you (ie:I'm gonna kill your honkey ass with this knife right now asshole), then there should be no rules or laws officially against it. If the general public wants to shun you due to it, well that is their right, but, the govt. should have NO say in setting the boundary for what you can say or publish or preach.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Let's hope... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if you put up a noose, you're threatening to lynch someone. Moreover, it is obviously racially motivated.

      Why? In the old west, white men were typically hanged quite often. Perhaps it is Halloween... The point is that YOU choose to see the noose as racial, regardless of what I am thinking if I put one up. In this case, it is less the action of the speaker than the interpretation of the listener.

      Which is the same thing as if I choose to take your statement as a hatred of all white men, and you as attacking my rights to free speech.

      People still get lynched, though it is becoming rarer.

      And does killing hurt more if it is racially motivated? Lynching is illegal. Lets focus on evil actions, because there are plenty of those.

    15. Re:Let's hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes: The students had the right to leave. By shouting him down, they prevented anyone from listening. That is censorship.

    16. Re:Let's hope... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>Especially if they're in a required lecture rather then something extracurricular.

      Very few lectures in college are required. The students could have left. Or stuffed Ipods in their ears. Or whatever.

      And in the rare case where this might have been a "required" lecture, there's a reason for it - because they prof wants the students to listen to the speaker's words. Therefore the professor should have told the students to shut-up, stop acting like teeny-boppers, and try to act like the adults they are. Or else, earn an automatic 25% reduction off their next exam.

      And if they complained "that's not fair", then I'd tell them straight up, "No it isn't fair. It isn't fair that my friend here drove 2 hours and spent 1 or 2 hours preparing a speech, only to be shouted down. He is a GUEST to this classroom, and you have shown him disrespect. A 25% reduction is your punishment for being an asshole that lacks basic human manners. I don't tolerate rude behavior in my classroom or towards my friends/guests."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:Let's hope... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if you put up a noose, you're threatening to lynch someone.

      No, I'm hanging a noose. If I hang a noose and say "bring me that nigger over there!" then I'm threatening to lynch someone. Merely hanging a noose is not a threat. I find it ironic that many people on the left would passionately defend those who burn our flag while condemning those who would hang a noose in the middle of a protest. A noose is merely a symbol and absent some other threatening gesture it should not be illegal to use one as a prop during a protest. It's a disgusting gesture meant to invoke a primal reaction but I wouldn't regard it as a threat on it's own.

      People still get lynched, though it is becoming rarer.

      This won't be a popular opinion but lynching would never have been the problem it was if the targeted population hadn't been deprived of it's right to keep and bear arms as a result of racially motivated gun control laws. Would you go into a community and drag someone out of his house to lynch him if you knew all of his neighbors had shotguns and were willing to use them?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Let's hope... by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.

    19. Re:Let's hope... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is certainly a funny example, but how has that done real harm to me? The bottom line is this: When you tell me that my wife's tits felt good last night, I can decide whether or not it will bother me. If come up behind me and hit me in the head with a hammer, though, I don't get to decide whether or not I have a fractured skull.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    20. Re:Let's hope... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.

      This has always been a problem with "free speech". It does tend to favor the loudest. Kind of like "freedom of the press" doesn't guarantee you a press. The quiet, the less wealthy, the less powerful or less popular do have a harder time making themselves understood.

      In the case of a parliamentary assembly, however, it is vital for proper functioning that all present agree to forgo unlimited right to make themselves heard. This could be a government legislature, a board meeting of a business or charity, or even a "town hall" meeting. The assembly has the right to expel members who do not comport themselves within the standards of the organization. The loudmouths can then exercise their rights to scream like banshee outside the meeting hall/room/whatever. We've seen a lot of video lately of the failure of the process at US town hall meetings lately, and that's a shame.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  2. Good by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. I'm glad this is gone by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Eh? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  5. You Cannot Give Offense by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can only take it.

    1. Re:You Cannot Give Offense by SoupGuru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not that I disagree with you entirely but I would argue that the Westboro Baptists are pretty offensive when they practice their rights to carry "Pray for more dead soldiers" signs at a serviceman's funeral. Are you suggesting it's my fault that I'm offended by that? I'm not arguing that we should limit their rights to do that but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be offended by it.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    2. Re:You Cannot Give Offense by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the best way to solve the whole hate speech nonsense is it lessen the consequences of assault and battery

    3. Re:You Cannot Give Offense by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been discharged a while (USMC) but that doesn't offend me at all.

      It might be because I believe prayer to be a completely worthless means of getting anything done, but it also might be because I know that even though people have all sorts of beliefs I consider weird, very few of them have any actual impact on my life.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    4. Re:You Cannot Give Offense by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the best way to handle is for people to grow a thicker skin and learn to let things slide every once in a while. These are just words we are talking about here. Sure, sometimes words can be used to incite harm, but harassment, libel, threats, and inciting riots are all already against the law! Being offended and butt-hurt about what someone else has to say, no matter how vile, is childish and silly behavior. If you don't like what I have to say, don't listen. It's that simple.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    5. Re:You Cannot Give Offense by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't mean you shouldn't be offended by it, sure, but to go back the RobotRunAmok's original quote - "you cannot give offense, you can only take it."

      They are doing something they know other people won't like to make a point. You find their actions deeply unpleasant and disrespectful. Fine. I actually agree with you, but that's beside the point. They know a lot of people will become angered by what they do, and that is their goal - to get people talking about them and help spread their message.

      You are taking offense. They can't force you to be offended, offense is your reaction to their action. You control your reactions, not them. If you decide that they control that, then you have decided that they own a little teeny piece of you.

      If you decide that their actions are worth anger and resentment on your part, then (a) you are taking offense, and (b) you are allowing their asshattedness to control you. You choose to take them seriously. They can't make you do so. You choose to mention their name in a discussion board. Guess what? That's what they want you to do. They want you to repeat their name as often as possible, and mention their actions. They are marketing, and you are giving them free ads. Don't take it personally, we all get manipulated this way.

      If you decide that they are jsut a bunch of effing asshats and ignore them, then you are not taking offense, and they are not controlling you. You can still consider what they do offensive, but you can also choose to consider it irrelevant because they are asshats. You can stop mentioning them, and you can forget about them. If they do actual harm to someone, that merits a reaction, but reacting in their intended manner to their actions means they own you, at least a little. They win.

      Your offense, ironically, justifies their actions in their minds. Ignoring them denies them the control over you they crave.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  6. Surprised? by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:The tide is turning against lefties by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Hate speech serves no purpose by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.

    That shouldn't mean you get to outlaw it though.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:The tide is turning against lefties by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  10. Re:Hate speech serves no purpose by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Please define "hate speech" in a way that is objective and clear and does not require knowing what is going on inside the mind of the person using it.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  11. A good day for Canada by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Real issue is circumventing double jeopardy by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:"Hate" speech is Free Speech by fredjh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Hate speech serves no purpose by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, Martin Luther King, Jr. advocating and inciting the unlawful conduct of sit-ins, unlicensed Freedom Marches, and other demonstration actions directed at segregationist members of the U.S. South... is hate speech?

    I would be certainly want to say "of course not", but your definition doesn't leave me much room.

    No matter how well you want to codify it, much of the definition of "hate speech" is "I know it when I hear it."

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  15. I believe others have said it best: by lattyware · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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)
  16. Re:"Hate" speech is Free Speech by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  17. Re:aha by brainboyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a white male it's not possible to claim "Hate Speech" in the US. It's a one-way street.