Harper omnibus crime bill an attack on our freedom of speech
Under Harper new proposed law a hyperlink on the wrong blog or site could cost you 2 years in jail.
Here's the story:
"The bill plans to make it a crime to link to any website that promotes hatred.
Here’s what the Library of Parliament says about the bill on its website:“Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.”
For simply posting a link to a website that has material someone else deems hateful, you could go to jail for two years and be branded a criminal.
The Internet police. Only in Canada.
This isn’t about protecting people from genocide or even threats of death, the way the law is written now is much broader.
“Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty.”
There’s also the sticky question of who decides what is hateful?
Will websites promoting Israeli Apartheid Week, now a staple on university campuses across Canada, land someone in jail? What about web postings on the Armenian genocide which the Armenians blame the Turks for but which the Turks dispute?
This is a ridiculous proposal that has no place in a country that claims to cherish freedom of expression."
Source:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/05/05/lilley-tory-crime-bill-an-attack-on-our-liberty
yeah, this is ridiculous. We're going nuts rights now as a country trying to stop people from saying things "we" don't like.
we spend way too much time trying to protect ourselves and others from anything that might be deemed "offensive" like we have some innate right to not be offended. isn't freedom of speech all about the right to say something, even if it is "offensive"?
these days, freedom of speech/expression seems to be defined by the cultural norms of the day as opposed to drawing the line at when it becomes a incitement to direct violence or harm, which to me is where the line should be drawn.
Was good ole Tom Flanigan promoting hatred when he suggested sending a missile to kill the wiki leaks guy?
these days, freedom of speech/expression seems to be defined by the cultural norms of the day as opposed to drawing the line at when it becomes a incitement to direct violence or harm, which to me is where the line should be drawn.
That pretty much is where it's drawn, as far as criminal hate speech is concerned.
But even when speech isn't criminally hate speech, someone who feels offended can still go to the HRC and frame their offense as a human rights issue (right to not be offended?). Familiar examples might include the Danish Cartoons/Ezra Levant, or Macleans magazine/Mark Steyn. Somehow I doubt the Conservatives are going to give the HRC any new teeth.
If the bill passes, Rabble.ca would effectively become responsible and liable for the content of each and every website linked to.
Is "don't link to hate sites" too obvious a solution?
Not when "hate sites" is code for pro-Palestine sites.
Well, from what little is out there, it's not really clear whether this refers to "hate crimes", which have a fairly narrow interpretation and scope, or "Section 13" type complaints, which don't fall under the criminal code.
If it's the former then it shouldn't really be a problem. Why would a babbler link to ANY website that promotes violence against humans?
If it's the latter then I suppose it could be a problem. That said, anyone who cheered on the HRC when they were going after Levant or Steyn should really endorse this change, given that their idea of "hate" can include political cartoons. Presumably they'd like to see the bar lowered.
If the bill passes, Rabble.ca would effectively become responsible and liable for the content of each and every website linked to.
And, of course, the hate-site list can include anything they want, expand as much as they want and be changed every day, without notice. So, all discussion fora are fair game - though i suspect very few will be targeted. It's a predictable (in fact, i predicted it three days ago) step toward shutting down political dissent.
babblers have been (rightly) called on the carpet if they inadvertently link out to (say) sites with a bit of a "white supremacy" thing going on. Is it really that much harder to take a second to see if the site you're linking to promotes violence?
You raise an important issue, Snert. In a sense, we open the door to censorship ourselves. Drawing attention to a hate site, or a supremacist site, whether it advocates violence or not, is not inherently wrong and should not be unacceptable. Do we not want to know what is being said or planned? Obviously, the spirit in which the link is made is a consideration for babblers, but the principle is what needs to be protected. In your earlier post, Snert, you hit the nail on the head and somehow got off track in No. 9.
Le T and absentia correctly draw attention to the potential manipulation of such a law. Any link, say, to a Tamil human rights site or a site promoting a Palestinian cause that the CJC may consider offensive, or a site advocating for the sovereignty of Libya against NATO intervention, etc. --- any number of issues, really, EVEN those critical of state terrorism -- could become illegal. How violence is defined for reasons of state remains the central issue, IMHO.
This can't be allowed. Please link to actions being organized to defeat this bill.
Just a thought. Given Ezra's problem with the HRT and the theme that seems to be developing in the White's Right movement of Canadian right wingers that Human Rights Tribunals are evil censors. Are we going to see a campaign by the Harpers to make life uncomfotable for those who present critical view points (e.g. Israeli Apartheid)? That way in three years, after they fine rabble.ca and the Tyee, they can say "ok, fair is fair, we'll get rid of this crime legislation and the (funding for) HRTs so that speech can be free".
Just for clarification: Does this bill expand the ideological definiton of what constitutes hate speech(ie. it's been expanded to include ideas not included before), or does it just expand the definition to include another form of medium(ie. you can get arrested for linking to sites that promote hate, but the ideas considered hateful remain the same)?
Is the state currently shutting down those sites as "hate sites"?
Babblers have been endorsing Libyans fighting back against NATO since the uprising began. Is babble being shut down for this?
If it's OK for babble to endorse Libyans fighting back against NATO, I really can't imagine that some other site, linking to babble, could then be prosecuted for "linking to a hate site".
It would be like charging Bob for being an accomplice to robbery with Joe, but then NOT charging Joe with robbery. Say huh??
I doubt there will be many prosecutions under this proposed clause. I'm sure it will be reserved for the most egregious cases.
I doubt there will be many prosecutions under this proposed clause. I'm sure it will be reserved for the most egregious cases.
Well, of course. Naturally. Goes without saying. And the police who come to the door of egregious offenders will do so at 7:30 pm, knock politely, speak softly, make no unnecessary physical contact, show their stamped warrants and abide by all rules of procedure, etiquette, good taste and sensibility. Only tro be expected.
I doubt there will be many prosecutions under this proposed clause. I'm sure it will be reserved for the most egregious cases.
Well, of course. Naturally. Goes without saying. And the police who come to the door of egregious offenders will do so at 7:30 pm, knock politely, speak softly, make no unnecessary physical contact, show their stamped warrants and abide by all rules of procedure, etiquette, good taste and sensibility. Only tro be expected.
I have to wonder. Was anyone here complaining about the hate laws as they originally stood BEFORE this legislation was introduced? Because as has been pointed out, all this law really seems to do is expand the existing definition of "posting hate" to include not only producing a hateful website, but also linking to a hateful website.
Basically, if you were happy that the government was prosecuting neo-nazi webmaters, you should be even happier now, because they're going after people who distribute(via links) access to those websites.
In the OP, Red Fox wrote:
'There's also the sticky question of who decides what is hateful?"
But this was always an issue with the hate-laws. Civil libertarians have been arguing for decades now that the concept of "promoting hate" is too open-ended, and could be harnessed against progressives just as easily as against reactionaries. But the left in general didn't seem to care too much about these concerns, and anyone advancing the civil-liberties argument got shouted down with the quote about fire in a movie theatre that Oliver Wendell Holmes used to justify locking up socialists.
Just to clarify my point:
It IS possible that, under a right-wing regime, the government or the courts could define "hate" to include pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli writings. But this was always a risk that progressives were running when they endorsed the hate laws. It's not really related to the issue of regulating hyperlinks, which could happen no matter what defintion of "hate" was being employed.
Anyone linkng to a site that features the views of anti-Arab hatemonger Jason Kenney ought to be jailed.
Exactly. We want -- nay, NEED -- a Section 13, in order that bad little men like Ezra Levant can be punished for publishing old cartoons, but this incredibly loose definition of "hate" must never apply to us!
For the record, i have always been deeply suspicious of hate laws.
Defining crime by motive was always a bad idea - far too open to interpretation and unnecessary. Either you hurt somebody or you didn't. If you hurt somebody, what's it matter whether you did it because he's an albino, an old school bully or a rich uncle?
Under a much-too-powerful right-wing government, the latitude of interpretation and the mechanism of enforcement become that much more dangerous.
All crime is defined by motive. Without a mens rea you have no guilt.
I would say more than possible given that Harper has a slew of Supreme Court nominations coming his way and that anti-Palestinian politics seems to have a lot of support in this racist settler colony of ours.
I would say more than possible given that Harper has a slew of Supreme Court nominations coming his way and that anti-Palestinian politics seems to have a lot of support in this racist settler colony of ours.
Well, can we all agree then that it would have been a good thing all those years for the Left to be fighting for the abolition of the hate-speech laws?
I'm not a fan of hate speech laws myself. I'm also a white man. I think that it is just a bandaid solution that takes attention away from the fact that "hate" is systemic and actively cultivated in more covert ways.
Okay, so no more Section 13? The HRC goes back to concerning itself with bigoted landlords and discrimination in the workplace?
Yes? No?
Hate crime laws call for higher sentences based on the victim being targeted for being who they are.
Hate speech laws are necessary the real question is what is the criteria to trigger their application. If I shout bomb in an airport most people now accept that I will be arrested and have my ass hauled off to jail. I think that if I scream Kill the _______ there should also be some sanction against me.
To me hate crimes are as valid as having a separate section of the Criminal Code for assaulting a police officer. I mean isn't assault just assault. What does either hate or a badge have to do with assault?
accident
All crime is defined by motive. Without a mens rea you have no guilt.
So, like, a guy is lying on the ground, dead, with a knife in his back. Natural causes? No. Suicide? Highly improbable. Homicide? Very likely. That's a crime, whether you ever find a culprit or not, whether you ever discover the reason or not.
Motive doesn't define a crime. Motive is merely one of the factors (along with means and opportunity) considered when searching out the culprit. Establishing motive is one of the factors (along with physical evidence and witness accounts) in obtaining a guilty verdict.
I don't see why the same act should be judged as more or less serious, depending on why the victim was chosen. A rapist may hate all women or just be angry at one particular woman, or maybe even believe he's in love with his victim. What if you can't figure out which? What if the rapist doesn't even know himself? And if you decide it's the last, rather than the first motive, does the victim suffer less?
And the same goes for assaulting a police officer. (Actually, that's very often a bogus charge anyway.)
That is why for hate crimes there must be evidence to tie it to hate. Shouting I hate fags as you beat the crap our of someone seems to me to be pretty compelling evidence that it is a hate crime. That is the type of evidence our courts require to deem anything a hate crime and increase the sentence.
It doesn't change the verdict or decrease the onus of proving the guilt of the accused. It comes into play when deciding what sentence to give someone. Just as prior records and lack of remorse and the impact on the victim are also taken into account. Some criminals deserve longer sentences. If hate is your motivation then as a society we have the right to increase your sentence to protect the people you hate. after all it is they who have committed no crime except the crime of being themselves.
Correct. I didn't say that without mens rea you have no crime, I said you have no guilt. To be guilty of a crime you must have had intent to commit that crime. Ergo, the courts judge intent every day.
That said, I think we may be blurring the lines regarding hate crimes (eg: killing a person for being Asian) and hate speech (eg: earnestly inciting others to kill Asians). And then there's the whole Section 13 business, that is neither a hate crime, nor hate speech.
Well put.
... If hate is your motivation then as a society we have the right to increase your sentence to protect the people you hate. after all it is they who have committed no crime except the crime of being themselves.
To the victim, it makes little or no difference whether the hate motivating their injury was personal or generic.
As a society, we make rules like this to feel better about ourselves. "See, we've outlawed hate, so you're all safe now, and we don't need to change the social dynamics or the established pecking-order, or make any further effort at all."
To the victim, it makes little or no difference whether the hate motivating their injury was personal or generic.
That is your opinion. I don't think that it is shared by many from the groups who are the target of hate crimes. I personally think that for instance the man attacked in Courtenay last year was more pissed at being subjected to hate than being invited to fight. It may make no difference to you but I have read many times about the devastating effect hate crimes has on their victims specifically because the hate filled person has taken away their sense of security. If I get beat up for mouthing off I can always stop mouthing off and fell secure. If I get beat up for being gay I do not have any such option.
http://www.usa.gov/
To the victim, it makes little or no difference whether the hate motivating their injury was personal or generic.
That is your opinion. I don't think that it is shared by many from the groups who are the target of hate crimes. I personally think that for instance the man attacked in Courtenay last year was more pissed at being subjected to hate than being invited to fight. It may make no difference to you but I have read many times about the devastating effect hate crimes has on their victims specifically because the hate filled person has taken away their sense of security. If I get beat up for mouthing off I can always stop mouthing off and fell secure. If I get beat up for being gay I do not have any such option.
Yes, i knew that was my opinion when i expressed it. And if somebody beats me up for that, i can stop expressing it. But mouthing off or being gay are not the full spectrum of reasons for attack: you could not stop being old and feeble, or sexually attractive to a predator, or walking down the wrong street or stumbling upon a secret... Most people do not choose to be victims of crime and all victims have feelings. The law can deal with facts, but it can't deal with emotions. When it tries to, it fails. Hate law, like obscenity law, protects nobody, solves no social problem, wastes time and resources - and is far too open to selective enforcement, interpretation and abuse.
Reading between the lines,this law is all about criminalizing critcism of Isreal
Much like alot of the crime agenda will be a war against cannabis.
Hence,pot smoking socialists beware.
'Thought Crime Is Death': CPC Omnibus Crime Bill
http://www.saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=21441
"If you don't want intrusive laws creeping up, if you don't want your liberty eroded, then its up to you to stand on guard. The Conservatives plan on introducing an omnibus crime bill when the House resumes that wraps all of their previous legislation into one.."
this is a dangerous bill with sinister implications - an important package to stop - please kick some ass to kill it.
"When they came for Ezra Levant, I remained silent because he's smug and it looked good on him. When they came for Mark Steyn, I said nothing because I think he's an asshole who needed a comeuppance..."
LOL!
Hatecrime laws are similar to terrorist laws in that they are political rather than criminal. We have existing laws that are intended to punish or reduce violence or conspiracy to commit violence, thus terrorism laws are unnecessary.
So too are hate speech laws unnecessary. "Hate speech" ought to be covered by existing laws about incitement to violence or slander as well. I don't see a need for special laws to prohibit "hate speech." Such laws could descend into outright censorship, and are without much question a limit on freedom of expression.
... Such laws could descend into outright censorship, and are without much question a limit on freedom of expression.
That's the whole point of them. Making a law "to protect minorities from violence" sounds good to otherwise progressive people, so they go along. Making laws against "obscene literature" and "indecent" speech sounds good to the old-fashioned (i'd say conservative, but that's another word gone all to heck) and clean-minded. Making laws against terror sounds good to the frightened; making laws against the corruption of minors sounds good to mothers.... Pretty soon, you have patriot acts and monkey trials. Because the concepts are unclear, the limits are indefinable.
@ absentia
On obscenity - not just the old fashioned and conservative. Not to disrespect anyone's position, but there are strange bedfellows on all sides when it comes to that very complicated issue of censorship and freedom of speech.
And on the general question, it is especially dangerous when the burden of proof is no longer "beyond a reasonable doubt" (100% sure) but rather "more than likely" (50% sure).
And on the general question, it is especially dangerous when the burden of proof is no longer "beyond a reasonable doubt" (100% sure) but rather "more than likely" (50% sure).
Beyond a reasonable is doubt is the criminal standard but it does not mean 100% sure. I may have doubts but given all the evidence those doubts are not reasonable. The civil standard is the "more than likely." So in a civil suit it only has to be more probable than not that a company caused you harm from its negligence. However all evidence is judged by the more probable than not test. So while the whole of the evidence in a criminal case needs to add up to a near certainty the individual evidentiary pieces each need to be evaluated on the basis of more probable than not.
The standard is different again in various tribunals where there are reverse onus tests. For instance if a person complains of discrimination and the facts they allege would constitute a breach of the law then the accused must present a credible defence or be found guilty. Or in labour relations if there is any anti-union animus on the part of the company then all their actions are tainted despite being otherwise legal and only a small part of the reason for making a corporate decision. In both those areas the rules are designed to deal with the inherent power imbalances in our society. I don't think they are working particularly well since they like all institutions designed to protect the marginalized the quasi-judicial tribunals have been bled for funds for at least a decade and are infested with political appointees not neutral third parties. However I don't disagree with some of the variations of proof required to try and level the playing field for people in their battles with government or corporations.
To be clear though I don't like this Harper bill. The way we do dispute resolution in our society needs a major overhaul but not by someone like Harper whose record shows he only cares about protecting the interests of the rich and powerful.
@ NS
Yeah, I know it's not absolutely 100%, but it is 100% in the sense that you must be satisfied there is NO reasonable doubt. So yes, you are right. I didn't want to get into the finer points of it because I figured it was self-explanatory, and there is no number-figure for the exact concept. I felt it was important to point out just how great the difference is between that and "more than likely".
"When they came for Ezra Levant, I remained silent because he's smug and it looked good on him. When they came for Mark Steyn, I said nothing because I think he's an asshole who needed a comeuppance..."
LOL!
Heh. Yeah, it still hasn't quite been explained how this bill is different from any previous anti-hate legislation, beyond including linkage in the type of media covered by the ban.
Basically, if X was illegal to print before, it'll now be illegal to link as well. If X was legal to print, it'll still be legal to print under the new legislation.
And if the category X includes idea that progressives support(eg. pro-Palestinian ideas), they should have been shouting from the rooftops against hate-speech laws for years. Instead, though, they were(with some honourable exceptions) applauding when the laws were used against people the left doesn't like.
The only time anything like a hate law should exist is when people like Jim Keegstra peddle their wares in schools; but even then I wouldn't call them "hate speech" laws, but rather "provisions meant to prevent lying to children about history and being paid to do so by the taxpayers."
al-Q:
I am actually okay with wilful promotion of hatred as a criminal charge. The crime being the intent - not the material.
Unfortunately I think that is not always the spirit in which that law is applied.
As for teaching lies, I agree something should be done about it, but it is not generally criminal. If teaching lies in school were made a crime the whole system would be in jeopardy.
But this was always a risk that progressives were running when they endorsed the hate laws.
And they laughed at us when we pointed out exactly that risk.
The only time anything like a hate law should exist is when people like Jim Keegstra peddle their wares in schools; but even then I wouldn't call them "hate speech" laws, but rather "provisions meant to prevent lying to children about history and being paid to do so by the taxpayers."
But in that case, it would be lying that's the issue, not whether or not the lies in question promoted hatred.
Granted, cases like Keegstra's are fairly unique. But as I recall, prior to the hate-laws being invoked against him, the only punishment that Keegstra suffered was being turfed from his job as a teacher. I don't think there was any other law in place that covered the teaching of lies.
Michael Geist reminds us why it's sloppy research to rely on the Library of Parliament's summary of a Bill, as further filtered through an MSM journalist, rather than reading what the Bill actually says.
Well...yes.
I thought someone would point this out; I was thinking the same thing while I was typing it.
Yeah, it still hasn't quite been explained how this bill is different from any previous anti-hate legislation, beyond including linkage in the type of media covered by the ban.
(my bold)
I haven't read what it actually says, or how it's different from previous legislation. But i can tell you what's significant about including linkage: Since the definitions of" hate", hate speech, literature, etc are inexact and open to interpretation (by whom? when? how often to change? by what mechanism?) and a hate site is presumably one that's on a list someplace (Who compiles it? By what criteria? Is the list to be made public?) this means that moderators of furums and owners of interactive blogs are responsible for content they can neither assess nor control. So, they'll have to either forbid all links or shut down - or labouriously follow up every one and guess correctly. And participants will be wary of looking at linked sites, in case it's by an outlawed association. The exchange of information will be crippled.
Seems the Ontario conservative party wants to use the prison population as slave labourers.
Tom Hudak says 'An honest days job wouldn't hurt anyone' and under the proposed plan,prisoners would work cleaning up provincial highways and removing graffitti off walls for 'credits' that could be used for 'rewards' such as watching TV.
I have no doubt that this proposition will become a reality and it unmasks exactly what I have read between the lines of the federal Tories crime agenda.
What do we do with all these unemployed Canadians?
You write up a draconian and oppressive crime bill to artificially increase crime rates and imprison as many Canadians as possible to be used to do union jobs currently at a cost of X amount of dollars for virtually no money at all.
I wonder if Mr Hudak ever did 5 minutes of hard labour apart from fitting his head in a helmet.
Chain-gangs. Ohh, goodie - another step back into a simpler, meaner time.
Chain-gangs. Ohh, goodie - another step back into a simpler, meaner time.
Hardly a step back. Work gangs exist in some states. I saw a few of them picking litter by the interstates this winter.
And I read a news report today about Vic Toews refusing military support for the flood relief in Quebec because he didn't want to compete with the private sector.
I know this is a provincial proposal, but I wonder if the feds will follow this line when it comes time to follow the american model and use their mega prisons for factories,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/25/quebec-flooding-...
(and sorry for the thread drift)
Chain-gangs. Ohh, goodie - another step back into a simpler, meaner time.
Hardly a step back. Work gangs exist in some states. I saw a few of them picking litter by the interstates this winter.
And I read a news report today about Vic Toews refusing military support for the flood relief in Quebec because he didn't want to compete with the private sector.
I know this is a provincial proposal, but I wonder if the feds will follow this line when it comes time to follow the american model and use their mega prisons for factories,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/25/quebec-flooding-...
(and sorry for the thread drift)
I think you can take that to the bank.
It reminds me of Rob Ford musing about how he admires Chinese workers who work 20 hours a day and sleep in the factories they work in.
How does a country like Canada compete with labour hours,wages and conditions in countries like China?
Fill the prisons and build more prisons and fill those.
And presto--Canadian sweat shops privately owned and profiting from crime and poverty..So you got to make sure there is an abundance of the 2.
Our prison system will soon become sweat shops and concentration camps (Not trying to offend)
And you think following the US is a progressive move? They're busy abolishing every human right their people have faught and died for the last two centuries... and so are we. When does hanging return to Alberta?
What do we do with all these unemployed Canadians?
You write up a draconian and oppressive crime bill to artificially increase crime rates and imprison as many Canadians as possible to be used to do union jobs currently at a cost of X amount of dollars for virtually no money at all.
You're missing a step in the middle.
How do they coerce the unemployed Canadians to break the law? Is it just some kind of known fact that unemployed people like to make web links to hate sites (therefore, if you criminalize linking to hate sites, you can imprison them and voila! now you can get the old condoms and beer cans picked up beside the highway for cheap!)? Because really, that kind of sounds a bit ridiculous.
Also, I had to work for my TV. Nobody called it slave labour at the time. Same with my food, clothes, etc. I'm just sayin'.
What do we do with all these unemployed Canadians?
You write up a draconian and oppressive crime bill to artificially increase crime rates and imprison as many Canadians as possible to be used to do union jobs currently at a cost of X amount of dollars for virtually no money at all.
You're missing a step in the middle.
How do they coerce the unemployed Canadians to break the law? Is it just some kind of known fact that unemployed people like to make web links to hate sites (therefore, if you criminalize linking to hate sites, you can imprison them and voila! now you can get the old condoms and beer cans picked up beside the highway for cheap!)? Because really, that kind of sounds a bit ridiculous.
Also, I had to work for my TV. Nobody called it slave labour at the time. Same with my food, clothes, etc. I'm just sayin'.
Uh...they're not 'working' to BUY a TV...Thy're working to WATCH TV.
Let's go all the way,right?
Let's attach balls and chains to their ankles and make them do hard labour for a couple slices of bread and some water.
I'm not missing anything.
If prisoners will be doing labour to 'earn' this TV,food and clothes,they should be making MINIMUM WAGE because anything less,(and this proposal means they'd actually earn NOTHING),is ILLEGAL...I'm just sayin'
Uh...they're not 'working' to BUY a TV...Thy're working to WATCH TV.
That's what I have mine for too. To watch.
If prisoners will be doing labour to 'earn' this TV,food and clothes,they should be making MINIMUM WAGE because anything less,(and this proposal means they'd actually earn NOTHING),is ILLEGAL...I'm just sayin'
Well, once they're earning money, I guess they can pay for their room and board then. Mind you, I doubt that mininum wage would cover it all, so they're likely to have a bill to settle at the end. But fair enough. If prison is to prepare them for a life outside then they may as well start learning how to earn money, and then how to spend it on food, a place to live... and a television.
For the record, I'm not saying "let's do whatever Hudak suggests". But in principle, I'm certainly not opposed to convicts having to do work. Describing that as some kind of slavery is absurd. If work without pay is slavery, then what is room and board and medical care and a weight room and a television without work?
still imprisonment.
I have nothing against a fair work program, and it might be worth remembering that the federal government just cut an excellent example of one - the work farm program - which many prisoners and ex-prisoners, and a number of communities lobbied to save.
I also don't have a problem in principle with work in prisons. The question is when that turns into what they have in the states - factory prisons, where you essentially have private companies selliing the labour of their slaves to the highest bidder (and they actually do have work fairs for prisons down there.
As for the work gang I saw. I wonder how much of that is for the actual work, and how much is for the humiliation by recreating that stereotypical image of the chain gang. Not a loaded question - I don't know.
And speaking of sterotypes, this didn't happen in the deep south OR redneck Alberta, but in the North East
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mark-ciavarella-pa-juvenile-court-judge-convict...
I have nothing against a fair work program, and it might be worth remembering that the federal government just cut an excellent example of one - the work farm program - which many prisoners and ex-prisoners, and a number of communities lobbied to save.
The federal farm work program was voluntary, and rehabilitative - Hudak's proposal is mandatory and punitive.
And what the fuck is a "fair work program"?
So as long as it's the Harper or Hudak government and not some private corporation that's doing it, it's OK with you?
For the record, I'm not saying "let's do whatever Hudak suggests". But in principle, I'm certainly not opposed to convicts having to do work. Describing that as some kind of slavery is absurd. If work without pay is slavery, then what is room and board and medical care and a weight room and a television without work?
Arbeit macht frei, eh, Snert?
M. Spector wrote:
Snert wrote:
For the record, I'm not saying "let's do whatever Hudak suggests". But in principle, I'm certainly not opposed to convicts having to do work. Describing that as some kind of slavery is absurd. If work without pay is slavery, then what is room and board and medical care and a weight room and a television without work?
Arbeit macht frei, eh, Snert?
M. Spector, while I understand and even sympathise with where you're coming from, such references a: lower the overall tone of debate, and 2: serve as a distraction from the real issues at hand. Also, a bit tasteless.
Snert, room board medical care and exercise are bare minimal requirements of life which must be provided to anyone whom we, in a civilized society deprive of their liberty and hold in incarceration.
Does that count as a Godwin violation, even though he didn't actually say "Nazi" out loud?
Snert, room board medical care and exercise are bare minimal requirements of life which must be provided to anyone whom we, in a civilized society deprive of their liberty and hold in incarceration.
I'm not suggesting we get rid of any of them. I just don't have a huge problem with the idea that while convicts are receiving these, they might also have to do some work.
I also don't have a problem in principle with work in prisons. The question is when that turns into what they have in the states - factory prisons, where you essentially have private companies selliing the labour of their slaves to the highest bidder (and they actually do have work fairs for prisons down there.
I agree. The goal of prisoners working should be the introduction of a little bit of responsibility into their lives, and some degree of restitution to society. It shouldn't be to line an individual's pockets.
M. Spector #62
I meant just what I said, and from your response I'd guess you probably agree that the farm program was "fair work".
So you don't have to throw accusatory questions at me.
And can it with the smears and implications that I support ontario's proposal, or the federal governmnent's plan. I said no such thing.
The image of work gangs raises alarm bells for me, as it does for you, but since I don't know that much about the reality of prison work here in Canada I'd rather not fly off the handle with a gut reaction before i know what I am talking about.
Do I think there is a place for productive and rehabilitative work in the prison system? In principle, yes - as I said. Do I think there is a danger of that kind of a situation being abused, or punitive? Also, yes - and if you read my comments in full you might notice I said that too.
Do I think prisoners should be forced to work? No.
Uh...they're not 'working' to BUY a TV...Thy're working to WATCH TV.
That's what I have mine for too. To watch.
If prisoners will be doing labour to 'earn' this TV,food and clothes,they should be making MINIMUM WAGE because anything less,(and this proposal means they'd actually earn NOTHING),is ILLEGAL...I'm just sayin'
Well, once they're earning money, I guess they can pay for their room and board then. Mind you, I doubt that mininum wage would cover it all, so they're likely to have a bill to settle at the end. But fair enough. If prison is to prepare them for a life outside then they may as well start learning how to earn money, and then how to spend it on food, a place to live... and a television.
For the record, I'm not saying "let's do whatever Hudak suggests". But in principle, I'm certainly not opposed to convicts having to do work. Describing that as some kind of slavery is absurd. If work without pay is slavery, then what is room and board and medical care and a weight room and a television without work?
This proposal has nothing to do with earning money.
Hudak wants prisoners to work for CREDITS to be used for REWARDS such as watching television.
The proposal puts forth the creation of Canadian sweat shops.
Keep in mind that Hudak is a provincial politician so this proposal is not aimed at maximum penitentiaries housing society's worst and most dangerous offenders but rather those in prison for petty crime.
I wonder how gung ho you'd be with this if you find yourself at the wrong end of an arguement on the computer and are sentenced to prison (which is the actual topic of this thread)
Or someone doing time for getting busted with a dime bag of pot in their pocket....Hard labour?
That's something CHINA does.
This does not have a place in a supposed 'democracy'
Speaking of China:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/video-games/controller-fr...
And I am trying to find that old article on the prison job fair I mentioned in the U.S.
Speaking of China:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/video-games/controller-fr...
And I am trying to find that old article on the prison job fair I mentioned in the U.S.
The anonymous man, himself a former prison guard who was incarcerated in 2004 for three years after “illegally petitioning” perceived government corruption, stated that in addition to his hard labour duties — which included mining coal — he was forced to play games for up to 12 hours at a time, performing simple tasks that resulted in game currency.
And this is what Hudak's plan opens the door to.
I wonder how gung ho you'd be with this if you find yourself at the wrong end of an arguement on the computer and are sentenced to prison (which is the actual topic of this thread)
I'm actually not too worried. I gave up linking to hate sites for Lent. I actually found it relatively easy to make my points without having to send anyone to hate sites.
Anyway, while you may disagree, I generally believe it's pretty easy to NOT end up in prison. And oddly enough, it doesn't even involve having to DO anything, so much as NOT doing things (not assaulting anyone, not robbing anyone, not setting things on fire, etc., etc.)
Hudak wants prisoners to work for CREDITS to be used for REWARDS such as watching television.
I see. Whereas you figure they just have some kind of entitlement to watching television? Or else what the hell is the problem with positive incentives for positive behaviour?? When I was a kid, my parents made my allowance conditional on performing certain household chores. I guess I saw that as an introduction to the idea of responsibility, not some kind of draconian slavery or exploitation. Little did I know, I guess.
Anyway, while you may disagree, I generally believe it's pretty easy to NOT end up in prison. And oddly enough, it doesn't even involve having to DO anything, so much as NOT doing things (not assaulting anyone, not robbing anyone, not setting things on fire, etc., etc.)
... not smoking dope
... not living in a part of town where you are surrounded and pressured by gang culture
... not having addiction problems, poverty, or other pressures.
... not being born non-white (generally) or Native (specifically)
I don't mean to take all responsibility off of the person who commits the crime, but it's not quite so simple, or balanced as saying "don't do it".
Even more ironic is that several American jurisdictions are moving away from tough-on-crime policies.
Sorry Snert but the government is NOT your parents.
And,the world is not black and white..it's a shade of grey...Although I'm not quite sure what colour the sky is in the planet you live in but you come across as an ignorant person.
Labour camps are A-OK,eh?
What next,Snert?
Those who are guilty of being unemployed should be drug tested,have no right to 'rewards' such as watching television or eating and be made to clean graffitti off of walls for $600 a month?
As mentioned above by Smith_W....Some portions of the poplace are vulnerable to diseases such as poverty and addiction.
Just because life is roses for you,doesn't mean that is the reality of everyone.
Maybe if poverty were to be abolished and fascist morality laws were to be scrapped,crime rates (as low as they currently are) would plummet.
Your way is a failure...Your stance has nothing to do with rehabilitation and everything to do with condoning slavery.
Poor you.
When I was a kid, my parents made my allowance conditional on performing certain household chores. I guess I saw that as an introduction to the idea of responsibility, not some kind of draconian slavery or exploitation. Little did I know, I guess.
I made my son save 40% for future use and he could spend the rest. I didn't feel any need to tie his walking around money to domestic drudgery. He learned the lesson I was trying to teach him well and is a very responsible with his money and amazingly saved enough to send himself to Europe and other such rites of passage. He works hard for his money now and he learnt that without having been forced to do chores. Of course he was and is always expected to help without complaint when asked.
That was my bargain. You have no set chores but you must not grumble and when asked to do things. As as a single Dad I preferred to just get the shit cleaned up quickly. It saved me hours of nagging to get things done and allowed me to get help when I actually needed it. Your experience in this world is relevant to you but certainly not the standard I used with success in raising my son. I had friends who adhered to your parent's model and it never ceased to amaze me how most of their relationship with their children revolved around what chores needed doing next or should have been done last.
My parents never bribed me with an allowance because they didn't believe in them. They expected me to help with the chores because I was a member of a family and families work together to get things done. Again another different pattern.
How do they coerce the unemployed Canadians to break the law?
Easy. Just keep making more and more things illegal... Keep making jobs harder to find and keep paying less,* while increasing the cost of food and shelter, and taking apart the safety net. Your kid gets hungry or cold enough, you steal. And maybe the law enforcement agencies don't have to be too, too persnickety about conviction.... Why wait for people to be proven guilty of anything? Why not arrest them on suspicion of planning to protest, or for having an ugly home-made box on top of their car?
See, you're still living in a wold that no longer exists.
*ps which gets easier, the more free labour is available through the prison program, and the work-for-welfare program and the runaways rehabilitation bootcamp program and the other creative shit that will make profits for friends of public officials and help 'save' public moneys by firing more people who used to do those jobs for union wages.
I don't mean to take all responsibility off of the person who commits the crime, but it's not quite so simple, or balanced as saying "don't do it".
I agree it's not foolproof advice, 100% guaranteed to keep you out of prison. Similarly, telling people to eat healthy and exercise is not 100% guaranteed to ensure you live into your 90s. But it's a good start.
And,the world is not black and white..it's a shade of grey...Although I'm not quite sure what colour the sky is in the planet you live in but you come across as an ignorant person.
Labour camps are A-OK,eh?
What next,Snert?
Those who are guilty of being unemployed should be drug tested,have no right to 'rewards' such as watching television or eating and be made to clean graffitti off of walls for $600 a month?
As I've said, I'm not averse to convicts having to work. That's hardly a "labour camp". And the rest is just your fertile imagination -- organically fertilized with bull shit.
Save your sympathies for the carjackers and rapists. Y'know... the REAL victims.
I don't mean to take all responsibility off of the person who commits the crime, but it's not quite so simple, or balanced as saying "don't do it".
I agree it's not foolproof advice, 100% guaranteed to keep you out of prison. Similarly, telling people to eat healthy and exercise is not 100% guaranteed to ensure you live into your 90s. But it's a good start.
And,the world is not black and white..it's a shade of grey...Although I'm not quite sure what colour the sky is in the planet you live in but you come across as an ignorant person.
Labour camps are A-OK,eh?
What next,Snert?
Those who are guilty of being unemployed should be drug tested,have no right to 'rewards' such as watching television or eating and be made to clean graffitti off of walls for $600 a month?
As I've said, I'm not averse to convicts having to work. That's hardly a "labour camp". And the rest is just your fertile imagination -- organically fertilized with bull shit.
Save your sympathies for the carjackers and rapists. Y'know... the REAL victims.
Thanks for unmasking yourself and showing your true colours.
Spoken like a true blue Harperite.
I'm not going to waste anymore time discussing anything with you....It's pointless....You're an ideologue.
Snert you are wilfully blind too systemic discrimination and its effect on who gets locked up for their crimes. Most people break some law or other at least once a week. (I drive more often than that) Who gets locked up is a different story than who breaks laws. If we incarcerated every citizen for all crimes they committed we would have a line up for our prisons that looked like a catholic confessional box the week before Easter. Instead we pick and choose and magically people who fit your demographics are actually under represented in jails.
The findings, attached as a PDF (click to view), are startling. On the whole, national aboriginal incarceration rates for 2006 (i.e., at the last census) are nearly 6 1/2 times higher than the aboriginal population as a percentage of the national population:
In 2006, 1,172,785 Canadians self-identified as Aboriginal, or 3.71% of our population of31,612,897.
Also in 2006, 24% of the 90051 Canadians who were admitted to a custodial sentence self-identified as aboriginal.
(Source: 2006 Census Data; CANSIM Table No. 251-0001: Adult correctional services, admissions to provincial, territorial and federal programs, annual)
The numbers aren’t pretty. Although StatCan‘s data doesn’t track back to 1971 – the time of Marshall’s conviction – over 25+ years of data shows that the aboriginal incarceration rate has increased steadily. In 1983, when the Marshall conviction was overturned, 13% of the prison population was aboriginal; since 2001 it has has rested at over 15%, and since 2004 over 20% of the prison population has self-identified as aboriginal.
The same spikes are evident at the youth criminal justice level, as well. Some incarceration rates at the youth level have increased by over 10% in ten years:
http://thezeds.com/2009/08/10/canadian-aboriginal-incarceration-rates/
Easy. Just keep making more and more things illegal... Keep making jobs harder to find and keep paying less,* while increasing the cost of food and shelter, and taking apart the safety net. Your kid gets hungry or cold enough, you steal. And maybe the law enforcement agencies don't have to be too, too persnickety about conviction.... Why wait for people to be proven guilty of anything? Why not arrest them on suspicion of planning to protest, or for having an ugly home-made box on top of their car?
I see. So the goal is to get lots of people into prison, and so the first thing we should criminalize is... making a web link to a hate site.
That's so backward and ineffective that it *almost* makes me think maybe that's exactly what the government is doing. But really, even they're not that absurd.
No, I'm aware that the law is far from colourblind. I just don't believe that systemic discrimination is behind the majority of convictions.
Curious question: men make up only half of the population at large, but about 90% of the prison population. Do you believe that men are being systemically discriminated against by the legal system? If not, how would you explain those numbers?
Curious question: men make up only half of the population at large, but about 90% of the prison population. Do you believe that men are being systemically discriminated against by the legal system? If not, how would you explain those numbers?
Interesting question. I'll bet that men commit 95% of serious crimes, and systemic discrimination in their favour reduces their rate of incarceration to 90%.
It is. Just go along with the flow and don't ask questions that make your rulers uncomfortable. That applies whether you live in "free" countries like Canada, the US, or Europe, or dictatorships like Russia, China, Iran or Libya.
The power structure is always more concerned with its own survival than making sure that average people are safe. For example, did you notice that during the G20 in Toronto that thousands of peaceful protesters were treated more harshly by the police than the hundreds of people who smashed cars and windows? Smashing cars and windows is a crime, so why did the police not perform their duties? Peaceful assembly is not a crime, so why were the police ordered to break them up?
Screw that. Watch this...
"Why the hell are our troops still in Afghanistan, Harper?? And why are you so blatantly biased in favour of Israel???"
Hah!
Ok, now who's going to bake me a cake with a file in it?
Snert, you probably think you're provoking thoughtful debate by being provocative, but in reality you're being irritating to the point of trolling. Further, you're pretty much underlining to those who have yet to figure it out that you really don't get the "progressive" part of participating on a socially progressive board. Cut it out.
Now, things were getting a bit away from the topic in the opening post and onto more general issues of prison policy. I thought that was pretty timely, especially in light of some recent suggestions from the guy who could be the next Premier of Ontario, so I started a seperate thread. Please jump in.
I certainly wouldn't want to irritate anyone! But I don't really believe that most people are in jail for "asking questions that make their rulers uncomfortable". If making a bit of fun of over-the-top absurdity like that makes me a bad progressive, I'll take my chances. And that said, I'll also leave this thread to return to the original topic.
Easy. Just keep making more and more things illegal... Keep making jobs harder to find and keep paying less,* while increasing the cost of food and shelter, and taking apart the safety net. Your kid gets hungry or cold enough, you steal. And maybe the law enforcement agencies don't have to be too, too persnickety about conviction.... Why wait for people to be proven guilty of anything? Why not arrest them on suspicion of planning to protest, or for having an ugly home-made box on top of their car?
I see. So the goal is to get lots of people into prison, and so the first thing we should criminalize is... making a web link to a hate site.
That's so backward and ineffective that it *almost* makes me think maybe that's exactly what the government is doing. But really, even they're not that absurd.
Putting a lot of people in prison is only one of several parts of the goal. Toward that, a seemingly harmless little extension to an already accepted law is a small but definite step. I don't know what other subtle extensions to the current legal system are in there, and i bet most people won't find out until too late.
The real purpose of this step, though, is not increasing the prison population, but to inhibit the free exchange of information through intimidation: to make people wary and afraid to post links, to allow links on their fora, or follow links supplied by other people - just in case they'll get into trouble. You chose to ignore that explanation, above.
Absurdist is one way to describe Kafka. Realist is another.
That pretty much is where it's drawn, as far as criminal hate speech is concerned.
This is not accurate. A comment doesn't need to incite violence to be considered hate speech, it only needs to incite hatred. There are two clauses in the law; one that deals with promoting genocide, and one that deals with inciting hatred. Violence would be implied with genocide, but it's not required at all to incite hatred.
Hatred is very broadly defined as any comment that exposes a protected class to hatred or prejudice. It's not specific or concise at all and covers an absolutely massive range of negative comments.
Now that nationality is on the list, people are going to have to be very careful about what they write regarding Israelis or Americans, for example, and also very careful when linking to any website that is critical of these countries.
Interesting question. I'll bet that men commit 95% of serious crimes, and systemic discrimination in their favour reduces their rate of incarceration to 90%.
Good thing you didn't actually bet because you would have lost. There is a racial and gender bias in the justice system that disfavors minorities and men.
Women are far more likely to receive conditional sentences, suspended sentences and other diversions, even when all other factors are similar to men who committed the same crime. Additionally, women receive lighter average sentences when convicted of the same crime.