ChuckB writes “John Leo writes in U.S. News & World Report on Bill C-250, apparently about to become
law:
‘Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country,’ Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add ‘sexual orientation’ to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the ‘Bible as Hate Literature’ bill, or simply ‘the chill bill.’ It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups.
Bovoroy notes in a CCLA position paper that ‘legal curbs on hate often backfire’ because legally useful definitions of hate speech are exceedingly difficult to fashion.”
You forgot t’other one
2004, March 27: Report on an act to amend the
Radiocommunications Act
First Amendment considered beneficial
Thanks, that’s very informative Fang-face. In fact, in all sincerity, if I hadn’t wanted to post in this thread, I would have mod’ed you “+1 Informative” (you can all just pick your jaws up off the floor again!). I hope someone mods you Informative–you need to earn some karma back 😉
Seriously, I think bills like this in other countries show us why the First Amendment in the U.S. is so important. I gather from Leo’s article that Canada doesn’t have a similar constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.
Handing Over a Gun to Shoot You With
While I’m 100% in full support of gay rights, I’m also 100% against censorship in any form. Unfortunately, part of the price of being a civil libertarian is watching would-be oppressors use one right you defend – freedom of speech – in order to attack other rights.
It’s not fun – hell, it’s painful to watch at times. It may also be why the “good guys” (pro-liberty) are doomed in the end. But we can do nothing else if our principles truly mean anything.
Re:First Amendment considered beneficial
I gather from Leo’s article that Canada doesn’t have a similar constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.
Yes, we do. It’s in Article 2 of the charter of legislated privileges. We just don’t have the free wheeling style extent throughout the U.S. Plus, our civil code is based on English civil law (French civil code in Quebec), some of which, libel laws for instance, are five hundred years old and in serious need of updating. Hate speech laws, which are simply stupid, and I don’t know what else. The Canadian gubmint has a most annoying tendency to suck up to the politically correct.
They had better hurry…
As the CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) site points out, if the Senate doesn’t pass this before the federal election in Canada is called, the bill will die. CUPE has a different spin on this bill however:
Hate Propaganda Legislation in Jeopardy!
Re:They had better hurry…
In his article, Leo writes:
So would the legislation require prosecution of the gay senator quoted above as desiring that God should strike the “ecclesiastical dictators” dead? Does that statement qualify as hate propaganda against members of a religious group because of their convictions?
Another question
Also, could someone explain the gay rights agenda in such a way as to make sense of Barbara Finlay’s statement “the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation“? The only way I can make sense of this is to see the goal of the movement (in Finlay’s mind, at least) as including at a minimum the establishment of a climate in which no-one is permitted to express disapproval of homosexuality. Given “either/or” she posits between queer and religious rights, it seems to me that she sees no possibility of a balance between the two.
I may very well be missing something obvious here–could someone please help me out? Also, does Finlay’s sentiment reflect the mainstream gay rights agenda, or hers a more marginal position?