XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ab.politics   
   XPost: sk.politics, man.politics, mtl.general   
   From: puela@nyet.ca   
      
   On 1/17/2015 3:37 PM,  (=_=) wrote:   
   > They marched in the streets by the millions to defend 'freedom of speech and   
   > expression'  . . .  and then promptly turned around and started to arrest   
   those   
   > whose speech and expression they found issue with.   
   >   
   > Does anyone not grasp the hypocrisy of the French in this case - and the   
   > hypocrisy of ANY country or culture that defends the concept of free speech   
   for   
   > some and denies it to others in their own country?   
   >   
   > Stephen Harper & Co are such a government.  And if we don't want to go down   
   the   
   > road of Naziism and the McCarthyism of the U.S., we'd better get it right   
   this   
   > time around.   
   > Canada is poised to become one of the greatest hypocrisies in modern times.   
   > ___________________________________________   
   January 16, 2015 - Globe and Mail   
      
      
   After Paris attacks, blurred lines over free speech issues   
      
      
   French performer's arrest over Facebook post highlights difficulties in trying   
   to maintain liberties while deterring hatred   
      
   Last Sunday, millions of people took to the streets of Paris to condemn the   
   deadly attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and to stand behind its   
   right to publish whatever it wanted, even cartoons some considered offensive.   
      
   Just three days later, however, the broad consensus in support of freedom of   
   expression seemed to dissolve when French police arrested a notorious performer   
   for a Facebook post in which he identified with one of the attackers.   
      
   The apparent contradiction prompted charges of hypocrisy both within France and   
   beyond (in the words of U.S. comedian Jon Stewart: "Je suis confused").   
      
   Yet it's not as inconsistent as it first appears. While the right to free   
   speech is enshrined in the constitutional law of many countries, nowhere is the   
   right an unfettered one. And different countries have reached distinct   
   conclusions on where the limits are. Just how far can you go in saying or   
   writing things that are offensive, outrageous or hateful? The answer depends   
   very much on where you are.   
      
   When it comes to laws concerning freedom of expression, Americans are from Mars   
   and Europeans are from Venus (Canadians are closer to Europeans, but more on   
   that later).   
      
   In court decisions in recent decades, the U.S. has cemented its status as an   
   outlier on matters of free speech. It has no laws criminalizing "hate speech,"   
   unlike Western European nations and Canada. It's possible to sue someone for   
   slander or libel in the U.S., but if you're a public figure, the threshold for   
   winning such cases is higher.   
      
   By contrast, Western European nations have laws penalizing certain kinds of   
   public speech – forms of expression that incite hatred on the basis of race,   
   religion or ethnicity, or that condone or make light of genocide. Some   
   countries – including France – have laws prohibiting the glorification of   
   terrorism. France has moved swiftly to invoke that law in the wake of the Paris   
   attacks, with up to 100 people under investigation, according to The New York   
   Times.   
      
   The debate within France in recent days suffers from two mythologies, said   
   Pascal Mbongo, a law professor at the University of Poitiers in France. The   
   first is the notion that France, or Europe more broadly, is a leader in freedom   
   of expression. That's not true, he said. Instead, freedom of speech consists of   
   "what one has the right to say within the limits of the law."   
      
   The second myth, equally untrue, he said, is that there is no freedom of   
   expression in France. It's a view that tends to be embraced, for instance, by   
   fans of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, the performer arrested earlier this week,   
   whose shows have been cancelled for their anti-Semitic content. The issue there   
   is that "what they want to say is what the law prohibits," Prof. Mbongo said.   
      
   France has levelled numerous penalties against well-known figures under its   
   hate speech laws. John Galliano, the fashion designer, was fined €6,000   
   ($8,300) in 2011 after making anti-Semitic remarks. The former movie star   
   Brigitte Bardot has been convicted five times under hate speech laws for her   
   comments against Muslims and ordered repeatedly to pay up.   
      
   Charlie Hebdo itself had to defend itself in court dozens of times from such   
   charges under French law, not always successfully. It did, however, emerge   
   victorious in a case brought by Muslim groups that asserted its cartoons,   
   including one featuring the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, incited   
   hatred against members of their religion. In 2007, a judge disagreed.   
      
   Tackling such cases involving religion – unlike accusations of racism, for   
   instance – has proven tricky for French jurists, said Prof. Mbongo. That's   
   partially because the country has a long tradition of hostility toward   
   religious authority, he said.   
      
   Indeed, each country's historical experience plays a key role in determining   
   its approach to laws governing freedom of speech. It's not considered remotely   
   controversial in Germany that the law prohibits denying the Holocaust or   
   displaying Nazi symbols – even though such restrictions would be unacceptable   
   in the U.S.   
      
   In Canada, too, certain kinds of hate speech are criminal acts – advocating   
   genocide, for instance, or willfully promoting hatred of any identifiable group   
   distinguished by "colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."   
   The number of prosecutions under such sections of the criminal code, however,   
   has been less extensive than in Western Europe.   
      
   It's also important when discussing freedom of expression to remember the   
   distinction between what the law protects and what mainstream opinion will   
   stomach. While you cannot be prosecuted legally for saying something hateful or   
   offensive in the U.S., there are likely to be other kinds of consequences –   
   in   
   the form of public disapprobation, for example, or lost customers or even lost   
   employment.   
      
   Eric Heinze, a law professor at the University of London, said it was important   
   not to exaggerate the U.S. stance in favour of freedom of expression. It, too,   
   has limits: Using speech to place people in imminent danger is not protected,   
   nor is revealing information deemed vital to national security (just ask Edward   
   Snowden). In certain cases, U.S. prosecutors have also targeted speech   
   supporting terrorist groups.   
      
   Yet Prof. Heinze prefers the U.S. approach, which protects public discourse   
   regardless of its point of view. In comparison, he said, countries such as   
   France have travelled too far into a legalistic realm that its citizens don't   
   instinctively understand, with harmful consequences.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)