Bill C-250

[Tom Samborski]

Recently, there has been much heated debate in the Canadian Parlament over Bill C-250, a bill that would protect homosexuals by making mostly any kind of hate speech against them a hate crime. It was created by Svend Robinson, an NDP MP from British Columbia who is, in fact, a homosexual.

So what is your opinion on Bill C-250? Do you think it limits free speech, an important part of Canadian society and democracy, or do you think that more action needs to be taken against any kind of racism? From my perspective, I strongly support this bill. In a Canadian democracy, there are many people who believe that they should just go around saying what they believe because of the freedom of speech. In many aspects of society, I do agree that every voice should be heard sooner or later, but when it comes to singling out an entire culture, an entire race, or an major minority, in this case, sexuality, then that's when the barriers have to go up. Racism has been a truly evil fruit of the tree known as world society, and if there's one thing I cannot stand in Canada, the United States, or any other nation alone, it is intolerance towards other people, simply because they are different from the majority. During the 1980's, gays were attacked in parks and spat on because of paranoia towards AIDS. That paranoia is still felt today. If there is one thing I do not like about government, it is a government that singles out an entire culture. Imagine if you were gay, and you heard some MP on C-PAC say that homosexuals are evil? How would you feel? This is why we need limits on free speech. Sure, we may not like it, but the time has come for Canadians to accept other people's differences, no matter how different we all may be. What makes democracy work, in my absolute honest opinion, is to "cross the lines". Equality is an important part of democracy, and we all must make sacrifices to move forward, not backward. As for freedom of religion, people still have the freedom to go to church, and people still have the freedom to stand by their religion. Bill C-250 only helps get rid of hate, not the beliefs of one's religion.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
a bill that would protect homosexuals by making mostly any kind of hate speech against them a hate crime.

That sounds incredibly dangerous to me.

Did you guys elect Bush while I was sleeping?

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
and if there's one thing I cannot stand in Canada, the United States, or any other nation alone, it is intolerance towards other people, simply because they are different from the majority.

But you are willing to show your intorlerance towards a minority of people with different views or ideas from you, by threatening them with punishment because they have "unacceptable modes of thinking"? Sounds rather Orwellian to me. It seems that Eric Hoffer was right : "Even when men league themselves mightily together to promote tolerance and peace on earth, they are likely to be violently intolerant toward those not of a like mind."

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
Imagine if you were gay, and you heard some MP on C-PAC say that homosexuals are evil? How would you feel?

The last time I checked, there was no such thing as a "right to not be offended, by anyone, ever" in the US or in Canada. Did you guys pass some sort of law while I wasn't looking?

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
Bill C-250 only helps get rid of hate, not the beliefs of one's religion.

Not quite. The ostensible purpose of such a law is to protect minorities from persecution. The result, however, would be the exact opposite. Targeting those with "politically incorrect" motives undermines the principle of objective law which undergirds our legal system's protection of rights. In the US, we use the phrase "Equal protection under the law". Freedom of speech is specifically designed to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, does not need protection.

Although I sympathize with your personal moral stance against bigotry and hate, I cannot agree with your desire to establish "forbidden" types of thought. Criminal law exists to prohibit certain actions—to safeguard individuals against force or fraud. For this purpose, there is no shortage of existing statutes.

What, then, will a "hate crimes" law add? If the target is to eliminate hatred as an emotion, then it is absurd; will the law allow me to sue someone if he says he hates my suit? If my girlfriend (God forbid) should cry out in anger, "I hate you!", should I be allowed to have her jailed?

"Hate", as such, is not the real target of your proposed law. After all, which crimes aren't motivated by hatred? Are assaults and murders usually committed out of benevolence toward the victim? As a racial minority, if I am murdered, how will you determine the murderer's intent? Did he kill me because he hated me? Or just because he wanted my stuff? And will it make any real difference to my family? Will they be able to breathe a sigh of relief after my murderer is caught, saying, "Well, thank God it wasn't a hate crime?" Probably not.

The real target of a law such as Bill C-250 is the criminal's ideas. The proposed law proposes that criminals motivated by a government-designated set of intolerable ideas (in this case, anti-homosexuality) deserve special prosecution and additional punishment because of those ideas. But to subject someone to trial and punishment on the basis of his ideas -- regardless of how despicable those ideas might be -- constitutes a politicization of criminal law. The judicial process would have to focus on the criminal's ideology, rather than on the objective violation of his victim's rights. Why, for example, should a racist be prosecuted for the special crime of targeting blacks, while the Unabomber is not subject to special prosecution for his hatred of scientists and business executives? The only answer is that the Unabomber's ideas are considered more "politically correct" than the racist's.

A "hate crimes" law would expand the law's concern from criminal action to "criminal thought." It would institute the premise that the purpose of the legal system is not to defend the rights of the victim, but to punish socially unacceptable ideas. This is a premise that should be abhorrent to a free society. In fact, it creates a class of crimes formerly reserved only to dictatorships: political crimes.

The beginnings of this politicization of crime are already in place. When anti-Vietnam War protesters, for example, forcibly occupied buildings and bombed laboratories in the '60s and '70s, they were heralded as "political dissenters," deserving of special leniency; today, those who commit similar crimes in the name of racism are considered deserving of special penalties. Similarly, in recent years the left has (properly) campaigned for laws to prevent anti-abortion protesters from harassing doctors and halting access to abortion clinics. Yet its own protesters routinely use force -- such as the occupation of timberland to prevent logging, or the torching of an SUV franchise in California -- with no fear of special government prosecution.

Under such a system, anything goes. The entire criminal justice system can be used as a political tool by whatever faction happens to be in power. Crimes can be whitewashed if done for the "correct" political motives, while extra punishment can be meted out to those with "incorrect" motives. And if a man convicted of an actual criminal act can be sentenced to additional years in prison simply for his ideas, then, in logic, why can't someone be punished solely for his ideas? Even if he has not committed a single action against another person, why can't he be tried simply for being a "purveyor of hate"? Indeed, this development is already foreshadowed by campus "speech codes" around the US, which bar statements deemed "offensive" to protected groups.

The desire to enact "hate crime" legislation comes from a good place, I have no doubt of that; but it leads to a very dangerous place for individual freedom. Instead of attempting to limit the very basic freedom of expression, which is to say, freedom to dissent from the majority thought, we should insist on the one principle that forms the foundation for the protection of all rights in a free society -- that the purpose of law is to punish criminals for initiating force against others, and not for holding bad or unpopular ideas. On that basis, Bill C-250 should be resoundingly rejected.

[Tom Samborski]

When it all comes down to racism, those people do not deserve to be heard. Because if we let racists have their say, we are expressing sympathy towards them. I have absolutely no sympathy towards any kind of bigotry or any kind of racist. I'm talking about minorities as in people of different skin colors, people of different religion, or ethnic background.

If we let racists and bigots have their say, then we are moving backward. There are those who are for a prosperous Canada, and then there are some paranoid white Christians who feel that is bad. Gays and ethnics deserve full, 100% protection from any kind of hate speech, any kind of intolerance expressed towards them. What I'm saying, in other words, is that there are extremes to every action taken. There are indeed many extremes when it comes to free speech. If we let people with such bigotry, such hatred towards others, that intolerance spreads- all because some people give into the constant fear mongering that they spread. Bill C-250 does target the criminal's ideas, because they are the wrong ideas. If those ideas spread, racism lasts on. Example: kids in a classroom have a teacher they really like. That teacher gives his opinions on why gay people are disgraces, and he gives the reasons. Now, we do not know if those kids will exactly agree with him, or pick up his ideas and beliefs, but sooner or later, some will. And that's what causes racism in Canada to last on. Racism still lives on today, and I would rather live in a society with no racism at all rather than one where it still exists deep in a country's roots. Yes, it is all about opinion, but the opinions of one who is bigoted do not deserve to be heard in public, because it just spreads the hate towards others. They can express it privately, in their homes, or between family members, but not in public. Does Bill C-250 say that cars should be bugged to record people's conversations to see if they are racists or not? It does not do that. It is a great bill that will help elminate hate, and to help educate future generations, to teach them acceptance rather than rejection. And if we just sit by, and let these people continue to offend, then racism continues to live on - all because of everyone wanting to jump onto the oppurtunity bandwagon. The workplace and poltics are places for acceptance, not rejection of others. But racists and bigots are the absolute exception of all of this, because their opinions have created feelings of sadness, fear, and hopelessness that this kind of rejection still exists.

Everyone in a society deserves to be heard, but when it all comes down to racism, those people do not deserve to be heard, because they are a threat to the threads that bring us together. They are trying to cut those threads, and tear us all apart. Which is why the steps have to be taken in order to contain that very threat. Criminals should not only be punished for holding force, but for also spreading the wrong ideas that set wrong examples.
This is why I have no respect for racism, or the opinions of a racist whatsoever.

[Ultrahumanite]

Well, there are many dictatorships around the world that you would feel quite comfortable living in. I'm sure you could even find a fascist society (which is essentially what you are proposing) if you look hard enough. But the sort of thinking you're engaged in here does not - cannot -- exist in a free society. You say, "Bill C-250 does target the criminal's ideas, because they are the wrong ideas." WHO determines the wrong ideas? The government? If the government determines that "to protest the Prime Minister is hate speech," should the protesters go to jail for it?

Furthermore, your vision of a world where ideas are punished criminally is a greater danger to society than the most virulent "hate speech". Perhaps the idea of living in a mind-control state appeals to you; I personally cannot fathom it. Where does it all end? Jail all those who hold views you don't agree with? Lobotomise them, 'for the good of the State'? Execute them, perhaps, in the name of tolerance and social harmony?

"Criminals should not only be punished for holding force, but for also spreading the wrong ideas that set wrong examples...." There are lots of world leaders in the past who held beliefs a lot like yours: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin... In Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, millions of innocent lives were snuffed out to prevent the spread of wrong ideas. Pol Pot executed over three million Cambodians who "set the wrong examples". Such thinking is monstrous, the very definition of evil.

You are asking to usher in a very dangerous form of government : a dictatorship. Is that what you really want? Do you consider fascism "a step forward"? Even the most benelovent dictator, the one who sets himself up as "a shepard of the people", demands from his subjects the obedience of sheep.

[Grebdron]

The great thing about our country (US not Canada) is that fuckwits can talk all they want about gays, or blacks, or Asians, and we're free to laugh in their ignorant faces.

It sets a VERY dangerous precedent trying to legislate morality like that.

Next thing is you can't say anything bad about the government.

[Tom Samborski]

Racism is wrong, and it always will be wrong. Like I stated before, you have to "cross the lines" of democracy in order to make it work. In some retrospects, yes, resorting to communism is the only way to make it work. Conservatives, liberals, christians, all the religions and all the parties deserve equal opportunity for free speech, but racism is something the majority all knows is wrong, and that is why we must resort to these kind of principles - to make sure people never get the wrong idea.

BTW, I have agreed with many Communist principles before. I wouldn't say that Bill C-250 is communism, but is ensures equality, a principle that is close to communism. It is hard, very hard, to give up the things we most cherish, like free speech, but this is why we have government to keep things in control. If it were just people runnng the country, it would be chaotic, because nothing would be settled. Bill C-250 targets the ideas of RACISTS. Look at Alabama for example. When they ended segregation there, everybody hated it, but the government knew that there was something wrong with this kind of picture. More and more people have learned over time of how racism separates us apart, and that prevents us from knowing each other. Everyone thought segregation in Alabama was a good idea, but the government thought otherwise, and they were right. Society as a whole has sometimes had the wrong opinions, and that has partly determined the way society is today. So, I don't support facism towards most people, but I support it towards those who represent a cancer to equality. To sum it up, I support facism towards people of bigotry, and that is a step forward in my absolute honest opinion.

[Tom Samborski]

Originally posted by Grebdron
The great thing about our country (US not Canada) is that fuckwits can talk all they want about gays, or blacks, or Asians, and we're free to laugh in their ignorant faces.

True enough, true enough. But I think it's better that they not be heard at all to make blacks, gays, Asians, etc feel more comfortable that they are protected to feel equal like the rest.

[Ultrahumanite]

WOW! I'm glad you live in Canada and not the US. Wait, is that thought setting the wrong example? Does that go against the Official Party Line? Uh-oh, here come the Gestapo....

What I meant was, "Seig Heil! I submit myself entirely to the Official Thought! Please don't send me to your concentration camp!"

[Tom Samborski]

I stand by my opinion. Simple as that.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
True enough, true enough. But I think it's better that they not be heard at all to make blacks, gays, Asians, etc feel more comfortable that they are protected to feel equal like the rest.

Tom, I can't believe that if you sit down and think about it, you'd still advocate the SILENCING of the ignorants. It's not our government's, your government's, or ANY government's right nor responsibility to make a particular group "feel comfortable", nor to silence an outspoken minority. It is really not far of a leap to say that the next law is you can't speak negatively about your officials.

Ultra...chill a little, dude. Engage in conversation, but don't insult the man. You'll last much longer that way.

[Tom Samborski]

People have a right to disagree with government, but hey, we have all had visions of a world where everyone respects each other. I can try to tolerate the opinions and views of a racist, but I simply cannot stand that.

IMO, racists are always the exception to the rule of equality and respect. It is better to have no voice of racism than to have any voice at all. There is, and there always will be, an exception to the rule. In this case, the rule is "Equality for all, excluding those who threaten it." The definitive threat towards equality is bigotry.

I've pretty much stated all of my opinions on this issue. Samborski, out.

[Grebdron]

So Tom, are you with me that pedophiles and baby killers are the worst of the worst criminals? For this, I'll assume you are.

Now, knee-jerk reaction would say that if you're pretty sure a dude raped your little brother, you'd say "Fuck a trial, I'll kill the fucker myself." And I'd be right with you. But we can't let ourselves be ruled by those emoptions. There's the off chance he didn't do it. So we need to put the guy on trial and figure it out.

I understand you hate racism, so do I. But we simply cannot allow ourselves to attempt to silence them. It's just not possible in a "free" society.

And ANYTIME you start to say "Equality for all, EXCEPT anyone, you start sliding down a very slippery slope. And you start exclusions which beget exclusions.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
I've pretty much stated all of my opinions on this issue. Samborski, out.

Dude...you started this thread. Don't ditch it.

[Tom Samborski]

Originally posted by Grebdron
So Tom, are you with me that pedophiles and baby killers are the worst of the worst criminals? For this, I'll assume you are.

Now, knee-jerk reaction would say that if you're pretty sure a dude raped your little brother, you'd say "Fuck a trial, I'll kill the fucker myself." And I'd be right with you. But we can't let ourselves be ruled by those emoptions. There's the off chance he didn't do it. So we need to put the guy on trial and figure it out.

I understand you hate racism, so do I. But we simply cannot allow ourselves to attempt to silence them. It's just not possible in a "free" society.

And ANYTIME you start to say "Equality for all, EXCEPT anyone, you start sliding down a very slippery slope. And you start exclusions which beget exclusions.

There are very few situations where we have to be hypocritical. This case is one of them. As for trials, if everyone heard a politician say in front of 15,000 people in an arena "I HATE GAYS!", everyone would know. It's very easy to know a guy made a hate speech if you have many other people sitting next to you. Sometimes a "free" society has to be less "free". A free society is all about making sacrifices to make others feel more free. In a way, I am a threat to equality by saying I am against a society where racists feel equal. But it has to be that way. I have two different visions of a society: one where everyone feels equal, and one where there is equality for everyone except racists. So with today's society, racists represent one thread that connects us together, and everyone else represents the other threads. It wouldn't hurt to trim one thread off.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
There are very few situations where we have to be hypocritical. This case is one of them. As for trials, if everyone heard a politician say in front of 15,000 people in an arena "I HATE GAYS!", everyone would know. It's very easy to know a guy made a hate speech if you have many other people sitting next to you. Sometimes a "free" society has to be less "free". A free society is all about making sacrifices to make others feel more free.

You can't, as a country, pick and choose when to be hypocritical.

And that dude shouting "I hate gays!" is only exposing who he is. And in a decent society, he wouldn't win an election.

I'd encourage him to shout it to the heavens.

[Tom Samborski]

They may be who they are, but that doesn't take away the fact that their opinions should not be allowed to be heard publicly. Privately, yes, but publicly, no way. Many politicians know they have to keep their big mouth shut, or they'll lose the election. The politician would lose the election, but because of no laws preventing him from saying his racist opinions, he'll just keep on saying it. He got one consequence, but he escaped another. He deserved both.

The message of Bill C-250 is loud and clear: keep your big-mouthed, racist opinions to private matters (this is to any racist), or face the consequences for trying to spread your word. People may not like authority, but this is when authority is sometimes necessary.

[BubbaStrangelove]

So with today's society, racists represent one thread that connects us together, and everyone else represents the other threads. It wouldn't hurt to trim one thread off.


Do you realize how fucking scary you sound right now?

You sound like a guy who would be okay with lining up racists and shooting them in the back of the head one-by-one, or even more-so, sending them off to consentration camps.

I don't support racism, but I REALLY don't support hatred towards a group of people, no matter how fucking retarded they are.

I can never use my enemies reason as my reason - Remember that. You hate racists for the same reason that racists hate other races.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
So, I don't support facism towards most people, but I support it towards those who represent a cancer to equality.

http://www.myperfume.com/perfume/mens/ck/contradiction.jpg

[Tom Samborski]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So with today's society, racists represent one thread that connects us together, and everyone else represents the other threads. It wouldn't hurt to trim one thread off.


Do you realize how fucking scary you sound right now?

You sound like a guy who would be okay with lining up racists and shooting them in the back of the head one-by-one, or even more-so, sending them off to consentration camps.

I don't support racism, but I REALLY don't support hatred towards a group of people, no matter how fucking retarded they are.

I can never use my enemies reason as my reason - Remember that. You hate racists for the same reason that racists hate other races.

People, I just feel that any kind of racism expressed publicly represents what is wrong with society, and because of that, it should be wiped away. I support equality, but I do not support racists being included within that equality. Perhaps I was being too vague with my previous comments (in response to Mr.Shaw's post). What I meant to say was that I support facism towards any kind of racist who feels that he/she can express it to the world. It isn't the fact that we disagree with them that has screwed up society, it is the fact that we are letting them say such awful things. As a result, I feel that we are doing a good job in the fight against racism, yet at the same time, we are just letting racists getting away with having their say. It's just like murder, you hate murder of any kind, but at the same time you let murderers have their way, even though you disagree with them. In order to silence horrible traits, we have to punish those who are carrying it on. And I do not hate racists for the same reasons racists hate other races. Racists hate other races not because of their opinions, but simply because of the way they were born. You could have black guy who voted Republican (or Democrat), and a racist who voted for the same party. I hate racists simply for their opinions, which are extreme enough to make me hate them altogether for. Do they deserve to die? Not at all, because that is too extreme, but they deserve some kind of a warning or minor punishment for their decisions.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
People, I just feel that any kind of racism expressed publicly represents what is wrong with society, and because of that, it should be wiped away.

You will never wipe away racism. But you might start an uprising if you try to take away freedom of speech.

[Tom Samborski]

People have to realize that sooner or later, there has to be limits to their freedom of speech. Racism will live on, but it can be reduced greatly, and if you look at it in some parts of the world, more needs to be done.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Tom, just watch this, and maybe you'll see what I mean.....


People, I just feel that any kind of homosexual act expressed publicly represents what is wrong with society, and because of that, it should be wiped away. I support equality, but I do not support homosexuals being included within that equality. Perhaps I was being too vague with my previous comments. What I meant to say was that I support facism towards any kind of homosexual who feels that he/she can express it to the world. It isn't the fact that we disagree with them that has screwed up society, it is the fact that we are letting them do such awful things. As a result, I feel that we are doing a good job in the fight against homosexuality, yet at the same time, we are just letting homosexuals getting away with having their say. It's just like murder, you hate murder of any kind, but at the same time you let murderers have their way, even though you disagree with them. In order to silence horrible traits, we have to punish those who are carrying it on. And I do not hate homosexuals for the same reasons homophobes hate homosexuals. Homophobes hate homosexuals not because of their opinions, but simply because of the way they were born. You could have homosexual who voted Republican (or Democrat), and a homophobe who voted for the same party. I hate homosexuals simply for their actions, which are extreme enough to make me hate them altogether for. Do they deserve to die? Not at all, because that is too extreme, but they deserve some kind of a warning or minor punishment for their decisions




Just because the nouns are different, doesn't mean that the intent isn't the same.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
People have to realize that sooner or later, there has to be limits to their freedom of speech. Racism will live on, but it can be reduced greatly, and if you look at it in some parts of the world, more needs to be done.

There ARE limits to freedom of speech. It's illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, unless htere's a fire.

This would not reduce racism...at all. I say again, it will not reduce racism.

And if the racists in question incite a riot, tehn you can arrest them.

Look, marijuana is illegal, for now. So should we arrest anybody who even TALKS about how they think it should be legal?

[Jon Lyrik]

I'm against homophobia and hatred against gays as much as the next guy, but freedom of speech must be protected, otherwise you'll just have an authoritarian government. Hillbilly gay-haters are scum, but they aren't dangerous unless they start going down town, lining up gays, and shooting them and screaming "Ebner, get me serm more fags, I'm in a huntin' mewd tew-nite! N' get that coon frem Main Stweet, I wanna shewt him tew!"

[blankpage]

This is a hard subject for me. I mean, I don't agree with racism, but I also don't agree taking away freedom of speech. Legally, I don't think we can ever set a limit. Morally, we can. But that depends on the person.

And I don't think people will ever realize that freedom of speech should be limited, because: A)It shouldn't ...and... B) It won't.


Personally, I'm not on either side. Both bring up good cases, though.

[Tom Samborski]

There is an extreme difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Freedom of speech is voicing and expressing your opinions on current affairs. Hate speech is denouncing people of a different race, religion, sexuality, or skin color simply because of those traits.

Racism is not freedom of speech. Racism is hate speech. Look at those two differences.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
There is an extreme difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Freedom of speech is voicing and expressing your opinions on current affairs. Hate speech is denouncing people of a different race, religion, sexuality, or skin color simply because of those traits.

Racism is not freedom of speech. Racism is hate speech. Look at those two differences.

That could be extended. I am vociferous in my hatred of Bush. I'll call him an idiot every chance I get.

What's the difference?

[Tom Samborski]

Your opinion is not hate speech, it is an expression of freedom of speech. Denouncing the president because of his POLICIES is freedom of speech, because you hate him for what he is politically, not racially.

[blankpage]

I know the difference between the two.


BUT...


...some people do not. Some would label "hate speech" as "freedom of speech."


I was just presenting what I saw personally. Not racism itself, but people labelling "hate speech" and "freedom of speech" as the same thing.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
Your opinion is not hate speech, it is an expression of freedom of speech. Denouncing the president because of his POLICIES is freedom of speech, because you hate him for what he is politically, not racially.

It doesn't matter, Tom.

Look, the racist's OPINION is that blacks, or Asians, or Indians are inferior. It doesn't make it true.

I would call them ignorant fucking rednecks. Should I not be allowed to say that?

[Tom Samborski]

You can call them ignorant fucking rednecks, because that's what they frankly deserve to be called.

That, however, won't make the difference in the "war against racism". Racists know they are hated, yet they shake it off and they continue to push for what they think is best for a nation.

There are two scenarios:

1.) We let them talk all they want to, and we just keep calling them assholes for who they are. They shake it off, they convince a few people, and racism still lives on.

2.) We stop them from spreading their word of hate through public law. As untrue as their opinions are, it is more than that, it is hate, and hate towards ethnic minorities is something that we should all have zero tolerance for. Public places, such as the podium, are places for respect. As a result, much fewer minds are convinced, and the fires of racism die down significantly.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
You can call them ignorant fucking rednecks, because that's what they frankly deserve to be called.

That, however, won't make the difference in the "war against racism". Racists know they are hated, yet they shake it off and they continue to push for what they think is best for a nation.

There are two scenarios:

1.) We let them talk all they want to, and we just keep calling them assholes for who they are. They shake it off, they convince a few people, and racism still lives on.

2.) We stop them from spreading their word of hate through public law. As untrue as their opinions are, it is more than that, it is hate, and hate towards ethnic minorities is something that we should all have zero tolerance for. Public places, such as the podium, are places for respect. As a result, much fewer minds are convinced, and the fires of racism die down significantly.

Dude, have you heard of freedom of speech?

And anybody who is "convinced" by racist hicks was probably a hidden racist all along.

And I would say the "fires of racism" have died down significantly, thank God, and when the older generations die out it will definitely go lower and lower.

[Tom Samborski]

I'll say it before, and I'll say it again: it is not freedom of speech, it is hate speech. The public simply has to know the two differences.

I'm not going debate this any further, as I feel I have said all there is to say.

[Morgana]

I do not tolerate any kind of racist groups or hateful speeches. However, as someone who grew up in the former communist bloc, I know what it's like when the government tries to censor speech, or even thought. I was in trouble with a teacher for something "anti-Soviet" I had said by the time I was 8. If my family hadn't escaped (and had taken me along), I would've been jailed by the time I was 18. I just can't keep my mouth shut.

I think nearly all of you have grown up in the free world, and I don't think you can fully appreciate what freedom of speech is. I think you would very much miss it once it was taken away.

At any rate, as much as I loathe narrow-minded hate mongers, I cannot support any type of supression of speech.

[Ultrahumanite]

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." -- FDR

Originally posted by Grebdron
Ultra...chill a little, dude. Engage in conversation, but don't insult the man. You'll last much longer that way.

I'm not insulting him... but his views in this matter are abhorrent. 'With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but with tyrants I will give no quarter, or waste arguments where they will be most certainly be lost.' No rational, thinking person would openly endorse fascism as a cure for society's ills. And what's worse, he's endorsing the absolute worst form of tyranny -- tryanny for the victim's own good. It shows an absolute lack of respect for his neighbor's intelligence, for their right to evaluate and choose what they wish to hear and what they do not, and displays such a smug and condescending attitude ("I know what's good for you, much better than you know for yourself")... the very thought that there are people like Tom out there scares the living bejeezus out of me, because those are the people who wind up wiping out 10 or 20 or 30 million people in service of "the greater good" -- as they see it. You'd think that here and now -- in the 21st century, for pity's sake! -- the kind of backward, brutish intellect that revels in wielding oppressive power over others would have already died out. Unfortunately, it's very much alive. One Tom represents more danger to a free society than any hundred of the worst bigots ever could. The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it, as Tom so succinctly demonstrates.

If he really wanted to bring about an end to racism or bigotry, why doesn't he talk about working to educate people? Why doesn't he talk about convincing others that his views are worthy, rather than forcing them, and threatening them with inprisonment or death? Only a man who knows his views are dispicable has to talk about resorting to force to realize them. That's why so many bigots resort to violence -- because they know that rational men will dismiss their views.

Actually, he reminds me of something President Clinton said shortly after he was elected: "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Chills still run up and down my spine.

So Tom is wildly intolerant against bigotry? Great. I'm wildly intolerant of totalitarianism. Right now, in this country (US), there are people who want to make free speech a crime -- I was listening to some slack-jawed idiot on my local news who said that it ought to be a crime to say bad things about the President! And they basically used the exact same logic that Tom uses. And do you know what came to mind? The words of Samuel Adams: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

And he makes a hell of a good beer, too! ;)

[Tom Samborski]

I have three questions to ask you. I'm very interested in hearing your answer.

1.) A teacher to express his hate towards George.W.Bush in the classroom?

2.) A teacher to express his hate towards blacks, jews, and homosexuals in the classroom?

3.) Where should the line be drawn? Should be any line? Is there anything that you not find acceptable when it comes to free speech?

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
1.) A teacher to express his hate towards George.W.Bush in the classroom?

Yep. But along with the freedom to speak your mind comes the responsibility to accept the consequences : if the school board feels that the teacher's remarks are inappropriate, or if the community parents decide that this is unacceptable for their children to hear, then the teacher may be fired or face other consequences -- in civil, and not criminal court. Conversely, if the teacher feels that the judgement is unfair, he has the option of presenting his case to other rational men in a civil court to decide if he was treated fairly. That's the way it works; one of the basic underpinnings of our system of government: the idea that, as equals, our neighbors and peers are wise enough to make intelligent decisions based on the facts of a case.

Does that give the teacher the right to say, "I'm going to kill George Bush," or to go out and assassinate him? Of course not. Only then might his actions be punished in a criminal court -- it is illegal to commit murder or make terroristic threats (against anyone, regardless of race, creed, or color -- as befits an impartial court system).

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
2.) A teacher to express his hate towards blacks, jews, and homosexuals in the classroom?

Yep. But along with the freedom to speak your mind comes the responsibility to accept the consequences : if the school board feels that the teacher's remarks are inappropriate, or if the community parents decide that this is unacceptable for their children to hear, then the teacher may be fired or face other consequences -- in civil, and not criminal court. Conversely, if the teacher feels that the judgement is unfair, he has the option of presenting his case to other rational men in a civil court to decide if he was treated fairly. That's the way it works; one of the basic underpinnings of our system of government: the idea that, as equals, our neighbors and peers are wise enough to make intelligent decisions based on the facts of a case.

Does that give the teacher the right to say, "I want to kill all Blacks," or to go out and kill someone? Of course not. Only then might his actions be punished in a criminal court -- it is illegal to commit murder or make terroristic threats (against anyone, regardless of race, creed, or color -- as befits an impartial court system).

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
3.) Where should the line be drawn? Should be any line? Is there anything that you not find acceptable when it comes to free speech?

If there's a line that needs to be drawn, it's the line between what I feel is acceptable or unacceptable, and what the government finds acceptable or unacceptable. One of the major precepts of our form of government is limited power -- we reserve the right to make decisions for ourselves, rather than have a government make decisions for us. Towards that end, we are empowered with certian rights, and have a Constitution to protect those rights. Among the rights guaranteed in the Constitution is freedom of association. That means that I have a right to assemble peacefully with whomever I choose, using whatever standards I see fit. By extension, I have the right to determine who my children should associate with (until they are of legal age). But nobody has a right to force their standards on others.

So if I see something on TV that I don't like, then my moral responsibility is not to start a campaign to get that show off the air, but to turn my TV to another channel (or better yet, turn it off). But no one can force me to watch a show I don't approve of, and no one should be able to force me to not be able to see something I enjoy. If I hear a song on the radio that I find vulgar, then my moral responsibility is to not listen to that station or support that artist. But nobody can force me to listen to something I don't want to hear, or should be able to keep me from finding the music that I enjoy.

Conversely, If I hear a person giving a speech at a rally who hates gays, I am not powerless. I can stand up and engage that person in debate. I can gather some of my friends and hold a rally in support of gays. I can just leave. Or, if I choose to, I can stay and listen.

Or, as in your example, my child's teacher expresses hate towards gays, I am not powerless. I can take my concerns to the principal or to the school board. I can convince other parents that this teacher should be removed, and petition the school board accordingly. I can remove my child from that school and send him to another. Or I can pursue the matter against the teacher in civil court.

But what I cannot do, and should never be able to do, is to use the police power of government to press my views on another person, or to keep that person from having his views heard by others. I can only keep him from sharing his views with me, or with my children. I trust my neighbors enough to make those sort of decisions on their own, too. The government needs to intervene only when there is a threat of actual physical harm as a direct result of that person's speech -- that's why you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowed theatre, as the classic example goes, or incite people to riot. Hurt feelings don't count; I defy you to ban everything that might conceiveably hurt someone else's feelings or cause them offense. There is no right to not be offended.

So to answer your question : Is there anything that I personally find unacceptable when it comes to free speech? Yes, lots of things, hate speech included. I don't listen to it, my children won't listen to it, and I encourage others to disregard it whenever possible.

Is there anything that I think that the government should find unacceptable? Nope -- except for those things that fall under the 'actual physical harm' qualifier. Because every individual deserves the right to determine for themselves what constitutes 'hate speech'.

[jeo4]

I'm completely against censorship of any kind. If the gay community can jump on a parade float and wear a thong and chaps dancing about and whipping one another for "pride", then I have every right to say how completely freaky that is to me. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. We've become so supersensitive in this day and age about offending anyone, we are backpedaling and crushing out the rights and beliefs of others. And just because I don't like the gay lifestyle or their conduct, it doesn't mean I'm some redneck either. If I'm a heterosexual Christian and I disagree with them, then my rights sure as hell better stand every bit as much as theirs do. PERIOD. Censorship is wrong. If I were living in BC, I'd call for this asshole's resignation or impeachment for being too stupid and/or selfish to realize his personal feelings were trampling on the rights of others.

[BakeTheMooCow]

.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Forget it.

The juice ain't worth the squeeze.

[Jim H]

If this passes, Canada has effectively ended their freedom of speech. Of course, I'm not so sure they had it to begin with, as I'm not particularly well informed on how speech works in Canada.

Stating one's opinion on something should never be a crime. No matter your personal opinion, I think you can agree this is a bad precedent.