Analysis Of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty And Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedom
1827 Words
8 Pages
Freedom of speech is an issue that transcends time. In a recent and controversial case, Maclean’s magazine was accused of publishing hateful and Islamophobic content that, (from the complainant’s point of view) allowed for no opportunity to be countered. There are parallels between John Stuart Mill’s work On liberty and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enacted by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on what boundaries to place on such a precious liberty. Both generally conclude that a person’s freedoms must not be infringed upon unless they harm others in society. Does the publishing a critical opinion of one’s religion constitute as harm? ( is this harm question the thesis?). This will be explored the analysis of Canadian legislatures
…show more content…
This tribunal argued that their voices were silenced by Maclean’s magazine as they were unable to publish a counter argument addressing the statements made by Steyn. In addition to the statements made by Steyn, Mr. Awan claimed that additional statements were also made against Islam (state by who. These include, but are not limited to, that members of Islam engage in bestiality, are radical jihadists, and metaphorically stating that the members of Islam are undergoing a bloody war to reclaim the west. The tribunal argues that such statements are Islamophobic and perpetuate a wide-spread hatred of Islam that may inhibit members of the Muslim faith from gaining employment. They argue that they are unable to counter the claims made by Steyn since MacLean’s did not allow them to publish a counter article. In response to these claims, complaints were taken to the Human Rights Commission against Steyn (British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and Canadian Human Rights Commission) (cite …show more content…
Due to the limits placed on freedom of speech and the prohibition of discrimination of the basis of religion by Canadian Government within the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and the Human Rights Code, I believe that the Canadian government should have intervened as the case at hand does not fall within the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable speech and that what was said about the group could possibly harm them with regards to certain assertions that were made against the Muslim faith. When on the Agenda, both parties referred to comments made in the articles published by Maclean’s and in my opinion the majority of the statements made about the Muslim faith were not in good faith and have the potential of inciting hatred against the particular group. Specifically, when Steyn starts his article with the mention of 9/11 (which he states a group of Muslims were responsible for) (find this) and then in this way goes on to mention the growing population of Muslim he is allowing for such a violent event to be correlated with the general population of the religious faith. This inflicts fear within the readers that their population is growing and promotes hatred against the group due to connecting
This tribunal argued that their voices were silenced by Maclean’s magazine as they were unable to publish a counter argument addressing the statements made by Steyn. In addition to the statements made by Steyn, Mr. Awan claimed that additional statements were also made against Islam (state by who. These include, but are not limited to, that members of Islam engage in bestiality, are radical jihadists, and metaphorically stating that the members of Islam are undergoing a bloody war to reclaim the west. The tribunal argues that such statements are Islamophobic and perpetuate a wide-spread hatred of Islam that may inhibit members of the Muslim faith from gaining employment. They argue that they are unable to counter the claims made by Steyn since MacLean’s did not allow them to publish a counter article. In response to these claims, complaints were taken to the Human Rights Commission against Steyn (British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and Canadian Human Rights Commission) (cite …show more content…
Due to the limits placed on freedom of speech and the prohibition of discrimination of the basis of religion by Canadian Government within the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and the Human Rights Code, I believe that the Canadian government should have intervened as the case at hand does not fall within the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable speech and that what was said about the group could possibly harm them with regards to certain assertions that were made against the Muslim faith. When on the Agenda, both parties referred to comments made in the articles published by Maclean’s and in my opinion the majority of the statements made about the Muslim faith were not in good faith and have the potential of inciting hatred against the particular group. Specifically, when Steyn starts his article with the mention of 9/11 (which he states a group of Muslims were responsible for) (find this) and then in this way goes on to mention the growing population of Muslim he is allowing for such a violent event to be correlated with the general population of the religious faith. This inflicts fear within the readers that their population is growing and promotes hatred against the group due to connecting