New Updates

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:
http://ymlp318.net/zOmwaR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Columnist Andrew Coyne Calls for End to "Hate Law"

For the third time in a week a major newspaper or columnist has called
for the end of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada's notorious
"hate law," Now, that Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian
Human Rights Act has been repealed by the House of Commons and is all
but certain to pass the Senate, the remaining legal throttle on free
speech on the Internet is the "hate law." Today, the following
excellent article by columnist Andrew Coyne appeared front page int he
National Post (July 10, 2012) and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, among
other outlets.

Last week, in reaction to publicity CAFE had put out about the Terry
Tremaine Sec. 319 case, moving its way at a glacial pace through the
courts in Regina, the National Post picked up the story. On July 4,
columnist Marni Soupcoff wrote a column entitled "Tremaine’s
platform for neo-Nazi views helpfully provided by Canada’s criminal
code." While gratuitously slagging Mr. Tremaine, Soupcoff said: "The
real problem lies with section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which
makes “willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group”
by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation”
an offense punishable by prison time. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990
in the Keegstra case that the provision is constitutional. But the
Tremaine case is reminding us that constitutionality doesn’t make a
law sensible or desirable.....

THE TROUBLE STARTS ONCE THE GOVERNMENT ENTERS THE EQUATION, AT THE
INVITATION OF SECTION 319(2), AND SETS ITSELF UP AS THE ARBITER OF
WHETHER TREMAINE&RSQUO;S IDEAS ARE SIMPLY TOO OFFENSIVE AND
DISAGREEABLE TO LEGALLY ABIDE. SUDDENLY, THEN, TO COUNTER THIS HEFTY
POWER TO SUBJECTIVELY VET A CITIZEN&RSQUO;S SPEECH AND DECIDE WHETHER
IT SHOULD LAND HIM BEHIND BARS FOR A SEVERAL YEARS, THE GOVERNMENT
FORCES ITSELF INTO THE POSITION OF HAVING TO PROVIDE TREMAINE A FAR
PRETTIER PLATFORM THAN HE&RSQUO;D EVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE ON
HIS OWN."

THE NEXT DAY, THE NATIONAL POST WEIGHED IN WITH AN EDITORIAL
QUESTIONING SEC. 319: ". HOWEVER, HE WILL NOW BE TREATED TO A
MEDIA-PUBLICIZED TRIAL IN A CANADIAN COURTROOM, IN WHICH HE WILL BE
ABLE TO AIR HIS NASTY VIEWS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MAINSTREAM
JOURNALISTS."

WE CAN ONLY HOPE THAT CALLS WILL CONTINUE AND GROW FOR CANADA TO BE
RID OF THIS MINORITY-INSPIRED PIECE OF CENSORSHIP THAT WOULD BE MORE
FITTING IN RED CHINA OR DESPOTISMS LIKE BURMA (OR MYANMAR, OR WHATEVER
IT'S CALLING ITSELF THIS WEEK.)

PAUL FROMM
DIRECTOR
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

ANDREW COYNE: WHY DOES CANADA STILL HAVE A HATE SPEECH LAW?

Andrew Coyne ( http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/author/acoynenp/ )
Jul 9, 2012 – 7:52 PM ETLast Updated: Jul 10, 2012 9:39 AM ET

Todd Korol / Reuters files
It isn’t enough that the speech is considered offensive. It must be
shown to have caused, or be likely to cause, some demonstrable harm to
some identifiable person.

* Comments (
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/09/andrew-coyne-why-does-canada-still-have-a-hate-speech-law/#disqus_thread
)
* Email (
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/email-form/?email-post=84376 )
* Twitter (
http://twitter.com/share?text=Andrew+Coyne%3A+Why+does+Canada+still+have+a+hate+speech+law%3F&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffullcomment.nationalpost.com%2F2012%2F07%2F09%2Fandrew-coyne-why-does-canada-still-have-a-hate-speech-law%2F&related=postedtoronto,nationalpost&via=fullcomment
)
* in Share1
*

*

Hardly was there time to celebrate the demise of Section 13, the
infamous provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibiting
“communication of hate messages,” before we were reminded this was
not the only unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech on the
books.
Section 319.2 of the Criminal Code, for example, forbidding the
“willful” promotion of hatred “against any identifiable
group,” is currently getting a workout in a Regina courtroom in the
case of Terry Tremaine, a sometime math lecturer and avowed neo-Nazi.
While Tremaine will have available to him the sorts of due process
rights denied to those hauled before the human rights tribunals —
the defence of truth among them — the end result is much the same:
the suppression of speech society finds objectionable, for the sole
reason that it is objectionable. If convicted, he faces up to two
years in jail.

Terry Tremaine founded the neo-Nazi National-Socialist Party of
Canada. Tremaine faces 11 criminal charges of willfully promoting hate
against identifiable groups.
The National Post, in an editorial, made the case that such
prosecutions only provide a platform for the promotion of the very
ideas that were supposedly so toxic as to require suppression. In the
age of the Internet, moreover, only a tiny fraction of such material
is ever likely to be caught in the state’s web, raising questions as
to what, if anything, is being achieved.
But these are practical arguments. I want to raise a more fundamental
objection. Societies that maintain such laws, after all, are making a
statement about who and what they are, the sorts of principles they
value and why.
I’ll make the customary disclaimer here: freedom of speech is indeed
not absolute. But the classical exceptions developed over the
centuries — libel, fraud, and so on — typically find justification
in the concept of harm. It isn’t enough that the speech is
considered offensive. It must be shown to have caused, or be likely to
cause, some demonstrable harm to some identifiable person.
This begins from the recognition of what an extraordinary thing it is,
in a free society, for the state to stop up people’s mouths. Speech
is not merely useful for debating political ideas. It is innate to us
as human beings, built into our very thought processes: to prevent us
from speaking is the next thing to preventing us from thinking. The
burden of proof must therefore be on those who would seek to restrict
freedom of speech, and not on those who wish merely to enjoy that
freedom. And that burden must be a heavy one.
Is there another kind of harm that would justify its imposition? Hurt
feelings, as I’ve said, aren’t enough
How heavy? In a criminal trial, as everyone knows, the accused enjoys
the presumption of innocence. The state is required to prove his guilt
“beyond a reasonable doubt.” What is more, there are no
exceptions. Often the law requires the courts to weigh one principle
against another, most famously via the Charter’s “reasonable
limits” clause. But in a criminal trial, the requirement to prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt is absolute.
To deprive someone of their freedom of speech is perhaps not so grave
a matter as to deprive them of their physical liberty. But it is not
that far off. It is defensible in certain limited cases, and only with
the most rigorous justification. The harm asserted, therefore, cannot
be vague or subjective. It must be of a kind that others can agree is
harm. That is why the classical exceptions have tended to focus on
individuals, and on the more tangible forms of harm.
Physical injury is an obvious example. And indeed, the ban on hate
speech is often justified by invoking the threat of violence. But
there are other areas of the Criminal Code to deal with that. For
example, Sect 319.1, the section just before the one in dispute,
outlaws inciting hatred against an identifiable group “where such
incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” The purpose
of 319.2, then, can only be to cover cases where no such breach is
likely.
Is there another kind of harm that would justify its imposition? Hurt
feelings, as I’ve said, aren’t enough: all sorts of things can
cause subjective offense, with no objective basis for distinguishing
between them. Attempts have been made to draw an analogy to libel, on
the grounds that hate speech amounts to defamation of an entire group.
But the broader and more abstract the claim of harm, the harder it is
to show.
Probably the strongest case is that recently made by the American
legal theorist Jeremy Waldron, in his book The Harm in Hate Speech.
Hate speech, he argues, is nothing less than an assault on the dignity
of the targeted groups, robbing them of the “implicit assurance” a
just society owes to all of its citizens: that they are accepted as
members of that society. Without such assurance, it becomes difficult,
if not impossible, for them to participate fully in the community.
I can see that applying, in a society where such views were dominant.
But a handful of neo-Nazis?
I can see that applying, in a society where such views were dominant.
But a handful of neo-Nazis? How is anyone’s membership in society
threatened because somebody, somewhere, has an Adolf Hitler decoder
ring? Perhaps it might be argued that it is only the law that prevents
the few from becoming the many: that in its absence, hatred would be,
not the exception, but the rule.
Yet that is not the experience of free societies. Rather, it is in
backward dictatorships that hatred of minorities is most virulent.
How, indeed, does the impulse arise to protect vulnerable groups in
this way except amid the general climate of tolerance of others that
is the very basis of freedom of speech? Is it the ban on hate speech,
then, that protects them, or the broader absence of such limits?

_____________________________
Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp318.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgjjqgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider

RoadKill Radio News: Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and Intimidation

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 11 July 2012 04:47

*RoadKill Radio News:** Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and
Intimidation*

** **

****

*Interview with Marc Lemire*

*The only Canadian to ever win at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal*

** **

** **

Join Kari Simpson and Ron Gray as they speak to free speech champion Marc
Lemire, the leading force in the campaign to remove the oppressive Section
13 from Canada's Human Rights Code. Is the tide finally turning in favour
of free speech in Canada?****

** **

Watch the interview:****

** **

*
http://roadkillradio.com/2012/07/10/roadkill-radio-news-canada-attacks-free-speech-with-entrapment-and-intimidation/
*

<< Start < Prev 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next > End >>

Page 192 of 454

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

Most Read