Subject: Re: Free speech in Canada, and on the Internet

From: Jim Dowson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 01:17:43 -0500

David Jones wrote:
> In article <[email-masked]>,
> Steve Lacey <[email-masked]> 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 ... ]