Utopia Talk / Politics / Canada doesn't have free speech

obaminated Member	Sun Dec 01 16:29:36 http://www...ulted-childs-dignity?_amp=true Jergul and seb will be the only ones justifying this ruling.
Rugian Member	Sun Dec 01 17:01:54 Not exactly all that shocking coming from the country that said this: "Section 13.1 of [Canada's] Human Rights Act...makes it an offence to communicate by phone or Internet any message that is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." [Canadian Human Rights Commission staffer Harvey Goldberg] said the view of the Supreme Court, which has held that Section 13.1 is a justifiable infringement of the right to free expression, is "actually the predominant view among most of the states of the world. The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."" http://www...fends+itself/423135/story.html It's shit like this that makes the US so great in comparison. Whenever some IBTY-type tells me that "the rest of the world thinks the US is so backwards on XYZ," that makes me proud, not ashamed. USA, LAND OF LIBERTY and HOME OF THE FREE!
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Dec 01 18:31:26 Hopefully he can successfully appeal.. for Canada’s sake. If Canada can’t fix this, then the U.S. just inherited more Canadian comedians.
obaminated Member	Sun Dec 01 18:33:30 That's an angle I didn't consider, cc
Pillz Member	Sun Dec 01 21:41:46 We're constition
Pillz Member	Sun Dec 01 21:42:39 Constitutionally one step above the UK. US is the king, but is otherwise a third world shit hole.
Pillz Member	Sun Dec 01 21:43:30 Probably a lesson about how too much freedom is a bad thing in there
Habebe Member	Sun Dec 01 22:17:41 Cannucks are funny.i welcome our hilarious northerners.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 02 01:06:08 Canada has more limits to free speech than the US does in other words. "I think if you remove all the rhetoric, at the base of the debate that's been going on ... is a centuries-old debate about the appropriate role of the state in limiting freedom of expression in certain precise areas." "Likewise, the common complaint that respondents are on the hook for their own defence bills, while complainants have their cases argued by the commission, is dismissed as beyond the commission's sphere of influence. "We don't set the rules. It's for Parliament to decide whether or not respondents should have the ability to recover costs," Mr. Fine said. "Hanging over the entire debate is the spectre of Richard Warman, a former CHRC employee turned activist who was the complainant in all but two of the 13 hate speech cases decided by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which decides cases that cannot be mediated or settled by the commission. "Anyone can file a complaint, so from our perspective, that's the end of the matter," Mr. Fine said. "The tribunal decisions speak for themselves." Ms. Maillet added that the 100% conviction rate for hate speech cases that have reached the tribunal is not a sign of a flawed system, but a testimony to the commission's efficiency. "To me, it is a sign that we have done a good job in screening complaints, and referring those cases to tribunal that have merit," Ms. Maillet said." 13 (of which 11 were by 1 person) cases is not the end of free speech in other words.
Dukhat Member	Mon Dec 02 01:15:54 Fucktard Cuckservatives going to bat for trolls telling despicable jokes. Stupid fucking incels.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Dec 02 02:25:57 I don't think it's fair to call these Québec judges "trolls", but fining someone $35k for telling a joke is certainly its own "despicable [joke]". ;) And it looks like three judges ruled on the case with one dissenting: • Judge Claudine Roy • Judge Geneviève Cotnam • Judge Manon Savard (dissenting) ..It's bold to say that incels can be women (And sure, why not?), but I'm not sure what evidence you considered that these three women may be incels. I can't find any info outside of their academic achievements, so if you mean to call them incels due to their appearances or conduct, just be aware that in Canada, that's discrimination ;) .. This was part of Savard's dissent, btw: Final Court Judgement: http://cou...ent/500-09-026283-168-Jug_.pdf [FR]: « En l’occurrence, et je le dis en tout respect, le juge de première instance («Juge») n’adopte pas le bon cadre d’analyse lorsqu’il conclut que les mis en cause ont été victimes de discrimination de la part de l’appelant, rendant dès lors sa décision déraisonnable, selon le sens donné à cette expression par le droit administratif. Malgré leur caractère choquant et désobligeant, les propos de l'appelant ne véhiculent pas un discours discriminatoireet ne cherchent pas à susciter auprès de son public une croyance selon laquelle la dignité du mis en cause Jérémy Gabriel, en raison de son handicap, est d'une moins grande valeur. L’appelant n’a pas ici agi de façon contraire à l’article 10 de la Charte. » [EN]: "In this case, and I say this with respect, the trial judge ("Judge") does not adopt the correct analytical framework when concluding that the respondents were discriminated against by the appellant, making their decisions unreasonable, according to the meaning given to that expression [(i.e., "discrimination" as opposed to "defamation")] by administrative law. Despite their shocking and disparaging nature, the appellant's words do not convey a discriminatory discourse and do not seek to provoke a public belief that the dignity of the complainant, Jérémy Gabriel — due to his disability — is of less value. The appellant did not act here contrary to Article 10 of the Charter." She's basically saying that the other judges ruled based on defamation — which they have no authority to rule upon — rather than actual discrimination. She described the bar to be much higher for discrimination.
patom Member	Mon Dec 02 04:51:48 Does this mean that all Newfie jokes are now banned?????
Paramount Member	Mon Dec 02 06:14:31 What did the comedian say? I read the article but it only said that he told a joke about a disbaled guy who also happened to be a celebrity. But it doesn’t tell what the joke was. Maybe I missed it?
jergul large member	Mon Dec 02 06:38:12 Para It was not one joke. It was part of the comedian's material at least between 2010-2013. His target was 13-17 at the time. The cut-off year corresponds with the target becoming an adult. I don't think that is a coincidence.
hood Member	Mon Dec 02 07:37:37 Of course jergul supports criminalizing jokes.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 02 08:10:55 I do not really know enough about the specifics, but do in general think minors should be afforded more protection than adults. I am pretty sure I would not support criminalizing jokes under any circumstance, as I think a civic type process is more appropriate.
patom Member	Mon Dec 02 09:01:21 Trump has sold 500 septic tanks to Newfoundland. As soon as they learn how to drive them they will attack Quebec.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Dec 02 10:10:45 Cuckhat opposes free speech simply because conservatives like free speech. What a fucking retard.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Dec 02 10:40:11 [Paramount]: "What did the comedian say?" Translating the court ruling (skip to [18] of the English part): [FR]: "[14] De septembre 2010 à mars 2013, l’appelant présente un spectacle intitulé «Mike Ward s’eXpose». Il y parle notamment de tolérance, de racisme et de religion. L’un des numéros de ce spectacle, «Les Intouchables», porte sur ce qu’il décrit comme des «vaches sacrées» du milieu artistique québécois, c'est-à-dire des personnalités dont on ne peut rire car elles sont trop riches ou influentes, attirent la sympathie du public, pour de bonnes ou mauvaises raisons, ou encore, comme il le dit dans son spectacle, «[...]que si y’apprennent que je fais des jokes sur eux autres j’suis dans marde». Le plaignant est l’un d’eux, tout comme MM. Guy A. Lepage, Louis-José Houde, René Angélil, Grégory Charles, Jacques Languirand, l’appelant, de même que Mmes Ariane Moffatt et Céline Dion. "[15]À l’égard de chacun d’eux, l’appelant souligne des caractéristiques physiques qu’il estime distinctives. Les termes utilisés sont crus, méchants et sans nuances. Le Juge résume le passage portant sur le plaignant dans les termes suivants: [18] Dans son spectacle, monsieur Ward parle du «petit Jérémy», «le jeune avec le subwoofer» sur la tête. Il dit avoir pris sa défense auprès de ceux qui «chialaient» qu’il «chantait mal», leur disant «Y’est mourant, laissez-le vivre son rêve». Soulignant que «5 ans plus tard... y’est pas encore mort !», monsieur Ward dit l’avoir croisé «dans un Club Piscine» et «avoir essayé de le noyer» pour finalement constater qu’«y est pas tuable». Il résume ensuite la maladie de Jérémy en disant «Y’est lette!» Le numéro se termine par la déclaration suivante: «J’savais pas jusqu’où je pouvais aller avec ce gag-là. Je me suis dit à un moment donné, je vais aller trop loin, ils vont arrêter de rire. Non, vous n’avez pas décroché... gang de...». "[16]Outre ce spectacle, présenté à plus de deux cents occasions et accessible en format DVD ou par téléchargement, l’appelant réalise trois capsules humoristiques, diffusées sur son site Web, qui concernent le plaignant. Dans l’une d’elles, produite à l’occasion du lancement de l’autobiographie de ce dernier, le Juge retient que l’appelant insinue que la mère du plaignant aurait utilisé son argent pour s’acheter des biens de luxe au lieu de lui permettre d’avoir une opération." [EN]: "[14] From September 2010 to March 2013, the appellant presented a show entitled "Mike Ward Exposes Himself". He talks about tolerance, racism, and religion. One of the acts of this show, "The Untouchables", is about what he describes as "sacred cows" of the Québec artistic community, that is to say, personalities that we cannot laugh at because they are too rich or influential, attract the sympathy of the public, for good or bad reasons, or, as he says in his show, "[...] that if they learn that I make jokes about them, I'm in the shit". The complainant is one of them, as are Mr. Guy A. Lepage, Louis-José Houde, René Angélil, Grégory Charles, Jacques Languirand, the appellant himself, as well as Ariane Moffatt, and Céline Dion. "[15] With respect to each of them, the appellant emphasizes physical characteristics that he considers to be distinctive. The terms used are crude, nasty and without nuance. The Judge summarizes the passage on the plaintiff in the following words: [18] In his show, Mr. Ward speaks of "little Jeremy", "the youngster with a subwoofer" on his head. He said that Jeremy had defended himself from those who were "crying" that he was "singing badly," telling them "[If] I'm dying, let me live my dream". Stressing that "5 years later ... he's not dead yet!", Mr. Ward said he had crossed Jeremy "in a pool club" and "tried to drown" him only to finally find that "he's not killable". He then sums up Jérémy's illness by saying "He's Latvian!" The act ends with the following statement: "I did not know how far I could go with that gag. I thought at one point, I'm going to go too far, they'll stop laughing. No, you haven't gone far enough... go further ... " "[16] In addition to this show, which has been presented over two hundred times and is available in DVD format or by download, the appellant produced three humorous shorts on his website concerning the complainant. In one of these, produced on the occasion of the launching of the autobiography of the latter, the Judge notes that the appellant insinuates that the complainant's mother would have used his money to buy herself luxury goods instead of allowing him to have surgery." -=- Mike Ward wrote out the full thing for his Facebook, since the judge shortened it in [18]: http://www.facebook.com/MikeWardca/posts/10153846523883590/ [FR]: « Cinq ans plus tard, y est pas encore mort! Il meurt pas, le petit tabarnak! Moi, je le défendais, comme un cave. Et lui, y meurt pas. Moi, je te défends: toi, tu crèves, câliss. Asti de sans-cœur ! Y est pas tuable! Je l’ai vu aux glissades d’eau à Bromont, l’été dernier, j’ai essayé de le noyer. Pas capable, pas capable! Je suis allé voir sur internet, pour voir c’est quoi, sa maladie. Sais-tu c’est quoi qui a ? Y est lette, esti !!! » [EN]: "Five years later, he's not dead yet! He does not die, the little tabarnak*! Me, I was defending him, like a sucker. And he, he still hasn't died. Me, I defend you: you, you die, you fuckup. Heartless shit**! You're not killable! I saw him at the water slides in Bromont, last summer, I tried to drown him. I wasn't able, I wasn't able! I went to see on the Internet, to see what it is, his illness. Do you know what is it? He's Latvian !!!" *« Tabarnak » is a profanity modifier in Québec French.. Literally it's just "a holy place", but for profanity as a noun it has the umph of English words like "fucker", "shithead", or "fuckface". **« Asti » .. another common Québec French swear. They swear using words from Catholic Mass because they're losers. It literally means "holy bread", but it translates here like "asshole", "shit", or "cocksucker".
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Dec 02 11:12:57 Oops! I messed up the punchline. « Lette » is “Latvian” in France French, but in Québec it’s slang for « laid » which means “ugly”... so, “He’s ugly !!!”
hood Member	Mon Dec 02 11:57:14 It's actually funnier as Latvian, not ugly.
Dukhat Member	Mon Dec 02 12:35:17 Nice that Cherub got so triggered, he made some bizarre and long argument noone will ever read.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Dec 02 18:52:25 [Dukhat]: "some bizarre and long argument noone will ever read." "Bizarre"? Sure, since I was pretending not to know who you were calling names. But "long"? Removing the things that I copied and pasted, my argument ("I don't think ... that's discrimination ;)") was about 100 words. If *that's* "long".. yikes.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: