Canadian Human Rights Tribunal imposes $42k fine on Mike Ward for making "inappropriate" jokes.

originally posted by: gladtobehere

Not talking about speech which incites hatred

You seem to be making a distinction between this guy's comments and "speech which incites hatred".

Could you further explain the differences? Perhaps give an example of speech which does incite hatred?

I am an American and as such I think there should be very few restrictions on speech. But the Canadian laws and values are different and I can respect that. Under their laws certain speech is restricted because of hate. So putting that aside as a given I'm wondering how his comments should or shoud not qualify for sanction in Candia.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
But the Canadian laws and values are different and I can respect that.

So what's next?

Sanctioned for saying something bad about the PM or other authority figure?

How do you define what isn't offensive? It's all subjective. For every person offended by the joke, there's someone else that wasn't. For every disabled person offended by it, there's a disabled person that found great humor in it.

How do you regulate that? You sanction some emotional perspectives but not all?

Free speech is not given. It's not earned. It's not possible to regulate it. You can fine, but it's still there. You can try to punish this person and silence them, but their freedom of expression is still there.

I can't respect that at all. If these are the laws that humans should live by, there are at least a couple hundred people that should be fined/arrested for the things they said to and about me simply because I had my feelings hurt even if others didn't find those things offensive.

a reply to: VivreLibre

How the Canadian's decided to define and regulate hate speech is up to them; I can't answer to what a Canadian finds offensive but I can respect their right to choose for themselves.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: VivreLibre

How the Canadian's decided to define and regulate hate speech is up to them; I can't answer to what a Canadian finds offensive but I can respect their right to choose for themselves.

It's actually not possible, though

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: VivreLibre

How the Canadian's decided to define and regulate hate speech is up to them; I can't answer to what a Canadian finds offensive but I can respect their right to choose for themselves.

It's actually not possible, though

Sure it's possible;

You create an organization and call it something like the "Human Rights Tribunal" and you give them the task to decide what is and what is not hate speech.

Hopefully you put smart and we'll rounded people in this organization and not fill it with people who have personal agendas.

a reply to: gladtobehere

there are many things not protected bye the 1st. Freedom of speech does not, and has never meant you can say anything to anybody and be protected.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Personally speaking, I prefer the good old days when citizens would just simply fling rotten tomatoes and animal feces at idiots who say stupid things. Physical consequences can be so much more fun sometimes.

I wish I could throw tomatoes and feces your way for saying stupid things, but then again I think it is your right to say what you want, no matter how antithetical it is to liberal democracy. It sounds like you're just another victimizer, but one that sounds like it's coming from Saudi Arabia.

Guess what the physical consequences for people who say "stupid things" in Saudi Arabia are? Maybe you blog about the regime, boast about your sexual life or, god forbid, give psychic advice on the radio. The punishment for these crimes is jail time, fines and even beheading. But according to you, physical consequences can be so much more fun sometimes.

If you cannot be a grown up and accept responsibility for how you act or feel around a comedy show, you were never fit to hear them in the first place. Go to a kids show, sit in front of a TV watching cartoons or Full House reruns if that is your bag, but do not suppress the rights of others because you watched something you probably shouldn't have and took offence.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: VivreLibre

How the Canadian's decided to define and regulate hate speech is up to them; I can't answer to what a Canadian finds offensive but I can respect their right to choose for themselves.

It's actually not possible, though

Sure it's possible;

You create an organization and call it something like the "Human Rights Tribunal" and you give them the task to decide what is and what is not hate speech.

I guess that is the way of the modern liberal. Ignore history. Why learn from history and consequences of authoritarian oppression when we can just experience it for ourselves?

Hopefully you put smart and we'll rounded people in this organization and not fill it with people who have personal agendas.

You mean like what is exactly happening with this Canadian HRT?

a reply to: alphacenturi

Is he causing harm or inciting violence in his speech?

No

Sorry but I disagree with you that because he made fun of someone (remove the thought of this being a poor little boy etc) he should be fined or anything except boycotted.

No harm came from him. The fact this pulls on the heart strings does not trump what he actually did.. made fun of someone.

a reply to: TheTory

We have freedom of expression not freedon of speech.
This is also the Quebec Charter we are dealing with here.
You said to cranial sponge if you don't want to be insulted or buthurt don't frequent these kind of clubs,

For the last time for someone who obviously has not even read the article or you would understand.

The disabled kid WAS NOT AT THE SHOW
The disabled kid THOUGHT ABOUT SUICIDE NUMEROUS TIME BECAUSE HE FELT HIS LIFE WAS MEANINGLESS AFTER WARDS VERBAL ASSAULTS.
The disabled kid LOST OPPORTUNITIES TO PERFORM DUE TO WARDS VERBAL ASSAULTS THAT WERE NOT LIMITED TO ONE SHOW BUT SEVERAL AND INTERNET POSTINGS STATING HE WAS DISSAPOINTED THE KID WASN'T DEAD YET.
The disabled kids name is JEREMY GABRIEL.

Mike wards manager warned him the night before the show that he could face a libel suit, he knew exactly what he was doing, he has even come to regret using Jermey's name.

Why don't you educate yourself on the whole situation before you comment, and if you have already, and still posted your drivel, then I am glad even more for the charter and the judges decision.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: gladtobehere

They don't have protected free speech in Canada and other parts of the world. They can do what they want to silence people. It sure makes you think and not take it for granted here in the U.S.

It might not hurt for you to do a tiny bit of research before you make a remark like this.

Here are the facts:

Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Like other democracies, freedom of speech in Canada is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified.

Freedom of speech in Canada

I am not sure why it is that many Americans walk around with this idea that they have more rights and freedoms than a lot of other Western democracies...but there it is.