
The Slow and Painful Death of Freedom in Canada - subsystem
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-kingsmith/the-slow-and-painful-deat_b_2946418.html
======
onemorepassword
There may be a lot wrong in Canada, but I don't think the Press Freedom Index
is any kind of valid indication.

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.

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.

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.

That correlation has been broken a long time ago, and accelerated by the
internet.

------
mynameishere
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.

~~~
sliverstorm
How can you go to prison for thoughtcrimes? To my knowledge, mind reading
technology is still in its infancy.

~~~
lesterbuck
Sentence enhancement for hate crimes is essentially a form of thought crime,
since "proving" you had certain thoughts in your head changes your sentence.
There are interesting arguments both ways on hate crime sentencing, but make
no mistake, it is sentencing you to (more) prison for your thoughts, not your
actions.

~~~
sliverstorm
Ah, so murder in the first degree is also a form of thought crime, as compared
to manslaughter.

------
eatitraw
The state is the enemy of freedom? Big news!

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.

~~~
noonespecial
National exceptionalism leads many to believe that their country is in fact
different than all of those _others_. Its always useful to be reminded that
your own country isn't so special and that your dealing with exactly the same
garbage as every one else.

------
tomkin
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.

> 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.

Yeah. _Attempted_ being the key word. Like any government in the Internet age,
our government tries to get as much access as they can.

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.

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.

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

~~~
jewbacca
Evidence?

~~~
Canada
The recent Via rail plotters as well as the Toronto 18. Both fake in that
anyone involved with real capability works for the government. Just like so
many in the US. And the busts happen conveniently before voting on security
legislation. I write on a cell phone sorry for no links. google Canadian
terror bust bill 7 or toronto 18.

~~~
pyre
The Canadian officials at least don't have the same penchant for the dramatic
that the US officials do at least (e.g. the whole Portland terrorist thing;
the Via Rail plotters weren't infiltrated and then setup to press a fake
'button').

~~~
Canada
Is infiltrated really the appropriate word to describe these police
activities? I think not.

~~~
pyre
Getting an undercover official into a position of trust counts as
'infiltrated.' In the Portland bomber example, it was only a single guy, so
it's rather weak form of 'infiltration.' I don't think that the Canadian
examples count as infiltration. My point is that if these happened in the US,
then they would have sent in undercover officers, and helped them execute
their plan right to the point of 'pushing the button,' then swooping into to
arrest them.

~~~
Canada
In a lot of these cases what's happening is that police "informants" are
"infiltrating" groups with no serious means or ambition to carry out an act of
terrorism. The informants, who are sometimes convicted criminals, are
supplying all the plans, money, and weapons.

In the wake of 9/11 Canada passed the Anti-Terrorism Act. It's basically the
Canadian version of the PATRIOT Act. The most controversial provisions of the
law were given a 5 year sunset clause. That is, unless a future parliament
extended them, they would be automatically repealed.

And wouldn't you know, just before those provisions expired the RCMP busts a
huge terror plot in Canada. In this case the police had two moles: Shaikh and
Elsohemy. Shaikh supplied the only weapon the so-called terrorists ever had...
a single Glock pistol, which he let members of the group fire in the woods in
between trips to Tim Hortons for coffee and to use bathroom. Elsohemy supplied
the ammonium nitrate, which was stored in a warehouse a few blocks from the
RCMP. None of the "terrorists" involved made any effort to obtain anything
dangerous themselves. Of course, both informants were paid hundreds of
thousands of dollars for their services by the government.

In spite of all this drama, the government failed to pass the extensions.

Now we have this alleged railway bombing plot in the news right on time for
Bill S-7. What's bill S-7? I'll give you one guess.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Anti-Terrorism_Act>

~~~
abrichr
You paint a pretty convincing picture, but all you have is circumstantial
evidence.

~~~
Canada
Yes, it would be nice to have all the internal communication inside of the
RCMP, CSIS, and other government departments concerning that case. Then we
would know if it was just a coincidence or if the entire investigation was
motivated by a desire for expanded law enforcement powers.

Either way, we should be skeptical of claims that we've been saved from
murderous terrorists whenever all of the funds, weapons, explosives, and so on
are provided by the government itself.

We should be extremely skeptical when politicians use such incidents to
convince us that we should be afraid and that in order to be safe we just need
to give the government more power to spy on us, detain and interrogate us
without the right of habeas corpus.

------
snaky
Huffington Post writing about _freedom_? Uh-oh.

~~~
hohead
Could you elaborate on this?

I haven't been exposed to Huffington Post much, aside from seeing some
hyperbolic sensational posts back during the Bush Administration days which
just made me doubt their commitment to any type of journalistic integrity.
I've kind of avoided them since.

~~~
snaky
HP is obviously left-wing (socialist) blog & rant site, and socialism is a
road to slavery as opposite to freedom. What is in that to explain?

~~~
idm
The HN community tries to avoid this sort of political/economic trolling.

------
pyre
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].

[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.

~~~
cheez
There is nothing inherently freedom-giving or preserving within the modern
liberal movement/mindset.

For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done
nothing to earn that distrust.

~~~
cygx
_For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done
nothing to earn that distrust._

You have to draw the line somewhere: Should you be allowed to own rocket
launchers? Nerve gas? Anthrax?

As owning a gun isn't really a basic human right (feel free to disagree, but
if you do so, I'll feel free to consider you a nut case), it's a matter of
social contract: If the majority decides guns should be banned or only
available after a mandatory psych eval, tough luck for gun owners. If the
majority decides that everyone should be able to own a gun, tough luck for
anti-gun activists.

~~~
hga
" _As_ effective self-defense _isn't really a basic human right (feel free to
disagree, but if you do so, I'll feel free to consider you a nut case)_ "

Fixed it for you.

And echoing DuskStar, I'm damned glad I live in real constitutional republic
that has multiple restraints on mob rule, AKA " _the majority decides_ ".

~~~
cygx
It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound.

Holding a loaded gun is equivalent to having strapped explosives around
everyone in your line of sight and holding the trigger.

You have the right for effective self-defense, but I have the right of not
having explosives strapped around myself.

Which right weighs greater, and who should decide if not the majority (or
their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when
circumstances where vastly different and firearms far less effective?

~~~
hga
That's an amazingly bogus analogy:

First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that
phrase. Else we wouldn't have gun safety rules 2 and 4, "Never let your muzzle
cover something you're not willing to destroy", and "Be sure of your target
and what's behind it."

Second, in the context of self-defense (vs. hunting, which is ... safer than
golf as I recall), no one is "holding" a loaded gun unless they're in a self-
defense situation where the use of lethal force is justified. At that point
we, or at least the vast majority of the US including most anti-gun states,
have decided the possible increased danger to innocent parties is an
acceptable tradeoff.

The only time I hold my concealed carry gun is when I put it in my holster
before leaving my dwelling (with thumb firmly over the hammer to prevent an
accidental discharge) and then the reverse when I return. Anyone out in public
"holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-
defense situation is going to get arrested.

~~~
cygx
_First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that
phrase._

So limit the signal of the remote trigger.

The analogy is still basically sounds, ie only as flawed as any other analogy.

My point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to decide
who should hold that power.

I'm not arguing for or against banning guns, I'm arguing for the right to make
that decision.

 _Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time
outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested._

That'll be a big comfort to anyone who got shot before the police arrived.

I'll stop here - I'm getting cranky, and if I don't I'll start calling people
ugly and stupid ;)

~~~
hga
" _My main point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to
decide who should hold that power._ "

Maybe that's true where you live, but I live in a constitutional republic
where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated in said constitution,
and therefore it _isn't_ up to "society" to decide who should hold that power.

Rather, "society" decides who shouldn't hold it (e.g. felons, the severely
mentally ill, unsupervised children, and they have to have serious reasons for
such bans), everyone else by default can.

~~~
cygx
Must... resist... Dammit!

To quote myself:

 _who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)?
Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances were vastly different and
firearms far less effective?_

Circumstances change. Stopping to adapt is normally not a winning strategy.

And I promise to stop trying to slaughter your sacred cow - at least for now
;)

~~~
eurleif
>who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)?

How about 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states, which is the standard for
amending the constitution, not a simple majority? If you really think what the
constitution says is outdated, that's what you should be advocating, not that
we simply ignore it.

------
podperson
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.

~~~
mdellabitta
What exactly does that have to do with the erosion of civil liberties in
Canada?

~~~
podperson
The comparison was based on freedom of the press according to reporters
without borders. My point is that the reporters without borders ranking is
nuts, so the starting point of the article is bankrupt.

------
shaggyfrog
> 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.

Our first-past-the-post voting system all but guarantees this erosion of civil
rights will continue.

~~~
dylan-m
I don't think the voting system is particularly relevant, here. The erosion of
civil rights will continue for as long as Canadians put up with their elected
members of parliament representing their parties, first, instead of their
constituents. Preferential ballot is great, to an extent, but there are also
several other alternatives that I think would make the situation worse, to the
point that I question whether it's worth opening that can of worms. As I see
it, the problem is mostly cultural, anyway.

With the current system, every Canadian has a particular MP who depends on him
to be elected again, and that MP can theoretically side with his constituents
over his party without destroying his career. If MPs depend on their parties
to elect _them_ , for example, we lose that and we're basically picking an
emperor (albeit in a way closer aligned with the popular vote) along with the
number of lackeys he has.

The thing we really need is parties to stop treating their MPs like
liabilities. On that note, there _is_ a promising discussion going on about
MPs' freedom to speak: <http://openparliament.ca/search/?q=standing+order+31>

------
sultezdukes
_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._

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?

I looked up Canadian freedom of speech laws and came across

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada>

specifically: _“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]_

That generality is pretty ominous sounding.

~~~
obstacle1
Freedom of peaceful assembly is protected under section 2 of the Charter. I am
unsure of whether or not Bill 78 would hold up to a charter challenge, but it
is already on its way through the courts.

It kind of bothers me that Canada as a whole gets crapped on for one
province's shady law. It is kind of like condemning the whole of the USA for
Texas allowing capital punishment.

~~~
diego_moita
Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that, since Quebec is the
only province that doesn't endorse the Charter of Rights, it is probably a
moot point if Bill 78 holds up such challenge.

Not that I support the Bill, far from it. What I support is Quebec signing the
Charter.

~~~
3pt14159
All Canadians have these rights, regardless of the provinces endorsement.

------
Kudzu_Bob
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."

~~~
rayiner
HuffPo is itself a reflection of the death of journalism and has been since
inception.

------
gnosis
A number of posts here have mentioned "thought crime" and hate crime
legislation as supposed indicators of lack of freedom.

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?

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.

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.

    
    
      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.
    

[1] - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_neiwert>

[2] -
[http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dneiwert_archive.htm...](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dneiwert_archive.html#200406177)

[3] - [http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/12/thought-crimes-
newspeak...](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/12/thought-crimes-newspeak-
and-2004.html)

[4] - [http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/06/hate-crimes-
response.ht...](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/06/hate-crimes-
response.html)

~~~
dmix
> they want to commit violent acts against gays, blacks, and other minorities
> with minimal reprecussions

Actually this is incorrect. The hate speechs laws were recently tested in the
Supreme court [1] and they are not simply based on threats of violence in
speech against discriminated groups (that is already covered by many federal
laws)

The provincial level speech laws are intended to criminalize (via fines)
speech containing prejudice in order to promote _social equality_. For
example, the intended objective in Saskatchewan hate speech laws:

> “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects
> and social costs of discrimination.”

> “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of
> expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a
> free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and
> respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human
> beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.

[1] [http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-
uphold...](http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-upholds-
canadas-hate-speech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader/)

So it's not a simple as just targeting people who promote genocide or deny the
holocaust.

These broad hate speech laws have the potential of causing "chilling effects":

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)>

But what's worse is that they are trialed in special tribunals and the
defendants don't have access to the standard legal defence rights.

> Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists
> stated that Human rights commissions "were never meant to act as language
> nannies. The current system allows complainants to chill the speech of those
> they disagree with by entangling targets in a human rights bureaucracy that
> doesn't have to operate under the same strict rules of defence as a court."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies#Criticism)

~~~
pyre
A few years ago, there was a book where the general implication was that
Muslims in Europe would gain power/majority just through sheer "out-breeding"
of other ethnicities/religious groups. This was deemed to be 'hate speech'
because it might incite people to commit hate crimes against Muslims.

Note: I did not read the book, so I don't know how inflammatory it was. Just
adding an anecdote.

~~~
hga
That's ... odd, or based on outdated statistics per David "Spengler" Goldman,
in his writings that include titles like "The Closing of the Muslim Womb" (one
of the things freaking out the rulers of Turkey and Iran). About the only
place where it might be playing out that way the last time I checked is the
U.K.

