Recently there has been a debate raging here in Canada regarding the necessity of antihate laws. There are those who believe that any restriction on speech whatsoever is an infringement on our valued right to free-speech. In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld our anti-hate laws by a slim margin. While it found that such laws were a limitation on speech, given the serious need to ensure protection of vulnerable minorities such an infringement, it argued, was justified.
I agree. We are a democracy based on justice and law. We understand that human beings are far from perfect, hence we created laws to protect society. Anti-hate laws are a kind of insurance for the future. Such laws help define us as a tolerant society. To be sure we must find the correct balance between freedom of expression and the right to equality that we all share.
Obviously, a sentiment I agree with.
And let me mention again that Richard Warman will be debating Nathalie Des Rosiers of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association re Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act on Tuesday, January 10th, at the George Ignatieff Theatre in Toronto. The event begins at 7:00 pm. It would be nice to see a few progressives in attendance, as you know the loonies will be out in force.
Now, the clowns that attacked the Gatineau Mosque, and the ones that keyed the car of mixed-race couple Rita Brown and Seun Oyinsan, probably have never heard of section 13. In fact, I doubt they can count that high between them. However, those within the more organized racist community have heard of it, and should it be repealed this Spring, they will treat the occasion as a great victory and a license. I expect we will see more and broader attempts to organize later this year. And I'm not the only one who thinks that.
16 comments:
When will you get around to taking issue with the Mayor of Huntingdon who recently said Israel should not exist. In other words, the six million Jews in Israel should not exist. When will you stand up against that call for genocide.
I am rather ignorant on this topic. I am curious to know if section 13 accounts for hate crimes like this? Specifically destruction of property and ect. The way it is often presented is that section 13 only deals with speech laws and not other hate crimes.
Also if section 13 is repealed will there be other laws to take its place. Like in the US it is not illegal to incite hate but it is illegal to incite violence against an identifiable group. it is concerning how many already bigotted groups are vying for section 13 removal, do they not realize the extreme hate they will then present will lead to other criminal activities.
If the Mayor of Huntingdon said that shame on him. What does that have to do with this article?
Redtory you must mean the libel cases against white supremacists like Paul Fromm or blunderbuss Ezra Levant which Courts have upheld.
Or could you mean the large number of hateful neo-Nazi websites that Mr. Warman has taken on.
Anyone who stops Nazis in my book is a hero. Not so sure how you feel about Nazis Redtory.
@Chapel...I think it's very clear what he thinks about Nazi's.
Max do you actually expect logic from Mr. Weinstein?
It is a credit to the Jewish Community that Jewish leaders have spoken out against the attack on this Mosque. The same Jewish Community is waiting and waiting and waiting for the Islamic Leadership to speak out against the Mayor of Huntingdon. Right now Huntingdon equals Echville the town of Jim Keegstra.
Censorship... How ironic.
Chapel: I think that to reduce the argument to one of either being supportive of Section 13, or if not, therefore being pro-Nazi is beyond ridiculous.
As I said in the comment that was ironically deleted, there are other criminal provisions in the law to prevent the incitement of violence towards identifiable groups that I believe should be sufficient to deal with these sorts of problems.
Being something of an absolutist when it comes to the matter of free speech, I think that allowing people to express their hateful, bigoted or batshit crazy vitriol without legal restraint is part of the bargain we make in a free society; i.e., preservation of individual liberty in exchange for having to tolerate expressions of opinion that we may find personally abhorrent.
The problem with imposing arbitrary restrictions on free speech comes with where the line is drawn, when, and by whom…
doublenickel: Really? Is it "very clear what he thinks about Nazi's [sic]"?
Given that you're apparently a mentalist, perhaps you'd like to explain how that is so. Oh wait, you can't because my comment has since been DELETED.
See what happens when censorship kicks in. No reasonable discourse can happen.
Mr. Weinstein I read Rabbi Popky's statement, I saw Bernie Farber's op-Ed here and read that the head of the new CJC (I'm sorry I forget it's new acronym) has also condemned the Mosque attack. Do you also condemn it?
Meir, certainly Gendron's comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany is contemptible. But he already got fired once for that.
You guys actually off to Que. to protest or do you already have a branch there?
JDL will drive to Huntingdon from Ontario and some of our supporters from Montreal will join us.
Canadian Hindu Advocacy also has a small branch in Mtl, we may join in as well.
As a national advocacy, we try to have a presence wherever importnat issues arise.
BCL: Perhaps in future you should make an advance disclosure to readers alerting them to the fact that any criticism of your "friends" will not be tolerated.
I would have thought a better approach might have been to have refuted my "ignorant nonsense" (as you called it) rather than just lazily pitching it into the virtual dustbin.
As for being "a boring old fart"... considering the source, I'll take that as a compliment.
Post a Comment