Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

[Perilloux]

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.
By Adam Liptak
Published: June 11, 2008

VANCOUVER, British Columbia: A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will soon
rule on whether the cover story of the Oct. 23, 2006,
issue of Maclean's magazine violated a provincial hate
speech law.

[Vepr]

I don't think people realize how lucky we are and what a special creation our constitution is. To my own shame I have to admit to taking it for granted sometimes.

It really angers me when conservatives and liberals take a flippant attitude towards changing or ignoring the constitution.

[megimoo]

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.
By Adam Liptak
Published: June 11, 2008

VANCOUVER, British Columbia: A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will soon
rule on whether the cover story of the Oct. 23, 2006,
issue of Maclean's magazine violated a provincial hate
speech law.

This is a direct result of PC style legislation,hate crime is another part.
The intent is to make every one O..........SO.......NICE while giving those nice Muslem Headchoppers the power to silence all who mention their criminal outrages behavior and the right of free speech !

[noonwitch]

I am grateful we have a constitution that protects our right to free speech, even for idiots like Fred Phelps.

But even with a hate speech law, I don't see where the magazine violated it with that cover-wouldn't Islam be proud that a writer said that they were the future? The photo is an accurate image of clothing worn by some muslims in some places-I thought that those who practiced in that way were proud of their religion.

The Canadians seem to have legislated themselves into a corner with this one.

[Gingersnap]

I've been following this case for some time. The Tribunal has never, ever lost a case and Steyn and Maclean's expect to lose. The plan is then to take it to a real court on appeal and generate a real discussion about Canadian speech rights.

This follows on the heels of another verdict crushing free speech. This one against a minister who has spoken openly about the sinful nature of homosexuality. In addition to losing the case, he has been fined, forced to pay for and attend anti-homophobic classes, and will be required to issue an apology to all of Canada's gay population. He's also barred from using the bible to preach on this subject among other restrictions.

I'm for free speech, including negative, derisive, and inflammatory free speech. I'm much rather know what someone has to say and have the opportunity to rebut it than have that same person smile sweetly at me and simply cut me out of open conversation.

[wilbur]

Here is a youtube video of Mark Steyn on Canada's "The Agenda" (5 parts). He and some of his accusers (also known as 'the sock-puppets') were on the show. They had made claims that they would love to debate him previously, but refused to partake when they were the opportunity on the show. Steyn then called them out on national TV, and basically forced them to talk to him face to face. He handles them. It is good. They look like a bunch of whiney, inarticulate cry babies.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ApcnpFCYd7E (part 1.. other 4 parts in related videos)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mark-st...-sock-puppets/