Canadian nut-ball buying up land in North Dakota

[Judge Roy Bean]

Brought to you by those whacky funsters up north:

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/former-vancouver-r ... -1.1434724

... Cobb, who is wanted in Canada for allegedly wilfully promoting hatred in Vancouver in 2010 via a blog.

[AndyK]

Why do so many people feel superior just because of their own melanin deficiency?

[wserra]

But whether advocating a dumbass point of view should be a crime is a whole 'nother question. Which, BTW, is why he can't be extradited.

[Burnaby49]

But whether advocating a dumbass point of view should be a crime is a whole 'nother question. Which, BTW, is why he can't be extradited.

He's been news up here for a while. He can't be extradited because the US will not extradite someone for a criminal offense elsewhere that is not a crime in the states. He has been charged under what I consider bad law. We have a criminal offense called hate crime:

The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.

A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... rimes.html

I have no problem with physical force and actual criminality but the hate crime laws go into free speach making opinion a criminal offense. As with all subjective law administered by bureaucratic civil servants it tends to have mission creep with the government criminalizing less and less obvious applications.

It was one of those good intention laws to eliminate "hate", an extremely subjective and nebulous concept. However the law does not change ideas, it just drives them into hiding and the law is being used as a weapon to go after people whose main offense is being unpleasant. I'm all for the American brand of free speach; I have no problem with people saying what they want. Apart from the "marketplace of ideas" aspect of democracy it brings them out in the open.

Cobb has been criminally charged under Canadian hate laws. However since you Americans don't have any analogous laws or consider his behaviour criminal (offensive is a different matter) he can't be extradited. So, unless he sneaks back into Canada and is caught, or does something in the states that warrants deportation, you are stuck with him for the same reason we wouldn't extradite your draft dodgers in the 60's..

[wserra]

FWIW, I agree with every word of Burnaby's above post, including his apparent approval of Canada's refusal to extradite Americans who fled the draft (and Vietnam). I know a couple of people who did that - and, AFAIK, stayed in Canada. I'd take them back in exchange for Cobb any day - but nonetheless agree that the U.S. should not extradite Cobb based on his speech.

As far as the marketplace of ideas, I haven't posted my favorite words from any court, any time, in several years:

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.

Abrams v. United States, 250 US 616 (1919) (Holmes and Brandeis, dissenting). We haven't always lived by those words - they are, after all, from a dissent - but we try.

[notorial dissent]

One of the things that has disturbed me more and more in the past years about Canadian and English law is the encroaching attitude towards what we in the US consider to be free speech, to the effect that if your words hurt or offend some group, then they are therefore illegal and a crime, or at least that is my take on the subject. I find it interesting that among all the things that got enshrined in the Canadian Bill of rights, charter or whatever all they are referring to that that little tidbit seems to have slipped by. At least that is my perception.

[Montana Notasovrun]

This joker lived in my neck of the woods for a while. We have several of the Hitler lover types here. The good news is that they hate pretty much everybody, including each other, and they seldom get organized. They really believe they are more aryan than their fellow aryans. They can be dangerous. Cobb has a very bad history in the U.S. He is more than just a supremacist.

[notorial dissent]

Somehow not a great surprise, the one thing usually goes pretty much hand in hand with the other. You can't carry that much hate around in you without it bursting out periodically. I would suppose that if you are going to be an Überaryan then it would be hard to find followers who measure up to your standards, since if they did, they would be after your position. Still, there must be a few wannabes who will submit to his greatness.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

One of the things that has disturbed me more and more in the past years about Canadian and English law is the encroaching attitude towards what we in the US consider to be free speech, to the effect that if your words hurt or offend some group, then they are therefore illegal and a crime, or at least that is my take on the subject. I find it interesting that among all the things that got enshrined in the Canadian Bill of rights, charter or whatever all they are referring to that that little tidbit seems to have slipped by. At least that is my perception.

Free speech is incorporated in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
  
  (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
  
  (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
  
  (d) freedom of association.

"Expression" is defined very broadly, and means more than just speech or writing, but also covers things such as manner of dress, physical activities, and so on. Almost anything one 'does' can be "expression". The only form of expression that is excluded from s. 2(b) is violent expression - as in physical violence. This provision also is used to address the special status of the media in Canadian society.

There is a major difference in how the Canadian and U.S. constitutional rights operate, however. In Canada all rights are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.": Charter, s. 1.

As a consequence it is possible for a Canadian government to legislate in a manner that impinges on 'free speech' and the communication of ideas and material, no matter if it is prohibited for being hateful, dangerous, or socially objectionable. The section 2(b) right is a very powerful one, and can only be limited if it is demonstrably socially useful.

A few examples of how ss. 2(b) and 1 interact:

• child pornography (ok to prohibit, with limits): R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, [2001] 1 SCR 45: http://canlii.ca/t/523f
  
  criminal prohibition of 'hate speech' (ok to prohibit): R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697: http://canlii.ca/t/1fsr1
  
  criminal sanction for spreading 'false news' (not ok to prohibit): R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731: http://canlii.ca/t/1fs9n
  
  legislation forcing tobacco use warnings on advertising and tobacco product packaging (ok to interfere with advertising and packaging): RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 SCR 199: http://canlii.ca/t/1frgz

I have not included any of the media cases, those often focus on whether publication bans or reporting limits meet the s. 1 criteria. Tons of cases on that though, and the analysis usually devolves to how far media reporting could affect trial fairness or the privacy rights of victims.

Just as a quirky note on that last point, Canada has an absolute criminal prohibition on jurors speaking about criminal proceedings and their negotiations: Criminal Code, s. 649. All jurors are strictly anonymous. The reasoning is that media and other intrusion into the jury decision process has the potential to affect and bias trial and its result. I think that's not a bad rule, and one that has proven very functional in Canada. It seems to me that this would be a principle that may be helpful in the U.S., as well. I'd be curious to hear opinions on whether a rule of that kind could be constitutional.

SMS Möwe

[Number Six]

When I first saw this story my impression is the guy is not well, look at the hair and his overall look. Paranoiacs generally need to be left alone, treated like children as long as they aren't violent or threatening, let them vent their spleen, etc. God knows there are enough sites for these jokers to communicate and commiserate on.

[JamesVincent]

One of the biggest examples of Free Speech and how it should be interpreted, in my personal opinion, is the fact that Westboro Baptist Church is still around. To me, personally, I find them morally repugnant and would gladly give them a permanent body piercing. Most especially I find their protests at the graveside of fallen soldiers most.... infuriating I guess would be genteel. On the same token their right to make fools of themselves and say things that madden 98% of the world's population is what that soldier fought for. The biggest kick I have gotten from my dealings with them was when a gay rights (a term I really can't stand, we're all humans) group bought a house near the church and painted it a la Des Colores.

[grixit]

People like the westboros are the canaries of free speech.

[Fmotlgroupie]

If anyone wonders how the scheme inevitably went to poop the Anti-Racist Canada blog had a series on it in 5 parts (not sure how to link to the individual posts so here's the main page:

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca

[Lambkin]

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/se ... aig%20Cobb

[Lambkin]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/8478569/

A white supremacist was sentenced Tuesday to probation for terrorizing a North Dakota town he sought to transform into a racist enclave.

Under a plea deal, 62-year-old Craig Cobb will serve four years of supervised probation for one felony count of terrorizing and five counts of menacing. He had been jailed since mid-November, when he and Kynan Dutton were arrested while patrolling Leith with guns, threatening and frightening some of the town's 16 residents.

[JamesVincent]

Still surprised they just didn't shoot them.