Sunday, May 26, 2019

'Hate Speech' Bans And Destruction Of Free Society

'Hate' speech ban leaves 'free society destroyed'

A report from blogger Pamela Geller, who is known for fighting the implementation of Shariah in the United States, is warning that if Ontario, Canada, passes a bill banning offensive speech, its “free society is destroyed.”

She was referring to a bill that “would criminalize public displays by Christians deemed hateful to Muslims, the LGBT community and other victim groups designated by the left.”
The Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act would forbid any rally, meeting or event that is called hateful by the parliamentary speaker.
LifeSiteNews reported the nebulous nature of Canada’s anti-hate laws gives left-wing lawmakers carte blanche to ban all Christian protest.
The problem is that “hate” isn’t defined under Canadian law, so it can be used to silence reasonable expression of belief.
She cited the Trinity Western Christian University case last year in which the private institution’s moral covenant was “deemed hateful and discrimination.”

And in the Bill Whatcott case from 2013, “the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the effects of an expression used, not the communicator’s intent, are what is relevant. The court went on to conclude that ‘truthful statements and sincerely held beliefs do not affect the finding of ‘hate.'”

Geller warned that if speech “that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed.”
“A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it,” she said.

“Inoffensive speech needs no protection. The First Amendment was developed precisely in order to protect speech that was offensive to some, in order to prevent those who had power from claiming they were offended by speech opposing them and silencing the powerless.
“A free society is by its nature one in which people put up with others being uncivil and offensive. The alternative is a quiet authoritarian society in which only one opinion is allowed and the others are silenced, and ultimately sent to the camps,” she explained.
She said if a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group “will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear.”
“Islamic law forbids criticism of Islam, Quran, Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized, we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech. This would establish Muslims as a protected class and prevent honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism,” she wrote.

No comments: