Freedom of Speech: Canada

[Ed]

It seems that things are running a bit amok up north.

In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."

Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.

In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein200312020910.asp

and this

Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups. The bill has a loophole for religious opposition to homosexuality, but few scholars think it will offer protection, given the strength of the gay lobby and the trend toward censorship in Canada. Law Prof. David Bernstein, in his new book You Can't Say That! wrote that "it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." Or traditional Jewish or Muslim opposition, too.



Since Canada has no First Amendment, anti-bias laws generally trump free speech and freedom of religion. A recent flurry of cases has mostly gone against free expression. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it. In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/040419/19john.htm

Sounds a bit like thought crime.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and I find this PCness very, very troubling.

 

[Darat]

Sounds like good news to me. It is about time that "religious beliefs" wasn't an acceptable defence when trying to remove or prevent others enjoying their civil rights.

 

[Ed]

Sounds like good news to me. It is about time that "religious beliefs" wasn't an acceptable defence when trying to remove or prevent others enjoying their civil rights.

Riiiiiight.....so stop them from talking. Very enlightened.

 

[Mephisto]

Sounds a bit like thought crime.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and I find this PCness very, very troubling.

It may be thought crime, but it's more palatable than the number of murders committed by homo-phobic heterosexuals. Is there any data regarding the number of hate crimes suffered by gays in Canada?

Here's an interesting link. I think it's better to err on the side of caution than to consider it as an affront on free speech.

http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html

 

[Manny]

Ed, this is an obvious and predictable outcome of the PATRIOT act and Bushitlerburton and his cronies' non-stop pursuit of political power.

 

[Ed]

It may be thought crime, but it's more palatable than the number of murders committed by homo-phobic heterosexuals. Is there any data regarding the number of hate crimes suffered by gays in Canada?

Here's an interesting link. I think it's better to err on the side of caution than to consider it as an affront on free speech.

http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html

Straw, I fear. And, free speech is worth more than the death of some arbitrarily large number of human lives.

 

[Ed]

Ed, this is an obvious and predictable outcome of the PATRIOT act and Bushitlerburton and his cronies' non-stop pursuit of political power.

This dwarfs the patriot act in terms of governmental power and potential for abuse.

 

[Darat]

Riiiiiight.....so stop them from talking. Very enlightened.

I didn't see that in the articles you quoted I just saw them being prevented from trying to prevent others, under the guise of "religious beliefs", from enjoying their civil rights.

Why should someone be allowed to advocate that homosexuals are evil and that they should be punished - which is the Christian belief (albeit and of course many different Christians interpret that quite particular "sin" quite differently). To me that is incitement to commit a crime however those types of arguments are generally "allowed" because they are "religious beliefs".

As I said I think it is good to see that religious beliefs are no longer being allowed as a defence for promoting and enticing hatred against others.

Now if you want to argue that there shouldn't be any restrictions on "free speech" that is of course quite a different point, however if there are "hate laws" or laws that prevent people enticing others to commit crimes then it is good that religion is not given (as it quite often is) an exemption from these laws.

 

[Darat]

Straw, I fear. And, free speech is worth more than the death of some arbitrarily large number of human lives.

Is this the limited "free speech" that many USAians seem to support or total and utterly unrestricted free-speech?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.

If it's your opinion that all gays should die in an orgy of AIDS, fine. Just don't come to Canada to spread that philosophy, you'll be in conflict with the law.

Charlie (shouting death to abortion doctors in a crowded theatre) Monoxide

 

[Ed]

Is this the limited "free speech" that many USAians seem to support or total and utterly unrestricted free-speech?

"Limited"? In what way do you mean, "limited"?

The problem here is that the same arguments that are so appealing from a pc standpoint could be used for any limitation on expression. Greater good, the children, rear admirals, same thing.

 

[Darat]

"Limited"? In what way do you mean, "limited"?

The problem here is that the same arguments that are so appealing from a pc standpoint could be used for any limitation on expression. Greater good, the children, rear admirals, same thing.

Oh the normal "can't shout fire in a theatre" type of limits.

 

[Ed]

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.

If it's your opinion that all gays should die in an orgy of AIDS, fine. Just don't come to Canada to spread that philosophy, you'll be in conflict with the law.

Charlie (shouting death to abortion doctors in a crowded theatre) Monoxide

That is not exactly what is going on (if these references are accurrate)

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.

And

In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.

You find these things acceptable?

n.b. these two quotes from above referenced quote.

 

[Mephisto]

Oh the normal "can't shout fire in a theatre" type of limits.

Yes, Charlie (way ahead of the game) Monoxide got it right above.

 

[Manny]

Canadians shared much of the freedom of speech that Americans like to crow about. The only exception, and this is a BIG exception, is that you cannot promote or incite hate against an identifiable group.

And they're comfortable with the government defining both the definition of an identifiable group and "hate?" Man, those Canadians are trusting people.

Can I advocate that all persons convicted of murder be killed, or is that hate against an identifiable group? What about advocating that all such persons be denied the vote? Can I advocate that persons wishing to immigrate from known state sponsors of terrorism be subject to more careful screening than persons from other countries? How about if I advocate that only asylum seekers from those countries be admitted; all other potential immigrants are barred? Can a preacher still preach that polygamy is a sin, or are polygamists a protected group too? Adulturers?

 

[Ed]

Oh the normal "can't shout fire in a theatre" type of limits.

You mean a clear and present danger type of limitation? You mean where there is a specific and credible action that might result in the immenent loss of life kind of limitation? You mean where the action might be immediately followed by such loss of life? Is that what you are referring to? The kind of thing where a reasonable person would agree that the eventuality would occur? The kind of thing where the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate that to a jury?

 

[Ed]

And they're comfortable with the government defining both the definition of an identifiable group and "hate?" Man, those Canadians are trusting people.

Can I advocate that all persons convicted of murder be killed, or is that hate against an identifiable group? What about advocating that all such persons be denied the vote? Can I advocate that persons wishing to immigrate from known state sponsors of terrorism be subject to more careful screening than persons from other countries? How about if I advocate that only asylum seekers from those countries be admitted; all other potential immigrants are barred? Can a preacher still preach that polygamy is a sin, or are polygamists a protected group too? Adulturers?

I suspect that it depends on the PC group de jure.

 

[Darat]

That is not exactly what is going on (if these references are accurrate)

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.

As I said you apparently can't use "but it's my religious belief" as an exemption to the law.

And

In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.

You find these things acceptable?

n.b. these two quotes from above referenced quote.

Given the law as it stands yes.

 

[mumblethrax]

"Limited"? In what way do you mean, "limited"?

The problem here is that the same arguments that are so appealing from a pc standpoint could be used for any limitation on expression. Greater good, the children, rear admirals, same thing.

Limited with regard to defamation, obscenity, incitement, intellectual property, campaign finance, etc.

That such a valid argument might share a similar structure with an invalid argument seems a curious objection.

 

[Cleon]

Nothing new here, really.

Ernst Zundel was tried and eventually deported for saying his piece. (Oddly enough, there wasn't a big outcry from the "anti-PC" brigade...)