12 ms·
The Slow and Painful Death of Freedom in Canada
- pyre 13y agoI think that it's worth mentioning that even though Jamaica was ahead of Canada in the "2013 World Press Freedom Index," there is a generally anti-gay sentiment there[1]. [1] It's worth noting that they don't hate gay people, but there were apparently some issues with young men/boys selling themselves for money in the recent past, so the general reaction to this was that gay sex should be limited/regulated (or something to that effect). I don't remember it imparting a 'liberal mindset' to me.
- cheez 13y agoThere is nothing inherently freedom-giving or preserving within the modern liberal movement/mindset. For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust.
- CamperBob2 13y agoFor example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust. All while cheerfully reciting Ben Franklin's "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
- pyre 13y ago1. Intentionally or not, you post seems to use my usage of the word 'liberal' as an excuse to express your disdain of 'Liberals.' I.e. "Look! He said 'Liberal!' Now I can express my views!" 2. I was using liberal in the sense of that particular issue. The opinion that homosexual males engaging in sexual relations should be banned and/or regulated would probably be described as conservative and/or repressive. 3. Maybe I should have used 'progressive' rather than 'liberal?'
- cheez 13y agoYou're missing the point. By implication, you paint some people as pro-freedom because they may have a certain stance on gay rights. Jamaica doesn't deserve its Press Freedom Index ranking to be better than Canada's because of gay rights. This is wrong. First of all, Canada is hardly a truly free country. I read that 40% of the cost of living is taken up in taxes. What strange definition of freedom is that? Canada also has hate speech laws which will no doubt be used in time to silence serious political dissent. I would predict the first test to be serious anti-feminist messages. In the US, libertarians are branded as conservatives. I like how you paired conservatism with repression. Note that the most severe government actions in modern times have been done by socialist governments, not conservative. Anyway, politically, libertarians believe in gay rights as well as the rights to self defense. Progressives typically believe in one and not the other. So yes, liberal is not the word you wanted to use to describe those who would restrict a person's right to self defense if you were interested in clarity. Classical liberalism is what is colloquially known as libertarianism in today's politics so I would suggest that if you don't want to be confused next time, use a more appropriate term. Nothing to do with guns, really. That was just the example I came up with off the top of my head.
- pyre 13y ago| Jamaica doesn't deserve its Press Freedom Index | ranking to be better than Canada's because of gay | rights. This is wrong. This makes no sense in this context. I neither wrote that the index should be based off of gay right, nor do I believe any such thing, as it's a freedom of the press index.
- cygx 13y agoFor example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust. You have to draw the line somewhere: Should you be allowed to own rocket launchers? Nerve gas? Anthrax? As owning a gun isn't really a basic human right (feel free to disagree, but if you do so, I'll feel free to consider you a nut case), it's a matter of social contract: If the majority decides guns should be banned or only available after a mandatory psych eval, tough luck for gun owners. If the majority decides that everyone should be able to own a gun, tough luck for anti-gun activists.
- DuskStar 13y agoIf the majority decides Christianity is the true path to salvation, tough luck for atheists/muslims/buddhists/jews. Likewise, if the majority decides that religion incites violence, tough luck for christians/muslims/buddhists/jews. What the majority decides is not always right or just.
- cygx 13y agoPlease re-read what I said. Freedom of religion is implied by basic human rights (freedom of thought, freedom of expression) and thus inalienable by social contract. Ownership of personal firearms isn't, arguably (see the disclaimer in my first post).
- nthj 13y agoYou're saying "firearms aren't like other rights", but that's like saying "a twitter account isn't like other rights." Twitter isn't the real issue: the right to free speech without government censorship is the issue. Twitter is a medium. Likewise, firearms aren't the real issue, the right to self-defense is the real issue. But then a few minutes later you say that I have the right to effective self-defense [1], and we just have to balance that with other liberties, so you're coming across a bit contradictory. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5622606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5622606
- 13y ago
- tensor 13y agoTrust is earned and distrust is the norm. If you have a gun, I want a bigger one. No, I do not trust you, why should I?
- Pwnguinz 13y agoHuh? That's such a pessimistic view of the world. I would say the opposite is true, statistically. There are far fewer psychopaths out to kill people than there are people who are not willing to do so. Thus in absence of any other facts about said someone, I would be willing to trust that someone, than to distrust that individual. It's a shame that distrust is your default M.O.
- hga 13y agoBingo; I carry concealed almost every time I walk out the door, yet I find it unnecessary to employ the Iraq combat theater advice of US Marine general James Mattis, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
- tensor 13y agoBy your logic, why can't everyone own a mini-nuke? Or let's make it more realistic, a tank? How about Grenades? Fully automatic weapons? I mean, statistically speaking you should trust people right? Now here is where you draw some arbitrary line where on one side is liberty or some other overloaded emotionally charged word and on the other are things that don't qualify as liberty. My line is different than yours. It does not mean that I am "against freedom" anymore than you are a horrible fascist denying my inherent rights as a human to own a tank.
- hga 13y agoUmmm, at least in the US people do still own tanks and fully automatic weapons; don't know about grenades (doubtful, however much our betters assure us Mexican criminals buy them at US gun shows), but they and "mini-nukes" are sort of the same sort of thing. Don't know how many civilian tanks out there really have operable canon, but there is a mechanism whereby a civilian can own a "destructive device", it and each round of ammo for it subject to a $200 tax. I've heard this coming into play for people who take boats in dangerous waters, getting RPGs with the appropriate licenses. Machine gun ownership is widespread; the number in public circulation got capped in 1986, but there are a quarter million at last count. Again, you need the license/$200 tax (was ~$3,500 in 2013 dollars when the law was passed in 1934), but the mechanism exists with many using it.
- aroberge 13y agoCitation? And, particularly, a citation in the Canadian context which is what that article is about would be relevant.
- leot 13y agoDo guns need to be lethal? If so, why?
- hga 13y agoWell, when we're talking about human beings as targets, the legitimate civilian use is "stopping" them. Not killing per se, that's the remit of the judicial system. Unfortunately it's very difficult to stop a determined opponent without using "lethal force", in the case of guns a maiming or deadly central nervous system hit, or causing them to lose enough blood (a large fraction of opponents, though, will stop combat upon getting hit the first time). There aren't any other practical options. If your question includes hunting, I can continue about it. For target practice, they don't need to be "lethal", and generally aren't used with ammunition designed for increased effectiveness in live targets. The exception is practicing for self-defense, you need at least some of that to be with service ammo for a bunch of reasons. Lots of government units buy in bulk where the price difference for service ammo isn't large and use the same thing for all purposes, which I'm sure saves in administrative costs and ensures no one accidently goes out on the street with less effective target ammo.
- leot 13y agoSo you're saying that if handguns could stop without killing, then it would be ok to ban handguns that killed?
- hga 13y agoHand weapons for the purposes of civilian self-defense, yes (they wouldn't be "guns" except in the loosest of senses). "Set phasers to stun" and all that; a nice idea, but way beyond the foreseeable future.
- leot 13y agoGiven how many people's lives would be saved, why do you suppose that we don't have more research into less lethal handguns? Phasers, perhaps not. But there are many other options.
- lobotryas 13y agoYou are using a red herring. A people's views on homosexuality have nothing to do with how free and open that country's press is. You are doing a disservice to the discussion by implying that Jamaica's Press Freedom ranking should not be commended highly because some Jamaicans allegedly "dislike gays".
- pyre 13y agoThe article is about more than freedom of the press though, otherwise they wouldn't be talking about laws that are aimed at quashing protests. My point was that the Freedom of the Press ranking isn't the whole picture. The author cites the Freedom of the Press ranking, but then spends most of the time talking about other freedoms being suppressed.
- mynameishere 13y agoAlso, you can go to prison for thoughtcrimes. They don't mention that. Of course, that's also the case in the #1 "freest" country, Finland, so I guess they don't take that into account.
- Kudzu_Bob 13y agoThe other restrictions aren't aimed at any particular group, and therefore harbor at least the potential to silence Our Sort. But by their very design, hate speech laws only target a bunch of misfit losers who most definitely are Not Our Sort.
- dmix 13y agoAnd similarly anti-terrorism laws only apply to terrorists. So we shouldn't care that they can be held for 3 days without charge. http://www.therecord.com/news/canada/article/924121--ottawa-gives-police-exceptional-powers-to-probe-terror-plots http://www.therecord.com/news/canada/article/924121--ottawa-... Regarding hate speech laws in Canada: > "Although it's true that they have nailed some genuine hatemongers with it, it has nevertheless been used or threatened to be used against a wide variety of constituencies who don't bear the slightest resemblance to the kind of hatemongers that were originally envisioned: anti-American protesters, French-Canadian nationalists, a film sympathetic to South Africa's Nelson Mandela, a pro-Zionist book, a Jewish community leader, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and even a couple years ago, a pro-Israeli speaker was briefed about the anti-hate law by a police detective before he went in to make a speech." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissio...
- aclevernickname 13y agoIf I were a canadian, I would be looking through the Criminal Code of Canada to see what things _aren't_ considered an act of terrorism now. Since Harper's been in, the Canada Gazette has been full of changes. (is a canadian, has looked through the criminal code, knows what is or isn't terrorism)
- deleted 13y ago
- onemorepassword 13y agoThere may be a lot wrong in Canada, but I don't think the Press Freedom Index is any kind of valid indication. Exactly the same as described in the article is happening in the Netherlands (or worse, like wiretapping on a massive scale), our freedom of information acts is systematically and openly sabotaged, and we've always had the strict limitations on public protests Canada has introduced. And for some reason we rank #2. There's a coronation this tuesday and people who may possible be disruptive are being pre-emptively locked up and their lawyers muzzled. So much for liberal freedoms. The Press Freedom index is about how much the government kisses up to traditional media, and, given how much media are in bed with the powers that be, no indication of actual freedoms. That correlation has been broken a long time ago, and accelerated by the internet.
- sultezdukes 13y agoPassed last May by the National Assembly of Quebec in the midst of the student upheaval, Bill 78 requires organisers of assemblies involving 50 or more people to register the details of any demonstration with the police at least eight hours before it begins. Anyone who does not comply with the law faces a fine from $1000 up to $125,000 depending on his or her involvement and leadership in the protest. That's creepy. Would that pass a legal challenge in Canada's higher courts? The right to assemble is a constitutional right in the US. How does that work in Canada? I looked up Canadian freedom of speech laws and came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada specifically: “Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.”[3] That generality is pretty ominous sounding.
- obstacle1 13y agoFreedom of peaceful assembly is protected under section 2 of the Charter. I am unsure of whether or not Bill 78 would hold up to a charter challenge, but it is already on its way through the courts. It kind of bothers me that Canada as a whole gets crapped on for one province's shady law. It is kind of like condemning the whole of the USA for Texas allowing capital punishment.
- pyre 13y agoAll of the other things in the article are at a Federal level. I think it's just trying to show a general pattern of limiting freedoms that has seeping into Canadian politics.
- subsystem 13y agoAs far as I know the bill was overturned after the ruling party lost the election. It does show a willingness to handle these kind of situation with "emergency laws". Then there was also this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/07/ombudsman-g20-security-rule-report856.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/07/ombud...
- Kudzu_Bob 13y agoAdam Kingsmith makes no mention of Canada's far more threatening hate speech laws. This article should have been titled "The Slow and Selectively Outrageous Death of Journalism at the Huffington Post."
- rayiner 13y agoHuffPo is itself a reflection of the death of journalism and has been since inception.
- Canada 13y agoThis article doesn't mention the fake terrorist busts we have from time to time in order to pass security legislation.
- jewbacca 13y agoEvidence?
- Canada 13y agoThe recent Via rail plotters as well as the Toronto 18. Both fake in that anyone involved with real capability works for the government. Just like so many in the US. And the busts happen conveniently before voting on security legislation. I write on a cell phone sorry for no links. google Canadian terror bust bill 7 or toronto 18.
- pyre 13y agoThe Canadian officials at least don't have the same penchant for the dramatic that the US officials do at least (e.g. the whole Portland terrorist thing; the Via Rail plotters weren't infiltrated and then setup to press a fake 'button').
- Canada 13y agoIs infiltrated really the appropriate word to describe these police activities? I think not.
- pyre 13y agoGetting an undercover official into a position of trust counts as 'infiltrated.' In the Portland bomber example, it was only a single guy, so it's rather weak form of 'infiltration.' I don't think that the Canadian examples count as infiltration. My point is that if these happened in the US, then they would have sent in undercover officers, and helped them execute their plan right to the point of 'pushing the button,' then swooping into to arrest them.
- gnosis 13y agoA number of posts here have mentioned "thought crime" and hate crime legislation as supposed indicators of lack of freedom. This makes me wonder about what exactly it is that the opponents of hate crimes want to be free to do, were their actions not criminalized? For many conservative opponents of hate crime legislation, their intent is pretty clear: they want to commit violent acts against gays, blacks, and other minorities with minimal reprecussions. They are afraid of and opposed to a vision of society that respects minorities and other traditionally oppressed groups, and that (and not some purported ideal of "freedom") is the real reason they fight hate crimes legislation. David Neiwert[1], has made some excellent rebuttals[2][3][4] to the "thought crime" and anti-hate crime legislation arguments, from which I'll quote below. I encourage you to read the posts in full, because they make many other excellent, relevant points from which I'll have to refrain from quoting in the interests of not making this post too long. Do hate-crimes laws create thought crimes? The issue has certainly been addressed in the courts, notably in the definitive Supreme Court case, Wisconsin v. Mitchell: Mitchell argues [via the First Amendment] that the Wisconsin penalty-enhancement statute is invalid because it punishes the defendant's discriminatory motive, or reason, for acting. But motive plays the same role under the Wisconsin statute as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws, which we have previously upheld against constitutional challenge. … Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee "because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." … In Hishon, we rejected the argument that Title VII infringed employers' First Amendment rights. And more recently, in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. at 389-390, we cited Title VII (as well as 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982) as an example of a permissible content-neutral regulation of conduct. Nothing in our decision last Term in R.A.V. compels a different result here. That case involved a First Amendment challenge to a municipal ordinance prohibiting the use of "`fighting words' that insult, or provoke violence, `on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.'" … But whereas the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at expression (i.e., "speech" or "messages"), … the statute in this case is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476, 488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. … The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." Of course, this is William Rehnquist, but the ruling was unanimous. Nonetheless, I think Matt Singer puts more or less the same argument much more elegantly in his first post on the matter: [T]he real answer is that hate crimes laws don't punish individuals for their thoughts. They punish individuals for acting on their thoughts in unacceptable ways, by targeting a community for violence. Frankly, I've always found the argument that these laws are "thought crimes" to be a little creepy, since it is echoed in the claims of the Christian Right that hate-crimes laws that include sexual orientation are an attempt to impinge upon their freedom of speech. But gay-bashing is no more a free-speech right than is lynching or even, say, assassinating the president. Political thought may motivate all of them, but that doesn't mean the Constitution protects any of them. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_neiwert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_neiwert [2] - http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dneiwert_archive.html#200406177 http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dneiwert_archive.htm... [3] - http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/12/thought-crimes-newspeak-and-2004.html http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/12/thought-crimes-newspeak... [4] - http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/06/hate-crimes-response.html http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/06/hate-crimes-response.ht...
- eatitraw 13y agoThe state is the enemy of freedom? Big news! Journalists don't look further than their noses. The truth is that vast majority of governments restrict freedom on much much larger scale. It is stupid to expect that government in your country is any different.
- noonespecial 13y agoNational exceptionalism leads many to believe that their country is in fact different than all of those others. Its always useful to be reminded that your own country isn't so special and that your dealing with exactly the same garbage as every one else.
- shaggyfrog 13y ago> And I have the sinking suspicion that whichever party is in power, these rights will continue to decompose unless the citizenry is willing to vocalise this as a major election issue. Our first-past-the-post voting system all but guarantees this erosion of civil rights will continue.
- dylan-m 13y agoI don't think the voting system is particularly relevant, here. The erosion of civil rights will continue for as long as Canadians put up with their elected members of parliament representing their parties, first, instead of their constituents. Preferential ballot is great, to an extent, but there are also several other alternatives that I think would make the situation worse, to the point that I question whether it's worth opening that can of worms. As I see it, the problem is mostly cultural, anyway. With the current system, every Canadian has a particular MP who depends on him to be elected again, and that MP can theoretically side with his constituents over his party without destroying his career. If MPs depend on their parties to elect them, for example, we lose that and we're basically picking an emperor (albeit in a way closer aligned with the popular vote) along with the number of lackeys he has. The thing we really need is parties to stop treating their MPs like liabilities. On that note, there is a promising discussion going on about MPs' freedom to speak: http://openparliament.ca/search/?q=standing+order+31 http://openparliament.ca/search/?q=standing+order+31
- snaky 13y agoHuffington Post writing about freedom? Uh-oh.
- hohead 13y agoCould you elaborate on this? I haven't been exposed to Huffington Post much, aside from seeing some hyperbolic sensational posts back during the Bush Administration days which just made me doubt their commitment to any type of journalistic integrity. I've kind of avoided them since.
- podperson 13y agoI don't know what drugs reporters without borders are on but the UK and Australia, both rated worse for freedom of the press than Canada and better tham the US both have crippling libel laws where truth, public interest, and good faith are insufficient defenses against libel. The consequences of libel laws alone on freedom of the press are enormous.
- mdellabitta 13y agoWhat exactly does that have to do with the erosion of civil liberties in Canada?
- podperson 13y agoThe comparison was based on freedom of the press according to reporters without borders. My point is that the reporters without borders ranking is nuts, so the starting point of the article is bankrupt.
- tomkin 13y agoI know the Huffington Post is trying hard to make it in Canada, but this is painted with a pretty harsh brush. By reading this article, I would have no choice but to conclude that Canada is in a dire state. Good thing I'm Canadian. > Speaking of our "protection," Bill C-30, or the Lawful Access Act -- proposed by the Harper government in February of last year, attempted to grant authorities the power to monitor and track the digital activities of all Canadians in real-time. Yeah. Attempted being the key word. Like any government in the Internet age, our government tries to get as much access as they can. In cases where our privacy or civil freedom is concerned, Canada has a pretty good battle cry. People like Michael Geist help vocalize these movements – and unlike this article would like you to believe – the movements generally work. Consider that, like any country, Canada's media is feeling the "if it bleeds, it leads" heat. Rest assured, if Canada becomes a "left vs. right", "you vs. the government", "who can you trust?" narrative, the only one who stands to (temporarily) benefit is the struggling media infrastructure.