William Whatcott is presenting one of the most important freedom of speech cases before Canada’s top court. When does freedom of speech and religion trump the rights of homosexuals? The Agenda analyzes the limits of free speech.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 4:55 pm and is filed under Free Speech.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
25 Responses to “When is Free Speech Hate Speech?”
You must be very careful with these hate speech laws. The powers will use them in absurd ways. In Canada currently the newly formed blanket group the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the also newly formed and phoney Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, that is NOT an arm of the government are BOTH out to stop any critism of Israel, by criminalizing it as antisemitic and it’s working for them. They all want more WAR for Israel in the end.
Hate speech laws make it illegal to be an asshole in Canada.
Should it be illegal to be an idiot?
For example, if someone thinks in their heads that homosexuals are deviant and doesnt like them, they are not allowed to say this. They are not allowed to express thier true feelings. Is this the thought police? It sis a fine line to balance the rights.
@AkivaII The Soviet Union was a collection of societies. And I didn’t say they couldn’t collapse, only that they shouldn’t. What happened to the Soviet Union did devastate the people living within it.
@AkivaII No, they shouldn’t because that would be idiotic and destructive to so many people on a massive scale. Particularly in the world we’re living in now.
@Mathesonguy Now back to the original point of my first post, wouldn’t you agree that their institution of laws of what constitutes hate speech is in effect state morality and by analogy state religion?
I’m fine with the secular law I believe different laws in different countries are fine. I also believe that the state should not legislate a 20th century postmodernist philosophy into its laws to suppress moral codes that DISAGREE with this one way of looking at morality.
@Mathesonguy cont] many men of the ANE in this case Israelite men do not see a non-virgin as in anyway an acceptable choice for marriage and therefore financial protection. So this law protects rape victims from poverty, nothing you could think of introducing to Israel would have been more suitable than this. It does not condone rape.
Upon looking at Exodus 22:17-18 one MIGHT infer however that sometimes only the bride-price was paid and no marriage occurred.
@Mathesonguy cont] instituted as a theocracy over and against other nations, now that Christ has destroyed the curtain of separation between Jew and Gentile that theocracy can no longer hold because the Church ITSELF is not a worldly state.
Now Deut 22:28-29. The man who rapes her must marry her. This is for an economic reason. Back then in the ANE women relied heavily on male patronage, first on her father and then on her husband. If she has been raped she is no longer a virgin and of course
@Mathesonguy You point out Saudi Arabia, fine, that doesn’t validate secular ethics principles, I’m not saying that pragmatically it can be very workable but the fact that dissidents will get crushed for promoting alternative morality is just wrong.
No I wasn’t thinking of a Christian state.
I’ve read all books of the OT at least three times. Let me tell you you don’t understand its relationship to Christianity today. Yes the Law of the Torah is good however it was for the holy state of Israel
Yes secular countries are a lot worse off with their “shallow” and “incorrect ethic”. I really wish we lived in one of those great theocratic countries like Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
I’m assuming that you are thinking of a Christian state, so I’ve got to ask… Have you read the OT recently? It is not the basis for rational law, or morality.
A brief example: A man rapes a woman, who is then forced to marry her attacker. Deu 22:28-29
@AkivaII No, I don’t think we should eliminate all hatred and discontent, etc from humanity, even if it wasn’t at the expense of individual freedoms. But that doesn’t mean that we should leave the general public to decide for themselves what should and shouldn’t be allowed because that only leads to eventual societal collapse if left long enough.
@Mathesonguy
Should one draw parallels between a hypothetical ideology based on voluntary action with a historical paradigm premised on threat of force and violence?
You will have to forgive me, I presumed that force was implied to by my position. Perhaps I should be less ambiguous and state that my comments throughout forums such as these narrowly focus on issues of “Moral Hazard”. I tend not to concern myself with promoting my own subjective value judgement’s, whatever they may happen to be.
@Deadmansparty2002
Though one could certainly make strides, I will choose to respectfully not disagree [for reasons of subjectivity]. However, I would like to ask a hypothetical, in that if one could eliminate all hatred, discontent, poverty, and needs at the cost of all individual, economic, and political freedom [for all of mankind], do you think he should?
@Mathesonguy
Thank you for restating your comment.
To whether I am a libertarian in any sense, by my lexicon, no. However, economically speaking, I am a classical liberal.
“…the best outcomes is… unfortunately still needed…” “Best” and “Needed” are subjective terms, much like morality, good, evil, etc. The language I use is meticulous to only promote consistency. Thus, attempts to legislate morality are at best, a grope in the dark.
There is much more to say, but such is beyond this scope.
This presupposes that modern western ethics is true elevating it to a state religion where dissenters are crushed.
Basically these ridiculous hate speech ideas oppress the expression of moral codes and beliefs that are not modern western secular ethics (which is a shallow and incorrect ethic anyway).
They have a problem with instituting a state religion but not a state morality informed by a secularist postmodernistic worldview.
I didn’t say anything about “forcefully” imposing ideology. It was more saying that those ideologies have a willful blindness to actual human nature, and try to impose their view where it does not always apply. Kinda like always seeing a nail when the only tool you own is a hammer.
The idea that the free-market would get rid of discrimination, is at least similar to saying that the free-market will curb all shady banking practicies. It doesn’t work in the real world.
@AkivaII Yes you can, but that doesn’t mean you can stop it from existing. However, free markets are not a good idea, particularly when it comes to human nature. Regulation of the way we interact with each other is a necessary part of living in society. These concepts that are talked about in the video are an attempt to do that.
@UltraProle21 Agree!…..
You must be very careful with these hate speech laws. The powers will use them in absurd ways. In Canada currently the newly formed blanket group the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the also newly formed and phoney Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, that is NOT an arm of the government are BOTH out to stop any critism of Israel, by criminalizing it as antisemitic and it’s working for them. They all want more WAR for Israel in the end.
@pendulousphallus Your contribution to the debate is duly noted.
if you want to ban hate speech, then how can you allow the Koran to be distributed?
it’s absolutely full of hate speech.
@DesBlackmore There is*
They is simply too much danger of having aggressive Hate Speech laws. Hate Speech laws should only apply in incredibly obvious cases.
Hate speech laws make it illegal to be an asshole in Canada.
Should it be illegal to be an idiot?
For example, if someone thinks in their heads that homosexuals are deviant and doesnt like them, they are not allowed to say this. They are not allowed to express thier true feelings. Is this the thought police? It sis a fine line to balance the rights.
“When is free speech hate speech?” When you freely speak with hatred.
@AkivaII The Soviet Union was a collection of societies. And I didn’t say they couldn’t collapse, only that they shouldn’t. What happened to the Soviet Union did devastate the people living within it.
@Deadmansparty2002
And the Soviet Union?
@AkivaII No, they shouldn’t because that would be idiotic and destructive to so many people on a massive scale. Particularly in the world we’re living in now.
@Deadmansparty2002
Should societies be aloud to collapse?
@Mathesonguy Now back to the original point of my first post, wouldn’t you agree that their institution of laws of what constitutes hate speech is in effect state morality and by analogy state religion?
I’m fine with the secular law I believe different laws in different countries are fine. I also believe that the state should not legislate a 20th century postmodernist philosophy into its laws to suppress moral codes that DISAGREE with this one way of looking at morality.
@Mathesonguy cont] many men of the ANE in this case Israelite men do not see a non-virgin as in anyway an acceptable choice for marriage and therefore financial protection. So this law protects rape victims from poverty, nothing you could think of introducing to Israel would have been more suitable than this. It does not condone rape.
Upon looking at Exodus 22:17-18 one MIGHT infer however that sometimes only the bride-price was paid and no marriage occurred.
@Mathesonguy cont] instituted as a theocracy over and against other nations, now that Christ has destroyed the curtain of separation between Jew and Gentile that theocracy can no longer hold because the Church ITSELF is not a worldly state.
Now Deut 22:28-29. The man who rapes her must marry her. This is for an economic reason. Back then in the ANE women relied heavily on male patronage, first on her father and then on her husband. If she has been raped she is no longer a virgin and of course
@Mathesonguy You point out Saudi Arabia, fine, that doesn’t validate secular ethics principles, I’m not saying that pragmatically it can be very workable but the fact that dissidents will get crushed for promoting alternative morality is just wrong.
No I wasn’t thinking of a Christian state.
I’ve read all books of the OT at least three times. Let me tell you you don’t understand its relationship to Christianity today. Yes the Law of the Torah is good however it was for the holy state of Israel
@Antisyncretism
Yes secular countries are a lot worse off with their “shallow” and “incorrect ethic”. I really wish we lived in one of those great theocratic countries like Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
I’m assuming that you are thinking of a Christian state, so I’ve got to ask… Have you read the OT recently? It is not the basis for rational law, or morality.
A brief example: A man rapes a woman, who is then forced to marry her attacker. Deu 22:28-29
Is this a “deep” moral ethic?
@AkivaII No, I don’t think we should eliminate all hatred and discontent, etc from humanity, even if it wasn’t at the expense of individual freedoms. But that doesn’t mean that we should leave the general public to decide for themselves what should and shouldn’t be allowed because that only leads to eventual societal collapse if left long enough.
@Mathesonguy
Should one draw parallels between a hypothetical ideology based on voluntary action with a historical paradigm premised on threat of force and violence?
You will have to forgive me, I presumed that force was implied to by my position. Perhaps I should be less ambiguous and state that my comments throughout forums such as these narrowly focus on issues of “Moral Hazard”. I tend not to concern myself with promoting my own subjective value judgement’s, whatever they may happen to be.
@Deadmansparty2002
Though one could certainly make strides, I will choose to respectfully not disagree [for reasons of subjectivity]. However, I would like to ask a hypothetical, in that if one could eliminate all hatred, discontent, poverty, and needs at the cost of all individual, economic, and political freedom [for all of mankind], do you think he should?
My Regards.
@Mathesonguy
Thank you for restating your comment.
To whether I am a libertarian in any sense, by my lexicon, no. However, economically speaking, I am a classical liberal.
“…the best outcomes is… unfortunately still needed…” “Best” and “Needed” are subjective terms, much like morality, good, evil, etc. The language I use is meticulous to only promote consistency. Thus, attempts to legislate morality are at best, a grope in the dark.
There is much more to say, but such is beyond this scope.
This presupposes that modern western ethics is true elevating it to a state religion where dissenters are crushed.
Basically these ridiculous hate speech ideas oppress the expression of moral codes and beliefs that are not modern western secular ethics (which is a shallow and incorrect ethic anyway).
They have a problem with instituting a state religion but not a state morality informed by a secularist postmodernistic worldview.
@AkivaII
I didn’t say anything about “forcefully” imposing ideology. It was more saying that those ideologies have a willful blindness to actual human nature, and try to impose their view where it does not always apply. Kinda like always seeing a nail when the only tool you own is a hammer.
The idea that the free-market would get rid of discrimination, is at least similar to saying that the free-market will curb all shady banking practicies. It doesn’t work in the real world.
@AkivaII
Your comment sounds alot like the things an extreme libertarian (a la Ron/Rand Paul) would say.
Are you not suggesting that we let the “free market” decide if say, an All-White Bar is acceptable or not? That is the message that I am getting.
The idea that rational actors, acting in their self-interest will always produce the best outcomes is not a truth statement.
Government protections for minorites are unfortunately still needed, and will be for the forseeable future.
@AkivaII Yes you can, but that doesn’t mean you can stop it from existing. However, free markets are not a good idea, particularly when it comes to human nature. Regulation of the way we interact with each other is a necessary part of living in society. These concepts that are talked about in the video are an attempt to do that.