A House of Commons committee has recommended making it a crime to “glorify” terrorism, a proposal critics fear would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.
58 Replies to “The “Denis Coderre Can’t Party With His Friends” Law”
Ah, but Boots, what if a Muslim paramedic was called on to help someone who had come to distress due to intoxication, or was choking on a ham sandwich? “INFIDEL! Allah is smiting him justly!”
the handle has been pushed and the water is now circling the bowl oh canada
thats right boots death before dishonor and all that stuff. but i think you wouldnt know about that since you appear to be mired in dhimmitude.
I think that the proposed legislation raise some serious issues where reasonable people are free to disagree.
But some of the comments above are well across the line in terms of whatever editorial standards govern moderation of comments.
I think that a further subset of those comments are questionable under Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code that Dr. Dawg referenced above.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not impressed when other blogs allow a commenter to cross the line into unambiguous anti-Semitism: http://markymarkisonthemark.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-is-outrage.html
If you think it is unacceptable for a blog to let in Protocols of the Elders of Zion comments about Jews, or KKK comments about African Canadians, then how can be permissible to allow stereotyping and slurs against Muslims?
Hey, Kate, you can count me as one person on the “left” who will cooperate with getting rid of those ridiculous hate speech laws.
Not only are they a bad idea in principle, they’re wildly ineffective in practice – just look at all the hate speech in your comment section!
Here is some expanded analysis of the Criminal Code of Canada provisions relating to “hate speech.”
I think this provision is relevant to “speech” on the internet:
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The section contains possible defenses as follows:
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
For such purposes the Code defines an “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
It seems to me that:
1. Muslims are an identifiable group.
2. Statements contained in blog comment sections are not being made in private conversation.
3. The point of some of the above comments is to portray Muslims as being horrible in many respects, with a view to convincing the readers of such view.
The legal question would be whether the comment descends to the level of “promoting” hatred rather than just expressing their own hatred without the objective of spreading it to others.
Why make an issue of this point? My answer is because people know they can’t say these things in public including in newspapers and are hopeful that the internet gives them an unregulated forum to spread their hatred and convert others. But they are wrong, as the internet is not completely unregulated.
“3. The point of some of the above comments is to portray Muslims as being horrible in many respects, with a view to convincing the readers of such view.”
I’m glad your reading comprehension skills are working, Mary. But it’s your perception of what is going on around you that needs fine tuning. It’s frustrating to know that most of our population, spoon fed by the dhimmified media, are in denial of the obvious. If you want to defend those death cultists, that is your right under our Charter of Lefties and Cretins. It too is your right to rail on about “anti-Semitism”, which is also a worn out canard. But I have a right to stand up for the Canadian way of life and defend it against all who threaten it, and most of the people visiting here are of like mind, thank God.
Boz Hogg,
“But I have a right to stand up for the Canadian way of life and defend it against all who threaten it, and most of the people visiting here are of like mind, thank God.”
Good grief. Can’t you make your argument without calling all Muslims death cultists and un-Canadian? What’s the difference between what you typed and what I’d find on Stormfront? What exactly is the “Canadian” way of life? White Christian straight males only?
Ah, but Boots, what if a Muslim paramedic was called on to help someone who had come to distress due to intoxication, or was choking on a ham sandwich? “INFIDEL! Allah is smiting him justly!”
the handle has been pushed and the water is now circling the bowl oh canada
thats right boots death before dishonor and all that stuff. but i think you wouldnt know about that since you appear to be mired in dhimmitude.
I think that the proposed legislation raise some serious issues where reasonable people are free to disagree.
But some of the comments above are well across the line in terms of whatever editorial standards govern moderation of comments.
I think that a further subset of those comments are questionable under Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code that Dr. Dawg referenced above.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not impressed when other blogs allow a commenter to cross the line into unambiguous anti-Semitism:
http://markymarkisonthemark.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-is-outrage.html
If you think it is unacceptable for a blog to let in Protocols of the Elders of Zion comments about Jews, or KKK comments about African Canadians, then how can be permissible to allow stereotyping and slurs against Muslims?
Hey, Kate, you can count me as one person on the “left” who will cooperate with getting rid of those ridiculous hate speech laws.
Not only are they a bad idea in principle, they’re wildly ineffective in practice – just look at all the hate speech in your comment section!
Here is some expanded analysis of the Criminal Code of Canada provisions relating to “hate speech.”
I think this provision is relevant to “speech” on the internet:
The section contains possible defenses as follows:
For such purposes the Code defines an “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
It seems to me that:
1. Muslims are an identifiable group.
2. Statements contained in blog comment sections are not being made in private conversation.
3. The point of some of the above comments is to portray Muslims as being horrible in many respects, with a view to convincing the readers of such view.
The legal question would be whether the comment descends to the level of “promoting” hatred rather than just expressing their own hatred without the objective of spreading it to others.
Why make an issue of this point? My answer is because people know they can’t say these things in public including in newspapers and are hopeful that the internet gives them an unregulated forum to spread their hatred and convert others. But they are wrong, as the internet is not completely unregulated.
“3. The point of some of the above comments is to portray Muslims as being horrible in many respects, with a view to convincing the readers of such view.”
I’m glad your reading comprehension skills are working, Mary. But it’s your perception of what is going on around you that needs fine tuning. It’s frustrating to know that most of our population, spoon fed by the dhimmified media, are in denial of the obvious. If you want to defend those death cultists, that is your right under our Charter of Lefties and Cretins. It too is your right to rail on about “anti-Semitism”, which is also a worn out canard. But I have a right to stand up for the Canadian way of life and defend it against all who threaten it, and most of the people visiting here are of like mind, thank God.
Boz Hogg,
“But I have a right to stand up for the Canadian way of life and defend it against all who threaten it, and most of the people visiting here are of like mind, thank God.”
Good grief. Can’t you make your argument without calling all Muslims death cultists and un-Canadian? What’s the difference between what you typed and what I’d find on Stormfront? What exactly is the “Canadian” way of life? White Christian straight males only?