That was one of the considerations (see the final #5) Hate propaganda (85-6E)
How is that inconsistent?
Ahenakew has a right to say what he wants. He doesn’t have a “right” to the Order of Canada, which in any event isn’t much of an award, if you look at a list of the receipients.
A sensible and well-reasoned opinion that I agree with.
Who are you and WTF have you done with gonzomax?
From Canada’s justifications for its “hate speech” legislation as provided in Muffin’s link:
*The arguments in favour of hate propaganda legislation are as follows:
- Rights are never absolute - in Canada they are exercised under law - legal intervention is justified in some circumstances.*
No country has ever declared rights (including that of free speech (i.e. shouting “fire” in a crowded theater") to be “absolute” - so this is a nonsensical preamble.*
- Unlike the U.S. First Amendment libertarian position, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is imbued with egalitarian rights…*
They felt obliged to explain why Canada is superior to the U.S. in the area covered by this law? Part of a general inferiority complex, or did they realize how unfavorably Canada would be compared to the U.S. in this regard?
3. Canada is a multicultural society - this multiculturalism is accepted as a basic constitutional norm…
Irrelevant, as multicultural societies are the norm among Western nations.*
- Numerous reports and legislative enactments indicate a consensus as to the legitimacy of using the law against hate propaganda.*
We like to ride with the herd.*
- Many other Western liberal democracies have anti-hate propaganda legislation.*
Ditto. *
- Canada must fulfil its international obligations by enacting hate propaganda legislation. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, to all of which Canada is a signatory, oblige Canada to combat racism and the advocacy of genocide and racial superiority.*
Do those conventions and covenants oblige Canada to pass “hate speech” legislation? Doubtful. And if they did, there’s something wrong with those conventions and covenants.
Very, very embarassing.
Maybe this case will help focus censure on Canada’s government-sanctioned repression of free speech.
That’s not an argument; it’s a totally unsupported value judgment.
If you’re not against restrictions on speech based on presumed imminent lawless action, you can’t very well be entirely against hate speech laws.
ETA: Shit, we’re in the Pit. You are totally within your rights to make unsupported value judgments. Carry on.
Not responsive. There’s a two-part argument there: one, questioning whether there are specific international requirements Canada is bound to that require it to restrict speech that is “hateful”, and two, in the event that such a requirement exists, Canada ought not to have entered into covenants binding it to pass such legislation.
Huh? Is there some feat of logic I’m missing here? If I support any reasonable restriction on speech to prevent an imminent threat to public safety, I’m opening the door to the thought police?
That’s not an argument; it’s brain-dead babbling.
As a general principle, if a sovereign state is a signatory to a treaty, that treaty becomes the law of the land whether they pass legislation to that effect or not.
The point of hate speech laws is to prevent threats to public safety; whether that threat is imminent or not is usually a pretty grey area.
For example- “let’s overthrow the government and kill the Eskimos*” would not generally be considered speech creating an imminent threat. “Let’s overthrow the government and kill the Eskimos* on Tuesday” would. Easy dividing line.
However, “Let’s overthrow the government and kill the Eskimos now!” is a tricker concept to handle. Does now mean immediately? This year? After the next election?
It’s not that supporting reasonable restrictions on speech “opens the door to the thought police”, it’s that if you do support reasonable restrictions, you can’t dismiss the idea that the door is open out of hand. If you dislike this particular legislation, that’s fine- but suggesting that it “scares the fuck out of you”, as friedo did, implies that you* haven’t considered the implications of restrictions you** already (presumably) support.
*Eskimos chosen at random out of Peoples of The World. No threat to Eskimos is intended by this post.
**global you
Interestingly, you managed to leave out the example, “Boy howdy, I really fucking hate Eskimos, and you know what? They started the Second World War.”
That’s OK, though. I am confident that a well-paid government bureaucrat is busily ordering ink refills for his line-drawing pen.
Fine - but once again completely unresponsive to the points I raised.
I see friedo has commented on your oddly chosen example of “hate speech” (which does not relate to the situation described in the OP), but this gem of yours should be addressed:
This is “slippery slope” argumentation taken to a ludicrous extreme. It’s like saying that allowing a search warrant for any purpose “leaves the door open” to a Gestapo state.
Getting back to your claim that I’m making “value judgments”, I suppose that in a sense that’s correct - I and others here value free speech more than you do.
It’s interesting (and sad) to see false assertions about public safety requiring a clampdown on unpopular speech coming from a leftist perspective in this instance.
More great moments in combating “hate speech” - the Dutch are on their way to making it illegal to insult any group, religious or not:
*"THE HAGUE - The Dutch cabinet gave the nod (10/31) to a bid to scrap a legal ban on blasphemy, opting to expand hate speech beyond religious boundaries to include all groups of people.
“The cabinet gives the prohibition of blasphemy a new form and place in the law,” said a statement from the justice ministry.
“In future, it will be punishable to give serious offence to any group of people. There is no need any more for a separate provision for blasphemy.”*
Well, that sure uncomplicates things. Hey, if the Dope is accessible in Holland, can we all be prosecuted for giving “serious offense” to any group of people (Muslims, the obese, cellphone users etc.)?
This is a terrifying line:
I’m not going to defend our Canadian hate speech laws, but on the other hand this issue comes up so rarely and never abused that i’m not really bothered by it. Me, who often makes politically or socially incorrect pronouncements.
And really, while I admire the adamant rhetoric of free speech in America, both our countries penalize those who bother co-workers with abusive sexual speech . Speech like we used to get in the pit.
Hate speech to my mind is far more harmful than sexually charged speech, wouldn’t you agree ?
Speech is not harmful, “Sticks and stones” and all that.
Now, I think Sexual Harrasment laws forbid conducts more than speech, but in the aspect that they limit what anybody can saym they are wrong. I am not familiarized with the way such laws are applied so I can not say to what extent they restrict free spech or not.
Sexual harrassment laws restrict all kinds of “speech”, not only verbal or written. For instance, hanging up Playboy centerfold pics in locker rooms.
Then they are bad laws.
I suspect the idea is to prevent “hostile labor enviroments”, but blanket prohibitions shouldnt be the way to do it.
Well, both sides are arguing the slippery slope here - those arguing in favour of the legislation are arguing that it is akin to the exemptions on free speech already in existence elsewhere; those against, that a relatively narrow and focused exemption is somehow a frightening opening of the door to unmentioned governmental horrors of repression.
To my mind, you are both wrong, but you are far more wrong then they.
From my perspective, I’d prefer that this legislation not exist, since it is an additional derogation from free speech and I think one that is wholly unnecessary; but it is hardly the “very, very embarassing” or as others have said “frightening” issue that is deserving of “censure”, it is a minor pimple on the butt of free speech in this country.
Ahenakew, you will note, was acquitted, it is hardly the case that the governmental prosecutors are running rampant with this legislation or likely to do so; “libel chill” is a far, far greater threat to speech than this obscure law, and that is the same in both the US and Canada (and indeed throughout the Western world).
My take on this as a German is that Americans think laws can protect them from dictators - free speech and gun laws for example. (In the case of your gun laws the gun owners are much more likely to become the oppressors, anyway.)
The problem is that this is not the case - laws and constitutions can be changed or ignored and rights can be taken away. To get a dictatorship out of a democracy you need popular support, at least at the beginning.
So the answer for us is to stop the rise of potential oppressors, not to try to pass laws to protect oneself beforehand.
Hi from the Netherlands 
Anyway, no you can’t, because that is a proposal, the law hasn’t been changed (yet). It’s also pretty controversial here. Other politicians are advocating moving to a much more “American” style of free-speech legislation, and many are in favor of just scrapping the restriction of “blasphemy” (which by the way hasn’t been enforced since the early 70s).