Ann Coulter cries that Canada is bullying her

[KrazyHorse]

If Canadians weren't retards, they'd ban incitements to violence like America and not hate speech. Sadly, the average Canadian is as moronic as NYE.

Free speech

The standard deviation of Canadian IQs being high enough to contain both NYE and myself

[notyoueither]

One more time, moron, I didn't say the laws were the same.

Here's a clue, I bolded 'ban incitements to violence.'

Here's a clue for you, dumb****. It's the things Canada bans beyond incitement to violence that are objectionable, so the point you're now claiming to have been making is irrelevant and ****ing stupid.

The intent is to ban the sorts of rabble rousing that leads to violence based on bigotry, moron.

If you did not have your head stuck so far up your starred and stripped ass you might pause and consider the purpose of the law, instead of giving the knee-jerk American response.

[Asher]

One more time, moron, I didn't say the laws were the same.

Here's a clue, I bolded 'ban incitements to violence.'

Here's a clue for you, dumb****. It's the things Canada bans beyond incitement to violence that are objectionable, so the point you're now claiming to have been making is irrelevant and ****ing stupid.

Can you provide an example of things Canada bans beyond incitement to violence?

[Drake Tungsten]

The intent is to ban the sorts of rabble rousing that leads to violence based on bigotry, moron.

[notyoueither]

Free speech

The standard deviation of Canadian IQs being high enough to contain both NYE and myself

Don't you have a grandmothers' social society to bilk for all they've got, or something?

[Drake Tungsten]

Can you provide an example of things Canada bans beyond incitement to violence?

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

Canada also seems to use "incitement to violence" to describe a broader class of actions than that described by the term in the U.S. It's pretty hard to get arrested for inciting violence in America.

edit: As you can see, the American position on discriminatory hate speech is much different from that in Canada...

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students. These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

[MrFun]

The standard deviation of Canadian IQs being high enough to contain both NYE and myself

[Asher]

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

Canada also seems to use "incitement to violence" to describe a broader class of actions than that described by the term in the U.S. It's pretty hard to get arrested for inciting violence in America.

The section you are quoting from is not a criminal case, by the way. I'm not going to bother explaining the difference to you, but suffice to say the section you are quoting is more or less a civil law. Worst case is you get a fine, IIRC, but very, very few people have managed that. I think you can count those cases on one hand, even if you are missing a few fingers.

The root of 'hatred' being used there, by the way, was defined earlier to be what we've already discussed in this thread (about likely to disturb the peace / incite violence). I'm not sure you understand the context of that quote.

[Drake Tungsten]

The section you are quoting from is not a criminal case, by the way.

It's from statute, which is more widely applicable and clear cut than case law.

Worst case is you get a fine

[Asher]

It's from statute, which is more widely applicable and clear cut than case law.

Yes, but to be clear, the MAXIMUM penalty for this is $20K in restitution, $10K in punitive fines, and a wag of the finger and being asked to never do it again. No criminal record. No case has ever even done all of these, there's been a couple in Canada's history that got small fines and I think that's about it.

It's nothing worth crying about, in any case. It's really for extreme cases only, and again, it needs to be more than "expressing hatred"...it usually boils down to incitement of violence.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not sure you understand the context of that quote.

I'm pretty sure I do. I'm confident that's the statute whose violation got Mark Steyn (and other Canadians who I don't really like but whose free speech rights I feel should be protected) called before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

[Asher]

I'm not sure you understand the context of that quote.

I'm pretty sure I do. I'm confident that's the statute that allowed for the prosecution of Mark Steyn and those other Canadians who I don't really like but whose free speech rights I feel should be protected.

Mark Steyn was never prosecuted.

Now I am 100% confident you don't understand.

[Drake Tungsten]

Mark Steyn was never prosecuted.

I fixed the error. America doesn't have human rights commissions that can call you up to testify before they decide whether to prosecute you for hate speech or not, so I think my confusion is excusable.

[Asher]

Not only was Steyn never prosecuted, he never even faced a tribunal.

To be abundantly clear: a Human Rights Commission complaint just means someone complained about something he said. It's like an FCC Complaint. When someone makes an HRC complaint, it means it's not a criminal case. It's not going to be prosecuted.

The Human Rights Commission reviews the case. If there's merit, it goes to a tribunal (not a court). The tribunal reviews the case and issues a judgment. The judgment can then be appealed, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada if need be.

In Mark Steyn's case, someone made a complaint. The commission looked at it, then dismissed the complaint outright.

[Drake Tungsten]

When someone makes an HRC complaint, it means it's not a criminal case. It's not going to be prosecuted.

Civil cases are prosecuted. Apparently the Canadian Human Right Commission exists outside of the Canadian justice system, however, so who knows what form their punishments take. What a ****ed up, illiberal system...