Fined for speaking her mind

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

I don't like this woman, Jessica Beaumont, and I don't like what she says. I also don't think she should be fined for saying it. But she has, to the tune of $4500. She's posted the wrong thing on the internet, and the Canadian Human Rights commission aka thought police have fined her for posting the wrong things on American blogs.

I don't expect anyone else here to like what she's said either. She's a knuckle dragging racist and a homophobe among other things. She quotes scripture.

Should she be fined $4500 and be ordered not to post her opinions (cease and desist order) on the internet any more?

Here are some of the comments she was fined for saying:

About Muslim women keeping their hijabs on for photos: (I pretty much agree with her on this one.)

Quote:

That drives me nuts, I take photos for the citizenship, passports, pr (permanent residence), visa cards etc. and as I have been told from human resourses that the ears MUST be visable, which means, if your hair covers your ears, it has to be tucked back.

I don’t care if it’s a religious thing or not, if you don’t want to follow our rules, even if it is taking off your scarf thing for one lousy picture, then stay out of my effing country!

On non-white friends:

Quote:

I just don’t feel the need to be-friend non-whites, as they can do nothing for me, nor would I like to associate with them. I am fine with my own kind, and always will/have been. Theres my f*cking answer. Good enough? If not, PM [private message] me, well debate this some more.

Name five things that concern you as a Canadian citizen:

Quote:

1. Immigration

2. Freedom Of Speech (and everything else)

3. People need to wake up, and grab a sense of morality.

4. People who support “gay marriages” although are not gay, even if they are…. IT’S SICK!

5. Basis of/for Deportation for illegal immigrants (this needs to be followed through with A LOT faster, and more watched)

The CHRC has had at least 46 cases, 35 of the respondents have been ordered a lifetime speech ban - for breaking it (saying the wrong thing again) they could spend five years in prison.

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Quote:

1. It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

2. For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

3. For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

Thought police.

LordFu · 12-07-2007

I certainly don't support what she says and believes. But, muzzling her speech is counter-productive, over the long-term. It gives validity to her arguements by displaying a fear of them.

We shouldn't be afraid to openly debate bigots. By bringing their ugly perspective out into the light, you can do much more to dissuade people against those beliefs.

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordFu

I certainly don't support what she says and believes. But, muzzling her speech is counter-productive, over the long-term. It gives validity to her arguements by displaying a fear of them.

We shouldn't be afraid to openly debate bigots. By bringing their ugly perspective out into the light, you can do much more to dissuade people against those beliefs.

Well said. I'm pretty optimistic, I don't think anyone here can support these laws, but I'm amazed they were put in place.

With hate crime laws, the PC loonies who support this kind of fascism have their foot in the door in the U.S. Calling someone a fag, kike, or nigger while you beat them up is a hate crime. Next step, you won't have to beat them up, just saying the words or typing them on the internet will be a hate crime.

itsreallyme · 12-07-2007

I wonder if yelling "terrorist" in a crowded room full of Americans is similar to yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre?

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsreallyme

I wonder if yelling "terrorist" in a crowded room full of Americans is similar to yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre?

I'm sure it would depend on the circumstances. Did you have any opinion on the topic at hand? That being the fact that people are being fined, and threatened with prison for typing the wrong opinions on the internet.

itsreallyme · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I'm sure it would depend on the circumstances. Did you have any opinion on the topic at hand? That being the fact that people are being fined, and threatened with prison for typing the wrong opinions on the internet.

I think my post is very relevant and spot on to the topic.

itsreallyme · 12-07-2007

Is yelling "nazi" (goodwins law notwithstanding) in a crowd of elderly Jews wise?

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsreallyme

Is yelling "nazi" (goodwins law notwithstanding) in a crowd of elderly Jews wise?

Are you trying to draw a comparison between sounding a false alarm that could result in physical injury and posting opinions on the internet that might hurt someone's feelings?

Is your point that if its ok for laws prohibiting yelling "fire!" in crowded theatre, then its ok to have laws against posting certain things on the internet because it might offend someone? Is this your position?

Rather than making me beat it out of you, why don't you just come out and state your position confidently rather than beating around the bush with these weird questions?

itsreallyme · 12-07-2007

Is it your position that in order to participate in any thread started by you that an unwavering judgement and posture must be made from the outset and then a duel to the end occur?

Your original post provoked some thought in me, and I began to express it. In my mind, conversations such as this are more exploratory than reactionary or emotional.

If you perfer I stay out of your threads, just say the word, and I will obey. It is not necessary to be so combative and confrontational.

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsreallyme

Is it your position that in order to participate in any thread started by you that an unwavering judgement and posture must be made from the outset and then a duel to the end occur?

Your original post provoked some thought in me, and I began to express it. In my mind, conversations such as this are more exploratory than reactionary or emotional.

If you perfer I stay out of your threads, just say the word, and I will obey. It is not necessary to be so combative and confrontational.

I'm just interested in knowing your position, and I don't want to make assumptions or put words in your mouth. That's a show of respect, not combativeness.

Yes - there are exceptions to freedom of speech when speech can directly cause physical harm or death - the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" thing.

itsreallyme · 12-07-2007

Any position I may have had or not may change (or not) after participating in this thread.

I think it's important to try and understand throughly the reasoning of the Canadian governments posture here. I doubt we want to conclude from the outset that everyone involved in crafting this law are a group of idiots. I'm sure they are not. Many of them are most likly more educated than either one of us and also people whom care for their communities too. That said, I don't want to assume they are correct either without giving through thought to the argument.

itsreallyme · 12-07-2007

For the sake of understanding who I am dealing with. Was it your intention to divert my attention away from my thought process?

keith.kuslak · 12-07-2007

I'm going to ignore the false alarm statements because I'm honestly not sure where I would put the line between freedom of speech and causing mass panic that can result in bodily harm.

The best I can come up with is this... perhaps instead of saying it isn't a freedom of speech issue punish the person for the harm done and ignore the speech part. If someone breaks their arm... if a theater has to give out a lot of free passes... etc... then it isn't punishing them for speech, but I'm not sure of the technicalities of it all but that is my best attempt (and my failed attempt at ignoring the topic)

as far as the whole hate crime thing... I think you fail to realize that you can separate hate crime laws from laws restricting freedom of speech. Calling someone a name doesn't tend to hurt anyone. Attacking someone for bigoted reasons that can invoke terror in that area or larger areas hurts more than just the originally attacked victim.

Jasper84 · 12-07-2007

IMO she should be allowed to say these things.
It does not seem similar to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater at all. Are these the worst things she said? Perhaps she said some things calling for criminal acts. I am sure there are border cases between obnoxious/false alarm and freedom of speech, though.

Quote:

I just don’t feel the need to be-friend non-whites, as they can do nothing for me, nor would I like to associate with them. I am fine with my own kind, and always will/have been. Theres my f*cking answer. Good enough? If not, PM [private message] me, well debate this some more.

I dont get where this is coming from. What the context of it? Nobody is forcing her to be friends with other people. (Question is what exactly is meant with 'friend'.) (Tried to search it, but too lazy right now. Canadian Association for Free Expression)

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper84

IMO she should be allowed to say these things.
It does not seem similar to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater at all. Are these the worst things she said? Perhaps she said some things calling for criminal acts. I am sure there are border cases between obnoxious/false alarm and freedom of speech, though.

As far as I know she has just been accused of hurting peoples feelings. I'm still trying to find more sources and do some crosschecking. And you're right, this is apples and bowling balls different to yelling fire. Only isitme knows the reason he even brought that up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper84

I dont get where this is coming from. What the context of it? Nobody is forcing her to be friends with other people. (Question is what exactly is meant with 'friend'.) (Tried to search it, but too lazy right now. Canadian Association for Free Expression)

The context is a internet forum like this one. Someone had said something to the effect that she had no problem with having non-white friends, and that was the defendants reply.

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith.kuslak

I'm going to ignore the false alarm statements because I'm honestly not sure where I would put the line between freedom of speech and causing mass panic that can result in bodily harm.

Please. Seriously, this is not an issue about causing false alarms, its not even comparable. Please do continue to ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith.kuslak

as far as the whole hate crime thing... I think you fail to realize that you can separate hate crime laws from laws restricting freedom of speech. Calling someone a name doesn't tend to hurt anyone. Attacking someone for bigoted reasons that can invoke terror in that area or larger areas hurts more than just the originally attacked victim.

So you agree that this human rights commission (thought police) and their exercising their governmental authority to stop someone from posting personal opinions is repugnant?

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsreallyme

For the sake of understanding who I am dealing with. Was it your intention to divert my attention away from my thought process?

Only insomuch as your "thought process" was intended to draw the focus off the topic, it sounded like you where going to drag a whale sized red herring across the path of the thread.

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsreallyme

Any position I may have had or not may change (or not) after participating in this thread.

I think it's important to try and understand throughly the reasoning of the Canadian governments posture here. I doubt we want to conclude from the outset that everyone involved in crafting this law are a group of idiots. I'm sure they are not. Many of them are most likly more educated than either one of us and also people whom care for their communities too. That said, I don't want to assume they are correct either without giving through thought to the argument.

There's no need to speculate. I'll post the stated reason for the act, included in the beginning of the act itself:

Quote:

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

They are lumping censorship of people's opinions in with discriminatory practices. Whether the government should tell a private business owner who he can hire is a topic for another thread. I haven't read the whole thing, but I'll concede for now there's probably parts in here that are good. Claiming that posting the wrong opinions on internet forums like this one (section 13 above) is akin to not hiring someone based on their race is ludicrous.

I don't think the people behind this are idiots, I think they are evil and dangerous where liberty, specifically freedom of expression, is concerned.

keith.kuslak · 12-07-2007

you have seriously got to stop calling them thought police when you do not even know what the term means. At least read the first three chapters of 1984 as they are defined there. Technically she would be guilty of an act, because she said it aloud. Thought crime refers to something not spoken aloud or even acted towards. It might be a nervous tick... a passing glance... and then you just disappear in the night.

If it were thought crime, then people would be getting fined because they might have shrugged oddly when they passed a black person. Not because they spoke out against it.

I suppose if you want to use a newspeak word of which she is guilty, then use duckspeak. Not thought crime.

Rasczak · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith.kuslak

you have seriously got to stop calling them thought police when you do not even know what the term means. At least read the first three chapters of 1984 as they are defined there. Technically she would be guilty of an act, because she said it aloud. Thought crime refers to something not spoken aloud or even acted towards. It might be a nervous tick... a passing glance... and then you just disappear in the night.

If it were thought crime, then people would be getting fined because they might have shrugged oddly when they passed a black person. Not because they spoke out against it.

I suppose if you want to use a newspeak word of which she is guilty, then use duckspeak. Not thought crime.

Jeezus, I should have gotten this out of the way earlier.

Source

Quote:

In George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink".

In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary:

“ Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death. ”

He also makes remarks to the effect that "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."

In modern media the term thoughtcrime is used to refer to crimes (allegorical or legislative) whereby the alleged "criminal" commits a crime not by action but by expressing their thoughts in some way. Real world thoughtcrimes are punishable by measures as severe as death. For example apostasy (the "crime" of changing your religion) in Saudi Arabia is punishable by death by stoning. Even in western countries where freedom of thought is considered a fundamental value, still there are cases where it is possible to incur in penalties of the law for saying or thinking something. For example, in the United Kingdom, the "crime" of blasphemy (saying something bad about Christianity) remains on the statute book.[citation needed] Similarly, prosecutions in Germany of individuals allegedly carrying out simulated pedophile acts in the multiplayer computer game Second Life could be considered thought crimes, as no actual sex offences had taken place in the real world.

I'm pretty sure in Germany, you aren't allowed to claim the holocaust didn't happen. Is that true Mrgins?

Anyway, go back to whatever dumbfuck professor filled your head with bullshit and demand your money back. You got ripped off.

12-07-2007	#2 (permalink)
LordFu I see the Fnords. Join Date: May 2007 Location: Columbia, MO Posts: 830	Re: Fined for speaking her mind I certainly don't support what she says and believes. But, muzzling her speech is counter-productive, over the long-term. It gives validity to her arguements by displaying a fear of them. We shouldn't be afraid to openly debate bigots. By bringing their ugly perspective out into the light, you can do much more to dissuade people against those beliefs. Last edited by LordFu : 12-07-2007 at 08:40 AM.
	For just an instant, have a glimpse, a vision, of life through my eyes. It is a staggeringly joyous perspective, a view of how each person's choices can make their own life better. It is a vision of the possible, of how things can and should be.

12-07-2007	#4 (permalink)
itsreallyme Discussion starter Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 70	Re: Fined for speaking her mind I wonder if yelling "terrorist" in a crowded room full of Americans is similar to yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre?
	It's only when you know who and what you are, can you have real freedom.

12-07-2007	#7 (permalink)
itsreallyme Discussion starter Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 70	Re: Fined for speaking her mind Is yelling "nazi" (goodwins law notwithstanding) in a crowd of elderly Jews wise?
	It's only when you know who and what you are, can you have real freedom.

12-07-2007	#9 (permalink)
itsreallyme Discussion starter Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 70	Re: Fined for speaking her mind Is it your position that in order to participate in any thread started by you that an unwavering judgement and posture must be made from the outset and then a duel to the end occur? Your original post provoked some thought in me, and I began to express it. In my mind, conversations such as this are more exploratory than reactionary or emotional. If you perfer I stay out of your threads, just say the word, and I will obey. It is not necessary to be so combative and confrontational.
	It's only when you know who and what you are, can you have real freedom.

12-07-2007	#11 (permalink)
itsreallyme Discussion starter Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 70	Re: Fined for speaking her mind Any position I may have had or not may change (or not) after participating in this thread. I think it's important to try and understand throughly the reasoning of the Canadian governments posture here. I doubt we want to conclude from the outset that everyone involved in crafting this law are a group of idiots. I'm sure they are not. Many of them are most likly more educated than either one of us and also people whom care for their communities too. That said, I don't want to assume they are correct either without giving through thought to the argument.
	It's only when you know who and what you are, can you have real freedom.

12-07-2007	#12 (permalink)
itsreallyme Discussion starter Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 70	Re: Fined for speaking her mind For the sake of understanding who I am dealing with. Was it your intention to divert my attention away from my thought process?
	It's only when you know who and what you are, can you have real freedom.

12-07-2007	#13 (permalink)
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	Re: Fined for speaking her mind I'm going to ignore the false alarm statements because I'm honestly not sure where I would put the line between freedom of speech and causing mass panic that can result in bodily harm. The best I can come up with is this... perhaps instead of saying it isn't a freedom of speech issue punish the person for the harm done and ignore the speech part. If someone breaks their arm... if a theater has to give out a lot of free passes... etc... then it isn't punishing them for speech, but I'm not sure of the technicalities of it all but that is my best attempt (and my failed attempt at ignoring the topic) as far as the whole hate crime thing... I think you fail to realize that you can separate hate crime laws from laws restricting freedom of speech. Calling someone a name doesn't tend to hurt anyone. Attacking someone for bigoted reasons that can invoke terror in that area or larger areas hurts more than just the originally attacked victim.
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	One a day

12-07-2007	#19 (permalink)
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	Re: Fined for speaking her mind you have seriously got to stop calling them thought police when you do not even know what the term means. At least read the first three chapters of 1984 as they are defined there. Technically she would be guilty of an act, because she said it aloud. Thought crime refers to something not spoken aloud or even acted towards. It might be a nervous tick... a passing glance... and then you just disappear in the night. If it were thought crime, then people would be getting fined because they might have shrugged oddly when they passed a black person. Not because they spoke out against it. I suppose if you want to use a newspeak word of which she is guilty, then use duckspeak. Not thought crime.
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	One a day