Maclean’s magazine is pleased that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.
Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.
More – “I was at the Prime Minister’s garden party this evening…”
Here here, fitting title Kate, keep the pressure on these people, they will still be goring the little guy…
On what basis did the BC Nazis dismiss the complaint? Was it the for the same weasly reason that the Babs Hall Ontario nazis gave?
Maclean’s, go for the throat. All these puny little simple servants will do is wait and get the court decision they want from someone without the resources to project themselves. Kill the snake you face and your back is safe.
Although this result only addresses a part of the problem, and although some will perhaps justifiably argue that it would have been better to have had the opportunity to fight this particular one through, now; it remains the case that this is, de facto and perhaps de jure, a bit of systemic precedent. We must not forget that our system of justice runs not on statutes alone, but upon statutes interpreted by precedent. Meanwhile, the fight for freedom goes on, as we refocus on the upcoming precedent battles.
Disappointing indeed. It seems the HRC is playing pure politics — hammer the little guys but avoid the big players who could do it some injury. It’s time for more “in your face” push back. Once things have settled down after this summer, I’m tempted to write some deliberately inflammatory remarks for the local letters to the editor just to see if I can get named in an HRC action.
OK, now what?
I suggest a civil suit aimed at the BCHRC (and ALL that provide funding!) to recoup losses incurred by Mark Steyn, Macleans, ect. They will only change the legislation if it hit’s their pocketbooks and is proven to be an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars!
How about a re-examination of cases past that did not reflect this “verdict”? Can we not point out the inconsistency of judgement?
They have blinked. We must push forward.
Just to clarify, if I read this correctly it was the CHRC that dismissed the complaint, not the BCHRC.
The BCHRC is still considering things… right?
It does set a favourable precedent, though most of us would have preferred to take it to the supreme court. I guess a bird in the hand….
Right now, it seems to me that the battles to be fought are in BC and in Alberta. We must not let up.
Thanks for the More link Kate, that clears it up. Now pay attention here, folks, the details are important. This was not about the previous mealy-mouthed OHRC findings. This was not about the upcoming BCHRC findings. This was about the pending CHRC findings, which will now not be pursued, and apparently without any mealy-mouthed addendum.
If the HRC had targeted an ordinary person who did not have deep pockets and media exposure, they would’ve roasted them, slowly.
What a bunch of shameless totalitarian cowards.
Please folks … keep on your CPC MPs so that they shut this thing down, or at least drastically limit its mandate. Without pressure, nothing will be done.
So is this the first case they have ever lost or did they dodge that loss of face?
I hope MS sues them for defamation.
The CHRC Thought Police were apparently not quite stupid enough to not retreat on this battle, but they are already planning their next offensive for stronger powers with Dr. Moon’s “independent” study of “modern techniques” for thought control.
Canada’s War for Free Speech is yet to be won.
Ready. About turn. Aim. Fire.
Has this complaint been made of a small town pastor or some other common Joe or Jane, it would not have been dropped.
The HRC is a political not a judicial organization. It must be disbanded so common people like you and me can tell the truth, even if it is offensive.
Keep up the good fight people. We won this battle. More are coming.
Vitruvius:
There can be “systemic precedent” only within a system that takes precedent seriously. The HRC issues decisions based only on the opinions and prejudices of whatever “judges” happen to be sitting on a particular case. “Precedent” plays no role in the process. Had the matter proceeded to a real court, a meaningful precedent might have been established. I say “might” because Canada’s devotion to free speech seems to be tenuous in many quarters.
I was right. They are going after a comic now. Marxists and Fascists have one thing in common, they can’t take a joke. What I wonder is whether the violent lesbians (they threw drinks at him) were told that they could make a couple grand this way. Hey, think about it. All people need to do now is go make out in front of a comic and thereby disrupting his show, get abused for the rudeness, and then complain to the HRC and make a couple grand off the restaurant and the comic. Nice scam!
“A Canadian stand-up comedian will face a human rights tribunal hearing after a woman complained she and her friends faced a “tirade of homophobic and sexist comments” while attending one of his shows.
In a decision released this week, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled there is enough evidence to hear the case of Vancouver woman Lorna Pardy against Toronto comedian Guy Earle. Zesty’s Restaurant in Vancouver, where the May 22, 2007, show took place, was also named in the complaint. The restaurant has since closed. ”
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7096c4b6-e48c-46ea-9aeb-7a075a3766e2
My intention was to use the word precedent in the broader sense, RSP, as in this precedent may feed back into the legislative processes, which are not now quiescent (sorry I wasn’t clear). Arguably it may hinder rather than help, we shall see. And I’ve been wrong before. Yet it is certainly not my intention to dissuade you or anyone else from being a pessimist, I think you should be free to be a pessimist, even if things have been continuously getting generally better, and look on the bright side, you’ve got lots of company 😉
If truth is no defense why should precedent be a defense.
These commissions with their Socialist little holier than thou types as commissioners need to be eliminated. Get rid of Section 13 and it’s Provincial equivalents.
Who will be complaining next, bikers??, Pedophiles?? , other common criminals??
Hate speech can be applied to anyone because anyone can take offense to what another might say and find it hateful.
I find these commissions hateful and their actions are more than hateful, who do I file a complaint to in this event.
It’s a bit bit disappointing AND a positive sign. The prospect of a trial that would drive the issue into the broader public’s consciousness was something a lot of us were looking forward to, but Vitruvius is right, too, that this could also be a sign that Those Who Would Rule Us are getting the picture.
The best part, to me, is the fact that that Mark Steyn and Ken White attended the prime minister’s garden party; that’s got to be a bit of a thumb in the eye of the various HRCs. And it shows that in the eyes of the Conservatives, Mark Steyn is no pariah at all.
What got me was seeing Mark Steyn there. I couldn’t stop laughing. This guy is reminds me of the gopher on Caddy Shack. Popping up when you least expect him to the appearance, of the “proper people” with his odd notions of liberty. I bet the PM got an ear full, with Steynian charm, without even any awareness of pain!
People like him & Ezra are a rare commodity indeed. This is the opening HRC gambit to normalize themselves by appearing reasonable. Well we know there true feelings from Barbara Hall….. Fire them all.
wooo!
….though just the same, I almost wanted a conviction (and likely, so did ken white et al.) because it would have shown the commissions to be the farce that they are. This is great news all the same; they backed down and have lost their aura of governmental invincibility.
It won’t be long now before the ‘vultures’ sweep in to pick them apart. This is the death knoll of 13.1
Without all of publicity provided by the kangaroo courts how is Mark Steyn going to sell any more books? This could be bad for his career.
Who doubts one bit, with the history of these HRC extremists, that without negative media attention and criticism, including blogs like yours Kate, these little chicken shits would not have done what they’ve always done in the past with their less powerful ‘subjects’.
No better time will be available to Canada than now to finally drive a stake into the heart of thess out-of-control Frankenstein experiments.
Point taken Vitruvius.
But I still think the statement made by the OHRC was direction to the BCHRC and this statement from the CHRC is the same thing.
These people all play on the same team! They are desperately trying to play the “please all people, just stay in power” game but the information technology is beyond their ability to control. They are awkwardly trying to use it to their advantage but have suddenly realised that the people they judge are now starting to pay attention.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Two things:
“Kill the snake you face and your back is safe” is an appropriate statement at this time. Going after them is the course.
Send letters and emails to the CPC explaining that you won’t fund the next election or work on the campaign unless there is serious movement to rid Canada of the HRC plague.
At least that’s what I’ve sent.
Regards,
Pat
It would seem to me that the politicians had better wake up and realize the eventual outcome of all of this. When you start cornering democracy, look out. When those that value their freedoms have no where to turn and no one to turn to, what’s next? The Human Rights Commissions are the beginnings of a totalitarian state, control with no recourse. Once again I say, WAKE UP, wake up before I hear, I never thought that could happen here.
Jan in Alberta at June 26, 2008 11:59 PM
** How about a re-examination of cases past that did not reflect this * verdict *? Can we not point out the inconsistency of judgement?
They have blinked. We must push forward. **
=============
Even true court of law decisions are not final. Many wrongly convicted, released in Canada.
HR Commissions are an informal group of appointed [friends?], who render a decision about op-ed writing or intentional hate mongering malice.
A good project for an human rights scholar would be a comparative review of all previous penalty awards by the ABHRC.
It would be interesting to see how many past awards should be reversed and compensation given for the wrongly accused, using the Macleans decision as a standard yardstick. = TG
Rick @ 12:42 am,Careful what you say about bikers. I for one don’t like being identified as a biker/common criminal.A crack like you just put out on the net will no doubt earn you some lumps if you run your mouth in the wrong place.
In the meantime I notice – no Mark Steyn in the last couple of issues of MacLeans
Revenant@01:11. Yes,that’s the Real story isn’t it? What was a racist*, right-wing*, Islamaphobic* penner of vitriol** doing at the Prime Minister’s Gawden Pawty? The next faux scandal perhaps?
*read “common sense”
**read “wordsmith”
This was standard cut-and-run tactics by Liberal agencies. Do the drive-by smear, but when the spotlight shines on you, scurry to the shadows. CHRC was very aware that had the lynching continued they would have come under investigative scrutiny like never before, including the people and the methodologies of the commission. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if BCHRC finds for the plaintiffs.
Just so everyone is on the same songsheet:
– This dismissal came from the CHRC and NOT the BCHRT, the folks that ran the interrogation that happened recently.
The FEDERAL Kangaroos blinked…NOT the BC Kangaroos, therefore: there is still a strong chance of the BCHRT making a guilty call and Macleans going to real court.
This is just ONE of the jurisdictions that the fascists appealed to.
BUT…I find it VERY informative that Steyn and White were at the Garden Party. Together with Ezra’s contacts with the CPC, I suspect that PMSH is handling this with subtlety (a la Sun Tsu).
Keep up the pressure!
test
testtest
Kate, you seem somewhat testy this evening.
Cheers,
DB
Yup, she’s definitely looking a little testy…
A letter to my local CPC MP is in order. Fletcher, get yer reading glasses on.
Mark Steyn is the most skookum writer since P.J. Orouke, :yes for you millies that means tough and steady in the cow horse world: Thankfully the poofters who run these kangaroo courts realized their cover would be blown and backed off,, but this is, and never will be over until vigilant people either win of give up. Myself. I prefer winning to capitulating to a bunch of non-working, non producing, useless as a tit on a boar, sloped foreheaded,types like Ian Finnes types.
…information technology is beyond their ability to control. They are awkwardly trying to use it to their advantage…
But the people watching them are more tech-savvy than they are, not to mention enlightened about how tricksters operate.
more outrage is necessary re the minister who has been told he can’t write or speak by the hrc. this has to be changed , attacked, destroyed by whatever means necessary.
I’m interested in WHY the Commission dismissed the complaint. They don’t give any reasons.
And after all, isn’t it the Human RIGHT of Canadians to know the perimeters of decision-making by these Commissions, so that we Canadians can know which of our future complaints will be accepted or dismissed?
I’m guessing that the CHRC is trying to settle back into its normal low profile mode of going after ordinary Canadians and made this decision, not on rational grounds but on political grounds. They want everything quiet again.
After all, if we compare the factual basis for their other decisions against we Canadians, then, this Maclean’s complaint shouldn’t have been dismissed. Other complaints have focused only on the assertion of the complainant that they felt ‘insulted’. That’s all it took for judgment of guilt. That’s all. So, what’s different about this case? The CHRC was afraid of the backlash.
Bruce b;
I understood utterly nothing you said. Is there a question in there some where or is it just a sort of a word puzzle? Any way dude
Happy trails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZKGDqbWPg
Rev
it took me a try or two as well to decypher Bruce
he playing to the Lieberals way of thinkin