Opponents of Section 13 argue that it is an assault on free speech. They claim that it targets speech that may merely offend those with thin skins. If the target of the law were merely “offensive” statements, we would wholeheartedly agree. But this is not the case. The law aims at expression that causes members of our society to be treated as less worthy than their neighbours merely because of who they are, rather than what they have done. The small number of cases that have made it to the act’s tribunal stage have been among the worst of the worst: hateful, malicious propaganda.
Another argument against Section 13 is that, unlike libel law, truth is no defence. But can it ever be “true” that victims of hate speech deserve hatred and contempt? Should someone be entitled to use a tribunal hearing to “prove” that, say African Canadians are inferior, that Jews are rapacious, or that all gays are pedophiles?
Section 13 tells us that we must find civil ways to prevent bigotry. That is the Canadian way. But if Storseth’s bill is passed, the state will rely exclusively on criminal prosecution to deter those who wilfully engage in promoting hatred. By ridding ourselves of Section 13, we diminish the hope that we can change attitudes through education and dialogue. We may very well unleash the blunt force of the criminal law on those who are guilty of nothing but ignorance...Actually, Bernie, that blunt force you warn about is already in evidence--at the Human Rights Commissions, where petty bureaucrats tie up certain Canadians (Christians, right wingers, non-Muslims and other politically incorrect sorts) for years in capricious prosecutions conducted via star chambers/kangaroo courts. If that's "the Canadian way," then Canada is well on its way to Maoville.
And speaking of the "blunt force" of the law, it is now so "blunt" that police will, for example, allow hate-fueled Muslims to be as hateful as the wannabe, fearing that to act in a timely fashion against, say, a Salman Hossain (a Jew-hater whose rants made even the Judenhass of a pretend Nazi/Ceej honoree sound as bland as an unseasoned kugel) would anger Muslims, and threaten police "outreach" to that community.
And the reason we need to scrap Section 13, Marvin, is so that people like me can write stuff like the above (i.e. the truth) without having to worry that the "human rights" thought police will, unlike the other police--call them,vis-a-vis Jew-hating Muslims, the thoughtless police--act against us.
That's the freedom way, the democracy way, the Magna Carta way. And, oh, yeah, it's the Jewish way, too. Unlike your way, Ceej Zombies, which is the way to tyranny and sharia.
|I believe that's Marvin on the left and Bernie, atypically, on the right.|
Love those zombies!
Why don't you just tell us what your really think scaramouche? Why hold back;)
Why can't we all just get along? Let me answer that: Because we got dangerous ideologies/religions (same thing) in the world and crazier passive ones too 'nice' to call them out. Worse, they want to silence the sane!
"Maoville". I love it.
Post a Comment