snell@utzoo.UUCP (Richard Snell) (02/15/86)
Clayton Cramer ( cramer@kontron.UUCP), in a followup to a statement (in net.columbia) to the effect that governmental censorship of the media in Canada is equivalent to media censorship in the USSR, writes (in net.columbia): >What about that guy the Canadian Government sent to prison for publishing >the claim that the Holocaust didn't happen? Two years in prison, I believe >was the sentence. If that isn't political censorship, what is? Hmmm. Perhaps. Hate censorship is a better way to put it. The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly and repeatedly that 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature and supports and is financially supported by a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting hatred against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) It is certainly not clear to this reader why such an example equates the censorship of the media in Canada to the USSR. As other submissions have indicated, there is no such equivalence. This IS getting REALLY off topic (this stuff is in net.columbia???). I have posted this to net.politics, as well. Please send any followups there. Thanks. -- Name: Richard Snell Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!snell
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/18/86)
> Clayton Cramer ( cramer@kontron.UUCP), in a followup to a statement > (in net.columbia) to the effect that governmental censorship > of the media in Canada is equivalent to media censorship in the USSR, > writes (in net.columbia): > > >What about that guy the Canadian Government sent to prison for publishing > >the claim that the Holocaust didn't happen? Two years in prison, I believe > >was the sentence. If that isn't political censorship, what is? > > Hmmm. Perhaps. Hate censorship is a better way to put it. > Politics and hate are inseparable (at least the way most politicians practice it). > The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi > who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly > and repeatedly that American law recognizes that the right of free speech applies even to those illegally in our country. What's Canada afraid of? > 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. > 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. > 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. > This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature > and supports and is financially supported by > a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting hatred > against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. > (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) > Just because his beliefs are repugnant doesn't justify throwing someone in jail for expressing those beliefs. That's something that totalitarian governments do. > It is certainly not clear to this reader why such an example equates the > censorship of the media in Canada to the USSR. As other submissions have > indicated, there is no such equivalence. > 2 + 2 == 5 It doesn't matter how many people say it -- it's still not true. Your arguments above are arguments in favor of suppressing ANYTHING that is generally held to be offensive. How do differentiate this attitude from the more extreme form of the idea used by totalitarian governments. > This IS getting REALLY off topic (this stuff is in net.columbia???). I have > posted this to net.politics, as well. Please send any followups there. > Thanks. > -- This started out as someone's inaccurate comparision of the Canadian and Soviet news media (something *I* certainly wouldn't do) coverage of the Space Shuttle accident -- there is method to the madness. > Name: Richard Snell > Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto > Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 > UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!snell Clayton Cramer
jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) (02/20/86)
In article <514@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >What about that guy the Canadian Government sent to prison for publishing >> >the claim that the Holocaust didn't happen? Two years in prison, I believe >> >was the sentence. If that isn't political censorship, what is? >> >> Hmmm. Perhaps. Hate censorship is a better way to put it. >> > >Politics and hate are inseparable (at least the way most politicians >practice it). > >> The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi >> who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly >> and repeatedly that > ^ |____ As I recall the used to be some more information here that has been edited out. In effect this extra stuff said that Mr. Zundel was not prosecuted for what he said. >American law recognizes that the right of free speech applies even to >those illegally in our country. What's Canada afraid of? > >> 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. >> 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. >> 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. >> This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature >> and supports and is financially supported by >> a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting hatred >> against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. >> (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) >> > >Just because his beliefs are repugnant doesn't justify throwing someone in >jail for expressing those beliefs. That's something that totalitarian >governments do. You are missing the point again. He was jailed for inciting hatred. We are not just talking about someone that says bad things, we are talking about someone that encourages others to hate people. > >> It is certainly not clear to this reader why such an example equates the >> censorship of the media in Canada to the USSR. As other submissions have >> indicated, there is no such equivalence. >> > >2 + 2 == 5 > >It doesn't matter how many people say it -- it's still not true. Your >arguments above are arguments in favor of suppressing ANYTHING that is >generally held to be offensive. How do differentiate this attitude from >the more extreme form of the idea used by totalitarian governments. > >> This IS getting REALLY off topic (this stuff is in net.columbia???). I have >> posted this to net.politics, as well. Please send any followups there. >> Thanks. >> -- > >This started out as someone's inaccurate comparision of the Canadian and >Soviet news media (something *I* certainly wouldn't do) coverage of the >Space Shuttle accident -- there is method to the madness. This had nothing to do with Canadian or Soviet coverage of the shuttle incident. It had to do with someone being upset about the junk coming across on the American networks. This person was then told "If you want your news controlled why don't you go somewhere like Canada or the Soviet Union..." > >> Name: Richard Snell >> Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto >> Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 >> UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!snell > >Clayton Cramer Jim Boritz Waterloo, Ontario. Home of Censorship and Media control. jjboritz@watnot.UUCP
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (02/21/86)
Dear Readers, in the continuing saga of net.politics we have two protagonists battling it out over the issue: "Political censorship in Canada - does it exist and does anyone really know?" If you're missed the preceding episodes of this melodrama here is a capsule summary: >> >> Richard Snells argument that Zundel is a dispicable individual >> and that he was convicted of trying to incite hatred >> > > Clayton Cramers argument that no one should be convicted on the > basis of their distateful beliefs > My 2 cents follows: Clayton, you misunderstand the point of the charge and the conviction. Richard Snell has apparently fumbled the explanation so here's my attempt to set the record straight. Zundel was not charged with "doing something distasteful". Neither was he indicted for his beliefs. The charge leveled at him was something to the effect of "Trying to promote hatred". To convict him they had to prove: 1) That what was he was saying was incorrect. 2) That he knew it was incorrect. 3) That his intent was to promote hatred against some group of people. As you can see, this law is not an attempt to supress something distasteful but rather to outlaw something that is potentially damaging to the "health of the society". The often used analogy is that of yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre, this is a clearly dangerous practice and should only be done when the theatre is actually on fire - thus the necessity of proving statement 1. You can argue that this isn't as free as it could be, that it represses the individual - and you would be correct. But no society allows total freedom for the individual. Total freedom would allow one to commit murder without the state intervening or without it being obligated to attempt retribution (justice). In a totally free society there would be no traffic lights or speed limits. Clearly, some restrictions on personal freedoms are a necessary compromise for living in any large society. In Canada we've decided that promoting hatred against religious/racial/(or any other identifable groups), is a detriment to the society as a whole and should therefore be controlled. The only reasonable questions that you could ask of this law are: "Does it restrict the freedoms of the individual too much?" and "Does this law actually benefit the society enough to justify it?". Canadians have decided NO (to the first question) and YES (to the second). You probably differ on this judgment but then you're entitled to your own opinions. As to whether Canada practices political censorship, that is not at issue in the above case. But while we're on the topic, do you remember good old Senator McCarthy? It seems to me that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"(:-))! If you have a real case of political censorship in Canada I'd be interested to hear it. I suspect however, that you were misled by Snells discourse, and I hope that my misleading diatribe clarifies the issue :-). Ken Hruday University of Alberta
cramer@kontron.UUCP (02/24/86)
> In article <514@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> >What about that guy the Canadian Government sent to prison for publishing > >> >the claim that the Holocaust didn't happen? Two years in prison, I believe > >> >was the sentence. If that isn't political censorship, what is? > >> > >> Hmmm. Perhaps. Hate censorship is a better way to put it. > >> > > > >Politics and hate are inseparable (at least the way most politicians > >practice it). > > > >> The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi > >> who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly > >> and repeatedly that > > > ^ > |____ As I recall the used to be some more > information here that has been edited > out. > > In effect this extra stuff said that Mr. Zundel was not prosecuted for > what he said. > If he wasn't prosecuted for what he wrote, why was it relevant that he wrote a book claiming the Holocaust didn't happen? That's why it WAS an issue. > >American law recognizes that the right of free speech applies even to > >those illegally in our country. What's Canada afraid of? > > > >> 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. > >> 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. > >> 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. > >> This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature > >> and supports and is financially supported by > >> a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting hatred > >> against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. > >> (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) > >> > > > >Just because his beliefs are repugnant doesn't justify throwing someone in > >jail for expressing those beliefs. That's something that totalitarian > >governments do. > > You are missing the point again. He was jailed for inciting hatred. > We are not just talking about someone that says bad things, we are talking > about someone that encourages others to hate people. > Care to give me a clear distinction between Zundel inciting hatred and a Marxist promoting "class struggle"? > > > >> It is certainly not clear to this reader why such an example equates the > >> censorship of the media in Canada to the USSR. As other submissions have > >> indicated, there is no such equivalence. > >> > > > >2 + 2 == 5 > > > >It doesn't matter how many people say it -- it's still not true. Your > >arguments above are arguments in favor of suppressing ANYTHING that is > >generally held to be offensive. How do differentiate this attitude from > >the more extreme form of the idea used by totalitarian governments. > > > > > >> Name: Richard Snell > >> Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto > >> Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 > >> UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!snell > > > >Clayton Cramer > > Jim Boritz Waterloo, Ontario. Home of Censorship and Media control. > > jjboritz@watnot.UUCP Clayton Cramer "Television evangelism is to evangelism as television journalism is to journalism."
cramer@kontron.UUCP (02/24/86)
> > Dear Readers, in the continuing saga of net.politics we have two > protagonists battling it out over the issue: "Political censorship > in Canada - does it exist and does anyone really know?" If you're missed > the preceding episodes of this melodrama here is a capsule summary: > > >> > >> Richard Snells argument that Zundel is a dispicable individual > >> and that he was convicted of trying to incite hatred > >> > > > > Clayton Cramers argument that no one should be convicted on the > > basis of their distateful beliefs > > > > My 2 cents follows: > > Clayton, you misunderstand the point of the charge and the conviction. Richard > Snell has apparently fumbled the explanation so here's my attempt to set > the record straight. Zundel was not charged with "doing something distasteful". > Neither was he indicted for his beliefs. The charge leveled at him was > something to the effect of "Trying to promote hatred". > To convict him they had to prove: > > 1) That what was he was saying was incorrect. > 2) That he knew it was incorrect. > 3) That his intent was to promote hatred against some group of people. > > As you can see, this law is not an attempt to supress something distasteful > but rather to outlaw something that is potentially damaging to the "health > of the society". The often used analogy is that of yelling fire in a crowded > movie theatre, this is a clearly dangerous practice and should only be done > when the theatre is actually on fire - thus the necessity of proving > statement 1. The first use of this argument *I've* ever seen was in an opinion by a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He was arguing in favor of a law that prohibited distributing anti-draft literature during World War I! Have I made my point about the dangers of giving the government too much discretion in deciding what is dangerous? The Soviet Union uses similar reasoning to lock up people for "slandering the Soviet state" -- and we all recognize how dangerous giving that much decision making authority to the state is. > You can argue that this isn't as free as it could be, that it represses > the individual - and you would be correct. But no society allows total > freedom for the individual. Total freedom would allow one to commit murder > without the state intervening or without it being obligated to attempt > retribution (justice). In a totally free society there would be no traffic > lights or speed limits. Clearly, some restrictions on personal freedoms are a > necessary compromise for living in any large society. In Canada we've > decided that promoting hatred against religious/racial/(or any other > identifable groups), is a detriment to the society as a whole and should > therefore be controlled. Oh? You prohibit Marxists from distributing literature that calls for "class struggle"? People can't write articles criticizing the practice of trade unionism? I believe the Canadian law only prohibits promoting hatred against groups based on race, religion, and national origin. Why not the Marxists as well? > The only reasonable questions that you could ask of this law are: > "Does it restrict the freedoms of the individual too much?" and "Does this > law actually benefit the society enough to justify it?". Canadians have > decided NO (to the first question) and YES (to the second). You probably > differ on this judgment but then you're entitled to your own opinions. Clearly, human rights are a national decision. And if the people of a central European power decide that exterminating Jews maximizes the benefit to society without too much of a law of individual liberties, that MUST be OK. :-) Seriously, when human rights are reduced to something that can be decided by a purely democratic decision, you have to watch out that you don't fall down the slippery slope to totalitarianism. > As to whether Canada practices political censorship, that is not > at issue in the above case. But while we're on the topic, do you remember > good old Senator McCarthy? It seems to me that "those who live in glass > houses shouldn't throw stones"(:-))! If you have a real case of political > censorship in Canada I'd be interested to hear it. I suspect however, that > you were misled by Snells discourse, and I hope that my misleading diatribe > clarifies the issue :-). > Ken Hruday > University of Alberta I wasn't arguing that our own house was completely in order. Someone on the net tried to claim that there was no political censorship in Canada. No, they just lock people up for publishing books that get people angry.
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/26/86)
In article <514@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Just because his beliefs are repugnant doesn't justify throwing someone in >jail for expressing those beliefs. That's something that totalitarian >governments do. First of all, it was a unanimous jury conviction, so it wasn't just a "government" action. More importantly, Zundel was not convicted because his beliefs are repugnant. He was convicted for publishing false statements, known by him to be false, which were seen as a threat to society. The claim that the Holocaust is a hoax isn't made in isolation. It's made together with the allegation that the Holocaust was "dreamed up" by Jews to get money out of Germany. That is equivalent to calling all Jews thieves and liars, and goes, in many people's opinions, beyond the legitimate bounds of free speech and into group libel. The below is an article I posted some months ago. Since the issue has arisen again and some people now on the net obviously haven't seen it, here is it again. ''''''''''''''''''''' Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal,can.politics Subject: Hate literature laws no violation of freedom of speech References: <195@pyuxh.UUCP> <10451@ucbvax.ARPA> Rick McGeer has expressed the opinion that convictions under the Criminal Code of Canada for publishing hate literature or for publishing false news are a violation of the right of freedom of speech under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not agree. The following column appeared in The National, the newspaper of the Canadian Bar Association, September 1985 (p. 37). It was written by Albert S. Frank, a lawyer in Edmonton. Reprinted with permission. * * * * * * The recent prosecution and convictions of Mr. Zundel and Mr. Keegstra have dramatically brought to public attention the laws concerning hate literature. In reaction to these events, Mr. Monopoli, in the May 1985 issue of The National, wrote an article suggesting that such prosecutions violate the principle of freedom of speech ("Zundel's conviction could be Pyrrhic Victory"). In his opinion, no matter how obnoxious and repugnant hate literature might be, people should have the freedom to create and spread such material. However, I wish to suggest that it is perfectly consistent with our respect for freedom of speech to prosecute hate propagandists. It is inherent in the notion of human rights that the rights of an individual must be restricted for the sake of other individuals. Your right to freedom of action must be limited out of respect for my rights. If we allowed you a completely unfettered right of freedom of action, you could physically attack me or violate my rights in other ways. Surely a respect for your rights does not require an utter contempt for my rights. If we take the contrary view, that your right to freedom of action is absolute, then we are saying that I have no right, not even a right to live, since you could use your absolute freedom of action to murder me if you wished. A general respect for human rights therefore requires that rights be restricted, not absolute. Like other rights, freedom of speech can be abused to harm others. A person who uses words to threaten physical violence to get money is committing robbery, and thereby violating the rights of the victim, every bit as much as if he said nothing and, instead, waved a weapon and gestured at his victim's wallet. The criminal law makes this and other abuses of freedom of speech illegal. Hate literature is another abuse of freedom of speech which violates the rights of its victims and can therefore properly be restricted. Hate literature violates a right which our common law has long recognized, a person's right in his reputation. According to the well-established law of defamation, a person has a right to legal protection from those who would attack his reputation, just as he has a right to legal protection against those who would attack his person. According to Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.), "Defamation is that which tends to injure reputation; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him ... unprivileged publication of false statements." Thus, the common law recognizes that the right of freedom of speech does not extend to permit a person to violate the rights of his victim by making false derogatory statements about him. Even politicians, who deliberately put themselves in the public eye and involve themselves in public controversy, are entitled to such protection, as is illustrated by the case of _Christie v. Geiger et al._ (Dec. 4, 1984, Alta. Q.B., Foisy J.). If an individual is entitled to protection against defamation, surely a large group of individuals should be entitled to protection as well. Unfortunately, our civil law is not presently a very useful tool for the protection of the rights of groups. In Canada there are severe restrictions on class action lawsuits. Furthermore, the law of defamation itself is designed for the protection of the individual plaintiff, not the group of plaintiffs. As was stated recently in the case of _Booth v. B.C.T.V. Broadcasting System_, 139 D.L.R.(3d) 88 at 92, in cases where the words complained of are clearly defamatory the issue "is whether the words were published of and concerning the particular plaintiff who is claiming." If the civil law cannot protect against a violation of the rights of groups of citizens, then it is appropriate for the criminal law to do so. It is especially important to do so since hate literature has the potential to cause much greater harm than an attack on a particular individual. Few people in human history have faced death because of defamatory statements made particularly against them but millions of people have been killed because they happened to belong to an ethnic or religious group which had been the object of hate propaganda. However, even leaving aside the most extreme results of hate literature, it would be absurd if a man could sue to protect his reputation from an accusation of selling shoddy merchandise, but he and his fellow victims could not obtain either civil or criminal protection against defamatory statements accusing them of every evil act known to mankind and of being behind every disaster which has befallen the human race in the last few centuries. Nor should we fear that hate literature laws will inhibit proper discussion of public issues. A true statement, however harsh, may always be stated. Furthermore, the discussion of public issues does not require personal attacks. A person could not be sued or prosecuted for a scathing and inaccurate criticism of government policy. A citizen has the right to be wrong about a public issue. However, if a person goes beyond saying that he thinks a policy is wrong, foolish or appalling and makes personal attacks on the politicians promoting these policies, he may be sued and rightly so. Our devotion to democratic discussion does not require that we permit false _ad hominem_ attacks on politicians or on anybody else. The same principles justify the civil law of defamation and the criminal laws concerning hate literature; they stand or fall together. Those who are of the opinion that hate literature is an unacceptable restriction of freedom of speech must, to be consistent, urge that the tort of defamation be abolished for precisely the same reason. It is possible to believe that our defamation and hate literature laws are acceptable in principle but unsatisfactory in practice. I have spoken to many people who think that it would be better to sue hat propagandists than to prosecute them, a view which I share. The civil law should be reformed to allow class action lawsuits against those who defame groups. Until or unless the civil law is reformed, it is good that the criminal law is available. We must not forget the seriousness of group defamation. The fact that the hate propagandists use words in their attacks does not make their behaviour any less a violation of rights or any less serious than smashing synagogue windows or burning a cross on a lawn. * * * * * * (The National, Canadian Bar Association, September 1985. Copied with permission.) Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) (02/26/86)
Just a few things I would like to say. In the U.S. and in Canada , parents have had books banned from the high school cirriculum. In the state of Texas, all science texts which mention evolution are required to have a disclaimer in them which says that the theory of evolution is just a theory and is not supported by any scientific fact. In fact some publishers have gone so far as to remove the theory of evolution from their textbooks altogether. Because the state of Texas buys so many textbooks, and because they are very vocal about what they do and do not want to see in these textbooks many publishers, have altered their texts. Of course these publishers do not print special Texan editions, and thus the entire country is provided with textbooks that conform to ideals and morals of those in Texas. Of course you keep implying that the U.S. does not prosecute people for their beliefs. In fact you even go to the point of saying, why do we then not prosecute Marxists. But the U.S. did prosecute Marxists, and other :-) Commie Pinko's :-} I belive this is what was done by Senator McCarthy. Of course no one has replied to this. Here I go again, but no one has a monopoly on censorship. Every country in the world has censorship. The only difference is how pronounced it is. A lot of this began becuase some one said that Canada has lots of censorship and implied that there is close to no censorship in the U.S. :-] the only difference between censorship anywhere, is how well it is done (-: . As for Mr. Zundel a lot of Jewish people in Toronto did not think he should have been prosecuted. They felt that it simply brought more light on the matter, and that people that already believed what he was saying would not stop believing it just because he was found guilty by a court. They also thought that the trial gave him more publicity, and a higher profile than he had before. This allowed him to become a *celebrity* and made more people aware of his nonsense than would have been aware otherwise. I personally have a hard time saying that it was wrong to prosecute him. What would you do if someone said that world war II never happened. Hitler never existed, and never tried to take over the world. What would you do if someone said that americans were evil, and are trying to take over the world :-) asides from giving arms to the other side (-: It really hits home when someone tries to tell you that your entire family was not killed by the Germans. It was all a hoax, people walked into one door of a gas chamber and came out the other side smiling. What about the family of your friends, where did they go too. Maybe some spaceship swallowed up 6,000,000 Jews. The grief and pain that Hitler caused did not end with WW II. It lives on today in the minds of those that saw their families executed right in front of their eyes, or those who saw their brothers and sisters walk into a gas chamber and then had to go in to remove the bodies and place them into a mass grave. Of course in a few years these people will be dead, there will be no eyewitnesses. Another Zundel may come along, and no one will be able to say that he's lying because they will not have seen the horror for themselves. Then Mr. Zundel will not be found guilty. Then everyone will say "Well if they couldn't prove he's lying in a court of law, then he must not be lying." Where will we be then. If this is the alternative then I must say, By all means prosecute him now and let this be a statement to the future. There is a famous quote whose origin I cannot remember, but it says "He who forgets the past is doomed to relive it." I do not think that anyone wants to go through another World War. Jim Boritz
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (02/27/86)
I hope that you'll consider this "hot air" from northern Canada to be a refreshing change from the arctic air we've been sending you all winter :-). >> ... Zundel was not charged with "doing something distasteful". >> Neither was he indicted for his beliefs. The charge leveled at him was >> something to the effect of "Trying to promote hatred". >> To convict him they had to prove: >> >> 1) That what was he was saying was incorrect. >> 2) That he knew it was incorrect. >> 3) That his intent was to promote hatred against some group of people. >> >> As you can see, this law is not an attempt to supress something distasteful >> but rather to outlaw something that is potentially damaging to the "health >> of the society". The often used analogy is that of yelling fire in a crowded >> movie theater, this is a clearly dangerous practice and should only be done >> when the theater is actually on fire - thus the necessity of proving >> statement 1. In article <534@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes (with reference to the above section): > >The first use of this argument *I've* ever seen was in an opinion by a U.S. >Supreme Court justice. He was arguing in favor of a law that prohibited >distributing anti-draft literature during World War I! Have I made my point >about the dangers of giving the government too much discretion in deciding >what is dangerous? You state the obvious. No one has argued that the government should have too much discretion in deciding what is dangerous and that is why Zundel was taken directly to court and NOT directly to prison. It was the legal system that made the decision to convict - the decision (in theory) could have been made in Zundels favour. I believe that even in the U.S. the court system can decide against the government. This "impartial" legal system is essential in any democracy since ALL governments can be expected to act in their own best interests and this is sometimes (usually) to the detriment of the people. The implied similarity between anti-draft legislation and the Zundel case is flawed. > >The Soviet Union uses similar reasoning to lock up people for "slandering >the Soviet state" -- and we all recognize how dangerous giving that much >decision making authority to the state is. > Ah! The obligatory comparison to the Soviet Union, hasn't this tactic gotten a little trite :-( ? Your comparison lacks credibility. I don't think that verifiable truth is one of the criteria for imprisoning people in the Soviet Union. Central to this case, and to the interests of our society, is the belief that the truth should not be repressed. >> ... In Canada we've >> decided that promoting hatred against religious/racial/(or any other >> identifiable groups), is a detriment to the society as a whole and should >> therefore be controlled. > >Oh? You prohibit Marxists from distributing literature that calls for >"class struggle"? People can't write articles criticizing the practice >of trade unionism? I believe the Canadian law only prohibits promoting >hatred against groups based on race, religion, and national origin. Why >not the Marxists as well? Because Marxists do not form an identifiable group, neither do accountants or bank tellers. An "identifiable" group is one which - *surprise* - can be readily identified. Skin colour, and other racial characteristics can be easily identified as would the mode of dress of various religious groups. Note also that women (and men) form identifiable groups as well. I'm not at all sure what you're saying in the above passage. To my knowledge, there is no restrictions against Marxists distributing literature or against criticising the trade union movement. Any instance of this occurring would clearly be political censorship. >> The only reasonable questions that you could ask of this law are: >> "Does it restrict the freedoms of the individual too much?" and "Does this >> law actually benefit the society enough to justify it?". Canadians have >> decided NO (to the first question) and YES (to the second). You probably >> differ on this judgment but then you're entitled to your own opinions. > >Clearly, human rights are a national decision. And if the people of a >central European power decide that exterminating Jews maximizes the benefit >to society without too much of a law of individual liberties, that MUST >be OK. :-) ... Can human rights be "logically" derived? The very essence of the term "rights" is ambiguous - whether you're prepared to admit it or not, your definition of what is a "human right" is a consensus definition from your society. What criteria do we use to decide what is a human right? Does this criteria take into account the society, or can we define "Human rights" in a vacuum. Pardon me while I take a little digression. I suspect that if the common man/woman had to come to a definition of human rights they would probably resort to the old biblical principle - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is a good general principle for forming a set of human rights but it needs a two additions. The first would be that the taking of a human life is the only fundamental right that can't be decided upon by societal consensus. This principle probably wouldn't be needed since in 99.9999% of the cases it's covered by the "Do unto others principle". The only reason that I include it is the curious, and short lived, case of the "Jonestown society". The second amending principle would be to allow any and all additional liberties that don't seriously compromise the first two. From this definition it should be clear that "human rights" is a relative thing. Before you start believing that I condone the Soviet system, I think that it is possible to "judge" whether a society is fair in its application of human rights. Specifically we can judge whether a society is violating its own "unwritten rights code". Consider for instance, a fundamentalist Islamic society. Lets apply principle 1. As a thinking member of that society I ask myself, "Would I like to have Judaism, or Christianity forced on me?" - "No", "therefore we can't impose Islam on other religious groups." This also applies in political systems. Hence not only communists would be elected and be allowed to represent Russians. Since few people like to have their choices restricted, the first principle should guarantee freedom of choice in almost all areas - including politics and religion. Now, back to the main arguement ... Any suggestion that "fundamental human rights" can be defined without reference to theological, political, or metaphysical dogma - or even ignoring good old, practical societal consensus - is ludicrous to the extreme! > ... Seriously, when human rights are reduced to something that can >be decided by a purely democratic decision, you have to watch out that you >don't fall down the slippery slope to totalitarianism. The "slippery slope to totalitarianism" starts the moment that you pay someone to make your decisions for you. The case of genocide cited above is due, NOT to democratic consensus, but to independent government decision. The above society was not open to the free interchange of ideas since there was a prevailing sense of fear and opposing the government meant death or some equally unsavory fate. Thus no democratic opinion could be obtained and even if it could it wouldn't have been acted on. > >> As to whether Canada practices political censorship, that is not >> at issue in the above case. But while we're on the topic, do you remember >> good old Senator McCarthy? It seems to me that "those who live in glass >> houses shouldn't throw stones"(:-))! If you have a real case of political >> censorship in Canada I'd be interested to hear it. I suspect however, that >> you were misled by Snells discourse, and I hope that my misleading diatribe >> clarifies the issue :-). >> Ken Hruday >> University of Alberta > >I wasn't arguing that our own house was completely in order. Someone on >the net tried to claim that there was no political censorship in Canada. >No, they just lock people up for publishing books that get people angry. > To beat a dead horse - I am not aware of any cases of political censorship in Canada. I am arguing that the Zundel business is not an instance of "political" censorship. The only credible case you could have for calling it political censorship is if you define all censorship to be "political" - then I might agree with you. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/01/86)
>/* ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) / 4:55 pm Feb 26, 1986 */ > Because Marxists do not form an identifiable group, neither do >accountants or bank tellers. An "identifiable" group is one which - >*surprise* - can be readily identified. And Jews are such an "identifiable" group? Perhaps you should examine the relevant literature, or better yet, take a look at groups of Jews that come from different parts of the world. One would be hard pressed indeed to identify them as members of the same group. Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/02/86)
> I hope that you'll consider this "hot air" from northern Canada to be a > refreshing change from the arctic air we've been sending you all winter :-). > > >> ... Zundel was not charged with "doing something distasteful". > >> Neither was he indicted for his beliefs. The charge leveled at him was > >> something to the effect of "Trying to promote hatred". > >> To convict him they had to prove: > >> > >> 1) That what was he was saying was incorrect. > >> 2) That he knew it was incorrect. > >> 3) That his intent was to promote hatred against some group of people. > >> > >> As you can see, this law is not an attempt to supress something distasteful > >> but rather to outlaw something that is potentially damaging to the "health > >> of the society". The often used analogy is that of yelling fire in a crowded > >> movie theater, this is a clearly dangerous practice and should only be done > >> when the theater is actually on fire - thus the necessity of proving > >> statement 1. > > In article <534@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes (with reference to > the above section): > > > >The first use of this argument *I've* ever seen was in an opinion by a U.S. > >Supreme Court justice. He was arguing in favor of a law that prohibited > >distributing anti-draft literature during World War I! Have I made my point > >about the dangers of giving the government too much discretion in deciding > >what is dangerous? > > You state the obvious. No one has argued that the government should > have too much discretion in deciding what is dangerous and that is why > Zundel was taken directly to court and NOT directly to prison. > It was the legal system that made the decision to convict - the decision > (in theory) could have been made in Zundels favour. I believe that > even in the U.S. the court system can decide against the government. This > "impartial" legal system is essential in any democracy since ALL governments > can be expected to act in their own best interests and this is sometimes > (usually) to the detriment of the people. The implied similarity between > anti-draft legislation and the Zundel case is flawed. > The courts decide the facts of the case. Did Zundel publish something false and inflammatory? An easy decision, from what I've read. My argument is against the validity of prohibiting false statements -- not whether he was given a fair trial or not. > > > >The Soviet Union uses similar reasoning to lock up people for "slandering > >the Soviet state" -- and we all recognize how dangerous giving that much > >decision making authority to the state is. > > > Ah! The obligatory comparison to the Soviet Union, hasn't this tactic > gotten a little trite :-( ? Your comparison lacks credibility. I don't > think that verifiable truth is one of the criteria for imprisoning people > in the Soviet Union. Central to this case, and to the interests of our > society, is the belief that the truth should not be repressed. > How do you propose to distinguish veriable truth from opinion? It's certainly true that 2+2=4 -- but when you get outside of hard science, determining "truth" becomes very difficult -- erring on the side of allowing nonsense seems less likely to put us into a situation where the government can define Truth as the Soviet Union does. > >> ... In Canada we've > >> decided that promoting hatred against religious/racial/(or any other > >> identifiable groups), is a detriment to the society as a whole and should > >> therefore be controlled. > > > >Oh? You prohibit Marxists from distributing literature that calls for > >"class struggle"? People can't write articles criticizing the practice > >of trade unionism? I believe the Canadian law only prohibits promoting > >hatred against groups based on race, religion, and national origin. Why > >not the Marxists as well? > > Because Marxists do not form an identifiable group, neither do > accountants or bank tellers. An "identifiable" group is one which - > *surprise* - can be readily identified. Skin colour, and other racial > characteristics can be easily identified as would the mode of dress of > various religious groups. Note also that women (and men) form identifiable > groups as well. I'm not at all sure what you're saying in the above passage. > To my knowledge, there is no restrictions against Marxists distributing > literature or against criticising the trade union movement. Any instance of > this occurring would clearly be political censorship. > My comments were directed at the overbroad assertion that the Canadian government prohibited hatred, as opposed to the actual restrictions of Canadian law. I think also you misunderstood what I said. Marxism promotes "class struggle", and teaches that the ruling classes and to some extent the bourgeois are enemies of the proletariat. This certainly promotes hatred of an economic class. (Read almost any of the Marxist newspapers regularly available in the United States if you don't think they promote hatred.) You certainly wouldn't prohibit Marxists from distributing materials that promoted such hatred, would you? Also, economic status isn't quite as difficult to disguise as race, but your comments above about how identifiable someone is as a member of class simply don't apply to members of religious minorities and ethnic groups. Can anyone distinguish a Jew from someone else by looking at them? Can you distinguish a person of Polish origin from someone else by looking at them? Of course not. Your argument above is flawed for this reason. By the reasoning above, such laws should only apply to racial groups and the two sexes. > >> The only reasonable questions that you could ask of this law are: > >> "Does it restrict the freedoms of the individual too much?" and "Does this > >> law actually benefit the society enough to justify it?". Canadians have > >> decided NO (to the first question) and YES (to the second). You probably > >> differ on this judgment but then you're entitled to your own opinions. > > > >Clearly, human rights are a national decision. And if the people of a > >central European power decide that exterminating Jews maximizes the benefit > >to society without too much of a law of individual liberties, that MUST > >be OK. :-) ... > > Can human rights be "logically" derived? The very essence of the term > "rights" is ambiguous - whether you're prepared to admit it or not, your > definition of what is a "human right" is a consensus definition from your > society. What criteria do we use to decide what is a human right? Does > this criteria take into account the society, or can we define "Human rights" > in a vacuum. It's certainly true that without a theistic basis, human rights must of necessity come from democratic decision. I know that many Objectivists will flame me for this, but I have to say to them is: 1. All the non-theistic human rights systems I've seen are circular. 2. Objectivists in particular tend to define human rights systems that are indistinguishable from the Judeo-Christian-based human rights system that was developed in England and America during the Enlightenment. However, my comments above, concerning the dangers of allow human rights to be defined by democratic decision stand. If the democracy decides that group B no longer has any rights, they don't, and most everyone will go along with the oppression because societies in this century have increasingly deified democracy. > Pardon me while I take a little digression. I suspect that if the common > man/woman had to come to a definition of human rights they would probably > resort to the old biblical principle - "Do unto others as you would have > them do unto you." This is a good general principle for forming a set > of human rights but it needs a two additions. The first would be that the > taking of a human life is the only fundamental right that can't be decided > upon by societal consensus. This principle probably wouldn't be needed since > in 99.9999% of the cases it's covered by the "Do unto others principle". > The only reason that I include it is the curious, and short lived, case > of the "Jonestown society". The second amending principle would be to > allow any and all additional liberties that don't seriously compromise > the first two. I, also, am an opponent of the death penalty, for a combination of religious beliefs and pragmatic reasons. (But that's a different discussion.) But I know this: your statement above acknowledges that you believe in at least one human right which is NOT subject to democratic decision making. You therefore do NOT believe that human rights are based on democratic consensus. Incidentally, I agree that the Golden Rule is a good basis for establishing a basis of human rights. Most of us in North America believe that. Now we can get down to brass tacks... > From this definition it should be clear that "human rights" is a > relative thing. In spite of your remarks above, stating that taking a human life is NOT relative. > Before you start believing that I condone the Soviet > system, I think that it is possible to "judge" whether a society is > fair in its application of human rights. Specifically we can judge > whether a society is violating its own "unwritten rights code". Consider > for instance, a fundamentalist Islamic society. Lets apply principle 1. > As a thinking member of that society I ask myself, "Would I like to have > Judaism, or Christianity forced on me?" - "No", "therefore we can't impose > Islam on other religious groups." However, a fundamentalist Islamic society doesn't necessarily believe in principle 1. And since human rights are relative, or so you say, what's wrong with the way they do things? > This also applies in political systems. Hence not only communists would > be elected and be allowed to represent Russians. Since few people like to > have their choices restricted, the first principle should guarantee > freedom of choice in almost all areas - including politics and religion. > Now, back to the main arguement ... > Even if the population wants the government to take away those choices? It happens. You seem to arguing that some rights are so important, that democratic consensus shouldn't apply. I might agree with you that a society shouldn't discard choices -- but I would also argue that democratic action doesn't allow discarding choices, because human rights aren't relative. > Any suggestion that "fundamental human rights" can be defined without > reference to theological, political, or metaphysical dogma - or even > ignoring good old, practical societal consensus - is ludicrous to the > extreme! > I agree. > > ... Seriously, when human rights are reduced to something that can > >be decided by a purely democratic decision, you have to watch out that you > >don't fall down the slippery slope to totalitarianism. > > The "slippery slope to totalitarianism" starts the moment that you pay > someone to make your decisions for you. The case of genocide cited above > is due, NOT to democratic consensus, but to independent government decision. > The above society was not open to the free interchange of ideas > since there was a prevailing sense of fear and opposing the government > meant death or some equally unsavory fate. Thus no democratic opinion > could be obtained and even if it could it wouldn't have been acted on. > But the decision to start down the "slippery slope" was democratic. (Once they started down the slope, the government took steps to prevent heading back up.) Does a democracy have the right to dispose of human rights? You say democratic consensus defines these rights. If so, democratic consensus can define human rights in whatever manner they believe. > > > >> As to whether Canada practices political censorship, that is not > >> at issue in the above case. But while we're on the topic, do you remember > >> good old Senator McCarthy? It seems to me that "those who live in glass > >> houses shouldn't throw stones"(:-))! If you have a real case of political > >> censorship in Canada I'd be interested to hear it. I suspect however, that > >> you were misled by Snells discourse, and I hope that my misleading diatribe > >> clarifies the issue :-). > >> Ken Hruday > >> University of Alberta > > > >I wasn't arguing that our own house was completely in order. Someone on > >the net tried to claim that there was no political censorship in Canada. > >No, they just lock people up for publishing books that get people angry. > > > > To beat a dead horse - I am not aware of any cases of political censorship > in Canada. I am arguing that the Zundel business is not an instance of > "political" censorship. The only credible case you could have for calling it > political censorship is if you define all censorship to be "political" - then > I might agree with you. > > Ken Hruday > University of Alberta I'm glad we agree that Zundel was censored. (Worse, thrown in jail for what he said.)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/03/86)
> In article <514@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Just because his beliefs are repugnant doesn't justify throwing someone in > >jail for expressing those beliefs. That's something that totalitarian > >governments do. > > First of all, it was a unanimous jury conviction, so it wasn't just > a "government" action. More importantly, Zundel was not convicted > because his beliefs are repugnant. He was convicted for publishing > false statements, known by him to be false, which were seen as a > threat to society. The claim that the Holocaust is a hoax isn't > made in isolation. It's made together with the allegation that the > Holocaust was "dreamed up" by Jews to get money out of Germany. That > is equivalent to calling all Jews thieves and liars, and goes, in > many people's opinions, beyond the legitimate bounds of free speech > and into group libel. > > The below is an article I posted some months ago. Since the issue > has arisen again and some people now on the net obviously haven't > seen it, here is it again. > > ''''''''''''''''''''' > Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal,can.politics > Subject: Hate literature laws no violation of freedom of speech > References: <195@pyuxh.UUCP> <10451@ucbvax.ARPA> > > Rick McGeer has expressed the opinion that convictions under > the Criminal Code of Canada for publishing hate literature or > for publishing false news are a violation of the right of > freedom of speech under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. > I do not agree. > > The following column appeared in The National, the newspaper of > the Canadian Bar Association, September 1985 (p. 37). It was > written by Albert S. Frank, a lawyer in Edmonton. > Reprinted with permission. > > * * * * * * > > It is inherent in the notion of human rights that the rights > of an individual must be restricted for the sake of other > individuals. Your right to freedom of action must be limited > out of respect for my rights. If we allowed you a completely > unfettered right of freedom of action, you could physically > attack me or violate my rights in other ways. Surely a respect > for your rights does not require an utter contempt for my rights. > The important phrase here is "freedom of action". Free speech is not a physical attack. Physical attack cannot be ignored -- it requires either suffering injury or fighting back. If someone insults you, you can ignore them without measurable injury. > If we take the contrary view, that your right to freedom of action > is absolute, then we are saying that I have no right, not even > a right to live, since you could use your absolute freedom of > action to murder me if you wished. A general respect for human > rights therefore requires that rights be restricted, not absolute. > The last sentence, in effect, says, "Human rights does not equal rights for individuals." This is almost an oxymoron. A true democracy therefore has no need for human rights, since the majority makes decisions for the good of all. > Like other rights, freedom of speech can be abused to harm others. > A person who uses words to threaten physical violence to get money > is committing robbery, and thereby violating the rights of the victim, > every bit as much as if he said nothing and, instead, waved a weapon > and gestured at his victim's wallet. The criminal law makes this > and other abuses of freedom of speech illegal. > Bullshit. If someone walked up to you and said, "Give me your money", but there was no way for them to injure you (for example, a police officer standing there, and the person making the threat was clearly unarmed, and physically incapacitated so as to be no threat with their fists), it would not be credible that they were robbing you. You would ignore them, and if you used force against them, YOU would be in trouble. > Hate literature is another abuse of freedom of speech which violates > the rights of its victims and can therefore properly be restricted. > Hate literature violates a right which our common law has long > recognized, a person's right in his reputation. According to the > well-established law of defamation, a person has a right to legal > protection from those who would attack his reputation, just as he has > a right to legal protection against those who would attack his person. > Protection from defamation is a monetary damage issue. Also, Zundel's assertions, according to this article, referred to particular Jews at a particular time. Unless Zundel's book claimed that ALL or at least MOST Jews in the world today were involved in the conspiracy he imagines, there is no way that a person could claim to be personally defamed. And if Zundel made such a sweeping assertion (quite possible, he sounds like a kook), no rational person would believe it. How can it be damaging then? > [some material excerpted concerning protection of politician's reputations] > If an individual is entitled to protection against defamation, > surely a large group of individuals should be entitled to protection > as well. Unfortunately, our civil law is not presently a very useful > tool for the protection of the rights of groups. In Canada there > are severe restrictions on class action lawsuits. Furthermore, > the law of defamation itself is designed for the protection of > the individual plaintiff, not the group of plaintiffs. > A deficiency in civil law is no argument for a bad criminal law -- it's an argument in favor of correcting the civil law. > As was stated recently in the case of _Booth v. B.C.T.V. Broadcasting > System_, 139 D.L.R.(3d) 88 at 92, in cases where the words complained > of are clearly defamatory the issue "is whether the words were > published of and concerning the particular plaintiff who is claiming." > > If the civil law cannot protect against a violation of the rights > of groups of citizens, then it is appropriate for the criminal law > to do so. It is especially important to do so since hate literature > has the potential to cause much greater harm than an attack on a > particular individual. > Quite a leap there. In civil law, the two parties MAY be roughly matched in terms of resources to fight their cases. Frequently they are not. In criminal law, the defendant NEVER has the resources available to fight a case that the prosecutor has. The government therefore has a substantial advantage (hence, the different levels of proof required for a decision in civil and criminal cases.) As an example, consider the Nixon Administration's attempts to bleed the anti-war movement to death in the early 1970s by having them fight grand jury indictments all over the United States. There needs to be a darn good reason to give a government excuse to prosecute a criminal case. Saying nasty things about someone else somehow doesn't seem in the same category as armed robbery and murder. > Few people in human history have faced death because of defamatory > statements made particularly against them but millions of people have > been killed because they happened to belong to an ethnic or religious > group which had been the object of hate propaganda. > Millions died in China and the Soviet Union for holding differing political views or belonging to the wrong economic class. I don't see the same approach being pushed for these groups. > However, even leaving aside the most extreme results of hate > literature, it would be absurd if a man could sue to protect > his reputation from an accusation of selling shoddy merchandise, > but he and his fellow victims could not obtain either civil or > criminal protection against defamatory statements accusing them > of every evil act known to mankind and of being behind every > disaster which has befallen the human race in the last few centuries. > 1 = 2 again. The first example is purely a civil case: A sues B for monetary damages -- B doesn't go to jail for saying A sells junk. > Nor should we fear that hate literature laws will inhibit proper > discussion of public issues. A true statement, however harsh, > may always be stated. Furthermore, the discussion of public > issues does not require personal attacks. A person could not > be sued or prosecuted for a scathing and inaccurate criticism > of government policy. A citizen has the right to be wrong about > a public issue. > > However, if a person goes beyond saying that he thinks a policy > is wrong, foolish or appalling and makes personal attacks on the > politicians promoting these policies, he may be sued and rightly so. > Our devotion to democratic discussion does not require that we > permit false _ad hominem_ attacks on politicians or on anybody else. > Personal attacks are valid, under some conditions. Politician Smith runs for public office. Smith has a record of financial chicanery and personal dishonesty. Smith's personal disintegrity is a valid issue since he will be holding a position of public trust. > The same principles justify the civil law of defamation and the > criminal laws concerning hate literature; they stand or fall > together. Those who are of the opinion that hate literature > is an unacceptable restriction of freedom of speech must, to be > consistent, urge that the tort of defamation be abolished for > precisely the same reason. > Perhaps, but the relative positions of power in civil vs. criminal cases make a world of difference. A sues B to stop B from saying something. A could also sue C, D, E, F, etc. to stop them from saying the same thing (which might be true). Eventually, unless A is a very wealthy person or a large corporation, A will run out of money to fight these cases. The government does not run out of money. It can even make truthful statements so expensive in money that only a fool will say them. > It is possible to believe that our defamation and hate literature > laws are acceptable in principle but unsatisfactory in practice. > I have spoken to many people who think that it would be better > to sue hat propagandists than to prosecute them, a view which I > share. The civil law should be reformed to allow class action > lawsuits against those who defame groups. > > Until or unless the civil law is reformed, it is good that the > criminal law is available. We must not forget the seriousness > of group defamation. The fact that the hate propagandists use > words in their attacks does not make their behaviour any less a > violation of rights or any less serious than smashing synagogue > windows or burning a cross on a lawn. > Oh come on. Does anyone really believe this? > * * * * * * > > (The National, Canadian Bar Association, September 1985. Copied > with permission.) > > Dave Sherman > The Law Society of Upper Canada > Toronto > -- > { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave Clayton E. Cramer "A new way of thinking Beyond Gravity"
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/03/86)
In article <11544@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: >I personally have a hard time saying that it was wrong to prosecute him. >What would you do if someone said that world war II never happened. Hitler >never existed, and never tried to take over the world. I would ignore him, since I know that he is wrong. >What would you do if someone said that americans were evil, and are trying >to take over the world? > :-) asides from giving arms to the other side (-: If he said this about all Americans, I would ignore him, since I know that he is wrong. If he said this about America I would certainly respect his opinion and might even agree with him (depending on how you define words like "evil", but this is a separate issue). > ... Another Zundel >may come along, and no one will be able to say that he's lying because they >will not have seen the horror for themselves. Then Mr. Zundel will not be >found guilty. Then everyone will say "Well if they couldn't prove he's >lying in a court of law, then he must not be lying." Where will we be then. This is *exactly* the point. This is why censorship is bad and freedom of speech is good. If you set up the courts as arbiters of what people can say, you are implicitly lending moral support to everything that is not censored. But the fact, as you note, is that you are not going to be able to censor all of the things which are wrong or hateful or generally vile. If nothing else there are more idiots to say false things than there are courts to punish them. If you don't have any censorship, then people learn to take unsupported statements for exactly what they are worth. Nothing. The Constitution says "freedom of speech." This is what I believe in. Without conditions. -- David desJardins
jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) (03/04/86)
In article <12138@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >In article <11544@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: >>I personally have a hard time saying that it was wrong to prosecute him. >>What would you do if someone said that world war II never happened. Hitler >>never existed, and never tried to take over the world. > > I would ignore him, since I know that he is wrong. > You and I may be educated people, with minds of our own. You have to remember that there are more people out there that will believe almost anything that they are told, than there are educated people that will ignore such comments. So you may well ignore him, but your opinion does not reflect upon the the opinion of the majority. Now don't go and tell me that everyone one you have talked to agrees with you, and that they would ignore him also. I am talking about those people with average educations. Those that never went to college. The average american. By going to university or college you have already placed yourself way above the average. > The Constitution says "freedom of speech." This is what I believe in. >Without conditions. > > -- David desJardins :-{) The constitution also allows groups like the KKK to exist, as well as the American Nazi Party. Aparently their are laws in the US which will allow you to prosecute someone that violates or breaches or is a threat to national security. I also do not believe in censorship, but in my message I described how I would choose between the lesser of two evils. Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the Canadian and American systems of justice. In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the police violated the rights of this individual. In Canada we lean towards the protection of society as a whole, and we place less emphasis on the rights of the accused that we do on the rights of society. The arm of the law in Canada is much heavier in Canada than it is in the US. The biggest problem is that most Canadians know more about the American Legal System than they know about the Canadian Leagl System. I myself was one of these, luckily I have been told or taught what the differences are. Canada now has a constitution of its own. Could you believe that we existed for over a hundred years without a constitution. Imagine that. :-) Somehow we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, we haven't become socialists or communists or Nazi's. We did not have 'Freedom of Speech' as a right. Yet we had it somehow. We had no CIA or FBI or NSC . When we got our constitution though we soon after got the CSA (Civilian Security Agency) They are probably not related, but sometimes I wonder. Jim Boritz Time it was and what a time it was ... Paul Simon
drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) (03/05/86)
In article <556@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> Like other rights, freedom of speech can be abused to harm others. >> A person who uses words to threaten physical violence to get money >> is committing robbery, and thereby violating the rights of the victim, >> every bit as much as if he said nothing and, instead, waved a weapon >> and gestured at his victim's wallet. The criminal law makes this >> and other abuses of freedom of speech illegal. > > >Bullshit. If someone walked up to you and said, "Give me your money", but >there was no way for them to injure you (for example, a police officer >standing there, and the person making the threat was clearly unarmed, and >physically incapacitated so as to be no threat with their fists), it >would not be credible that they were robbing you. You would ignore >them, and if you used force against them, YOU would be in trouble. > There's a fellow in New York who might want to talk to you about this --name is Goetz, I believe... Seriously, there are myriad examples of words (particularly false words) which are understood to be injurious to others or to society, and are therefore illegal. Perjury is the crime of swearing to statements in a court of law which are lies--no action is involved here, just words, including the oath. Similarly, fraud can be committed merely through the verbal misrepresentation of, say, a product as something it's not--again, the sale of such an item is not, of itself, an illegal act; what is illegal is the fraudulent misrepresentation of it. And, of course, there's the classic "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" example. False bomb threats, made by telephone, are mere words--nothing more. Should they be legal? Of course, there are many countries which abuse this notion of the danger of words by defining any words critical of the government as false, and using "slandering the state"-type laws for the purpose of suppression of political dissent. However, absolute freedom of speech, like absolute freedom of action, is ALREADY a myth, as I have established, and somehow, our freedoms, by and large, have been preserved quite well. Frankly, if absolute freedom of speech, including freedom to purjure, defraud, and engage in public mischief (not to mention to disseminate hate propaganda), is ever established in my country, I'm going to start packing, just as surely as if anti-government protest is outlawed. I suspect that most people would agree with me. In other words, we are all, whether we like it or not, on the "slippery slope" between freedom of speech and controlled speech; we are on that slope out of necessity, because any kind of ordered society requires some kinds of limitation to free speech. Whether the restriction on the distribution of hate literature is or is not too far "down the slope" towards suppression of free speech is open to debate, and has been discussed quite thoroughly here in Canada because of the Zundel and Keegstra cases. But the issue requires a careful comparison of the positive and negative effects of a given limitation of free speech on a democratic society--not an unthinking promotion of free speech as always harmless and beneficial. Daniel R. Simon
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/06/86)
> In article <12138@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: > >In article <11544@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: > >>I personally have a hard time saying that it was wrong to prosecute him. > >>What would you do if someone said that world war II never happened. Hitler > >>never existed, and never tried to take over the world. > > > > I would ignore him, since I know that he is wrong. > > > > You and I may be educated people, with minds of our own. You have to remember > that there are more people out there that will believe almost anything that > they are told, than there are educated people that will ignore such comments. > So you may well ignore him, but your opinion does not reflect upon the > the opinion of the majority. Now don't go and tell me that everyone one you > have talked to agrees with you, and that they would ignore him also. I am > talking about those people with average educations. Those that never went to > college. The average american. By going to university or college you > have already placed yourself way above the average. > The average American has gone to college. (Average number of years of education is this country is now 12.7, I believe.) The elitism in the statement above is really nauseating. You and I are smart enough to distinguish truth from falsity, but the MASSES -- they're just not bright enough. The more rationalization I see on this network for suppressing free speech, the less confidence I have in the benefits of a college education -- it seems to make people more tolerant of totalitarian approachs. > > The Constitution says "freedom of speech." This is what I believe in. > >Without conditions. > > > > -- David desJardins > > :-{) The constitution also allows groups like the KKK to exist, as well as the > American Nazi Party. > And the various communist factions as well. This is called "freedom". Freedom to go along with the majority view isn't freedom -- it's totalitarianism. > Aparently their are laws in the US which will allow you to prosecute someone > that violates or breaches or is a threat to national security. > Rather narrowly defined, though. That's why the Progressive was allowed to publish their article about H-bomb building. > I also do not believe in censorship, but in my message I described how I > would choose between the lesser of two evils. > > Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the > Canadian and American systems of justice. > > In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and > freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, > that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the > police violated the rights of this individual. > I make no apologies for this. Better than 10 guilty go free, than one innocent man go to prison. Besides, criminals seldom commit one crime -- if they don't go to prison on the first crime, they will on the second or the third. > In Canada we lean towards the protection of society as a whole, and we place > less emphasis on the rights of the accused that we do on the rights of > society. The arm of the law in Canada is much heavier in Canada than it is > in the US. The biggest problem is that most Canadians know more about the > American Legal System than they know about the Canadian Leagl System. I > myself was one of these, luckily I have been told or taught what the > differences are. Canada now has a constitution of its own. Could you believe > that we existed for over a hundred years without a constitution. Imagine that. > :-) Somehow we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, we haven't become > socialists or communists or Nazi's. We did not have 'Freedom of Speech' as > a right. Yet we had it somehow. We had no CIA or FBI or NSC . When we got > our constitution though we soon after got the CSA (Civilian Security Agency) > They are probably not related, but sometimes I wonder. > > Jim Boritz > Your comments above about the Canadian legal system leaning towards society's protection, and less emphasis on the rights of the accused, would seem to argue that you needed more protections.
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/07/86)
In article <11573@watnot.UUCP>, jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: > Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the > Canadian and American systems of justice. > > In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and > freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, > that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the > police violated the rights of this individual. Oh, good heavens! You mean the system isn't *PERFECT*? Oh, what *SHALL* we do, what shall we do? > In Canada we lean towards the protection of society as a whole, and we place > less emphasis on the rights of the accused that we do on the rights of > society. The arm of the law in Canada is much heavier in Canada than it is > in the US. The biggest problem is that most Canadians know more about the > American Legal System than they know about the Canadian Leagl System. I > myself was one of these, luckily I have been told or taught what the > differences are. Canada now has a constitution of its own. Could you believe > that we existed for over a hundred years without a constitution. Imagine that. > :-) Somehow we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, we haven't become > socialists or communists or Nazi's. We did not have 'Freedom of Speech' as > a right. Yet we had it somehow. We had no CIA or FBI or NSC . When we got > our constitution though we soon after got the CSA (Civilian Security Agency) > They are probably not related, but sometimes I wonder. In other words, sir, in Canada, the law presumes that because you are accused, your have few, if any rights. On the other hand, society *MUST* be protected from filthy criminals, and society has the right to stopm on you as an individual because you are accused. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. are also moving toward this disgusting point of view. Our so-called "victim's rights" movements are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to remove the protections provided under the law to ensure that one will be, in fact, considered innocent until proven guilty, and that the evidence generated against the accused must be gathered in a lawful and honest fashion. Having been the victim of a violent crime, I can fully understand the emotionally driven desire for revenge. Certainly, it is difficult to see the perpetrator of a crime against you, or your family or friends, set free under some technicality. This is partially the fault of an imperfect system, and partially the fault of unethical attorneys, who view their role as that of "getting the client aquitted", as opposed to "ensuring that the client receives the full protection of the law". Okay, so the system isn't perfect. In a society that CLAIMS to value freedom, it remains true that it is better that 10 guilty perpetrators go free, than that one innocent person is convicted. Sure, we as members of society want to know what protections we can expect, against being robbed, raped, or murdered. These things are important to me too. Sometimes it is difficult to accept that there *CAN BE* no such protections that are 100% effective, even *IF* you deny the accused any rights, and protections under the law. Remember that the laws granting the accused protections and rights were eneacted to counteract perceived brutality and injustice in the system. Remember also that someday, it may be *YOU* who is the accused, and won't you want some protection, some rights to defend yourself? There are *NO* gaurantees in this life...it is all one big gamble. Passing or accepting brutal, injust and insensitive laws won't change that one bit. It will simply reduce the quality of life for everyone. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/07/86)
In article <7582@watlion.UUCP>, drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) writes: > In article <556@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > >> Like other rights, freedom of speech can be abused to harm others. > >> A person who uses words to threaten physical violence to get money > >> is committing robbery, and thereby violating the rights of the victim, > >> every bit as much as if he said nothing and, instead, waved a weapon > >> and gestured at his victim's wallet. The criminal law makes this > >> and other abuses of freedom of speech illegal. > > > > > >Bullshit. If someone walked up to you and said, "Give me your money", but > >there was no way for them to injure you (for example, a police officer > >standing there, and the person making the threat was clearly unarmed, and > >physically incapacitated so as to be no threat with their fists), it > >would not be credible that they were robbing you. You would ignore > >them, and if you used force against them, YOU would be in trouble. > > > There's a fellow in New York who might want to talk to you about this > --name is Goetz, I believe... > > Seriously, there are myriad examples of words (particularly false words) > which are understood to be injurious to others or to society, and are therefore > illegal. Perjury is the crime of swearing to statements in a court of law > which are lies--no action is involved here, just words, including the oath. *WRONG*. the crime is in misrepresenting the truth, *NOT* in the words spoken. Additionally, under most such laws, the crime would consist of failing to adhere to the legally binding promise of presenting only truthful information. Again, the crime is not in speaking, but in misrepresentation and failure to adhere to a contract. > Similarly, fraud can be committed merely through the verbal misrepresentation > of, say, a product as something it's not--again, the sale of such an item is > not, of itself, an illegal act; what is illegal is the fraudulent > misrepresentation of it. Again, although your statement is correct, your intent is not. It is, in in fact, the misrepresentation of the truth which is criminal here, not the words that are said, or the act of speaking them (or writing them). >And, of course, there's the classic "shouting 'fire' > in a crowded theatre" example. False bomb threats, made by telephone, are > mere words--nothing more. Should they be legal? No, nor are they. However, again, its the misrepresentation which is illegal , not the utterance of words. In each case, it is the intent to cause havoc, which in turn has the potential to cause loss of life and limb, or property, which is considered harmful, not the utterance of the words themselves. > Of course, there are many countries which abuse this notion of the danger of > words by defining any words critical of the government as false, and using > "slandering the state"-type laws for the purpose of suppression of political > dissent. However, absolute freedom of speech, like absolute freedom of action, > is ALREADY a myth, as I have established, and somehow, our freedoms, by and > large, have been preserved quite well. Frankly, if absolute freedom of speech, > including freedom to purjure, defraud, and engage in public mischief (not to > mention to disseminate hate propaganda), is ever established in my country, I'm > going to start packing, just as surely as if anti-government protest is > outlawed. I suspect that most people would agree with me. So in other words, if one group's opinions are judged by society to be "hateful" (I wonder if you could accurately and specifically define the criteria under which "hatefulness" is to be judged?) then they haven't the right to voice their opinions? *gee*, does that mean that if I publish, or otherwise disseminate information that makes hateful claims about Nazis, I am in violation of the law? Does this mean that if my opinions manage to offend a suffciently large number of people, that they can judge my opinions to consititute a danger to society, and incarcerate me, and censor my opinions? Sounds very Orwellian to me... > > In other words, we are all, whether we like it or not, on the "slippery slope" > between freedom of speech and controlled speech; we are on that slope out of > necessity, because any kind of ordered society requires some kinds of > limitation to free speech. Whether the restriction on the distribution of hate > literature is or is not too far "down the slope" towards suppression of free > speech is open to debate, and has been discussed quite thoroughly here in > Canada because of the Zundel and Keegstra cases. But the issue requires a > careful comparison of the positive and negative effects of a given limitation > of free speech on a democratic society--not an unthinking promotion of free > speech as always harmless and beneficial. > > Daniel R. Simon It seems to me that censorship is wrong, period. The problem with censorship is that once we grant the government the right of censorship, we can no longer control it. Who is to decide what the limits are to be? If those who oppose those limits are censored, then the issue cannot be debated freely. No, I am sorry, but you are wrong. Government censorship is unacceptable. If you wish to ensure that the "ignorant masses" don't fall prey to the hate-mongerers (and yes, I despise the Nazis, and many other groups, as well), then go out there and push a more reasonable point of view. Be vocal. Picket their meetings, passing out your own propaganda countering theirs. But do *NOT* censor them! This is a major error. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (03/10/86)
In article <580@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >In article <11544@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: >> ... >>I also do not believe in censorship, but in my message I described how I >>would choose between the lesser of two evils. >>Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the >>Canadian and American systems of justice. >>In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and >>freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, >>that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the >>police violated the rights of this individual. >> > >I make no apologies for this. Better than 10 guilty go free, than one >innocent man go to prison. Besides, criminals seldom commit one crime -- >if they don't go to prison on the first crime, they will on the second or >the third. > No one is arguing that innocent people should go to prison; just those that are *known* to be guilty. I fully believe that the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused; but, when there is no doubt, justice should be done. It seems that you've forgotten that there are three parties involved in every crime. You've only accounted for the criminal and the state but you've forgotten the victims. Society must do justice to the victims, as well as to the accused. By your assertion, you would rather see ten injustices done rather than one. It isn't hard to imagine the injustice done by setting a proven murderer free because of some technicality. "Gee Mr. Smith, we had to let the guy who murdered your wife and kids go free because we forgot to read him his rights." "Don't worry though, these guys usually murder more than once - we'll get him next time for sure." As you can see, the fact that a criminal will commit more than one crime hardly seems comforting. In fact, the possibility of a repeat performance by the criminal is a strong argument for justice the first time - ie. locking him up. Something that you apparently assume is that setting free those *known* to be guilty somehow insures that innocent ones won't be convicted. This believe is rather bizarre. I would be interested to see an argument that supports it. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) (03/10/86)
In article <580@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> college. The average american. By going to university or college you >> have already placed yourself way above the average. >> > >The average American has gone to college. (Average number of years of >education is this country is now 12.7, I believe.) > >The elitism in the statement above is really nauseating. You and I are >smart enough to distinguish truth from falsity, but the MASSES -- they're >just not bright enough. The more rationalization I see on this network >for suppressing free speech, the less confidence I have in the benefits >of a college education -- it seems to make people more tolerant of >totalitarian approachs. > >> > The Constitution says "freedom of speech." This is what I believe in. >> >Without conditions. >> > >> > -- David desJardins >> >> :-{) The constitution also allows groups like the KKK to exist, as well as the >> American Nazi Party. >> > >And the various communist factions as well. This is called "freedom". >Freedom to go along with the majority view isn't freedom -- it's >totalitarianism. So let's see here, the majority thinks it's wrong to kill, not they outlaw it and the majority thinks that it is wrong to steal so it is outlawed as well. Maybe I am being a little extreme here, but I could also find some not so extreme views. There are people that believe theft is fine as long as they can get away with it. >> Aparently their are laws in the US which will allow you to prosecute someone >> that violates or breaches or is a threat to national security. >> > >Rather narrowly defined, though. That's why the Progressive was allowed >to publish their article about H-bomb building. > >> I also do not believe in censorship, but in my message I described how I >> would choose between the lesser of two evils. >> >> Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the >> Canadian and American systems of justice. >> >> In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and >> freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, >> that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the >> police violated the rights of this individual. >> > >I make no apologies for this. Better than 10 guilty go free, than one >innocent man go to prison. Besides, criminals seldom commit one crime -- >if they don't go to prison on the first crime, they will on the second or >the third. Real criminals commit hundreds of crimes and are never arrested for any of them. I have heard many learned lawyers refers to the US legal system as the knee jerk system. Everything is very automatic. If X then Y. There is no discretion involved. I believe the term used is legal machine. > >> In Canada we lean towards the protection of society as a whole, and we place >> less emphasis on the rights of the accused that we do on the rights of >> society. The arm of the law in Canada is much heavier in Canada than it is >> in the US. The biggest problem is that most Canadians know more about the >> American Legal System than they know about the Canadian Leagl System. I >> myself was one of these, luckily I have been told or taught what the >> differences are. Canada now has a constitution of its own. Could you believe >> that we existed for over a hundred years without a constitution. Imagine that. >> :-) Somehow we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, we haven't become >> socialists or communists or Nazi's. We did not have 'Freedom of Speech' as >> a right. Yet we had it somehow. We had no CIA or FBI or NSC . When we got >> our constitution though we soon after got the CSA (Civilian Security Agency) >> They are probably not related, but sometimes I wonder. >> >> Jim Boritz >> > >Your comments above about the Canadian legal system leaning towards >society's protection, and less emphasis on the rights of the accused, >would seem to argue that you needed more protections. I don't know what lines you read between to get this but let me tell you that the Candian system also feels that it is better to let ten guilty go free rather than have one innocent person go to jail. What we don't believe in is having 1000 people go free to save the one innocent person. You could say that theoretically a justice system should never send an innocent person to jail, but this happens in Canada and in the US. You could also say that if an innocent person goes to jail tyhe justice system is not working properly, but you don't. You can also say that it is better to have any number of guilty people go free, than to have a single innocent person go to jail. This is very nice, theoretically, but somewhere the line has to be drawn. If this were what we used (you guys in the US too) then we would only have a couple hundred people in jail, because we would have to have video tapes of the guy committing the crime to prove his guilt. Let me followup on what I meant by knee jerk system. If I am correct you have cases in which police procedure got somewhat or very out of hand. These cases went to court and the accused were released because of their treatment or the method which the police used to get their evidence. These cases which have names I do not know, but could learn from television, have become precedents in the US legal system. Apparently, it is now enough to site the precedent, to get the evidence dissallowed. In Canada each case is taken separately. Each case is given its own consideration. I like this a lot better than a system in which the guilty go free because they know they will get off on some technicality. Jim Boritz
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (03/12/86)
In article <42@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >In article <11573@watnot.UUCP>, jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: >> Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the >> Canadian and American systems of justice. >> >> In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and >> freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, >> that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the >> police violated the rights of this individual. > > Oh, good heavens! You mean the system isn't *PERFECT*? Oh, what *SHALL* > we do, what shall we do? Don't panic Tom, help is on the way - remember "The Mounties always get their man" :-). If you follow my article carefully you *too* can correct injustice. > >> In Canada we lean towards the protection of society as a whole, and we place >> less emphasis on the rights of the accused that we do on the rights of >> society. The arm of the law in Canada is much heavier in Canada than it is >> in the US. The biggest problem is that most Canadians know more about the >> American Legal System than they know about the Canadian Leagl System. I >> myself was one of these, luckily I have been told or taught what the >> differences are. Canada now has a constitution of its own. Could you believe >> that we existed for over a hundred years without a constitution. Imagine that. >> :-) Somehow we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, we haven't become >> socialists or communists or Nazi's. We did not have 'Freedom of Speech' as >> a right. Yet we had it somehow. We had no CIA or FBI or NSC . When we got >> our constitution though we soon after got the CSA (Civilian Security Agency) >> They are probably not related, but sometimes I wonder. > > > In other words, sir, in Canada, the law presumes that because you are >accused, your have few, if any rights. On the other hand, society *MUST* be >protected from filthy criminals, and society has the right to stopm on you >as an individual because you are accused. This is a called "reading between the lines", normally it isn't difficult but in your case I suggest that a visit to the local optometrist is in order. In any event, even in Canada the accused is entitled to be judged fairly, without being "stopm" [sic.] on. Something that you should remember is that the accused has a special status even in your society. It is possible, for instance, to detain (imprison) someone accused of a crime with or without bail before the trial. Is this detention not a restriction of their liberties? Isn't this a "pre-judgement" of the accused?? Furthermore, don't you agree that sometimes it's a pragmatic necessity? > Unfortunately, we in the U.S. are also moving toward this disgusting point >of view. Our so-called "victim's rights" movements are nothing more than thinly >veiled attempts to remove the protections provided under the law to ensure that >one will be, in fact, considered innocent until proven guilty, and that the >evidence generated against the accused must be gathered in a lawful and >honest fashion. Who might be behind these attempts to "take away" your rights Tom - the the communists? Maybe those nasty Democrats? Perhaps the prime motivation of these movements is to restore some measure of justice which is percieved to be lacking. There is a great deal of evidence to indicate that your country is disatisied with it's current legal system. As a highly educated society (12.7 years - so I'm told) perhaps there is something more behind it than the sinister desire to deprive you of your rights. I doubt very much that these people want to make you "guilty before proven innocent." > > Having been the victim of a violent crime, I can fully understand the >emotionally driven desire for revenge. Certainly, it is difficult to see the >perpetrator of a crime against you, or your family or friends, set free under >some technicality. This is partially the fault of an imperfect system, and >partially the fault of unethical attorneys, who view their role as that of >"getting the client aquitted", as opposed to "ensuring that the client >receives the full protection of the law". Don't blame the lawyers because they're using an imperfect system. The job of the defense attorney is to give his/her client every chance possible under the law, if he/she does any less than they will have failed not only their client but the justice system as a whole. The injustice is in the law - *NOT* in the laws application. > Okay, so the system isn't perfect. In a society that CLAIMS to value >freedom, it remains true that it is better that 10 guilty perpetrators go >free, than that one innocent person is convicted. I think that the old chest nut "better 10 guilty free than one innocent be imprisoned" applies to the principle - innocent until proven guilty. But in this instance we are discussing people known to guilty - thus this "folk axiom" doesn't apply :-). Everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But if an individual is definitely known to be guilty why should he go free? Accidental injustice will always occur; letting 10 guilty go free does not correct the balance, since innocent men are still imprisoned even under the present system. In fact, the net effect of what you argue is that 10 guilty go free *AND* one innocent person is convicted :-). In a society that CLAIMS to love truth and justice - how could any evidence be rejected out of court on the grounds that it was gathered improperly? A court must decide on the basis of truth - "The *WHOLE* truth and nothing but the truth." (see - I can spout old cliches too! :-) Let those who gathered the evidence improperly be punished - not the society. > Remember that the laws granting the accused protections and rights were >eneacted to counteract perceived brutality and injustice in the system. >Remember also that someday, it may be *YOU* who is the accused, and won't you >want some protection, some rights to defend yourself? I must agree with you here for the sake of variety. As the innocent accused I would expect rights and protection - but as the guilty I would expect none. The brutality and violations of rights are caused by the individuals who represent the system. Why should society shoot itself in the foot because some local sheriff takes it upon himself to use an illegal wiretap to obtain evidence? A one year term in prison should be in order for the sheriff - after all, it is the sheriff who has transgressed against the rights of the criminal *not* society. We would imprison a criminal for transgressing the rights of someone else wouldn't we Tom? Tom?? ... well, at least I would. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/13/86)
> >> > The Constitution says "freedom of speech." This is what I believe in. > >> >Without conditions. > >> > > >> > -- David desJardins > >> > >> :-{) The constitution also allows groups like the KKK to exist, as well as the > >> American Nazi Party. > >> > > > >And the various communist factions as well. This is called "freedom". > >Freedom to go along with the majority view isn't freedom -- it's > >totalitarianism. > > So let's see here, the majority thinks it's wrong to kill, not they outlaw it > and the majority thinks that it is wrong to steal so it is outlawed as well. > Maybe I am being a little extreme here, but I could also find some not so > extreme views. There are people that believe theft is fine as long as they > can get away with it. > I'm arguing that human rights are not subject to majority rule. (Although if too large a majority disagrees, there's no way to get the legal system to protect those rights.) If you insist on arguing that human rights exist by democratic consensus, what criticism can you possibly have a society that democratically redefines Jews to not be people, then exterminates them? As has been done in this century. > >> Aparently their are laws in the US which will allow you to prosecute someone > >> that violates or breaches or is a threat to national security. > >> > > > >Rather narrowly defined, though. That's why the Progressive was allowed > >to publish their article about H-bomb building. > > > >> I also do not believe in censorship, but in my message I described how I > >> would choose between the lesser of two evils. > >> > >> Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the > >> Canadian and American systems of justice. > >> > >> In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and > >> freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, > >> that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the > >> police violated the rights of this individual. > >> > > > >I make no apologies for this. Better than 10 guilty go free, than one > >innocent man go to prison. Besides, criminals seldom commit one crime -- > >if they don't go to prison on the first crime, they will on the second or > >the third. > > Real criminals commit hundreds of crimes and are never arrested for any of them. Burglary, yes. Murder, very seldom. > I have heard many learned lawyers refers to the US legal system as the knee > jerk system. Everything is very automatic. If X then Y. > There is no discretion involved. I believe the term used is legal machine. > I believe the term is "rule of law". In fact, it doesn't work that way. Judges have lots of discretion, and spend much of their time abusing that discretion. This is why lots of American states have passed mandatory sentencing laws -- to take away the discretion of judges. > >> In Canada we lean towards the protection of society as a whole, and we place > >> less emphasis on the rights of the accused that we do on the rights of > >> society. The arm of the law in Canada is much heavier in Canada than it is > >> in the US. The biggest problem is that most Canadians know more about the > >> American Legal System than they know about the Canadian Leagl System. I > >> myself was one of these, luckily I have been told or taught what the > >> differences are. Canada now has a constitution of its own. Could you believe > >> that we existed for over a hundred years without a constitution. Imagine that. > >> :-) Somehow we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, we haven't become > >> socialists or communists or Nazi's. We did not have 'Freedom of Speech' as > >> a right. Yet we had it somehow. We had no CIA or FBI or NSC . When we got > >> our constitution though we soon after got the CSA (Civilian Security Agency) > >> They are probably not related, but sometimes I wonder. > >> > >> Jim Boritz > >> > > > >Your comments above about the Canadian legal system leaning towards > >society's protection, and less emphasis on the rights of the accused, > >would seem to argue that you needed more protections. > > I don't know what lines you read between to get this but let me tell you > that the Candian system also feels that it is better to let ten guilty go > free rather than have one innocent person go to jail. What we don't > believe in is having 1000 people go free to save the one innocent person. Your comments above about the rights of the accusedf suggested that the Canadian legal system would rather take some chances sending innocent people to jail. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry. I doubt that 1000 criminals go free to save one innocent person here. > You could say that theoretically a justice system should never send an innocent > person to jail, but this happens in Canada and in the US. You could also say > that if an innocent person goes to jail tyhe justice system is not working > properly, but you don't. You can also say that it is better to have any number > of guilty people go free, than to have a single innocent person go to jail. > This is very nice, theoretically, but somewhere the line has to be drawn. > If this were what we used (you guys in the US too) then we would only have > a couple hundred people in jail, because we would have to have video tapes > of the guy committing the crime to prove his guilt. > Not true. I wasn't arguing that the system has to be as crazy as it is here -- we have a lot of judges in this country who can't distinguish between protecting the rights of the accused and just letting criminals go free. > Let me followup on what I meant by knee jerk system. If I am correct you > have cases in which police procedure got somewhat or very out of hand. > These cases went to court and the accused were released because of their > treatment or the method which the police used to get their evidence. These > cases which have names I do not know, but could learn from television, have > become precedents in the US legal system. Apparently, it is now enough to > site the precedent, to get the evidence dissallowed. In Canada each case > is taken separately. Each case is given its own consideration. I like this > a lot better than a system in which the guilty go free because they know they > will get off on some technicality. > > Jim Boritz You are talking about the "exclusionary rule". Until 1911 in Federal cases, and sometime in the 1960s in State cases, our legal system worked on the principal that if a police officer made a mistake, the evidence that was illegally gathered could still be introduced, but the officer was civilly and criminally responsible if he violated the rights of the accused. But police officers were practically never held responsible. The "exclusionary rule" was created by the courts because it seemed to only way to get the police to behave. Perhaps in our considerably more litigious times, we can get rid of the exclusionary rule and rely on fear of civil litigation to make the police behave. We have gotten a long ways off the original topic Censorship in Canada.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/13/86)
> In article <580@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> >In article <11544@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: > > >> ... > >>I also do not believe in censorship, but in my message I described how I > >>would choose between the lesser of two evils. > >>Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the > >>Canadian and American systems of justice. > >>In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and > >>freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, > >>that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the > >>police violated the rights of this individual. > >> > > > >I make no apologies for this. Better than 10 guilty go free, than one > >innocent man go to prison. Besides, criminals seldom commit one crime -- > >if they don't go to prison on the first crime, they will on the second or > >the third. > > > No one is arguing that innocent people should go to prison; just those > that are *known* to be guilty. I fully believe that the benefit of the > doubt should go to the accused; but, when there is no doubt, justice should > be done. It seems that you've forgotten that there are three parties > involved in every crime. You've only accounted for the criminal and the > state but you've forgotten the victims. Society must do justice to the > victims, as well as to the accused. By your assertion, you would rather > see ten injustices done rather than one. > It isn't hard to imagine the injustice done by setting a proven murderer > free because of some technicality. "Gee Mr. Smith, we had to let the guy > who murdered your wife and kids go free because we forgot to read him his > rights." "Don't worry though, these guys usually murder more than once > - we'll get him next time for sure." As you can see, the fact that a > criminal will commit more than one crime hardly seems comforting. In fact, > the possibility of a repeat performance by the criminal is a strong argument > for justice the first time - ie. locking him up. > Something that you apparently assume is that setting free those *known* > to be guilty somehow insures that innocent ones won't be convicted. This > believe is rather bizarre. I would be interested to see an argument that > supports it. > > Ken Hruday > University of Alberta I defended a principle of law -- I'm not arguing that the application of it at the moment makes much sense. A lot of judges in this country (especially the ones Gov. Brown appointed in California) have forgotten that justice is the primary goal, and that the court system isn't a game.
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/14/86)
In article <827@alberta.UUCP> ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday) writes: > No one is arguing that innocent people should go to prison; just those >that are *known* to be guilty. I fully believe that the benefit of the >doubt should go to the accused; but, when there is no doubt, justice should >be done. It seems that you've forgotten that there are three parties >involved in every crime. You've only accounted for the criminal and the >state but you've forgotten the victims. Society must do justice to the >victims, as well as to the accused. By your assertion, you would rather >see ten injustices done rather than one. >.......... > Something that you apparently assume is that setting free those *known* >to be guilty somehow insures that innocent ones won't be convicted. This >believe is rather bizarre. I would be interested to see an argument that >supports it. As you note, this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has to do with the fact that if the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not enforced (i.e. penalties imposed for violations of those rights), then those rights effectively disappear. You can debate (if you wish) the value of these rights (perhaps you would prefer a true police state), but there is no way to guarantee these rights if violating them has no effect. Do you think the police are going to bother to get warrants to come in and search your house and your person if there is no real reason for them to bother to do so? The fact is, historically, there has been no real enforcement of the rights of the accused until such time as penalties are imposed for violating these rights. -- David desJardins