Canadian Hate Laws on Trial

[Asher]

Someone please try to explain why the slander and libel laws are fine, but laws against slandering or libeling identifiable minority groups of the population with the purpose of inciting hate are not.

I'm genuinely curious how someone will try to pull that off.

[Elok]

I will admit I phrased that badly. I meant it to refer primarily to his notions about gays trying to spread their gay virus, not the much more easily-refuted bad statistics.

[Elok]

Someone please try to explain why the slander and libel laws are fine, but laws against slandering or libeling identifiable minority groups of the population with the purpose of inciting hate are not.

I'm genuinely curious how someone will try to pull that off.

I am of the opinion that any law needs to be based on fact. Not "someone could theoretically hear this, interpret it in X manner, and act on it badly," but confirmed consequences, clear meanings, and deliberate actions. I don't know much about slander and libel, but they do require the claims made to be demonstrably false, no? If a vegan group writes that KFC treats their chicken with a mixture of cyanide and PCP, that claim is readily falsifiable and the group can be punished. If the group claims that KFC is motivated by a bloodthirsty hatred for all chickens and wants to teach your children to torture animals--how the hell do you falsify that? A law against that would be vague and IMO unenforceable. Perhaps a lawyer will show up in this thread and say US law sees it otherwise, but that's my opinion.

So, like I've said, I wouldn't mind making this guy prove that homosexuality is overwhelmingly correlated with AIDS, pedophilia and sheep-screwing, because there the law is firmly grounded in the provable. Calling him out for "inciting hatred" is unacceptably subjective.

[Asher]

I am of the opinion that any law needs to be based on fact. Not "someone could theoretically hear this, interpret it in X manner, and act on it badly,"

To be clear, it's not "someone could theoretically hear this". The law specifically states it needs to be in a published form. You can say what you want to other people, but when it's published and intended for public consumption is when you run afoul of the law.

I don't know much about slander and libel, but they do require the claims made to be demonstrably false, no? If a vegan group writes that KFC treats their chicken with a mixture of cyanide and PCP, that claim is readily falsifiable and the group can be punished. If the group claims that KFC is motivated by a bloodthirsty hatred for all chickens and wants to teach your children to torture animals--how the hell do you falsify that? A law against that would be vague and IMO unenforceable. Perhaps a lawyer will show up in this thread and say US law sees it otherwise, but that's my opinion.

So, like I've said, I wouldn't mind making this guy prove that homosexuality is overwhelmingly correlated with AIDS, pedophilia and sheep-screwing, because there the law is firmly grounded in the provable. Calling him out for "inciting hatred" is unacceptably subjective.

Laws are seldom binary. Intent is needed to be proven in many of them, which is largely subjective as well.

I can understand your concern, but you need to understand this has been law for decades. We simply do not have an issue with a slippery slope, nor do we have an issue with people saying innocuous things and getting fined for it. The few people getting fined know exactly what they are doing and there's no doubt about their intentions. Most of these people are doing it intentionally to run afoul of the law and get publicity out of it (Mark Steyn, Ezra Levine -- Ben's heroes). In fact, Ezra has made a great living out of throwing tantrums about the HRT.

[Elok]

If they're doing it intentionally to call attention to themselves, and thereby getting extra press for their views, I'm not sure that the law is working as it should. And this is a matter of principle for me; you cannot argue that a man is responsible for things people do after reading something he wrote--especially not if he did not tell them to do what they did. That's just plain wrong. I'm not making a slippery-slope argument; the enforcement of the law as it is, appears to be incorrect.

[Asher]

The man isn't responsible for the things people do after reading what he wrote.

The man is responsible for writing things and publicly disseminating those things that are against the law.

So the enforcement of the law is correct.

[notyoueither]

Society is often better off because someone said something controversial that offended a lot of people. Society would be much more backwards without the ability to oppose the majority opinion. Now I don't think this is the case for loons who think homosexuals are pedophiles, but I don't really want to set a precedent of shutting down the expression of an opinion that the majority doesn't like.

Incite to riot?

[notyoueither]

Speaking loudly can also result in being charged with causing a disturbance.

All sorts of expression are legally proscribed.

[giblets]

The man isn't responsible for the things people do after reading what he wrote.

The man is responsible for writing things and publicly disseminating those things that are against the law.

So the enforcement of the law is correct.

So if someone who had read his publication curb stomps a homosexual, he is not responsible for it. But he still get slapped with a massive fine?

[Uncle Sparky]

Why do American libraries refuse to carry certain books? (Darwin, Twain, etc) I'll assume it is lack of space not

censorship

I call Bullsh*t.

[giblets]

Why do American libraries refuse to carry certain books? (Darwin, Twain, etc) I'll assume it is lack of space not

censorship

I call Bullsh*t.

Just wondering, when was the last time you ventured inside an American library?

[Ben Kenobi]

Most sane people agree there are limits to freedom of expression.

Why?

Most Americans agree that slander and libel are damaging.

Just because speech is damaging doesn't mean that speech should be regulated. People are permitted to say damaging things that are true. Slander and libel apply to falsehoods.

What I will never understand is why Americans are too stupid to realize comments like what the Pastor in Red Deer say or what the guy in the OP said are also damaging.

They are also true, and ought to be defended just like everything else. If you have been personally slandered or defamed, then go ahead and sue Boissoin.

Saying gays are predatory pedophiles with an agenda to convert all children is legal in your country,

If we look at the ratios, that is the truth. Gay men are far more likely than any other demographic to abuse young children.

[Uncle Sparky]

Just wondering, when was the last time you ventured inside an American library?

Probably more recently tham you being in a Canadian court. I have read libraries in Missouri and Texas do not carry certain books, for political reasons...

I own this button. I'm still in favour of fining and even jailing people for promoting hatred.

Let's look at the Great Americans from the Westboro Baptist Church. They are currently denied entry to Canada because of a protest they tried here several years ago...
Please defend the rights of these Godly People!
And please let them protest fairly in the US. This might shock you, but Americans are now using the tactic of surrounding these champion's of free speech and blocking or shouting down their messages. WTF! I would hope the police would enforce the 1st Amendment rights of this group. [/sarcasm]

The Canadian wacko we were talking about commandeered a gay rights parade and distributed his propaganda in front of schools - I assume if the Westboro Baptist bunch wanted to speak, say at a military graduation, they would be given full access? [/oops, a bit more sarcasm]

[Ben Kenobi]

Probably more recently tham you being in a Canadian court. I have read libraries in Missouri and Texas do not carry certain books, for political reasons.

Was it Mark Twain? I can go to any library within a days driving distance here and find a copy of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. You are lying.

Let's look at the Great Americans from the Westboro Baptist Church. They are currently denied entry to Canada because of a protest they tried here several years ago.

Yeah, what does that have to do with free speech? You don't have the right to speak freely in another country.

Please defend the rights of these Godly People!

I defend the rights of anybody. I also believe that each state has the right to bar entry to people. I disagree with what the Westboro church believes, but I believe they have the right to picket funerals, providing that they do not disrupt them.

This might shock you, but Americans are now using the tactic of surrounding these champion's of free speach and blocking or shouting down their messages. WTF! I would hope the police would enforce the 1st Amendment rights of this group.

Putting them at a respectful distance from the deceased so that the funeral service may go on isn't the same as censorship.

The Canadian wacko we were talking about commandeered a gay rights parade and distributed his propaganda in front of schools

What, Boissoin, or Whatcott? I know both men. I've worked for Whatcott previously. He does exactly what PETA and Greenpeace do, yet the latter you'll see broadcast on CBC, but the former you will not. Boissoin is a protestant pastor. They both are good men.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for the bit about pedophilia, the opposite is more likely to be true. Last I heard, child molesters were overwhelmingly heterosexual

If you look at the ratios, of the average heterosexual man and the average homosexual man, the homosexual man is far more likely to be a pedophile. The rates are even in the same ballpark. Your statement would only be true if, and only if, there were as many homosexual as heterosexual men.