Canadian Court Bans Flyer as 'Hate Speech'

[East of Eden]

http://americansfortruth.com/2013/03/06 ... te-speech/

From the link:

"In short, with this Whatcott ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that nothwithstanding the ostensible guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the Charter, a Canadian can be found guilty of violating the prohibition on hate speech in a human rights code by making a statement even if (a) the statement is true; (b) the speaker did not intend to express hatred; (c) the speaker was expressing his or her honestly held religious conviction; and (d), there is no proof that the statement has caused any harm."

Truly amazing, apparently free speech is now dead in Canada, and this from the same court members who earlier defended Nazis' use of free speech. More evidence for my theory that if fascism ever comes to North America, it will come from the left.

Anybody want to defend this?

[Wyvern]

http://americansfortruth.com/2013/03/06 ... te-speech/

From the link:

"In short, with this Whatcott ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that nothwithstanding the ostensible guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the Charter, a Canadian can be found guilty of violating the prohibition on hate speech in a human rights code by making a statement even if (a) the statement is true; (b) the speaker did not intend to express hatred; (c) the speaker was expressing his or her honestly held religious conviction; and (d), there is no proof that the statement has caused any harm."

Truly amazing, apparently free speech is now dead in Canada, and this from the same court members who earlier defended Nazis' use of free speech. More evidence for my theory that if fascism ever comes to North America, it will come from the left.

Anybody want to defend this?

Defend what? your opinion?

[East of Eden]

http://americansfortruth.com/2013/03/06 ... te-speech/

From the link:

"In short, with this Whatcott ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that nothwithstanding the ostensible guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the Charter, a Canadian can be found guilty of violating the prohibition on hate speech in a human rights code by making a statement even if (a) the statement is true; (b) the speaker did not intend to express hatred; (c) the speaker was expressing his or her honestly held religious conviction; and (d), there is no proof that the statement has caused any harm."

Truly amazing, apparently free speech is now dead in Canada, and this from the same court members who earlier defended Nazis' use of free speech. More evidence for my theory that if fascism ever comes to North America, it will come from the left.

Anybody want to defend this?

Defend what?

The shutting down of free speech in Canada.

your opinion?

Not my opinion, the Court's.

Want to answer my question now?

[Goat]

http://americansfortruth.com/2013/03/06 ... te-speech/

From the link:

"In short, with this Whatcott ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that nothwithstanding the ostensible guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the Charter, a Canadian can be found guilty of violating the prohibition on hate speech in a human rights code by making a statement even if (a) the statement is true; (b) the speaker did not intend to express hatred; (c) the speaker was expressing his or her honestly held religious conviction; and (d), there is no proof that the statement has caused any harm."

Truly amazing, apparently free speech is now dead in Canada, and this from the same court members who earlier defended Nazis' use of free speech. More evidence for my theory that if fascism ever comes to North America, it will come from the left.

Anybody want to defend this?

Defend what?

The shutting down of free speech in Canada.

your opinion?

Not my opinion, the Court's.

Want to answer my question now?

Well, it's not shutting down "Free speech" at all. it is shutting down a group that has been designated a 'hate group', and making sure that hate groups are not spreading flyers in public schools.

The complaint was they were spreading hate literature in public schools. As for as it being 'true'.. well, they believe it,.. but some people aren't bigots against gays you know.

[Wyvern]

Not my opinion, the Court's.

Want to answer my question now?

It's hard to answer anything since the links in your article except for the decision itself are all broken, do not exist or are completely misleading(cdc link). I do not know what the flyers in question said nor do they provide any evidence that what the flyers said is even true. Given the evidence you provided no determination is possible.

[Divine Insight]

(a) the statement is true;

What statement is true? That homosexuals are doing something wrong? That's only 'true' according to the faith based beliefs of people who have chosen to worship certain dogma. In fact, not even everyone who worships those same scriptures would agree.

The fact that Christians try to pretend that there is "truth" to their hate speech only makes it all the more hateful. It's a FAITH-BASED belief. And clearly they can't even comprehend this simple little thing.

(b) the speaker did not intend to express hatred;

That's totally irrelevant. In fact if that were the case then an apology would be in order along with a promise never to repeat the offense. In other words the Christan fundamentalists would need to apology to the gays and leave them alone from that point forward.

Anything less than that and they are definitely expressing intentional hatred, IMHO. Especially when they underhandedly refuse to present the material as merely an opinion rather than an outright judgmental accusation.

(c) the speaker was expressing his or her honestly held religious conviction; and

Again, that's totally irrelevant, unless their flyers were specifically stating that "It is our opinion and faith-based interpretation that this type of lifestyle is not acceptable to the God of our religion.

But I seriously doubt that they worded things that way at all.

(d), there is no proof that the statement has caused any harm."

There is proof that the statement causes harm. Anytime someone is being accused of doing something immoral or unrighteous that causes emotional harm. That should be obvious to anyone.

Anybody want to defend this?

Absolutely. My congratulations go out to the Canadian Supreme Court. It's about time governmental authorities stood up to the hatred being spread by religious zealots.

I vote that we do the same thing in the USA. In fact, I had already started a thread making that very suggestion some time ago. And I'm not even gay. But I do believe in the rights of others to live life as they see fit.

If Christians had any faith in their God at all they would leave this between God and the Gays.

Even their God supposedly respects FREE WILL. So why don't the Christians?

[Darias]

http://americansfortruth.com/2013/03/06 ... te-speech/

From the link:

"In short, with this Whatcott ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that nothwithstanding the ostensible guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the Charter, a Canadian can be found guilty of violating the prohibition on hate speech in a human rights code by making a statement even if (a) the statement is true; (b) the speaker did not intend to express hatred; (c) the speaker was expressing his or her honestly held religious conviction; and (d), there is no proof that the statement has caused any harm."

Truly amazing, apparently free speech is now dead in Canada, and this from the same court members who earlier defended Nazis' use of free speech. More evidence for my theory that if fascism ever comes to North America, it will come from the left.

Anybody want to defend this?

The only thing that infuriates me more than homophobic rhetoric is a government body that takes it upon itself the duty to silence others. It doesn't matter if the "pro-family family family" group is wrong, the fact is governments that censor free speech, including anything that could be construed as hate speech, is wrong. I can tolerate any individual, any hate group, and any vile and ignorant idiology that comes from their mouths, but I find the notion that a government "knows what's best," and can outlaw the speech of others the most vile and unacceptable idea of all.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



Regulating the marketplace of ideas does not bring about the best ideas. Persecuting false ideas does not eliminate them -- it draws attention to them and prolongs them; this is how Christianity got started, after all. Who regulates the regulators? Why should a minority of government officials or a "moral majority" of voters dictate that which is proper or improper speech -- to the point of preventing it by law? This is an immoral system in which force is used to take away the rights of a minority.

It doesn't matter if the minority is the KKK, Westboro Baptist, or Atheism+, and it doesn't matter what their views are -- what the Supreme Court of Canada has done is wrong, period. Government censorship is more offensive to me than the reality of people being exposed to demonstrably false, biased, and religiously motivated rhetoric. Censorship is authoritarian. And it doesn't matter if you agree with the those who do the censoring -- if you support government censorship, even in the name of "the public good," you are wrong.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


There are many organizations that distribute literature in public schools. Atheists do it and Christians do it. I personally view the Bible as no more enlightening, factual, or morally acceptable than homosexuality according to Bill Whatcott. In case you were wondering -- both are full of less-than-accurate claims that I could take the time to debate. And both make me want to vomit -- and I must admit that I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that these materials are given out with the intent of reaching young impressionable minds.

However, as long as state employees do not lead class into prayer or advocate religious doctrines -- literature and free speech outside of the classroom is perfectly legal. Students can wear what they want and read what they want. This reality doesn't stop ignorant groups from distributing propaganda, but it's the best way to expose students to many ideas, and maybe in time they'll learn which ones can't hold water.

What shouldn't be happening is the government forbidding certain books and ideas. "You can't read Harry Potter because the community voted against it" is just as offensive to me as "You can't read The Communist Manifesto because it doesn't have sound economics and it's treasonous." As an aside, when one of my former professors was a kid, she read The Communist Manifesto at the library because it wasn't allowed at her school -- and she read it precisely because it was forbidden and people were scared of it.

If you care about LGBT rights, you must know that you are not helping by applauding government censorship of ignorance. Kids aren't dumb and there's a certain allure to forbidden and banned ideas. Silencing people via the law only provides legitimacy to the people who are discriminated against via the law. It makes stupid ideas relevant -- whereas in the marketplace of ideas where everyone is free to say what they think, false ideas can be corrected and wrong ideas can die a natural death. No one is imprisoning members of The Flat Earth Society -- and look how benign and un-influential that idea is now.

A free society that tolerates obscure and ignorant views is far better than a censored society that accepts and applauds the "correctly guided," government-sponsored views.

Free speech is a doubled edged sword -- an equal opportunity offender. In reality freedom of speech is but a pen;
censorship, on the other hand, is a guillotine.

[Goat]

http://americansfortruth.com/2013/03/06 ... te-speech/

From the link:

"In short, with this Whatcott ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that nothwithstanding the ostensible guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the Charter, a Canadian can be found guilty of violating the prohibition on hate speech in a human rights code by making a statement even if (a) the statement is true; (b) the speaker did not intend to express hatred; (c) the speaker was expressing his or her honestly held religious conviction; and (d), there is no proof that the statement has caused any harm."

Truly amazing, apparently free speech is now dead in Canada, and this from the same court members who earlier defended Nazis' use of free speech. More evidence for my theory that if fascism ever comes to North America, it will come from the left.

Anybody want to defend this?

The only thing that infuriates me more than homophobic rhetoric is a government body that takes it upon itself the duty to silence others. It doesn't matter if the "pro-family family family" group is wrong, the fact is governments that censor free speech, including anything that could be construed as hate speech, is wrong. I can tolerate any individual, any hate group, and any vile and ignorant idiology that comes from their mouths, but I find the notion that a government "knows what's best," and can outlaw the speech of others the most vile and unacceptable idea of all.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



Regulating the marketplace of ideas does not bring about the best ideas. Persecuting false ideas does not eliminate them -- it draws attention to them and prolongs them; this is how Christianity got started, after all. Who regulates the regulators? Why should a minority of government officials or a "moral majority" of voters dictate that which is proper or improper speech -- to the point of preventing it by law? This is an immoral system in which force is used to take away the rights of a minority.

It doesn't matter if the minority is the KKK, Westboro Baptist, or Atheism+, and it doesn't matter what their views are -- what the Supreme Court of Canada has done is wrong, period. Government censorship is more offensive to me than the reality of people being exposed to demonstrably false, biased, and religiously motivated rhetoric. Censorship is authoritarian. And it doesn't matter if you agree with the those who do the censoring -- if you support government censorship, even in the name of "the public good," you are wrong.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


There are many organizations that distribute literature in public schools. Atheists do it and Christians do it. I personally view the Bible as no more enlightening, factual, or morally acceptable than homosexuality according to Bill Whatcott. In case you were wondering -- both are full of less-than-accurate claims that I could take the time to debate. And both make me want to vomit -- and I must admit that I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that these materials are given out with the intent of reaching young impressionable minds.

However, as long as state employees do not lead class into prayer or advocate religious doctrines -- literature and free speech outside of the classroom is perfectly legal. Students can wear what they want and read what they want. This reality doesn't stop ignorant groups from distributing propaganda, but it's the best way to expose students to many ideas, and maybe in time they'll learn which ones can't hold water.

What shouldn't be happening is the government forbidding certain books and ideas. "You can't read Harry Potter because the community voted against it" is just as offensive to me as "You can't read The Communist Manifesto because it doesn't have sound economics and it's treasonous." As an aside, when one of my former professors was a kid, she read The Communist Manifesto at the library because it wasn't allowed at her school -- and she read it precisely because it was forbidden and people were scared of it.

If you care about LGBT rights, you must know that you are not helping by applauding government censorship of ignorance. Kids aren't dumb and there's a certain allure to forbidden and banned ideas. Silencing people via the law only provides legitimacy to the people who are discriminated against via the law. It makes stupid ideas relevant -- whereas in the marketplace of ideas where everyone is free to say what they think, false ideas can be corrected and wrong ideas can die a natural death. No one is imprisoning members of The Flat Earth Society -- and look how benign and un-influential that idea is now.

A free society that tolerates obscure and ignorant views is far better than a censored society that accepts and applauds the "correctly guided," government-sponsored views.

Free speech is a doubled edged sword -- an equal opportunity offender. In reality freedom of speech is but a pen;
censorship, on the other hand, is a guillotine.

One point you are not examining is the fact of the venue in which these flyers were being distributed. They were not being distributed on street corners, for example, but these folks were going into public schools to attempt to distribute it.

[Darias]

One point you are not examining is the fact of the venue in which these flyers were being distributed. They were not being distributed on street corners, for example, but these folks were going into public schools to attempt to distribute it.

How is that different from the examples I provided in the link? According to this a Christian group was distributing Bibles in Florida high school cafeterias. And a Florida Freethought group wanted to be able to distribute their own materials in the same way.

I don't see a problem with this, so long as everyone has the opportunity to share their views and so long as they don't force their way into classrooms; I actually find it preferable to censoring all groups. I think more freedom is preferable to less freedom any day. But governments must treat everyone equally, whether the government or the moral majority like those groups or not. It either must allow everyone, including hate groups, to distribute their propaganda, or it must bar everyone. Canada has things ass-backwards by banning anti-gay propaganda in schools but expressing support for the free speech of Nazis. There is no ideological consistency in that reasoning.

And even when a government actually decides to treat everyone equally and goes with the option of banning all groups and their materials from public schools and colleges, it's still not necessarily being fair. The fact is that government is making a value choice as to what ideas are allowed and forbidden on public property. The government isn't neutral. If for example classrooms only teach Keynesian economics, and no groups are allowed to post fliers on campus or distribute materials that support Austrian economics, then right or wrong, young people won't be exposed to a broader range of ideas than they would be if dissenting viewpoints were available. Nothing is gained by being ignorant of how other people view the world.

This really all boils down to free speech and minority rights. I'll stand next to WBC before I stand alongside one of my atheist peers, if everyone who has a sane and rational outlook also happens to support authoritarian censorship.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Westboro to the core, but an assault on free speech, and gross displays of government favoritism is even more intolerable than they.

[Goat]

One point you are not examining is the fact of the venue in which these flyers were being distributed. They were not being distributed on street corners, for example, but these folks were going into public schools to attempt to distribute it.

How is that different from the examples I provided in the link? According to this a Christian group was distributing Bibles in Florida high school cafeterias. And a Florida Freethought group wanted to be able to distribute their own materials in the same way.

I don't see a problem with this, so long as everyone has the opportunity to share their views and so long as they don't force their way into classrooms; I actually find it preferable to censoring all groups. I think more freedom is preferable to less freedom any day. But governments must treat everyone equally, whether the government or the moral majority like those groups or not. It either must allow everyone, including hate groups, to distribute their propaganda, or it must bar everyone. Canada has things ass-backwards by banning anti-gay propaganda in schools but expressing support for the free speech of Nazis. There is no ideological consistency in that reasoning.

And even when a government actually decides to treat everyone equally and goes with the option of banning all groups and their materials from public schools and colleges, it's still not necessarily being fair. The fact is that government is making a value choice as to what ideas are allowed and forbidden on public property. The government isn't neutral. If for example classrooms only teach Keynesian economics, and no groups are allowed to post fliers on campus or distribute materials that support Austrian economics, then right or wrong, young people won't be exposed to a broader range of ideas than they would be if dissenting viewpoints were available. Nothing is gained by being ignorant of how other people view the world.

This really all boils down to free speech and minority rights. I'll stand next to WBC before I stand alongside one of my atheist peers, if everyone who has a sane and rational outlook also happens to support authoritarian censorship.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Westboro to the core, but an assault on free speech, and gross displays of government favoritism is even more intolerable than they.

And, the proper response would be NOT to allow distribution of either.. there is 'separation of church and state. The school is not a proper place for being a propganda mill.