Click to download the complaint(pdf) against Macleans. I haven’t had time to read it, but the juicy part is said to be contained in the first 15 pages. Want to make your voice heard? Here’s the best idea I’ve seen to date;
“Regarding ways that we can all support Mark Steyn, isn’t the most obvious one buying his book (again)?”
Kathryn, better still. Order it online and deliver it to:
Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, Canada
Telephone: (613) 995-1151
Toll Free: 1-888-214-1090
TTY: 1-888-643-3304
Fax: (613) 996-9661
Meanwhile, Richard Warman’s reputation goes international; “You know you’ve lost your freedom when you cannot call a censor a censor.”
Well the Americans are noticing. So where are our Canadian media?
(Update: Welcome Warren Kinsella readers! (All 12 of you.) While you’re here, have a look around. I recommend this post, in which an individual using an assumed identity posts from a server registered to the Pollara polling company. )
Where are the Canadian media? Worrying about lawsuits. From what I’ve read, a defamation lawsuit is pretty close to free money once it’s proved that the words were in fact written or knowingly transmitted by the respondents.
There has never been a better time than right now to put the individual provincial Human Rights Commission under a microscope and turn the lights up full blast – by phone, by mail, by fax, via provincial members of parliament, and on it goes.
The objective should be to force dismantling these commissions, period. Not likely, but at least the government must intervene to take out the freedom of speech/hate components that have created libel chill – and now libel tourism.
There is no chance of doing anything with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Central Gov’t will see to this and we have no meaningful vote to do anything.
The media are not going to be helpful with this.
Right now our civic politicians/the media are concerned with repealing a law to allow alcohol to be consumed in back of limousines. Rome has been burning for 10 years and the violins are still playing.
Our Canadian media ought to be carrying out an investigation of the HRC. They ought to focus on how the HRC has changed from its original intention of discouraging discrimination in employment and housing and has instead, moved into the amorphous and nebulous realm of thought.
Again, as I’ve pointed out many times, Article 13.1 in the Human Rights code violates basic common law, that must rely on factual evidence in objective reality. This section instead operates only within speculation and ‘guess-timates’.
13.1 It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
The key wording in this section is “any matter that is likely to expose…to hatred or contempt”.
The phrase ‘likely to expose’ moves the issue competely out of the realm of fact and empirical evidence and into the imaginary realm of speculation. The focus is not on DID expose, which requires proof of someone actually having BEEN hated or treated with contempt, BECAUSE of this articulated speech.
No, the focus is only on a speculation that what you say might, might possibly, result in someone being ‘hated’ or ‘treated with contempt’. No actual act of hatred or contempt. Just the view that it might happen.
As for the experience of ‘hatred’ or ‘contempt’ that’s entirely and totally subjective. If someone looks hard at you, you can say to yourself, oh, he hates me….If someone pushes in front of you in a line – that’s an act of hatred?
And who makes this decision? Since there’s no requirement for any actual hateful act to take place – then, it’s the HRC. These appointed, anointed people make the decision.
What are the qualifications for membership on the HRC? Persons appointed to its tribunal 48.1.2
“Persons appointed as members of the Tribunal must have experience, expertise and interest in, and sensitivity to, human rights. ”
What the heck does that mean?
And, the person making the complaint pays nothing; his/her costs are born by the taxpayer, while the defendant must pay their own legal fees.
Above all, this Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act is in direct violation of the Charter, where section 2, Fundamental Freedoms, states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms” 2.b “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.
Wait. ‘Other media of communication’…But the HRC specifically says that we do NOT have freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression ‘telephonically’ or ‘telecommuncation’. The HR Act clarifies for us in section 13.2
2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.”
So, we aren’t free to use ‘other media of communication’. But the Charter says that our right to do so is a ‘Fundamental Right’.
The HR Act is in direct violation of our Charter. The HR Commission has moved out of its original agenda of protecting people in employment and housing and into the amorphous realm of thought-control, of speculation on what your words ‘might do’. Not actually do…but ‘might do’.
We are losing a basic fundamental right. When will the MSM speak up? When will the government speak up? What are our MPs doing?
I think our Canadian Government needs to look carefully at immigration and where our “new Canadians” are coming from.
The world is becoming a country less place and it will be Western religion or lack thereof against Muslim bullies.
If Canada wants to keep its head above water they should look at more immigration from Catholic countries.
Canada has been selective in the past with its quotas so it could be again.
The CHRC as it operates now breaches charter guarantees of free expression and fundamental judgement…I belive when the HRC act was struch this breech was evident and it was always intended that the breaches of charter rights would alway pass muster under the judicial tests set out for charter sectionn 1 justification for breach…obviously not.
IMO many of the procedures and judgements cannot be excused under section 1 of the charter…it’s time to have parliamentary and judicial review of the worth, functionality of the CHR act and a benefit/damage analysis done of the CHRC judgements.
Time to overhaul the act and reign in the potential for abuse/misuse and unaccountability of the CHR tribunal system.
@WL Mackenzie Redux:
Doing so would almost undoubtedly require rolling the dice at the Supreme Court of Canada.
If I didn’t have to work for a living, it would be fun to just go after the leftoids with HRC complaints.
I’d bet on a good day I could file two or three of them . . 🙂
I just phoned the 1-888 number (above) (11 a.m. Calgary time. After an endless menu, I finally got a live voice. She will ask you to outline your complaint and then I find out she is only a receptionist who is simply diverting phone calls. Persist at this point until you get past her. She now knows at least the answer to “and what is the nature of you complaint” and to whom to direct a complaint a similar nature.
After a little pressure/suasion she finally passed me onto the “media guy” for the human rights commission – she wouldn’t put me onto anyone in senior/middle management (told the media guy is the go-to person).
Surprisingly, the phone line was not jammed and my call went through. The media guy was very pleasant and willing to listen – with a little help. Of course, he couldn’t even verify that a complaint had be laid blah, blah (and that is to be expected).
I vented – he listened – and I ended up saying that you are likely to be flooded with all manner of feedback on this one. I hope it happens, and we shall see.
One question to me was -and where are you getting your information to which I told him that bloggers are so far ahead of you (the commission) it is pitiful and that you reading the major newspapers is not a lot of help.
And in related news, Kinsella tosses Warman’s salad: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry071210-130258
Faisal Joseph, a lawyer from the Canadian Islamic Congress who is representing the four students, argued that journalists can’t write just anything.
“You have to be responsible. There are limits on freedom of expression, people seem to forget that,” he said.
ummmm..okay….
For what it’s worth, I called that 1-888 number, too. It took forever to get an actual person on the line (just keep hitting 0), but when I did she said that no complaint had been filed with the federal Human Rights Commission. British Columbia had agreed to hear the complaint, and Ontario was still in the early stages, but it wasn’t in her database that the federal complaint had been filed.
I couldn’t argue with her, but that’s not what I read in the papers. But that’s the line coming out from them right now. If someone has more facts and they want to challenge her, go ahead and phone.
I asked what we should do if we are concerned that the Commission will take up the case. She said that’s not up to the people to decide; only the commissioners. So she said I should talk to my MP. I will, but I don’t think he has much jurisdiction over the B.C. Human Rights Commission, does he?
Where the media? I imagine they’re all hoping Steyn and Macleans go down in flames. What else is left, given their absolute and appalling silence in the face of Muslim extremist reaction to the infamous ‘cartoons’? They’ve been genuflecting before Islam for years.
Kate,
Kudos, you have succeeded in giving that brat Warren Kinsella an ulcer.
He is really stretching to tie you to piece you referenced in Townhall.com where this outrageous state repression exists in Canada and has been noticed by the American press. see below …
Calling a censor a censor — censored!
By Paul Jacob
Sunday, December 9, 2007
[…]
“And it did. Paul Fromm, a free-speech activist and founder of Canadians Associated for Free Expresssion — a group defending the worst “hate sites,” and thus said to “have links” with them (how deep those ties are I do not know; the matter irrelevant for my purposes, anyway) — has repeatedly called Warman an “enemy of free speech.” And similar things.”
Kinsella is desperate, childish, stupid.
Keep burning his stomach Kate … it looks good on him.
Good link from Richard Evans to Kinsella’s rant.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to sue Kinsella for defaming SDA and Kate where his called you a bigot.
I wonder if he could substantiate that in a court of law.
He has defamed all of us here by proxy.
I am not a bigot, I am a believer in freedom and freedom of speech. Is that bigotry?
Are all commenters here partys to bigotry?
Is there liable in Kinsella’s comments?
Are there any lawyers reading this?
Just curious.
I, too, called the 1-888 number. I pressed “0” but ended up leaving a message, stating my displeasure. My MP’s an idiot NDPer, and I’m not sure I want my head and identity over the rampart with such a person.
Pandora’s Box is now open in public, big time. Let’s see what happens now.
You know, if any of my legally equipped readers ever want to take a shot at Herr Kinsella for defamation purposes on my behalf, I’ll allow you to do so for 100% share of the proceeds.
Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission (Calgary)
310-525-11 Ave SW T2R0C9
Telephone 403-297-6571
Toll Free – Dial 310-0000 and asked to be put through
Fax 403-297-6567
e mail albertahumanrights.ab.ca
Under the Department of Tourism, Parks, Recreation,Culture
403-427-6530
Toll Free – as above
Unfortunately, no e-mail
Minister of Tourism, P, Rec and C
Hector Goudreau
403-427-4928
Toll Free as above
e mail tprc.minister@gov.ab.ca
I wasn’t able to talk with the minister of course but left my message with his exec. She is only the messenger and is very willing to listen, take notes, and pass on the info.
I covered the MacLeans Issue, the Upcoming WS Issue, and the fact of an alderman being one of possible three panelists to hear a freedoms of speech issue – the hearings of which epitomize everything negative about the existence of these tribunals.
Hard copy follow-up is next and in Alberta, letters do help if there enough of them.
Warnout Kantsellit anymore.
He’s a past tense wanna be, a multiple failure,a pathetic musician good for now for amusement and light entertainment.
And he still thinks Cruton is OK and McGuilty is intelligent. Most funny.
Shut down your coal fired plants McGuinty before you open you big ugly gob and tell our Federal Government what to do.
it’s time people stopped responding to these commissions. when anyone from any law enforcement tries to push the judgments of such commissions canadians have to block (physically) any attempt to enforce any human rights decision that is not inkeeping with common law and the ability to live free of orwellian influnces.
Lawsuit probably wouldn’t go anywhere. Kin-screw-ya didn’t link to SDA in his post…
Also, note that Andrew Coyne, who is now editor of Macleans, has an excellent column on the role of the HRC, ie, The State, in censorship.
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/12/right-to-censor-others.php
He writes, of the CIC:
“It has done so, what is more, not through any of the traditional legal means by which freedom of speech may be limited, nor with any of the legal system’s usual requirements of due process, but through a new and seemingly open-ended mechanism: the human rights commission. To be specific: the organization has launched a complaint against Maclean’s before the federal, Ontario, and British Columbia human rights commissions, alleging that an article the magazine published last year, excerpted from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and Islamophobia.”
“What’s truly astonishing is that the commissions should have been granted such powers to begin with. As Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argued recently, “during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.” To be acting as censors, he wrote, was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions.”
Amen. Yet the commissions have been allowed to stray, far from their original purpose of preventing discrimination in employment and housing, into the nebulous world of expression”
He concludes: “There is only one proper outcome for this affair: not merely that the CIC’s complaint should be thrown out, but that the commissions’ power to hear such cases should be removed. They have no business meddling with speech.”
They have no business meddling with speech. It is a constitutional right. It is a right, not by virtue of whim or even of law but a right by necessity. A democracy rests on this basic freedom. The freedom to think, dissent, reject, approve, criticize. This freedom to think and speak rests within the individual. Not the state.
It is this focus and indeed, demand that the individual rather than the state take responsibility for thinking, that is the basis of a democracy. How can we allow this freedom to be corrupted by these Human Rights Commissions?
I’ve had a quick read of the case against Steyn: it’s one broadside after another–which Steyn and anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see could, within reasonable doubt, verify. The arrogance of the writers takes one’s breath away.
In days past, such sophistry and bully-boyism would have been summarily quashed by the adults. But where are the adults today? It seems that the bureaucracies of most of our public–and many private–institutions are inhabited by Peter Pans of both genders: as a woman, I have no difficulty stating that the worst cry babies and magical thinkers, with big footprints, are soft-headed, hard-hearted women.
Perhaps it’s time to fight fire with fire: yes, the HRCs are illegitimate star chambers. However, they’re being expolited by those who wish to break down what’s still left of our once civilized society. We all know that certain Muslims in Canada say and write the most immoderate things. How about a counter suit?
“What should I do, Iman? Novelist Robert Ferrigno imagines the Islamic Republic of America in the year 2040” Mark Steyn, Feb 23, 2006
“…on the whole articles promotes fear of Muslims and makes racist and false misrepresentations of Muslims and their culture”
from the complaint
the article reviews a work of fiction by Robert Ferrigno called Prayers for the Assassin. Are they complaining that works of fiction hurts their feelings?
Do I have this straight: SDA has a link to Townhall, which in turn has a link to the Wikipedia entry for Paul Fromm, and Kinsella calls that “promoting Paul Fromm.”
What a lawyer! What a Liberal! What a dork!
We need HR Commissions to implement legislation that prevents discrimination.
Fromm lost in front of a regular court, not an HR Commission. His comments were found to be untruthful and went far beyond calling Warman an “enemny of free speech”. He was accused of misusing public funds, for example, when in fact he had simply exercised his right under the law to lay complaints.
“We all know that certain Muslims in Canada say and write the most immoderate things. How about a counter suit?”
How about having to go into hiding when they place a fatwa on you for standing up to them?
Death threats work!
Danial said:
“@WL Mackenzie Redux:
Doing so would almost undoubtedly require rolling the dice at the Supreme Court of Canada. ”
Not necessarily, the CHR act and the judgements rendered under it can be reviewed by a joint SCC-Parliamentary committee…much like we scrutinized the 1982 constitution act for constitutional soundness.
The act was never given SCC approval through a parliamentary reference question…but in a joint committee the SCC is held to express only opinion that can be justified in written constitutional precedent…not some lofty utopian wet dream they may express when they are allowed to make unaccountable judgements on their own…in joint committee they can be called on the mat for misrepresenting charter/constitutional precedent.
The point is, the HRC act section 54&13 have to be scrutinized to see if the charter breaches done by CHRC operation and judgment can be justified under charter section 1.
I don’t belive section 1 of the charter and it’s judicial tests can justify the denial of fundamental justice the HRC operation represents….there is NO racism problem in Canada dire enough to justify denial of fundamental justice to the accueed of this quasi judicial tribunal….the people convicted by the CHRC are not criminals in ant sense of the word…they should at least be exted the same defense rights. evidence laws,presumed innocence and accuser onus that common criminals have.
Personally I believe the power to destroy a person ,with little or no recourse to the accused, which is held by the CHRC is too much power to be trusted in the hands of a tribunal unencumbered by rigid public accountability and crown court oversight…the first thing that should be removed from them is the power to make compensation judgements in amounts more than 500 dollars…and there should be automatic appeal to crown courts.
As an American, I cannot believe what is going on in your country concerning that disgusting (and clearly dangerous) “Human Rights Commission” of yours. When criticism of government policy can be penalized as “hate speech”, you are no longer sliding down a slippery slope. Rather, you are in the muck. I will never again regret the appearance of flag burners in my country. I may disagree with them, at times to the point of fury, but I will regard their presence as a blessed sign that free speech is alive and well in America.
*
The Devil’s Handmaid drops in at the Halls.
For someone so litigious, he’s sure got a big yap.
“Warren said… Let’s have a flame war. I’m bored
at the moment, and you should amount to a brief diversion.”
He also calls me… how’s this for clever…
“NeoFascist.”
*
What’s a Kinsella ?
The other day I saw a pack of cigarettes emblazoned with the statement, from Health Canada:
CHILDREN SEE
CHILDREN DO
The idea that my kids were being equated with monkeys pissed me off.
Is this grounds for a complaint to the HRC?
Minor point, WLMR, it’s section 2 of the Charter that refers to Fundamental Freedoms. Section 1 is the Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms, and states
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Then, come the four Fundamental Freedoms in Section 2.
I’ve had a quick glance at the complaint. Briefly, I’d say that these young legal students are using two tactics.
One is what I call The Extension Tactic. It’s an error of logic, where, if you criticize one X, then, By Extension, you are deemed to be criticizing ALL X. This means that effectively, you cannot criticize X. Because, these young men state that IF you criticize ALL Muslims (X), then, this is bigotry. And you are deemed to be criticizing ALL Muslims when you criticize ANY Muslim action.
Another tactic is Trivializing Reality. This is a kind of reversal of The Extension Tactic. It acknowledges that a certain situation took place, by reduces it to irrelevance and accuses the Observer, who does not reduce it, of ‘Islamophobia’.
And, to begin with, they are not defining their terms but are relying on the ‘subjective assumptions’ of the reader to make such definitions.
What, for example, is the correct definition of ‘Islamophobia’?
Then, they are beginning their argument by stating their conclusions. OK. They then have to provide supporting data. The problem with their supporting evidence is – The Extension Fallacy and Trivializing Reality.
Because we condemn Muslims engaging in violence, these young men claim that we are engaging in ‘Islamophobia. I quote from their complaint:
“The extent of protests that occurred in some predominantly Muslim countries following the
publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark, are grossly exaggerated to
represent that the most Muslims reacted in a violent manner to these publications.”
Now wait. They are trivializing the protests, which were massive, which caused extensive damage, which took lives, and which were promoted by the governments and Imams. This Reality should not be trivialized. Note the Extension Fallacy. Because we criticized the Muslim reaction, we are deemed bigots.
Here’s another:
“The gross exaggeration of some unfortunate incidents of persecution of Christians in some
predominantly Muslim countries to represent that Muslims at large condone and engage in
the persecution of religious minorities.”
Hey. The killings of Christians, the beheading of Christians, the burning of schools are real. These young men are trivializing reality. We are legitimately asking why this was and is allowed.
And so on. The entire list of complaints trivializes reality, and accuses the defendants, that if they criticize any aspect of Muslim actions, this is also, by extension, an inevitable criticism of All Muslims. Obviously, if you cannot critique the real situation that took place, Islam and Muslims are outside of critique.
The framework of this complaint, with its tactic of trivializing what really took place, and extending any criticism of a real situation to an accusation that it Must apply to ALL Muslims, is logically and legally unacceptable.
I’ll leave it to Irwin Daisy to provide us with examples from the Islamic writings (Koran, Hadith, etc) of statements made against Christians, Jews, infidels that are explicit in their promotion of violence against these peoples.
Now – couldn’t there be a counter claim?
Flame war ? Did W. grow a pair and enable comments ?
ET, Right On!
“…all 12 of you”
Kate, you’re too kind, but I think you’ve overestimated by about 10: It’s really just Warren and his mommy.
Once upon a time Trudeau looked about him and saw that Two Solitudes was not working so he saith …
let there be Two Hundred Solitudes and we shall call it Multiculturalism.
Then it came to pass that people rejected some of the anti-democratic ideas put forth by the Multitude of Solitudes. So the Liberal descendants of Trudeau created the formidable weapon against dissension … Political Correctness.
Now when people spoke about their innermost thoughts of how Canada was no longer assimilating its immigrants they were hauled before Human Rights Commissions. The Commissions were called “Human” to distract people from their Citizens rights which many Canadians had died for and their bodies were laid to rest all over the world under Monuments such as Vimy Ridge.
Then a very brave man appeared among them and he was called Mark Steyn and he had emigrated from Montréal to New Hampshire where the motto was:
Live Free or Die.
Now it came to pass that this David (Mark) and Goliath (HRCs) were to do battle. So endth the first lesson.
OK, I realize that I am merely an American and therefore not privy to the exquisite nuances and sophistication of Canadian political discourse,
“… hey, lady, whaddya doin’ with the dogs…”
My only question is, what is it that Islamofascist Nazis and Canadian Socialists have against dogs…?
It will be very interesting to see how this pans out, but the only good that might come out of it is in the spreading “awareness”.
I can’t quote specific details but I do recall a case of someone charged with spreading hate. Their defence was that what they were saying was the truth, and the court decided that stating the truth is not a valid defence for a charge of spreading hate. With courts like that and laws as convoluted as ours the state will get what the state wants.
Wee Willy Warren pouts about a some “pro-Nazi rally” dude allegedly “promoted” by Kate, but wasn’t it the hero (Trudeau) of his hero (Chretien) that once road the streets of Montreal sporting full Nazi regalia? Polish THAT turd, Kinsellout.
You’ve got it, minuteman. Canada’s no longer “the true North, strong and free”. ‘More like the “Gulag, cowed and scared”.
It seems that certain “victim” groups are pretty well given carte blanche to intimidate, harass, bully, and subdue the rest of us on our own dime via the Human Rights (sic) Commissions. It’s an utter travesty.
It would be nice to think that this case will raise awareness and maybe even end up with the HRCs being abolished–which is what should happen–or curtailed, but I have to admit I’m not optimistic.
Over at Mark Steyn’s website, he’s got a poll:
“Which result do you predict in the Canadian Islamic Congress suit?
“1) The CIC complaint will fail, in a resounding victory for free speech
2) The Canadian people will rise up and demand the abolition of the thought-police Human Rights Commissions
3) The accused will be forced to pay a modest fine
4) The accused will be forced to pay a humungous fine
5) Mark will be deemed unpublishable in Canada, and no bookstore will carry America Alone
6) Mark will be sent to re-education camp to bang out “CO-EXIST” bumper stickers for 15 years
7) Free speech in Canada will shrivel a little more but no-one will notice until it’s too late”
I toyed with voting for number 2: I wish! But then I voted for number 7. The results so far? For number 2: 3.7%; for number 7: 56.2%.
Sad, eh?
In his response to the HRC case, “Dead Man Writing”, Mark Steyn wrote ” . . .The ‘progressive’ left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don’t know they’re riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.”
And it’s not just the lefties who are “riding the tiger”. Far too many complacent Canadians just can’t be bothered to countenance anything outside their comfy lifestyles. “Don’t bother me with unpleasant details” would be a good motto for Canada, I think. ’Very sad: this sure isn’t what my father and grandfathers risked their lives for in WWs I and II.
Can someone not laucnh a suit against the CIC for teh ahtefule patently and baltently hateful parts of the Kpran?
From my perspective it is unlikely that “governments” will act in an appropriate manner to right this wrong when in fact they will benefit from “muzzling” criticizm. In Alberta we have a government pushing a bill (I believe it is Bill 41) that will give the Minister control over the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The College of Physicians and Surgeons is the Licensing body of the Alberta Medical profession and thus the misister could insist that it is unethical for a physician to critisize our healthcare system and as a consequence loose his/her license. The Minister could state that a physician must be responsible to society as a whole, over his/her patients and therefore cannot restrict their practices. Waiting times to see your family doctor will extend to months. Governments always seek control and contolling speach and criticism is paramount.
Robert Pujat, I’m with you on America’s moonbats having all of the freedom they want to expose and publicly humiliate themselves, and, that is the point, when you are an idiot and take your idiocy to the public square we, the people, are smart enough to sort it out. How damn Nanny State to decide who can say what.
I’m convinced that hate speech codes are really designed as enforceable Orwellian thought control.
It will be interesting to see if Canadian journalists stand by Mark Steyn on principle. I’m not counting on it as there are more mentally burqa’d cowards per square inch in journalism than anywhere else.
If the HRC rules against Mark Steyn in this, Canadians have crossed into a totalitarian state.
ET: Again, as I’ve pointed out many times, Article 13.1 in the Human Rights code violates basic common law, that must rely on factual evidence in objective reality. This section instead operates only within speculation and ‘guess-timates’…The phrase ‘likely to expose’ moves the issue competely out of the realm of fact and empirical evidence and into the imaginary realm of speculation.
I agree that the CHRC has recently strayed from its original mandate into the nebulous world of proscribing free expression, but your specific claim that the use of the phrase “likely to expose” is a violation of common law is misguided.
“Likely to” appears throughout Canadian and US laws, not least in the Cdn Criminal Code’s definition of ‘murder’:
Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
A good portion of the practise of law and jurisprudence is in arguing for or against matters that lie beyond “factual evidence in objective reality.” This includes reasonable speculation about intention and aforethought about likely consequences.
Kate, I would sue. We could all donate to a “sue Kinsella fund”. I’m sick and tired of these Liberal mouthpieces spouting off accusations and getting away with them.
Accusations are serious for the accused, the truth may never catch up and the smear is there forever.
That’s why we have the Liberals and Dippers out on a smear campaign hoping a lot of it will stick.
Of course the MSM is a willing accomplice, ever ready to help smear. They use the right words to cover their asses but the innuendo is all they need.
Sorry, haven’t had time to read all the comments but this looks like a good time to get up to speed on the Muslim Brotherhood. Here’s a link to a FrontPage piece from Nov 2006 and at the very bottom there’s a link to a English translation of “The Project”. I gather the Muslim Students Association and other similar organizations are part of the Brotherhood. Remember The Project goes way back to 1982; be amazed by their prescience and how Allah’s universe is unfolding as it should.
The Muslim Brotherhood: The Project
Then ask yourself “are we clueless or what”?
Eskimo,
Trudeau wore a WWI German helmet, not nazi regalia. Don’t make it worse than it was.
“It is a constitutional right. It is a right, not by virtue of whim or even of law but a right by necessity. A democracy rests on this basic freedom. The freedom to think, dissent, reject, approve, criticize. This freedom to think and speak rests within the individual.”
You’ve got a few sides working against the middle on this.
On one side, you’ve got Muslims, who, according to their ideology, do not allow questioning of their religion, doctrine, or insulting their prophet, or texts. It is a severely punishable, if not a capital offence. As supremacists, they believe their ideology to be ‘the one true religion.’ Therefore their immutable laws, or shariah, supercede and trump ours.
Also on the evil side, you’ve got leftist fascists, who, on behalf of their own intolerant ideology, desire to undermine all freedoms, with special regards to freedom of speech, as well as dissent. Giving all authority to the state. As they have done in every socialist state, the most recent example being Venezuela.
Both are are based on the individual being subjugated (submit, submission) to the collective, rather than individual rights.
On the other side, you’ve got our historic and individual human rights. Fought for and won through the blood of our ancestors. Best expressed as freedom of speech. And the very foundation of a rational and functioning democracy.
In the middle, you’ve got an unelected, supra-constitutional council making legal and binding decisions, as ET says, “in the imaginary realm of speculation.” In fact, reversing our culture and society back to the tyranical, intolerant, primitive and bloody times once defeated.
Keep repeating the same, intelligent insight into this flagrant abomination, ET.
some ( like Todd and deuter) have compared me to a kluklux klan member for mentioning we will all be replaced by muslims if nothing changes,
I wonder what they have to say about this,
“We’re the ones who will change you,” the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes.
Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children.
Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.” As he summed it up: “Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours.”
How about a human rights charge against the Human Rights Council, specifically Article 13.1?