In another thread...which in the case of Spikey and myself.. it has gone way off the topic of Atheism.. So, out of consideeration to other posters who may not have an interest in the legal aspects of 'vilification'.. I propose this thread as a public interest avenue to thrash out the issue where it doesn't annoy other posters or bypass OLO rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra

James Keegstra, a Canadian Teacher, said and taught:

"Holocaust was a fraud and attributing various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers". He taught his classes that the Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution."

He was charged with Hate Speech, convicted, appealed (overturned) then the Supreme court overturned the overturning and his conviction stood.

My contention is...that if someone says that another identifiable group/religion in society is any or all of the above without a sound and provable basis....that it consitutes HATE speech.

In Keegstra's case, note the following: "Jews are" (according to Keegstra)

-Treacherous
-Subversive
-Sadistic
-Money loving
-Power Hungry
-Child killers.
-Wish to destroy Christianity
-Responsible for Chaos, Wars, Depressions and Revolutions.

Keegstra made one major mistake. He SHOULD have said "Judaism Teaches" and then.. proven his case with evidence..if he could find it. But instead..he attacked all Jews directly.

Had he tried to show from the documents of Judaism that he was right...and succeeded... would it have been 'hate speech'?

Freedom of expression is always a qualified privilege. It is open to all to express opinions, but it seems to me that Keegstra exceeded his licence to express opinion freely, by shooting all the dogs because some have fleas. If he was referring to the recent Jewish excursion into Gaza,I think he could reasonably have been excused. However that was the Jewish State. It is probably guilty of everything he accuses individual Jews of committing.

As in the other forum, everyone should be free to follow the religion of his or her choice. As I said in the other forum, the atheist is either black or white. He cannot be grey. The cause of Christianity is not helped by attacking individuals in a group personally, and playing the person, instead of the ball. As you say if he had attacked Judaism, rather than individual Jews, would he have been vilified?

Much of what he accuses Jews of is rooted in Judaism. It is a religion that is rather stuck in a bloody and murderous past. By the same token, they suffered as much as they inflicted, and the teachings of Jesus which they refuse to adopt, Judge not that you be not judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.

The Jewish State is betting that Barack Obama will continue the misguided policies of George Bush. That is probably a very risky punt. Even if they are successful in continuing the special relationship,the dominance of United States media by Jews, is being steadily undermined by the net.

Barack Obama used that freedom, to win by popular support. He comes without the usual baggage of an indebtedness to Jewish media interests and their finances have also been crippled by the Global meltdown. The Russian Government is no friend of Israel. Freed from the State straitjacket, the inventiveness of the Russian people could well balance the United States,and make the Israeli State face judgment.

I am a constant believer in freedom of speech not because I support people vilifying others and certainly not because I would ever agree with Keegstra but when we give authority to institutions to silence the voice of subjective hate, we immediately establish the authority to silence difference of opinion.

Keegstra should be free to espouse his stupidity, although

He has some duty to reflect the curriculum and parents must be free to remove their children from his school room and possibly have him removed from his position as a public servant who is paid from the public purse.

Whilst Keegstra does have the discretion to espouse what he believes, he does not have the right to indoctrinate other peoples children, with extremist views “Unchallenged” by any alternate view or the parents views.

Freedom of speech implies a freedom of reply (= balance) and this, I suspect, would be lacking in Keegstra’s classes.

Of course, freedom of speech is not a defence from prosecution when the speech has been such that it has promoted or incited others to acts of violence.

Interesting perspectives.

On Keegstra... my view is like Peters.. he certainly did shoot all dogs because some had fleas.

His primary problem vis a vis the law was that he vilified "all Jews" specifically.. "Jews are"....etc. not "Judaism teaches..."

Canadian law is not as 'tyranical' as I've sometimes made out..nor is out own RRT IF.... they are interpreted correctly by the Judiciary.

In Canadian law the central point is found in section 319-3 points a)& b) clearly state as follows:

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

In this case.. TRUTH is acceptable as a defense...and (fortunately) the opinion expressed is based on an argued religious text.

That is the territory where I myself stand, and always have.

The ULTIMATE IRONY.....

In a different case... Pastor Mark Harding (Canada) criticized Muslims. He handed out a pamphlet suggesting "Dem Muzlims iz comin... to git us".

He was convicted of hate speech.

But here is the twist. He claims (WND) that he was given 340 hours of community service under the supervision of one Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ont.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29483

<<"He said he was my supervisor, and if I didn't follow what he said, he would send me back to jail," recounted Harding.>>

IRONY: Ashraf recommended Harding study

"Towards Understanding Islam", by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi.

This is the man who understands the Quran 65:4 to mean what it actually SAYS.. which is that a man may divorce a pre-menstrual female child with whom he has had sex!

<<*13 Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.>> (i.e. Intercourse with a pre-menstural child)(Tafheem Al Quran)

Thus, it cannot be argued that 'that was just a cultural practice in early Arabia'

I suspect that the line was crossed by Keegstra when he took his views into the classroom.

Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda other than in private conversations."

"He advised the students that they were to accept his views as true unless they were able to contradict them. Students who echoed his views generally received better grades than those who didn't. Under the Criminal Code, Keegstra could have made such statements legally if certain conditions applied, but none of them did. He made the statements in public, in his capacity as a teacher. He made them solely to attack Jewish peoples and not in any effort to generate discussion for public benefit."

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/128mile.asp

Keegstra's freedom of speech was protected, as is right and proper, to the extent that he did not use those views to incite others to hatred and vilification. It would appear that he fully intended for his students to take away from his class the idea that Jews were objects to be feared and loathed, indeed he reinforced this using his power to adversely grade dissenting views in his class.

Boaz asserts that...

>>Keegstra made one major mistake. He SHOULD have said "Judaism Teaches" and then.. proven his case with evidence..if he could find it.<<

I'm not sure that was where he went wrong. Canadian law appears to protect these views, whether "proven with evidence" or not, right up to the point where they are used to foment hatred.

"Under the Criminal Code, Keegstra could have legally made such statements if... he promoted hatred in a private conversation by stating facts he believed to be true " (ibid)

It was the intent, I suggest, and not the content, that got him into trouble.

Colrouge is exactly right. I think it was Voltaire; I disagree totally with everything you say; but will fight to the death for your right to say it.

In Australia it is only in the Blogosphere that free and unfettered discussion can take place. Once upon a time in a far off kingdom into which I was born, free and unfettered discussion could take place, in a place where there were 12 adjudicators, and a moderator. The moderator was charged with keeping order, but other than that anything could be said, and when said freely reported under privilege to the public at large.

The adjudicators stayed locked up incommunicado, until all the discussion was completed and then gave a decision. That way the media could not influence them once they had started. No news, no television, no cheating. The adjudicators were expected to be honorable people, take an oath on the Bible or an affirmation to like effect, and unless dishonorably instructed by the moderator, their decision was unassailable and immediate.

Not only is that forum now closed, it is controlled tightly by the moderators. Nothing that could upset the moderator is allowed to be admitted. The places I am talking about existed until 1970. In that year adjudicators were abolished altogether in most cases. Only the moderator remained; a Cheshire cat smiling evilly.

They call him a Judge or Magistrate, and he is not a Christian. He does not call the community to contribute to the forum over which he presides. He does not include ordinary people in the decisions made. He does not allow others to share what he does, this dog in the manger. He does not do unto others as he would have them do unto him. He does not understand the fundamentals of good government.

Since it is an exclusive club for aristocrats, only wannabe aristocrats are allowed to argue in this forum nowadays. The aristocrats decide what will happen to the peasant, serf or slave brought into the forum. We rejected this model in 1900. Why have we allowed these creeps to creep in