Another sign Canada is losing IT! Clamping down free speech and religion...?

Is John Leo (in US News & World Report) losing it or is this for real?

I suspect it is ifeminist.com Canadian scholar Wendy McElroy has long sung the siren song warnings about this problem - as have other feminists.

--------------------------------------------------

'Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups. The bill has a loophole for religious opposition to homosexuality, but few scholars think it will offer protection, given the strength of the gay lobby and the trend toward censorship in Canada. Law Prof. David Bernstein, in his new book You Can't Say That! wrote that "it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." Or traditional Jewish or Muslim opposition, too.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040419/opinion/19john.htm

 

If you are looking for a J.S.D. dissertation topic, the balance between forbidden "hate speech" and protected "political speech" in western democracies might be just the ticket.

This is a confused and developing area of public law where there are few solid answers, as yet.

 

It is my understanding that this is true, even in cases of religion. Though a loophole exists for religeous speech, I have heard that many churches have stopped speaking out against the homosexual life style, even from the pulpit, for fear of legal consaquence.

Pug

 

Canadian protection of religious rights could be limited by what is reasonable in a free and democratic society. I don't know the last time our supreme court has considered a conservative cause to be reasonable.

Gay rights were added to the constitution by the courts under a catch-all clause that the list of rights provided did not preclude other rights.

 

It goes to the inferiority of unwritten constitution, I believe, although few here will argue that for example the French continental is better.

I thank the US framers for a tradition of popularly sovereign powers only ceeded to the state to achieve limited ends. This makes such policies harder to promote, and expanded forbidden speech (beyond crying "fire!' in a crowded theater) remains relatively tough to enact here.

However much the academy is guilty of promoting the insipid notion of "balanced" speech rights (as nosborn puts it above) in the US, true civil libertarians are still beating back the PCer parade of conformism. "If you have not been offended, you have not been educated," said one University of Minnesota president.

AMEN - let the offending forever continue!

--Orson

 

I would agree with Dennis; the interpreation of this law will be made within the confines of common sense.

However, I am always 'amused' when the Christians are up in arms about the repression of free speech. Just have a look at history and see what happens to 'free speech' when the Christians (or that for matter, any religious group) get a hold on civial power!

 

Question for the group

The trouble with "hate speech", though, is it seems to cross the line into inciting law breaking.

This morning on the radio (yes NPR) they did a story about a fellow who runs seminars and publishes written materials claiming that people have no legal obligation to file income tax returns because individual income is not taxable.

Now, this is nonsense; his legal "theories" have been described as "meritless", "frivolous" and "not deserving of consideration" by every Court that has ever examined them.

The fellow has actually GONE to federal prison for refusing to file. Now he files empty returns. He was just indicted (again) for some 34 counts of fraud, tax evasion, and related federal felonies.

His so-called advice places the gullible at considerable risk of federal prosecution and, as we all know, the IRS has no sense of humor. Meanwhile, he is making money estimated to be in the millions from these activities.

All this man does is speak, write, and publish. He is not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor is he screaming "kill him! kill him!" at the scene of a bar brawl.

Question to the group! Is this man's speech "protected"? Or should the IRS be able to obtain an injunction forbidding him to offer any advice on tax matters?

 

Easy!!!

Get him for practicing law w/o a license.

 

UPL??

Well, what about that? He IS offering legal advice but in an area where it is not necessary to be a lawyer to offer such advice nor even to represent clients before the IRS.

Even so, can a statute or Court rule actually render speech illegal where it is constitutionally protected? I don't see how.

Besides, what IRS would really LIKE to do is shut him down before he says something; that's called "prior restraint" and is very hard to do.

 

Re: UPL??

Schiff's contention that we do not legally owe income taxes may be debated regardless of past legal judgements. I haven't read any of his books but understand that in early editions he would indicate that there could be no legal repercussions for not filing. I understand further that he has, in his later works, warned against possible legal repercussions for following his advice.

It could be said that he has or does perpetrate some sort of fraud in dismissing or downplaying the consequences of following his advice.

 

We have people in Canada who believe that income taxation is illegal even though, to paraphrase the British North America Act, the federal government can employ ANY mode or method of taxation.

I think this may be spillover from the US where taxation may be less clearly defined.

You can't reason with these people so I gave up trying.