Free Bill Whatcott!

off subject,has anyone read what Bill Gates is sayng about vaccinations?Well he has sais and you can google it,give vaccinations to controll the population.well I say why not start with your family Mr.Gates

Kate, the link to the Breakenridge piece needs a fix: one too many "http"'s.

The link has a double "http" in it Kate.

Sad to realize that it is the Judiciary we have to look to now to understand these little concepts like freedom of expression.

Does Canada troll Skid Row for their judges?

"Balance of freedom of expression" be damned -- we need a thumb on the "freedom of expression" side of the scale, always and forever.

Freeing Bill Whatcott is a good start but only a start. It is now clear, and has been for some time now, that these kangaroo tribunals are agenda-driven and have limited, if any, understanding of the law, the constitution, and Canadian values. When are they going to be reined in or, better yet, disbanded? Mr. Harper? Messrs. Premiers?

Our liberal elites (especially universities) do not wish to hear banned thoughts or contemplate interpretations that they have not developed in their generally atheist, neo-Marxist ivory tower.

So they continue to invent laws, regulations and edicts that basically silence anybody with bad news (such as the concept that abortion and homosexuality have moral dimensions and that not everyone views them in the ways commanded).

Now it's getting interesting, because the mindless monolith has determined that the state of Israel is another "forbidden perspective" and this brings one head of the monster into conflict with another, since not all lib-left progressives have broken their ties with Israel.

God yes, but Israel, not yet. Not all of them.

Anyway, I sense that if Bill Whatcott has offended them, it is but a foreshadowing of offences yet to come -- and in a setting that they cannot control. Tribunal, meet the Judge.

This proves the validity of practically every legal assertion made by Ezra Levant in the past couple years. The HRCs are kangaroo "courts". When their rulings are challenged in the Courts, they are found completely wanting. The sooner we abolish S13, the better.

Interesting analysis and likely bang on.

The HRC's are an unlegistlated way in which the unelected elites have to enforce their PC ideology.

The point is, that if a genuine court, following the rule of law and the constitution, argues that these HRC tribunals have violated both the law and the charter - then - why are these HRC tribunals allowed to exist?

So nice that the good Judges found in Bill Whatcott's favor, but what about his expenses and precious time. The HRC's have won. Bill has been punished. End of story.

As Steyn says, "the process is the punishment".

Rob's commentary goes on to question the role of politicians and why it is that the courts have to do their job for them. Indeed!

Thanks to the HRC Mr. Whatacott now has a practical understanding of financial sodomy. Bummer.

Rob Breakenridge asks "What will it take for (politicians) to act?"

It would take a CHRC prosecution of a highly popular view -- and that's not going to happen. Whenever the CHRC has gone after someone for something he's said or written (as opposed to, say, going after some restaurant owner who doesn't want some goof smoking pot in his doorway) the speech in question always promotes a socially proscribed view that no politician would ever want to associate himself with.

It's a problem because far, far too many people - I've met more than a few of them - are daftly, frustratingly incapable of understanding that if you are in favour of free speech it means you are also in favour of the right of someone with an opinion you don't like. These people are all in favour of free speech in some generic or theoretical sense, and would probably agree with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Judge's statement that "anything that limits debate on the morality of behaviour is an intrusion on the right of freedom of expression," but they don't support it when it actually counts; when someone says something that could be construed as racist or sexist, or homophobic, they - almost unknowingly - toss the speech issue out of the window, and dumbly, reflexively focus on the offensiveness of the speech. It's kind of a "yeah, I'm all for free speech, but that guy is (stupid/racist/homophobic)..."

Until more people understand that support for the right to free speech means that you support the right to speech of people whose opinions you find offensive, we're not going to see a politician putting himself in a position where it looks like he's standing up for, say, the rights of an anti-homosexuality campaigner. I'm just being realistic here.

That's exactly it EBD. Politicians, through the public school system, have dumbed down the population to such an extent that principals (sic) are just not grasped and there seem to be no geniune statesmen today who can rise above the sentimental muck, to say things like, "I hate what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". Why, it sounds downright corny in the contemporary milieu, sorta like "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do ...".

The operating principal (sic) today is: feelings must not be hurt. We live in a therapeutic, lilliputian age, and our political elites are all social workers and grief counsellors.

Once they have been ruled against, can someone not sue the HRCs for their malicious and illegal behaviour?

This is a portion of a transcript of a North Korean defector regarding speech. Draw your own conclusions:

http://english.nkradio.org/news/97

Q: Is there any legal evidence for ‘speech revolt’ as a crime?

A: Because people can’t be prosecuted for saying the wrong things, they are sent to the prison camps. If there is a legal problem, they are sent to a re-educational facility. There are no court procedures. If a security agent arbitrarily decides that an individual is guilty of treason, the verdict stands. There can be no clause that can be used as legal evidence.

why are these HRC tribunals allowed to exist?

Free speech isn't the only issue.
Some people are directly discriminated against in, for instance, the labour market or rental accommodation and can't afford the outrageously expensive lawsuits to fight their cases against a well heeled employer or landlord.

That said, I think the HRCs should be stripped of the ability to rule on and impose penalties on speech itself.

They got into the censorship business 'cos there really isn't much to do in the employment and rental discrimination business. Mission creep.

This is perhaps not the time to make the libertarian argument that one should also be free to discriminate on whatever basis he/she wishes to, including race and sexual orientation based on a robust understanding of property rights and freedom of association.

As Murray Rothbard points out in his brilliant The Ethics of Liberty "freedom of speech" is merely a subset of property rights, properly understood, i.e., including self-ownership.

Oz,

I hold the unpopular view that in cases of jobs and housing, "discrimination" is what the "victim" and his enablers call the employer's/landlord's understandable desire to protect his investment.

Private property hasn't existed since the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the US. As Goldwater said at the time (and paid for it for the rest of his life), it all sounds very noble to force a Woolworth's lunch counter serve black students pulling a stunt to make a point, but one day those good intentions would have unforeseen (except by him) consequences.

The HRCs are one of those consequences.

If I cannot decide who I want to hire/rent to -- even if my reasons are bigoted and "irrational" (cough) -- that should be my right. Once we lose the right to dispose of our property as we see fit, we head down the slippery slope. (See what Me No Dhimmi wrote above)

that's why we have a Canadian printer being fined for refusing to do a job for troublemaking gay activists or the attempted hijacking of Canada's oldest magazine by troublemaking Muslims (note any pattern?)

That such events occur beyond the realms of a satirical novel should shame us all.

But hey, it's Roll Up The Rim time again, so Canadians are otherwise occupied.

That HRC's still exist after these court rulings is a travesty and hopefully when Mark Lemire's case comes to court (the HRC appealing the ruling made by one of its kangaroo courts that S13 was unconstitutional) we'll have the bureaucratic equivalent of a stake through the heart of a vampire.

One of the things I've found about homosexuals is that they don't want people to know the truth about homosexuality and hence their reliance on HRC's as their censors. Male homosexual relationships are extremely unstable and I suspect that the main sponsors of the homosexual marriage bills were family law lawyers salivating at the prospect of a huge amount of new business. In all the years I practiced in Vancouver I can recall only one long-term stable male homosexual relationship and a few quasi-stable ones (2 years was the longest I think). Lesbian relationships appear to be more stable and seem to be about as stable as heterosexual relationships today.

One association with homosexuality is at least a 2X higher chance of having bipolar disorder or other mood disorders. I've seen men who, if I described their symptoms to another physician omitting the sex of the patient, would probably result in a diagnosis of PMS being rendered. Generally people who experience problems as a result of their mood disorder are much more likely to blame these problems on external factors rather than looking inward (insight is usually non-existent in a lot of people with mood disorders).

I find that whenever some "disadvantaged" group needs to rely on the statist oppressive powers of the HRC or KGB to deal with "hatefull speech" there is probably some truth in that speech that that "disadvantaged group" thinks must be hidden at all costs. The extreme promiscuity of male homosexuals as exemplified in the ads taken from homosexual publications is likely their dirty little secret. I've had HIV+ patients tell me of having unprotected sex in Vancouver bathhouses knowing full well they were HIV+ but it wasn't their fault, it was their "sex addiction" and they were going to look into treatment RSN. The fact that those bathhouses exist in violation of the Canadian Criminal code is quite interesting.

It doesn't take a genius to infer that the primary check on male promiscuity is a female partner. Males have genetic programming to be promiscuous and females are pre-programmed to seek stable relationships. What happens usually in heterosexual relationships is that the female provides enough of an incentive to compel monogamy in the male partner. In male-male relationships, there are no checks and it's the equivalent of putting a couple of ounces of pure cocaine in front of a bipolar. HIV, which spreads sufficiently slowly in heterosexual populations that it can be ignored in Canada at this time, spreads explosively among male homosexuals. One of the reasons is that there aren't many heterosexuals who have 100+ sexual partners/year. Lesbian couples appear to benefit from the stability inducing effects of being female but the same higher incidence of mood disorders holds here.

I'm sure that my comments about higher mood disorder incidence in homosexuals could be the target of an HRC probe even though they represent findings from the medical literature. Right now downtown Vancouver is a homosexual paradise and I can't think of any other place in Canada where homosexuality is so acceptable. Yet, despite all this I would have homosexual patients tell me about how they were being discriminated against and how much they were affected by "hatefull comments". They had absolutely no insight into the fact that the primary problem they were feeling so rotten was because they were depressed and the reason they were depressed was because they did a bunch of stupid impulsive things when they were in the up phase of their bipolar illness and didn't want a mood stabilizer then (as it would prevent them from having a good time) and they didn't want an antidepressant/mood stabilizer combo in their depressed phase because the way they felt was because of "society discriminating against me". Needless to say I don't have to deal with this population where I currently practice.

I'm sure there is probably far more negative feeling against homosexuals given that they now have special legal status as an easily offended group than when they were treated the same as everyone else. Most people are aware that homosexuality has been around as long as primates have existed and don't really care what people do in private as long as they take responsibility for the consequences. People do get a bit upset when they are legally forbidden to comment on the social consequences of an easily offended groups private activities.

EBD at March 3, 2010 4:07 PM

Until more people understand that support for the right to free speech means that you support the right to speech of people whose opinions you find offensive, we're not going to see a politician putting himself in a position where it looks like he's standing up for, say, the rights of an anti-homosexuality campaigner. I'm just being realistic here.

Well said

George Jonas: "Freedom's pandlers".

Make no mistake, I'm happy with the result. I'm only unhappy with the judges' reason for reaching it. They didn't allow the appeal because they found that Canada is a free country. They allowed it because they found that Canadians can't read.. [Me: LOL!]

The Saskatchewan Appeal Court didn't actually add insult to injury, only replaced injury with insult. It twisted what it didn't dare to confront. The judges didn't exonerate Whatcott on the basis that the state has no business telling people who to ridicule and belittle in a free society. No. After much hairsplitting and parsing, the judges exonerated Whatcott on the basis that he didn't really ridicule, belittle and affront.

Which is nonsense. Whatcott affronted and belittled, not entirely inaccurately some might say, but rudely, crudely, nastily and immoderately.
So what? Doing so was his human right for which he should have to answer to no one.

I think the law that snared Whatcott shouldn't be on the books. I think the Human Rights Commission that convened the tribunal that found Whatcott in breach of the Code shouldn't exist. I think the Code shouldn't exist in the first place.

Not being exposed to hatred, ridicule, belittlement and effrontery isn't a human right. It's a human ambition.

Well said loki and EBD. Did you know that the incidences of domestic violence in same gender unions(the latest PC term)is at least double, possibly even higher (if memory serves me correctly)than the incidences of domestic vilence in heterosexual relationships, yet you will never hear this in the msm. But talk to any police officer or 911 operator and they will tell you this is absolutely true.

Also, domestic violence between lesbian couples accounts for the apparent steep `rise`in violence committed by women over the last twenty years. I will try to find some stats for you all, but they are hard to come by. I learned this information from resource materials while enrolled in the social worker program at the university.

No-One at March 3, 2010 7:06 PM

Of course the violence is higher in those demographics. The whole homo/queer culture is based in lust/dominance, ownership of another. I have worked in many same-sex homes and the cards and notes and personal correspondence is based in a deep sense of insecurity and has a real clutchy-grabby feel to it.

Stuff said like "really need you here" "you're one an only". Nothing wrong in the words, but the context is one of distrust and trying to corral and making sure the boundaries are staked and they had better not be crossed. When the trust is broken and the attraction factor is based on purely physical gratification, then the whole relationship is on shaky ground. The violence follows with the intense feelings of abandonment and rejection.

Excellent post loki. Thanks!

We've strayed off topic here, I think.
The issue is "free speech" not the gay lifestyle or agenda.

True Me No Dhimmi, yes the article is about free speech, however, it is also true the two cases used as examples in the article were cases in which the HRC "persecuted" and "punished through process" anyone who did speak out about the homosexual lifestyle. In one case, the HRC demanded that a Minister be banned from giving sermons on homosexuality - utterly ludicrous. That is like asking someone to deny their faith and force them to conform to state authorized beliefs. The HRC would charge God with discrimination and incitement of hate toward the homosexual lifestyle and ban the bible if they could, and I would go even further and say that, in my view, there is a great deal of evidence that this is exactly what they are trying to do.

"Must our judges be our last bastion of sanity? Our politicians have the power to prevent all of this in the first place. What will it take for them to act?"

As long as politicians, unlike judges,are elected to office, there is little chance they will act on the HRC's. I suspect the HRC's are peopled by a lot of patronage appointments,so they can't justify removing the hacks they've put in place.

btw,thanks for that post,loki.

I hold the unpopular view that in cases of jobs and housing, "discrimination" is what the "victim" and his enablers call the employer's/landlord's understandable desire to protect his investment.
~Kathy Shaidle

I have to agree with that, Kathy.
The employer/landlord should have the freedom to hire/serve/rent to anyone for any reason.

You've convinced me.
Scrap the human rights commissions.

ET, excellent question. I continue to be amazed by the inaction of the government concerning this Stalinist tribunals or communist re-education chambers. Actually inaction is incorrect, since I have noted how the government has condoned and made possible the appeal of some of these real court rulings.

The one and only acceptable solution is the total elimination of every single HRC after revoking the HR Act.

politicians are in a constant phase of writing their CV's, or would you, a popularity page, so's that they can be re-elected. With 4 parties to split the vote, and dozens of special interest groups to consider, "middle ground" is the only political survival path, and that's what we are getting. We need a change in our political system so that there is goverance, rather then survival tactics, and then we may see some actual movement on some of these HOT topics, like the HRC's, CBC funding, cap & trade, political party funding, etc, etc,

Supporting free speech can be very difficult, sometimes. I've met Stephen Boissoin, and believe me, he's one of those people you'd really like to throw a muzzle onto. He doesn't have a good word to say about Ezra Levant, the man who campaigned, endlessly, on his behalf. He insists his case had nothing to do with free speech. He sees it as a fight between good, and evil, namely straight vs gay.

I'm sure this fact would not deter Ezra from supporting him, and I guess it shouldn't. You take the bad with the good, if you believe in free speech. Not many Canadians have a full grasp of the complexities of genuine free speech. When it's combined with other aspects of a society like the US, it can be a very rough ride.

I think, if you quizzed Canadians on their definition of free speech, most of them would draw a line somewhere short of the American standard. I like the American concept, and hope it survives. The Canadian version was never pure free speech, and will continue to be eroded.

As an afterthought, I don't believe free speech ever has, or ever will, be possible in a monarchy. Monarchs can never accept criticism. They do not rule by popular vote, they rule by force. However benevolent a monarch appears to be, it's strictly facade. Ever heard of a king stepping down, because someone asked him nicely?

Thanks to those who have confirmed my observations on relationship violence in homosexual couples. I assume it isn't confined to Vancouver.

I agree with EBD that free speech should have the same protection that it has in the US. Unfortunately, as dp points out, there is no history of unfettered free speech in Canada. Ernst Zundel has a web site in the US which enjoys 1st ammendment protection but he was held as a political prisoner in Canada (and just got out of jail after 5 years in Germany). That Ernst Zundel gets to spend more time in solitary confinement than the total time many murderers spend in jail in this country tells us a lot about the value politicians in Canada give to the free expression of unpopular ideas.

Free speech is messy and I'm sure a lot of the people that get hauled up before HRC's are cranks. The best policy I've found to deal with such people is to ignore them. There are a lot of people in this country who are expressing views with which I completely disagree but, as long as they're not engaged in violence to promote their views, they have a right to them.

The one thing that had never occurred to my libertarian conciousness pre-2001 was that it might be necessary to take pre-emptive action against malignant memes. Islamic fundamentalism is the one exception I might make in terms of limiting free speech (still thinking about what to do about this situation as I don't want to fall into the child-porn trap). It's also very curious that anti-semitic speech from islamic fundamentalists has never been the subject of an HRC investigation. Even individuals who were plotting to blow up the parliament buildings and behead the prime minister have gotten far less jail time (when they got it) than Ernst Zundel.

The way that governments sneak in totalitarian legislation is to make something that very few people support illegal. This then opens the gate for greater powers for police and easier criminalization of inconvenient (for the government) speech. Case in point is the laws against child pornography which exist even in the US (no-ones taken this law to Supreme court yet on 1st ammendment grounds). Ask any person about what they think of pedophiles and only the bleeding heart liberals are in favor of lenient treatments such as castration, preferably without anesthetic. I've heard people who are opposed to capital punishment think that an exception should be made for pedophiles.

With such a low public opinion of pedophiles there wasn't much opposition to a law which made even simple posession of child pornography illegal. This, coincidentally (and I suspect this was the whole point of passing this legislation) gave the state the right to search anyones computer looking for child pornography and the anti-child porn law was what statists needed to begin to reign in the internet which was threatening the established order (ie the rule of self-designated elites). It also allows the state to arrest 15 year olds that think it would be neat to use their cell phone cameras to take pictures of themselves having sex.

I'm hoping that the public revulsion at the perversity of HRC's will be so great that we might get something close to free speech in this country. Ezra Levant has been instrumental in the "deconstruction" of HRC's but don't look for the politicians to do it as the only way that statist politicians will give up powers is if they're pried from their cold dead hands.

Fear of free speech reveals a profoundly neurotic dysfunctional society or ideology.