quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I get that historically, but I wonder if that's what people truly believe today. Do Britons and Canadians et al honestly think their human rights come from a corgi-loving granny in a fabulous hat? Isn't the old girl (of whom I'd actually, oddly fond) more of a figurehead and a link to heritage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I get that historically, but I wonder if that's what people truly believe today. Do Britons and Canadians et al honestly think their human rights come from a corgi-loving granny in a fabulous hat? Isn't the old girl (of whom I'd actually, oddly fond) more of a figurehead and a link to heritage?

You only have to consider the response of Lucy above to see that they do. Many reactionaries also believe God appointed these people to rule them in this manner.

quote:

The government of Mexico or India especially has more in common with the United States then Canada does in terms of the principles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Do Britons and Canadians et al honestly think their human rights come from a corgi-loving granny in a fabulous hat? Isn't the old girl (of whom I'd actually, oddly fond) more of a figurehead and a link to heritage?

Nope absolutely not, we have a charter of rights and freedoms, that Her Maj has zero interest or ability of changing.
The magna carta is the charter in the UK. Again, not in Her Maj's ability to change.
so Yes you are correct as usual:)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I get that historically, but I wonder if that's what people truly believe today. Do Britons and Canadians et al honestly think their human rights come from a corgi-loving granny in a fabulous hat? Isn't the old girl (of whom I'd actually, oddly fond) more of a figurehead and a link to heritage?

You only have to consider the response of Lucy above to see that they do. Many reactionaries also believe God appointed these people to rule them in this manner.

LMAO I was responding to your bullcrap.

quote:

The government of Mexico or India especially has more in common with the United States then Canada does in terms of the principles

But you are new, Ill not mock anymore this time

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

So far I have seen no explanations but plenty of insults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

get real.
Now why on earth would I do something like that when it has bugger all to do with the topic which is canada not allowing hate speech.
I would like to discuss that as much as I would like to stick a tuning fork up my nose, let alone pander to your baiting.
Ive spent my entire life, living with/under British and Canadian parliamentary systems.
I still do not wish to live under the US system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

In a monarchy (Canada, and much the rest of the Commonwealth) the rights flow from the top down, in a republic (United States, and other republics) the rights flow from the bottom up. Their monarch and her government is sovereign, in the United States the people are sovereign. Everything in each government is predicated on these principles, even the criminal court cases are styled Queen versus criminal as opposed to People versus criminal, and the government is referred to as "The Crown" courts are referred to as "the Queen's Bench" and their government is styled "Her Majesty's Government."

I get that historically, but I wonder if that's what people truly believe today. Do Britons and Canadians et al honestly think their human rights come from a corgi-loving granny in a fabulous hat? Isn't the old girl (of whom I'd actually, oddly fond) more of a figurehead and a link to heritage?

A comical note re criminal cases: A dear friend grew up in England and was excited beyond measure when some TV show mentioned the case the Queen v. John Doe. He thought, "Wow! This must be the case of the century if Her Majesty is prosecuting the guy herself." I think he's still a bit let down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Embedded in this response is a huge and (at least to my mind) potentially dangerous assumption: that citizens have only the rights a government chooses to grant them. Do people not have "certain unalienable Rights" by virtue of being human?

Different type of government.

In a monarchy (Canada, and much the rest of the Commonwealth) the rights flow from the top down, in a republic (United States, and other republics) the rights flow from the bottom up. Their monarch and her government is sovereign, in the United States the people are sovereign. Everything in each government is predicated on these principles, even the criminal court cases are styled Queen versus criminal as opposed to People versus criminal, and the government is referred to as "The Crown" courts are referred to as "the Queen's Bench" and their government is styled "Her Majesty's Government."

Completely different principles.

The government of Mexico or India especially has more in common with the United States then Canada does in terms of the principles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LOL OK you are making it tough for me to take you seriously.

quote:

I don't agree that free speech is dying. It is alive and well in the U.S. Again, other countries have chosen to define things differently. In some of these cases they are defining hate speech in ways that seem unobjectionable to me (e.g., Canada), in other countries (many European countries) they protect some hateful speech, but not others (which does seem objectionable). I do agree that many of the European laws are openly racist and hypocritical, and do not stand up to any kind of jurisprudential analysis.

Again, I support the First Amendment and how it has been interpreted in the U.S. And please let us be clear that all speech is NOT protected even in the U.S. For one example, child pornography is NOT protected speech.

Also, we have time and place restrictions even on other speech. For example, I would personally say that a person's freedom of speech should not allow a high school student to repeatedly bully a gay student in a public high school, even if the bullying is limited to verbal abuse. Let us not turn our notion of freedom of speech into an open-ended tolerance of what is simply bad behavior. After all, our notion of civil liberties is defined in relation to the rights of others (to attend school, to lead their lives, to be free from interference). Since when does freedom of speech allow bullies to reign supreme? It doesn't. And in many places in the US, there are anti-bullying laws currently in effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-bullying_legislation

Do these anti-bullying laws represent an erosion of free speech? Or do they represent a call for decency, and a respect for the victims right to live their lives free from harassment? Rights still need to be balanced. The Constitution does not ever envision a situation where rights are not balanced against each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LOL OK you are making it tough for me to take you seriously.

Plus one.........

The Magna Carta hasnt been repealed, but altered over the last 800 years. Its principle still stands at the heart of UK common law. To suggest any legal document would survive 800 years with no alterations is stupid at best.

quote:

1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

quote:

YN, you are mistaking reality with tradition. The Royal Family havent had much say in the UK, or the Commonwealth for over 200 years. To even suggest otherwise shows very little understanding of the the UK legal system generally. Why people cant understand that because we have a Royal family it doesnt mean they actually rule much, baffles me.

quote:

You are even more mistaken that the idea of "rights" somehow flows from the bottom up. These always flow in a downwards direction, form those that control the judiciary. If you take India for example, the Supreme Court was a follow on from British Courts, established after independance. It wasnt until the late 80s that there was woman on the court, and it was only this centuary that one of the Dalit (Untouchables) sat on the court. Doesnt the class system show you things operate as they always have, top down. The notion India has more in common with US laws than that of Canada is absurd.

quote:

Again, I am trying to understand your position on free speech. You seem to be saying that there should be no restrictions on free speech at all.

quote:

Or do they represent a call for decency...

quote:

We either allow communities to determine how they would like to balance the rights of different people (that is how our constitution works) and then respect the fact that different countries/communities might come to a different balancing of rights based on their own culture and history, or we claim that free speech supercedes all other rights.

quote:

I accept that there can be compelling reasons to circumscribe free speech, as with copyrights and classified information. But I think the bar should be set high and, as much as possible, consistently. And I think the burden of proof falls to those wanting to constrain speech rather than to exercise it.

In the case of the situation described in the OP, I don't see what compelling reason Canada had for denying Pastor Jones entry (aside from the bureaucratic excuses), particularly given that some of its own citizens wanted to hear him.

quote:

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

quote:

If you agree that there can be exceptions to free speech, then why do you think all nations should necessarily define those exceptions in exactly the same way. Please explain why Canada has to restrict itself to the same exceptions to free speech that we have in the US? What is the moral or philosophical underpinning for why a completely separate nation cannot have a different approach? What makes what we do in the US the right or only way to define the limits of free speech?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

If you agree that there can be exceptions to free speech, then why do you think all nations should necessarily define those exceptions in exactly the same way. Please explain why Canada has to restrict itself to the same exceptions to free speech that we have in the US? What is the moral or philosophical underpinning for why a completely separate nation cannot have a different approach? What makes what we do in the US the right or only way to define the limits of free speech?

Oh my. Four straw men in a single paragraph. That has to be some sort of record. You seem to be more interested in combating easy absurdities than actually hearing or engaging another, more nuanced perspective. So far as I can tell, your whole stance boils down to "Canada's laws are Canada's laws, whatever their merits."

You've also loftily ignored any number of my questions. I'm still curious to hear what you make of Burma's "different approach." Or North Korea's. Or Iran's. Each is, after all, "a completely separate nation."

I think our exchange has outlived its usefulness, so this is probably it for me. Be well.