NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom of speech? It's not a licence people.

White supremacists fined for spreading hate on the internet (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/supremacists060310.html)
Last Updated Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:54:22 EST
CBC News

Two white supremacists have been fined for spreading hatred on their websites.

It's believed to be the first time a Canadian internet web-hosting service has been found liable for hate messages.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the two men to stop spreading hate messages and fined them penalties totalling $13,000. The complainant, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, was awarded $5,000.

In February 2002, Warman launched a complaint against Alexan Kulbashian, of Toronto, and James Richardson, of London, Ont.

The complaint was also against the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, of which the two were members, Kulbashian's web-hosting service Affordable Space.com and the website www.tri-cityskins.com.

The website contained messages that included Holocaust jokes and racist jokes about blacks, Jews, Muslims and other minorities.

"The tri-cityskins.com website contains messages that are likely to expose persons who are non-Christian (namely of the Jewish and Muslim faiths) or non-Caucasian, to hatred and contempt on the basis of their race, colour, religion, or national/ethnic origin," the ruling states.

"Black persons and people of the Jewish faith are particularly laid open to ridicule, ill feelings or hostility, creating the right conditions for hatred or contempt against them to flourish."

Tribunal decision-maker Athanasios Hadjis said that according to sect. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the communication of hate messages must occur "repeatedly" to constitute a discriminatory practice.

"In my view, since the hate messages could be viewed at any time by anyone using the internet, they were indeed being communicated 'repeatedly,' " Hadjis wrote.

The tribunal ordered Kulbashian pay Warman $5,000 for identifying Warman in a hate message.

Kulbashian and Richardson also have to pay $1,000 in penalties. Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team and Affordable Space.com were each fined $3,000.

***

Serves them right. Btw, racism not welcome in this country.

discussion?

Your post is offensive.

Now send me $13,000.

Censorship is teh bad.

I can't believe such hate speech. I am going to sue for 11 million Francs.

It's a reasonable limitation on freedom of speech.

It's a reasonable limitation on freedom of speech.
My God, how can you be so fucking offensive and expect to get away with it Dobbs. Time a-d time again I’ve endured your constant use of the most offensive language. If you knew anything about my obscure religion that is most definitely not a cult, you would understand that t-e use of such language is not only insulting to me, but insulting to the Great Fred Reasonable Who Rules the Planet Core With Black Jesus Who Is Not Funny and Killer Whale Jesus Who Is whose holy name must never be partitioned, ever.

Don’t be surprised when t-e Federal Bureau for Barging Into Other People’s Business (FBIOPB) gives you a call.

Censorship 1, Freedom 0.

Part of me delights any time Nazi shitheads are given a hard time, simply becuase I so very much hate them.
I dont hate them becuase they constantly spew rascist garbage.
I hate them, becuase they are stupid.

They are stupid, becuase they so easily hate, for all the wrong reasons.
To hate someone so deeply, becuase of the color of the skin they were born with, is asinine.
Especially when you consider there are so many better reasons to hate people.

Hate someone because they protest at soldiers funerals, becuase they believe that soldier was defending gay rights, and as we all know...god hates fags!

Hate someone because they voted for Bush, to keep America safe from terrorists, and then continues to support him while he turns around and tries to sell control of several American shipping ports to middle eastern nations.

Hate them because they say they want to save the rainforest, while they wolf down a Big Mac that was taken from cows raised on clear-cut rainforest land.

I could go on, but it would mainly target the stupid, vain, selfish, rich, biggoted, and the homophobic, and the religious right.

I digress...

In closing:

Restricting free speech is bad, and people should always have the right to spew lungfulls of stupid into the ears of anyone who will listen, but sometimes, the places and times people choose to freely speak, can be innapropriate, and actually damaging to others.

Dealing with that issue is a delicate one indeed.

It's a reasonable limitation on freedom of speech.

There is NO reasonable limit to free speech. *Aparently unless you happen to be white.*

Fining speech? Pity. I was really starting to like Canada. :p

Sadly it seems that "free speech" only applies when it is "popular speech". If you have an unpopular opinion, best to keep your mouth shut, or your wallet open.

Sadly it seems that "free speech" only applies when it is "popular speech". If you have an unpopular opinion, best to keep your mouth shut, or your wallet open.
Hey, there's a deficit to pay off, y'know. Sounds like a good trade-off to me - rich idiots who feel like making asses of themselves in public can spout off all the hatred they want - for a (very high) price. I think 10k per word in any transmission of hatred would be a good place to start.

This falls under the heading of.

"I do not agree with your opinion, But i will defend to the death your right to have it."

As long as they don't tell people to start violence what right does anyone have to say what these people are allowed to talk about.
By telling these people that they can't express there opinion there humane rights are being oppressed.

I prefer the "clear and present danger" doctrine myself. Unless speech results in a clear and present danger of causing physical harm, it's not prohibited regardless of how offensive or hateful it may be. Any other way of handling this issue puts all of us on a slippery slope which ends with the majority deciding who can say what.

I'm certain all for Freedom of Speech and think that stuff like the Islam cartoons should be fully allowed.
It shouldn't be abused by Nazi scum though for hate campaigns, so this is very reasonable.

Down with the evil white supremacists! Down!!

snip

I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Besides, messing with internet nazi's is fun! :D

[QUOTE=The Chinese Republics]snipQUOTE]

:D

Ha, ha, ha. Serves the bastards right.

I'm certain all for Freedom of Speech and think that stuff like the Islam cartoons should be fully allowed.
It shouldn't be abused by Nazi scum though for hate campaigns, so this is very reasonable.

What hypocrisy. How can you support freedom of speech and then pick a group that doesn't get it. Nazi's have every right to hate Jews and blacks and gays, provided that's all they do.

This probably sounds stupid, but it's because we know nazis are WRONG. Freedom of speech, such as criticising the government, is allowed because even if me or someone else doesn't agree with other views, we can see where they're coming from and they are entitled to hold that view. In my opinion, no person with any amount of sanity remaining could possibly believe nazis have any credibility. Unlike liberals/conservatives/religious/atheists/pro-war/anti-war groups, nazis are a tiny minority and one which does not do any good for society in the slightest.

This probably sounds stupid, but it's because we know nazis are WRONG. Freedom of speech, such as criticising the government, is allowed because even if me or someone else doesn't agree with other views, we can see where they're coming from and they are entitled to hold that view. In my opinion, no person with any amount of sanity remaining could possibly believe nazis have any credibility. Unlike liberals/conservatives/religious/atheists/pro-war/anti-war groups, nazis are a tiny minority and one which does not do any good for society in the slightest.
I feel the same way about religous groups so that should be outlawed to.

This probably sounds stupid, but it's because we know nazis are WRONG. Freedom of speech, such as criticising the government, is allowed because even if me or someone else doesn't agree with other views, we can see where they're coming from and they are entitled to hold that view. In my opinion, no person with any amount of sanity remaining could possibly believe nazis have any credibility. Unlike liberals/conservatives/religious/atheists/pro-war/anti-war groups, nazis are a tiny minority and one which does not do any good for society in the slightest.

Well yes, modern nazis are mostly idiots. But being stupid doesn't void your right to free speech. If it did NS General would get awfully quiet.

Well yes, modern nazis are mostly idiots. But being stupid doesn't void your right to free speech. If it did NS General would get awfully quiet.
But the right to free speech is not absolute. Spreading hatred and discrimination is illegal. So those bastards got what they deserved.

This probably sounds stupid, but it's because we know nazis are WRONG. Freedom of speech, such as criticising the government, is allowed because even if me or someone else doesn't agree with other views, we can see where they're coming from and they are entitled to hold that view. In my opinion, no person with any amount of sanity remaining could possibly believe nazis have any credibility. Unlike liberals/conservatives/religious/atheists/pro-war/anti-war groups, nazis are a tiny minority and one which does not do any good for society in the slightest.

So we begin silencing them. Even the nazi's are blind and useless censoring like this sets a dangerous precidence...

I am all for kicking some asses when they do try something, otherwise let them rant. It only discredits them further in the public's eye.

I think censoring these idiots is an exercise in futility. Let them use all their hate speech, it's not like they're actually going to convince anyone to their way. You don't have to look at their stupid, ignorant website- let them make fools out of themselves. If there was the environment for them to actually cause harm, do you think it would work to stop them by censorship? I certainly don't think that the Weimar Republic could have just fined the Nazi party into nothingness and made everything better.

So you people who support hate and racism under free speech are racists yourself. If you were in Canada you should be fined as well.

Good for the government to get some money out of some racist neo-Nazi shitbags.

I certainly don't think that the Weimar Republic could have just fined the Nazi party into nothingness and made everything better.
How about we give it a try, then? At least then we'd know for sure whether it could be done or not.

How about we give it a try, then? At least then we'd know for sure whether it could be done or not.

I am happy you are not in power...

I am happy you are not in power...
Well, I live in Canada. I'd say we've got a better shot at eliminating Nazism than a few other democracies that come to mind. You don't have to like it - and I don't have to worry about the sensibilities of hatemongering cowards.

Win-win.

Well, I live in Canada. I'd say we've got a better shot at eliminating Nazism than a few other democracies that come to mind. You don't have to like it - and I don't have to worry about the sensibilities of hatemongering cowards.

Win-win.

On the same token you become the facists you hate. Good job!

On the same token you become the facists you hate. Good job!
There's nothing anywhere says I, or my people are obliged to tolerate intolerance. 'Nuff said.

Has anyone else ever noticed the irony of how fascists complain about censorship against them even though censorship is a core part of their politics?

There's nothing anywhere says I, or my people are obliged to tolerate intolerance. 'Nuff said.

I just woke my roommate with my laughter. Do I need to point out the irony in that sentence?

Has anyone else ever noticed the irony of how fascists complain about censorship against them even though censorship is a core part of their politics?

Yep.

I just woke my roommate with my laughter. Do I need to point out the irony in that sentence?
Do, please. Point out the irony.

Do, please. Point out the irony.

There's nothing anywhere says I, or my people are obliged to tolerate intolerance. 'Nuff said.

Hence, you become the thing you hate. You hate nazis and wish to blot out thier speech. It is a two way street there. Beleave me I don't like them anymore than you do, but you become as bad as they are when you nail them for ranting alone.

There's nothing anywhere says I, or my people are obliged to tolerate intolerance. 'Nuff said.

Hence, you become the thing you hate. You hate nazis and wish to blot out thier speech. It is a two way street there. Beleave me I don't like them anymore than you do, but you become as bad as they are when you nail them for ranting alone.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. You can only rant within the confines of the law. That law does not include hatred and discrimination.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. You can only rant within the confines of the law. That law does not include hatred and discrimination.
It should include hatred. The limits of speech should be at the point where it incites crime. Not before. Hate is a normal human emotion. Racism is a political and social viewpoint. Censoring them is repressive and wrong.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. You can only rant within the confines of the law. That law does not include hatred and discrimination.

Last time I checked the laws here only covered death threats. Then again, if the laws here did cover that alot of websites on all sides would be nailed. It would almost be funny to see all the various groups who got nailed. However, one would have a pseudo free speech then. It is only free if it is popular.

Well guys and gals, the local airport is having a chili cookoff and I must depart to help out. Thanks again for the laughs! :D :fluffle:

There's nothing anywhere says I, or my people are obliged to tolerate intolerance. 'Nuff said.

Hence, you become the thing you hate. You hate nazis and wish to blot out thier speech. It is a two way street there. Beleave me I don't like them anymore than you do, but you become as bad as they are when you nail them for ranting alone.
They weren't nailed for "ranting", they were fined for spreading hatred. If you don't have anti-hate laws on the books where you live, don't think for a minute that that is the case other places. And if you feel the need to deride other democracies that do have anti-hate laws, it's not as though I can stop you - and I won't bother trying to persuade you as to their intent.

As far my statement being ironic, well - superficially, and on the basis of the phrasing, sure. In terms of the message conveyed, though, it is consistent. And it does not convey that I, in turn, am fascist. It means exactly what it says - though it is contingent on accepting the fundamental concept that where the spreading of hatred is concerned, that there is such a thing as a reasonable limitation of freedom of speech.

It works fine for us up here. Don't like it? Then don't spread hatred in my country. Or don't visit. Or enter into treaties with us. One makes as little difference as another, as far as I'm concerned.

Stick a fork in my fascist Canadian ass, I'm done.

Ha! Good job Canada! One more rascist, Nazi moron silenced.

I support this. Free speech should only extend to peaceful opinion (example: I don't like Bush.) It should NOT extend to rascism, Nazism, etc.

Anyone here who's trying to back up Nazi's and those who spread hate make me sick.
I'm just a little surprised these people weren't fined more.
Freedom of speech is fine, so long as you're not infringing on other people's well being by spreading hatred. I have no sympathy for hateful people. There is no reason for any of the horrible -isms out there.

You know, form the twenties onward we had similar laws in the US against Communists. Guess what? The majority believed those laws were right because they saw communism as evil. Was that a god thing?

There is no absolute good and evil, Nazis are just people with a different point of view than most.

It works fine for us up here. Don't like it? Then don't spread hatred in my country. Or don't visit. Or enter into treaties with us. One makes as little difference as another, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this mean we should take your military equipment away from you too? After all, we supplied much of it. Think of the consequences before you act there dobbs. I know you can dish it out, but you sure as hell can't take it!

as evil as Hate is unpopular speech MUST be protected otherwise your free speech rights are a total farce--FREE DAVID IRVING

So, yeah, let's allow these people to insult other people...

FOR FREE SPEECH!

No offense intended, but I fail to see logic.

as evil as Hate is unpopular speech MUST be protected otherwise your free speech rights are a total farce

My point exactly.

Man, what the fuck is up with America, trampling on peoples' rights like this? I mean, I've come to expect this sort of trampling of the Bill of Rights by the conservocreeps, but this is a whole new level of thoughtcrime.

:upyours: Fucking Republicans.

Wait... what...? Oh, that's right... this happened in Canada. Bastion of liberal freedoms and a shining light to the world.

Mmm... irony.

So, yeah, let's allow these people to insult other people...

FOR FREE SPEECH!

No offense intended, but I fail to see logic.
the logic is Freedom

My point exactly.
The entire point of the First Amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech--no one need to protect the speech of things everyone agrees with

I know you can dish it out, but you sure as hell can't take it!
On what do you base this last assertion?

So your'e saying we should allow Naziism to coninue? Therefore, I should be allowed to broadcast rascist views all over the place AND I'm allowed to chase you around and call you something incredibly derogatory so long as it's in public and not be punished?

Man, what the fuck is up with America, trampling on peoples' rights like this? I mean, I've come to expect this sort of trampling of the Bill of Rights by the conservocreeps, but this is a whole new level of thoughtcrime.

:upyours: Fucking Republicans.

Wait... what...? Oh, that's right... this happened in Canada. Bastion of liberal freedoms and a shining light to the world.

Mmm... irony.
politically correct thought control-speech tyranny is the new Stalinism

The entire point of the First Amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech--no one need to protect the speech of things everyone agrees with
We don't use the American Constitution in Canada, people.

Cope with it.

So your'e saying we should allow Naziism to coninue? Therefore, I should be allowed to broadcast rascist views all over the place AND I'm allowed to chase you around and call you something incredibly derogatory so long as it's in public and not be punished?
absolutely--You fight hate with MORE speech not less--you have no right to outlaw nazism or nazi opinions but what you CAN do is fight them with your own counter-speech and activism. But once you open the door to censoring and keeping people down then one day those same laws can and WILL be used against YOU

So your'e saying we should allow Naziism to coninue? Therefore, I should be allowed to broadcast rascist views all over the place AND I'm allowed to chase you around and call you something incredibly derogatory so long as it's in public and not be punished?
I would support your right to do that. Naziism is a polictical and social viewpoint. Should we be censoring such political speech? What's next, censoring libertarians because their speech threatens the wellbeing of people on public assistance? Censoring gun control advocates because their speech threatens 2nd ammendment rights in the US? Censoring Christian Scientists because their viewpoints make no sense from a public health standpoint?

We don't use the American Constitution in Canada, people.

Cope with it.
its time for Canada to respect peoples speech rights

The right not to suffer discrimination based on skin color or faith is also protected in the Canadian constitution, just like free speech. In this instance, two rights were were in opposition. The courts simply ruled that the right of freedom of speech did not extend to the right of inciting to hate and discrimination towards others.

All I can say is: it's a shame this had to get to court. I can only wonder if those nazi idiots just didn't have a mother to tell them to be nice to their little friends, or whether they were simply too dumb to be listening when she did.

In other words: boo hoo for the little nazis, sucks to be them. The rest of us will keep enjoying our freedom of speech as long as we play nice and don't try to beat up or intimidate our comrades.

its time for Canada to respect peoples speech rights

Uhhh... how about the rights of the people who these Nazi's are threatening with hate?
Personally, I'd rather defend those who are being hated for NO LOGICAL REASON AT ALL.
Hatred isn't good for anyone. Maybe they should move down to the US and talk about hating everyone, if it's so well accepted down there.

Hey, wait, we do. Besides, while I support free speech to an extent, I do not support rascist idiots (a.k.a. Nazis.) and thus I believe that they shouldn't have the right to voice that.

its time for Canada to respect peoples speech rights
Yes, because we see an awful lot of censorship here in Canada, as compared to, say, the United States of America?
[/sarcasm]

I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Meh, that's such a platitude. There are groups of people like the aformentioned nazis that I'd not only avoid defending their right to speak, but actively try and deny them, for the good of racial harmony and society as a whole.

I would support your right to do that. Naziism is a polictical and social viewpoint. Should we be censoring such political speech? What's next, censoring libertarians because their speech threatens the wellbeing of people on public assistance? Censoring gun control advocates because their speech threatens 2nd ammendment rights in the US? Censoring Christian Scientists because their viewpoints make no sense from a public health standpoint?
If libertarians ever incite to hate and discrimination towards non-libertarians, yes. Same if gun control advocates start ranting about the inherent inferiority of gun-possessing citizens, and their sub-human status. Same if Christian Scientists publicly state that Jews or Muslims or Atheists should be outlawed and their doctors imprisoned for their beliefs.

It's the fact that nazism breaks a whole damn lot of other rights guaranteed by the constitution that caused this. Of those nazi retards hadn't been inciting to hate or discrimination towards other minorities, the courts would never have fined them.

Freedom of speech isn't a magical, all-powerful right that gets to ignore all the other rights protected by our charter. It stops where the rights to equality, freedom, and security of others begins.

It stops where the rights to equality, freedom, and security of others begins.
And that's what I call a "reasonable limitation on" freedom of speech.

The right not to suffer discrimination based on skin color or faith is also protected in the Canadian constitution, just like free speech. In this instance, two rights were were in opposition. The courts simply ruled that the right of freedom of speech did not extend to the right of inciting to hate and discrimination towards others.

All I can say is: it's a shame this had to get to court. I can only wonder if those nazi idiots just didn't have a mother to tell them to be nice to their little friends, or whether they were simply too dumb to be listening when she did.

In other words: boo hoo for the little nazis, sucks to be them. The rest of us will keep enjoying our freedom of speech as long as we play nice and don't try to beat up or intimidate our comrades.
only ACTS of hate should be punished--not words or thoughts

Yes, because we see an awful lot of censorship here in Canada, as compared to, say, the United States of America?
[/sarcasm]
that would be correct--altho the US corporate media is the mouthpiece for the Beast

And that's what I call a "reasonable limitation on" freedom of speech.
Then we are in agreement on this.

All the rights we enjoy also come with the responsibility of following the law and respecting the other citizen's rights. None of us lives in a void where his rights and only his exist.

Meh, that's such a platitude. There are groups of people like the aformentioned nazis that I'd not only avoid defending their right to speak, but actively try and deny them, for the good of racial harmony and society as a whole.
but it depends the way you go about doing it whether it becomes oppression or not--censorship just drives hate underground where it becomes more powerful

only ACTS of hate should be punished--not words or thoughts
Incitations to acts of hate are punishable by law here in Canada. And this particular legal disposition has my full support.

Then we are in agreement on this.

All the rights we enjoy also come with the responsibility of following the law and respecting the other citizen's rights. None of us lives in a void where his rights and only his exist.
if someone is advocating actual violence against people then Id agree but unless theres the actual threat of violence then these nazis deserve to be unmuzzled

Incitations to acts of hate are punishable by law here in Canada. And this particular legal disposition has my full support.
define what these acts of hate are exactly

define what these acts of hate are exactly
What do you think Skaladora is? An information kiosk? You've got the internet at your fingertips - did you even read the article in the OP?

You figure it out.

if someone is advocating actual violence against people then Id agree but unless theres the actual threat of violence then these nazis deserve to be unmuzzled
If they were fined, then it means they were. Canadian courts don't meddle in ethics or politics: they only care about the law. That they received a fine means the tribunal judged they were inciting others to acts of hate, violence, or discrimination towards other citizens.

Freedom of speech? It's not a licence people.

White supremacists fined for spreading hate on the internet (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/supremacists060310.html)
Last Updated Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:54:22 EST
CBC News

Two white supremacists have been fined for spreading hatred on their websites.

It's believed to be the first time a Canadian internet web-hosting service has been found liable for hate messages.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the two men to stop spreading hate messages and fined them penalties totalling $13,000. The complainant, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, was awarded $5,000.

In February 2002, Warman launched a complaint against Alexan Kulbashian, of Toronto, and James Richardson, of London, Ont.

The complaint was also against the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, of which the two were members, Kulbashian's web-hosting service Affordable Space.com and the website www.tri-cityskins.com.

The website contained messages that included Holocaust jokes and racist jokes about blacks, Jews, Muslims and other minorities.

"The tri-cityskins.com website contains messages that are likely to expose persons who are non-Christian (namely of the Jewish and Muslim faiths) or non-Caucasian, to hatred and contempt on the basis of their race, colour, religion, or national/ethnic origin," the ruling states.

"Black persons and people of the Jewish faith are particularly laid open to ridicule, ill feelings or hostility, creating the right conditions for hatred or contempt against them to flourish."

Tribunal decision-maker Athanasios Hadjis said that according to sect. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the communication of hate messages must occur "repeatedly" to constitute a discriminatory practice.

"In my view, since the hate messages could be viewed at any time by anyone using the internet, they were indeed being communicated 'repeatedly,' " Hadjis wrote.

The tribunal ordered Kulbashian pay Warman $5,000 for identifying Warman in a hate message.

Kulbashian and Richardson also have to pay $1,000 in penalties. Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team and Affordable Space.com were each fined $3,000.

***

Serves them right. Btw, racism not welcome in this country.

discussion?"I may despise you for what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."
-Some Philosper, Probably a smart guy, and probably misquoted.
:D

I am Jewish by birth. I hate Nazis. If I could, I'd hack into Stormfront's (it's a White Supremist Message Board, and sadly, some of their members play NS and particepate on these forums) and crash them. But government censorship is bad. No government has the right to tell its citzens what to say. I hate these nazis, but I also will defend their right to speak.

define what these acts of hate are exactly
Hey, how would I know? I've not been to these idiot's interweb site, and I'm not about to. I'm not gonna bother reading through some dozens of pages of judiciary reports just for your pretty eyes, either :p

If they were fined, then it means they were. Canadian courts don't meddle in ethics or politics: they only care about the law. That they received a fine means the tribunal judged they were inciting others to acts of hate, violence, or discrimination towards other citizens.
you have tremendous faith in "The Establishment"

"I may despise you for what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."
-Some Philosper, Probably a smart guy, and probably misquoted.
:D

I am Jewish by birth. I hate Nazis. If I could, I'd hack into Stormfront's (it's a White Supremist Message Board, and sadly, some of their members play NS and particepate on these forums) and crash them. But government censorship is bad. No government has the right to tell its citzens what to say. I hate these nazis, but I also will defend their right to speak.
Again, the right to free speech ends where the rights to freedom, equality and security of others begin. At least in Canada it does, and it's pretty darn fine that way. See my previous posts.

Hey, how would I know? I've not been to these idiot's interweb site, and I'm not about to. I'm not gonna bother reading through some dozens of pages of judiciary reports just for your pretty eyes, either :p
:cool:

tolerance - 1, intolerance - 0

No government has the right to tell its citzens what to say. The government isn't telling anybody anything. Our laws define the willful spread of hatred as being unlawful.

Case closed.



Frankly, I'm at a loss to see what difference it makes to anyone outside of Canada.

politically correct thought control-speech tyranny is the new Stalinism

Well, no, it was Lenin that first used this tatic in the 1920's. It was later adopted Mao and taken to a new level. Only time will tell if todays better communications will be enough to overcome it's spread beyond the most weak minded.

you have tremendous faith in "The Establishment"
Why wouldn't I? I've never heard any stories of censorship on the basis of political beliefs that didn't involve hate messages and incitation to violence. Besides, there are means of ensuring it doesn't happen: courts of appeal, human rights watch organizations, and if all else fails appeals to the media or political entities. It pays to have more than two parties at the house of commons, sometimes.

The internet is an international establishement. No country should try and censor any part of it.

The government isn't telling anybody anything. Our laws define the willful spread of hatred as being unlawful.

Case closed.



Frankly, I'm at a loss to see what difference it makes to anyone outside of Canada.
people have a right to verbalize hate but they dont have a right to harm someone

Frankly, I'm at a loss to see what difference it makes to anyone outside of Canada.

So says the individual that couldn't keep his 2 cents out of american business if his life depended on it.

Well, no, it was Lenin that first used this tatic in the 1920's. It was later adopted Mao and taken to a new level. Only time will tell if todays better communications will be enough to overcome it's spread beyond the most weak minded.
David Irving is a political prisoner

The internet is an international establishement. No country should try and censor any part of it.
Tough cookies. These guys knew the laws they were transgressing in their home country and got fined for their disregard. I could care less about the rights of assholes to be assholes for the sake of their right to be assholes.

people have a right to verbalize hate but they dont have a right to harm someone
Well, they don't have that right in Canada.

(Not) Sorry.

Why wouldn't I? I've never heard any stories of censorship on the basis of political beliefs that didn't involve hate messages and incitation to violence. Besides, there are means of ensuring it doesn't happen: courts of appeal, human rights watch organizations, and if all else fails appeals to the media or political entities. It pays to have more than two parties at the house of commons, sometimes.
people have a right to hate messages but not a right to incitation of violence--the hate messages aspect of this law is what makes it too overbroad

So says the individual that couldn't keep his 2 cents out of american business if his life depended on it.
Nice.

people have a right to hate messages but not a right to incitation of violence
Not in Canada they don't.

Tough cookies. These guys knew the laws they were transgressing in their home country and got fined for their disregard. I could care less about the rights of assholes to be assholes for the sake of their right to be assholes.
oppressive laws need to be broken

people have a right to verbalize hate but they dont have a right to harm someone
No, they don't. Look up the Canadian civil code sometime.

Well, they don't have that right in Canada.

(Not) Sorry.
your missing the key concept behind freedom of speech--censorship only empowers the haters because if you have to censor something (regardless of how false that something is) then that something will gain an air of legitimacy to it--censorship keeps the hate alive

oppressive laws need to be broken
And what of those who the nazis oppress with the dissemination of their hatred? What of their right to live their life unfettered by hatemongering?

Not in Canada they don't.
then Canada passed a Fascist Law

No, they don't. Look up the Canadian civil code sometime.
its too broadly written then and needs to be challenged in court

people have a right to hate messages but not a right to incitation of violence--the hate messages aspect of this law is what makes it too overbroad
Well, we disagree.

I've never had my freedom of speech limited because of this law. I expect it never will as long as I don't broadcast hate messages or incite to violence - which I don't. If they want to spread hate messages, Canada isn't the country where they should do it. They can always move to Afghanistan, Iran, or the United States if they're unhappy with it.

Fred Phelps or any other similar retard would be hanged off the nearest tree (figure of speech, of course) here. And with good reason, in my opinion. Freedom of speech isn't an idol to be worshipped mindlessly: it's a right to be put in context while considering all the other rights and responsibilities of a citizen.

And what of those who the nazis oppress with the dissemination of their hatred? What of their right to live their life unfettered by hatemongering?
theyre protected by the arrests of people who commit acts of violence

your missing the key concept behind freedom of speech--censorship only empowers the haters because if you have to censor something (regardless of how false that something is) then that something will gain an air of legitimacy to it--censorship keeps the hate alive
That may be true for censorship.

What we're talking about is justice and protecting blacks' and Jews' right not to be hated or discriminated against. Not censorship.

its too broadly written then and needs to be challenged in court
Challenge it all you want: you'll need to find a case where censorship was applied without being for the express purpose of protecting another's rights. And you won't.

No supreme court will overturn that law on the basis that anyone has a right to spew hatred repeatedly and publicly over persons of a minority.

Well, we disagree.

I've never had my freedom of speech limited because of this law. I expect it never will as long as I don't broadcast hate messages or incite to violence - which I don't. If they want to spread hate messages, Canada isn't the country where they should do it. They can always move to Afghanistan, Iran, or the United States if they're unhappy with it.

Fred Phelps or any other similar retard would be hanged off the nearest tree (figure of speech, of course) here. And with good reason, in my opinion. Freedom of speech isn't an idol to be worshipped mindlessly: it's a right to be put in context while considering all the other rights and responsibilities of a citizen.
in the example you choose Im inclined to agree--however it all boils down to how the Govt is interpretating hate too and such a broadly written law is open to being abused so it should be limited to specific ACTS otherwise it becomes a form of thought control tyranny

theyre protected by the arrests of people who commit acts of violence
Too bad here we actually want to try to stop the violence before it gets ugly, instead of hiring cleaning personnel to mop up the blood and gore.

That may be true for censorship.

What we're talking about is justice and protecting blacks' and Jews' right not to be hated or discriminated against. Not censorship.
Im against discrimination but in the realm of words no one has a right to not be offended

your missing the key concept behind freedom of speech--censorship only empowers the haters because if you have to censor something (regardless of how false that something is) then that something will gain an air of legitimacy to it--censorship keeps the hate alive
And your misapprehension, that I "don't get" freedom of speech is what is continuing to drive you to denigrate an aspect of a foreign culture that is at odds with what you know of the American Constitution?

I know what your take on "freedom of speech" leads to. I'm more interested to see where we're going (and I frankly am entirely dismissive of this oh no3s!1! Canuck-fascism-in-the-making-'cos-we-don't-put-up-with-nazis- crapola).

Don't like it? Fine. Good job you don't live here, then - 'cos we're okay with it.

Tough cookies. These guys knew the laws they were transgressing in their home country and got fined for their disregard. I could care less about the rights of assholes to be assholes for the sake of their right to be assholes.
Where do you draw the line? Okay, make Nazism illegal. Fine. How about...make communism illegal? Fine. How about...make naturalism illegal? Fine. How about...make Islam illegal? Fine. How about...make homosexuals illegal? Fine. How about...make libertarians illegal? Fine. How about...make Judiasism illegal? Fine.

See how it goes?

Challenge it all you want: you'll need to find a case where censorship was applied without being for the express purpose of protecting another's rights. And you won't.

No supreme court will overturn that law on the basis that anyone has a right to spew hatred repeatedly and publicly over persons of a minority.
how does mere words floating in the air violate anyones rights?

theyre protected by the arrests of people who commit acts of violence
Well, here they're protected from having to endure it for minute one. There's a difference.

Too bad here we actually want to try to stop the violence before it gets ugly, instead of hiring cleaning personnel to mop up the blood and gore.
and thats where the fascism creeps in;)

in the example you choose Im inclined to agree--however it all boils down to how the Govt is interpretating hate too and such a broadly written law is open to being abused so it should be limited to specific ACTS otherwise it becomes a form of thought control tyranny
No it's not, because it ISN'T being abused. It never has yet, and we all expect it to stay that way.

Canadian courts don't have an history of abusing the wording of the law despite the obvious spirit with which it was written. If they ever do, then we challenge them. No point in not giving our courts the weapons they need so long as they make correct use of them.

And your misapprehension, that I "don't get" freedom of speech is what is continuing to drive you to denigrate an aspect of a foreign culture that is at odds with what you know of the American Constitution?

I know what your take on "freedom of speech" leads to. I'm more interested to see where we're going (and I frankly am entirely dismissive of this oh no3s!1! Canuck-fascism-in-the-making-'cos-we-don't-put-up-with-nazis- crapola).

Don't like it? Fine. Good job you don't live here, then - 'cos we're okay with it.
Im not talken about the American Constitution Im talken about Universal Human Rights

Where do you draw the line? Okay, make Nazism illegal. Fine. How about...make communism illegal? Fine. How about...make naturalism illegal? Fine. How about...make Islam illegal? Fine. How about...make homosexuals illegal? Fine. How about...make libertarians illegal? Fine. How about...make Judiasism illegal? Fine.

See how it goes?
I see you're so stymied that you're relying on a 'slippery slope' argument. The law doesn't target political, religious, ethnic, or linguistic groups - it targets groups and individuals who disseminate hatred.

You're all having a devil of a time coming to grips with this, aren't you?

Well, here they're protected from having to endure it for minute one. There's a difference.
thats intolerant tho

Where do you draw the line? Okay, make Nazism illegal. Fine. How about...make communism illegal? Fine. How about...make naturalism illegal? Fine. How about...make Islam illegal? Fine. How about...make homosexuals illegal? Fine. How about...make libertarians illegal? Fine. How about...make Judiasism illegal? Fine.

See how it goes?
Here's the flaw in your argument: nazism isn't illegal. Hate speech and incitation to violence is.

The problem here is that nazism is a stand that endorses hate and discrimination, two things against which all Canadian citizens are also protected under the charter of rights.

If there are any nazi web sites out there that don't condone hate and violence and discrimination, they're perfectly safe from any legal procedures.

Im not talken about the American Constitution Im talken about Universal Human Rights
Perhaps you could elaborate? What exactly do you feel we are in contravention of?

Hmmm?

Elucidate, man.

and thats where the fascism creeps in;)
Ensuring the equality, freedom and safety of every citizen isn't fascism.

I see you're so stymied that you're relying on a 'slippery slope' argument. The law doesn't target political, religious, ethnic, or linguistic groups - it targets groups and individuals who disseminate hatred.

You're all having a devil of a time coming to grips with this, aren't you?
Thank God I live in America. The government sucks, but the constituition...I hate these people, you understand that? People who would persucute my fellow Jews. I also hate the idea of censoring them.

The slippery slope arguement is still valid. It doesn't have to happen from the same law, you know.

No it's not, because it ISN'T being abused. It never has yet, and we all expect it to stay that way.

Canadian courts don't have an history of abusing the wording of the law despite the obvious spirit with which it was written. If they ever do, then we challenge them. No point in not giving our courts the weapons they need so long as they make correct use of them.
In America we know the forces of evil can seize the reins of power and interpret overbroadly written laws like this to outlaw all forms of dissent and free thought--I guess our experiences are different

thats intolerant tho
Okay, now you're just playing games with me. I don't see that continuing this discourse will actually bear any fruit.

I see you're so stymied that you're relying on a 'slippery slope' argument. The law doesn't target political, religious, ethnic, or linguistic groups - it targets groups and individuals who disseminate hatred.

You're all having a devil of a time coming to grips with this, aren't you?
maybe not

but hes still right that this law is a slippery slope the way its currently written

Here's the flaw in your argument: nazism isn't illegal. Hate speech and incitation to violence is.

The problem here is that nazism is a stand that endorses hate and discrimination, two things against which all Canadian citizens are also protected under the charter of rights.

If there are any nazi web sites out there that don't condone hate and violence and discrimination, they're perfectly safe from any legal procedures.
and the definition of Hate is too open to interpretation and too broadly defined

In America we know the forces of evil can seize the reins of power and interpret overbroadly written laws like this to outlaw all forms of dissent and free thought--I guess our experiences are different
*sighs*

So, ridding yourselves of your oppressors is on your 2008 'to-do' list, then I assume?

I'll stick with our horrible oppressive system and not have to endure nazis in the streets of my cities. Thanks all the same.

Perhaps you could elaborate? What exactly do you feel we are in contravention of?

Hmmm?

Elucidate, man.
the UN DECLARATION OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS

*sighs*

So, ridding yourselves of your oppressors is on your 2008 'to-do' list, then I assume?

I'll stick with our horrible oppressive system and not have to endure nazis in the streets of my cities. Thanks all the same.
Hey, don't blame us for a governor rigging the elections!

the UN DECLARATION OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Link to the part we're violating, then.

In America we know the forces of evil can seize the reins of power and interpret overbroadly written laws like this to outlaw all forms of dissent and free thought--I guess our experiences are different
Maybe in America evil conservatives or loony liberals can go around and interpret laws however they want with impunity, but it just doesn't happen in Canada.

Just because you guys have to be uber-careful in the wording of your laws because you have lots of extremists looking for loopholes doesn't mean we have to do the same.

This law hasn't been abused. As for the slippery slope: as long as nobody's slipping, it's fine. Don't worry, we Canadians care too much about our civil liberties to let them be stamped out. We have no patriot acts lying around or government officials listening to our phone conversations.

Again, having a multi-party electoral system helps.

Ensuring the equality, freedom and safety of every citizen isn't fascism.
true true

but overly broadly written laws with the potential to be abused causing slippery slopes slides into govt having ever more and more power in our lives is incremental fascism

*sighs*

So, ridding yourselves of your oppressors is on your 2008 'to-do' list, then I assume?

I'll stick with our horrible oppressive system and not have to endure nazis in the streets of my cities. Thanks all the same.
no law can stop whats in the minds of men

Hey, don't blame us for a governor rigging the elections!
I'm trying to say that while you're all freaking out over something that hasn't happened, and frankly, is pretty bloody unlikely to happen, there's actual, bona fide oppression going on right this very minute.

In your (collective) shoes, I wouldn't be so quick to start tossing around terms like 'fascist' and 'oppression'. People in glass houses and all that.

and the definition of Hate is too open to interpretation and too broadly defined
It has been in order to avoid someone spreading hate speech and getting away with it. And, *again*, I know I'm repeating mysef, but it hasn't been abused yet.

And yes, we are keeping a close eye on what our government and courts are doing. Our system is designed in such a way that there are mechanisms to ensure no abuse takes place. OUR checks and balances actually work like they should, thank you very much. Just because yours doesn't doesn't mean we should be as scared of abuse as you are.

Link to the part we're violating, then.

He has consistent issues with linking to evidence.

Maybe in America evil conservatives or loony liberals can go around and interpret laws however they want with impunity, but it just doesn't happen in Canada.

Just because you guys have to be uber-careful in the wording of your laws because you have lots of extremists looking for loopholes doesn't mean we have to do the same.

This law hasn't been abused. As for the slippery slope: as long as nobody's slipping, it's fine. Don't worry, we Canadians care too much about our civil liberties to let them be stamped out. We have no patriot acts lying around or government officials listening to our phone conversations.

Again, having a multi-party electoral system helps.
Im glad you can totally trust everyone in your govt over there--but I see things thru the prism of American zealotry then

true true

but overly broadly written laws with the potential to be abused causing slippery slopes slides into govt having ever more and more power in our lives is incremental fascism
Not here, because we can always vote them out of office. Gomery report and following downfall of Liberal government anyone?

I'm trying to say that while you're all freaking out over something that hasn't happened, and frankly, is pretty bloody unlikely to happen, there's actual, bona fide oppression going on right this very minute.

In your (collective) shoes, I wouldn't be so quick to start tossing around terms like 'fascist' and 'oppression'. People in glass houses and all that.
I agree. My government is very close to fascism. I don't want to see it happen to another government.

true true

but overly broadly written laws with the potential to be abused causing slippery slopes slides into govt having ever more and more power in our lives is incremental fascism

America's rancid fear of gov't having control is perposterous.
I don't even understand how America HAS a gov't sometimes, with the way people spout off crap about not wanting the gov't doing anything that effects their lives.
The purpose of gov't is to ensure the stability of a nation by creating a set of laws/codes for all people to follow.
Just because you're terrified of your gov't doing things doesn't mean the rest of the world is so untrusting of those who they elect.
As someone previously mentioned, we're not a country of extremists like the US, so if we create a broad definition/law, the only ones who are worried about being prosecuted by it are Americans, by the sounds of it. I've never heard a Canadian say, "Gee, I hope I don't get arrested on hate speech under this law" because it's only going to be used for extreme cases, anyway. Having a little trust in a system goes a long way. Mind you, I can't blame Americans for not trusting their own system, given recent events...

I'm trying to say that while you're all freaking out over something that hasn't happened, and frankly, is pretty bloody unlikely to happen, there's actual, bona fide oppression going on right this very minute.

In your (collective) shoes, I wouldn't be so quick to start tossing around terms like 'fascist' and 'oppression'. People in glass houses and all that.
Quaon isnt oppressive hes not Bush

It has been in order to avoid someone spreading hate speech and getting away with it. And, *again*, I know I'm repeating mysef, but it hasn't been abused yet.

And yes, we are keeping a close eye on what our government and courts are doing. Our system is designed in such a way that there are mechanisms to ensure no abuse takes place. OUR checks and balances actually work like they should, thank you very much. Just because yours doesn't doesn't mean we should be as scared of abuse as you are.
when the corporate beast comes for your Democracy all these things can change overnite

when the corporate beast comes for your Democracy all these things can change overnite

See, these thoughts are just silly. I've never heard of anyone worrying about corporations taking over Canada like what happens in America. Our system isn't designed the same way as yours is, so it's highly unlikely that big business is going to push us around into doing things. If they tried, there would be a public outcry, I'm sure.

America's rancid fear of gov't having control is perposterous.
I don't even understand how America HAS a gov't sometimes, with the way people spout off crap about not wanting the gov't doing anything that effects their lives.
The purpose of gov't is to ensure the stability of a nation by creating a set of laws/codes for all people to follow.
Just because you're terrified of your gov't doing things doesn't mean the rest of the world is so untrusting of those who they elect.
As someone previously mentioned, we're not a country of extremists like the US, so if we create a broad definition/law, the only ones who are worried about being prosecuted by it are Americans, by the sounds of it. I've never heard a Canadian say, "Gee, I hope I don't get arrested on hate speech under this law" because it's only going to be used for extreme cases, anyway. Having a little trust in a system goes a long way. Mind you, I can't blame Americans for not trusting their own system, given recent events...
try having Bush as President then come back to me about trusting the Govt;)

America's rancid fear of gov't having control is perposterous.
I don't even understand how America HAS a gov't sometimes, with the way people spout off crap about not wanting the gov't doing anything that effects their lives.
The purpose of gov't is to ensure the stability of a nation by creating a set of laws/codes for all people to follow.
Just because you're terrified of your gov't doing things doesn't mean the rest of the world is so untrusting of those who they elect.
As someone previously mentioned, we're not a country of extremists like the US, so if we create a broad definition/law, the only ones who are worried about being prosecuted by it are Americans, by the sounds of it. I've never heard a Canadian say, "Gee, I hope I don't get arrested on hate speech under this law" because it's only going to be used for extreme cases, anyway. Having a little trust in a system goes a long way. Mind you, I can't blame Americans for not trusting their own system, given recent events...
Whatever lets you sleep at night. We Americans are so damned paranoid because it's actually happening. Fundementalists (I call them extremists) keep demanding that our government conform to their morals. And the politicians are listening.

when the corporate beast comes for your Democracy all these things can change overnite
I'd really like to see the corporate beast try. It would find me and other politicized Canadians in it's way.

try having Bush as President then come back to me about trusting the Govt;)

Bush would never be elected in Canada. Period.
Harper is about as close to Bush as I could ever imagine Canada electing... and I had a hard time imagining him getting power. :p By the looks of things, he's probably not going to last all that long, either.

See, these thoughts are just silly. I've never heard of anyone worrying about corporations taking over Canada like what happens in America. Our system isn't designed the same way as yours is, so it's highly unlikely that big business is going to push us around into doing things. If they tried, there would be a public outcry, I'm sure.
Americans have lost their innocence due to govt corruption and dont have the luxury of such thoughts

I'd really like to see the corporate beast try. It would find me and other politicized Canadians in it's way.
Go Canada

Americans have lost their innocence due to govt corruption and dont have the luxury of such thoughts

Sounds like it's time to revamp the system, then.

Bush would never be elected in Canada. Period.
Harper is about as close to Bush as I could ever imagine Canada electing... and I had a hard time imagining him getting power. :p By the looks of things, he's probably not going to last all that long, either.
You never know...ever heard of rigged elections? Bush won neither election, the exit polls prove it. He cheated.

Bush would never be elected in Canada. Period.
Harper is about as close to Bush as I could ever imagine Canada electing... and I had a hard time imagining him getting power. :p By the looks of things, he's probably not going to last all that long, either.
Canada is everything America was supposed to be

try having Bush as President then come back to me about trusting the Govt;)
Again, we don't vote for loony texans.

The closest thing we got to them are loony Albertans, and while we give those the benefit of the doubt, we like to keep them on a tight leash with a minority government... instead of re-electing them even after they've done considerable damage to your country and freedoms.

Not that I'm pointing any fingers here.

*coughfiftypercentofamericanswhodidn'tbothertovotecough*

Canada is everything America was supposed to be
Amen.

Sounds like it's time to revamp the system, then.
we need publicly financed campaigns for absolute starters

You never know...ever heard of rigged elections? Bush won neither election, the exit polls prove it. He cheated.
And please explain to me why nobody even bothered to get out on the streets and demand his government to be deposed?

Well, alright, voter apathy and media control of the corporations.

Amen.
Fight the Power Quaon

And please explain to me why nobody even bothered to get out on the streets and demand his government to be deposed?

Well, alright, voter apathy and media control of the corporations.
peopel ARE protesting but the Beast media blacks it out

And please explain to me why nobody even bothered to get out on the streets and demand his government to be deposed?

Well, alright, voter apathy and media control of the corporations.
Our system works differently than yours. I wish it worked like yours, but you can't dispose of the government here. You have to wait 4 years. And then, maybe, you gain back control of the country. The only other way is open civil war.

peopel ARE protesting but the Beast media blacks it out
Voter apathy and de-politicization are worse problems.

After all, of half the city is in the streets, it doesn,t matter whether the medi shows it or not, it's gonna be known anyway.

And if 40% more americans had bothered to vote or annull their vote then the outcome would have been very different. It's one thing to rig an election and steal 3-4% of the vote, it's quite another to rig one for 20%.

Voter apathy and de-politicization are worse problems.

After all, of half the city is in the streets, it doesn,t matter whether the medi shows it or not, it's gonna be known anyway.

And if 40% more americans had bothered to vote or annull their vote then the outcome would have been very different. It's one thing to rig an election and steal 3-4% of the vote, it's quite another to rig one for 20%.
Did I ever say that the public was perfect? A lot of us don't care. Does that mean it's those who votes fault? No.

Our system works differently than yours. I wish it worked like yours, but you can't dispose of the government here. You have to wait 4 years. And then, maybe, you gain back control of the country. The only other way is open civil war.
You'd find total national worker strikes can change minds much quicker and with much less bloodshed than civil war.

Have half the country not show up to work in the morning for two or three days straight, and those fuckers will listen to you, because they won't have a choice if they still want to have an economy to govern. Either that or just organize mass refusal to pay federal taxes. Let's see if the police and army army accepts to rough up the very citizens they've sworn to protect on behalf of illegitimate political powers.

There are many ways of standing up against your government that doesn't involve violence. Look it up. All you need is momentum and the approval of the masses. It's what democracy is all about.

You'd find total national worker strikes can change minds much quicker and with much less bloodshed than civil war.

Have half the country not show up to work in the morning for two or three days straight, and those fuckers will listen to you, because they won't have a choice if they still want to have an economy to govern. Either that or just organize mass refusal to pay federal taxes. Let's see if the police and army army accepts to rough up the very citizens they've sworn to protect on behalf of illegitimate political powers.

There are many ways of standing up against your government that doesn't involve violence. Look it up. All you need is momentum and the approval of the masses. It's what democracy is all about.
The people of America aren't as patriotic as Canadians. We have had our morales destroyed through the last years. We will not stand up for our civil rights because no one cares enough to try. Sad, huh?

The people of America aren't as patriotic as Canadians. We have had our morales destroyed through the last years. We will not stand up for our civil rights because no one cares enough to try. Sad, huh?
but I also think theres alot of repressed rage among the people thats gonna explode one day and catch everyone by surprise

The people of America aren't as patriotic as Canadians. We have had our morales destroyed through the last years. We will not stand up for our civil rights because no one cares enough to try. Sad, huh?
That's just apathy and a poor diet talking. And much as you might not have known it, Canadians are traditionally an extremely unpatriotic people. Any patriotism that you may encounter from Canadians in the present day is a direct byproduct of the repercussions of the more-or-less-recent souring of the relationship between your nation and ours.

That's just apathy and a poor diet talking. And much as you might not have known it, Canadians are traditionally an extremely unpatriotic people. Any patriotism that you may encounter from Canadians in the present day is a direct byproduct of the repercussions of the more-or-less-recent souring of the relationship between your nation and ours.
dont scapegoat America for Bushs insanity--We hate him more then you know

When are we going to fine communists? When I attended Carleton University far-left students talked about revolution and overthrowing "the establishment" and doing away with religion, corporations, the wealthy, etc.. Should hate speech against people with money also be subject to fines?

If libertarians ever incite to hate and discrimination towards non-libertarians, yes. Same if gun control advocates start ranting about the inherent inferiority of gun-possessing citizens, and their sub-human status. Same if Christian Scientists publicly state that Jews or Muslims or Atheists should be outlawed and their doctors imprisoned for their beliefs.

It's the fact that nazism breaks a whole damn lot of other rights guaranteed by the constitution that caused this. Of those nazi retards hadn't been inciting to hate or discrimination towards other minorities, the courts would never have fined them.

Freedom of speech isn't a magical, all-powerful right that gets to ignore all the other rights protected by our charter. It stops where the rights to equality, freedom, and security of others begins.
It doesn't interfere with the rights to equal treatment under the law, freedom for all, or security. Saying that a certain group of people are inferior does not change their legal status, doesn't deny them any rights that others have, and doesn't threaten them. The nazis only infringe on those rights if they get to pass laws or if they say "go out and kill ____". Until they try to pass discriminatory laws or tell people to commit crime they are not a threat, only expressing a viewpoint.

And that's what I call a "reasonable limitation on" freedom of speech.
So do I, but nazi speech doesn't infringe on equality under the law, freedom, or security. That places nazi speech well within the reasonable limits.

The government isn't telling anybody anything. Our laws define the willful spread of hatred as being unlawful.

Case closed.



Frankly, I'm at a loss to see what difference it makes to anyone outside of Canada.
1) Does that apply across the board? For example, if someone posts a website saying nazis are subhuman vermin and has cartoons of nazis being hanged would he be muzzled too? Somehow I think not.

2) This is NS General. We like to debate shit that doesn't have anything to do with us.

Im against discrimination but in the realm of words no one has a right to not be offended
Yep. Because if such a right existed no criticism of anything or anyone could take place. All one would have to do to stop criticism is claim that the critic is offensive or makes him feel threatened.

Well, here they're protected from having to endure it for minute one. There's a difference.
So why aren't all of your politicians protected from having to endure any criticism they find offensive?

I see you're so stymied that you're relying on a 'slippery slope' argument. The law doesn't target political, religious, ethnic, or linguistic groups - it targets groups and individuals who disseminate hatred.

You're all having a devil of a time coming to grips with this, aren't you?
I hate George W Bush and his administration. If the same laws that exist in Canada were applied in the US then I could be silenced for hate speech, no?

Or is your argument that the laws are fine because they're enforced in an unfair manner and only target certain types of political and social dissent?

When are we going to fine communists? When I attended Carleton University far-left students talked about revolution and overthrowing "the establishment" and doing away with religion, corporations, the wealthy, etc.. Should hate speech against people with money also be subject to fines?
see? this is how these over-broadly written laws can be used to stifle ALL political dissent

dont scapegoat America for Bushs insanity--We hate him more then you know
:confused:

Just a reminder to those coming into this discussion late: there is a difference between government and law.

Yep. Because if such a right existed no criticism of anything or anyone could take place. All one would have to do to stop criticism is claim that the critic is offensive or makes him feel threatened.
exactly--which is why unpopular speech must be protected the most

:confused:
Bush is a bigger a threat to world peace then Osama

exactly--which is why unpopular speech must be protected the most
But DCD's slippery slope hasn't happened, and is really, really - can I emphasize this any more - REALLY unlikely to happen. Like, ever.

Can't you just realize that people, places and values are not identical throughout the world, let alone from one democracy to another?

Sheesh. You all seem to think this is a horrible thing. It's quite nice, actually.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Frankly, I'm at a loss to see what difference it makes to anyone outside of Canada.
So, you've never posted your opinion in a thread about American laws that only affect its citizens?

I think that communism the most disgusting ideology in existance. It's responsible for far more deaths than fascism. Does this mean that pro-communist speech should be banned?

So, you've never posted your opinion in a thread about American laws that only affect its citizens?
Okay, then here's fun: next time I do, call me out on it. 'Til then, lay off.

Sounds good?

But DCD's slippery slope hasn't happened, and is really, really - can I emphasize this any more - REALLY unlikely to happen. Like, ever.

Can't you just realize that people, places and values are not identical throughout the world, let alone from one democracy to another?

Sheesh. You all seem to think this is a horrible thing. It's quite nice, actually.
I know it's a horrible thing. For all of your apologetics you're trampling on the rights of one group of people to avoid mildly offending another.

People, when a Jew is argueing in favor of Neo-Nazi rights, you know your going to lose the arguement.

I know it's a horrible thing. For all of your apologetics you're trampling on the rights of one group of people to avoid mildly offending another.
Let me be absolutely crystal clear about this:

I have no trouble whatsoever with preventing the willful dissemination of hatred. In our country, no-one has the "right" to disseminate hatred. Evidently that is not the case where you reside.

Vive la difference.

People, when a Jew is argueing in favor of Neo-Nazi rights, you know your going to lose the arguement.
No, I won't lose, Quaon. The only way I'd lose is if our laws were to change. It's not really up for debate - it's law, man. And not an unpopular law, I'll mention.

Sorry, dude. What can I say?

Let me be absolutely crystal clear about this:

I have no trouble whatsoever with preventing the willful dissemination of hatred. In our country, no-one has the "right" to disseminate hatred. Evidently that is not the case where you reside.

Vive la difference.
Fine by me. Fascist;)

Fine by me. Fascist;)
Not quite up to your usual standards, that.

Sensationalist.

I prefer the "clear and present danger" doctrine myself. Unless speech results in a clear and present danger of causing physical harm, it's not prohibited regardless of how offensive or hateful it may be. Any other way of handling this issue puts all of us on a slippery slope which ends with the majority deciding who can say what.
You mean this kind of "clear and present danger"?

And so it begins again: protest as hate crime (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10519365&postcount=1)

COMMENTARY: This is where it always leads. This is where it lead during the "protests" during the Vietnam war. Neither I nor thousands of other veterans will tolerate this. If you know any "protestors," you can do them a great favor by telling them in no uncertain terms that this sort of behavior could easily result in a considerably shortened life-span.

"Slippery slope" indeed!!

I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Besides, messing with internet nazi's is fun! :DMembers in Stormfront are fun to mess them around. They're very illogical facist nazis. :D

Last year I posted this pic in their forum (don't worry, the pic is harmless. No swatikas whatsoever): http://www.dr-zeller.com/00Images/Fun/gay_black_jewish_klansman.jpg

A few of them think its funny, some went "WTF?", and the rest are mad. The admin got so pissed, he banned me the next day. :D

Members in Stormfront are fun to mess them around. They're very illogical facist nazis. :D

Last year I posted this pic in their forum (don't worry, the pic is harmless. No swatikas whatsoever): http://www.dr-zeller.com/00Images/Fun/gay_black_jewish_klansman.jpg

Few of them think its funny, some went "WTF?", and the rest are mad. Admin got so pissed, he banned me the next day. :D
The admin is a freaking clansmen.

people have a right to hate messages but not a right to incitation of violence--the hate messages aspect of this law is what makes it too overbroad
Here is the problem. Take Fred Phelps' "hate propaganda" against gays. Someone takes exception to his messages and explodes a bomb outside his home (http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/bombing/19960406_man-sentenced.html). Hate begets hate. That is the "slippery slope".

I have seen people on these boards advocate turning Iraq into glass because of hatred.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful tool if used in a "civilized" manner. Too many times, mans hatred for man has lead to death and destruction.

Members in Stormfront are fun to mess them around. They're very illogical facist nazis. :D

Last year I posted this pic in their forum (don't worry, the pic is harmless. No swatikas whatsoever): http://www.dr-zeller.com/00Images/Fun/gay_black_jewish_klansman.jpg

A few of them think its funny, some went "WTF?", and the rest are mad. The admin got so pissed, he banned me the next day. :D

You, my friend, win at the internet. (http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/idhitit-29848.jpg)

I think that communism the most disgusting ideology in existance. It's responsible for far more deaths than fascism. Does this mean that pro-communist speech should be banned?
no

Let me be absolutely crystal clear about this:

I have no trouble whatsoever with preventing the willful dissemination of hatred. In our country, no-one has the "right" to disseminate hatred. Evidently that is not the case where you reside.

Vive la difference.
you cant outlaw thoughts and feelings

Here is the problem. Take Fred Phelps' "hate propaganda" against gays. Someone takes exception to his messages and explodes a bomb outside his home (http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/bombing/19960406_man-sentenced.html). Hate begets hate. That is the "slippery slope".

I have seen people on these boards advocate turning Iraq into glass because of hatred.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful tool if used in a "civilized" manner. Too many times, mans hatred for man has lead to death and destruction.
then the first person who explicitedly advocates violence or takes a violent ACT gets arrested--its as simple as that. The difference is someone who fantasizes about committing a crime and someone who actually commits one. Punish deeds not thoughts

:upyours: @NAZIS

I live in Canada and i disagree with the ruling. Though i vehemently disagree with what they say, they have the right to say it, as long as they aren't using it to incite violence. Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to those whose speech we like.

OMG!!!1111 IT'S A RUPERTITE!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

:D

LOL...wow, small world

:upyours: @NAZIS

How incredibly correct.

Serves those commies right. Nazis do nothing but help communism spread, by pretending to be anti-commie and making all anti-commies look racist. Hell, Nazis and commies are identical, they're both racist/socialist.

Hey, socialism isn't nesscesarily bad. Look at Britain! (YES, they are mildly Socialist.)

So, yeah, I wasn't joking. Now that the courts have decided that hateful speech can be subject to fines, I'd like to know when the idiot socialist students at Carleton will be fined for screaming about revolution, overthrowing "the establishment", and telling me that my family is evil and must be wiped out along with others because my parents earn enough to pay for my university education rather than qualify for OSAP (okay, I admit, it was only one person who said this to me, but still), CAN I FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AND HAVE THEM FINED? If not, how is threatening me and my family less serious than threatening someone else's??

You should be able to fine them for that.

You should be able to fine them for that.
No she shouldnt--No one has a right to not be offended

these namby pamby speech code laws is just a form of nanny state fascism

if you dont like what someones saying answer them back or suck it up but get your multi-titted fatass Govt out of my life

I live in Canada and i disagree with the ruling. Though i vehemently disagree with what they say, they have the right to say it, as long as they aren't using it to incite violence. Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to those whose speech we like.
My father served in England in WW2 and my 3 uncles all fought against the Nazis in Europe, in a war that killed approximately 60 Million people. Perhaps you will offer up your life to fight the next wave of Nazis?

My father served in England in WW2 and my 3 uncles all fought against the Nazis in Europe, in a war that killed approximately 60 Million people. Perhaps you will offer up your life to fight the next wave of Nazis?
you father and uncles fought to keep us free from communist speech codes too

you father and uncles fought to keep us free from communist speech codes too
They never mentioned fighting against Communism to me. They talked about Hitler and the Nazis.

McCarthyism was more of an American affront to the values of "freedom of speech, expression and association"?

I'm not friend of these wannabe-Fascists, but freedom of speech is too important to violate.

No, I won't lose, Quaon. The only way I'd lose is if our laws were to change. It's not really up for debate - it's law, man. And not an unpopular law, I'll mention.
Segregation was once a law in my country, and a popular one at that. I’m fairly certain it was up for debate.

Being white means freedom of speech is against you the whole time. That's the sad truth. You say the n-word, you get your butt hauled off to jail for hate and racism, but on the TV all the shows say the word and nothing happens, its in rap, its EVERYWHERE, and cause I am white I can't say a word?

Freedom of speech should be fair for all, if it means hate...so what? You don't HAVE to read the site. A disclaimer or something saying they are pro-something is all you need to know.

If a child sees porn is that illegal cause the kid did a google images search and found it? Does that mean the site should get sued? No!

No she shouldnt--No one has a right to not be offended

these namby pamby speech code laws is just a form of nanny state fascism

if you dont like what someones saying answer them back or suck it up but get your multi-titted fatass Govt out of my life
C'mon. Even I think that guy should be arrested. He said "Your family should die." That is not a hate crime. That is a threat to kill members of his family. It is not a joke. That is not disrespecting free speech.

I cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, because I could hurt others. Free speech stops when your speech phyically hurts a person, or threatens to kill them.

I live in Canada and i disagree with the ruling. Though i vehemently disagree with what they say, they have the right to say it, as long as they aren't using it to incite violence. Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to those whose speech we like.
I'm all for free speech and everything... but lines must be drawn somewhere. In Rwanda for example, the Hutu Radio station played a fundamental role in rabble rousing, promoting, provoking and catalysing the genocide.

Members in Stormfront are fun to mess them around. They're very illogical facist nazis. :D

Last year I posted this pic in their forum (don't worry, the pic is harmless. No swatikas whatsoever): http://www.dr-zeller.com/00Images/Fun/gay_black_jewish_klansman.jpg

A few of them think its funny, some went "WTF?", and the rest are mad. The admin got so pissed, he banned me the next day. :D

:D Exactly.

But the right to free speech is not absolute. Spreading hatred and discrimination is illegal. So those bastards got what they deserved.
Let's see....
Btw, racism not welcome in this country.
Part of me delights any time Nazi shitheads are given a hard time, simply becuase I so very much hate them.[...]
Down with the evil white supremacists! Down!!
This probably sounds stupid, but it's because we know nazis are WRONG. [...] Unlike liberals/conservatives/religious/atheists/pro-war/anti-war groups, nazis are a tiny minority and one which does not do any good for society in the slightest.
You get the idea, 12 pages of hatred and discrimination, about a hatred and discrimination group.
:rolleyes:
You should say "Spreading hatred and discrimination that I disagree with is illegal."

You should say "Spreading hatred and discrimination that I disagree with is illegal."
No, it's about spreading hatred in contravention of a sovereign nation's laws. Personal likes and dislikes don't enter into it - but there's no love lost for nazis, except, not so curiously, in cultures where their particular brand of hatred is coddled, encouraged, and even protected by the prevalence of wishy-washy, addle-pated thinking.

They never mentioned fighting against Communism to me. They talked about Hitler and the Nazis.

McCarthyism was more of an American affront to the values of "freedom of speech, expression and association"?
true but you dont get a slightest whiff of McCarthyism in these speech codes? Afterall wasnt McCarthyism based on prosecuting so-called "communists" exactly because of what they were saying?

Being white means freedom of speech is against you the whole time. That's the sad truth. You say the n-word, you get your butt hauled off to jail for hate and racism, but on the TV all the shows say the word and nothing happens, its in rap, its EVERYWHERE, and cause I am white I can't say a word?

Freedom of speech should be fair for all, if it means hate...so what? You don't HAVE to read the site. A disclaimer or something saying they are pro-something is all you need to know.

If a child sees porn is that illegal cause the kid did a google images search and found it? Does that mean the site should get sued? No!
this is exactly right

C'mon. Even I think that guy should be arrested. He said "Your family should die." That is not a hate crime. That is a threat to kill members of his family. It is not a joke. That is not disrespecting free speech.

I cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, because I could hurt others. Free speech stops when your speech phyically hurts a person, or threatens to kill them.
I didnt know he said that but thats not protected speech I agree

true but you dont get a slightest whiff of McCarthyism in these speech codes?
In all honesty, no I do not share your thoughts on that.

Afterall wasnt McCarthyism based on prosecuting so-called "communists" exactly because of what they were saying?
There is a huge difference between the "Communist Manifesto" and the "Nazi Doctrine".

Adherents of Nazism held that the German (German: A person of German nationality) nation and the purported "Aryan" race were superior to other races.

McCarthyism was an systemic attack against a political system that decried capitalism and dared to declare that all citizens would be equals. Where have we heard that before?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal......"

Hmmmm....

Edit: BTW, the scourge of McCarthyism lives on in the US. How often do you hear "liberals" or "socialists" being tarred as "Communists". There has been a lot of talk on these boards lately about "self censorsing". It would appear that in the US "self censorsing" is encouraged IF you believe in Communism.

No, it's about spreading hatred in contravention of a sovereign nation's laws. Personal likes and dislikes don't enter into it - but there's no love lost for nazis, except, not so curiously, in cultures where their particular brand of hatred is coddled, encouraged, and even protected by the prevalence of wishy-washy, addle-pated thinking.
Not really, vicious hate crimes continue on in nations that have hate crime legislation (FR, DE, UK), or is state sanctioned (EGY, SYR, IRN). Also you are dealing with major issues of selective enforcement and defacto legality of hate speech that is politically correct (5%'ers, etc.).

Changing a few words around:

BTW, the scourge of McCarthyism lives on in the US. How often do you hear "Conservatives" being tarred as "NAZI" or Facists. There has been a lot of talk on these boards lately about "self censorsing". It would appear that in the US "self censorsing" is encouraged IF you believe in Conservatism.

This is also true, rational discourse is just as dead as ever.

Changing a few words around:

BTW, the scourge of McCarthyism lives on in the US. How often do you hear "Conservatives" being tarred as "NAZI" or Facists. There has been a lot of talk on these boards lately about "self censorsing". It would appear that in the US "self censorsing" is encouraged IF you believe in Conservatism.

This is also true, rational discourse is just as dead as ever.
youve been hearing in the US liberals being tarred as "communists" for alot longer and alot more often then you ever hear conservatives being tarred as "fascists"--and lets not forget that McCarthyism (the original political correctness) was rightwing censorship

youve been hearing in the US liberals being tarred as "communists" for alot longer and alot more often then you ever hear conservatives being tarred as "fascists"--and lets not forget that McCarthyism (the original political correctness) was rightwing censorship
Does that make either camp right? Or is it just a bunch of party hacks with a martyr complex?

Does that make either camp right? Or is it just a bunch of party hacks with a martyr complex?
it makes liberals more right cause their way is closer to Gods--however I dont believe in BLINDLY following any one camp

it makes liberals more right cause their way is closer to Gods--however I dont believe in BLINDLY following any one camp
Using the same tactics that they cry foul over makes does not make them right, it makes them hypocrites. Both parties do it, and the party faithful ignore it when their party or pundits do it.

Well, I think this proves only one thing:

The Internet is Serious Business (http://www.pissnvinegar.com/wp-content/seriousbusiness.jpg)

Both my grandpas fought in WWII too, one was imprisoned by the Nazis, that hasn't changed my stance.

They fought against a regime that began by doing the same things some people want to do now to Neo-Nazis, imprisoning those who they disagreed with. My grandfathers did not fight so we could stoop the level of their tormenters, they fought so everyone could be free.

Both my grandpas fought in WWII too, one was imprisoned by the Nazis, that hasn't changed my stance.

They fought against a regime that began by doing the same things some people want to do now to Neo-Nazis, imprisoning those who they disagreed with. My grandfathers did not fight so we could stoop the level of their tormenters, they fought so everyone could be free.
Well they do say that history repeats itself. I guess man will never achieve what he could achieve unless he gets of the merry-go-round?

Again, this is a completely different scenario. The Germans tended to imprison those who were not of the Aryan nation. The remainder would be slaves.

Those that were charged, were charged for hate propaganda. It is not based on gender or race, or nationality.

Regulation of the internet is the stupidest idea ever

Regulation of the internet is the stupidest idea ever
I agree

Yup, god forbid we have people express opinions that are unpopular...

Regulation of the internet is the stupidest idea ever

Second...er...Thirded...

Ok.
DONT FINE THEM :rolleyes:
Let em speak.

Let em shout there hate messages.

And then let em hang :)

PPS

Mahok. 12499. Trafalgar. Beta.

Oh and did I mention... :upyours:@Nazis?