Should it be illegal to make racist speeches in public?

[RakuraiTenjin]

in the US ..canada for example defines hatecrime as:



Advocating genocide (s.318[1]). Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.


Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].


Wilful promotion of hatred (s. 319[2]). Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of [a crime].



as you can see it's not just an action that is a hate crime ..words can be too

Wow. That's a little too far into it for my likes. Having to watch what you say and stuff isn't my cup of tea, but whatever.

 

[Kommie]

Winnipeg Free Press Stern. Oh, you'll be happy to know that Fox News is avail. on digital cable packages Canada wide now, so you can get it too

Hate crime laws are stupid to begin with. How as a parent would you feel if your white son was murdered and the guy gets 10 years, then a black guy is murdered in the same situation and the guy gets life. Is the govt. saying black/gay/anything but straight white guys lives are more important? People should be punished for the crime, not why they commited it.

All they do is breed resentment and hatred. When will people realize that special treatment breeds racism?

quoted for truth

Canadas laws are a bit extreme in my opinion, but since I am not a canadian my opinion does not matter.

 

[RZAL]

Wow. That's a little too far into it for my likes. Having to watch what you say and stuff isn't my cup of tea, but whatever.

You have to consider Canada's turbulent history of racism and inequalities. Unlike America and its "melting pot" ideologoly, Canada primarily stressed ethnic tolerance due to their extremely diverse ethnic structure. I can understand why stricter laws are applied.

Stern maybe I do work for the Canadian Stats..LOL

 

[Tantalus]

If they say "I hate Jews" then no, it should not be illegal.
If they say "I hate Jews, lets go kill them all" then yes, it should be illegal.

Anytime they actively incite violence, it should be a crime. If the only thing getting hurt are peoples' feelings, you are within your rights.

Just my $.02

I agree.

But which, then, should I vote for?

 

[bilbov]

A little offtopic, but whatever. Currently 'free speech' allows people, or more specifically the media to say whatever the frail they like. The problem with this in the UK at the moment, is immigrants and asylum seekers are being criminalised by the media without solid reasoning. Oh and as long as you use clever wording in press you can say whatever you want.

 

[CptStern]

Wow. That's a little too far into it for my likes. Having to watch what you say and stuff isn't my cup of tea, but whatever.

hehhe no no, it's to prevent hate groups from spewing their hate propaganda in public ..there's no "thought police" that'll arrest you if you yell a racial slur ..although assaulting someone while saying racial slurs will get you charged with a hate crime

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Actually you can be arrested for racist comments in certain circumstances. If you're not arrested, you'l at least be fined or have some other court order put on you.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

hehhe no no, it's to prevent hate groups from spewing their hate propaganda in public ..there's no "thought police" that'll arrest you if you yell a racial slur ..although assaulting someone while saying racial slurs will get you charged with a hate crime

I thought hate crime was determined after you were sentenced.(IE: Sex Offender status, something you get branded with, after being found guily of the initial crime)

Hate groups have a right to hate and spew crap, too, so long as they don't cause violence. Where we come in is making the asses out of them with OUR free speech. Hehe.

 

[Foxtrot]

it's a fine line between opinion and hate crime ...hate crime is illegal in canada ..a hate crime in canada is defined as:

Advocating genocide (s.318[1]). Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.


Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].


Wilful promotion of hatred (s. 319[2]). Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of [a crime].


so this priest would indeed be guilty of a hate crime in canada

So if someone says in a speech that they hate terrorists they could be put in prison for 5 years?

 

[CptStern]

So if someone says in a speech that they hate terrorists they could be put in prison for 5 years?

no, it has to fit one of those criteria

I thought hate crime was determined after you were sentenced.(IE: Sex Offender status, something you get branded with, after being found guily of the initial crime)

no, the "hate crime" is the crime. example:

I assualt someone I get charged with assualt

I assualt someone and it's racially motivated (ie: gay bashing) I'll get charged with assualt and a charge of a hate crime (depending on the circumstances)

 

[Foxtrot]

no, it has to fit one of those criteria



no, the "hate crime" is the crime. example:

I assualt someone I get charged with assualt

I assualt someone and it's racially motivated (ie: gay bashing) I'll get charged with assualt and a charge of a hate crime (depending on the circumstances)

"Wilful promotion of hatred (s. 319[2]). Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of [a crime]."
Terrorists are an identifiable group.

 

[Danimal]

Someone should voice thier opinion even if it is racist, but they should be aware of the consequences of doing so.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Someone should voice thier opinion even if it is racist, but they should be aware of the consequences of doing so.

There shouldn't be LEGAL consequences though. But private citizens have every right to do what they please that isn't illegal. For instance publically rebuking them, their employer firing them, etc.

 

[CptStern]

Terrorists are an identifiable group.

how? ..what race are they? what nationality?

There shouldn't be LEGAL consequences though

I disagree but that's not something I concern myself with because in my country it IS illegal. You can say whatever you want to someone but a racial slur is the same as a verbal assualt. Uttering death threats is also a crime and it works much in the same way

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This is a tough question for me.
On one hand, I absolutely hate racism, and hold a great deal of malice towards those who purvey it. I consider them no different than any terrorist recruiter.
But on the other, punishing statements is fraught with difficulties. Not to mention it's a dangerous precedent to set.

I've got a solution though: Let racists speak and hold their meetings, but hold them to strict truth-in-advertising standards.
Basically, hold racist organizations to the standards of a commercial organisation.
Like how food has nutrition information, and drug commercials have to list the side-effects. Give racism a Surgeon General's Warning, of sorts:

"Durrr, micronesians are smelly!"*

*Adherance to this mindset my cause unpopularity, decreased intelligence and bigotry. Micronesians not actually smelly. Consult a psychiatrist before attempting racism.

Racism is just another noxious product, and if we slap a 'poison' label on it, people will have no choice but to stop and think.
And when thinking happens, racism doesn't.

 

[Da Funkey Gibbon]

Is a tough one, by putting moderate restrictions on freedom of speech we *may* be able to prevent the media and public speeches being used to drum up hatred as so terribly happaned in Nazi germany, but then again I am pretty idealistic when it comes to freedom of speech, if we don't let people speak their minds won't they resort to violence to achieve their ends, and how can we hope to conivince them they are mistaken.

As for the example given, here is the speech: http://www.christianforums.com/t1176453-so-you-heard-a-pastor-was-sent-to-prison.html and I hope you agree that it is ridiculous, he doesn't advocate hurting homosexuals in any way he merely says that homosexualiy is abnormal and a sin, a view held a very large preportion of the earth's population (not me though- don't hate me ) he even closes by saying: "We cannot condemn these people--Jesus never did that either"
Insulting to homosexuals -yes, probably
full of hate? -no
Is he exercising a basic human right- YES.

 

[bliink]

, their employer firing them, etc.

Firing someone based on their personal viewpoints? that is illegal.

 

[cronholio]

As I said, it's a hard case, but we aren't talking about goverment censor here, as HunterSeeker said, you are allowed to say anything, but afterwards you will be responseable for your actions.

If there are reprecussions for merely saying something non-PC or even hateful you do not live in a free society. If I had lived in Poland in 1939, I would have the freedom to say whatever I want, but there'd be reprecussions. If I lived in China today I have the freedom to say whatever I want, but there are reprecussions.


A popular Liberal war cry is that conservatives try to legislate morality. When you start putting any reprecussions on what people can or can't say becasue something is not PC or is considered hateful, you are legislating morality. This is one thing I'm proud to say the US has gotten right, so far. It is the most free country in the world.

 

[The Monkey]

It is the most free country in the world.

Lol, that gave me a good laugh. India is more free that you. There does at least the man/woman that the people actaully voted for win.

But he (the priest) didn't just say that he hated gay people, he said that homosexuals was a cancerous tomour on the soceity, and must be removed id soceity was to survive. But don't worry, he was released.

 

[Sieg]

I go with freedom of speech! One law that every country should have......

 

[firemachine69]

I have to agree with No Limit here. All the KKK rallies do is show how out of touch and hated they are by society. I don't even know if hated is the correct word, becuase they are so comical now. I think every KKK speech helps eliminate racism by showing how foolish racist people are.

Agreed.

 

[Maui]

The great part about freedom of speech is that it gives those who disagree with the idea an opportunity to refute it, and the public to decide which is right! So I say sure, let the racists up on stage. Then let someone else come rip them a new one ( to use a suitable metaphor ) and have the public laugh at them because the racists' views are ignorant and counter-productive. Bam, problem solved.

 

[Calanen]

In Australia trying to find out even what the law is, is the hardest bit. There are Federal laws, and then State and Territory laws on top of those.

The biggest problem you have got at Federal level is these provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. Which is broad enough to cover people saying hate speech type things.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1)
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a)
the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b)
the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2)
For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a)
causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b)
is done in a public place; or
(c)
is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3)
In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.


If any had the time or inclination - a good summary of things is in this case:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/137


My own view on it all? People should be able to say pretty much whatever they like. I don't like censorship. If they hate you, hate them back. But there is no freedom of speech in Australia.

 

[ríomhaire]

If they say "I hate Jews" then no, it should not be illegal.
If they say "I hate Jews, lets go kill them all" then yes, it should be illegal.

Agreed

 

[Calanen]

Heres the New South Wales one. For race. There are anti-vilification ones for all categories. Two radio announcers got in trouble for calling some homosexual gentlemen appearing on a gardening lifestyle 'silly old poofs'............


ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 20D
Offence of serious racial vilification
20D Offence of serious racial vilification

(1) A person shall not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group by means which include:

(a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons, or

(b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.

Maximum penalty:

In the case of an individual—50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

In the case of a corporation—100 penalty units.

(2) A person shall not be prosecuted for an offence under this section unless the Attorney General has consented to the prosecution.

The severe ridicule one is what fubars you - so a comedian doing a politically incorrect joke about a protected class - could be in trouble. Actually, correct that, would be in trouble......

 

[Scoobnfl]

I believe that the priests words should be allowed to be spoken. It is after all exposure of ignorance that weakens the position of such groups and individuals. So what if they are able to sway a few individuals to their side with their ignorant view point, more are influenced to the other side by rejection of such ignorance.

Freedom to express their views is what will lead to their views being rejected. Give him a bigger platform and the freedom to express his views, he only helps that which he hates.

 

[KoreBolteR]

i have no time for racist idiots at all.

they just hate a whole religion or race.. and for what? ..nothing.

 

[Incitatus]

ya, so they have a case against the priest ...funny how a man of god can be jailed for spreading hate

...freedom of speech is only freedom of speech till you infringe on someone elses freedom

Hmm you could argue that it is not racism because a key principle of christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner, with that in mind he is not explicitly inciting hatred.

 

[Calanen]

Hmm you could argue that it is not racism because a key principle of christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner, with that in mind he is not explicitly inciting hatred.

The priest was against homosexuality, not race as far as I can tell......

 

[The Monkey]

Sorry to bump into this old thread, but there're some news on the subject. The supreme court of Sweden has decided to review the case, with the priest who spoke about homosexuality as a sin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4530209.stm

 

[CptStern]

Sorry to bump into this old thread, but there're some news on the subject. The supreme court of Sweden has decided to review the case, with the priest who spoke about homosexuality as a sin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4530209.stm

I believe in free speech to a point, but what that priest said is nothing more than dissemination of hate ...sweden needs to be applauded for re-opening the case

 

[The Monkey]

I believe in free speech to a point, but what that priest said is nothing more than dissemination of hate ...sweden needs to be applauded for re-opening the case

Not everyone agrees with it though. This case has brought an interesting debate ; when it is hate-crime and when it it freedom of speech? But here he did hurt people feelings. How would you feel if someone said that you was "a cancerous tomour on the soceity"? This is exactly the same thing at shouting "F*cking N*gger" To somebody, except that he here didn't intend it to one person, but a whole group of persons.