jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (04/29/85)
me. I think it should be pointed out that laws generally
should reflect the needs, desires and aspirations of the
society which creates them. The Canadian philosophy (as much as
it can be identified) seems to be fairly different from that
of the US. We Canadians seem to view Americans are overly radical
and prone to unnecessary confrontation. Please remember
that the Criminal Code didn't get the way it is by accident.
Each of the sections was pretty much passed because it was the
Government's perception of what the popular morality wanted.
So what is it that we seem to want so badly? Freedom of speech?
Sure we want that. It's clear however that most Canadians aren't
afraid of being muzzled. We generally, for better or worse
trust our governments to be made up of what I can only call 'under-motivated'
in the pursuit of power. If you get to know the politicians in
your riding, you will generally come to the conclusion that they
are well meaning, bumbling and somewhat self deluded (and maybe
self important). Multiply that times the number of seats in
parliament, and I really don't feel a lot of worry about power
hungry maniacs. Trudeau was probably the most idealistic
politician we've ever had. You may not have agreed with his
perception of what the 'ideal' course was, but that's part of
what idealism is all about. You say 'd*mn the masses, I'm going
to do what's right', and then you do it, by whatever methods
your persuasion will allow.
Idealism is not liked in Canada. That more than any
other reason is why Trudeau was disliked by so many.
Summary: g net.announce.newuser
Expires:
References: <890@ubc-vision.CDN> <6@aquila.UUCP> <997@ubc-cs.UUCP> <578@lsuc.UUCP> <1004@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Sender:
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Keywords:
In article <1004@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>As Dave Sherman pointed out the issue was *not* freedom of speech. This
>is due to the fact that section 177 of the Criminal Code places what I
>consider to be an unduly harsh restriction on that freedom that is so
>dear to so many of us. This is what section 177 says:
>"Everyone who wilfully publishes a statement, tale, or news that he knows
>is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a
>public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to
>imprisonment for two years."
>
>First off, I personally do not think that the public is best served by
>unnecessary restrictions on freedom of speech. On the contrary, I
>believe that it is imperative that any democratic society be given
>as much access to as much information as possible. It is only then
>that the legitimate debate which is the cornerstone of a democracy can
>be guaranteed. It is unfortunate that society would have to suffer the
>occasional Ernst Zundel in such a setup, however, the possible abuses
>of the alternative far outweigh the need to deter every wacko that comes
>along from espousing his views.
>
>So why do I think section 177 is unduly harsh and/or unnecessary ?
>
>- I believe that Canada has got to be one of the most tolerant countries
> on this planet. I do *not* think that the average Canadian can be swayed
> by an argument merely because it has been given semi-official status
> by virtue of it being in print. No, I believe that Canadians are more
> than capable of recognizing garbage for themselves and of acting
> accordingly. It should be noted that this tolerant state of affairs
> that exists today in this country was brought about without previously
> having to have to jail the intolerant minority among us. If, however,
> one believes that basically the people are like sheep that have to
> be led, then this argument is undoubtedly falling on deaf ears.
>
>- Section 177 is extremely vague. The term public interest is used
> but not defined. As the law stands it would appear to me that it
> could well be applied to routine libel cases which were never meant
> to be tried in a **criminal** court. All that is apparently
> necessary is that the injured party has to be ruled to be a public
> interest. Needless to say what really worries me is that the most
> obvious public interest is the government whose massive resources
> dwarf those of the average citizen.
>
>- Continuing on the theme of vagueness consider the phrase "is likely
> to cause injury or mischief". The "is likely" part implies to me
> that the author of the contentious publication needs some kind of
> a crystal ball. But the real problem with the phrase is the use of
> the word "mischief". Among other definitions for that word my
> dictionary gives: (i) a source of harm or irritation, and (ii) action
> that annoys. Do we really want to throw people in jail because they
> have printed lies that "irritate" or "annoy" a "public interest"???
> If I say (print) something like "this country's current economic
> malaise can be blamed entirely on the existence of crown corporations";
> a statement that is obviously untrue and yet is likely to cause
> mischief to ( read annoy ) a public interest ( read crown corporation ),
> could a jury observe the letter of the law and return anything
> but a guilty verdict?
>
>It is my belief that section 177 is a law waiting to be abused.
>Maybe not today, maybe not next week, month, or year, but as surely
>as governments have abused other loopholes, at some point a government
>will not be able to resist the temptation of abusing this law to
>the detriment of all of us.
>
>It seems to me that it is apparently often not possible to discuss the
>demerits of that section of the criminal code which caused Ernst
>Zundel to be brought to trial without being accused of being a neo-Nazi.
>I have found this to be the case in one or two personal conversations
>I have had with people, and although Dave Sherman does not accuse Don
>Acton of this, he does ask him if he too questions the Holocaust.
>I think it would be quite beneficial to all if those who support the
>status quo realize that it is quite possible to oppose section 177 without
>being a Zundel supporter.
>
> J.B. Robinson