Canadian Hate Laws on Trial

[Elok]

If you think society may be better off by condoning people calling for Jews to be slaughtered, Muslims to be eradicated, or gays to be beaten then that's on you. Canada disagrees.

We don't condone it, we simply refuse to muzzle it. Also, this guy hasn't called for gays to be beaten AFAIK. What kind of law judges a man based on things that third parties might theoretically extrapolate from what he says?

[giblets]

Yeah, that's a great argument.

Society is often better off by preaching hate.

The law isn't against saying things controversial. The law is against incitement of hate.

If you think society may be better off by condoning people calling for Jews to be slaughtered, Muslims to be eradicated, or gays to be beaten then that's on you. Canada disagrees.

I never said society should be accepting of people who want to see jews, muslims and gays slaughtered. What I don't want to do is have the government arrest such people and send them to prison, unless there is evidence that they actually plan to kill muslims, jews and gays.

[Asher]

We don't condone it, we simply refuse to muzzle it.

There's no appreciable difference if you let people like that spread their propaganda.

Also, this guy hasn't called for gays to be beaten AFAIK.

Neither did most of the anti-Jew propaganda in Germany back in the day. But do you think such propaganda did not influence society's acceptance of the maltreatment of Jews?

What kind of law judges a man based on things that third parties might theoretically extrapolate from what he says?

A sensible law that sees zero societal value in such comments and a very real (and historically proven) risk to the safety and well-being of many of its citizens.

I think a lot of you would learn a lot if you studied Germany in the 20s and 30s and the power of publishing hateful propaganda against segments of society.

[Krill]

...um, did we fine him, or call for sanctions against him? If not, this isn't really a useful parallel to draw.

Isn't Iran already under US sanctions?

[Hauldren Collider]

There's no appreciable difference if you let people like that spread their propaganda.

So simply allowing someone to speak is an implicit endorsement of what they say? That's horse****.

[Asher]

I never said society should be accepting of people who want to see jews, muslims and gays slaughtered. What I don't want to do is have the government arrest such people and send them to prison, unless there is evidence that they actually plan to kill muslims, jews and gays.

No one is sending anyone to prison here, or even giving them a criminal record. I've said this many times here.

They get a fine. They aren't tried under criminal code (unless there is an actual plan to kill people, beat people, etc). They aren't given any criminal record. They aren't jailed.

They are fined.

Let's cut down the histrionics a bit and know what the **** you're talking about before continuing. Please.

[Asher]

So simply allowing someone to speak is an implicit endorsement of what they say? That's horse****.

Please consult your nearest dictionary for the definition of condone.

[Asher]

The only time the man in the OP was ever arrested and jailed or charged with anything criminal was for violating laws (that the US & Canada both share) establishing the protective radius around abortion clinics.

He was arrested in both the US and Canada for this. Not just Canada.

[Hauldren Collider]

Condone: to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

Endorse: Synonyms: Condone

http://thesaurus.com/browse/endorse?__utma=1.1914983463.1309052906.1316978590.1318522044.14&__utmb=1.4.9.1318522074476&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1309052906.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=46864423

[giblets]

No one is sending anyone to prison here, or even giving them a criminal record. I've said this many times here.

They get a fine. They aren't tried under criminal code (unless there is an actual plan to kill people, beat people, etc). They aren't given any criminal record. They aren't jailed.

They are fined.

Let's cut down the histrionics a bit and know what the **** you're talking about before continuing. Please.

A fine is enough to shut up a fanatic who wants to kill all the jews or beat up all of the gays...?

[Asher]

Reality check here: Canada is fining a man $17,500 for preaching that all gays are predatory pedophiles.

The US has fined CBS for the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" $500,000.

And it's the Americans that are pretending to take the high road.

[Asher]

Condone: to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

Endorse: Synonyms: Condone
http://thesaurus.com/browse/endorse?..._utmk=46864423

Hey, HC, no need to be a douche. Look at the primary definition, not selective...

con·done

verb
1.
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).

This is quite clearly exactly how I used the word.

[Hauldren Collider]

I've already agreed with you that the FCC is fascist, unconstitutional and its censorship powers ought to be abolished. But that doesn't excuse flagrant Canadian transgressions either.

[DinoDoc]

Isn't Iran already under US sanctions?

Not for giving bad speeches.

[Elok]

How about Wiki?

Condonance may be made when an accuser has previously forgiven or condoned (in some way or at some level supported) the act about which they are complaining. In some legal jurisdictions, and for certain behaviors, it may prevent the accuser from prevailing.

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

Now, granted, Wiktionary does mention a secondary meaning of "allow or permit," but I would say that "excuse, forgive or overlook" is the far more common use of the word.

Massive Xpost!