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

[Velociryx]

Secondly, you say "might" lead to violence. This is wrong. As has been said many times, violence caused by hate propaganda is a routine occurance.

Ahhh, very good. Then show me. Give me a list of all the people who have been physically injured by this man's words.

Since it is such a common occurance, I would assume that this would not be a difficult request.

Right now, there are people preaching how the West is evil and how the West is out to destroy Islam. As a result, we have terrorists.

And you believe this is the whole story? Nothing more to it than that, right? Important cleric gets up and preaches America = Bad, and suddenly, we get more terrorists? If so....mayhaps rethinking that whole, "who-lives-in-a-dream-world" thing might be in order.


And what kind of society do we have when we allow people to advocate violence against others, and that violence is carried out.

Please quote to me where the star of our thread urged people to act violently against the jews. Then show me the headlines listing all the people who have been hurt in the mad rampage of anti-semitism that followed his evil words. I read what the guy said...just like you. An opinion piece on a historical event. Not a particularly enlightened opinion, but then, stupidity isn't (yet) a crime, is it?

But tolerance has to be a two way thing to work.....
Does it? There's a story about a man who lived some two thousand years ago who might disagree with this line of thinking. Whether or not you believe the story to be fantasy is irrelevant....we all need something to aspire to, yes?

Since when is being tolerant a good in itself?
Since when ISN'T it?

-=Vel=-

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But tolerance has to be a two way thing to work.....
Is it? There's a story about a man who lived some two thousand years ago who might disagree with this line of thinking. Whether or not you believe the story to be fantasy is irrelevant....we all need something to aspire to, yes?

Well, he got nailed to a cross, I seem to recall. Sounds like an argument for tolerance having to be a two-way street.

Since when is being tolerant a good in itself?
Since when ISN'T it?

I think the burden of proof, or at least justification, lies on them who claim it is.

[Velociryx]

Well, he got nailed to a cross, I seem to recall. Sounds like an argument for tolerance having to be a two-way street.


Except that the guy we're talking about would disagree with you...even after the fact.

I think the burden of proof, or at least justification, lies on them who claim it is.

You're right. And in that case, your side had best get cracking! You are, after all, on the side that supports further limitations on free speech. One would think that, in order to make your case adequately, some better evidence than has been presented thus far ought to be forthcoming.

-=Vel=-

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Mein Kampf is a historically significant document. Try publishing your own version today, or starting a political movement based on it.

And of course that would be banned.

Frankly anything is historical once it's been published- since it contributes to dialogue/discussion and literature. If you want to defend something because it's historical- then please think again... many books were considered useless when first published, and only useful to read upon later reflection.

Yes, and?

Canadians have decided that expression that contributes to racial or otherwise bigotted intolerance is not acceptable. Books, movies, and the internet included. Your point, other than your thinking that making hate speech illegal will result in some sinister spirit of repression suddenly overtaking Canadian society?

What? Canadians are all of a sudden going to go beserk and start bashing on science, or religion, or seals? Erm, nevermind the seals.

If you agree about that, then you can censor which sites a canadian can visit on the internet... since certain sites would spread racist/hate speech... but they would be based in say, Bahrain, where Canada has no legal jurisdiction- how do you propose to stop non-canadians from spreading hate?

And why wouldn't the government then decide to ban listening to hate speech? Or looking it up on the internet?

And when you censor sites that canadians can visit- then you are inevitably blocking other ideas that might be on the site that aren't racist. And who determines what sites are censored? How do you ensure that they don't start censoring sites that aren't hate-based? Since these sites are 'too dangerous for the average citizen to view' then who can view and judge them?

Read Brave New World to see a society where books are withheld from people- keeping them ignorant.

Who cares what the US does? Do you care that the Brits agree with us and have similar laws?

I'll call your US Constitution and raise you a Commonwealth and a German Federal Republic.

I think it's a good example. Since Americans are hardly having any problems with churches/synagoges being burned, etc. and even though America lets the KKK march- there has been almost nil KKK violence since the 1970s... even though David Duke (an admitted KKK Grand Wizard) was elected Governor of Louisiana...

and as for violence against gays... the 2 incidents of most repute recently (the dragging of a gay man behind a truck in texas, being one), the ideas were inspired by people talking in private and reading the bible- not listening to public figures.

Pish. We are censoring rascist violence, not Mary Popins, or the Kama Sutra. We, and you too, 'censor' expressions leading to a crime (conspiracy to murder, armed robbery, etc.). We lock people up when they get caught talking about it. Oh my!

Okay. Saying that you should kill someone is a crime, of course... saying that "jews are scum" isn't. It doesn't ask people to go out and commit crimes.

Treating people rudely isn't a crime.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The end of the sentence seems to be missing ...

Anyway, the notion it invalidates democracy is ridiculous. It's illiberal, but not undemocratic.

I'm not sure what I meant to finish the sentence with

And if there isn't freedom of expression, there isn't really democracy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So which is it then? Would my rephrasing of it be illegal? (and if so, then one must imagine that it would have been illegal each and every time we have brought it up here), or did I have it pretty spot on?

You're way off.

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

The law specifically disqualifies discussions such as ours from being subject to prosecution. Is the law proper? Is what he said serious enough to merit prosecution? Is what he said valid or true? These are all things that merit public discussion.

But of course you're right. I'm not in Canada, I'm not Canadian, and I'm not speaking from that perspective.

I'm speaking from the perspective of tolerance. Not tied to any particular nationalistic version of tolerance, just tolerance itself.

Part of BEING tolerant means acknowledging that other people might have ideas vastly different from my own, AND THAT some of those ideas might make my skin crawl.

That it does so, however, in no way diminishes the right of those ideas to EXIST, or to be discussed.

Again, I'm not saying that all speech is of equal merit.

Hardly.

I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group.

Where would we be, as a society, do you suppose, if we outlawed EVERYTHING that MIGHT hurt someone?

May as well unbuild the cities right now if you carry the thinking to its logical conclusion.

Which is why I stand by my earlier statements.

-=Vel=-

Except that **** disturbers spouting hate speech DO result in racist violence from time to time. Just like **** disturbers standing on a street corner urging riots DO result in riots from time to time. Both are illegal, in this country. Being unsuccessful is no defense.

That is our decision. Speech directed at stirring up racist violence has no merit in Canadian society. We do not acknowledge such tripe a right to exist, no more than we acknowledge slavery a right to exist.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

One wonders if it's a good thing to base your decisions on your personal emotional reactions rather than on rational grounds. Yes, I would probably feel differently were that tha case. Yes, I probably would support the death penalty if a friend had been raped and murdered. Doesn't make either of them right. (Though I actually am not against the DP.)

The foundation of a civil society is the Golden Rule.

Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom...

Horse hockey.

[Velociryx]

And, as a highly tolerant individual, I respect your decision, of course, and fully acknowledge that it is yours to make.

I also disagree with it, and personally think it to be an incorrect, illogical, and hypocritical decision, but then...I am free to hold that opinion as well...

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


One wonders if it's a good thing to base your decisions on your personal emotional reactions rather than on rational grounds.

Since the dominant secular belief in our society is the Humean doctrine that morality is based on sentiment, that rings a bit hollow.

[DarkCloud]

Right now, there are people preaching how the West is evil and how the West is out to destroy Islam. As a result, we have terrorists.

What's to say that they aren't wrong? If you believe in banning speech like that, then you're going beyond banning simple hate speech that says "I want XX Dead" or that "Americans should die"... now you're going into the realm of banning 'spreading dislike.'

I can almost agree with banning speech saying "jews should die" except for the explanation provided in my post above.

However, banning speech that threatens no group- by saying that "the west is out to destroy islam and we should protect ourselves" would damage free speech to an amazing degree... If you ban that, then you could VERY easily ban someone stating that "John Q is an anti-semite who hates jews and therefore we should shun him and hate him." (even if it were true)... or that "president bush is an anti-islamist who hates islam and we should protect ourselves from him."

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

And of course that would be banned.

Frankly anything is historical once it's been published- since it contributes to dialogue/discussion and literature. If you want to defend something because it's historical- then please think again... many books were considered useless when first published, and only useful to read upon later reflection.

Somehow, I doubt your Postmodern Nazi Cookbook will ever have any merit.

If you agree about that, then you can censor which sites a canadian can visit on the internet... since certain sites would spread racist/hate speech... but they would be based in say, Bahrain, where Canada has no legal jurisdiction- how do you propose to stop non-canadians from spreading hate?

We don't. Follow along, OK? The Canadian gvmt isn't doing anything to enforce our laws on this topic outside our borders. Also note that it is not illegal to read.

And why wouldn't the government then decide to ban listening to hate speech? Or looking it up on the internet?

And when you censor sites that canadians can visit- then you are inevitably blocking other ideas that might be on the site that aren't racist. And who determines what sites are censored? How do you ensure that they don't start censoring sites that aren't hate-based? Since these sites are 'too dangerous for the average citizen to view' then who can view and judge them?

Read Brave New World to see a society where books are withheld from people- keeping them ignorant.

Read Chicken Little to see a demonstration of the value of screaming about ill events that never come to pass.

[Velociryx]

Read Chicken Little to see a demonstration of the value of screaming about ill events that never come to pass.

Or banning speech without good cause?

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

There's that opinion again, what is or is not a good cause?

[Velociryx]

Quite true.

Just seems to me that, we should begin with the notion of absolutely free, completely unfettered speech, and make a case for ANY restrictions put upon it...as opposed to the other way around (beginning with no freedom of speech and justifying why we should be allowed to speak).

And when it comes time to justify why we can't allow people to speak hateful opinions (even when we disagree vehemently with them), I've seen little tangible evidence to support any of your claims.

About the best you've been able to come up with thus far is essentially: look...this is what we decided, and that's the end of the story.

And that is true, certainly.

But it's also a poor justification, as I am sure you realize.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Actually, you're simply choosing to ignore that we are seeking to protect the weak and vulnerable (minorities).

But that's OK. We wouldn't have an argument if you granted any wisdom to what we are seeking to do.