[Mustang1]

Fair enough. If I’ve allegedly become contemptuous, then I’ll respect your wishes and we can end it here. Thank you for the discourse.

[Dayseed]

Zipperfish wrote:

Well I think we've both made our points as clearly as we're going to. And your posts are now straying to more derisive territory -- a good indication that instructive debate is over. Thanks for taking the time to disucss this with me.

Zipperfish,

You made some gross errors along the way. When you were trying to illustrate that Bible publishers hadn't been prosecuted for inciting hatred, you clearly hadn't read Canada's hate laws. S.319(3)(b) illustrates why that is so. Sorry, some diligent reading would have prevented that mistake.

Secondly, the demontrably justifiable limits on the freedom of speech are well and clear. No court in Canada is going to let defamation (the Canadian term for slander and libel) run free. In the Supreme Court Case Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, the Supreme Court upheld the common law definition of defamation. Writing for the clear majority, La Forest stated "Freedom of speech, like any other
freedom, is subject to the law and must be balanced against the essential need of individuals to protect their reputation."

The Court's opinion was also that "In its application to the parties
in this action, the common law of defamation complies with the underlying values of the Charter and there is no need to amend or alter it. The common law strikes an appropriate balance between the twin values of reputation and freedom of expression. The protection of reputation is of vital importance, and consideration must be given to the particular significance reputation has for a lawyer. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the Charter, the good reputation of the individual represents and reflects the innate dignity of the individual, a concept which underlies all the Charter rights."

Lastly, the Supreme Court found that "The law of defamation
is not unduly restrictive or inhibiting."

Essentially, the Supreme Court is upholding limitations on the freedom of speech and concluding that it is in line with the Charter to prevent defamation. Are hate laws really so different, what with the legislated defences to them in the law itself?

Sorry Zipperfish, this is a legal argument that required just a bit more than you had in your pocket.

[Zipperfish]

Well I think I made my position clear in the above posts. If it fails to convince you, that's fine. I've stated that I don't agree with the anti-hate law as currently conceived, so quoting sections of said law to prove me wrong doesn't make much sense.

I accept there are limits to freedom of speech, as would all reasonable people. The debate is over where those limits should be. I represent a minority who think that the hate laws are too restrictive. This is a matter of fundamental belief about how you and I think our society can best operate, and, as I pointed out earlier, it's not going to be solved by some "silver bullet" argument any party can make.

[Dayseed]

Zipperfish,

Are you sure you read what I wrote correctly? I said you erred in your example of a crime contravening S.319 as there was a legislated defence. I quoted a different ruling to illustrate the Supreme Court's position on the limitations of free speech. There's a difference.

[Zipperfish]

Yes, Dayseed, I did read your post carefully and the enitre relevant sections of the Criminal Code. If you read my posts carefully, I never said that the Bible contravened the Act. I was aware of the legislated defence for religions.

[Patrick_Ross]

As long as there are SCAAAAAARY people like Terry Long out and about, I forevermore support the hate crime law.