Those who think criminalizing 'hate speech' is a good idea ought to read this:

[friendly_iconoclast]

A tip of the hat to DUer KamaAina for posting this originally:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026656591

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-cites-hate-crime-laws-when-asked-about-its-zero-tolerance-for-israel-boycotters-1.3067497

Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its 'zero tolerance' for Israel boycotters

The Harper government is signalling its intention to use hate crime laws against Canadian advocacy groups that encourage boycotts of Israel.

Such a move could target a range of civil society organizations, from the United Church of Canada and the Canadian Quakers to campus protest groups and labour unions.

If carried out, it would be a remarkably aggressive tactic, and another measure of the Conservative government's lockstep support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While the federal government certainly has the authority to assign priorities, such as pursuing certain types of hate speech, to the RCMP, any resulting prosecution would require an assent from a provincial attorney general.

Frankly, I didn't expect to be proven correct just a week after these were written:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=166635

They think the Feds should be the arbiters of what is and isn't "hate speech" and where that fuzzy line between free speech and hate speech cross.

They forget that the next person making that decision might be the moral and mental "godchild" of Dick Cheney and his buddies.

I wonder how the responses would be if Bush/Cheney were still in the picture?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=166646

The 'shield' they want would become a sword in right-wing hands...

...and anyone who thinks they'd hesitate for a moment to use it has forgotten their history

It seems PM Harper has unsheathed the blade...

[ann---]

1. That's Canada

They love Nuttyahoo. Boycotting is not hate speech.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. "Boycotting is not hate speech." I agree.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

2. This should be a no brainer. Defend ALL speech ., does NOT mean you cant ALSO

vehemently denounce the message or messenger.

But NO Limits on speech, EVER (other than the fire/theater example)

[snappyturtle]

4. Agreed. nt

[malthaussen]

5. The problem with the fire/theatre example is that it can still get fuzzy.

Example: suppose I give a speech suggesting we take up arms and wipe out every member of (insert group here). Protected, or not? What if I make the same suggestion about a public figure?

I don't actually disagree, here, but such a rule is open to a lot of litigation, and would be sure to be exploited.

-- Mal

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

6. Your example is not protected, it is advocating breaking the law.

[malthaussen]

8. Okay, but on that basis "shut up or I'll kill you" is actionable...

... whereas it is usually just regarded in bad taste, unless you turn up dead, in which case it turns into evidence of motive.

-- Mal

[Nye Bevan]

10. Speech has to credibly incite imminent lawless action for it not to be protected.

"The US should send drones and wipe out every Muslim in the world" = protected speech.

"We should kill all Muslims. Hey, there's a Muslim over there! Let's go kill him!" = not protected speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Even a pile of whale feces in human form like Pamela Geller has rights

Though she probably thinks this is just wonderful, because it's aimed at *her* enemies.

As I've said elsewhere, I refuse to conform to Ronald Reagan's definition of a liberal

[Fred Sanders]

9. The rumor, which is what this is, is inspired by passage, and now speculated application, of an anti-terror bill last week, not the

hate speech laws in existence for 30 years.

You have it all wrong, the rumor, the motive and the mechanism contemplated.

http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2015/05/06/conservatives-pass-controversial-anti-terror-bill-bill-c-51.html?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F


"It also increases the exchange of federal security information, broadens no-fly list powers and creates a new criminal offence of encouraging someone to carry out a terrorist attack."

It is that last provision, a new criminal offence, that is being rumored to be maybe used to charge organizations......though, good luck with that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Sorry, I'm not quite ready to trust the good intentions of the Harper government

*Especially* given the non-answer answers given by Josee Sirois found in the first link below:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/read-email-exchange-between-cbc-s-neil-macdonald-and-public-safety-canada-1.3069884

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/prmny-mponu/canada_un-canada_onu/statements-declarations/other-autres/2015-01-22_AS_Blaney.aspx?lang=en