The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws

[cali]

Glenn Greenwald


(updated below - Update II)

I've written many times before about the evils of "hate speech" laws that are prevalent in Canada and Europe -- people being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official tribunals for expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and criminalized. I won't rehash those arguments here, but I do want to note a particularly creepy illustration of how these laws manifest. The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent Coulter a letter warning her that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints:

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . . .

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .

Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

Francois Houle,

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa


<snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/canada/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/22/canada

[abelenkpe]

1. O Canada

"For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

Good grief I wish that were true here.

[Posteritatis]

4. Since getting that letter, Coulter declared herself an ethnic minority and is filing suit.

This despite telling a Muslim student at her talk at Western that he shouldn't be allowed to fly anywhere, but should instead "take his camel" to travel.

[polly7]

17. That's Anne ........ spreading her bigotry despite the warning. Self-entitled media *.

I hope she realizes her comments just cements her appeal is a snake to most Canadians who can't stand her already. But then, it's all for money and publicity anyway so I doubt she cares. Psycopath.

[Lance_Boyle]

13. Really? How many DUers do you want rounded up

for promoting hatred against Freepers, Teabaggers and other assorted target groups on the right?

Think about it before you wish for it.

[polly7]

18. You should visit a few Canadian message boards. It's not exactly

what you think. Bad behaviour 'is' allowed to be criticized. Minorities, specific ethnic groups are not allowed to be targetted with hate that can and will incite violence.

[Lance_Boyle]

20. No, thanks. I prefer my Free Speech absolute. n/t

[polly7]

21. Cool. I value mine without the fear of violence ie. speech inciting

the death of abortion doctors, etc.

[Posteritatis]

30. Pity you don't have it. (nt)

[Political Heretic]

73. Um....better go somewhere else then.

Because we don't have that here.

[Whisp]

92. well looks like CAnada is a lot more civilized than you free speech purists.

what bullshit. you want to be able to say the N word freely but are yanked around by your pubic hairs by your media and their version of free speech. lol. whatever.

[abelenkpe]

27. O I've thought about it

and still think it is reasonable. Promoting hatred and inciting violence against those that don't share your views should not be allowed. I'm certain that the country would survive and DUers would retain the ability to make fun of freepers and teabaggers without encouraging hatred or violence against them.

[DirkGently]

2. Crazy

"Hate speech" and "hate crime" laws are equally contrary to the principles of free speech, in my opinion.

How do you even know how poisonous the views of someone like Coulter are, if she can't express them?

[polly7]

5. I think everyone in the free world with internet capability knows of

her 'hate speech' targeting groups and individuals (hoping to create more, no doubt and where does it go from there??). We don't need more examples of it up here.

[SidDithers]

3. More info...

from Religious Tolerance:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

Canadians do not have the degree of freedom of speech as persons in the United States enjoy. Legislation in Canada follows the British tradition, as do laws in Australia, New Zealand and some other former colonies. In particular, with a few exceptions, citizens are not allowed to incite or promote hatred, or advocate or promote genocide against certain specified groups.

There are a couple of good essays at that site which detail the status of Canadian hate speech laws.

Yes, it's different than the US. I'll make no judgement on which system is "better".

Sid

[polly7]

6. I've always spoken very freely and managed to criticize anything and

anyone I see as going against the principles of decency and respect towards individuals and our environement. We protest all the time .......... prejudice, homophobia, the seal-hunt, tarsands, our own government actions and politicians without recourse. There's no need to incite hatred as she does ........ and NEVER to change anything for the better.

[DirkGently]

7. Who's going to define that standard?

"Inciting hatred" is far too nebulous to pin down. It's trying to punish what we think the *effect* of someone's speech is going be on someone else, which is not reasonably possible. It's the kind of idea people think is crystal clear, right up until it's aimed at them. Who's a group? What "incites" people to "hate?" No matter how you break it down, it will chill speech and can be used to silence legitimate points of view.

[polly7]

9. No, it's easy, actually. Calling them stereo-typical, bigoted names,

purposefully lying about one or a group as a whole in a manner meant to enflame and cause more hatred. It should be common sense, but I know it's being battled in the courts in many cases. Having the law is a good preventative measure, it may not work in most cases that it should, but I'm glad it's there.

[SidDithers]

10. There are also an entire series of conditions that must be met...

and exceptions:

If the hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.

If the person can establish that the statements made are true.

If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection to clergy.

If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred. This gives websites such as ours the freedom to document and expose religious and other forms of hatred without running afoul of this law.

If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid.

Sid

[polly7]

12. Yes, I realize that. I've read it. Thanks. n/t.

[SidDithers]

25. Was general info for the thread...

rather than directed specifically at you :hi:

Sid

[polly7]

26. NP. Glad to see it explained :)

[Lance_Boyle]

15. Yeah, those teabgagging crackers and mouth-breathing fundies

should no doubt be able to have most of DU locked up for disparaging their identifiable groups...

:eyes:

[hack89]

16. Like "fundies" or "fascist" or "redneck" ?

would DU be legal in Canada?

[polly7]

19. Yes, it would. DU does not allow targeting minorities for the

specific purpose of inciting hatred towards them.

[Lance_Boyle]

23. "Fundies" are a minority, and DUers regularly incite hatred against them.

Canada's "some (groups of) people should be more protected than others" policy is problematic for me.

[polly7]

24. Fundies are a minority???

Oh whatever. Give me a break. Like Phelps??? If he came up here to practice his free speech at one of our soldier's funerals, I would hope he'd be charged. Imo, Coulter is no better.

[Posteritatis]

32. He tried a few times; his congregation isn't allowed in the country. (nt)

[polly7]

33. Good. I'm surprised he even tried. n/t.

[Posteritatis]

42. I'm not, he hates this place even by his usual standards.

He also tried to go to Sweden with the explicit intent of killing government officials a few years back; obviously that dodn't happen either.

[polly7]

44. Is he that stupid, or just another self-entitled whack job? n/t

[Posteritatis]

45. He is large and contains multitudes; he can easily be both! (nt)

[polly7]

46. Why does he hate Canada and Sweden so much? Sorry if it's

obvious, but I really don't get it. We have our fundies, our nut-jobs ...... Sweden, maybe not. ?

[Posteritatis]

47. We're to the left of Mussolini, the wrong denomination and don't kill enough gays. (nt)

[polly7]

48. ahhhhhhh ............. gotcha. I should have guessed that. n/t,

[hack89]

72. So hate directed at majority groups and beliefs are ok?

it is purely a color/numbers issue?

[DirkGently]

28. Easy to say, not easy to apply

apparently, as you acknowledge the "court battles." "Stereotypical, bigoted names" is a good example of how impossible subjective such a standard is. "In a manner meant to enflame" is even worse. How do you prove what someone "meant?" If someone is "enflamed" upon hearing the commentary, is that sufficient proof? What if some people are enflamed, but others are not.

Someone earlier commented that it was easy to demonstrate on a number of causes without running afoul of these standards, and used fighting homophobia as an example. Sounds fine to my liberal ears, but no one opposed to homosexuality considers themselves a "homophobe." It's a pejorative, judgmental label implying that people who may believe they oppose homosexuality on legitimate grounds are fearful and ignorant, and maybe they are. But who gets to call whom fearful and ignorant or "phobic?"

Sorry, but there's no way to fairly apply "hate speech" laws, and no way to avoid chilling the public debate. One person's "bigoted, stereotypical namecalling" is another person's fair criticism. Speech that enlightens some will "enflame" others.

All of these impulses to ban speech based on its content or its possible effect on the MIND of the listener boil down to one point of view claiming that another point of view is too repugnant to be expressed, which is antithetical to free speech and democracy itself. You can either jail people for expressing the ideas you do not like, or you can have a free society. You cannot have both.

[polly7]

29. Yes, there's a fair way to criticize. Using hateful, bigoted language

towards a group of people that incites hatred and violence is not one of them. It's not difficult, and I live in a VERY free society.

[DirkGently]

35. So, there are "magic words"

that you can't say? We're going to put adults in prison for using "hateful bigoted language?"

Again, this idea of easy distinctions as to mere *speech* falls apart instantly when you try to define it. So does the idea of "inciting," if you don't limit it to literally urging people to commit violence as we do in the U.S.

If it's not difficult, can you provide an example of speech that would justify imprisoning someone, but stops short of literally exhorting others to violence?

At the bottom, it seems to me that all of these laws and attempted laws boil down to people believing that those do not agree with are so unreasonable that they should be silenced.

Can you provide an example of speech from a point of view you AGREE with that crosses the line and should be illegal?

[polly7]

40. Uh, yeah ................... the language that killed Dr. Tiller, the language

that Phelps uses to hurt families of the fallen. That kind of thing. If you think that's reasonable language and have no problem with it ....... good for you. I see it as pure hate, the hate that obviously, kills.

[DirkGently]

65. Can't specify?

Which *words,* when uttered, became criminal in those cases? Are you suggesting that when someone commits an act of violence, that we than track backwards, and imprison those who "inspired" them?

You'll forgive me, but I can't perceiving that in constantly talking in general terms, you're avoiding the inherent difficulty of having law enforcement authorities monitor a religious or political speaker, and then haul them off to jail when they say "______."

Can you fill in the blank? I'm familiar with the Phelp's slur-filled signs -- are you saying that using an anti-homophobic slur is a criminal act? Tricky -- "homophobe" is a slur as well.

Which words do you contend "killed Dr. Tiller?" Again, I'll draw a line with you where people methodically track and print maps to abortion provider's houses, their movements, etc. -- I think there may have been a crime there. But you specified "language."

What "language" killed Dr. Tiller? What "language" can you demonstrate was the reasonably predictable cause of his death?

[polly7]

68. Think a little, please.

I have books to do and you are purposefully ignoring the Language of our laws. Play your games with someone else. You never did answer why people are arrested there for wearing T-shirts, protesting, shot for protesting, etc. Project your 'tyranny' onto someone else. We're a little freer after all, it seems. Woot woot!!!!

[DirkGently]

79. After you

You're not serious, right? I just went out of my way to clarify that we're not arguing U.S. vs. Canada, although you seem to be taking it that way for no clear reason. Nor have you offered a single example from the Canadian law that justifies punishing one person's speech for another person's theoretical future actions.

Again, if you'll provide a specific example of speech you believe merits imprisonment (the actual words, not a general claim that "language killed Dr. Tiller") we can compare points of view.

Otherwise, I'm left with the impression you haven't considered the implications of criminalizing speech you don't agree with or blame for the bad acts of others. And this odd nationalistic beat you've interjected doesn't track -- again, big fan of Canada -- but you are absolutely not "freer" with a laws that punish political speech based on its content.

[polly7]

43. Oh, btw .......... I've seen examples of 'free speech' from FR inciting

violence being reported to the authorities down there. Are you SURE you have no hate speech laws?

[DirkGently]

66. Provide the examples

Again, respectfully, when you say "language" caused a murder and you say language can be punished, it's meaningless without an example.

Again, this gives the appearance of meaning that all we are really talking about is punishing language that is offensive, or "strongly disagreeable," both of which when used to define a punishable "crime" should give a free society pause.

[Flaneur]

57. Yet Canada is somehow a functioning democracy. Go figger.

[DirkGently]

90. So is the U.S., and we waterboard prisoners. Figger that.

[abelenkpe]

37. When FOX news

has Glenn Beck imagining poisoning Nancy Pelosi that is hate speech. When Ann Coulter says we should line up and kill liberals that is hate speech and inciting violence. When Glenn Beck says he'd like to strangle Michael Moore that is hate speech inciting violence. There are many many more examples and it works. The sick twisted murderer who shot Dr. Tiller was egged on by hate speech. The sicko who walked into a "liberal" Tennessee church and starting shooting people was egged on by hate speech. There was some idiot not too long ago in Pennsylvania who shot at police officers who was egged on by hate speech. You think the definition is vague? Anything that calls for physical harm to another is hate speech. Don't do it. It's really not that difficult to avoid.


1. Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus – living fossils – so we will never forget what these people stood for."

2. Senator Phil Gramm: "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

3. Rep. James Hansen on Bill Clinton: Get rid of the guy. Impreach him, censure him, assassinate him."

4. John Derbyshire intimated in the National Review that because Chelsea Clinton had "the taint," she should "be killed."

5. Ann Coulter: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

6. Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

7. Bill O'Reilly: "ll those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains."

8. Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"

[Nye Bevan]

59. Wow.

Saying "those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains" should be prosecuted criminally? You really don't have much respect for the First Amendment, do you?

[hack89]

75. OK - now take the next step

and name people that were specifically harmed because of those words.

[abelenkpe]

81. Are you unable to read?

Dr. Tiller is dead. Policemen dead. Tennessee church goers dead. When you encourage violence against someone that is hate speech and should not be allowed. It's OK to disagree with someone. It's OK to argue. It's OK to dismiss their views. But it isn't OK to to encourage violence against another person. There are people in media and on the internet irresponsibly calling for violence against those they disagree with. That's nuts.

[hack89]

83. So you don't understand the meaning of specific.

Can you prove that if those words in your post were not uttered, Tiller and the cops would still be alive?

[izzybeans]

87. That's not hate speech. Those are threats of violence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Who Determines What Is Hate Speech?

Much of what we say about conservatives and Republicants would be defined as hate speech if they were doing the defining.

[DirkGently]

38. Tada

"Republitards?" And how about simply mischaracterizing a point of view? Or exagerrating to make a point?

Again, I like the example of calling everyone antagonistic toward homosexuals a "homophobe." I call them that too, but it IS a broad, sweeping, perjorative insult designed to inspire dislike and distaste in the listener. And it's likely not entirely true, either.

But I assume people favoring hate speech laws have a specfic point of view in mind for targeting, and it's inevitably not their own.

Just to be clear, I think it's absolutely necessary that we all make qualitative distinctions in our arguments. But the solution to that is more speech, not one group deciding that another is so far off base that they're going to jail over it.

[polly7]

41. Try actually checking out the laws before making examples that

are in no way factual here.

[DirkGently]

80. Conveniently vague

What about the laws do you believe nullify the problems inherent in punishing the content of speech on the theory it causes other people to do bad things?

Respectfully, you can't keep arguing that the specifics of the Canadian law are important without ever mentioning anything specific about the Canadian law.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Europe: 30+ million dead in one recent war.

Canada: bitter division between French, English, Native cultures, and a near civil war within recent history.

I cannot rise to level of caring about the hate-filled Coulter's suppression in Canada.

[Lucy Goosey]

11. The University Provost misrepresented the law...

I'm actually not in favour of hate speech laws, but to play devil's advocate for a moment, it is incredibly difficult to actually convict someone of hate speech.

There's a good explanation in the National Post:

It is not enough to spread gross misinformation, or to advocate a nation’s political disappearance or a religious group’s conversion, or to ask rhetorically Did Six Million Really Die?, as Ernst Zundel did in the notorious pamphlet for which he was acquitted.

What the Charter of Rights requires is that for words to be considered criminal, they must be entirely devoid of rational content. The speaker must appeal to the listener’s or the reader’s passions rather than to his or her (perhaps sinister) mind. It is, to put it mildly, a tough case for prosecutors to make.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/ed-morgan-canadian-educators-need-education-on-hate-speech.aspx#ixzz0j1KMBwt5

[DirkGently]

31. Which just makes the case against even

stronger, doesn't it? Vague laws are bad laws. Vague laws mean that no one really KNOWS what's illegal and what isn't. In this case, that means that a percentage of "good" speech will go silent out of caution. Vagueness also leads to selective and subjective enforcement.

Reading the description you provide above reminds me of America's notoriously ill-defined obscenity laws, and the old S.C. quote, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Which of course means, "I'm making a unique, subjective judgment."

Not a good basis for a criminal statute of any kind.

[polly7]

34. Apparently you've chosen not to read the actual language and instead

are judging us on something you know little about.

http://recherche-search.gc.ca/s_r?t3mpl1t34d=1&s5t34d=canada&l7c1l3=eng&S_08D4T.1ct57n=search&S_08D4T.s3rv5c3=basic&S_F8LLT2XT=hate+speech&S_S20RCH.l1ng91g3=eng

[DirkGently]

36. I'm arguing principle, not the niceties of Canadian law

... but as far as that goes, please explain how the Canadian law overcomes the inherent subjectivity and vagueness problems with criminally punishing speech based on the notion that it is too "hateful."

[polly7]

39. The courts decide based upon the evidence, as spelled out in

Canadian law. I'm arguing principle also ....... which imo means that Canada does not tolerate speech meant to create hatred and violence against specific groups of people. I don't understand how that's a bad thing. I see on here all the time people wishing Phelps' org. could be shut down, the agony over speech that incited the killing of Dr. Tiller, the homophobic, bigoted remarks make by people like Coulter that are repeated in teabagger signs over and over .......... people fearing this will turn into something really ugly. Why not stop the inciters? Why is it allowed? Commom sense and the law should both dictate what is dangerous, inciteful speech and what is merely criticism spoken without the intent to cause hatred for whole groups.

[DirkGently]

49. That type of "common sense"

breaks down when you try to apply it to speech.

It would seem easy to get a lot of people to agree about the Phelps church, for example. But their argument actually is founded on language that exists in the Bible, which expressly condemns homosexuality. The Bible also condones slavery, infanticide, misogyny, genocide, marrying your rape victim, etc. Shakespeare was a little nasty to the Jews here and there. Do we ban religion? Fiction?

How much do you throw out to avoid "hate?"

We have a concept in American free expression law call "prior restraint." It's regarded as one of the most difficult levels of speech restriction to justify under our system, e.g. stopping a newspaper story before it's even published. The reasoning is pretty sound, I think: How do you know an idea or an expression is utterly worthless, untrue, and "inciting" until the expression is made?

And given that, how can a speaker say anything without worrying that they risk imprisonment if after the fact, it can be deemed to be criminal?

Again, I think the best illustrations of how messy this gets come from examples, and a good test is whether you can think of an expression of an idea you agree with that should nevertheless be punishable. Hard?

There's also a practical element, which I think is that if you silence a point of view, you lose the argument. It's the legal equivalent of being the first one to raise your fist -- you're admitting that the idea has some power you can't dissipate with a better idea. And you can create an intellectual martyr. Remember Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words?" They're immortal now, because we made them illegal, right?

[polly7]

52. Sorry,

You've admitted you haven't read the laws and aren't basing your statements on them. I have, they spell it out very simply, though cases are dragged through court that may or may not be valid examples, as with anything. I said it before, if you have no problem with speech meant to incite and cause violence - good for you. I do. I'm glad we have at least some basis for preventing it. Seeya :)

[DirkGently]

56. Sorry because your argument fails?

I see you hopping back and forth trying to make this about some subtletly of Canadian law (when I explained I was arguing principle) but you haven't spelled out anything helpful in the Canadian law, either.

There are examples of the stated law in this thread that actually illustrate how hopelessly vague and meaningless such laws are.

And you have not provided an example coming from any point of view you AGREE with being an appropriate target for criminal punishment. This tends to confirm my feeling that the people supporting these laws simply think their own point of view is so "right" that those who disagree can be silenced and punished.

Hate is not a crime. Name-calling is not a crime. Speech does not become illegal because someone thinks it's capable of inspiring evil acts in others. Literal incitement to violence IS a line we can draw, and it is not the same thing.

You can have a free society, or you can ban speech you disagree with. You can't have both.

[polly7]

60. No, sorry that you can't be bothered to even consider the

language of the laws. Sorry because you've never had to pick up someone who's been beaten to a pulp because of the actions of a group filled with hate spreading it to the first victim of their hatred they come across. I have. It made me sick. As does the suffering of anyone targeted. Sorry you can't see the difference between an opinion that harms no-one and a purposeful campaign to demonize innocent human beings.
Really sorry .......... that's sad. jmo.

[DirkGently]

63. and yet you can't be bothered to provide examples

of the "language of the laws" you seem to be saying clarify the issue? Language like this, you mean?

What the Charter of Rights requires is that for words to be considered criminal, they must be entirely devoid of rational content. The speaker must appeal to the listener’s or the reader’s passions rather than to his or her (perhaps sinister) mind. It is, to put it mildly, a tough case for prosecutors to makeText

Edit: Credit to Lucy Goosy for this quote.

Meaningless. A question like that is going to require a very uncertain jury decision in every case.

As for hate crime, that's a separate legal issue, but it likewise doesn't justify punishing speech. Is it somehow less repugnant if someone is "beaten to a pulp" by a right-thinking, non-biased individual? Is the victim less injured, or the perpetrator less guilty, depending on group status and political views?

And if you are going to punish speech on the theory that any idea that can inspire bad acts is impermissible, how far do you take that? Again, the Bible is full of views that are socially unacceptable to many of us, and no source is more often cited for acts of bias-inspired violence than religion. Do we ban it?

And if not, how is the law supposed to draw the line between some convenient minority target like the raging Phelps family, and mainstream groups like the Mormon Church? If you believe you're targeting the *effect* of speech, who has more influence -- a handful of screaming fanatics, or a major, worldwide religion with money and political influence?

Trickier than it sounds when you're angry about something like the Tiller assassination, isn't it?

[polly7]

64. Nothing tricky at all about it.

Inciting violence against individuals or groups is not allowed. I'm good with that.:)

Hey ........... why was Cindy Sheehan arrested for wearing a certain t-shirt??? I think you're projecting your own 'tyrannical rule' onto us for some reason.

[DirkGently]

69. Whoa. Are we now in Canada vs. the U.S. mode?

The U.S. has its own free speech problems. My point was not about Canada, but about hate speech laws. If I've offended your national pride, it was inadvertent. I am a big fan of Canada (Celine Dion excepted ;-)) and was not attempting to start a "We're better than you" argument. I talk in terms of U.S. free speech laws because I know more about them.

Again, feel free to educate me if you feel Canada's laws have specific features that eliminate the inherent problems with blaming one person's speech for another person's actions. And I will check out the 170 article Google page you linked sometime, but it would be more helpful if you could just tell me what, specifically, you feel works about the Canadian law.

[polly7]

70. Not at all, despite your trying to make it so.

I've given a link to the law. Don't read it, I have and see no reason to read it for you. You're posting, obviously you can read.

[DirkGently]

82. You've read the law, but it's a secret?

You posted this link to the "Search all of Canada's Government Websites" page, with a 170 result search page on "hate speech."
(http://recherche-search.gc.ca/s_r?t3mpl1t34d=1&s5t34d=canada&l7c1l3=eng&S_08D4T.1ct57n=search&S_08D4T.s3rv5c3=basic&S_F8LLT2XT=hate+speech&S_S20RCH.l1ng91g3=eng)

Surely you don't think it's persuasive argument to tell someone that if they go read 170 pages on Canadian hate speech laws, they will understand that you are right. :)

Are you not able to cull that information down into something you can explain to someone else?

You must understand that an approach like that makes it sound like you aren't actually arguing from a specific point of law (or else why not just state it) but on the basis of your perception that there is something in the law that makes it work, but which you can't really identify.

Maybe the Canadian hate speech laws "work" because they're basically never enforced?

[wolfgangmo]

89. "that means that a percentage of "good" speech will go silent out of caution."

You have never been to a hockey game, have you?

[Doctor_J]

22. Not as creepy as Coulter's hate speech

[Nye Bevan]

50. Being threatened with criminal charges for saying something that offends someone

is a million times creepier than the deranged rantings of a publicity hound like Coulter.

[polly7]

53. If the speech that incited the hatred for Dr. Tiller could have been

punished, or even prevented by the law for fear of being prosecuted and possibly fined ............ would you be in favour of that?

[DirkGently]

62. What speech in particular?

I notice a distinct lack of examples. Can we at least hear a word or phrase that for certain should send the speaker to jail?

Is it just anti-abortion propaganda in general? Should the term "baby killer" be punishable? Pictures of fetuses? It's an inherently emotional issue. Who gets to decide what kind of appeal is too dangerous for other people to even hear?

We do draw lines, and it's possible the people who keep lists of names and addresses and running location updates of abortion providers have crossed it. But that's action, not speech. That's not "inspiring" or "inciting" or "causing hatred." Those are terms so subjective that they become nonsense in the context of criminal prosecution.

The whole idea rests on vast assumptions and viewpoint blindness. It requires one to assume that one person's speech is somehow responsible for another person's actions. Is that even true? How do you prove words incite people to violence? And how does it work in relation to the vast differences in what the listeners perceive? How does a speaker ensure that they don't say anything that won't "inflame" someone. Isn't the point of most political speech to "inflame?"

We stopped punishing people for expressing "wrong" ideas because they had the "wrong effect" on people when we got rid of heresy laws. This is no time to forget why we did that.

[SidDithers]

67. Combating Hate and Preserving Free Speech: Where is the Line?...

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/hoi_hsi/page3-en.asp

Not a short read, but your questions are answered there.

Sid

[SidDithers]

54. hate speech != offensive speech...nt

Sid

[pitohui]

51. and that's creepy...how exactly?

hate speech is wrong and should be illegal, there is nothing right or honorable in america sitting on its ass and allowing hate propaganda spread by the likes of limbaugh and coulter to poison vulnerable people's minds

canada is trying to protect its freedoms, in america we seem to believe that our freedoms are not worth protecting, so we allow the hate propaganda from the right to destroy everything...THAT'S CREEPY!!!

[DirkGently]

58. Definitions and examples?

of criminally-punishable "hate speech?" Otherwise it's a meaningless subjective theory. It would be nice if we could have "reasonableness" laws, but we can't. No one's rights include the right to shut someone else up because they find their ideas repugnant. If that were the case, this site would doubtless have been made illegal as part of the Patriot Act. Kind of surprised it wasn't, come to think of it.

Out of everyone, those with progressive views, which are generally in the minority, should understand that we cannot punish thoughts or expressions of thoughts that the majority does not like. If that were true, the very FIRST thing that would become illegal in this country would be speech that contradicts religious views.

Not a pretty thought.

[SidDithers]

71. The law hasn't been used very often...

The Keegstra case is a good example, however:

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada upheld section 319 as constitutional in the case of R. v. Keegstra.46 In that case, Mr. Keegstra (a high school teacher) was charged under section 319(2) with wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Semitic statements to his students. Mr. Keegstra taught his anti-Semitic beliefs to his students and expected them to reproduce such teachings in class and on exams.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously concluded that section 319(2) violated Mr. Keegstra’s freedom of expression because it restricted the expression of meaning and content. A majority of the Court, however, concluded that this restriction was justified under section 1. They noted that, in creating this offence, Parliament 27 was aware of the substantial harm that can flow from hate propaganda, and it decided to suppress the wilful promotion of such hatred against identifiable groups.

From http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/hoi_hsi/page3-en.asp

Sid

[DirkGently]

84. Seems internally contradictory

It violated his rights, but that was okay? If someone's teaching anti-Semitism in history class, I think there's another way to go about addressing that, eh? Like ... it's a school, with a curriculum, which doesn't allow for "teaching" a political / religious point of view as fact?

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 that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

So, for one, protected class status seems to be part of the equation. We've adopted the notion of protected classes for special anti-discrimination efforts here in the U.S., but outlawing "hatred or contempt," i.e. hateful or contemptuous *speech* just as to protected classes seems like a disaster.

Hatred or contempt aimed a majority group would be fine under this law, apparently. Along with the basic inherent problems with punishing the content of speech based on its possible effect on third parties, you're courting a nasty social backlash if only specified groups are "protected" from "hatred or contempt" and the law is actually enforced.

[Political Heretic]

77. One person's "hate speech" is another person's moral imperative.

:shrug:

The problem is letting the State have the power to define what is "hate."

[daleo]

55. Coulter's free speech

She also famously ranted that “the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulter-gets-cold-shoulder-in-ottawa/article1508535/

Suppose she said "the government should be spying on all Jews, torturing them as a spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters throughout Israel, and sending their children to Guantanamo". Would anyone defend her right to say that? Replace Jews with African Americans. Would anyone defend her right to say that?

In my opinion, much of her discourse is akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire. It's destructive, morally reprehensible, and done for kicks (and money).

Bear in mind - she would be glad to see anyone on this site jailed and executed, just for being liberals.

[aikoaiko]

61. Hate speech laws are well intentioned but undermine free speech

They offend me as a liberal.

[Political Heretic]

74. The problem with these laws is that the state shouldn't have that much power to deem "acceptable"

speech.

It' sounds great in theory, and if I could guarantee that a state would only ever ban speech that I found offensive, great.

But it doesn't work like that.

[JackRiddler]

76. Which is why it's creepy too when people try to banish unorthodox sources...

from websites that are actually enriched by the diversity and constructive provocation that sites like Counterpunch, WSWS and firedoglake bring...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7162332

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7997331

[Political Heretic]

78. OH SNAP!

[izzybeans]

85. It probably seems scary from our end because we say things without regard

to their consequences. It would suck to have to think through things before saying them aloud. So for the intellectually lazy I'm sure this hits them in their reactionary emotional center as if it were tyranny.

I don't know the ins and outs of the law, but if it is applied to threats of violence (either explicit or implicit) then I give not one rip.

"Tyranny" is a word that now has no meaning. "Give me healthcare? Tyranny! Don't let me make threats against groups of people? Tyranny! Pay taxes for public services? Tyranny! Enslavement? Well that was something we had to do to get the economy going. It's a free market don't ya know. Segregation? Well...that's something we had to uphold law and order. Let black people have the jobs they are qualified for? Well that's reverse racism and thus, Tyranny!"

[DirkGently]

88. Not scary. Wrong.

... we say things without regard to their consequences.

...

I don't know the ins and outs of the law, but if it is applied to threats of violence (either explicit or implicit) then I give not one rip.

The "consequences" of an idea are supposed to be protected in a free society. Otherwise, you have to get social approval for an unpopular idea in advance of bringing it up. Kind of defeats the purpose.

And these laws are a huge step removed from threats of violence. They effectively assume that violence results from unspecified language that causes "hatred" in the listener in an unspecified way, having an unspecified result that might include illegal acts like violence.

There are several bad assumptions wound up in that thinking, including assuming that we can predict what speech is going to inspire "hatred" in people and assuming that "hatred" is an illegal emotion that we can assume leads to violence.

You can't reliably either trace a bad act back to some kind of "speech" which you can fairly claim caused the action, nor can you limit every kind of speech that could conceivably inspire bad action.

I haven't seen any example of a proposed law that doesn't have these problems, and doesn't boil down to punishing offensive speech, which some people don't seem to realize can be turned around on the would-be speech punishers in a heartbeat.

[izzybeans]

93. Still doesn't excuse the use of the word tyranny. Being barred from threatening murder

isn't an injustice and there is no slippery slope. In Canada you can still tell someone to go fuck themselves, state your political opinions, and criticize anyone you choose.

BTW, I agree with opponents of examples like this: "a holocaust denier is imprisoned because of his opinion." He hasn't threatened anyone. He merely believes something incredibly stupid. Should he be subject to arrest? No. Public ridicule? Hell yes. However, If that same denier were to say say, "well I don't believe it happened then, but I'm bent on making it happen now" there must be the legal means to act. Should there be criteria for that action, sure. Perhaps, if the person is materially in position to do harm then action is necessary. It's the same legal precedent we use to commit the mentally ill. I don't see any info. off hand on the web (I'm sure its there) on how the term "incite hatred" is applied in Canada. It apparently is rare. If its application is narrow and directed toward physical threats of violence (and apparently must be based in lies according to the text of the "charter") then fine. It's no tyranny and pretending that it is, is nothing but an overly emotional reaction on the subject.

There are real tyrannies in this world and pretending that the free speech laws of Canada are tyrannical is a tragedy.

[DirkGently]

94. threatening murder is not at issue

Never was. And from the snippets of the Canadian law in this thread, actual threats of violence aren't even addressed. The law punishes exposing people in "protected groups" to "contempt and hatred."

The assumptions required to think "hate speech" laws serve any valid purpose (but to assuage the tastes of the people doing the banning) are never-ending and invite real injustice. Expressing an idea doesn't "cause" anyone to do anything. We already draw lines at threats and exhortations to immediate lawless action. That's enough. There's no legally or ethically acceptable basis to have law enforcement silence people whose ideas are considered "too hateful."

And it sounds like the only way they've gotten by in Canada so far is by almost never applying it.

No matter what word you use, it's an appalling, anti-democratic, reactionary type of law. It's no different from outlawing heresy or sedition or any of the other expressions of opinion that were illegal under European monarchies or theocracies. Illogical, irrational, unintelligent, unjust and unworkable.

Moreover, it doesn't work. You will NEVER get a more civilized or safe society by telling people they must shut up or go to jail. If anything, you empower the people you are trying to silence. Start arresting people for provocative anti-abortion talk, and you will explode their numbers overnight. Throw a pundit in jail for calling liberals or Democrats traitors and cowards, and you prove him right.

I'm always surprised when people don't understand how hard-fought a right like free speech is, and how much of the good in our society is a direct result. Blowing a screwed up law like this off as a minor aberration isn't any different than American conservatives blowing off warrantless wiretaps or prisoner torture. There are reasons for these protections, and those reasons don't go away even when you are ABSOLUTELY SURE you are right.

Edit: Greenwald put it best in the article from the OP

"Personally, I think threatening someone with criminal prosecution for the political views they might express is quite "hateful." So, too, is anointing oneself the arbiter of what is and is not sufficiently "civilized discussion" to the point of using the force of criminal law to enforce it. If I were administering Canada's intrinsically subjective "hate speech" laws (and I never would), I'd consider prosecuting Provost Houle for this letter. The hubris required to believe that you can declare certain views so objectively hateful that they should be criminalized is astronomical; in so many eras, views that were most scorned by majorities ended up emerging as truth.
<snip>

In 2006, Newt Gingrich advocated that free speech rights should be restricted for "radical Muslims" because they were preaching dangerous "hatred," speech which Gingrich wanted criminalized. Those who defend "hate speech" laws like the ones in Canada and Europe are Gingrich's like-minded comrades, even if they want to criminalize different views than the ones Gingrich happened to be targeting.

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. this has always been the case that Canada and most of Europe have greater limitations on free speech

To this day, Noam Chomsky is still castigated for defending the the principle of free speech rights of French holocaust denier Robert Faurisson - in spite of Chomsky repeatedly making it absolutely clear that he completely rejects Faurisson's thesis.

Although, I am more comfortable with American approach - let's not fool ourselves, the actual range of common, mainstream political debate in Canada and Europe is still much broader than in the United States. Furthermore, when it comes to the extremist end of the spectrum - only extremist right-wing opinion is regularly accepted in mainstream American media. Imagine if Ward Churchill was a regular paid commentator on mainstream commercial network American television. In the U.S. there is not one single left-wing commentators in mainstream American media who is anywhere near as far to the left as any number of right-wing commentators such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and several others are as far to the right - not one.

[DirkGently]

91. Absolutely

We do lack radical liberal voices, so it it's pretty much right-wing hate speech on the table here.

What's disappointing is seeing arguments for making "hate" a crime come from progressives and liberals who should know better than to think silencing opinion you disagree with will solve anything. Or that some ideas are "too dangerous" to talk about.

The ONLY way to get rid of a bad idea is to let people see how bad it really is, and propose a better one. "Shut up or we'll throw you in jail" is for conservatives.