Hate Speech or Free Speech

In a previous post, I mentioned an article in Macleans magazine in Canada, reviewing a book AMERICA ALONE: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Styne. The magazine and Styne were being charged with inciting hate and discrimination by the Canadian Islamic League.

We have heard a tired refrain for seven years about Bush and what he has done to take away our civil liberties. We have heard about a Supreme Court, that has, for seven years, been taking away our civil liberties.

We have watched as Americans have fled the US for the saner Canada. We have watched as Americans, unwilling to fight in an illegal war (we sorted that out in a previous post) have fled to Canada.

We have watched as Americans have left the US for much more sane places like England (we just sorted that place out yesterday with their 'yuk' laws).

Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids and for them to remain in those places shows just how dense they really are, and why we are better off with them gone.

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, South Africa, Australia, India - all have laws or signed international conventions banning hate speech.
Israel, France, and Russia ban the sale of Nazi items like swastikas or flags.
Canada, Germany, France - it is against the law to DENY the holocaust occurred.

In France, Brigitte Bardot, THE sex symbol of the 60s and 70s, was fined $23,000 for suggesting that 'they' should give up their practice of slaughtering sheep. THEY being Muslims.

In Switzerland, THE NEUTRAL state on earth, the governing party won, based on the idea of exclusion (and deportation) of the other, for crimes. Included in CRIMES is speech that is explicit or implicit in urging a change of government or conversion of government to Islamic sharia law.

Belgium - it is against the law to oppose or stand against the dual language system, and to speak out or write statements for public consumption urging opposition to bilingualism / opposition of one or the other of the languages as this incites hatred and discrimination.

Several of these countries also have laws pertaining to the flying of flags not of that country - say flags from their birth state.


What we value in the US is free speech and you have free speech. You can say anything you wish (within certain time/place/manner restrictions). You can shout down with Bush, up with Islam, down with whatever, up with whatever. We believe that is what makes us peculiarly unique. yet, some Americans have fled this country to join up elsewhere - more free, more open, more tolerant.

MORE TOLERANT? Which drugs are you taking?

All of the above is what is known and public - what about the extensive secret monitoring in those countries - to ensure everyone is abiding by the laws. The laws against government spying on its citizens are vague to non-existent in each of the countries listed above, and government monitoring does occur. The difference - the media can't report that it is as that would violate the laws. Only when American media report or media from outside the country in question report it, can the media inside report the report.

Domestic intelligence services spying on citizens, laws against free speech, restrictions on the media as to what they can and cannot report - THIS from countries so many Americans think are MORE OPEN and free than our own.

Yet, there is an argument in favor of this 'oversight' and Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, pointed it out in a book review in the New York Times: when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.

He defended the speech laws, and touched on the right of the state to protect itself from that which would destroy it. The state could limit immigration from Muslim countries, or could deport Muslims who are illegal and or commit criminal acts, even if they were born here. That citizenship is not dependent upon birth alone, but on actions the majority determine to be outside tolerable behavior. Waldron didn't quite make it this far, but he broached the gulf and for that we should be thankful.

The article is from the International Herald Tribune, from Wednesday June, 11, 2008: Hate Speech or free speech? What much of the West bans is protected in US.



I think I have just sorted out most of the European countries, I may have previously not sorted out.






Hate speech





free speech