The Slow and Painful Death of Freedom in Canada

There may be a lot wrong in Canada, but I don't think the Press Freedom Index is any kind of valid indication.<p>Exactly the same as described in the article is happening in the Netherlands (or worse, like wiretapping on a massive scale), our freedom of information acts is systematically and openly sabotaged, and we've always had the strict limitations on public protests Canada has introduced. And for some reason we rank #2.<p>There's a coronation this tuesday and people who may possible be disruptive are being pre-emptively locked up and their lawyers muzzled. So much for liberal freedoms.<p>The Press Freedom index is about how much the government kisses up to traditional media, and, given how much media are in bed with the powers that be, no indication of actual freedoms.<p>That correlation has been broken a long time ago, and accelerated by the internet.

Also, you can go to prison for thoughtcrimes. They don't mention that. Of course, that's also the case in the #1 "freest" country, Finland, so I guess they don't take that into account.

The state is the enemy of freedom? Big news!<p>Journalists don't look further than their noses. The truth is that vast majority of governments restrict freedom on much much larger scale. It is stupid to expect that government in your country is any different.

I know the Huffington Post is trying hard to make it in Canada, but this is painted with a pretty harsh brush. By reading this article, I would have no choice but to conclude that Canada is in a dire state. Good thing I'm Canadian.<p>&#62; Speaking of our "protection," Bill C-30, or the Lawful Access Act -- proposed by the Harper government in February of last year, attempted to grant authorities the power to monitor and track the digital activities of all Canadians in real-time.<p>Yeah. <i>Attempted</i> being the key word. Like any government in the Internet age, our government tries to get as much access as they can.<p>In cases where our privacy or civil freedom is concerned, Canada has a pretty good battle cry. People like Michael Geist help vocalize these movements – and unlike this article would like you to believe – the movements generally work.<p>Consider that, like any country, Canada's media is feeling the "if it bleeds, it leads" heat. Rest assured, if Canada becomes a "left vs. right", "you vs. the government", "who can you trust?" narrative, the only one who stands to (temporarily) benefit is the struggling media infrastructure.

This article doesn't mention the fake terrorist busts we have from time to time in order to pass security legislation.

Huffington Post writing about <i>freedom</i>? Uh-oh.

I think that it's worth mentioning that even though Jamaica was ahead of Canada in the "2013 World Press Freedom Index," there is a generally anti-gay sentiment there[1].<p>[1] It's worth noting that they don't hate gay people, but there were apparently some issues with young men/boys selling themselves for money in the recent past, so the general reaction to this was that gay sex should be limited/regulated (or something to that effect). I don't remember it imparting a 'liberal mindset' to me.

I don't know what drugs reporters without borders are on but the UK and Australia, both rated worse for freedom of the press than Canada and better tham the US both have crippling libel laws where truth, public interest, and good faith are insufficient defenses against libel. The consequences of libel laws alone on freedom of the press are enormous.

&#62; And I have the sinking suspicion that whichever party is in power, these rights will continue to decompose unless the citizenry is willing to vocalise this as a major election issue.<p>Our first-past-the-post voting system all but guarantees this erosion of civil rights will continue.

<i>Passed last May by the National Assembly of Quebec in the midst of the student upheaval, Bill 78 requires organisers of assemblies involving 50 or more people to register the details of any demonstration with the police at least eight hours before it begins. Anyone who does not comply with the law faces a fine from $1000 up to $125,000 depending on his or her involvement and leadership in the protest.</i><p>That's creepy. Would that pass a legal challenge in Canada's higher courts? The right to assemble is a constitutional right in the US. How does that work in Canada?<p>I looked up Canadian freedom of speech laws and came across<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada</a><p>specifically: <i>“Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.”[3]</i><p>That generality is pretty ominous sounding.

Adam Kingsmith makes no mention of Canada's far more threatening hate speech laws. This article should have been titled "The Slow and Selectively Outrageous Death of Journalism at the Huffington Post."

A number of posts here have mentioned "thought crime" and hate crime legislation as supposed indicators of lack of freedom.<p>This makes me wonder about what exactly it is that the opponents of hate crimes want to be free to do, were their actions not criminalized?<p>For many conservative opponents of hate crime legislation, their intent is pretty clear: they want to commit violent acts against gays, blacks, and other minorities with minimal reprecussions. They are afraid of and opposed to a vision of society that respects minorities and other traditionally oppressed groups, and that (and not some purported ideal of "freedom") is the real reason they fight hate crimes legislation.<p>David Neiwert[1], has made some excellent rebuttals[2][3][4] to the "thought crime" and anti-hate crime legislation arguments, from which I'll quote below. I encourage you to read the posts in full, because they make many other excellent, relevant points from which I'll have to refrain from quoting in the interests of not making this post too long.<p><pre><code> Do hate-crimes laws create thought crimes? The issue has certainly been addressed in the courts, notably in the definitive Supreme Court case, Wisconsin v. Mitchell: Mitchell argues [via the First Amendment] that the Wisconsin penalty-enhancement statute is invalid because it punishes the defendant's discriminatory motive, or reason, for acting. But motive plays the same role under the Wisconsin statute as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws, which we have previously upheld against constitutional challenge. … Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee "because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." … In Hishon, we rejected the argument that Title VII infringed employers' First Amendment rights. And more recently, in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. at 389-390, we cited Title VII (as well as 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982) as an example of a permissible content-neutral regulation of conduct. Nothing in our decision last Term in R.A.V. compels a different result here. That case involved a First Amendment challenge to a municipal ordinance prohibiting the use of "`fighting words' that insult, or provoke violence, `on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.'" … But whereas the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at expression (i.e., "speech" or "messages"), … the statute in this case is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476, 488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. … The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." Of course, this is William Rehnquist, but the ruling was unanimous. Nonetheless, I think Matt Singer puts more or less the same argument much more elegantly in his first post on the matter: [T]he real answer is that hate crimes laws don't punish individuals for their thoughts. They punish individuals for acting on their thoughts in unacceptable ways, by targeting a community for violence. Frankly, I've always found the argument that these laws are "thought crimes" to be a little creepy, since it is echoed in the claims of the Christian Right that hate-crimes laws that include sexual orientation are an attempt to impinge upon their freedom of speech. But gay-bashing is no more a free-speech right than is lynching or even, say, assassinating the president. Political thought may motivate all of them, but that doesn't mean the Constitution protects any of them. </code></pre> [1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_neiwert" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_neiwert</a><p>[2] - <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dneiwert_archive.html#200406177" rel="nofollow">http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dneiwert_archive.htm...</a><p>[3] - <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/12/thought-crimes-newspeak-and-2004.html" rel="nofollow">http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/12/thought-crimes-newspeak...</a><p>[4] - <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/06/hate-crimes-response.html" rel="nofollow">http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/06/hate-crimes-response.ht...</a>