加拿大男网上骂穆斯林,骂杜鲁多被捕
- 主题发起人 Fisher2004
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,612
- 荣誉分数
- 37,902
- 声望点数
- 1,393
就那么一句断章取义的话，你说过多少遍了。
你就寄希望于下次或者下下次大选吧。别无他路，别郁闷出毛病来。
看看这个，可能带给你点儿光明：http://bbs.comefromchina.com/threads/1523774/
这个是楼主说的那个案子：
Montreal man charged with posting hate messages on social media
现在是自由党当政，不是保守党了。大家说话不能再自由了，要小心文字狱，真心话。
Montreal man charged with posting hate messages on social media
现在是自由党当政，不是保守党了。大家说话不能再自由了，要小心文字狱，真心话。
dingdangmao
知名会员
- 注册
- 2008-07-07
- 消息
- 214
- 荣誉分数
- 3
- 声望点数
- 128
cnmlgb
- 注册
- 2004-02-10
- 消息
- 12,871
- 荣誉分数
- 3,047
- 声望点数
- 373
骂Harper,随便,没关系。
骂Trudeau和穆斯林，小心蹲监狱!
骂Trudeau和穆斯林，小心蹲监狱!
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,612
- 荣誉分数
- 37,902
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Montreal man charged with posting hate messages on social media, threatening Justin Trudeau
Paul Cherry, Postmedia News | July 4, 2016 6:36 PM ET
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin TangPrime Minister Justin Trudeau following a Canada Day celebration on Parliament Hill last Friday.
A Verdun resident has been charged with posting hate messages on social media, while also uttering threats toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Jacques Roy, 47, appeared before a Quebec Court judge on Saturday after he turned himself in to the Montreal police on June 30, said Montreal police spokesperson Constable Jean-Pierre Brabant. Roy was released after agreeing to follow a series of conditions, and his case is scheduled to return to court on Oct. 3.
Brabant said the investigation began on March 26 after someone contacted the Montreal police and reported statements they had read on a social media page. The police investigated and found statements that were hateful toward Muslims, Islam and people from Syria. The author of the statements included Trudeau in some of what he posted, Brabant said.
An arrest warrant was issued on June 16 and the Montreal police were able to contact Roy for the first time last week. He agreed to turn himself in, with a lawyer, and was detained before he appeared in court.
The arrest warrant was made public at the Montreal courthouse over the weekend. In the warrant, Roy is accused of “encouraging hatred against an identifiable group.” The charges are based on statements Roy allegedly made between Feb. 1 and March 26, in a manner “other than a private conversation.” He is also accused of criminal harassment and uttering a threat toward Trudeau and “a member of his family” within the same time frame.
In February 2013, Roy was charged with assaulting a police officer. The charged was placed under a stay of proceedings the day after it was filed. On that same date, Roy pleaded guilty to willfully obstructing police in the execution of their duty. He was sentenced to one year of probation. Later on, in November 2013, Roy pleaded guilty to drug possession, and his sentence involved an unconditional discharge.
Montreal Gazette
Paul Cherry, Postmedia News | July 4, 2016 6:36 PM ET
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin TangPrime Minister Justin Trudeau following a Canada Day celebration on Parliament Hill last Friday.
A Verdun resident has been charged with posting hate messages on social media, while also uttering threats toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Jacques Roy, 47, appeared before a Quebec Court judge on Saturday after he turned himself in to the Montreal police on June 30, said Montreal police spokesperson Constable Jean-Pierre Brabant. Roy was released after agreeing to follow a series of conditions, and his case is scheduled to return to court on Oct. 3.
Brabant said the investigation began on March 26 after someone contacted the Montreal police and reported statements they had read on a social media page. The police investigated and found statements that were hateful toward Muslims, Islam and people from Syria. The author of the statements included Trudeau in some of what he posted, Brabant said.
An arrest warrant was issued on June 16 and the Montreal police were able to contact Roy for the first time last week. He agreed to turn himself in, with a lawyer, and was detained before he appeared in court.
The arrest warrant was made public at the Montreal courthouse over the weekend. In the warrant, Roy is accused of “encouraging hatred against an identifiable group.” The charges are based on statements Roy allegedly made between Feb. 1 and March 26, in a manner “other than a private conversation.” He is also accused of criminal harassment and uttering a threat toward Trudeau and “a member of his family” within the same time frame.
In February 2013, Roy was charged with assaulting a police officer. The charged was placed under a stay of proceedings the day after it was filed. On that same date, Roy pleaded guilty to willfully obstructing police in the execution of their duty. He was sentenced to one year of probation. Later on, in November 2013, Roy pleaded guilty to drug possession, and his sentence involved an unconditional discharge.
Montreal Gazette
最后编辑:
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,612
- 荣誉分数
- 37,902
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise
DAVID BUTT
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jan. 19, 2015 2:06PM EST
Last updated Monday, Jan. 19, 2015 2:08PM EST
Freedom of expression in Canada is normally a dry legal concept, sporadically explored by law professors in dense papers, and taken for granted by everyone else. Until now, if freedom of expression got any attention at all, it was fleeting and superficial, like a bumper sticker on a passing car. The terrorist attacks in France and their aftermath changed all that, giving freedom of expression an extended tenure in the limelight and popular consciousness.
But the discussion in Canada so far fails to address the unique Canadian approach to freedom of expression, and thus fails to ask a crucial Canadian question. Does freedom of expression as legally defined in Canada provide the right tools for expression challenges in a fragmented and largely angry 21st century social media world?
Canadian freedom of expression law, like so many things Canadian, embodies compromise. In the United States, even the most hateful, virile and destructive speech is constitutionally protected. In many other countries, expression is suppressed if politically problematic. We walk between those extremes.
Here you can be put in jail for hate speech. But before you condemn the prospect of jail for speaking your mind, consider the built-in limits to the hate speech law. There are seven of them, and together they pour a big pail of cold water on any over-zealous prosecutor intent on duct-taping your mouth. For a prosecution to go ahead, all of these conditions must be met:
1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;
2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;
3. It must be public;
4. It must be deliberate, not careless;
5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;
6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;
7. No prosecution can proceed without approval of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.
Even with these limits, the Canadian hate law still clearly curtails free expression. But the Supreme Court has not struck it down. Why? Four main reasons. First, our constitution protects not only free expression, but multiculturalism and equality as well. So to read the constitution holistically, we cannot permit one protected freedom to undermine other rights and freedoms enjoying equal status.
Second, the Supreme Court recognized the insidious impact of propaganda campaigns that gain social traction and incrementally dull our rational faculties and empathy. Perhaps paternalistic, but the court is saying sometimes we need to be protected from our baser and stupider selves.
Third, the courts have said that even if a hate speech prohibition is never used, it has symbolic value, like that framed mission and values statement on the wall of most businesses, that stares silently down at the workers while they work.
Fourth, hate speech has no redeeming value.
So, given our unique law, how would recent events have played out if they had occurred in Canada? No comics would have been rounded up by police. Prosecutors would have just shrugged their shoulders and ignored the Pope’s argument that insulting religions should have consequences. And protests by religious groups against cartoons satirizing their religion would have had ample breathing space, with police present to prevent violence, but not muzzle the message.
In other words, a crisis of Parisian magnitude, had it occurred here, would be a serious matter for our criminal and anti-terror laws, but not our hate speech law. And the hate speech law itself, on the books for decades, is used only sporadically. So does such a marginal prohibition still serve any useful purpose?
One glimmer of the law’s utility might be seen in the decision by many Canadian media outlets not to re-publish the offending Charlie Hebdo cartoons, despite being sincerely awash in “Je suis Charlie” sentiment. Our Supreme Court suggested the hate speech law has symbolic value such that even without being invoked, it silently validates a national ethic of multicultural accommodation and respect; and in the decision by Canadian media not to re-publish the cartoons, that very ethic can be seen in action. So it may be that our hate speech law was a silent point of resonance with the values, not the legal obligations, that motivated the media outlets who chose not to publish.
Is that sufficient reason for our hate speech law to exist? Sufficient reason for a law that can impose jail for speaking out? If we take these questions back to our social media haunts, our office water-cooler chats, and our classrooms, freedom of expression in Canada will come out a winner regardless of how opinion is, or is not, divided.
DAVID BUTT
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jan. 19, 2015 2:06PM EST
Last updated Monday, Jan. 19, 2015 2:08PM EST
Freedom of expression in Canada is normally a dry legal concept, sporadically explored by law professors in dense papers, and taken for granted by everyone else. Until now, if freedom of expression got any attention at all, it was fleeting and superficial, like a bumper sticker on a passing car. The terrorist attacks in France and their aftermath changed all that, giving freedom of expression an extended tenure in the limelight and popular consciousness.
But the discussion in Canada so far fails to address the unique Canadian approach to freedom of expression, and thus fails to ask a crucial Canadian question. Does freedom of expression as legally defined in Canada provide the right tools for expression challenges in a fragmented and largely angry 21st century social media world?
Canadian freedom of expression law, like so many things Canadian, embodies compromise. In the United States, even the most hateful, virile and destructive speech is constitutionally protected. In many other countries, expression is suppressed if politically problematic. We walk between those extremes.
Here you can be put in jail for hate speech. But before you condemn the prospect of jail for speaking your mind, consider the built-in limits to the hate speech law. There are seven of them, and together they pour a big pail of cold water on any over-zealous prosecutor intent on duct-taping your mouth. For a prosecution to go ahead, all of these conditions must be met:
1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;
2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;
3. It must be public;
4. It must be deliberate, not careless;
5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;
6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;
7. No prosecution can proceed without approval of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.
Even with these limits, the Canadian hate law still clearly curtails free expression. But the Supreme Court has not struck it down. Why? Four main reasons. First, our constitution protects not only free expression, but multiculturalism and equality as well. So to read the constitution holistically, we cannot permit one protected freedom to undermine other rights and freedoms enjoying equal status.
Second, the Supreme Court recognized the insidious impact of propaganda campaigns that gain social traction and incrementally dull our rational faculties and empathy. Perhaps paternalistic, but the court is saying sometimes we need to be protected from our baser and stupider selves.
Third, the courts have said that even if a hate speech prohibition is never used, it has symbolic value, like that framed mission and values statement on the wall of most businesses, that stares silently down at the workers while they work.
Fourth, hate speech has no redeeming value.
So, given our unique law, how would recent events have played out if they had occurred in Canada? No comics would have been rounded up by police. Prosecutors would have just shrugged their shoulders and ignored the Pope’s argument that insulting religions should have consequences. And protests by religious groups against cartoons satirizing their religion would have had ample breathing space, with police present to prevent violence, but not muzzle the message.
In other words, a crisis of Parisian magnitude, had it occurred here, would be a serious matter for our criminal and anti-terror laws, but not our hate speech law. And the hate speech law itself, on the books for decades, is used only sporadically. So does such a marginal prohibition still serve any useful purpose?
One glimmer of the law’s utility might be seen in the decision by many Canadian media outlets not to re-publish the offending Charlie Hebdo cartoons, despite being sincerely awash in “Je suis Charlie” sentiment. Our Supreme Court suggested the hate speech law has symbolic value such that even without being invoked, it silently validates a national ethic of multicultural accommodation and respect; and in the decision by Canadian media not to re-publish the cartoons, that very ethic can be seen in action. So it may be that our hate speech law was a silent point of resonance with the values, not the legal obligations, that motivated the media outlets who chose not to publish.
Is that sufficient reason for our hate speech law to exist? Sufficient reason for a law that can impose jail for speaking out? If we take these questions back to our social media haunts, our office water-cooler chats, and our classrooms, freedom of expression in Canada will come out a winner regardless of how opinion is, or is not, divided.
