Have you come up with an argument yet for why “hate speech” should be criminalized, when a more narrow criminalization of incitement to violence would suffice to take care of the case you mentioned, and criminalizing “hate speech” leads to countless abuses like the ones I mentioned?

Or is it Canadian chauvinism that’s rearing its head in your post and Tone’s?

TRiG.

The death penalty system, yes. After all, we are trying to prevent innocent people from being executed. No hypocrisy there. Murder is universally criminalized, you can’t just abolish murder laws because innocents are sometimes caught up in them. However, your bizarre “hate speech” laws that pretty much exclusively ruin the lives of innocent people (you have only managed to conjure up one example of a(n) investigation/prosecution you thought was legitimate) are idiot and they violate people’s right to free speech. A call to violence can be prosecuted with a law criminalizing calls to violence, not “hate speech”. Also, you don’t need unaccountable kangaroo courts, staffed with bleeding-heart liberals for that, the regular court system will suffice (even in Canada).

“Studies have shown that the harsher the punishment the higher the rate of recidivism.”

Free all child molesters NOW! Else there will be a greater chance that they will strike again once released! BTW, is Maggie Gallagher your rhetoric teacher? “Studies show [insert what you wish]”

“The longer a person spends in prison the more he learns about how to be a better criminal.”

There is a simple and obvious solution to that. Rehabilitate low-level criminals like robbers, and never release people or execute who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, child molestation, etc.).

“You act as if that would be a solution to people being wrongfully convicted, it most certainly wouldn’t. I’d venture to say that in very, very few of wrongful convictions did the prosectures know before hand the charges were false.”

No, I agree. But your entire argument was rather strange.

“Every new law will result in an increase in the number of wrongful convictions, if you were consistent with your logic you’d be opposed to any new law being passed.”

I prefer to oppose ridiculous laws that have a near-100% wrongful conviction rate, like your hate speech laws.

“None – what’s your point?”

You’re taking credit for not having executed innocent people, when you don’t have the death penalty? That’s like me taking credit for not having jailed innocent people (when I am not in the business of jailing people).

–

Tone: “When that speech is urging active discrimination and violence against a group then it can be addressed both under provincial human rights legislation and criminal code provisions. Feel free to google the details.”

Yeah, right. What about that 2-year investigation faced by someone who published the Muhammad cartoons? What about the 9-year legal ordeal that the Bible-printing man had to face? If your ridiculous “hate speech” laws had anything to d with “urging active discrimination and violence”, these complaints would have been laughed out of the kangaroo courts within two days, which they were not.

“But don’t attack our philosophy or our laws until you have achieved a more peaceful society than Canadians enjoy.”

We will, and we are right to. Also, having your government destroy the lives of people who use their free speech is not “peaceful”, it’s totalitarian. The Chinese government salutes you. Just so you know.

–

Timothy: “And the US fetishisation of Free Speech tends, in my view, to overshadow the equally important right to privacy, which I think is protected better in Europe than it is in the US.”

I also think that there should be more privacy, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. We’re talking about ridiculous “hate speech” laws, not the right to reveal personal and private information about others.

–

TampaZeke: “We always seem to be more concerned about defending the rights of homophobes than they are about defending ours. I’m not saying that that’s a bad thing; just an extremely annoying, frustrating thing.”

Not at all. They can all go to hell, for all I care. I’m not defending these idiots, I’m defending free speech. Also, I’ll point out that you are more likely to be arrested for being “anti-Christian” in a country with than without these ridiculous “hate speech” laws.

We always seem to be more concerned about defending the rights of homophobes than they are about defending ours. I’m not saying that that’s a bad thing; just an extremely annoying, frustrating thing.

TRiG.

When that speech is urging active discrimination and violence against a group then it can be addressed both under provincial human rights legislation and criminal code provisions.”

This is a very sensible way to approach it. and we do it in this country.

you can call the president a jerk with impunity. you cannot call for his assassination.

You can yell fire if you are standing in the middle of a street. you can’t do it in the middle ofa crowded theater.

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/946400.stm#expression

And Peter Tatchell is a hero.

TRiG.

Peter is not a libertarian, he’s a member of and former candidate for the Green Party.

One point which Jim misses is Peter’s call to action, which is for guidance on how the relevant ‘public order’ law is enforced to be given to police officers.

He rightly cites the issue being over-zealous protection of LGBT ears from the likes of these preachers. Incorrect application of the law in other words.

The UK is covered by free speech clauses in European Law, as well as a long, long history in our unwritten constitution of free speech protection, which Peter also cites.

When that speech is urging active discrimination and violence against a group then it can be addressed both under provincial human rights legislation and criminal code provisions. Feel free to google the details.

We treat holocaust deniers, racists, and homophobes the same way in Canada.

Don’t like it? Don’t live here.

But don’t attack our philosophy or our laws until you have achieved a more peaceful society than Canadians enjoy.