I imagine it’s not tiny to Ezra Levant.
I see it differently, myself, because these same legal challenges are being employed by some Muslims here, and in some of these cases the loser seems to be free speech.
I don’t see it as a simple U.S-Canada thing. I see it as yet another cultural clash between a certain subset of Muslims and Western values and institutions.
I don’t know if you really should see it that way. I mean, obviously, in this case, Muslims are the aggrieved party, but if you look at other cases, the Commission deals with sexual harrassment claims, speech considered homophobic, speech considered anti-Semitic, etc., and surely those aren’t cultural clashes between Western values on the one hand and women, gays, or Jews on the other.
If anything, you can say that in this case, the Muslims complaining are acting very Western…they’re acting within the laws of Canada and Alberta, and following the same proceedures that other offended groups have used. The clash isn’t between the the values of two cultures, but instead, it’s the clash between two seperate values that exist within mainstream Canadian (and American, for that matter) culture…the first, the right of every Canadian to have an opinion and freely express it, and the second, the right of every Canadian to feel secure and equal under the law, rather than being singled out and threatened because of their race, religioun, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Okay, here would be my criteria if I were in charge of this. What would this commission do in cases of blasphemy against Christianity’s tenets? If someone came out with a remake of “The Life of Brian” or “The Passion of the Christ”, would the filmmaker be brought before the Commission if someone complained?
If not, then the same should apply to Muslims/Hutterites/Dukhobors/Jews. If so, then the criteria may need to be refined from a US view, but at least they’re being restrictive fairly…not that that makes it right, but it does mitigate it a teeny bit.
You appear to be misunderstanding the meaning of 319(3)c. It doesn’t require there be reasonable grounds for the statement in the sense that any rational person would believe it to be true. Reasonable grounds here just means that the reasons the speaker believe the statement are rationally connected to it - for example, he’s not just saying he believes it because it pisses people off and he enjoys pissing people off. The clause is in there basically as an anti-trolling measure.
It’s not that I can’t see why a statement about a group is more likely to be political than a statement about an individual. It’s that I can’t see the distinction can possibly be so important that if some statements about groups are restricted then we’re not free, while the very same statements about individuals can be restricted and that’s no threat to freedom.
Restricting either class of statements limits our freedom, to slightly varying degrees. Ideally we allow as much freedom as possible, but there are always tradeoffs. People with unrestricted freedoms to talk about individuals will sometimes use them to destroy people’s reputations, etc, and legislators and courts in both the US and Canada have decided that it’s a reasonable tradeoff to restrict the freedom to talk about individuals and organizations when those freedoms are used to harm specific individuals and organizations. Canadian legislators have further decided that it’s a reasonable tradeoff to restrict the freedom to talk about groups when those freedoms are used to harm specific identifiable groups. As I have said, I would prefer not to make that particular tradeoff, but nonetheless it’s exactly the same sort of tradeoff as the one being made in the former case. It’s just a bit different in the details.
What I’m pushing you on is to articulate why you think the one tradeoff is anathema to freedom while the other is not, when from any objective standard there isn’t a huge difference. There are small differences, and perhaps you can provide an argument for why one or more of those small differences is critically important. But so far you haven’t done that. You’ve just asserted that they are.
I don’t think so.
Here’s the relevant language:
Thus, if the person believed the statement true on UNREASONABLE grounds, he would fall outside of the exception. What you seem to be saying is that if the person honestly believes the statement, whether he has reasonable grounds or not, it falls within the exception. i.e. it’s an anti-trolling measure. But that’s not what the statute says. There is clearly a reasonableness requirement in the statute.
If you disagree with me, please answer this simple question:
If a person believed the statement true on UNREASONABLE grounds, would he fall outside of the exception? Simple yes or no question.
As I said, you are free to come up with your own test. It’s just a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the core of free speech is the right to express offensive political views. Inoffensive views need no protection. Non-political statements don’t go to the core of free speech.
Here’s a question for you: Why do you think so many American liberals (including myself) care so much about our right to burn the flag? Obviously, it’s because prohibiting flag burning is an offense against free speech. If the courts had upheld prohibitions on flag burning, would that mean that the U.S. no longer has free speech? To a small extent, yes.
Likewise for homosexuals, I assume?
And I wonder who thinks “The Passion of the Christ” is blasphemous.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe he meant Last Temptation and just got the titles mixed up?
I have no idea what “blasphemy against homosexuals” would consist of. However, if you wish to trudge around in a circle in front of Parliament chanting “God Hates Fags” you’re perfectly free to do so. Regardless of conservative wet dreams about being silenced by the Great Homosexual Conspiracy, I’m perfectly fine with actual freedom of speech. Anyone can join Fred Phelps in his protests to their heart’s content. By the same token, I can call them what they are when they do so: bigots hiding behind their “faith”.
And yes, as Gorsnak speculated, I was thinking of the Last Temptation and the more recent movie jumped in front of my brain.