Is this true? Not a troll or a prank?

A victory for common sense? For liberty?

Just trying to digest all this.... too often these situations are not what they seem, but it looks promising.

Thanks to Ezra , and others denormalizing the CRHC conduct , the CRHC is now in self-preservation mode.

I believe the CRHC is trying to short-circuit a detailed audit of their inner workings , by offering to dump Section 13 , in the hopes that they can quietly go back to business as usual , harassing those who cannot fight back.

After Section 13 is scrapped , the issue of truth , rules of evidence , and the costs to those accused must be addressed next.

"It is for this reason that my principal recommendation is that section 13 of the CHRA be repealed."

And then goes on recommending additional mush, an opening for the determined supporters of the corrupt HRC's status quo.

Somehow I have a problem ever seeing this high profile part of the CHRA being repealed or taken away. To much power at stake, we'll see I guess.

"I believe the CRHC is trying to short-circuit a detailed audit of their inner workings , by offering to dump Section 13 "

That may be, but this report just laid bare their throat. Should attention be shifted away by the abolition of Sec.13, it will simply shift towards the provincial bodies, and the ridiculous complaints accpeted from dope addicts and aging pole dancers.

Newspapers and news magazines should seek to revitalize the provincial/regional press councils and ensure that identifiable groups are able to pursue complaints if they feel they have been unfairly represented in mainstream media.

If this does not happen, consideration should be given to the statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership. This national press council would have the authority to determine whether a newspaper or magazine has breached professional standards and order the publication of the press council’s decision.

A newspaper is not simply a private participant in public discourse; it is an important part of the public sphere where discussions about the affairs of the community takes place. As such it carries a responsibility to portray the different groups that make up the Canadian community fairly and without discrimination.

I wouldn't get too happy, too soon, folks. It looks to me from this like the CHRC will just be changed into a press watchdog with the same, or worse, loose standards for judging "hate" with the usual suspects making and "investigating" the hateful comments. None of which would be subject to the usual rule of law, just like the current CHRC.

Does anyone here believe that Steyn and Maclean's wouldn't be convicted before a body like this?

And will blogs be covered by the Press Council?

This report is something that one has to be careful what they ask for. Aside from the Sec 13 call, look at these:

- We must develop ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes the members of an identifiable group and to hold institutions such as the media accountable when they engage in these forms of discriminatory expression - like what? New bureaucracies?

- Because these less extreme forms of discriminatory expression are so commonplace, it is impossible to establish clear and effective rules for their identification and exclusion. But because they are so pervasive, it is also vital that they be addressed or confronted - How exactly?

I've only got a few pages in, and the motherhood crap above is from the general summary - but honestly, these are bureaurats building domains for other bureaurats. One way or the other, the HRC's are going to remain the same size, and keep their busy hands busy fretting about something.

When you build a bureaucracy, you need to feed the machine.

The problem isn't the HRC's per se, it is this statist servile mindset of Canadians that drive the metastasizing civil service.

Politicians need the bureaucracy as much as bureaucracies need the politicians.

FWIW, a welcome surprise.

4(b) "The principal recommendation of this report is that section 13 be repealed so that the censorship of Internet hate speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law."

That would be nice. Truth would be a defense, the accused would have access to all information used by the prosecutors (nee persecutors) and the burden of proof would have to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt"-standard rather than "on a balance of probabilities." The threshold of prosecution would rise to a saner level.

If you squint when reading the Moon Report, you can see Ezra's face between the lines.

If there is no devil in the details, one immediate and obvious conclusion is that this report should enable even a minority government and Parliament to take the necessary steps, no?

I just KNEW it was Kinsella who claimed that the Moon Report was a Nazi thing. It's soooo his thing to suggest that critics of his radical ideology are "Nazis". Anything inconvenient to the Liberal Fascist agenda can't possibly come from ordinary folks who care about human rights; it must come from Nazis, the Special K seems to believe...

What do you expect from someone who appears to be constantly obsessed with imaginary Nazis? It seems to me that whenever someone issues criticism against him based on his own words and/or behavior, he thinks they're Nazis...

Oh, excuse me... the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy have come to discuss a business deal with me, so I must sign off...

Hi, Mr. Bunny! Mr, Fairy! C'mon in! Coffee? Oh, I see you brought Barney the Dinosaur along... Hi, Barney! C'mon in, too!

I'd be cautious about this. Moon has, I think, offered two options, but in such a manner that it has entrapped the 'authorities' into accepting only one of them.

The first option is to scrap Section 13.1 completely. Many of us would prefer this. But, Moon and his boss, the CHRC, and Jennifer Lynch, who oversaw his report (it had to be vetted first by her and the CHRC before it was released) are setting us up for the second option.

Moon refers to hate speech as being controllable by the state only if it advocates violence; that is already in the Criminal Code under Section 319. So, why would we need another state bureaucracy when such a law already exists?
He advocates that each province establish a 'hate crime team' to police this section of the Criminal Code? Why? Is hate speech that advocates violence so endemic in Canada?

Then, he goes on to discuss the other option, if the Section 13.1 is not repealed. He says that the article should be rewritten to refer only to actual violence. But why? We already have such an article in 318 of the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, Moon is giving MORE power to this 'amended HRC. They would no longer take on cases from individual complainants. No, they'd be the complainant all by themself. The CHRC would be the Complainant! It would snoop around, investigate, and decide, on its own, who to prosecute!

Moon tells us that this would stop the 'significant burden' that currently exists on the complainant. Heh. What a joke. What burden? The CHRC pays for his lawyer to do all the work. I note that Moon says NOTHING about the significant burden on the accused.

Then, Moon wants yet another regulatory body set up, besides this new one that gives more powers of investigation and prosecution to the CHRC. He wants one for the Internet. It will also snoop around and investigate and prosecute.

And, a compulsory membership on a National press Council to oversee 'hate speech'.

I note also that Moon has a 'leftist' or socialist view of the nature of speech. He doesn't admit that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. By 'fundamental right' is meant that it is a right by the biological nature of our species; that we have the capacity for reason, thought, speech. As such, our free speech, which is linked to our capacity-to-reason, is not given to us by the state. It's not a 'social value'; it's a biological value.

But Moon doesn't say this. What does he say? He defines free speech as a social value, as a moral or POLITICAL right! No, it has nothing to do with the state. It is a natural value.

So- what's my first impression view of Moon's analysis? And remember, he was hired by the CHRC; and his mandate (see Ezra Levant's excellent analysis on this)..was subsumed under the control of the CHRC and Jennifer Lynch.

I note, by the way, that Moon says NOTHING about the accused. Who protects them?

But, from what I can see, his suggestion of Either Scrap Section 13.1 completely OR, revamp it, is the type of fake exclusionary offers, such as; Either Starve or Eat this mush.

The mush, resting on an invalid definition of freedom of speech, ie, that it is a social rather than natural value, is actually giving MORE powers to the HRC, in that it can initiate investigations; and more powers to control of speech in the press and the internet.

Remember, that Moon has reduced the definition of 'hateful speech' to one that 'threatens, advocates or justifies' violence against the members of an identifiable group. He is setting up three bodies to investigate this: the CHRC, the newspaper group, the internet group.

This is a strange recommendation, because it essentially duplicates Section 319 of the criminal code. BUT, Moon's new CHRC allows no defense! The criminal code allows the defense of truth, debate, public interest etc. Moon doesn't seem to offer any defense. Perhaps it's there further on in his text.

So - if an internet blog was discussing the advocation of violence by a particular religious group and its texts - could the New CHRC jump in and shut it down as 'possibly' advocating a reactionary violence against these people?

So, why is Moon not merely duplicating but in a nefarious way, the operations of Section 318 of the Criminal Code? Why is he setting up not one but three Big Brothers?

Mark Steyn is "moonstruck." That's good enough for me.

Er... scratch the first sentence in my earlier comment... I misread something...

I'd love to see Section 13 repealed, but share ET and others' suspicions.

I am especially disturbed by the vaguely Marxist notion that a newspaper/magazine is more like a "public utility" than a privately owned enterprise, and can be pressured into "serving the public good".

I don't see how the complaints against Ezra and Steyn would have proceeded any differently if that recommendation had been in place.

There are several ducks lined up on this issue now:

1) a free member's bill from Mr. Martin
2) the Moon report
3) the resolution passed in the CPC convention
4) a general agreement in the Canadian press that 13.1 is a problem, along with support from groups like EGALE and PEN
5) And, arguably, a nation that is not going to be distracted by things like this - the economy is the main issue front and centre and will be in the foreseeable future.

If Harper cannot somehow get this problem solved now, he is not deserving of the Conservative leadership.

Good for CHRC for asking for second opinion on section 13 of CHRA; however, the tacit requirment to beef up Criminal Code is somewhat troubling, especially the recommendation for "Hate Crime Teams."

How deliciously Gestapoian! IMO, CCC is well constructed. We must eliminate/punish/deter criminal behaviour based on hate. The bar has to be set high. Real harm or potentiality must be clear and while not necessarily imminent, present actual physical danger, not perceived fear or outrage.

Replacing the pertinent Section 13 with Hate Crime Teams, presumably funded like Organized Crime Teams and Crystal Meth Teams, sound Orwellian and expensive, while lacking social efficacy.

I've read further in Moon's report; he doesn't, so far, have any support for the defendant. He even notes that 'truth is not a defense' as it is in Section 319 of the Criminal Code. Why not?

Because, Moon says, that 'hate speech is necessarily untrue'. Hmm. That requires a definition of 'hate speech'. What's the definition? Speech that is intended to promote violence against an identifiable group.

He explicitly says that the Criminal Code's 'burden of proof' is too high and therefore, suggests these three new Big Brother bureaucracies as a better option. Please note again, that his definition of freedom of speech puts it firmly within the control of the state rather than the individual, for he defines it as a social rather than natural value.

There is no defense in Moon's set-up. The only criterion is an 'intention' to cause violence against an identifiable group - and that violence is not actual but 'possible or likely'.

Moon has removed the term 'contempt' from Section 13 (exposed to hatred or contempt); he's removed the term 'likely to expose' and focused instead on an 'intention to cause violence'...with the violence 'possible or likely'.

So what is different? The interpretation of the speech as 'possibly or likely' to cause violence remains...with the CHRC.
The need for the CHRC to wait for a complainant is gone; the CHR bureaucrats can happily snuffle around on their own.

There is still, no defense. Not truth - for Moon declares that hate speech is, by definition, always untrue. And hate speech, is an speech that not merely advocates but even JUSTIFIES violence against an identifiable group.

No defense. Not debate. Not analysis. No defense.
Because if you are debating the textual references to violence in X-religious texts or X-speeches, then, the CHRC might interpret this to mean that your debates 'justify' violence.

Section 319 provides for debate and the public interest as a justifiable debate.

Moon's interpretation of 'hate speech' rejects any defense.

Furthermore, he's increasing the Big Brother bureaucracies - one over any and all; the other over the press; the other over the internet.

Does anyone else see his report this way? I think it's written for and by the HRC and Lynch and their expanding Big Brother role. Why do we need Moon's Laws - when we have the Criminal Code? Moon admits that the 319 Law is rarely used; is that a sigh I hear from him? Is that why he's setting up these new watchdogs that require no burden of proof, no truth defense, and no complainant?

I find very little comfort in the mushy verbiage of the Moon Report.

Given the source of the report and the manner of its commission and release, why would anyone doubt that it’s simply a ploy with eventual purpose antithetic to the causes of free speech and natural justice?

The thing that people seem to miss regarding freedom of speech is that if all speech is truly free, those who do say politically incorrect things will be overshadowed by people of goodwill. You cannot legislate an emotion.

In the U.S., the Nazi party is completely legal. They have meetings, marches and newsletters and can spout their vitriol all they want. They haven't done any damage at all because no one really wants to listen. But, try to suppress their speech and they will begin to attract large numbers of supporters who also feel threatened by the suppression of speech.

The plain and simple fact is that there are some people who are hateful. They just hate. Well, guess what guys, they are citizens too. As long as they don't commit any crimes, they are as entitled as anyone else to speak and to write. And, if there are others of like mind, they can listen, read and speak too.

The labeling of some crimes as "hate" crimes is absurd. A crime is a crime, most criminals are more prone to hatred than law abiding citizens. It is a redundant waste of time.

As long as someone is trying to regulate speech and thought, we are in danger. Hatred is not contaigious and is no danger. Violence is dangerous regardless of the motivation, and is therefore illegal.

All efforts to inhibit free speech are efforts to destroy our freedom. It is truly as simple as that.

Best regards,
Gail S

So much for the recommendations at the federal level. Remember, this does not influence the operations of the various provincial HRCs.
Perhaps it will have some impact on their modus operandi but they are still free and clear to continue their nasty business.

Moon Review,

Wider than a mile,

It made young Ezra smile

today ...

Cause Moon Review,

was not what you

might think it would be if you're

in a Lynch mob ...

Ezra Levant comments.

The "Cover your MOON" report, still allows modification of S.13 rather than outright repeal.

The real objective would be to repeal S.13 and its provincial equivalents.

Real hate speech is covered in S.318 and S.319 of the Criminal Code so one doesn't need "Hate Speech Teams" to police what is already policed.

Besides it is Parliaments choice to make recommendations not some usurper at the bureaucrat level. Reportedly, the bureaucrats are answerable to Parliament; not the other way around, as Ms. Lynch and her like minded fellow travelers.

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North

The CHRC press release is, as Levant and others suggest, hilarious and/or Orwellian.

"(T)his report is the first step in a comprehensive policy review initiated by the CHRC..."

Oh, and at the very end, something about "revisions?"
"'Professor Moon points to the Criminal Code and revisions to s. 13. Those are legitimate suggestions. Now what is important is that Canadians have their say.'"

Heh.

Re: UPDATE: The CHRC is already in full damage control mode - "Lynch is already trying to throw Moon under the bus."

Suggested cut-to-the-chase quote for CHRC Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. to use:

"This was not the Professor Moon I knew."

If Harper is the political chess minded player he is touted to be, he ought to put his mind to this bloody disaster which the HRC's have become, and have put Canada in the same freedom of speech zone as Cameroon or Zimbabwe.
On the other hand, if you are a LIBERAL and claim Harper has a hidden agenda, then of course he would let the corrupt bastards at all HRC's stand, and down the road he could silence his critics quite legally with the HRC's, eh?

Just a thought from a free speecher in ontariario!

Moon just got lynched!!

I do hereby unequivocally advocate violence against child molesters, rapists, murderers, tyrants, Al Qaida, the Taliban and bullies of all kinds.

Violence can be used for good, too.

Thanks for reading the Moonie crap. Clearly I don't need to.
Fascinating to see that the desired outcome will be MORE not less HRC power.

As to Kathy's remark about the marxist aspect of media outlets being a public utility, this is exactly the route that Obama intends to pursue in the US.
Intially, free speechers will breathe a sigh of relief in learning that the "fairness doctrine" will not be re-activated. Not so fast. What is coming is something already tagged with an 'ism": LOCALISM: the insinuation of "community" groups onto radio and TV boards to provide input on what the "community needs" with special attention to groups that are, wait for it, "under-served", and with the Damocles sword of licence renewal hanging overhead.

Think about it: this is exactly the Alinsky approach used against the banks, e.g., Citibank, which Obama sued on behalf of the "underserved".
This is the plan for the silencing of conservative talk radio.

Finally, let's remember that all our western political elites have sold off our heritage to the third world in order to bring in more warm bodies to support the ponzi scheme of social security pensions et al.
These HRCs are a form of crowd control.

If you go to the site of the report, you can enter an official comment. How great would it be if a massive number of people commented?

Oh please! This is a classic bureaucratic "ink cloud" that will require "careful, detailed, study" before "important decisions are made and implemented".

In the meantime there will be a request "that everyone defer all questions pending the outcome of consultations with stakeholders", ignore the commissar behind the curtain, and go back to sleep.

Kyla: If you go to the site of the report, you can enter an official comment. How great would it be if a massive number of people commented?

____________________________

Agreed. I have left my comment. Recommend others do same, but please keep it civil.

david fenske - exactly right.

Moon, who is obviously a 'left', a socialist, has effectively rejected the reality of the existence of evil. All hate speech, he declares is by definition, untrue. So, a speech that I give denouncing terrorism, is, by Moon's definition, untrue and a 'hate crime'.

To whom will these new bureaucracies be accountable? They no longer rely on an actual complaint; they can, in Moon's world, go snooping around on their own. They make their decisions on their own; they are unelected, unaccountable.

What's to stop them carrying out a vendetta against a blog, a newspaper, a radio program?

And is all hate - invalid? Untrue? Is it wrong to hate the terrorist, the genocidal killers, the child molesters? Is it wrong to speak against such actions? According to Moon, all hate speech is, by definition, untrue. Unbelievable.

That 'study' of Moon's first set up an invalid Either-Or situation: either dump section 13, or..set up new bureaucracies with more powers. He spent almost no time on the first option and detailed the second over many pages. It is obvious which one he is promoting.

And that's why Lynch is spending no time on the first option - removing Section 13. Remember, Moon's report had to go FIRST to her; it was vetted by her. This report is what SHE and the HRC want. It's set up so that the first option, which is given almost no weight or focus in Moon's report, is rapidly rejected, with the focus on the second option - increasing the scope of the HRCs.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with Ezra, who thinks that Moon's recommendations go against Lynch's desires. I read Lynch's comments; she's setting up the scenario for the left and the liberals to support option 2.

Again, I think it's a setup. I think they set it up with a false either-or framework, where the first option is trivialized and rapidly discarded and the focus is on the second option. Note that there are no further options outlined in this fallacious either-or scenario.

So, get rid of the first one (cut section 13) and you are left to focus on the other option, which frees the HRC from any restraints imposed by reality, ie, by actual complainers coming in to complain, and sets them up as Big Brother censors.

And, there's no defense. No defense. There's in invalid definition of freedom of speech, as a political rather than natural right; there's an invalid definition of 'hate speech' (as untruth); there's a future-oriented scenario set up (where the speech 'justifies' potential violence); and there are three bureaucracies, all unaccountable, set up to oversee our speech, our newspapers, our internet.

It's exactly what Lynch et al want.

Tell me - what am I missing. I respect Ezra.

Regarding my comment at 11:58, this update doesn't surprise me in the least, just a little quicker that I thought. Haven't read all the goings on about this but there isn't a simple servant alive that would let this kind of power slip through their fingers. The more I see of this kind of crap the more I think that maybe a little violence isn't such a bad thing after all, might just wake somebody up.

so now will all those people who had their feelings hurt and got the CHRC to ruin someone's life now be charges with Abuse of Process ?

Can any of the CHRC Sec 13 victims now sue Lynch an the rest of CHRC corruption for having their lives destroyed ?

Wonder how much money we could save in these tough economic time by just firing every last useless staffer at the CHRC, bolting the door and getting by without their meddling in citizen's lives ?

I agree with ET. Moon's report is a snowjob crafted to give us a false feeling of security. Uber-leftist Dr. Dawg is already trumpeting that the report is a victory for his anti- free speech crowd.

I agree with ET. Moon's report is a snowjob crafted to give us a false feeling of security. Uber-leftist Dr. Dawg is already trumpeting that the report is a victory for his anti- free speech crowd.

Whatever happened to Tort Law?

The most important point to take away from this is that government and its' attendant bureaucracies are the true enemies of freedom and liberty.

There will always be Lynch's and Warman's in this world.

What is wrong is giving them loads of money and force of law to prosecute their extreme ideologies. And that means smaller government, not larger.

Whether the gun registry, the CWB, CRTC, CBC, plus many, many, many more - there is a straight line between government, and oppression.

Conservatives recognize this.

The most important point to take away from this is that government and its' attendant bureaucracies are the true enemies of freedom and liberty.

What is wrong is giving them loads of money and force of law to prosecute their ideologies. And that means smaller government, not larger.

Whether the gun registry, the CWB, CRTC, CBC, plus many, many, many more - there is a straight line between government, and oppression.

Conservatives recognize this.

I largely agree with you, ET, but the report's principle recommendation (regardless at this point of whether or not it's implemented) that section 13 be repealed is a real step towards denormalization. Let's not forget that it wasn't very long ago that those who wanted to demolish the "Canadian Human Rights" bureaucracy were almost entirely treated as Nazis and hate-mongerers and/or followers of same. Thanks to sterling work by many bloggers, with Ezra at the head of the charge, far fewer people see it that way any more, and those who do are typically demolished on comment threads even at the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

This fight is being won in small increments whcih keep adding up, and the fact that the report -- with it's principle recommendation to repeal section 13 and move prosecutions to criminal courts was commissioned by the CHRC, is clearly a sign that progress is being made. There are lots of problems with the report, for the reasons you mention and then some, and I share -- deeply -- your suspicions, but again, let's not forget that the main recommendation mirrors what Ezra and Kate and you and I have been calling for for a long time, and that, if implemented, it would move hate speech prosecutions into legitimate justice system where 1) truth is a defense (you couldn't be prosecuted for, say, accurately quoting an Imam), 2) the accused would be privy to all information gathered during investigation, 3) the complainant could certainly not loiter side-by-side with the prosecutors sifting through and possibly excising key information. In short, making hate speech a purely criminal matter would instantly obviate a great many of the worst injustices perpetrated by the section 13 goon-squad.

The battle is not close to being over, of course, and I agree with you that the series of proposals that are tacked-on as alternatives to the main recommendation are highly problematic, not just in what they suggest but also because, as you mentioned, they may well be being posited as "reasonable" or "alternatives" or as some kind of "compromise" when in fact they are Trojan horses.

When Moon writes "If implemented, (these alternative proposals would) reshape section 13 so that it more closely resembles a criminal restriction on hate speech" he is blithely stepping over a hard line, envisioning increased powers wherein the HRTs are entitled to act as a de facto legitimate partner to our legitimate legal system. It's telling, in a way, and it suggests that they've had too much power for too long and that it's gotten to the point where they don't know where parliament/the courts stop, and they start.

It is just a report, and, as Ezra notes, it's evident that Lynch is clearly not pleased with it, inasmuch as she didn't even mention the report's principle recommendation, saying instead "Professor Moon points to the Criminal Code..." (oooh, more power to her ilk, in that he mentioned "reshaping" s.13 to more closely resemble (i.e. to appropriate) the powers of the legit system) ".... and revisions to s. 13."

Among the revisions Lynch is clearly most excited about and...amicable to, and to the excision of the main thrust, is "Section 13 should also be amended to included an intention requirement. A requirement that the communicator intended to threaten, advocate or justify violent action against the members of an identifiable group, or recognized that her or his communication would reasonably be understood by its audience as threatening, advocating or justifying violence, would reinforce the section's focus on extreme expression. The relevant intention would relate to her/his conduct (i.e., his/her expression), and not to the possibility or likelihood that violence would result from her/his expression."

In other words, she's stumping already to resurrect the most egregious sticking point of the last several years: *intention.* "What was your intention in publishing the cartoons...."

Other suggested alternative proposals, too, take us back to square one. When Moon writes "In my view, a truth defense is not required because hate speech is necessarily untrue," his logic is circular and pretty much arbitrary; it suggests that if you say something true -- i.e. verifiable -- but some bureaucrat deems it hate speech, that truth is now "untrue" -- truth now determined by bureaucratic dictum. Also, he mentions (agrees with a cited source) that "individuals may well be deserving of hatred and contempt, but that is always based on what they as individuals, do...but hate...assigns blame...not to individuals but to one or more identifiable groups that individuals may belong to." At a cursory glance, it's true -- one shouldn't blame the blameless for beliefs/actions they personally don't hold -- but it's also entirely true that groups (the Weathermen, neo-nazis) may be accurately described as entirely volitional collectives comprised of individuals with shared beliefs. So if, as Moon suggests, one person may legitimately "be deserving of hatred and contempt," then there's even more reason -- assuming a threat to others -- to examine and hold to task and criticize the collective who promotes those same views as the hateful/contemptible individual, to task.

"Hate speech is necessarily untrue."

Imagine being paid to think about things 24/7/365 and coming up with that as your best approximation of reality.

What if we hate child pornography and say so. Does that make our disgust for the pornographer "untrue" -- I suppose that implies that we have no moral right to be disgusted. Or does it mean that because we do, and by the awkward transferred logic of the thought structure, this is "true," then this is not hate speech?

But truth is no defense, we are told.

In other words, we are being marked by university professors for knowing the right opinions, and the statement should read "nothing that I think is actionable, if you think differently, it may be actionable so don't say it unless you have a lawyer."

I have to wonder what this says about the avalanche of hate speech that descended on Sarah Palin from Canadian leftists -- does that mean they are acknowledging that they were in error, because all hate speech is untrue?

Or does it mean that it wasn't hate, just concern, like the concern I have about the power of militant gays to change the educational agenda, supposedly "hate speech" -- but how can it be, because clearly it is true, they can change the educational agenda.

I am afraid Professor Moon may have to go back to school, and I would suggest he use a time machine and go back about a hundred years.

If hate speech is necessarily untrue, as Moon posits,
then true speech is by definition not hate speech.

EBD: It's not true that the MAIN recommendation is the removal of section 13. As ET astutely observes it's option 1 of two options, and option 2 gets all the ink. So you've got it backwards.
Sorry man, it's not progress at all. It's bureau-speak. Seem to be reasonable, seem to acknowledge a problem (sec 13) etc., and go for "reform" making HRCs even more of a menace via the route of complaint initiation and media supervision.

I totally agree with others who describe her apparent disappointment with Moon to be a sham. She's mooning us.

Here's the deal: there's no legitimate reform of the HRCs short of shutting them down as there's no valid work for them to do as the vast majority of landlords and employers aren't stupid enough to reject good tenants or employees who happen to belong to certain favoured groups. There's no place for these commissions, period.

When government talks reform they usually mean different but MORE. Think of tax reform and how it always yields MORE tax while pretending otherwise.

It's a good day for free speech and I commend everyone in the blogosphere who did their part to make this happen.

How about "laundering" speech via offshoring? Why don't the free speechy types pay some fellow in India ten rupees a month to launder their potentially actionable material? Not much the WKs and Lucies of the world can do to an Indian citizen with an Indian website, is there? I see win-win here.

Right, it is indeed, a 'moon-job'. We, who respect freedom of speech, have been 'mooned' by Lynch and her crowd. I'll stop the metaphors. No wonder dawg is jumping with joy.

Think about it. A report, set up in a fallacious either-or framework, where you rapidly ditch the first option on about five sentences and spend the rest of the time on the only other option provided. And what does this other option contain?

Invalid definitions.
An invalid definition of freedom of speech, defining it as a social rather than natural right. I'll quote from Rex Murphy here, who said it rather well, "Human rights, the real ones, are ours from the beginning. They are not bestowed by the state, because the state does not 'own' them; they are not a state's or a ruler's or, for that matter, a human-rights commission's to give. It equally follows that they are not a state's or a commission's to abdridge, circumscribe, tamper with or make a toy of". (G&M Nov 17/08).

But Moon rejects freedom of speech as a 'fundamental right', despite it being defined as such in our Constitution. Instead, he defines it as a social, a political right. That means that the state has the right and duty to oversee it.

Moon expressly reduces the right to speak by his insistence thath it is a social action and as such, can be limited by the state if it 'causes harm to the public interest or the rights of others'. What does such an ambiguous phrase 'the public interest' and 'the rights of others' mean in practice?

Moon then defines 'hate' as, by definition, untrue. Hate speech is untrue. But is it?

Moon does remove the verbiage of 'viewed with contempt' from Sec 13, as well as the term 'is likely to', but his definition instead, of hate speech as that which 'threatens, justifies or advocates violence' is as vague as the original. Then why keep it?

Moon explicitly says that by adding 'intention' to Sec 13, and changing the focus to speech that threatens, justifies or advocates violence', that the section more closely resembles the criminal code ban, 319. But then, why have the HRC at all if we have the criminal code?

Well, the criminal code requires proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' rather than the HRC 'balance of probabilities'. We are back to making judgments based on speculations about the future rather than on 'imminent or actual acts'. So, Moon states that we need Sec 13 because the Criminal Code requirements for proof are 'too strict'.

He also chafes at the requirement for accountability by the necessity for the Att Gen to approve the case, and for police to decide to investigate. Heck, the HRCs don't need such restrictions.

Moon's requirement is that 'speech that threatens, justifies or advocates violence against an identifiable group should be proscribed whether or not violence is an immediate or likely consequence'.
The threat can be either explicit or implicit.

Again, we already have that in Section 319 of the Criminal Code. The difference is that Moon's Sec 13 requires no 'reasonable doubt' but rests on the interpretation of the HRCommissars. And there's no defense, as there is in the Criminal Code.

Moon states: 'in my view a truth defense is not required because hate speech is necessarily untrue'. Remarkable. So, to state that anyone who joins a drug gang is engaged in an agenda of the destruction of other peoples - is that a hate speech? Can a member of such a gang sue?

I note that Moon does say that religious beliefs are not immune to debate and analysis, but, how does this fit in with well-known preaching in various religious groups that advocate slaughter of all non-believers? Would the HRC prosecute them?

I remain puzzled. Why, when we have a Criminal Code Sec 319 against hate speech that advocates violence, do we need one that does the same thing but with less burden of proof and with absolutely no defense? That puzzles me. I can only conclude that such an agenda empowers the CHRC to further Big Brother activities.

"EBD: It's not true that the MAIN recommendation is the removal of section 13. As ET astutely observes it option 1 of two option, and option 2 gets all the ink. So you've got it backwards. Sorry man, it's not progress at all.." --- Me No Dhimmi

From the Report:

4(b) "The principal recommendation of this report is that section 13 be repealed so that the censorship of Internet hate speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law."

Later:

"6. Conclusion

I have taken the position in this report that the censorship of hate speech should be limited to speech that explicitly or implicitly threatens, justifies or advocates violence against the members of an identifiable group. However, the prohibition of this narrow category of extreme expression fits awkwardly in a human rights law that is concerned with the eradication of discrimination through education and conciliation. It is for this reason that my principal recommendation is that section 13 of the CHRA be repealed. The Criminal Code hate speech provisions, and in particular section 319(2) and section 320.1, offer an effective response to hate speech while respecting the public and constitutional commitment to freedom of expression. If section 13 is retained, however, I have proposed a series of amendments to the scope of the section, and the related complaint process, which are intended to make the hate speech ban fairer and more efficient."

One more quote:

"Thanks for reading the Moonie crap. Clearly I don't need to." -- Me No Dhimmi, 2:13 pm.

I did read the thing. Thanks for filling me in on what it said, though.

vitruvius - accolades and may the gods laugh and smile on you; what a perfect proposition of 'modus tollens'. Yes, yes, as you say,

IF hate speech is necessarily untrue, then
True speech is necessarily not hate speech.

The problem with the deep thinkers like professor Moon is they don't know when to stop.
Hopefully the nice people in the government won't have that problem. Get rid of section 13, let the police and courts do their thing and the rest of us will muddle along as best we can.

The good news is that the CHRC-sponsored report recommends removing section 13. The rest of the suggestions are garbage but there is no requirement for the government to implement all of the report.

In the best case, the Parliamentary report will also recommend removal of section 13 but suggest more rational alternatives like simply redirecting cases to real courts under existing guidelines. This would allow the government to implement the best of both reports - remove section 13 and discard Moon's idea of "new and improved" censorship mechanisms.

Vit: "If hate speech is necessarily untrue, as Moon posits,
then true speech is by definition not hate speech."

If hate speech is untrue, then neither can it be a hate crime.

It does sound like a Snow job and that free speech in Canada is being Lynched.

Please forgive me if I've missed it somewhere. But is anyone obligated to implement either one of Snow's recommendations? They're recommendations only, aren't they?

Can the government ignore these recommendations and simply call for a halt to the whole corrupt mess the HRCs have become and refer complaints of "hate speech" to the courts?

Exactly, ET. In fact, it's right here on p.15 of my 1964 copy of Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning, by Donald Kalish and Richard Montague (by the way, I achieved a final grade of nine out of nine in that course, in 1974, and the text cost $10.40 at the UofA bookstore ;-)

Modus Tollens: ( P => Q ) & ! Q => ! P

So, Skip, you've got it wrong (by the fallacy of confirming the consequent). Untrue speech can be a crime, indeed, it already is under section 181 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which reads: "Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

There's no obligation for anyone to implement Moon's recommendations, batb. The fight's not over, but it's begun in earnest, is one way of looking at it.

It's worth remembering that even a year ago, those who wanted to remove section 13 altogether were widely treated as neo-nazis -- give or take; today the recommendation to remove it came in a report commissioned by the CHRC.

The thought of scrapping it altogether is certainly no longer the political hot potato it once was, and that's sign of real progress. The incredible work of Ezra and others has had a huge effect. Just look at the change in tone, regarding s.13, in comments at the Toronto Star, G&M, Macleans, etc. -- the s.13 supporters who are now on the proverbial back foot. It's a big change, in a fairly short period of time. The fight's not over by any stretch, but this is a positive development -- a solid political foothold in a newly-advanced position.

Another thing that bothers me about my, albeit brief, reading of the Moon is his gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about what to do about "hate speech." He seems so locked into his bureaucratic need to control speech that he omits rebuttal, denouncement, denial and contradiction of stupid, insensitive and even sometimes hateful things people say, such as all Israelis over a certain age are fair game for attack, or hate song lyrics targetting Jesus.

If you don't like what someone says, argue against them, even call them a name if you want. Why do Moon and his ilk have to come up with governing rules, with no evidence whatsoever a speech by anyone, even David Ahenakew, has actually resulted in violence by anyone. It's beyond the pale IMO. Some feel the need to codify every aspect of our life, where we have to consult a manual of behaviour before writing or saying anything. This madness must stop, and the Moon report, sadly, will do little if anything to stop this encroachment on the freedom of all to express their opinions and thoughts, simply because others find them reprehensible.

Imagine burdening law enforcement with Hate Crime Teams, searching out obscure statements, deciding they're hateful and therefore untrue. It's utterly Orwellian, and should be totally unacceptable in our society.

If you don't like what someone says, change the channel, close the file, or use words to combat their bigotry. Courts of inquisition are not the answer to opinionated people. The systemic discrimination in CHRC rulings are reason enough to clip their wings, or ground them entirely (insert tiersome "censorship" argument here).

I agree with those whose view it is that Option 1 is nothing more than a stalking horse designed to make Option 2 the more palatable of the two to the bureaucratic mind.

But it also represents a wonderful opportunity for the Conservatives. They can simply introduce legislation to shit-can Section 13, and if any of the usual suspects commence their whinging, they can point to Moon's report, and say, "See, it's right there in black and white, in a report commissioned by the CHRC itself." How many lazy leftists are going to read the dense and voluminous Option 2?

Ezra can't stop here, there is more work to be done to destroy the left-lib socialist agenda in Canada, once and for all. Ezra has got himself in the history books as a true Canadian hero. As people start waking up, and wake they will, to what the left-lib socialist have did to try and strip us of our idenity, there is going to be hell to pay.

Rarley do you find someone who is named completley correct for life. Jennifer Lynch is one. Peter Dyck was another from my past.
Kate has it right: When the Communists show up to protest the Nazis, you're supposed to pray for an asteroid, not pick a favourite. Time to pray for some selective rock dropping.

I agree that option 1 may be a smoke screen, however, it also may be the case that option 2 is a smoke screen (used, in this case, by Moon, as a CYA tactic to mitigate what I think EBD has pretty clearly pointed out is a rather unequivocal principal recommendation).

I also agree with those who don't think that "hate" should be a crime. However, it may make sense that if a criminal conviction is found, then the presence of "hate" may bear on sentencing, as it becomes a factor in mens rea.

Unfortunately the margins of this post aren't wide enough for me go into the definition of "hate", and whether or not it is actually a sign of insanity (as Sun Tzu would suggest).

nice comments, shamrock and gordonkneehill. Yes, as EBD also points out, the govt can simply point to the main recommendation. My concern is that The Others will focus on the verbiage of the Alternative and opt for that. Especially in a minority govt, with the left as the majority.

But I still maintain it's a deeply flawed report. It's flawed in its definitions, in its logic, in its focus. It's flawed in what it has ignored, namely, the rights of the defendant. It's flawed in its rejection of evidence and its leaning towards interpretation.

After all, a definition of freedom of speech that is, by its very nature, flawed by stating that it isn't a natural but a social 'right' means that the state oversees speech.

That incredible statement about 'hate speech is necessarily untrue. As Vitruvius pointed out, the valid logical conclusion is that true speech is necessarily not hate speech. How does Moon deal with that truth?

But what also concerns me, apart from the agenda of setting up three bureaucratic systems to police our expressions: oral, print, internet - all of them unaccountable, all of them essentially subjective - is - WHY?

Moon himself says that the criminal code 319 is rarely used; that obviously means that there's no a lot of speech-promoting-violence going on.

But my question is: Can a state have TWO laws on its books, that focus on the same thing - 'speech that incites violence against an identifiable group' - and yet, have TWO different systems of prosecution?

The criminal code 319 provides for a reasonable defense, including truth, public debate. But the new Section 13, would provide for NO reasonable defense, and explicitly denies that truth can be a defense, because it specifically denies that such speech can have any truth to it.

So, how can a country operate with TWO laws on its books, both referring to the SAME Offence, but processed differently, and one has a defense and the other has no defense.....How can Canada do such a thing?

EDB: Mea culpa, you're right, I was wrong. Should have read the report or observed radio silence. And thank you again for reading it -- I just can't stomach this bullsh!t.
As soon as I saw that the report was commissioned by the HRC itself, I immediately dismissed it, perhaps unwisely.

However, I'm sure you agree with me that what Moon wants bears no relation to what you and I want, namely, true, unsupervised free speech "regulated" by debate and societal (not governmental) taboo.

And as gordinkneehill points out at 6:12pm, you might be right on the progress front too: the government now has the perfect cover for elimiating sec 13. Excellent point gordinkneehill, that the lazy lefties won't read the bureaucratic mush in option B.

I remain depressed, however, when I consider how poorly free speech is understood in Canada, and everywhere else in the west too, it seems. To say nothing of freedom of association which seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird.

From my union background, as seedy as it may seem to some (most/all) around here, the first rule of negotiation is to never propose a negative.

IE, never offer to accept a zero percent wage increase in exchange for some other concession, or take reduced benefits in exchange for a higher rate of increase.

Moon says you can repeal or revisit section 13. He can posit all he wants on the the suggested changes, but the fact of the matter he let the cat out of the bag -- the CHRC can be forced accept a repeal of sec. 13.

So, one of two things: Poor negotiation, or keeping sec. 13 is an untenable position.

He and Lynch can blather all they want, but it appears that their little game is coming to an end.

All that's needed now is political will. Do the neo-Cons possess the balls to make it happen?

I also agree with those who don't think that "hate" should be a crime. However, it may make sense that if a criminal conviction is found, then the presence of "hate" may bear on sentencing, as it becomes a factor in mens rea.
- Vitruvius.

You're right, Vitruvius, hate should not be a crime. And with reference to hate being possibly insane, repressing free expression may also cause insanity.

However, I strongly disagree with your view that perhaps hate should be a factor in sentencing. In so doing, you are, in an indirect way, criminalizing thought. Make the sentence fit the crime itself without regard to how the perp felt about the victim.

I'm sure you will agree that we should never, ever, criminalize thought.

Thanks, EBD.

I like gordinkneehill's "solution." I hope PM Stephen Harper is reading this thread.

Sure, sure the MSM will scream "PMSH and the CPC against human rights," but as gord says, PMSH just has to point to HRC-appointed Snow's recommendation that Section 13 be scrapped.

Whoo-hoo.

I often find that the most effective directive to a student who's over the top is "JUST STOP. RIGHT NOW."

It usually works.

in Moon's intro he makes a point of receiving expert opinion from the heathenritescommies themselves while regretting to expand on the impartial individuals he talked with. On purpose?

It took 2 rereads with lynch so I wonder what the first draft was like?
Moon tried playing humpty for most of his explanations, until he unleashed the trojanhorse.
He doesn't get freedom of speech, mostly.

I did not say it should be a factor, Me No Dhimmi, I'm just pointing out that under the last millenia of western jurisprudence, one could see how one could argue that it could go to mens rea and thus to sentencing (for example, as Sun Tzu might suggest, perhaps if "hate" was the driving intent, you should be incarcerated in an asylum rather than a penitentiary).

The following (or at least some of the following) sections of the Criminal Code of Canada contain various proscriptions against pure free speech, at least if pure free speech includes the ability to knowingly utter false statements: 57(2), 77(g), 78.1(3), 107(1), 128(b), 130(a), 131(1), 134(1), 140(1), 181, 300, 338(1), 361, 362, 363, 364, 366, 370, 371, 372, 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 386, 390(a), 393(3), 394(1)(b), 400(1), 401(1), 404, 405, 408, 413, 426(1)(b)(iii), 437, and 490.0311.

Personally, I'm not in favour of the right to knowingly lie in cases where such lie has adverse effects on other citizens' legal rights. (Otherwise it's ok, of course, else novels would be against the law ;-)

Oh Come on Kate! You deleted my favorite part of this story, you know, the one about Canada's most famous "restroom photographer". Bet he lauches another of his non-lawsuits.

How does Special K even survive? Seriously, who makes his Corn Flakes and ties his shoes?

When it comes to this whole sordid crew, I think Darwin had a bad case of hiccups...

Hey, how about nominating Ezra Levant for a Canadian Nationbuilder award!

http://tinyurl.com/6b7rau

Mark Steyn's sober second look:

The Moon Report is a very artful document. It's certainly no manifesto for intellectual freedom, but it recognizes the damage that the last year's publicity has done to the Canadian "Human Rights" Concession, and it makes important concessions:

* The use of censorship by the government should be confined to a narrow category of extreme expression – that which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group, even if the violence that is supported or threatened is not imminent.

I like the word "censorship" here. Instead of the great wobbling blancmange of PC-speak, it calls a spade a spade.

* Any attempt to exclude from public discourse speech that stereotypes or defames members of an identifiable group would require extraordinary intervention by the state and would dramatically compromise the public commitment to freedom of expression. Because these less extreme forms of discriminatory expression are so commonplace, it is impossible to establish clear and effective rules for their identification and exclusion. But because they are so pervasive, it is also vital that they be addressed or confronted.

* We must develop ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes the members of an identifiable group and to hold institutions such as the media accountable when they engage in these forms of discriminatory expression.

Ah, right. This is the real purpose of the report - to throw in the towel on Section 13 but "develop ways other than censorship" that have the same effect as censorship. What Deborah Gypapong calls the censorious impulse runs throughout Professor Moon's report.

The major Internet service providers (ISPs) should consider the creation of a hate speech complaint line and the establishment of an advisory body, composed of of individuals with expertise in hate speech law, that would give its opinion as to whether a particular website hosted by an ISP has violated section 13 of the CHRA or the "hate propaganda" provisions of the Criminal Code.

If this body were to decide that the complaint is well founded, the ISP host would then shut down the site on the basis of its user agreement with customers.

This reveals Professor Moon as a sadly out-of-touch figure with no idea how the Internet works. Any "complaint line" would quickly fill up with trolls barraging the ISPs with nuisance complaints about their enemies: It's easy to foresee, say, Warman-Kinsella types clogging up the complaints line with grievances against Ezra Levant's website. And it's easy to see that ISPs, having no desire to micromanage small websites day in day out, would respond by pre-emptively refusing business from anything remotely controversial. The interesting websites would be obliged to find non-Canadian hosts.

Newspapers and news magazines should seek to revitalize the provincial/regional press councils and ensure that identifiable groups are able to pursue complaints if they feel they have been unfairly represented in mainstream media.

If this does not happen, consideration should be given to the statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership. This national press council would have the authority to determine whether a newspaper or magazine has breached professional standards and order the publication of the press council’s decision.

A newspaper is not simply a private participant in public discourse; it is an important part of the public sphere where discussions about the affairs of the community takes place. As such it carries a responsibility to portray the different groups that make up the Canadian community fairly and without discrimination.

Sounds nice and fluffy. But what it boils down to is a committee of mediocrities enforcing PC orthodoxy on an industry already in steep decline. Look at it this way: It's illegal for non-Canadians to own Canadian newspapers, and we're running out of Canadians who want to buy them. When Conrad Black sold the Southam papers, Izzy Asper was the last guy who met the citizenship requirements who was prepared to spend money on them. Using the government to further regulate the product into even more of a snoozeroo is a good way to kill what's left of the business.

Professor Moon should have quit while he was ahead. Abolish Section 13, get out of the censorship business, and let Canadians read what they want and say what they want. Anything else puts creeps like Richard Warman and ahistorical nitwits like Jennifer Lynch back in the picture.

PS As a footnote to that statutory press council mumbo-jumbo, consider the coverage of the "human rights" story this last year. The important concession by the CHRC on the abolition of Section 13 derives almost entirely from the pressure applied by Ezra, the Binksmeister and a handful of other bloggers. In the mainstream press, a few columnar colossi - Margaret Wente, David Warren, George Jonas, Rex Murphy - have been supportive. But, with the exception of Joseph Brean in The National Post, no other reporter in any bigtime Canadian newspaper has made any substantive contribution to an issue of direct concern to their own industry. Even during the show trial in British Columbia, you could find only the most perfunctory reporting in The Vancouver Sun and Province. Even when the BCHRT verdict was issued and I was besieged by media requests, the Vancouver papers didn't bother getting in touch until the Saturday night of the weekend following the verdict. As I said to Ken Whyte over lunch the other week, one lesson of this last year is how many reporters are happy to be the eunuchs in the state censor's harem. Professor Moon has no need to devise institutions to make the eunuchs even more pliant: They're already there.

www.steynonline.com

Vitruvius: I hadn't meant to suggest that you thought hate should be a factor in sentencing, only that you were open to the possibility. Sorry if I misread you.
As to all those sections you quote proscribing pure free speech, I don't think that relates to the issue at hand, namely, taking "hate" into account for sentencing, which, to me, criminalizes thought.

Moreoever, I forgot to mention, it gives human victims different valuations, different levels of humanity, if they belong to certain government-selected ID groups.

And while I'm at it, I'm also against victim impact statements in the court because I don't think perps should get variable sentences depending on the dramatic ability of the presenting family member(s). Also, the perp should not be punished more severely, say, 'cos a family member was unable to get on with his/her life.

Finally, I'm even against a more severe sentence for a cop murderer than say the murder of Vitruvius, my wife or my friend. Same issue: valuing one human being over another, in this instance, due to his freely chosen vocation.

BTW, many thanks for the Mahler #5, adagietto, my very favourite.

Ah, sorry about that, Me No Dhimmi, it wasn't my intention to use the proscription paragraph in support of the mens rea paragraph, I had intended them as disjoint clauses. However, in that case, I should have introduced the second paragraph with a word like "meanwhile", and I didn't, so my apologies.

I think your argument is fair, Me No Dhimmi, indeed I can I think reasonably argue either way, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that I have no adamant answer to that question. We should have a symposium about it some day.

Meanwhile, I think that for the purposes of the topic at hand, the issue is toasting section 13 of the CHRA, ergo in the name of sticking to one knitting at a time, I remain unconvinced that the broader philosophical arguments on the nature of free speech are in fact productive at this point. After all, even Mahler's symphonies are only performed one at a time ;-)

The nub of Moon ...
Censorship (via Section 13) is dead!
Long live censorship (via other ways or means Lynch may devise to 'delegate upward,' and BTW here are some suggestions ...)!
Same shit; different day.

Bureaucrats .... "We need to protect our phony baloney jobs!"

The answer we need we already have "Fire Them All!"

Being paranoid or pessimistic or ..I'm cautious about the value of Moon's report in actually ridding us of Section 13-1.

What I fear is that, although he presents it as his main recommendation, Step Two of the Process, taken as a whole, is for the Opposition Voices to protest such an action. That is already happening, with the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith objecting to such an action.

I suspect there will be more such opposition. This will result in a Call for Temperance, i.e., rather than the 'draconian' step of removing Section 13-1 (who wants to bet how long it will take for someone to define Moon's basic recommendation as 'draconian?)...the suggestion will be to go for his second suggestion. People will fall happily into that, not wanting to be described as radical.

But, Moon's option is one that puts more power into the hands of the HRCs, sets up more bodies of censorship, and, duplicates Section 319 but without any defense.

That's where I need help - can our government legitimately set up a near-duplicate set of laws, one in the Criminal Code and one in the HRAct, but one that requires evidential proof and allows a defense while the other has neither? I don't get it.

Sounds to me like a bait and switch.

Thanks, so far, and in advance, for your analysis, ET.

In which case the question becomes: does the government of Canada, and do the citizens of Canada, take the bait or the switch? And that is a question that shall not be answered tonight.

ET,

i think the paradox is obliquely referenced starting on page 17 of the report where mr. moon cites canada's signature and ratification of united nations declarations etc.

i need to read it again but on page 18 - "According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (General Comment 11), there is no conflict between Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR:"

i believe there is an idealism (not such a bad thing) bottled up with the ongoing mystery surrounding the behaviour of human beings. this, in canada's case with the human rights commission, translates roughly into nice idea but bad application.

i don't get it either - while mr. moon is optimistic - "Framed in this abstract way,
the issue appears intractable. A resolution is possible, however, once we recognize the
limited potential of hate speech regulation to advance equality and the limited value of hate
speech." - i will wait for the if and when s13 is repealed as per his recommendation before i get too happy.

i'm an optimist too. i can tell you that i am smiling and that today is a good day. the sooner canadians dump s13 - the better.

ET: I like -- and found very amusing -- your point that Moon cited the non-use of criminal code 319 without apparently entertaining the possibility that non-use might evidence a non-problem.

Reminds me of a meeting I attended once dealing with a whole new level of regulation being proposed for my industry (and which, were I not to have succeeded in getting an exemption, would have put me out of business). The chairman of the new body pointed out that while industry assets increased, say, 10x, regulatory budgets had only increased 3x. Completely absent from his imagination was the possibility that the players had been very well-behaved!

Nah, the problem here is that these bodies simply aren't needed; the mission creep into thought policing came about due to the non-problem of discrimation in housing and employment, their original mandate.

"Experience has established that institutions, which at the outset were useful, often end by becoming intolerable abuses owing to the simple fact that everything around them has changed [...] and they have not."

-- Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 7th Prime Minister of Canada

What an excellent page of comments! The best de-jargonification I've read here recently is the definition of 'MOBY'.

The fuse is lit! Now it's time for all of us to make sure the explosion follows. Here's my two cents worth to the decision makers and I'd urge everyone else to do likewise. And don't forget to email your own MP!

Harper.S@parl.gc.ca Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca

Dear Prime Minister Harper;

Two recent events have given weight to the abolition of Sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and I would ask that you act immediately on the Private Members Bill of January 31st 2008, brought forward by Dr. Keith Martin which would eliminate Sec. 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. The first was the near unanimous approval of resolution P-203 at the Conservative Party Convention recently held in Winnipeg, while the second is the just released report commissioned by the CHRC itself and undertaken by Richard Moon. http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/report_moon_rapport/page1-en.asp#11

Both of these call for the repeal of Sec. 13 (1) of the Act.

However, while I congratulate Mr. Moon for delivering what will undoubtedly be an unwelcome recommendation by the CHRC, I would however, caution you regarding some of his other recommendations. Mr. Moon, like his colleagues within the CHRC, continues to believe that free speech is proscribed: that it is a privilege endowed on us by governments and regulators rather than an inalienable right of not just Canadians, but of all human beings. Following from that supposition, Mr. Moon recommends other 'regulatory devices' including that of a mandatory press council - a power that would or could result in another unconscionable attack on free speech such as we saw earlier on Maclean's Magazine. And speaking of usurping powers, you may wish to consider the actions of Jennifer Lynch Q.C. who in an attempt to subvert to protect the powers of the Commission, has taken it upon herself to initiate both hearings and consultations which should be the purview of parliamentarians, not appointees. Having spent $50,000 of the hard earned money of Canadian taxpayers she is unwilling to accept the recommendations of Mr. Moon, who she herself chose to write the report and she now says "The CHRC, to ensure interested Canadians are heard, is seeking submissions on the issues and recommendations contained in the Moon Report. These consultations will help guide the CHRC in the formulation of a Special Report to Parliament on the issue of hate speech on the Internet and s. 13." http://tinyurl.com/6nxjfs

It is not the place of Ms. Lynch to undertake such a report, given that her Commission would be 'investigating and reporting' on itself. Furthermore, given the reported actions of those employed by the CHRC, I have little confidence that the CHRC under Ms. Lynch is capable or interested in tabling anything other than a self-serving and partisan report. I would remind you Prime Minister, that we have Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada as well as hundreds of years of jurisprudence to enable us to deal with those who would do harm or incite to do harm to others. The courts follow the rule of law rather than the rules of bureaucrats and I would trust myself, my family and my country to the former, but never, ever to the latter.

At a time when we are facing unprecedented financial difficulty, I would ask that both the long gun registry and the CHRC be revisited for their 'value for expenditure' and that if cost cutting is to be implemented (and it should) that these two useless and egregious bureaucracies be amongst the first to go.

The iron is as hot as it's going to get. Harper's timing is totally off if he does not take the fig leaf of abolition in the Moon report at face value (however it was meant by a leftist prof paid by Lynch) and kill Section 13 before the leftist drones start spinning and pushing the second part of the report which amounts to increased oversight of free speech by different mechanisms as per ET's excellent analysis.

Incidentally, that the CJC and B'nai Brith are so distressed by the possibility of Section 13 abolition and the first ones off the mark defending it shows their fanatic commitment to this dreadful piece of legislation that they mid-wived into being for their own ends. They absolutely insist on seeing the nicest people in the world, Canadians, as potential slavering Nazis kept in check by speech laws and kangaroo courts. Meanwhile, they and other "official Jews" as Ezra Levant terms them are deaf to very real Muslim threats.

Can someone explain how pretending that the nazi threat in 2008 is greater than the Muslim threat in Canada or worldwide serves Jews?

Why are Faber and the other dinosaurs allowed to lumber about as Jewish representatives insulting ordinary Canadians and curbing their freedoms while making nice with the one group most contemporary antisemitism originates from, Muslims? It really makes sense only if the agenda is really to punish white Christians for their imaginary sins.

ET
[quote]That's where I need help - can our government legitimately set up a near-duplicate set of laws, one in the Criminal Code and one in the HRAct, but one that requires evidential proof and allows a defense while the other has neither? I don't get it. [/quote]

I don’t get it either, especially Section 3 of the report summery defining an agency with unyielding power over the Press & the Society at large. They decide all relevant issues and stomp any and all individuals or groups “they” don’t like. (Who are they)?

Part of the answer may be in this post by “johnnyonline’
[Quote]i think the paradox is obliquely referenced starting on page 17 of the report where mr. moon cites canada's signature and ratification of united nations declarations etc.
i need to read it again but on page 18 - "According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (General Comment 11), there is no conflict between Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR:" [/quote]

That would make the HRC (UNHRC) the representative of the reigning “Monarch” of Canada.

Fire them, Fire them ALL!

no guff - excellent letter.

As for article 19 of the UN declaration of Human Rights, and article 19-20 of the ICCPR, I certainly see a conflict. The UN article 19 refers simply to freedom of speech. The ICCPR articles 19 refers to freedom of speech but also moves into restrictions on such speech.

The ICCPR says that restrictions on free speech are valid, but these must be provided by law and exist to protect the rights or reputations of others. I'm OK with these two factors. Please note that the restriction must be provided BY LAW. Our HRCs are not part of our legal apparatus; they are a bureaucracy and operate without recourse to legal statutes, judges, defense or due process. However, we DO have a legal process to defend the individual against slander and libel. We don't need the HRC for that.

The other agenda of Article 19 is of concern. It refers to the protection of national security, public health or morals. I'd need examples of how speech affects public health and morals. After all, doesn't Rev. Boissoin's case refer to his opinion that homosexuality is a violation of the morality of the Christian religion? Therefore, why was he prosecuted by the HRC?

Then, we go on to Article 20 of the same ICCPR; it moves into insisting that states must 'prohibit advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence'.

I'm OK with 'discrimination' and we already have legal rules about that. I have a problem with 'hostility or violence'. It ought to be 'hostility that incites violence'. Not hostility OR violence. No state apparatus can legislate emotions. However, our educational system can educate..

Therefore, I DO see a problem with the ICCPR sections 19 and 20. If you have freedom of expression and then, inhibit such freedom, your limits have to reference the NON-INTELLECTUAL aspects of such freedom. People must be allowed to retain their thoughts and their expressions. What the state prohibits can only be violent actions linked to such words.

By the way, our HRCs violate our Charter, not only in their rejection of freedom of speech as a fundamental (not social) right, but also, in Section 15, Equality Rights. The defendant in an HRC case is most certainly not legally equal to the complainant. Yet, Section 15-1 says that "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination'. Hmmm. If our HRCs pay for the lawyer and costs of the complainant, but not the defendant..is that equal treatment?

Or do they get around this 'hiccup' by claiming that the complainant isn't really involved, and it's just the HRC vs the defendant. That, by the way, is what Moon is recommending in his second part.

What is so disgusting is that we have set up a bureaucracy to make what are essentially legal judgments on Canadian citizens. The HRC are not part of the legal apparatus of Canada. We have criminal hate laws, criminal slander and libel laws. How can we have so erred as to set up a bureaucracy, an unaccountable set of self-organized people who, on their own, without any criteria, make legal and fiscal judgments against citizens of Canada?

Mark Steyn asks sound-of-musically "How do you hold a Moon beam in your hand?"

How can we, ET? (BTW, many thanks for your helpful posts.)

Because, unhappily, "nice" Canadians seem to "stay" that way by being quite ignorant of the facts. You see, facts might compel them to take some responsibility, to make some value judgements (horrors!), and to actually take a stand that might hurt someone's feelings.

We can't have that, can we?

(But things might be changing: read the letter in the NP today from the graduate student at Queen's about what he and his fellow students might be saying and how they'd "welcome" one of the new facilitators. YEAH!! Maybe there’s hope yet . . .)

[quote]The other agenda of Article 19 is of concern. It refers to the protection of national security, public health or morals. I'd need examples of how speech affects public health and morals. [/quote]

ET
Public Health is interesting: During the PM leadership debate Jack Layton, in a moment of anger, spouted off (5) five Interventions that the Canadian health system would soon put in place. I only recall (2) two, Water & Housing. The MSM never bothered to pickup on Jacks prediction.