[Serious] Far-Right Extremism Is a Global Problem

[Irreligious Atheist]

Section 2 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms suggests otherwise.  

Profoundly wrong, or bad faith?

If what you intended to express was that your country's standing with free speech could be improved - then..sure, so could ours?  That could only be relevant to the item in question if the item in question is a good example of exactly that - which...frankly, it's not.  Our domestics are your internationals.  Ours fund yours... and yours are affiliated with ours.  You could more easily argue the case that the us is a state sponsor of terror in canada than enacting financial penalties for terrorist acts is an abrogation of free speech in either of our countries.

Designating the proud boys a terrorist organization does not and cannot prevent a white supremacist from speaking, or white supremacy as an ideology from being spread.

Just because speech is called free, that does not make it so. When you outlaw speech that is not outright calling for violence, that is called restricted speech, not free speech. Free speech can not exist if you don't allow "hate speech". That's called limited speech, because you are literally restricting and limiting what can be expressed.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you insist on going with bad faith I can't imagine how my supplying you with any fact of any matter might help.

Can you explain why it's perfectly legal to be a white supremacist and say white supremacist shit, in your country, which has no free speech? This should be simple.

What's the sentence for saying you can't stand the blacks and browns out loud? That should be simple as well.

Let's really boil this one down, because it's going to be impossible for you to maintain that your expressed fears and worries have been instantiated..in the oppressive state of (checks notes) canadia with respect to right wing extremism and/or white supremacy. Would you like to have a genuine argument about whatever kind of speech you're referring to as a principle that you wish were written into law somewhere? That you wish, for example, you had the right to yell fire in the crowded theater? That you wish that you had the security of protection under law to evade any possibility of consequence for such an act, and that this protection was your right to free speech? Would you really maintain that even though we should go after terrorists for doing terrorist things...doing that, by right, should be unactionable?

How about the provision of your own state, as to the borders of what kinds of speech the government is empowered to legislate against? Section 1, limits to any right which are "reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society". Do you genuinely take issue with those sorts of limits? Do you believe, in case of complete equivalence - that one person or group can incite a mob to violence against another as a matter of rights - and that this other person or group can likewise incite a mob to violence against them? Is this your idea of a free and functioning state?

I have no intention, by the way, of arguing against your position, if any of those things are your position. I merely want to be sure that I'm clear...and that you're clear..on exactly what it is you're intending to communicate to us.

[Irreligious Atheist]

If you insist on going with bad faith I can't imagine how my supplying you with any fact of any matter might help.

Can you explain why it's perfectly legal to be a white supremacist and say white supremacist shit, in your country, which has no free speech?  This should be simple.

What's the sentence for saying you can't stand the blacks and browns out loud?  That should be simple as well.

Let's really boil this one down, because it's going to be impossible for you to maintain that your expressed fears and worries have been instantiated..in the oppressive state of (checks notes) canadia with respect to right wing extremism and/or white supremacy.  Would you like to have a genuine argument about whatever kind of speech you're referring to as a principle that you wish were written into law somewhere?  That you wish, for example, you had the right to yell fire in the crowded theater?  That you wish that you had the security of protection under law to evade any possibility of consequence for such an act, and that this protection was your right to free speech?  Would you really maintain that even though we should go after terrorists for doing terrorist things...doing that, by right, should be unactionable?

How about the provision of your own state, as to the borders of what kinds of speech the government is empowered to legislate against?  Section 1, limits to any right which are "reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society".   Do you genuinely take issue with those sorts of limits?  Do you believe, in  case of complete equivalence - that one person or group can incite a mob to violence against another as a matter of rights - and that this other person or group can likewise incite a mob to violence against them?  Is this your idea of a free and functioning state?

I have no intention, by the way, of arguing against your position, if any of those things are your position.  I merely want to be sure that I'm clear...and that you're clear..on exactly what it is you're intending to communicate to us.

No bad faith coming from me. Others have also pointed out in this very thread that Canada does not have free speech. I'm not the only one pointing that out. I understand that different people will have different definitions of free speech, which is why Sungula argues that we do have free speech in Canada. What he means by free speech though, is speech that is acceptable to him. Acceptable speech is not really free speech now though, is it? I guess it is if he wants to define it that way, but limited to me is the opposite of free. Yes, I am ok with incitement of hatred being allowed. If someone wants to take that incitement and act on it, they are responsible for their own actions and they should be the one punished for their actions.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts...n-319.html

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
  
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    
• Wilful promotion of hatred(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    

[The Grand Nudger]

Free speech, then, is not the position that you are advocating. You are advocating for a right to incitement of hatred.


Here are some comments from your supreme court about what hatred means, legally.

Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.

In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.

Do you genuinely believe that you have, or should have, a right to incitement of hatred as described in your laws?

[Irreligious Atheist]

Free speech, then, is not the position that you are advocating.  You are advocating for a right to incitement of hatred.  


Here are some comments from your supreme court about what hatred means, legally.

Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.

In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.

Do you genuinely believe that you have, or should have, a right to incitement of hatred as described in your laws?

Absolutely I do. I don't see why not. You can do that where you're from, the US, where they actually have free speech. It's not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre at all. When you do that, you are putting people's lives at immediate risk. Dehumanizing people does not do that. People should be held responsible for their own actions if they decide to commit acts of violence. The inciters of hatred didn't make that decision for them. They made that decision for themselves. No one forced them.

[The Grand Nudger]

We cant, actually. It's a myth that the US has no laws which apply to incitement or to the things that your government would call hate speech. We just don't call them that. Additionally, as in your country, we have a pretty high bar for successful prosecution on those counts. It's almost never incitement, it's almost never sedition - until it is. None of our free speech protects a person when they cross that threshold.

The reason that we don't designate domestic terrorists isn't because our constitution wouldn't allow it. We've been more focused on external threats for a long time, and our oppressive state machinery was aimed at slaves and then labor to that end, rather than terror threats. The latter, frankly, have been useful to exploiting the former. 9/11 changed that to an extent. 1/6 is likely to have a similar effect. This will affect other countries as well, insomuch as there are agreements and treaties between us which apply to law enforcement. That's what happened in the case of the proud boys. The straw that broke the camels back, as they say.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Inciting violence is Inciting violence. Regardless if someone else chooses to carry out said violence. To deny this is to deny words have any meaning or influence. Not to mention inciting violence can be an immediate risk, And worst still think of all monsters we would need let off the hook merely because they only encouraged other people to do their dirty work. All in all, there must be a curtailing of violent speech and the dehumanizing of vulnerable groups. Free Speech absolutism is reckless nonsense.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's recall that it doesn't really matter that inciting violence, is inciting violence, or what the consequences of inciting violence are. It's the position of IA that even in light of all of that, he and everyone else should have the right to do so. We can only assume that this right holds no matter what the specifics are or how it pans out. It's actually his position on prosecuting terrorists that would be in error, if this is his position on violence.

He misspoke when he said that people were responsible for their actions or the consequences of those actions. They are not, he believes that some actions and consequences are beyond any ability of a government to hold people accountable.

He misspoke when he said that people should be prosecuted for terrorist acts, as, again, there are at least some some terrorist acts he condones and maintains should be a right.

He misspoke when he said that yelling fire in a theater was prosecutable. It's not as if saying as much forces anyone to trample any other to death.

IA is advocating for the position that the provision in section 1 of your docs is irrelevant. He does not believe in reasonable limits as prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - therefore no invocation of those or demonstration of those things is relevant. No more than he believes in our own provisions against such actions here in the US. His mistaken belief that they were allowed is merely thematic. Likewise, however, no appeal to them or such action in any other equivalent situation is consistent with the position.

One wonders how a person could build a rico case, or any organized crime case, in this reality. Osama didn't fly any planes, etc. It's at odds with current reality, and at odds with reasonable limits and democratic societies - but as a position genuinely held, not assailable on the grounds offered. So what if free speech absolutism as described is reckless nonsense. He' asserting a right to reckless nonsense.

(in fairness and to be open, as a matter of law, I think that's simply untenable - but as a matter of fact, I think he has it right - I think that killing and causing death, if they can't be right, can at least be not wrong...and I maintain that this is the last measure a person can give for their genuinely held principles - right or wrong. To kill or cause to be killed or fail to prevent from being killed. I'd let the mob rip him and his white supremacist buddies to shreds, for example. Real time. I'd suggest that they were all guilty of crimes after the fact, ofc.... but I wouldn't stop them beforehand. Gotta wait till there's a body before there can be a crime, isn't that right? )

[Irreligious Atheist]

Inciting violence is Inciting violence. Regardless if someone else chooses to carry out said violence. To deny this is to deny words have any meaning or influence. Not to mention inciting violence can be an immediate risk, And worst still think of all monsters we would need let off the hook merely because they only encouraged other people to do their dirty work. All in all, there must be a curtailing of violent speech and the dehumanizing of vulnerable groups. Free Speech absolutism is reckless nonsense.

I am against allowing inciting violence, where people call for violence, and I've said that all along. I am in favour of allowing incitement of hatred, because they are just expressing their views.

---

We cant, actually.  It's a myth that the US has no laws which apply to incitement or to the things that your government would call hate speech.  We just don't call them that.  Additionally, as in your country, we have a pretty high bar for successful prosecution on those counts.  It's almost never incitement, it's almost never sedition - until it is.  None of our free speech protects a person when they cross that threshold.

Do you have links so I can see what you mean?

[HappySkeptic]

I am against allowing inciting violence, where people call for violence, and I've said that all along. I am in favour of allowing incitement of hatred, because they are just expressing their views.

The various Canadian provincial human-rights provisions have been a nightmare for free speech.  They not only protected against hatred, but also against offense.  Promoting hatred has to be a high bar, because one must always be able to criticize the ideas of a religion or culture.  Otherwise, everyone in this forum is guilty of hate speech for criticizing religions and their leaders.

I think the problems have been cleaned up some, but the "offense" provision in the human-rights codes were an abomination.  No-one has the human right to have the world protect them from being offended.