"Hate law is in danger of being seen as an ass" PDF Print E-mail
Written by Publius   
Wednesday, 08 July 2009 04:29

Love the "in danger" bit:

Where do you stand on the classic Canadian issue of freedom of speech vs. hate? There's the constitutionally guaranteed free speech. And there are anti-hate laws, under the Criminal Code as well as the federal and provincial human rights codes.


Classic in the sense that Led Zeppelin is "classic" rock. Both the Human Rights commissions and Jimmy Page's best guitar work date from the late 1960s and 1970s.  For most of Canadian history there was no issue regarding hate speech vs free speech.  With the exception of libel and blasphemy (the last enforced sporadically) the right to speak freely was par for the course.  It was one of those things that distinguished Canada from those benighted places everyone was trying to flee. The governments of the day assumed that British subjects - which we were until 1977 - were grown up enough to decide between common sense and nonsense. A politically correct minder appointed by the state would have seemed not just absurd but tyrannical. 

The Supreme Court has upheld both sets of laws. Neither trumps the other. They work in balance.


In the sense that poison and antidote work in balance, the latter remedying the effects of the former. One of the cliches of the inter-war period was that the problems of democracy could be cured by more democracy. The argument applies far better to free speech. Suppressing speech, even unpleasant speech, was seen as counter productive.  If something was false and wicked it would be easier fight in the open.  Turning wannabe Hitlers and Mussolinis into martyrs would accomplish nothing. A while back the Steyn observed that rather than trying to ban fascists in the 1930s, the British simply mocked them. PG Wodehouse invented the ludicrous character of Roderick Spode, the amateur dictator who designed ladies' undergarments in his spare time.  Spode was a send up of Oswald Mosley. One good joke, Wodehouse understood, does the job of thousands of eloquent denunciations: 

The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone. You hear them shouting "Heil, Spode!" and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: "Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?"


Sadly the one thing the modern human rights industry lacks is a sense of humour.
Comments (4)add comment

MarkOttawa said:

MarkOttawa
...
Publius: "...British subjects - which we were until 1947..." Actually in 1947 we remained British subjects; what was created in 1947 for the first time was a distinct Canadian citizenship. Indeed, until 1977 Canadian passports declared that "A Canadian citizen is a British subject." See:

Being British, for what it's worth
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012792.html

Mark
Ottawa
July 08, 2009 | url

Publius said:

Publius
...
My teachers lied to me!!!! I just missed being a British subject. Damn!! Thanks for catching that one.
July 08, 2009 | url

OMMAG said:

OMMAG
...
WHich one is the poison and which the antidote??

smilies/shocked.gif
.
.
.
.
Nevermind
July 08, 2009 | url

Bart said:

0
...
The law in canada isn't seen as an ass, it IS an as. Since the "corrections" theory was taken over the punishment theory its gone to hell in a handbasket. the worst parts are the "Volume Discount", and the "2 fer 1".

If you Kill 2 people, the punishment should not be reduced by 50% for each (concurrent sentencing), if you have your lawyer stall your trial, or if the courts are too busy, you should NOT get 2 fer 1 credit on time in remand. You SHOULD get 2 fer 1 ADDED every time your Liar(oops....Lawyer) can't make it to court. Lets see some INCENTIVE on the Defence side of the equasion.

Faint Hope? THERE IS NO FAINT HOPE IDIOT! YOU GOT 25 YEARS, AND YOU AIN'T DONE 'TIL YOU BIN THERE 25 YEARS!


Lastly, BRING BACK THE ROPE. If DNA convicts you, HANG! DNA removes doubt, SEE MILGARD, so therefore there cannot be a wrongful conviction if DNA says you did it. NO APPEAL, JUST END IT. SAVE US A BUCK OR 2.

We won't get into the "Corrections facilities", other than they should be named as, designed as, and treated as JAILS!
July 08, 2009

Write comment

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
Last Updated on Wednesday, 08 July 2009 06:20