How does this happen? Chick-fil-A branded as anti-gay?

[Asher]

How is that different from say a slander case? It still comes down to a judge or some such making a decision based on a set of rules. I don't see what your argument is here really given that countries like the UK and Canada already do this without any political muzzling occuring.

Because to admit what is obvious to the rest of the world is to admit America isn't the best.

[Elok]

How is that different from say a slander case? It still comes down to a judge or some such making a decision based on a set of rules. I don't see what your argument is here really given that countries like the UK and Canada already do this without any political muzzling occuring.

I don't know much about the UK or Canada, but it differs from slander cases in that:

1. The question is not one of fact. In slander cases, the law says you can't tell deliberate, malicious falsehoods, so the questions are the same regardless of the specific lie: was the statement false, and if so did the accused know it was false? By contrast, here you need to either enumerate each individual specific statement which cannot be made--which sounds unwieldy, at best--or leave it up to a blanket statement on "statements which insult a specific group." Which is very open to interpretation. I guess you could restrict it to specifically falsifiable statements, so "80% of black people have an STD" is out while "black people are a moral plague" can scrape through. But if you allow even nonfalsifiable insults, there's no clear criterion to go by. It will have to come down to somebody's personal feeling on the matter.

2. Slander cases concern private individuals for the most part. A tabloid claims Angelina Jolie stole one of her adopted kids from a Burmese peasant woman, the outraged Ms. Jolie takes them to court for libel, they get hammered with a penalty, the end. Nobody but the actress and the tabloid has any stake in the matter. By contrast, politicians are regularly attacked by the opposition machine for getting one word wrong. Even stupid, irrelevant mistakes get them a couple of hours' coverage, albeit nothing comes of the stupid ones in the long run beyond late-night comedy fodder. This, of course, is because politicians are public figures whose every action can be made to reflect on their party, and who are explicitly chosen to exercise power based on their public appeal.

So, consider the following: After the Israelis bulldoze some Palestinians' houses to build a wall, Senator Johnson (D) remarks that "the Israelis are displaying gross disrespect for the property rights of others." This is at least arguably true. However, it is an election year, so the GOP campaign lodges a complaint under a hate speech law, noting parallels between Johnson's speech and old antisemitic stereotypes of the grasping, miserly Jew. With the help of conservative news outlets, the whole thing spirals into a massive media circus. Johnson is forced to dedicate most of his time to preparing his defense, showing up in court when he would normally be going to rallies. The trial keeps him from getting out any effective message. Ads presenting him as On Trial for Hate Speech flood the airwaves. While he is eventually acquitted, the damage is done: he loses the election. Now, this being the USA, he would still face considerable heat over any remark that dared to cast Israel as anything but perfect angels. But unless he said something actually antisemitic, like blood libel or something, it would more or less blow over after a week and a mumbled apology, and the media would resume its laser focus on whether Kim Kardashian had ass implants. An ongoing trial would give the whole farce legitimacy and staying power in the news. Or so I believe.

What mechanism would you propose to prevent this from happening?

[Asher]

Elok, I mean this in the nicest possible way. You are being very stupid.

Senator Johnson (D) remarks that "the Israelis are displaying gross disrespect for the property rights of others." This is at least arguably true. However, it is an election year, so the GOP campaign lodges a complaint under a hate speech law, noting parallels between Johnson's speech and old antisemitic stereotypes of the grasping, miserly Jew.

This is patently not hate speech as it is defined in Canada. If you wish to type long posts, first do yourself a favour and look at the law you are critiquing.

If he said "Jews display gross disrespect for the property rights of others" it'd be borderline. The difference is one sentence is describing an observation of a particular situation, the other is identifying a minority group and making a blanket statement without foundation in order to portray them in a negative light.

Additionally, even if the 2nd comment was deemed hate speech in Canada, he would be fined but have no criminal record for it. Certainly not incarcerated, castrated, raped, or whatever other absurd hypotheticals I'm sure you'll come up with next.

[Wezil]

The Human Rights Tribunals are a travesty.

We already have a Criminal Code that deals with inciting hatred and that requires a criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).

What do you do when your feelings are hurt but you don't have a legal case? Off to the tribunals where THE TRUTH is not a defence.

[Elok]

And in the example I gave, he gets acquitted--it doesn't matter, because the process itself is used as a weapon against him. It happens all the time in other contexts; I think the official name for it is barratry. And for an example of American pols cynically exploiting criminal investigations to hammer an opponent...look around the year 1998, I don't think I have to say more (though that particular instance backfired from their overreaching). I have no idea how things play out in Canada or anywhere else, and I don't care enough to dig through it.

Xpost.

[Wezil]

Fortunately we have seen the error of our ways.

The most offending bit (section 13) is on its way out:

Five years ago, during testimony in the case of Warman v. Lemire, Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) investigator Dean Steacy was asked “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?” His response: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

Those words produced outrage. But there was a grain of truth to what Mr. Steacy said: For decades, Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups. All that was required was a complainant (often someone with professional ties to the CHRC itself) willing to sign his name to a piece of paper, claim he was offended, and then collect his cash winnings at the end of the process. The system was bogus and corrupt. But very few Canadians wanted to be seen as posturing against policies that were branded under the aegis of “human rights.”

That was then. Now, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the enabling legislation that permits federal human-rights complaints regarding “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet,” is doomed. On Wednesday, the federal Conservatives voted to repeal it on a largely party-line vote — by a margin of 153 to 136 — through a private member’s bill introduced by Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth. Following royal assent, and a one-year phase-in period, Section 13 will be history.

[Flubber]

Nonsense. If I go to McDonalds and make a giant ass out of myself, and Mickey D's refuses to serve me, whether I was or was not a Christian would be immaterial.

Yes... They would be refusing you because you bein combative or an ass or whatever. That's fine. But if they said they won't serve Christians then they commit a human rights violation. You know this so why are you taking issue with the obvious.

[rah]

Because he is an idiot. Why do you keep asking this type of thing?

[MrFun]

Because to admit what is obvious to the rest of the world is to admit America isn't the best.

[MrFun]

Here's a good, well-balanced article on the whole mess with CFA.

[MrFun]

Is this before or after they scrape what's left of you off the pavement?

You're not really Christian, are you?

[Jaguar]

I called derp at "178th in infant mortality."

[The Mad Monk]

Good article.

[Elok]

Here's a good, well-balanced article on the whole mess with CFA.

Somebody on my FB pointed out that a large number of OPEC nations torture and/or execute homosexuals. Keep that in mind if you ever drive a little farther to buy food at a more gay-friendly fast food establishment.

[Asher]

Somebody on my FB pointed out that a large number of OPEC nations torture and/or execute homosexuals. Keep that in mind if you ever drive a little farther to buy food at a more gay-friendly fast food establishment.

This is why you need the Keystone XL.