Grim repercussions of posting political cartoons

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“spook”][quote=“Jaboney”]No. Last I checked neither Canada, generally, nor Alberta, specifically, is governed by the First Amendment. The Alberta Human Rights Commission certainly isn’t.

The language of rights, having proven to be successful in combating all sorts of entrenched social ills, has been far too widely extended. In this case, by a quasi-judicial body interested in offense rather than serious harm.

I support limitations on freedom of speech where individuals actively promote hatred and violence.[/quote]

That’s fine, but it’s not fair to call absolute freedom of expression the “idiot” case, given its long legal history. It’s also questionable whether Canada really believes in “freedom of speech” or something lesser.[/quote]Actually, the idiot case to which I refer is the one before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

The hard line case for freedom of expression, I would characterize as intellectually interesting. It would be compelling if we could assume common sense.[/quote]

Not a very rousing huzzah for the status of freedom of speech in Alberta or Canada.

[quote]You should keep in mind that you have the right to say “fire!, fire!” anytime you merely want to make a political point or express an opinion, just as you should have the right to say “Death to America” or “we should turn Iraq into a glass parking lot” in order to make a point.

You should also have the right to publish cartoons of the prophet Muhammed even though it will predictably result in unlawful acts of violence.[/quote]
So, you’re saying free speech that is political is always protected? ONLY political speech?

What if I think obese people are killing not only themselves but also taxing the health care and insurance industries to the point where I, as a non-obese man now pay higher premiums to cover the fatties. May I yell “Death to Obese people!” on the street as a form of political protest? Surely that too will result in violence.

Someone is bound to catch me.

And actually spook, I am closer to you than you think. I run under the “Fuck em if they can’t take a joke” mantra. :rainbow:

[quote=“spook”][quote=“Jaboney”]I support limitations on freedom of speech where individuals actively promote hatred and violence.
[…]
The hard line case for freedom of expression, I would characterize as intellectually interesting. It would be compelling if we could assume common sense.[/quote]

Not a very rousing huzzah for the status of freedom of speech in Alberta or Canada.[/quote]That’s fine. I wasn’t looking to raise a cheer for liberty.
You’re a libertarian; on the political spectrum, I fall far closer to democratic-socialism. Given things as they are, there are other values I’m willing to weigh against freedom of speech. The balance will nearly always tip in favour of freedom of speech, but it’s not a sure thing.

that’s pretty crazy. a criminal court would be sufficient to decide if someone had cried fire in a crowded theater. this sounds like something out of orwell. not a page out of canada’s book we’d like to be copying.

These HRC’s in Canada are also going after Macleans Magazine for printing exerpts of Mark Steyn’s bestselling book, America Alone , a must read for anyone interested in demographics and Muslim immigration). The Canadian Islamic Congress has sought relief from three bodies so far: the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, in the three decades of its existence, no defendant dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission under a Section XIII complaint has ever been acquitted. :unamused: That doesn’t bode well for Levant and or Mark Steyn.

In my opinion, the “hate speech” section of the act should be thrown out immediately. Human rights legislation being used to suppress a Charter-granted human right (Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act is in direct violation of the Charter of Rights, Section 2b, which guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right. ) seems to be quite illiberal, doesn’t it?

Anyways, it is good to see that this Levant’s story getting more and more exposure in the Canadian press.

nationalpost.com/opinion/col … 235985&p=1
freemarksteyn.com/

No outrage from Chewycorns for this story: Sask’s top court orders new trial for one-time aboriginal leader David Ahenakew

How’d you leave me off your list?

How’d you leave me off your list?[/quote]

Knowing you, Tigerman, I suspected as much but it wasn’t for me to say.

So what do we say to these knuckleheads who claim that their possession of absolute truth trumps the right of freedom of expression?

Not since Scientology took on the IRS, have two political opponents been more suited to one another.

Indeed. The increasing exposure is the most important thing in this sad mess.

I have the distinct feeling these days that you’re picking on me, Screaming Jesus. Did I cheat you in a past life or something?

If so, all is forgiven.

So…are you a Scientologist, or an IRS worker?

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]If so, all is forgiven.

So…are you a Scientologist, or an IRS worker?[/quote]

I knew it. A past life grudge. Those are the worst kind because they never really get resolved.

I probably added fuel to the fire when I accused you in this life of being the antichrist. You, of all people, though, should have known I was just kidding.

Thankfully, I am neither Scientologist nor taxman which means I may yet have some remote chance of reaching heaven – nothing personal in that sentiment, of course. Just pure preference on my part.

[quote=“spook”]Knowing you, Tigerman, I suspected as much but it wasn’t for me to say.

So what do we say to these knuckleheads who claim that their possession of absolute truth trumps the right of freedom of expression?[/quote]

Well, we say what we always say when free speech is threatened… we tell 'em that if their “truth” is so true, then it ought to be easily able to stand up to scrutiny… and that real “truth” is never afraid of dissenting opinions given freely.

Whatever, Tigerman. :unamused:

What if these people’s concern is not so much that their “truth” will or will not ‘stand up to scrutiny’, but that someone might have an opportunity to read something that they do not want other people to be exposed to?

What then? :question:

You can talk about “truth” standing up to scrutiny all you want. What they say may or may not be true. But what if my main concern is simply preventing other people from being exposed to viewpoints that I disagree with?

Surely I should be able to enlist the government’s aid in preventing that from happening, right?*

*I feel sure that Jaboney, at least, will back me up on this – surely in a “social democracy” it should be up to the group, as a collective, to decide what opinions may be expressed and which may not, and opinions that the group disapproves of can simply wait until they are popular enough to be deemed worthy of legal approval. :uhhuh:

saucy saucy man is he who can refute, mock and embarrass in the same breath

:notworthy: :homer: :thumbsup:

[quote=“Hobbes”]What if these people’s concern is not so much that their “truth” will or will not ‘stand up to scrutiny’, but that someone might have an opportunity to read something that they do not want other people to be exposed to?

What then? :question:

You can talk about “truth” standing up to scrutiny all you want. What they say may or may not be true. But what if my main concern is simply preventing other people from being exposed to viewpoints that I disagree with?

Surely I should be able to enlist the government’s aid in preventing that from happening, right?*

*I feel sure that Jaboney, at least, will back me up on this – surely in a “social democracy” it should be up to the group, as a collective, to decide what opinions may be expressed and which may not, and opinions that the group disapproves of can simply wait until they are popular enough to be deemed worthy of legal approval. :uhhuh:[/quote]Slanderous accusations, for instance? Or, how about an uncomfortable, but entirely private truth?

We’ve already seen the “Church of God Hates Fags” protesting at the funerals of slain soldiers. Legitimate?
How about the story the other day about the 8 year old girl sodomized by her 18 year old step-brother, who was in turn beaten and sodomized by the girls father? There’s a lot of public interest in that story. In a couple of years, should the father and daughter move to escape the episode and protect the then 10 year old girl’s privacy, would you have no problem with a snoopy small town “Welcome Wagon” blurb in the town paper spilling all the nasty details? Legitimate free speech?

Just wondering if you, Hobbes, feel this is all hunky-dory.

[quote=“Jaboney”]Slanderous accusations, for instance? Or, how about an uncomfortable, but entirely private truth?

We’ve already seen the “Church of God Hates Fags” protesting at the funerals of slain soldiers. Legitimate?
How about the story the other day about the 8 year old girl sodomized by her 18 year old step-brother, who was in turn beaten and sodomized by the girls father? There’s a lot of public interest in that story. In a couple of years, should the father and daughter move to escape the episode and protect the then 10 year old girl’s privacy, would you have no problem with a snoopy small town “Welcome Wagon” blurb in the town paper spilling all the nasty details? Legitimate free speech?

Just wondering if you, Hobbes, feel this is all hunky-dory.[/quote]

I think you know that I do not feel that what you described is “all hunky-dory”, J.

I also would not feel that it is all “hunky-dory” for someone to stand on a street corner and say that “homosexuals are evil and are going to hell”, or that “the Holocaust never happened”, or that “young girls who are victims of rape are to blame for the crime, and should be lashed, just like they are in Saudi Arabia”.

I approve of none of those sentiments. They are all crap.

None of them are hunky-dory.

The question is whether a government should be in the business of setting-up “commissions” to decide what is and what is not “hunky-dory” for an individual citizen to say.

If one citizen is wrongfully harmed by another, they can sue in civil court. I can’t tell you how glad I am where the current system provides a civil remedy in such cases.

But a government agency, the job/authority of which is to look independently into whether what any individual citizen happens to express in spoken word or writing is, in its opinion, “hunky-dory”, is not, in my opinion, hunky-dory. :idunno:

-H

Just curious. Some advocates of free speech certain felt the civil decision against the Phelps (or whatever their name is) was out of line.

Now, if one group were inciting violence, would that warrant gov’t action?
I don’t think this is hunky-dory either, but in a less than ideal world, less than ideal laws are needed, no?

And of course most of these stalwart defenders of human rights are the same people supporting Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and tossing out habeas corpus i.e. “800 years of Anglo-Saxon tradition,” when it’s a question of “Islamofascism” aka “the brown people are coming to kill us all.”

I’m reminded of the ACLU’s defense of the Nazi’s rights to march through the largely-Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois. Even though these people are cockroaches, they should have their rights preserved, though they would be the first to deny them to others.