Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Well they strike me as ineffective primarily for two reasons. First of all, I believe that Germany has the strictest "hate laws" of any western country. I believe that it is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Germany. Yet they have a greater problem with neo-fascists than countries with less onerous "hate laws." Secondly, I don't see a marked drop in anti-semitism (the prime target of hate laws) since their inception.

The Hitler-Satan connection is a theory I have been pondering for a while. It's just my opinion but I think as an (ostensibly) secular society we've decided to define absolute evil as Hitler, since, in an (ostensibly) rational society, we can no longer default to metaphysical evil (Satan).

Do we stop hatemongering through hate laws? It's funny, but as far as the Holocasut goes we seem to have (in the words of underrated 80's band The The) forgotten the message and worship the creed. It's acceptable to speak of wiping out Muslims now. I see many people do it on these boards. No one, to my knowledge has been charged or convicted. But speaking similarly of Jews is verboten.

As for your final point, I think that it should be a crime to incite violence (as opposed to hatred) against a group, and the burden of proof should be pretty high (i.e. not just making racist statements).

Just my opinion though. It's not necessairly a good one, but I have thought about it.

   

Jamie, your new avatar is psyching me out!

   

I’m not sure it’s established that Germany has the “strictest” hate laws of any Western nation (other countries deem it illegal to deny the Holocaust as well). You are right, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Germany and so it should it be according to the sovereign laws of that democratic society. Don’t you think that Germany’s unique history has influenced its decisions to be slightly overzealous (that’s debatable) in prosecuting disseminators of hate (please don’t try to suggest that Holocaust deniers are scholars who are somehow modern day Galileos that are being persecuted in their quest for the truth – that’s pure and utter bunk)?



Do they? I’m assuming you have something available to substantiate that assertion.



Firstly, when was their inception? Secondly, do you have something tangible to support that theory?



An interesting theory (perhaps it deserves its own thread), but I won’t entertain the moral relativist stance that Hitler wasn’t a demonic monster (there’s ample evidence to establish that label) whose goal was to acquire living space for Germans at the expense (genocide, if necessary) of “lesser” races. Sorry.



No, but we can combat what education doesn’t eradicate. We must be vigilant or history can and will repeat itself.



Some may have – I haven’t. Besides didn’t the Holocaust start with simple empty platitudes? Weren’t its beginnings based upon ancient hate mongering and racial rhetoric? It didn’t begin with state-sponsored execution centres. It started with words.



No, it’s not acceptable.



I agree, but why shouldn’t someone’s promulgation of hate be prosecuted? Civilized society must act as bulwark against ignorance and intolerance. It’s a legitimate function of the government to keep its citizens free from persecution and the potential for racially based violence. History has clearly demonstrated that promoters of hate don’t always stop at proliferation. Why not confront it earlier as opposed to later?

   

I don't know what this has to do with Ahenakew. Anyway I agree the Indian Act should be abolished but we are not about to change our reserve status until we get half the natural resources in order to create our own economic base..

   

Having municipal status would give the local population greater control over revenue collection and would require fiscal transparency. This is something that is currently lacking from the current system. I was just commenting on an aside dealing with the horrible state of Indian reservations, that sprouted from the Ahenakew thread.

   

As far as fiscal transparency goes, band administrations are required to submit to massive oversight and audits. One of the biggest problems is that Indian Affairs, in order to appease the Canadian Taxpayer, has created an unmanageable amount of paper work. They can't process it all and it gives progressive reserves an enormous handicap when trying to create economic ventures. You must well know that bureaucratic red tape stymies the ability act decisively. I also agree that crooked band leaders and prime ministers should be tarred and feathered.
Each area of the country requires separate consideration when it comes to Indian status because of the different agreements entered into by the crown. Our area is covered by the Robinson Treaties which are an agreement to share the land, not for the resources to be coveted by one party. This also coincides with the Two Row Wampum which was understood by both parties at the time of the treaty.
I am in full agreement that the taxpayer should not be providing funds through Indian Affairs programs. We just want our share of the natural resources. One study out of York University pegs that at $700 billion.
This whole mess was created by bureaucrats who disavowed the agreements because they simply "feel" that there is no contract. Since 1836, for this area, this problem is simply compounded over and over again by ignorance, avarice and greed.
The Federal Crown finds itself in the sticky situation were they know that they have legal and binding agreements with us but in practice have usurped and fraudulantly commandeered all the benefits to themselves. A big part of the problem is that the government can't honour their part of the bargain without admitting they have committed, in actuallity, a crime.
So we find ourselves in the situation where the facts are painfully twisted in order to substantiate the status quo. The amount legal staff retained by Indian Affairs and through the Department of Justice is enormous.
so when you say we should just revert to municipal status, that is exactly the way in which Indian Affairs has manipulated the optics of the situation. That this is the only reasonable recourse. But you forget that our side is supposed to relenquish our treaties. This makes sense for you because you are currently in control of the natural resources however illegally. If the shoe were on the other foot how readily would non-native society give up billions of dollars in revenue. The fact they deny justice to be served shows they won't.

   

I certainly don't think that Holocaust deniers are modern-day Galileo's. If someone wants to deny that the earth revolves around the sun, I don't see the point of making a law against it.



According to the CJC and B'nai Brith anti-semitism incidents have risen, at least according to this source. Thus if the aim of the law is to reduce anti-semitic acts, it has demonstrably failed.


In Germany the National Democratic Party -- a aprty generally associated with the neo-nazi movement -- has fared not too badly in elections in state elections, winning twelve seats in Saxony.




Hitler wasn't a demonic monster. He was thoroughly human.



It already has -- several times in fact. Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia.




Perhaps I should reword: In Canada adn the US today people can make statements with impunity about Muslims that they could well be charged for were similar statements made against a more currently sympathetic minority.





I don't necessarily disagree with you here. My problem with the so-called "hate laws" is not moral in nature, it is that they don't work. If they actually worked I'd be inclined to give them more consideration. If you are going to impose a condition on freedom of speech -- an important right in a free society -- then you should have to demonstrate that that imposition is effective.

Edit: See the latest cartoon (July 10) on the "Bombings Paralyze London" thread. It shows Hitler manifested as -- guess who -- the Devil! More fuel for my Hitler-Satan theory.

   

Good. That was my point.



Bad parallel. Does that thoroughly intellectually stunted view carry a cotemporary political agenda? Does it involve dissemination of hatred towards an identifiable group? Come, it’s a stretch.



Whoa…slow down there. Where does the article state that there is a tangible relationship between “hate” legislation and a rise in anti-Semitic acts (couldn’t I equally conclude that thinks could be much worse without it?)? And now you’ve concluded (in the absence of said correlation) that it’s “demonstrably failed”? It wasn’t designed to eradicate bigotry. That’s not pragmatic. It was (in addition to education initiatives) to act as bulwark against the promulgation of hate and hopefully stop worse actions. If you honestly believe Canada is hotbed of hate-filled acts and that we are somehow slipping towards a situation akin to Germany in the 1930s, then you are indeed right. I don’t think that’s the case and if you read the article, B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights theorizes that anti-Semitic act tend to rise with events in the Middle East. Doesn’t that mean that we should be more vigilant than ever? If international events can impact disseminators of hate, shouldn’t we address these issues at their outset?



Point? You initially wrote, “Yet they have a greater problem with neo-fascists than countries with less onerous "hate laws." Where is the direct correlation? You’ve merely reported that a far right-wing party has had made some electoral gains in Germany. How is it that Germany’s Holocaust legislation is to blame (either as a support or deterrent) for this party’s minor success? Where’s the relationship?



And one that committed horrendous acts against mankind that warrants a label of “monster.” Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, the label is fair one.



Agreed. That’s why we must be vigilant in our domestic affairs regarding facilitation of hate.



Then the onus is on you to demonstrate that they are ineffective. Has Canada systemically become a facilitator of hate (not anecdotal examples)? Is this nation with a mirror image of Germany in the 1930s? Are we approaching some precipice that will plunge us into a society where barbarism, bigotry, intolerance and hate rule the streets, airwaves, print and mouths of Canadians? Come on, we’ve still got a long way to go and I won’t suggest that hate legislation is the only answer, but what societal good (any good?) can come from Zundel’s anti-Semitic filth? Please answer that.

   

I missed that last part – I was reading your link – but if you want to discuss your theory, by all means start a new thread.

   

Zipperfish,

I suggest you research into Hitlers connection to religion and jesus christ in particular.

   

The article noting the rise of anti-semtiic incients in Canada does not make reference to hate-laws. It is me that has made the correlation that hate laws have not reduced anti-semitic acts.



Again, it is I that I have inferred the correlation.



And this is where I vehemently disagree. If the state is are going to pass laws limiting freedom of speech -- a freedom guaranteed in the supreme law of the land, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- then the onus should be on the state to prove that such laws are effective. I have seen nothing justifying these laws, but I have seen evidence that they aren't working.

Stopping drivers at road blocks is another example of a violation of our rights and freedoms (arbitrary arrest). However, there has been a great deal of research done showing that road blocks lessen the incidence of drunk driving and its consequences. Thus I conlcude (as has the Supremem Court, I believe) that since the law is effective and is a relatively minor violation of our Charter rights, it should be allowed.

All I'm asking is that the state make the same case for its "hate laws."

   

That was my point – there is no tangible correlation. Your personal assertion is just that: a personal observation.



See above.



You may “vehemently disagree", if you want – that’s your prerogative. It doesn’t alter the fact that the judiciary and legislature have seen it fit - and this has clearly been in accordance to Charter provisions (you may want to look up section 1) and electoral mandates, or lack of significant constituent dissention - to impose such legislation. It’s not based on your personal observations nor does it need you personal endorsement to be deemed legitimate. It clearly has met specific criteria and you’ve yet to demonstrate the fact that it doesn’t work or that it’s ineffective.



Point? I fully support limited violations of personal freedoms if they can be proven to be a reasonable limitation and demonstrably justifiable.



It has. It’s clearly supported by the electorate and the Charter. It’s legally justifiable and warranted in limiting one’s civil liberties if they can harm society – in fact, even the Supreme Court of Canada has suggested that by enforcing hate legislation, future violence might be avoided.

   

I remember once some one saying that you had the right to free speech, but that right didnt extend to shouting FIRE in a packed theater house though... or something like that

   

Too many people forget that responsibility comes with freedom.

   

Yes it is a personal observation, though is supported by evidence that I have presented (i.e. that hate laws against speech have not reduced racially motivated crimes against Jews in Canada). That, I believe is the essence of reasoned debate.



What are those specific criteria and how has it met them?



Well we agree on that. We disagree on whether or not the hate laws limiting free speech are "demonstrably justifable." I would have no problem with the hate laws limiting free speech if I thought that they worked. In my opinion, and according to the evidence I have presented above, they don't.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next