Glenn Singleton, the San Francisco-based “diversity” trainer, could be prosecuted for peddling racial stereotypes in Canada, writes Hans Bader. Singleton, who recently adressed California’s Achievement Gap summit, was hired by a Nova Scotia district to explain black culture.
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t have strong protection for free speech akin to the First Amendment, so racist speech in public is banned in Canada under its so-called “human-rights” codes. Any white school teacher who said the offensive things that Singleton says about minorities — that their speech is not “intellectual,” “verbal,” or “task-oriented” — would be subject to prosecution by a human-rights tribunal. The same might even be true for a minority teacher. Yet Singleton gets paid big money — “a six figure fee” — to promote these offensive, racist stereotypes.
Via Colossus of Rhodey.
Thanks to Trudeau, the Orwellian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, in fact, a legal blueprint for unlimited tyranny in Canada.
> Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t have strong protection for free speech akin to the First Amendment, so racist speech in public is banned in Canada
Actually, what we find in Canada, is that we are *more* free when we are not subjected to racism and hate attacks.
The loss of the ability to inflict hurt and hatred at someone merely because of the colour of their skin is a very small loss.
The loss of the ability to live in peace, without fear, without being the subject of race-based hatred, is a great loss indeed.
Any society genuinely interested in protecting freedoms will choose to prevent the greater, not the lesser, loss. And it is sad to see the bigots and the hate-mongers and the racists convince people of the falsehood that their freedom is the greater need, their loss the greater loss.
Stephen-
Where is the line drawn? True, there are forms of speech which are blatantly racist, sexist, etc., but who makes the decision about the gray areas?
Is speech qualified as hateful if an observer perceives it as such? What if one observer feels it is hateful, but another does not? Does the speaker need to intend harm?
The State (USA, Canada, etc.) is ill-equipped to answer these questions except in the most blatant cases. Arming the government with a tool to fight these “crimes” will result in the punishment of numerous individuals who meant no harm and are not hatemongers, but victims of a law that can be used to silence unpopular views.
Do you punish the innocent to guarantee that all the guilty are dealt with?