 |
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
People might also like to take into account that there are crimes against Jewish people and property based on racial hatred being committed in Canada on a current basis. |
Given that there are well-funded Jewish anti-defamation organizations and that the portion of the Jewish community that cares about this stuff is fairly militant (for obvious historical reasons), it stands to reason that these crimes would become high profile.
But it is simply laughable to think that Jews are anything close to the most persecuted minority in Canada. When was the last time a Jewish kid got stopped by the cops just for being Jewish in public? When was the last time you heard anyone complain about the bad manners of Jews on the subway, as happens all the time with Chinese people? The vast majority of Canadian racism is directed at blacks and Asians, which makes Canada no different from New Zealand, Britain, Australia or the United States in that regard.
Leeway must be given the Jewish community because of the Nazi legacy, but we shouldn't pretend that people like this bloke are anything but fringe lunatics and that anti-semitism is really a problem in Canada.
Last edited by Agathon on 12-07-2005 at 15:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
To the folks who are advocating banning "hate speech," a few questions:
Since no one touched my earlier thought control question, let me ask this: Since Hateful Speech stems from Hateful Thought, if the technology were invented tomorrow that allowed monitoring of thought, would you be in support of making Hate Thought illegal too?
And if we make Hate Speech illegal, then how about "Dislike Speech"? I mean, that should be illegal too, right...and by the same logic...because where hate speech is essentially a radical opinion of a person, institution or group, if it is legislated out of existence, then the "new frontier" or the new outer boundary of speech against that group will be "dislike" which is then a valid target?
What's next?
Mild dislike?
A vague sense of unease?
Anything that you don't directly, absolutely agree with?
No...I don't believe in unfettered free speech. I think that any speech that directly correlates into clear and present danger for those around you ("Fire" in a theater, as NYE pointed out), should not be allowed. Slander and Liable too, are clear-cut cases where there is an immediate impact.
But to ban the speech of someone for spouting off a fringe opinion that you do not agree with because it might...MIGHT be interpreted by someone else as a reason for doing this or that...no. I don't buy it.
Might as well start banning colors, too, since blue MIGHT be a color that leads to depression, and thus, contributes to the violence in our society.
Or radio, since god only knows what slips of the tongue could occur, or be misconstrued, or hell...maybe the frequencies MIGHT scramble some boor twit's brains enough to MAYBE make him slightly more prone to violence.
Do you honestly believe that legislating against hateful speech will make it go away?
Of course it won't.
The difference is....where people are allowed to hold strong opinions and express them openly, they're mighty easy to keep track of, primarily because they DO express them openly...usually every chance they get.
Legislate that right away from them, and you drive them underground, making the already inadequate law enforcement infrastructure have to work that much harder at keeping track of these loons...which means, making them less effective.
Not a good plan, I wouldn't think. I'll take open discourse and the ability of everyone to speak his mind (even if what he's saying makes me cringe) over some thought control maven, no matter how well intentioned.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
To the folks who are advocating banning "hate speech," a few questions:
Since no one touched my earlier thought control question, let me ask this: Since Hateful Speech stems from Hateful Thought, if the technology were invented tomorrow that allowed monitoring of thought, would you be in support of making Hate Thought illegal too? |
No. No reason.
quote:
And if we make Hate Speech illegal, then how about "Dislike Speech"? I mean, that should be illegal too, right...and by the same logic...because where hate speech is essentially a radical opinion of a person, institution or group, if it is legislated out of existence, then the "new frontier" or the new outer boundary of speech against that group will be "dislike" which is then a valid target? |
No, it should not be illegal simply because we dislike it. That is the point Vel: All law is a balancing act- many people aren;t of the notion that all speech is valid and of equal merit. Instead, many people think certain speech is so injurious to the public good that the act of banning it is less dangerous than leaving it alone. Your slippery slop is rather dry and straight.
quote:
Do you honestly believe that legislating against hateful speech will make it go away?
Of course it won't. |
And criminalizing anything else has never made it go away. Your point?
quote:
The difference is....where people are allowed to hold strong opinions and express them openly, they're mighty easy to keep track of, primarily because they DO express them openly...usually every chance they get. |
So lets not make it a criminal act, lets keep "lists". Oh, that is so much better. Much more "open minded"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Perhaps we've looked not just at Europe, but also much closer to us and within ourselves, and we've decided that we do not wish to have a society where lynching would be tolerated, and anything that could lead to lynching, or burning synagoges (which we don't need you for an example of) should be stamped out like the weed it is.
|
Historically, violence against certain minority groups in United States enjoyed broad, popular support, for example, as you had mentioned, lynching of blacks in Jim Crow South.
But your implications would not be as strongly relevant with United States of today. I can safely bet that the majority of white Southerners were morally outraged with the lynching in Jasper County in Texas in . . . . damn it . . . . . was it 1999??
So when we're referring to contemporary United States and its society, the majority of Americans find violence against minority groups to be morally repugnant even as we protect hate speech under our first amendment.
Other than Imran, I haven't heard anyone's thoughts on flag burning. I really think it's a legitimate form of expression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
Vel: you're throwing up strawmans.
If you're going to argue against the law, then argue against the specific law.
The same goes for your hate thought "what if", you're making the same mistake as Dark Cloud.
We judge a law by what the law says, not on what some hypothetical law might say. We judge a law on the current situation, not on what some distant future technology might occur.
If we could read people's minds, would we create laws against people who are planning a murder. Who knows.? Does this hypothetical situation have any relevance to existing murder laws. No.
There is a difference between disliking a person and hating a person. That distinction is set, in Canada, by the law against hate propaganda.
Canada defines hate propaganda as: "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide."
The Canadian legal definition of genocide "means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction."
Disliking someone or a group is not enough. You can even hate a specific group, and voice your opinion, unless your comments "are likely to cause a breach of the peace" which means cause violence.
That means you can say "I hate Group X", but it is illegal to say "Group X doesn't deserve to live."
Even if you say something that leads to violence, you are not guilty if:
1) your statements were true;
2) your statement was an opinion on a religious subject;
3) If you had a reasonable belief that what you said was true AND it was a relevant "subject of public interest";
4) IF you were pointing out something that cause hatred against a group.
See: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html
This is clearly a reasonable law.
Last edited by Tingkai on 12-07-2005 at 22:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
And for the record (Gepap), I never said ANYTHING about all speech being of "equal merit." Simply saying that it has the right to EXIST. If the right exists to think it (you yourself saw no need to ban thought), and does not cause any immediate harm by virtue of its existence, then where's the damage?
Of course, if you want to talk about potential damage, then we need to be MUCH more stringent. After all, the spoken word is but one form of communication. Hate body language COULD be equally injurious....that should likewise be banned (an evil cut of the eyes, refusing to make eye contact with members of a group you despise...oh lord...think of the damming psychological impacts!
And then of course, if we hold out the notion that an inflamatory hate-centered word or two COULD lead a weak-minded individual to take it as gospel and do something bad to a member of the target group after hearing it, we would need to go back and look at every conversation or bit of reading material that the person who committed the deed had ever been party to or been exposed to, on the assumption that something he read or heard once upon a time might have influenced his decision to do the deed (whatever it may have been)--in this way, we could hold the speakers/writers accountable for their inflamatory words, even years or decades after the fact.
It is a circus of the absurd, and again, a crude attempt at thought control.
-=Vel=-
"Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Scholar studying Voltaire
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."
-John Morley
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."
-Charles Bradlaugh
Last edited by Velociryx on 13-07-2005 at 05:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
Perhaps the founders were acting hypocritical in their statements when they founded America? Who's to say that they were free from hypocrisy.
That being said, a lot of the issue was "No Taxation without Representation" and the right of states to 'self-govern' and act without outside interference. |
Wait, since when did "the fouders" create democracy? Last time I checked, Democracy came into existance about 2000 years before any non-Norse Europeans even landed in the Americas.
quote:
A logical extension of that idea translates to protecting miniority rights- because if the minority isn't represented... then they're having laws/taxes/etc. imposed on them without representation... and are not being allowed to 'self-govern' and act without unwanted and oppressive interference by a governmetn that doesn't understand them. |
Protecting minority rights is the Liberal notion, which is separate and on top of democracy. Democracy itself is solely the rule of the mayority. If a minority gets crushed, so be it-heck, most people prefer that to the mayority crushed by a minority.
quote:
Who's to say whether something is unthinkable or not? I frankly don't want the government to be able to tell me what to think or not.
So you're saying that people can't say what they think? |
Since when does the law criminalize thought??
It criminalizes hate speech. You can eb a racist, you can even say those people are inferior and deserve less rights- its only when you go around saying they all deserve to die that you commit a crime.
Is that distinction too difficult for you?
quote:
He was merely insulting a group of people- he was generalizing, which may not be politically correct, and definately shows a lack of thinking-power, but why not let him speak and allow himself to become discredited? |
Insulting is saying the Jews are evil. Saying its a good thing to kill Jews gfoes beyond "insulting".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Hmmm....that's a good analysis Agathon, but let's take a look at what the guy said for a moment, and see if it qualifies as a catostrophe in the making:
From the original article:
when he told a reporter in Saskatoon on Dec. 13, 2002, that the Jews were a “disease” and Hitler was trying to “clean up the world” when he “fried six million of those guys” during the Second World War.
Now, as far as a catostrophie in the making, I don't see much here to get excited about. We've got some historical fact (lots of Jews DID die ("fried" or otherwise killed) during WWII--some six million or more, in fact), and we've got one man's opinion that this was a good thing, and that the Jewish people are "a disease." It's an opinion on a historical fact. Poorly considered opinion that nicely shows off the speaker's stupidity, but I do not believe that stupidity is, in and of itself, a crime...and a good thing, too! Imagine how few people there would be left if this were so! Are we gonna have to start analyzing everyone's opinions on all historical topics now, in order to make sure that nobody is holding "improper" ones?
I've heard lawyers called worse on any given day of the week.
Further, the Jewish people of the world have taken FAR worse, from FAR more powerful men than this buffoon.
Sounds to me rather like someone who's venting his frustration on any target he can find.
In other words, this is hardly a catostrophe in the making.
Nor is there anywhere in the bits of speech we have access to here, any general call to action against the group in question to carry out a "cleansing of the disease," nor any indication, in fact, other than these statements were this man's own opinions on the matter.
Was it a nice thing to say? Certainly not.
Do I agree with the content of what was said? Nope.
Does that mean I advocate banning his right to express that particular view? Why should I?
-=Vel=-
Last edited by Velociryx on 13-07-2005 at 15:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
They always are, Ting....they always are.
I'm not trying to change your mind. But you were the one harping on DC about questioning his own beliefs, and I find it ironic in the extreme that no one who has come out in support of this law can see the built-in hypocracy. (o |
So your theory is that those who advocate freedom, yet believe that murderers should be denied their freedom, are guilty of hypocrisy?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2005 12:50
|