Walker hate campaign speech cancelled due to assassination
Peter Fokes
<quote on>
President Kennedy Was To Be Heckled in Philadephia By Walker
....
John F. Kennedy was scheduled to speak this week in Philadelphia
before the National Council of Churches. Simultaneously Gen. Edwin A.
Walker, severely reprimanded by the Army under Kennedy, was scheduled
to speak against both Kennedy and the National Council of Churches.
The coincidence of the two speeches was no accident. Gen Walker's
speech, later cancelled, was deliberately planned by the so-called
Rev. Carl McIntire as part of the hate campaign which he and other
extremists have waged against the late President and which had made it
increasingly difficult for Kennedy to put his program through
Congress. It may have also have contributed to the atmosphere of hate
and suspicion in Dallas.
<quote off>
or
here
Right wingers did not take the last sentence above lying down,
especially William F. Buckley Jr. But more on his response later.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Bill Kelly
> From a Drew Pearson column (Dec 5, 1963)
>
> <quote on>
>
> President Kennedy Was To Be Heckled in Philadephia By Walker
>
> ....
>
> John F. Kennedy was scheduled to speak this week in Philadelphia
> before the National Council of Churches. Simultaneously Gen. Edwin A.
> Walker, severely reprimanded by the Army under Kennedy, was scheduled
> to speak against both Kennedy and the National Council of Churches.
> The coincidence of the two speeches was no accident. Gen Walker's
> speech, later cancelled, was deliberately planned by the so-called
> Rev. Carl McIntire as part of the hate campaign which he and other
> extremists have waged against the late President and which had made it
> increasingly difficult for Kennedy to put his program through
> Congress. It may have also have contributed to the atmosphere of hate
> and suspicion in Dallas.
>
> <quote off>
>
>
> or
>
> here
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27z6w57
>
> Right wingers did not take the last sentence above lying down,
> especially William F. Buckley Jr. But more on his response later.
>
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Thanks for that one Peter,
I know that Garrison wrongfully indicted McIntire's pal Edgar Eugene
Bradley, but I knew McIntire was connected, at least including JEH as
one of his flock, and was surprised at the Walker and possible Ruby
connections.
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010/11/rev-carl-mcintire-jack-ruby.html
claviger
> From a Drew Pearson column (Dec 5, 1963)
>
> <quote on>
>
> President Kennedy Was To Be Heckled in Philadephia By Walker
>
> ....
>
> John F. Kennedy was scheduled to speak this week in Philadelphia
> before the National Council of Churches. Simultaneously Gen. Edwin A.
> Walker, severely reprimanded by the Army under Kennedy, was scheduled
> to speak against both Kennedy and the National Council of Churches.
> The coincidence of the two speeches was no accident. Gen Walker's
> speech, later cancelled, was deliberately planned by the so-called
> Rev. Carl McIntire as part of the hate campaign which he and other
> extremists have waged against the late President and which had made it
> increasingly difficult for Kennedy to put his program through
> Congress. It may have also have contributed to the atmosphere of hate
> and suspicion in Dallas.
>
> <quote off>
>
>
> or
>
> here
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27z6w57
>
> Right wingers did not take the last sentence above lying down,
> especially William F. Buckley Jr. But more on his response later.
>
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Isn't it ironic the right wing exercised constitutional free speech and
protest while a dedicated Socialist chose assassination as a political
statement. Is assassination a hate crime?
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Way too simple to have much meaning in an ironic sense.
There is nothing to be proud about when exercising your constitutional
right to free speech if you engage in hate speech. Such speech
incites others to commit violent acts, and such speech has physical
and psychological effects on other people. Hate speech is not
harmless, as you appear to believe.
Both right wing and left wing extremists exercised constitutional free
speech and protest in 1963. Some assassination conspiracy plots were
planned and set in motion by elements of the U.S. Government (i.e.
known assassination plots against Castro), and others existed beyond
the periphery of government control.
Close to 300 murders occurred in New York City alone in 1963. The
Mafia was involved in some of these killings.
Some individuals were wrongly charged. See:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/career_girls/1.html
Here is a repost of something I wrote in 2009:
<quote on>
In fact, the next political murder, in 1963, is remarkable in that it
did not provoke reformist exertions. That the victim was an African
American is perhaps not beside the point. Benjamin F. Lewis, alderman
and committeeman of the West Side's 24th Ward, was discovered, on the
night he had won a primary election, murdered under the desk in his
ward office. He had been handcuffed and shot. A cigarette had burned
down to his ring finger.
There were no suspects, arrests or even much public uproar, but as
with similar cases, plenty of grist for conspiracy theorists. Lewis
was among the first blacks to move into Douglas Park, once a Jewish
neighborhood that had hosted two Cook County Demo-cratic chairmen.
Further, Lewis opposed both Mayor Richard J. Daley and black U.S. Rep.
William Dawson. Dawson's control of the black numbers
<quote off>
http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ii000922.html
I assume this is an unsolved murder. Cold case, so to speak.
More on the murder here:
From TIME, March 8, 1963
"Return of the Rub-Out"
<quote on>
He was the boss of the teeming 24th Ward, on Chicago's West Side. He
was the ward's first Negro alderman. He wore $200 suits, and his
friends called him "Duke." He held real estate valued at more than
$100,000. He had just leased a shiny new political headquarters, with
autographed photos of people like John F. Kennedy on the wall. That
was how it was with Benjamin F. Lewis, 53. Everything was going his
way. Last week he was re-elected as alderman by a pretty decisive
margin�12,189 to 888. It almost seemed as though Ben Lewis had not an
enemy in the world. But he did.
Last week, the night after his landslide victory, a couple of women in
an apartment near Lewis' new headquarters thought they heard gunshots.
But they were watching a TV show called Naked City, a cops-'n'-robbers
thriller about New York�and what were a few gunshots more or less? The
ladies did nothing. Next morning a janitor went into Lewis' office. On
his new carpet lay Ben Lewis, his wrists bound in handcuffs, a dead
cigarette in his fingers, and three bullet holes in the back of his
skull.
....
Reward. Why should anyone want to kill such a kindly fellow? At week's
end, Chicago had no idea. Mayor Richard Daley offered a $10,000 reward
for the capture of Lewis' murderer. Police Superintendent Orlando
Wilson, former dean of the School of Criminology at the University of
California, vowed "to apprehend and bring before the bar of justice
the culprit who committed this dastardly crime. I'm surprised that a
killing of this sort would be effected against him."
Meanwhile, Lewis' death would go down as the 977th unsolved Chicago
rub-out since 1919.
<quote off>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896574,00.html
The murder of Lewis is mentioned in HSCA section dealing with
Associates of Jack Ruby, Leonard Patrick.
<quote on>
On February 18, 1963, Chicago Alderman Benjamin F. Lewis was found
shot to death. In April 1964 an informant advised that Patrick and
Yaras controlled the ward in which Lewis was slain. (1959) It was also
reported that Lewis was slain because he was not cooperating with the
criminal element in Chicago. (1960)
<quote off>
See
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9d.htm
Ruby tried to contact Patrick in 1963, apparently to discuss the AGVA
matter. It is uncertain whether he succeeded. Patrick denied getting a
call from Ruby, and said perhaps his partner talked to him. "During an
FBI interview of Jack Patrick on December 9, 1963, he said that though
he and Ruby had resided in the same neighborhood in Chicago, he could
not recall Ruby."
Murder is certainly a heinous crime .... be it committed by an
individual or carried out as part of a scheme planned by government.
Hate speech is also heinous. It provokes hatred and prejudice against
other people, and does lead to violent acts in some instances. Such
vile speech also has psychological impacts on the offended parties,
and can affect their ability to earn a living or simply to enjoy life.
It is telling that Walker's speech was cancelled in the aftermath of
the assassination. Folks were in no mood to hear these crackpots spew
their hate in the days following the assassination of President
Kennedy.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
claviger
> > Isn't it ironic the right wing exercised constitutional free speech and
> > protest while a dedicated Socialist chose assassination as a political
> > statement. Is assassination a hate crime?
>
> Way too simple to have much meaning in an ironic sense.
And yet that IS what happened. A simple low tech assassin using the wrong
rifle with the wrong ammo, managed to kill the President after three
tries. No way this was a professional hit. There is much evidence
indicating his motivation was political. He was a “hunter of
fascists” and managed to take out the Head Fascist in the world,
according to his political philosophy. He thought this would make him a
socialist hero and some did applaud his evil deed, but many thought he was
a crackpot.
> There is nothing to be proud about when exercising your constitutional
> right to free speech if you engage in hate speech. Such speech
> incites others to commit violent acts, and such speech has physical
> and psychological effects on other people. Hate speech is not
> harmless, as you appear to believe.
It has been my observation that one man’s hate speech is another man’s
free speech to express opposition, contempt, and disgust with his
political opponents. Did you somehow miss the Free Speech Movement of the
1960s? Some poli-sci experts claim this may be vulger and distastefull,
but healthy in that it allows the public to vent and let off steam. Hate
speech is a double edge sword that usually destroys the credibility of the
person making the speech.
The term hate speech is over used as a political weapon to bludgeon
opponents, to the point the public discounts the charge as just politics
as usual. This has a tendency to dilute the term to simply a cheap shot
when used so wantonly. An example is the last election where the Tea
Party Movement was accused of hate speech on a daily basis. Only problem
is no one could find any evidence. I don’t remember the national media
ever calling the invective against President Bush “hate speech”.
This double standard is not lost on the public, therefore hate speech
again loses any validity. So misuse and overuse of the term has reduced
its impact to nil.
> Both right wing and left wing extremists exercised constitutional free
> speech and protest in 1963. Some assassination conspiracy plots were
> planned and set in motion by elements of the U.S. Government (i.e.
> known assassination plots against Castro), and others existed beyond
> the periphery of government control.
Can you be more specific? The Kennedy Adminstration considered
assassination a legitimate tool of US foreign policy. As a Liberal
how do you feel about that? The big question: Was this a case of
“What goes around comes around”?
> Close to 300 murders occurred in New York City alone in 1963. The
> Mafia was involved in some of these killings.
What does that have to do with hate speech?
> Here is a repost of something I wrote in 2009:
Sounds like the Chicago machine didn't like the outcome of the
election.
> Ruby tried to contact Patrick in 1963, apparently to discuss the AGVA
> matter. It is uncertain whether he succeeded. Patrick denied getting a
> call from Ruby, and said perhaps his partner talked to him. "During an
> FBI interview of Jack Patrick on December 9, 1963, he said that though
> he and Ruby had resided in the same neighborhood in Chicago, he could
> not recall Ruby."
I don’t see how this relates to the JFK assassination, unless you are
making a case for the Judith Exner-Sam Giancana connection.
> Murder is certainly a heinous crime .... be it committed by an
> individual or carried out as part of a scheme planned by government.
> Hate speech is also heinous. It provokes hatred and prejudice against
> other people, and does lead to violent acts in some instances. Such
> vile speech also has psychological impacts on the offended parties,
> and can affect their ability to earn a living or simply to enjoy life.
Did you read the Communist magazine articles and pamphlets found among
LHO’s possesions? Do these qualify as hate speech? Some believe
these articles tipped LHO over the edge.
> It is telling that Walker's speech was cancelled in the aftermath of
> the assassination. Folks were in no mood to hear these crackpots spew
> their hate in the days following the assassination of President
> Kennedy.
I can certainly understand why after a Left-Wing crackpot murdered the
President. A good time to step back from all radicals. A Right-Wing
woman hit Adlai Stevenson over the head with a placard. A Left-Wing guy
hit President Kennedy in the head with a bullet. This is reality, the
Left-Wing activist was less vocal but more lethal in protesting the
Kennedy Administration.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 18 Nov 2010 21:21:59 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/27z6w57
>>>
>>> Right wingers did not take the last sentence above lying down,
>>> especially William F. Buckley Jr. But more on his response later.
>>>
>>> Peter Fokes,
>>> Toronto
>>
>>Isn't it ironic the right wing exercised constitutional free speech and
>>protest while a dedicated Socialist chose assassination as a political
>>statement. Is assassination a hate crime?
>
>
>Way too simple to have much meaning in an ironic sense.
>
>There is nothing to be proud about when exercising your constitutional
>right to free speech if you engage in hate speech. Such speech
>incites others to commit violent acts,
That is "incitement," and not "hate speech."
Unless you want to say that simply making a political argument you
dislike might *somewhere* at *sometime* cause somebody to do something
illegal.
>and such speech has physical
>and psychological effects on other people. Hate speech is not
>harmless, as you appear to believe.
>
But hate speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
In Canada, there is much less freedom.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/06/america-lone-beacon-of-free-speech.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/06/pro-abortion-censorship-on-canadian.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/04/hate-speech-laws-in-canada.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/07/censoring-net.html
When speech one finds obnoxious, or merely disagrees with is labelled
"hate speech" and censored, one is not in a free country anymore.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the right-wing extremists you
have been posting about.
Maybe you can explain.
>On February 18, 1963, Chicago Alderman Benjamin F. Lewis was found
>shot to death. In April 1964 an informant advised that Patrick and
>Yaras controlled the ward in which Lewis was slain. (1959) It was also
>reported that Lewis was slain because he was not cooperating with the
>criminal element in Chicago. (1960)
>
><quote off>
>
>See
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9d.htm
>
>Ruby tried to contact Patrick in 1963, apparently to discuss the AGVA
>matter. It is uncertain whether he succeeded. Patrick denied getting a
>call from Ruby, and said perhaps his partner talked to him. "During an
>FBI interview of Jack Patrick on December 9, 1963, he said that though
>he and Ruby had resided in the same neighborhood in Chicago, he could
>not recall Ruby."
>
>Murder is certainly a heinous crime .... be it committed by an
>individual or carried out as part of a scheme planned by government.
>
>Hate speech is also heinous. It provokes hatred and prejudice against
>other people, and does lead to violent acts in some instances. Such
>vile speech also has psychological impacts on the offended parties,
>and can affect their ability to earn a living or simply to enjoy life.
>
OIC. If I'm disturbed or made unhappy by what other people say, it's
"hate speech" and I have a right to shut it up.
By that criterion, what you posted is hate speech, Peter.
It makes me fear for civil liberties -- although you don't vote in
this country.
>
>It is telling that Walker's speech was cancelled in the aftermath of
>the assassination. Folks were in no mood to hear these crackpots spew
>their hate in the days following the assassination of President
>Kennedy.
>
If people quite voluntarily decided that any of these guys was an
inappropriate speaker, or simply that they didn't want to listed just
now, that's fine.
But calling it "hate speech" just raises the specter of
authoritarianism -- authoritarianism on the part of the people crying
"hate speech."
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>> There is nothing to be proud about when exercising your constitutional
>> right to free speech if you engage in hate speech. =A0Such speech
>> incites others to commit violent acts, and such speech has physical
>> and psychological effects on other people. Hate speech is not
>> harmless, as you appear to believe.
>
>It has been my observation that one man=92s hate speech is another man=92s
>free speech to express opposition, contempt, and disgust with his
>political opponents. Did you somehow miss the Free Speech Movement of the
>1960s? Some poli-sci experts claim this may be vulger and distastefull,
>but healthy in that it allows the public to vent and let off steam. Hate
>speech is a double edge sword that usually destroys the credibility of the
>person making the speech.
>
>The term hate speech is over used as a political weapon to bludgeon
>opponents, to the point the public discounts the charge as just politics
>as usual. This has a tendency to dilute the term to simply a cheap shot
>when used so wantonly. An example is the last election where the Tea
>Party Movement was accused of hate speech on a daily basis. Only problem
>is no one could find any evidence.
I'm afraid the left simply labels as "hate speech" anything they
happen to dislike.
It's instructive to compare the "most offensive Tea Party Signs" with
the worst anti-Bush signs from anti-war protests during the Bush
Administration.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/09/those-offensive-anti-obama-signs.html
The two sets aren't even close.
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:13:07 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 18 Nov 2010 21:21:59 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27z6w57
>>>>
>>>> Right wingers did not take the last sentence above lying down,
>>>> especially William F. Buckley Jr. But more on his response later.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Fokes,
>>>> Toronto
>>>
>>>Isn't it ironic the right wing exercised constitutional free speech and
>>>protest while a dedicated Socialist chose assassination as a political
>>>statement. Is assassination a hate crime?
>>
>>
>>Way too simple to have much meaning in an ironic sense.
>>
>>There is nothing to be proud about when exercising your constitutional
>>right to free speech if you engage in hate speech. Such speech
>>incites others to commit violent acts,
>
>That is "incitement,"
in·cite (n-st)
tr.v. in·cit·ed, in·cit·ing, in·cites
To provoke and urge on: troublemakers who incite riots; inciting
workers to strike. See Synonyms at provoke.
[Middle English encyten, from Old French enciter, from Latin incitre,
to urge forward : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + citre, to
stimulate, frequentative of cire, to put in motion; see kei-2 in
Indo-European roots.]
How about if a speaker incites others ....
> and not "hate speech."
with words that intimidate, harass, or include threats of physical
force against a person, a family or a property.
>
>Unless you want to say that simply making a political argument you
>dislike might *somewhere* at *sometime* cause somebody to do something
>illegal.
>
You overlooked the words VIOLENT ACT in my comment.
>
>>and such speech has physical
>>and psychological effects on other people. Hate speech is not
>>harmless, as you appear to believe.
>>
>
>But hate speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
>
>In Canada, there is much less freedom.
>
>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/06/america-lone-beacon-of-free-speech.html
>
>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/06/pro-abortion-censorship-on-canadian.html
>
>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/04/hate-speech-laws-in-canada.html
>
>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/07/censoring-net.html
>
>When speech one finds obnoxious, or merely disagrees with is labelled
>"hate speech" and censored, one is not in a free country anymore.
You don't understand Canadian law. The law is not applied if someone
says something someone simply disagrees with. Way too simple.
<quote on>
The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to
intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of
people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who
they are, not because of anything they have done.
Hate crimes involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat
of physical force against a person, a family or a property.
Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada address hate
crimes.
Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote
genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing
of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic
origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP
Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added
to that list.
Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against
an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin
or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public
place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means.
The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime
if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious
opinion.
The law (subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), to be specific) encourages judges
to consider in sentencing whether the crime was motivated by hate of:
the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour,
religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation
or any other similar factor.
<quote off>
Nope. Too general. Canadian lawyers would laugh at that silly
construction of the law. It's absurd.
>
>By that criterion, what you posted is hate speech, Peter.
That is YOUR criterion.
Not mine, nor the criterion underlying Canadian law.
>
>It makes me fear for civil liberties -- although you don't vote in
>this country.
You are scaring yourself with your silly argument.
>
>>
>>It is telling that Walker's speech was cancelled in the aftermath of
>>the assassination. Folks were in no mood to hear these crackpots spew
>>their hate in the days following the assassination of President
>>Kennedy.
>>
>
>If people quite voluntarily decided that any of these guys was an
>inappropriate speaker, or simply that they didn't want to listed just
>now, that's fine.
>
>But calling it "hate speech" just raises the specter of
>authoritarianism -- authoritarianism on the part of the people crying
>"hate speech."
You see the world in black and white. The world is not black and
white.
>
>.John
PF
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2010 16:20:56 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> There is nothing to be proud about when exercising your constitutional
>>> right to free speech if you engage in hate speech. =A0Such speech
>>> incites others to commit violent acts, and such speech has physical
>>> and psychological effects on other people. Hate speech is not
>>> harmless, as you appear to believe.
>>
>>It has been my observation that one man=92s hate speech is another man=92s
>>free speech to express opposition, contempt, and disgust with his
>>political opponents. Did you somehow miss the Free Speech Movement of the
>>1960s? Some poli-sci experts claim this may be vulger and distastefull,
>>but healthy in that it allows the public to vent and let off steam. Hate
>>speech is a double edge sword that usually destroys the credibility of the
>>person making the speech.
>>
>>The term hate speech is over used as a political weapon to bludgeon
>>opponents, to the point the public discounts the charge as just politics
>>as usual. This has a tendency to dilute the term to simply a cheap shot
>>when used so wantonly. An example is the last election where the Tea
>>Party Movement was accused of hate speech on a daily basis. Only problem
>>is no one could find any evidence.
>
>I'm afraid the left simply labels as "hate speech" anything they
>happen to dislike.
Canadians of ALL political stripes (left, right, centre) understand
what Canadian law means by the term hate speech as it pertains to hate
crimes.
Your definition does not apply to Canadian law.
<quote on>
Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote
genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing
of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic
origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP
Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added
to that list.
Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against
an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin
or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public
place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means.
The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime
if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious
opinion.
The law (subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), to be specific) encourages judges
to consider in sentencing whether the crime was motivated by hate of:
the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour,
religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation
or any other similar factor.
<quote off>
These laws are supported by folks of all political persuasion.
>
>It's instructive to compare the "most offensive Tea Party Signs" with
>the worst anti-Bush signs from anti-war protests during the Bush
>Administration.
>
>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/09/those-offensive-anti-obama-signs.html
>
>The two sets aren't even close.
Hmmm.
So, we have gone from a 1963-64 to the 2000s.
Enter Bush and Tea Party .....
You just cannot resist making political comments, .John.
>
>.John
PF
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:54:49 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>The term hate speech is over used as a political weapon to bludgeon
>>>opponents, to the point the public discounts the charge as just politics
>>>as usual. This has a tendency to dilute the term to simply a cheap shot
>>>when used so wantonly. An example is the last election where the Tea
>>>Party Movement was accused of hate speech on a daily basis. Only problem
>>>is no one could find any evidence.
>>
>>I'm afraid the left simply labels as "hate speech" anything they
>>happen to dislike.
>
>Canadians of ALL political stripes (left, right, centre) understand
>what Canadian law means by the term hate speech as it pertains to hate
>crimes.
>
No, plenty of Canadians (particularly on the right) know that those
laws are used to stifle politically incorrect expression.
>Your definition does not apply to Canadian law.
>
><quote on>
>
>Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote
>genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing
>of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic
>origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP
>Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added
>to that list.
>
At least in principle, that's a fairly narrow and specific provision.
>Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against
OIC. And just what does this mean?
Does it mean saying unkind things about (say) Muslims or homosexuals.
>an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin
>or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public
>place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means.
>The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime
>if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious
>opinion.
>
Sorry, but this is simply too vague to protect any unpopular speech.
Ever hear of Mark Steyn?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine
I'll bet you don't like him.
>The law (subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), to be specific) encourages judges
>to consider in sentencing whether the crime was motivated by hate of:
>the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour,
>religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation
>or any other similar factor.
>
><quote off>
>
OIC. You get to speak freely if you have pure "motives," but not if
you have "evil motives."
But people will never concede that people with whom they really
disagree have any motives other than "hate."
>These laws are supported by folks of all political persuasion.
>
No they aren't, Peter.
Your "Human Rights Commissions" are supported by only the politically
correct left.
Do you think Mark Steyn does?
Does Maclean's?
>
>
>>
>>It's instructive to compare the "most offensive Tea Party Signs" with
>>the worst anti-Bush signs from anti-war protests during the Bush
>>Administration.
>>
>>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/09/those-offensive-anti-obama-signs.html
>>
>>The two sets aren't even close.
>
>
>Hmmm.
>
>So, we have gone from a 1963-64 to the 2000s.
>
>Enter Bush and Tea Party .....
>
>You just cannot resist making political comments, .John.
>
You brought up "hate speech." That's a contemporary issue, and you
brought it up.
You have a habit of posting stuff that has some very tangential
relationship to the JFK assassination, but are really a leftist
political attack on the right.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:43:48 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Isn't it ironic the right wing exercised constitutional free speech and
>>>>protest while a dedicated Socialist chose assassination as a political
>>>>statement. Is assassination a hate crime?
>>>
>>>
>>>Way too simple to have much meaning in an ironic sense.
>>>
>>>There is nothing to be proud about when exercising your constitutional
>>>right to free speech if you engage in hate speech. Such speech
>>>incites others to commit violent acts,
>>
>>That is "incitement,"
>
>in�cite (n-st)
>tr.v. in�cit�ed, in�cit�ing, in�cites
>To provoke and urge on: troublemakers who incite riots; inciting
>workers to strike. See Synonyms at provoke.
>[Middle English encyten, from Old French enciter, from Latin incitre,
>to urge forward : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + citre, to
>stimulate, frequentative of cire, to put in motion; see kei-2 in
>Indo-European roots.]
>
>How about if a speaker incites others ....
>
The U.S. Supreme Court has insisted that "incitement" must be defined
narrowly.
It ruled, for example, that the Communist Party could *advocate* a
violent revolution against capitalism, but not "incite* it.
Politically correct people have insisted that any comment critical of
(say) homosexuals or Muslims is "incitement."
Can one deny the Holocaust in Canada without fear of being prosecuted,
Peter?
>> and not "hate speech."
>
>with words that intimidate, harass, or include threats of physical
>force against a person, a family or a property.
>
Again, the U.S. Supreme Court insists that this must be defined
narrowly. Simply saying bad things about a group is protected.
>
>
>>
>>Unless you want to say that simply making a political argument you
>>dislike might *somewhere* at *sometime* cause somebody to do something
>>illegal.
>>
>
>You overlooked the words VIOLENT ACT in my comment.
>
But in Canada, you can get into trouble without advocating any violent
act.
Or do you think that simply saying unkind things about any group
incites a "violent act?"
>
>
>>
>>>and such speech has physical
>>>and psychological effects on other people. Hate speech is not
>>>harmless, as you appear to believe.
>>>
>>
>>But hate speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
>>
>>In Canada, there is much less freedom.
>>
>>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/06/america-lone-beacon-of-free-speech.html
>>
>>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/06/pro-abortion-censorship-on-canadian.html
>>
>>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/04/hate-speech-laws-in-canada.html
>>
>>http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/07/censoring-net.html
>>
>>When speech one finds obnoxious, or merely disagrees with is labelled
>>"hate speech" and censored, one is not in a free country anymore.
>
>You don't understand Canadian law. The law is not applied if someone
>says something someone simply disagrees with. Way too simple.
>
That's untrue, and the links I posted show it's untrue.
Suppose somebody denies the Holocause happened?
How about this?
http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/shakedown-on-the-michael-coren.html
><quote on>
>
>The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to
>intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of
>people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who
>they are, not because of anything they have done.
>
OIC. Say something unkind about a "group," and you can get in
trouble.
>Hate crimes involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat
>of physical force against a person, a family or a property.
>
Peter, you are just not responding.
I'm posting examples of people who got in trouble with Canadian
officials, and you are blowing them off.
>Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada address hate
>crimes.
>
>Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote
>genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing
>of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic
>origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP
>Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added
>to that list.
>
>Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against
>an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin
>or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public
>place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means.
>The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime
>if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious
>opinion.
>
I've already responded to this.
"Stirring up hatred" is a term that could be applied to any speech you
don't like.
>The law (subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), to be specific) encourages judges
>to consider in sentencing whether the crime was motivated by hate of:
>the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour,
>religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation
>or any other similar factor.
>
><quote off>
>
I've responded to this already.
Where is the explanation?
What did the murder you posted about above have to do with "hate
speech," Peter?
I saw nothing explaining that.
It's disturbing if in your mind it's related.
>
>>
>>It makes me fear for civil liberties -- although you don't vote in
>>this country.
>
>You are scaring yourself with your silly argument.
>
I've seen what happens in Canada, Peter.
And there are people here who think like you do.
>>
>>>
>>>It is telling that Walker's speech was cancelled in the aftermath of
>>>the assassination. Folks were in no mood to hear these crackpots spew
>>>their hate in the days following the assassination of President
>>>Kennedy.
>>>
>>
>>If people quite voluntarily decided that any of these guys was an
>>inappropriate speaker, or simply that they didn't want to listed just
>>now, that's fine.
>>
>>But calling it "hate speech" just raises the specter of
>>authoritarianism -- authoritarianism on the part of the people crying
>>"hate speech."
>
>You see the world in black and white. The world is not black and
>white.
>
>
That's an evasion and a cop out.
You've made it clear that you favor "hate speech" laws, and you
*should* know what they mean in practice.
We only have to look at Canada to see what they mean in Canada.
How does the world "not being black and white" justify punishing
people for speech that politically correct people don't like?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
How can you ignore the incident at the University of Ottawa? The students
intimidated the school administration who caved in and allowed them to
control the agenda. The admin spokesman used the excuse they could not
guarantee the safety of Ann Coulter if she showed up for the scheduled
speech. Hate speech intimidation is alive and well in Canada, due to
uneven enforcement. The law only applies to Conservative speakers. As we
can see 'freedom of speech' Canadian style has severe limitations, both
official and unofficial.
John McAdams
wrote:
Peter keeps insisting that the "hate speech" laws in Canada are
reasonable, and continues to ignore all kinds of concrete examples of
speech being attacked by the government.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Peter,
You are really complaining about the administration at the University
of Ottawa, not our laws. If they were concerned about her safety, the
university could have hired more security personnel for the event.
Obviously the police would have been ready to respond to any
infractions of the law. If someone attacked Mrs. Coulter, the police
would have made every effort to arrest and charge the culprits(s).
Protesting against a speaker is permitted in Canada. None of the
protesters broke the law. Canadians have every right to protest
against speakers -- be their opinion right wing or left wing.
The hate crime law applies to all Canadians equally. You are
spouting nonsense when you suggest otherwise.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
Government attacks on speech are routine in both countries.
But such propaganda by the Canadian government has nothing to do with
our hate crime laws which are enforced by the RCMP and other police
officials. You are confusing two separate things.
You really should read our laws before making erroneous statements:
<quote on>
Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years.
Definition of “genocide”
(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable
group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction.
Consent
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be
instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Definition of “identifiable group”
(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the
public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or
sexual orientation.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.
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.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish
by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based
on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest,
the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on
reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of
removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred
toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or
subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in
relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may,
in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the
presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her
Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted,
for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the
circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this
section.
Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be
instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Definitions
(7) In this section,
“communicating”
« communiquer »
“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or
other audible or visible means;
“identifiable group”
« groupe identifiable »
“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;
“public place”
« endroit public »
“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as
of right or by invitation, express or implied;
“statements”
« déclarations »
“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded
electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures,
signs or other visible representations.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203;
2004, c. 14, s. 2.
Warrant of seizure
320. (1) A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of
which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the
jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant
under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.
Summons to occupier
(2) Within seven days of the issue of a warrant under subsection (1),
the judge shall issue a summons to the occupier of the premises
requiring him to appear before the court and show cause why the matter
seized should not be forfeited to Her Majesty.
Owner and author may appear
(3) The owner and the author of the matter seized under subsection (1)
and alleged to be hate propaganda may appear and be represented in the
proceedings in order to oppose the making of an order for the
forfeiture of the matter.
Order of forfeiture
(4) If the court is satisfied that the publication referred to in
subsection (1) is hate propaganda, it shall make an order declaring
the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which
the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may
direct.
Disposal of matter
(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication referred to in
subsection (1) is hate propaganda, it shall order that the matter be
restored to the person from whom it was seized forthwith after the
time for final appeal has expired.
Appeal
(6) An appeal lies from an order made under subsection (4) or (5) by
any person who appeared in the proceedings
(a) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone,
(b) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of fact alone, or
(c) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of mixed law and
fact,
as if it were an appeal against conviction or against a judgment or
verdict of acquittal, as the case may be, on a question of law alone
under Part XXI, and sections 673 to 696 apply with such modifications
as the circumstances require.
Consent
(7) No proceeding under this section shall be instituted without the
consent of the Attorney General.
Definitions
(8) In this section,
“court”
« tribunal »
“court” means
(a) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Quebec,
(a.1) in the Province of Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice,
(b) in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta, the Court of Queen’s Bench,
(c) in the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, the
Supreme Court, Trial Division,
(c.1) [Repealed, 1992, c. 51, s. 36]
(d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, in Yukon and
in the Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court, and
(e) in Nunavut, the Nunavut Court of Justice;
“genocide”
« génocide »
“genocide” has the same meaning as in section 318;
“hate propaganda”
« propagande haineuse »
“hate propaganda” means any writing, sign or visible representation
that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by
any person would constitute an offence under section 319;
“judge”
« juge »
“judge” means a judge of a court.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 320; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (2nd Supp.), s. 10, c.
40 (4th Supp.), s. 2; 1990, c. 16, s. 4, c. 17, s. 11; 1992, c. 1, s.
58, c. 51, s. 36; 1998, c. 30, s. 14; 1999, c. 3, s. 29; 2002, c. 7,
s. 142.
Warrant of seizure
320.1 (1) If a judge is satisfied by information on oath that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that there is material that is
hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within
the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda
available, that is stored on and made available to the public through
a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that is
within the jurisdiction of the court, the judge may order the
custodian of the computer system to
(a) give an electronic copy of the material to the court;
(b) ensure that the material is no longer stored on and made available
through the computer system; and
(c) provide the information necessary to identify and locate the
person who posted the material.
Notice to person who posted the material
(2) Within a reasonable time after receiving the information referred
to in paragraph (1)(c), the judge shall cause notice to be given to
the person who posted the material, giving that person the opportunity
to appear and be represented before the court and show cause why the
material should not be deleted. If the person cannot be identified or
located or does not reside in Canada, the judge may order the
custodian of the computer system to post the text of the notice at the
location where the material was previously stored and made available,
until the time set for the appearance.
Person who posted the material may appear
(3) The person who posted the material may appear and be represented
in the proceedings in order to oppose the making of an order under
subsection (5).
Non-appearance
(4) If the person who posted the material does not appear for the
proceedings, the court may proceed ex parte to hear and determine the
proceedings in the absence of the person as fully and effectually as
if the person had appeared.
Order
(5) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the
material is available to the public and is hate propaganda within the
meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection
342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, it may order the
custodian of the computer system to delete the material.
Destruction of copy
(6) When the court makes the order for the deletion of the material,
it may order the destruction of the electronic copy in the court’s
possession.
Return of material
(7) If the court is not satisfied that the material is available to
the public and is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection
320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes
hate propaganda available, the court shall order that the electronic
copy be returned to the custodian and terminate the order under
paragraph (1)(b).
Other provisions to apply
(8) Subsections 320(6) to (8) apply, with any modifications that the
circumstances require, to this section.
When order takes effect
(9) No order made under subsections (5) to (7) takes effect until the
time for final appeal has expired.
2001, c. 41, s. 1
<quote off>
I believe there have been only two convictions under these provisions
of Canadian law.
Here is one case in Calgary:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/09/03/calgary-hate-crime-conviction-jewish.html
And here is the other case:
http://www.cjc.ca/2010/11/05/cjc-welcomes-hate-crime-conviction-in-nova-scotia-cross-burning-case/
Here is a Canadian professor of philosphy who believes Canada's hate
crime laws are vile:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1212370.html
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
claviger
> On 19 Nov 2010 20:47:18 -0500, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
Peter,
I don't remember you complaining about hate speech from those students.
That's the problem with hate speech laws. It's usually a case of whose ox
is getting gored at the time. Neither the university nor any government
entity did anything about the threatening behavior toward this
conservative speaker. The message being it's OK to harass and threaten
speakers not on the approved list. So obviously hate speech is alive and
well on the left in Canada and the government looks the other way.
It's the same way in the US. Hate speech from the left has come to be
expected therefore tolerated, but from the right is taboo. Thankfully, the
overuse of the hate speech accusations from the left is seen as
hypocritical and overblown so the public is not impressed.
claviger
A lot of wordage completely ignored by the students at the U of Ottawa.
And no government entity stepped in to do anything about it or reprimand
the administration. So the paper this law is written on is useful for
lining bird cages, but little else.
As to hate speech in the US you obviously know nothing of the Free Speech
Movement in the 1960s. School administrators caved in and liberal judges
found in favor of free speech no matter how vulgar, vile, and venomous so
it was the death of civility in US politics. Since that time conservatives
have learned how to play the game, because they have many good teachers on
the left. Conservatives can now be just as acerbic and outspoken which
has caused the left to feign outrage and whine about "hate speech", the
method of political discourse they promoted for decades. This is
especially true with sarcastic political humor, which Ann Coulter excels
at. On the left is John Daily, Bill Marr, The View, Olberman, and in
particular Lettermen who has sunk to a new low in political humor. So as
you can see liberals still have conservatives outnumbered. So it's hard
to distinguish hate speech from normal political debate in the US. As I
said before the theory is spoken slings and arrows are preferable to real
slings and arrows.
I don't have a problem with Canada trying to encourage a different kind of
political climate and wish you luck in doing so. For that public ethos to
be successful it must be enforced equally to make clear hate speech by any
group is the enemy, with no political favoritism. So far that message is
not at all clear, therefore no one takes the law seriously which the
students at the U of Ottawa made painfully obvious. Silence from the
government and the liberal press only reinforces this perception. The
message this sends to the rest of the world is free speech is not a valued
concept in Canada and therefore not a civil right supported by the
government. In the US we have a saying, "I disagree with what you say,
but will defend to the death your right to say it." Obviously this
sentiment is not shared by Canadian academia or government officialdom.
John McAdams
wrote:
Peter, you posted a bunch of stuff about national laws, and completely
ignored the Human Rights Commissions.
And you ignored direct questions directed at you.
1.) Do you, in Canada, have the right to deny the Holocaust?
2.) What do you think of the Mark Steyn/Maclean's prosecution
(persecution)?
>On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:53:27 -0600, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 19 Nov 2010 20:47:18 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>
>(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.
>Defences
>
Should Bill Maher be prosecuted for inciting hatred against
Christians?
And if not, why not?
>
>
>I believe there have been only two convictions under these provisions
>of Canadian law.
>
>
>Here is one case in Calgary:
>
>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/09/03/calgary-hate-crime-conviction-jewish.html
This was vandalism, but adding punishment for a "hate crime" was an
outrage.
>
>And here is the other case:
>
>
>http://www.cjc.ca/2010/11/05/cjc-welcomes-hate-crime-conviction-in-nova-scotia-cross-burning-case/
>
It's not clear that this was more than an example of obnoxious speech.
If he burned the cross on property that did not belong to him, then he
broke a *legitimate* law.
>
>Here is a Canadian professor of philosphy who believes Canada's hate
>crime laws are vile:
>
>
>http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1212370.html
I'm glad *somebody* there believes in civil liberties.
But your nation as a whole does not.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2010 20:47:18 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
Wrong. The was threatened by the Provost that she better watch what
she said, on pain of being locked up.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1212370.html
<quote on>
Francois Houle, vice-president academic and provost, advises Ms.
Coulter, who holds a law degree, to review Canada's hate speech and
defamation laws before giving her talk at the university.
In an email sent to Ms. Coulter on Friday, a copy of which has been
obtained by the National Post, Mr. Houle wrote: "Our domestic laws,
both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free
speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach
taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate
yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so
before your planned visit here."
<Quote off>
So your laws are being used to threaten people who might make
controversial comments.
John McAdams
I forgot the really obnoxious part:
"Mr. Houle goes on to say: “Promoting hatred against any identifiable
group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact
lead to criminal charges.”
claviger
> On the left is John Daily, Bill Marr, The View, Olberman, and in
> particular Lettermen who has sunk to a new low in political humor.
Make that Bill Maher, not Bill Marr.
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:38:04 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>Peter, you posted a bunch of stuff about national laws, and completely
>ignored the Human Rights Commissions.
>
>And you ignored direct questions directed at you.
>
>1.) Do you, in Canada, have the right to deny the Holocaust?
I am not a lawyer. I suppose it is possible.
Of course, I would never do so. I am certainly not a denialist.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in one case that "the Criminal Code
of Canada provision prohibiting the willful promotion of *hatred*
against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of
expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms."
You can review the Supreme Court judgement for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra#Reasons_of_the_court
>
>2.) What do you think of the Mark Steyn/Maclean's prosecution
>(persecution)?
What prosecution?
I thought you believed in free speech? Words spoken by someone can
surely make another person feel persecuted.
Canadian Islamic Congressfiled a human rights complaint.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission *refused* in April 2008 to
proceed, saying it lacked jurisdiction to deal with magazine content.
he federal Canadian Human Rights Commission *dismissed* the Canadian
Islamic Congress' complaint against Maclean's in June 2008. The CHRC's
ruling said of the article that, "the writing is polemical, colourful
and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and
even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike." However,
the Commission ruled that overall, "the views expressed in the Steyn
article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an
extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court."
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
By the way, what's up with this move by Columbia University in the
land of free speech?
"Career counselors at Columbia University's School of International
and Public Affairs urged students not to ... make comments on social
media Web sites, including Facebook or Twitter" about the Wikileaks
matter.
I can understand not wanting the students to post links to the leaks,
but to tell them not to discuss them???? Almost every media outlet in
the world has discussed them.
"Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to
deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions
with the federal government," said an e-mail the office said it sent
to students on the advice of an alumnus who works for the State
Department.
Hmm ... it's ok for journalists and pundits to discuss these leaks
openly, but not for students.
Gets confusing .....
See:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/12/wikileaks_off-limits_to_unauth.html
PF
Peter Fokes
So what? The provost is not an attorney general.
>
><quote on>
>
>Francois Houle, vice-president academic and provost, advises Ms.
>Coulter, who holds a law degree, to review Canada's hate speech and
>defamation laws before giving her talk at the university.
>
>In an email sent to Ms. Coulter on Friday, a copy of which has been
>obtained by the National Post, Mr. Houle wrote: "Our domestic laws,
>both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free
>speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach
>taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate
>yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so
>before your planned visit here."
>
><Quote off>
>
>So your laws are being used to threaten people who might make
>controversial comments.
>
Anyone can say anything about our laws. Anyone can say anything about
your laws. It is up to the individual to determine if that comment is
accurate.
Houle is correct. Our laws are different. She was not threatening her.
She was advising her of the differences in our laws. Houle did not
know what Coulter would say.
I suggest your laws are being used to threaten people who might make
controversial comments as well.
>.John
PF
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>I forgot the really obnoxious part:
>
>"Mr. Houle goes on to say: “Promoting hatred against any identifiable
>group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact
>lead to criminal charges.”
>
Or it might not.
One thing is for sure ..... Mr. Houle has no authority to bring
criminal charges against Coulter.
Mr. Houle does not speak for the government of Canada, the Supreme
Court of Canada, the Provincial courts or anyone besides herself and
perhaps the organization she works for.
PF