View Full Version : Oh Canada
Thank God for free speech. Say, isn't that Lennin on your Toonie?
Anne threatened with arrest (http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social-assistance-lifestyle/religion-spirituality/14176319-1.html)
It's Canada... they don't protest violently there.
But I have to wonder who would go to listen to her speak...
Coulter has made a career of outrageous statements, including her post-9/11 call for Islamic countries to be invaded, their leaders killed and all Muslims converted to Christianity.
In 2007 she said, "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president."
I mean, other than Neo-Nazis, misogynists and the KKK.
It's Canada... they don't protest violently there.
No?
He said some demonstrators swarmed the event, making it "a situation the security and police advised was untenable for safety reasons."
Free speech is, or isn't. When it comes to right-wing ideology, apparently, it isn't.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")
How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or -- my suspicion -- is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?
How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?
At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies?
Want to hear my favorite Canadian joke? OK, here goes: Francois Houle! I never get tired of that one.
No?
Free speech is, or isn't. When it comes to right-wing ideology...
awwww, those poor little oppressed right wingers! everybody else is working against you!
why would laws against hate speech happen to coincide with right wing blather...? hmmm, i really wonder on that one....
but, really, they shoulda let her speak. just like the KKK has a right to be heard, even though they are dipshits.
No?
Free speech is, or isn't. When it comes to right-wing ideology, apparently, it isn't.
Gonz... they're Canadians. :lol: What are they gonna do? Really. :rofl2:
If this had occurred in the US there would have been cause for concern... but... it's Canada. They'll make some signs, shout a little, then go home to watch hockey (or soccer) with a beer or two, eh.
(No offense intended, Bish!)
ResearchMonkey
3/27/10, 07:06pm
How do you type with your fingers in your ears?
why would laws against hate speech happen to coincide with right wing blather...? hmmm, i really wonder on that one....
Because the left finds emotions more fitting than thought.
If it makes you feel uncomfortable, it must be hateful.
How do you type with your fingers in your ears?
How do you type with your head up your ass?
Because the left finds emotions more fitting than thought.
If it makes you feel uncomfortable, it must be hateful.
It's not confined to Left... a fine example representing the Right: "Tea Party Patriots".
With regards to Ann Coulter, I don't think anyone should care here. We (the USA) have lived with hate speech and hate mongers for a long time. We've learned that it is better to allow for Free Speech than to begin that slippery slope of censorship.
Long live The Constitution!
Because the left finds emotions more fitting than thought.
really? is that why all them baggers get in a big emo-mob tizzy when their caribou barbie throws out meaningless slogans?
remember gonz, freedom isn't free!!!!!!
That's right minks. It takes individuals & groups to stand up & let their voice(s) be heard. Go ahead & go back to your 6-figure job. We'll take care of it.
so your mob of swirling peons will do what, again? you think that's how real power works? through the seething and silly? hardly. best of luck.
*ashamed*
My bad. We should continue to blow our estemmed leaders & hope they cum on our face with their brilliance.
no, you should continue to enjoy your bread and circuses.
Limiting free speech has always been a Canadian function. What do we expect of those who still cling to the same types we threw off two centuries ago?
But how will they enforce their speech laws against their citizens? After all, "It's Canada... they don't protest violently there."
SOURCE (http://www.vancouversun.com/RCMP+unleash+armoured+vehicles+Metro+Vancouver+str eets/2717943/story.html)
RCMP to unleash new armoured vehicles on Metro Vancouver streets
Vancouver SunMarch 23, 2010
http://www.vancouversun.com/2717946.bin
METRO VANCOUVER -- People shouldn't be surprised to see armoured vehicles travelling Lower Mainland streets.
The RCMP have acquired two Tactical Armoured Vehicles (TAV II) for the Emergency Response Team Program in B.C., Sgt. Peter Thiessen said in a press release Tuesday.
ERT officers will be operating the vehicles on the streets to provide for public awareness, and also to gain experience driving the vehicles, Thiessen said.
The TAV IIs, which were acquired at no cost, were used by the Canadian Forces, and are also known as Cougar Armoured Vehicle General Purpose, Thiessen said. The vehicles have been retrofitted for RCMP use.
"The TAV IIs may be deployed in a variety of environments in response to threatening situations where the safety and security of RCMP officers
and/or the public is at risk," Thiessen said.
The TAV IIs do not contain any weapon systems, and their main purpose is the safe transportation of police officers, including bullet-proof cover. The vehicles are six-wheel drive, all-terrain vehicles for use in urban and rural locations.
The TAV IIs could be used in any police or rescue situation in B.C. and will be kept at various locations in the Lower Mainland, Thiessen said.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
yeah every time i go to canada it sure seems like a police state to me.:erm:
that big armored truck thingy is scary.
i bet they've got less that half of the amount of that kind of thing per capita that we have in the US.
Limiting free speech has always been a Canadian function. What do we expect of those who still cling to the same types we threw off two centuries ago?
But how will they enforce their speech laws against their citizens? After all, "It's Canada... they don't protest violently there."
SOURCE (http://www.vancouversun.com/RCMP+unleash+armoured+vehicles+Metro+Vancouver+str eets/2717943/story.html)
Wow... Canada owns tanks? :lol: Should we be worried? :P Watch out everyone! Canada is going to invade! :lol2: :rofl: :rofl2: :rofl3:
1) When you leave your country, you do NOT export your laws, rights and freedoms wherever you go. You either follow the laws of the country where you are visiting, or you face prosecution and expulsion from those countries.
2) The V.P. of UoO personally decided to write to MsCoulter to remind her on our laws because she'd already shown at another University in Canada, that she does not respect those laws.
"I hereby encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here," University of Ottawa academic vice president François Houle wrote.
"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
3) We value freedom of speech (Which is why she's continuing her tour of Canadian Universities and other meeting places) - but we do have restrictions, much like the USA does.
4) We also value freedom of protest/assembly... which is why so many people showed up to protest against her presence.
5) SHE cancelled her speech...Canada did not. She could've continued with her speech but chose not to do so.
6) If Canada did not want her to speak, we could've simply refused her entry into Canada.
Gonz... they're Canadians. :lol: What are they gonna do? Really. :rofl2:
If this had occurred in the US there would have been cause for concern... but... it's Canada. They'll make some signs, shout a little, then go home to watch hockey (or soccer) with a beer or two, eh.
(No offense intended, Bish!)
Football, Val...only you uneducated Americans call it soccer ;)
Actually, we Cannuckis are pretty good at rioting. Hell, we'll even riot when our favorite team wins :D
6) If Canada did not want her to speak, we could've simply refused her entry into Canada.
doesn't canada have an ugly law that could have been used to prevent her entry?
Yeah...we used it to get rid of Celine Dion. :D
1) When you leave your country, you do NOT export your laws, rights and freedoms wherever you go. You either follow the laws of the country where you are visiting, or you face prosecution and expulsion from those countries.
2) The V.P. of UoO personally decided to write to MsCoulter to remind her on our laws because she'd already shown at another University in Canada, that she does not respect those laws.
3) We value freedom of speech (Which is why she's continuing her tour of Canadian Universities and other meeting places) - but we do have restrictions, much like the USA does.
4) We also value freedom of protest/assembly... which is why so many people showed up to protest against her presence.
5) SHE cancelled her speech...Canada did not. She could've continued with her speech but chose not to do so.
6) If Canada did not want her to speak, we could've simply refused her entry into Canada.
All good points, Bish. I think Americans love their rights so much that they assume their rights go with them when they travel outside our borders. We have to remember that we are under other jurisdiction when we travel. I believe it might have been Gonz (I might be wrong here) who brought this up in the thread with regards to the hikers who were put in an Iranian jail for getting lost and crossing the border into Iran.
Football, Val...only you uneducated Americans call it soccer ;)
Actually, we Cannuckis are pretty good at rioting. Hell, we'll even riot when our favorite team wins :D
No way I'm going to believe this without proof (the rioting). Post a link, Canadian! :D
No way I'm going to believe this without proof (the rioting). Post a link, Canadian! :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Stanley_Cup_riot 1994
After the NHL contest was concluded, 50,000 to 70,000 individuals reportedly converged upon Downtown Vancouver. What initially was a gathering developed into a riot at Robson and Thurlow Street. This happened after an accident involving a man who fell from a lamp standard into the crowd below. The Police, who were on bicycles, attempted to escort paramedics into the crowd. However, when the crowd attempted to take a bicycle from one constable, they retreated and warned the crowd to disperse. The riot squad congregated on Thurlow St. on the West side. Shortly after that the police fired tear gas into the crowd and people ran in all directions. As the police regained control of the streets, a police constable was left in front of major retail stores that had had their windows broken. Tear gas wafted through the open windows of residents of the West End that night, and St. Paul's hospital placed guards at the emergency room entrance to prevent tear gas victims from entering, claiming there was nothing that could be done for them. Eventually, some bowls with water were placed outside by the security guards for those suffering from tear gas. The NY Times also reported on this event. [1] Total damage to the downtown core was estimated at $1.1 million CAD. Like other Robson and surrounding retailers, the then Eaton's department store had more than 50 of its storefront windows smashed.
Subduing the crowd required the efforts of both the Vancouver Police Department and Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers. In all, 540 officers were directly involved with the riot. Many individuals were arrested and charged, and up to 200 individuals were injured.[2]
The 1993 Stanley Cup Riot occurred in Montreal after the Montreal Canadiens won their 24th Stanley Cup. Fans poured out of the Montreal Forum and began to commit acts of vandalism and violence while their team was celebrating inside.[1] In the epicenter of the riots, Ste. Catherine St., stores were looted and police cruisers were set ablaze. The riots caused $2.5 million dollars in damage.[2] At the high point of the riot 980 officers were dispatched and they made 115 arrests. The police reported 47 police cars damaged, 8 of those 47 cars were completely destroyed. Of the rioters, 168 were arrested after they broke windows, looted stores and set fires. Some of the rioters were suspected of planning to loot stores using the riot as a decoy.[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Stanley_Cup_Finals
Hell, Montreal Rioted when we reached the semi-finals in 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/22/mtl-habs.html
:eek:
Are you sure they were Canadians? 0_o
*/sends Bish a suspicious look
I'm in no way suggesting that Ms Coulter is above the law.
I am questioning the level of insight it takes to invite someone to your (fill in place here) when their opinoin is clearly known, then to ask them to tone it down.
I also find it fitting that, once again, the left goes to great lengths to shut down political speech. The ever peaceful & forthright Canadians were so upset that they forced the closure of a political speech...by using the "right to free speech" (which, as far as I know, is only a right in the USA.
Say what you will, just so long as it does not upset us.
I'm in no way suggesting that Ms Coulter is above the law.
I am questioning the level of insight it takes to invite someone to your (fill in place here) when their opinoin is clearly known, then to ask them to tone it down.
I also find it fitting that, once again, the left goes to great lengths to shut down political speech. The ever peaceful & forthright Canadians were so upset that they forced the closure of a political speech...by using the "right to free speech" (which, as far as I know, is only a right in the USA.
Say what you will, just so long as it does not upset us.
Oooh, now Gonz, you just opened a can of worms with that statement. ;)
Judge Orders Demonstrators Freed (Washington Post) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57531-2004Sep2.html)
Pointing fingers at the Left? Tisk tisk tisk. Shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house. :D
Damn, I hated it when President Bush ordered the political speech shut down. Especially when it's in a far right state like NY.
2004...was that the most recent?
I'm in no way suggesting that Ms Coulter is above the law.
I am questioning the level of insight it takes to invite someone to your (fill in place here) when their opinoin is clearly known, then to ask them to tone it down.
I also find it fitting that, once again, the left goes to great lengths to shut down political speech. The ever peaceful & forthright Canadians were so upset that they forced the closure of a political speech...by using the "right to free speech" (which, as far as I know, is only a right in the USA.
Say what you will, just so long as it does not upset us.
Two different groups involved, Gonz. MsCoulter was invited to speak by the young conservatives There were 100 of them in that hall. If they somehow managed to get the $10k speaking fee.that's their business. They chose to use a University auditorium. Requested it..Someone agreed to let them use it. :shrug: Someone must've been watching MsCoulter tell a muslim student to use her flying carpet to go places because all muslims should automatically be placed on a no-fly list. and told someone upstairs.. who warned MsCoulter to keep it civil.
MsCoulter then leaked the keep it civil letter and pissed off more people, who promptly decided to protest.
As for the "Free speech™ is an American invention" rhetoric..might I remind you that the Brits have had a patent on it since the 17th century. (Before the USA even existed).
"use her flying carpet to go places because all muslims should automatically be placed on a no-fly list."
...and this is particularly brilliant because the vast majority of muslims come from places that do not have folk legends about magic carpets. it really shows us the depth of coulter's understanding of the world's peoples and her ability to make meaningful distinctions. simply put: it's us and them, no two ways about it. no wonder ideological infants love her.
unfortunately, profiling is a useful, and I believe a necessary too.
imo though, I think we need a kind of don't ask don't tell understanding,
but some make there living on the 'shock' value.
Personally I'm not ashamed on my race, and consider it a complement is someone uses the standard slurs, as long as it isn't the 'hateful type'.
Call me a redneck, no problem...
Call me inbred, Problem.
I just don't see where she crossed that fine line in this case.
A joke is a joke. People need to lighten up on both sides.
"use her flying carpet to go places because all muslims should automatically be placed on a no-fly list."
...and this is particularly brilliant because the vast majority of muslims come from places that do not have folk legends about magic carpets. it really shows us the depth of coulter's understanding of the world's peoples and her ability to make meaningful distinctions. simply put: it's us and them, no two ways about it. no wonder ideological infants love her.
When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/03/23/ottawa-coulter-speech.html#ixzz0jfaXYPn2
she uses jokes as cover. but it's quite transparent to many of us.
maybe we should make some jokes about not letting christians fly due to this recent militia-related bullshit heh?
just because you don't see how she's an asshole for what she "jokes" about from where you are standing does not make her any less of an asshole to those of us who understand her for exactly what she is.
unfortunately, profiling is a useful, and I believe a necessary too.
imo though, I think we need a kind of don't ask don't tell understanding,
but some make there living on the 'shock' value.
Personally I'm not ashamed on my race, and consider it a complement is someone uses the standard slurs, as long as it isn't the 'hateful type'.
Call me a redneck, no problem...
Call me inbred, Problem.
I just don't see where she crossed that fine line in this case.
A joke is a joke. People need to lighten up on both sides.
She said that all terrorists are Muslims - inaccurate, but no problem
Then said that all Muslims should be treated as terrorists. - problem
Then she started using stereotypical slurs - oops, too late..she crossed the line.
So what your saying is fight fire with fire.
Two wrongs make a right.
...
There's a right way to protest these things, and a wrong way.
Personally, I think Ann knew what the response would be, somewhat, and
intentionally brought it out with what she said, to show the opposing
side was just that hostile.
They played right into it.
Just too easy. :p
so two wrongs don't make a right but it's fine for her to use one wrong to try to provoke another?
oh, right, she's one of the good guys.
:bash:
nope
I don't think she was wrong.
That's opinion, but Mr. B's opinion IS that, so...
Reverse qualification doesn't apply in my case.
Now, if Mr. B doesn't think what the opposing side did was wrong, then the discussion changes.
That's why I asked.
You just seem to want to make Everything rhetorical I guess.
Don't try to read between lines that aren't there.
The other side as in the students who protested? Nope..they have a right to do so.
The other side as in the vp Of the University..he probably overstepped his mandate.
Her wrong was thinking that she was above the law...using a letter reminding her or her rights and their limits while in Canada and purposefully leaking it, not to prove how the left is trying to shut her up (they weren't), not to show how violent a left protest could get (It didn't) but merely to get more ink out of it. More free press/advertising.
The whole thing will get twisted out of shape with reality and used in her next book.
well, that certainly clears up where the divide is then.
Damn, I hated it when President Bush ordered the political speech shut down. Especially when it's in a far right state like NY.
2004...was that the most recent?
I don't believe GW Bush is running for office anymore. :lol: So no, I don't have any recent examples. :)
You're not alone with your opinion. Most of the people I know who claim affiliation with the Republicans were disgusted and embarrassed (since Bush was representing their party). For that reaction I have to give them credit.
...As for the "Free speech™ is an American invention" rhetoric..might I remind you that the Brits have had a patent on it since the 17th century. (Before the USA even existed).
No "Free Speech" for "The Colonies".
The other side as in the students who protested? Nope..they have a right to do so.
The other side as in the vp Of the University..he probably overstepped his mandate.
Her wrong was thinking that she was above the law...using a letter reminding her or her rights and their limits while in Canada and purposefully leaking it, not to prove how the left is trying to shut her up (they weren't), not to show how violent a left protest could get (It didn't) but merely to get more ink out of it. More free press/advertising.
The whole thing will get twisted out of shape with reality and used in her next book.
You have a point here about the free press/advertising. I did not know who the fuck she was until this thread. I am not shittin' you... no fuckin' idea. :dizzy:
ResearchMonkey
3/30/10, 06:24pm
I support your Canadian Brown Shirt Youth too.
Canadian Right to free speech?
FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR EVERYONE!!!!! so long as it doesn't upset anyone.
No "Free Speech" for "The Colonies".
You have a point here about the free press/advertising. I did not know who the fuck she was until this thread. I am not shittin' you... no fuckin' idea. :dizzy:
Really? She's Limbaugh post-sex-change....but not as cute.
Canadian Right to free speech?
FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR EVERYONE!!!!! so long as it doesn't upset anyone.
Upset? You can upset to your heart's content. You cannot promote genocide or publicly incite hatred for a particular group or individual.
Gonz, you quoted yourself (or paraphrased).
I think Bish was saying there are restrictions on free speech (just like there are here in the US).
Article 11 ...
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
Restrictions...
... when freedom of speech interferes or conflicts with other rights.
(Examples: hate speech, pornography and intentions to do harm.)
Some of what this Ann Coulter says is simply offensive and is allowable under Article 11, and some of it is considered "hate speech" and is not.
ResearchMonkey
3/31/10, 12:24pm
I find "redistribute the wealth" to be offensive. Who can we arrest?
too hard! me wantie bumper sticker and funny picture of obama-san!!!!
ResearchMonkey
3/31/10, 06:53pm
Reread my post.
...shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law
As far as I know both sedition and unconstitutional are defined by law.
too hard! me wantie bumper sticker and funny picture of obama-san!!!!
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6947/1267493110604.jpg
I think Bish was saying there are restrictions on free speech
Everyone, study that carefully.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6947/1267493110604.jpg
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Now THAT'S funny!
Everyone, study that carefully.
I agree with Gonz ... study that carefully, because it is our law and has been for some time.
What I actually said (that was omitted from the quote):
"I think Bish was saying there are restrictions on free speech (just like there are here in the US).
Article 11 ...
'The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.'
Restrictions...
... when freedom of speech interferes or conflicts with other rights.
(Examples: hate speech, pornography and intentions to do harm.)
Some of what this Ann Coulter says is simply offensive and is allowable under Article 11, and some of it is considered "hate speech" and is not."
Study it and understand the nature of "free speech". You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is none.
0bowma will bow to anything!
Article 11? My Consititution only goes to Artlicle VII.
Perhaps article 11 says it anyway...
'The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.'
So Freedom of Speech is a government granted privilege?
"Fire!", in a closed theatre can create an immediate personal hazard. Whant Ms Coulter says does not.
America's best days are ahead of us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCl_--E3T2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRxFjf40xbI&NR=1
Article 11? My Consititution only goes to Artlicle VII.
Perhaps article 11 says it anyway...
So Freedom of Speech is a government granted privilege?
"Fire!", in a closed theatre can create an immediate personal hazard. Whant Ms Coulter says does not.
She does not yell "fire" in a crowded room. As I said, her limitations falls under the "hate speech" part of the restrictions to free speech, not "intention to do harm."
However, I do not believe she has ever been warned in the US (I tried to do a search and found nothing). Since she was in a foreign country she must abide by their laws. If her speech was deemed unlawful in that country then she should be arrested accordingly.
In the UK there are strict restrictions on firearms ownership, yet in Texas I am free to own a rifle or pistol as I choose. I can not travel to the UK and impose Texas laws on the UK because I am a US citizen. I must follow their laws. It's only natural. Marijuana is legal in The Netherlands but not here. A citizen from The Netherlands can not bring marijuana to the US and smoke it freely (though there are regulations in The Netherlands that state where it is lawful to use marijuana).
ResearchMonkey
4/02/10, 04:18pm
Dope and fire arms. nice combo! :retard:
Dope and fire arms. nice combo! :retard:
They aren't combined. :retard:
"hate speech"
Define HATE SPEECH.
Define HATE SPEECH.
Hate speech:
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. (thefreedictionary.com)
Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification. (http://www.yourdictionary.com)
speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.(dictionary.reference.com)
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. (dictionary.reference.com)
See also references on Wikipedia.com to hate speech - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
I'm not sure how much more you need. The Wikipedia site lists variations by country and is worth a look.
I think the warning to Ann Coulter was in her best interest. She needs to be aware of the law and the nuances of that law when she goes to another country. I saw no harm in the information she received. Had she been smart, she would have thanked the person who gave her the information and given her speech to the 100 people that paid her. I wonder if they got their fee back or if she ripped them off?
#2 is clearly foolish.
#3 does not apply here
1 & 4 - perhaps.
However, what is the defintion of hate speech under Canada's LAW (nothing else matters)
Now, are we not protected, under the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of every individual state, to say what we may? If our words are followed by our action, then, and only then, have we possibly committed a crime. If intent to do harm can be proven, then speech might be limited. (I disagree with FIRE! in a theatre to be illegal speech...of course, I think people ought to be aware & not panic)
Agreed, Ms Coulter was not in the US, nor under a diplomatic umbrella, in Canada. However, they invited her to speak, knowing full well what her message is & under no circumstance can it be defined as hate speech. She is not corercing citizens to violate any laws. She is making political points, using humor.
Perhaps you need to read some of her columns (http://www.anncoulter.com/), since you admittedly know nothing about her.
#2 is clearly foolish.
#3 does not apply here
1 & 4 - perhaps.
However, what is the defintion of hate speech under Canada's LAW (nothing else matters)
I'll let Bish answer that question since he's our token Canadian on this board. :lol:
Now, are we not protected, under the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of every individual state, to say what we may? If our words are followed by our action, then, and only then, have we possibly committed a crime. If intent to do harm can be proven, then speech might be limited. (I disagree with FIRE! in a theatre to be illegal speech...of course, I think people ought to be aware & not panic)
Not necessarily so. One's speech can intend to do harm (liable laws touch on this as well) which can result in that harm. With respect to the "shouting fire in a crowded room" situation, I have found that many people are stupid. They will panic and they will harm others trying to flee. The person who causes the panic would be held accountable for the injuries and possibly deaths.
Agreed, Ms Coulter was not in the US, nor under a diplomatic umbrella, in Canada. However, they invited her to speak, knowing full well what her message is & under no circumstance can it be defined as hate speech. She is not corercing citizens to violate any laws. She is making political points, using humor.
Only 100 people invited her to speak. I agree that she should have given her speech for the people who paid her to come. She chose not to. She wasn't threatened, she wasn't prevented, she was simply informed of the law. It was her choice not to give the speech.
Perhaps you need to read some of her columns (http://www.anncoulter.com/), since you admittedly know nothing about her.
I'm not actually interested in her message. I haven't said anything in this thread against her message (other than the type of people that her message might attract).
Only 100 people invited her to speak. I agree that she should have given her speech for the people who paid her to come. She chose not to. She wasn't threatened, she wasn't prevented, she was simply informed of the law. It was her choice not to give the speech.
per the story from the original post
He said some demonstrators swarmed the event, making it "a situation the security and police advised was untenable for safety reasons."
Hate speech is defined by those who are in power, and those who are members of the protected class. There is always an agenda especially for those seeking to bolster the power of their group.
To illustrate:
If a Heterosexual male is beating another Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Homosexual male is beating another Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Homosexual male is beating a Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Heterosexual male is beating a Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
We all know that the answer to all of these scenarios should be "No". In the case of the first three, the consensus of all would probably be just that -- "No".
But then we reach the fourth scenario; and that is where we go wrong. Here we have one of the protected class being beaten by one of the unprotected class and this is where the unprotected class would say "No" while the protected class would shout a resounding "Yes".
In America, you and I should be able to stand toe to toe with our noses almost touching screaming epithets, slurs, and hateful dialogue and there should be no crime in that; nor should the government intervene. It is at the point that our noses touch that the government has the authority to mandate that we be protected from others for the general welfare of society. As long as there is no actual harm done by one to another, the government has no say. There is no right enumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much any group wants it to be so, that protects us from being offended.
Hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with power -- the kind of power that is gained by the oldest method there is -- divide and conquer -- the virtual Balkanization, the factionalization as it were, of America. What better place to start than by limiting free speech?
(I disagree with FIRE! in a theatre to be illegal speech...of course, I think people ought to be aware & not panic)
yeah, most people do have perfect awareness of what's going on in other parts of the theater with a loud movie playing in their faces. :erm:
next time i go see a movie, i'm going to need to miss the film to make sure i know what is going on in row 12, over there... where there are teenagers smooching and...
you realize that your opinion on this matter very much points toward extremism on your part, right?
If a Heterosexual male is beating a Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
not if a group of reasonable people decide that it was a simple beating and not about the one guy being gay, no, it is not a hate crime.
does the beater present well to a jury? can he look them in the eye(s) and tell them that it wasn't about the beatee being gay? did he NOT refer to the man's gayness while beating him? how did the incident start? did he even know the guy was gay?
it's awesome how some hypothetical guy gets his ass kicked, but somehow, out of all of it, it's the random christian gay-hating white guy that ends up as the victim here. nice work.
you realize that your opinion on this matter very much points toward extremism on your part, right?
No, why? It's too much to ask that people are aware of their surroundings? No wonder we're going to shit.
yeah, it is a bit much to expect everyone to be perfectly aware of what is going on a hundred feet away from them while they are experiencing sensory overload directly in front of them. would you understand at every single moment what was going on 75 feet behind your head while watching plan 9 from outer space? oh, right, i forgot, you're a ninja.
it's when your clever ability to say whatever you want - cuz y'know this ain't russia - puts other people in direct physical danger. and yes, your response does reflect extremism. you're willing to let people get trampled in a false fire panic just to support your ideological figments.
ResearchMonkey
4/06/10, 12:24pm
Yeah, minx, so. What if there was a terrorist in the theater and he had an RPG, I would yell "FIRE" just at the right time so the terrorist would be trampled to death by a heard people wearing 3D glasses and die. So what then, would I go prison and find true love?
So, in the end, I am an extremist. That is defined as someone who believes his words, or those of others, do not make another act. However, as an extremist, I believe that you may say whatever you wish to say. That does not mean that you will go unpunished...whether legally or through street justice.
I'd like a clear & concise explanation on what is permissible, so I don't cross the extreme threshold.
Thank God we have Daddy.
not if a group of reasonable people decide that it was a simple beating and not about the one guy being gay, no, it is not a hate crime.
does the beater present well to a jury? can he look them in the eye(s) and tell them that it wasn't about the beatee being gay? did he NOT refer to the man's gayness while beating him? how did the incident start? did he even know the guy was gay?
it's awesome how some hypothetical guy gets his ass kicked, but somehow, out of all of it, it's the random christian gay-hating white guy that ends up as the victim here. nice work.
All you have to do is to completely discount, and ignore, the overzealous, clairvoyant prosecutor who will decide what he, or she, conjures was going on in the head of the unprotected class. That is all that counts. Perception always trumps reality in the mind of the prosecution.
I'd like a clear & concise explanation on what is permissible, so I don't cross the extreme threshold.
figure it out yourself. go take a basic law class. they talk about shit like that in such classes. or use the internet. "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is typically a concept they teach at a high school level.
but let's make it even easier. if someone says stuff that physically endangers others, they're an asshole. having an opinion about politics does not physically endanger someone else.
if you call the cops and tell them there is a meth lab in my house to be klever, and they bust down the door and shoot me because they think i have a weapon, then you're a grade A jackass.
these are not difficult concepts.
your freedom extends to the bounds right before where it endangers others.
if you don't like this, perhaps you should lobby to get all murderers, rapists, and other criminals bounced from jail, because, you know, they were doing what they wanted to do! FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!
All you have to do is to completely discount, and ignore, the overzealous, clairvoyant prosecutor who will decide what he, or she, conjures was going on in the head of the unprotected class. That is all that counts. Perception always trumps reality in the mind of the prosecution.
can you think of any more scenarios in which you (or your equivalent) will end up the victim of this horrible multicultural machine? hows many twists and turns you got in there?
ResearchMonkey
4/06/10, 11:31pm
if you call the cops and tell them there is a meth lab in my house to be klever, and they bust down the door and shoot me because they think i have a weapon, then you're a grade A jackass. It happened before. Oh I bet you'd pissed though. /off topic.
your freedom extends to the bounds right before where it endangers others.
OK.
So, then, shouting JUMP!!! to the guy on the ledge is forboden?
no, because the danger there is imminent and obvious.
seriously, consider taking a course in basic law. it might help you on your road to becoming a constitutional scholar.
I'll let Bish answer that question since he's our token Canadian on this board. :lol:
.
It's pretty elaborate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
Even the Wiki Reader's Digest version is convoluted.
It's about inciting or trying to incite violence against a defined group (Yes, Jim...even white people are a group)...from simple beatings to genocide.
**Almost forgot. Not unlike the USA...the definition of the groups and defining factors that deleneate 'groups' change... in Quebec, f'r instance, Political leanings count.
So "All Liberals should be hung!" is a Hate Crime.
Canadian Law: Telling The Truth About Muslims is Hate Speech (http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/06/11/canadian-law-telling-the-truth-about-muslims-is-hate-speech/)
Columnist and author Mark Steyn was charged with “hate speech” by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for what it called “flagrant Islamaphobia” after excerpts of his best selling book on radical Islam were featured in a popular Canadian news magazine.
I’m willing to bet if Mark Steyn had written a book that said Jesus was an as*shole, and Christians are dangerous, there would be no trial.
that's cool i guess i can tell the truth about christians then, by pulling a bunch of "chilling quotes" from the hutaree website!
so, cerise, what is the truth about muslims? i'd really love to hear it in your own words, if that isn't too inconvenient.
I believe if you look at that quote closely it reveals Steyn's book was about radical muslims.
Do you really need someone to tell you the truth about radical muslims?
None of these links, or links within links quote what caused the hub-bub in the first place. We can't judge if it actually a hate-crime or not. Move along.
We can't judge if it actually a hate-crime or not.
That's the problem with PC-based crimes. Nobody can judge what's in your heart.
If you keep it in your heart, you can hate to your heart's content. Much like everything in life.. no harm, no foul. Once you start acting on your hate tho' ... you can run afoul of the law.
Acting out can be a crime. Talking should never be.
If I tell someone that I plan on killing them..that's 'uttering a death-threat', and a crime.
I believe if you look at that quote closely it reveals Steyn's book was about radical muslims.
with all the accusations of obama being "a muslim" (oh dear god no) and whatnot i really missed any such distinctions in your discourse.
carry on.
I didn't create that headline. The book spoke of "radical" Islamics.
Acting out can be a crime. Talking should never be.
It depends on how possible it is for that threat to become reality.
It depends on how possible it is for that threat to become reality.
Too bad.
Founding Fathers in Philadelphia, circa 1786....Free Speech? Nope. Someone might say bad stuff.
Too bad.
Founding Fathers in Philadelphia, circa 1786....Free Speech? Nope. Someone might say bad stuff.
Not just say bad stuff.
If someone has a gun in their hand and says, "I'm going to shoot you dead", then the possibility of danger becomes reality. Right? Do the authorities just ignore the threat because the gun holder has the right to Free Speech? Certainly not, because what they said has the potential to inflict harm.
No Val that is assault with a deadly weapon
even if he kept his mouth shut.
ResearchMonkey
4/14/10, 05:42pm
"I'm going to beat you to death with this ham and mayo sandwich." Could happen.
I’d scarf that sammich down, clog my arteries and hope Osamacare saved me! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wik2uc69WbU)
Not just say bad stuff.
Nothing beats the potential harm here
EDGEWATER, N.J. — A teenager has been charged with bias intimidation and harassment after grabbing a supermarket microphone and announcing, "All blacks leave the store," authorities said
source (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20100413teen_charged_after_grabbing_microphone_at_ store_telling_blacks_to_leave/srvc=home&position=recent)
Freedom of Speech is no more.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.