The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws

[Jefferson23]

Monday, Mar 22, 2010

By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below - Update II)

I've written many times before about the evils of "hate speech" laws that are prevalent in Canada and Europe -- people being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official tribunals for expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and criminalized. I won't rehash those arguments here, but I do want to note a particularly creepy illustration of how these laws manifest. The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent Coulter a letter warning her that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints:


Dear Ms. Coulter,



I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . . .

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .

Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

Francois Houle,

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa


Personally, I think threatening someone with criminal prosecution for the political views they might express is quite "hateful."


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/canada/index.html

[msongs]

1. yes vowing to exterminate u and yours in multiple public forums is ok any time nt

[MindandSoul]

2. I totally disagree! Anytime the excuse of "free speech" is used

to hurt another human being, and even more, a whole group of human beings, it is wrong.

I do agree that any decent person should have the innate sensitivity and good common sense not to engage in public "hate" speech. . .but since it is obviously not the case, and since this "hate speech" epidemics is becoming rampant. . .I believe it is right to make a point of requesting that "free speech" be "responsible speech."

This "hate speech" epidemic needs to be curbed because it is like a virus. . .it change the way people interact with each others, it raises the level of adrenaline (or testosterone?) to a point that makes people do crazy things. . .and become dangerous.

[Jefferson23]

4. Are you saying you're supportive of criminal charges too?

[joeybee12]

3. How did you get "threatening" out of that?

Quite frankly, I think the letter is a courtesy she doesn't deserve.

[FSogol]

5. Sorry, but reminding a hateful person of the law isn't tyranny or hateful. n/t

[Jefferson23]

8. I don't believe he is suggesting the reminder is tyrannical or hateful, but

the law itself is dangerous.

[polly7]

15. No, we speak very freely. No fears at all ...........

But, targeting specific individuals to harm with hate-speech isn't tolerated here, as she has done. Her mouth is like a leaking hate sewer. We don't need it.

[Gman2]

6. That hag should already be in prison for voter FRAUD, and no, not reg fraud.

[MrScorpio]

7. In Germany, flipping the bird at another driver can land you a ticket

Things are different in other countries

[FSogol]

11. Same in Virginia. n/t

[Jefferson23]

9. Thank you for the responses, although surprising, it is an important

topic. As offensive as Coulter is, free speech is not something I want to lose. I think a greater threat to our freedoms comes from
concentrated corporate owned media. The MSM is beyond obvious with their bias and has tremendous power to lie and distort, leave out pertinent
information etc.

This was an especially important excerpt, and sums it up for me:

"When Noam Chomsky (yes, I'm quoting him twice in one day) is asked whether he thinks America is irrevocably broken and/or whether its political process has any extremely positive features, he typically says -- as he did in this 2005 interview: "In other dimensions, the U.S. is very free. For example, freedom of speech is protected in the United States to an extent that is unique in the world." That's the critical point: as long as the State is absolutely barred from criminalizing political views, then any change remains possible because citizens are free to communicate with and persuade one another and express their political opinions without being threatened by the Government with criminal sanctions of the kind Provost Houle conveyed here and which are not infrequently issued by numerous other Canadian and European functionaries."

[FSogol]

12. Since I'm an American, it would be presumptuous for me to tell Canada how to handle

their speech issues. Is Coulter allowed to spread her hatred here? Yes.

:shrug: Not sure what you are trying to say.

[Jefferson23]

23. He is discussing the dangers of criminalizing free speech, he isn't

suggesting the U.S. tell them what to do.

[mn9driver]

10. Why do I get the feeling that this is just what Coulter wanted?

She hasn't had much attention lately. The Canadian hate speech laws are what they are. As long has she doesn't go up there and say something like, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", she should be fine.

Oh, wait....

[polly7]

13. Warning someone who is such a lying bigot and specifically targets

groups and individuals with her hateful slander is "hateful"? No, it's like telling the schoolyard bully to think long and hard before trying it in your school.

WTF would she be speaking here, anyway? I hope there are protestors out front calling out one of the most hate-filled people of all.


"Walker's comments provoked a response from a woman instrumental in bringing Coulter to London, Mary Lou Ambrogio, whose group, the International Free Press Society, is paying $10,000 for the appearance, the balance of Coulter's fee coming from an American group that promotes conservatism in young women, the Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute."

Coulter couldn't be reached by phone. In a brief e-mail, Coulter offered to comment, but hadn't done so by Friday.
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2010/03/20/1330008...

[kestrel91316]

14. Your support for hate speech has been duly noted.

[krispos42]

17. I don't think supporting free speech is the same as supporting hate speech

Anymore than supporting, say, habeas corpus is the same as supporting terrorists.

[Jefferson23]

22. The lack of support for free speech is duly noted too.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnroshan]

16. Hmph..

Have you ever heard the hatred she spews out of her mouth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60xDmowdTCA

"I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians"

Someone please kill this bitch.

[Jefferson23]

24. And because of free speech, she can and has been challenged.

[COLGATE4]

18. This is patronizing

As has already been pointed out, this law is Canadian, passed by Canadians for application in Canada. It is inappropriate and indeed patronizing for Greenwald to suggest that they way they have chosen to circumscribe speech is per se wrong because it does not comport with our own notions of how this should be done. There is legally no absolute freedom, including freedom of speech. In the U.S. certain speech is not protected - libel, slander, child pornography, incitement to violence, to name some. Certainly the Canadians have the same right to place reasonable restrictions on speech in their country if they choose. Unless and until some attempt is made in this country to alter the existing framework of free speech, IMO Greenwald's opinion is irrelevant and unnecessary,

[polly7]

19. A++++++ Thank you. n/t.

[Jefferson23]

21. Irrelevant to discuss their law that can charge a person with a crime? If we here

in our country can pass the Patriot Act, with overwhelming support, what makes you even imagine that free speech can remain as such?

Greenwald is merely pointing out the dangers, who gets to decide what is hateful speech, and to press criminal charges is a very much relevant discussion.

[COLGATE4]

26. It is relevant the day that something like that is proposed here.

So far, it has not. Greenwald's criticism is of a legal system in which he does not participate, and is therefore irrelevant.

[Jefferson23]

28. Yea, let's wait until they pass more measures, like the Patriot Act.

Then we can discuss it, after the fact. No thanks!

[COLGATE4]

32. Not to put too fine a point on it

but

1) Once again, Greenwald is scolding Canada for a Canadian law dealing with a Canadian issue. Relevance to us - zero.
2) As I recall, we all discussed ad nauseam the Patriot Act until we were blue in the face. Result - Patriot Act extended by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.

So, your point is???

[Jefferson23]

36. The Patriot Act was not discussed, it was passed in the middle of the night.

And the fact that it still is in existence, proves Greenwald's point, dangerous slippery slopes.

I will remind you, your earlier comment was to the relevance of his OP, and his commentary is worth considering, as the law can and has
unintended consequences. And as I have said earlier, he is not suggesting Canada does not have the right to pass such a law, but that it is dangerous.

See post #27 for details.

[polly7]

20. Sorry, but this really pi**es me off. Tyranny???

This guy needs to take a look in his own yard before bawling about ours.

[Jefferson23]

25. He is highly critical of his own yard, just about every day.

[polly7]

29. Good to hear. n/t,

[Jefferson23]

27. Law Professor David Bernstein previously noted that :

Canada's hate speech laws have had unintended consequences, as such laws inevitably do:

Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched into a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, had remarked that Americans are "bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood." The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless presidential powers they're cheering on will only be wielded by political leaders they like, many hate speech law proponents convince themselves that such laws will only be used to punish speech they dislike. That is never how tyrannical government power works.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

[ladywnch]

30. calling people 'faggots', pedophiles, and such is NOT a political view.

and she has been known to use these and other such phrases.......a clear demonstration of both her political insights and command of the English language.

She is nothing more than an shrill attention hound and hack......the female equivilant of Howard Stern......

[Jefferson23]

31. So she should be charged with a crime as a result of her speech?

[COLGATE4]

33. In the US, no. In Canada, maybe

Different strokes...

[ladywnch]

34. exactly. she has been apprised of the laws. Canada is entitled to craft

laws to their own tastes. We don't have to like it or live with it. But in their country yes they would have the right to file criminal charges.

and btw, I was responding to the fact that you said her political views were being infringed on......they are not......her hate filled epithets are.

[Jefferson23]

35. Dangerous strokes.

[Andy Canuck]

38. Not dangerous strokes.

Teabaggers are dangerous strokes. Words can be violence. Words provoke and incite. Words, hateful words, can inspire and churn the darkest of forces in a human being. That is why Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter are dangerous, because they don't have any sense of verbal boundary to consider for the darkness and rage of their psyches. They urge others to act out and do what they know they have to much themselves to lose.

The woman mentioned a few lines above who incited hatred against Americans, incited hatred against the minority group of Americans who live in Canada, most of whom are the finest folks I've ever met.

[Jefferson23]

40. See post #27 for unintended consequences.

I understand the concern, we just disagree on the remedy.

[Andy Canuck]

44. Ann Coulter cancelled last night

because Canadian students had legislative power and leadership to be able to protest against her and have an impact. In the US it is the other way around (most of the time) where the extremists can shut down the sane.

[troubledamerican]

37. In Ann Coulter's Utopia, Glenn Greenwald would be locked up for what he whispers in private.

[Jefferson23]

39. Exactly.

[CHIMO]

41. Greenwald

Should realise that it is not the university rep that was threating Ann. It is the Government that will be involved in any prosecution in breaking Canadian law.

It would be great if the Bush Canadian government had to bring a case against Ann. It might wake some people up about being anti American.

[proteus_lives]

43. Many on DU would gleefully restrict the speech of those politically opposed to them.

I've learned that sad fact over the last couple of days.

Free speech is more important then one of Coulter's rants.


I don't understand why people are so scared of free speech.