Hate Crime Laws Unconstitutional?
I am against Canadian Hate Crime legislation.
Who ordained our Canadian government with the authority to proscible speech or expressive conduct? No entity has the divine right to persecute because they don't agree with what's being expressed.
Yes there are recognized limits. For example, we cannot threaten to kill someone. However, in expressing opinions, the government discriminates against us in terms of speech that may be offensive towards religion, race, sexual orientation etc. Yet we are still free to express speech that's against things like labor unions, the goverment, drivers of SUVs, people with big noses or whatever. Does that not also constitute hate yet its legal?
Hate crime laws are content discrimination. The govt can limit free speech and conduct, such as gratuitious sexual expression in public but at the same time also can't ban offensive political messages. We all agree that our free speech does not entitle us to make threats of violence. However, to express ourselves in what may be considered bias towards an ethnic group, orientation or religion is illegal even though no threats of violence are involved. What's next? Is pornography also going to be illegal because someone people view it as hateful towards women or obscene to public morals? There are limits with porn and it deals with minors, not content.
I oppose hate cime legislation not only because it is viewpoint discrimation, but it licences one side to express themselves freely but prevents opponents from even responding. One side gets to argue freestyle and the other has to adhere to special debating rules.
What is the cost to our society when the goverment limits, censors speech and opinions? I argue that hate crime laws harm the very people they seek to protect because hate crime laws prevent dicourse from even occuring. For example, how does society benefit when "Mein Kampf" is banned from sale at Chapters Books at the cost of research, debate and historical interests. Its banning had nothing to do with hate crime legislation and more to do with political correctness.
Hate crime laws keep issues in the closet rather than giving opportunity for those targeted with offensive speech to respond through public debate. The danger to us all lies in this assumption that the govt has enumerated powers to ban speech and expression just because its offensive.
I don't need goverment to tell me what is hateful or not, I can decide that for myself.
Who ordained our Canadian government with the authority to proscible speech or expressive conduct? No entity has the divine right to persecute because they don't agree with what's being expressed.
Yes there are recognized limits. For example, we cannot threaten to kill someone. However, in expressing opinions, the government discriminates against us in terms of speech that may be offensive towards religion, race, sexual orientation etc. Yet we are still free to express speech that's against things like labor unions, the goverment, drivers of SUVs, people with big noses or whatever. Does that not also constitute hate yet its legal?
Hate crime laws are content discrimination. The govt can limit free speech and conduct, such as gratuitious sexual expression in public but at the same time also can't ban offensive political messages. We all agree that our free speech does not entitle us to make threats of violence. However, to express ourselves in what may be considered bias towards an ethnic group, orientation or religion is illegal even though no threats of violence are involved. What's next? Is pornography also going to be illegal because someone people view it as hateful towards women or obscene to public morals? There are limits with porn and it deals with minors, not content.
I oppose hate cime legislation not only because it is viewpoint discrimation, but it licences one side to express themselves freely but prevents opponents from even responding. One side gets to argue freestyle and the other has to adhere to special debating rules.
What is the cost to our society when the goverment limits, censors speech and opinions? I argue that hate crime laws harm the very people they seek to protect because hate crime laws prevent dicourse from even occuring. For example, how does society benefit when "Mein Kampf" is banned from sale at Chapters Books at the cost of research, debate and historical interests. Its banning had nothing to do with hate crime legislation and more to do with political correctness.
Hate crime laws keep issues in the closet rather than giving opportunity for those targeted with offensive speech to respond through public debate. The danger to us all lies in this assumption that the govt has enumerated powers to ban speech and expression just because its offensive.
I don't need goverment to tell me what is hateful or not, I can decide that for myself.