Wednesday, June 11, 2008

What A Difference The 49th Parallel Makes

United States law:
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

-- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).
Canadian Law:
The Panel . . . orders as follows:
a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

b. That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.
-- Lund v. Boissoin, File No. S2002/08/0137, Slip Op. at 5-6 (Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission May 30, 2008).
(via Volokh Conspiracy)

8 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

> The Panel . . . orders as follows: ...

Next, of course, is anything "disparaging" to Islam.

This would include reporting on Swedish rape statistics and French riot reports...

Anonymous said...

Please!!!! Let's not disparage Canadian lawmakers or you, too, may receive such an Order.

That said, consider that the first quote is from the U.S. Supreme Court speaking about U.S. Constitutional protections of free speech. The Canadian decision was released by an independent Commission established to address human rights complaints in this case akin to slander or libel. It simply rendered a finding and remedy. It was not making or interpreting Canadian Constitutional law. And its decision may be overturned or appealed.

Let's not jump too hastily here to compare and contrast legal policies. God forbid that a blogger in Canada would review one of the decisions of an independent agency in the United States to summarize U.S. jurisprudence on prior restraint on speech.

-Cogito

Carl said...

Cogito:

It is NOT akin to slander or libel--those order money damages as compensation for past acts, not forbid certain speech prospectively.

Geoffrey Britain said...

There is NO Freedom of Speech in Canada.

Only PC expression is allowed with monetary damages assigned to any offenders.

France is another example and many more will follow.

A fine illustration of 'Big Brother'...

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Steyn is hoping to lose so that he can appeal to an actual court with actual rules of evidence.

MaxedOutMama said...

Have any of you taken a look at the Colorado law that was just passed?

This type of thinking is gaining in the US very quickly, and given the, ah, experimentalism of the SC lately, our First Amendment could be gone in a heartbeat.

OBloodyHell said...

Bardot Convicted Over Islam Comments
3 June 2008 12:07 PM, PDT

Legendary actress Brigitte Bardot has been fined $23,325 (GBP11,662) after she was found guilty of inciting racial hatred in her native France.

The former screen siren-turned-animal rights activist was accused of publicly criticising the Muslim religious festival of Eid al-Adha - during which sheep are slaughtered as a sacrifice - in an open letter to French president Nicolas Sarkozy in December 2006.

In the letter she said, "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this (Muslim) population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts."

The Contempt star was convicted of the racial slur in a Paris court on Tuesday.

She faced a possible two-month suspended prison sentence for the charge, but was instead just fined $23,325 and ordered to pay an additional $1,555 (GBP777) in damages to leading French anti-racism group Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (Mrap).

The 73-year-old's lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, is now looking into appealing the ruling - but he insists the constant legal woes will not stop Bardot from voicing her opinions.

He says, "She is tired of this type of proceedings. She has the impression that people want to silence her. She will not be silenced in her defense of animal rights."

Bardot, who quit the film industry in the 1970s to pursue a career as an animal rights activist, is no stranger to the law - she has been fined for similar charges of inciting racial hatred on four prior occasions, starting in 1997.

Original here

When PETA starts raising issues with something done by Islamics, what, exactly, do you think will happen? Do PETA offices start getting bombed? I will feel sad for the loss of life, but you can bet your sweet ASS there is a part of me that will be laughing at the sheer irony of it.

Will PETA start being sued in Canada and Europe for violating their "hate speech" statutes? When some US College students do a PETA march against some Islamic practice, will they be stifled under collegiate "Hate Speech" codes? Again, "there is a part of me that will be laughing at the sheer irony of it"

Carl said...

M_O_M:

What's the Colorado law?