grainfedprairieboy wrote:
Canada created the Human Rights Act in 1977 that then empowered the Human Rights Commissions and gave them the same power of any Canadian Court of Law. It is a kangaroo court system at best with the complaintent, investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury legally permitted to be the same person. Disgraceful!
You think the COMPLAINANT is also the investigator? Disgraceful!
Quote:
As an example, a one-woman board of inquiry of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission declared that four Biblical passages used in a the Star Pheonix newspaper of Saskatoon newspaper ad in 1997 were hate speech, both the publisher and ad purchaser were fined and she has been pushing to have the Bible banned as hate literature.
For those that are unaware of the facts of the case: Mr. Hugh Owens placed an ad in the newspaper before a gay pride parade scheduled to take place in the city occurred. He quoted the usual Leviticus anti-homosexual passages like L 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind,as he lieth with a woman ,both of them have committed an abomination they shall surely be put to death ;their blood shall be upon them.
Followed by this biblical commandment to kill gays was a sign of two male stick figures with a circle/slash through them.
Three local homosexuals complained that this amounted to discriminatory speech to the PROVINCIAL (note to Grainfedprairieboy: Wrong level of government, but I'll entertain you anyway despite being wrong) Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the testimony of religious leaders who preach the bible to testify. None of these leaders provided any other interpretation of the above passage that could be seen as inclusive or at the very least non-discriminatory especially with the circle/slash prohibition.
The result? A whopping $2500 fine for the newspaper.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms very first section is to limit itself. The publishing of biblical passages denouncing homosexuality and calling for their deaths for practising it when there is a gay pride parade going on is clearly a reasonable limit on free-speech. As a side note? The Regina Leader-Post carried the same ad sans the circle/slash and the Human Rights Tribunal didn't bat an eye at the ad. Presenting better facts rather than a skewed personal interpretation could help the average reader here better understand the issue.
By the by, your original claim was that denouncing historical events. You didn't do that here. Quote:
It is the Human Rights Act that Muslims are basing their requests for Sharia Law. They are expected to win their case sometime within the next 2-5 years.
Who cares? All faith-based arbitration systems have been junked, at least in Ontario, on the basis that it creates separate laws for equal Canadians.
And, besides, your point about Canada not being a country where one can denounce historical events with this example is...?Quote:
Canada's Judges are political appointments and preside over a populace that has no say in who sits in judgement of them
Which means that Canada's judges are beholden to the law and not to appeasing a fickle populace in spite of the law.
That's an entirely different kettle of fish and doesn't support one bit your contention that in Canada I cannot publically denounce a historical event.Quote:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms legalizes government imposed and interpreted limitations on freedom of speech and expression in the very first section which states: “Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Which is why I didn't bother to quote it above. Thanks.
Quote:
CRTC decides what we shall be permitted to see and hear
Ie 1. CRTC revoked the license of a radio station in Quebec City . The official number of complaints is three.
Ie 2. Howard Stern
Howard Stern is available on the air on Sirius and through Rogers. So...? Your example of the CRTC revocation of the station licence is a good one. (Quick note: The CRTC didn't revoke the licence, they just didn't renew it) Mind you, it was based in part on the defamation of the weather-person there at the station too. I will agree with you on this one if the Supreme Court upholds the CRTC ruling.
Quote:
Canada Customs throughout the 80s and 90s imposed its own censorship on publications bound for gay stores like Little Sisters in Vancouver and Glad Day in Toronto. Continues to censor thousands of books deemed to have the potential to “corrupt” the Canadian people.
Which is no longer the practise so...?
Quote:
Internet service providers Bell, Bell Aliant, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Shaw, SaskTel, Telus, and Videotron announced in November 2006 "Project Cleanfeed Canada" which is the blocking of access to hundreds of pornography sites.
Private companies fall outside the purview of "Canada". That said, I cannot defend the actions of SaskTel for instance.
Quote:
Canadian University Campuses are one of the greatest restrictors of freedom of speech and expression. For example, Carleton University's student council does not permit funding orcampus space to pro-life student groups. Official policy of justification: "CUSA further affirms that actions such as campaigns, distributions, solicitations, lobbying efforts, displays, events, etc. that seek to limit or remove a woman's options in the event of pregnancy will not be supported."
I don't agree with your sweeping generalization about universities, but I will acknowledge your example of an unfair restriction on free speech.
Quote:
In 1984, teacher James Keegstra, was charged with denying the Holocaust. His lawyer, argued that section 319 (2) of the Criminal Code is an infringement of his Charter Rights of freedom of expression, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was a justified infringement.
Whoa. Back the train up a wee bit and gather some perspective on R v. Keegstra. It isn't as simple a case as Keegstra denied the holocaust. Keegstra made many mandates. From the SCC ruling:
Quote:
Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers". He taught his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution. According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy" and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.
You'll notice here that Keegstra's comments run far and wide as a condemnation of Judaism and its followers rather than a simple denounciation of the holocaust. The holocaust denial is a component, but it isn't the nail upon which the hat hangs by a long shot. Furthermore, it was his expectation that his students repeat his hatred that urged on the Supreme Court.
Simply put, your example isn't what you purport it to be.
Want to know why?
YOU FUCKING PULLED THE GODDAMN THING ALMOST WORD FOR WORD FROM WIKIPEDIA'S ENTRY ON HOLOCAUST DENIAL YOU IGNORANT PLAIGARIZING FRAUD! Quote:
Bill 250 made it official illegal to publicly berate people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation.
Are you just pulling up random bits without actually knowing what they are? I suspect you are. What you quoted above is an admendment to S.319 of the Criminal Code adding homosexuality to the list of identifiable groups against whom hate propoganda may not be made.
Quote:
The number of the bill which adds additional jail time if a victim of a crime is homosexual escapes me but I can dig it up if you want to press the issue.
Please do.
Quote:
In 1985, Ernest Zundel was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for publishing material denying the Holocaust. (Please note the false news law was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared it unconstitutional.
Fuck me. HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH WIKIPEDIA PLAIGARISM FROM THE ENTRY ON HOLOCAUST DENIAL.
If I cut and paste your entry into google.com and it comes up on Wikipedia, it marks you as ignorant and desperate.
Here's the problem with your aped response. THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED IT. How can you argue that this represents a Canada in which freedom of speech is moribund when the Supreme Court recognizes your position and thus makes it legal in Canada to do what Zundel did?
Think man, think!
Quote:
Bill 101 which legally suppress the freedom of expression and speech in Quebec,
Are you talking about the Quebec language laws? They're unconstitutional and exist only because the Province uses the Notwithstanding Clause to keep them in force and of effect. Nice example...?
Quote:
abortion “bubble zones” where speech and expression violations result in automatic incarceration,
You're going to have to provide examples. This is about you ending empty rhetoric.
Quote:
judges ruling peaceful protests illegal such as in Clayoquot,
The blockade of public roads isn't free speech. Your example is woefully underproduced and once again smacks of not giving people the full benefit of all the facts and circumstances.
Quote:
I could go on and on and on. I doubt though it would influence you much.
Actually, what you could do is some proper research to persuade me rather than superficially present cases and plaigarize wikipedia. Maybe that'd help more than presenting the dumb man's view of Canadian free-speech.
In short, what I've seen from your post is a rambling offshoot of many offtopic examples, a ripping of a Human Rights Tribunal without full presentation of the facts, a condmenation of appointed judges without merit, xeroxed examples of misunderstood case law, xeroxing examples of Zundel which instead prove my point that free-speech is alive and well, not understanding Howard Stern is available in Canada and then rambling off a few other bon mots at the end which amounted to so much as empty sound with little fury.
You raised but two examples of unreasonable limits on free-speech. Is that enough to convince me or anybody else of your original claim? Nope.
Quote:
Typical Dayseed.
Typically searching for truth, justice and the Canadian way. Don't worry, I can help you too.
Nice post.
