On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[Cunt]

Shit. Move over Big Brother. Here come Little Bitch Sister.

It's a sick and disgusting state of affairs when such a thing can happen in a country like Canada.

I've never seen such a reprehensible display of flat-out lying by a government agent. The publisher had her number. She was on a fishing expedition of monumental proportions. She wanted him to incriminate himself. What amazes me is what the fuck was his lawyer doing? Or not doing? I'd have been all over every single question she asked with a "Don't answer that!"

What the hell is up with the Canadian justice system?

As I understand it, you don't have the right to a lawyer, or to a speedy trial.

But Ezra Lavant was the wrong person to tangle with anyway. I would suggest that they bit off more than they could chew. Further, they would have a better life if they had not roused his attention in the first place.

----------------

That's an administrative investigation that might not be considered "criminal." I haven't looked into it, but maybe there is no right to remain silent that venue in Canada. Maybe a knowledgeable Canuck can clarify.

I wonder what happened, ultimately, in that case....

Watch the whole video titled 'Ezra Lavant's 900 day ordeal'. In it he clarifies much about it.

I don't think he WANTED to remain silent. I think he set up his video camera so that EVERYONE knew what was being done to him.

What shocked me most was learning that the Human Rights Commission can go into your home or office to seize evidence without a warrant.

Also, I never thought I would want to defend right-wing Christians, but after hearing about this other 'Human Rights' case...

A Christian pastor has been given a lifetime ban against uttering anything "disparaging" about gays. Not against anything "hateful", let alone something legally defined as "hate speech". Just anything negative.

So a pastor cannot give a sermon.

But he must give a false sermon; he is positively ordered to renounce his deeply held religious beliefs, and apologize to his tormentor for having those views.

And then that pastor is ordered to declare to his entire city that he has renounced his religious views, even though he has not.

That's Alberta's human rights commission. That's the group where 15 bureaucrats are busily beavering away against me, because I published some Danish cartoons two years ago.

That's the same "law" under which Maclean's and Mark Steyn are charged.

Fire. Them. All.

[Seth]

That's an administrative investigation that might not be considered "criminal." I haven't looked into it, but maybe there is no right to remain silent that venue in Canada. Maybe a knowledgeable Canuck can clarify.

I wonder what happened, ultimately, in that case....

I'd like to know too. I heard a pub owner was fined a thousand bucks (loonies) for insulting Indians.

Fucking idiots.

Heard where? Fined by who? What would happen in the US if a pub owner insulted black people?

Nothing. Except some black people might beat the shit out of him. It's legal to insult them. It's illegal not to serve them liquor.

[Seth]

That's an administrative investigation that might not be considered "criminal." I haven't looked into it, but maybe there is no right to remain silent that venue in Canada. Maybe a knowledgeable Canuck can clarify.

I wonder what happened, ultimately, in that case....

I'd like to know too. I heard a pub owner was fined a thousand bucks (loonies) for insulting Indians.

Fucking idiots.

What did he do? Put up a cigar store Indian or something?

As I recall, he pronounced in his own fucking pub that Indians were lazy. Or some such innocuous calumny.

What if the Indians he was talking about were actually lazy? Would truth serve as a defense?

Sadly, no.

[sandinista]

That's an administrative investigation that might not be considered "criminal." I haven't looked into it, but maybe there is no right to remain silent that venue in Canada. Maybe a knowledgeable Canuck can clarify.

I wonder what happened, ultimately, in that case....

I'd like to know too. I heard a pub owner was fined a thousand bucks (loonies) for insulting Indians.

Fucking idiots.

Heard where? Fined by who? What would happen in the US if a pub owner insulted black people?

Nothing. Except some black people might beat the shit out of him. It's legal to insult them. It's illegal not to serve them liquor.

Guess i would need more info about the canadian/first nations/pub incident to render an opinion. Canada is a nanny state no doubt though. Free to make your own decisions...as long as they are the right ones.

[Seth]

That's an administrative investigation that might not be considered "criminal." I haven't looked into it, but maybe there is no right to remain silent that venue in Canada. Maybe a knowledgeable Canuck can clarify.

I wonder what happened, ultimately, in that case....

I'd like to know too. I heard a pub owner was fined a thousand bucks (loonies) for insulting Indians.

Fucking idiots.

Heard where? Fined by who? What would happen in the US if a pub owner insulted black people?

Nothing. Except some black people might beat the shit out of him. It's legal to insult them. It's illegal not to serve them liquor.

Guess i would need more info about the canadian/first nations/pub incident to render an opinion. Canada is a nanny state no doubt though. Free to make your own decisions...as long as they are the right ones.

Here's the Wikipedia stuff:

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319." Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (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.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission administers the Canadian Human Rights Act.[8] Section 3 of the Act prohibits discrimination based on "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted." Section 13(1) addresses the issue of hate speech. The section states:

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.

Section 13(2) makes clear that posting hateful or contemptuous messages to the Internet is prohibited. Section 54(1) allows a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to order a respondent to cease any discriminatory practice, to compensate the victim where the discrimination was wilful or reckless by an amount not exceeding $20,000, and to pay a penalty of not more than $10,000.

Cases under the Human Rights Act

In Warman v. Lemire, 2009 CHRT 26, Athanasios D. Hadjis held that the respondent's right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression should not be infringed by s. 13(1). Accordingly, the adjudicator did not penalize the respondent for his controversial postings to the Internet.[9]

In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive.[10]

In Chopra v. Health Canada, 2008 CHRT 39, Pierre Deschamps ruled that Shiv Chopra, a microbiologist at Health Canada, was entitled to $4,000 in damages from Health Canada for hurt feelings, lost wages, and interest. The adjudicator found that Chopra was subjected to discriminatory comments, was suspended in retaliation for filing an earlier human rights complaint, and had been passed over when he could have had a temporary promotion to acting chief of his division.[11]

In December 2007, the Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint about hate speech against Maclean's Magazine. The substance of the complaint was that Maclean's was publishing articles (a column by Mark Steyn) that insulted Muslims. The Congress filed its complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.[12] The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint 10 October 2008.[13] The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on 26 June 2008.

In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000.[14]

In Citron v. Zündel TD 1/02 (2002/01/18) the Tribunal found that the respondent had theories of secret conspiracies by Jews. The respondent posted his theories to the Internet. The Tribunal found that the tone and extreme denigration and vilification of Jews by the respondent was a violation of s. 13(1). The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices.[15]

[Coito ergo sum]

That's an administrative investigation that might not be considered "criminal." I haven't looked into it, but maybe there is no right to remain silent that venue in Canada. Maybe a knowledgeable Canuck can clarify.

I wonder what happened, ultimately, in that case....

I'd like to know too. I heard a pub owner was fined a thousand bucks (loonies) for insulting Indians.

Fucking idiots.

Heard where? Fined by who? What would happen in the US if a pub owner insulted black people?

Nothing. If he didn't serve them, he might be subjected to a civil charge and might be fined. If the sum total of the allegation against him was that he "insulted black people" nothing would happen to him.

[sandinista]

http://familyjustice.wordpress.com/2010 ... -children/

I remember this as well, apparently the same thing happens in the US. Children taken from their parents because of a certain ideological stance.

An appeals court in New Jersey has denied Deborah and Heath Campbell custody of their three young children, Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. (“Honszlynn Hinler” is meant to honour Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuhrer of the SS.)

A family court had earlier found insufficient evidence that the parents had abused or neglected their children (“Parents won’t get Nazi-named kids back,” Aug. 6 article). But the three judges on the appeals court panel confidently, though circularly, ruled that the parents had “recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect the children from harm and failing to acknowledge and treat their disabilities.”

Certainly, parents who put their children at risk of serious injury should have those children taken from them. But it’s hard not to worry that in this case, irrelevant factors played a role in the judges’ decision, factors such as the names of the children, the social and political beliefs the parents espouse, and the disabilities and psychological problems the parents were said to have.

A similar case in Canada came to a similar resolution in February when Nazi-sympathizing parents in Manitoba lost custody of their girl (step-daughter to the father) and boy. In 2008, the mother drew racist symbols on the girl, who was seven or eight years old, before sending her to school. The Court of Queen’s Bench, while finding that the children were at risk of harm, seemed to propose that the risk that the children would acquire racist attitudes was also grounds for removing them from their parents.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Adolph Hitler Campbell case was not the same as someone "insulting Indians" or "insulting black people." The Adolph Hitler Campbell case involved the parents teaching the children to be violent - for example, Adolph Hitler Campbell threatened to kill his sisters. There were apparently signs of the child being hit and abused. The father, Heath, had threatened to kill the mother, Deborah (pursuant to the admission of Deborah herself). She claimed he stabbed her with a screwdriver. The court of appeals noted that there was extensive evidence of verbal, emotional and physical abuse of the wife and the kids by the husband/father. The court of appeals ruled that the parents had not "received adequate treatment for their serious psychological conditions" and posed a threat to their three children.

The decision was not, according to the court of appeals, based on their political views. The article you cited merely stated that "it's hard not to worry that in this case, irrelevant factors played a role..." Well, it's certainly fine to be concerned about whether irrelevant factors, but if the father was beating the wife and the kids, and stabbing the wife with a screwdrive, and being verbally abusive, and the children were violent as a result, then there would seem to be ample relevant material to base the decision on. The political views of the parents don't become a defense - I would think that any parents who were not Nazis would lose the kids under the circumstances in the Campbell case.

[sandinista]

I'm surprised they were allowed to name their kids "Adolph Hitler" etc. Pretty sure that would not be allowed in canaduh. Can't say about the US, but, in canaduh I would guess that a child wearing nazi clothing to school would be at risk of being taken away by social services regardless of whether or not they were abused at home.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm surprised they were allowed to name their kids "Adolph Hitler" etc. Pretty sure that would not be allowed in canaduh. Can't say about the US, but, in canaduh I would guess that a child wearing nazi clothing to school would be at risk of being taken away by social services regardless of whether or not they were abused at home.

I don't know of any law against someone being named Adolph or Hitler. That, without more, would not be any reason to take action. I just did a whitepages.com search and there are some Hitlers in the United States, apparently.

[redunderthebed]

I'm of the belief that people have rights up to the point where it impinges on other peoples rights. Racism and hate speech impinges on people rights whilst i agree there is more to do laws against it are a good step and i don't believe that people that don't respect other people rights deserve to have rights themselves. I believe that hate speech laws targeting groups who are violently racist and intimidate others because of their beliefs are a necessary element of a civil society.

Racism is an evil that must be fought in every way possible by law by educating people etc. Racism goes deeper than being offended that is trivalising something that shouldn't be.

[Seth]

I'm of the belief that people have rights up to the point where it impinges on other peoples rights. Racism and hate speech impinges on people rights whilst i agree there is more to do laws against it are a good step and i don't believe that people that don't respect other people rights deserve to have rights themselves. I believe that hate speech laws targeting groups who are violently racist and intimidate others because of their beliefs are a necessary element of a civil society.

Racism is an evil that must be fought in every way possible by law by educating people etc. Racism goes deeper than being offended that is trivalising something that shouldn't be.

Please define precisely what you mean by "racism."

If I hold the opinion that all purples are inherently inferior to blacks as a matter of their genetic makeup, is that "racism?"

If I espouse that opinion in public, is that "racism?"

If I dance around a burning purple triangle while dressed in diapers with a bunch of other people while chanting "purples are genetically inferior," is that "racism?"

If I refuse to serve purples at my lunch counter and put up a sign saying "blacks only" is that "racism?"

If I kidnap purples off the street, take them to a remote area, tie them to a fence, beat them up and leave them to die, is that "racism?"

And what if purples actually are genetically inferior to blacks, what then?

[Warren Dew]

I believe that hate speech laws targeting groups who are violently racist and intimidate others because of their beliefs are a necessary element of a civil society.

You don't need hate speech laws to handle people who are violently racist. You can have laws against violence, without worrying about speech.

[sandinista]

This link doesn't mention canaduh, but pretty sure it's illegal here as well..."it" being holocaust denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again ... ust_denial

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm of the belief that people have rights up to the point where it impinges on other peoples rights. Racism and hate speech impinges on people rights whilst i agree there is more to do laws against it are a good step and i don't believe that people that don't respect other people rights deserve to have rights themselves. I believe that hate speech laws targeting groups who are violently racist and intimidate others because of their beliefs are a necessary element of a civil society.

Racism is an evil that must be fought in every way possible by law by educating people etc. Racism goes deeper than being offended that is trivalising something that shouldn't be.

Wait, what? "Racism and hate speech impinges on other people's rights"? How so?

How does "racism" impinge on other people's rights? Does sexism? Does Marxism? Does anti-Democrat sentiment?

If someone says "I hate Pauly Shore. That guy is a tool." Is that hate speech that impinges on someone's rights? If someone says "I hate Anglo Saxons" - does that impinge on rights?

And, you don't think people who don't "respect" other people's rights deserve to have rights themselves? What the heck is that? You're the one not respecting other people's "rights" by saying they don't have the right to express views you find distasteful. I mean - many folks express hateful and ethnocentric views about certain religions - would that be part of the prohibited hate speech, or is that kind of hate speech an allowable hate speech?

Anyone who is violent, of course, is not just expressing ideas. They ought to be arrested.