From j.dowson@sympatico.ca Sun Feb 25 09:49:23 1996 Xref: elastic can.infohighway:5621 can.legal:6645 Path: elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!ftn.net!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!theglobeandmail.com!news.north.net!worldlinx.com!news1.sympatico.ca!news From: Jim Dowson Newsgroups: can.infohighway,can.legal,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.society.civil-liberty Subject: Re: Free speech in Canada, and on the Internet Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 01:17:43 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Lines: 152 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <312AB907.175D@sympatico.ca> References: <1291660.ensmtp@learnnet.nt.ca> <4gcvdq$10u@insight.dcss.mcmaster.ca> Reply-To: j.dowson@sympatico.ca NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp961.on.sympatico.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) David Jones wrote: > In article <1291660.ensmtp@learnnet.nt.ca>, > Steve Lacey wrote: > > > >There's been a powerful lot of debate here recently about the above topic, > >under such subject headings as "paint the web black" and so forth. I'd say > >it's time to step back and look at things in perspective--to have a "reality > >check," if you will. > > >Point #1. In Canada we do not have free speech. > > You are sadly mistaken. Canadians do have the right to freedom of expression. > Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. > > The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is online at: > http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter [snip] (first of all, thanks for the url, I've been meaning to look at a copy of the charter for several years) I'm not sure of the difference (legally) but if the text at the site is correct: | FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. | | 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: | | (a) freedom of conscience and religion; | (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the | press and other media of communication; | (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and | (d) freedom of association. It says 'freedom' - not 'right'. I'm sure a lawyer will tell us that there is a difference. (and from there on, the word 'right' is used...) I generally get pre-occupied with justice instead of law - so my opinion probably doesn't jive with 'legality' - but free speech and the Charter are sore points with me. I cannot accept that we have 'freedom of expression' when we have other laws that override the charter -- like the laws used to charge Kiegstra (sp?) and Zundel (sp??). What we have is: "you have freedom of speech, unless we don't like what you have to say" I don't like what either one of them has to say - I think their positions are ridiculous, but the thought that a charter 'freedom' is overridden by an ambiguous law is frightening. I would prefer that they be permitted to express their opinions, and allow the public to judge their positions and debate them. Heck, even laugh at 'em. I also question what real 'freedoms' we have when a province can opt out via the 'notwithstanding' clause [33(1)]. Either you have a fundamental freedom/right, or you don't - enough of this wishy-washy playground for lawyers and politicians. I'd like to see a Constitution/Charter that doesn't mince words - phrases like 'inalienable rights', 'we hold these truths to be self-evident' ... defining values that Canadians would fight for. (They had Jefferson & Payne - we had Trudeau & Chretien ... time to find a new collection of authors!) [snip] > Even the United States, has limitations on speech. > Despite the following wording in their constitution. > > First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom > of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The unambiguous language of the first amendment allows for appeals to be made to the supreme court, citing conflicts with the Bill of Rights. The notwithstanding clause allows Quebec to pull the abuses they have on the minority anglo/allophone population, and the Canadian citizens who live in QC can't do anything (except move). There have been _many_ cases of US abuse (including constitutional amendments and obscene interpretations by politically motivated courts) but in the long run, I believe that a struggle for correct principals that are sought as an ideal is the right thing to do. I wish we had the guts to at least try. No state could opt-out of the first amendment... but in Canada, any province can opt-out of a set of basic freedoms that should define who we are as a people. No wonder we're falling apart - we can't commit to a firm statement of what we hold to be important to our citizens. > >It's also true that in Canada there are some laws which restrict free speech > >already. > > Of course there are. There are laws against "conspiracy to commit murder", > for example. That's an illegal form of speech. Got a problem with that? I would have thought it was the conspiracy that is illegal, not the speech. (isn't conspiracy in writing just as illegal?) > >... the gnashing of teeth and the pounding of keyboards from those who > >believe we need absolute freedom of speech, and who are furiously composing > >their counter-examples and their flames. > > You are arguing against a straw man that doesn't exist. > Hardly anyone is arguing for absolute freedom of expression. Well, I'm not made of straw, I tried to put some thought to this reply and I always gnash my teeth because I'm a rotten typist ;-) Hopefully, the flames will be held down, too... I wish that we (as a people) were more committed to seeking principals that would unite us & determine who we are ... I won't argue for absolute freedoms - but the way we weaken freedoms and rights is unacceptable to me. I'd rather err on the side of the individual's rights - and not leave it to political discretion. [ snip ] > So, ... I take it you would be happy with a law prohibiting > "blasphemous words" on the Internet? Nonsense. > > >Look. We live in a reasonable society, NOT a pre-Big Brother society. Let's > >stop over-reacting to the potential limitation of our use of the Internet. [ snip ] I disagree - let's push the envelope and strive to define our rights, freedoms (and responsibilities). Every time we say something like "the government is reasonable, they won't abuse us" we abdicate our own power over our future, and we're lesser for it. [ snip ] > >Calm down, everyone. > > I'm just getting warmed up. There's a great quote from (I think) Shaw that goes something like: An unreasonable man strives against things that he can't change, whereas a reasonable man learns to accept them. Beware the unreasonable man, because all change comes from him. We need more unreasonable men (and women) in Canada ... [ I only know about Mr. Allisat by hear-say, so I won't comment on his case ... ] From jerryhal@vcn.bc.ca Mon Apr 8 01:32:22 1996 Xref: elastic can.politics:49539 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!gts!whome!infoshare!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!freenet.vancouver.bc.ca!jerryhal From: jerryhal@vcn.bc.ca (Gerald H.Hall) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Supreme Court attacks freedom of speech! Date: 6 Apr 1996 17:19:55 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net Lines: 108 Message-ID: <4k693r$p63@milo.vcn.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: opus.vcn.bc.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] NEWS ITEM: Supreme Court attacks freedom of speech! A ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada has now made school teachers in Canada second-class citizens: "Teachers voicing views publicly that offends a particular group in our society, even though the teacher believes his or her views to be the truth can be barred from the classroom for expressing "intolerant views" the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in allowing an appeal against a New Brunswick teacher who published anti-Semitic writings. (Vancouver Sun, April 4, 1996, page A4). "A school board has the duty to maintain a positive environment for all children," the Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday in allowing an appeal against New Brunswick teacher Malcolm Ross, who taught for years in the Moncton, New Brunswick area and has written books, pamphlets and letters to newspapers alleging that Christian civilization is being undermined by a global Jewish conspiracy. Justice Gerard La Forest who wrote the court's unanimous decision, stated that Ross'action poisoned the school environment "even though the teacher did not express his controversial views in the classroom" - he was guilty of being intolerant. So what this ruling by the Supreme Court means is that if a school teacher is sitting in his or her living room with a friend and he or she expresses their belief that the holocaust never took place, and their friend decides to tell the thought police what they said, the teacher can be hauled into court and charged with intolerance and spreading racial hatred. I have read several books on the holocaust since the Second World War and I have visited the holocaust museum in Jerusalem; I have also seen the Shindler's List movie, and I am convinced beyond a shadow doubt that the holocaust took place. A new holocaust museum has recently been opened in Washington in the United States, and hundreds of book are available written by credible authors and writers documenting the horrors and the reality of the holocaust that would convince any intelligent person that the holocaust is an authentic historical fact. However, having said all that, I also am a great lover of democracy and freedom of speech. For instance, if my neighbor tells me that he does not believe the holocaust ever took place, I chalk it up to his ignorance. Nevertheless, I will defend his right to say what he believes with all the means I have available. Have we now reached such a sorry state in Canada - as a result of this Supreme Court decision - that we are going to weed out any teacher who holds private views outside of the classroom that might offend some special self-interest group in society, simply because that teacher holds private views that this group might think are offensive or intolerant towards it? God help us if we have! The Jewish community in Canada has become overly sensitive to the small minority of people who deny that the holocaust ever took place and as a result they are threatening free speech in our country by appealing to the courts and prosecuting people like Malcolm Ross. If Mr.Ross had been teaching his views in the classroom to a group of gullible students as Jim Keegstra was doing in his classroom in Alberta then that would be, in my opinion,a gross violation of his duties as a school teacher, and he should be dismissed from his teaching position. But the private views of teachers held outside of the classroom are protected under the freedom of speech section of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and; therefore, should not be a reason to charge that person simply because he or she has publicly expressed a view not held by a majority of Canada's citizens. Section 2 of the Charter states that every citizen of Canada has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly and (d) freedom of association. How the Supreme Court Justices could make their unanimous ruling in view of (a) and (b) is a mystery to me. Every week we are reading in the media and hearing on television news about some special interest groups in our society resorting to the courts to stop all criticism of their group or their group's beliefs or lifestyle, regardless of whether or not the criticism is legitimate and true; and the courts are responding by restricting freedom of speech in Canada to the point where even our politicians are afraid to speak the truth anymore for fear of being hauled into court or labelled as a bigot, racist, politically incorrect or the more euphemistic term "intolerant" which can be used by any group to silence the views of people who do not agree with them. If there is any one group of people in Canada who should be in the forefront in guarding against encroachments on our freedom of speech -it should be the Jewish community. If the media moguls in Canada don't soon start to speak out against these attacks on our freedom of speech by the courts, they will soon find their own freedoms curbed to the point where telling the truth will soon become an indictable offence in Canada. A good example of how fragile is the protection of our freedom of speech in Canada today is the specious reasoning in an editorial in today's Vancouver Sun, April 6, 1996, "A delicate balance," which supports the Supreme Court's decision. Gerald H. Hall --