Will return to pursuing the little guy.
Lawrence Garvin, in the comments – “No hearing, just straight to the verdict. I guess that’s a 105% conviction rate.”
Will return to pursuing the little guy.
Lawrence Garvin, in the comments – “No hearing, just straight to the verdict. I guess that’s a 105% conviction rate.”
Hi Kate:
small typo: should be “pursuing”…
Geez louise,
so they still have a duty to fight the impact Maclean’s has?
And I especially laughed at loud at this one…
“Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.”
So with the CPC in and the Libs out, does that make you an enemy-of-the-state-in-waiting?
LOL – What a joke these clowns are.
First they say they are not going to pursue the matter.
But just so their Islamo-fascist friends don’t get their back up, they have to weigh in and declare Maclean’s guilty anyway with this little slam:
“…the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic
portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community
in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them”
Like all bullies, they are cowards.
This is not a win. A win would be the result of a real court declaring the HRC’s unconstitutional.
You can either believe in the equality of all individual Canadians, including individuals who constitute the majority, or you can slice us up into identifiable ethnic packages.
One view of equality is lofty, the other petty and, ultimately, demeaning.
It’s clear which way the OHRC has gone.
And just what does “racialized” mean, anyway?
Translation…….
As with most cowards we have decided to back down and run away now that we understand that our threats, although real, would be aggressively resisted. We regret any temporary flair up of free speech that may occur during this hiatus. Rest assured we will continue to harass those who cannot defend themselves. During this hiatus please pay no attention to the testicularly equipped Hebrew from Alberta.
‘Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism”
Just wondering, who do these twits think will decide when media is being “fair and unbiased”…..Canada is no longer free when people can be punished for “thought crimes”
Eek! A muslim! I’m afraid! I must be suffering from Islamophobia.
Eek! A homosexual! I’m afraid! I must be suffering from Homophobia.
Eek! A Liberal! I’m afraid! I must be suffering from Corruptophobia.
Eek! Black olives! I’m afraid! I must be suffering from Blackolivophobia.
Eek! A child molester! I’m afraid! I must be suffering from Namblaphobia.
No…no. I am not “irrationally afraid” of any of the above. I’m just DISGUSTED by each of the above…by what they do (or what they taste like, when it comes to the olives…bleeech!), not what they are.
I’m sick of “progressives” re-inventing the meanings of words.
No hearing, just straight to the verdict.
I guess that’s a 105% conviction rate.
“… condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media”
I think I get the “Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims” bit — Muslims shouldn’t be afraid of themselves — but, since Muslims have been covered, who are the Arabs and South Asians that this statement refers to? Does it mean that Arabs have been unjustly portrayed as Islamophobic and so have South Asians? (And just who exactly are “South Asians”, anyway, and what interest would a Human Rights Commission interested in the equality of all citizens have in indoctrinating us unwashed in the intricacies of racial profiling and racial distinction-making?
Finally, what does “Islamophobic portray of… indeed any racialized community mean?
Does the preceding phrase have coherent meaning, or does preoccupation with “human rights” cause fever of the brain?
Yep …. were not going to try to make it stick …. but just for the record and as far as we are concerned …. your guilty!
Way to go Barbara Hall!
I eagerly await your permanent removal from our nation’s backside!
Is Barbara Hall not the POS commie ex-mayer of Toronto?
How did an idiot like this get to declare what the general public is allowed to think or say?
Where is the Harper Government in all this?
Kate,
Probably a fairly busy day for you so you may not have had the chance to read the full statement of the OHRC available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/statement
An excerpt.
—
By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West’, this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice towards Muslims and others. An extreme illustration of this is a “blog” discussion concerning the article that was brought to the attention of the Commission which, among many things, called for the mass killing, deportation or conversion of Muslim Canadians.
—
Is this directed at you?
“such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being
inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.”
The Commission makes a specific accusation against Maclean’s, that it is unfair, biased, and irresponsible.
I think Macleans has been libeled and I hope they agree and take appropriate action.
Unless, of course, the right of a provincial HRC to take gratuitous swipes against entities it disapproves of is one of the values enshrined in the human rights codes.
I called it on Ezra’s blog months ago! I knew they would cop out in interest of self-preservation! The various HRCs are quaking in their boots.
EyesWideShut: “…testicularly equipped Hebrew from Alberta”
LMFAO! Love it.
The patronizing and ignorant reference to ‘Islamophobic’ is disgusting. For heaven’s sake, Muslims and non-Muslims have the right to critique Islam, as a religion, as a social, political and religious mode of life. That isn’t a phobia!!!! That’s a critical analysis!
According to the sanctimonious Human Rights Commission bureaucrats, any comment that is critical is ‘phobic’. Don’t they know what words mean? A phobia is an irrational fear; most of us are very rationally and factually, critiquing the Islamic-Sharia mode of life.
But, there’s a very strange statement:
“However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles
through its complaint process.”
Now wait. Doesn’t the OHRCode include Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which refers only to CONTENT of speech/writing?
If the OHRCode excludes Section 13.1, then why would they have even accepted the complaint in the first place? Why not simply refuse it on day one?
And, aren’t the other Human Rights Boys-In-The-Gang still going after Macleans and Steyn?
So – why have they backed down? I’d like to know if the Ontario HR Code lacks Section 13.1, which refers to ‘speech’. Does it refer only to housing and employment, ie, services? Again, if that’s the case, the Commission should have refused it immediately. I smell a few rats. Scared rats.
She is the ex mayor of toronto….by the way they are getting new digs and more money
$14.1 million top up this year….new accessible facilities…what the original ones werent wheelchair accessible…unlikely. Accessible is a euphamism for new, or in a more expensive part of toronto.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/04/09/ont-rights.html
Write your MPP about this one if you live in Toronto.
As for the decision….what a joke, there is nothing here but we will do a driveby smear anyway.
Cant Macleans now sue the damn comission for libel. What a joke that a commission that says they dont have jurisdiction over the content of magazines (but wish they did) turns around and says that it was “racist” anyway.
Who are these people? That was the most confused piece of shit of a press release on a “legal” decision I have ever seen. High School students doing moot court are the equivalent.
And while I am at it….why would they do the release on the same day they get new money….hmmm maybe wanting to hide something.
In seriousness, it is obvious that they cut and ran from the case, hoping to live and fight another day.
In that sense of things, I’m disappointed. This is the right place and time for the fight.
Isn’t there still a complaint against Macleans pending at the federal level, and in BC?
Mr. Garvin: I suspect it was actually directed at the Western Standard blog, “the Shotgun”. They were subjected to a human-rights complaint in Alberta by the local mad mullah, but he dropped it. It concerned a comment thread which matches this description.
Styen was never under threat from the OHRC; this is apparently a press release intended to get them some positive coverage for a decision which was in fact rendered some time ago. Steyn’s big enemy is the CHRC – Steacy, Warman and co. – which is going ahead full steam.
These creeps are thought-nazis plain and simple.
These are the same a@@holes who fire teachers in BC for being Christians and running for public office but hold any opinion said against muslims as “Islamophobic.”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/04/08/chris-kempling-on-freedom-of-speech-public-school-teachers-should-be-allowed-to-publicly-espouse-a-christian-worldview.aspx
Well, these egregious, jack-booted, hypocritical, anti-democratic, bureaucratic, power-abusing, tyrannical Napoleons are “Christanophobic” and should be impaled on a spit.
Jesus these people piss me off!
Thanks Alan, fixed now.
This is what the Commission wrote about Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, as it applied to the Maclean’s Case:
“The Commission has also found that s. 13(1) of the Code, which prohibits displaying or publishing a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation with the intent to infringe human rights or to incite others to do so, cannot be interpreted to include the content of the magazine article in issue.”
NOTICE THAT the Ontario Human Rights Code ‘interprets’ Section 13.1 as only applying to signs (???); not their content (?). What kind of sign would ‘infringe human rights’ – ‘No Gays Allowed’? ‘Women Only’?
“The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act that prohibits the telephonic spreading of hatred or contempt on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression. ”
The above is a huge black hole of problems.
“Section 13 of the Code makes it illegal to display or publish certain kinds of offensive material. But its limits on freedom of expression are narrow. For the Code to apply, the offending item must be a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation that indicates an intent to infringe, or incite others to infringe, a right under the Code. Therefore, a sign would fall within this section, but a five-page article conveying the same message would not.”
“Limits to freedom of expression under some other human rights legislation in Canada are broader, stating that no person shall publish, issue or display before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol or other representation.”
“The different approaches in various human rights statutes across Canada can send a confusing message and give rise to inconsistencies, depending on where a complaint is filed. For example, it is possible to initiate complaints about a magazine article in more than one province and, if the article appears on the internet, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. ”
Now this is ridiculous. This means that what is a violation of ‘Human Rights’ in one province is not a violation of ‘Human Rights’ in another province. What kind of country do we have?
So, the Ontario HRCommission may sneak out of dealing with the issue, but the other provinces still can attack free speech.
And again, that sanctimonious patronizing garbage about ‘Islamophobia’ is disgusting. Don’t these people know what critical thinking is supposed to do? It’s supposed to dissent, debate, critique. That’s via the use of reason. Something that these people seem to have a phobia about using.
Who appointed Barbara Hall to her position? Governments regularly appoint people to HRCs and other such positions who have no sense of or regard for the public interest but are rather advocates for narrow or extreme political causes. Perhaps they believe that they are appeasing or co-opting critics by bringing them “inside the tent”. It doesn’t work. Some of the most radical and dreary judicial and quasi-judicial appointments in my corner of the country have been made repeatedly by Conservative governments.
“Don’t these people know what critical thinking is supposed to do? It’s supposed to dissent, debate, critique. That’s via the use of reason.”
Not to put too fine a point on it but debate, critique and the use of reason to dissent is exactly what these tyrants are trying to prevent.
“Who appointed Barbara Hall to her position?”
That would be McShifty who is trying desperatly to be the only premier in Ontario history worse than Bob Rae.
their behaviour is simply what we call damage control….but in this modern context i would deem it a hudna…they’ll be back if they can…but truly…these HRC people are so ineffably stupid and they ARE fighting for their sinecures i will not be surprised if they go to the wall on this…after all it costs them nothing…
but they’re obviously haemhorraging…and as far as ‘lucy’s’ libel suit goes
i’m awaiting the superduperK-man connection.
as someone wiser than mesself noted…given the prima facie evidence to date then WHERE is my Parliament ?….
Notice that the Commission said something else;
“Starting July 2008, human rights complaints will no longer be filed with the Commission but will be made directly to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.”
Don’t think that this means that the ‘Commission’ is disbanded. A civil service job is for life and ever after. The Commissioners will apparently be busy ‘educating’ the public about their evil natures. You know, as China is moving out of communism, we are moving even faster into it.
Disgusting. But, the CHRC is still after Steyn and Macleans. I wonder how they’ll sneak out of it? After all, these guys want to keep their jobs in the civil service; they like being part of the elite class telling us peasants how to behave. So, they are all backing off now, but trying to retain the Commissions.
And meanwhile, Warman, trapped in his own neurotic need to control, is moving more and more into threats, and declarations of lawsuits.
At least the ON HRC has folded its tent on the MacLeans Issue – but apparently with more money coming, their fascist-like “closed session” operations will likely continue against those unlikely to have the money to pursue a defense and destined to lose in the end anyway.
Rather than growing it – the movement should be to dismantle it. No doubt AB’s decision to create a new department of Culture & Community Spirit will amount to a net increase in funding for the AB HRC as well. Have to wonder just how much federal money is being funneled into these efforts.
Let’s see if the BC HR Tribunal follows the ON decision – they have even less reason to allow it to go forward.
It is becoming increasingly within the purview of the feds to make some significant changes but so far, not much seems to be happening.
Here is what I wrote in their feedback form:
Regarding your news release:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/statement
If you are not willing to hear a case, then you should not be issuing releases like these which are clearly passing judgement.
For instance, when you say “Unfortunately, the Maclean’s article, and others like it, are examples of this.”, you have not given Maclean’s the opportunity to defend themselves from this statement.
Sadly, it is a clear indication of the lack of professionalism of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. No professional legal body would issue statements about the particulars of a case without allowing all parties involved to represent themselves. By publishing this release on your web site, you have passed judgement without due process.
Frankly, I hope the commission is shut down, because it clearly shows no regard for the right to due process and the rights to freedom of speech and expression. Instead, it only shows regard for inexistent rights that it invents on a daily basis, such as the right to smoke dope in the doorway of a restaurant, and the right to labia surgery for transgendered people.
Your commission is a joke. Unfortunately, the people who are harassed by your commission suffer greatly from your incompetence.
I am Hallophobic.
“However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles
through its complaint process.”
If the Commission did not have the jurisdiction should they now have to be responsible for any legal fees that Macleans Magazine incurred to fight a bogus charge??
“Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.”
Bwah-haha. Oh-ha ha ha.
Hilarious. I want to see this statement enforced…
I cannot believe a government agency wrote it. Pontificating ar$es.
If there was a requirement to be fair and unbiased there wouldn’t be anything left in Canada.
Here’s the letter I emailed to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. They had absolutely no right to make a judgment on the content of the Maclean’s article. None. Yet they did – and made it public. Wow.
“Your stated decision to drop the Maclean- Steyn case is based only on a technicality – the lack of a criterion in the Ontario Human Rights Code that enables you to consider the content of a magazine article.
1) I wonder why you even accepted the case in the first place, if your Ontario Human Rights Code precludes examination of the content of a magazine article and can refer only to ‘notices, signs, symbols’. This focus on ‘signs’, by the way, is a strange criterion, for the notice/sign/symbol must be communicating some meaning just as does a magazine article. What’s the difference?
However, if this is your code, then why did you accept the complaint which referred to the content of an article?
2) I find it unprofessional that you then went on and actually judged the content of the article, despite not having the legal authority to do so. You must acknowledge that you have no legitimate right to judge the content; your code precludes that right. Therefore – why did you do so? Why have you made a judgment, which you have no right to do, and then, made public the judgment that the content is ‘Islamophobic’?
3) I am also disturbed by your use of the term ‘Islamophobic’. A ‘phobia’ is an irrational fear. Criticism of Islam is not necessarily carried out as an irrational fear. Serious critique of the religious axioms as well as the social and political modes of behaviour in Islam is a rational and thoroughly logical analysis. There are many serious books, articles and opinions on these issues. Instead, your labelling of any and all critique of Islam as a ‘phobia’ is an infringement on right of Canadians to engage in an ongoing study of Islam as it adapts to the modern world. Surely you recognize that no belief or behaviour should be immune to the considered analysis of reason – a process which includes criticism and a deep consideration of flaws as well as benefits.
4) Again, I am deeply concerned by the violation of due process in your judging the content of the Maclean’s article, when you had no legal right to do so, and by your action of making this judgment public. I am further deeply concerned by your rejection of Canadian’s right to critique Islam, in a reasoned and analytic manner, by your labelling criticism as ‘Islamophobia’.”
Well said,ET. Another thing about this that gets my dander up is that they never once mention if what is written is true or not. So,is it wrong to write that the mohammed fellow married a six-year old because that may bring derision down upon islam? Or would the HRC’s rather have one write that mohammed married a ‘woman of tender age’.
So, I wuz thinking about hiring a small plane to do some skywriting? Whaddya think. Is skywriting within the jurisdiction?
Well, honestly, I had felt all along that they would weasel their way out of the Macleans case. No surprise here. And Kate nails it as usual: they’ll get back to the easier small game. This is something I learned a long time ago in the securities business: the less trouble you are, the smaller you are, the more the harrassment.
And notice the subliminal bullshit: they’re actually intimating that Macleans is a service available to anyone who demands their own op-ed — “we’d pursue this, but, shucks, counsel tells us it’s not our jurisdiction.” I truly loathe these arrogant bastards.
Denying a service because of race or creed can form the basis for a human
rights complaint. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the
Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles
through its complaint process.
THEY’RE VERY FRIGHTENED.
At 4:46, Warwick wrote, “Well, these egregious, jack-booted, hypocritical, anti-democratic, bureaucratic, power-abusing, tyrannical Napoleons are ‘Christanophobic’ and should be impaled on a spit.”
Spot on, Warwick and I altogether agree, as I do with virtually everything you write. But then you wrote, “Jesus these people piss me off!”
Irony: now I’m offended!
Don’t worry, Warwick, I’ll get over it and file no complaints. However, Warwick, as a Christian, I worship Jesus. As you and I are fellow travellers, and it’s disrespectful to use the Name of Jesus as a swear word, perhaps you could use another choice, in what I’m sure is an ample lexicon of unsavoury words. I’d appreciate it, and thanks, in advance.
(Of course, you have every right to use any swear word you wish, and, where Christians are concerned, our HRCs actually accord you the particular right to use an anti-Christian slur: more irony!)
P.S. Bless you, Warwick, and have a fine evening.
“……the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes.”
A truly mischievous client might pursue slander charges for that last statement.
“Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.”
So the OHRC thinks that FOX is the right model? ROFLMAO!
Me No Dhimmi,
Great point. In fact they really have it confused. The OHRC can deal with “hate speech” or so we thought. Good news if they cannot.
If it is about denial of a service, that IS within their purview. Magazine delivery is a service, but a magazine does not exist as a service for people to write in. A magazine is a product. That would be Rogers demanding that even though they lost the OHRC bid for wireless phones that they demand their service be given equal use….becasue thats fair….
Comes down to property rights and free speech. Barbara Hall was underwhelming as Mayor of Toronto and she continues her tradition of mediocrity in her current appointed position.
Uh.. can I make a suggestion here? No, you say. Well here I go anyways. How about all the persecuted ones stick together against the HRC and its stooge Warman. This will prove a much better strategy. (real conservative)
RC – I agree. Anyone have Warman’s e-mail address. Or that of his particular employer/manager?
We wouldn’t want a government employee using taxpayer funded IT equipment to sustain his verbal diatribe.
And speaking of VD, has anyone actually heard Barbaric Hall speak? Man, it’s a painful experience. She can’t have dictated that outburst or we wouldn’t have heard it until about 2011…
Posted by: john begley at April 9, 2008 5:02 PM
…so ineffably stupid…
Intentional misspelling from JB? Gotta love language, eh:
Adv. 1. affably – in an affable manner; “`Come and visit me,’ he said amiably”
amiably, genially.
Yup, I’d go for the Libel too.
lookout,
While I unequivocally reserve the right to say anything I please any time I please (at least outside of the private property of others,) my quip wasn’t intended as a slight on Christians (who I respect in most cases even where I don’t agree.)
So, I apologize for my offence – but not because I have to.
😉
Short version of the OHRC statement: “We won’t go after MacLeans. They have deep pockets and we might lose. And they’ll insist on things being public.”
Will return to pursuing the little guy.
Like fisherman.
The “R” Word
Good for Barbara Hall. Ontario’s Human Rights Commissioner has justified her existence….
….All of a sudden white people decided to attack Asian people but only when they’re fishing. They aren’t attacked on the streets or in businesses or in bars or clubs or hockey rinks or supermarkets, only when they’re fishing…..
http://www.freddiep.ca/2007/12/the_r_word.html