U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2017, 10:15 AM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
5,221 posts, read 2,734,414 times
Reputation: 3424

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorel36 View Post
I do. I'm not sure if canadians are really nicer or just tamer. Keep in mind Canada strictly regulates firearms or even speech.



Your wife being a RN should put you on the fast track to immigrate here. I know several RNs from europe for who it was the case.
Wow, you've been drinking the Trump kool-aid I see. And haven't been to the Yukon.

Thousands of Canadians own guns, my dad has a number of hunting rifles,
a bit more regulated than USA but unless you're derranged, you can obtain them.

Oh yeah, no free speech either....we don't have that lovely big brother NSA listening
to our conversations, probably even what we type on C-D

Also that crack about no mountains in the Yukon, need to check an Atlas,
the Yukon has mountains everywhere, including Canada's highest, Mt. Logan 19,551ft (5959m).
Yeah scenery is not good in the Yukon, and pigs fly.

Last edited by BMI; 08-06-2017 at 11:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2017, 12:42 PM
 
769 posts, read 251,628 times
Reputation: 1934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
You can not be convicted about saying unpopular things in Canada. You can deny the holocaust all you want. The line drawn is promoting it actively.

Keegstra was a school teacher. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Like I said, Americans really don't understand the law, or even how hard it is to get a conviction, let alone get a case into a court room. The evidence has to be outstanding.

Anyway, this really should be in a Canadian forum since you have to be a Canadian to get this so called free land. Americans who wish to immigrate are most welcomed to apply to become Canadians...some do and love it here. I'm pretty sure they don't feel their freedom of speech is infringed.
Actively promoting what? This is what the Supreme Court said about Keegan's statements:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...m/695/index.do
Quote:
The accused's communications were offensive and propagandistic, but they do not constitute threats in the usual sense of that word. The accused's statements did not urge violence against the Jewish people. They were not made with the intention and do not have the effect of compelling Jewish people or anyone else to do one thing or another. Nor do the accused's statements constitute violence. Violence, as discussed in Dolphin Delivery and Irwin Toy, connotes actual or threatened physical interference with the activities of others. Moreover, statements promoting hatred are not akin to threats or violence.
So he was promoting what, exactly? If your response is that he was promoting "hatred" then you are conceding my point. "Hate speech" is illegal in Canada, where it is not in America. I can promote as much hatred as I want, as long as I am not advocating immediate violence against someone. So there is a definite difference.

And being a teacher has nothing to do with whether he can be found guilty of a crime for the statements. He can be fired as a teacher if he is not following the approved curriculum, but that's not a crime in Canada, is it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Wrong. "Hate speech," as defined in Canadian law, has a very specific and narrowly-defined meaning; shaped by both statutory and case law. The Keegstra decision is cherry-picking to fit your predetermined belief; you would do well to also consult R. v. Zundel (holocaust denier, acquitted), R.v. Ahenakew ("I hate Jews," acquitted), and Lund v. Boissoin (Boission hates gays, acquitted).

All of these people said unpopular things, and yet, they were not convicted. There is a lot more to Canada's hate speech laws than, "you can be convicted of a crime for saying unpopular things in Canada, having nothing to do with advocating violence." I'd suggest that you (or anybody else interested in such things) consult a Canadian criminal lawyer for more details on an often-misunderstood-by-Americans area of Canadian criminal law.

Note that my knowledge as to the above comes from my practice as a Canadian lawyer. Human rights and criminal law under Canada's constitution are my practice areas. In other words, I'm pretty sure I know this stuff thoroughly.
Yes, I "cherry picked" a case. Because it proves EXACTLY what I said to be true. You can't simply ignore it because you don't like it. I stated that Keegstra was found guilty for his STATEMENTS despite not ever having said anything that would constitute a threat against Jews. And that is the case. It was his statements, and those alone, that warranted the charges and the conviction. That would not be the case in the U.S.

You guys keep saying that "Americans don't understand the law". Well, you guys should go an brush up on it yourselves. You seem to be having difficulty understanding what your courts have done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2017, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Behind You!
1,945 posts, read 3,021,159 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Like distributing pamphlets advocating violence agains an identifiable group. Which means you have to be PROMOTING hatred to that group.

It's greatly misunderstood by Americans.
Is it? We have the same laws in the states as far as whats actually on the books. But what happens second is the wrong people elected into office that try to redefine what hate speech is, then everybodys promoting it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2017, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
1,560 posts, read 1,341,310 times
Reputation: 1792
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonimuso View Post
You guys keep saying that "Americans don't understand the law". Well, you guys should go an brush up on it yourselves. You seem to be having difficulty understanding what your courts have done.
I practice law every day in Canadian courts. I think I know what I'm talking about.

By the way, you're cherry-picking again; and moreover, you're doing it wrong. You didn't quote the Court's actual Keegstra decision; you quoted a headnote, written by an editor (i.e. not a judge); and therefore, your quote has no legal validity.

There's a lot more to the Keegstra decision (not "Keegan") than the headnote paragraph that you quoted. It is a difficult decision to understand, given that it is trying to interpret statutory law in light of the Charter, with three out of seven of the judges dissenting overall, and the rest dissenting with various parts (only two judges agreed with the principles in the headnote you cited; one dissented, the rest had no comment on that particular argument in that context). I should commend you really, for taking on such a difficult case.

But in the end, you are clearly misunderstanding what Keegstra stands for. For something that may be more accessible on this topic, you might wish to consult Peter W. Hogg's Constitutional Law of Canada. It is an excellent resource, and easily understandable to the layperson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2017, 06:58 PM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
5,221 posts, read 2,734,414 times
Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorel36 View Post
What's so interesting about canadian citizenship when you're a US citizen ?

The land is not free as you have to invest 100K in canadian $ to be eligible. It's no homestead act. Also, isn't Alaska with its coast and marvelous mountains more scenic than the Yukon ?
Alaska is more scenic? ....check out almost 20,000 ft. high Mt. Logan
and the Tombstone Mtns,
both in the YukonFree land in Northern Canada-img_0906.jpg

Free land in Northern Canada-img_0903.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2017, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Anchorage
742 posts, read 471,648 times
Reputation: 767
Both Alaska and the Yukon have some large mountains, but Denali is the highest. The Yukon and northern Alaska are very similar and unique. Probably should throw the Northwest Territories in there too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2017, 01:02 AM
 
769 posts, read 251,628 times
Reputation: 1934
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
I practice law every day in Canadian courts. I think I know what I'm talking about.

By the way, you're cherry-picking again; and moreover, you're doing it wrong. You didn't quote the Court's actual Keegstra decision; you quoted a headnote, written by an editor (i.e. not a judge); and therefore, your quote has no legal validity.

There's a lot more to the Keegstra decision (not "Keegan") than the headnote paragraph that you quoted. It is a difficult decision to understand, given that it is trying to interpret statutory law in light of the Charter, with three out of seven of the judges dissenting overall, and the rest dissenting with various parts (only two judges agreed with the principles in the headnote you cited; one dissented, the rest had no comment on that particular argument in that context). I should commend you really, for taking on such a difficult case.

But in the end, you are clearly misunderstanding what Keegstra stands for. For something that may be more accessible on this topic, you might wish to consult Peter W. Hogg's Constitutional Law of Canada. It is an excellent resource, and easily understandable to the layperson.
Actually, you don't seem to know what your talking about. Or you're simply not understanding what I said earlier. I made a distinction between American and Canadian jurisprudence with respect to what type of speech can be criminalized. I pointed to the fact that this man was tried and convicted, not for committing or inciting violence, but merely because of the opinions that he stated. Nothing that you have said has disputed that fact. The court's statement of the facts makes no mention of any such incitement to violence.

The facts from the court opinion (from the same link):

Quote:
Mr. James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Eckville, Alberta from the early 1970s until his dismissal in 1982. In 1984 Mr. Keegstra was charged under s. 319(2) (then s. 281.2(2)) of the Criminal Code with unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-semitic statements to his students. He was convicted by a jury in a trial before McKenzie J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers". He taught his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution. According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy" and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.
I haven't misunderstood anything. You've clearly misunderstood what I said in my original post. I have a law degree. I've passed the Bar exam. I know how to follow a court opinion. The issue is that you keep claiming I have 'cherry picked' a specific case as if that's a bad thing. The case that I selected proves my point, so, yeah, I'm going to cherry pick it. Since you're a lawyer, I assume you've also 'cherry picked' a case when it works to your advantage.

But we can solve this with a simple question. Would a person in the U.S. be subject to a criminal trial for making the same statements that Mr. Keegstra made in the same circumstances? I can tell you, the answer is, unequivocally, no. We don't punish "hate propaganda". This is the distinction that I am making between Canada's law and The U.S.' law. Nothing more. If you think that a person in the U.S would be charged with criminal offenses for these statements, then please, show me where you would get that idea from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2017, 02:00 PM
 
484 posts, read 152,087 times
Reputation: 1292
Hold on... While I get the popcorn....grin.


Jim B.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2017, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Dangling from a mooses antlers
6,296 posts, read 10,907,661 times
Reputation: 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonimuso View Post
Actually, you don't seem to know what your talking about. Or you're simply not understanding what I said earlier. I made a distinction between American and Canadian jurisprudence with respect to what type of speech can be criminalized. I pointed to the fact that this man was tried and convicted, not for committing or inciting violence, but merely because of the opinions that he stated. Nothing that you have said has disputed that fact. The court's statement of the facts makes no mention of any such incitement to violence.

The facts from the court opinion (from the same link):



I haven't misunderstood anything. You've clearly misunderstood what I said in my original post. I have a law degree. I've passed the Bar exam. I know how to follow a court opinion. The issue is that you keep claiming I have 'cherry picked' a specific case as if that's a bad thing. The case that I selected proves my point, so, yeah, I'm going to cherry pick it. Since you're a lawyer, I assume you've also 'cherry picked' a case when it works to your advantage.

But we can solve this with a simple question. Would a person in the U.S. be subject to a criminal trial for making the same statements that Mr. Keegstra made in the same circumstances? I can tell you, the answer is, unequivocally, no. We don't punish "hate propaganda". This is the distinction that I am making between Canada's law and The U.S.' law. Nothing more. If you think that a person in the U.S would be charged with criminal offenses for these statements, then please, show me where you would get that idea from.

Very true. In the USofA we are able to call out Mulims for being barbaric savages without fear of criminal prosecution. Maybe "Islamic Extremist" would be more politically correct but either way it's not a violation of any criminal law to express that opinion. Even if you're a college professor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top