Truth is not a defense when you are charged with a hate crime

[Blue Mountain]

A few days ago, at dinner with a group of friends and aquaintences, a right-wing Christian fundamentalist and I got into a discussion over the usefulness of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. At issue was several complaints made to the commission under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prevents the propagation of speech considered "hate".

More than once he quoted a line that has become a catchphrase among his demographic: "The Human Rights Commission has ruled that the truth is not a defense when you are charged with a hate crime."

I was at a decided disadvantage. Having not heard of this before, I was unfamiliar with the ruling and the context in which it was made. On the other hand, he had a whole bagful of talking points to throw into the discussion. It was very similar to a person who has never heard of the "truth movement" suddenly being confronted with a 9/11 truther fresh from having spent several weeks on their sites.

Here's the background. The full text of the Canadian Human Rights Act is here. Section 13 reads as follows:

Originally Posted by CHRA Section 13

(1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Subsection 2 indicates that a computer network, including the internet, falls under subsection 1.

His specific problem with this section was his view--shared by many on the right--that this section can and has been used to silence members of his demographic speaking out on topics they feel passionate about, especially gay rights and the promotion of their brand of Christianity. All of this was wrapped up in a general tirade about the liberal media, opportunistic lawyers, and activist judges working together in a "kangaroo court" (he used the phrase several times) to prevent him and his friends from making their views public.

He is correct in his assertion that the Commission (more accurately, the Tribunal) has ruled that truth is not a defense when you are charged with a hate crime. It took me some time to track down a source document for this on the web. It's from a decision made in 1998 in the case of Ernst Zundel, a notorious holocaust denier. (It's not even on the official website of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal--their interim rulings database goes back only to 1999.) It's right there, about half way into the document:

Originally Posted by CHRT 25 May 1998

Bearing these principles in mind, we accept the proposition that truth is not a defence to an alleged violation of s. 13(1) of the Act.

He found this very scary: if you posted something on an internet forum, even if it was completely true, in Canada you could find yourself on the receiving end of a Human Rights complaint if someone took exception to it and decided you were promoting hatred.

He further stated that every single complaint ever made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission under section 13 has been upheld. To him, it's an open-and-shut case that liberal intellectuals are using the force of law to ram their agenda down the throats of Canadians.

I completely disagree with him. It's a rather difficult thing to get one's head around the concept that even if things being said are factually true, the manner in which they are presented can be harmful and thus are actionable.

I am interested in other people's thoughts on this. I'm especially interested in comments from those who have had experiences with the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. Are they good for Canada and Canadians? Or are they a tool that can be used to silence people who say things certain Canadians don't like to hear?

[corplinx]

Under these acts, would the Friar's Club roasts be illegal?

[Blue Mountain]

No. Section 13 is intended to cover messages recorded on telephone answering machines (sort of like "dial-a-white-supremacist") or web sites set up inciting people to go to war against homosexuals. Complaints about these can be made before the CRHC, and they have the power to sanction the operator, including a cease and desist order or fines as high as $20,000.

[Cleon]

I think the point is to keep people from using the law to try and argue for their bigotry in the courtroom. IOW, the bigot defending themselves by saying "it's ok to call the Jews big-nosed money-grubbing descendants of Satan, because they really are big-nosed money-grubbing defendants of Satan."

I'm not big on hate-crimes laws for other reasons, but it seems to me that if you're going to have them, this isn't a major problem. The matter argued should be whether the speech is hate, not to examine the claims that were made.

[Darat]

Never come across this before, but from what I can understand it the wording just seems to be to prevent a defense of "Darat is a redhead and all redhead are an abomination and it is our duty to kill all redheads so we should all go around to his house and kill him" by saying "but Darat is a redhead" - that really has nothing to do with the hatred in the message.

Oh I see Cleon said the same.

[D'rok]

To get some more background on this issues, check out these Supreme Court Cases:

R. v. Zundel

The accused was charged with spreading false news contrary to s. 181 of the Criminal Code, which provides that "[e]very one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment . . .". The charge arose out of the accused's publication of a pamphlet entitled Did Six Million Really Die? The accused had added a preface and afterword to an original document, which had previously been published by others in the United States and England. The pamphlet, part of a genre of literature known as "revisionist history", suggests, inter alia, that it has not been established that six million Jews were killed before and during World War II and that the Holocaust was a myth perpetrated by a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The accused was convicted after a lengthy trial. On appeal, his conviction was upheld on constitutional grounds but struck down for errors in admitting evidence and in the charge to the jury. The matter was sent back for a new trial. The accused was again convicted and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. This appeal is to determine whether s. 181 of the Code infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, whether s. 181 is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter.

Held (Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. Section 181 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.d...2canlii75.html


R. v. Keegstra

The accused, an Alberta high school teacher, was charged under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code with wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti‑semitic statements to his students. Prior to his trial, the accused applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for an order quashing the charge. The court dismissed the application on the ground that s. 319(2) of the Code did not violate freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court, for want of proper notice to the Crown, did not entertain the accused's argument that s. 319(3)(a) of the Code violated the presumption of innocence protected by s. 11(d) of the Charter. Section 319(3)(a) affords a defence of "truth" to the wilful promotion of hatred but only where the accused proves the truth of the communicated statements on a balance of probabilities. The accused was thereafter tried and convicted. On appeal the accused's Charter arguments were accepted, the Court of Appeal holding that ss. 319(2) and 319(3)(a) infringed ss. 2(b) and 11(d) of the Charter respectively, and that the infringements were not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter.

Held (La Forest, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. Sections 319(2) and 319(3)(a) of the Code are constitutional.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.d...0canlii24.html



The truth defence, (s. 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code), no longer exists, but the promotion of hatred must be "willful" and "likely to lead to a breach of the peace". (s. 319(1) and s. 319(2) of the Code). So, basically, ignorance is still a defence.

ETA: Oops...cancel that. My pocket CC doesn't show the whole story. The truth defence does still exist, as does a religious defence:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc..._VIII-gb:s_318
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec319.html

So your fundie friend is still protected.

Also, there is great latitude under the Charter for freedom of expression. Everything except violence is protected prima facie and the onus is on govt to justify limiting expression. (Which it can do under s. 1 of the Charter).

The consitution and constitutional rulings from the SCC supercede any decisions of the CHRT.

ETA: The crux of all this is that your friend likely could challenge a CHRT ruling based on s. 2(b) of the Charter.

Again ETA: The case that the tribunal uses is this one:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...0rcs3-892.html
It seems that they may be right. The SCC has looked at this issue and has essentially validated a restriction on expression that doesn't include a truth defence. The state of Canadian Law on this question is quite a mess right now it would appear.

[Leicontis]

If someone, using accurate statistics, says "Group X has a high incidence of problem Y, and in my opinion it's because they're the spawn of Satan," their statement is in fact 100% true (assuming that they do hold the opinion stated). It is also hateful, and its veracity should not be usable as a defence against hate crime charges.

[Blue Mountain]

For sure the idea that speaking the truth can be hateful is lost on my Christian acquaintance. As a fundamentalist, he has a very strong idea of "truth". He sees it as God's word. And since he knows The Truth, he must speak it, even if others dislike it.

Ergo, the idea that "truth is not a defense" is tantamount to saying The Truth is not valid. Thus it's a liberal agenda to suppress The Truth and by extension everyone who wishes to propagate it. It's quite the paranoid fantasy.

[JoeEllison]

The "truth" is often only subjective opinion, and the fact that someone is honestly a worthless piece of bigoted garbage is no excuse for their bigotry...

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I think the point is to keep people from using the law to try and argue for their bigotry in the courtroom. IOW, the bigot defending themselves by saying "it's ok to call the Jews big-nosed money-grubbing descendants of Satan, because they really are big-nosed money-grubbing defendants of Satan."

I'm not big on hate-crimes laws for other reasons, but it seems to me that if you're going to have them, this isn't a major problem. The matter argued should be whether the speech is hate, not to examine the claims that were made.

The only thing worse than people saying stuff like that is authorizing the government the power to silence people who say things like that.

The descriptions so far seem to be iffy on whether they're just referring to people stirring up action, or if it applies to opinions (such as your example.)

[Beerina]

Is this statement allowed: Presume the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh actually exists, and that He considers Jews His chosen people. We should throw in with Satan and hate the Jews because of it, because, like The Law, Yahweh is a ass.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Beerina

The only thing worse than people saying stuff like that is authorizing the government the power to silence people who say things like that.

To me, laws regulating hate speech are similar to "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." Except with speech, harm is not so obvious as a bloody nose.

[69dodge]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I think the point is to keep people from using the law to try and argue for their bigotry in the courtroom. IOW, the bigot defending themselves by saying "it's ok to call the Jews big-nosed money-grubbing descendants of Satan, because they really are big-nosed money-grubbing defendants of Satan."

I'm not big on hate-crimes laws for other reasons, but it seems to me that if you're going to have them, this isn't a major problem. The matter argued should be whether the speech is hate, not to examine the claims that were made.

If all that's relevant is whether the speech is hate, not whether it's true, why did you give, as an example of something that we'd presumably agree is reasonable to ban, an instance of hateful speech that's false, instead of one that's true?

Are there no good reasons to hate people? Or, at least, no good reasons to say that we hate them, even if we hate them for good reason?

[69dodge]

Originally Posted by Darat

Never come across this before, but from what I can understand it the wording just seems to be to prevent a defense of "Darat is a redhead and all redhead are an abomination and it is our duty to kill all redheads so we should all go around to his house and kill him" by saying "but Darat is a redhead" - that really has nothing to do with the hatred in the message.

But "Darat is a redhead" isn't all that was said, and it isn't the objectionable part. Wouldn't one also need to argue successfully for the truth of "all redheads are an abomination and it is our duty to kill all redheads", which would be rather more difficult to do?

[Soapy Sam]

Not in this case.
We all know Admins are an abomination, etc.
Darat is an Admin.
QED.

[Tokenconservative]

I believe I hears about such a case, where a fairly innocous statement by some woman up there has put her at this very liability, where she will be banned from ever again publicaly quoting some passage in the Bible.

Including on the Internet.

Freedom: 0
Socialism: 1

Tokie

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

I believe I hears about such a case, where a fairly innocous statement by some woman up there has put her at this very liability, where she will be banned from ever again publicaly quoting some passage in the Bible.

Including on the Internet.

Freedom: 0
Socialism: 1

Tokie

That anecdote is so vague that it's meaningless, and so it contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you want to be taken at all seriously, please answer the following questions:

• Where did this take place?
• What was the comment?
• Which court ordered the ban?
• What were the terms of the ban?
• Bonus point: Name the woman
• Additional bonus point: provide a link (!)

"I heard" is hearsay and is admissible in court only under certain circumstances. It usually doesn't fly here, either.

[fishbob]

Duck and cover.

You asked Tokie to support his position.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Duck and cover.

You asked Tokie to support his position.

Well, since we can be assured that his position is based on lies, his support will also be lies. It is going to get ugly pretty quickly, and you know at some point he'll blame illegal immigrants.

[crackers]

Well, blaming illegal immigrants is wrong and hateful. Unless, of course, they happen to be redheads. Or admins. Then it's okay.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

To me, laws regulating hate speech are similar to "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." Except with speech, harm is not so obvious as a bloody nose.

My point was, of course, that, historically, governments that are empowered to regulate speech tend to have problems that massively exceed a few hateful words by many orders of magnitude.

It's a modern conceit of people living their lives in free societies to think that they can, whew, finally tailor things so precisely to improve humanity that they can authorize the silencing of certain positions. It's ok, they believe, we are in charge, and thus the wrongfulness of censorship does not apply. But following the rules for others has never been a problem for the man behind the gun.

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." Don't worry, it won't be you who pick up the pieces.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Beerina

My point was, of course, that, historically, governments that are empowered to regulate speech tend to have problems that massively exceed a few hateful words by many orders of magnitude.

It's a modern conceit of people living their lives in free societies to think that they can, whew, finally tailor things so precisely to improve humanity that they can authorize the silencing of certain positions. It's ok, they believe, we are in charge, and thus the wrongfulness of censorship does not apply. But following the rules for others has never been a problem for the man behind the gun.

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." Don't worry, it won't be you who pick up the pieces.

That's right, we're almost at the tipping point into fascism and totalitarianism up here in anti-hate speech legislating Canuckistan. /sarcasm

Give me a break. You have no conception of what anti-hate speech law actually is. You can spew as much hatred as you want in private; you can form a group to spew hatred amongst yourselves; you can hold whatever obnoxious position your dark little heart desires. The only thing you can't do in an anti-hate speech regime is publicly and willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. For example, you can't publish a pamphlet calling for a pogrom against those evil homosexuals. Even then, if you are charged with a crime, the Criminal Code offers a religious defence and a truth-based defence.

Yeah...it's a real thought crime prison up here. We're doomed to repeat history. Oh well, the next generation will just have to "pick up the pieces".

[fuelair]

Over 24 (almost 36) hours and still not facts from Tokie. He winds up and............he ditches!!

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Over 24 (almost 36) hours and still not facts from Tokie. He winds up and............he ditches!!

Asking him to back up his positions is actually a good way to chase him out of a discussion. This is at least the second time it's happened to me (that is, he left a thread when I asked him for evidence on a stunningly silly thing he said.)

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Well, since we can be assured that his position is based on lies, his support will also be lies.

No, it won't. His support won't be anything, because he refuses to back up anything he says, ever. He's got a big mouth, but no money to put where it is.

[DRBUZZ0]

Wow. This is one example where I feel damn proud to be an American and not a Canadian or in some other country which such laws. That is beyond insanity. I dislike hate crime laws in general, but the way that is written and it's affront on freedom of speech makes me wonder if I even would travel in Canada at this point.

Wow. The fact that the patriot act allows for wiretaps without warrents and other infringements on rights seems pretty pale compared to that!

[QBinBee]

This seems appropriate:

Quote:

It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959

Quote:

Censorship feeds the dirty mind more than the four-letter word itself. ~Dick Cavett

Quote:

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

Quote:

You can cage the singer but not the song. ~Harry Belafonte, in International Herald Tribune, 3 October 1988

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Wow. This is one example where I feel damn proud to be an American and not a Canadian or in some other country which such laws. That is beyond insanity. I dislike hate crime laws in general, but the way that is written and it's affront on freedom of speech makes me wonder if I even would travel in Canada at this point.

Wow. The fact that the patriot act allows for wiretaps without warrents and other infringements on rights seems pretty pale compared to that!

I assume that this is hyperbole and sarcasm, correct?

Here's what you will have to face when travelling in Canada:

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.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

The Supreme Court has ruled on s. 2(b) so that all expression (including hate speech) except violence receives prima facie protection. The onus is on the government to justify to the court any limitation of expression.

[QBinBee]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Wow. This is one example where I feel damn proud to be an American and not a Canadian or in some other country which such laws. That is beyond insanity. I dislike hate crime laws in general, but the way that is written and it's affront on freedom of speech makes me wonder if I even would travel in Canada at this point.

Wow. The fact that the patriot act allows for wiretaps without warrents and other infringements on rights seems pretty pale compared to that!

Yes because I'm so sure Canadian officials are evesdropping and raiding to find out if its citizens and resident aliens are homophobes or anti-semetic.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by QBinBee

This seems appropriate:

Yes it does. And all of these principles are active in countries such as Canada that have hate speech laws. In fact, restriction on expression in Canada is far more liberal than in the USA. Your supreme court has defined a range of acceptable speech from high value to low value and low value speech as defined by the court can be subject to limitations. This kind of jurisprudence is mostly lacking in Canada.

ETA: I'm assuming you are American. My apologies if I've assumed incorrectly.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by D'rok

I assume that this is hyperbole and sarcasm, correct?

Here's what you will have to face when travelling in Canada:

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.

Funny, the constitution of the Soviet Union actually guaranteed those too.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Funny, the constitution of the Soviet Union actually guaranteed those too.

...You just compared Canada to the Soviet Union.

You may want to step back and re-think your line of reasoning.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Funny, the constitution of the Soviet Union actually guaranteed those too.

I see. I won't waste any more time responding to you.

[Blue Mountain]

D'rok, I really want to thank you for the contributions you've made to this thread. As a Canadian, I have a bit of an interest in Canadian law, but not enough to really examine the details of something like the Human Rights Act and its impact on society and law. You've helped clear up several issues for me and other posters in this thread. Hopefully, even, the good Dr. Buzz0.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by Cleon

...You just compared Canada to the Soviet Union.

You may want to step back and re-think your line of reasoning.

Obviously Canada is not the Soviet Union (yet) but the direction things have gone in Canada with a trend toward socialized health care, government control of speech and comerace is... concerning at best.

There is an important distinction between the infringements on freedoms in Canada and the US:

In the US freedoms protected by the Constitution and established legal precedent have been endangered by things like the Patriot Act and other actions which use national security as an excuse to place nearly unrestricted powers toward search, seizure and detainment in the hands of government officials.

The result has been outrage. The ACLU, the EFF and other organizations have sued the government. More importantly: They've won at least a few decisions and the supreme court has ruled against some of the provisions set up in the name of national security. Many HATE Bush because of this and contempt is open on the internet, in the media and in the street. Senators and congressmen condemn the actions and these views are supported by much of the electorate.

Bush would not have been reelected except for the weakness of his only viable opponent on some key issues. In any case, the elections have resulted in his party loosing majority control of the legislature. People have less trust in their government than in a long time.

The question is: Does Canada have suitable outrage to such laws? Do the citizens of Canada demand accountability? Are Canadian courts petitioned to strike down such laws?

It is less important what freedoms the government may want to take away than it is whether or not the majority of citizens will roll over and allow it.



The "Human Rights" crime legislation in Canada takes on freedom of speech and it does not limit itself to speech which is a direct incitement of illegal activities. This is a very big line to cross and ultimately grants the government nearly unlimited censorship powers.


This threatens the basic function of a free society. Many religious people detest homosexuality. I am not pro-religion, but when one removes religious freedom, that is a big step toward government control of ideology and thought policing. Such laws put the burden of proof on the accused and even the "truth" is not a factor. if someone says that they think "Homosexuality is kinda nasty" or "I'm not really attracted to black people" or if they make fun of an Indian accent or something then there's grounds for considering it a violation of human rights.

Now I know what will be said "Oh noone is going to arrest you for that sort of thing... only for the really bad cases." But such a vague and subjective definition leads to selective enforcement. The government is the judge of what constitutes a bad enough case to be worthy of prosecution. This effectively writes a blank check to one's own liberty.

It is very very concerning. But especially so if Canadians are not suitably outraged by this.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Obviously Canada is not the Soviet Union (yet) but the direction things have gone in Canada with a trend toward socialized health care, government control of speech and comerace is... concerning at best.

Concerning? Yeaaaahhhh...Not so much.

Seriously...You really should step back and get some perspective. Your post sounds like it came from Canadian Bacon.

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

The "Human Rights" crime legislation in Canada takes on freedom of speech and it does not limit itself to speech which is a direct incitement of illegal activities. This is a very big line to cross and ultimately grants the government nearly unlimited censorship powers.

Nice bit of slippery slope nonsense you just spit out there.

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

This threatens the basic function of a free society. Many religious people detest homosexuality. I am not pro-religion, but when one removes religious freedom, that is a big step toward government control of ideology and thought policing. Such laws put the burden of proof on the accused and even the "truth" is not a factor. if someone says that they think "Homosexuality is kinda nasty" or "I'm not really attracted to black people" or if they make fun of an Indian accent or something then there's grounds for considering it a violation of human rights.

Absolutely nothing in the laws supports what you just said. It's all about incitement. There is nothing inciting about your example. Your example is an expression of an opinion, not an incitement.

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Now I know what will be said "Oh noone is going to arrest you for that sort of thing... only for the really bad cases." But such a vague and subjective definition leads to selective enforcement. The government is the judge of what constitutes a bad enough case to be worthy of prosecution. This effectively writes a blank check to one's own liberty.

It is very very concerning. But especially so if Canadians are not suitably outraged by this.

Thankfully nobody in Canada is outraged. We are not that silly.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Your supreme court has defined a range of acceptable speech from high value to low value and low value speech as defined by the court can be subject to limitations.

Based on content?

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by Molinaro

Nice bit of slippery slope nonsense you just spit out there.

How is it different than the idea that it's okay for the government to have warentless wiretaps for suspected terrorists and trust them not to use them on people who they do not have very good evidence against?

Crossing the free-speech line is not just a slippery slope, it's a very fundamental change in policy when freedom of speech becomes fair game. It's not something you can just say "it's okay to breech freedom of speech, but only for people who say racist stuff. Or anti-gay stuff, or gender based hate, or religion, or ideology, or the way someone looks or...."

Quote:

Absolutely nothing in the laws supports what you just said. It's all about incitement. There is nothing inciting about your example. Your example is an expression of an opinion, not an incitement.

No, that is already illegal under entirely different laws. If I say "Go kill Bill Smith" then that's direct incitement. If I say "Go kill gay people" that is too. If I say "Gay people deserve to die" that is not. Offensive, yes. A crime? In some places.


Here's a Swedish Pastor for “hate speech against homosexuals” under a law that made "disrespectful" speech against groups illegal. He was accused of stating homosexuals were "cancerous tumors on society." He was acquitted by pleading that his speech was against homosexual acts and not people.

Scary. What if he had said the same of "rock n rollers" or "Gang members" or "liberals." Would that be prosecuted as well? It may sound like a "slippery slope" argument, but this is not something to take lightly.

Mark Steyn authored a book in which he contends that the west is caving to pressure from Islamic interests and that Islam is, at it's foundation, not compatible with western values. He was summoned before a Canadian Human rights court and steps have been taken to ban the book. It is an illegal opinion, apparently.


I remember a while ago hearing of someone being brought up on charges of calling a gay person a "fee fee" he stated that he didn't know the guy was gay when he said that but I will have to find the article to find out what happened.

Quote:

Thankfully nobody in Canada is outraged. We are not that silly.

Yeah... good for you.

http://www.williamgairdner.com/journ...ame-on-us.html

http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/...-1790589.shtml

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

Based on content?

As a matter of fact, yes.

Low value speech is that which, according to CIPA, "...taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors." It is an obvious impossibility to determine literary, artistic, political, or scientific value without determination of the content.