rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/06/85)
I read in our local paper that a man was convicted of spreading rumors for the publication of his book calling the concentration camps of Nazi Germany a hoax. Is it true that you can be arrested and tried for spreading rumors in Canada? If we had that law here, we would have to designate several states criminal colonies to hold all the convicts! [:-/-)] *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (03/18/85)
In article <709@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >I read in our local paper that a man was convicted of spreading rumors >for the publication of his book calling the concentration camps of Nazi >Germany a hoax. Is it true that you can be arrested and tried for >spreading rumors in Canada? If we had that law here, we would have to >designate several states criminal colonies to hold all the convicts! >[:-/-)] It is true that a man was convicted of knowingly spreading false information likely to cause racial hatred. This false information was that the concentration camps in Germany were a hoax. I believe his sentence was for a few months. He is currently trying to appeal, but will in all probability lose. It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada. (Thank goodness.) Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
vip@philabs.UUCP (V. I. P.) (03/20/85)
Interesting, it is evidently against the law in Canada to be a racist, but certainly not to be a homophobe. Some of the most horrendous violence lately committed against gays by the state have occured in Canada. Hmmm... Brian Day UUCP: philabs!exquisit!brian
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/21/85)
> It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada. (Thank goodness.) > > Tom West I disagree strongly. Respecting the freedom of speech is far more important than stopping dangerous ideas. Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right? -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/22/85)
> > It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada. (Thank goodness.) > > > > Tom West > > I disagree strongly. Respecting the freedom of speech is far more > important than stopping dangerous ideas. > > Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right? > -- > Greg Kuperberg > harvard!talcott!gjk I have to agree with Greg on this one. I think Nazis, Communists, Ku Klux Klan members *all* should have the right to speak and express their opinions. I was upset to hear that a speech by members of the Army War College at a university in New York City was interrupted by catcalls and a melee to the point they were not allowed to speak. So long as those people who support peace rather than war also have the right to speak I see nothing wrong with letting militarists try to defend their position. tim sevener whuxl!orb
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/24/85)
In article <374@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes: >> It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada. (Thank goodness.) >> >> Tom West > >I disagree strongly. Respecting the freedom of speech is far more >important than stopping dangerous ideas. > >Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right? >-- > Greg Kuperberg Yes. (Unfortunately.) -- David Canzi "Women compromise more than a third of Britain's work force." -- The Vancouver Sun
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (03/25/85)
>> It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada. (Thank goodness.) >I disagree strongly. Respecting the freedom of speech is far more >important than stopping dangerous ideas. >Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right? > Greg Kuperberg Darn right. It is a criminal offense to spread hate literature in Canada. Mr. Zundel was convicted of knowingly spreading false information liable to cause racial hatred (or something very close to that). That's part of why the KKK got badly crunched here, for the most part. Then again, we are that much closer to the USSR. Just a pole away... Obviously they are brain-washing us. However, we are somewhat safe. If the Canadian gov't went totally nuts and actually went totalitarian, we could probably count on the States to oust such a gov't. Hence we get the best of both worlds. The protection of such laws with a much smaller risk. (unless you're a racist...) Tom West
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (03/25/85)
>> Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right? >I have to agree with Greg on this one. I think Nazis, Communists, >Ku Klux Klan members *all* should have the right to speak and express >their opinions. Political views are one thing. Hate literature is another. I would object to a restriction of speech of political natures, (and we Canadians are a little more tolerant of the communist and socialist types than Stateside), but I can conceive of no possible benefit of allowing hate literature to be circulated. There can never be any justification for the hatred of a group based on racial grounds. I can understand (<> agree with, = understand) the justification for the slaughter in all sorts of countries based on political grounds, and thus am willing to allow for the existence and discussion of such. But in no way can I even comprehend of such a justification as far as racism goes. It is in violation of my extreme base ethic: One doesn't kill somebody for irrational reasons. Hence I will fight against hate literature in any means possible (within legal confines, however). If this means a loss of freedom of speech, so be it. The only lost speech is that which, in my opinion, *must* be destroyed. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/26/85)
In article <925@utcsri.UUCP> west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: >>> Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right? > >>I have to agree with Greg on this one. I think Nazis, Communists, >>Ku Klux Klan members *all* should have the right to speak and express >>their opinions. > > Political views are one thing. Hate literature is another. I would >object to a restriction of speech of political natures, (and we >Canadians are a little more tolerant of the communist and socialist types >than Stateside), but I can conceive of no possible benefit of >allowing hate literature to be circulated. Hate literature *is* a form of political expression. > There can never be any justification for the hatred of a group based on >racial grounds. I can understand (<> agree with, = understand) the >justification for the slaughter in all sorts of countries based on political >grounds, and thus am willing to allow for the existence and discussion of >such. But in no way can I even comprehend of such a justification as far as >racism goes. It is in violation of my extreme base ethic: One doesn't kill >somebody for irrational reasons. Hence I will fight against hate literature >in any means possible (within legal confines, however). If this means a loss >of freedom of speech, so be it. The only lost speech is that which, in my >opinion, *must* be destroyed. If the government is given the right to define "truth" and enforce it, nobody's freedom of speech will be safe. If, as you claim, the beliefs in question are irrational, then it should be easy to prove them wrong. If you call for censorship as a substitute for argument, you show a lack of confidence either in the correctness of your beliefs, or in the ability of most other people to think. -- David Canzi "Women compromise more than a third of Britain's work force." -- The Vancouver Sun
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (03/26/85)
>Hate literature *is* a form of political expression.
There are people who would claim that murder is a form of political expression.
I don't think too many people condone that, and I doubt if a defense based
on freedom of speech would work.
This doesn't mean that I condone or condemn hate literature. I suspect that
when the literature becomes seditious is when it should be banned.
--
James C Armstrong, Jnr. { ihnp4 || allegra || mcnc || cbosgb } !abnji!jca
"We are expanding into entertainments... we sell videos of what goes on in
the Punishment Dome."
"Most Enterprising! Tell me, these videos, are they disturbing?"mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/27/85)
In reference to the Zundel case, in which a man was convicted, sentenced to 15 month in prison, and instructed not to talk about the Holocaust: > >If the government is given the right to define "truth" and enforce it, >nobody's freedom of speech will be safe. > >If, as you claim, the beliefs in question are irrational, then it should >be easy to prove them wrong. If you call for censorship as a substitute >for argument, you show a lack of confidence either in the correctness of >your beliefs, or in the ability of most other people to think. >-- > David Canzi I must admit to mixed feelings about the Zundel case. It's a classic ethical dilemma. On the one hand, any violation of freedom of speech is potentially dangerous because it provides a precedent for other violations; on the other, propagation of untruth with malicious intent is immediately dangerous (falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example of speech that should not be free). Zundel seems to be closer to the "Fire" example than to the censorship of pornography or of political opinion. Here was a man who, for the purpose of damaging a group of people he didn't like, argued strongly and publicly that the Nazis never murdered people deliberately in their death camps. It is as close to a fact as we will ever get in history that they did, and to argue that they didn't, in order to show that Jews are terrible liars for the benefit of Zionism, is clearly malicious. If Zundel had simply proclaimed that Jews are terrible people, I don't think he would have been prosecuted. If he had argued that the Dutch fleet never came up the Thames to attack London, I don't think he would have been prosecuted. The first would have been hateful, but protected as a right of free speech; the second would have been false, but unlikely to damage more than Dutch national pride. It is the conjunction of deliberate falsehood and the malicious desire to harm someone that is worthy of prosecution. It happens all the time in libel cases, it happens when someone does deliberately cause a panic by spreading a false rumour (it's called public mischief), and why is it different when the damaged group is dispersed? I think Zundel was properly convicted. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (03/28/85)
>If, as you claim, the beliefs in question are irrational, then it should >be easy to prove them wrong. If you call for censorship as a substitute >for argument, you show a lack of confidence either in the correctness of >your beliefs, or in the ability of most other people to think. > David Canzi Oh come off it. Have you ever argued with a racist? Logic is about the farthest thing from their mind. You are correct in one point. I don't absolutley trust the over-all population's rationality. History has shown that we humans can perform some incredibly savage acts of irrationality. I, for one, plan to fight a recurrence any way I can. And if this requires a small comprimise of absolute free speech, so be it. And no, I don't advocate absolute state mind control, however, there is a wide spectrum between free speech and mind-control, and I stand just a little off the free speech end. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/29/85)
In article <1482@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >I must admit to mixed feelings about the Zundel case. It's a classic >ethical dilemma. On the one hand, any violation of freedom of speech >is potentially dangerous because it provides a precedent for other >violations; on the other, propagation of untruth with malicious intent >is immediately dangerous (falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre >is the classic example of speech that should not be free). > >Zundel seems to be closer to the "Fire" example than to the censorship >of pornography or of political opinion. It would be dangerous for Zundel's beliefs to become widespread. But if the fact that some belief is dangerous comes to be accepted as sufficient reason for censorship, there is greater danger in letting the government have the power to define which beliefs are "dangerous." It must at least be made very difficult for the government to add new beliefs to the list. > Here was a man who, for the >purpose of damaging a group of people he didn't like, argued strongly >and publicly that the Nazis never murdered people deliberately in their >death camps. It is as close to a fact as we will ever get in history >that they did, and to argue that they didn't, in order to show that >Jews are terrible liars for the benefit of Zionism, is clearly malicious. I can't tell whether Zundel is a liar or a fool, and I have no idea how a court of law is supposed to determine this. I would think that only people who *want* to believe what Zundel is saying (ie. those who already hate Jews) would be likely to believe him. -- David Canzi "Women compromise more than a third of Britain's work force." -- The Vancouver Sun
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/29/85)
In article <455@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >>Hate literature *is* a form of political expression. > >There are people who would claim that murder is a form of political expression. >I don't think too many people condone that, and I doubt if a defense based >on freedom of speech would work. Well, I suppose it was possible to misinterpret that statement. I was arguing against the suppression of political *opinions*. Hate literature, when unaccompanied by physical demonstrations of hostility, is just the expression of a political opinion. -- David Canzi "Women compromise more than a third of Britain's work force." -- The Vancouver Sun