Videodrome
Senior Member
Nah, Gab is the worst. They almost never punish users for clear hate speech and I can only think of three people who were banned outright.
|
|
|
Free speech or hate speech??
- Thread starter Fresco
- Start date
Johnny Au
Senior Member
There is absolutely no doubt Gab should be banned. Same with Voat. Both are alt-right websites that are lucky not to be considered hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (despite them very clearly being so). Oh, and Gab and Voat's hosts should ban them as well for clearly and openly violating the hosts' Terms and Conditions that prohibit discrimination based on immutable personal characteristics.
Free speech has its limits. Often, there's an unwritten rule that states that you should not publish online the same content that would lead to you becoming a gory pulp when spoken in a busy public square.
tiffer24
Senior Member
Hate speech can be expensive...
A former Mississauga, Ont., mayoral candidate charged two years ago with a hate crime, displayed "horrific" behaviour when he made "hateful Islamophobic" comments against Paramount Fine Foods owner Mohamad Fakih, a judge has ruled.
In a decision released Monday, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $2.5 million in damages to Fakih and Paramount, a chain of Middle Eastern restaurants in the Greater Toronto Area, for defamation over a series of videos and online posts made by Kevin Johnston, some on his website Freedom Report, starting in July 2017.
From July 23 to Aug. 1 of 2018, the judgment says, the defendants published eight videos making false and malicious statements, including that Fakih was an "economic terrorist" who was under investigation by CSIS for planning terror attacks and that Paramount was "little more than a front" whose purpose was to facilitate "Islamic discussion."
In addition to the videos, the decision says, Johnston approached Fakih while he was at Erin Mills Town Centre mall with his three children, accusing him of being a terrorist and snapping photos of them, even following them into the parking lot as they tried to leave the mall.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kevin-johnston-paramount-2-5-million-mohamad-fakih-1.5134227
A former Mississauga, Ont., mayoral candidate charged two years ago with a hate crime, displayed "horrific" behaviour when he made "hateful Islamophobic" comments against Paramount Fine Foods owner Mohamad Fakih, a judge has ruled.
In a decision released Monday, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $2.5 million in damages to Fakih and Paramount, a chain of Middle Eastern restaurants in the Greater Toronto Area, for defamation over a series of videos and online posts made by Kevin Johnston, some on his website Freedom Report, starting in July 2017.
From July 23 to Aug. 1 of 2018, the judgment says, the defendants published eight videos making false and malicious statements, including that Fakih was an "economic terrorist" who was under investigation by CSIS for planning terror attacks and that Paramount was "little more than a front" whose purpose was to facilitate "Islamic discussion."
In addition to the videos, the decision says, Johnston approached Fakih while he was at Erin Mills Town Centre mall with his three children, accusing him of being a terrorist and snapping photos of them, even following them into the parking lot as they tried to leave the mall.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kevin-johnston-paramount-2-5-million-mohamad-fakih-1.5134227
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Incidents like this is why there should be a Canadian branch of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
There are no shortages of despicable hate groups here.
dom rem
New Member
Actually from what I read its freedom of speech which is his legal right. Hes prejudice yes, we dont agree with his beliefs yes, BUT just as long as he doesn't bring his prejudice to his work place and he treats everyone the same, then he has the same right as anyone else to work there. Firing him based on his freedom of speech would in fact be illegal because that would be discrimination when he preforms his job correctly. If he didnt preform his job correctly then yes he should be fired.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Your understanding of 'freedom of speech' is incorrect, as is your understanding of employment law.
Freedom of Speech is actually a right to critique the state without legal or political repercussions.
It is not a an absolute right to say anything you want, even in respect of the state, let alone anything else.
Laws limit your speech rights all over the place from the well known ' you can't yell Fire! in a crowded theatre, when there is not one' to liable/slander and fraud limitations as well as hate speech.
There is ample jurisprudence in Canada on this subject.
Beyond that, freedom of speech is not only not a right in respect of your employer, it is in fact expressly understood that an employer has a right to dismiss an employee whose views would bring the company into disrepute.
There are some limitations on this, in so far as a view is only privately expressed, or the role of the employee is not public-facing and their profile is low..........
Unions and/or written contracts may also limit employer action, but only to a point.
However, even then, an employer could reasonably contend that hateful views create an untenable workplace for co-workers, who may refuse to work with a person they perceive as hateful or threatening.
To be clear, I am not in favour employers going on witch hunts, mining the social media data of their staff. Ugh.
But if someone states views, in a very public medium, and its clear who they are employed by to the general public; I can't see how an employer could fail to take some remedial action, up to and including dismissal.
dom rem
New Member
But taking action to dismissal an employee because he posted on social media that he doesnt't like certain races of people would be discrimination because you have arrived at a decision that such an employee is not suitable for a job based on what he posted on the internet NOT based on his skills and how well he preforms the job. Thats like saying you are firing him because you don't like his race not because he happens to preform his job with excellence. His other employees must also understand what im posting here and treat him with respect. If he preforms the job well, you shouldn't have the right to fire him because of what he said on the internet, Then when will this end? And what if youre against if he appeared in porn, or against his musical taste in extreme music like death metal for example. Death metal is only music, what he said online are only words that we all don't agree with but they are in no way an action against someone and if he doesn't practice his hate and prejudice at the work place then its ok. If he were to disrespect or mistreat someone of a different race (or same race) at the work place, then yes he needs to be fired. If he does his job perfectly, then no he shouldn't be fired.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Convince me that, if you ran a small bistro and one of your servers, who identified that he worked there, ranted on social media how they hated (fill in the race/religion/colour/orientation/etc. of choice) and business tanked, but they were otherwise a good server, that you would keep them on.
It's even more significant if they are in a position of authority or exercising a power of the state, even if a minor one.
It's even more significant if they are in a position of authority or exercising a power of the state, even if a minor one.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Since hate and racism is difficult to define - substitute the opposite and see what happens.
If a server excessively praised (fill in the race/religion/colour/orientation/etc. of choice) and business tanked, could they be fired.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Since "excessive praise" is the antitheses of both hate and racism, I would imagine it would be open to the employer to toss an employee for any reason that adversely affected a business, but that nexus would have to be defensible. Again, not an employment expert.
Videodrome
Senior Member
Much like Faith Goldy, this guy isn't a hill to die on. He deserves what he got.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Exactly. I have no idea why someone would want to fight this. Just bizarre, unless said person held the same or similar views.
Northern Light
Superstar
People, notably school teachers have been fired for having online photos of themselves nude.
The determination was that it compromised the teacher's ability to teach, because the students were aware of the images.
It also upset, rightly or wrongly many of the parents.
I happen to favour a very laissez-faire attitude on what people do on their own time. Though I can't imagine abiding an employee who I know to be racist.
Regardless of one's preferences, the law is clear, your public image IS grounds for termination of employment if it causes or is likely to cause material harm to the business/workplace.
That can mean harm to the public image/brand, harm to sales, or harm because other employees will refuse to work with someone, or quit their jobs.
You may wish it were otherwise, but that is the law of the land as it stands today.
This is true in the United States as well and most other developed jurisdictions.
The only variation is what may or may be seen to be socially acceptable in those societies.
To use a different, but relevant local example.......'Chair Girl' was booted from the school she was attending, because the school didn't want to be seen to sanction that behavior.
She was paying to attend the school, had a legal contract to attend the school, and her bad behavior was not on school time or property.
She's just as kicked out, regardless.
This isn't new. This has been legally normative for a very long time.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Certain employers ask male employees to shave (though exceptions can be made for religious reasons).
For example, there's the New York Yankees appearance policy, while most other teams allow players to have thick facial hair.
For example, there's the New York Yankees appearance policy, while most other teams allow players to have thick facial hair.
lenaitch
Senior Member
All sorts of employers have dress/appearance standards for any number of reasons and so long as they are equitably applied they are valid under employment and human rights legislation (religious exemptions nothwithstanding - I don't know if they have challenged). Try saying you're not into hats or brown and see how long you last at Tim's.
What's being missed in all of this is the Charter binds the Crown (federal and provincial governments and, by extension, municipalities). An individual or corporation cannot breach your Charter rights. What this means is the State and it's actions and laws have to comply with the Charter as interpreted by the court.