Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, right? Here's one I fully agree with the Worldnutdaily on. A Canadian minister named Stephen Boissoin has been brought up on charges before the Human Rights Commission of Alberta, his home province, because he submitted a letter to a newspaper condemning homosexuality. A professor from the University of Calgary, Darrell Lund, filed the charges and is demanding that Boissoin be fined (he could be fined as much as $7000) and be forced to apologize. This is nothing short of outrageous.
Boissoin is wrong, dead wrong, in his opinions about homosexuals. But that is irrelevant. The notion that having someone else disapprove of you or think you are immoral violates your human rights is patently absurd. The only one whose human rights have been violated in this situation is Mr. Boissoin, who has a right to speak his mind and state his position regardless of how offensive it might be to me or anyone else. The proper response to offensive speech is not to use the power of government to punish that speech, but to use one's own voice to condemn him and prove him wrong.
The fact that the charges were brought by a university professor, of all people, makes the situation all the more absurd. I doubt that Lund would so easily submit his own academic freedom to government coercion. If he is allowed to teach things that others believe to be offensive, then others are allowed to say things that he may find offensive. This is a crucial difference between the Canadian and American systems of law and one where the American system is clearly better. That principle was stated perfectly by Justice Robert Jackson in Barnette:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act.
Canadians may fool themselves into thinking that by allowing the government to punish offensive speech they are improving their society, but the reality is that they are simply building oppression into their way of life. The government that can punish speech that I find offensive can as easily punish my speech because others find it offensive (and they often do). The rights of all are far less secure when the rights of any are abridged.
All the more sad, then, that some Canadians are actually applauding this tyranny:
Human rights law is so crucial to Canadian society that its proceedings are not required to operate under traditional rules of evidence -- so obviously the people who enforce and adjudicate it are no fools. Did Boissoin think his violation would go unnoticed and unpunished? If so, what an insult to the commission and to the citizens who serve as its eyes and ears...
In a democratic society we have ways of gradually modifying and augmenting legislation that we don't like so that it favours our own interests more equitably. But instead of voting for the candidate that wishes to implement his views, Boissoin had to write his letter, raising the black flag of anarchy over himself and his church.
The black flag of anarchy? For speaking one's mind and not allowing the government to prescribe what he may or may not say? I'll take ridiculous hyperbole for 1000 Canadian dollars, Alex.
- Log in to post comments
I know nothing about this case, but I will merely cite you to two points.
First, Canada does not have a "freedom of speech" clause that is anything analogous to the US constitution. I'm sure that the US would like to believe that its jurisprudence should be available all over. (Although I will merely remind you that the US constitutional protections have not been uniformly applied. I'm sure that I will not need to go into details.)
Second, I am not going to do a lot of research on this issue, but there was a previous case that WorldNutDaily bitched&moaned about regarding a billboard posted in Alberta that they claimed merely had biblical references regarding homosexuality. On further examination, that was not true. The bilboards also had graphics that suggested that gay people should be offed. Assassinated. Murdered. And that was the reason that the Alberta human rights commission found a violation. WND totally lied about the issue--and that's one reason why I give them no credibility. I neither know nor care what WND says about this case--they have no credibility.
WND are liars. And, just to let you know, they are supporting an "ex-gay" liar, Stephen Bennett. We've discussed him and his association with WND on exgay-watch.com for some time.
raj,
With your opinion, I concur in part, and, in part dissent.
I believe the section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the same rights as our First Amendment.
I won't argue that Canadian Courts may interpret this section less conservatively than would an American court.
I agree though, that before I can conclude that the preacher's free speech rights are violated, I need to see the facts of the case.
You might be familiar with a similar case in Sweden where a preacher was hauled before a court for a very similar transgression.
However when the fact became known, the Swedish court focused on whether the preacher's speech had crossed the line into Fighting Words, and in the end, the court ruled in favor of the preacher.
raj wrote:
No, they don't have a freedom of speech clause, at least not one that provides anywhere near the level of protection that ours does. That is precisely the problem. And yes, I do think that freedom of speech should be available all over. Liberty is a universal value for me; I will not compromise on it.
I fully agree, it has not been uniformly applied, although we've done far better in the last 80 years than we did in the first 130. That still doesn't change the fact that freedom of speech is much more a question of basic human rights than the mythical right not to be offended or judged harshly.
Obviously I recognize this; I spend a great deal of time pointing that out. But I did some research on this and could find nothing to contradict the WND's article in this particular case. In fact, even the sources who agreed with the charges agreed on the basic facts. It's possible, of course, that there are some mitigating facts that aren't being reported anywhere, but it's not likely. And I'm the last guy on earth who is going to credulously accept what the WND says. I did my research.
For the record, here is the actual text of Boissoin's letter:
--------------
June 17, 2002
The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.
Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.
My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."
The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.
Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.
Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.
Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.
Your children are being warped into believing the same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.
Your teenagers are being instructed in how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?
Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.
Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protected homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.
Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.
The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.
If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.
Rev Stephen Boissoin
-----------------
I think it's an incredible vile letter. It's exactly the sort of thing that I have ripped to shreds time and time again on this blog. He could easily qualify for a Robert O'Brien trophy with that ridiculous rant. But that's the point I'm trying to make: you counter repugnant speech with more speech, not with censorship.
Wow, there's a "homosexual machine" loose in Canada? That sounds like a great plot for a porn film! I wonder, if one were to make such a film, would one have to add a credit along the lines of "Based on the whacked-out ravings of the Far Rt. Rev. Stephen Boissoin -- we love your thinking!"?
PS: did the newspaper actually print the letter?
PPS: How can "pro-homosexual literature" be "physiologically damaging?"
A Canadian (politely of course:-), adds his two cents (1.33 cents US): I'm no expert on the differences between the Canadian and US legal systems. I do follow the US culture wars with great interest, particularly because the fundies are trying to open a second front in the war here in Canada by funding their Canadian cousins' lobbying for "family values" in Ottawa. I'm conflicted about this: I believe strongly in the free flow of ideas across borders, but parachuting in funding and literature creates what is cynically know in the PR trade as an astro-turf movement: a campaign that has the appearance of being homegrown and grass-roots, but that is nothing of the kind.
(BTY, your NRA tried something very similar when we were passing our gun-control laws up here - they bought time on cable channels trying to convince Canadians that the "right to bear arms" was as an essential a part of Canadian heritage as it is of US heritage. T'ain't so - and I say that as a gun owner.)
Back to the matter at hand. As the old cliché goes, some of my best friends (and co-workers, and, as it's turned out, family members) are gay. I've been doing volunteer work for an AIDS-related charity for more than a decade. So my belief in gay rights would seem to be crashing up against my belief in free speech in looking at this situation.
But unlike the US fundie funding, this case is clear-cut to me. Free speech trumps almost everything else, almost every time. Stephen Boissoin has the right to be wrong, and the right to be heard. Offhand, I can think of only a couple of exceptions to this: If Mr Boissoin were, for example, a teacher in the public school system, where his beliefs could arguably make it impossible for him to treat gay students with the dignity they deserve. In which case, he'd still have the right to free speech - just not necessarily the "right" to teach in the public schools. The second exception would be if his speech included actual incitation to violence against gays.)
Ed, two points.
Point one, we have been discussing the difference between speech jurisprudence in the US and Canada for a number of years on the NYTimes gay rights board. Some of the posters there are even Canadian. I've thrown in the German jurisprudence (with which I'm familiar). You might suggest that the Canadians should adopt the US equivalent of the speech and press provisions of the 1st amendment, but as you well know the US has never applied the speech and press provisions of the 1st amendment.
You say that the FedGov has been "better" in the last 80 years, in applying the speech&press provisions over the last 80 years (significantly avoiding the Schenck and Frohwerk cases), but that is incorrect. The government licensing of broadcasting facilities and cable senders is a significant abridgement of speech&press. In point of fact, US governments, at all level, have reined in speech&press over the last 80 years. I could not (legally) set up a broadcasting facility to counter the lies of right-wing talk radio former disk-jockies. And the likelihood that I would be allowed on their air-waves is between slim and none. Their call-screeners exist to make sure that the only calls that get through will be useful for their target market, which is usually conservative white males. If you believe I am kidding, I can assure you, I am not.
Point two, I'm glad that you posted the text of the letter. I am of the opinion that the letter is little more than incitement against gay people. In more than a few countries, incitement is not protected speech. That's not limited to Canada, it is also true of Germany. Indeed, it is also true of the US--recall the case involving the anti-abortion web site that was deemed to be inciting the murder of doctors involved in abortion services.
From a google search, it appears that the author of the letter was a "young evangelical minister." I'm familiar with evangelical and itinerent ministers, and it is highly probable that this was nothing more than a public relations effort. The Alberta Human Rights Commission should probably have just ignored him, but the Alberta newspaper should probably have refused to print his letter. Obviously, the newspaper wasn't obligated to print it.
raj wrote:
Never applied? Come on raj, that's just inflated rhetoric and you know it. One can easily cite numerous instances in which the government has applied the speech and press provisions of the 1st amendment and protected those rights. The fact that they don't always do so perfectly - and I agree of course that they do not - doesn't mean that they don't matter and are always ignored. The courts have enforced the free press provision of the first amendment, for example, in NY Times v Sullivan, in a case where doing so did enormous damage to the self-interests of the government itself and probably helped bring down an administration. The courts have enforced the free speech provision of the first amendment in dozens and dozens of cases, from the right of controversial groups to march in public (the Skokie case and several others) to the rights of students not to be compelled to say things they object to (Barnette). The courts have drawn the exceptions to the free speech and free press provisions very narrowly. Even our libel and slander laws are notoriously difficult to make stick. The "fighting words" exception has been drawn very narrowly, as it should be. That we are not perfect does not mean that it's accurate to say that they're just never enforced.
This is just nonsense, raj. Until shortly after WWI, virtually no free speech case ever won in court. Since that time, hundreds of such cases have won and the courts have dramatically expanded the scope of protection for speech and press rights. You've been to law school, you know the cases. I could easily cite a hundred cases on this and you know it. By any reasonable measure, protection for freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the US has been vastly better in the last 80 years than it was before, and I would argue far better than most of our allies, as this particular case demonstrates. The fact that there are exceptions, that the courts have not been perfect in this regard, does not mean that there are no protections at all and that they just don't matter.
You certainly could set up a broadcasting facility if you could afford the license. And there is an entire network now called Air America that does counter right wing talk radio. The fact of government licensing for air waves does not mean there are political content restrictions on what can be broadcast; there are not. But none of that has anything to do with the case we're talking about. I'm talking about an individual's right to express opinions that others find offensive without the government punishing them. There is far more protection of that type of free speech in the US than in Canada, and indeed in most of our democratic allies. I think that is a good thing.
There is no similarity between that letter and the Nuremberg Files case you reference. In that case, they provided home phone numbers and addresses of doctors who performed abortions and put their faces on "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters. That is clearly far better evidence of incitement than a letter expressing an opinion. And frankly, I think even the Nuremberg Files case was wrongly decided; that's how seriously I take free speech rights even for those whose views I loathe, and how narrowly I would draw the exceptions to it. There is no more objective evidence of "incitement" in that letter than there is in any of my essays speaking out against creationists. Both are strongly worded oppositions to ideas that some would find offensive and insulting. And that is all they are. And any government that makes that a crime is engaging in oppression.
I guess we need to invade Canada, pre-emptively of course, to keep such behavior in check for fear that it might seep across the border and terrorize the masses of US citizens. The nuclear initiatives currently being considered in the joint powers agreement probably would not allow us to nuke Canada, but we certainly could take control, rework the Ottawa Constitution, account for various factions to "incite" civil wars, say between Quebec and the Inuit territories, and so forth. I do notice that in the above comments and post there was no specific mention of the unique relationship of religion in Canada although the letter writer certainly wrote from that perspective. Nearly 50% of Canadians are Roman Catholic and another 20% are either Anglican, or its offshoot the United Church of Canada; these numbers are staggering in terms of the concentration of political and social power within those who profess these faiths.
While it is academic to discuss the behavior of Canadians, their decision-making, their laws and such--- we, as citizens of the US, too often get caught up in our own self-righteousness in suggesting that we know what is best for the rest of the world, and that the rest of the world needs to listen to and obey us. Maybe when the US begins to demonstrate the majesty and wonder possible from fulfilling our obligation to our citizens under a constitution principled upon freedom and liberty equally granted to all citizens, while insuring that all our citizens' basic human needs are sustained and sustaining, then other nations might consider listening to our complaints about their application of their laws.
'Nearly 50% of Canadians are Roman Catholic and another 20% are either Anglican, or its offshoot the United Church of Canada; these numbers are staggering in terms of the concentration of political and social power within those who profess these faiths.'
Religious numbers are highly suspect and none moreso than those given by Roman Catholics. Their numbers have been consistently overstated since the turn of the century. Joseph McCabe nailed them on it 100years ago but the practice continues despite recent studies of 'church' populations that find them to be only about 25% of the claimed number.
This is a side note but it sticks in my craw. You always hear 1 billion catholics, 1 billion protestants but when you look at it critically you realize it's a bunk number. Catholics count everyone born Catholic whether they practice or not. I know perhaps 50 atheists who are former catholics and literally a hundred more who now attend other churches. So in essense these people are counted twice, as Catholics-who they no longer are, and as Protestants- who they now are.
No church loses more members than the Catholic church. But it doesn't really matter when it comes to religious counts.
Spyder, why is it 'academic' to discuss the behavior of Canadians? Obviously, from a comment above, there are Canadians who occasionally read this blog, so it's more than academic, Ed might actually convince somebody that has a direct voice in Canadian politics (i.e. a Canadian voter). Of course, I'm sure there are Canadian civil-libertarians saying the same thing, but nevertheless, anybody who believes in free-speech should be willing to speak out against anti-freedom incidents whereever they occur. I don't know about you, but I don't think that I have a right to free speech because I am an American, I think I have right to free speech because I am a human.
Your criticism might be valid if it was aimed at some 'America first' politician or pundit, someone who could never admit that America had ever done anything wrong, and who accused people who suggested such things of being traitors. But your veiled charge of hypocrisy is ill aimed: I've read many criticisms of US law and US policy on this blog. By your standards, any American who joined Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, would be a self-righteous hypocrite.
spyder wrote:
This is a profoundly silly argument, based upon a vague and fuzzy relativism that I have little patience for. This is not "the US" demanding that another country "obey us". This is ME, a thinking and rational human being, arguing for a principle that does not become invalid merely because it crosses a border. The principle is that all people have unalienable rights that no government - not mine or anyone else's - may justly violate. Among those rights are the freedom to express one's beliefs even if those beliefs are considered obnoxious to another person. It is the very same universal principle upon which the entire notion of gay rights is based, so if you reject the argument in favor of free speech as the product of mere cultural biases, on what possible basis do you assert that a nation which oppresses gays and throws them in jail is wrong? I presume you would do so.
If Canada instead put people in jail for advocating homosexuality because homosexuality is sinful, this fuzzy relativism would go right out the window, and rightfully so. The same principle that allows us to argue that gay people deserve equal rights with straight people - the principle that each individual has an unalienable right to believe and live as they see fit, free from government interference, until such time as their actions (not their words) deprive another of their equal rights - also demands that the person who despises gay people be allowed to express their views free from government coercion. You cannot give up one without giving up the other. The principle is either universal or it is not.
If Canada passed a law forbidding the advocacy of homosexuality, rather than the criticism of it, I doubt you would be condemning me as "self-righteous" or culturally arrogant in criticizing that policy. But you cannot make a principled argument against that policy without making the same principled argument for the position I am taking here.
"When we have nirvana here, then you can say something about what happens across our borders." I will make principled arguments against any government that violates those principles. I do so when my own country violates them as well, and I do so about a hundred times more often than I do any other nation's policies. My arguments are true. They don't become untrue merely because I'm an American and my government is not perfect. If I refused to criticize my own government's failings in this area, then you might have an argument here. But I don't.
JY-
Very well said, thank you.
Although I completely support free speech rights, and really don't care if some pseudo-Christian heretic such as Boission thinks I am immoral, the one problem with this letter is that it goes beyond being "wrong" and charges gay men and lesbians with basic crimes against children and humanity in general. I believe such speech would be allowed in the US, because our slander and libel laws are so specific, but may not fly in foreign countries. Nevertheless, this letter does slander millions of gay people, making unsubstantiated charges. I am not sure when speech crosses the line to where there is a legal right to censor it, but I do think Boission is right at the edge of that line.
Of course, I don't want him to be fined or go to jail - but I wouldn't mind the chance to deck the SOB.
As a Canadian, I have mixed feelings about this issue. I don't like the concept of human rights commissions in the role of "brain police". There does need to be some means of controlling actual human rights violations in our society, however.
Another problem is that appoinment to these commissions is often a political reward, putting inexperienced people in charge of some difficult judgements and decisions.
I'm also troubled by the newspaper's decision to publish this letter. It is a crude, slanderous hate-filled tirade that contributes nothing to discussion of the issue. Would this newpaper print such a letter directed at Jews, Catholics, First Nations people or other minority group? It seems odd that the writer should have to face the human rights commission, but not the paper (I could be wrong in this). The one good thing about this (and a good argument for complete freedom of expression) is that it exposes the writer for the scumbug that he is.
CPT wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near the line. There isn't a specific crime charged here but "crimes" of the general sort like "undermining society" and such. I make similar statements about the religious right all the time and that doesn't amount to anything like libel or slander. Accusing a group you oppose of damaging the nation is quite a different thing from accusing a specific person of a specific crime. And yes, some other nations do have laws that make it a crime to "slander" a group of people. In Italy, for example, you can be brought up on charges for insulting a religious group. But this is tyrannical no matter how you slice it.
And another thing...
I just Googled this story, and almost all of the results portray (so-called) Rev. Boissoin as a martyr. I think that the Human Rights Commission's activity will backfire big time.
Regarding CPT_doom's comment: Although I come down on the free speech side, I could cheerfully contribute a swift kick to the "Reverend"'s sorry ass.
I certainly agree with you on the substance of the letter. I think it's an incredibly vile letter and I think the man who wrote it is a cretin of the highest rank. I just don't think that should be against the law.
hey.. my remarks, included those that suggested invading and nuking Canada, needed to be taken with more salt and vinegar than as serious commentary. As a grumpy old dude i may have underestimated my use of sarcasm in text; something i will have to work on i guess. While Ed's and JY' comments correctly criticize what i say, their comments particularly represent what i think and hold as true. It always saddens me when some people with whatever political agenda in any country protect some rights while ignoring or denigrating or taking away the rights of others.
for some perspective--the comments i made were similar to those made to me with regard to international intervention in the environmental affairs of Brazil and the destruction of the rainforest. "You amerikans have no right to tell us how to use our rainforest!" The criticism by Ed would have been just as valid in that discussion as it is here.
Sorry spyder, I missed the sarcasm and thought you were serious.
I am somewhat torn, on one hand I kinda like the fact that we Canadians have some sort of club with which to beat our homegrown and imported nazis, holocaust deniers and homophobes with, on the other hand I see the potential for abuse if this weapon was turned on non-insane people. (Or if, as down south, the judiciary and the executive was overrun by the criminally insane and the laws were turned against normal decent thinking folk.)
I guess I just don't think that hate speech should be free, but by the same token it could easily turn into politcal correctness elevated to the status of capricious law.
As far as your cherished American rights go, he was clearly not standing in a designated free speech zone, and I was under the impression that it is the only place you are currently allowed to exercise that right from. (But perhaps I have been misinformed as to the potential side effects of exercising your right of free speech outside those designated areas. I realise that there is a difference between merely being detained by authorities and being actually charged with something. Ask anyone at Gitmo.)
spyder,
perhaps you remember what happend to Washington the past time you tried to invade Canada in 1812?
Don't think we Canadians will do you the favor of burning your capitol to the ground again, you are going to have to get rid of those criminal clowns in the whitehouse yourselves. ;)
Cheers,
Naked Ape
As another Canuck, I can see the rationalle behind trying to lay a smack-down on these extreme hate-aphilic nutters. But in my view the cost of trying to do so is just too high, and the law as written too vague. Let the haters spout their nonsense, but let me be there to tell them they are full of it too.
The way it is now, all that we accomplish with these laws, at the extreme cost of constricting liberties mind you, is to give the whack-jobs a national base to spout off their venom. Oh, we also cede them the moral high ground of being the defenders of speech freedom. They'd probably be pleased a punch to lose any tribunal ruling too, just think of the martyr points. All that and for only a few measly bucks.
Naked Ape wrote:
I don't think it requires going that far at all. The act of punishing speech is abuse, it doesn't matter whether one agrees with the person speaking or thinks they are insane or not. Government simply does not have the legitimate authority to decide which views may be expressed and which may be punished (beyond the obvious, universal and narrowly drawn exceptions of fraud or incitement to riot). The law exists to protect people from the harmful behavior of others, not from the obnoxious opinions of others.
This is nonsense. The "designated free speech zones", vile as they are, exist only with reference to protests outside where the President is speaking. They are wrong, of course, and I've also written many times against those. The fact that the US government isn't perfect with regard to free speech has precisely nothing to do with the validity of my criticisms here.
Ed Brayton wrote:
I guess it all comes down to whether or not you consider spreading hatred and exhorting violence and/or repression of a target group to be harmful behavior or merely an obnoxious opinion.
How do you parse this:
or this:
This mouth breathing snake handler is just bright enough to not come right out and say "kill the queers", but that certainly looks like this gist of his message.
I think that this creep has the right to posess these obnoxious opinions but I don't support the spreading of them.
I must admit that I am surprised that this prosecution is taking place in Alberta (Canada's red state). His letter sounds more like the sort of thing that would get him elected there, not charged.
Cheers,
Naked Ape
Naked Ape:
Let's compare the statements you pulled from this letter to the following statement:
It's a virtually identical statement, but I doubt you would view that as threatening violence against the target group. The rhetoric of that letter is no different than the rhetoric used by folks on opposite sides of any fierce political dispute involving a highly emotional issue. It's not up to the government to parse such language for implied threats. To give them that authority is to put our freedom at enormous risk.
You changed the meaning in the second clause, from whether he has a right to those opinions to whether you support the spreading of them. If a person has a right to hold an opinion, he has a right to express that opinion, whether you support it or not.
Ed,
I think it is not unreasonable to point out that things can be legal to posess, while distribution to all comers can remain illegal.
Take beer for example: Legal to posess if you are of drinking age, illegal to distribute to minors. I think the same should hold true for obnoxious opinions like hate speech.
Substituting beer for opinions in your closing sentence results in a leap from the sublime to the ridiculous:
It's a virtually identical statement, but one that you would be hard pressed to find much support for. It is still illegal to give out beer to the neighborhood kids on halloween. (This always struck me as grossly unfair when I was a kid.)
This particular incarnation of Canadian law may not be perfect, in fact I would bet on it, but I don't support anyones right to hate speech.
I guess you think that statement supports your position. I don't think that the devolution and polarization of your national discourse is something to brag about, nor should it be held up as a good example of how to have an objective discussion that leads to a conclusion. I see this sort of behavior as the problem, not the solution. I would like to see What Would Spock Do? bumper stickers outselling the WWJD? ones out there. Emotion is not particularly useful when we are trying to process information and come to an objective conclusion.
Call me wierd, but I prefer evidence to emotion when it comes to sorting out tough questions.
Are you saying that the govenrment should only concern itself with direct and specific threats, or should they just ignore threats aimed at groups of citizens altogether?
OK, I admit it, there is some risk here. I realise that giving money and/or power to government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys. Perhaps the risk does not seem as enourmous to me as it might if we were giving the American government that authority.
The much vaunted American solution of simply countering hate speech with other speech appears to be a large part of the problems that you are having with your fair and balanced media of late. Advocates of tolerance are not required to embrace intolerance just to be consistant. A neutral presentation of rationality and batshit insane lunacy as though they were equally valid enterpretations of an issue is the problem, not the solution.
Canada may be quite similar to America in many ways, but we remain a different country. As Canadians, we already have our own constitution and legal system. This may surprise you, but being just like America and adopting the American constitution is not very high on our national to-do list.
I appreciate your concern for our freedom, but it looks a little like the great American melting pot calling the Canadian kettle black. Given the enormous erosion of your civil rights over the last several years coupled with your national lack of regard for the rule of law, it is hard to let this pass without a comment about the relative wisdom in attempting to remove specs from our eyes while you appear to be sporting 5 billion dollars worth of illegal softwood lumber tarriffs in your eyes.
On a lighter note: Have you ever noticed that if you scream loudly for no reason in the supermarket people just look at you funny, but when you do this on a plane everyone joins right in?
Cheers,
Naked Ape
Naked Ape wrote:
I'm astonished that you think this is in any way analogous to freedom of conscience, which encompasses both freedom of thought and freedom of speech. If you're going to ban "distribution" of an idea, where does it end? Do you throw people in jail for just telling another person an idea the government disapproves of? Telling more than 5 people? Surely you can see the oppression inherent in this.
For crying out loud, you keep changing issues. The issue is not how you think people should express their ideas. The issue is whether the government - any government - has the legitimate authority to punish the expression of ideas solely because they are offensive to some segment of the population. It is not the government's job to decide that you must speak in a certain way or you don't have freedom of speech. People have every bit as much a right to make emotional arguments as they do to make logical arguments. Government has no legitimate authority to decide that the content of one's speech may be punished.
The former, of course. The problem is that your interpretation of an implied threat is inconsistent. You wouldn't draw that implication from an identical statement about another group. If the exact same language used to describe two different groups can be seen as a threat in one case and not in another, you have an arbitrary and subjective rule determining who has free speech and who doesn't.
No, these are totally and entirely two different issues. Whether the media has the right to express any ideas they wish is a completely different issue than whether they do their job well. You keep changing the issue from freedom of speech to how you think people should speak. I have lots of opinions on how people should speak too. I wish that there was no one on the planet who would say the vile things that Boissoin said in that letter. But that has nothing to do with whether he has the right to do it, which is another way of saying that the government has no authority to punish him for it, no matter how vile it may be.
Given that I am here criticizing one of the differences between the two systems, it is ridiculous to think that it would "surprise" me that they are different. That's the whole point of my criticism.
This really is just such a stupid response. It really is. I do not represent the US, I speak for myself. What I say here is either true or it is not, and whether it is true or not does not depend on where I happen to have been born. If I was born an hour to the east of where I was, I would be a Canadian and then you wouldn't have this absurd argument to use - but it wouldn't change the truth of what I say even one iota. Truth is truth, regardless of who said it, where they're from, or for that matter how they dress. The rational person evaluates the content of an argument, not the nationality of the person making the argument.
The funny thing is that in making this argument, you act precisely like the gang of right wing Americans I've seen in chat rooms who attack any non-American who criticizes American foreign policy. "You ain't from here, so it's none of your business what we do." The difference between you and me is that if you want to criticize my government's actions, I will join you if I think your argument is valid. The fact that you're not an American would have nothing at all to do with whether the government deserves criticism or not and nothing to do with whether your argument is true. If you were dealing with someone who didn't also criticize his own government's failings in this area, you might have a case with this strategy. But you're not, so you don't.
One problem with trying to regulate stupid hate-speech, is that the perpetrators of such speech get to claim that they're Persecuted Martyrs, rather than just Useless Idiots.
Ed,
you said:
I think I must have created the wrong impression with the paragraph that you responded to here. I was not trying to lay down an 'STFU non-citizen" rap, but my nationalistic pride compelled me to point out that while both of our nations may consider themselves to be leaders in the field, both have some work to do vis-a-vis human rights and universal freedoms.
Perhaps from each of our slightly patriotic viewpoints we see our home nation as being slightly more free and righteous than it's neighbor. Both of our nations are ostensibly democracies that embrace human rights, but they attempt to do so with their own complete set of laws.
My point with the pot-kettle comment was intended to highlight my belief that there is work to be done in both countries regaining lost freedoms, but in my opinion our Canadian rights and freedoms have eroded less since 9/11 than yours have. I was not suggesting that you have no right to comment, more that you appear inexpert on the minutae of Canadian law. It's not a case of "You ain't from here, so it's none of your business what we do.", its more like 'the US constitution, and your understanding of it has no bearing on the Canadian legal system.' Perhaps you are an expert on Canadian Law and I am completely off base here, but I have seen no evidence to support that hypothesis.
I believe that in the case in question, the theocratic fag-basher has been charged by the Alberta human rights commission (a provincial entity), not by the Crown (the feds). If you are interested in the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturism Act you can find it here:
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/H14.CFM
their mandate is here:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/ahrcc/Mandate_Function_of_Comm.asp
Decisions made by the panel may be appealed:
Similar to the US, this appeal may rise to the level of our supreme court, where the constitutionality of the legislation with respect to the Fundamental Freedoms listed in The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms would be decided.
(see here:http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/const_en.html#libertes)
To recap: I do recognise the potential threat to freedom implied by your postings, I just think that this threat is lesser in magnitude than you appear to. I don't think that you are stupid for having your own opinion, just that you are probably more familiar with your own legal system than you are with ours.
I think that free speech does not apply to hate speech that demonizes any particular group and implies that "its time to cut the tall trees." (even when directed at fundy wingnuts), and I am OK with that sort of speech being expensive as opposed to free. I see the combination of hate speech and the appeals that "somebody oughta do something about those people" as a real threat, and an obvious attempt to encourage the dim witted among the target audience to acts of violence, leaving the spewer of such hate to claim innocence. I see this as a valid attempt to address this very real problem.
Cheers,
Naked Ape
Naked Ape wrote:
Let me assure you that nothing I said has anything whatsoever to do with patriotism. I am not even slightly patriotic. My allegiance is to principles and principles alone. When my government violates those principles, I criticize my government; the same goes for other governments. In this particular area, I may argue that the American system is better than the Canadian system, but that is purely coincidental. If it were reversed, I would just as strongly say so. And there are other areas in which I think Canada is considerably better off than America. For me, it has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism in any form.
It really is frustrating that you keep responding to this straw man. I am not saying that our Constitution has any bearing on the Canadian legal system. I am simply saying that in this one instance, your legal system is wrong. That has nothing, nada, zilch, zero to do with whether on an overall basis your legal system is better or worse than ours. I couldn't possibly care any less how such a comparison would come out and I'm not making one. I'm only arguing that in this instance, Canada is violating the principle of free speech and engaging in an oppressive practice. I fully understand that in other ways, my government also does that. If you've read this blog, you've certainly seen much criticism of my government when it does so, so to continue to harp on this overall comparison is to substitute nationalism for rationalism and to completely miss the point. The only question that matters here is whether my position is true or not on this specific matter of whether Boissoin, as obnoxious as we both find him, has an unalienable right to speak his mind in this manner without fear of punishment by the government.
Which means no more to me than similar arguments in the US, that it's a state rather than the federal government, does. My argument has nothing to do with which level of government is engaging in oppression. If an individual's rights are unalienable, they may not justly be violated by any government, regardless of what nation it takes place in or at what level of power it lies. Oppressive state laws are as bad as oppressive federal laws.
Nor does the fact that a ruling can be appealed make it any less oppressive. The very fact that the law allows someone to be punished for speaking their mind based solely on the offensiveness of their statement is, in and of itself, oppressive. And regardless of the fact that the law says that everyone has "freedom of conscience", that clearly is not true if someone can be brought up on charges for speaking their mind about a controversial issue. This isn't merely a potential threat, it's actually being used in practice.
This is absurd. By this standard, I am guilty of "hate speech" for making statements like, "Theocrats must be stopped before they turn this country into a Taliban-like dictatorship." By your standards, that would be a threat to violence. But it is nothing of the sort. The word "stopped" is not in any way synonomous with "killed", and my urging is that people get involved, not take their freedoms for granted, and work to fight against the political success of theocrats. The same is true of the Boissoin letter, where he is responding to what he views as homosexual activists getting laws passed and policies adopted that he despises. He's wrong about that, but that doesn't mean that his exhortations that they must be stopped amount to a plea for violence in any way. And once you give government the power to make such abstract judgements, virtually any criticism of a protected group will be seen as encouraging violence, whereas criticism of unprotected groups will be viewed as entirely legitimate. And at that point, you've lost both freedom and justice. It isn't worth the cost, no matter what nation you live in.
Another Canuckistanian - late to the fight.
1) The guy was an idiot.
2) He _should_ have a right to show how idiotic he is. A more interesting question is - if it could be shown that his speech was directly responsible for the criminal actions of another, should he be charged with aiding & abetting or some such?
3) That the newspaper printed it showed that Red Deer, at least, or the perceived audience would respond positively which is sad.
4) The Canadian Constitution grants us free speech, unless the governement decides to pass a law invoking the "Not Withstanding" clause in which case we don't. Mights as well not bother with a constitution under those conditions if you ask me.
5) As any open source advocate will tell you, speech != beer.
6) Did anyone else notice that the author uses "you" to refer to unrepentant hom'sex'yuls at the beginning of the letter and then, without any clear change, starts using it to refer to fine upstanding citizens? Amusing.
Interesting read.