Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Hate-Speech Law Violates Charter of Rights
MrKevvy writes "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has found that federal hate-speech legislation violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equivalent of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org, but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
...this sets an example for people that insist anything NOT PC speech in the US should be suppressed.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I have always been suspicious of hate speech legislation. It seems ideal for creating slippery slopes.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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...
I hate you all...legally.
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.
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
That shouldn't mean you get to outlaw it though.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
Please define "hate speech" in a way that is objective and clear and does not require knowing what is going on inside the mind of the person using it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I think the best way to solve the whole hate speech nonsense is it lessen the consequences of assault and battery
I've been discharged a while (USMC) but that doesn't offend me at all.
It might be because I believe prayer to be a completely worthless means of getting anything done, but it also might be because I know that even though people have all sorts of beliefs I consider weird, very few of them have any actual impact on my life.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
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.
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.
>>>Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
Oh really? During the 1790s several Americans who criticized the John Adam's presidency were called a "hate speakers". Well they didn't have that term then, preferring to call it "seditious speech", but it was the equivalent - they labeled those criticisms as having no purpose and therefore people were jailed for exercising their opinions, including Benjamin's Franklin's grandson.
If you give government power to stop hate speech (or seditious speech), then you give government the power to stop ANY speech that they don't like - such as saying Bush's War is bogus (hello jail) or Obama's Healthcare is monopoly (hello jail again). The Democratic Party was born when Jefferson and others decided to take power and reverse the Sedition Act.
I find it ironic that the same party is now trying to restore the Sedition Act - a different name but still the same effect.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It doesn't mean you shouldn't be offended by it, sure, but to go back the RobotRunAmok's original quote - "you cannot give offense, you can only take it."
They are doing something they know other people won't like to make a point. You find their actions deeply unpleasant and disrespectful. Fine. I actually agree with you, but that's beside the point. They know a lot of people will become angered by what they do, and that is their goal - to get people talking about them and help spread their message.
You are taking offense. They can't force you to be offended, offense is your reaction to their action. You control your reactions, not them. If you decide that they control that, then you have decided that they own a little teeny piece of you.
If you decide that their actions are worth anger and resentment on your part, then (a) you are taking offense, and (b) you are allowing their asshattedness to control you. You choose to take them seriously. They can't make you do so. You choose to mention their name in a discussion board. Guess what? That's what they want you to do. They want you to repeat their name as often as possible, and mention their actions. They are marketing, and you are giving them free ads. Don't take it personally, we all get manipulated this way.
If you decide that they are jsut a bunch of effing asshats and ignore them, then you are not taking offense, and they are not controlling you. You can still consider what they do offensive, but you can also choose to consider it irrelevant because they are asshats. You can stop mentioning them, and you can forget about them. If they do actual harm to someone, that merits a reaction, but reacting in their intended manner to their actions means they own you, at least a little. They win.
Your offense, ironically, justifies their actions in their minds. Ignoring them denies them the control over you they crave.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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.
"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