To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Free Speech in Jeopardy in BC
Well, here it is.
There is the article that is SO DANGEROUS, that BC law must (potentially) deem it illegal. It is a very well written, thoughtful article in McLean's about Islam's growing power in Canada, and about the dangers that might pose. And some pathetic BC law has deemed it "hate speech," and its right to exist is about to go on trial.
This is a fucking disgrace.
Here's the law, in all its brain-paralyzing inanity:
"A person may not publish... any statement... that... is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt."
Once more, with verve:
"A person may not publish... any statement... that... is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt."
Dear holy Jebus, that's terrifying. These dip shits actually think this is a defensible, enforceable law? I may not publish anything which subjects others to contempt? My God, I'm literally fugitive, then. Because I've written many articles for various papers doing just, and in some cases only, that.
I'm amazed I haven't heard of this before now. The Peak is about to get a very vulgar, very rambling, very angry opinions piece. :p
There is the article that is SO DANGEROUS, that BC law must (potentially) deem it illegal. It is a very well written, thoughtful article in McLean's about Islam's growing power in Canada, and about the dangers that might pose. And some pathetic BC law has deemed it "hate speech," and its right to exist is about to go on trial.
This is a fucking disgrace.
Here's the law, in all its brain-paralyzing inanity:
Let me condense that down for you:BC Act Human Rights Code Section 7-1 said:A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
"A person may not publish... any statement... that... is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt."
Once more, with verve:
"A person may not publish... any statement... that... is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt."
Dear holy Jebus, that's terrifying. These dip shits actually think this is a defensible, enforceable law? I may not publish anything which subjects others to contempt? My God, I'm literally fugitive, then. Because I've written many articles for various papers doing just, and in some cases only, that.
I'm amazed I haven't heard of this before now. The Peak is about to get a very vulgar, very rambling, very angry opinions piece. :p
Comments
I mean, I can argue that anything can expose anyone to hatred or contempt...
1.) English as a Second Language program. This program in itself is racist and reminds me of South Africa's aparteid. However, this program would also expose their students to hatred because some may argue that it is taking away funding from non-ESL students.
2.) New immigrant's requirement to take the Canadian Citizenship test. Well, some may argue that these tests take away funding from other social programs.
In conclusion, anything can be offensive to some and you just need to backup your statements and you will be home free. Therefore, don't worry, be happy. You worry too much. This brings me to another point that I am going to make in my don't worry, be happy argument. Seeing that you haven't been persecuted yet, I am pretty sure that only extremely outragous statement can get you in trouble. Also, the law said you can't publish anything that can expose "a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt." You mentioned that you have written papers "doing just, and in come cases only, that." Are you sure that your paper is really offensive and that you are not engaging in self-censorship? I am pretty sure that you didn't write those paper to spread hate or contempt.
For example, I have written a paper critical of Germany's treatment of their Turkish migrant workers and how they should improve their treatment of these foreign workers. Am I SERIOUSLY subjecting the German nation to contempt? Well, I would argue that I am stating mere facts and I have a whole list of evidences to back me up. Funny that you mention the Peak. After the new editor took over, they rarely, if ever, run letters from non-Peak writers anymore.
As to only getting in trouble if I make an "extremely outrageous statement," that's the whole point. Discourse is built solely and specifically on extremely outrageous statements. It's the right of every citizen to ramble hatefully and inchoherently, if they wish to do so. It's also the right of every other citizen to call them stupid. That's how free expression works.
This case puts that on trial. It takes a needle-dicked law and tries to sodomize our nation's self-respect with it.
As to the Peak, I think it's just that it's the summer semester, and they get very few submissions at this time of year.
Anyway, here's what I wrote on the subject. Kinda jumbled, but I'm tossing it out in between homework assignments.
You can't just say "don't worry, be happy" and forget about it. Any infringement on free speech is a serious problem and it cheapens the "freedom" of the society we live in.
Look, I know the line between freedom of expression and hate speech is very fine. This is why we need to find the right balance by establishing very clear rules and regulations on what can and can not be said. I send two articles to the Peak last year and they publised it with open arm. Yeah, any infringement on free speech is indeed a serious problem. However, don't you think we are over-reacting to BC Act Human Rights Code Section 7-1?
Part 1:
[youtube]EUphTYPMB4o[/youtube]
Part 2:
[youtube]9jnD4Mc3VUw[/youtube] I would argue that attempting to impose limitations on the speech, and thus the thoughts, of citizens is the first and most important step towards fascism. Anything else I could say is said in the videos above in far better form, and with a far Enlishier voice, than I could ever muster. I will highlight his early point, however: When you silence a speaker you restrict not just the right of the speaker to speak, but the right of the listener to listen.
Anyway, do you remember how pathetically angry some of the muslim world got over that cartoon? Holy shit, that in itself should be a reason to outlaw Islam, they [ some ] went and rioted and burned shit over a drawing. Outlaw religion, not free speech. There are already laws covering hate crimes. For example, assault, and if hatred is involved the sentence is upped as an aggravating factor sometimes. I don't think there is anything under the law to make religious hatred an aggravating factor, which is a shame.
While I do not condone the violence and unrest that resulted because these TOO are unnecessary, I understand their anger.
It is hard to comprehend the angers of the Muslims because we westerners doesn't have a figure or imagery that we hold sacred and any desgregated of it would be deem blasphemous.
(I'm not making this point to defend Christians [ please dont think I am ], more show the unreasonable acts of some muslims in regards to the cartoon)
This is what religion does, it allows people to give themselves some inflated self importance, cause of course, their god is the right and real one.
Muslims [ some ] opinion on women and gays: Do you see us women going out and burning the Quran after they make inflammatory comments about us? Do you see the gays going out and burning religions buildings down...?
I know I'm female, none of them have ever met their god, they know females exist. I think my gender should be put on a higher pedestal than a religion. As a man you can't understand the discrimination against women-- that still exists, not so much in North America, but overseas.
I love Christopher Hitchens, will they ban religious hate as well as non religious? I'd like to see the bible banned.
Anyway, Student, try try try to always be aware that your opinion of the matrial doesn't matter at all. There's a reason the first thing I brought up was a holocaust denier. It doesn't matter how horrible the speech, it has to be protected. In fact, the protection of distasteful, offensive and unpopular speech is vastly MORE important than the protection of any other kind. That's precisely what free expression exists to protect. You can think whatever you want about the cartoons, but it's simply shameful to give even the slightest measure of understanding to people who use violence and intimidation to silence dissent. I don't care if you disagree with the people they're threatening. That's not the point.
I know, I know, deny the right of crazy people to talk about their god is violating freedom of speech
I just dont think there should be any protection for such ludicrous criminal shite
Note: it's a crime to be an aider or abetter to a crime; to walk around professing the truth of a hateful god should metaphorically be instigating active crimes
===
There's nothing, absolutely nothing in the article that could possibly incite hatred in any reasonable person.
The problem with Canada and the rest of the "civilized" world is that our government values enforced, superficial, harmony over the one freedom that is central to a democratic society. This article is representative of this perspective, and actually implicitly criticizes the US's position on free speech.
Our hate-speech legislation is based not upon facts, but upon feelings. You could say something totally true, and have undeniable proof of it, but if it hurts some minority group - especially one that tends to blow people up - then you'd be committing a hate-crime.
That to me is extremely dangerous, the first signature of any fascist regime, and we Canadians are doing it all in the name of not offending anyone...well guess what? Nobody has a right not to be offended!
The sad part is that our constitution actually makes room for such pervasive government censorship.
Apparently drawing images of the Prophet is a nono
I don't know any racists, gay bashers or misogynists and yet I'm guilty of their crimes? Wow.
for the last time: do not assume that Christianity and Catholicism are the same.
Are you saying that i condone the touching of little boys as well?
in any case...i won't assume what you do or do not support, but i will give you an anecdote on Islam:
Recently Jordan summoned the danish cartoonists for the crime of blasphemy, and the lawyers stated that if they don't show up themselves (in jordan to face the ridiculous charge), they'll ask interpol to apprehend them (good luck). On a discussion about this where most people mocked jordan for its reality-distortion vortex, several muslims actually spoke in support of the summons. The discussion also wondered onto the death threats that have been made to the cartoonists.
I asked in the thread, why - if muslims all over the world are saying that they're being stereotyped for all being extremists - is there no uproar in the muslim communities of the world protesting against such idiocy as jordan, and the death threats? After all, aren't those the ones who are causing prejudices against muslims?
One of the answers which i remember crystal clear, was that while he disagreed with the "extremists" killing people over it, he in fact agreed with the message they were sending, and was "showing the world" who was really being persecuted.
Uhh....WHAT??? Did he ACTUALLY say that????? Yes indeed he did.
Later, when I brought the Jordan summons up in a tutorial, someone to remain unnamed - presumably a muslim (i wouldn't rule out the slim possibility that it's simply someone familiar with islam) - reiterated the idea that drawing a cartoon IS blasphemy, and also stated that the depiction of ANY prophet is blasphemy. I asked about Jesus (and the lack of uproar to depictions of him everywhere), to which the reply is that it is indeed considered blasphemy, but that it is "respected" because he is a figure of another religion. I can't help but note the hypocrisy, unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to press forward with my line of questioning.
Now, this is just a hypothesis, but I think the reason there is no muslim opposition to the so-called "extremists" they are all too quick to distance themselves from, is because they AGREE with them. And while they are demanding equal treatment from the rest of us, they're condoning the efforts of the most devout to oppress and even annihilate the very people they are demanding equal treatment from.
Making room for the exceptions who obvious exist, and speaking solely of the people who match the above hypothesis: I don't think they deserve the unprejudiced treatment they are asking for, I don't think there's any reason for me to treat them as significantly different from "extremist" muslims because they are just as threatening to my personal well-being as the extremists.
Why should I be sensitive to your religion when your religion calls for the cold-blooded murder of myself and my loved ones? No sane person would do that, and if muslim communities wants their demand for peaceful coexistence to be taken seriously, then the first thing they could do is to actively oppose the immorality that they presently foster and protect from criticism.
p.s. in case you're wondering why i'm only talking about islam, because a) that's the subject of this topic after all, and b) i can't take it for granted that as a christian you'll think logically about your own religion, but past experience of many many have shown that people think completely reasonably when it comes to religions which they don't personally follow, so once you understand the concept with regards to islam, all you have to do, really, is to dumb the degree of violence down a notch, and apply it almost verbatim to christianity.
EDIT: This cartoon seems appropriate.
2) Sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck -- its all the same to an atheist, besides shouldnt there only be one god? therefore, one religion is wrong, or mistaken, so whats the harm in referring to them all as the same thing, one has to be right...right?
3)By supporting your religion you indirectly are, I'm sorry but it's true, your hands are not clean. The only reason that happens is because it forces gay men to devote their life to god in someway. Have you ever read interviews with one of the people convicted of that, why they became a priest? Eventually their inner 'demons' escape after a life of being closeted. I'm not defending this, but its no wonder it's such a big problem in the church.
How often do you actively say things to your family and friends when you morally disagree with something they say? It's all a progression, think things first, then you say them, then those words become actions.
______________________________________________________________
Anyway to be on topic, this bill is bad, and it will definitely be one sided, only stopping anti religious hatred rather than religious which currently is still defended by law.
My comment about outlawing religion was obviously hypocritical, and I realized that before I hit submit. But right now, the scales are balanced in favor of religion, I'd be curious to see a world where it is the opposite, or at least equal. Look how peachy things have been for the past 2000+ years (it's a shame we don't have a real based time line, not one based on some fictional child born to a hermaphrodite version who impregnated herself, SINNER!? I'd like to see Stan Lee make an issue of that "What If" series in a world where religious thought was as silenced as terrorist thought.
IVT, what do YOU think about the bible and its hatred towards women? How I should be silenced, and not speak. Do you just ignore those passages? These passages aren't even the one atheists have to metaphorically interpret, they are in plain language making me a sub human. Bible should be the first thing censored, condoning hatred and violence in plain terms.
If IVT wants to be a christian, let him be and stop telling him he is indirectly responsible for the crimes of some horny old priest.
Christians should be aware of the thousands of years of bloodshed and conflict as a direct result of their religion.
I'm not trying to make him feel bad either, he can either accept the facts I present or deny them. If you don't directly do something should you even feel bad? You can't have our cake and eat it too. For example, I have no right to criticize capitalism in a system I help support. I buy clothing items made in other countries for .10 cents, and I'm quite aware of this.
Again, you should be concerned about theism vs atheism. The entire consequence of this law is what is at stake which you SHOULD be concerned about. Your right to criticize something insignificant like scientology could be at stake here, yet religious rights are defended constitutionally, trumping your own personal rights vs those of a fairy tale.