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

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Az
you intolerant bastard, TLC.

Actually, my parents were married when I was conceived. (They still are, remarkably.)

Charges of "intolerance", like of "discrimination", has become a silver bullet used to silence dissenting views with no need for further argumentation. This despite that when confronted with particular scenarioes, every sane person will agree both are sometimes good or necessary. Tingkai might be right that rational debate isn't enough, but obstructing rational debate sure isn't going to help.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro


Why shouldn't it be allowed to lie when hate speech is ok? Besides, sometimes it is a rather grey area since some racist comments can count easily as lies.....

If you intentionally lie or defame in print or through other media (radio, television) in England it can have serious consequences, as various newspapers and writers have discovered- David Irving and Rupert Murdoch's 'The Sun', for instance.


Irving's lies, evasions, half-truths and misrepresentations about the Holocaust, its scale and who if affected and about the bombing of Dresden all caught up with him when another author (and a publishing house) were willing to take him on.

Similarly, 'The Sun' has found to its cost that it cannot print fabrications about Elton John's private life without there being a financial penalty.

Obviously it is more difficult for ordinary individuals without access to funds to sue for libel, defamation ot slander, but it has been done.


Incitement to racial hatred and similar offences are also prosecuted in England too.

Between commencement of the Public Order Act on 1st April 1987 and 3rd February 2005 there have been 72 defendants prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred.

The Attorney General has only used his veto on 3 occasions.

Between 2001 and 2004 86 cases were referred to the CPS for consideration. As of the 2nd February 2005:

6 cases have been prosecuted (involving 12 defendants)
2 defendants have been convicted
1 case was dropped
3 cases are ongoing (involving 9 defendants)
The offence has however provided a powerful deterrent to the conduct of racist and other extremist organisations and individuals.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/faith/crime/faq.html

[Az]

Charges of "intolerance", like of "discrimination", has become a silver bullet used to silence dissenting views with no need for further argumentation. This despite that when confronted with particular scenarioes, every sane person will agree both are sometimes good or necessary. Tingkai might be right that rational debate isn't enough, but obstructing rational debate sure isn't going to help.

Yes but it's basically a coin with two sides. Why not then allow intolerance of the dissenting ( for example, racist) points of view by government?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Az

Charges of "intolerance", like of "discrimination", has become a silver bullet used to silence dissenting views with no need for further argumentation. This despite that when confronted with particular scenarioes, every sane person will agree both are sometimes good or necessary. Tingkai might be right that rational debate isn't enough, but obstructing rational debate sure isn't going to help.

Yes but it's basically a coin with two sides. Why not then allow intolerance of the dissenting ( for example, racist) points of view by government?

All coin have two sides.

There's little to gain in forbidding the expression of racist thought per se. To enforce it to any meaningful degree would require instituting a police state, which hardly anyone wants.

I'm all for banning incitement to violence and speech disrupting common order, tho. I'd be all for slapping that hypothetical cleric whose followers go around slaying people, frex.

If this makes me a fascist, I demand that the tolerant types be tolerant of fascism.

[BeBMan]

Then I'm a fascist too

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro
Then I'm a fascist too

I hope you're registered with your local police force.

[BeBMan]

I tried to turn myself in for registration, but nobody was able to spell fassczism correctly here. So they sent me back home.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro
I tried to turn myself in for registration, but nobody was able to spell fassczism correctly here. So they sent me back home.

Germans unable to spell correctly ?


Alles definitely not in ordnung. They shall have their citizenship revoked !!!


(My partner used to work at Deutsche Bank in the City of London- his punctuality and approach to work were such that his friend Andreas said to him:

" Are you sure you don't have any German blood in you ?" )

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Because we live in a world where the promotion of hate propaganda against specific groups leads to violence.

Look at the Muslims who advocated violence against Western countries.

Or White supremists who drum up hate against non-whites.

In a fairyland world, we would be able to sit down and rationally discuss these issues without resorting to violence, but we live in a real world and history tell us that rational discourse is not enough.

The Holocaust did not spring into existence from nowhere. It required a foundation of hatred against the jews.

The Rwanda genocide occurred because of decades of hate speech between the Hutu and the Tutsi.

Homosexuals are violently attacked because of anti-gay statements.

By saying that we will not tolerate hate propaganda, we send a message and we prevent the cancer from spreading. More than that, it means that all Canadians can live in peace, without the fear and the violence that hate propaganda generates.

And what is lost? People can no longer legally tell lies with the intention of stirring up violence against an innocent group of people. That's not much a loss and Canadian society will be the better without it.

That´s it.

I wonder how many lives and possesions of Blacks and defenders of civic rights could have been saved,
if any laws against hate speech had existed during the times where the KKK still had strong influence in certain villages throughout the USA.

There is a good example for hate speech from one member of the Klan, Reverend Connie Lynch:
After the bombing of a church in 1963 which cost the lives of 4 black children aged 14-15 he made the following comment:

"And I say to you, those people who bombed the church should be awarded medals. Someone said: Isn´t it a shame that so little children have been killed?
First: They weren´t small. They were aged fourteen, fifteen, old enough to have sexual diseases and I wouldn´t be surprised if they hadn´t already one or more.
Second: They were no children. Children are small people, small humans - which means Whites. There are small dogs, small cats, small baboons and small skunks and there are small ******s. But those are no children. They are just small ******s.
Third: It isn´t much of a loss. If I kill rattlesnakes I make no big difference wether they are small or large. They are enemies, they poison us, I kill them all. And if tonight there are four ******s less I say: That´s better for us all. And now the confession: I believe in violence, all the violence necessary to drive the ******s out of the country or bring them 6 feet deep down below earth."

The comment was rewarded with applause


I wonder if Hitler could´ve been prevented if any laws against hate speech had already existed during the Weimar Republic (and I think the answer is probably yes, as much of his propaganda was aimed against jews and other non-aric races).

I´m always confused, that, considering what national socialism did in germany, america is so liberal even against neonazi-Websites (which is the reason why most of the neonazi-Websites you can find on the WWW are hosted within the USA ) where you can not only read the usual hate speech against certain races, but (according to some news articles even instructions to build bombs.

[Agathon]

A bit of a waste of public money – as if anyone took this berk seriously. I imagine he was only prosecuted because B'nai Brith or some other organization made a complaint. It's understandable that they'd want to stop this sort of thing, but silly in this case.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon
A bit of a waste of public money – as if anyone took this berk seriously.

More than a bit I'd say.

I imagine he was only prosecuted because B'nai Brith or some other organization made a complaint.

Be careful or we'll be forced to report you as well.

It's understandable that they'd want to stop this sort of thing, but silly in this case.

Nobody likes to hear these things but I would rather have them discredited by public discourse than legal means.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Tingkai
That's a good question. Would you say that a communist should be allowed to incite hatred on the basis of class?

Hmm.

If we were to amend the Charter to forbid discrimination on the basis of class, it would lead to all sorts of neat lawsuits...

^-^

Edit: On second thought, not really. There's not much discrimination on the basis of class in Canada.

Perhaps the measure would get welfare paid to all and not just poor, but that's about it.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Where did the the "intolerance is bad" meme come from anywhy?

From intolerance being a synonym for assholitude.

The law is highly intolerant of murder. Is that a bad thing?

I would say that's a slightly different meaning of "intolerance".

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Where did the the "intolerance is bad" meme come from anywhy?

From intolerance being a synonym for assholitude.

The law is highly intolerant of murder. Is that a bad thing?

I would say that's a slightly different meaning of "intolerance".

Is it? What difference is there, apart from you agreeing with this kind of intolerance?

[GePap]

Bah. If the Canadians had balls, they would have drawn and quartered the guy in the public square...

Damn Canada and its weakness on crime