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."
Blame Canada!
You hear that sound? It's the sound of Richard Warman shitting himself. Maybe he and Jack Thompson can start some kind of international law firm so they can get international ridicule now.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
...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
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is not a real court and the real courts (ie, Canadian Supreme Court) have previously ruled in favour of restrictions on publishing 'hateful' content being a justified restriction of speech in this country, probably on the very same legislation since "communicate telephonically or otherwise" referring to the internet doesn't sound like a recently changed passage.
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.
I hate you all...legally.
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!
And if you don't like it, move back where your grandfather came from!
We shall do just FINE here, in the company of Voltaire and Jefferson.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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
Citations?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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...
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.
Even if I have been? Am I only aloud to criticize current mistakes if I quote my criticism of prior mistakes as well? Damn! This could take a while...
It is a very slippery slope when defining what is hate-speech, and what is just parlance/slang. Even though my above statements could be construed as ignorant or hurtful, they can only be classified as hate-speech if they are delivered with the intent to hurt.
What the fuck is so harmful about speech delivered with the "intent to hurt"? Are people really so thin-skinned that they need protection from being called bad names? Please tell me that I'm not the only one that's sick of this politically correct nonsense.
Call me all the bad names you want. If you want to go the racial route you can call me a kike, kraut, polack, limey or mutt (probably your best bet). If you want to go the non-racial route you can call me fatty, geek, pimple-head, etc. None of those things are going to make me run crying to the police for protection from you.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
All the legislature has to do is exempt it; the Charter has an explicit out called the "notwithstanding" clause.
Yeah, because REPUBLICANS have done nothing to increase the power of government.
Fixed that for you. Republicans != Conservatives at the Federal level.
Spelling and grammar mistakes specifically left in to give the grammar and spelling nazis a meaning to their life.
Yelling "Candy!" at a crowded Weight Watchers meeting is also forbidden.
I clicked the link to FreedomSite.Org, but they block it here at the office. (Yes, I know, that isn't censorship since it isn't the government - I'm lucky they let me browse Slashdot at all)
Censorship is censorship, regardless of whose doing it. Legality is a different matter.
Deine Mutter ist eine Schlampe und du bist ein schwein.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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.
I think we're talking about Canada
None of those things are going to make me run crying to the police for protection from you.
Same here. Though I'd probably punch the bastard in the face for it and subsequently be arrested for assault. Go USA!
Trudeau was incredibly popular with a large section of the Canadian population in the East and in Central Canada for his policies and his attitude. He's pretty much only reviled in Western Canada- and there was more than enough assholeish behavior on both sides of that relationship to go around. "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark", remember?
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
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.
What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
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
Now we can mount a campaign to "suggest" and "encourage" the death of that blogger based solely on his beliefs. If he dies, it isn't our fault!
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
It always comes down to the "feelings". Their heart was in the right place, trying to stop hate, blah blah blah.
First, I suspect you will have a hard time showing that anyone had the "feds" sent after them for merely disagreeing with Bush. More likely, the people who did get a knock on the door were people who made some kind of threat, overt, or veiled. In which case, it is their job to a have a sit down with that person.
Second, there is a very high probability that the folks arrested at were engaging in acts of vandalism or disorderly conduct and refused to disburse. Many people probably were not involved, but if you hang out in the middle of a crowd of anarchists, who's favorite past time is to burn cars and break shop windows, then you have to expect to be caught up in law enforcement actions. The cops have no idea who they are or that their hearts are in the right place and they just want to peacefully express their absolute hatred for anything not in line with their agenda. They just know you are standing there with someone who probably through a Molotov cocktail at them. Since they were later released, then it was obviously sorted out at the station and everyone now knows their true hearts.
Lastly, the "Left" has been at the forefront of banning speech. Either through civil laws, administrative laws (think Universities) or just plain intimidation. So the beam is your problem to deal with.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
"arrested at were" should be "arrested at (insert any Left wing protest here) were"
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
On Monday, a white South Africa was granted asylum - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8233004.stm
TWO things in one week?! Give those people a raise!
Well, it's harmful because it's divisive and not constructive. Also it tends to rely on ignorance as opposed to logic.
However, I totally believe that any legislation that tries to protect us from "hate" sort of neuters us from a valid human emotion. I am pretty much against any legislation that limits speech to protect people, because in the end it does just the opposite.
RNC protesters being arrested got pretty big headlines on all the news networks when it happened. Don't think you need to cite that, assuming your audience are NEWS website goers.
FBI being used to inappropriately investigate people who aren't in line with the party in power is not unusual. Really, watch your damned national and local news if you haven't seen stories about this.
The anti-flag thing is a stupid debate, real conservative republicans have been on the news debunking the idea of making the proper way of getting rid of a flag as stupid, and Scalia (SCOTUS, incase you didn't know), a conservative if you ever met one says it is free speech.
Every single thing this guy said has been covered by all the national news associations, not just idiot bloggers.
Asking for citations on such hugely public events which were covered by multiple news outlets just shows your own ignorance, and is not "+3 insightful"
Sleep is for the weak.
The irony of cracking down on hate speech is that it only serves to bolster the profile and credibility of the hater as they yell "Censorship!". If the internet has taught us anything it's "Don't feed the trolls".
Fail. Not a single one of those articles you linked even mentions the FBI, let alone says that people were "harassed" by them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
There's a drastic difference here that you are missing. You can now say things such as "I think X group of people are the biggest fucktards in the world". You can also go your route and suggest/encourage the death of someone ala "I think we should kill group X and I'll pay $10,000 to the person that does". When group X dies, you don't get busted for hate speech, you get busted for something along the lines of pre-meditated murder / conspiring to kill someone.
Fail. Not a single one of those articles you linked even mentions the FBI, let alone says that people were "harassed" by them.
Riiight..
Being harassed by the local police, federal agents, the secret service, etc is perfectly OK. But once the FBI gets involved, then you will get upset.
Look dude, if you just want to refuse to believe what has been going on in this country, then fine. But make no mistake that is all you are doing.
>>>>>Repugs
>>Repugs? Tell us what you really think of 33% of your fellow citizens.
Maybe he think we "Repugs" have been "teabagging" again? I'm not sure why that's supposed to be an insult? I love sucking women's teabags. (shrug). Well what more can you expect from "Demons"? Or Progs?
Speaking for myself I'd rather join the "Minarchies" aka Libertarians, but in a strange twist of fate my true political views are best-expressed by the Democratic Party's founder - Thomas Jefferson. Too bad none of the Democrats bother to read their founder's words, because he was against censorship of Seditious Speech, and he'd be against censorship of Hate Speech as well. It violates the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Congress has no power to regulate speech), and it violates most local State constitutions too.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
There's a bit more to the American health care system than HMOs. Of course you wouldn't know that because you've bought into the notion that the insurance companies are the biggest problem with our system. They are a factor but there are numerous other issues at play and the current "reform" bills do nothing to address them.
Socializing health insurance will destroy our health care system. The only way to bring down costs in a socialized system is to either reduce the payments made to hospitals and doctors (which will drive the best and the brightest out of medicine and into other fields) or ration the care that is provided to the patients. Option #1 is the option that medicare is currently taking. Medicare reimbursements oftentimes don't even cover the cost of the treatment provided -- so the provider can either eat the loss or make it up by charging more to people who have private insurance or pay out of pocket. Is it any wonder that many Doctors are now refusing to take new medicare patients?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
- A single judge presides and decides. There is no jury and no multiple opinion.
- There are no rules of evidence. Anything can be presented.
- There is no right for the accused to confront or question the accuser.
- The person charged must prove their innocence. There is no "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" principle in effect. If the person charged does not show, he loses.
- All legal costs of the accuser are paid by the commission whether he wins or loses. All legal costs of the accused are paid by himself, whether he wins or loses.
- If the accused loses, the potentially life-destroying fine is given directly to the accuser.
All in all, a sick and twisted example of Kafkaesque evil.
Why?
Both sides should stop.
If you're going to defend the left, use a defense that doesn't hinge on everyone else being part of the right.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The Canadian system seems to work okay, although somewhat bloated. The primary issue here now is a shortage of doctors. The reason being that there is so much money to be made south of the border that it would be crazy to stay if you're in it for the cash.
There's no reason someone should end up 4000 dollars in debt just to set and wrap a broken arm. It's nuts!
Sure he ain't a Schweinehund but just a Schwein?
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Quebecois, vous pouvez aller les porcs sucer!
You do know that Google Translate doesn't work all that well, right?
Mange-toi du pain blanc, maudit bloke.
Advocates call the law a necessary control on hate speech in an age where the Internet makes the spread of messages easier and faster. Opponents say it's censorship and has no place in a free society.
Not only are we divided on whether it should be legal, we are divided on what it should be.
Is it hate speech to call other races subhumans, but legal to note in a scientific paper that there IQ differences between races, moral evolutionary differences, or even that statistically, crime is not distributed evenly between all groups?
Half of scientists say race doesn't exist, the others keep quiet.
The bigger issue here is what we're obscuring the pursuit of truth with all sorts of social pretense. Let's look at the facts and keep emotion (true hate speech) and censorship out of the debate.
Futurist Traditionalism
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.
Deine Mutter ist eine Schlampe und du bist ein schwein.
Vergessen Sie nicht, das Wort zu profitieren "Schwein".
Ugh, really? You are really going to make this a left vs. right thing? This soon after George W. Bush? You are going to completely ignore the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, Gitmo, legal torture, Abu Ghraib, and all that mess? This is not a left/right issue my friend, it is power, plain and simple. It seems like the vast majority of human beings on this planet have an innate desire to seize for themselves as much power as humanly possible and will use any means necessary to get it. If you are saying that the right is not an equally big threat to freedom, you are gravely mistaken.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Just because Conservatives (who actually are more left than they make themselves appear) do frequently try to increase the power of the government does not mean the Liberals or other left-wing groups are better. It's a matter of being authoritarian or not, and both sides tend towards authoritarianism, although in different fields.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Being harassed by the local police, federal agents, the secret service, etc is perfectly OK
That's not what I said. The parent said the FBI has been "harassing" people. I asked for proof of this. You failed to provide it. End of story.
The articles that you referenced don't even suggest that people have been "harassed" by other agencies. Being arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave a private event when asked is not harassment. Harassment suggests that agents of the Government have been following these people/investigating them/making their lives a living hell after the fact. Has that happened?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I saw 'charter', 'hate', and 'rights' in the title and thought for sure this would be an article about Charter Communications...
>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
That's mighty white of you...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
Citation needed.
Well, I can't find any citations, but I well recall a time when one German student was taken into custody by FBI agents for running a blog titled "Kill Bush!" with a shopjob of a stabbed president below. I can't say that I support what the girl did, but I certainly neither support the FBI's action here. Sure, investigating this is one thing, but when you find out it's a bloody college girl with rather, uh, "Anti-American" views, you don't have to drag her out of class like a terrorist.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
I'm sorry, you're mistaken.
I am basically left-wing, although I tend to see in terms of a full spectrum rather than dogged ideology.
Free speech -- and even cheap speech -- is fundamental to the proper functioning of civilized society. It goes beyond partisan politics.
No words should ever be outlawed. To do so is fascist. I believe that is the right-wing extreme.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Don't confuse the best and brightest with the greediest.
Best and brightest are there because they actually like what they do. Only the greedy ones are there for money only.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
The Canadian system seems to work okay, although somewhat bloated. The primary issue here now is a shortage of doctors. The reason being that there is so much money to be made south of the border that it would be crazy to stay if you're in it for the cash.
Thank you for agreeing with me :)
There's no reason someone should end up 4000 dollars in debt just to set and wrap a broken arm. It's nuts!
What makes you think Government is the only way to address this?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No, because doing so is not exercising your right to free speech, but creating a public disturbance.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
And he left the economy in such a disaster that it took almost fifteen years to crawl out of the hole.
it's harmful because it's divisive and not constructive. Also it tends to rely on ignorance as opposed to logic.
You've just described my last meeting with the Marketing Department.
His popularity was entirely due to our ability to google pics of his wife's vag.
If people are trying to have a civil conversation at a townhall or a speaking event, and someone attempts to drown out views they don't like through screaming, then the police should remove them. If the police won't remove them, then the police are morally responsible for any violence that the other people there visit on the censorious assholes who want to shut down others' comments.
The people who do this sort of thing (shouting down different points of view) are a significantly greater enemy to civilization and freedom than anyone who clocks them upside the head for being an asshole. People like that are just bourgeois brownshirts.
There's a reason why the amendment to the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech is first; it's the most important.
No.
Congress passed a Bill of Rights comprised of twelve articles as proposed amendments to the Constitution, which were then sent out to the states for ratification. Only numbers 3-12 were ratified at the time, and they became Amendments 1-10. The second article languished for about 200 years but eventually got enough states ratifying it by the 1990's to become the 27th Amendment. The first one has yet to get enough votes, and likely never will, although it actually got very close at the time, which would have made it the First Amendment.
And in some of the drafts, free speech comes in far from the beginning.
So don't think that the ordering really means anything; it doesn't.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The intent of the hate speech law (in Canada) is to stop people from encouraging others to commit violent, illegal acts. It has nothing to do with calling people names or political correctness. It is much more similar to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Wikipedia says:
"In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine."
Complexity Happens
"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)
gunter glieben glachen globen!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We are/were talking about Canada.
But, of course, he had to input a knee jerk response about Republicans here in the U.S.
Of course, the recent power grab by the current Democrat administration is/was completely ignored.
Note: I support neither of the major parties in the U.S. They are both only interested in in A) gaining power, B) expanding their power and C) taxing the citizenry into oblivion because, in their thinking, "Heck, it's not our money! Hahahah!"
Call me all the bad names you want. If you want to go the racial route you can call me a kike, kraut, polack, limey or mutt (probably your best bet). If you want to go the non-racial route you can call me fatty, geek, pimple-head, etc. None of those things are going to make me run crying to the police for protection from you.
Well, that was the problem.
Let's say I called you a kike, kraut, polack, limey mutt. In Canada, you could file a complaint with the HRC and they would fine me $10k - $100k in fines because I hurt your feelings as a ... you know, your parents got around. Anyway, the kike part would be enough to ruin my life financially.
You don't have the right to not be offended, but in Canada, up until yesterday, that right was being granted by the HRC.
A famous case was two women who went to an adults-only comedy show and heckled the comedian there. He shot back with some adult-themed comments including calling them dikes. They cried to the HRC and the comedian was dragged about the court for yelling at two people who were heckling.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080626/comic_humanrights_080626/undefined
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Joe Clark said he was going to govern as if he had a majority. Very arrogant, stupid thing to do, and the consequences were predictable. It wasn't like he wasn't warned, but he went to a political knife-fight with only his fists, and got cut up badly as a result.
Harper isn't repeating that mistake. Shows that people CAN learn.
CHRT has no teeth ... If [CHRT] was a real court ... [immune to] actual laws of the land ... pisses me off
Surprised you find the mechanism of the court so perfect in every way that no other judicial mechanism should even exist, even ones sanctioned by parliamentary legislation.
From About the CHRT
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) was created in 1977 by an Act of Parliament.
_...
Parliament finally enshrined the Tribunal's independence in law and the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to formalize the CHRT's independence.
_...
As an administrative tribunal, the CHRT has more flexibility than regular courts.
One of the reasons given for this is that the defendant does not need to follow rules of evidence in his/her defence. Following the rules of evidence is an expensive process, maybe more so than the fines if convicted.
From Legal Definition of Administrative Tribunal
Between routine government policy decision-making bodies and the traditional court forums lies a hybrid, sometimes called a "tribunal" or "administrative tribunal" and not necessarily presided by judges.
These operate as a government policy-making body at times but also exercise a licensing, certifying, approval or other adjudication authority which is "quasi-judicial" because it directly affects the legal rights of a person.
This authority does not amount to hard biting surfaces?
From About the CHRT - The Vice-Chairperson
Mr. Hadjis received his Bachelor Degree in Civil Law together with his Bachelor Degree in Common Law from McGill University in Montreal, in 1986. He was called to the Quebec Bar in 1987.
That's as much training as most judges prior to their appointment. How many lawyers have equal training in both of Canada's legal traditions?
When I was eight years old I rode my bike on my way to school across the corner of someones lawn which in my small town was rather indistinct from the gravel boulevard which surrounded it. An elementary school classmate witnessed this and and yelled at me "get off my lawn or my dad will sue you".
That has ever since been my psychological template for people who regard human rights as a "shout off my lawn" free card.
I believe in absolute protection against unpopularity. In my eyes "abortion should be permitted until halfway through the third trimester" is protected speech. "Jews are verminous scum and should be gassed by the millions" is not.
Somehow we need to define a line between these speech acts. It's not going to be an easy task, we'll make many mistakes, and there will be much wailing and outrage.
Nevertheless, suck it up: it must be done. The only question is how to do it better rather than worse. The courts surely aren't perfect, and neither are tribunals. A tribunal leaves more scope for fine tuning than the formal court system.
If a person is cursing the scope for fine tuning the system (the flexibility of the tribunal) in my experience it's likely because the person doesn't wish to see the job done right in the first place. It's a bit of a straw man tactic. Once you lock this up with the inflexibility of the courts under the rubric of fairness, it becomes a simple matter to advance the case that the courts in their rigidness can't ever get this right. And that would likely be true in a generational time frame.
The fallacy of the slippery slope is the presumption that objects only ever slide down hill. If nothing ever went up the hill, we'd have no traditions worth respecting whatsoever.
If anything is important enough to push uphill, for as long as it takes, this would be it.
You don't, and never should, have the right to not be offended.
Gone!
This is the dumbest comment I've read by a non AC today, just one tick above comments with the word "nigger" in them.
A person who supports a democracy does not necessarily support socialism. A person who supports socialism almost certainly doesn't support communism. Unless you think China is just like France.
And as dumb as this statement is, that may be the case. Or he's just your average American, who can't have a reasonable conversation about politics if anyone left of John McCain has any input. The American political vocabulary might as well be written in crayon.
None of those things are going to make me run crying to the police for protection from you.
'Cept if it is done in such a way that it's grounds for a slander suit, which predates (by at least a half-century) the Bill of Right's "protections" for freedom of speech.
Consider the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We're told that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Consider, though, the other protection toward the end of that amendment. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In short, if someone (in front of an audience) accuses me of being a "fag" and while implying that homosexuality is a "foul or loathsome disease," that is actionable in court. I could sue the clothes right off their back. Not because it is hate speech, but because it interferes with my ability to conduct myself and my business in society.
These anti-defamation laws are the protections ordinary citizens have against hate speech, valid in most common-law countries. I just wish our courts were forward-thinking enough that people could utilize anti-defamation laws powerfully, rather than having to resort to freedom-of-speech-hindering anti-hate-speech legislature.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Genug gesagt. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
Increasing the power of government that I agree with = good. Increasing the power of government that I disagree with = bad.
There's often a naivete that goes along with this. Ie, there was some thinking that the Republicans in US had a long term lock in. They had the electoral advantage that seemed to guarantee a decade or more of Republican wins. So there was a push to increase the power of the executive. A few years later and, oops, the opposition party is in control and has more centralized power than last time they were there.
One of the ironies is that the Republican party probably shot itself in the foot here. Both of our major parties here are really just coalitions of strange bedfellows. Increasing federal power weakened the Republican coalition.
Def Lepard, nice...
To stay on the topic of both the article and the post I'm replying to, "Words are weapons, sharper than knives."
Women don't have "teabags"".
There's 66 different definitions in all, most having to do with men's "package" or "nutsack".
So you have this urge to tell us you enjoy sucking on "women's teabags"? Please don't share any pics, and we'll pretend it didn't happen.
The other underlying issue is people not going to the right level of care for their problem. Clinics and Family Physicians are there to deal with the small stuff: Colds, Flu, etc., yet anyone on a government (and even private) insurance plan runs straight to the hospital ER. Emergency Care should be just for emergencies, just as 911 is intended for emergencies.
Likewise, there is the issue of bill per treatment instead of result which creates an incentive for a doctor to seem more patients than they should (reducing the quality of care) and/or prescribing treatments that are unnecessary or pointless all in the hope of collecting huge fees from the insurance company.
I learned this first hand when we were between insurance companies for my daughter and had to get her 6 month shots. The office billed us $360 for the shots until we informed them that we had no insurance (and no all they did was give the shot and a paper checklist of what to watch for that was downloaded from the internet. We never saw a doctor, just the nurse). Magically, the fee was dropped to $30 because that was the rate they were supposed to be charging, and then we found out the shots were free provided free at the county health clinic.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
I don't get what either insults were supposed to be. /confused
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.
He is absolutely despised and hated in Québec, which he continuously belittled and paternalized. His repatriation of the constitution without Québec's assent was the biggest affront to Québec, and the charter of rights was directly aimed against Québec's language laws.
Heh. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. A ha ha ha haaaaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa! AAAHHAAAHAAA-%:]\}I;u-8NO CARRIER
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
You mean by calling the "mob" (1st Amendment type) a bunch of Teabagging Brownshirts, Swastika carrying Tim McVey types. Is that not Hate speech?
Oh wait, you mean (D) after their name makes it okay?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What makes you think entities that exist to turn a profit (and thus have an explicit stated motive [corporate charters generally stating that profits = reason to exist, more or less] to deny care whenever possible[the only way to increase profits is to either charge more or pay out less]) are any better?
Personally, I think they should do the following: Set an legal minimum standard for health insurance that all employers are required to provide to all of their employees, without exception (think similar to minimum wage laws). Introduce what is essentially a government run health insurer that meets the requirements and that any employer unwilling or unable to meet the requirement otherwise may use. Also open this insurer up to individual purchase, if possible. Increase payroll/income taxes (one, the other, or both) by an amount sufficient to pay for it. Offer a tax credit that completely covers the increase (as in said persons/groups are paying no extra taxes due to this legislation as said credit covers the full amount exactly) to any employer (and that employers respective employees) that receives private insurance meeting the guidelines instead of the government ran option.
Since we're talking about free speech, you left out being caged in a "free speech zone" if you weren't on Bush's side during his campaign.
Um, you do realize that lots of people bashing your exalted Dear Leader Bush were harrassed by the FBI, not to mention all the legally protesting people at the RNC convention who were arrested and thrown in prison on false charges (though later released)? And then, of course, there is anti-flag burning legislation always brought up by Repugs. In red states, you can't lead anyone in a school prayer unless it is to the Protestant Fundamentalist version of God. I could go on, but really. Don't talk about the mote in your neighbor's eye when you have a whole beam in yours. 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. Hardly in the same league as sending the Feds after people who simply disagree with Bush.
You only guess it was Bush. We Actually know it was Clinton, who was caught with the actual FBI files.
But that means that Clinton was incompetent and Bush was smart enough to not get caught.
The irony of selective memories.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Call me all the bad names you want. If you want to go the racial route you can call me a kike, kraut, polack, limey or mutt (probably your best bet).
"There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless."
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Set an legal minimum standard for health insurance that all employers are required to provide to all of their employees, without exception (think similar to minimum wage laws)
And that will have the exact same effect that minimum wage laws do: Less jobs will be available because less employers will be able to afford to hire people.
Introduce what is essentially a government run health insurer that meets the requirements and that any employer unwilling or unable to meet the requirement otherwise may use. Also open this insurer up to individual purchase, if possible.
Such a program will drive private insurers out of business because they will be forced to compete with an "enterprise" that has bottomless pockets and no requirement to balance the books or turn a profit.
Increase payroll/income taxes (one, the other, or both) by an amount sufficient to pay for it. Offer a tax credit that completely covers the increase (as in said persons/groups are paying no extra taxes due to this legislation as said credit covers the full amount exactly) to any employer (and that employers respective employees) that receives private insurance meeting the guidelines instead of the government ran option.
So basically you are going to blackmail me into purchasing insurance and take away my freedom to decline to do so? Thanks but no thanks. What if I decide I don't want insurance?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
He'd have to have a basic comprehension of French to be able to read your insult, but still, nice one!
RNC protesters being arrested got pretty big headlines on all the news networks when it happened. Don't think you need to cite that, assuming your audience are NEWS website goers.
There's a difference between "arrested for trespassing, and in once case illegal weapons possession and conspiracy to incite a riot" and harassed by the FBI.
Every single thing this guy said has been covered by all the national news associations, not just idiot bloggers. Asking for citations on such hugely public events which were covered by multiple news outlets just shows your own ignorance, and is not "+3 insightful"
HEY MODS: DON'T MOD ME +3 INSIGHTFUL. OK, so now that that's not going to happen, if you can find any examples of people being harassed by the FBI (as the original parent said,) please post them. All the examples I can find are of the "law enforcement arresting people who are breaking the law" variety.
Even if I have been? Am I only aloud to criticize current mistakes if I quote my criticism of prior mistakes as well? Damn! This could take a while...
You can criticize anything you want to aloud! I think that's the point of free speech...
Hopefully this will server to further the protection of free speech that are central to democracies everywhere. Free speech must be protect and that speech which is considered to be the most outrageous deserves the most protection.
Dont get me wrong, im all for freedom of speech, but ... does that mean that you can say *anything* you like ? Like for example, ... Deny the Holocaust ?
Yes. Why not? If a government has the power to ban beliefs, it has the power to ban belief in the truth. In fact, with the right person interpreting the rules, hate speech laws could just as easily ban acknowledging the Holocaust as a racist slander against poor innocent Germans. That's precisely analogous to how mention of the Armenian Genocide is handled in Turkey.
Say you want all 'insert-favorite-group-here' burned by fire for what race they are, or belief system they have, or sexual preference ?
Yes. Unless you can somehow stop me from wanting bad things, what is the point of stopping me from saying I want bad things?
Allow people to promote or encourage killing, or discrimination people for what they are or stand for ?
Up until you start making plans to carry out such killings -- at which point it becomes conspiracy or incitement -- then yes.
You have to draw the line somewhere.
That line exists where speech becomes planning towards specific acts (see above). Otherwise, as others have noted in this discussion, it's a sticks-and-stones vs. words distinction.
And I am not saying that I should decide what that line is
But that's exactly the issue: someone will be drawing that line, and you have no idea to what extent that person will share your intent. Someone will be deciding, in each case, whether the speech in question is "hate speech." You can make whatever rules or guidelines you want, but in the end someone must interpret them. Now, imagine that person is someone 180-degrees from you politically. If you're liberal, pick Michael Savage. If you're conservative, pick Michael Moore. Now craft your "hate speech" definition such that the chosen person won't be able to twist it into something that makes you weep.
, or exactly where it lies, but I do feel that we should always keep having the discussion on where to draw the line. Just because you *can* say anything you like, it doesn't mean that you should.
True as far as it goes, but beside the point. Laws are about "must" or "must not"; matters of "should" or "should not" are outside their scope. Arrests of homicide suspects aren't based on laws that say "murder isn't a good idea."
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
That's a common misconception really. The road to Hell is paved with frozen door-to-door salesmen. On weekends many of the younger demons go ice-skating down it.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
First of all, the charter of rights has certain limits:
Current jurisprudence says that the law should , if feasible, be interpreted in such a way as to make it consistent with the charter.
Now, there are clearly cases of hate speech that are so egregious as to be inherently inconsistent with Canada retaining it's status as a free and democratic language. In this way, I'd say that the law could be interpreted as being consistent with the charter.
In this case, I would say that, if the speech being encouraged on this website was mild enough that it wouldn't justify the exception in section 1 of the charter, then it should be deemed to be below the threshold of application of the law. To declare unconstitutional a law that is meant to prevent the kind of hate speech that results, at it's worst, in things like lynch mobs is to ignore both the purpose of that law and the purpose of the charter of rights.
To put it another way, If you're going to declare this law unconstitutional, you might as well disband the entire human rights commission as unconstitional.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
All the Americans here seem to conflate all sorts of definitions for what hate speech is, failing to recognize that the legal term for hate speech in the Canadian federal legislation has a very very specific definition:
What it is (small wikipedia blurb - not legal advice):
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[6] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.
What it is not:
Hate speech is not painting a swastika (as despicable as that symbol may be to many, especially when spray-painted on Jewish schools & synagogues)
Hate speech is not calling someone a bad word (even a racially charged one)
Hate speech is not insulting race
Hate speech is not as far as I am aware applicable to anything said within a private setting (again - careful with the definition of private. I'm using it in the sense of someone talking with family, not holding secret meetings about how to secretly commit genocide. I'm unsure about the former, but I'd imagine the latter still runs afoul of the law).
Hate speech is specifically targeted at preventing discussion of committing violence against an identifiable group. Right or wrong (personally I think it's a good idea since violence-inciting speech against minorities in no way, IMHO, contributes to the value of speech). Before you start jumping down my throat about freedom, also notice that racial tensions in Canada seem to be much lower as compared to our neighbours to the south (although I speak as a Jewish white male). Whether or not the laws contribute, the culture is significantly different when it comes to racial relations, immigration, etc.
You forgot one point that is perhaps even more important than the rest:
- Truth is not a defense.
Yes, it doesn't matter whether what you say is true or not. So long as your speech "is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", you're screwed. This means that, for example, any scientific research, even if perfectly flawless and objective, that would expose differences between groups separated by racial, ethnic, cultural or religious criteria in areas where it is controversial (e.g. intellect), could be ruled to be hate speech by the Tribunal.
History has showed you wrong on every point, especially minimum wage.
This sentence means nothing in French.
None of you ignorant free-speech-hugging white boys have ever been on the receiving end of real racism. Oh sure maybe someone called you a few names in elementary school and you felt sad, then you went home and ate your unsalted mashed potatoes, cried into your pillow, and went back to being the ignorant majority for whom life is pretty easy, all told - and believed you had a "racism" experience and that "gee it wasn't so bad so why can't everyone else just STFU and let it slide?". Or worse, you get wound up about someone making a joke that white people can't dance - and in that situation all of a sudden it's racist. The problem is most of you guys might be well intentioned but are hopelessly clueless about what it's like to actually be a victim of this behaviour and in what way it hurts. This lack of insight makes you guys prone to believing it doesn't exist or isn't a problem. It does exist and it is always a problem. The reality is that it is the least humane behaviour and there is no honor or intellectual upshot to defending hate just because on paper it qualifies as free speech.
In Canada, we don't like morons who shoot their mouths off spewing racial epithets, and that's why we have laws to shut these people up. Yes, censorship! A bad word! It's not an inherently bad concept. We like it because it serves a purpose, which is not subjugation and silencing of the general public as the alarmists would have you believe. These laws don't get used on just anybody and frankly the government is too busy wasting money on General Motors...it doesn't have time to go around silencing anybody it doesn't like, so take off that ugly tinfoil hat. This is why Canada is a cultural quantum leap ahead of other western societies. Don't believe me? Travel. Oh but this kind of censorship's not in the Charter? Fuck that. The charter was written by a bunch of WASPs who had no inkling of what the country would become - i.e. sustained by hard-working immigrants while the existing population became, old, lethargic, unmotivated and allowed its birth rate to fall below 2 children per couple. Oh, and the "Canadian founding fathers" were racists too, living in a time when it was commonplace and acceptable. Today it is not, and if that means some 150 year old laws need amending, so be it. The government does need to meddle in people's affairs in this matter because quite obviously average people are just too ignorant or lazy to conduct themselves properly 100% of the time. Stop crying about "regulation this" and "communist" that. Don't like it? There's a country just to the south of us where you can say all the dumb crap you like, and possibly you will even inspire a crowd of inbred rednecks to consider you some kind of great thinker while you're at it. Take Alberta with you. You can write books and become the next Ann Coulter, the poster child for what defending "free speech" is all about. Idealistic "people should just do blah blah blah theoretical solution and then we won't need regulation" blather doesn't work. This is the real world, and real people are real dumb, and really need to be spoon-fed to be kept in line.
To do so is authoritarian, certainly, and is a feature of both fascist and authoritarian left-wing systems, like all Communist governments.
This seems like a good time for an old quote. I'm pretty sure it was Lenny Bruce who said this:
Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "Fuck the government."
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
I noticed the Shah reference, but didn't think much of it because of this:
"I don't do protests anymore"..I simply read it as him not having been out protesting since '79. :)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Freedom of speech is the ability to speak your mind and not be criminally punished for it.
Freedom of speech allows us to be ignorant as much as we like. I will fight for this as my grandparents did.
The symbol of a noose isn't merely a random piece of art that someone interprets. It is an icon which was used to represent a threat.
Since racists can't just go out and say, "hey, let's kill some black people", they just show the image of a noose. It's a historical reference, and everyone gets the point.
Except you apparently. Frankly, I find your whole, "a noose is an inanimate object" argument ridiculous. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that people don't use it that way: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/05/chernoff.noose/index.html
http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/racist_noose.asp
I still find your argument bewildering
You can use all of your own arguments against your arguments!
It was a symbol of "We kill horse thieves" before racism. And of "Don't fuck with the king" before that. Big jump from scary to racism.
You can ban speech, but not hate, so since a racist can't say "let's kill some black people" they pick another way to say it. And you quote a story where the racist said "let's go hang Russel up there" and the ADL as sources. I can do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangman's_knot Nothing about racism. (Now anyway... In 10 minutes, who knows...)
And let me boil it down for you... Communication is ambiguous. Hitting someone is not. There are plenty of real racists in the world, and mostly they aren't subtle. Read your own article. The noose was disturbing, but the comments were shocking. No need to worry about the noose when he threatened to hang someone.
And just because someone chooses to take offense at a statement I made, it does not make me a racist. Right now people are being called racist for being against the current health plan. Stuff like that just makes real racism harder to fight.
You respond to Def Lepard with INXS?
And somewhere, a weltanschauung shatters into fine, sparkling dust that hangs in the air for a moment, then vanishes...
Nothing in the Constitution says "You have a right to not be offended"
I know this isn't wikipedia but if you have any references you can provide to back up these statements I'd greatly appreciated it. This is outrageous.
Thanks.
And that my fellow Canadians is why Quebec and the rest of the country is in the pissing match we're in today. AKA the "Night of long knives."
Thanks Trudeau.
Om, nomnomnom...
Actually, that's incitement to riot.
Trudeau and his government were also the architect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was what used to declare this law unlawful. Trudeau was a very controversial Prime Minister, but he wasn't totally bad.
Clearly you are absolutely and we should remove all restrictions on how corporations treat and compensate their employees. I mean, why should they even be required to pay you in actual money, for example? The old coal towns worked just fine on company scrip, and moving from that system was bad for coal company profits, so it shouldn't have been forced on them, right?
Hmm, let's see what was actually said:
Minimum wage laws are bad because they cut into profits, so less jobs will be available.
A minimum insurance requirement is bad because it would cut into profits, so less jobs will be available.
All I did was go back another couple of steps in the history of the law forcing companies to compensate their employees a certain way, to a particular one that is well known where I'm from:
Requiring employers to pay in money (whether cash, check, or electronic transfer) rather than allowing them to give compensation in company store credit (good old fashioned coal company scrip is a great example of this) is bad because it cuts into profits (you can't sell basic needs at tremendous profit margins to your employees because the people buying from you literally can't buy from anywhere else), so making companies pay with actual money instead of company scrip will cause less jobs to be available. Clearly we need to abolish that one, as it is bad for precisely the same reason as minimum wage is -- it reduces your profit margins by forcing you to give more compensation to your employees.