How FREE is FREEDOM And Are We Truly FREE? By Joe Ingino

Logic
By Joe Ingino
Editor/Publisher

“I live a dream in a nightmare world”
  
How FREE is FREEDOM
And Are We Truly FREE?
  As a member of the media I have a bit of concern over a news cast this past week.  On the one hand. I do not support or endorse any community or group being slandered, attacked and or provoked in any way.  On the other I have concern over freedom of speech and any protection and the possible repercussions for reporting any news topic. 
Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."   Rightly so, are points of view that are discriminatory not a freedom of speech?  Discrimination in context is not defined under the charter... Why?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada.[1] Section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, and also freedom of religion. Section 1 of the Charter guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter, but also recognizes that the rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits, provided the limits are prescribed by law and "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."   Now here is where I bring to question the validity of the freedom one has when it stipulated ‘reasonable limits’. 
As such if there is freedom of speech, should there not be alternative remedies to dealing with anyone expressing their point of views over another in a negative/derogatory and or hatred way.  Sure there is law.  But can’t laws be a two sided sword...  Under Canadian Law we are given a freedom to express openly but with restrictions... this brings to question the integrity of the word ‘FREEDOM’  as freedom technically should have no conditions.   This week the following news article caught my eye.  It read:
The two men behind a free Toronto-area newspaper promoted legalizing rape and denied the Holocaust occurred were found guilty on Thursday of promoting hatred against women and Jews.   In delivering his verdict against James Sears and LeRoy St. Germaine, Ontario court Judge Richard Blouin called evidence of their guilt overwhelming.
Sears, 55, the editor-in-chief and St. Germaine, 77, the publisher, had argued Your Ward News was meant to be satire but Blouin found nothing funny about their views.
Without knowing the particulars of this case or taking sides.  One has to bring to question if the publishers  Freedoms have not been restricted and or denied.  Setting a dangerous precedence.
 The various laws which refer to "hatred" do not define it. The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the term in various cases which have come before the Court. For example, in R v Keegstra, decided in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:
This bringing to question if our civil liberties and or freedom of speech are not under attack.   The publisher of this publication claimed the content to be satire.   Their readers perceived it as such.   Yet a court judge deemed it inappropriate.   The question as ‘hatred’ not defined by law is whether or not this type of ruling sets a negative precedent for future cases of a judge deeming something inappropriate and ground for punishment.   Is this not what censorship is all about?  With the Federal government introducing new laws protecting those of Islamic faith  for example, one could technically easily bring before the courts the argument that any mention or question of the Islamic religion could be seen as hatred and therefor subject to judicial scrutiny. This giving credibility to the introduction of Sharia law in order to protect the rights and freedoms of those followers of Islam as the law of the lands may be construed as discriminatory.
    Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.
Wonder how this applies to political parties attacking each other slandering and being disrespectful towards each other points of views... is this sublime and acceptable hatred... Where do we draw that line?
We live in times of change and we need to be more definitive in our definition of ‘FREEDOM’ as restrictions are only the tip of the censorship ice berg.  In the case above.  Readers and the general public should close them down.  If this publication would entice violence of any kind they should be held criminally responsible for their part in the act.  By passing a ruling based on a judges interpretation is a  blow to what a free democratic society is all about and nothing  short of censorship of the press.