From Barry Cooper, "It's Show Time! Free Speech and Canadian 'Human Rights' Commissions":
For those who have never taken the time to read dry legal documents, consider that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act declares that hate speech is constituted by words that are likely to expose somebody to hatred or contempt – and what that has meant for Canadians.More at the link.
In early October, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant gave testimony before the House of Commons justice committee, currently considering whether section 13 should be repealed. Their remarks, available on You Tube, provide a short but thorough examination of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and its works.
They argue that the censorship implications of section 13 are an abomination in a constitutional democracy, that section 13 is the reason for so many complaints, and is why the entire administrative structure of this taxpayer-supported, government-backed human rights industry is broken past the point where it can be fixed. Any country, at least where freedom of expression and speech is truly valued, would have dissolved this outfit years ago.
Both Steyn and Levant have encountered Canada’s human rights bureaucrats first hand and written about their hair-raising experiences. The larger story, of an out-of-control bureaucracy that transformed itself from an organization charged with conciliation of differences among citizens into a politically motivated attack organ, should also trouble Canadians.
Some of the Steyn/Levant video is here, "Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant at JUST Subcommittee on Section 13." Check the Google video page for more ...
The beauty of free speech is that it puts all ideas out where they can be discussed and challenged. Once you start trying to limit speech by branding it hate speech you force those ideas underground where they can gain a credence and life of their own without challenge.
ReplyDeleteFree speech acts as a release valve on people's passions and gives enough time for that passion to abate due to the speaker having to defend his/her ideas. When you remove this release valve you set up the society for real consequences that may not end in society's best interest.
I may dislike what some have to say, but I will defend, and have, their right to say what they want. If I do not then I have no recourse when my speech is abridged. If I accept that your speech is wrong then mine will not be far behind.
There is a reason why the very first amendment to the Constitution is one that covers free speech. All other right stem from our free speech rights.
Right you are, Dennis.
ReplyDeleteTo allow "hate speech" to be prosecuted is to allow anyone to come up with anything that they find objectionable, and tie up their political enemies in court.
Most people can't afford the legal fees to defend against this kind of assault.