The Peter Makes Himself a Martyr

I am a passionate activist for LGBT equality but I’m also a passionate advocate for freedom of speech and I see no contradiction between those things.

Just because you don’t see one, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If American law had denied Frazier Glenn Cross the freedom of speech to advocate genocide against Jews, his victims might still be alive. Without the constant barrage of hate speech against LGBT people, many victims of hate crimes against them might still be alive, and many more people might feel able to live their lives without fear. In my book, the right not to be targeted and terrorised by bigots trumps the right to free speech.

Now, look, Ed, you know darn well that if you don’t have your table license in Canada, and you set it up anyway, well then darn tootin’ the RCMP is gonna arrest you. Canucks don’t take tablin’ lightly. Not like Americans, who confuse freedom with rampant, unregulatedtablin! “Only a good man with a table can stop a bad man with a table”. Why, logic like that just means everyone needs a table just to protect themselves from all the other people with tables. And where does that end but in a country covered in tables! And furthermore…

If American law had denied Frazier Glenn Cross the freedom of speech to advocate genocide against Jews, his victims might still be alive. Without the constant barrage of hate speech against LGBT people, many victims of hate crimes against them might still be alive

Without a broad first amendment, IMO many more LGBT people would be victims of both individual AND state violence, because its that broad first amendment right that allowed activists to defend gay rights publicly in the first place. Without the ability to speak out against the status quo, we’d still have laws criminalizing various bedroom activities. Many more preachers would be speaking hate and there would be no effective public respons to such hatred, because (again, without a broad first amendment) pro-gay arguments would likely be deemed inciteful or against the public order or whatever.

Do not kid yourself in to thinking that if we gave the US government a greater power to restrict “bad” speech, that they would interpret “bad” the way you interpret it. Historically, “bad speech” has been interpreted as speech that attacks the status quo. And up until the 1970s, the status quo was pretty viciously anti-gay. “Bad speech” has not historically been interpreted as speech that attacks liberal values of equality. So yes, some free speech has incited violence against gays (and other minorities). But I think free speech is an overall net positive for minority rights. Less violence is done against minorities now than in the past, in part because the majority is not allowed to decide what counts as legal speech and what doesn’t.

Modusoperandi, #4:

If handing out pamphlets is outlawed, then only outlaws will hand out pamphlets.

I think arresting him was likely overkill, but he was on campus and told he could not do what he was doing. The university is free to take action. I would have probably just walked him off of campus. I am not sure how well mischief actually fits here, but mischief is not necessarily some complete catch all law, and should not be confused with the common dictionary definition, mischief in Canadian law is concerned with issues of another person’s property.

Mischief

430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

Why did the Canadians even let him cross? He is not a Canadian citizen and not granted the rights of a Canadian citizen.

Not so long ago they weren’t let people convicted of DUI, drunk driving in. Even if the conviction was 30 years ago.

For that matter, why would the USA let Jim Garrow in? He is a kooky wacko who has made violent threats against Obama, the US president.

.

@12, Raven: I was going to bring up Garrow, but you beat me to it. I know he lives there, but is he a Canadian citizen?

Those damn foreigners put a white Christian American male in a dungeon and the Kenyan Muslim Communist didn’t immediately send in the Marines to get him out?!?

No wonder Putin feels like he can march his jackboots all over our Ukraine!!!1!

#2 Gotts: “If American law had denied Frazier Glenn Cross the freedom of speech to advocate genocide against Jews, his victims might still be alive.”

A huge assumption. Banning the speech doesn’t discourage ‘bad’ speech. It just drives it underground. Look at Germany. Has their very strict ban on fascist speech done anything to bring it under control?

And in the internet age, these losers will still find each other. At least we get an idea of what their saying when they’re not afraid to say it publicly.

@ raven #12

“Why did the Canadians even let him cross? He is not a Canadian citizen and not granted the rights of a Canadian citizen.”

As a non-citizen, he doesn’t have the right to enter Canada (Charter Section 6), so they didn’t have to let him in, that’s true. However, if you meant that more broadly, you should know most Charter Rights (and specifically Sections 2, and 7-10 as well as others) are specifically worded so that they apply to apply to “Everyone”.

Nick Gotts

. If American law had denied Frazier Glenn Cross the freedom of speech to advocate genocide against Jews, his victims might still be alive. Without the constant barrage of hate speech against LGBT people, many victims of hate crimes against them might still be alive, and many more people might feel able to live their lives without fear.

Bullshit.

I suggest you watch (again) that video linked by Ed. As Hitchens says, as soon as you realize that the main proponents and benefactors of hate speech laws are also the biggest purveyors of hate, you will realize your error.