Topic: Ban on Gideon Bible handout at public schools sparks torrent of hate mail

[seaotter]

I used to support the hate crimes/hate speech laws here. But after the cartoon fiasco and Islamic groups suing Macleans magazine because macleans wouldn't give into their every whim and demand, I have changed to the American idea of free speech in absolute terms.

I'm kind of the opposite ~ I used to be vehemently against our hate crime/speech laws, but now I generally support them (that guy in Nova Scotia who was successfully convicted of a hate crime for burning a cross on someone's lawn? I totally support that being criminalized as a 'hate crime').......

BUT, I say all this given that the case you mentioned above (and every other similar case) has lost in court, as it should have.

I guess it will take an egregious/bogus case that wins to turn me around.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/canada’s-human-rights-kangaroo-court/

[TheIrreverend]

I used to support the hate crimes/hate speech laws here. But after the cartoon fiasco and Islamic groups suing Macleans magazine because macleans wouldn't give into their every whim and demand, I have changed to the American idea of free speech in absolute terms.

I'm kind of the opposite ~ I used to be vehemently against our hate crime/speech laws, but now I generally support them (that guy in Nova Scotia who was successfully convicted of a hate crime for burning a cross on someone's lawn? I totally support that being criminalized as a 'hate crime').......

BUT, I say all this given that the case you mentioned above (and every other similar case) has lost in court, as it should have.

I guess it will take an egregious/bogus case that wins to turn me around.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/canada’s-human-rights-kangaroo-court/

a) that was one individual being an idiot, it is not representative of the human rights commission system as a whole.
b) they are decidedly NOT courts - they are commissions which have the power to convene tribunals for offences under the provincial or federal Human Rights Acts/Codes.  They are subject to judicial review and ultimately it is the courts which have the final say.
c) if you want a case which does illustrate an overreach, this is the one I would use.  I fully expect the ruling to be overturned on appeal, however.

As AxeGrrl said, generally the right decisions come out of these tribunals.  In fact, under the current Supreme Court and McLachlin, freedom of speech has been fairly widely upheld and when convictions have been upheld (Keegstra, Zundel, and Taylor being the leading cases) I think generally the population has felt that it was correct.  Decisions like Sharpe show that edge cases are generally resolved in favour of speech.

EDIT: I looked into the claim of a 100% "conviction" rate under s.13(1) of the Human Rights Act (I assume that's what she meant by 13.1) - here are the cases in question.  There haven't been a lot of cases, and I can't see any there which I would disagree with (although I didn't look in detail at all of them - just a quick look).  Defendants range from noted anti-Semite Ernst Zundel, the Manitoba KKK, the Canadian Heritage Alliance - an innocuous sounding white supremacist group, and other similar hate groups.  My guess for the reason behind the large "conviction" rate (and note that these are not convictions, simply adverse rulings) is because claims which are unlikely to proceed are denied a hearing at the pre-tribunal process, i.e. it's more a reporting bias than a true representation of the state of things.  I have no doubt that if all claims were included, the "conviction" rate would be very, very small indeed.

[seaotter]

I just googled And posted. The court is an affront to freedom. Freedom of speech should be absolute.

[TheIrreverend]

That's a very American attitude, but not one that has wide support north of the border.  Generally, the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights Act and the related criminal provisions of the Code have wide public support.  Frankly, I don't think free speech is anywhere close to absolute in the US either (the recent hate crime conviction in New Jersey being evidence of that), but I don't dispute we have more limitations on it than you.  I get the emotional appeal of an absolutist approach to freedom of speech, and even somewhat support it, but under Canadian law all rights granted in the Charter are subject to "such reasonable limits as are demonstrably justified in a free and democractic society" under s.1.  This gives the courts a larger role in the administration of rights, but I think they have found a good balance between the right of free speech in s.2 and the right against discrimination in s.15.  I don't think any absolutist approach to rights can adequately reflect the complexities of the impact of rights in society-at-large.

[seaotter]

You should note the should. And it's woefully not a very American attitude but it should be. There are many maybe most Americans who would love to drag unpopular speech into a tribunal. Look at west burrow baptist.

And don't misunderstand much of the act I totally agree with. It's the abuse of free speech that bugs me. We don't have to protect popular speech. And as an atheist I know full well that my views on religion for instance need protection from this type of court.

[goodthink]

All atheists should be wary of this type of law. Especially considering the mere existence of atheists is an offence to many and the advocation of secularism is a hate crime and persecution.


I get the reasons behind wanting hate speech laws, or  having  hate crimes. It's soccer-mom-ism. Everything has to be bland, can't risk being upset, nothing worse than someone being different, going against the grain, being too colourful, ruining dinner-mentality.


Well, I don't think anyone has the the right to be protected from being offended. Hell, I think our only right is to be offended by others and leave it at that. Whether or not someone is offended is their own burden. Shifting that burden to others, regardless of how well-intentioned or seemingly innocuous can only lead to an abuse of powers.


And I do think these commissions are abused and used as a means to make others overly cautious in potentially offending groups and subsets of groups of people. Sunlight is the best antiseptic. It's only in the light of day that hateful ideas can die. These kind of laws only push it underground and the mere existence of the law justifies and reinforces the hateful tripe.

[AxeGrrl]

All atheists should be wary of this type of law. Especially considering the mere existence of atheists is an offence to many and the advocation of secularism is a hate crime and persecution.

The advocation of secularism is a hate crime?  where, exactly?  Certainly not Canada.  I'm sure some believers would want to make that argument, but how/why would that ever be considered to have any 'teeth', in the context of our current laws and Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

I get the reasons behind wanting hate speech laws, or  having  hate crimes. It's soccer-mom-ism. Everything has to be bland, can't risk being upset, nothing worse than someone being different, going against the grain, being too colourful, ruining dinner-mentality.

So, so something like burning a cross on someone's lawn or spray painting 'die, kikes' is merely "being too colourful" and "ruining dinner-mentality"?

Oooooo k.

If that's the case, I think we're going to be at an impasse here.

[goodthink]

Yes. Yes it is.


It is upsetting. It's disgusting. But it is speech.


Who should have the right to decide that it isn't. Or that it is inferior? Or that it shouldn't take place?


Pass laws to address the public safety aspects of burning crosses, ie: distance from the house, cost of fire dept response.


As for secularism being a hate crime? When it directly confronts religion, yes. It can be  considered a hate crime, especially when the majority gets to decide what is hateful. Blasphemy laws do exist. People are being put to death for advocating a secular approach to politics and the law.


Just because it seems unlikely to happen here doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant. If you said 20 years ago torture would be government policy many would have laughed - yet here we are.


I have a real problem when we attempt to codify expression of an idea as a crime, and more then that, a special class of crime.

[seaotter]

It's not protected speech in that it's my fucking lawn. I suppose it's a slippery slope argument but concidering the popularity of the atheist position and it's inherantly affront to religions its not to big a leap in logic to think such people can use these courts to shut us up. Hell we have the crazy preacher in Florida making a list of atheists imagine him with a court to bring his greivences to.

[TheIrreverend]

Yes. Yes it is.

It is upsetting. It's disgusting. But it is speech.

Who should have the right to decide that it isn't. Or that it is inferior? Or that it shouldn't take place?

The courts.

As for secularism being a hate crime? When it directly confronts religion, yes. It can be  considered a hate crime, especially when the majority gets to decide what is hateful. Blasphemy laws do exist. People are being put to death for advocating a secular approach to politics and the law.

You seem to live in a different Canada than I live in.  I see very little resistance to secularism other than on the fringes, and nowhere am I aware of "the majority" deciding what is and what isn't hateful.  That is left to tribunals under the watchful eye of the traditional justice system.

Additionally, no one has been tried under the blasphemy law in Canada for decades, and the charging guidelines in this province state it is not to be used.  If anyone was ever charged under it, I have exactly no doubt that it would be found unconstitutional under the Charter.

The slippery slope argument has exactly no weight in this instance in my mind.  I don't see any evidence of a judicial position which is inherently limiting the voice of atheists or secularists - if anything I can think of lots of evidence in the other direction.  It's ultimately a balancing act of the various rights we enjoy, but I can't think of anyone better to do that balancing than the courts, and I think they are doing a decent job of it, frankly.

EDIT: A timely article in today's Globe and Mail.

[seaotter]

An infringement of one persons rights should be seen as an infringement of all. Particularly in the case of such a basic right. The only way to ensure speech is to protect all speech.

[goodthink]

I didn't say that was the case right now. I am saying it could very well be the case.


You take an innocuous restriction most people believe works in the interest of others and concede some measure of your rights to stop the unpleasant nature of having to tolerate views or positions you don't like.


But because we are a nation under law, this type of infringement can, and likely will be abused by those who don't like any unpleasantness in their life. We've already seen Islamic groups attempt to silence major media outlets, how long until they begin to go after bloggers, ISPs, social media and so on?


How long till other groups refuse to tolerate the views of other groups? How long til the UN blasphemy regulations become applied to some group here through the system of kangaroo courts?


The only defence is to draw a line and allow that all speech has to be allowed out of necessity. Individuals and groups of people will always be in conflict with one another, their narratives in deep contrast and conflict. One group will ALWAYS offend another. Just because the  values of Canada are still largely homogeneous doesn't mean the status quo won't be challenged, won't be changed and won't be abused.

[Shibboleth]

I am against burning a cross on someone else's lawn or direct threats against someone but if a person goes through all the regulations to burn something and they do it where it is legal I think they should be able to burn a cross. Not because I agree with the action and not because I do not think it is terrible but in doing so I protect my own rights to say what I want. I do not want an oligarchy telling us what we can and cannot say. America hopefully learned of the dangers of this during McCarthyism, "Promoting Communism is dangerous to society!"

[goodthink]

I am against burning a cross on someone else's lawn or direct threats against someone but if a person goes through all the regulations to burn something and they do it where it is legal I think they should be able to burn a cross. Not because I agree with the action and not because I do not think it is terrible but in doing so I protect my own rights to say what I want. I do not want an oligarchy telling us what we can and cannot say. America hopefully learned of the dangers of this during McCarthyism, "Promoting Communism is dangerous to society!"

Exactly. There are already laws in existence that make burning a cross on someone's lawn illegal. Why load up the law even more to make the sentiment more of a crime than the action itself? You end up where one can take lawful action, but where the sentiment, or thought, becomes the crime. No thanks.

[Jeremy's Sea]

So the threat of violence and intimidation is allowed in a civilized society as long as you observe local ordinances and fire codes? 

I really hope all can see the distinction between unpopular hate speech and acts that threaten violence. Burning a cross is probably a really bad position to get behind BTW. Burning a book is one thing, but what it means to burn a cross is just short of a lynching. Generally laws and law enforcement should be utilized to stop a murder, not just clean up the mess after one is committed. At least in my crazy world view...