Does Canada have free speach?

[skadistic]

I also think it should be made clear that there's a huge difference between thinking the powers of this civil court body go to far, and agreeing with the intolerant conspiracy-theory bleatings of the white power set. I mean, if radical muslims are "using our laws against us" what exactly are racist bigots and Stormfronters and other crypto-fascists doing every time they cry 'free speech'?

"Stormfronters and other crypto-fascists" are being brought up on charges in Canada for free speech. Thats the point. There is no free speech.

 

[Communisto]

It's all stupid. But I belive that this is a minor sacrficise to stop terrorist atacks compared to the patriot act and the war in afghanistan.

The Danish embassy was set on fire after they refused to censore those picture. I'm not sure what to think about all of this, I think I'm for the publication of the pictures in an artistic sense for political satire.
But as some people did, just to publish them to prove that they can publish them and to provoke muslims, now that's lack of understanding and even insulting to any muslim.

Sorry but we don't like to sacrifice our free speech for madmen. I for one refuse to live in a society where we reprimand ourselves out of fear. It is unacceptable that we change our laws or punish our citizens so that people who are guests in our country and people who don't even live in our country won't be offended, utterly and completely unacceptable. If these people want Sharia Law and no freedom of speech, well there are plenty of places they can go where that's already in place.

 

[skadistic]

You must have missed the bloody mary episode. Catholics can be just as sensitive (well, not really, they won't bomb stuff, just censor it)

I saw it ( damn funny too). They called for it to be censored but they know it wont be. They simply express displeasure and call for boycotts. Like with the "Golden Compass" movie.

 

[Arwon]

"Stormfronters and other crypto-fascists" are being brought up on charges in Canada for free speech. Thats the point. There is no free speech.

Well yes, but that doesn't change the point that it's their usual defence as a tactical move to exploit the tenets of the liberalism they despise. Somehow I can't help but think anyone who thinks the events described in the Turner Diaries are basically a good idea believes in the niceties of liberal democracy.

 

[Evie]

Honestly? There's no such thing as absolute free speech. There always will be restrictions to what you can say when and where. If you (somehow) come into possessions of government secrets (without being a government employee, that is - then it comes under the whole "breach of contract" angle) and you spill them and cause trouble, you *will* get in deep trouble for it. If you yell fire in a theater? Trouble. Say "Hello, I'm a terrorist" in the middle of an airport? I hope you wrote a suicide note that morning.

The one free speech that really matters is the right to criticize, particularly the right to criticize the government, and other established institutions.

The right to post stupid demeaning cartoons and the right to offend minorities are extremely secondary, as far as I could care.

Let the tribunals decide whether it falls under free speech or hate speech or not. That's what we have them for - to determine whether laws apply to a case, and whether those laws impose unacceptable limitations on the rights and freedoms defined in the charter of rights and freedom.

(Which nominally does not include freedom of SPEECH. What it includes is "Freedom of Thought, Belief, Opinion and Expression", including "Freedom of the Press and other media of communication". Which, really, is a much better definition than "Freedom of Speech")

 

[Gone Dark]

Catholics have already been punished for anti-gay writings.

I wasn't aware of that. What was the nature of the writings?

Here in Sweden, a pastor called Åke Green got away saying "Homosexuality is a cancer on the body of society". That's a borderline case to say the least, but he did get away for religious reasons, which is wrong if you ask me. You can't use different sets of standards just becasue a religion is involved.

Now, imagine saying blacks are a cancer on the body of society. That wouldn't fly. Either you allow both or non.

I think racism and intolerance are best met by arguments, not by silencing people and making them martyrs.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Many Canadians can appreciate that they don't entirely have free speech, this primarily because of hate crime laws. Many would rather the government be effective at removing elements in society such as neo nazis or the KKK. For the most part, it has worked pretty well and you would find very little worry in Canada on this matter for that reason.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"Stormfronters and other crypto-fascists" are being brought up on charges in Canada for free speech. Thats the point. There is no free speech.

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech. Too many bigots have used the "freedom of expression" excuse to spew their hate-inciting crap.

I live in Red Deer, and could really have done without a reminder of that piece of garbage, Boissoin, who regularly spouted his hate speech in the local paper until he was finally shut down. I don't recall if they quit publishing him before his life was threatened, or after...

Oh, and any political party that includes the words "Western Canada" in its name is pretty much guaranteed to have at least one hate element in its platform.

 

[Leonel]

It's all stupid. But I belive that this is a minor sacrficise to stop terrorist atacks compared to the patriot act and the war in afghanistan.

The Danish embassy was set on fire after they refused to censore those picture. I'm not sure what to think about all of this, I think I'm for the publication of the pictures in an artistic sense for political satire.
But as some people did, just to publish them to prove that they can publish them and to provoke muslims, now that's lack of understanding and even insulting to any muslim.

Imagine having Jesus Christ holding a Colt rifle shooting people - picture - being published all around the world. What that picture just like the Muhammed one was doing would be to illustrate how christ has been abducted by warjunkies and used to defend the killings of thoulsands.

But it would still hurt you christians, wouldn't it?


(The picture of Mohammed was him with a bond on his head smiling)

Um. No it wouldn't. And believe me I've see Jesus in worse illustrations. I've seen pictures of him receiving fellatio, giving fellatio, having sex with himself, masturbating, as a love doll, crapping bloody easter eggs etc. You name it, I've seen it. Yet the most I do is a disappointed head shake.

 

[bhsup]

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

No, there is not. The speech you find distasteful is the very speech meant to be protected. Doesn't really make any sense to protect speech the majority agrees with, eh?

 

[Tabasco Sauce]

No, there is not. The speech you find distasteful is the very speech meant to be protected. Doesn't really make any sense to protect speech the majority agrees with, eh?

Seconded. As long as speech doesn't violate the rights of another person, it needs to be protected.

 

[mdwh]

The one free speech that really matters is the right to criticize, particularly the right to criticize the government, and other established institutions.

The right to post stupid demeaning cartoons and the right to offend minorities are extremely secondary, as far as I could care.

What about a cartoon that criticises, but some take offence?

And if you don't care, by default they should be legal - the question is why should people be punished for publishing a cartoon.

Let the tribunals decide whether it falls under free speech or hate speech or not.

This ought not be hate speech - it is not intended to intimidate or incite violence. Telling people to go and kill a load of muslims is hate speech. Criticising or mocking people's beliefs is _not_ hate speech in any sense of the word (or it shouldn't be).

That's what we have them for - to determine whether laws apply to a case, and whether those laws impose unacceptable limitations on the rights and freedoms defined in the charter of rights and freedom.

And we have this thread to decide whether certain laws are an arse or not.

 

[mdwh]

Thankfully these cartoons seems to be legal in the UK. However:

Um. No it wouldn't. And believe me I've see Jesus in worse illustrations. I've seen pictures of him receiving fellatio, giving fellatio, having sex with himself, masturbating, as a love doll, crapping bloody easter eggs etc. You name it, I've seen it. Yet the most I do is a disappointed head shake.

However, the "Jesus is a ____" t-shirts seem to be illegal to sell and to wear, under various religious laws we still have:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1780422007 - "selling obscene material aggravated by religious prejudice"

http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=265 - "religiously aggravated offensive conduct".

We may finally be about to get rid of our blasphemy law ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7178439.stm ), but there's been no mention of these other laws.

 

[Babbler]

Meh. Printing the cartoons wasn't a human rights/hate right violation. They didn't harm or threaten anybody, and nobody has the right not to be offended. It was childish, but shouldn't illegal.

In fact, thinking about it, the whole affair was an exercise of childish tribalism. The riots occurred because not because of careful consideration of Islamic theology, but because somebody somewhere slighted their religion's honour, and for that they must pay. Likewise, the reprinting of those cartoons weren't printed because of a careful consideration of civil liberties, but in the same tribal fashion.

 

[Masquerouge]

Seconded. As long as speech doesn't violate the rights of another person, it needs to be protected.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? The whole "rights of another person" thing! Could you qualify what exactly would constitute a violation of someone's rights?

 

[skadistic]

But that's the whole point, isn't it? The whole "rights of another person" thing! Could you qualify what exactly would constitute a violation of someone's rights?

When that speech causes violence to another. Like telling people to go kill jews and they do.

Or spreading slander.

 

[sysyphus]

Meh. Printing the cartoons wasn't a human rights/hate right violation. They didn't harm or threaten anybody, and nobody has the right not to be offended. It was childish, but shouldn't illegal.

In fact, thinking about it, the whole affair was an exercise of childish tribalism. The riots occurred because not because of careful consideration of Islamic theology, but because somebody somewhere slighted their religion's honour, and for that they must pay. Likewise, the reprinting of those cartoons weren't printed because of a careful consideration of civil liberties, but in the same tribal fashion.

Well said. I agree these guys have every right to publish the cartoon, but their reason for doing so is centred in rabble rousing, so they ought to not expecting me to leap to their cause.

There's enough serious opression around the world, this is a pointless battle to create.

Of course, I recall the guy who got sacked from his job for saying that the Americans deserved 9-11 and lost his case in court, I don't recall the BNP... erm... I mean Free Dominion crying foul against freedom of speech in that case. (Neither did I, he deserved it.)

 

[emzie]

The guy's right, of course, but he's enough of a douchebag that I couldn't really care less.

 

[Zelig]

I'd like to point out that the facebook group in question had 11 members at the time of the screenshot, which was presumably taken after some media attention already.

 

[Tabasco Sauce]

But that's the whole point, isn't it? The whole "rights of another person" thing! Could you qualify what exactly would constitute a violation of someone's rights?

Saying "Fire" in a crowded theater,directly inciting a riot, slander that directly harms another person, things of that ilk. If it doesn't harm another person, it shouldn't be restricted.