Freedom of Speech: Canada [Archive]

13th December 2005, 05:52 AM

It seems that things are running a bit amok up north.

In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."

Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.

In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein200312020910.asp

and this

Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups. The bill has a loophole for religious opposition to homosexuality, but few scholars think it will offer protection, given the strength of the gay lobby and the trend toward censorship in Canada. Law Prof. David Bernstein, in his new book You Can't Say That! wrote that "it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." Or traditional Jewish or Muslim opposition, too.

Since Canada has no First Amendment, anti-bias laws generally trump free speech and freedom of religion. A recent flurry of cases has mostly gone against free expression. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it. In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/040419/19john.htm

Sounds a bit like thought crime.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and I find this PCness very, very troubling.

Darat

13th December 2005, 05:57 AM

Sounds like good news to me. It is about time that "religious beliefs" wasn't an acceptable defence when trying to remove or prevent others enjoying their civil rights.

13th December 2005, 05:58 AM

Sounds like good news to me. It is about time that "religious beliefs" wasn't an acceptable defence when trying to remove or prevent others enjoying their civil rights.

Riiiiiight.....so stop them from talking. Very enlightened.

Mephisto

13th December 2005, 06:02 AM

Sounds a bit like thought crime.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and I find this PCness very, very troubling.

It may be thought crime, but it's more palatable than the number of murders committed by homo-phobic heterosexuals. Is there any data regarding the number of hate crimes suffered by gays in Canada?

Here's an interesting link. I think it's better to err on the side of caution than to consider it as an affront on free speech.

http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html

Manny

13th December 2005, 06:02 AM

Ed, this is an obvious and predictable outcome of the PATRIOT act and Bushitlerburton and his cronies' non-stop pursuit of political power.

13th December 2005, 06:07 AM

It may be thought crime, but it's more palatable than the number of murders committed by homo-phobic heterosexuals. Is there any data regarding the number of hate crimes suffered by gays in Canada?

Here's an interesting link. I think it's better to err on the side of caution than to consider it as an affront on free speech.

http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html

Straw, I fear. And, free speech is worth more than the death of some arbitrarily large number of human lives.

13th December 2005, 06:08 AM

Ed, this is an obvious and predictable outcome of the PATRIOT act and Bushitlerburton and his cronies' non-stop pursuit of political power.

This dwarfs the patriot act in terms of governmental power and potential for abuse.

Darat

13th December 2005, 06:14 AM

Riiiiiight.....so stop them from talking. Very enlightened.

I didn't see that in the articles you quoted I just saw them being prevented from trying to prevent others, under the guise of "religious beliefs", from enjoying their civil rights.

Why should someone be allowed to advocate that homosexuals are evil and that they should be punished - which is the Christian belief (albeit and of course many different Christians interpret that quite particular "sin" quite differently). To me that is incitement to commit a crime however those types of arguments are generally "allowed" because they are "religious beliefs".

As I said I think it is good to see that religious beliefs are no longer being allowed as a defence for promoting and enticing hatred against others.

Now if you want to argue that there shouldn't be any restrictions on "free speech" that is of course quite a different point, however if there are "hate laws" or laws that prevent people enticing others to commit crimes then it is good that religion is not given (as it quite often is) an exemption from these laws.

Darat

13th December 2005, 06:16 AM

Straw, I fear. And, free speech is worth more than the death of some arbitrarily large number of human lives.

Is this the limited "free speech" that many USAians seem to support or total and utterly unrestricted free-speech?

Charlie Monoxide

13th December 2005, 06:20 AM

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.

If it's your opinion that all gays should die in an orgy of AIDS, fine. Just don't come to Canada to spread that philosophy, you'll be in conflict with the law.

Charlie (shouting death to abortion doctors in a crowded theatre) Monoxide

13th December 2005, 06:21 AM

Is this the limited "free speech" that many USAians seem to support or total and utterly unrestricted free-speech?

"Limited"? In what way do you mean, "limited"?

The problem here is that the same arguments that are so appealing from a pc standpoint could be used for any limitation on expression. Greater good, the children, rear admirals, same thing.

Darat

13th December 2005, 06:22 AM

13th December 2005, 06:23 AM

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.

If it's your opinion that all gays should die in an orgy of AIDS, fine. Just don't come to Canada to spread that philosophy, you'll be in conflict with the law.

Charlie (shouting death to abortion doctors in a crowded theatre) Monoxide

That is not exactly what is going on (if these references are accurrate)

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.

And

In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.

You find these things acceptable?

n.b. these two quotes from above referenced quote.

Mephisto

13th December 2005, 06:26 AM

Oh the normal "can't shout fire in a theatre" type of limits.

Yes, Charlie (way ahead of the game) Monoxide got it right above.

Manny

13th December 2005, 06:26 AM

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.And they're comfortable with the government defining both the definition of an identifiable group and "hate?" Man, those Canadians are trusting people.

Can I advocate that all persons convicted of murder be killed, or is that hate against an identifiable group? What about advocating that all such persons be denied the vote? Can I advocate that persons wishing to immigrate from known state sponsors of terrorism be subject to more careful screening than persons from other countries? How about if I advocate that only asylum seekers from those countries be admitted; all other potential immigrants are barred? Can a preacher still preach that polygamy is a sin, or are polygamists a protected group too? Adulturers?

13th December 2005, 06:28 AM

Oh the normal "can't shout fire in a theatre" type of limits.

You mean a clear and present danger type of limitation? You mean where there is a specific and credible action that might result in the immenent loss of life kind of limitation? You mean where the action might be immediately followed by such loss of life? Is that what you are referring to? The kind of thing where a reasonable person would agree that the eventuality would occur? The kind of thing where the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate that to a jury?

13th December 2005, 06:31 AM

And they're comfortable with the government defining both the definition of an identifiable group and "hate?" Man, those Canadians are trusting people.

Can I advocate that all persons convicted of murder be killed, or is that hate against an identifiable group? What about advocating that all such persons be denied the vote? Can I advocate that persons wishing to immigrate from known state sponsors of terrorism be subject to more careful screening than persons from other countries? How about if I advocate that only asylum seekers from those countries be admitted; all other potential immigrants are barred? Can a preacher still preach that polygamy is a sin, or are polygamists a protected group too? Adulturers?

I suspect that it depends on the PC group de jure.

Darat

13th December 2005, 06:39 AM

That is not exactly what is going on (if these references are accurrate)

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.

As I said you apparently can't use "but it's my religious belief" as an exemption to the law.

And

In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.

You find these things acceptable?

n.b. these two quotes from above referenced quote.

Given the law as it stands yes.

mumblethrax

13th December 2005, 06:39 AM

"Limited"? In what way do you mean, "limited"?

The problem here is that the same arguments that are so appealing from a pc standpoint could be used for any limitation on expression. Greater good, the children, rear admirals, same thing.
Limited with regard to defamation, obscenity, incitement, intellectual property, campaign finance, etc.

That such a valid argument might share a similar structure with an invalid argument seems a curious objection.

Cleon

13th December 2005, 06:40 AM

Nothing new here, really.

Ernst Zundel was tried and eventually deported for saying his piece. (Oddly enough, there wasn't a big outcry from the "anti-PC" brigade...)

13th December 2005, 06:42 AM

As I said you apparently can't use "but it's my religious belief" as an exemption to the law.

Given the law as it stands yes.

You are saying that they are legel, I asked if you agree.

Do you think that the Bible and associated commentaries should be burned?

Darat

13th December 2005, 06:43 AM

You are saying that they are legel, I asked if you agree.

Do you think that the Bible and associated commentaries should be burned?

Nope but I don't think that is on the cards (or certainly not in the articles you quoted).

13th December 2005, 06:46 AM

Nope but I don't think that is on the cards (or certainly not in the articles you quoted).

it follows though.

Darat

13th December 2005, 06:48 AM

it follows though.

No it doesn't. It just appears to be that religious beliefs are not being given the special exemptions they normally enjoy, which I agree with.

Floating Egg

13th December 2005, 06:49 AM

Ed,

Do you support the placement of any restrictions on freedom of speech?

Manny

13th December 2005, 06:49 AM

Darat

13th December 2005, 06:56 AM

Why wouldn't the Bible be banned in Canada under the existing regulations? Here (http://www.eunacom.net/SecularNews.htm), apparently, is the advertisement which got the Saskatoon StarPhoenix in trouble (apologies for the biased source, for which I do not vouch). All it had was references to Bible verses and a couple stick figures. It is the Bible itself which demands that gays be put to death. Isn't that much more hateful than the advertisement?

I don't know enough to know if that is how the law is worded or intended . It could be more like the UK law that doesn't affect what I say as an individual to another individual but does prevent me standing up at a rally and extolling people to "turn on the queers and let them have what they deserve".

Manny

13th December 2005, 07:01 AM

I don't know enough to know if that is how the law is worded or intended . It could be more like the UK law that doesn't affect what I say as an individual to another individual but does prevent me standing up at a rally and extolling people to "turn on the queers and let them have what they deserve".Here's (http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/bible-ruled-hate-speech.htm) the text of the Human Rights Commission's decision. They found that, "...that the universal symbol for forbidden, not allowed or not wanted, consisting of a circle with a slash through it, may itself not communicate hatred. However, when combined with the passages from the Bible, the Board finds that the advertisement would expose or tend to expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule, or may otherwise affront their dignity on the basis of their sexual orientation. It is a combination of both the symbol and the biblical references which have lead to this conclusion."

It couldn't be more clear. It was the mere reference to the Bible verses which elevated the bumper stickers beyond the status of protected expression in Canada.

Beerina

13th December 2005, 07:03 AM

In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.

You find these things acceptable?

n.b. these two quotes from above referenced quote.

In a properly defined society, sexual activity is no business of the state's. One does not create a government to regulate adult consentual sexual activity.

Hence, whether someone can (or "should") be "cured" of homosexuality is purely a scientific and psychological question. Unfortunately, because people don't believe in freedom for freedom's sake, the homosexual community is left with, wrongly, having to justify their freedom by arguing (correctly or not) they're born this way, cannot change, etc. Hence a scientific issue of mere curiosity becomes politicized. Now, evidently, in countries without absolute freedom of speech (and yes, in spite of a crystal clear, unambiguous Constitution, the US is one of them, and I'm not talking "fire in a crowded theater") the mere (legitimate or otherwise) questioning of what should be a pure issue of curiosity becomes a crime.

Both sides are disgusting, but I cannot find fault with the homosexuals for fighting fire with fire.

Darat

13th December 2005, 07:06 AM

Here's (http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/bible-ruled-hate-speech.htm) the text of the Human Rights Commission's decision. They found that, "...that the universal symbol for forbidden, not allowed or not wanted, consisting of a circle with a slash through it, may itself not communicate hatred. However, when combined with the passages from the Bible, the Board finds that the advertisement would expose or tend to expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule, or may otherwise affront their dignity on the basis of their sexual orientation. It is a combination of both the symbol and the biblical references which have lead to this conclusion."

It couldn't be more clear. It was the mere reference to the Bible verses which elevated the bumper stickers beyond the status of protected expression in Canada.

How strange - we come to exactly the opposite conclusion based on that text!

I would say that text makes it clear that it was the combination of the "forbidden" symbol and Christan passages that caused the problem i.e.
"It is a combination of both the symbol and the biblical references which have lead to this conclusion."

Not the Christian passages on their own.

DoubtingStephen

13th December 2005, 07:11 AM

Do you think that the Bible and associated commentaries should be burned?

As an official action of a goverment agency, this would not be a good thing. As a spontaneous action by a suddenly enlightened species, it would be wonderful.

andrewceo

13th December 2005, 07:39 AM

Canadians would react by suggesting that the pc offenders have gone a little too far and would they be so kind as to be a little less vocal and try to get along, eh. What you folks in this thread fail to appreciate is that Canadian political culture is vastly different from the US (it's closer to the UK for obvious reasons).

Canadians in general accept a larger role for government in their day to day lives. Rather than immeidately distrusting a government role in society as inherently bad, Canadians want their government to be active in the community it serves. They view government as a tool to be used in the service of their collective goals and as a reflection of their general values.

Canadians accept there will be silly rulings but they also get upset that things get out of whack from time to time. However strident opposition to the more egregious examples of government pc FUBAR activity is very un-Canadian. Canadians are more likely to shake their heads and say that the ruling was not very sensible and to not go that far again.

This sort of passive/aggressive behaviour does create tremendous social pressure to be polite and to get along. It is a gentle remonstrance - how Canadian.

Mephisto

13th December 2005, 07:53 AM

You are saying that they are legel, I asked if you agree.

Do you think that the Bible and associated commentaries should be burned?

To be honest, I would have very little problem with any religious text being burned. Especially the Bible, it does very little but preach hate and intolerance, and worst of all, it does it in God's name.

Why would the Bible be any different than, for instance, Aryan Nation literature that advocates violence against non-whites? Since 9/11 some (Christian) Americans have asserted that the Koran promotes violence. Apparently they haven't read their Bible more carefully. If Christians want so fervently to print scripture in publications, why don't they concentrate on the more innocuous tracts like, God not allowing any dwarves or men with crushed testicles to become priests?

Manny

13th December 2005, 07:56 AM

To be honest, I would have very little problem with any religious text being burned. Especially the Bible, it does very little but preach hate and intolerance, and worst of all, it does it in God's name.
Well, OK, fair enough. ;) But by the State? You seriously want the government deciding what's true and false?

Persons in favor of this should seriously consider that people whom they don't like may someday control the government.

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 07:56 AM

I think forcing a man to print something that is against his personal beliefs, whether they are religious-based or otherwise, is simply evil.

I think someone saying they believe a certain behavior is wrong is not the same thing as saying you should harm people who do that behavior.

Anyone who thinks that type of censorship is okay quite frankly scares me.

Darat

13th December 2005, 07:57 AM

...snip...

Persons in favor of this should seriously consider that people whom they don't like may someday control the government.

"someday"? :D

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 07:58 AM

What next? Someone who is against abortion isn't allowed to speak out?

13th December 2005, 07:58 AM

Ed,

Do you support the placement of any restrictions on freedom of speech?

Very few, and then there is an enormous burden on the government to demonstrate why an elemental right (and protection from tyranny) is being challenged.

There were cases during Viet Nam where various wackos were calling for the overthrow of the government, their speech was protected.

I am no friend of religion but they have the right to their speech, as I have the right to mine. And I would defend their right because in so doing I am defending my rights too. Free speech as a right is worthless if the only speech that is free is that with which we are comfortable.

13th December 2005, 08:00 AM

As an official action of a goverment agency, this would not be a good thing. As a spontaneous action by a suddenly enlightened species, it would be wonderful.

Charming. The ogre Henry VIII anyone?

Darat

13th December 2005, 08:03 AM

What next? Someone who is against abortion isn't allowed to speak out?

Again that is not what is being said here (as far as I understand it from the articles). What is not being allowed is (to exaggerate slightly) is "God says we must kill anybody who aborts a baby." Which is to my mind rather different then saying "God says it is wrong to abort".

Floating Egg

13th December 2005, 08:04 AM

Very few, and then there is an enormous burden on the government to demonstrate why an elemental right (and protection from tyranny) is being challenged.

In what cases would you place restrictions on speech?

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 08:07 AM

I use to think gays were a danger to society. For real.

What if I had been in charge and felt this threat to society should be silenced?

Would it have been right to silence me?

Is everyone who talks about "sin" a thought criminal?

Garrette

13th December 2005, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Darat:

Again that is not what is being said here (as far as I understand it from the articles). What is not being allowed is (to exaggerate slightly) is "God says we must kill anybody who aborts a baby." Which is to my mind rather different then saying "God says it is wrong to abort".Today 11:00 AM

1. What is wrong with saying "God says we must kill anybody who aborts a baby?" As written, it appears merely to be reporting what the speaker believes to be fact. It advocates nothing just as "God says it is wrong to abort" advocates nothing.

2. Where is the line to be drawn? If "God says it is wrong to abort" is okay, what about these:

"God says I should dislike people who abort."

"God says people who abort will go to hell but we can still be friends with them."

"God says stay completely away from the evil people who abort."

"I hate people who abort."

"God says kill people who abort, but I think that's going too far."

Manny

13th December 2005, 08:12 AM

"someday"? :DHee! Good point.

This translates into other government stuff, too. Look at the contretemps in the UK over whether NHS should treat diseases brought on by poor lifestyle choices (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09.xml). That's bad enough in the UK; it would be worse in Canada where until recently private insurance was illegal. The Wall Street Journal's blog commented that "If you aren't scared by the idea of Hillary Clinton or Mike Bloomberg deeming you unworthy of medical care because of your bad habits, imagine how the 'religious right' would treat AIDS patients if they gained power under such a regime." The same is true, but writ larger, of speech.

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 08:13 AM

Let's take the printer who was fined and forced to print material he found objectionable. Should he be forced to print pornography? Should he be forced to print campaign posters for a candidate he doesn't like?

Should people be allowed to not print things they oppose politically but be forced to print things that are against their morals?

13th December 2005, 08:14 AM

epepke

13th December 2005, 08:17 AM

Oh the normal "can't shout fire in a theatre" type of limits.

It's interesting to note that this famous phrase started in the US in a SCOTUS opinion of a case where someone was being charged for sedition for distributing pamphlets that encouraged Americans not to enlist for WWI. Needless to say, by the time of the Vietnam War protests, judicial attitudes have changed slightly.

Darat

13th December 2005, 08:19 AM

1. What is wrong with saying "God says we must kill anybody who aborts a baby?" As written, it appears merely to be reporting what the speaker believes to be fact. It advocates nothing just as "God says it is wrong to abort" advocates nothing.

2. Where is the line to be drawn? If "God says it is wrong to abort" is okay, what about these:

"God says I should dislike people who abort."

"God says people who abort will go to hell but we can still be friends with them."

"God says stay completely away from the evil people who abort."

"I hate people who abort."

"God says kill people who abort, but I think that's going too far."

Well my personal view is that "hate speech" laws are not the route to go down to handle this type of problem BUT if we are to have them I am adamant that religion shouldn't be exempted from the consequences of such laws. If, as in Canada and soon the UK, we have them and Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs sacred texts break the laws I would hope they would be treated exactly the same way as any other "hate speech".

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 08:20 AM

It's interesting to note that this famous phrase started in the US in a SCOTUS opinion of a case where someone was being charged for sedition for distributing pamphlets that encouraged Americans not to enlist for WWI.

I think of the Alien and Sedition Acts every time I hear the words "Patriot Act".

13th December 2005, 08:21 AM

In what cases would you place restrictions on speech?

Difficult......

State secrets.
Dissemination of copyrighted work
If contractually agreed to

Very few, actually. I am sure there are oddball things where it is grayer that are the exceptions that would have to be carefully assessed in a court but in terms of blanket restrictions with the force of government behind them, very, very few.

We might talk about the decss issue on another thread, I am mixed but I think that the courts screwed the pooch on that one.

13th December 2005, 08:33 AM

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/

Pretty hateful, I defend them.
I defend Ward Churchill ranting about Nazis dieing in the WTC and getting what they deserve
I defend that loony black guy calling for the murder of whites
I defend the Nation of Islam calling whites the devil and worse.
Left or right, I defend peoples right to speak and express themselves.

I defend the hateful Piss Christ (since it gives me a wonderful opportunity to mock aspects of modern art)
I defend Disney having a Gay Day
I defend those loony gays cavorting half naked on public streets on various occasions
I defend Coulter, Moore, Franken, Rush, and a host of loons (many of whom I agree with somewhat) and all of whom could feel the weight of law descend upon them depending upon whom is defining "hate".

13th December 2005, 08:47 AM

Hate speech....

Short People - Randy Newman
Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
To live

They got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet

Well, I don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Round here

Short people are just the same
As you and I
(A fool such as I)
All men are brothers
Until the day they die
(It's a wonderful world)

Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody
To love

They got little baby legs
And they stand so low
You got to pick 'em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That got beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin' peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get you every time
Well, I don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
'Round here

Garrette

13th December 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Darat:

Well my personal view is that "hate speech" laws are not the route to go down to handle this type of problem BUT if we are to have them I am adamant that religion shouldn't be exempted from the consequences of such laws.

Gotcha, I think.

I disagree with hate speech laws of any type, and I think you do, too.

On the other hand, I tick people off here when it comes to the enforcement of laws they and I consider dumb, wrong, or unconstitutional. I say enforce them to the letter. It's the best way to demonstrate their wrongheadedness.

Originally posted by Luke T.

I think of the Alien and Sedition Acts every time I hear the words "Patriot Act".

As do I.

I was shocked during Bush's first speech after 9/11 when he mentioned the creaton of the Department of Homeland Security.

I was the only Republican watching amidst a sea of Democrats.

Bush mentioned the DHS and my jaw dropped; I blustered and sputtered. Couldn't help myself, and my colleagues (close friends and family, all of them) finally had to ask me what was wrong. They reacted almost joyously to the news.

I told them (as nearly as I can recall) "If there is a first step on the road to fascism, this is it."

They said I was off base and over-reacting.

I said "But.....but...but.... YOU are the DEMOCRATS here!"

Still boggles me.

Thanz

13th December 2005, 08:54 AM

Here is a link to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the Christian Minister promoting hatred against Muslims case:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=d %3A%5Cusers%5Contario%20courts%5Cwww%5Cdecisions%5 C2001%5Cdecember%5ChardingC35767%2Ehtm

I think the National Review has misstated what was held in that case. The judge did not find that the dude did not intentionally promote hatred. Rather the opposite. The National Review reads as if the guy promoted hatred by accident - read the case. It was no accident.

I also encourage you to read the case to actually understand what the speech limits are under this anti-hate speech law. It is nowhere near as extreme as has been depicted. It is not "thought crime".

Further, I find the Canadian approach to protecting freedom of expression to be much more honest. There is a test that must be met - basically, the limit on speech must be a reasonable limit, prescribed by law, that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. In the US, they just define some stuff not to be "speech" - which is ridiculous.

TriangleMan

13th December 2005, 09:20 AM

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 09:24 AM

I was shocked during Bush's first speech after 9/11 when he mentioned the creaton of the Department of Homeland Security.

I was the only Republican watching amidst a sea of Democrats.

Bush mentioned the DHS and my jaw dropped; I blustered and sputtered. Couldn't help myself, and my colleagues (close friends and family, all of them) finally had to ask me what was wrong. They reacted almost joyously to the news.

I told them (as nearly as I can recall) "If there is a first step on the road to fascism, this is it."

I had exactly the same reaction. It scared the bejeesus out of me. I told my wife that any day now we'd be seeing armbands with swastikas on them.

epepke

13th December 2005, 09:31 AM

Further, I find the Canadian approach to protecting freedom of expression to be much more honest. There is a test that must be met - basically, the limit on speech must be a reasonable limit, prescribed by law, that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. In the US, they just define some stuff not to be "speech" - which is ridiculous.

I'm a US citizen, and it's not at all surprising that I disagree. Defining things as not "speech" is ridiculous, and I like it that way, because it means that the First Amendment requires lawmakers and judges to do ridiculous things to justify their prejudices, and ridiculous things always have the possibility to be challenged as unconstitutional.

13th December 2005, 09:34 AM

Thanz

13th December 2005, 09:41 AM

I'm a US citizen, and it's not at all surprising that I disagree. Defining things as not "speech" is ridiculous, and I like it that way, because it means that the First Amendment requires lawmakers and judges to do ridiculous things to justify their prejudices, and ridiculous things always have the possibility to be challenged as unconstitutional.
What about when it is your Supreme Court that is saying that some things don't count as "speech"? What do you do then?

At least the Canadian approach requires the gov't to set out the real reason why expression is being limited - and to back up that reason. There may be a reason to prevent someone from disclosing the movements of American soldiers when they are at war, but it certainly isn't because doing so isn't "speech". But based on the wording of your Constitution, how else can you prevent it?

Belz...

13th December 2005, 09:56 AM

Sounds like good news to me. It is about time that "religious beliefs" wasn't an acceptable defence when trying to remove or prevent others enjoying their civil rights.

Damn straight. Yay for us, eh ?

Belz...

13th December 2005, 09:58 AM

Straw, I fear. And, free speech is worth more than the death of some arbitrarily large number of human lives.

HUH?

Anyway, inciting people to violence IS a crime. You simply can't use your freedom to interfere with OTHER people's freedom.

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 10:06 AM

There may be a reason to prevent someone from disclosing the movements of American soldiers when they are at war, but it certainly isn't because doing so isn't "speech". But based on the wording of your Constitution, how else can you prevent it?

That kind of speech goes back to Schenck v. United States that epepke alluded to earlier. Speech that presents a "clear and present danger" is forbidden.

Schenck was a Socialist who published a pamphlet that he gave to draftees urging them to voice their opposition to the draft. He was arrested and the Supreme Court actually held his arrest as Constitutional since he was presenting a "clear and present danger" to the war effort.

Orwell

13th December 2005, 10:13 AM

Again that is not what is being said here (as far as I understand it from the articles). What is not being allowed is (to exaggerate slightly) is "God says we must kill anybody who aborts a baby." Which is to my mind rather different then saying "God says it is wrong to abort".

Yep. As a Canadian citizen who takes freedom of expression pretty seriously, I have no trouble with my government's attitude towards "free speech". If you say something irresponsible, stupid and hateful, you should expect to held accountable for what you said. Now, there are probably abuses, but can you seriously argue that there aren't abuses even in the land of "absolute free speech rights" i.e. the US?

As for that national review "article", it sounds to me like the typical Canada bashing hack job I have come to expect from those folks. I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either.

Steve

13th December 2005, 10:16 AM

Interesting thread. An American right wing publication posts a cursory comment on a Canadian legal decision and the pros and cons are then argued by Americans and Brits, with little input from Canadians apart from andrewceo, as far as I can see. Here then is this Canadian’s opinion.

Canadians in general accept a larger role for government in their day to day lives. Rather than immeidately distrusting a government role in society as inherently bad, Canadians want their government to be active in the community it serves. They view government as a tool to be used in the service of their collective goals and as a reflection of their general values.

I largely agree with this opinion. This attitude is reflected in such things as the general support for universal heath care, Canada Pension Plan, etc that are administered by the government.

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.

Limited with regard to defamation, obscenity, incitement, intellectual property, campaign finance, etc.

Canada does have a constitution, similar in many respects to the US constitution, but certainly not identical. This constitution addresses freedom of speech. A brief summary, with additional links, is available here :http://www.constitutional-law.net/expression.html . Canadian law allows the courts to interpret and rule on constitutional issues – similar to the US. Canadian Law allows the government to amend the constitution – similar to the US. The Canadian people, through their democratically elected representatives, have a path to express their opinions on all aspects of Canadian Law, and to effect changes in those laws should they prove unpalatable to a significant percentage of our citizens – similar to the US. The Canadian constitution and Canadian law do put reasonable limits on freedom of speech – again similar to the US as per the quote above from mumblethrax.

Sounds a bit like thought crime.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and I find this PCness very, very troubling.

Straw, I fear. And, free speech is worth more than the death of some arbitrarily large number of human lives.

Although I certainly support the right of citizens, newspaper editorialists, etc. of other countries to take an interest in, and comment on, Canadian internal affairs I must admit to some puzzlement as to why there is interest on this particular topic. I am also surprised at the vehemence in some of the comments from Ed. These decisions, as stated by Darat, serve primarily to remove certain special “privileges” claimed by religious adherents. From my atheistic point of view this is a good thing. There have been some straw men brought up, including such thing as burning bibles, abortion rights, and other “what if’s”. These issues are not covered by these decisions. They would be arbitrated on their own merits if and when circumstances required.

In any democracy there must exist a system of “checks and balances” in order to try to assure that the greatest benefit is provided to the citizens. The natural result of this is that there are no absolute guarantees of free speech in any country. These “checks and balances” exist in slightly different forms in Canada as compared to the US. The Canadian system, in the main, is a system that Canadians in general are comfortable with. The unspoken implication running through Ed’s posts is that the US system is the best and Canada should follow it. I suspect that an overwhelming number of Canadians would disagree.

I sure hope Dubya doesn’t get wind of this and decide we need to be liberated from the tyranny of our own laws. Good thing we don’t have any WMD’s that could be used as an excuse. :D

Thanz

13th December 2005, 10:25 AM

That kind of speech goes back to Schenck v. United States that epepke alluded to earlier. Speech that presents a "clear and present danger" is forbidden.

Schenck was a Socialist who published a pamphlet that he gave to draftees urging them to voice their opposition to the draft. He was arrested and the Supreme Court actually held his arrest as Constitutional since he was presenting a "clear and present danger" to the war effort.
Thanks for illustrating my point. The absolute language of the First Amendment has required the USSC to decide that some things are "protected speech" while other things are not "protected speech". The Canadian approach protects all forms of expression (except, I think, direct violence), and then requires the gov't to say why expression should be curtailed in a certain area. It has nothing to do with a historical look at the Charter, founder's intentions or anything else. It is simply "You have violated the right to freedom of expression. Why?" and it had better be a darn good reason. More transparent and honest, in my opinion, than trying to decide if some long dead dudes intended to protect porn when they said freedom of speech.

TriangleMan

13th December 2005, 10:29 AM

Some people sincerely believe that. Some believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. Some that drinking alcohol is wrong.
Now, you and I may say that we don't believe such things. That is fine and we should be allowed to say that.
And what about my point on "spare the rod"?

TriangleMan

13th December 2005, 10:31 AM

Mycroft

13th December 2005, 10:33 AM

Nothing new here, really.

Ernst Zundel was tried and eventually deported for saying his piece. (Oddly enough, there wasn't a big outcry from the "anti-PC" brigade...)

What are your feelings about that? Was there an outcry from you?

Mycroft

13th December 2005, 10:37 AM

In a properly defined society, sexual activity is no business of the state's...

But like it or not, it is the business of religion, and the religion should have the freedom to express its views.

Luke T.

13th December 2005, 10:38 AM

Thanks for illustrating my point. The absolute language of the First Amendment has required the USSC to decide that some things are "protected speech" while other things are not "protected speech". The Canadian approach protects all forms of expression (except, I think, direct violence), and then requires the gov't to say why expression should be curtailed in a certain area. It has nothing to do with a historical look at the Charter, founder's intentions or anything else. It is simply "You have violated the right to freedom of expression. Why?" and it had better be a darn good reason. More transparent and honest, in my opinion, than trying to decide if some long dead dudes intended to protect porn when they said freedom of speech.

Now you've done it. You have just highlighted something that reminds me of Alexis de Toqueville. :D

This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legal profession and upon the general course of society. The English and American lawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocate inquires what should have been done; the former produce precedents, the latter reasons. A French observer is surprised to hear how often an English or an American lawyer quotes the opinions of others, and how little he alludes to his own; whilst the reverse occurs in France. There the most trifling litigation is never conducted without the introduction of an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counsel employed; and the fundamental principles of law are discussed in order to obtain a perch of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his own opinion, and this implicit deference to the opinion of his forefathers, which are common to the English and American lawyer, this subjection of thought which he is obliged to profess, necessarily give him more timid habits and more sluggish inclinations in England and America than in France.

The French codes are often difficult of comprehension, but they can be read by every one; nothing, on the other hand, can be more impenetrable to the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The indispensable want of legal assistance which is felt in England and in the United States, and the high opinion which is generally entertained of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more and more from the people, and to place it in a distinct class. The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of his country; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants of Egypt, for, like them, he is the sole interpreter of an occult science.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/DemocracyinAmericaVol1B.html

Mycroft

13th December 2005, 10:44 AM

Well my personal view is that "hate speech" laws are not the route to go down to handle this type of problem BUT if we are to have them I am adamant that religion shouldn't be exempted from the consequences of such laws. If, as in Canada and soon the UK, we have them and Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs sacred texts break the laws I would hope they would be treated exactly the same way as any other "hate speech".

Fine, but there is a world of difference between saying "homosexuality as a behavior is wrong" and saying "kill/hurt the homosexual". One is hate speech that incites violence, the other is protected speech.

Orwell

13th December 2005, 10:45 AM

But like it or not, it is the business of religion, and the religion should have the freedom to express its views.

And as Darat pointed out, they have it. They have the freedom to express them in a responsible way.

epepke

13th December 2005, 10:47 AM

What about when it is your Supreme Court that is saying that some things don't count as "speech"? What do you do then?

The SCOTUS has effectively reversed itself before. Furthermore, the legislature can pass further legislation.

At least the Canadian approach requires the gov't to set out the real reason why expression is being limited - and to back up that reason. There may be a reason to prevent someone from disclosing the movements of American soldiers when they are at war, but it certainly isn't because doing so isn't "speech". But based on the wording of your Constitution, how else can you prevent it?

You can't, Constitutionally, by means of prior restraint. Typically, this kind of thing is handled by a written contract, which is typically one of the conditions of access. For example, the workers on the Manhattan project had to agree to have their mail censored as a condition of working on the project.

Look, you're not going to be able to convince me, and I'm not going to be able to convince you. What you see as weaknesses in the Constitution, I see as strengths. I don't see an "unless justifiable" statement about free speech as necessary, because the people who want these things are going to try to justify them anyway, and I'd rather they have to work harder and that we be able to challenge them at a later date.

Segnosaur

13th December 2005, 11:10 AM

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.

Actually, that's not exactly true... there are several other areas where Canada's freedom of speech is strongly limited (at least compared to the U.S.)...

- Much of the sexual material that comes to Canada gets censored at the border by Canada customs. Ironically, while most of the discussion here has revolved around anti-gay speech, the most visible case of censorship involves a gay/lesbian bookstore in B.C. called "Little Sisters". This book store has had many of their shipments confiscated, even though A) the material was already available in other book stores and even public libraries in Canada, and B) in many cases, the material involved only writing or drawing (i.e. no real people were photographed)

- There are laws restricting the publishing of election material on voting day and 3rd party election spending. (For example, groups like moveon.org in the U.S. would not be able to publish ads here in Canada)

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=jan1305&dir=agr&lang=e&textonly=false
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116631199898_13/?hub=Canada

- Judges routinely invoke "gag orders" related to the publication of court proceedings. While the idea is that it prevents the jury pool from being influenced by media reports, in reality it leads to the spread of misinformation and innuendos, and inhibits the ability of citizens to see exactly what their justice system is doing. (The most visible case of this was during the Paul Bernardo trial, where Customs canada was actually searching for and seizing newspapers from people driving into Canada.)

Thanz

13th December 2005, 11:11 AM

Look, you're not going to be able to convince me, and I'm not going to be able to convince you. What you see as weaknesses in the Constitution, I see as strengths. I don't see an "unless justifiable" statement about free speech as necessary, because the people who want these things are going to try to justify them anyway, and I'd rather they have to work harder and that we be able to challenge them at a later date.
I am not sure you understand my point, and I'm not sure I understand yours. let's use the concrete example of a law that makes certain hate speech a crime - like we have here in Canada. As I understand it, in the US the law would be challenged as an unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of speech. Then each side would debate whether hate speech is "protected speech" and what the founders intended, etc.

In Canada, the was challenged as an unconstitutional infringment on the freedom of expression. The debate focussed on whether the infringment was "demonstrably justified" in a free and democratic society, with the burden on the gov't to do the justifying.

Which debate do you think is more relevant? Which do you think is more honest? Which do you think actually addresses the competing interests between the two laws? Which do you think the Court should be having?

Giz

13th December 2005, 11:17 AM

Sounds like good news to me. It is about time that "religious beliefs" wasn't an acceptable defence when trying to remove or prevent others enjoying their civil rights.

Those two examples weren't really denying others any rights though were they?

(Note: I am an athiest and rather anti-religion, and pro-individual freedoms, but this just seems to be a bending over backwards pc attempt to pander to a "victim" group, rather than adopting a level playing field for all).

(Note 2: If someone wants to say that the Bible states X, then surely that is a matter of objective fact and - assuming the waters are not muddied by the writer subsequently inciting any offensive actions - then the Bible itself should be subject to censorship - i.e. banned from being sold in bookstores because it inspires hate, like mein kampf in Germany)

(Note 3: Don't you think that allowing small groups of enlightened leaders to tell everyone else what they can and cant say has kind of fascistic overtones?)

Belz...

13th December 2005, 12:09 PM

I sure hope Dubya doesn’t get wind of this and decide we need to be liberated from the tyranny of our own laws. Good thing we don’t have any WMD’s that could be used as an excuse. :D

Gunderscored forbid! American troops on our soil, stealing our oil and torturing our citizens in unofficial prisons ? Uh oh. I've said too much already.

Belz...

13th December 2005, 12:11 PM

But like it or not, it is the business of religion, and the religion should have the freedom to express its views.

Even when that means advocating crime ?

Belz...

13th December 2005, 12:13 PM

- Much of the sexual material that comes to Canada gets censored at the border by Canada customs. Ironically, while most of the discussion here has revolved around anti-gay speech, the most visible case of censorship involves a gay/lesbian bookstore in B.C. called "Little Sisters".

Depends which province we're talking about. We see odd things on the shelves here in Québec sometimes. Stuff that I don't think I'd see in the US, at least not within reach of children. Ah! Cultural differences.

Mycroft

13th December 2005, 12:51 PM

I took a look at that Bible vs homosexual ad and the first question that came to my mind was, "what was the person's intent when he decided to pay a bunch of cash for that ad?". It doesn't look to me like he was doing it to promote Bible literacy. To me the intention appeared to be to tell society that homosexuality is wrong - that seems a pretty hurtful thing to say.

It's promoting a political view that has a foundation in a religious view.

It should be protected speech.

What if someone posted an ad noting that the Bible says "spare the rod and spoil and child" followed by an equal sign with a picture of a kid being hit with a belt? Should that be okay to put on a billboard?

What's the difference between that and watching someone on some daytime talk show saying kids go wild when adults refuse to discipline them?

Mycroft

13th December 2005, 12:56 PM

Even when that means advocating crime ?

The example I saw wasn't advocating crime.

Segnosaur

13th December 2005, 01:02 PM

Depends which province we're talking about. We see odd things on the shelves here in Québec sometimes. Stuff that I don't think I'd see in the US, at least not within reach of children. Ah! Cultural differences.

Actually, I was referring to the federal government controlling material brought in to the country through Canada Customs. (I suppose the provinces can put additonal regulations on what people see/purchase, although I figure that's more of a cultural thing than a legal thing.) Not sure what type of regulations we have on stuff produced here in Canada.

I'd suggest reading up on the Little Sister's book store case. Its fascinating, seeing the arguments that the government used to justify their actions, and seeing how the supreme court gave in to their arguments.

epepke

13th December 2005, 01:39 PM

I am not sure you understand my point, and I'm not sure I understand yours. let's use the concrete example of a law that makes certain hate speech a crime - like we have here in Canada. As I understand it, in the US the law would be challenged as an unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of speech. Then each side would debate whether hate speech is "protected speech" and what the founders intended, etc.

In Canada, the was challenged as an unconstitutional infringment on the freedom of expression. The debate focussed on whether the infringment was "demonstrably justified" in a free and democratic society, with the burden on the gov't to do the justifying.

Which debate do you think is more relevant? Which do you think is more honest? Which do you think actually addresses the competing interests between the two laws? Which do you think the Court should be having?

I understand your point. You're coming from a different set of cultural expectations.

You think that the Canadian way is more honest, and you think that's good. I see what you mean by "honest," but I don't think that's good.

It's really that simple.

I would rather see politicians and legislators have to bend over backward to contrive reasons to restrict speech, which reasons can be attacked in the future, than to have a debate over "competing interests." That's because, in my experience, when you have such a debate, and claim that it's honest, what happens is that they guy everyone likes to hate gets screwed, and that's that. What is justifiable in a free and democratic society is really cool if you are a part of the effective majority or share its values, and it sucks otherwise.

epepke

13th December 2005, 01:51 PM

I took a look at that Bible vs homosexual ad and the first question that came to my mind was, "what was the person's intent when he decided to pay a bunch of cash for that ad?". It doesn't look to me like he was doing it to promote Bible literacy. To me the intention appeared to be to tell society that homosexuality is wrong - that seems a pretty hurtful thing to say.

What if someone posted an ad noting that the Bible says "spare the rod and spoil and child" followed by an equal sign with a picture of a kid being hit with a belt? Should that be okay to put on a billboard?

For me, personally, not only yes but hells yes. That should be OK to put on a billboard. Although, to be accurate, it should be a rod, not a belt. And given the Biblical context, it should be a "builder's rod," whatever that is.

Actually, I can think of a very good public service ad campaign based on that premise, though I think it would work better as an animated GIF than a series of billboards. But I won't tell you what it is until after you respond.

Orwell

13th December 2005, 02:36 PM

Actually, I was referring to the federal government controlling material brought in to the country through Canada Customs. (I suppose the provinces can put additonal regulations on what people see/purchase, although I figure that's more of a cultural thing than a legal thing.) Not sure what type of regulations we have on stuff produced here in Canada.

I'd suggest reading up on the Little Sister's book store case. Its fascinating, seeing the arguments that the government used to justify their actions, and seeing how the supreme court gave in to their arguments.

In that case the situation was that Canada Customs interpreted obscene material laws in a excessively restrictive (and creative) way, and the ministry responsible for overseeing them decided to back them up in order not to loose face. If I'm not mistaken, the US also has laws restricting the importation of material judged to be obscene.

Canada Customs carried out a campaign of harassment against a Vancouver gay and lesbian bookstore by repeatedly seizing books and videos its agents deemed obscene, the Supreme Court of Canada said yesterday.

A 6-3 majority nonetheless concluded the problem lay in unsophisticated or reckless agents, not with legislation that permits them to seize material bound for Little Sister's Book and Art Emporium.

The court majority rapped Canada Customs sharply on the knuckles for its 15-year "running battle" with the bookstore, but it struck down just a solitary legislative provision, one that put the onus on importers to prove seized material is not obscene. http://www.littlesistersbookstore.com/court.asp#dec2000globe1

Thanz

13th December 2005, 02:51 PM

I understand your point. You're coming from a different set of cultural expectations.

You think that the Canadian way is more honest, and you think that's good. I see what you mean by "honest," but I don't think that's good.

It's really that simple.

I would rather see politicians and legislators have to bend over backward to contrive reasons to restrict speech, which reasons can be attacked in the future, than to have a debate over "competing interests." That's because, in my experience, when you have such a debate, and claim that it's honest, what happens is that they guy everyone likes to hate gets screwed, and that's that. What is justifiable in a free and democratic society is really cool if you are a part of the effective majority or share its values, and it sucks otherwise.
Well, it sounds simple, but I am still confused. I suppose you think that it is harder to limit free speech if you have to debate the BS founders intention etc., but I disagree - especially if you are slamming down the guy everyone loves to hate as you say. If BS reasons will do, then those BS reasons work for anything. If you need real reasons, that's harder.

Example - gay marriage. Not speech, but still talking about rights. In this case, equality rights, which are guaranteed by the Charter. When forced to actually articulate the reason for not allowing gays to marry, the gov't could not come up with a good enough reason, and now gays are allowed to marry in Canada. In the US, you have the "Defence of Marriage Act" (as if marriage was somehow under attack). A full, frank and rational discussion of the issues leads to better results, IMO.

epepke

13th December 2005, 03:09 PM

Well, it sounds simple, but I am still confused. I suppose you think that it is harder to limit free speech if you have to debate the BS founders intention etc., but I disagree - especially if you are slamming down the guy everyone loves to hate as you say. If BS reasons will do, then those BS reasons work for anything. If you need real reasons, that's harder.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. BS will out. Reasons conform to the opinions of the day.

Example - gay marriage. Not speech, but still talking about rights. In this case, equality rights, which are guaranteed by the Charter. When forced to actually articulate the reason for not allowing gays to marry, the gov't could not come up with a good enough reason, and now gays are allowed to marry in Canada. In the US, you have the "Defence of Marriage Act" (as if marriage was somehow under attack). A full, frank and rational discussion of the issues leads to better results, IMO.

Please don't change the subject. We're talking about speech here. That I like the way the US does free speech does not mean that I like the way the US does other things, and that the Charter may work better in other areas does not mean that I have to agree that it applies to speech.

Speech to me is special, because it is in precisely those areas where a majority would object to speech that it must be protected. In other words, the easier it is to put up a justification in a "free and democratic society," the more it should be protected. This is ideological, and I don't expect to be able to convince you, so I might as well give up now, but as Lenny Bruce pointed out (ironically against the rules of this forum), if you can't say "f*ck," you can't say "f*ck the government." You should be able to say "f*ck the government." You should even be able to say "f*ck a free and democratic society."

Also, it has to be pointed out that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been in place since 1982, which is approximately half of my life. When it has 225 years of precedent on top of it, instead of a scant 25, we'll see how it holds up, should we live long enough.

Segnosaur

13th December 2005, 04:43 PM

In that case the situation was that Canada Customs interpreted obscene material laws in a excessively restrictive (and creative) way, and the ministry responsible for overseeing them decided to back them up in order not to loose face.

That may certainly be the case. However, it is at least a little worrying to me to think that the ministry involved would prefer to cover up mistakes rather than fix them. And even if the whole issue started with an overzealous customs official or two, the fact is, the supreme court (the body that is charged with protecting our constitutional rights) sided with the government over the matter. I'd feel a little better about the situation if the court would have struck down the whole law.

I do remember watching part of the supreme court proceedings on CPAC, where the government basically said "we made mistakes but we've already fixed them". So, the supreme court believed them. Of course, here we are, just a few short years later, and guess what? Once again the Little Sisters book store is back in court fighting Customs Canada. (This time I believe its over comic books.)

If I'm not mistaken, the US also has laws restricting the importation of material judged to be obscene.

I'm sure they do, but I believe they take a much more narrow view over what they consider unacceptable.

Segnosaur

13th December 2005, 04:50 PM

Example - gay marriage. Not speech, but still talking about rights. In this case, equality rights, which are guaranteed by the Charter. When forced to actually articulate the reason for not allowing gays to marry, the gov't could not come up with a good enough reason, and now gays are allowed to marry in Canada.

Ummm... this is a little bit off topic, but that's not exactly the way it happened.

When the Liberal government had created its same-sex-marriage legislation, they submitted it to the Supreme court for review. The court determined that the act itself did not violate the charter; however, they stopped short in saying that the act itself was necessary, or that not allowing same sex marriage was a violation of charter rights.

Remember, the way the charter of rights is worded, sexual orientation is not included. Also, the marriage act that we USED to have did not prevent gays from marrying; it only restricted who they could marry, and that particular item was not covered in the constitution. (That's assuming the charter is being narrowly interpreted.)

I'm not saying that gay marriage is wrong; just that it may not have been required by the constitution.

Orwell

13th December 2005, 06:41 PM

epepke

13th December 2005, 07:26 PM

Charlie Monoxide

13th December 2005, 08:03 PM

Actually, that's not exactly true... there are several other areas where Canada's freedom of speech is strongly limited (at least compared to the U.S.)...

- Much of the sexual material that comes to Canada gets censored at the border by Canada customs. Ironically, while most of the discussion here has revolved around anti-gay speech, the most visible case of censorship involves a gay/lesbian bookstore in B.C. called "Little Sisters". This book store has had many of their shipments confiscated, even though A) the material was already available in other book stores and even public libraries in Canada, and B) in many cases, the material involved only writing or drawing (i.e. no real people were photographed)

- There are laws restricting the publishing of election material on voting day and 3rd party election spending. (For example, groups like moveon.org in the U.S. would not be able to publish ads here in Canada)

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=jan1305&dir=agr&lang=e&textonly=false
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116631199898_13/?hub=Canada

- Judges routinely invoke "gag orders" related to the publication of court proceedings. While the idea is that it prevents the jury pool from being influenced by media reports, in reality it leads to the spread of misinformation and innuendos, and inhibits the ability of citizens to see exactly what their justice system is doing. (The most visible case of this was during the Paul Bernardo trial, where Customs canada was actually searching for and seizing newspapers from people driving into Canada.)You are correct sir! Although I'm Canadian, I've been living outside of Canada since 1996. Heck, I'm totally brainwashed on fahrenheit/gallons and miles down here.

I am familair with the "Little Sisters" episode. A nasty piece of selective law enforcement done by the feds. It was a bit ironic since the PC attitude was pronography denigrates women, and here we find a "pornographic" title being pulled that is targetting women (lesbians).

Canada has only had it's constitution for a little while compared to our American cousins. At least it doesn't contain bans on housing soldiers and other archana that is is still in the American constitution. I feel we (as Canadians) have lots of work ahead of us refining it.

Charlie (what, no hockey in the Canadian constitution) Monoxide

Belz...

14th December 2005, 04:36 AM

In the US, you have the "Defence of Marriage Act" (as if marriage was somehow under attack).

What does it say ?

Belz...

14th December 2005, 04:38 AM

Please don't change the subject. [...]

Speech to me is special, because it is in precisely those areas where a majority would object to speech that it must be protected. In other words, the easier it is to put up a justification in a "free and democratic society," the more it should be protected. This is ideological, and I don't expect to be able to convince you, so I might as well give up now, but as Lenny Bruce pointed out (ironically against the rules of this forum), if you can't say "f*ck," you can't say "f*ck the government." You should be able to say "f*ck the government." You should even be able to say "f*ck a free and democratic society."

What if they, instead, say, "attack government buildings and destroy government property." Should this be legal ?

Marc L

14th December 2005, 05:25 AM

As an official action of a goverment agency, this [burning the bible-Marc] would not be a good thing. As a spontaneous action by a suddenly enlightened species, it would be wonderful.

I disagree. I'm personally of the view that no form of expression, no matter how much I disagree with it should be destroyed simply because of it's content. The mere act of destroying it for that reason negates the 'enlightenment' the destroyer is claiming.

Pagan literature was once burned because of Christian 'enlightenment'. To them, it made sense. Pagans were unenlightened, and their writings were offensive. Now, we know very little about Pagan beliefs because of it.

An enlightened person, in my opinion, would simply ignore literature s/he disagreed with. Were the entire human species suddenly to become spontaneously enlightened, I think 'offensive' literature would just mold and rot away due to lack of interest.

Marc

Thanz

14th December 2005, 06:15 AM

Ummm... this is a little bit off topic, but that's not exactly the way it happened.

When the Liberal government had created its same-sex-marriage legislation, they submitted it to the Supreme court for review. The court determined that the act itself did not violate the charter; however, they stopped short in saying that the act itself was necessary, or that not allowing same sex marriage was a violation of charter rights.
Actually, you are skipping a very important step. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern DID say that not allowing same sex marriage violated the Charter. The reference on the bill did not put these issues before the court - and that is why they didn't comment on them. But the impetus for the same sex marriage legislation was the strong judgment by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=d %3A%5Cusers%5Contario%20courts%5Cwww%5Cdecisions%5 C2003%5Cjune%5ChalpernC39172%2Ehtm

Remember, the way the charter of rights is worded, sexual orientation is not included. Also, the marriage act that we USED to have did not prevent gays from marrying; it only restricted who they could marry, and that particular item was not covered in the constitution. (That's assuming the charter is being narrowly interpreted.)

I'm not saying that gay marriage is wrong; just that it may not have been required by the constitution.
1) Read Halpern (link above).
2) Although "sexual orientation" is not in the list of grounds in section 15, it is considered to be an analogous ground. It doesn't have to be listed to get protection. This point has in fact been conceded by the government.
3) There is no old marriage act for the court to rule on. The Ontario Court ruled on the common law definition of marriage.
4) Saying that the restriction did not prevent gays from marrying is semantic double speak at best.
5) None of these arguments (or others) were convincing to the Court of Appeal.

14th December 2005, 06:48 AM

Segnosaur

14th December 2005, 07:33 AM

Is anyone here seriously arguing that individual Canadians have less freedom of speech than individual Americans?

That's EXACTLY what I'm arguing.

I'm not suggesting that Canada has a serious problem with oppressing free speech. But then, neither do the Americans. However, given a choice about which country has "freeer" speech, I'd have to go with the U.S. Cheering on our relatively high standard of free speech (compared to most countries in the world, many of whom are dictatorships) doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't countries who are even better at offering that freedom.

Particularly if you take into consideration how the mass media operates in our respective countries.

A few arguments against that:

- The issue of free speech involves restrictions placed by the government. Even if all media were controlled by a single individual, that would not mean that you don't have free speech. (The right of free speech does not guarantee you a platform to make that speech heard.) However, even if much of the mass media isn't publishing material you think is relevant, there ARE other options available (including the internet, small private newspapers, etc.)

- Not sure what complaint you have against the U.S. mass media. Yes, there IS a lot of consolidation (many news sources owned by single companies), and are guilty of missing certain points, but guess what? Canada has the same problems. Recall that the Asper family (who has ties to the Liberal party) owns the Southam chain of newspapers, AND Canwest broadcasting. CBC is government run.

Segnosaur

14th December 2005, 09:04 AM

You are correct sir!

Thank you for the vote of confidence.

I do want to point out one other area that I missed when it comes to Freedom of Speech.... the notwithstanding clause (which allows the government to suspend certain basic rights, including free speech.)

Remember, the Quebec government had, for several years, actually banned english signs both inside and outside stores. Most democratic countries would be shocked to think some business couldn't put up a sign outside their store just because its in a particular language.

Canada has only had it's constitution for a little while compared to our American cousins. At least it doesn't contain bans on housing soldiers and other archana that is is still in the American constitution.

Well, not sure why having little archana would be considered all that bad... after all, if they are totally pointless then they can simply be ignored. On the other hand, there may be cases where those parts of their consititution actually provide the basis for many of their freedoms. (After all, doesn't the ban on housing soldiers provide at least part of their concept of property rights?)

Belz...

14th December 2005, 09:09 AM

I'm not suggesting that Canada has a serious problem with oppressing free speech. But then, neither do the Americans. However, given a choice about which country has "freeer" speech, I'd have to go with the U.S.

Really ? I wasn't aware we were restricted in any way, except for the aforementionned criminal solicitation. Also, consider that many US states have their own laws on the subject, and it can be difficult to keep track of all 50 of them.

Segnosaur

14th December 2005, 09:44 AM

Really ? I wasn't aware we were restricted in any way, except for the aforementionned criminal solicitation. Also, consider that many US states have their own laws on the subject, and it can be difficult to keep track of all 50 of them.

Ummm... just wondering, what country are you from? (I'm just not sure how to answer that.)

If you're referring to Canada, well, I've already posted several restrictions.

If you're referring to the U.S., well, there ARE a few addtional restrictions (apart from criminal solicitation)... for example, the FCC places limits on the time of material that can be broadcast. But then, so does every country. Still, you do have more freedom there than here.

Belz...

14th December 2005, 09:55 AM

Ummm... just wondering, what country are you from? (I'm just not sure how to answer that.)

If you're referring to Canada, well, I've already posted several restrictions.

If you're referring to the U.S., well, there ARE a few addtional restrictions (apart from criminal solicitation)... for example, the FCC places limits on the time of material that can be broadcast. But then, so does every country. Still, you do have more freedom there than here.

Canada. What restrictions ?

Segnosaur

14th December 2005, 10:17 AM

Canada. What restrictions ?

Haven't you read any of the posts I've made? We've got A) restrictive election 'gag' laws, B) restrictive customs laws, C) resticrictive court gag laws, D) a "notwithstanding" clause that allows freedom of speech to be curtailed (see Quebec bill 101), E) regulations on what can be broadcast (including Canadian content rules), F) "hate" laws which seem to go beyond immediate criminal threats

Now, YOU may not consider these to be restrictions at all, but others do. And the measure of a freedom is not in how the majority's desires are handled, but in how the minority's rights are respected.

Belz...

14th December 2005, 12:09 PM

Haven't you read any of the posts I've made?

Woah. Sorry if I insulted you, here. Just asking questions.

Now, YOU may not consider these to be restrictions at all, but others do. And the measure of a freedom is not in how the majority's desires are handled, but in how the minority's rights are respected.

Of course they are restrictions. The question is, are they reasonable. Obviously, no law system can allow everyone to do everything. How much is too much ?

Orwell

14th December 2005, 12:55 PM

That's EXACTLY what I'm arguing.

I'm not suggesting that Canada has a serious problem with oppressing free speech. But then, neither do the Americans. However, given a choice about which country has "freeer" speech, I'd have to go with the U.S. Cheering on our relatively high standard of free speech (compared to most countries in the world, many of whom are dictatorships) doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't countries who are even better at offering that freedom. I agree with the "we could do better" part, but I don't agree with the "U.S. is doing better" part.

A few arguments against that:

- The issue of free speech involves restrictions placed by the government. Even if all media were controlled by a single individual, that would not mean that you don't have free speech. (The right of free speech does not guarantee you a platform to make that speech heard.) However, even if much of the mass media isn't publishing material you think is relevant, there ARE other options available (including the internet, small private newspapers, etc.)
You talk like if speech was created in a vacuum. The formation of ideas and points of views is highly dependent on the information available. For most people, the main provider of information is the mass media. I pretty much take for granted the idea that exposure to a variety of mass media sources helps to foster open minds and critical thinking.
- Not sure what complaint you have against the U.S. mass media. Yes, there IS a lot of consolidation (many news sources owned by single companies), and are guilty of missing certain points, but guess what? Canada has the same problems. Recall that the Asper family (who has ties to the Liberal party) owns the Southam chain of newspapers, AND Canwest broadcasting. CBC is government run. Yes, Canada has the same big problems with media consolidation. But for now, I believe that our mass media are still presenting a greater variety of points of view to the public than US mass media. I say this by direct comparison: like most Canadians, I have access to US mass media. And the CBC, in spite of (or because of) its government ownership, still presents a greater variety of points of view than the commercial channels.

Orwell

14th December 2005, 01:04 PM

As far as I know, all the "gag" laws imposed by Canadian courts have been temporary, generally until the trial is over. They're only a temporary restriction. Personally, I have no trouble with that. I don't think that the media circus that usually accompanies high profile trials in the US serves justice. And the sensationalism surrounding these things typically isn't very informative...

Segnosaur

14th December 2005, 01:36 PM

Woah. Sorry if I insulted you, here. Just asking questions.

Not really insulted; just confused. Asking "what restrictions" after I've already posted around half a dozen examples of Canadian free speech restriction made me wonder just what point you were trying to make.

Of course they are restrictions. The question is, are they reasonable. Obviously, no law system can allow everyone to do everything. How much is too much ?

You're right. However, as I've pointed out, there is more freedom in the United States, and they do not seem to be crumbling under all the weight of all that free speech. If the U.S. can do it, why not Canada?

None of the restrictions I pointed out are designed to prevent immediate physical harm. None of them involve criminal activities (child pr0n, for example). As for what is 'reasonable', who decides? I'd rather have too much freedom of speech (because I always have the right to turn off the TV or not read the newspaper if I so choose) than not enough.

Belz...

14th December 2005, 02:00 PM

You're right. However, as I've pointed out, there is more freedom in the United States, and they do not seem to be crumbling under all the weight of all that free speech. If the U.S. can do it, why not Canada?

Ah! But freedom also requires that one be well-informed about the various choices. I'm not sure the US is well-served in that department, in comparison to Canada, because I get the impression that sources of information seem somewhat more biased or controlled. Of course, I don't live in the US so it's just an impression, right ?

None of the restrictions I pointed out are designed to prevent immediate physical harm. None of them involve criminal activities (child pr0n, for example). As for what is 'reasonable', who decides? I'd rather have too much freedom of speech (because I always have the right to turn off the TV or not read the newspaper if I so choose) than not enough.

Not sure I agree. However, since I'm not sure I disagree, I'm not going to debate that.

Segnosaur

14th December 2005, 02:05 PM

I agree with the "we could do better" part, but I don't agree with the "U.S. is doing better" part.

Well, in that case, why don't you provide examples where the U.S. is actually MORE restrictive than Canada?

You talk like if speech was created in a vacuum.

Well, as far as the government is involved, speech DOES exist in a vacuum. And it is the government that decides our rights.

But for now, I believe that our mass media are still presenting a greater variety of points of view to the public than US mass media.... And the CBC, in spite of (or because of) its government ownership, still presents a greater variety of points of view than the commercial channels.

Well, that's your belief, and you're welcome to it. However, I doubt there's any evidence that there ARE more points of view shown here in Canada. (Well, there may be simply because we have more political parties expressing opinions.)

But, lets see... what major TV networks do you have in Canada for news? There is: CBC and CBC newsworld (have to count them as 1), CTV and Newnet (again, count them as 1), and Canwest Global. That's 3 sources.

What do you have in the U.S.? 4 major broadcast networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox), CNN (I'm not counting Fox news), and PBS. That's twice the number of televised news sources that Canada has.

As for CBC, well, YOU may think that they are providing fair and balanced reporting, but there are many people in the country who believe they are biased against the conservatives. In fact, there is a web site dedicated to people who think they're biased (see: cbcwatch.ca). Of course, ultimately its pretty much impossible to prove a news source is either fair or biased (since in many cases a bias can simply involve NOT reporting news). But you have to wonder, do you really think that people working for the CBC will give equal weight to a party who, according to reputation, would want to privatize it/cut its funding?

As far as I know, all the "gag" laws imposed by Canadian courts have been temporary, generally until the trial is over. They're only a temporary restriction. Personally, I have no trouble with that. I don't think that the media circus that usually accompanies high profile trials in the US serves justice. And the sensationalism surrounding these things typically isn't very informative...

Yes, the gag laws DO tend to be temporary. And while trials in the U.S. can often result in media circuses, there are dangers in keeping the aspects of an ongoing trial secret... It can lead to various rumours floating around (which can be more damaging than the truth sometimes), and by delaying the publication of details, citizens may be denied information that may find important in their lives (for example, if it involves political decisions) at a time when its most relevant.

epepke

14th December 2005, 02:25 PM

What if they, instead, say, "attack government buildings and destroy government property." Should this be legal ?

I've seen some examples of people who said this, and it's been protected speech. Unless the incitement is imminent, there can be no prior restraint.

The game Deus Ex directly involves attacking government buildings and destroying government property. Yet it's legal. Also consider the film Enemy of the State.

Belz...

14th December 2005, 06:18 PM

I've seen some examples of people who said this, and it's been protected speech. Unless the incitement is imminent, there can be no prior restraint.

The game Deus Ex directly involves attacking government buildings and destroying government property. Yet it's legal. Also consider the film Enemy of the State.

Perhaps. However, playing a game in which you portray a character that commits murder is not the same thing as going to your neighbour and saying: "Commit murder!" That's encitement, not entertainment.

luchog

14th December 2005, 07:08 PM

I told them (as nearly as I can recall) "If there is a first step on the road to fascism, this is it."

They said I was off base and over-reacting.

I said "But.....but...but.... YOU are the DEMOCRATS here!"

Still boggles me.
You think Democrats aren't closet fascists? Who are the one's promoting all the "for the children" restrictions on adults, like the Communications Decency Act; one of the biggest restrictions on free expression to happen in my lifetime.

This just goes to prove that, underneath it all, there really is no fundamental difference between the big two parties.

luchog

14th December 2005, 07:32 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. BS will out. Reasons conform to the opinions of the day.
Particularly since the SCOTUS has reversed itself, or reversed lower court rulings, on what constitutes "protected speech" and "obscenity" on more than one occasion. It has even been reversed by lower courts (Bowers v. Hardwick, Georgia Supreme Court).

luchog

14th December 2005, 08:06 PM

Is anyone here seriously arguing that individual Canadians have less freedom of speech than individual Americans? If you say yes, that's not the impression I have... Particularly if you take into consideration how the mass media operates in our respective countries.
In theory, I think that Canadians do have marginally less protection. The US code is absolute, the Canadian one is not, nor does it have "prior restraint" protection. That makes it somewhat easier for the Canadian government to restrict speech than it is for the US government to do so; and much more difficult, in the long run, to overturn such restrictions.

In practice, the effect varies widely, and taken as a whole, there isn't all that much difference.

One of the key differences, however, isn't even the re-defining of "protected speech", since restrictions based on defining something as "unprotected speech" are inevitably challenged and often reversed; but in how the US government evades the First Amendment protections. Since it is so absolute, when the government wishes to restrict speech, it is often requires to resort to round-about ways to do so, by trumping up charges based on a completely unrelated law. Racketeering is a perennial favorite.

In the '80s and '90s, with the boom in "underground comics", most of the "obscenity" charges were being struck down by the courts as violations of the First Amendment; so that absolutist protection did work more often than not. Since the feds were not successfully prosecuting obscenity, they dredged up the RICO statutes, and started prosecuting, more successfully, for "racketeering". Even if those prosecutions failed, the forfeiture provisions allowed them to effectively destroy or bankrupt a business -- sometimes without even filing charges. Needless to say, there was a huge backlash.

Any of you Americans who think the Patriot Act is prone to abuse, look up the history of application of the RICO Act.

It's interesting to note that, with all the child obscenity laws currently in force, the feds have never tried to attempt similar prosecution of artists like Sally Mann and Jock Sturges, despite routinely seizing their work (and in some case, being required to return it). Attempted prosecution of bookstores carrying it have been singularly unsuccessful.

luchog

14th December 2005, 08:09 PM

luchog

14th December 2005, 08:12 PM

TriangleMan

15th December 2005, 04:54 AM

My apologies to Mycroft, epepke and others who have responded to my comments but I've been swamped and won't be able to reply until tomorrow. If the thread goes in a different direction I'll PM you.

Beerina

15th December 2005, 07:41 AM

Very few, and then there is an enormous burden on the government to demonstrate why an elemental right (and protection from tyranny) is being challenged.

There were cases during Viet Nam where various wackos were calling for the overthrow of the government, their speech was protected.

I am no friend of religion but they have the right to their speech, as I have the right to mine. And I would defend their right because in so doing I am defending my rights too. Free speech as a right is worthless if the only speech that is free is that with which we are comfortable.

I think what Canada is missing in all this, as are the PC crowd in general, is that the reason free speech is important is because it can have an affect on people. That it makes people feel bad is an attempt to get them to modify their position. This is why speech is important.

Where is the dividing line between PC speech, and just silencing your opposition so they cannot change the situation at hand? Doesn't the PC crowd realize that the "firm rightness of their position" is the problem with censorship historically?

A lot of people in the skeptic community, and philosophy in general (for centuries) are proud of getting people freed from religion. But not this way, by silencing religion using armed thugs and threats of violence.

It's wrong, and disgusting, to "round up Jews, but for the correct reasons".

Beerina

15th December 2005, 07:45 AM

1. What is wrong with saying "God says we must kill anybody who aborts a baby?" As written, it appears merely to be reporting what the speaker believes to be fact. It advocates nothing just as "God says it is wrong to abort" advocates nothing.

2. Where is the line to be drawn? If "God says it is wrong to abort" is okay, what about these:

"God says I should dislike people who abort."

"God says people who abort will go to hell but we can still be friends with them."

"God says stay completely away from the evil people who abort."

"I hate people who abort."

"God says kill people who abort, but I think that's going too far."

How about a more realistic example from the US?

"The law forbids me from restricting renting my house to whites. I dislike other races, and don't want to rent to them. However, the law says I must treat all comers fairly. My house is for rent at 123 Fake St., all are legally welcome to come by."

Now would that be an illegal advertisement, even if it were 100% truth?

Beerina

15th December 2005, 07:50 AM

in Canada where until recently private insurance was illegal.

What? An increase in freedom in the economic/socialism realm?!?!? :jaw-dropp

Uhhh, I don't know what to say. Praise Jesus? :jaw-dropp

What power-hungry politician died and let this slip through the cracks before another seized control?

Beerina

15th December 2005, 08:13 AM

Although I certainly support the right of citizens, newspaper editorialists, etc. of other countries to take an interest in, and comment on, Canadian internal affairs I must admit to some puzzlement as to why there is interest on this particular topic. I am also surprised at the vehemence in some of the comments from Ed. These decisions, as stated by Darat, serve primarily to remove certain special “privileges” claimed by religious adherents. From my atheistic point of view this is a good thing.

From my atheistic point of view, this is a terrible idea. But that's because I'm atheistic in both religion and politics. I see the powers the hungry grab for, the money, the control, and the techniques they use on the general population, as being wrong, and identical in both methods and goals.

Hence politicians silencing people for political reasons is the same as if for religious reasons -- the current state of affairs is a bizarre evolution on the battle for control by power hungry people. Over the past couple of hundred years, people realized religion was used to gain power. So they tried to ban it from using religious reasons to gain power. However, those who want power, still want it, and use the same arguments as to why they, not that other guy, should be in charge. "We'll silence those bad guys, elect me, and I'll make your life better."

Not a welcome development in the future of humanity at all.

The ideas should continue to be marginalized -- because they are mocked, discussed, made to look bad -- in the realm of free speech, not because some politician is gaining applause curbstomping the speech of the opposition.

In any democracy there must exist a system of “checks and balances”

Checks and balances are a feature of a free nation, not a democracy. They are there to keep any one governmental group from wielding too much power. Free people do not "check" themselves.

in order to try to assure that the greatest benefit is provided to the citizens.

How in god's name do you define "benefits"? How does "benefit" differ whatsoever from "something a power hungry politician trumpets to the general population, via stomping on some subsegment of it"?

I cannot see the difference.

The natural result of this is that there are no absolute guarantees of free speech in any country.

And that's exactly why freedom is more important than democracy. It provides an inalienable guarantee of freedom, and freedom from the most vicious of all detractors -- the government itself, and, more specifically, the power hungry thug leading the general population on a cruscade.

Which, of course, is exactly what this is all about. The PC crowd currently has more people on their side; hence the politicians, enjoying power and being elected, kowtow to it, removing freedoms of the minority.

Disgusting. Thoroughly repulsive, all the way to the bone.

These “checks and balances” exist in slightly different forms in Canada as compared to the US. The Canadian system, in the main, is a system that Canadians in general are comfortable with.

But Canadians in specific, in a minority, are being stomped on. This is the historical problem. The minority, being stomped on by the power wielding politicians leading the majority.

OF COURSE the majority is comfortable with this. That's the whole historical problem!

The unspoken implication running through Ed’s posts is that the US system is the best and Canada should follow it. I suspect that an overwhelming number of Canadians would disagree.

The overwhelming population of the planet, some 95%, disagree that religion is all fraudulent crap. Are they also correct?

And, are they so correct, that they should enforce their beliefs on everyone? It is democracy you love, after all.

I sure hope Dubya doesn’t get wind of this and decide we need to be liberated from the tyranny of our own laws. Good thing we don’t have any WMD’s that could be used as an excuse. :D

Ironically, I support people being liberated. Slavery and oppression first. Then speech. Then economics. I do not recognize the right of power hungry politicians to lead masses on cruscades against other people. Freedom of Body. Life. Action. If some alien came down and freed us from socialism, I would have no problem with that whatsoever.

Molinaro

15th December 2005, 10:38 AM

I am Canadian.

I have no problems with the any of the legal decisions mentioned in this thread.

The concept of free speech is far weaker than the concept of freedom from being subjected to public expressions of hatred.

The fair and just running of an election is far more important than the equal restrictions placed on all parties on election day. And the restrictions placed on 3rd parties ensures that nobody gets to 'buy' the election thanks to deeper pockets and business connections.

The government has a responsibility to ensure the continued existance of Canadian culture and identity. One way they do this is to require Canadian Broadcast Companies to include a minimum % of their programming to be of Canadian origin. They say nothing about what that content must be, or what can/cannot be included in the non-Canadian portion of their content. (Within limits of existing laws)

The protection of children is far more important than an author's right to publish a book that includes a story about a child being in a sexual relationship with an adult.

The right of the accused to a fair trial is far more important than the public's need to know what is hapening as it hapens. The public loses nothing if they find out about the details after the trial. This is obviously so, since nothing outside the courtroom should have anything to do with how the case goes forward. Hence, nothing is served by allowing the public to watch it as it hapens. While justice is better served by minimizing the oportunities for any external influence. Someone mentioned that it allows rumor and inuendo to run rampant. Since we know that there is a gag in place, why would any rational thinking person give any credence to anything they hear over the water cooler while the trial is still going on?

Anyone who runs a public business must serve all customers who come through their doors. It is illegal to deny someone service based on race, religious beliefs, or any other such criteria. Having a business means that you benefit from government protections. But it also means that your customers are also protected. What harm is there in requiring someone who wants a to run a public business to serve all customers equaly? On the other hand, the harm inherant in allowing business to pick and choose who they want to serve is very obvious.

In every case I feel it comes down to a question of harm. And in each case, the harm inherant in the generalized concept of "restricting my freedom of speech" is nothing compared to the harm that those restrictions are meant to protect us from.

epepke

15th December 2005, 11:41 AM

Perhaps. However, playing a game in which you portray a character that commits murder is not the same thing as going to your neighbour and saying: "Commit murder!" That's encitement, not entertainment.

In the US, at least, the distinction is usually based on whether the threat is imminent.

But to step outside of the box for a minute, this is what happens when we talk about speech. People things out of their ass all the time.

The original question was whether it would be legal on a billboard. Yes, it would. Would it be legal if someone went up to their neighbor and said "Commit murder!" Yes, it probably would.

But your argument consists of a tacit assumption that a billboard is [b]totally unlike[/i] a video game but exactly the same as running up to your neighbor and saying "Commit murder!" This, of course, makes not the slightest bit of sense.

epepke

15th December 2005, 11:44 AM

The concept of free speech is far weaker than the concept of freedom from being subjected to public expressions of hatred.

This is the crux of the biscut, and it neatly describes the cultural differences between the US and Canada.

The protection of children is far more important than an author's right to publish a book that includes a story about a child being in a sexual relationship with an adult.

Then, therefore, the publication of Nabokov's Lolita must be prevented, because the protection of children is so much more important.

Fine for Canada. Not fine for the US.

Belz...

15th December 2005, 12:11 PM

But your argument consists of a tacit assumption that a billboard is [b]totally unlike[/i] a video game but exactly the same as running up to your neighbor and saying "Commit murder!" This, of course, makes not the slightest bit of sense.

If it's meant to incite violence, then yes, it's like running up to someone and saying that. Video games are clearly marked as entertainment. Billboards are not.

epepke

15th December 2005, 12:35 PM

If it's meant to incite violence, then yes, it's like running up to someone and saying that. Video games are clearly marked as entertainment. Billboards are not.

So, you write that down in some Canadian Book of Absolute Facts, and that's it. A billboard is obviously the best place to incite people to immediate violence, because we all know that violent mobs are usually made of people driving 70 mph, which completely explains why people don't riot farther than they can walk.

Anyway, if that's how Canada thinks, Canada is welcome to it. I don't think it makes sense.

Molinaro

15th December 2005, 01:08 PM

Then, therefore, the publication of Nabokov's Lolita must be prevented, because the protection of children is so much more important.

That depends on how old the child is in that story. The laws in Canada are significantly different for age of consent.

In the US it is 16. In Canada it's not so straightforward.

A 12 year old can consent to sex with a 12 or 13 year old
A 13 year old is ok with a 12, 13, or 14 year old
A 14 year old is ok with anyone 13+
Anyone 15+ is ok with anyone 14+

So, adults can legaly have sex with anyone 14+ and anyone 12 or 13 can only have sex with someone within 1 year of their age, not youger than 12.

epepke

15th December 2005, 01:13 PM

That depends on how old the child is in that story. The laws in Canada are significantly different for age of consent.

12. And the guy is well over 18.

Note: I haven't read it, though I did read Ada and find it interesting satire, but Ada takes place in a kind of topsy-turvy mirror universe, whereas Lolita is supposed to take place in the modern real world. But I will note that I have seen many people consider Lolita the best novel written in English over the past 100 years.

Steve

15th December 2005, 01:48 PM

Checks and balances are a feature of a free nation, not a democracy. They are there to keep any one governmental group from wielding too much power. Free people do not "check" themselves.

IMO Canada, the US and nations with similar froms of government are "free nations". Democracy is the "freest" (is that a word?) form of government there is. I am genuinely interested in your description of a free nation.

You say "Checks and balances are a feature of a free nation, not a democracy" then, "Free people do not "check" themselves". Do they or don't they have checks and balances in your concept of a free nation? I still maintain they exist in democracies - they are there to keep any group, government or otherwise, from weilding too much power.

How in god's name do you define "benefits"? How does "benefit" differ whatsoever from "something a power hungry politician trumpets to the general population, via stomping on some subsegment of it"?

I am not going to attempt to define "benefits". In the context of the discussion in this thread I think Molinaro summarizes my views quite well.

But Canadians in specific, in a minority, are being stomped on. This is the historical problem. The minority, being stomped on by the power wielding politicians leading the majority."

The overwhelming population of the planet, some 95%, disagree that religion is all fraudulent crap. "
If these two statements are correct then, in the context of this thread, you are actually claiming that the vast majority (95%) are being stomped on.

Ironically, I support people being liberated.

Whether they want it or not , huh? It's obvious that as a proponent of "freedom" you would be in a far better position to choose what is best for people who obviously cannot choose for themselves.

BTW, you do not need to use colours and bolding for my sake. I usually have a reasonable level of comprehension when I read.

edit: removed misplaced quote

Segnosaur

15th December 2005, 02:59 PM

I have no problems with the any of the legal decisions mentioned in this thread.

Fine... as long as you recognize that Canada DOES have less free-speech than the U.S. (even if you agree with the oppression.)

The concept of free speech is far weaker than the concept of freedom from being subjected to public expressions of hatred.

How far are you willing to take that concept? Are you willing to have people followed around so they cannot even TALK about race/homosexuality in a negative light? And how do you define "public expressions of hatred"? What about politically incorrect jokes, will you have those censored?

I think Larry Flynt (publisher of hustler magazine, who has had many court battles) had the right idea when he said that people should be glad that he's around; after all, with him to pick on, other less-troublesome types of speech will be left alone. Do you really trust the government to define just what is appropriate and what is not?

And have you ever heard of the "Vampire doctrine"? The best way to destroy evil is to expose it to sunlight... let the nutjobs make their speaches in public; it makes it easy to identify them and subject them to the proper ridicule.

The fair and just running of an election is far more important than the equal restrictions placed on all parties on election day. And the restrictions placed on 3rd parties ensures that nobody gets to 'buy' the election thanks to deeper pockets and business connections.

It also ensures that those people who have opinions on issues that are not beign discussed in an election will never get their voice heard.

As for 'buying' the election, while that is a concern of mine, I feel that there will be enough financial resources so that groups from all parts of the political spectrum will be able to compensate.

The government has a responsibility to ensure the continued existance of Canadian culture and identity. One way they do this is to require Canadian Broadcast Companies to include a minimum % of their programming to be of Canadian origin.

If the "Canadian culture" is good, people will watch it even with no specified programming minimum. If the culture is no good, people will tune out and watch something else.

Sorry, I do not need the government telling me what it means to be Canadian. Culture is something that comes 'bottom up' from the people, not 'top down' from the government. There is nothing "special" about Canadian culture that needs to be protected.

The protection of children is far more important than an author's right to publish a book that includes a story about a child being in a sexual relationship with an adult.

First of all, recognize that many of my examples (such as the case of the Little Sister's book store) do not involve children in any way. And even if you do ban material (even written material) that involves children, how do you justify banning material that involves consenting adults only?

Secondly, how do you define what an 'approproate' book is? According to you, would the book "Lolita" be banned? What about the movie "American Beauty"?

Lastly (and most importantly) you are under the assumption that people would be somehow more likely to engage in immoral behaviour after reading such material. There is no evidence that any type of pr0n is the cause of inappropriate behaviour.

The right of the accused to a fair trial is far more important than the public's need to know what is hapening as it hapens. The public loses nothing if they find out about the details after the trial. This is obviously so, since nothing outside the courtroom should have anything to do with how the case goes forward. Hence, nothing is served by allowing the public to watch it as it hapens. While justice is better served by minimizing the oportunities for any external influence. Someone mentioned that it allows rumor and inuendo to run rampant. Since we know that there is a gag in place, why would any rational thinking person give any credence to anything they hear over the water cooler while the trial is still going on?

First of all, you are assuming that making a trial public somehow negatively affects the fairness of the trial. But, guess what? There are already ways to prevent that: Potential jury members can be dismissed if the lawyers do not feel that they can be impartial, and they can be sequestered if necessary.

Secondly, I have pointed out a couple of problems with delaying publication of court details: It could have implications that affect current politicians and policies, and by delaying publication it can distort the information available (for example, only the high-points of the trial may be made available.)

Lastly, you suggested that a "rational" person wouldn't pay attention to rumours they hear before a trial. Similarly though, such a rational person would be able to judge the guilt or innocence based on what happens in the courtroom, not what appears on TV.

It is illegal to deny someone service based on race, religious beliefs, or any other such criteria. Having a business means that you benefit from government protections. But it also means that your customers are also protected. What harm is there in requiring someone who wants a to run a public business to serve all customers equaly? On the other hand, the harm inherant in allowing business to pick and choose who they want to serve is very obvious.

Well, we may not like a business which has racist policies (and I probably wouldn't shop at a place like that), but the only significant damage is going to be done to the business itself. Given the fact that many businesses have pretty thin profit margins, I doubt there are many that are going to risk going bankrupt because they don't like people of a certain skin colour.

In every case I feel it comes down to a question of harm. And in each case, the harm inherant in the generalized concept of "restricting my freedom of speech" is nothing compared to the harm that those restrictions are meant to protect us from.

What you have failed to do (at least to me) is to demonstrate that there would be any REAL harm in actually allowing free speech in those cases.

I also noticed that you have failed to address another topic of free speech in Canada... the use of the 'notwithstanding' clause (for example, in Quebec's bill 101.) Do you feel that the protection of Quebec's language was justified in this type of oppression?

Molinaro

15th December 2005, 04:57 PM

Fine... as long as you recognize that Canada DOES have less free-speech than the U.S. (even if you agree with the oppression.)

How far are you willing to take that concept? Are you willing to have people followed around so they cannot even TALK about race/homosexuality in a negative light? And how do you define "public expressions of hatred"? What about politically incorrect jokes, will you have those censored?

I think Larry Flynt (publisher of hustler magazine, who has had many court battles) had the right idea when he said that people should be glad that he's around; after all, with him to pick on, other less-troublesome types of speech will be left alone. Do you really trust the government to define just what is appropriate and what is not?

And have you ever heard of the "Vampire doctrine"? The best way to destroy evil is to expose it to sunlight... let the nutjobs make their speaches in public; it makes it easy to identify them and subject them to the proper ridicule.

It also ensures that those people who have opinions on issues that are not beign discussed in an election will never get their voice heard.

As for 'buying' the election, while that is a concern of mine, I feel that there will be enough financial resources so that groups from all parts of the political spectrum will be able to compensate.

If the "Canadian culture" is good, people will watch it even with no specified programming minimum. If the culture is no good, people will tune out and watch something else.

Sorry, I do not need the government telling me what it means to be Canadian. Culture is something that comes 'bottom up' from the people, not 'top down' from the government. There is nothing "special" about Canadian culture that needs to be protected.

First of all, recognize that many of my examples (such as the case of the Little Sister's book store) do not involve children in any way. And even if you do ban material (even written material) that involves children, how do you justify banning material that involves consenting adults only?

Secondly, how do you define what an 'approproate' book is? According to you, would the book "Lolita" be banned? What about the movie "American Beauty"?

Lastly (and most importantly) you are under the assumption that people would be somehow more likely to engage in immoral behaviour after reading such material. There is no evidence that any type of pr0n is the cause of inappropriate behaviour.

First of all, you are assuming that making a trial public somehow negatively affects the fairness of the trial. But, guess what? There are already ways to prevent that: Potential jury members can be dismissed if the lawyers do not feel that they can be impartial, and they can be sequestered if necessary.

Secondly, I have pointed out a couple of problems with delaying publication of court details: It could have implications that affect current politicians and policies, and by delaying publication it can distort the information available (for example, only the high-points of the trial may be made available.)

Lastly, you suggested that a "rational" person wouldn't pay attention to rumours they hear before a trial. Similarly though, such a rational person would be able to judge the guilt or innocence based on what happens in the courtroom, not what appears on TV.

Well, we may not like a business which has racist policies (and I probably wouldn't shop at a place like that), but the only significant damage is going to be done to the business itself. Given the fact that many businesses have pretty thin profit margins, I doubt there are many that are going to risk going bankrupt because they don't like people of a certain skin colour.

What you have failed to do (at least to me) is to demonstrate that there would be any REAL harm in actually allowing free speech in those cases.

I also noticed that you have failed to address another topic of free speech in Canada... the use of the 'notwithstanding' clause (for example, in Quebec's bill 101.) Do you feel that the protection of Quebec's language was justified in this type of oppression?

1) I don't know anything about the facts, or intent of the notwithstanding clause, and will not comment on it.

2) As to jokes and such and being followed around... that's not at all what I am suggesting. In fact, the whole point is that the facts of the situation are what matters, and not some generalized statement. It is the intent that needs to be considered. Someone telling a joke would not show any intent to foster hatred. Taking out an ad in a newspaper would show intent.

3) As to the porn, again it is a question of intent. A story involving child porn who's intent is to show it in a favorable light and suggest that laws be ignored in order to follow through with one's desires would not be ok. Requiring proof of harm would be reckless when the safety of children is concerned. Saying that you need to see kids being harmed before doing something so minor as denying public access to a piece of literature is borderline savagery.

4) As to the courts. The number of people who are dismissed from jury duty because they were exposed to public commentary during the trial indicates that harm can be, and is being done. The courts need to protect their integrity when a trial is of sufficient importance.. and yes cost.

Belz...

15th December 2005, 05:37 PM

So, you write that down in some Canadian Book of Absolute Facts, and that's it. A billboard is obviously the best place to incite people to immediate violence, because we all know that violent mobs are usually made of people driving 70 mph, which completely explains why people don't riot farther than they can walk.

What the hell are you babbling about ? You were coherent until just about now.

epepke

15th December 2005, 05:50 PM

What the hell are you babbling about ? You were coherent until just about now.

So, please explain to me then why a billboard viewed for a couple of seconds on the highway is obviously like an in-person, immediate incitement, and a video game obviously isn't.

epepke

15th December 2005, 05:54 PM

3) As to the porn, again it is a question of intent.

In Canada. And, obviously, the majority of Canadians seem to like it this way.

Not that I'm complaining. Multi-viewpoint and ambiguous comedians such as the Second City troupe, though born in Canada, wind up in the United States.

TriangleMan

16th December 2005, 04:13 AM

It was interesting to hear that some felt that a billboard promoting "spare the rod" would be acceptable. I personally disagree as I feel that it promotes violence towards children, but then I thought - why am I not going to the source material instead of running with "gut feelings".

The Canadian Human Rights Act states:12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or

(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14.

However the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: . 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
In the case of the ad we were discussing this seems to be a point of legal conflict - the ad appears to violate the Human Rights Act but the owner of the ad has protection under the Charter. To my recollection if the law disagrees with the Charter then the Charter wins but there must be case law that established the boundaries to decide when Charter rights infringe on the rights of others.

I'll see what I can find from the Supreme Court records, if there has been a case regarding these two pieces of law then the explanation of the ruling by the Court should provide the underlying reasons for why the ad ran afoul of the Human Rights Commission.

Belz...

16th December 2005, 04:50 AM

So, please explain to me then why a billboard viewed for a couple of seconds on the highway is obviously like an in-person, immediate incitement, and a video game obviously isn't.

I was thinking more like the movie "They Live".

Seriously, though. I'm not sure how you see video games like, oh... DOOM, or Call of Duty, to incite violence. Where do they tell you to kill real people ? One's set in a sci-fi world and the other in the 2nd war... you've lost me here.

Thanz

16th December 2005, 07:45 AM

In Canada. And, obviously, the majority of Canadians seem to like it this way.

Not that I'm complaining. Multi-viewpoint and ambiguous comedians such as the Second City troupe, though born in Canada, wind up in the United States.
I hope you are not implying that this entertainment migration has anything to do with any perceived difference in freedom of speech. The reason so many Canadian comedians (and other entertainers) end up in the US is that is where the big bucks are.

Further, I don't think that speech in the entertainment industry is any more free in the US than in Canada. For example, the whole Janet Jackson boob thing in the US had a huge impact on the tv industry, with huge fines levied by the FCC that has had a chilling effect on broadcasters. They censor themselves, for fear of getting the huge fines, and fear of the religious right. In Canada, no one cared. There were more complaints about a beer ad that showed during the super bowl than Jackson's nipple. To hear American commentators talk about it, however, you'd think that western civilization collapsed into anarchy that night.

Belz...

16th December 2005, 09:07 AM

There were more complaints about a beer ad that showed during the super bowl than Jackson's nipple. To hear American commentators talk about it, however, you'd think that western civilization collapsed into anarchy that night.

Didn't we ? I mean, the mere SIGHT of a breast on television is enough to send me on a vandalizing rampage for days on end.

rustypouch

16th December 2005, 10:36 AM

Didn't we ? I mean, the mere SIGHT of a breast on television is enough to send me on a vandalizing rampage for days on end.

Well, considering the whole thing was on CBC the next day, uncensored, and I am still around...

Segnosaur

16th December 2005, 01:00 PM

1) I don't know anything about the facts, or intent of the notwithstanding clause, and will not comment on it.

The notwithstanding clause is a part of our constitution which allows the federal or provincial governments to suspend certain rights (initially for 5 years, but it could be extended as necessary.) I think the main reason why it was put in was to prevent certain laws from being struck down as unconstitutional before politicians could enact to replace them with laws that were actually constitutional.

However, the notwithstanding clause can be abused. The most visible case of the notwithstanding clause was when the Quebec government basically restricted people's freedom of speech when they passed bill 101 (which disallowed people from using english in store signs.) Normally, that should be something covered under free speech, but the notwithstanding clause basically trumped free speech.

2) As to jokes and such and being followed around... that's not at all what I am suggesting. In fact, the whole point is that the facts of the situation are what matters, and not some generalized statement. It is the intent that needs to be considered. Someone telling a joke would not show any intent to foster hatred. Taking out an ad in a newspaper would show intent.

You DO realize that racists often use jokes as a way to foster hatred? (e.g. how many black people does it take to....)

And again, you have failed to show how "fostering hatred" through media is a serious cause of harm. Last time I checked, there were still racists in Canada and in places like Europe, despite some fairly strong anti-hate laws.

3) As to the porn, again it is a question of intent. A story involving child porn who's intent is to show it in a favorable light and suggest that laws be ignored in order to follow through with one's desires would not be ok. Requiring proof of harm would be reckless when the safety of children is concerned. Saying that you need to see kids being harmed before doing something so minor as denying public access to a piece of literature is borderline savagery.

Once again with the kids.... Even though I specifically pointed out that much of Canadian censorship involves material featuring CONSENTING ADULTS. (Continually bringing up "children" into the discussion shows a lack of attention to the actual issue.)

As for the intent of pr0n... you got that all wrong. The INTENT of pr0n is for personal satisfaction.

Once again, you have failed to provide any evidence that exposure to such matarial causes any individual to engage in non-consentual activity.

4) As to the courts. The number of people who are dismissed from jury duty because they were exposed to public commentary during the trial indicates that harm can be, and is being done. The courts need to protect their integrity when a trial is of sufficient importance.. and yes cost.

Ummm... no... the fact that they are dismissed from jury duty SHOWS THAT THE SAFEGUARDS WORK. (For major trials, the jury would likely be sequestered anyways.) As for "public commentary", they would also get dismissed if they were exposed to rumours, something just as likely to happen if court cases were not publicised.

You know, this reminds me of a court case here in Ottawa... (unfortunately, the details are a little fuzzy). Some members of a youth gang was charged with a violent crime. During the trial, some of the defendants were making intimidating gestures to the witnesses. The judge in that case ignored their actions, UNTIL someone publicized what was going on. The judge then actually kept the defendants under tighter controls then.

Segnosaur

16th December 2005, 03:39 PM

Actually, you are skipping a very important step. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern DID say that not allowing same sex marriage violated the Charter.

And a lot of other courts in Canada also made the same claim.

However, it should be pointed out that the supreme court is the final arbiter of what is consitutional, not the provincial courts.

Another thing that should be noted: what seems to be missing is whether the Conservative concept of a "civil union' would satisfy the requirements of the charter. Yes, having NO legal recognition of gay couples may be unconstitutional, but having legally equivalent recognition may be OK. At this point, we don't know how the courts would rule on that.

Actually, you are skipping a very important step. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern DID say that not allowing same sex marriage violated the Charter. The reference on the bill did not put these issues before the court - and that is why they didn't comment on them.

Whether the issue was brought up in a lower court or not is irrelevant. When C68 was proposed, the Liberals specifically asked the supreme court whether the old definition of marriage was constitutionally valid. The court did not comment on it, leaving things wide open for speculation.