Sorry, I missed this. Yes, civil claims, including torts for defamation, can be launched by a private party in a court of law. The process and the workings of the court, as I understand them, are much the same as you have in the United States–both court systems are based on the English adversarial model, and both are common law jurisdictions (well, except for Quebec and IIRC, Louisiana), so we’re probably more similar than we are different.
Ok, so perhaps Canada does have free speech after all.
I have two comments: First, in the United States, a case like that would not have to reach the Supreme Court. A trial level court would just dismiss the indictment based on precedent. (I suppose that this will happen in Canada going forward.)
Second, assuming that holocaust denial is protected speech in Canada, it leaves open the question of whether other kinds of “hate” speech are protected. For example, if you state that “Group X is inferior and are murderers and should be deported and sent back to Country Y,” would that be protected in Canada?
That all depends. Read the statute I quoted. Public statements which promote hatred are in general not protected unless they fall under one of the exempt categories in 319(3) - true statements, religious views, etc.
And before you go flatly saying things like “Canada doesn’t have free speech” you might want to consider how closely related Section 319 of the Criminal Code is to US laws with regards to anti-defamation and inciting violence. The line may be drawn in a slightly different place, but very similar sorts of exceptions to the right to free expression exist in US law as well. There isn’t anywhere with absolutely no restrictions on expression, and the differences between Canada and the US in this regard are pretty negligible.
Actually, on the face of it, the basis of Canada’s free speech right is at least clearer, and possibly better entrenched, than in the US, as the Canadian Constitution explicitly states that everyone has the right, while the US Constitution only implies it by prohibiting Congress from interfering with it, which leaves it open to question as to whether it’s OK for anyone else to interfere with it. (I do realise that the actual reality is also shaped by years of legal decisions and rulings, but the Canadian version appears to be open to infringement only on the Constitutionally specified "reasonable limits " basis.)
Chairseat: Can we get that Cheney guy back in here? At least when he sits down I can have a face to face conversation.
Is that enough hijacking of a thread for stupid cheapshots at politicians who have less than diddly squat to do with the topic, or should we continue? And you want to dog on him because of his weight? Geez, that’s idi-fucking-otic. :rolleyes:
Bush sucks.
Just looking at the statute, I wouldn’t call it “slightly different” It looks to me as though Canada prohibits certain kinds of political speech just because they are offensive. Whether the statute will stand up in court or not is another issue, of course.
Nonsense. The terms “offensive” and “political speech” don’t even appear in the statute. The statute says “willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group”. Explain to me how this is different from libel or slander (aside from being criminal law as opposed to civil law, and a group as a target instead of an individual or organization). Note that as per 319(3)a, truth is an absolute defense, just as it is in libel cases.
I should also point out that 319(3)b looks to be explicitly carving out a further exemption for any offensive political speech which is expressing honestly held beliefs (as opposed to just stirring up shit).
So what? Do you agree that the statute potentially applies to offensive political speech?
For one thing, defamation potentially applies only if the subject is an individual or a small group. A statement about a large group – such as a race or ethnic group – is not actionable as defamation, as far as I know.
For another thing, defamation does not apply to opinions. If I say that the U.S. needs to round up people from Group X and put them in gas chambers, it would not be actionable as defamation since it’s just an opinion.
That provision has the requirement that “on reasonable grounds [the defendant] believed them [his statements] to be true”
In my opinion, free speech needs to protect statements that the public (or the state) perceives as UNreasonable. Statements that are perceived to be based on reasonable grounds do not need any protection.
But this explanation of the differences between the two just illustrates my point - the differences are minor.
Look, I personally don’t think 319(2) is a good piece of legislation. I’m okay with 319(1) because of the “likely to lead to a breach of the peace” clause, which makes it in my opinion pretty much equivalent to inciting violence. But I think 319(2) is one step past what is warranted. Nobody consulted with me before it was passed, though. What I object to is people like you waltzing in here and proclaiming that Canada “doesn’t have free speech” on the basis of 319(2) when in fact Canada clearly does have free speech by any reasonable measure, and the restrictions that are imposed on expression are very similar in type if not in fine details to those imposed in any other generally free country. Unless you think you honestly think that the boundary between freedom and lack of freedom is between being able to say something about an individual vs being able to say it about a group. I can’t quite fathom why anyone would think that.
I notice it a lot - American conservatives, plumbing for this kind of news, use it to convince their countrymen that Canada and Western Europe are 1984-esque socialist dictatorships, and aren’t we lucky to live in the good ol’ god’s country?
Ergo, HRC complaint that may have been inappropriately pursued == This is STAAALINISM!!
In my view, those are not minor differences. The upshot is that in the United States, offensive political speech is protected (assuming that it’s otherwise legal). Under the Canadian statute I cited, offensive political speech would appear to be potentially punishable.
As I said, for me, the test is pretty simple. If offensive political statements are protected, then there is free speech.
To me, the distinction is very important. By way of example, if I say “George Peebles of Elgin, Arkansas is a rapist and should be sent to jail,” it’s not a political statement. On the other hand, if I say “Jewish people are all rapists and should be rounded up and put in concentration camps,” that’s a political statement.
So it’s protected unless it isn’t protected.
And why limit a discussion of free speech to nominally political statements? What abour obscenity laws; is the United States free of those? Why should we assume that freedom of speech is not limited by obscenity laws, but is limited by laws against hate speech?
You can’t argue the United States has “Freer” speech by cherry-picking the type of speech you want to claim constitutes the speech that needs to be free.
Why should the latter statement be protected speech but not the former?
Not me. I think Canada and the US are much more similar than different. If it were up to me I’d get rid of the border, because it’s irrelevant…or at least invite Alberta and BC to become states. Anyway, my concern is that something like this is happening so close to home. If it’s allowed to continue in Alberta it can start happening here.
I’m not sure what your point is here.
It’s simply a question of values. For me, that’s the most important free speech issue. Perhaps Hugh Hefner would have a different standard for judging free speech.
Potentially punishable if the statements are not made in good faith as a part of political discourse and believed to be true by the speaker…
Look, this clause is VERY CLEARLY exempting “offensive political speech” from prosecution. You can quibble with the bit that requires the statements to be sincerely believed on rational grounds, but “rational” in these contexts is generally a very low bar. Legal Dopers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe all this means is that the reasons the speaker gives aren’t completely disconnected from the beliefs in question. Precisely what sort of “offensive political speech” do you think isn’t going to be protected by this?
And? Can you articulate why it’s important to be allowed to slander whole groups and incite frenzied hatred against them, but it’s not important to be allowed to do the same to an individual? It’s political, you say. How is it political? What does that even mean in this context? What is it about statements about individual that makes them not political?
Look, the usual reason given for defending the statements of unredeemable hatemongers is that if you muzzle them, you’re on a slippery slope to muzzling legitimate discourse. It’s not like anyone actually thinks there’s any value to discussing whether we ought to gas all the Jews or not. It’s that they are worried that discourse that is of value will be curtailed. And when we look at this law, we see first that it specifically carves out exceptions aimed precisely preventing any slide down that slope. There’s a whole judiciary which seems to be circumscribing the application of the law very tightly, and constitutional requirements that they do so. And there’s the prosecutorial establishment which has utilized the law only a handful of times since it was enacted, and each time there’s been renewed public debate over whether the law goes too far. I would suggest that the sum of these factors makes the chances of slipping down any slope extremely remote. However, if you can provide any smidgen of evidence that any discourse of any value is being suppressed by fear of this law in Canada, I will cheerfully join you in pressuring our politicians to change it.
That’s just not true. As I stated above, free speech needs to protect statements that the public (or the state) perceives as UNreasonable. Statements that are perceived to be based on reasonable grounds do not need any protection.
And to turn your own silly argument back on you, I would point out that the terms “offensive” and “political speech” don’t even appear in the statute.
If you are unable to see why one statement is political and the other probably isn’t, there’s no point in discussing things further.
It’s not unreasonable statements that aren’t exempted, it’s statements that aren’t believed to be true on reasonable grounds.
I would agree that if you can’t articulate why the distinctions you’re drawing matter, or why they form the boundary between freedom and not freedom, there’s not much point in discussing things any further.
So what? If somebody makes a statement, and the government agrees that there are reasonable grounds for the statement, then it needs no protection in the first place.
It’s not that I can’t explain myself, it’s that you are essentially playing the “why” game with me and I prefer not to spend my time on such an excercise.
If you can’t or won’t see why a statement about a large group is much more likely to be political than a statement about an individual, then it’s unlikely you are capable of or willing to understand any explanation I might offer.
For some reason, I’ve noticed, people of conservative bent in the US like to believe that they are uniquely blessed with certain freedoms, and exaggerate tiny legal differences as being of the very essence of those freedoms; thus, such counterintuitive notions as there being no real free speech in Canada.
Some in Canada do the same. Some of the replies in this thread is a pretty good example of the process.
I say this, though I’m somewhat conservative in bent myself in many ways (at least compared with many on this board). However, I prefer my conservatism untained by hypebole. 