By way of an hypostatization fallacy, I suspect.
Lib, he’ll never understand the concept unless you illustrate it with pictures, and perhaps set it to music.
If you’re the same masterchief243 as the one on the message board Larry Mudd found (and how many can there be?), then you turned all of 20 all of four months ago. I don’t know if anyone’s told you this yet, but reaching two decades’ age doesn’t automatically instill one with intellecut or maturity. There are much younger posters than you on this board who act much more like adults.
Oo! Know what I just did? I wasn’t sure if I’d spelled “automatically” correctly, so I opened dictionary.com in another window and checked the spelling. Try it some time.
I’m possibly going to get flamed for this, but I don’t neccesarily think that the Canadian law banning hateful speech is a bad one. It’s not that I think freedom of speech isn’t good…it’s certainly a good. But at the same time, if you have an individual who openly promotes hatred against an individual or group of people, not only is that possibly dangerous to the group being inveighed against (because people can listen to him and be inspired to commit acts of hatred), it’s also harmful to the society as a whole, not just to the groups being preached againstbecause it promotes division along religious/racial/whatever lines.
I concure, Capt’n (see my post on the first page). Mr. Ahenakew’s statements go beyond expressing an opinion; they are slanderous. I wasn’t able to find a complete interview transcript, but a large excerpt from it can be found here, under paragraph 11. This page is (apparently) the judge’s statement at the verdict, and contains lots of other useful information in discussing this case, particularly paragraphs 6-9, which discusses Mr. Ahenakew’s statement that the “Second World War was created by the Jews,” and why that statement is criminally prosecutable.
Damnit, I went to a Pit thread and a debate broke out. Screw this! 
Would Marxists be subject to the same critique for creating divisions along class lines?
My point is that if this is an incitement to violence, then prosecute it under the laws banning incitement to violence. If it is slanderous, sue the speaker under defamation laws. These laws already exist. This law is not about speech that incites violence, that is aready illegal. it is about carving a different section of speech out that was not criminal, and making it subject to a prison sentence.
The law also distinguishes between acceptable hatred and unnacceptable hatred. Religiously motivated hatred, even if it has exactly the same consequences, is excluded. Does the person on the receiving end of a beating suffer less because God supposedly told the assailant to attack?
Thanks for the link, Weird One, but it should be pointed out that that statement, like most of Ahenakew’s objectionable utterances, is perfectly legal.
What stuck was these:
Everything else is hunky-dory.
As a point of order, it should be noted that Ahenakew is not being sent to jail, but was subjected to a $800 fine. Off the top of my head, I don’t recall that anyone convicted under this statute has faced jail time. Keegstra just lost his job, and Zundel was tried under a different statute (which, incidentally, was found to be unconstitutional). If anyone knows of a case where someone was sent to jail on account of 319(2) I’d be curious to see it.
I know he was only fined. But the statute allows imprisonment for this. Hence my comment “making it subject to a prison sentence.” The fact that they didn’t this time, and haven’t in the past, does not alter the fact that they have deemed it fit to give themselves the authority to send someone to prison for expressing opinions that do not rise to the level of incitement to violence.
To me, the only thing a law like this says is that we are not capable of providing sufficient counter arguments to this asshole.
Because such speech serves no purpose but to incite, even if the speech itself doesn’t itself incite violence. Obviously, if I speak at a rally and say something like, “Jews are a disease” and you, hearing me say that, go on to kill Jews (or I expect you to), that’s prosecutable under the incitement law. But if I send out a mass e-mail to my friends and supporters saying the same thing, that’s not punishible under the statute.
Obviously not (and note that there’s no religion exception to the incitement law). But the religion exception was added to keep comments like, “Everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus will go to hell” from being prosecutable.
I’d need to see the incitement statute to see what is covered and what isn’t, but if the problem is that the incitement law does not cover incitement to violence via email, which appears to be what you are saying, would the sensible solution not be to amend the incitement statute?
Under this law, if a person stands up and says “I hate Jews. Jews are evil, you should all hate Jews, but you should not do anything physical to them,” and no one hearing it has any intention of doing anything physical, then they are apparently liable to be sent to prison. That’s taking it so much further than an incitement to violence law.
If, on the other hand, they say “God hates Jews. God wants you to hate Jews, but not do anything physical to them” they are not liable under this law. Or am I misreading the religious exemption?
Generally I am not a huge fan of over-enforcement of incitement statutes. I think there should be a closer link between the statement ‘Jews are a disease’ and the person going out and committing violence against Jews. The person that commits the violent act should be punished to the full extent of the law. But incitement laws seem to beg to be enforced in a partisan manner. To me the true criminality rests with the person committing the violent assault. The speaker is an evil man, but I am not sure we can draw an adequate line between preserving the right to free speech for unpopular viewpoints, and preventing incitement. I’d keep these laws on the books, but I think they need to be interpretted very strictly.