Nah.
We let the whackjobs run rampant down here, because feelings:
none of Styen books have ever been “Banned” in Canada.
someone filed a complaint (civil case) about his work in a Canadian Newspaper he won both times.
No one said they did.
Apparently you ignored the bolded portion.
Steyn, at the moment, is effectively being tried, by a quasi-judicial panel in Vancouver, for insulting Islam.
Normally, that’s the sort of proceeding you’d expect to hear about in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not the West. But the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, in the cause of protecting minorities, asserts its right to judge and even restrict speech.
The law had good intentions but it was stupid why it doesn’t exist anymore, also the government isn’t prosecuting them its a civil case between two private parties.
the government simply created a special panel of arbitrators to deal with it so it would effect the already overburden court system.
Hate speech laws exist but the government has only used them less then 10 times in their whole existence and 9/10 of those times was to deal with holocaust deniers.
This was not a Rally with your president, this was a bunch of terrorist sympathizers who want to throw their country into the trash.
Nope, you are not free to speak if YOU ARE TRYING TO INCITE PEOPLE TO ACT VIOLENTLY.
Being arrested for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace is not the same thing at all as being arrested because the words you use may cause other people to become upset.
Pretty much the same in Great Britain.
Wrong. If nobody reacts, there are no consequences. You can only be held responsible if you cause harm. Being called a terrorist may piss you off, but it causes you no harm.
That is just nonsense your assertion in your post.
I’m not sure what you are getting at, but in this country, you cannot be charged with inciting violence unless your words (or actions) actually incited violence. Free speech is a Constitutional Right here. You can say anything you want, so long as no harm results.
So there’s no such thing as attempted murder, attempted theft, attempted ect.
The law(s) being discussed in this thread are the ones that have been passed in Canada; not the USA.
This is such a dangerous path to go down. Speech needs to be completely free in the west to work, and yes that means those idiots who deny the holocaust to or other crazies.
When did “Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” get replaced with “Safe Spaces” “Trigger Warnings” and what you said “Words have consequences”. That can be broaden so much it’s not a road any free western liberal society should go down.
I disagree entirel;y that is why I support my country’s section 18C of the racial discrimination act.
Why? What will it help? Don’t you want to know who the racists are when they speak out or just have that fester inside till one day the bust out and do something crazy. It’s best to debate someone and see if you can change their mind instead of telling people to shut up.
I was reading the law… Just like I said on the dangers of something to broad.
Offensive behavior because of race, color or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
“That could be anything in a debate people don’t want to hear and easy way to shut down debates that need to happen. We see that happen here on sensitive subjects like immigration I have been called a racist many times for wanting less immigration, should I go to jail because I was accused of questioning what I think are holes in our laws? Someone easily can say his words offended me, that’s exactly what debates are for to challenge others in sometimes uncomfortable topics, it is how we move forward. After that next up you will get blasphemy laws, because well that offends to right and well you really don’t like Islam because of brown am I right?”
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
“Who determines this?” These are the type of laws you see in the not so best of countries why emulate things and places that suck? I will quote the great Salman Rushdie “Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.”
1 Like
@Hexenbiest before I read the entirety of your post and respond to same, could you please clarify which legislation you are referring to in your post? Thanks.
Sorry I just saw I had a lot of bad grammar. I tried to correct it the best I could on this bloody phone 
I was assuming you were referring to this
No that is fine. I was just clarifying whether you were referring to my country’s legislation or Canada’s legislation.
Generally speaking only the most egregious examples are considered under this act. I personally don’t think there should be no limits to what people can say whether it is to do with ones race, religion, sexuality etc. I don’t believe that limits one’s ability to debate an issue; but it does limit the ability for a person to vilify another person based on race etc. For example, Pauline Hanson has not been prevented from campaigning using such slogans as “Australia is being overrun by Asians” (1990s) or “Australia is being overrun by Muslims” (2000s).
We have never had unfettered free speech in Australia. Our libel and slander laws constrain what is allowed to be said or written. 18C is an extension that protects minorities from excessive hate speech.
As I am typing this I am watching a tennis match; so please feel to ask me to clarify any point.
