One man's trials... and Canada's false commitment to free speech

[paulsby]

Ezra Levant spent three years, and 100,000 dollars to defend himself against charges...

because he published pictures of mohammed. ... in CANADA.

my favorite quote from the article: "the penalty is the process"

one huge factor in his favor was his use of youtube to publicize the video of his interrogation.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133221.html
Early on the morning of February 13, 2006, nearly 40,000 copies of the Western Standard rolled off the presses in Edmonton, Alberta. Tucked inside that week’s issue of Canada’s only national conservative magazine, on pages 15 and 16, was a story about the international controversy over a Danish newspaper that had printed a dozen satirical cartoons featuring the prophet Muhammad. Our article, which was illustrated by eight of the cartoons, would soon trigger a three year government investigation of whether I, as the Western Standard’s publisher, had violated the rights of Canadian Muslims by “discriminating” against their religion.

The investigation vividly illustrated how Canada’s provincial and national human rights commissions (HRCs), created in the 1970s to police discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services, have been hijacked as weapons against speech that offends members of minority groups. My eventual victory over this censorious assault suggests that Western governments will find it increasingly difficult in the age of the Internet to continue undermining human rights in the name of defending them.

...

The AHRCC was more than happy to help. The Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act prohibits publishing anything that “is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt.” The theory was that hurtful words necessarily lead to hurtful deeds, and the vagueness of the law meant it was particularly useful as a tool of political censorship.

***


the above is the key phrase. by prohibiting publishing anything that is "likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt" canada has thrown away any semblance of being a free country in regards to speech. the CCLA (Canadian Civil Liberties Association) has commented on this before, as well.

you cannot simultaneously have free speech AND prohibit publishing speech that is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt.

those are mutually inconsistent

[HeresyLives]

1. Ezra Levant is a right-wing publicity seeker.

Canada has very clear hate laws, and he has made his living pretending to be a freedom fighter.

He is currently fighting law-suits for a reason.

[paulsby]

2. canada has very clear

HATE SPEECH laws, which are inconsistent with free speech.
i quoted the wording of the law.

yes, he is a rightwinger.

is it any "better" when a rightwinger is punished by govt. free speech opponents vs. a leftwinger?

you either support free speech for ALL, or you are not truly a proponent of free speech.

see: voltaire.

the comments in the article make your point. he is a rightwing assmunch. but he was also subjected to govt. scrutiny, investigation, and human rights investigation for DARING to print the frigging cartoons. that's wrong, and contrary to any idea of free speech (which canada does not respect), regardless of his political ideology

[HeresyLives]

3. Sorry, I'm not interested in

your views on Canada's laws.

[paulsby]

4. what you mean is that you are not interested in free speech and human rights

but of course if you are not interested in it, you better not comment or read any further, lest your head explode from cognitive dissonance.

canada has given up any semblance of supporting free speech.

[HeresyLives]

6. I mean Canada supports these laws,

which is why we don't have the KKK, hate radio and race riots.

We prefer civilized behavior, and treating others with respect.

[paulsby]

8. canada prefers

that govt. be the "decider" as to what speech is too dangerous for their subjects to be exposed to.

that's inconsistent with freedom.

it's also a false conclusion that canada's hate speech laws are the reason WHY you don't have race riots, for instance.

plenty of countries with restrictive speech laws have had race riots.

but again, it's simply a choice you made.

you chose civility over freedom.

i prefer freedom. it's messy and dangerous, but that's the price we pay to be free.

govt. can't tell me what i can say, or what i can read.

your govt. can.

that's an abhorrent restriction on liberty in a supposedly free country.

[HeresyLives]

9. Your version of 'free speech'

is simply an excuse to insult and attack other people.

Keep your version south of our border, please.

[paulsby]

12. here's a little hint for you

if you can't "insult", "make people feel uncomfortable" or expose groups to ridicule, you don't have free speech.

your caught in orwell's web. your govt. is protecting you from bad ideas. sure, let your govt. decide what ideas are too scary for your fragile populace to hear or express. THAT's just a dandy way to promote freedom.

and it's not MY version. it's the ONLY version. you cannot simultaneously have free speech, but prohibit speech that makes people feel uncomfortable or insulted.


here's what (one of many of canada's anti-freedom laws) prohibits:
speech that "is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt"

that's inconsistent with free speech. it's also abhorrently vague and prone to abuse.

Neocons are pieces of garbage, they are stupid, warmongers, and they smell of elderberries.

i just said something that "exposes a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt"

thus, if i say this in canada, it is entirely within the govt.'s discretion to start an investigation based on such speech

these laws are inconsistent with freedom

[HeresyLives]

13. You live your way, we'll live our way.

[paulsby]

15. and i'll criticize your restrictions on liberty and freedom

just as i criticize my own country when it does so.

i would expect you to criticize stuff we do that is bad.

i will do the same.

canada's laws, especially in a supposedly freedom loving democratic country, are contrary to freedom and civil rights.

thus, i will criticize such laws.

[HeresyLives]

19. This is how you get into wars.

Trying to tell everyone else how to live.

[paulsby]

23. riiiiiiiiiight

so criticizing other countries is a step towards warfare.

that actually explains how you could support such anti-freedom laws.

if you believe that criticism is a step towards violent warmongering, then it would explain why you would be so hesistant to allow criticism.

thanks for the insight into your psyche.

better lock yourself up and cloister yerself away from all those bad people and their mean words.

first step is criticism. next step is warmongering.

tell yourself - they are either with me, or against me, and then they start lobbing missiles!

[HeresyLives]

Well, how's that been working out for you, eh?

:rofl:

[paulsby]

26. how has what been working out?

our free speech laws work out great.

we have freedom to speak our mind.

canada doesn't

hth

[HeresyLives]

27. Telling other countries how to live.

[paulsby]

29. i would hope you do the same

when a country, especially a supposedly democratic freedom loving one suppresses the civil rights of its citizens, criticism is a duty.

don't you criticize us when we violate civil rights? i would hope so.

[HeresyLives]

33. Canada is not America.

Something you seem to have a hard time comprehending.

Your constitution says 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

Ours say, 'peace, order and good government'.

[JonLP24]

34. I hate to nitpick but I believe that phrase is in the Declaration of Independence

I might be wrong as it could be also included in our constitution. I will check and come back later if I find it so I can admit I was wrong.

[paulsby]

61. groovy

but i value freedom more than i value civility.

and i am free to criticize other SUPPOSEDLY free democracies that curtail the rights of their citizens.

i'm not saying canada should be the USA (canada is part of America fwiw). i am saying canada should respect the civil rights of its citizens.

[JoseGaspar]

79. You have blinders on your blinders...

The U.S. has 2.5 million people in prison, more than any other country in the world. The U.S. has one of the highest death penalty rates in the world. The U.S. has and is failing to prosecute war criminals who openly brag about their crimes. In the last few years U.S. "anti-terrorism", and now RICO, laws are being used to prosecute obviously political protesters. And yet, you want to lecture the Canadians on how they don't believe in some fraudulent middle-school fairy tale about how "rights are supposed to work" because they gave grief to some right-wing asshole?

What a crock.

Where would you go if the shit got any deeper in America? I'm thinking it would be Canada.

Chant "USA" all day long but you don't know the first thing about "freedom".

[iverglas]

81. in Canada

people in prison vote in elections.

Huh, eh?


We talk about rights up here. The right to free speech is one of them. So are the right to vote, the right to the equal benefit and protection of the law (which is how come same-sex couples can marry, along with just the public acceptance of diversity), the right to security of the person and not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice, the right to enter and leave the country, the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and all the run of the mill usual rights.

What's perennially funny is that people on the other side of the border just have no idea how stroppily litigious Canadians are when it comes to exercising and enforcing rights. We take the bastards to court at the drop of a hat.

Quite a while ago, the Supreme Court of Canada told the government of Alberta that it had to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in its provincial anti-discrimination legislation -- because if it didn't, it was in violation of the equal protection clause in the constitutional charter. Neat, eh?

[JoseGaspar]

92. Yes.

Many other "rights", as old as the first group, go unmentioned south of the border: the right to work, to an education, to security in infirmity and disability, and many others.

“The life of the nation is shot through with a certain falseness and hypocrisy, which are all the more tragic because they are so often subconscious rather than deliberate ... The soul of the people is putrescent, and until that becomes regenerate and clean, no good work can be done.”

Frantz Fanon

[iverglas]

91. you seem to have access to google

So are you intentionally misrepresenting ... or are you, er, caught in orwell's web?


i just said something that "exposes a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt"

Maybe you did. But you didn't do anything prohibited by Alberta's human rights legislation.

Did it not occur to you to READ THE FUCKING THING before you set about ridiculing it??

Let me help you out -- with emphasis:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-h-14/latest/rsa-2000-c-h-14.html

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

Now, you be the lawyer.

Did what you said do that?



formatting fixed

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. This and other overreaches have many Canadians questioning those laws

This case and others exposed the HRCs as organs of suppression. There has been some paring back and more will follow

[paulsby]

28. excellent point

many thoughtful canadians DO criticize these orwellian laws.

the kneejerk response here in DU to my thread was of course cognitive dissonance combined with an understandable abandonment of freedom fo speech in favor of "civility".

but you are correct that many canadians DO value freedom and protest these laws.


suppressing freedom in the name of civility is still suppression of freedom

[iverglas]

82. funny words, you say

suppressing freedom in the name of civility is still suppression of freedom

I know it's a bit of a broken record and it's hard to get that needle unstuck ... but "suppression of freedom" really just doesn't make a stitch of sense.

You are talking here about suppression of speech.


you are correct that many canadians DO value freedom and protest these laws.

Those are actually two separate and quite different things.

I value freedom. Protesting these laws isn't high on my personal agenda. I kind of like them.

(I also know that the entire raison d'être of those cartoons, and the publishing of those cartoons everywhere they were published, was to vilify Muslims, and that's all.)

Some Canadians do protest those laws. You'd be hard pressed to find many such who value freedom. Ezra Levant doesn't value freedom. Trust me. And he and his fellow travellers are thoughtful, sure; they spend a lot of time thinking about how to undermine the society they live in, which is based on freedom *and* equality.

But hey, it's always fun to see screeds from Reason magazine and paeans of praise to filth like Levant littering the boards at good old DU. It's quite a tradition.


Oops, forgot what I meant to say.

the kneejerk response here in DU to my thread was of course cognitive dissonance combined with an understandable abandonment of freedom fo speech in favor of "civility".

An odd representation of the situation here, I think. Although I would agree that it is incivil to attack a people / nation based on one event/rule with which one disagrees.

Just imagine a non-US resident who opposed US policies, say on drug patents, attacking the US for its "false commitment" to human life. Perhaps just a bit too much hyperbole, hm?


And of course many of us are still curious how one could simultaneously have free speech AND prohibit demonstrating in public against one's government's policies ...

[Spazito]

10. No, Canada recognizes free speech does not mean the right to foment violence...

by subjecting "a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt". Mr. Levant won his case so there was NO restriction on his free speech rights.

Rather than simply posting a phrase from the Hate Crimes law it would have been more helpful to post the law in it's entirety in order for readers to judge for themselves so I will provide what is lacking:

What is a hate crime?

The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.

Hate crimes involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a family or a property.

Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to that list.

Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.

The law (subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), to be specific) encourages judges to consider in sentencing whether the crime was motivated by hate of: the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.


Criminal Code of Canada

Section 318: Hate Propaganda

(1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Section 319

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section,

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

Subsection 718.2

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner or child,

(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.






http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

[paulsby]

14. except that;'s not what the law says

nor was it the justification used in parliament for such laws.

the claim that "civility' was important was.

you can make laws against fomenting violence.

or you can make laws that prohibit speech that exposes people to ridicule or contempt.

canada does the former AND the latter.

study up

try CCLA (Canadian Civil Liberties Association) for a start.

note that it is NOT necessary to prove that a person "fomented violence" in order to apply these laws.

so, sorry but your legal analysis is lacking

[Spazito]

21. The law is posted in it's entirety in my previous post ...

I will let others judge your OP as to it's content and bias or lack of same.

BTW, when you post this:

"you can make laws against fomenting violence.

or you can make laws that prohibit speech that exposes people to ridicule or contempt.

canada does the former AND the latter."

you contradict yourself.

[paulsby]

24. you have no facts

i repeat ...

read the law. there is no requirement under the hate speech laws that one is fomenting violence.

and there is no contradiction.

canada has laws against fomenting violence.

so do we.

canada, otoh ALSO has laws against speech that exposes other to ridicule or contempt.

regardless of whether it "foments violence"

your legal analysis is lacking.

read up

hth

[Spazito]

35. I was not making a "legal analysis" and I certainly hope you don't think your OP qualifies as such..

either because it does not. I provided the law in it's entirety as opposed to providing an analysis of the law.

Section 319(1):

Section 319

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It is merely an argument of semantics if you continue to claim the Hate Crimes law does not make reference to 'fomenting violence' because this phrase addresses exactly that;

"incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace..."

[iverglas]

88. you really really don't have a clue, do you?

except that;'s not what the law says
nor was it the justification used in parliament for such laws.
the claim that "civility' was important was.

One really doesn't know where to begin.

The law concerned in the Levant case is provincial legislation. You noticed, in what you copied and pasted: "Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act"?

Parliament has precisely fuck all to do with that. Parliament's entry in this field is in criminal law. Levant has never been charged with any offence under that law. (The offences are advocating genocide, publicly inciting hatred wilfully promoting hatred), and "civility" has nothing to do with that. Parliament's criminal law power does not empower it to legislate in relation to "civility". Parliament's criminal law power entitles it to legislation to prevent harm.

And the earlier poster was precisely correct.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire no more causes harm than publicly inciting hatred of an identifiable group does. The harm being addressed is the harm that might result if someone believes and acts on the message conveyed. In both cases.

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "identifiable group"

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of <an offence>

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of <an offence>

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

And THAT is the sum total of these "hate speech laws" that, you should excuse the expression, some ignorant foreigners are very fond of yammering on about.

[TexasObserver]

25. Then don't enter threads about the topic, if you can't stand to hear commentary.

I don't care whether you like to hear the views of others or not, you're going to hear them when you start a thread championing suppression of free speech by an oppressive government that lacks the will or the backbone to stand for something besides capitulation.

When you enter a topic, you invite commentary. Or, you could start your own blog and use whatever rules you wish.

[paulsby]

30. i agree

you do realize it wasn't me that said he(she) wasn't interested in hearing commentary.

i'm the OP.

it wasn't me that said it.

[TexasObserver]

42. Thanks. Fixed it.

[HeresyLives]

36. I didn't start the thread, and am not the OP.

I tried to explain to an American, who and what Ezra Levant is, and that he is not respected in Canada.

Thank you for your opinion of my country. :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

41. We favor free speech for everyone, in all countries, including yours.

We favor free speech for everyone, in all countries, and consider it fascist to adopt the measures you embrace in the name of civility.

China - now there's a country you can see eye to eye with on free speech.

[Spazito]

44. Ummm, no you don't...

You have the Patriot Act, the legalization of wiretapping of American citizens to name just two of your country's limitation to free speech not to mention librarians having to report who is taking out what books and the other restrictions to American freedom.

China has similar restrictions, gosh, go figure eh!

The Patriot Act and Free Speech

http://www.counterpunch.org/braschfreespeech.html

[TexasObserver]

46. Ummmmm, yes we do ....

Canada, as part of the British Empire, follows the path of civility over free speech, as evidenced by the case in point, and all the laws that restrict the free coverage of important legal cases. If it were not for US media, Canadians would not know much about many important legal cases. Canadians must rely on US media to tell them about important criminal or slander cases.

[Spazito]

48. Your response is a very weak attempt to sidestep the issue of ...

the restrictions imposed in the United States by the Patriot Act, FISA, etc, which says, imo, it might be best to clean up 'your own backyard' before criticizing others.


As to this:

"If it were not for US media, Canadians would not know much about many important legal cases. Canadians must rely on US media to tell them about important criminal or slander cases."

Oh my, your 'statement' is beyond laughable! There really is little one can say to a statement so delusional on it's face.

[JonLP24]

51. LOL I spotted that too

I seriously doubt any foreign country would rely on the US media for information. I find foreign sources myself more useful then US sources.

[Spazito]

54. Exactly!

I am alternating between :rofl: and :wow: at that one!

[TexasObserver]

52. If it were not for US media, Canadians would not know much about many important legal cases.

[Spazito]

55. You ARE talking about the same US media that helped the Bush administration...

lie to the American people to successfully gain public support for the illegal invasion of Iraq, the same illegal invasion Canada DID NOT support? You mean that US media? You really need to widen your understanding beyond the "rah, rah, we are #1" mindset, it is making your posts laughable and totally lacking any credibility, imo.

[TexasObserver]

56. I'm talking about the laws in Canada that prohibit Canadians from hearing such news.

You do know, don't you, that in Canada there are laws that stop media from reporting on certain legal cases while they are ongoing? For those cases, Canadians can and do rely on US media (which is where they get most of their entertainment, too, Canada laws regarding "content" notwithstanding).

[Spazito]

57. Nice try but, again, ludicrous...

I can only assume you are making reference to this:

Media ban blocks coverage of start to Pickton's trial
Voir dire to decide which evidence is admissible


"The publication ban prohibits future jury members from hearing any evidence that the judge may dismiss, for a variety of potential legal reasons, during the voir dire.

The RCMP will monitor news organizations, in particular any from the United States, to ensure no one breaches the ban, said Staff Sgt. John Ward.

Once the voir dire is over, a jury will be selected and a trial date will be set. Although Lowe said it is impossible to know exactly when the trial -- which should not be subject to a publication ban -- will start, many speculate it will not be until September at the earliest."

http://www.missingpeople.net/media_ban_blocks_coverage_of_sta.htm

To repeat in case you miss it on your first reading:

"The publication ban prohibits future jury members from hearing any evidence that the judge may dismiss, for a variety of potential legal reasons, during the voir dire."

I would suggest you take this age-old advice: If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

[TexasObserver]

65. Nope. I clearly know Canadian Law better than you do.

I've worked extentively with Canadian lawyers the past 20 years, working on cases in Canada, and am very familiar with the Canadian legal system. I'm a lawyer, and I've worked with them on all aspects of Canadian cases, including trial work and appellate briefing.

You are the person in the hole, digging himself deeper. So stop.

[Spazito]

66. LOL!

Riiiiight! Given the amazing grasp of the facts you have demonstrated today, how could I doubt you!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[iverglas]

77. such silly talk

I've worked extentively with Canadian lawyers the past 20 years, working on cases in Canada, and am very familiar with the Canadian legal system. I'm a lawyer, and I've worked with them on all aspects of Canadian cases, including trial work and appellate briefing.

Well hey howdy. I can go you one better. I have been one of those Canadian lawyers.


You do know, don't you, that in Canada there are laws that stop media from reporting on certain legal cases while they are ongoing?

And you do know, don't you, why that is?

(Actually, it isn't, really. Publication bans apply to ordinary "legal cases" - such a quaint turn of phrase - during the pre-trial phase only, and apply in special cases, like the identities of young offenders and victims, as exceptions.)

Heard of the right to a fair trial?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
... d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Some folks think it might be hard to find an impartial tribunal if a jury pool has been polluted by sensational reporting and reporting of things that are only allegations at the pre-trial stage.

Here ya go; a sample of learned opinion:

http://danmichaluk.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/case-report-ont-ca-considers-pre-trial-publicity-and-jury-contamination/

On January 26th, a 3-2 majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the mandatory ban on publication of bail proceedings when requested by an accused violates the Charter-protected right to freedom of the press ... . The majority read down the Criminal Code ban so that it applies only to charges that may be tried by a jury.

All members of the panel agreed that the mandatory ban breached freedom of the press. They also agreed on the purpose of the ban: to ensure a fair trial by promoting expeditious bail hearings, avoiding unnecessary detention and allowing accused to retain scarce resources to defend their cases. ...

... While finding that judges are “professional decision-makers” immune to the influence of pre-trial publication, the majority was not willing to invalidate the legislation as it applied against juries given the conflicting social science evidence on the impact of pre-trial publication on jury decisions. It held that the legislature is entitled to act upon a “reasoned apprehension of harm” in enacting laws based on such disputed domains.

The purpose of the ban is to protect the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. But I guess selling newspapers is a more important interest?

But hey, expert in Canadian law that you are, I'm sure you did know all that already, you just didn't want to let on.

[Bucky]

85. That would explain why you're posting comments in a thread about that very topic.

[naaman fletcher]

93. Ok then...

If you have EVER commented on a US law, then you are a hypocrite. Are you willing to state that in all of your time on DU that you have never commented on a US law?

Levant may be a right wing jerk, but he is 100% right about this situation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. are you canadian? if not, then i suggest you let canadians decide

whether or not they feel hate speech is governed by free speech

[petronius]

45. Would you make the same suggestion to Canadians commenting on

domestic U.S. issues? :shrug:

[JonLP24]

47. I don't have an opinion one way or the other because I don't fully understand it, but

I don't think a requirement has to be in the country in regards to opinions about another country. For example, remember the worldwide protests against the US involvement in the Iraq War? Hell the 3 million that showed up in Rome is the world record for largest anti-war protest. There was even a day where 150 protests took place across the UK. I believe they had demonastrations in France and other places around the world maybe even Canada if I recall correctly. I'd feel like Bill O'reilly if I said to them, "Are you American? If not STHU about America's decision to go to war." I do have problems in regards to other countries about policies I don't agree with such as the Afghan rape law, Iran executing kids, etc and I don't feel like I should have to belong to those countries in order to express an opinion about that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. i think my response was more in response to him being rude to canadians on a subject

that effects them more than it does us americans. plus, americans have a tendency to feel that their way is somehow better and more free than others while depriving large groups of civil & equal rights. in any given situation i would take the word of those who are affected by the decision, with more importance than those who are not.

[paulsby]

62. exactly

there are metric assloads of people NOT in the USA and./or not US citizens (at least if you believe them) who feel free to criticize the USA. and more power to them, i say.

i didn't realize one had to be a canadian citizen in order to have the right to criticize a canadian policy or law. that's what some people are saying. it's absurd. and i'm sure they are hypocrites (the canadians who claim that this is required) since they are free to criticize the USA as non-citizens.h

i think it makes some sense to say that people unfamiliar with the culture of a country not be so quick to pick on some CULTURAL peculiarity of a country/region without understanding some background.

that's a bit different from criticizing a violation of essential civil rights.

i also feel free to criticize forced female genital mutilation, slavery, ethnic cleansing, and religious persecution. even in those countries that cmmit that stuff wherein i am not a citizen

[Bucky]

84. Thank you

Canada's hate speech laws do go a little over the line--they make the speech the crime sometimes rather than an aggravating factor in the crime. It's not exactly torturing POWs, but it's still not a good thing.

[iverglas]

76. and that's really about all that needs to be said

if one happens to have a clue about what the right wing has been up to in the lst several years -- starting in the USofA itself.

Levant is what is commonly called a provocateur. And that is all.

He is no different from provocateurs who set up vile displays on university campuses to oppose women's reproductive rights by displaying giant photos of the lynching of African-Americans. Or pistol packing soccer mamas taking guns to the kids' team games just in case a homicidal maniac shows up.

The anti-choice brigade doesn't care about fetuses, and the soccer mamas aren't looking to protect themselves, and Levant didn't think the cartoons were funny.

What they are doing is using their "rights" to batter other people, people who are vulnerable.

And the uppitier vulnerable people get, and the more they seek to exercise their rights in ways that harm no one, the more the right wing will bash them and cry "freeee speeeeech!!!" if anyone objects.

And now I'm off to peruse the thread some more and chuckle at the ignorance and ethnocentricity and hubris on display.

[JonLP24]

5. I do know publishing pictures or films of Mohammed is a big no-no

Even South Park apologized and removed the pictures of Mohammed from their cartoons. Maybe he or she violated the law in that regard because it is highly offensive to those who follow the Islam faith. I know Canada has laws against other forms of hate speech.

[paulsby]

7. the whole point of free speech protections is to protect such speech

is that we PROTECT highly offensive speech.

speech that is not offensive does not need protection, simply because nobody protests bland unoffensive speech.

canada has given up free speech, since their passage of many of these "hate speech" laws.

read the text of the law. if you can be investigated for publishing speech that could offend somebody, than you have no free speech

south park, fwiw, was making a point about censorship by making that episode, fwiw.

and of course in the US, they could not be subject to government scrutiny for publishing mohammed cartoons.

whether or not their network would broadcast it is another issue entirely, and well within their discretion.

canada laws against "hate speech" are inconsistent with free speech.

period.

that's the point.

it's like the old joke about the model T "you have complete freedom to express any idea... as long as it's not offensive"

[JonLP24]

11. I understand what you're saying

All I was saying that this depicting Mohammed is probaly consistent with their laws in regards to so called 'hate' speech laws. I'm not sure what you're referring to in regards to South Park but they removed the scene depicting Mohammed w/ a disclaimer saying Comedy Central refuses to show Mohammed or something along those lines and then afterwards the creators claimed that they were not aware of the stigma and ramifications of showing Muhammad until after its airing. Afterwards many christian leaders called them hypocrites but as far as I'm aware I've seen Jesus in movies all the time.

[paulsby]

16. i agree

that many of these things are (arguably) in violation of canada's laws.

what i am saying is that their laws are bad. that's my point.

canada prohibits: speech that "is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt"

that's inconsistent with freedom

[TahitiNut]

18. Why should religious dogma be binding upon those not of that faith?

Since when do sectarian tenets apply in a secular society?

[JonLP24]

22. I agree. My point was it was probaly consistent in regards to Canada's hate speech laws

[paulsby]

31. since canada decided that sensitivity trumped truth, criticism and freedom

of course.

[iverglas]

83. tell us

What truth, and what criticism, may be found in the cartoons in question?

And who has said that sensitivity trumps any of them, let alone "freedom"?

Or put another way: why have you chosen to misrepresent the entire event you purport to be discussing?


Oh, I know. Because you have freedom of speech.


typo fixed

[TexasObserver]

20. Yes, Canada does not have free speech, as this example shows.

They have far worse notions of what is politically correct speech. I like Canada and Canadians, but they value civility over free speech, and have for a long time.

[paulsby]

32. yes

i LOVE canada. visit frequently. i prefer many aspects of their law, but not their aversion to free speech.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. but why does canadian law have to please you? why do you assume yours is better?

[paulsby]

60. several points

1)it doesn't HAVE to please me. but when their law restricts civil rights, i feel free (nay, i feel duty bound) :) to criticize it.

just as i do my own country, or any (supposed) free democracy.

in the case of despotic regimes and theocracies, i also criticize but it's a GIVEN that they don't respect civil rights.

i would hope that canadians would also criticize MY country's laws and policies when they restrict civil rights.

2) i don't ASSUME mine is better. i say that freedom IS better. canada USED to respect the same freedom of speech we do. unfortunately, since their rights are not as strongly protected (see parliamentary override etc.) they found it quite easy to compromise on civil rights all for a little perceived civility.

[Annces]

68. Also an American could be American today, Canadian tomorrow

it is just a matter of moving. In addition, for instance in the case of ending seal hunt, the Canadians make the rules, but the seals are really not Canadian. So repression of free speech affects Americans who care about cruelty to animals.

The EU votes tomorrow to ban import of seal products because of cruelty.

[paulsby]

71. and i can say that canada is better than

for example, mexico.

in mexico, it is ILLEGAL for any alien (whether in the country legally or not) to (among other things) write letters to the editor, participate in political rallies, etc.

iow, they severely restrict the speech rights of non-citizens within their country.

canada, otoh, is less restrictive AND doesn't limit the speech rights of citizens vs. non-citizens

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. One thing to note: the law in question is Albertan, not Canadian

so this constant use of 'Canada' does this and that, or thinks this and that, may not be appropriate.

And, of course, as others have pointed out, the case was dropped, in the end. So it would seem the definition of 'hatred and contempt' that they use wasn't met by the reaction to publishing the cartoons. It would seem that Alberta (and, potentially, other provinces, or the nation) has a bureaucracy that can make life a pain by carrying out an investigation; but this case doesn't really justify your accusation that "canada has thrown away any semblance of being a free country in regards to speech".

Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that Levant's commitment to free speech is itself in question - he was in favour of the ban on George Galloway entering Canada. He's no upstanding, principled defender of liberty.

[iverglas]

90. a voice of, er, reason ;)

Thanks for the example of Levant's duplicity. Provocateur really is the reality here.

[iverglas]

75. one-trick pony

Also an American could be American today, Canadian tomorrow
it is just a matter of moving.

Surely, surely, you know what a ludicrous statement that is.

the seals are really not Canadian.

Really? The U.S. doesn't claim jurisdiction over wildlife within its territorial waters?

So repression of free speech affects Americans who care about cruelty to animals.

Mmmmm hmmmmmmmmmm.

I guess it's always all about you, if you're a U.S. citizen.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. to you freedom may be better, to them not letting hate speech ruin the lives of their minorities

maybe more important. americans tend to think they have some sort of perfect government set up...look around you...we certainly dont.

[iverglas]

78. a little learning is such a dangerous thing

unfortunately, since their rights are not as strongly protected (see parliamentary override etc.)

Of course, you know that the notwithstanding provision has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation, right?

For anyone curious, it is this provision of the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

I'd be curious to hear your explanation of the reason for that provision in our 1982 constitution.

Seriously. I mean, I know the explanation, and I can give it to you, along with my own opinions about it, but I'd love to hear yours.


i don't ASSUME mine is better. i say that freedom IS better. canada USED to respect the same freedom of speech we do.

Yes, you do say that. And it's what we call an "opinion", isn't it?

Your opinion is that "freedom" is better than ... oh, everything, I imagine.

Aren't you saddened that your government stops people from distributing child pornography, and advertising snake oil as a cure for cancer? I have to assume you are heartbroken.

It's a lucky thing you don't assume yours is better, though. 'Cause you'd be damned hard pressed to find one of those "free speech zones" up on this side of the border.

We also get unbleeped versions of everything right on network teevee. Poor you, stuck with the dubbed version of Sex and the City.


So I'll be waiting with bated breath for your explanation of the notwithstanding clause.

[SidDithers]

87. Excellent posts in this thread, iverglas...

I've really enjoyed reading them.

Sid

[iverglas]

89. ah, I'm always late to the party ;)

Haven't dropped into DU for some weeks now. I do - to see what disinformation may be getting propagated about the seal hunt, actually - and I find the same old same old ...

Nice to see you, and ta!

[HeresyLives]

37. Everyone just in a mood to start a fight today or what?

Because I fail to see why you should suddenly attack a country like Canada, long an ally and friend to the US, out of the blue. And for, of all things, being 'oppressive'.

However, I shall remain Canadian, and leave you to your bad mood, without being rude in return.

[Canuckistanian]

39. Really.

Some really have a bee in their bonnet about this.

[MellowDem]

70. Ugh, are you serious?

He's not attacking Canada. He's discussing an issue in Canada. I never realized that certain Canadians were so sensitive to anyone ever criticizing anything remotely Canadian. It's uber-patriotic.

It's like the content of the OP's posts don't matter, just how civil he is, which kinds of proves the whole point of this thread...

[Canuckistanian]

38. Look, this is a "yelling fire in a crowded theater" debate

Americans don't have complete freedom to say anything they want either.

There are American laws for disturbing the peace, inciting riots, libel, slander, obscenity and death threats for example. That's where America draws the line.

We just draw it a little closer to the victim's side. That's all.

I'm not worried about my freedom one bit. But I know that if I knowingly say or publish something that outrages a community, a race or a religion, I'm going to face consequences. It's just how we do it.

A Fred Phelps would be shut down in Canada, but if your sensibilities say it's OK to let him be a loud racist bigot in public, fine.

Just don't tell ME I don't have freedom.

[DonCoquixote]

58. Let me ask you this

Let's take the whole Lineage of Abraham business out ofthe equation. Suppose people who ascribe to "Religion X" move into Canada. Someone criticizes behavior done that is supported by some members of "Religion X", people who belong to Religion X say that the reason they are being picked upon is because they are from "religion X". Members of Religion X sue. What safeguards are there in Canadian law that pevent Religion X from using the anti hate speech to censor any critics?

[Spazito]

59. It's covered in the legislation...

Section 319(3)

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

Specifically:

b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

[DonCoquixote]

72. There's a problem with that

Let's say, for example, you go ahead and criticize Israel. Along come the Zionists, who say you were attempting to incite Violence against Jews by supporting people who are killing them. Under these statutes, you are in trouble.

Don't like that example?, ok, let's say Aleph sets up shop in your town. Aleph is the remnant of the Aum Shirniko cult, aka those guys that launched a gas attack on Tokyo. You mention some concern, alas, they say you are discriminating against them.

You could fill in the blank with any religion, because the VAST majority of them interpret any move against them as a threat.

I am not saying there is not some good points about the policy, but what I am saying is that it is not hard to abuse it to stifle dissent, which is what religions of all sorts love to do, whether they are Wahabbis or the Solar Temple.

[Spazito]

74. No, all those examples you gave DO NOT fit under the Hate Crime legislation...

it is as simple as that. Complaints such as the examples you gave would not even get to "first base".

"Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

[iverglas]

86. "Under these statutes, you are in trouble."

Can you provide some evidence that you have some clue what statutes you're talking about, and what they provide?

You're aware that provincial anti-discrimination laws and federal (criminal) laws prohibiting incitement to hatred of specified groups are different and not the same? Are you talking about any particular one of them?

[Canuckistanian]

64. This is NOT about criticism. It's about fomenting hate.

I'm sure that relgions would like to sue any number of their critics. But until there's a clear case of incitement to hatred or to commit violence, you're not in breach of the law.

And by the way, the law has been used very few times. And two prosecutions I can think of were people praising Hitler and/or denying the Holocaust. Both of them are clear hate crimes against Jews in our law.

I agree that this law shouldn't be used to punish people's opinions, but when they stand in front of a crowd or publish their hatred, they can't expect to be immune from prosecution.

[DonCoquixote]

67. The purpose is not to offend

It's to simply ask what in the law prevents abuse, a HOW question as opposed to a what. It was not meant as personal or national, merely to invite some of your countrypeople to simply explain the what that prevents abuse, as some of them have done later in the thread.

There is good and bad to be said for all..no words, be they "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" nor "peace, order and good government" can allow for all the problems that are had, nor are they immune from the powerful finding ways to twist them to suit their ends. However, there is one thing that has to be said about all religions, many of them think that they are above the law, and as such, will attempt to silence dissent whenever they can. You will not find one religion that does not accuse it's critics of hate, whether it is the Zionist who cry "Nazi" whenever someone criticizes Israel, the Jihadis that cry "Islamophobe" anytime someone criticizes Sudan, or for that matter, Scientology/Rajnessni/New Religion of the month whenever they start buying enough real estate to merit their own Police Force. I am all for calling hate mongers on their BS, especially since whenever you corner these folk, their nonsense is pretty easy to disprove. However, for the law to work, there has to be a clear definition about what is "hate" speech and what is an opinion. Religions will then define anything offensive to them as hate speech, which means the law becomes "thou shalt not criticize."

[Quezacoatl]

43. He won. His right to free speech was upheld.

This case is not a good starting point for a debate on free speech.

[Eric J in MN]

53. The complaint was dropped, but Canada's laws stayed the same.

There was no court ruling that a newspaper editor can't be interrogated by the government again for printing something offensive.

[paulsby]

63. you missed the point

"the penalty is the process". that was made in the OP

having to testify before a civil rights tribunal, based on a complaint that you dared be mean and print some cartoons, hire an attorney, and be SUBJECT to prosecution for same is still grossly wrong.

you are correct that the complainant dropped the case, after the respondent posted video of his interrogation on youtube.

that doesn't vitiate the wrongness of the law, the process used against him, etc.

if a "human rights council" issued a subpoena for something you posted on DU, you were compelled to defend yourself in court, hire an attorney, go through a long (3 yrs iirc for the article writer) govt. sponsored investigation, all because you criticized islam, and then the complaint was dropped, would you be ok with that.

the penalty is the process.

[DonCoquixote]

69. This cannot and should not be about Canucks vs Yanks

In every corner of the world, Religions of all stripes are attempting to gain political power. One weapon they all use is the old "you are a bigot" line. There has to be some sort of worldwide standard that defines the lines between hate speech and an opinion, or else every religion will wrap themselves in the mantle of "religious freedom." The fact is, Religions are entities that do not care about borders or even the laws of a nation. People need to have the freedom to dissent from them, or else, sure as clockwork, there will be people who use the laws of the nation to enforce the power of the religion. The same process works no matter what continent, what people, what religion. There must always be the right to dissent, and the awareness that dissent does not always equal hate, no matter how loud the clergy and their flocks scream.

I realize it's easy to discount what i say because I am a Yank. However, living in the dreaded "bible Belt",I have seen what happens when the Religious organize and realize they can use the state against itself, and I realize that if the Clergy score a victory in one place, they will use it to score victories elsewhere.