The Canadian Supreme Court Explains Why Expressions of Intolerance Are Intolerable

Philippe Landreville/Supreme Court of CanadaPhilippe Landreville/Supreme Court of CanadaThe First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." That seemingly categorical language has been interpreted over the years to allow restrictions on various questionable categories of speech, including obscenity, "fighting words," and even "electioneering communications." All things considered, however, it has been an amazingly robust protection against attempts to censor or punish the expression of controversial opinions. To fully appreciate how effective the First Amendment has been, it helps to consider not only horrible tyrannies that routinely try to control what people think and say but also liberal democracies that pay lip service to freedom of speech yet often sacrifice it on the altar of competing values. Canada, for instance.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supposedly guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." But the section on "fundamental freedoms" is preceded by one that adds, in essence, "void when prohibited by law." Section 1 declares that "the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Section 1 explains how it was possible for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule yesterday (unanimously!) that punishing a man for expressing disapproval of homosexuality is perfectly consistent with freedom of expression...subject to "reasonable limits."

The case involved Bill Whatcott, a resident of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, who in 2001 and 2002 distributed flyers condemning the normalization of homosexuality in public schools. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordered Whatcott to pay a $17,500 fine and to stop handing out anti-gay literature, citing a provincial law banning material that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" people based on various prohibited criteria, including sexual orientation. While the Supreme Court deemed that language excessively vague, it upheld the basic principle that the government can ban speech aimed at inciting hatred, which it defined in a 1990 precedent as "strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification." The court tweaked that definition a bit, removing calumny because false statements are not necessarily hate speech and hate speech need not be false. But it concluded that two of Whatcott's flyers, headlined “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!" and "Sodomites in our Public Schools," were indeed hateful enough to be banned:

Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law. The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred. The flyers also expressly call for discriminatory treatment of those of same‑sex orientation.  It was not unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude that this expression was more likely than not to expose homosexuals to hatred.

The court said prohibiting such speech "balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings." It explained why expressions of intolerance are intolerable:

Hate speech is an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts on a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy.

There is no question that speech can be pernicious; consider the above passage, for example. But that danger is hardly limited to the kinds of expression that Canadian courts would consider hateful. Respect for freedom of speech is built on a distinction between force and persuasion, between the sort of harm that words can do, which depends on how others respond to them, and the sort of harm that violence does. Bill Whatcott attempted persuasion, and the government of Saskatchewan responded with force, which should never be acceptable in "a free and democratic society."

Canadian journalist Ezra Levant chronicled his brush with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, stemming from his decision to reprint the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, in a 2009 Reason article. This is also good time to revisit Jonathan Rauch's classic Reason essay "The Truth Hurts," based on his insightful and profound book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought

[Thanks to Pierre Honeyman for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    "Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society."

    Yes, it does. But defining it is impossible and outlawing it accomplishes nothing.
    Does the court think that outlawing certain words means bigots will change their minds?

  • PapayaSF||

    Hate speech also impacts on a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy.

    Too bad Christians aren't a "protected group," or it would be easier for them to "respond to the substantive ideas under debate."

  • Agammamon||

    Newspeak refers to the deliberately impoverished language promoted by the state.
    Orwell explained the basic principles of the language - The totalitarian aim of the Party is to prevent any alternative thinking by destroying any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state and so on.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    Say I am in Canada and make a Stalin fanboy website. How long before the authorities will take it down?

  • ||

    Depends on how efficient they are, but they have a long history of censoring (and prosecuting) websites that espouse "hate speech". Look at the history of holocaust denial sites for example

  • Generic Stranger||

    Trick question. The answer is Never, because the western left has a giant mental block in place when it comes to Russian Communism.

  • ||

    Ya, I got "tricked". I re-read it and had a "click" moment and I agree... Never

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Stalin's a hero to most in Canada. You'll be fine.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Easy there Archduke. Not in Alberta. Maybe in Quebec. Quebec loves left-wing tinpot despots.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    also leftists in Manitoba and Saskatchewan

  • HellsBells||

    I have been to Quebec. Fuck Quebec.

  • Agammamon||

    Quebec is a place that requires the menus in italian restaurants to be written predominately in french, so yeah - fuck Quebec.

  • ||

    Good article. Simply put, we are hands down the best when it comes to free speech. Even with the occasional (unconstitutional) cyberstalking shenanigans case, like we had documented here last week as a matter of fact, we remain steadfast in not criminalizing hate speech.

    I took a "train the trainer" hate crimes investigator class and there were a bunch of RCMP in it. They were amazed at the kind of speech that we "allow" in the US. I was similarly amazed at some of their case law and the kind of speech they can censor, and their legal justifications for doing so. The fact that even truth is not a defense is chilling as well as that their hate crime laws apply even to private phone calls between two consenting adults.

    Canada's gone full European in their embrace of "civility" over "freedom" as they justified it in their parliamentary discourse. Disgusting.

    The Canadian Civil Liberties Assocation (CCLA) is an excellent resource for Canadian hate speech case law, btw. I go there often.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supposedly guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"

    You don't need a charter to protect speech that is popular.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Speaking of racists. Halfway decent article from the chicken little of demographics on neocon nitwittery over Iran.

    http://www.humanevents.com/201.....servatism/

  • John Galt||

    Bah, we aren't far behind places like Canada, Cuba, and Iran when it comes to banning free speech and thought.

  • ||

    Gotta disagree. This is one of those areas where we shine. And yes, I am aware of the occasional bogus cyberstalking case. Hate speechers COME here (like their websites especially) because they know they can operate with impunity. SPLC etc. documents all sorts of hate speech done here by various groups and the govt. does not censor. Sorry, but I think you are involved in unrealistic cynicism that I see no case law basis for.

  • John Galt||

    Not true at all. Here in the USA we have the 1st Amendment, so unable to pass the majority of laws they'd love to pass directly banning speech and thought they simply use that speech and thought they disagree with to fine, imprison and otherwise punish on other charges. The end result is the same.

  • ||

    People sling around hate speech with impunity in this country without suffering penal jeopardy. Sorry, I don't buy your claims whatsoever. Look at the Phelps clan, for instance.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It helps that they are all lawyers.

  • JeremyR||

    Look at the Benghazi video guy

  • ||

    SPLC etc. documents all sorts of hate speech done here by various groups and the govt. does not censor.

    The SPLC is a business proposition; it has nothing to do with civil rights or the like except to use it as an excuse for raising funds.

  • ||

    i am aware of what they are. The point is they are a good source for finding hate speech and as a subscriber to their publication (through my agency), I've seen scores of examples of very obvious hate speech that FLY here (and should per the 1st amendment) but would never fly in Canada. Trying to claim, as the OP does, that we are not far behind Canada and Cuba COMPLETELY misrepresents our 1st amendment case law and freedoms.

  • ||

    hate speech

    That depends on what counts as "hate speech". I think labeling MRA sites as containing "hate speech" is itself hate speech (if anything can be called "hate speech"), just the same way as the White House reactions to criticism ("willfully wrong", "will regret") is hate speech (if anything can be called "hate speech").

  • ||

    I don't agree with all their classifications. That does not vitiate the fact that they are a good source for finding examples of hate speech

  • ||

    This implies that there's an objective way to determine what is "real" hate speech, and that you're in possession of such a method.

  • ||

    I don't agree with all their classifications. That does not vitiate the fact that they are a good source for finding examples of hate speech

    Hey, Dunphy fell out of style; two uppercase letters!

  • ||

    Instead of "hate speech", it might be more accurate to call it "speech the SPLC and other butt-hurt groups would like to ban".

  • John Galt||

    FBI Agent Says Alleged Cannibal Cops Chatroom Talks Are "Real Crimes"
    February 28, 2013

    http://reason.com/24-7/2013/02.....nt_3578817

    Many examples every day.

    Perhaps my "unrealistic cynicism" is simply your blind denial.

  • ||

    He can SAY whatever he wants. If they truly did boast of PLANS and took a concrete step, then there WOULD be a criminal conspiracy and/or criminal attempt. It says nothing about our hate crime laws, which do not criminalize hate speech and the FACT that you can find thousands of examples of hate speechers acting with impunity in this country, and cannot find anything like that in Canada is proof enough. THERE, they get prosecuted. Here, they do not.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    John Galt,

    Look up Bill 14 and L'Office de la Langue Francaise (a state-sanctioned language discriminatroy body) and Bill 101. Look up the recent furor where language despots have attacked (Italian) words like "caffe" "pasta" and "ristorante" demanding under the force of fines owners change their menus or signage.

    Then come back and tell me if America is "not too far behind."

    As a Quebecer, I'm beyond embarrassed by the atrocious trampling of civil liberties here all with the full consent of the government. Apparently, protecting one culture and its language at the expense of others is perfectly legitimate.

    In fact, I'm wondering what's taking a libertarian magazine like Reason to look into this. CNN has. NPR has.

    Incidentally, probably as a result of the tyranny practiced here, Le Quebecois Libre (a libertarian publication) was born. It deserves our support.

    As for Levant, ask Mark Steyn the same question.

    Canada is NOT better than America when it comes to preserving, debating and intellectualizing concepts of liberty.

  • John Galt||

    "Canada is NOT better than America when it comes to preserving, debating and intellectualizing concepts of liberty."

    Here today, gone tomorrow. With left leaning Democrats in power we are on the fast track to becoming Canada.

  • ||

    You really won't give up this silly argument will you? We are nowhere NEAR Canada when it comes to hate speech prosecution, etc. Hate speechers, like the Phelps, operate with no problem whatsoever here.

  • John Galt||

    You really won't comprehend my original comment. I stated we aren't far behind. And we aren't. Especially with people like yourself who chose to see only what you want to see.

    Every day in this country there are endless attacks on our guaranteed rights. Every day they chip away a little more. Big changes can happen over night, look at history. Anytime we are headed in the wrong direction there's great reason for alarm. And we are headed in the wrong direction.

  • ||

    You really won't comprehend my original comment. I stated we aren't far behind.

    We comprehended pretty well. Saying there are people who would LIKE to ban such speech doesn't mean we're very close to having it banned.

  • Libertymike||

    You are closer to the truth than dunphy.

    There are numerous cases in which fathers in domestic relations cases have been punished for criticizing the decisions of probate and family court judges in on-line blogs.

    I know that dunphy visits The Volokh Conspiracy. Several weeks ago, there was a blog posting which generated well over a hundred comments (the posts may have exceeded 200) regarding a decision made by, IIRC, an Iowa or Illinois appeals court. The court upheld the conviction of a father who had the temerity to establish a blog upon which he criticized the probate and family court judge who handled his divorce case.

    The father was convicted of a crime. Not just censored - but convicted of a crime.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    A Quebec court (forget which one) a couple of years back overturned a punishment handed down by a father to his teenaged daughter after he learned of her sexual escapades on the internet. Daughter took him to court (if memory serves me right likely influenced by his ex-wife) and won.

  • Ted S.||

    I just wish Dunphy would have as much love for the 4th Amendment as he claims to have for the 1st.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Preachin' and practicin' are two different things. I can guarantee that if the US had similar laws dunphy would enforce them with glee, then come here to brag about it.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Not until you have ACTUAL government bodies FINING people for expressing themselves in, say, Spanish.

    I'm telling you check out the laws Quebec has on its books. NOTHING like it exists in North America.

    Moreover, Canada permits a NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE. A veto Quebec can insert whenever it has a hissy fit and feels the need to further inflict its tyrany of the majority on others.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    "Tyranny." And the Notwithstanding clause is part of a concession in the Charter to pacify an insecure Quebec.

    Bill 101 is viewed as a "great Canadian compromise" by intellectuals. It's nothing but a civil liberties travesty.

  • Gladstone||

    Only 'Murikans oppose civil liberties travesties.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I can't stand listening to Montreal political pundits. Smug and socialist except for a couple of sensible people here and there. For the most part, the essential theme is that Americans are nutty and backwards.

    Yes. Because we're so advanced in our left-wing progressive thinking.

  • Gladstone||

    We all know France has no problems at all.

  • Ted S.||

    The funny Canadians go to Hollywood to make a successful career for themselves in entertainment.

    The others stay behind and bitch about what a horrible place the US is.

  • Marshall Gill||

    As for Levant, ask Mark Steyn the same question.

    These two opened a huge can of ass whoop on the Canadian Human Rights commissions. It is a shame that Reason is so narrow in it's contributors because Steyn is a million Steven Chapmans. Yes, he isn't a cosmotarian and doesn't believe that State recognition of personal relationships is a "right" but he is more Libertarian than the fucking Leftist pieces of shit they have been writing glowing obituaries to lately.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    They sure did and exposed the HRC for the PC patrol it really is.

    And Steyn is funny too. Good with the words.

  • BlogimiDei||

    I seem to remember "Free Speech Zones."

    The fuck-bags that created this seem to forget that the entire United States is a Free Speech Zone.

    Or did I not get a memo?

  • John Galt||

    There was no memo. The haters of the First Amendment are pretty much the same group who despise the Second. Their obvious intentions is to slowly boil the frog so he won't protest too much. Taking away just a piece here, and a piece there, until nothing remains of Liberty.

  • In Time Of War||

    I find those funny in a terrifying manner. They are clearly stating that free speech is only allowed inside the little wire pen. Which means everywhere outside the little wire pen is...follow the bouncing ball.
    But nobody seems to care. Probably because both parties find them useful.

  • ||

    I would not be able to finish university these days....I am an obnoxious son of a bitch and I speak my mind.

    Confronted with 'free speech zones' I would respond about like you just did, but with less diplomacy.

    "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. Every goddamn fucking square inch of this country is a free speech zone. Try to change that and you will find out what shitting your own teeth out is like."

    *promptly dragged off of campus by university gestapo*

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I seem to remember "Free Speech Zones."

    They are more precisely called "Free Assembly Zones". There are no speech restrictions near political conventions, appearances, etc, just assembly restrictions.

  • Agammamon||

    "The first amendment prohibits the making of any law . . .interfering with the right to *peaceably assemble* . . ."

    So yeah dude, 30 seconds on Wikipedia blows the legality of "free assembly zones" out of the water.

  • ||

    OT; I dont know if you guys have seen this or not, but I highly recommend that you watch it. It is priceless. Take this advice - dont take a swig of vodka mid-way through the clip. It WILL come out of your nose.
    Also, make no racist comments.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMMrPoBq0M

    Also, fried chicken.

  • ||

    Fake, old video from the viral marketing campaign of the Planet of the Apes remake with James Franco.

  • ||

    ooops.
    Now I feel like an idiot.

  • ||

    Don't worry, we still have stupider people around to make you look good.

  • ||

    But in my heart I will always know......

  • ||

    My vodka soaked heart.....

  • Marshall Gill||

    Sure, sure, blame it on the booze!

    That is what I always do!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Hey SB, you fucking lush, I've been listening to this guy named Chris Knight lately. Seems like you might like him.

    His songs are like the soundtrack to my younger, rougher days; good shit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts on a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy.

    Er, how can Canadians say that with a straight face when their neighbor to the south has absolutely no hate speech laws and a much more conservative population, yet only sees more and more integration and legitimization of formerly "weird" groups of people.

  • ||

    Canadians (particularly in government) get most of their juice in NOT BEING LIKE AMERICANS! Canada = not the USA. And we can prove it damn you!

  • Gladstone||

    Since the Imperialist Murikkkans have freedom of speech we Canadians shouldn't have it. According to Raimondo, et. allm therefore libertarians have to support censorship.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Also, many like using the phrase "American Style" as a pejorative.
    As in "American Style" health care or "American Style Attack Ads"

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    "At least we're not American!" drives Canadian nationalism.

  • Gladstone||

    Yes.

    I have always thought that Canadian nationalism is at base a contradiction. Traditionally it was support for the British Crown that was the base of Canadian nationalism since the Americans rebelled but Canada didn't. The French Canadians were unsurprisingly not too found of the British Crown so, along with the decline of the British Empire, that key element of Canadian nationalism was lost so we are only left is "we're not American!" which usually involves being unthinking statists.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    also love for Rick Mercer. Canadian Nationalists all love Rick Mercer.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Touche to both Gladstone and Archduke.

    Yet, when you look at the parking lots of Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart guess which one is full? Plattsburgh's economy is based on Montrealers shopping there to escape high sales taxes and looking for more choice in their groceries.

    But we're not American! We have...public health and rank (marginally) better than Americans in education!

  • Gladstone||

    Well I mean Canadian nationalists are the ones slobbering over TEAM BLUE. Seems the US government is perfectly wonderful when Dems are in the White House.

    Oh and the Canadians who said that Harper would have got Canada into Iraq don't seem to upset he got Canada into Libya because a Dem is in the White House. Being a puppet of TEAM BLUE is perfectly fine. Hell the draft dodger who lives near me is socialist Obamaite!

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I also love how they conveniently overlook the fact that the Liberals sent us into Afghanistan and somehow Harper is the evil one for merely keeping to the pull back date the LIBERALS SET.

    Classic.

    As for all the idiots who voted for the NDP because they had an abnormal hatred for Harper. Happy now? How many have defected back to the Bloc now?

    They called it a strategic vote. It was a brain dead one if you ask me. I have plenty of friends and family who rode the superficial 'Orange Crush' wave and are now regretting.

    No fucking kidding. Worse, Mulcair that gasbag leads the Official Opposition.

    Draft dodging liberals get too many jobs in communications. No wonder our radio sometimes sounds like a left-wing university rag.

    But there's always Rex Murphy to set us straight!

  • Gladstone||

    I recall some Quebec blogger saying (after the election mind you) that he would vote for anyone that opposes Harper. With that sort of attitude it is no wonder why Quebec politics are so messy. Couldn't they at least have some sort of underlying principle? Well beyond Free Shit obviously.

    Of course Afghanistan dropped off the radar once Obama became prez. Gee I wonder why?

    Also I found it hilarious during that during that period I found a PRO-War blogger saying we needed a national conversation on whether or not Canada should leave Afghanistan. You know the "anti-war" movement is fucked when the pro-war types are asking the deep questions.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    We can go on all night like this.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I recall some Quebec blogger saying (after the election mind you) that he would vote for anyone that opposes Harper. With that sort of attitude it is no wonder why Quebec politics are so messy. Couldn't they at least have some sort of underlying principle? Well beyond Free Shit obviously.

    Jesus, this sounds eerily familiar. Here in the states people are still voting against Bush (the guy, not his policies) 5 years after he left office.

    ...and free shit, always with the free shit

  • RightNut||

    Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.

    So if we allow hate speech we're allowing genocide? Leaping to conclusions much Canada?

  • Gladstone||

    I believe Levant has pointed out that Canada's first hate speech laws were launched because Jewish groups were upset that some fringe White Nationalist/Neo Nazi groups were operating in Toronto.

    So yes that is the justification for hate speech laws. We got to eliminate freedom of speech in order to prevent the Nazis from winning.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Personally, I'd rather have these guys out on in the open. Let them be exposed. People will marginalize them on their own. Instead, we seem to think citizens will gravitate to such people.

  • RightNut||

    yup, we're all mindless children that believe the first racist thing we hear, and cant be trusted with a firearm.

  • Longtorso||

    Hate speech

    T/F: There is a 100% correlation between people agitating for laws against "hate speech" and people labeling all political disagreement as 'hate'.

  • Gladstone||

    You're an imperialist 'Moronikkkan so you should be ignored. /Obama-loving Canadian nationalist

  • Gladstone||

    I should also mention that according to the Human Rights Commissions it is okay for Muslims to call for genocide against gays.

  • Marshall Gill||

    The videos of Ezra Levant going up against these Nazis is fantastic! He gives them a quite thorough beat down.

  • Paul.||

    I believe that the United States, much to the chagrin of many a progressive, is the only country in the world that explicitly protects speech, full stop.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Keep listening to Rush Limbaugh, asshole.

    All smart, non-racist people know that we have two rights: buttsex, and abortion. That's it, teacunt.

  • Paul.||

    *golf clap*

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    ...as it damn well should.

    Progessives unwittingly end up defending radical Muslim free speech while trying to shut out, for example, Israeli speakers or Anne Coulter. Dimwitted, hyper-hypocritical lametards.

  • Gladstone||

    Racist Neocon warmonger!

  • ||

    I've had a few instances where hate crime spewers have needed us (the police) at the scene to save them from a beatdown. It's not getting in trouble with the law that is a concern; it's getting a beatdown. Simply put, there's a lot of stuff you can legally say, but you'd be near suicidal to do so. A lot of people don't respect the right to free speech when it comes to the "n" word, etc. That's the street reality. A website or internet is fine, but in person, the court of the stone cold closed fist keeps a lot of hate speech in line, even though it;s perfectly legal. One of the worst assaults I have ever seen was when a woman had a pint glass thrown at her head after she hurled an "n" word at a patron who was in the process of leaving the bar. And considering the facts and circumstances, he probably would have had a decent diminished capacity (his reaction was unplanned and instantaneous) defense because he just kneejerk reacted.

    A few here are trying to compare us to Canada and there is no comparison. Stormfront, the KKK etc. operate with impunity here. And yes, the nazis marched in Skokie. None of that can happen in Canada

  • Paul.||

    And yes, the nazis marched in Skokie. None of that can happen in Canada

    I know! Skokie isn't even in Canada!

  • ||

    Yes. It is this kind of impeccable logic that keeps me coming back for more!

    HIT ME AGAIN, BABY!

  • OldMexican||

    Bill Whatcott attempted persuasion, and the government of Saskatchewan responded with force, which should never be acceptable in "a free and democratic society."


    But Tony told me that it is acceptable! Who can you trust?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Hate speech is an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group."

    Do they also ban the bible and koran as hate speech, for inciting hatred against anyone who share their monotheism, first among a long list of hated groups?

  • Russell||

    Ow you are saying ' Two Minute Haine' en ze hatful langue of Quebecois?

    I wants inflame the judge hangings !

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement