Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jun '14 19:13 / 3 edits
    I'm sure these exist throughout Canada, but I happen to have found this clause:

    Discrimination re publications, notices

    3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
    published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
    publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
    that

    (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate
    against a person or a class of persons, or

    (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred
    or contempt

    because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical
    disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital
    status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that
    person or class of persons.

    (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the
    free expression of opinion on any subject.


    http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A25P5.pdf

    Holy moly!

    A law passed in a county with freedom of speech on a level substantially as high as any other country in the world makes it illegal to display any statement that indicates an intention to discriminate (among all of the other ramifications).

    If I put up a flier in a Calgary social club that I'm starting a Thursday night poker game but that Asian people are not invited, I have committed an offense against the law.

    If I say on a call-in radio show that I'd never vote for a straight person for Parliament, I've violated the law.

    If I call back the same radio show and say that old people make lousy employees and so I'd never hire one, I have violated the law (seemingly regardless of whether I have ever actually hired an employee).

    Thank goodness for Section 2 at least, but even with the qualification, the law seems just horrifying.

    When did these governments pass these anti-free speech laws and why haven't we been paying attention to them?
  2. 27 Jun '14 19:40
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm sure these exist throughout Canada, but I happen to have found this clause:

    [b]Discrimination re publications, notices

    3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
    published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
    publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
    that

    (a) indicates discriminat ...[text shortened]... e governments pass these anti-free speech laws and why haven't we been paying attention to them?
    Liberals are in charge in Canada so it is only natural that freedom of speech should only apply to certain kinds of speech and not others.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jun '14 19:53
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Liberals are in charge in Canada so it is only natural that freedom of speech should only apply to certain kinds of speech and not others.
    Nah; that's a cop out. The Harper government is not any more liberal than the Obama government.

    I think this is more about creeping political correctness than it is a con/lib thing.
  4. 27 Jun '14 19:57
    Originally posted by sh76
    Nah; that's a cop out. The Harper government is not any more liberal than the Obama government.

    I think this is more about creeping political correctness than it is a con/lib thing.
    It isn't a cop out at all. Canada doesn't have the number of conservatives that keep the liberals here in check. If Conservatives didn't stand up to Obama you better believe we'd have similar laws here. Just look at what Obama is trying to do to the Redskins.
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    27 Jun '14 20:13
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm sure these exist throughout Canada, but I happen to have found this clause:

    [b]Discrimination re publications, notices

    3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
    published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
    publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
    that

    (a) indicates discriminat ...[text shortened]... e governments pass these anti-free speech laws and why haven't we been paying attention to them?
    No, apart from statement 2
    (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
    which interferes with the duty of judges to interpret the law I don't think you should get excited. The law of libel interferes with the right to free speech. That right isn't absolute, in fact no rights are absolute including the right to life. When it comes to court it is up to the Judge or Jury depending on the rules to decide on whose right should have precedence in such cases where there is a conflict.
  6. 27 Jun '14 20:21
    Does this mean books like White Girl Bleed A Lot will be banned in Canada?
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jun '14 21:00
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    No, apart from statement 2
    (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
    which interferes with the duty of judges to interpret the law I don't think you should get excited. The law of libel interferes with the right to free speech. That right isn't absolute, in fact no rights ...[text shortened]... e rules to decide on whose right should have precedence in such cases where there is a conflict.
    I understand that free speech isn't absolute and that courts can use their discretion but damn, that's a broadly worded law. Obviously, Canada isn't bound by the US Constitution's First Amendment, but I have no doubt that an American law of the same language would be struck down as overbroad. And yes, it bothers me when a government has so little regard for freedom of speech that it's willing to pass a law that is that broad in its restrictions on expression; quite apart from how it's actually enforced.
  8. 27 Jun '14 22:06
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm sure these exist throughout Canada, but I happen to have found this clause:

    [b]Discrimination re publications, notices

    3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
    published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
    publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
    that

    (a) indicates discriminat ...[text shortened]... e governments pass these anti-free speech laws and why haven't we been paying attention to them?
    The section goes on to say:

    (3)
    Subsection (1) does not apply to
    (a) the display of a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other
    representation displayed to identify facilities customarily
    used by one gender,
    (b) the display or publication by or on behalf of an
    organization that
    (i) is composed exclusively or primarily of persons
    having the same political or religious beliefs,
    ancestry or place of origin, and
    (ii) is not operated for private profit,
    of a statement, publication,
    notice, sign, symbol, emblem
    or other representation indicating a purpose or
    membership qualification
    of the organization, or
    (c) the display or publication of a form of application or an
    advertisement that may be used, circulated or published
    pursuant to section 8(2),
    if the statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other
    representation is not derogatory, offensive or otherwise improper.
    RSA 2000 cH-14 s3;2009 c26 s4

    end quote.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jun '14 22:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    The section goes on to say:

    (3)
    Subsection (1) does not apply to
    (a) the display of a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other
    representation displayed to identify facilities customarily
    used by one gender,
    (b) the display or publication by or on behalf of an
    organization that
    (i) is composed exclusively or primarily of persons
    having the same politica ...[text shortened]... s not derogatory, offensive or otherwise improper.
    RSA 2000 cH-14 s3;2009 c26 s4

    end quote.
    None of those qualifications are of much comfort.

    (a) just exempts single gender signs in something like a locker room or a rest room. Not a big deal.

    (b) seems to exempt church statements that could be considered derogatory towards other religions or recruiting signs for your organization. Again, a fairly narrow exemption.

    (c) contains an incredible exception to the exception that fails to protect anything "derogatory, offensive or otherwise improper"


    If anything, the narrowness of the exceptions proves the intended broadness of the rule.
  10. 27 Jun '14 23:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    None of those qualifications are of much comfort.

    (a) just exempts single gender signs in something like a locker room or a rest room. Not a big deal.

    (b) seems to exempt church statements that could be considered derogatory towards other religions or recruiting signs for your organization. Again, a fairly narrow exemption.

    (c) contains an incredible e ...[text shortened]... r"


    If anything, the narrowness of the exceptions proves the intended broadness of the rule.
    (b) seems broader than you say, but I'll sit back and see where this goes.
  11. 28 Jun '14 00:42
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm sure these exist throughout Canada, but I happen to have found this clause:

    [b]Discrimination re publications, notices

    3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
    published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
    publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
    that

    (a) indicates discriminat ...[text shortened]... e governments pass these anti-free speech laws and why haven't we been paying attention to them?
    Would Sh76 have any objection to Germany amending its laws to permit
    free speech in support of Hitler and the Nazis?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '14 00:50
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Would Sh76 have any objection to Germany amending its laws to permit
    free speech in support of Hitler and the Nazis?
    I certainly wouldn't. I would say laws that ban such speech are in violation of individual Natural Rights.
  13. 28 Jun '14 22:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Would Sh76 have any objection to Germany amending its laws to permit
    free speech in support of Hitler and the Nazis?
    I have no problems with it. I am sickened by that Nazi like government that would take away free speech.
  14. 28 Jun '14 22:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I have no problems with it. I am sickened by that Nazi like government that would take away free speech.
    Eladar seems unaware of the irony (to say the least) in his denouncing
    the Federal Republic of Germany's current government as 'Nazi like'.
    While Germany today may be more authoritarian from the utopia preferred
    by a laissez-faire capitalist American, it's not close to the Third Reich.

    At the ongoing World Cup (football) in Brazil, there was a recent controversy
    about the exhibition (along with other uniforms) of a 1934 German team uniform.
    If I recall correctly, the uniform has a swastika, which offended some people.
    So what would they like to do? Remove the swastika from the uniform?
    Or attempt to cover up every surviving artifact from the Third Reich period?
    But this incident shows the extreme sensitivity that many people still have
    toward any symbol related to the Third Reich.

    The Second World War ended almost seventy years ago. There are very
    few Germans living today who have any more than childhood memories of
    the war. I would at least advise the modern German authorities to ease
    legal restrictions on speaking (or showing symbols) related to the Nazis
    *in a historical context*. I believe that it's better to attempt the grasp
    all historical facts as completely and honestly as possible rather than to
    act as those facts did not exist by attempting to conceal their symbols.
  15. 29 Jun '14 00:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm sure these exist throughout Canada, but I happen to have found this clause:

    [b]Discrimination re publications, notices

    3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
    published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
    publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
    that

    (a) indicates discriminat ...[text shortened]... e governments pass these anti-free speech laws and why haven't we been paying attention to them?
    Essentially everything is illegal now sh. That way they can pick on those whom they wish and ignore those that they have no interest in.