The judicial system is racist, and its the Jews' fault

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, and the insults come from KH as he knows the battle's lost. NYE was easily able to see the link, though he doesn't agree with the point behind it.

[KrazyHorse]

No, son, I said I was on your side about hate speech. IMO Ahenakew's statement was not simple hate speech...

[Imran Siddiqui]

You simply said you were on my side, after I made a comment on the ACLU and Canadians/Right-wing Americans. I think most would realize than the ACLU wouldn't consider Ahenakew's statement to be anything more than simple hate speech. Them, nor I, would prosecute him for anything.

Hence, not exactly on my side, and especially not on this case.

[notyoueither]

Well then, I guess that means KH's soul is saved.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Velociryx
....and that's how it always starts.

People come up with such wonderful justifications for banning this or that.

For restricting our rights to speak openly (in the name of fairness and justice, mind you...always that).

And how does it end?

Well, history is a pretty fair guide.

I'll pass, thanks.

I much prefer allowing people the freedom to say something I might not like, over arbitrary bannings of any type. It is little more than a crude attempt at thought control.

-=Vel=-

So you'd favour unrestricted free speech?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I mean would you ban Communism (which clashes with liberal democratic values of modern democracies)? Plenty of Commies on this site say the only way to have an equitable society is revolution.

That's because they're optimists.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
People might also like to take into account that there are crimes against Jewish people and property based on racial hatred being committed in Canada on a current basis.

Given that there are well-funded Jewish anti-defamation organizations and that the portion of the Jewish community that cares about this stuff is fairly militant (for obvious historical reasons), it stands to reason that these crimes would become high profile.

But it is simply laughable to think that Jews are anything close to the most persecuted minority in Canada. When was the last time a Jewish kid got stopped by the cops just for being Jewish in public? When was the last time you heard anyone complain about the bad manners of Jews on the subway, as happens all the time with Chinese people? The vast majority of Canadian racism is directed at blacks and Asians, which makes Canada no different from New Zealand, Britain, Australia or the United States in that regard.

Leeway must be given the Jewish community because of the Nazi legacy, but we shouldn't pretend that people like this bloke are anything but fringe lunatics and that anti-semitism is really a problem in Canada.

[Velociryx]

To the folks who are advocating banning "hate speech," a few questions:

Since no one touched my earlier thought control question, let me ask this: Since Hateful Speech stems from Hateful Thought, if the technology were invented tomorrow that allowed monitoring of thought, would you be in support of making Hate Thought illegal too?

And if we make Hate Speech illegal, then how about "Dislike Speech"? I mean, that should be illegal too, right...and by the same logic...because where hate speech is essentially a radical opinion of a person, institution or group, if it is legislated out of existence, then the "new frontier" or the new outer boundary of speech against that group will be "dislike" which is then a valid target?

What's next?

Mild dislike?

A vague sense of unease?

Anything that you don't directly, absolutely agree with?

No...I don't believe in unfettered free speech. I think that any speech that directly correlates into clear and present danger for those around you ("Fire" in a theater, as NYE pointed out), should not be allowed. Slander and Liable too, are clear-cut cases where there is an immediate impact.

But to ban the speech of someone for spouting off a fringe opinion that you do not agree with because it might...MIGHT be interpreted by someone else as a reason for doing this or that...no. I don't buy it.

Might as well start banning colors, too, since blue MIGHT be a color that leads to depression, and thus, contributes to the violence in our society.

Or radio, since god only knows what slips of the tongue could occur, or be misconstrued, or hell...maybe the frequencies MIGHT scramble some boor twit's brains enough to MAYBE make him slightly more prone to violence.

Do you honestly believe that legislating against hateful speech will make it go away?

Of course it won't.

The difference is....where people are allowed to hold strong opinions and express them openly, they're mighty easy to keep track of, primarily because they DO express them openly...usually every chance they get.

Legislate that right away from them, and you drive them underground, making the already inadequate law enforcement infrastructure have to work that much harder at keeping track of these loons...which means, making them less effective.

Not a good plan, I wouldn't think. I'll take open discourse and the ability of everyone to speak his mind (even if what he's saying makes me cringe) over some thought control maven, no matter how well intentioned.

-=Vel=-

[Last Conformist]

Since you don't agree with unrestricted free speech, I don't think you're in a position to use the slippery slope argument.

[BeBMan]

Speech

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
To the folks who are advocating banning "hate speech," a few questions:

Since no one touched my earlier thought control question, let me ask this: Since Hateful Speech stems from Hateful Thought, if the technology were invented tomorrow that allowed monitoring of thought, would you be in support of making Hate Thought illegal too?

No. No reason.

And if we make Hate Speech illegal, then how about "Dislike Speech"? I mean, that should be illegal too, right...and by the same logic...because where hate speech is essentially a radical opinion of a person, institution or group, if it is legislated out of existence, then the "new frontier" or the new outer boundary of speech against that group will be "dislike" which is then a valid target?

No, it should not be illegal simply because we dislike it. That is the point Vel: All law is a balancing act- many people aren;t of the notion that all speech is valid and of equal merit. Instead, many people think certain speech is so injurious to the public good that the act of banning it is less dangerous than leaving it alone. Your slippery slop is rather dry and straight.

Do you honestly believe that legislating against hateful speech will make it go away?

Of course it won't.

And criminalizing anything else has never made it go away. Your point?

The difference is....where people are allowed to hold strong opinions and express them openly, they're mighty easy to keep track of, primarily because they DO express them openly...usually every chance they get.

So lets not make it a criminal act, lets keep "lists". Oh, that is so much better. Much more "open minded"

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Perhaps we've looked not just at Europe, but also much closer to us and within ourselves, and we've decided that we do not wish to have a society where lynching would be tolerated, and anything that could lead to lynching, or burning synagoges (which we don't need you for an example of) should be stamped out like the weed it is.

Historically, violence against certain minority groups in United States enjoyed broad, popular support, for example, as you had mentioned, lynching of blacks in Jim Crow South.

But your implications would not be as strongly relevant with United States of today. I can safely bet that the majority of white Southerners were morally outraged with the lynching in Jasper County in Texas in . . . . damn it . . . . . was it 1999??

So when we're referring to contemporary United States and its society, the majority of Americans find violence against minority groups to be morally repugnant even as we protect hate speech under our first amendment.

Other than Imran, I haven't heard anyone's thoughts on flag burning. I really think it's a legitimate form of expression.

[BeBMan]

I think it's rather stupid, but nothing that should be outlawed.

[MrFun]

Yeah Bebro -- I would not want to burn a flag of my own country either.

But I don't necessarily think it's stupid.

[Tingkai]

Vel: you're throwing up strawmans.

If you're going to argue against the law, then argue against the specific law.

The same goes for your hate thought "what if", you're making the same mistake as Dark Cloud.

We judge a law by what the law says, not on what some hypothetical law might say. We judge a law on the current situation, not on what some distant future technology might occur.

If we could read people's minds, would we create laws against people who are planning a murder. Who knows.? Does this hypothetical situation have any relevance to existing murder laws. No.

There is a difference between disliking a person and hating a person. That distinction is set, in Canada, by the law against hate propaganda.

Canada defines hate propaganda as: "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide."

The Canadian legal definition of genocide "means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction."

Disliking someone or a group is not enough. You can even hate a specific group, and voice your opinion, unless your comments "are likely to cause a breach of the peace" which means cause violence.

That means you can say "I hate Group X", but it is illegal to say "Group X doesn't deserve to live."

Even if you say something that leads to violence, you are not guilty if:
1) your statements were true;
2) your statement was an opinion on a religious subject;
3) If you had a reasonable belief that what you said was true AND it was a relevant "subject of public interest";
4) IF you were pointing out something that cause hatred against a group.

See: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

This is clearly a reasonable law.