Canada Clears Up What Is And What Just Ain't Hate Speech
From the National Post, we learn that calling for Jewish civilians to be murdered is protected academic speech in Canada, while reading the Bible is a hate crime.
Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a University of Waterloo professor and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, drew widespread public condemnation last October for telling a television panel discussion that all Israelis over the age of 18 should be targets for attacks by Palestinians because they are all members of the country's army. The Egyptian-born professor has said his comments were misunderstood. As you can see, there is a lot of ambiguity in the statement. He also came under investigation by the University of Waterloo, where he is a professor of computer engineering. Elmasry himself in the past led a campaign to indict evangelist Jerry Falwell for hate speech, and has campaigned to have Islamic religious law enforced in Canada. He claims Moslems inside Canada are living "under siege."
Police have decided not to charge a controversial Muslim leader under Canada's hate-crime laws for suggesting on a television talk show last fall that all adult Israelis are "legitimate targets" for Palestinian terrorists. Last November, the university's dean of science decided the professor's statements were "entirely unacceptable," but decided against formal disciplinary action. The local Islamofascists and jihadniks are pleased, while a true Moslem moderate condemned the "Doctor."
So if this is not hate speech in Canada, what is? Come now, grasshopper, don't you know? The Bible has been declared hate speech in Canada. Really! It says things about homosexuality that some PC profs may not like and it says the lands of Israel belong to the Jews.
That bill, passed 59-11 by the Senate, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. The House of Commons passed the bill in September, 141-110.
12 Comments:
Svend Robinson, the leftie member of Parliament who is revelling in the mess he helped create, would make an excellent Newspeak adjutant to Winston Smith.
I think the left misses Orwell's point rather completely.
If you think that this can't happen here (in the US) because we have a solid 1st Amendment to protect us, then think again.
Various American counties used to have blasphemy laws and today we still have pornography laws for adults. They were justified on an alleged direct connection between words and actions in the same way as the insane Canadian hate speech laws were.
Americans need to remember that free speech is indivisible. It means that other people can say things that infuriate you, things that are patently insane, things that no decent human being would ever think about much less actually say, and you must resist the temptation to use the law to silence them.
As a test, think of the book that you regard as the most vile, most disgusting, most contemptible pile of unmitigated dung that you have ever read. Are you willing to defend the right of the author to publish it? How many of your friends and acquaintances would also be willing to resist attempts to silence the author?
The answer to those questions tells you exactly how safe we are.
Free speech isnt free...
There are all kinds of limits on it...
Slander...libel...fighting words...gag orders...non disclosure aggreements...
The often overused and incorrect "fire in a crowded theater" arguement...(if it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater...what do you yell if there actually IS a fire?....SPOON?...no...you yell FIRE!...)
Thus...there are clearly times when speech is protected in the US...and times when it is not...although it's sometimes fluid....we are mostly held to the same standards...
The tryanny comes from separate standards of free speech for separate groups...
IMHO...Canada has "jumped the shark"...the same people who decry Christains as "hate mongers"...lobby for the institution of sharia law in Canada....appeasment at it's finest...
Careful what you wish for....it may come to pass...political correctness will be the undoing of a once great ally...they are allready morally crippled into inaction on the world stage as a former defender of freedom and human rights...
What about the human right to free thought?
zeitgeist jr.:
"The tryanny comes from separate standards of free speech for separate groups..."
I disagree. That principle would allow blasphemy laws. "No man may speak disrespectfully of the Bible" is a single standard for all people. Nevertheless any such law is a violation of the right of free speech.
The "unfree" speech that you name is not speech, it is fraud, incitement or voluntary agreements. The speech covered by "freedom of speech" includes the transmission of ideas, not attempts to deceive for the purpose of inducing an action that the hearer would not engage in if the truth were known. Damage resulting from such fraudulent claims can rightfully be recovered in court.
Gag orders are unjustifiable most of the time except where someone's right of privacy could be invaded, or an immediate danger to innocent people is involved.
Allowing the principle that the communication of ideas can rightfully be prevented or punished by the state is extraordinarily dangerous and will ultimately lead to PC speech codes, hate speech statutes and other forms of blasphemy laws.
It works here as well . Even in cyberspace one can not talk about history and sociology without labels.
Try discussing history with a radicals. I have tried for four days on my blog .
Good points Bob...
Alas I'm not the orator my late father was...I am but an apprenctice...
I may not have made my point properly...
You use the bible as reference to blashemy....but even that standard is plain tyranny ..as you do not include ALL holy texts....other groups would be free to attack other texts...
and it should ne noted..that many of these laws are still in effect in much of "secular" europe...
Curiously...you skipped the fire in a theater statement...
Just as yelling fire in a theater for the express purpose of causeing panic is a crime....yelling fire in case of actual fire is indeed the correct life saving action...
Same speech....different situation...
I think we are really in agreement...just in different syntax...
Mr. Meyer,
Once again your fanatical atheism leads you astray!
You said,
"Various American counties used to have blasphemy laws and today we still have pornography laws for adults."
You are trying to connect blasphemy laws that you admit are no longer in existence, with the controlling of pornography!
Why not just go all the way, and connect witch burning with people who know the difference between free speech, and blatant pornography and want to protect their communities from the degenerate effects of it.
Irresponsible people like you, will not be satisfied until there is a "Fellatios are Us" in every mall, and every community has a pre-Giuliani Times Square, whether the vast number of citizens likes it or not.
Just like your take of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," your take of, "abridging the freedom of speech" is, WRONG!
Frankly, your notions of freedom without responsibility are dangerous, and your arguments relating to the intentions of the Founding Fathers are sheer obfuscation.
Let me try a Mr. Oscar Meyer--Pray tell Oscar, show me one Founding Fathers document that puts porn under the protective umbrella of, "Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech."
The point about blasphemy laws is that the Constitution was, at one time, interpreted to permit the imprisonment of those who "spoke disrespectfully of the Bible". It is quite possible that the Left will attempt to resurrect these old arguments (since originality isn't their strong suit) to justify their desire to silence their opposition. The only difference will be that now people will be arrested for "speaking disrespectfully of gays, blacks, women...etc".
If you view man as a seething cauldron of sociopathy awaiting the right verbal or visual trigger to send him into hormone driven rampages of rape and plunder then you will favor laws forbidding explicit sexual material and irreligious displays.
If you view man as a degenerate product of capitalist decadence, doomed by his internalization of the institutionalized racism, sexism and homophobia of American society to prey upon innocent minorities, then you will favor laws forbidding "hate speech".
By the way, leftwing feminists are at the forefront in the movement to ban pornography because they believe that men are driven to rape by the sick, twisted sexual violence in many porno flicks.
There is really very little difference between the fanatic Christian who sees Satan everywhere and the fanatic Leftist who sees racism everywhere. Both need to control what you see and hear because your evil nature will cause you to act in ways of which they disapprove if you are exposed to these influences.
"No freedom without responibility" has always been the battle cry of tyrants. It really means "Do as you're told and you won't get hurt"
It is based on the drivel of Edmund Burke who saw man as inherently depraved but sometimes capable of restraining his brutal, sociopathic impulses. And when he doesn't restrain himself then the state must step in and restrain him.
When the tyrant wannabes of the right and left demand the power to control men's "evil nature" the proper reply is this:
"Most men's view of the nature of man comes from introspection."
Enough said.
Well, Mr. Meyer, I am glad you once again did not stray into a fanatical-atheistic-philippic, and "answered my question" in a straight forward manner.
Good Lord!
I am going to coin your type of debating as " nonsensical carpet bombing."
You drop all these bombs that do not explode on impact with reason, but there are so many of them, the bomb squad has a heck of a time getting to them, and defusing them all. In Europe, to this day, WWII bombs are having to be defused when found during excavations.
Your bombs will have to be defused, also, when found. One at a time! Painstakingly one at at!
MORE TO FOLLOW!
Ok, I better get started, so many bombs, and so little time.
I first must, ever so carefully remove this plate on this 500# porno bomb.
MERCIFUL GOD IN HEAVEN!
This is one of the most specious, and yet deceptively attractive wiring, I have ever seen in a bomb. It is as if a Godless madman designed it. A madman who believes that the boundaries of mankind are only those guided by his own contemplation of his own thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
Since I feel a responsibility for all I do and support, and know I will soon answer for it. I better get as much information as I can, before cutting one wire.
I DO NOT WANT THIS PORNO BOMB BLOWING SKY HIGH!
I know, I'll call the maker to see if he is a reasonable man, and can give a straight answer.
Oh Bob, if you have it in you?
Yes or No. You believe in unbridled adult porn in this republic?
Yes or No. You believe in unfettered child porn in this nation?
Yes or No. You believe that a community has the right to forbid, or close down porn Shoppe's?
Yes or No. You believe that porn, in this country, is protected by the Bill of Rights?
Please get back with me.
The answer is simple, pornography, though repulsive, must be protected in the same way as any other form of speech.
A community has no more right to shutdown a movie theater that shows porn than the city of Berkeley has to shutdown every theater that shows "The Passion".
To the best of my knowledge Berkeley never tried to do this, but I am sure that the city council thought about it. The Supreme Court's idea of using local community standards to evaluate pornography would probably have been the basis for banning "The Passion".
Child porn, when made with real children, is a criminal act. Not the pornography, but what was required to produce it. Child rape should carry a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
The free market will take care of problems like porno shops opening in "Good Christian neighborhoods". If the Good Christians do not patronize those shops, the shops will go broke. Good Christians will not patronize porno outlets, after all, not every Christian is like Jimmy Swaggart, or are they?
Is pornography protected by the Bill of Rights? I doubt that the Founders ever considered the issue since the only form of porn at the time was "dirty pictures". From what I can gather the Founders would have considered "dirty pictures" a minor personal vice like alcohol or gambling. It would not have been something that would concern the federal government. The answer then is no, the Bill of Rights was not thought of as a means of protecting dirty pictures.
Should the Bill of Rights protect pornography? History shows that attempts to control porn end up banning innocuous works like those of John O'Hara. The Comstock Laws prevented sending information about contraception through the mails.
Based on the history of attempts to control porn - Yes, the Bill of Rights should protect porn even if this issue never arose for the Founders.
Your morbid, irrational fear of seeing the Inquisitions in every corner, distorts your reasoning. Adult porn is fine with you, although you freely admit it is not protected by the original intent of the Bill of Rights. Yet you adamantly oppose child porn, and even want to take the free life of those adults that take part in it. OR DO YOU?
Wonderful! In your convoluted, unknowing way, you have actually endorsed the killing of adult porn when you want to take the free life of those adults involved with raping a child!
Adult porn, and child porn are overwhelmingly produced, distributed, and profited by organized crime. Most of the players are one in the same.
The child "actors" overwhelmingly use drugs to become uninhibited, and the drugs are provided by organized crime. Adults preying on children! Do you disagree?
The largest viewer category for hardcore porn is teenage boys between the ages of 12-17. Just to remind you, you are against child porn, so the adult porn that the children are involved with, cannot stand. YOU ARE AGAINST CHILD PORN, ARE YOU NOT?
“One in five boys and one in ten girls have their first exposure to hardcore, illegal pornography (obscenity) by age 12.” Again, this can not stand, adult porn effecting children is the same as adults being involved in child porn. OR IS IT BOB?
Adult pedophiles, and adult pornographers use hardcore adult porn to convince children that it is perfectly fine to act out what they see adults doing on the tape. ARE YOU FOR ADULTS SHOWING CHILDREN PORN BOB?
YOU KNOW, THIS PORNO BOMB (BOB MEYER BOMB #1), WAS NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO DEFUSE, AFTER ALL.-- I SIMPLY CUT THE WIRE CONNECTING ADULT PORN TO CHILD PORN, AND BOB EVEN AGREED, OR DID HE? Although he didn't even know it.
P.S. More Bombs "away" to follow!
Post a Comment
<< Home