...
Does this country have any basic values?
Yes.
If so, what are they?
I believe that Section 2 of the Charter sums it up nicely.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
At what cost should they be protected?
By any means, or cost necessary. Many people have paid for these rights in blood. There may come a time, that we're forced to do so again.
Can speech cause harm?
Yes.
Is such harm inextricably dependent on the bad act that it purportedly prompts or is it independent?
Not necessarily. I believe restricting, in law, the right of someone to instruct the commission of a crime, is a reasonable limitation. This also extends, reasonably, to direct threats against the safety of another person.
Are the laws prohibiting certain violent acts an adequate buffer between the verbalization of hate and the commission of violence against the hated?
They are as adequate as I believe they can be. I do not deny that there is a potential for discriminatory speech to contribute to a causal chain, that could culminate in a violent act.
However, if you wanted to apply the reasoning, that the potential of a freedom to contribute to causalities that culminate in violance, is alone, enough to justify the curtailment therein, then you can equally say that:
1. Restricting freedom of movement is justified, as agents may exploit unregulated movement to execute violent action.
2. Restricting privacy is justified, as the cover of privacy can be used to avoid state detection of plans to commit violence (Oh, wait... that's happening)
3. Restricting the construction, procurement or dissemination of dual-purpose instruments that can be used to facilitate a violent act. (Oh, wait... that's happening too)
etc.
If not, why not?
I answered yes to the last question.
There are common law limits to free speech, generally predicated on the honesty or intent of such speech. Why are some limits on free speech acceptable, but not others?
I believe that speech that is used to cause damage to a persons reputation, to the extent that it harms their livelihood is a reasonable limit, provided that the speech in question is untruthful.
This is acceptable, because it's quantifiable damage. The fact that regulation of speech at all is generally undesirable is mitigated by the fact that truth is a defense in these cases.
Hurt feelings and the potential for speech to lead to violent action is not quantifiable in any objective way. This is what makes these limits unacceptable.
Is it simply a question of degree?
No, it's a matter of quantifiable harm, or the lack thereof. See above.
Or is it a question of who is setting the limits?
Yes, that too. I don't believe that limitations on freedom of expression should be in the realm of the political. I hold these rights unalienable, and therefore do not recognize the authority of the government, or by extension, the body politic to abridge them.
Are all external coercive limits to free speech inherently dangerous because there is no way to guarantee the morality and disinterest of those applying the law?
This is one of the fundamental principals upon which the liberal interpretation of these rights rests, yes.
Who had the more reasonable approach to suppression of views deemed harmful to society - McCarthy, Woodrow Wilson or Goebbels?
I'm not a fan of any of those choices, quite frankly.
Do I have to sit between you kids?!
Apparently.
...
In closing, I would like to once again respond to the vapid filth promulgated by some Liberal's who suggest that my position, or in the case of those with whom I agree, our position that limitations on speech that fit into the domain of protecting hurt feelings or are intentioned to curb the potential for violence is tantamount to supporting Nazis.
I don't support freedom of speech to protect hatred, or to harbor racists behind an ideological shield.
I support freedom of speech, because I am better than Nazis. I support free speech, because I am better than the hateful people who would not support it, given the chance.
To that end, I'm against Canadian security certificates, and unwarranted government surveillance. I am against the Patriot Act in the United Sates. Why? Because our society is better than that.
What's the point of fighting your enemy, if you have to become your enemy in doing so?
11 comments:
Mike, you make compelling arguments. The fact remains though that you are not dealing with the consequences of what will happen if Nazis are allowed to spread their ideas without any limits...
You are avoiding that point and that really hurts your argument.
You are avoiding that point and that really hurts your argument.
I would assert that you have an extremely poor grasp of logic.
You're implying a conclusion: allowing Nazis the ability to speak freely will have dire consequences.
You are then fitting your premises and arguments to fit that conclusion.
If I say to you: "If we don't divert billions of dollars into building a giant space canon to defend against an alien invasion force.", and then you say to me "there's no alien invasion force", and I reply "without the space canon, what will we do?".
The argument is completely illogical. It assumes the premise that there is an imminent danger for from aliens, and makes no attempt to qualify such. The arguer bases all responses based on the false premise.
The Nazi question, in this case, is a false premise. You need to prove that allowing them to speak, will lead to dire consequences.
"If we don't divert billions of dollars into building a giant space canon to defend against an alien invasion force... without the space canon, what will we do?".
It's too late. The shape-shifting reptilian aliens are already here, but at least we're safe until the Shabbat ends tomorrow evening.
Mike-
A good argument however-
Aside from Freedom of Speech other things we value here are equality and multiculturalism. HRC's exist, in part, to balance those rights and freedoms when they come into conflict in individual cases (The SCC has said often that no one right or freedom trumps another and they must be balanced case by case)
HRC's provide a cost effective means to do so - both for the complainant and respondent.
If you do away with HRC's the courts will most certainly recognize group libel ( The US Supreme Court already has and the Ontario Court of Appeal has left it open for a better case to come along)
Now if group libel becomes actionable in courts certainly we'll see less of the type of meritless cases like those against the WS and Macleans due to cost implications. On the other hand, we're bound to see more " libel chill" because a defendant would not only be subject to any order that an HRC can make today but also face damage awards and costs that would be tens of thousands more than any HRC could dish out.
I can speak much more freely about X knowing the worst that could happen would be an HRC imposing a few thousand dollar fine and an injunction against talking about X. I would think long and hard about saying X if I might face an injunction - plus 50 K in damages and another 50 K for costs.
Be careful what you wish for.
"HRC's provide a cost effective means to do so - both for the complainant and respondent."
Surely you jest. The complainant has no cost and the respondent pays for the whole shebang. From what I have read the tribunals find in favour of the complainant in free speech cases 100 percent of the time.
Thanks but no thanks. I will take my chances in a real court and would vote to completely do away with these kangaroo versions.
“If you do away with HRC's the courts will most certainly recognize group libel ( The US Supreme Court already has… )”
A specious argument. The US Supreme Court “recognized” “group libel” 60 years ago (with the Beauharnais decision, libel against blacks as a group), then the courts backed away from it so fast it faded from American history.
Since you say that “the Ontario Court of Appeal has left it [group libel] open…”, I guess your point is that the HRC’s are better than the inconvenience and “offense” peaceful marches and speeches cause?
I may vote for a black Presidential candidate, a black has been the top US general and the top US statesmen, and a black woman is now the top US statesman, and they didn’t have the protection of an HRC or a “group libel” legal theory.
The fact remains though that you are not dealing with the consequences of what will happen if Nazis are allowed to spread their ideas without any limits
we identify them, plaster their face all over streets and the net and treat them like the pieces of shit they are...
it's like megan's law....except in reverse....
Generally I agree with you - for example I don't think David Ahenawak (sp?) should be charged under hate laws. He should be held up to ridicule, shame and general contempt. HOWEVER, in our politically correct world, which extends to the media, that does not happen - no media wants to take on the Indian lobby, just as the media softsells calling Islamic terrorists what they are - Islamic terrorists (last time I looked there were very few Luthern terrorists so the religious connection is important!) I'm surprised at the series the National Post is running on re-thinking reserves - because it is pretty hard hitting on those in charge of the AFN. But it is still early - NP may be slammed with a section 13 charge soon.
The other factor at play here is the lack of teaching history in our schools - my friend's daughter, not only a high school graduate but in her last year at university, saw Saving Private Ryan not long ago and asked me what 'that war was all about?' I don't have much faith that she would have understood the context behind Ahenakaw's remarks and how hateful they were. So sad.
"HOWEVER, in our politically correct world, which extends to the media, that does not happen - no media wants to take on the Indian lobby..."
Not so. The Globe and Mail, the National Post, the CBC, and in fact Windspeaker (the national Aboriginal newspaper) were all absolutely critical of Ahenekew, as was the Grand Chief of AFN.
I do not believe " being offended" is harm. If someone doesn't like the tie I am wearing and says so, I may be offended, but ...harmed??
You know that Subsection 13(1) is bad legislation when even posters on Rabble.ca/babble come out against it.
http://tinyurl.com/378wwp
Post a Comment