Bill C-250

Perhaps I missed this before, but I haven’t read anything posted by our Canadian friends here at LISNews about this legislation.

(Lexis-Nexis)

"…Proponents of Bill C-250 have reassured Canadians that the legislation won't censor religious speech so long as such expression does not promote hatred. But the sticky point is that, by modern standards, some parts of the Bible itself can be read as hateful to gays -- Leviticus 18:22 being only one example of many. Indeed, it is not an irrational fear to imagine that a Canadian Ake Green might soon stage a public reading of the Old Testament and get thrown into jail as a result… "
(“Censoring the Bible�, National Post, 8/23/2004)

Are we all in agreement this is an example of a knee jerk reactionary Canadian government?

Comments

...is deafening

Yeah, well...maybe the canadians here don't have a big problem with it.



I'll be honest with you, I don't hear/see a lot about it in the news here, either.



And hate literature is hate literature; wrapping it in religion doesn't change it.



s/

And hate literature is hate literature; wrapping it in religion doesn't change it.

Help me slash. Am I to understand that, in your opinion, there are justifications for censorship?

If it promotes hate or encourages direct violent action against a person or group...then I don't have a problem with censoring.



In Canada, unlike the US, our right to free speech is NOT absolute. There are already provisions within our criminal code regarding hate speech in public. The published written word is very public.



Finally, the reason there is probably little commotion around it is that Canadians are used to the gov't forcing laws onto us. We can protest all we want, but that very rarely affects the outcome. Case in point? The gun registry law, which is ineffectual and cost prohibitive and which I feel has done very little to stop gun crimes. (That law gives police very broad powers re: searching a premise, far too broad if you ask me). Before that law was enacted, the NFA (Nat'l firearms assoc, kinda NRA lite)and it's membership fought it, many gun owners who weren't in the NFA fought it but a few years later, what do we have? A gun registry.



If those who dislike this law are lucky, the opposition parties will not support it and thus it will die. Our gov't is in a minority position and has to tread very carefully. In many situations in parliament MPs are expected to vote with their party regardless of what their constituents may be telling them they want...there are very few "free votes" in our House of Commons. If this legislation does pass, it may not survive a Supreme Court challenge (because I'm sure if anyone is charged under it, they'll fight it).



Do I think this law is the perfect way to discourage hate inciting literature? No, it probably isn't. I may seem to be waffling, but really...I'm rather apathetic about the whole thing. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am.



s/

In Canada, unlike the US, our right to free speech is NOT absolute. There are already provisions within our criminal code regarding hate speech in public. The published written word is very public.

Finally, the reason there is probably little commotion around it is that Canadians are used to the gov't forcing laws onto us. We can protest all we want, but that very rarely affects the outcome.
Very, very interesting stuff slash. More so, coming from a Canadian.

I suspect many on this board have been lead to believe by some that Canada's speech/censorship laws are far less draconian than those in the States. At least I have.

To fellow LISNewzies. Any thoughts about the reticence of our resident source of American knee-jerk reactionary vigilance with Canadian censorship? Apathy, timidity, shame?

Again, good stuff slash!

"If it promotes hate or encourages direct violent action against a person or group...then I don't have a problem with censoring."

Saying certain lifestyle choices are not appropriate does not do either one or the other. Blaming actual crimes on someone voicing their opinion is like blaming the torched SUV and turned over cars last night on the Red Sox for having the nerve to win.

I feel stupid. Not the first time nor the last. The reason there is silence on this issue is that this legislation is law and has been since April 2004 when the senate passed it.



It is now part of our criminal code. According to section 319 (3)(b)a person shall not be charged under the act : "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;" This is from the the law on the gov'ts website. Herejustice.gc.ca>.



So that would, ah, really explain the silence! lol



s/

"Very, very interesting stuff slash. More so, coming from a Canadian."



Well, I'm not under too many illusions about the government in my country. But even with all the flaws and problems, I'm still proud to be a Canadian and wouldn't trade that citizenship for any in the world. I can be a patriotic cdn and still criticise my own gov't--it's a long, proud cdn traditon. That doesn't mean we won't "defend" our country if someone disses it or makes fun...



It's a canadian thing, I guess.



I suspect many on this board have been lead to believe by some that Canada's speech/censorship laws are far less draconian than those in the States. At least I have.



I really don't know. I don't see that way, but I don't think they're any more draconian than the US. It could be that where our laws focus are in different areas. If I'm sounding puzzled it's because I am--I guess I've just never thought about our laws in direct comparison to the US (on this issue anyway).



To fellow LISNewzies. Any thoughts about the reticence of our resident source of American knee-jerk reactionary vigilance with Canadian censorship? Apathy, timidity, shame?



Maybe he was waiting to see how long it would take us to realise it was already the law!;)



Again, good stuff slash!



Thanks!



s/ (still kinda embarrassed about this!)