Preventing dialogue and discrediting disagreement.

For the past few months, a committee of Canada’s House of Commons has been studying online hate. The resulting 72-page report can be downloaded here.

There was no room, evidently, in these 72 pages for a statement made to the committee by lawyer Jay Cameron, of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. So I’m reproducing it here:

The reality is that crying hate has become one of the favourite tools in some circles to prevent dialogue and discredit disagreement.

You disagree with my religion, that’s hate. You disagree with my politics, that’s hate. You disagree with my gender identity, that’s hate. You have concerns about immigration, resources and security, that’s hate….You want to peacefully express your opinions on a university campus regarding abortion, you can’t, because that’s hate.

…Lastly, but not least, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, within the last couple of days, described all of Fox News as hate.

None of this is hate. It’s a disagreement and it’s a dialogue, but it’s not hate. It’s protected speech under the Constitution and it is entirely legal.

.

.

please support this blog

LINKS:

• 72-page report: Taking Action to End Online Hate
• NDP executive smears The Post Millennial before Justice Committee
• Justice Centre warns federal government not to use “online hate” report to police legitimate expression