In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[notyoueither]

Under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.

The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the commission ruled that the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owens's religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation."

...

Justice J. Barclay wrote in his opinion that the human-rights panel "was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule."

"When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace," Barclay said. "In other words, the biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."

In the 2001 ruling, Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry commissioner Valerie Watson emphasized that the panel was not banning parts of the Bible. She wrote that the offense was the combination of the symbol and the biblical references. Owens, in fact, published an ad in 2001, without complaint, that quoted the full text of the passages he cited in the offending 1997 ad.

Note that was the Saskatchewan Human Rights code. Not the federal legislation dealing with hate expressions.

I gather the Sask. Human Rights Tribunal, and the judge, saw a problem with people being depicted as crossed out in conjunction with the biblical passages.

[Berzerker]

Tingkai -

So are you against libel laws? These laws set limits on freedom of speech. The hate laws are the similar. Libel laws protect the individual. Hate laws protect groups.

Do you oppose laws that make it illegal to incite a riot?

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. To claim that homosexuals are somehow a special type of protection that has never existed in any form before, is simply wrong.

1) No, but I'm not a fan of strict libel laws like in England, the offense must be a blatant attempt - malicious - to defame someone. I think the way libel laws exist in the US is fairly good giving us plenty of leeway.

2) There's a difference between libel and "hate" speech, libel (falsehoods) must be proven to have caused damage to an individual, "hate" speech requires no such proof. If I was a pro-lifer and said abortion was murder and someone who agrees with me shoots an abortionist, I may be guilty of "hate" speech. Libel is (or should be) a malicious and deceitful attempt to defame a specific individual or industry, not expressing an opinion which may be true or false about someone else's morality (or lack thereof).

3) Not sure, the line between what "incites" a riot can be quite blurred so I'd be hesistant to use such a law. I'd rather just hold those who riot accountable for their actions instead of investigating everything that was said prior to a riot.

4) There are no limits (or should not be as in the 1st Amendment)) on free speech because not all speech is free. For speech to be "free", it must abide by the definition of freedom as well as speech. And freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, so speech that constitutes coercion is not "free".

Mindseye -

Bezerker - please, please don't tell me you think gays are the only ones (or even a majority of those) who enjoy anal intercourse!

Okay, I won't.

Agathon -

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Introduced by self-described "gay" House of Commons member Svend Robinson,

Right wing media speak for the 'man's a flagrant f@g for crissakes!!!!!'

Self-described 'gay'. Yeah, he should have kept his mouth shut, and just allowed all the fundies and right wing types to describe him in their usual flattering terms.

What's next? self-described 'woman', Condie Rice?
Self-described 'person' Jean Chretien? Sets the tone for the article right there.

[chequita guevara]

Sometimes I wish I could just shake bigots, but it wouldn't do any good.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lincoln


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080

The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.

Lincoln: you do realise that this example shows that it is not easy to silence someone. It shows the system is working properly with adequate checks and balances.

A complaint was made to the Sask. Human Rights Commission. The Commission made a ruling. That ruling was then appealed to the courts. It could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Just because you do not like a ruling does not mean that it was easily achieved.

As for the ad, the commission made the right decision.

The ad says: Kill homosexuals = no homosexuals. It's advocating genocide. (According to your link, the ad cites a bible passage that says "They [homosexuals]must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.")

The Human Rights Commissioner said that there's nothing wrong with quoting the bible. Quoting the bible must be protected for freedom of religion, and freedom of religion is allowed to take precedence over freedom from hate speech.

The problem in this ad was adding the equation to the bible quotes, as the commissioner stated according to NYE's link. The equal sign and the symbol "no gays" made it hate literature.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
1) No, but I'm not a fan of strict libel laws like in England, the offense must be a blatant attempt - malicious - to defame someone. I think the way libel laws exist in the US is fairly good giving us plenty of leeway.

I agree that the US libel law is better because it allows truth as a defence, unlike the British libel law.

Is proof of malicious intent required under US libel law? It's not required in Canada.

Originally posted by Berzerker
2) There's a difference between libel and "hate" speech, libel (falsehoods) must be proven to have caused damage to an individual,

Perhaps in the US, but not in Canada. The Canadian law merely looks at whether it is reasonable to conclude that a statement might lower a person's standing within a community. There is no requirement to prove that specific damage has occurred.

So if someone says John is a paedaphile, he does not have to prove that this has damaged his reputation.

If someone says "In my opinion, John is a paedaphile" that too can be libel."

But libel laws do not cover a case where groups are named instead of individuals, even though saying "homosexuals are all paedaphiles" can be just as damaging as saying "John is a paedaphile." That's why we need laws against hate speech.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a publicly funded university here in Canada.

Hmmm, that means you are totally correct in your assessment. It was state university and other groups have similar 'graphic' posters. They screwed you. Sorry you didn't have money for an appeal .

The ad says: Kill homosexuals = no homosexuals. It's advocating genocide.

What bull. The ad says the Bible = no homosexuals, and I bet that was his intention, not advocation of genocide.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
mmm, that means you are totally correct in your assessment. It was state university and other groups have similar 'graphic' posters. They screwed you. Sorry you didn't have money for an appeal .

They lost because of indecency laws, not freedom of speech.

Homosexuals can't protest with signs depicting gay sex graphically, pro-life protesters can't protest with signs depicting dead fetuses(sp?)

I don't have a problem with that, I don't want to see either when I'm in a public place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They lost because of indecency laws, not freedom of speech.

Homosexuals can't protest with signs depicting gay sex graphically, pro-life protesters can't protest with signs depicting dead babies.

I don't have a problem with that, I don't want to see either when I'm in a public place.

Pro-life groups can't show dead babies, but anti-Holocaust groups can show dead people in piles, which are more graphic and 'indecent' than the pro-life posters?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Pro-life groups can't show dead babies, but anti-Holocaust groups can show dead people in piles, which are more graphic and 'indecent' than the pro-life posters?

If they protested with signs depicting that crap here, they'd be told to stop as well.

Is it a legal argument to say "well my friend Joe stole this car and didn't get busted, so I can too"?

[Asher]

Obiwan's story is from the perspective of someone very religious and very devout in his pro-life beliefs, don't believe he's telling you the unbiased story of what happened.

[Asher]

It's one thing to provide the pictures for people who are willing to see them, it's another thing to force them down other people's throats.

Plus intent is also a matter: In the "holocaust" example, they are historical records with historical value. Showing dead fetuses as part of a pro-life booth is simply bad taste, vulgar, and purely political.

Similarly, I'd hope a "stool appreciation club" with graphic pictures involving human stool would be forced to remove their pictures upon several complaints as well.

"Free speech" has a limit within decency laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obiwan's story is from the perspective of someone very religious and very devout in his pro-life beliefs, don't believe he's telling you the unbiased story of what happened.

And your story is from the perspective of someone who isn't religious at all and very against those who are, so why should I believe you are telling the unbiased story of what happened .

Beware of ad hominums, because they can bite you on the ass.

Plus intent is also a matter: In the "holocaust" example, they are historical records with historical value. Showing dead fetuses as part of a pro-life booth is simply bad taste, vulgar, and purely political.

You just think Jewish groups put Holocaust pictures for 'historical value'? You don't think there is ANYTHING political about them? Come on, 'Never forget' is a political message.

If you put up graphic Holocaust posters, then you should definetly allow other groups to put up posters of things equally graphic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And your story is from the perspective of someone who isn't religious at all and very against those who are, so why should I believe you are telling the unbiased story of what happened .

Beware of ad hominums, because they can bite you on the ass.

I'm not telling a story.

Beware of strawmen, because they're simply spam.

You just think Jewish groups put Holocaust pictures for 'historical value'? You don't think there is ANYTHING political about them? Come on, 'Never forget' is a political message.

If you put up graphic Holocaust posters, then you should definetly allow other groups to put up posters of things equally graphic.

It's a different situation entirely:
one is during the holocust memorial week, one is during CLUB WEEK.

If the Jewish Club at school put up graphic pictures of the holocaust, it's definitely just as bad a pro-life clubs showing dead fetuses.

Come on Imran, as someone who plans to be a lawyer you should be on the ball with this sort of thing.

[Asher]

And universities are not entirely public.

Indeed, at my school (and I won't speak for Obiwan's school, though I don't doubt that they're very similar) the Students Union owns and operates the buildings where things like this take place. They're the people who would request they take things down like that. And they are certainly not "public" facilities, they are funded by students and by donations, not the government. Students (the owners of the said buildings) can complain about things like that, and in the sake of satisfying the users and owners of the buildings, they may not allow graphic pictures with strong political messages during club week.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not telling a story.

Your posts on the subject qualify.

one is during the holocust memorial week, one is during CLUB WEEK.

So? Are you thus saying that the dead baby poster is allowed during Club Week or Pro-Life week (there is one)? I doubt that.

And universities are not entirely public.

I can't speak for Canada, but a Student Union in a US public university is considered a state actor. Mostly because they are funded by student tuition (and in most places you can't opt out of paying for it). In my undergrad public university there was a more equal standard. The Jewish groups couldn't put posters with dead Holocaust people up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is it a legal argument to say "well my friend Joe stole this car and didn't get busted, so I can too"?

It is certainly a legal argument to say it is legal for this group to show a certain thing so I can too.

You said something about strawmen? Unless you think it illegal for the Jewish group to put up their posters?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is certainly a legal argument to say it is legal for this group to show a certain thing so I can too.

Who said it was legal for them to? Who said it was illegal for Obiwan's to?

You said something about strawmen? Unless you think it illegal for the Jewish group to put up their posters?

Speaking of strawman, I don't recall Obiwan saying anything about it being illegal. They were asked to take them down, doesn't mean they're illegal...just vulgar and vile.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who said it was legal for them to? Who said it was illegal for Obiwan's to?

I don't recall Obiwan saying anything about it being illegal. They were asked to take them down, doesn't mean they're illegal...just vulgar and vile.

If a Student Union is a state actor (like in most Unis in the US) then saying that a poster is not allowed is akin to claiming it illegal, if it is held up in court.

[Asher]

Just because it seems some people have missed it.

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

The student society, with people elected by the student body, passed a motion banning the display of those pictures.

Now would somebody please explain to me why all of the supposedly-bright people in this thread are arguing about "legality" of this all? The student society, with an elected representitive body of the students, in a student society-owned facility, said the pictures were not to be permitted. They did it anyway.

How does this relate to Canada's policies?

[notyoueither]

In Alberta, universities are chartered by the provincial government. They are essentially their own municipalities. They sure as hell are not private property.

Students Unions are non-voluntary, fees collecting branches of the universities. They are also the smallest of the politcal ponds, where the worst of petty politics are practiced. The saying goes that there is no politics like small time politics. Or something.

I suspect the same is true across the country in most cases.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now would somebody please explain to me why all of the supposedly-bright people in this thread are arguing about "legality" of this all? The student society, with an elected representitive body of the students, in a student society-owned facility, said the pictures were not to be permitted.

Because you moron a student society in a public university can be deemed to be a state actor in some legal systems .

Students Unions are non-voluntary, fees collecting branches of the universities. They are also the smallest of the politcal ponds, where the worst of petty politics are practiced. The saying goes that there is no politics like small time politics.

Thanks nye, that confirms my point. SUs are state actors and thus are acting discriminatorily to pro-life groups And it seems it was because of personal (group) animus. Unfortunetly you don't have our 1st Amendment .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
Just because it seems some people have missed it.

Quote:

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

The student society, with people elected by the student body, passed a motion banning the display of those pictures.

Now would somebody please explain to me why all of the supposedly-bright people in this thread are arguing about "legality" of this all? The student society, with an elected representitive body of the students, in a student society-owned facility, said the pictures were not to be permitted. They did it anyway.

How does this relate to Canada's policies?

I think what people are saying, Asher, is that what the students union did in that case was censorship in a pure form. It was suppression of a position from a quasi-governmental position. It was wrong.

I agree. If what the pro-lifers were trying to say, and show, was so distrubing, then maybe there might be something to their case.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because you moron a student society in a public university can be deemed to be a state actor in some legal systems .

That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people decided they didn't want pictures of dead fetuses in their own buildings.

What I'm confused as is Obiwan is all for saying homosexual couples can't marry, but suddenly it's wrong when students don't want to see dead babies in their own buildings.

[notyoueither]

That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people of Canada have decided that gays shall not marry.

What is your point?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people of Canada have decided that gays shall not marry.

What is your point?

I think you have your numbers mixed up, look at the vote again.

The pro-gay marriage side won.

It's just a matter of time now. The courts and parliament have both agreed to it, the parliament refused to say marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[notyoueither]

Hasn't passed a final vote yet, son.

And if it does not, by your logic, you have nothing to cry about.

[Asher]

Back to the stool-worshipper's example:

A club on campus is full of people who love human stool. They want to share this opinion with others, and put lots of graphics photos up on their display. The Students Union passes a motion banning such things.

You guys are arguing this is illegal and they must be allowed to show it, right?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hasn't passed a final vote yet, son.

And if it does not, by your logic, you have nothing to cry about.

I have a right to a dissenting opinion, just as Obiwan does here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people decided they didn't want pictures of dead fetuses in their own buildings.

Because when the 'people' at that time and place decide an issue that is the final authority? I guess that means if the people voted tomorrow to silence the Conservatives in Canada from advancing their political beliefs it'd be ok because it was a democratic process?

There is a reason why the US and Canada aren't democracies. Because we decided there are certain rights that are so important that we don't want exceptions to it because the 'people' at that time decided to.