October 26, 2000

10:12 PM

Canada Denies Eminem Entrance.I'm sorry if it's already been posted, i've been out of the loop.
posted by dominic (17 comments total)

Just wait until some professional activist in canada files charges against some linux group for advocating the hatred of windows users....hehe.
seriously though...
I'd like to hear from some canadians about this...is the US press just giving us wierd information? or is canada becoming a haven for Rabid anti-anti-people? So much for free speech up north.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:00 PM on October 26, 2000

How odd, eminem performed in Toronto this evening.

What actually happened is that the provincial Attorney General made a very public stand against Eminem, calling on Canada Customs to deny him entry to the country. What I'm pretty sure the AG knew was that the chances of this actually happening were approximately zero, so he could bluster loud and long without his actions having any consequence.

This is the second high-profile incident of this nature (that I'm aware of) in Canada; the other was also in Ontario and involved an allegation of indecency at a Madonna concert - police threatened to shut down the show, but ultimately nothing happened aside from the police looking look idiots.
posted by icathing at 11:20 PM on October 26, 2000

I think Jefferson said it best when he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by police and politicians acting like idiots."
posted by kindall at 11:41 PM on October 26, 2000

interesting, all i'm getting is (i hope this works):

<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
function popUpSignIn(ai_id)
{

window.open('/services/registration/signin.jhtml?type=1&ai_id=' + ai_id ,'nw','width=422,height=360','toolbar=no,resizable=no,scrollbars=no');
}
-->
</script>
posted by pnevares at 12:45 AM on October 27, 2000

I'm Canadian and my little viewpoint is that this entire thing is rather disgusting. I don't believe they will be successful in keeping Eminem out of the country and I don't believe they *should* be successful.

And unfortunately th3ph17, free speech is only an assumption in Canada. "Anti-hate" laws have existed here for some time, which essentially say that you're not allowed to say anything that "spreads a message of hatred". As you can see by this Eminem grandstanding, what exactly that *means* is constantly being debated and pushed at.

To date I believe the laws have only been used successfully against tremendously public (and incredibly unlikable) racists and haulocaust revisionists, but numerous attempts have been made at using the laws to keep "shocking" entertainers such as Madonna, Marilyn Manson (in my own city, even) and now Eminem out of the country as well. None of those attempts have been successful to my knowledge.

It's one of those horrible unspoken things Canadians neglect to try and brag about when they're bashing Americans. "Oh yeah? Well, we LIMIT people's speech so we don't have to hear NASTY things from people and get our FEELINGS hurt!" Horrible.

F.
posted by frenetic at 2:40 AM on October 27, 2000

do i get the vibe that you are spreading a message of hatred towards the Anit-hate laws? *grin*

So these laws are flung about at the famous only? I could see small playhouses, galleries...art venues etc...getting nabbed on this and it not making the evening news.

To date I believe the laws have only been used successfully against tremendously public (and incredibly unlikable) racists and haulocaust revisionists

whose fucked up followers are going to believe Anyways....regardless of anything, because they are stupid, and they Want to believe.
posted by th3ph17 at 2:58 AM on October 27, 2000

The anti-hate laws are essentially popularity contests. Fortunately they're popularity contests that I'm currently winning, what with my whole not-being-a-horrible-racist thing I've got going on right now.

But if enough of my fellow citizens claimed that I was hurting their feelings and making them feel oppressed by saying things, I'd be in deep Canadian shit. I'd be spreading hatred and I'd have broken the law.

The anti-hate laws are exceedingly vague and they generally only haul them out in extremely high publicity cases where everyone pretty much unanimously hates the person. Note the irony.

I keep beginning a free speech rant and then deleting it because it's just so obvious and I feel very cliched ranting about all the usual points. To summarize: free speech = good. Censorship = bad.

F.
posted by frenetic at 3:50 AM on October 27, 2000

The anti-hate laws are essentially popularity contests.

People always love free speech until they hear things they don't want to...
posted by th3ph17 at 4:44 AM on October 27, 2000

"people always love free speech until they hear things they don't want to"

In my experience, this is true. Why is it? Is it a question of hypocrisy? Laziness? Cowardice?
posted by aramaic at 6:21 AM on October 27, 2000

Canada's hate-crime laws are limited, as this RCMP Online story describes. Under the Charter, rights can be limited if the limitation is deemed reasonable in a democratic society: It's happened already, with mandatory retirement and gay spousal benefits (later instituted in law anyway). The specific Criminal Code provision (entire Criminal Code here, but it's 1,645K), 319, states:

Definition of "identifiable group"

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public
distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

and

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites
hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to
a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private
conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty
of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So, even if the AG wanted to charge Eminem for misogynist lyrics, he could not: Gender is not listed under the definition of "identifiable group."

And, in the time-honoured tradition of culturally clueless right-wing politicians, Stockwell Day sez he would not have stood in the way of such a prosecution were he even able to do so (which requires more than one leap of the imagination). The clincher? He hasn't heard Eminem.

"I am not strong on censorship but when it comes to somebody who at least,
from what I hear, promotes things such as domestic violence, I don't have
a whole lot of time for that," Mr. Day told reporters on the campaign
trail.

posted by joeclark at 7:48 AM on October 27, 2000

Ummm, just to reiterate, there was some civilian discussion of keeping Eminem out, but Immigration Canada correctly felt that censorship wasn't in their job description. (Said one employee, "If all people who made bad music were kept out of Canada we could have stopped disco.")
posted by jess at 8:39 AM on October 27, 2000

Heh, "What does Canada have in common with Marshall Mather's wife?"
posted by dhartung at 9:21 AM on October 27, 2000

dhartung: we're "f***ed up cuz I beat her f***in' a$$ every night?"

just to quote Em. =P
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:45 AM on October 27, 2000

pnevares: You must be using Netscape which, correctly, flags the '-->' at the end of the script contents as an error. It should be '//-->'.
posted by dithered at 11:08 AM on October 27, 2000

Y'know, the point is the question was raised "Is this person spreading hate?" and the answer was "No, let him perform."

With Madonna, it was "Is this person being indecent?" and the answer was "No, let her perform."

The whole point is that people are able to say "This is wrong!" and the laws are such that they say "Uh, no it isn't. So go ahead and rant, we still value our freedom."

Considering how often I hear about the same things happening in American cities and states, I don't quite understand what the huffuffle's about.

We do have some more restrictive laws about hate, it's one of the prices we pay for being a socialist-leaning country. But when they're challenged, they're more often than not modified to adequately reflect what we, as a Canadian people want.

And Stockwell Day. Cripes, what a maroon. We may have 5 major political parties, but at least Americans have some political leaders that make sense. None of ours do.
posted by cCranium at 11:48 AM on October 27, 2000

no, american parties make virtualy no sense either.
posted by dominic at 12:47 PM on October 27, 2000

A disc jockey in Canada doesn't think Ricky Martin's latest single is right for young ears. Sean Kelly says the lyrics to She Bangs are too sexually suggestive for young listeners. Kelly edited the song to erase the words "she bangs."
posted by riley370 at 1:18 PM on October 29, 2000