Is this tolerance? – Liberals in Canada hate free speech. You can’t criticize Islam, homosexual behavior or even pro-abortion views! Coming soon to a country you live in . . .?
—
Christianity is good news for science
—
The Infanticide Shibboleth – Obama is super-duper pro-abortion, and pro-infanticide as well. But he’s for change, right, so is he open to changing these views? Uh, no. He doesn’t want common ground, he wants to change the subject.
—
Good analysis of the heresies of “Pastor” Paula White. Ick.
—
Filed under: Weekly roundup | Tagged: free speech, Politics, Pro-life, religion, Weekly roundup
People don’t get it. The pro-life groups just want the same access to public debate. Let us tell the other side of the story. That’s all.
Banning pro-lifer groups is outright discrimination.
Mark Steyn is experiencing Canadian “tolerance” after the publication of his book, “America Alone”. He quoted an Islamic radical and by doing so has brought upon himself the ire of this so-called commission. And of course the book also speaks of the terrorism situation in general and the mere mention of Islam connected to anything violent is a hate crime, so, off with his head.
Obama has stated that he wasn’t prepared to call an infant who survives an abortion a “person”. Considering he’s half black, why does this sound so ironic to me?
I’ve only one thing to say about Paula White: she’s kinda hot.
OK, two things: she’s also kinda goofy.
I believe there is a difference between “speech” and inducing or inciting others to commit a crime. We restrict speech that is “fighting words” or that contributes to mob violence. What really is the difference between that and what Mr. Boission has done here. He did not merely express his religious viewpoint — that is done throughout Canada without interference. Rather he called on his community to “deal” with the presence of homosexuals — whatever that means. To many people, it was a call for violence. A gay teen was assaulted in the small town of Red Deer where the article was published. The attacker admitted his inspiration was Boission’s article.
I’m not advocating for restrictions on speech, but I think this issue is more complex than you are making it.
Hi Neil,
I heard something interesting yesterday at the PCA’s General Assembly. There was a report from the Free Reformed Church of Scotland about its growth. Scotland has a lot of people who do not like Jesus Christ. However, Dawkins’ book has actually HELPED people come back TO the faith in Scotland. Now, that’s something pretty neat. What one man intended for evil, God used for good.
“I believe there is a difference between “speech” and inducing or inciting others to commit a crime. We restrict speech that is “fighting words” or that contributes to mob violence. What really is the difference between that and what Mr. Boission has done here. He did not merely express his religious viewpoint — that is done throughout Canada without interference. Rather he called on his community to “deal” with the presence of homosexuals — whatever that means. ”
Mike,
First of all, the link was to a story about a pro-life student group, not anything to do with Boisson, unless the link changed. It’s just curious that you didn’t address the actual topic of the link.
Do you have a link to the statement you are referring to? I would have to see the statement in context to determine if it was, in fact, an incitement of violence.
And if that was the case, why didn’t the government simply tell him to stop inciting violence, instead of infringing on his free speech rights altogether. Huffington Post says the ruling was this:
“That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-volokh/stop-all-disparaging-rema_b_106360.html
True, sometimes issues are more complex than what they initially seem. At the same time, people are also good at making excuses for certain freedoms being taken away.
Mike,
I agree that free speech is misused. The 1st was designed for all who wished to criticize the government, not yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater or to protect porn. But I would say that even those who wish to incite are less a problem than those who act on the incitement. There are laws to deal with those who beat up or kill homosexuals and they should be enforced. What Canada has goes far beyond that, if Mark Steyn is to be believed. If the youth took the word “deal” to mean attack, he’s an idiot. If Boission is calling for attacks, his words need to be taken into account and I believe his words need to be specific in order to take legal action against him. “To deal with” can mean many things not related to violence. (I’m not familiar with his speech so perhaps there’s more that is specific.)
“But I would say that even those who wish to incite are less a problem than those who act on the incitement.”
That’s true. And the man who committed the assault is being charged with a crime.
I strongly believe in free speech and believe that the best way to counter “bad” speech is with more, not less, speech. However, not everything is “speech”. Some statements are simply intended to provoke violence or other crimes.
Read this article from Eugene Volokh on Crime-Facilitating Speech. Volokh disagrees with the Canadian court’s action but he does illustrate that there is a difference between constitutionally protected speech and “crime-facilitating” speech.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf
Mike, thanks for the background on the “crime facilitating speech” topic.
For the record, here is what I was critiquing by including the link above. It had nothing to do with “crime facilitating speech.”
It is a classic, clueless word game: “You are free to say anything that we agree with.”
P.S. Is AA guilty of crime-facilitating speech if a drunk gets beat up?
I quite stupidly posted a link to the wrong article above. There is a difference between “crime-facilitating speech” and “crime-advocating speech”. If someone published an article which called for people to assault another group, this would be “crime-advocating speech” and would fall under the “clear and present danger doctrine”.
From CJS:
“The “clear and present danger” doctrine serves as a guide in determining the constitutionality of governmental restrictions on the right of free speech and free press. Under the doctrine, freedom of speech and of press is susceptible of restriction when, and only when, necessary to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the government may lawfully protect.
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify the suppression of free speech. The important question is not whether the speech which a statute purports to regulate is offensive or inflammatory, but rather whether the speech is likely to produce imminent lawless action.
Any attempt to restrict free speech must be justified by clear public interest, threatened not doubtfully or remotely, or even probably, but by clear and present danger, and the danger must have existed at the time the acts complained of were committed. There must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced, and to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent.
Mere public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest is not sufficient to warrant restrictions on the right of free speech. In determining whether there is a clear and present danger justifying limitation on free speech, the court must inquire in each case whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. Where the effect of a statute or ordinance on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms is relatively small and the public interest to be protected is substantial, a rigid test requiring a showing of imminent danger to the security of the nation will not be applied.
Under the clear and present danger test, speech which advocates violation of law is protected except where it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it.”
Mike – no problem, thanks for the clarification.
P.S. It ain’t just Canada – see http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/are-you-ready-for-persecution-at-the-hands-of-gay-activists/ and http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/06/biblical-message-criminalized.html .
“Which brings us back to Sen. Obama. In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions.”
Isn’t it amazing. But don’t forget, Obama is a uniter? Somehow we will all unite over the ability to abort innocents.
“I’ve only one thing to say about Paula White: she’s kinda hot.
OK, two things: she’s also kinda goofy.”
I second that. But why is she so out of breath? Did she just finish a 10k before her sermon?
Speaking about sexual preference might lead to assault for which the assailant is punished.
Speaking about abortion leads to killing a baby for which the assailant is paid.
I’m confused.