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

[DarkCloud]

Your argument is like saying that if we have speed limits then the government will ban driving.

The issue is the law against hate speech, not some imaginary draconian propaganda.

1st off- this law would set a judicial precedent so whereas it is completely ludicrous to ban speech against the government today- it would be very easy in the future.

Therefore, it's not a red herring. The situation is much like laws against gay marriage... many people who advocate those also advocate banning sodomy- and they use many of the same arguments for both. If you illegitimize one, the next can and will in many cases follow.
--
And finally- 'hate speech'... hmm... I suppose that would mean that when the government of the USA sponsored 'hate' against 'japanese american 'spies'' that they would have had to prosecute themselves for attempting to 'protect' the country. I'm CERTAIN that the government would apply such a law unbiased... It's not like they would favor themselves whenever a 'crisis' emerges.

---
As for Canada's protection of speech in literature... how do you define literature... is a 'fictional' book like Brave New World a commentary on human existence- is Alice in Wonderland spoofing British members of Parliament- could someone publish a book condemning blacks and state that it's literature?

No... they couldn't stop that. Therefore, that law is just bizarre- it makes it harder to spread hate speech, but hate speech is spread nonetheless.
---

Saying "I hate Jane" is not hate speech, just as saying "I hate the US" is not hate speech because neither incite violence against the object in question.

If that's not hate speech, then I don't see how- "and we should defend ourselves against americans in any way possible." is any more hate speech... frankly it seems defensive and not an attack on anyone.
---
The trade offs in this situation are quite apparent:

Make Hate Speech Illegal and have a chilling effect on what people say- You could be sued for making ethnic jokes IN JEST- when you don't want to hurt ANYONE... (and frankly, just limiting it to 'public figures, wouldn't solve the problem...because) old TV programs made in an intolerant age would be banned- because they would be commentary instead of literature.

In addition what I said earlier bears repeating:

I mean (if you ban hate speech), then people can read things and come to their own conclusions.

It's not as if they are not going to read the bible and come to their own conclusions that say, Jews are evil because they 'killed Jesus.'

I mean- that's not happened before, has it?

[GePap]

I find the "slippery slope" arguement absurd.

ANY LAW "begins the sliperry slope" towards dictatorship. After all, only with law can you claim the government's killing in lawful and hence not murderous.

The question is whether spounsing hatred is a politically significant opinion which deserves protection in order to foster an open political dialogue in the maintenance of a democratic system.

Speech of no political significance can be banned without becoming a threat to political liberty. That it is a crime to say **** on publicly broadcasted airwaves and has been for decades has yet to translate into the jackboot on my throat.

So, is spousing hatred a politically significant option? That is where the debate should be, because if it is not, then you can ban it without trully endangering anyone's political liberty.

[DarkCloud]

Of course it's a politically significant opinion. It's a statement of belief about facts that can be translated into public policy.

Thank you for providing a clear litmus test, GePap.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Of course it's a politically significant opinion. It's a statement of belief about facts that can be translated into public policy.

Thank you for providing a clear litmus test, GePap.

That's not at all clear.Now, you could claim that making sexually obscene and lewd comments can also be a form of political statement that could lead to some sort of public policy (like the annulment of a variety of laws concerning certain sexual behaviors), yet that does not stop these comments from being banned because their supposed harm outweights any theoritical political statement.

Lets take the man's statement that "Jews are a disease". What possible public policy could stem from this, save for the extermination or expulsion of all Jews and the denial of their rights ? After all, they are not human, but a disease, deserving no rights and in fact a clear and present danger to the body politic.

So then we could ask further- is speech meant to support a public policy that clashes entirely with the liberal democratic values of the country really politically valid? After all, the ennaction of any policy that would logically stem from such a statement would be far more injurious to the continuation of any democratic liberal regime than the action of banning such speech.

More importantly, given the nature of such a polcy, it could only possibly be cohersive and violent.

You can ask if this is only a matter of degree. After all, there is a difference in substance between just saying "Jews are a disease" and advocating a political plan, say, National Socialism, which as part of a greater plan would entail the end of civil and legal rights for minorities such as the Jews.

So in this case the question is, to what degree does a liberal democratic society allow for political speech calling for actions in complete violation of the spirit of such a system?

As of yet, I would assume all liberal democratic states have such laws on the books, or have at some point or another (for example, the laws against "unamerican behavior").

[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=-

[DarkCloud]

Lets take the man's statement that "Jews are a disease". What possible public policy could stem from this, save for the extermination or expulsion of all Jews and the denial of their rights ? After all, they are not human, but a disease, deserving no rights and in fact a clear and present danger to the body politic.

So then we could ask further- is speech meant to support a public policy that clashes entirely with the liberal democratic values of the country really politically valid? After all, the ennaction of any policy that would logically stem from such a statement would be far more injurious to the continuation of any democratic liberal regime than the action of banning such speech.

More importantly, given the nature of such a polcy, it could only possibly be cohersive and violent.

You can ask if this is only a matter of degree. After all, there is a difference in substance between just saying "Jews are a disease" and advocating a political plan, say, National Socialism, which as part of a greater plan would entail the end of civil and legal rights for minorities such as the Jews.

Which is why democracies exist.



However, democracies, while allowing that party to exist would never allow it to do the following:
1.) Actually deprive the group of rights.
2.) Seize power by combining the office of President+Prime Minister as hitler was able to.

since doing either option would be against the constitution.

---
But merely existing would not be the crime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

is speech meant to support a public policy that clashes entirely with the liberal democratic values of the country really politically valid?

Yes. Peaceful advocation of changing the system, even to a non-democratic or non-liberal society, is a basic reason for freedom of expression. The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what views are "politically valid".

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.

Which is why democracies exist.

Democracies (and Democratic Republics) acknowledge their strength by allowing speech from groups that would seek to destroy that governmental system, in contrast to totalitarian states which seek to stifle all dissent.

[Berzerker]

Consider an Islamic cleric who preaches day after day that the West is evil, that the United States is Satan, etc.

If the cleric never advocates violences, but simply talks about how the West is out to destroy Islam, etc, should the cleric be allowed to continue?

Of course, the US has a long tradition of fire-breathing preachers skewering the government and America (meaning the sinners). But John Brown had to try and seize an armory before the government reacted.

Yes. The government can watch what he is doing and can monitor his contacts and his associations. Until he actually acts on what he says, he's immune.

To do otherwise would 'chill' conversation and thought

Huh? If people learn they are going to be "watched" if they upset the bureaucrats and politicians with their opinions, wouldn't that chill political expression?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Which is why democracies exist.

False.

Democracy was born in a time when men could be property. To state that "Democracy" is based on any liberal notions such a minority rights, or even freedom of expression is to ignore the history of democracy.

However, democracies, while allowing that party to exist would never allow it to do the following:
1.) Actually deprive the group of rights.
2.) Seize power by combining the office of President+Prime Minister as hitler was able to.

since doing either option would be against the constitution.

If the policies the speech advocate are unthinkable, how then is the speech politically worhtwhile?

But merely existing would not be the crime.

And its not a crime here. Its the public statements that were deemed a crime, not his private opinions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes. Peaceful advocation of changing the system, even to a non-democratic or non-liberal society, is a basic reason for freedom of expression. The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what views are "politically valid".

This man does no such thing.

Democracies (and Democratic Republics) acknowledge their strength by allowing speech from groups that would seek to destroy that governmental system, in contrast to totalitarian states which seek to stifle all dissent.

False again. That is a liberal notion that is apart from the notion of Democracy itself.

So please make sure in the future to state that we are talking about Liberal Democracies, not just Democracy.

[Berzerker]

Thomas Jefferson not only said we need a revolution every 20 years (generation), he wrote about the potential necessity for overthrowing the government in the Declaration of Independence. Hate speech? A Crime?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So please make sure in the future to state that we are talking about Liberal Democracies, not just Democracy.

Are you done being pedantic? Obviously you knew what I meant.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Why is it a crime in Canada to be racist? Unless he is specifically inciting violence, he shouldn't be prosecuted.

It isn't. It's illegal to say things that create a climate where it is more likely that people will act violently on racist crap.

Provincial Court Judge Marty Irwin ruled that Mr. Ahenakew was willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group when he told a reporter in Saskatoon on Dec. 13, 2002, that the Jews were a “disease” and Hitler was trying to “clean up the world” when he “fried six million of those guys” during the Second World War.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Why the heck would an aborigine have it in for the Jews?
When you say aborigine, do you mean an Australian aborigine?
The guy should be p.o.'d at the Brits, not the Jews.

He is a vet who served in Germany at the end of WW2. He says he is simply repeating what some of the locals 'taught' him.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So please make sure in the future to state that we are talking about Liberal Democracies, not just Democracy.

Are you done being pedantic? Obviously you knew what I meant.

I guess that is how you will treat judges:

Come on judge, are you being pendanctic!

If anyonje should be clear about terms, it should be a lawyer, NO?