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."
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
Future Canadian Ubuntu release names:
Busty Beaner
Crackhead Coon
Drunk Darkie
Flaming Faggot
Grumpy Gringo
Humping Homosexual
Jackin' Jiggabgoo
Klepto Kike
Limey Lobersterback
Morose Moonie
Nappy Nigger
Queefing Queer
Sleazy Spic
Transsexual Twinky
Weebly Wetback
Zany Zebra
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!
Is anyone really surprised that anti-hatespeech laws violate the basic 'free speech' right? I mean, either a person is free to say what they want or not.
I'm not condoning hate speech. I think it's still immoral and unethical... But it's still covered under 'free speech' no matter how much I hate it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Um, you do realize that lots of people bashing your exalted Dear Leader Bush were harrassed by the FBI
Citation needed.
Repugs
Repugs? Tell us what you really think of 33% of your fellow citizens.
Anti-hate speach legislation, while ill-founded, at least had at its heart the idea to stop the traditional practice of inflaming the mob's anger so as to go out and lynch minorities.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
If the author means complaints against claims of hate speech, I'd say "and may have" is more appropriate. If that's not what the author means, the logic baffles.
I believe you have parsed the sentence you quoted incorrectly. While an additional "may" would have clarified I believe most people are capable of reading that sentence to understand that the "may" applies to both verbs following it in the sentence: "...may have....serve...".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If I remember correctly, Trudeau and his government were the architect for this legislation. Not only was he the largest asshole to ever come out of Quebec. He thought all of Canada his personal playground, reguarlly believed he was unstoppable, and in general an asshole to the Canadian public. All while...people loved him, while he fawned terms similar to "hope and change".
Yeah...if you don't know how far the liberals have gone to get power in Canada you don't know squat. Including collapsing the government on a friday, using a non-confidence motion, after everyone had already gone home.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
I'm not sure exactly what they're referring to in this decision, but the Supreme Court in R v. Keegstra and R v. Krymwoski that restrictions on hate speech were perfectly valid under S.1 of the Charter.
There are, however, a variety of differences between those cases and this; the primary one being that those were criminal complaints and this is not. That said, the Supreme Court and lower courts have long upheld the Human Rights Act and have often supported the decisions of the Human Rights Commission under that act, so I think the chances of this being overturned on appeal are slim. Any overturning would likely be procedural: the procedures do not provide sufficient safeguards, the Tribunal operated beyond its powers in this instance, etc.
I find it unlikely in the extreme that the Supreme Court would simply overturn the Act itself.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Yelling "Candy!" at a crowded Weight Watchers meeting is also forbidden.
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.
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.
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
Gotcha. Thanks.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Because in the US that is what hate speech laws are being used for. Get off from a high profile case that "bothers" some politicians and you can be sure a hate speech charge will crop up. Been done in a few visible crimes around Atlanta, suddenly the Feds are brought in because there was enough to convict on the real accused crime.
The other point is that prosecuting under the guise of a hate crime can devalue the real crime. I don't care why they selected someone's house to rob/burn/etc, all reasons should be treated the same : equally bad. Yet we try to differentiate the crimes by assigning severity based on what they were thinking or what we think they were thinking?
Fortunately in both countries we can still each have our opinions, I just hope the Supremes start tossing the US version out as well... which reminds me, did the group who declared it wrong in Canada have the last voice on that?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yes, it means you should be able to say all that. The alternative is being able to say only that which the current $POWER thinks you should be allowed to say. That alternative is far, far worse than any of the examples you cite.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that just because you *can* say a thing, it doesn't mean you *should* say it. However, it's a long, long, long way from there to "you should be legally prohibited from saying it." If free speech is allowed so long as that speech toes the line of political correctness, it's not free at all. Sure, that means people can deny the holocaust. Advocate child molestation (NAMBLA, anyone?). Print Nazi and KKK literature. Promote radical Islam. Etc. Offend, insult, infuriate the whole of society. Yes, they should be able to do that. The test of free speech isn't the middle ground. The test of free speech is the corner cases, and if you don't allow those, you don't have free speech. There's a reason why the amendment to the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech is first; it's the most important. Without free speech and a free press, you don't have a free society. You don't have a democracy. You don't have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Sure, there's a good argument that we've gotten pretty far away from that already, and to a great extent, it walks hand in hand with restrictions (whether legal or social) on what sorts of speech should be allowed.
In most societies, people who say those sorts of things are going to have to stand the heat for it, so it's not for the faint of heart, but people should be legally able to state their beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are. You can't have partial freedom of speech; it's all or nothing.
I agree.. I think we ought to encourage MORE people to speak their minds to make it easier to figure out who the bigots, racists, and just plain jerks are.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
- 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.
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
What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
So if I hire ten guys to go beat you with sticks and throw stones at your head you think I should be free of criminal liability? After all, I just gave them money and spoke to them, neither of which hurt you directly.
Not only was he the largest asshole to ever come out of Quebec. He thought all of Canada his personal playground, reguarlly believed he was unstoppable, and in general an asshole to the Canadian public.
In other words, he was the only honest politician we've seen in quite some time. He gets respect for that alone.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
No, what this finding is saying is that the HRC is going far above and beyond its scope and powers, and is violating Canadian Law. It is, quite frankly, the most important decision since the UK let us go in 1982.
The constitution is the overall ruling document in Canada, and NOTHING goes in front of it. The End. This finding means that, finally, the HRC agrees with the Constitution.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
The HRC has been abusing its position for years, and this might be the end of the abuse. I have the right to say and write offensive things, and some would say it is my duty to offend at least one person a day AND be offended in turn.
There are criminal offences for dealing with inciting violence; the HRC was going after people for writing something down with no intention behind it except their own ignorance. We already have the lottery system for fining the stupid; we didn't need another one.
For the Americans:
We had a court-like thing called "The Human Rights Commission" that had a 100% success rate in convicting people of hate crimes. Basically, it was ignoring the equivalent of the 1st amendment and fining people any time you communicated in a way that offended anyone, anywhere.
They've just looked at themselves and said, "wait, what the fuck are we doing? We've been ignoring the constitution."
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
>or to cause to be so communicated
>to hatred or contempt" based on characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on
The issues are very complex. My family goes well back into Canada's roots on both sides and, as a family we reside pretty much country wide.
Canada's heart lies in the idea of a cultural mosaic, maybe that came from our bilingual heritage and the more orderly development of our frontiers. Maybe it came from it being just to fucking cold to bother to with hate, and, hockey got rid of the aggressive edge. I think it was J. Cartier who said, "This must be the land God gave to Cain." What is certain is that Canada as a country bound to the idea of a cultural mosaic has always been deeply attentive to the rights of minorities and not without reason. Mackenzie King, one of Canada's longest reigning PMs, who held seances with the spirits of his dead mother and his dead dog fought against immigration into Canada by the mountainous Shik people of northern India because our climate would be too inhospitably cold for them (not as cold as the Prime Minister's shoulder).
I think what's new to the mix is a shift in demographics, a shift in political tactics and maybe the first hint of a Brave New World. The European stock that initially invaded North America has been recently outnumbered and, last year, Asian immigrants were the most prevalent. The shift in demographic to a truly multi racial, multi cultural mix probably has heightened the likelihood and exposure of racial hate. The law was to some extent enacted to combat racism doing more than rearing it's hydra heads. Political Correctness, OTOH, has become a witch hunt captained by any cavalier politician seeking power at any means. It's amusing that the Harper Government, presently in power, openly, passionately uses "attack ads" while posing as politically correct. It's all very relative.
The problem Conservatives in Canada and Republicans in America face is that both parties have taken a Sophist, relativist approach to gaining and holding power. In a Godless world both parties have embraced the religious right and pretty much any other splinter group in an attempt to cobble together enough votes to gain power. Rove in America, like Harper in Canada embody the philosophical, relativist road to power by any means. Hate speech legislation is just another iteration of the political rights perennial attempt to position themselves as the voice of what is right, proper and politically correct at the expense of freedom of speech.
In an ever shrinking, heavily populated world of limited resources Hate Speech legislation is a card that will probably be repeatedly played as countries come to terms with a Brave New World. As a species we're creatures of context and thus there's ample evidence to suggest something akin to Hate Speech legislation can be effective, even if people like myself view it as voodooism.
ideopath @ play
The one that you're just a pussy for complaining about it.
And the one that causes physical pain and is known by the speaker to do so.
Yes, it's proven nowadays, that emotional pain is no different or less real than "real" physical pain to the brain. Same chemical reaction. Same everything. So being left by your girlfriend really hurts. And perhaps some painkillers would actually work!
So if you know it, and deliberately hurt someone, it does not matter in what way you are doing it. What matters is, if it hurts or not.
And the only reason we're discussing this at all, is that it is so hard, to prove emotional damage.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
His popularity was entirely due to our ability to google pics of his wife's vag.
Fascist, Warmonger, Hatemonger, Criminal, Deviant, Brain-Dead, Republican
You mean, like that?
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.
Insightful? If the GP had just stated that the Republicans were Fascists, would he have been modded Insightful? This post is funny at best, and just down right inaccurate. I wish we had a real socialist party in this country...
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." --Noam Chomsky
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Evelyn Beatrice Hall (As a summary of Voltaire's beliefs.)
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
WTF? That is marked insightful?
It's slightly humorous, yes.
But to equate the Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, and the Communist Party is patently ridiculous.
I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic Party, though I'm liberal. The Democratic Party is Corporatist, just like the Republican Party. It's nowhere near Socialist or Communist. Yes, there are *some* socialist aspects to the Democratic Party, but these are far outweighed by the corporatist (quasi-fascist) elements.
And Communism is about as far as you can get from the Democratic Party. When was the last time the Dems made any effort to put control of industry in the hands of the people working in the industry?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
The cash for buying houses? Handouts to the banks. The cash-for-clunkers program? Handouts to the car companies and the banks.
Socialized medicine? We don't even know *if* there will be a public option (which doesn't make it a socialized system anyway), and if there is, you can bet it will be like Medicare, which is a boon to practitioners, no matter how much some of them complain about it.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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.
I agree.. I think we ought to encourage MORE people to speak their minds to make it easier to figure out who the bigots, racists, and just plain jerks are.
Hi there! I'm a bigot. I do not have the time in my adulthood to attempt to understand all classes of people that offer me an immediate reason to dislike them.
I also find the ability to be a jerk has it's uses in life.
Racist? I think that is a funny made up term to attempt to define a society by classes based on the color of skin pigmentation. We human beings, regardless of our skin color and/or ancestry, are fully sexually compatible with each other for procreative means. Plus, speaking as a bigot, it just seems better to hate a person for a reason they offer you, rather than to hate a person because their skin is a certain color.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
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.
If only I had mod points, this is a good response to hate speech being repealed. I wonder how long before the hate laws in the US are shot down. As a white male, I am crucified under the hate laws if I ever even get into a car accident with a black person, and that is wrong...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
We had a court-like thing called "The Human Rights Commission" that had a 100% success rate in convicting people of hate crimes. Basically, it was ignoring the equivalent of the 1st amendment and fining people any time you communicated in a way that offended anyone, anywhere.
They've just looked at themselves and said, "wait, what the fuck are we doing? We've been ignoring the constitution."
Not only that, but a former member of the CHRC (or CHRT - I forget which), one Richard Warman, the complainant in this case, has been responsible for something like half of all "hate speech" cases filed at the tribunal over the last several years. Anything this little snake finds on the internet that he decides is hateful, he files the complaint and looks to cash in. Ezra Levant has been doing a lot of legwork on exposing this corrupt little cesspool for what it is over the past couple of years, ever since he got hauled before them to defend his publishing of the Mohammed cartoons when he ran the Western Standard magazine.
Unfortunately, this ruling does not strike down the law. That's beyond the CHRT's power. The adjudicator's only remedy was to refuse to apply the law and dismiss the case. The law is still on the books and the ruling does not have the power of precedent unless appealed to a real court and upheld. So while this is a big step in the right direction, the fight's not over yet.
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.
"you made your post in English."
You say that like it's a good thing. Let us all be grateful for these linguistic abortions:
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce .
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse ..
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time
to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Your comment is extremely misleading.
Firstly, the Constitution is the overall ruling document in Canada, but that does not mean nothing goes before it. In fact, public policy concerns often override Charter rights. This is entrenched in the Charter as S.1, and was elaborated on at great length in R v. Oakes and the subsequent follow-on cases.
The rights enumerated in S.2, specifically, 2(b), are not beyond constraint. They are constrained by S.1, which states, ultimately, that there are public policy rationales powerful enough to override individual rights, and the determination of whether or not they are sufficiently powerful is determined by the Oakes test.
Secondly, the HRT is not a court-like thing. It is a quasi-judicial tribunal, whose decisions are reviewable by the Federal Court and the FCA, etc.
Thirdly, the HRC's 100% conviction rate is incredibly misleading in and of itself. There is no way to be acquitted by a HRT. Complaints are either upheld or dismissed. Someone the subject of a complaint cannot be found innocent. That is not how the system works. In criminal justice terms, this would be vaguely akin to having a system where you were either convicted or had the charges dropped. Actually, of the complaints brought before the Human Rights Commission, 13.5% are referred to the HRT, and 86.5% are dropped. 60% of those complaints referred to the HRT are settled prior to the Tribunal issuing a decision. In total, all of approximately 8.1% of complaints are decided by the HRT, and the HRT has the legal authority, also, to dismiss complaints at that stage if it feels doing so is appropriate (but I haven't found statistics on that).
In short, you're either terribly misinformed or intentionally lying to significantly distort the facts of the case.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Politician, Politician, Politician, Politician, Politician, Politician, Republican
Why did you add a Republican? You are aware that they are Politicians too right?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Yes, but what does "republican" do in the list ? There is, ironically and unfortunately, nothing that causes quite so many wars as pacifism does. But hey, it doesn't take much to make a democrat, socialist, communist, fascist, warmonger, hatemonger, criminal, deviant, brain-dead happy.
And there you are. Bigotry comes in all flavors. Somebody will always hate somebody without warrant. Not all Republicans are "Fascist, Warmonger, Hatemonger, Criminal, Deviant, Brain-Dead" but yet you stereotyped them. It's part of the human condition, deal with it. Laws won't fix it either. Everyone knows where the line is and that's harm to another.
"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer"- Jack Thompson
Read the post to which GP was replying, and then repeat after me loudly:
"Whooosh!"
As a white male it's not possible to claim "Hate Speech" in the US. It's a one-way street.
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.
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.
No, you are wrong. A significant number of hate crime convictions are for crimes against white people. From the FBI:
Of the 9,528 victims of hate crimes in 2004, 9,514 were associated with an incident involving a single bias. More than half of that number (53.8 percent) were victims of racial prejudice. Of those, 67.9 percent were victimized because of anti-black attitudes, and 20.1 percent were targets of anti-white sentiments.
"Laws won't fix it either"
I disagree. So does Parliament and so does the Supreme Court of Canada. As for the CHRC, that tribunal has no expoectation of judicial deference on appeal when it is interpreting the Charter.
This is Canada. It's *not* the USA. We do not have absolute rights here when it comes to freedom of expression. Those rights are tempered by the reality that such expression can bring about great social harm. The right to freedom of expression can be infringed if is necessary to serve the goals of a multicultural, free and democratic society.
Warman is not my favorite litigant. I disapprove of some of his tactics.
That said - and I *am* a Canadian lawyer - I do not think this decision will survive an appeal. The fact that Canada's "hate speech" appear to violate s.2(b) of the Charter has never been in doubt; but the law that infringes those rights will be saved by Section 1 of the Charter, just the same.
S. 1 "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Section 1 will have its day - and it will ultimately prevail.
.Robert