posted
"Likely" in the judgment of the court. It's analogous to the common use in laws of concepts like "reasonable" (reasonable doubt, reasonable limits).
Consider:
Every one who, by
1) communicating statements
2) in any public place,
3) incites hatred against any identifiable group
4) where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
is guilty of [the offence]
Of those, the first two have very specific definitions within the criminal code. I don't know if "incite" is defined somewhere outside the Criminal Code, but it is used frequently in the Code as well as in other laws, so my assumption is that it is either defined or has the weight of legal precedent behind it (or both). But there are also stipulations about valid grounds for convitction:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
So I don't see the "all it takes is a couple of elections" problem that you do. To my mind, they've covered their bases fairly well -- and if they haven't, it'll come up in court. But this has been brought before the Supreme Court in the past and it was ruled acceptable under the first section of the Charter. It was a close ruling, though, so it may well come up again in the future.
In the case in question, a schoolteacher was "teaching" his students a number of blatantly false things about Jews. He argued that he was allowed to do so under section two of the Charter, and it went to the Supreme Court, but he lost the case.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
"But Your Honor, it is TRUE that I dislike jews because they killed the son of god."
But I'm sure there's a rich and storied precedent to establish the legal meanings of these words to the Canadian government. Likely is left to the judgement of the court. Lovely.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"But Your Honor, it is TRUE that I dislike jews because they killed the son of god."
Which doesn't garner an exemption under (b). "I dislike Jews" isn't grounds for anything apart from disliking Jews.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which doesn't garner an exemption under (b). "I dislike Jews" isn't grounds for anything apart from disliking Jews.
Well, that's a matter of perspective, isn't it, Twinky? In fact, that's what's wrong with the whole law is that it's a very subjective matter of perspective.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus' supposed divinity isn't something you could prove in court, so no, it wouldn't garner such an exemption.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which doesn't garner an exemption under (b). "I dislike Jews" isn't grounds for anything apart from disliking Jews.
Well, that's a matter of perspective, isn't it, Twinky? In fact, that's what's wrong with the whole law is that it's a very subjective matter of perspective.
No, it isn't [a matter of perspective]. "I dislike Jews" isn't legal grounds for anything at all.
Edit: I originally had "subjective" there, which isn't right at all.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, if someone makes a statement in Canada that DOES lead to violence by someone else, how is the "someone else" punished? Are his/her crimes considered separate from the statement made, or is the statement taken into consideration somehow?
quote: Jesus' supposed divinity isn't something you could prove in court
Your faith in the objectivity of a legal system is refreshing. I'm sure you guys have your share of Judge Moores floating around?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Jesus' supposed divinity isn't something you could prove in court, so no, it wouldn't garner such an exemption.
The truth is inherent in the statement, the speaker does believe that the jews killed jesus. And the aformentioned clause B which protects opinions on religious matters prevents the speaker from having to prove anything about jesus being divine.
So where does that leave us?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: o, it isn't subjective. "I dislike Jews" isn't legal grounds for anything at all.
I just do not see the truth of what you're saying. I respect the fact that your heart is in the right place, but this law looks like a huge, gaping gate through which any manner of injustice can come stampeding through.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I sincerely hope the law functions in the absolute best way for your country.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'd say that's about the long and the short of it, Storm. And if it's ever misused I'll come back here and post something about eating crow. I've done that before in cases where I've said things that merited some tasty, tasty crow later on.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, twink, people who say that the law isn't worded as well as it could be are probably right. Things aren't defined as well as they could be, which is the case of many of our laws. The difference between our courts is that there is a lot more emphasis on the rather nebulous "spirit" of the law as opposed to the "letter" or the law.
Or such is my understanding.
Not that I disagree with you. I like the law and my nanny state.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So under Canadian law, what would Grego have been charged with for inciting the villagers to burn the pequinino forest and mother tree?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd say that's about the long and the short of it, Storm. And if it's ever misused I'll come back here and post something about eating crow. [Smile] I've done that before in cases where I've said things that merited some tasty, tasty crow later on.
Contrary to popular belief, these discussions aren't for points. I don't care. Laws in all countries get misused, just like freedom does.
I do have a question for you, though, now that I think about it. When has this law been used, in your opinion, correctly?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BtL, that's more or less why I don't find Robespierre's examples compelling; it's clear what the intent of the law is and I expect the judiciary to apply it in accordance with its intent.
Storm, I think it was used correctly in the only instance of its use that I'm aware of. Here is a summary I Googled up.
Also, pH, I don't know the answer to your question. I know that motivation is a factor (in sentencing, for example), but I don't know if that's formalized in the Criminal Code itself.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than being very saddened by this story and the fate of these girls, one thing about the comments from people who surround them struck me:
quote:perfect age to start grooming kids
quote:To me, that's the best propaganda tool for our youth."
"grooming?" "propaganda?" Exactly what planet is this person living on that he can talk this way using the phrase "the grooming of youth" in a positive way? It just blows my mind.
Also: Aren't there hate laws that try to limit freedom of speech when it's abused in this way? I always thought there were but perhaps I'm getting confused. (I realise that it's very difficult to put laws like that in place without having difficulty with line-drawing, but there must be some laws, no?)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, because the I don't think the slippery slope argument that follows from that line of thinking is valid. I don't see the Canadian people being oppressed.
I am a part of that large Canadian minority who disagrees with you. The oppression is perhaps soft and velvety, but it is a form of oppression nonetheless. There is definitely a deliberate attempt to stifle opposition and silence marginal voices in Canadian democracy, and it is more than a little disturbing at times.
As a matter of fact, I disagree, to varying degrees, with almost everything you've said in this thread. On the other hand, I'm behind you 100% about the Queen's English thing.
quote:Teshi, have you read the last page and a half of the thread? [Wink]
Errrrrm...
Apparantly not.
*cough*
EDIT: So, you're saying there are NO hate laws in America? So I can walk down the street and yell horrific insults and threats at people because of their religion, race, sexuality etc. and nobody could do anything about it? Could I get on the nightly news and do it? Could I become the president (hypothetically) and do it? Is there any line at all other than physically harming someone? Is it worse if I shoot a roomful of people because of race, religion or sexuality rather than abitrary selection?
O.o
And, if it wasn't clear enough, I know that things like hate laws are sometimes very tricky to navigate safely but I believe there should be a line to "free speech" just like there should be a line to all "freedoms".
Although of course they are all VERY IMPORTANT.
For instance, you don't have the freedom to shoot anyone just because they annoy you. That could be seen as a slippery slope too: "Look at this new law, Bernie, soon we won't be able to lock our doors so the robbers can't get in!" But we all know where the line is because we decided on it a long, long, long time ago.
quote:As a matter of fact, I disagree, to varying degrees, with almost everything you've said in this thread.
That doesn't surprise me, but it's worth noting that this law hasn't been used to oppress people who share any of your views.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What difference does that make? What kind of person would I be if I only upheld the principle of freedom of speech so long as that speech agreed with my views? There are some people who actually do take that view of freedom of speech, and I hold them in the utmost contempt.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was perhaps unclear. I didn't say I was necessarily being oppressed. But there is a culture of quashing dissent in this country, and it is not limited to a single law.
Example : the youth wing of the Liberal Party recently voted to withdraw funding from any party who does not run candidates in every provinces. Translation : they were trying to kill the Bloc. Now, I disagree with virtually everything the Bloc says and stands for. But trying to silence them by tweaking political party laws to their detriment is completely despicable, and borders on a form of fascism.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sidenote: I personally consider the youth wing of the Liberal party a complete waste of time. I very briefly considered joining, read their website, was disgusted and quickly left. Please, please do not use the youth wing of the Liberal party as an example of anything good.
EDIT (actually from earlier post but eh I don't think it's going to get read up there): So, you're saying there are NO hate laws in America? So I can walk down the street and yell horrific insults and threats at people because of their religion, race, sexuality etc. and nobody could do anything about it? Could I get on the nightly news and do it? Could I become the president (hypothetically) and do it? Is there any line at all other than physically harming someone? Is it worse if I shoot a roomful of people because of race, religion or sexuality rather than abitrary selection?
O.o
And, if it wasn't clear enough, I know that things like hate laws are sometimes very tricky to navigate safely but I believe there should be a line to "free speech" just like there should be a line to all "freedoms".
Although of course they are all VERY IMPORTANT.
For instance, you don't have the freedom to shoot anyone just because they annoy you. That could be seen as a slippery slope too: "Look at this new law, Bernie, soon we won't be able to lock our doors so the robbers can't get in!" But we all know where the line is because we decided on it a long, long, long time ago.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sidenote: I personally consider the youth wing of the Liberal party a complete waste of time. I very briefly considered joining, read their website, was disgusted and quickly left. Please, please do not use the youth wing of the Liberal party as an example of anything good.
I fully agree with you. The problem is, many of them later go on to be influential people in the Liberal Party. Like Prime Ministers and cabinet ministers and such.
I know, it's scary.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. I drew that implication when you said that you were in the minority and then said that the minority was being oppressed.
With respect to your example, have the federal campaign finance laws actually changed? Has Bill C-24 been amended or revoked? I do like Bill C-24. As far as Google can tell me, it hasn't gone anywhere. What is the impact of the youth wing vote on actual laws? Added: I should note that I certainly agree that the vote itself is a very bad thing. I'm not a fan of youth wings of political parties in the general case, and this is a good example of why.
I don't think we have a culture of oppression in this country. What we have is a proclivity for having strong centralized governments. That does not necessarily equate to or result in quashing dissent.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't remember this, but it's entirely possible that it happened. Added: Nonetheless, there are still Marxist-Lenninist candidates (for example) in plenty of ridings.
quote:So, you're saying there are NO hate laws in America? So I can walk down the street and yell horrific insults and threats at people because of their religion, race, sexuality etc. and nobody could do anything about it?
I'm not sure how far the laws go in the U.S. go, but I think we certainly shouldn't have laws against any of these things - at least not if we pretend to have any real freedom of speech. To suggest that we can ban speech that offends people or that insights wrongful action is to essential negate the freedom of speech, because those are essentially the only cases where freedom of speech is actually needed. The majority wouldn't ban speech it considers nonoffensive and harmless.
We have the freedom of speech precisely so people can say things that the majority does not like to hear, and so people can encourage things that the majority doesn't want encouraged. That's the function of free speech. And it's value rests on the premise that truthfulness will ultimately rise above falsehood more in such an environment than it would in an environment where you aren't allowed to say what you believe.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A threat that creates an reasonable apprehension of imminent offensive touching constitutes the tort of assault.
Also, there are crimes that are committed via speech. Harrassment, threats, extortion, and blackmail, for example, are all pretty much speech-only crimes.
Mail fraud can be seen as a speech only crime, as well.
It's clearly not correct to say "speech alone cannot constitute a crime." Some speech are considered acts of legal significance, and the legal system will judge them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My worry is that in the process of truth battling its way out there's a lot of collateral damage.
Yes, indeed, especially if people are bothered more by words than they need be. But ultimately, I think this the collateral damage is worth it - when contrasted to what a lack of free speech can lead you to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:especially if people are bothered more by words
Words can be unimaginably harmful.
quote:when contrasted to what a lack of free speech can lead you to.
I hate to come back to Canada but... it's not exactly a disaster of repression up here, as twinky has already pointed out (although d_h disagrees to a certain extent). I don't know of anyone who has had their free speech repressed or has felt limited.
That may be because they have been repressed, of course .
People are allowed to hate/fear all they want, they're just not allowed to go around trying to loudly convert others.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it would be lovely if everyone could shrug off racial, sexual, national, religious and personal slurs but unfortunately "sticks and stones" is a childhood chant, not a human condition.
Haven't you ever been bullied? What if the bully was just exercising his or her freedom of speech?
CHILD: "Teacher! Billy's calling Mary nasty names and he made her cry." TEACHER: "Oh, that's alright. Billy's shouldn't that, but he's just exercising his right to express himself so Mary will just have to put up with it and stay away from Billy." MARY: *sob*
1. The Government doesn't make any hate laws but adds into the laws of the country a statement condemning hate, such as:
The United States hereby officially condemns people who <insert some carefully worded statement here> and reminds them of the <insert applicable bit of constitution/law/belief here>. The United States formally disagrees but defends the right to express opinions.
I feel this way the government is still upholding all the principles (I hope!) of the country.
2. Another possibility which I'll let you consider is laws dealing with the involvement of minors in hate propaganda. A law preventing children from being used in this way could be seen as being in the interest of children's protection from their parents- a kind of abuse law.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, indeed, especially if people are bothered more by words than they need be. But ultimately, I think this the collateral damage is worth it - when contrasted to what a lack of free speech can lead you to.
Emotional abuse is just as serious as physical abuse. The only difference is that physical abuse heals faster.
And I don't think this issue has to be one of only two choices. There's a huge middle ground that can be explored. In fact it already is whether most people realize it or not. No matter how you want to interpret the U.S. constitution, people do not have the ability to say whatever they wish without possible repercussions.
For example, you probably wouldn't get away with saying that you have a bomb on a plane, regardless of whether it is true or not or how harmless your intent may be. You will not get away with saying that you're a police officer if you are not actually a police officer. You can't slander someone.
So as you can see, we are not allowed to say anything we wish. The Canadian laws, as I see it, is just an extension of limitations that we already face.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a definite risk both ways. If you have unlimited free speech, you run the risk of having people like these bigoted white supremacist zealots convincing large numbers of people to adhere to their hateful ideologies. This has certainly happened before. This, I believe, is basically the reasoning behind all hate speech laws.
But I consider the risk of supressing free speech to be greater. If these people are not allowed to speak out for fear of convincing others, how can they ever be successfully exposed? We then live in a regime of hypocrisy, because if the disease is not brought into the light it cannot be successfully countered and destroyed. There is also the considerable risk of hate speech legislation going too far and oppressing people who are expressing legitimate beefs. This has also happened many, many times before. And the way I see it, we are currently in great danger of this here in Canada, and it is making me very uneasy.
So let the racists and bigots speak out. It's a risk, but all the better to ostracise them in the end. It's like an infection. Better to get it all out than leave it in.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Irami, Those are pretty stong words from someone who's been wrong multiple times he's tried to say what the roots of a word are. If you're going to be a pompous jackass, you might do better to choose an area that you haven't made a fool of yourself in in the past.
And that's leaving aside the it's sloppier to assume that a word's entymological meaning supercedes it's use meaning. I don't any linguists that would say that the origin of a word are more important that what people use a word to mean.
Dollars to doughnuts, those times you've thought I was wrong, I was right and I just didn't have the energy or will to comment to the accuser, or the issue is a properly problematic one in which there is no right answer and I was trying to raise the appropriate problem. I don't think I've been right all of the time. I just think I've been right more times than you think I've been right.
Look, it's not just about knowing Latin or the Greek or the German, it's about understanding what the word says, actually experiencing the phenomena that called for the word, which means fleshing out the mythos surrounding the word and the ontology of the people who were first inspired to use it because very often when a word survives in our language, some degraded part of all of that baggage survives in our thought, except it survives as a subconscious muddle.
That said, I stand by my posts on this thread and consider mph's statement a subtle, pervasive, and shameful strain of anti-intellectualism. I'm not an antiquarian. I didn't study Greek and Latin because I think that the languages are cool or exotic. I did it because it's important. I did it because it's who we are today. We are greeks, romans, and christians, by virtue of being aware Americans, and I'm tired of being among a community of people making a hash out our community and character, on hatrack, in politics, and in this difficult life. And with all of energy and effort and ink spilled concerning education, we should know what the word says, and at least get the problem right and give ourselves a chance at a wise solution.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: For instance, you don't have the freedom to shoot anyone just because they annoy you. That could be seen as a slippery slope too: "Look at this new law, Bernie, soon we won't be able to lock our doors so the robbers can't get in!" But we all know where the line is because we decided on it a long, long, long time ago.
The difference is that the Classic Liberal philosophy has a simple and concrete root: you may do as you please with your life and property as long as you do not step on others' toes.
Under that philosophy, you will always be allowed to lock your doors if you want.
It IS a slippery slope in the other direction because once you start defining exceptions to what is allowed under the banner of unlimited free speech, other exceptions may be rationalized on the precedent.
quote:Haven't you ever been bullied? What if the bully was just exercising his or her freedom of speech?
Well, if you can prove damages, you could always sue the offending party in civil court... And if you can't prove damages, how could a law prohibiting it be justified?
quote: To suggest that we can ban speech that offends people or that insights wrongful action is to essential negate the freedom of speech, because those are essentially the only cases where freedom of speech is actually needed. The majority wouldn't ban speech it considers nonoffensive and harmless.
I agree with Tresopax.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I agree with Tresopax.
-o-
Huh. That wasn't nearly as hard to type as I thought it would be.
I know what you mean. I agreed with digging in this thread which completely turns over my theory that he is always wrong. I've had to adjsut it to digging is nearly always wrong.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, you probably wouldn't get away with saying that you have a bomb on a plane, regardless of whether it is true or not or how harmless your intent may be. You will not get away with saying that you're a police officer if you are not actually a police officer. You can't slander someone.
quote:that we can ban speech that offends people
What about these laws, as camus pointed out. Your freedom of speech has already been curtailed. You can and you [/i]have[/i] banned speech that offends people; you are not allowed to maliciously and incorrectly portray a person (as in the case of slander). Slander cases go to court every year and they are always based on emotional damage...
Now, what if all the non-white people in America took these racists to court for slander- for maliciously telling lies about their entire races on a grand scale. They might even attempt to sue. Yes, it would be hard to prove in a straighforward manner but the point of this hypothetical example is that there are laws already in place that almost ban this.
Basically, these laws would be an extension of the slander laws- stretched from an individual or individuals to a race. Now, I think that would be a little wide, so you'd probably want to narrow that a lot, but you get the idea.
It doesn't even have to be an inprisonable offence, it can just be one that is restricted to private functions, or private living rooms. There are so many ways of creating a law that protects America's citizens as well as allows people to say what they want.
I understand your fears. They are well justified. You should be wary of creating new limiting laws. However, you should also be wary of creating hypocritical situations.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know what you mean. I agreed with digging in this thread which completely turns over my theory that he is always wrong. I've had to adjsut it to digging is nearly always wrong.
You agreed with me? Please tell me which part, because I'm afraid I may have to revise my opinion ; if you agreed with it, there's a good chance it's wrong, except if it's all those parts where I disagreed with Twinky.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm sure you guys have your share of Judge Moores floating around?
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
