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.
Is Canada selective in who has free speech? Mark Steyn wrote an column in National Review trashing this decision by your Supreme Court. He also commented that a Muslim teenager in Alberta was given a pass for declaring homosexuals should be killed.
Is Canada selective in who has free speech? Mark Steyn wrote an column in National Review trashing this decision by your Supreme Court. He also commented that a Muslim teenager in Alberta was given a pass for declaring homosexuals should be killed.
Hate speech laws are valid. Comparing cases on the surface is tricky. I am unaware of the teenager you speak of, but the second link about Bilal Philips conveniently forgets to report that Mr. Philips has not had issues because of his stance. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that he may not have said his anti-gay rants in Canada since some articles suggest he is based out of the Gulf and only visits Canada. They may just be waiting. His passport was delayed because so many countries were starting to refuse him entry, Kenya, Germany,Britain, Australia and he is on U.S.'s no fly list. Not exactly getting away with his extreme views.
Hate speech laws are complicated since you have to prove the intent to harm...and I'm assuming within the jurisdiction you are a citizen of. If he weren't Canadian he would of been deported probably.
I believe the average Canadian does not feel hindered by hate speech laws.
This quote from the second link sounds like hyperbole to me.
"No homosexual needs the state's protection from Bill Whatcott. But all of us need protection from nitwit jurists blithely sacrificing core Western liberties to ideological compliance. It's not about Left vs. Right, gay vs. straight, religious vs. secular; it's about free vs. unfree. And on that most profound question, Canada's supreme court is on the wrong side. Nuts to them."
This quote from the ruling sounds reasonable.
"Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law,” the court said in its ruling. “The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.”
Is Canada selective in who has free speech? Mark Steyn wrote an column in National Review trashing this decision by your Supreme Court. .....
Well, what else is new?
Free speech in Canada is that columnist's special bugaboo up his butt because he's gotten into trouble with the Canadian courts himself because of his bigotry, racism, homophobia, rabidly fanatical political bias and hatred and his own trashy hate speech and abuse of free speech in Canada. Anything he writes is trash and only gets taken with a pinch of salt from me. He's a Canadian living in America because nobody else wants him, whose Canadian citizenry is an embarrassment to Canada. He never has anything good to say about Canada or Canadian citizens, no matter what the subject - it's always only trash coming from a trashy person - that's all he knows how to do, is talk trash.
I don't understand how other people can enjoy reading the uncivilized garbage and hatred that he spews.
Free speech in Canada is that columnist's special bugaboo up his butt because he's gotten into trouble with the Canadian courts himself because of his bigotry, racism, homophobia, rabidly fanatical political bias and hatred and his own trashy hate speech and abuse of free speech in Canada. Anything he writes is trash and only gets taken with a pinch of salt from me. He's a Canadian living in America because nobody else wants him, whose Canadian citizenry is an embarrassment to Canada. He never has anything good to say about Canada or Canadian citizens, no matter what the subject - it's always only trash coming from a trashy person - that's all he knows how to do, is talk trash.
I don't understand how other people can enjoy reading the uncivilized garbage and hatred that he spews.
.
I had never heard of him before, but this one article was enough.
Free speech in Canada is that columnist's special bugaboo up his butt because he's gotten into trouble with the Canadian courts himself because of his bigotry, racism, homophobia, rabidly fanatical political bias and hatred and his own trashy hate speech and abuse of free speech in Canada. Anything he writes is trash and only gets taken with a pinch of salt from me. He's a Canadian living in America because nobody else wants him, whose Canadian citizenry is an embarrassment to Canada. He never has anything good to say about Canada or Canadian citizens, no matter what the subject - it's always only trash coming from a trashy person - that's all he knows how to do, is talk trash.
I don't understand how other people can enjoy reading the uncivilized garbage and hatred that he spews.
.
Are you seriously suggesting that because you dislike him it's okay for the various human rights tribunals (and lately the Supreme Court) to attempt to define what we, as a society, find offensive?
If you'd moved, even slightly, to understand the issue before making such a ridiculous (and dangerous) snap judgement you'd have realized that this isn't about Steyn's personal vendetta - the OP's first link was to Jeff Gray's article in that bastion of radical bigotry and hatred, the Globe and Mail, after all.
Bill Whatcott is an awful human being, and likely a complicated, confused one at that. However, the decision by the Supreme Court is a frightening one, not so much for it's censure of Whatcott's irritating behaviour, but for the precedent it sets for future cases. The Supreme Court has decided, in essence, that being right takes a backseat to being inoffensive:
Taken from the decision: Truth may be used for widely disparate ends, and I find it difficult to accept that circumstances exist where factually accurate statements can be used for no other purpose than to stir up hatred against a racial or religious group. It would seem to follow that there is no reason why the individual who intentionally employs such statements to achieve harmful ends must under the Charter be protected from criminal censure
Adding to that already ominous statement is the parade of people (Steyn included, as you'd mentioned) who have been dragged in front of the various human rights tribunals for offensive speech or publication.
What this decision changes is simply that truth is no longer a protection and the human rights commissions need no longer consider the accuracy of a statement before deciding whether to the accused is guilty of a human rights violation.
It essentially undermines libel laws as they stand, with regard to a case brought by anyone of an identifiable race or religious group. Since the traditional libel defense of truth or fair comment can no longer be used, a writer has, what, exactly, to defend him or herself with against such a charge?
But no matter, Steyn's trash, right?
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.
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.
