“The first recommendation is that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would no longer deal with hate speech, in particular hate speech on the Internet.”
Full report here – commissioned by the CHRC itself.
Update: Unconfirmed sources report that an advisor to the Michael Ignatieff Liberal leadership campaign will be issuing a statement discounting the Moon Report as the work of a “Nazi sympathizer”… developing…
More at the National Post, plus reaction from Kathy Shaidle, and Mark Steyn, with lots of chatter erupting across the ranks of the Blogging Tories.
UPDATE: The CHRC is in full damage control mode – “Lynch is already trying to throw Moon under the bus.”
In her press release announcing his report, which you can see here, you’ll notice something is missing: Moon’s recommendation to repeal section 13. He uses the phrase repeal again and again in his report – but you won’t find it in Lynch’s revisionist press release. It’s like the chapter in George Orwell’s 1984, where Winston is busy cutting out embarrassing items from old newspapers, and replacing them with the new, politically correct truth. That’s what Lynch is doing already.
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.
http://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.