At issue here was not true hate speech -- racial slurs, etc. -- which are indefensible. Rather, the aim of such laws is to crush political dissent. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is trying to strong-arm Western nations into imposing hate speech laws that will restrict speech about Islam they don't like, including explorations of the motives and goals of jihad terrorists.
This was in Canada the law that snared Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn for anti-jihad statements. But now this ruling is a major setback for that effort, however, although all such a law would need in the U.S. would be an activist President without much attachment to free speech and five compliant Supreme Court justices. But that could never happen, now, could it?
"Hate speech laws violate constitution: Rights tribunal," from Canwest News Service, September 2 (thanks to all who sent this in):
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada's much-criticized human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.The decision released Wednesday morning by tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.
It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman....
This is truly encouraging. And here is some more good news (at least for now)from Switzerland:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_sp_bk_ne/bko_switzerland_headscarf_correction_1
The problem with "hate speech" laws, just as "hate crime" laws is that it divides groups into 2 categories: protected and unprotected.
Truth should never be considered hate speech.
1. Mohammed is considered a prophet and the ideal man. (Koran 47:4)
2. Mohammed (51) married his favorite child bride Aisha when she was 6. (Bukhari 7.62.88)
3. Mohammed (54) deflowered the nubile Aisha when she was 9. (Bukhari 7.62.88)
4. Mohammed ordered all dogs to be killed because of a puppy. (Bukhari 4:448)
5. Mohammed helped behead (Koran 47:4) 600 - 900 captives in one day.
/click on Jew_Lover below to find out remaining 15 about Mohammed that CAIR and others will also try to suppress.
Woo-HOO! This is me doing a happy dance! Commissar Lynch, eat crow! Now we’re free to talk the truth about islam without the possibility of inciting religious hatred.
And in case you’d like to know what was just defeated, this is it:
“13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.”
This pseudo law in parallel with the existing defamation law, and allowed every insulted jihadist to use, at taxpayers’ expense, the government machine to go after anyone who spoke the truth about islam. But now it’s irrelevant, it is no more, it is bereft of life. And all those victims who have met the brown-shirt end of the HRC stick in ridiculous rulings can at least have some satisfaction.
Next step, fire all the HRC wanks who zealously applied their Kafkaesque rulings based on such relativistic legislative drivel, or at least some apologies.
Racial slurs and such might be morally indefensible, but they shouldn't be banned. You may not agree with a person, but you should defend their right to say whatever they want - short of yelling ''FIRE!'' in a crowded theater and the like.
Hate speech laws are a slippery slope. Simply because the definition of 'hateful' speech is different for everyone. Plenty of people might find Robert Spencer's work on Jihad, though accurate and well documented, hateful. Same with crime/immigration/any other hot button issue.
At first they came for the racists, and I said nothing, because I was not a racist...
You get the point, I'm sure.
"Hate Speech" = Liberal Censorship
Good news!
I though Mark Steyn's crime wasn't so much making anti-jihad statements, but quoting Muslims making pro-jihad statements.
Such a scenario is a lot closer then most people realise. Liberal-left groups like the ADL and SPLC have long desired "hate speech" legislation, and of course CAIR would equally love to use such legislation to silence its critics.
Awesome! Now that imam who destroyed Ezra Levant over the reprinting of cartoons should be forced to pay Mr Levant back every penny he had to spend defending himself.
Virgil, you are correct. All Steyn did was write about vile and self-insulting statements made by Muslims and about the demographics of Muslims in Europe, all facts. His error was, he did not praise Islam as the religion of peace nor did he condemn Christians & Jews. Otherwise, he would have been excused.
We've been working on this for a long time. I wrote to the PM today to ask once again if he would abolish section 13,particularly in light of this ruling. I'm waiting to see what he'll do. Last year his convention voted to work on abolishing it. The charter takes precedence even if we have a fake judiciary that likes to make work for itself. Time for those commissars to bite the dust. Fire them all!
Great news.
Robert Spencer writes:
It would require more than a president and five justices. The legislatures and the public would have to go along. If justices interpreted such censorship as constitutional -- and I think the percentage of the U.S. population that is Muslim would have to increase very substantially for such a radical abrogation of the First Amendment to be realistically possible -- still, the legislatures, backed by the public, could amend the Constitution. Isn't the whole point of the tripartite system that you'll need three branches, not just two branches of government, to create a tyranny? Impossible to do, until a majority of the public, AND of the justices, AND the president, all agree on the matter. I just don't find it believable in the near future, barring some immense disaster, in which case all bets are off. But the First Amendment is surely more sacred here in the U.S. than Robert sometimes seems to believe. His view is perhaps too colored by his witnessing of how often the mainstream media seeks to exclude him and the other analysts who critique Islam. But his message still gets out there, and he is clearly recognized by many authorities as a high-level authority himself. His bestsellers still appear nationwide in the largest book chains. He still gets interviewed periodically on the main networks. He still gets invited to speak alongside national political and military figures.
This is great news from a sister democracy. THe question must be put to all Muslims who seek to live in Western liberal democracies: Is it sharia or democracy for you? Because you can't have both.
It's simple really.
Hurray! It's a good day to be a Canadian!
outstanding!
A good ruling for freedom and its protection.
Truth and courageous people trump evil.
If you are not allow to hate, you are not free.
All these laws restricting speech are tyranny.
I hate people who try to impose such lunacy.
"Isn't the whole point of the tripartite system that you'll need three branches, not just two branches of government, to create a tyranny?"
Posted by: traeh
Actually, you only need one branch -- Congress -- if you have a big enough and ruthless enough majority. All Congress needs to, say, pass a law overturning the First Amendment right to free speech is a veto-proof majority, and the stipulation that the law is not subject to court review. Then, if the President uses the "pocket veto" or refuses to enforce the law, they impeach him. All very constitutional. Admittedly difficult to achieve in practice, due to the necessity of a super-majority in each House, and to long-standing tradition.
"Hurray! It's a good day to be a Canadian!"
Yes, it's a good day to be free.
I had prayed for this day! Now, let's get that joker Richard Lucy Warman. He must be exposed as the slime ball he is.
Robert Spencer writes:
"At issue here was not true hate speech -- racial slurs, etc. -- which are indefensible."
Does that mean that Spencer also thinks true hate speech (racial slurs, etc.) should be illegal?
Never take your freedoms and your rights for granted.
You'd be amazed at how many Canadians I've spoken to who had no idea that any of this was going on and did not comprehend the importance of the fight.
Kudos to Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and all Canadians who have led this fight.
NAKAL,
Bite your tongue. The polls show Canadians don’t want an election, and neither do a majority of the MPs in the opposition parties who need to be in at least another year or else they will run the chance of losing their 6 year pension run if they don’t get re-elected.
Harpers only sin has been to order his party not to support Bill C-201, oh, and not fire Jennifer Lynch.
Iggy’s a joke who will quit politics if he loses the next election, and Wacko-Jacko-Layton’s party only has a tenuous power base in the urban areas, from which they have to steal votes from the Liberals. The only way the Conservatives can be defeated again is if either the two left wing parties get seats from the Bloc.
If the opposition forces an election, it’ll piss Canadians off for having to go to the polls, AGAIN, and that will only translate into votes for the Conservatives.
Hesperado,
I’m not sure exactly what RS meant, but I can give you my take on it which has been part of our argument against Section 13. True hate speech has no defence, and any real slander resulting from such already has laws to sue someone over it. Other hate speech, racial slurs, persecution of sexual orientation and such should not be prosecuted by the quasi-judicial fake courts/tribunals of the HRCs, of which section 13 empowered. The fact that Canadian society, before the recent PC MC cancer which gave relativistic cultural equality to cults like islam, can make its own decisions when a member of their community acts out – they become marginalized. If an Imam or a Preacher print Homosexuals should be put to death, then the society which sees this as intolerance will either ignore the ranting of the lone madman or reply in defiance if they see he’s getting a crowd to agree.
True hate speech, as RS said, is indefensible, in that there’s no excuse for such behavior. If the defence is that it is part of “one’s religion,” it still has no defense. So, I don’t believe hate speech should be illegal. It should be allowed to be out there so society can address it. It should not be repressed and hidden to fester into a boil waiting to burst infecting others, because nobody is talking about it.
Kaffir_Kanuck,
"True hate speech has no defence, and any real slander resulting from such already has laws to sue someone over it."
But again, something that is deemed to "have no defence" may or may not be illegal, and if it's not illegal, the question of whether it should be illegal remains as a separate issue.
Slander resulting from hate speech is also a separate issue (just as physical violence resulting from the hate speech is a seperate issue).
"True hate speech, as RS said, is indefensible, in that there’s no excuse for such behavior."
The problem is, Who defines "true hate speech"? So simply saying it's "indefensible" is circular and tendentious, without actually specifying which particular hate speech is being referred to, and why it qualifies. The general proscription of it only tends to enable the fascist, and quasi-fascist, suppression of free speech, because once it is agreed that "hate speech" in general is "indefensible", we tend to open the door to any particular group's definition of what constitutes the forbidden speech to be suppressed, insofar as that group is able to get sufficient power to do so.
Hesp,
As for who defines “true hate speech” should fall under the conventions of polite society with a mix of skin thickness. Imagine a Jew who lives next to a bigot, and every morning he greats you with, “Hey, f**king k*ke.” Soon, this neighbours actions become known to the others and collectively he gets shunned. Now, if the same neighbor starts walking back in forth of the Jew’s home with a placard saying the same, is it true hate speech, incitement of hatred? More likely, the cops will show up and get him to stop for breaching the peace. The point is, a society where citizens aren’t afraid to say hello to their neighbours can police themselves when it comes to “Human Rights.” This ideal only starts to fail in large urban areas, where strangely enough, people believe they have a right to be rude.
So, what I’m saying is, in Canada, our society and existing laws have the mechanisms in place to identify and deal with Hate Speech without it being specifically identified in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedom. Section 13 was badly written and conceived. It lumped in Holocaust deniers with people who make fun of people’s hair colour as being responsible for hate. Section 13 tried to change how people think, and you can’t do that. People’s minds cannot be legislated by law. All ideas, bad or wrong need to be allowed to be expressed, and I believe Canadian society is morally strong enough to identify the nutters and ignore, marginalize or bring the proper social response to their attempts to destabilize the community.