What if a referendum on Free Speech were held federally in Canada on July 1st, 2018. Assume there were 3 options and the one garnering the most votes would become the law of the land.
When it comes to Free Speech in Canada, I would prefer to see the following enacted as federal law:
- Something akin to the First Amendment in America, where anyone can pretty much say anything, no matter how ‘hateful’ some might perceive it.
- Keep things as they are currently.
- Make the hate laws stronger to be more encompassing, with stronger penalties.
When commenting, please share two things: How would you vote & why and also share your best guess of what percentage of Canadians would vote for each of the three options.
#1.
The traditional limits on speech would still, of course, apply. Direct incitement to violence, for example, would still be illegal.
But “hate speech” is a vague and infinitely elastic concept, highly prone to the political whims of the day, and thus to abuse. Pretty much any opinion someone strongly disagrees sounds like hate to that person. Such an ephemeral limitation has no place in a liberal democracy.
Do you really believe the majority of Canadians would vote for #1? What do you think the percentage breakdown might be?
I’d vote number one, because so called “hate speech” is a very good safety valve to prevent actual violence and sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas.
Most Canadians will vote number 3, unthinkingly, because who doesn’t want to be thought of as “nice” and “polite”?
Number 1, always number 1, but most people would probably vote 2 or 3.
The traditional limits on speech would still, of course, apply. Direct incitement to violence, for example, would still be illegal.
That’s actually #2. Remember, the Charter grants you freedom of speech “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
No country on Earth has legislatively unrestricted freedom of speech, because truly unrestricted freedom of speech would allow for things like, say, hardcore child pornography. There’s always some kind of limits on what you can say. The US Constitution’s First Amendment is unambiguous about no legislative restrictions on freedom of speech and they have all kinds of limits, including things like threatening the President and seditious libel.
Canada’s Charter is already about as strong as the US First Amendment. But that’s irrelevant, because nobody who matters takes the Charter seriously. Mark Steyn had the right of it: politics is downstream from culture. Currently, Canadian culture does not value freedom of speech, so enshrining it into law “even more” isn’t going to do anything when successive Parliaments can make laws abrogating freedom of speech and have those laws upheld by the provincial and federal Supreme Courts, all with the approval or at least tacit apathy of the general populace.
Have a referendum. Have ten referendums. Win them all. It won’t matter.
#1.
the vote would run
20% #1.
60% #2.
20% #3
Cause we are “nice” people.
Now if the question was clear and the abuses of our “Human Right” comrades were highlighted, we might get 40% 1 and 40% 2 and still have 20% lusting after power over all.#3.
Rational thought is dead in the socialist paradise of Canada.
And will not return until there is no opiate/other people money left to steal.
And every right thinking product of the public e-dumbication system knows that a bureaucrat will always know better than a taxpaying citizen.
Wether it be how to speak,how to earn money and especially how to spend your money.
#1 We should have no restrictions, with the exception of outright hate speech and incitement to violence (unless against the Gov’t when we have to save ourselves from the Venezuela effect).
I believe most Canadians don’t understand the actual act of free speech and what it entails. The ability to speak freely on a topic without government censor.
Public censor is just a difference of opinion.
Public censor is what gets people fired for saying what they think. See Google man who stated facts (as he’d seen them) and got fired for stating the facts. Not argued with or rebutted, just fired.
This and many other examples are not about free speech, there is no guarantee of freedom from repercussions for what you say.
What is a problem is the lack of backbone in public/private corporate management to stand up and refuse to be swayed by the 140 Character Warfare that is “Twit”er. Too quick to mollify the screaming basement dwellers and special interest groups. Wait a day, something worse will come along to entertain the SJW and HollyWeird crowds, your incident will be forgotten quicker than last nights menu plan.
Twitter gave voice to the people, too bad most don’t have anything interesting or worthwhile to say.
I believe most Canadians would vote to maintain the status quo, just because they don’t have a clue. #1 25%, #2 50% and #3 25%.
I would vote for #1. I believe Canadians would want #3, they believe bad people must be shut up to keep things harmonious, and they don’t believe that they themselves will someday fall victim to this attitude.
Robert, It really doesn’t matter what most Canadians would vote for, a Liberal, NDP and most likely a Conservative Government would still enact number three. In Canada, when a government is formed, that government seems to think it can do whatever it wants and successive governments think we (Canadians) are too stupid for our own good.
All of the responses so far are amazing. Thank you!
This question came about because of a discussion I had earlier today with another Robert out of Montreal. He made some good points but one thing I vehemently disagreed with him on was that he said that past federal elections were a mandate to the government to clamp down on “American style” free speech. I can’t agree with that. People vote for governments for a variety of reasons but I can’t think of one election in my lifetime where Free Speech was a ballot issue.
I would vote #2. We already have Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Expression means forming a opinion about anyone and anything. Thus if I write or say ”I despise Justin Trudeau and the Liberals more than weevils in my porridge,” so be it!!
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
I was in Paris in the arrondissement of Montmartre (La Place du Tertre) when a man in his 30’s got up on a pedestal and began speaking out against women, Jews and God. What he was saying was disgusting. A Gendarme was standing near me totally aloof to what the speaker said. I asked him if it was legal to speak in such as fashion. He said, ”Yes, he is merely reiterating his ignorance.”
Interesting.
Hate speech here in Canada seems to prohibit stating the obvious,nearly all protected groups are parasites.
When was the last time anyone was charged or convicted of :”Inciting a Riot”?
If Canadians were actually well educated , freedom loving individuals, we would already be rioting.
Sullen passive resistive slaves seems our true nature.
Currently doing my bit to help society.
Researching tax avoidance, right down to choices of productive behaviour.
Well that and working out a mechanical autoloaders for the repurposed wind-turbine.
While useless for electrical generation ,I am sure they can provide some amusement for us mob..200mph tip speed should not be wasted.
And the drama of an erratic unreliable means of public retribution for those who forced these whirling crucifixes upon at our expense..too delicious to not be shared.
I’d vote for #1 and settle for #2.
I am afraid the tyranny of nice would put #3 over the top.
I agree. But just mentioning ‘America’ and ‘1st Amendment’ in #1 would guarantee it will lose, because the left does not want us to be similar to America in any fashion.
1. I think question 1 should be re-written, so that it asks if the gov’t should play any role in limiting free speech, or if the right to free speech should be unencumbered, as it is without gov’t putting the screws to it. As worded above Robert, would galvanise the centre and left in Canada against the idea as that would be “American” Something the CBC would be apoplectic over.
There are no other options to free speech, you either have it in its entirety, or you do not. We currently do not have free speech in Canada, many in gov’t have spoken out on this topic in the past decade to say we should not have it, including the head of the Supreme Court of Canada, Bev, who said that Canada’s right of free expression is not the same as the United State’s First Amendment right to free speech.
Free expression, doesn’t mean anything as long as the gov’t can decide what it means. It’s a nothing burger.
Free speech, is far too important to have the gov’t deciding what it is.
2. I’d vote for free speech, and nothing less than that. I suspect the majority of Canadians would vote for the status quo, the nothing burger of “free expression”…
.
I would vote for #1. ‘Hate speech’ is subjective, and inciting others to commit violence really depends on those involved. Some are more easily influenced than others. Cultures differ. I’ve been swayed by actual Canadian cases (Ernst Zundel, David Ahenakew, in particular.)
If you think they have free speech in the US you are deluding yourself.
#1 Hands down
#2 No. currently ‘unwarranted’ speech is determined by liberals
#3 ‘hate’ as defined by who? Follows #2, tyranny follows that.
I would vote for # 1 but agree with Marc and others that comparing ourselves to anything American would send the left around the bend. I don’t like # 2 for the simple reason that it’s already under siege. Example below.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/28/religious-liberty-eroding-canada-heres-americans-learn/
# 3 would be the end of the limited freedom we still enjoy.
Predict voting to be
#1 30%
#2 50%
#3 20#
Keep in mind we live with a generation of idiots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBffY9RGrjo
I would select number one and I think a vote would go 33, 33, 34. Happy New Year! Eric
Related Question: Is Wilfrid Laurier University considered a private institution where Free Speech laws would not apply?
All universities in Canada are considered privately held, though their funding comes mostly from the public (gov’t grants). See the argument for allowing/not allowing pro life people to protest anywhere they want on campus’.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/09/22/free-speech-on-canadian-campuses-failing-grades/
“The trouble with campus speech codes is that they backfire. That’s what happened when Dalhousie University tried to discipline Masuma Khan for making rude remarks on Facebook.
Ms. Khan is the black-robed student activist who got pushback after she urged people to boycott Canada Day. “F*** you all,” she responded in one post. “Be proud of this country? For what, over 400 years of genocide?” For good riddance, she signed off with the hashtag #whitefragilitycankissmyass.”
Never mind for now the remarkable ingratitude Ms. Khan expresses toward the country that took her parents in, and provided her with a first-class education. No one took offence at that. On today’s campuses, the sentiments she expressed are common – and, for aspiring activists, practically obligatory. No one blinked until a white, male graduate student decided to test the system. He filed a written complaint alleging that her Facebook post was “blatant discrimination” against white people.
The university should have told them both to go away and grow up. But of course it couldn’t do that. Dalhousie has a detailed code of conduct that, among other things, prohibits “unwelcome” actions that might make another person feel demeaned, intimidated or harassed – even if it’s just a Facebook post. The vice-provost of student affairs investigated the matter and recommended that Ms. Khan should face a disciplinary hearing and be sentenced to re-education camp.
What happened next was perfectly predictable…. ”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/universities-cant-have-it-both-ways-on-free-speech/article36749219/
“The University of Alberta argued that freedom of expression encompasses all behaviour short of violence. But the university’s own code bans not only violence, but inappropriate behaviour, such as disrupting classes and obstructing university-related function”
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-carpay-canadian-universities-are-far-too-tolerant-of-obstructionist-behaviour-that-shuts-down-free-speech
.
Well said. I was about to write something similar.
I believe the majority of Canadians would vote for #3, and would make hate speech laws stronger and with much more severe penalties.
I believe you have the right to say whatever the hell you want.
I also believe that nobody has to listen to you.
I favour option 1 but don’t expect it would get the largest vote because it’s a change from the status quo toward something more “American.” I fear votes for option 1 instead of option 2 might allow option 3 to win. If in the run up to the referendum that looked possible I’d probably vote for option 2 as the best defence against the worst outcome.
I vote 1 because it allows a competition of thought.
My predicted breakdown of votes is:
1. 20%
2. 50%
3. 30%
Because I have no faith in the electorate, they’re a bunch of sheep.
#1. Anything else is a exponentially slippery slope towards human rights tribunal kangaroo type courts.
Wait a minute……..
I would vote number #1 but I’m sure our second sober thought police ie Senate would rule it unconstitutional….if they did rule it constitutional the scoc would rule it unconstitutional or vice versa.
Name a country that has freer speech than the USA.
#2 and #3 are the same thing, if you allow #2, well, SJW’s always try for more, and never stop trying for more. Give them an inch, and then they go for the next inch, and before you know it, they will have achieved their goal, which is that SJW’s and only SJW’s will determine what you may say or not say. They, after all, are vastly superior people and should have total control, for your own good.
And then we will be back to where they think we should be, with two classes of people, nobles, that is them, of course, and serfs, also called slaves, that is you. We shall, of course, ignore the fact that the “nobles” will then act as they always do, and tear society apart fighting among themselves for the power they crave.
Also note that you left out something, and that is, how may private companies and organizations censor speech? What, you say, shouldn’t private parties be allowed to do that? Look around you, the SJW’s are taking over every private party they can, and using them to impose censorship by violence. Violence, you say, I don’t see any violence. Look around, when an SJW converged organization gets someone fired and blackballed, they hurt them, they hurt their family, they hurt their children, in physical, tangible ways, it is violence. It is, in fact, military violence, and has a military name, blockade, and you can’t get more violent than that. If someone can and will hurt your children physically, it is time for war. Remember that, when you see an SJW doing that, you are seeing a child abuser, act accordingly.
Read the dailysto8rmer.red
Dailystormer.red
I vote no.1.Anything else leads to Venezuela.Having said that sheep like Canadians will vote 2 or 3.
Number 1. 35% would vote for #3, 35% for #1, and 35% for #2. The rest have poor math skills.
This is not a valid question. And nobody can, or should “vote” in such a referendum – indeed, its sponsor should be jailed, or at the very least, fined or sued into the poorhouse.
As Karl Denninger frequently points-out, Free Speech is a RIGHT. It is something we all come-with; you do not vote-on a RIGHT, because it being a RIGHT, it cannot be taken away from you by the government.
So voting in a referendum like this, you’re telling the government “We choose to let you alter, or take-away entirely, one of our RIGHTS.” Not this little black duck – I mean, Shiny’s LGBTQ Law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already! “Yes well I feel, it’s the progressive thing to do – and I’m Prime Minister so I can do what I want.” No you can’t – you can’t take-away a RIGHT, Mr. Prime Minister, however much of a good idea you think it is.
So what would their next referendum be? “How much of our RIGHTS are we willing to let our Government take-away from us, at their mere whim? 1) ALL 2) Almost ALL, the details to be decided by the government without further consultation. Pick one of the above – failure to do so will constitute a violation of Law # ……….”
No thank you.
I would vote for #1, as we are slowly but surely losing our freedom of speech and faith and becoming a nation of whisperers. Only about 20%, a dropping percentage, would support #1.
I think most people, about 50%, would support the status quo in #2, that is until they personally feel the sting of the HRC tribunals through some inadvertent comment.
That leaves 30% supporting #3. In my opinion this is an increasing percentage as leftist brainwashed graduates leave university.
The implementation of #3 would actually much more dangerous to freedom as a whole in Canada. Who decides what is “hate speech”? As we are seeing more and more, that any opinion other than that acceptable, which is a changing premise, by an increasingly leftist system, is considered “hate speech”. Recall the Lindsey Sheppard story. The mere fact that she used excerpts of a CBC publicly televised Jordan Peterson media segment exposed her to charges of hate speech on already more than one occasion. Can you imagine if those making the charges were put in charge of drafting laws.
Is massive, warrantless wiretapping a violation of the First Amendment?
Governments and the SJWs are attacking us for racism and bigotry and steadily tightening our right to free speech yet the authorities constantly react to MUSLIM attacks specifically by bollards from Ramavan, tightening security after the shoe bomber, liquid volumes, metal detectors, pressure cookers and on and on. This is totally IMHO racist and bigoted again islam which my liberal friends accuse me of.
Captcha Group SECURITY
No. Listening to your free speech, even secretly, doesn’t prevent you from speaking freely.
I would vote number 1
I expect most Canadians would vote number 3. Sadly most Canadians don’t trust themselves to be able to handle life without the government telling them what to do and think.
July 1st 2018 everyone will be lining up outside the WeedCBO to pay $10/gram for the “I’m sorry, that is out of stock” sale.
If there is any uproar or fuss made July 1st it will be about weed, free speech nobody is going to know or care.
The truth is, Robert, Canadians are already voting for #3 every time they go to the polls. They consistently vote for more and higher taxes, more restrictions on business, and more supervision on private individuals.
That’s what they want. They want people they don’t like to have to shut up or face jail. They want “the rich” to pay for their beer. They’ve been told since the 1950s that the only way forward was Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and they believed it. Canadians are also, at base, a bunch of envious cretins who can’t stand seeing anybody get ahead if it isn’t them. Anybody doing a little better will be dragged back and punched out for being “uppity” and getting above themselves.
If we want to see anything change in Canada, we need to start talking about that ugly little fact right there.
yes it is, as people will automatically sensor themselves when they fear they are being “listened” to. George Bush did not bring audio tapes, recorded by NSA to the UN, because he knew that it was such a violation. Bush knew that Sadam was constructing chemical plants (Germans were doing this in Iraq and Syria at the time)and had a viable nuke program on the go, in conjunction with the Syrians. Euro-sat pictures showed that the Norks had started building their nuke site in Syria in 2003. USA had all the evidence they needed, ON TAPE, but Bush realized the security and legal implications those tapes presented.
Hang on, there are still conservatives living in Canada? I thought the smart, self-reliant and productive were leaving for the US in droves….
“Name a country that has freer speech than the USA.” Gord Tulk
The whole discussion becomes confused because USA Free Speech is a constitutional “INDIVIDUAL” right….
Everyone has the right to expression, but must accept the non-governmental consequences…Every other Individual has the “individual” right to reject each others opinion.. Including been Fired… Civil Courts sort out the winner & losers….
Canada does not have constitutional “Individual” rights…Mostly “Group Rights” (British Class System) & open to Governmental Control. Hence the idea of a democratic vote.. What the Government give, they can take away…
The other USA Constitutional Rights are defined by other Amendments and are not to be confused with free speech
As an Australian, and one who watched the best Prime Minister we’ve had for decades replaced in 2007 by a series (with one exception) of nasty and incompetent charlatans, I’m really in no position to actually judge here… #1 is your best option, but the way Canadians have generally voted makes me fear #3 is what you’ll end up getting…
Lindsay Shepherd, if you read this, you’d be welcome in Australia!!! But we’re likely to end up much like Canada, I have to add.
# 1 is obviously the correct answer, #2 is a misnomer because we are already living with #3
The correct response to all this for Westerners is to tell the censors to get kufced, and basically take to the streets by the thousands, and dare them to shoot us down. Come on people, grow a pair. If the Iranians can do it, and the Ukrainians, and the Poles in 1989, then we can do it. Tell them to get stuffed. We are free men, not slaves, and we shall speak our minds as our conscience dictates. Sir Thomas More is my hero.
1 is preferred. Observed speech can be criminalized or exposed after the fact. Ask the non-CEO of Mozilla how free (public) speech can come back to bite one on the butt.