Posted on 06/23/2008 12:35:10 AM PDT by forkinsocket
According to some journalists, freedom of speech is in peril in Canada. And human rights commissions are "kangaroo courts."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Only genuine misunderstanding or deliberate distortion can explain the media's mostly one-sided discourse on the case of Maclean's before the federal, as well as the Ontario and British Columbia, human rights commissions. The group that filed the complaint against the magazine argued that a series of articles, especially a 4,800-word piece portraying Muslims as a menace to the West, may have constituted hate speech.
Canada has followed a different path on free speech than the United States, where there are no anti-hate laws because the U.S. Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no laws ... abridging freedom of speech or of the press."
The Canadian Charter of Rights, too, guarantees "freedom of the press," but it places "reasonable limits" on it. That's why the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the anti-hate provisions of both the Criminal Code and human rights statutes.
What constitutes hate is up to the commissions and, ultimately, the courts to decide. But this being Canada, different jurisdictions tackle the issue differently.
The federal commission and the one in Ontario do not hear complaints against the media. But others, as in Alberta and British Columbia, do.
That's not the only anomaly.
Ontario deals with hateful signs and pamphlets. You may be dragged before the commission for holding up a sign, "Kill all Muslims," but you won't be if you were to write that in a newspaper or a magazine (even though you would have reached a wider audience).
Another anomaly: The federal commission was mandated to deal with hate transmitted by phone. In 2001, it added the Internet. It did not foresee media websites.
Thus a conundrum for the commission: It cannot sit in judgment on what the media say in print but it can when they put the same material on their websites.
This being Canada, the commission has appointed a commission. Professor Richard Moon of the University of Windsor was asked Tuesday to come up with a solution.
Yet, despite the jurisdictional inconsistencies, grey legal zones and the difficulty of balancing free speech and hate, the system has worked reasonably well.
Complaints are weighed and either rejected or referred to a tribunal, which holds hearings, and whose findings can be appealed to the courts.
The federal commission gets up to 15,000 inquiries a year, says Jennifer Lynch, chair. "We take up only about 700 and refer only about 70 or 80 to the tribunal.
"Hate cases are only 2 per cent of that stream. The tribunal has dealt with only about 15 hate cases, so far. And not a single one of them has been overturned by the courts." So, why the hue and cry?
Karim Karim, chair of Carleton University's School of Journalism, says journalists are "fixated on their own right and privileges.
"What about the rights of people to be free of discriminatory and hateful speech? Journalists talk about one principle, and not the other."
Barbara Hall, chair of the Ontario commission, makes the same point: "Freedom of expression is not the only right in the Charter. There is a full set of rights accorded to all members of our society, including freedom from discrimination ... If you want to stand up and defend the right to freedom of expression, then you must be willing to do the same for the right to freedom from discrimination."
Anti-hate laws could be made consistent across Canada by exempting the media, as in Ontario, or axing the anti-hate provisions altogether. We may even adopt the American system and remove the anti-hate section from the Criminal Code as well.
Many disagree, including the Canadian Jewish Congress. Its head, Bernie Farber, says the anti-hate laws have helped make Canada "the warm, tolerant and accepting nation that it has become."
Beyond the law, there's self-restraint. Most media exercise it, every day. We do not publish racist cartoons and anti-Semitic rants. That Maclean's published a series of virulent articles about Muslims itself speaks volumes.
That is the part Canada doesn’t get about free speech. It’s got to be free. As long as it doesn’t incite a riot, it’s ok.
The only people who would oppose freedom of speech are the one's who are afraid of the truth--including the possibility that what they love saying is not the truth.
It is a waste of government resources to ban something as subjective and elastic as “incitement to hatred”. Only direct incitement to violence should be banned.
“This armed citizen doesn’t want to be a subject.”
Fearless prediction:
National restrictions on “hate speech” will be a priority of the Obama administration and ‘rat Congress.
After that: hate “thought”....
- John
“Want to talk racial hatred...you will be exposed and the community will reveal you for what you are...a pig who deserves to be an outcast. However, using the force of the state to stop it violates their constitutional command to protect it.”
What about the millions upon millions of older Americans who spate “hate speech” against “the Japs” and “the Krauts” in World War II? Should THEY be considered “outcasts” for feeling and speaking as they did?
I contend that “hate” and “hate speech” is actually NECESSARY if we - of the West - are serious about confronting and defeating the dark enemy that seeks to destroy us. They certainly have no qualms about “hating” us and our way of life.
If you can’t use “hateful” and sometimes “inflammatory” speech in order to mobilize the emotions of a nation to defeat a sworn enemy, what ARE you going to use? Kumbaya?
- John (who realizes that this post may be considered “inflammatory” and thus removed by the moderators)
Any opposition to or criticism of Islam is going to be subject to “hate speech” laws.
They’re using our goodwill against us to eventually enslave us.
If I hate you then I hate you. If you prevent me from hating you with my words I will hate you with my actions.
Making an enemies list and having the national government peanalize those on it. . No chance for a abouse there, I’m sure.
And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
But it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only.
Bob Dylan
Copyright © 1965; renewed 1993
Coming soon to America.
Do you suppose anyone has recorded a recent speech in, say, a Toronto mosque - to see if the feelings of anyone on the outside might have been potentially hurt?
Me neither.
Muslims don't know about homosexual hate crime laws?
This article is hate speech.
They don't talk about that though. They are sensitive to their listeners' feelings eh!
Don't invent what I did not say because of differing times and places and events and such.
Don't invent what I did not say because of differing times and places and events and such.
“a reasonable limit on free speach”
Err. If its limited it aint free.
LOL!
You’re funny. But probably correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.