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

[Velociryx]

No...I said from the start that such laws are nearly always brought into being with someone's best interests at heart. Good intentions abound, I am sure.

The problems with the position, though, are manifold.

For example: If you proceed from the notion that the desire is to make a pre-emptive strike against a possible source of harm TO a given group, then there are many better places to begin, than a ban on hate speech. Autos, for example. We can do a google search right now on stats of auto fatalities and serious injuries over the past decade.

We can do no such stat gathering on the impacts of hate speech on any given group, and even if we could, I feel certain that the NUMBERS would come out significantly higher for auto-related falalities.

But there's no suggesstion of banning autos, even tho they are demonstrably more deadly than any potential hazard posed by hateful speech.

Thus, with more efficient means of protecting the populace at hand, but ignored, I find it unlikely that this is truly the root reasoning behind the law.

Further, I have, to this point, seen no evidence that this individual's hateful comment did ANY damage to the jews, or to anyone else. There has been no spike in Canadian anti-semetic activity because of his words, nor is there likely to be any (and not because he was slapped on his wrist and fined, either). If there WERE evidence of damage, I feel certain that one of the law's supporters would have brought it to immediate attention.

The silence on that front is telling indeed.

And yet, despite the lack of evidence to the contrary...despite the fact that a number of people who enjoy giving themselves comforting pats on the back for their highly tolerent natures....we still see support for a law that restricts an individual's right to voice an opinion on a historical matter (because it MIGHT be heard by someone who will take it as sanction to act violently against the group so spoken out against).

I would imagine that paying more attention to the actual *commission* of crimes (including preventing a crime in its planning stages, at which point intent has been clearly established) would be much more effective than going after someone who was so stupid as to mouth off off an unintelligent opinion to a reporter.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No...I said from the start that such laws are nearly always brought into being with someone's best interests at heart. Good intentions abound, I am sure.

The problems with the position, though, are manifold.

For example: If you proceed from the notion that the desire is to make a pre-emptive strike against a possible source of harm TO a given group, then there are many better places to begin, than a ban on hate speech. Autos, for example. We can do a google search right now on stats of auto fatalities and serious injuries over the past decade.

You are being ridiculous.

Random accidents and violence targeting groups for racist reasons are not at all comparable.

[notyoueither]

By the same reasoning, the WTC was no big deal.

Horse hockey!

[Velociryx]

Untrue. You stated that your reasoning for this law was to protect a segment of the populace. I simply brought to your attention that you could protect more of the population (and thus, get more legislative bang for your buck, so to speak) by targeting some other area, and despite your choice to ignore this fact, it remains, nonetheless, fact.

Further, no one arguing FOR the law has, to this point, brought forth any statistics indicating what percentage hate crimes have been reduced by virtue of this law's passage, nor ANY indication whatsoever of ANY harm that was caused by the thread star's initial comments.

I submit that no evidence of this kind is forthcoming because there IS no evidence to bring forth.

And why would that be?

Because people, on hearing this buffoon's comment, did exactly NOTHING about it.

Nor will they.

And the World Trade Center Bombing and 9/11 have an important difference to the example brought forth here...there was a criminal ACT that occured.

Not fluff. Not hot air. Not talking about hatred of America, but a real, physical ACT, and that is the telling difference.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Let me see. Some individuals blow up a building complex with the loss of 3,000 lives.

The USA, and allies, invade a country to get the bad guys with the loss of far more than 3,000 lives.

Why invade and cause so many more deaths? What good are you doing? Why not chalk it up as a bad experience with the actuarial tables and call it a day?

Is it because the violence was directed? Is it because the deaths were not really random, but intended? Is it OK to do something about it, perhaps to prevent it happening again, because it was Yanks getting zapped, and not just some no-luck group that you've always been able to ignore?

Why do you have a problem with Canadians trying to prevent other Canadians from inciting similar, racially targetted violence?

[Velociryx]

Because this man committed no act of violence.

Nor did he attempt, by his speech, to incite others to commit acts of violence in his name, or in the name of his cause.

All he did was express an opinion.

It was a poor opinion.

It was one I disagree with.

But because I disagree with it, and because I find it distasteful is insufficient justification to ban him from expressing it.

If someone else, on hearing his words, made plans to act on them...to take up those words as a banner to commit violent acts against the jewish population of canada, then THAT PERSON (and not the offhand speaker) should be punished.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And by the way....you need not get the defensive tone with me. I would have no more respect for this law if it were made here in the states than I do for the Canadian version.

We have our own abominations, thankyouverymuch *cough* Patriot Act *cough*

And I despise it far more than the law mentioned here.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Untrue. You stated that your reasoning for this law was to protect a segment of the populace. I simply brought to your attention that you could protect more of the population (and thus, get more legislative bang for your buck, so to speak) by targeting some other area, and despite your choice to ignore this fact, it remains, nonetheless, fact.

We're not interested in passing laws to address your red herrings.

We are interested in protecting our citizens from violence based on race, religion, sex, or sexuality.

Further, no one arguing FOR the law has, to this point, brought forth any statistics indicating what percentage hate crimes have been reduced by virtue of this law's passage, nor ANY indication whatsoever of ANY harm that was caused by the thread star's initial comments.

I submit that no evidence of this kind is forthcoming because there IS no evidence to bring forth.

And there is very litle corelation of the death penalty in your country leading to a decline in murder rates.

Fact is, prosecuting murderers has little to do with deterence, it has a lot to do with punishment.

And why would that be?

Because you're arguing with your own straw men?

Because people, on hearing this buffoon's comment, did exactly NOTHING about it.

Nor will they.

How the hell do you know what is going through the head of some yob who just torched a church, or attacked someone for having funny sideburns?

You don't, nor will you.

And the World Trade Center Bombing and 9/11 have an important difference to the example brought forth here...there was a criminal ACT that occured.

Not fluff. Not hot air. Not talking about hatred of America, but a real, physical ACT, and that is the telling difference.

-=Vel=-

But... far more people die in auto accidents. Don't you think you guys should get your reactions in proportion to the harm?

What could you accomplish if you put all that effort into reducing deaths from auto accidents? My, that is misplaced effort, if you ask me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Because this man committed no act of violence.

Nor did he attempt, by his speech, to incite others to commit acts of violence in his name, or in the name of his cause.

That is your judgement, and was not shared by the court.

[Velociryx]

We are interested in protecting our citizens from violence based on race, religion, sex, or sexuality.


A noble endeavour, to be sure! So instead of prosecuting a man who made a distasteful, offhand remark to the wrong person, how 'bout go catch some bad guys!

And there is very litle coorelation of the death penalty in your country leading to a decline in murder rates.

Fact is, prosecuting murderers has little to do with deterence, it has a lot to do with punishment.

Again, murder is a physical act. The commission of bodily injury (rather permanent, in the case of murder) to another human being.

Saying that Hitler was right is a) not a physical act, b) was not spoken as a directive to any individual or group as a call to action, c) was not spoken to a crowd of agitators likely to act on his words, and d) not spoken in a way so as to indicate that his opinion on an historical event was in any way a "cause" or "crusade" for this individual, or others who might be like-minded.

How the hell do you know what is going through the head of some yob who just torched a church, or attacked someone for having funny sideburns?

You don't, nor will you.

That is true enough....but we DO know that our freedom of expression is a relatively young right, historically speaking, and it should not be parted with lightly, especially in light of the fact that those who wish to limit it can offer up no hard statistics to support THEIR claims either. Where protecting the freedom of expression is concerned, it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of caution, else we might one day be invited to a good old fashioned book burning in the name of "protecting the masses."

But... far more people die in auto accidents. Don't you think you guys should get your reactions in proportion to the harm?

What could you accomplish if you put all that effort into reducing deaths from auto accidents? My, that is misplaced effort, if you ask me.

And I would not disagree with you. As I said before, there are many similar laws in the states that I despise far more than this one.

There are many reprehensible actions taken by my government that I find myself grossly at odds with...our presence in Iraq being one of them.

But that is the topic for another thread, non?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

That is your judgement, and was not shared by the court.

Yes! And blessedly, I am entitled to express my opinion.

Perhaps one day that will change, if a sufficient number of foolish speech restricting laws are passed, but so far, so good.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And by the way....you need not get the defensive tone with me. I would have no more respect for this law if it were made here in the states than I do for the Canadian version.

It's a reaction to the absurd production of auto accident fatality rates into discussions where harm is intended, or is likely to be the result of ignorant actions, that has me kicking dirt on your boots.

It is absurd, point blank, to suggest that efforts to prevent targetted violence are invalid because more people die in auto accidents. You should know that having been around here.

[Velociryx]

Because you're arguing with your own straw men?

Really?

Okay, I ask again (for approximately the sixth time). Show me the numbers.

Show me how many lives this man's arrest and fining saved.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

It's a reaction to the absurd production of auto accident fatality rates into discussions where harm is intended, or is likely to be the result of ignorant actions, that has me kicking dirt on your boots.

It is absurd, point blank, to suggest that efforts to prevent targetted violence are invalid because more people die in auto accidents. You should know that having been around here.

So tell me...dissect it for me. Go back to this man's original statements and tell me where he intended present harm to the jews. Show me where he incited or incensed, or begged like minded individuals to commit hitlerean attrocities today.

Not so easy to do, eh?

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
That is your judgement, and was not shared by the court.

Yes! And blessedly, I am entitled to express my opinion.

Perhaps one day that will change, if a sufficient number of foolish speech restricting laws are passed, but so far, so good.

-=Vel=-

If it's a bad law, if it unreasonably restricts expression, then it will be struck down.

So, we are back at the point of opinion as to what is reasonable. Surely you and I have a right to express ourselves. However, other people have rights to personal safety and security of their property.

This is a situation where our rights to speak may be interfering with their rights to security.

Whose rights trump? I always thought that your rights ended where my nose begins. If you are Jewish in Canada, people are taking pops at your nose for the sole reason that you are Jewish. I hardly find it unreasonable to discourage people from egging the racists on.