Our American ideal of freedom of speech is more akin to Freedom of Dollars than it is to anything else.

except in Québec...where there's a lot more freedoms than anywhere in North America...

@1: Campaign finance is another issue, but seriously, read the article. You may feel slightly differently.

It's an "excuse"? How many of you out there would like Newt Gingrich and George Bush determining what speech is and isn't allowable?

For that matter, I suspect many of the things said in the Slog/Stranger about Christians wouldn't pass the test, is that really the world we want, where Dan Savage can't make of fundies?

@4: Overreact much? I'm saying children, who don't have the same freedoms as adults, use the phrase to justify things like swearing at their parents. I know I did.

But, uh, I'm very proud of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's rather radical interpretation of it. Why would you think otherwise?

Who cares what children say? That's what boarding schools and reform schools are for...

Having freedom of speech won't do American citizens any good when they're being waterboarded 24/7 for a few years in GITMO.

Just my opinion, annie.

All civil liberties are important, Will--you don't dismiss one just because another has been compromised.

This is one of the issues that comes out of different tribunals. The national Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled that to be deemed hate speech you had to be inciting a hateful action, like bombing a temple, bashing an openly gay person, etc.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal says that it's hate speech if you hurt someones feelings or dignity.

So that's where we're at with that... and I haven't heard there is a ruling yet, but you can rest assured that both sides will want this to end up in Ottawa.

A study done in the past couple of years found that a significant majority thought that Canadians had 5th Amendment or Miranda warning rights. We have similar rights, but they aren't called that, and in some ways have different legal precedent attached to them.

But on the subject of hate speech, I do believe that inciting someone to commit a crime is the proper identifier, no simply hurting someone's feelings.

After all the shit I've read posted by men about women, maybe I should call up the BCCLU and ask them to help me defend my dignity as the victim of sexist hate speech.

What a hoser!

For too many the "freedom of speech" thang IS an excuse in that they don't understand what it implies or its applicability. For one, it's the government that's required to put up with your "freedom of speech", not me.

What good is freedom of speech when your population is so badly educated? At least in Canada you get the feeling that people understand more than just a bunch of myths and superstitions as the soul core of living. Here, free speech is increasingly disappearing because the Right wing can't stomach truth or sex.

@2

...unless of course you insist on speaking English anywhere but Montreal.

-signed, un maudit Québec ex-pat.

I've been following the Steyn case fairly closely and find it troubling. Andrew Coyne's liveblogging of the kangaroo court is interesting if you want to hear the nitty-gritty. Steyn is essentially being prosecuted for being an ignorant wanker, which he undoubtedly is, but such a prosecution doesn't bode well for any of us. The Macleans trial boils down to the fact that Steyn hurt some people's feelings. The complaintants say that Steyn misunderstands Islam. Yes, he does. So? He should go to trial for that? The guy's not inciting a riot.

Couple this trial with the case of the Rev. Stephen Boisson, who has been convicted by an Alberta human rights tribunal of saying disparaging things about gays, and you really have to worry about the future of free speech in Canada. Boisson has been told he must refrain from saying disparaging things about gays. Does anybody believe that this really accomplishes anything positive? The marketplace of ideas is really that controversial of an idea?

You can speak English in Ottawa and Laval ...

Or the Lower Townships.

@11 yeah, but individuals don't have any recourse if they don't like what someone else is saying. The government can arrest and imprison, and therefore you have to accept what other people can legally say unless you plan on beating them up yourself.

In practice, you can ignore what others say, but you can't stop them from saying it, unless it can be defined as hate speech.

You do realize political donations are tax-deductible (both federal and provincial) in Canada, right?

The first amendment is perhaps the best thing about the US.

One of the things that shocks me is how other countries have laws limiting religious expression, ie France's law banning head scarves in schools. As an American, I find such a limit on religious expression absolutely shocking. That's why the ruling re: the Ku Klux Klan marching through Skokie was so important. Bans on freedom of expression work both ways. Just because it's working your way one day doesn't mean it'll work your way the next.

@15

...except that Ottawa isn't in Québec...

I'm from the eastern townships, and for the record, je suis complètement bilingue depuis mon enfance, but somehow still not quite french enough for the real hardcore.

Go figure. That's not the only reason I don't live there; the winters don't help. Then again, this June in Seattle is starting to bum me out.

Anyway...

The fundamental excellence of the American model makes the abuses of those guaranteed rights even more objectionable. People all over the world fail to understand why we are so cavalier about allowing our rights to be taken away, because they know what it's like to not have them in the first place.

Thought-provoking wait-a-minute post, Annie.

I once gave him a ride out of Inuvik. Hee.

@19 - it sure as heck ain't in Ontario.

Most of the people who work there live on the Quebec side ...

@22

I meant Ottawa's geographic location, you meant it's workforce. It's a hell of a lot more Anglophone than Quebec city is for instance, and it's still in Ontario regardless of it's workforce, who probably live on the Québec side because of the cheaper rent. It's certainly not the scenery.

so Ottawa's not in Ontario?

oh, and Laval is part of Montreal, but yeah, aside from the greater Mtl area you aren't gonna find much english. The overall anger towards the english has really diminished in the 15 yrs I've been living here but it still comes up from time to time.

@17 - Indeed political donations are tax deductible, but less than 2% of the population makes them.

There's not much influence to be peddled when your maximum donation is capped at $2200 ($1100 national, $1100 local) and you're only allowed to spend about $0.75 per registered voter.

I normally think American exceptionalism is a load of shit, but our free speech protections are both exceptional and admirable. I'm proud to live in the country that invented the First Amendment and mostly takes it seriously.

@24

Yeah, it's funny how people tend to quiet the talk of secession when things pick up a bit economically. The referendum in '95 ('96? I forget) was pretty damn close. We got the hell out of Dodge a few years later. I still miss a few things. Schwartz's Smoked Meat for instance. Seattle fails at smoked meat and bagels.

@27

Everywhere fails at smoked meat and bagels other than Montreal.

@25 - you speak about the cap as if it's a bad thing ...

@29

Oh most certainly not. It's the best thing that's happened to politics in my lifetime. I'd like to say that the spending limits at the provincial level are different in each province though. You can deduct $1100 dollars but you can give much more. You can spend whatever you have, as well, here in BC. The strict raising/spending limits are in place for the federal politics.

I like the cap, I think that it's great. My husband, who's an American, wonders aloud what the US would be like if spending were limited by how many registered voters there were.

So Steyn wrote an article critical of Islam, and that hurt some people's feelings. Boo-hoo. Christianity and Judaism are made fun of every day in print and on the internet, as they should be. But if you publically insult Islam you better be prepared to hire security guards or you might end up with a knife in the heart. Muslims who find criticism to their religion unacceptable can back up their intolerance with Quranic verses. They are true believers. The only conclusion I can see is that Islam is an intolerant religion that teaches hatred of non-muslims. What we need is a hundred more articles like Steyn's, one hundred more books like Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I wish I lived in the U.S. where such speech is protected by the First Amendment.

“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview.

I hear the French-Canadians can't even handle angry glances or mean faces.