What a load of horse manure!
Nosferatu200 wrote:One of the justifications given by the Conservative government for the repeal of Se. 13 of the Human Rights Act was that it was, in effect, redundant. Hate speech law were already found in the criminal code, thus the criminal code should be used to fight hate speech.
1. While there were more important reasons for repealling Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, this reason is valid. It is redundant to have both a law against hate propaganda in the Criminal Code and Section 13 in the Human Rights Act.
2. In fact both a) the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code and b) Section 13 of the Human Rights Act are redundant. There is only one kind of "hate speech" for the criminalization of which a legitimate case can be made. That is speech which explicitly and purposefully calls for acts of criminal violence against targetted groups of people. Laws against incitement are sufficient to cover this. Both kinds of hate speech laws are redundant.
Nosferatu200 wrote:We here and many elsewhere have discussed the flaws with this argument, most of which we need not repeat, but one of the reasons that we and others support Sec. 13 is because it is a much more efficient, and quite honestly fair, process (it's also a hell of a lot cheaper for all parties). The Crown is often hesitant to bring file charges for even the most egregious hate propaganda and when charges are filed, it seems to take forever as the defence engage in delaying tactics.
1. Efficiency. In evaluating a law the question of efficiency must take second place to that of justice. If a law is unjust, greater efficiency makes it worse, not better. Only if the law is just does greater efficiency improve it.
Hate speech laws, including both Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and the hate propaganda section of the Canadian Criminal Code, are unjust. These laws do not serve the greater good of Canadian society nor do they protect the interests of all Canadian citizens. These laws were written to provide a legal means for the end of silencing and punishing specific people whose ideas the government disapproved of.
2. Fairness. It is difficult to believe that anyone could write that Section 13 is "much more...quite honestly fair" with a straight face. As I explained in the preceding paragraph, both Section 13 and the Criminal Code hate propaganda law are unjust, and something that is unjust cannot be fair. Of the two, however, Section 13 is clearly the least fair. It is biased towards the prosecution. The prosecution has a significantly smaller burder of proof. The defence is not guaranteed legal counsel and is burdened with heavy costs regardless of which side wins.
Nosferatu200 wrote:So far most of the usual suspects have yet to comment on this turn of events, however our friends at Free Dominion have noticed. Connie suggest that this is a loss for Richard Warman and seems to take some pleasure in this belief.
We have to say though that it is an odd reaction from someone who claims to be a, "friend of Israel" to be cheering for a man who has openly advocated for the extermination of Jews and who associated with people who are violent and willing to do their part in that effort (two of whom are currently in prison on murder charges). Then again, we've really never expected consistency from the good folks at Free Dominion.
Connie Fournier's position is consistent. It is Terry Tremaine's right to express his thoughts without being persecuted by the state for doing so that she is upholding, not the content of those thoughts. Connie's willingness to speak out for the freedom of speech of those whose ideas are personally repugnant to her and most of the rest of our society displays both consistency and character, although one cannot expect an idealogue like Nosferatu200 to understand either of those things.