Jessica

Bissett Speaking Freely The free speech of Canadians is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but does that mean that all free speech should receive the same level of protection? Recently it has come to the attention of the public, with the case of anti- gay proselytizer, Mr. Whatcott, the issue of whether or not restrictions should be placed on the free speech of people when minority groups are concerned. Hate speech seeks to reduce the acceptance experienced by a group of people; it goes beyond singling out individuals. Every person is an important member of society in some way; civilization functions due to the support of all people and consequently life would be very different without that necessary component. As a result there are extremely harmful effects to society. Therefore it is reasonable that rights to free speech be restricted in order to ensure that minority groups never experience hatred or a lack of acceptance. The boundary of free speech does not infringe upon the rights of minorities to be free of discrimination and hatred. Saskatchewans hate laws ban speech that in any way ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of other people, especially those belonging to a vulnerable minority group. To further clarify, hate is defined as being a circumstance in which an individual is aware of the situation and knowingly aims to single out people and expose them to intense discrimination. Whether or not a person has harmful intentions, when voicing their opinion, hate should not be acceptable in anyones eyes, especially with the views considered acceptable in todays modern world. In society, there are strong and generally

Jessica Bissett embraced ideas regarding the continuous acceptance of all individuals, regardless of any obvious differences. As long as boundaries, and definitions, are understood and outlined in detail it is acceptable to place restrictions on rights to free speech. Therefore the difference between offensive language and hate speech needs to be clearly outlined to avoid any confusion. Language that is believed to be strongly impolite or disgusting in character is considered offensive language. Attacks directed towards a person or group on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation is placed under the category of hate speech. In the case of Mr. Whatcott it was argued to the Supreme Court that the pamphlets distributed by this man essentially displayed the idea that gays and lesbians are less than human. It would be difficult to find an example of more intense discrimination and obvious hate speech; no human should have to endure such public ridicule. In the past such strong language as hate speech may have been considered acceptable but in the era we are living, above all, people strive for equality. Whether or not it is the intention of the speaker, hate speech, is bound to cause a general sense of inequality for those being targeted. If people desire equality for themselves then it makes sense that society ensures no one is subjected to discrimination through the voices of others. In other words, no law should support the harmful words of any person, at any time.

Jessica Bissett Society as it is today is threatened if the degradation of people becomes more of an issue, and this is imminent if the certain discussed restrictions are not placed on rights to free speech. It should be understood that everyone is still entitled to their own opinions, although there is no reason for these views to be portrayed in such a hateful manner. People need to decide what is more important, protecting the right to harmful free speech or the right to live free of discrimination. The answer should be obvious.