Breaking and Entering.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Bodensteiner said the decision doesn't really give police the power to enter anyone's home illegally -- it simply states that if they do, the resident must turn to the courts for relief.

But who cares? I mean, it has full access to your medical records on a database for your own good,

I don't know where you live or have givenn up those rights to the Government..I surely haven't.

And probably like you someone entering my house without a warrant better hope they get a shot off before me.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Yet exercise those rights under the mistaken assumption that the sound of breaking glass you hear in the dark of night is the bad guys breaking into your dwelling, and its not hard to guess how that ends.


This is precisely why these raiding parties should be illegal, period.

Paramilitary groups masquerading as cops is an affront to the Bill of Rights and all these groups should be disbanded immediately. When the "cops" are as dangerous as the criminals, I can't see how the public benefits in any way.


I agree with everything you've written (and this is one of the rare occasions when I agree completely with what Tempest wrote as well).

There is a line between what a free and democratic society must accept to maintain order necessary to enjoy cherished freedoms, and the perpetual state of insecurity - particularly where one expects it the most, his own home - that is antithetical to true and meaningful liberty.

The line has been clearly crossed.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: rshaw125

Well put. Another good example is when freedom of speech was sacrificed in your fair country. Maybe your new government will see fit to resurrect it.


Freedom of Speech is protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are only two exceptions to this right, both of which seem reasonable limitations to me: Inciting Genocide and Inciting Hatred (see Criminal Code of Canada, sections 318-9).

Freedom must always carry with it reasonable limitations and responsibilities. Democracy doesn't mean freedom as a blank check, and every democracy places limitations on all forms of freedom.

The line between freedom and security must be a balance: absolute freedom will entail no security, while absolute security will grant no freedom. The question is where to draw the line. And it is only reasonable to expect that enhanced security will entail having one's freedom curtailed to achieve it. The delusion comes when one believes they can gain more of one without giving up the other. The example posted by the OP demonstrates in black and white how this is clearly not the case.

-Spyder



You either have it or you don't.The exceptions mean you don't.
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125

You either have it or you don't.The exceptions mean you don't.


The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states our freedoms clearly, but with freedom comes responsibility. Inciting others to commit Genocide or acts of hatred is an abrogation of that right, in that such acts - as spelled out in sections of the criminal code I gave the specific references to - infringe upon the Charter Rights of others. In which case, you don't have the right in this country, no, to use freedom of speech or expression for the purpose of infringing upon the Charter Rights of another.

I see nothing wrong in that. Civilized society is about responsibility as much as rights, and with one comes the other. Children under the age of 12 are exempted from those provisions of the CC (along with the rest of the CC) because its understood that their young and immature minds are incapable of making the distinction.

At and beyond the age of 12, that exception no longer applies, as our society expects its members to be able to understand that with Freedom of Speech comes a few very basic responsibilities, and those unable to appreciate or accept that have their options:

1. Obey the law and its provisions against inciting genocide and hatred, even if they'd prefer to incite genocide and hatred absent those laws;

2. Ignore and break the law and face the penalties spelled out in sections 318-9 of the CC;

3. Lobby to change the laws and hope they can find enough of like mind who feel so repressed because they cannot incite genocide and hatred that they will join their movement in sufficient number to change that law;

4. Move to a country without such laws and where they are 'free' to incite all the genocide and hatred they're unable to here in their more 'tolerant' adoptive country.

As we don't simply lock people up for having thoughts of those crimes, all four are viable options for those that feel those provisions constitute an undue check on their Freedom of Speech and are pained by those provisions.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: rshaw125

You either have it or you don't.The exceptions mean you don't.


The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states our freedoms clearly, but with freedom comes responsibility. Inciting others to commit Genocide or acts of hatred is an abrogation of that right, in that such acts - as spelled out in sections of the criminal code I gave the specific references to - infringe upon the Charter Rights of others. In which case, you don't have the right in this country, no, to use freedom of speech or expression for the purpose of infringing upon the Charter Rights of another.

I see nothing wrong in that. Civilized society is about responsibility as much as rights, and with one comes the other. Children under the age of 12 are exempted from those provisions of the CC (along with the rest of the CC) because its understood that their young and immature minds are incapable of making the distinction.

At and beyond the age of 12, that exception no longer applies, as our society expects its members to be able to understand that with Freedom of Speech comes a few very basic responsibilities, and those unable to appreciate or accept that have their options:

1. Obey the law and its provisions against inciting genocide and hatred, even if they'd prefer to incite genocide and hatred absent those laws;

2. Ignore and break the law and face the penalties spelled out in sections 318-9 of the CC;

3. Lobby to change the laws and hope they can find enough of like mind who feel so repressed because they cannot incite genocide and hatred that they will join their movement in sufficient number to change that law;

4. Move to a country without such laws and where they are 'free' to incite all the genocide and hatred they're unable to here in their more 'tolerant' adoptive country.

As we don't simply lock people up for having thoughts of those crimes, all four are viable options for those that feel those provisions constitute an undue check on their Freedom of Speech and are pained by those provisions.

-Spyder



What was the quote from Ben Franklin you posted earlier?? It is most apt in view of your defense of not having freedom of speech in your country.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan

Not relevant. Please discuss the issue at hand.

It's perfectly relevant. The seizure of medical information, in the past, required a warrant signed by a judge. The entering of police into your home without a warrant, is little different.
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125

What was the quote from Ben Franklin you posted earlier?? It is most apt in view of your defense of not having freedom of speech in your country.


Its not apt at all as its not even connected. The two limitations that are there exist to prevent one's use of freedom of speech to infringe upon another person's freedoms accorded under the same charter. That's not trading liberty for security. Its accepting that a measure of responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.

Every country with constitutional freedoms also accepts limitations on those freedoms. For instance, you have the right to freedom of assembly. That right does not grant you a license to assemble uninvited upon someone else's private property. To do so infringes upon their rights.

You likewise have the right to freedom of speech; that right does not allow you phone a bomb threat into a school, use it to blackmail or extort money, or use it to threaten someone with bodily harm or death.

By your line of reasoning, as those are limitations upon your own 'freedom of speech' (as well as ours) you have no freedom of speech, since "you either have it or you don't" and in those cases, clearly you don't.

I hope that clears that up. If it doesn't then there's nothing more I can add to this that will help you understand it.

-Spyder
 
Quote:
That's not trading liberty for security. Its accepting that a measure of responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.

Who defines what "hate speech is"?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
That's not trading liberty for security. Its accepting that a measure of responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.

Who defines what "hate speech is"?


The courts.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
That's not trading liberty for security. Its accepting that a measure of responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.

Who defines what "hate speech is"?


Its spelled out in the Criminal Code:

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

* an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
* an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

* are established to be true
* were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
* were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
* were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada

From http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/re...l_code_hate.cfm

FWIW, I have in my own lifetime never even heard of anyone being charged with this particular crime. Only for the fact that I became aware of it while picking up a Criminology Certificate as an undergrad, and I'd to this day likely not even be aware of those very obscure provisions.

As should be apparent, its not an easy crime to even prove and one that someone would really have to go out of their way to commit.

Edit: note that simple 'hate speech' alone is not enough to equal a criminal offense. Its only one element in a crime requiring all of 4 separate elements to be present for it to even be a crime; lacking even one of those elements and no crime is committed.

-Spyder
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
That's not trading liberty for security. Its accepting that a measure of responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.

Who defines what "hate speech is"?


The courts.

NO. Unelected Civil Rights Comissions.

Quote:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is an independent body established by Parliament in 1977. It carries out its mandate at arms-length from the Government of Canada.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-eng.aspx
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
That's not trading liberty for security. Its accepting that a measure of responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.

Who defines what "hate speech is"?


The courts.

NO. Unelected Civil Rights Comissions.

Quote:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is an independent body established by Parliament in 1977. It carries out its mandate at arms-length from the Government of Canada.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-eng.aspx


You are mixing topics here. They have no bearing on inciting hatred crime initially discussed. In fact, they were created before the Charter of Rights was even established.

They oversea two separate acts, neither of which has any direct bearing on the crime of Inciting Hatred. The latter falls solely within the domain of LE and the justice system, which they are independent of.

This has also already gone well beyond the scope of the original topic, and will probably lead to it getting locked if this peripheral thread continues.

-Spyder
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al

So you would be against say compariong various treatments for Prostate Cancer to determine the most effective ones??

Wait.....we already do that.

That is a board of unelected people deciding what medicines you can, and cannot, get.

More here.
 
Tempest is right. You can be arrested in Canada for speaking your mind. It happens. The Orwellian Civil Rights Commission. You long ago surrendered freedom of speech in Canada. Maybe it has not sunk in yet.
You either have it or you don't. Limitations mean you don't have it!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Does Canada have an equivalent to the First Amendment?

No.

Quote:
In his article, Combating Hate and Preserving Free Speech: Where is the Line? Justice Juriansz states:

It seems fair to say that the American view is becoming a minority one in the world. Canada is part of what appears to be growing global consensus, which observes that careful restrictions of some forms of speech are both desirable and necessary.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/hoi_hsi/qa_qr/page2-eng.aspx#23

Quote:
Can someone be sent to prison for contravening section 13?

Neither the Commission nor the Tribunal has the power to imprison persons who have been found to have contravened section 13 of the CHRA.

In appropriate circumstances, when a respondent fails to comply with an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, an application may be made to the Federal Court of Canada for an order of contempt and this can result in imprisonment.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/hoi_hsi/qa_qr/page5-eng.aspx#55
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Are you in the Govt's 100 mile border zone?
2
Replies
27
Views
8K
Apollo14
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
A
  • Locked
Breaking News DC Gun laws structkdown
Replies
17
Views
4K
Oldmoparguy1
A
  • Locked
Kerry Resume For President
2 3
Replies
47
Views
16K
motorguy222
Back
Top Bottom