A WINNABLE WAR

[a_majoor]

If people wont use common sense, we'll damn well do it for them!

The problem is who is "we" and what defines "common sense". The Taliban would be quite pleased to apply thier version of common sense and damn well do it to you! Hence the warning against arbitrary use of State power.

 

[KevinB]

FWIW Michael Ignatieff's Book "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an age of Terror" has some good points about this.

 

[pbi]

The problem is who is "we" and what defines "common sense". The Taliban would be quite pleased to apply their version of common sense and damn well do it to you! Hence the warning against arbitrary use of State power.

I think the question of "who" will always keep changing. At one time in Canada (say up until the 1960s) this was IMHO decided very much by ruling elites (we could go all the way back to the Family Compact if we want an extreme example) who had a pretty tight grip on what could be said or published. Then, as electronic media (and literacy) became universal across Canada starting in the 1960s, I think that that public opinion became much more of a force in shaping what was considered to be acceptable, and the making of laws tended to reflect these public feelings. Now, with the Internet allowing even greater expression, the impact might even be greater. So, the "who" question is probably best answered by "whoever can generate the most effective pressure at the moment". That, IMHO, is always a moving target that will be reflected, in arrears, by our laws.

As to the "what": that changes too. At one time, speaking out against the Crown could see you in court. At the same time, nobody really cared much if people publicly characterized Jews as shifty thieves and blacks as monkeys or children. (If you doubt this, just pick up various Canadian publications from the 1920s and 30s and do a bit of research. I have a copy of the Cdn Defence Quarterly from 1936 that refers to a Jewish businessman as a "Shylock".) Today, the situation is completely reversed. Twenty years from now it will have changed in some other way.

To me the objective should not be to have no reasonable restrictions on speech, nor to legitimize hate speech by giving it a platform, but to see existing laws applied in an intelligent way.  And that, of course, is the challenge for our entire legal system, on all sorts of issues.

Cheers

 

[Greymatters]

The problem is who is "we" and what defines "common sense". The Taliban would be quite pleased to apply thier version of common sense and damn well do it to you! Hence the warning against arbitrary use of State power.

That is always the danger isnt it? Who is the right 'we'?

 

[Bobby Rico]

Good article.  I especially like the notion of removing hate legislation from the criminal code.  Though I'm not a proponent of hatred toward any individual or group, I believe in freedom of speech, all speech, even if that speech may be harmful.

 

[pbi]

Good article.  I especially like the notion of removing hate legislation from the criminal code.  Though I'm not a proponent of hatred toward any individual or group, I believe in freedom of speech, all speech, even if that speech may be harmful.

Really? What if the result of that speech is violence? After all, ideas are not expressed in a vacuum, nor without some objective. Maybe the audience is an intelligent group of restrained, moderate citizens who will identify hate and dismiss it or counter it intellectually. Or maybe the speaker's words will  crystallize and legitimize hatreds and resentments the audience already hold.  Maybe the objective of the expression is to illuminate and educate and engage in intelligent debate, or maybe it is to encourage violence, discrimination, and marginalization of people the speaker doesn't like. An idea, once expressed, is very difficult (almost impossible...) to prevent from being translated into action. In fact, in a good sense, this is the strength of ideas and beliefs. Because of this great strength, I think we need to apply reasonable limitations.

Cheers

 

[Edward Campbell]

And let's not forget that it's happened.

Less than 100 years ago, one of the most cultured and enlightened* societies in the world put itself into the hands of hate filled, slobbering, savages and, even when they knew that their own virtues were being crushed by their own leaders, they 'went along.'

The role of propaganda and 'hate speech' in the success of Hitler's Nazis must not be minimized.  It was well crafted propaganda - designed to feed upon the combination of people's sense of grievance and their pride in their own accomplishments.  The fact, however, is the Germans were a moderate, educated, enlightened people and yet they (mostly) still 'went along.'

----------
* Influenced primarily, by the 'French enlightenment (Voltaire, Diderot, etc),' not, sadly, by its more rigorous Scottish predecessor (Hutcheson, Hume, Smith, etc).

 

[Reccesoldier]

Really? What if the result of that speech is violence? After all, ideas are not expressed in a vacuum, nor without some objective. Maybe the audience is an intelligent group of restrained, moderate citizens who will identify hate and dismiss it or counter it intellectually. Or maybe the speaker's words will  crystallize and legitimize hatreds and resentments the audience already hold.  Maybe the objective of the expression is to illuminate and educate and engage in intelligent debate, or maybe it is to encourage violence, discrimination, and marginalization of people the speaker doesn't like. An idea, once expressed, is very difficult (almost impossible...) to prevent from being translated into action. In fact, in a good sense, this is the strength of ideas and beliefs. Because of this great strength, I think we need to apply reasonable limitations.

Cheers

Causing a public disturbance is still punishable by law.  Threatening violence, uttering death threats and inciting a riot are also punishable.  Free speech is not the only thing that does not occur in a vacume our laws are not enforced or envisioned in a vacume either.

 

[pbi]

Well said E.R.C. BTW, I certainly don't mean to support the point of  view that says you never say anything to offend people: that would  be nonsense, and that most definitely IS P.C. which IMHO is moral and intellectual cowardice. What I do believe, very strongly, is that examples such as you provided (and a sad slew of others) show us that there have to be limits against speech that is clearly aimed to drum up intimidation through threats of violence, or stir up hatred.

For example, it is one thing to state (factually) that:  "The majority of firearm homicides in the city of Toronto in the last two years involve Canadians of Jamaican descent shooting each other." This is unpleasant, possibly offensive to some, but sadly very true. It is quite another to state: "Those ******* n******s are a threat to our white society and we should round them all up and ship them to ******". That, IMHO, is hate. Is there a clear, iron-clad dividing line? No, but issues like this IMHO will never have such clear distinctions. That in itself is absolutely no reason  not to establish some reasonable limitations through our legal and legislative systems.

Cheers

 

[cameron]

Eloquently put E.R. Campbell and plus+1 pbi.

 

[Bobby Rico]

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that words can spark action that can cause harm.  At the same time, words are words, not actions.  Telling someone you're going to punch them isn't the same as actually doing it.  Yes, you can get charged for uttering threats to someone, but you can't get charged for something like aggrivated assault or assault causing bodily harm or something, both of which are greater offences. 

Just from my personal train of belief, I don't like the idea of selective censorship.  Why?  Well, lets take this example- Obviously, the word ni__er is taboo at the very least, racist at the most.  Collectively, one particular quarter of society decided it was such, and as a result, the word is considered racist almost universally.  Okay, well lets say hypothetically speaking the word 'dude' one day offends people because maybe it has some connotations to something negative, or so someone decieds.  So another select quarter of society collectively decides that the word dude is taboo, or racist or whatever, and comes to the decision that it shouldn't be used and so the majority adopts this way of thinking.  What this gets down to is people start taking offense to anything under the sun, and the individual becomes marginalized as a result.  We can't use words like 'dude' in public anymore because someone may find it offensive (emphasis on the word may).  You begin losing colorful expression or even whole ways of thinking and expressing yourself because a few people, not even necessarily the majority, has decided that this word or that phrase or this train of thought is no longer acceptable.  Is this a bad thing?  Well, depends on your point of view I suppose.  Personally, I think it's garbage.  Okay, this may all sound a little bit extreme, but face it, it's happening.  There are certain words that we can't say anymore that were common place not even a ten or twenty years ago.  We're forced to 'tolerate' certain social cliques because we've basically been told we have to.  While you or I may not have issues with tolerating one clique, maybe someone else does.  But then at the same time, other social cliques still exist that we don't tolerate and are not expected to.  Frankly, it drives me nuts.  We as individuals shouldn't be dictated to what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't.  Freedom of speech is a big part of that.

Like a song says "If this offends you, turn it off!"  Don't take it off the air.

 

[pbi]

I take issue with several of your points.

At the same time, words are words, not actions.  Telling someone you're going to punch them isn't the same as actually doing it.  Yes, you can get charged for uttering threats to someone, but you can't get charged for something like aggrivated assault or assault causing bodily harm or something, both of which are greater offences. 

This, to me, is an example of "reasonable limitations" on freedom of expression. Going around uttering violent threats doesn;t do much to contribute to a civil society, but we don't treat uttering the same we treat actually smacking somebody. This is the "reasonable" part. But if we are speaking about the public expression of ideas we have to go much farther than the example of one individual person saying a particular thing to one other individual person, which may or may not have any influence or effect on anybody other than those two. We have to consider the effect of ideas on public action, by groups against individuals or groups.

I don't like the idea of selective censorship

Selective censorship is the only type that makes sense if we are going to apply "reasonable" limitations. We restrict only those specific things that are considered to be unacceptable or harmful. Blanket censorship would be pointless and anyway, just about impossible to enforce in Canada.

Collectively, one particular quarter of society decided it was such, and as a result, the word is considered racist almost universally. 

You are trivializing the process that led to restriction on the use of this word in Canada. IMHO it took many decades (if not centuries) for this word and words like it, to drop out of civil usage: it still has not completely disappeared in some circles. And, if I might suggest, I think that it was a lot more than "one particular quarter" of the population who came to believe that it was a good idea that we stop using words like this in normal public expression. We got to this state, I suggest, because through hard experience we realized the power of ideas expressed as speech, newsprint, or electrons.

Okay, well lets say hypothetically speaking the word 'dude' one day offends people because maybe it has some connotations to something negative, or so someone decieds.

Yes, you're right. The way I see it, this is called the process of social change. We don't act, speak, think, eat, drink, or live the same way today that people in this country did 100, 50 or even 30 years ago. For every word or idea that gets dropped or restricted, we liberalize our approach to others. IMHO it's based on what most people are willing to accept at any given time, but today it's also heavily influenced by ideas about human rights.

and the individual becomes marginalized as a result.

I disagree. Most individuals are probably far less likely to be marginalized in a civil society with reasonable limitations on expression, than in a society that lacks these protections. Think of a Jew in Germany (or a few other places...) in the 1930s, a Chinese in Canada in the first half of the 20th century (the "Yellow Peril" reaction), or a gay person in Russia today. I have a feeling that maybe you are using "marginalized" when perhaps what you mean is "pissed off because they can't say whatever they feel like".

You begin losing colorful expression or even whole ways of thinking and expressing yourself

You might. But IMHO you are far more likely to lose harmful, stupid and simply outdated ways of thinking and expressing yourself.  And anyway, as one expression dies, three more appear in the language to take its place. Remember: I am NOT defending "PC": I have already stated that twice. I am defending, very strongly, reasonable restrictions on public expression.

We're forced to 'tolerate' certain social cliques because we've basically been told we have to.  While you or I may not have issues with tolerating one clique, maybe someone else does. 

True: we do have to force some people to be tolerant. But IMHO being "tolerant" is not the same thing as "censorship" or "PC" or anything else. And being "tolerant" does not mean that we shouldn't be able to express reasonable, factual concerns as long as these don't tend to incite violence, hatred or other stupid behaviour. If you have a moral objection to homosexuality, or Islam, or the NDP, you should be able to say so in a reasonable manner. What you should not be able to do in a society that consider itself to be "civil" is to say we should jail/deport/burn/kill/ etc those groups. And, BTW, I extend this reasonable limitation to those same potential targets. Simply being a member of a threatened minority does not, IMHO, give anybody a right to preach hatred or violence.

We as individuals shouldn't be dictated to what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't.  Freedom of speech is a big part of that.

IMHO if we don't tell people what society will tolerate, then we leave it open to individuals and groups to decide. Are you sure you want that? Should we go back to the 1960's, when certain well-known private clubs in Toronto excluded Jews? Should we stop Catholics from voting and owning property, as Britain did before Catholic Emancipation?  As I see it, simply because we "tolerate" does not mean we "embrace" or "accept" or "agree with", and does not mean that we are prevented from questioning in a civil, intelligent way.

Like a song says "If this offends you, turn it off!"  Don't take it off the air

To me it isn't really about "offending", as I stated in an earlier post. It's about reasonable limitations on public expression. A civil society simply can't have total freedom of expression, any more than it can have total freedom of behaviour.

Cheers

 

[Reccesoldier]

So would the Danish cartoon fiasco be considered a reasonable limitation?

Obviously I'm trolling for the answer we all know is true which is "Of course not" 

The point is that a protion of society deemed it to in fact be a reasonable limitation and due in part to the fact that "hate" legislation existed they tried to impose a similar limitation based on their cultural belief.  Some even threatened our society with violence in order to impose their version of "hate" speech on us, indeed in some parts of the world that violence was manifest and threat and intimidation suceeded in limiting free speech.

Our hate laws armed those who sought to impose their dogmatic restrictions on the rest of society.

Yes, without hate laws and in a true free speech society it would be perfectly legal to say
a.  "I think "XYZ" are subhuman"

but it would be just as legal to say

b.  "You are a racist, bigot and an idiot, everyone knows that "XYZ" are people and deserve the same rights as any other person."

The status quo would have us beleive that people can be expected to say a, but can not be trusted to say b. 

 

[pbi]

The status quo would have us beleive that people can be expected to say a, but can not be trusted to say b. 

Sadly, this is exactly correct, and it is IMHO based on long experience.

and due in part to the fact that "hate" legislation existed they tried to impose a similar limitation based on their cultural belief.  Some even threatened our society with violence in order to impose their version of "hate" speech on us, indeed in some parts of the world that violence was manifest and threat and intimidation succeeded in limiting free speech.

Our hate laws armed those who sought to impose their dogmatic restrictions on the rest of society.

A lot of excitable people in the Islamic world got very upset about these cartoons, and a number of them went out and did the same sorts of stupid and violent things that they tend to do in response to all sorts of things they don't like, urged on (no doubt...) by people with other agendas. Probably some "reasonable restriction" on their speech and behaviour was required there. It wasn't very civil behaviour, but then many of them don't live in very civil societies anyway.

But, that aside, I don't  see any connection whatsoever to their behaviour and our hate laws, or to the idea of reasonable restrictions on expression. I don't recall any example of any Islamic Canadians (or any other Canadians, for that matter) bringing charges against any Canadian media outlet for displaying the cartoons. The government, as far as I know, never stepped in to stop any outlet from publishing anything they wanted to about the matter. Some outlets chose not to, as a form of self-censorship. But then that happens every day in every editorial board room in Canada. Were these decisions driven by fear of hate laws? fear of civil suiits? fear of not being "PC"? I don't know. But, whatever the reason, by their actions these media outlets demonstrated that they also believe that there must be some limitations to what is expressed.

For example, I have no huge  problem with a person who says: "I don't believe the Holocaust happened" or "I can't find any evidence to show that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis". These statements are probably silly, if not just  outright wrong, but they can be tolerated. What can't be tolerated, IMHO, are statements such as: " bloody good thing about the Holocaust, eh?" or "should've finished the lot of them". those are hateful and, to me at least legitimize violence if they don't directly encourage it.

To me expression is a form of behaviour. We accept (more or less...) that unrestricted behaviour is not a good thing in society: unrestricted expression is, IMHO, no better.

Cheers

PS: Maybe Mods should split this off?

 

[pbi]

I checked the Criminal Code and here is what I found under "Hate Propaganda":

Hate Propaganda
Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “genocide”

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Definition of "identifiable group"

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Note the requirement to demonstrate that the incitement must be likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Note also the defences available. These, to me, are reasonable defences, and this hate law is a reasonable restriction.

Cheers

 

[Reccesoldier]

But, that aside, I don't  see any connection whatsoever to their behaviour and our hate laws, or to the idea of reasonable restrictions on expression. I don't recall any example of any Islamic Canadians (or any other Canadians, for that matter) bringing charges against any Canadian media outlet for displaying the cartoons.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/13/cartoons060213.html#skip300x250
Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/02/13/20060213-cartoons.html
Syed Soharwardy of Calgary, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said that making jokes about religion should be off limits and he is willing to test that theory in court.

The government, as far as I know, never stepped in to stop any outlet from publishing anything they wanted to about the matter. Some outlets chose not to, as a form of self-censorship. But then that happens every day in every editorial board room in Canada. Were these decisions driven by fear of hate laws? fear of civil suiits? fear of not being "PC"? I don't know. But, whatever the reason, by their actions these media outlets demonstrated that they also believe that there must be some limitations to what is expressed.

Self censorship is the most pervasive and dangerous form.  "Ooh, better not say that because they will get upset." "Hmmm, best not draw attention to this or they will do that."  You find yourself arguing in ever diminishing circles about what you can and can not say.

For example, I have no huge  problem with a person who says: "I don't believe the Holocaust happened" or "I can't find any evidence to show that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis". These statements are probably silly, if not just  outright wrong, but they can be tolerated. What can't be tolerated, IMHO, are statements such as: " bloody good thing about the Holocaust, eh?" or "should've finished the lot of them". those are hateful and, to me at least legitimize violence if they don't directly encourage it.

To me expression is a form of behaviour. We accept (more or less...) that unrestricted behaviour is not a good thing in society: unrestricted expression is, IMHO, no better.

Cheers

PS: Maybe Mods should split this off?

But by not forcing people with beliefs like the one you make example of about the holocaust to defend their stupidity they are in fact left to believe it.  They get away with being a bigot and racist because no one will debate the points they try to make.  As a result they continue to believe such unadulterated crap and teach it to their children.

The default result of "hate" legislation is not that hate is eliminated but that it is allowed to exist just as long as we don't have to deal with it.  It is the ultimate ostrich response to a truly vile and disgusting practise.

 

[vonGarvin]

I had always thought that "genocide" meant murder of a race.  Of all the qualifiers for identifiable group, "religion" and "sexual orientation" seem strangely out of place (given the origin of the word genocide).  I'm surprised that given these two that "gender" is not a basis for identifiable group.

 

[Reccesoldier]

[3](b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

Jesus, pardon my language... but doesn't this give some the right to spew "hate".

So when Priest Z says that some book says we should kill all the f*** then that's okay because he's reciting religious doctrine?  But, if you speak out and tell the followers of Priest Z that they are bigots and should get out of Canada if they really think that YOU could be charged.

I'm having a "stop the planet, I want off" moment.

 

[vonGarvin]

This whole "Free speech" vs. "hate laws" really burn my griddles.  Some things can be hidden by religion ("it's my religious right to call for the immolation of Israel!"), others cannot.  My own 2 cents would be fully free speech.  Now, inciting to riot, threatening someone, etc, is not a matter of statement of opinion, but right now we have people going to jail for saying "I believe that x", and in my opinion, that is wrong. Sure, Ernst Zundel is a big fat goof, but worthy of all those court costs, etc?  We should have broadcast him FOR FREE, so that EVERYONE could see what a big fat idiot he was.  Who really cares if this idiot believes that Greenhouse Gases will kill us all, or that the Holocaust was a consipiracy, or that everyone on the planet except me is behind the 9/11 attacks.  Idiots are idiots and no amount of legislation will alter that simple fact.  I say "let them talk"!  Sure, there is the danger of the collective idiocy (re: greenhouse gases), but hey, at one time we thought that the sun went around the earth, right?  Right?  ("It's so OBVIOUS, dude!  Look!  There's the sun, it's moving dude!  how can you say that it's otherwise?")

 

[pbi]

Ahh! the fox is amongst the chickens now! ;D

Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature

And well he might seek. The law is there for everybody. Whether he and his group can ever assemble a case that meets the criteria, or the case ever comes to trial, or results in a finding of gulity, or a dismissal, or whatever, we have yet to see.  But, iif we have laws (and I most definitely believe we should in this case) then its by the process of trial and precedent that we find out what they actually mean.
This doesn't bother me much, because I don't think he really has a case. But I'm not a judge.

Syed Soharwardy of Calgary, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said that making jokes about religion should be off limits and he is willing to test that theory in court.

Good for him. He had an opinion and he expressed it. Many people think many things should be against the law. That doesn't mean that they ever will be. If he chooses to launch a court case, so be it.

You find yourself arguing in ever diminishing circles about what you can and can not say.

If this was the universal reaction of all media, the effect you are describing might be a real risk. But tell me, honestly, that across the board this is what happens in Canada as result of having reasonable restrictions on expression, as opposed to being a result of PC or having a particular constituency (ie: readership) that one wants to please. You could equally argue that when media outlets self-regulate to avoid civil  libel action, that the risk to free speech is so great that we shouldd not have libel laws.

But by not forcing people with beliefs like the one you make example of about the holocaust to defend their stupidity they are in fact left to believe it.  They get away with being a bigot and racist because no one will debate the points they try to make.  As a result they continue to believe such unadulterated crap and teach it to their children.

They may very well be left to be bigots, and to teach stupid things to their children. I don't care. A person's private beliefs, private expressions and what they privately teach their children aren't the object of my discussion. I don't think you could realistically ever effectively control this, nor would I suggest it. You cannot control what people think. But you can sure as hell regulate how they behave in public, and that is my point.

It is the ultimate ostrich response to a truly vile and disgusting practise.

If legislating against the public expression of hateful ideas is "ostrich-ism", then why legislate against any anti-social behaviour at all? Why have laws against domestic violence (for example), when we know that lots of women and children still get beaten up in the privacy of their homes, instead of on the street as was once acceptable in some places (and may still be today in other places).

I had always thought that "genocide" meant murder of a race. 

The Criminal Code defines "genocide" as:

2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Jesus, pardon my language... but doesn't this give some the right to spew "hate".

I don't really know, but I don't think so, any more than the right to self defence using minimum reasonable force automatically gives you a right to kill somebody who steps on your lawn. The facts of that defence would have to be established, just like any other. The question that would have to be decided in the courts would (I think) be whether something was actually the tenet of a religion, the interpretation of it, or something else altogether. 

right now we have people going to jail for saying "I believe that x", and in my opinion, that is wrong. Sure, Ernst Zundel is a big fat goof, but worthy of all those court costs, etc?

Really? Who has been jailed in Canada for this? What was Ernst Zundel actually punished for? Saying "I believe (x)", or spreading ideas that violate the hate law, which the Crown would have to have proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Actually, he wasn't charged under "Hate Propaganda". He was charged under Section 181, "Spreading False News":

Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

You can look over the case at:http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/supreme-court/. He was found guilty on appeal in Ontario court. The cae wwas appealed to the Supreme Court. Part of the appeal was based on the question of whether or not the law violated the Charter right to freedom of expression: it was decided at Supreme Court that it did, and the appeal was dismissed. So, as far as that goes, the Supreme Court actually protected the right to say things that some find offensive, in a particular case. So, I would say, the system worked.

Who really cares if this idiot believes that Greenhouse Gases will kill us all, or that the Holocaust was a consipiracy, or that everyone on the planet except me is behind the 9/11 attacks.

Not me. I couldn't care less what he believes. What I care about is what he, or other people like him, achieve when they actively incite hatred, racism, social violence or other crap we don't need. And, like I said, it matters not to me what colour/race/creed/relligion/etc the offenders are.

at one time we thought that the sun went around the earth, right?  Right?

Yes, but I could scarcely call the actions of the Roman Catholic Church in attempting to suppress opposing theories as "reasonable restrictions to maintain a civil society". It was patently unreasonable, because the theorists were not advocating harm or violence or marginalization. They were advancing a theory, and one with pretty good evidence. The Church felt its power threatened, so it tried to stop the expression of the idea. But, obviously, not every case will be so clear cut, such as the example of a person who genuinely voices an actual religious belief against an identifiable group.  The only fully acceptable way we have of deciding is to run a case through the courts, maybe even appeal to the Supreme Court. To me the way to decide is not to just let people do or say whateever they want, in the hopes that somehow it will all turn out right in the end.

Cheers