Canadian Hate Laws on Trial

[notyoueither]

I agree with uncomprehending Yanks.

Who decides the acceptable limits on "freedom of speech"? Every special interest group, crank and do-gooder would love to stick their oar in.

Gay people get curb stomped, still.

This isn't a do-gooder getting their oar in. It is about a man spouting hate against an identifiable group who are not infrequently the targets of hate crimes.

[notyoueither]

Who gets to decide? Who weighs the costs and benefits to society? I would like that weighting very strongly in favour of letting idiots shoot their mouths off in public. The alternative is a very grave danger that the powerful, and/or special interest groups, place restrictions to serve their own interests.

Besides, libel laws that are too onerous can harm society. Wouldn't dare point out somebody was dumping toxic waste if it means you get sued and taken to the cleaners?

That's why I think the HRCs should not be allowed to hear cases or make decisions based on expression.

They may or may not have legal training and a knowledge of the whys and wherefores. There is a particularly egregious incident where a senior member of the Canadian Human Rights Commision said "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept."

[giblets]

We came up with freedom of speech? Cool

[Hauldren Collider]

'merica

[notyoueither]

Yup. That's an example of the calibre of people involved who make decisions about whom and what to bring before Human Rights Tribunals in Canada.

It is not encouraging.

[notyoueither]

I'm reminded of a case I read about recently from somewhere in the Angloshere. The decision ended up basically being that the prosecuted have a right to be heard in forums by people who have at least a basic grasp of the law and training in it.

It was supposed to be a precedent internationally. I've wondered why it has not been brought ot bear on this issue.

[Aeson]

Do you seriously not understand the power of propaganda and how infantile the mind of the average person is? ... There's lunacy everywhere. This man preys on that.

Asher is an expert in this field HC, you should listen to him

[Elok]

Gay people get curb stomped, still.

Good thing it's still illegal for gay people to get curb-stomped, then.

[Asher]

Good thing it's still illegal for gay people to get curb-stomped, then.

It should also be illegal to provoke people into curb-stomping gay people for being gay.

If this is not illegal in your country, your country is ****ed up.

[Elok]

Provoke people? Using magic words that force them to? Still haven't read anything from you indicating that people even listen to him, and given that:

A. Canada is a less religious country than the US,
B. This man's spiel is only a little milder than Fred Phelps', and
C. Fred Phelps is regarded as a loon throughout the US,

It seems entirely reasonable (to me) to assume, until shown otherwise, that this is a lone crank, distasteful but ultimately harmless. If you do have reason to believe he's effectively inciting violence (and nothing you have posted actually calls for violence against gays), then you can punish him for inciting violence, not for writing mean words. I'd also be fine with legally challenging his statistics about AIDS/pederasty, as a form of libel against a group or something.

[Hauldren Collider]

Asher's just sad because the bad preacher man hurt his poor feelings.

[Elok]

What I object to here (or one of my objections, anyway) is your apparent paternalistic attitude that people have to be saved from themselves, that without the Human Rights whatever stepping in people would hear this guy and, powerless to defend themselves, say, "Gee, he's right! Queers are an abomination! Guess I'd better get a baseball bat and get to work!" Look out, there's a dangerous new catalyst at work among the commoners...

[Asher]

Provoke people? Using magic words that force them to? Still haven't read anything from you indicating that people even listen to him, and given that:

A. Canada is a less religious country than the US,

Canada is 16.5% non-religious, 15.0% in the USA. They're extremely similar. The difference is Americans are loud and brash about it, like they are everything else.

B. This man's spiel is only a little milder than Fred Phelps', and
C. Fred Phelps is regarded as a loon throughout the US,

It seems entirely reasonable (to me) to assume, until shown otherwise, that this is a lone crank, distasteful but ultimately harmless. If you do have reason to believe he's effectively inciting violence (and nothing you have posted actually calls for violence against gays), then you can punish him for inciting violence, not for writing mean words. I'd also be fine with legally challenging his statistics about AIDS/pederasty, as a form of libel against a group or something.

I really don't care what ignorant Americans think on the matter. In an eerily similar case (also went before the Human Rights Tribunals), a pastor in Red Deer wrote similar letters published in the local paper and there were spikes in gaybashings in the weeks that followed in the area, including one gay teen that was hospitalized by an assault by a group of boys taunting him "***".

People aren't as rational as you think you are.

There's no reasonable reason that hate-mongering against identifiable segments of society should be permitted in the public sphere. None. The only possible argument anyone can make against it is a slippery slope fallacy, which is already proven to be an ineffective argument considering how long these laws have been around.

Some people are just more civilized than Americans.

[Asher]

Frankly, most of you are utterly naive about the realities of our world. While you may not know it, assaults against gay people are still quite common. Especially amongst impulsive teenagers and the like. These people are psychologically validated when they see publications from "respected members of society" (like their bishop or pastor) openly condemning homosexuals as threats to society and all children.

While you may look at it and go "that's silly, I wouldn't believe anything written by that man!" you've no ****ing idea how stupid most people are. Look at folks like Ben Kenobi (who has actually defended and agreed with the statements made by that pastor in the past on this site). There are ****ing loons everywhere, and public rants which condemn identifiable segments of society as predatory pedophiles ought to be illegal.

If slander is illegal, how is that not? It's slandering an entire identifiable segment of the population, and not only that but there's an implicit call to action for many people in there. How would you respond if you were convinced that the guy down the street is trying to rape your child and give them AIDS?

[giblets]

Asher is right, Canadians need to have their hand held by the government in order to function. Maybe these tribunals are the right thing for delicate Canadians.