Freedom of Speech. Should there be limits to this constitutional guarantee?
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." This is the definition for "freedom of speech" according to the Canadian Constitution. The key phrase in that definition is "reasonable limits" so yes, there should be limits to this specific constitutional guarantee. However, there are those who refute this and so therefore, there are three reasons as to why there should be reasonable limits set on the freedom of speech. These reasons deal with the effects of the aftermath of what something has been said and why they should not be said. The three reasons are that hate is caused amongst people, what is the good moral of what has been said, and proving that "if you don't have something good to say, don't say it at all" is actually a very good quotation to remember.
First of all, the world is already a mean and cruel place. That is a fact. If somebody says something derogatory to another person or their race, both groups may engage in a fight and therefore hate is caused. Furthermore, if a racial or discriminatory comment is made, people may not stand for it and right then and there, people will turn against you and if they were your friend, they may not be anymore. So being careful with what you say is obviously important because you never know what might happen. Also, if you are discriminating against someone else's culture or personal beliefs, then they may talk about your culture and personal beliefs and therefore not only will the two parties engage in a fight but also their cultures will be at war with each other. Therefore, one little comment could ignite a battle which in turn could ignite a war between cultures causing more hate then there already is in the world.
The seconed point is that there is no good moral or meaning for saying something that could insult a person or something that belongs to them whether it is a family member, belief or cultural aspect. Saying something without a good moral leaves a bad atmosphere. For example, if someone does not know the answer to something, rather than making fun of them and leaving an insult which darkens the mood, try to help them with their problem so people may feel comfortable in talking to you if they ever experience problems. Moreover, we as children picked or pick up what we learn from our elders. Our younger siblings, relatives or friends learn what we say and how we say it and therefore could respond to another person in the same way. An example of this could be that we are talking to our friends on the phone and in the meantime our 5 year old brother listens to the conversation. The brother may pick up some words that depending on us, could be bad or good. In other words have moral or no moral. So if we talk to our friends and start swearing, even as a joke, who's not to say that our little brother will not pick up those dirty words and start saying them at his school to his friends? This creates a domino effect because as those children grow older and start using that filthy vocabulary more often and saying it to one another, they may also loose friends and therefore the "reasonable limits" set upon the freedom of speech will continue to not have a "reasonable limit"!
Lastly, "if you don't have something good to say, don't say it at all" is a very important quotation to learn when talking about the freedom of speech we have been given. This statement is self explanatory as it means if what we have to say does not benefit us or anyone or anything we do in life, then simply put, do not say it at all! For example, think before you speak. If you are talking to your brother and he asks you something, don't just act tough and shun him away, rather listen to what he has to ask and try and help him with what he needs help with. If we do this, it sets a good example or in other words a reasonable limit on what to and what not to say. Also, if you know something you are going to say is going to hurt anyone emotionally, then do not say it. It does nothing to help society so do not bother saying it.
So in conclusion, there should be reasonable limits to this constitutional guarantee because if there is not then what we say will have no good meaning or moral to it. Also, hate will be created amongst parties, religions or cultures or whoever we decide to insult. Lastly, if people do not have something that is good to say then do not say it at all. If the world followed this statement religiously, imagine how much more peaceful the world would be!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Journal #3
When I first saw this statement I thought to myself: “what a caring mother” and “well that daughter must have really done something bad!” However upon further analysis of “Wilhelm” and my own views, I thought to myself, “What right does that mother have to interfere in her daughter’s life like that.” That’s because it sounds to me that the mother intervened in her daughter’s life in an inappropriate way. The quote suggests that the mother interfered in her daughter’s life in a unique way as it says “as she did.” Clearly, this mother-daughter relationship has a lack of three things in which are needed for a healthy relationship amongst them. They are trust, responsibility and care. By providing personal reasons and reasons from “Wilhelm”, these traits will help prove why the statement is not fair.
First of all, trust is an essential part of any relationship. In my opinion, without it, there can be no relationship. If you do not trust a person, how can you build a bond between the two parties? In the story of “Wilhelm” trust is a very scarce thing. There is no example of the mother and her daughter bonding or “trusting” each other with anything. There is always deceit behind everything they do. In the story, the daughter has to “secretly” and “quietly” speak to Wilhelm as he plays her music over the phone. Therefore, for these two reasons, the basis of their relationship is not even there. There is no bond or in this case trust! Secondley, it is the mother’s responsibility to look after her daughter like in every relationship fact or fiction. However, to interfere in one’s life is something different. In my opinion, there is no accurate reason for a mother to interfere in her daughter’s life except if they are engaging in something dangerous or harmful. Clearly, in the story “Wilhelm” there is no evidence of the daughter being harmed. Moreover though, there is a fact that in the story, Maman wanted nothing to do with Wilhelm. So in the story when Gervais starts to imitate the “Hollander” or the “Netherlander” Maman begins to “laugh a little” as quoted in the story. Also, as stated before, Maman’s responsibility is to intervene in her daughter’s life only if she is being harmed. The daughter is not however and therefore Maman contradicts herself by letting her son imitate a man that she despises and wants nothing to do with while laughing at it, even if it is a little. Therefore, Maman needs to have responsibilities in disciplining her children equally and not just punish her daughter from seeing someone she loves. Lastly, caring is what makes the relationship between people complete. The mother to me in the quote does not care for her child if she interferes in her life. To me, if the mother cared for her child, Maman, would have let her daughter be happy as she was not in any harm. Instead, Maman kept laying down the line on her daughter’s relationship with Wilhelm as she “forbade me to see him.” Maman even takes extreme measures to ensure that Wilhelm and her daughter stay away as much as possible from each other as she enforces the rule that “if he takes the same sidewalk, as you, mind you, cross right over to the other.” Therefore, the mother does not care about her own daughter’s well being, she only cares about herself.
So in conclusion, due to the lack of trust in their relationship, the limited responsibility the mother has on one child and not the other and the limited care Maman has for her daughter, the statement of “It was the mother's responsibility to intervene in her daughter's life as she did” renders false because the mother is only looking out for her wants and not her daughter’s needs.
First of all, trust is an essential part of any relationship. In my opinion, without it, there can be no relationship. If you do not trust a person, how can you build a bond between the two parties? In the story of “Wilhelm” trust is a very scarce thing. There is no example of the mother and her daughter bonding or “trusting” each other with anything. There is always deceit behind everything they do. In the story, the daughter has to “secretly” and “quietly” speak to Wilhelm as he plays her music over the phone. Therefore, for these two reasons, the basis of their relationship is not even there. There is no bond or in this case trust! Secondley, it is the mother’s responsibility to look after her daughter like in every relationship fact or fiction. However, to interfere in one’s life is something different. In my opinion, there is no accurate reason for a mother to interfere in her daughter’s life except if they are engaging in something dangerous or harmful. Clearly, in the story “Wilhelm” there is no evidence of the daughter being harmed. Moreover though, there is a fact that in the story, Maman wanted nothing to do with Wilhelm. So in the story when Gervais starts to imitate the “Hollander” or the “Netherlander” Maman begins to “laugh a little” as quoted in the story. Also, as stated before, Maman’s responsibility is to intervene in her daughter’s life only if she is being harmed. The daughter is not however and therefore Maman contradicts herself by letting her son imitate a man that she despises and wants nothing to do with while laughing at it, even if it is a little. Therefore, Maman needs to have responsibilities in disciplining her children equally and not just punish her daughter from seeing someone she loves. Lastly, caring is what makes the relationship between people complete. The mother to me in the quote does not care for her child if she interferes in her life. To me, if the mother cared for her child, Maman, would have let her daughter be happy as she was not in any harm. Instead, Maman kept laying down the line on her daughter’s relationship with Wilhelm as she “forbade me to see him.” Maman even takes extreme measures to ensure that Wilhelm and her daughter stay away as much as possible from each other as she enforces the rule that “if he takes the same sidewalk, as you, mind you, cross right over to the other.” Therefore, the mother does not care about her own daughter’s well being, she only cares about herself.
So in conclusion, due to the lack of trust in their relationship, the limited responsibility the mother has on one child and not the other and the limited care Maman has for her daughter, the statement of “It was the mother's responsibility to intervene in her daughter's life as she did” renders false because the mother is only looking out for her wants and not her daughter’s needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)