To those of you who get on your high horse and criticize Canada for its hate speech laws

[Clintonista2]

I'm going to assume you think inciting violence against the president/members of congress is perfectly acceptable? If not, why do you believe that it's not ok to incite violence against the president but it's ok to incite violence against minority groups?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. One can be for free speech and be against inciting violence.

:shrug:

[Clintonista2]

3. Canada has free speech

It limits speech that would incite violence.

[Oregone]

5. Well, they have some

I couldn't tell you the whole truth without the SS RCMP knockin down my door, so I shouldn't go there. Id hate to be caught and thrown into a socialized medical work camp

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Canada has laws against inciting "hatred."

That is different than inciting violence.

[Clintonista2]

7. Hatred leads to violence

[onenote]

15. so you'd be okay with a law that made it illegal to carry a sign saying

"I HATE CHENEY" because it would lead to violence?

[polly7]

How would that lead to violence?

Is Cheney a minority group, or any group, being targetted to specifically incite violence against? The sign is your opinion on one man, and probably wouldn't be taken as anything but. jmo.

[Silent3]

21. So inciting violence against individuals or majorities is OK?

Inciting violence is either right or wrong, regardless of the object of that violence.
Expressing hate is either incitement of violence or not, regardless of the object of the hate.

How do you get a consistent system where expression hate against an individual is not considered equivalent to incitement of violence against that individual, but where expression hate against a minority group is considered equivalent to incitement of violence against that group?

[polly7]

31. Saying you hate someone doesn't incite violence.

Saying they should be bombed, or they kill babies and need to be stopped - very different things.

[onenote]

32. so if someone calls Dr. Tiller a baby killer, that should be illegal

But does that mean that I should have been arrested for carrying a sign that said "Hey Hey LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today"?

Or what about a sign that called Glenn Beck a traitor or that labelled limbaugh a "baby killer" for supporting the war(s)?

Let me be clear: anyone who called specifially for imminent acts of violence against Dr. Tiller should have been prosecuted for inciting violence. But statements, even hateful statements, short of that shouldn't be actionable.

[polly7]

57. And that is for the courts to decide should the matter be taken there.

Here in Canada. I'm not the law, I'm giving my own opinion. No problem with the Glen Beck sign whatsoever. Not sure about the other two. I was a little surprised Bush's effigy was allowed to be burnt up here without interference but ......... I guess it showed we're not really the suppressed peeps some are trying to paint us as.


How does it go over there??? I heard Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an "I hate B*" t-shirt. Isn't that restricting free speech? Don't kid yourself, we're probably actually much more free to speak here than you are. It's just that we don't allow the inciting of hate and violence for whole groups of people, as spelled out in the criminal code .......... and, which I see here called for all the time.

[onenote]

62. sheehan was arrested for "unlawful conduct" and then the charges were dropped

The House of Representatives has a rule against demonstrations (yes, that's a restriction on free speech, but its a permissible "time, manner, and place" restriction that is content neutral -- it doesn't matter what side of an issue you take -- you can't demonstrate.) Sheehan was wearing a t-shirt that said "2245 Dead How Many More" in the House Gallery and was asked by a Capitol Hill police officer to cover up the shirt because he felt it violated the rule against demonstrations. When she refused she was arrested. However the charges were later dropped and the chief of the Capitol Hill police publicly stated that his officers made a mistake in interpreting the law as barring Sheehan from simply wearing a t-shirt with a message.

BTW, I've not offered any opinion on Canada's speech laws because, to be honest, I don't know squat about them. My comments were meant to be directed at those who seem to think that US law should more broadly restrict speech with which they disagree.

[Silent3]

67. Do Canada's hate speech laws...

...require specifically invoking death threats against groups?

Do you really want the accusation of killing babies to be against the law? Couldn't an antiwar protester make that same accusation against anyone who prosecutes a war?

[onenote]

24. the statement I was resonding to said hate led to violence

not that hate expressed against a group led to violence but hate against an individual does not.

But, if it makes you happy: would you be okay with a law that barred me from carrying a sign that says "I HATE THE GOP" (they are a "minority" group you know).

[polly7]

34. It's your opion. Do you have a gun on your sign???

Are you showing graphic pictures of war victims on your sign to purposefully enflame people against the whole GOP. who as we all know did not include 100% supporters of war? Come on, common sense.

Your opinion would probably get a glance or too, but that's about it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. What If The Sign Said "I Hate Teabaggers"?

~

[polly7]

29. That is still your personal opinion. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Then What Speech Wouldn't Be Protected Under Your System

~

[polly7]

Speech purposefully meant to target groups of people and incite

violence.

http://recherche-search.gc.ca/s_r?t3mpl1t34d=1&s5t34d=canada&l7c1l3=eng&S_08D4T.1ct57n=search&S_08D4T.s3rv5c3=basic&S_F8LLT2XT=hate+speech&S_S20RCH.l1ng91g3=eng

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Which Signs Would You Prohibit?

"I hate Republicans"

"I hate Freepers"

"I hate gays"

"I hate heterosexual breeders"

"I hate Jews"

"I hate Christians"

"I hate Muslims"

"I hate homophobes"

"I hate creactionists"

"I hate Democrats"

[polly7]

40. None. They are your personal opinion. None of them are asking or even

hinting at violence, ugly as they are.

Hopefully they'd be shouted down though by people with brains.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. So What Speech Would You Regulate?

Can a person give a speech expressing his or her hatred for the aforementioned groups?

[polly7]

44. Nah, that's still an opinion.

If that speech included things like "all Muslims deserve to be bombed", or certain buildings should have been terrorist targets - that sort of thing would I hope, be regulated. It does nothing but incite violence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. She's Pushed The Envelope Even Under Existing Law

If she said "I think the NYT Building should be bombed" that wouldn't be protected speech.

[polly7]

49. I'd personally never attend a speech given by someone spewing

hatred for a whole group of people (which in itself is insane), truthfully, I really don't know if it would be allowed or not.

[polly7]

54. I have a question for you!

If you could go back in time, would you regulate ANY speech inciting violence against anyone? Think of all the examples ...... MLK, Matthew Sheppard(?), Dr. Tiller, etc. etc. etc. ANY of it?

[Posteritatis]

18. I've never been prosecuted for making statements like that up here. (nt)

[Bluerthanblue]

22. "I HATE CHENEY" is a statement of how you feel. It isn't saying

anything about "Cheney" other than that you hate him.

I don't think you'd have a problem with that sign in Canada, but I could be wrong.

[polly7]

26. No, it wouldn't be a problem. Did you see the effigy's of Bush

being burned, the protests throwing shoes? Those were allowed, "I hate Cheney" would probably be noted, but I doubt it would cause much reaction.

[MajorChode]

25. I'm not sure how that's relevant as such a sign would not be illegal in Canada

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Phantom Menace sucked.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. Only occasionaly.

There are all sorts of things and people I hate; that doesn't mean I'm going to resort to violence against them.

I fully agree that incitement to violence should be illegal.

However, saying things that could lead to violence absolutely should not be.

The only situation in which speach should be banned on the grounds that it could lead to violence is if it's a direct incitation to break the law. Inciting "hatred" should in most cases be legal.

[Oregone]

12. Next thing you know theyll be putting women in Burkas there

How oppressive. If only they had the US's medical system, free speech laws, and guns laws. Then you'd find a lot of nice, happy, content people living there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. You know, I used to think like you do.

I used to think that OK, here in the United States we've got the constitution which unfortunately protects the right of the KKK to parade through Skokie illinois. But they don't have the constitution in other countries, so they can go ahead on prosecute the bastards. Ha ha ha.

But no. That's wrong.

The right to free speech is an inalienable human right.

It's not some unfortunate constitutional loop hole that we have to suffer.

[Oregone]

51. The manifestation of that constitution has produced a living hell for some in the US

and less so in Canada. The proof may be in the pudding.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. The constitution is a living hell?

:nopity:

[Oregone]

61. Did I say that? Pretty sure I didn't, but funny trick

And by what set of laws was a more "better" society created over some time? And by better, perhaps we can use freedom as a metric in there, which you have a lot of in Canada. Most Canadians I know are free to vacation overseas for weeks, are free to be healthy if they so choose it, and are free to enrich themselves in great cultural activities the government goes to great lengths to provide.

In Canada, you have a lot of opportunity (freedom) to have social mobility and a healthy life. For some in America, the society created and shaped by the constitution strips them of the ability to suceed and even be healthy.

Its just strange. If the constitution was the end all be all, surely it would produce the best country possible? Right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Yeah, you pretty much did.

You complained about that horrible constitution and all the problems its caused, what with all the rights and all.

"Most Canadians I know are free to vacation overseas for weeks, are free to be healthy if they so choose it, and are free to enrich themselves in great cultural activities the government goes to great lengths to provide."

But that has nothing to do with their lack of freedom of speech.

"In Canada, you have a lot of opportunity (freedom) to have social mobility and a healthy life. For some in America, the society created and shaped by the constitution strips them of the ability to suceed and even be healthy."

Which amendment or clause of the constitution prevents social mobility?

[Oregone]

64. Only if you aren't literate, it may seem like that.

I said: "The manifestation of that constitution has produced....."
You said: "The constitution is a living hell?"
As a reply: "No, its a piece of paper".

A piece of paper, mind you, that shapes myriad different facets of a society and how it develops. And I would assert that the overall effects of that document (and laws shaped by it) has produced a society with less overall freedom on the individual level and more overall harm and suffering than that created by Canadian law.



"But that has nothing to do with their lack of freedom of speech."

Oh, but it may. Perhaps curtailing their ability to buy a load of assault rifles and spread hate speech far and wide has enhance other freedoms and opportunities for them, creating a higher overall aggregate level of happiness and freedom (all arbitrary measurements regardless, so take it as food for thought)



"Which amendment or clause of the constitution prevents social mobility?"

The society that the constitution shaped, empirically speaking, prevents social mobility. Canada ranks among the top in the industrialized world, whereas the US and the UK fight for the "I'm not last" spot on the podium.

Shouldn't such a sacred, true document create the best of all possible countries?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. So there you have it.

You're saying the constitution is a living hell because it grants rights to gun ownership and free speech.

"Shouldn't such a sacred, true document create the best of all possible countries?"

The U.S. constitution doesn't create society, it just protects rights.

You've got a serious case of post hoc ergo propter hoc going on there.

[Oregone]

69. And thats called a strawman

"You're saying the constitution is a living hell"

No, Im saying it has *shaped* a society that has been a living hell for many people.


"The U.S. constitution doesn't create society, it just protects rights."

Thats not particularly true, whatsoever. Not only do all laws have to comply specifically to the constitution, but it also adds to the overall ethos of the US. To deny the imprint of the constitution on American culture and society is absurd and not worth debating.

[Oregone]

2. WTF is criticizing Canada for their sane approach to hate speech?

You mean, in Canada I can't open carry and hold a "God wants Fags dead sign" next to a military funeral.


Oh my Lord!!!! What a bunch of fascists pricks


Clearly, their laws have manifested to create better society than what the omniscient "founding fathers" put into place

[MajorChode]

37. The so-called 'right' to free speech in the US is also infringed

In fact, every single amendment in the Bill of Rights is limited by the government in various ways. There is no absolute right to anything in the US, including what most people think are the most basic and fundamental rights like breathing, happiness, procreation, and freedom itself.

I can't buy a bottle of booze within almost 20 miles of my house and I live right here in the good 'ol USA, but you have people here getting wrapped around the axle because Canada doesn't allow hate speech against certain groups? I hope they don't intend on traveling almost anywhere else in the world either if they are so worried about losing that 'right'. Many, if not most, European countries have similar laws.

[polly7]

4. Thank you. We have horror stories up here as well of groups

being targeted and indivicuals killed. For nothing. Based on hate, obviously being spread by groups who've gotten away with it. All humans have a right to live without fear, no matter who the hell they are.

[EFerrari]

8. What happened?

I was loving that Coulter was warned to mind her hateful speech.

[polly7]

14. It didn't stop her though, and as far as I know she hasn't been fined,

or prosecuted ............... just playing victim for the warning itself while telling a Muslim student to ride a flying carpet. So really, our skeery hate-speech laws aren't imprisoning thousands daily for shooting off their mouths. Although in her case, I wish they had.

[EFerrari]

20. She needs a public consequence for her blatant racism.

Come on, Canada!

[Posteritatis]

17. She's claiming the warning was a hate crime, declared herself a minority, and is filing suit. (nt)

[EFerrari]

19. LOL. Something to milk.

[polly7]

23. She's delusional. I've read her statements over the years.

Hey Annie, we don't like people killed or hurt because of what comes out of your mouth, we're seen it ....... you would love certain people just to not exist. Sorry, but:

:nopity:

[el_bryanto]

9. Most laws restricting freedom initially start with noble motives.

Bryant

[kestrel91316]

10. I haven't the slightest problem with Canada having its own laws as it sees fit.

News flash to ignoramuses of ALL political stripes, including some whiners right here on DU: Canada is not a part of the United States of America.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Agreed, but I would note *some* non-USAians here don't use the same metric for the States

I would emphasize that they are a minority, albeit a noisy one, of the the non-US posters, and they get quite exercised over the fact that we do not necessarily arrange our affairs like the Canadians do.

Or Australians, in one particular case...

[The Straight Story]

11. Define 'incites violence'? (nt)

[Romulox]

13. Too lazy. Imagine how funny it would be if I posted: Inigo_Montoya.jpg ! nt

[Bluerthanblue]

16. my Dad frequently reminded me that free speech doesn't mean

you can say whatever you want to or about others in public.

A persons right to speak doesn't nullify another person's right to live without being harassed, slandered or threatened.

I think Canada is absolutely correct on this issue. And I'm willing to bet that some of the people who wrote the first amendment would agree.

Inciting hatred- is violence.

[onenote]

28. so the folks here who express hatred towards repubs are inciting/engaging in violence?

I don't think so.
The equation isn't that simple. There is a line at which speech becomes incitement. My problem is that inciting violence (i.e., advocating violent behavior) is not the same as inciting "hatred" (i.e., advocating that someone or group should be despised).

[Bluerthanblue]

36. yes, I do think expressing outright hatred against

people based on the fact that they are "republican" IS inciting violence.

You can hate what they do- hate specific actions or policies, hate the "party" that they choose to align themselves with, but to judge and condemn an individual based on anything other than their individual actions/behaviour is wrong, and violates their "liberty" if done publicly.

[Posteritatis]

45. Many, though by no means all or even most, people here are

There's a bit too much use of phrases like "by any means necessary" among other things.

[HeresyLives]

39. Ahem....the law in Canada

Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to:
• advocate genocide
• publicly incite hatred
• wilfully promote hatred
against an "identifiable group."

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:
• colour
• race
• religion
• ethnic origin
• sexual orientation
The Criminal Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions.

[polly7]

55. Thank you. n/t.

[LeftyMom]

41. Free speech is a responsibility.

All sorts of perfectly assholish behavior is and should continue to be legal. Shouting nasty names at members of Congress is one of those things.

[joeybee12]

42. Agreed, come on, just because we aren't familiar with their laws,

doesn't mean they don't work. Slamming Canada over this is nothing but an America First mentality.

[Posteritatis]

47. It winds up up here a lot too

Now and then I'll hear Canadian conservatives yelling about their Second Amendment rights, for instance.

[joeybee12]

50. Gee, they sound smart...

I blame that on Charlton Heston, who wnet up there a lot and pushed his propaganda.

[Posteritatis]

52. Smart like rocks, yeah

A lot of Canadian conservatives identify as Americans; when I was in London, where Coulter made one of her talks last night, I saw more Confederate flags than Canadian ones.

[joeybee12]

60. The Daily Show did a segment a few years back about Canadians

wanting to immigrate here because they actually HAD healthcare and wanted to come to the land of opportunity to give it up...is it the cold that does this?

[Green_Lantern]

56. I agree free speech doesn't mean you can shout down others

With racial slurs. It's not a free society if people of a different race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. are berated with bigotted slurs.

[polly7]

58. You are correct!

Any society where minorites, or any group of people have to live in fear because of 'hate-speech purposefully meant to harm them' is not free, it's not civilized, either. imo. Slam away.

[Bluerthanblue]

68. wish I could 'Rec.' this statement!

:hi:

[Toasterlad]

66. A Country That Practices Torture and Has No Universal Health Care Has No Business Criticizing Others

[treestar]

70. It's not OK to incite violence in the US, either

I don't know what Canada's laws on it are, so I haven't criticized.

I generally think of Canada as a free country.