67 Replies to “Kathy Shaidle: Get Rid of Section 13!”
Kathy is a Canadian treasure.
Thank you to a great Patriot.
You go girl, didn’t Harper slide a similar version of Section 13 into his snooping legislation?
RHTT, you are right, Kathy is a Canadian treasure championing freedom.
Rose, I agree somewhat and Toews messed up big time, but there is a lot of politics going on with this bill.
“…there is a lot of politics going on with this bill.”
Right and there isn’t much anti child porn associated with it either. More like – “The Install The Ability For “us” To Snoop, Or Else Bill”. You pay for it, too.
Mr Toews was very supportive of the LPOC version, Bil C-36, back post 911, too. I know, because CBC wrote up an article about that.
Go Kathy!!!
I love you Kathy, but the snake sweater has to go. It’s so OWS.
Did everyone catch what Shaidle said about Cotler as champion of section 13?
“He did it with the best of intentions”!
And THAT is always the problem with any law or regulation,they’re ALWAYS done with the best of intentions,and they almost invariably end up being used to abuse innocent parties,especially under hard socialist governments.
AND THAT is why so many of us are against Vic Toews latest venture into making the world safer and better. It will eventually come back to bite us all,especially when the NDP or Liberals inevitably hold power.
Get out your sack cloth and ashes and repent of S.13! A veritable blight on ‘free speech’.
S13 has only served to “expose Parliament as an object of hatred and contempt.”
Kathy is a long suffering hoot.
Free speech uber alles! Cotler’s defence of this useless piece of governmental apparatus is laughable…. http://ezralevant.com/2012/02/censoring-hitler-and-the-past.html
To wit: “Late you come, but still you come. You should have recognized the value of criticism during the years we were in opposition (when) our press was forbidden, our meetings were forbidden, and we were forbidden to speak for years on end.”
Now you are forbidden…as the double edged sword reveals it’s other edge.
Dame Justice may be blind but Irwin Cotler would have her deaf, and dumb as well.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I completely agree with dmorris … that is the logo of the left … it’s the good intentions that matter. The devastating results of most leftist policy is the pavement on the road to hell.
There needs to be a mandatory university degree for Liberal thinkers titled the phenomenon of unintended consequences 101.
I doubt if Toews had any idea what a can of worms he was opening. Listening to what the top cops wanted would have seemed reasonable when taken out of context without understanding the full ramifications. Any 13 year old could have probably told him the negatives on what he wanted. Toews is probably the typical politician with just enough computer savy to get by. I’m sure that by now he has a better idea of how intrusive the bill is. Police will always demand more power as authority and power go hand in hand and complete control is always the objective. Since politicians can never admit they may be wrong on their own legislation it will be interesting to see what he considers a happy medium.
“I love you Kathy, but the snake sweater has to go. It’s so OWS.”
Abe Forman
Abe baby,
The snake represents “Don’t thread on me”…it is worn by many TEA partiers…OWS wears Che Gavarra and the old USSR logo and other communist signs.
Google don’t thread on me for the history of it..Way before the current TEA party movement.
Thanks for that info Terry. I didn’t know that. But it still is a very unattractive shirt and it is the sort of thing that, as you described is worn by the OWS crowd … albeit with a different message.
I don’ t know if I would want to have a snake as my logo for any reason, that could be a PETA message as well.
There is a reason why organizations pay a lot of money for branding.
Kathy writes and speaks well. I’d like to hear her off-camera where she could say what she really thinks.
Free speech is an absolute and essential right. Offending people is a right and a privilege. Any society that doesn’t allow its citizenry the freedom to judge the content of free speech might just as well disallow them a vote for representation.
“In fact, the Canadian Human Rights Commission turned down the complaint against Steyn.”
the fools were trying to put a band aid on the hole in the side of the Titanic
The main issue is border line
if some one drink too much they tell him alcholist
if on opposite way some one too much to rules and made too big deal of every word come of mouth of person or pen and made them to law and guilty of crime it most cases can be ruleist new word in opposit of alcholist
it means too much too little
when legal issue pops up some one must pay legal fees in some case people donate free money to kathey sheidle to write all right or wrong toher blog and she does not change her mind even all facts proof otherwise
now she is upset some people may get legal aids for section 13 so so many cases can pay be legal aids include so many criminal cases that government pay for crown and government pay for lawyer and indirectly control both party to help crown and reported indirectly all facts to government and let legal aids lawyer snicth more to crown illegally but again some one pay some one for sure
now hate crime is result of made people first angry second they made people hated you by continue the same behaviour and third and worst to lead yourself or lead other party to crime as result of anger and hate to become hate crime and do all illegal as result of that and some part of counrty can disable
we saw all protesters who are angry their brought their ange to hate to smash glases of window of inncoent business people on street
now what is important to not allow anybody to made some people go underness of skin to lead to them to obvious crime to treat or kill or so any mischeif agianst each other to endanger safty and security of country or local people
if we see miniroty in Canada can be muslim to bother freely with no limit can easy majority inflence and not give them job not give them justice and not give tehir children to grow normal and similar way we saw in century ago how USA treat balck and black children to mental illness of hate and lead them not grow natural way and see love as all children need it too
nonmuslim has right to talk with border limit to not boost hate crime and put life and safty and sucurity of muslim in dange
we saw so many case crown atroney put muslim inmate to long term jail because the person was jewish antimuslim and wrote during her undergradut study that if anybody talk against Isreal and president of Isreal need to go to jail and same crown also wrote 53 pages help for hate toward women wear scarf and love to gay now that crown after 4 years add to big salary of 100,000 to 200,000 big salary of crown while in similar cases she let other party go with peacebond when she faces with muslim with scarf wearing and muslim link she instead to not bail person and force them to guilty please and long jail sentence for two years even for small assult charge ask for NCR AND force inmate to eat mental illness talbet and stay unvolutnery hosptilazation in mental hosptial for two years or long term of jail
why
because when she was undergradue already excecise her anger toward muslim now as she grow she has potentioanl of hate toward criminal muslim and now when see one case she lead to do as crown atronery to do hate crime and do illegal to put some one in justice to made them guilty because in reverse they hate muslim
then this time when jewish antimuslim crown want to act with big boss who keep put every drink driver to long term jail not to stop drinking in all city limit and not leave bar if thier drink leverl are not match anybody to drink then crown attonry who hate drink driver are not hate alchole as main iseu cause death here
every bar tender should not allow anybody in and out of their bar without check their alchol level
then we can see human right must ring the bell you can not put drink murderer simiilar than cold blooded murder in same jail and same year behind bar because person accidentaly go more limit it is crown who put law of drinkning in city permited are responsible of all death on raod and city
human right need while in case of muslim again nobody find guilty of any crime in canada it means human right also not care about muslim because human right also in canada run by nonmsulim too and burning queran is ok for them
justice need to server but cause of action of any crim or any hate crime is link to bigger fund raising from people to pay blog to increase hate against muslim is not right way too
snak is person to come to bite muslim in any shape
right!
lol
Don’t tread on me! has a long and honourable tradition of standing up for freedom from Government oppression and has no history with the leftist causes in any way, shape or form.
It’s interesting that there is such a cry being raised about C-30 and how invasive it “could” be and crickets about how invasive the fire-arms license application and referencing actually is. I guess to oppose the invasive aspects of the firearms bills would have been supporting individual freedom and we can’t have that, can we.
For my money, Kathy Shaidle can wear a flour sack and look good doing it. “Don’t Tread On ME!” is exactly the message needing delivered to the Ottawa mandarins who run this freak show we call a “free” nation.
Free to shut up and pay your tax, more like.
victim toews – the problem is that there shouldn’t be any Section 13 in the HRC mandate. The original mandate referred only to housing and employment practices and as such, had a modicum, but only that, of practical sense. Section 13 is pure outrageous, smug, pontificating nonsense.
Section 13/1 reads:
“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.”
Now, the key sentences are: “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.”
What does ‘likely’ mean in actual, operational, empirical reliability? Who gets to say that ‘this statement by X person’… is LIKELY to..expose a person(s) to hatred? Notice that this is a future-oriented framework. ‘Likely’ refers, not to the actual, but to the probable. Who determines the future? How can we judge what doesn’t exist?
Then, we come to the terms of ‘hatred’ or ‘contempt’. These are entirely subjective emotions and cannot be directly linked to a singular cause (that statement). After all, if I feel that you, Victim, are attempting to expose me to the ‘hatred’ and ‘contempt’ of the other readers on this blog, should my subjective emotional perspective be viewed as a violation of my human rights?
And finally, ‘on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination’ – which refers, in the fullness of wisdom, to “race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.” Whew.
The problem with such a noble list is simple: how does one separate one’s contempt for someone who is, let’s say, an ignorant and obnoxious twit, from his skin colour? Can’t he be ignorant and obnoxious all by himself? Hmmm?
Hate speech is covered in our regular laws under ‘incitement to violence’ and under libel laws. That’s all that should exist.
To have these Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals, which operate outside the courts, which assume guilt before innocence and thus, pay the plaintiff’s legal costs but not the defendants, and which are ‘judged’ by non-legal political appointees – this is a travesty of democratic freedom.
After all, there is no human right to ‘not be offended’, and it is a democratic travesty for a govt to constrain its citizens from criticism – of each other and of the govt.
What’s all this about Victim possessing superior critical thinking skills? S/he doesn’t even know the facts. Of course, s/he could do some research, using her/his superior education skills, but, no, s/he peddles untruths instead.
This ignorant poseur cavalierly writes (no documentation), “Steyn and Levant were not prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” WRONG.
Here’s what Ezra wrote in a Sun column, in November, 2011: “. . . The Alberta government, using its provincial version of Section 13, prosecuted me for 900 days . . .”
And, at Macleans, October 5, 2009, “A tandem appearance by Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard magazine, made for an unusually entertaining first day of hearings at a parliamentary committee probing the controversial powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
“Steyn and Levant were called as witnesses by the House of Commons Justice Committee because they have both clashed with the commission and emerged as impassioned advocates for the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which gives the commission the authority to investigate complaints about hate speech.”
About this, Victim also writes this asinine opinion: “Other than the fact that Steyn and Levant did not receive costs, it seems to me like the system worked.” Really?
How about this, again by Ezra (at Free Dominion) about his 900 day ordeal? “Taxpayers are out more than $500,000 for an investigation that involved fifteen bureaucrats at the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The legal cost to me and the now-defunct Western Standard magazine is $100,000.” And the accuser, who dropped the case, paid nothing. This is all OK with Victim?
About Section 13, itself, Ezra, back at the Sun (November, 2012): “In 1977, Pierre Trudeau rammed through the Canadian Human Rights Act — an Orwellian name for a law that actually destroys real rights.
“The entire law is a corruption of justice — it creates a kangaroo court, run by non-judges, that does not follow the same rules and procedures of real courts, but has massive powers to punish and fine people who aren’t politically correct.
“Truth is not a defence to being charged with ‘hate’ under Section 13. Fair comment is not a defence. Religious belief is not a defence. Telling a joke is not a defence. The law has nothing to do with truth or the right to have an opinion. It’s about whether or not you’ve offended someone or hurt their feelings.”
(Read the rest at http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/18/no-more-witch-hunts)
But Victim, who’s pontificated on an issue about which s/he seems to know nothing, says that this travesty of the rule of law is entirely acceptable. Well, I guess it is—if one lives in a totalitarian country. And Victim should remember that it’s the Liberals who are the authors of this tyranny. And it’s the Conservatives who are remedying it.
“BTW, “lookout,” the Alberta Human Rights Act was passed by the Alberta legislature. It will be a strange day indeed when Ottawa writes Alberta’s legislation. And it was a Tory government that passed the law that was used in the Levant case.”
You seem very angry. Who gave the Alberta legislature the template? The current “conservative” government is one strange beast if you consider it “conservative” at all.
Thanks for not reminding me how ugly I am.
My mother-in-law already took care of that 🙂
I hope it goes without saying that I don’t approve of good intentions. But Cotler did, hence our current difficulties.
And yes, the Gadsden Flag predates Occupy by 200 years.
PS: his use of the word “rubes” gives away the troll “Victim Towes” as Robert McClelland
The current “conservative” government is one strange beast if you consider it “conservative” at all.
~PO’ed in AB
You should notice that the troll, like all Leftists, refers to the Alberta government as “Tory” not conservative.
Do not confuse the two terms, the Progressive Conservatives have always been Tories but have never been Conservatives.
All of the Human Rights Commissions should be de-commissioned and eliminated.
There are laws which already guarantee people’s rights in Canada and there is zero need for these kangaroo courts.
Victim Toews (are you Robert McClelland by the way? – you commented in a previous thread that you felt it was cowardly to post under a blog name’]
Now, your comment that Steyn and Levant were not connected to or prosecuted under HRA 13, isn’t accurate. The facts are, that a complaint by two plaintiffs (Soharwardy and the Edmonton Muslim Comm) was filed WITHIN THIS SECTION against both Levant in Alberta, and filed against Steyn/Macleans in Ontario and BC by the Cdn Islamic Congress. Got that?
You are slithering past the point; Section 13 enables someone to file a legal complaint UNDER THIS SECTION against another person for speaking/writing something that ‘might’, just might…expose someone else to ‘contempt or hatred’.
The fact that a complaint UNDER THIS SECTION was filed, and above all, that it COULD BE FILED, regardless of the outcome, is an act of injustice. This means that the defendant must hire a lawyer, go to an ‘investigation by a Human Rights Commissioner’ (Levant taped his)..and endure being targeted by a legally authorized govt ‘watchdog’.
Of course I blame the Human Rights Commission for its behaviour. First, any decent rational individual, with a moral commitment to justice, should never ‘work’ in such a commission.
Second, you are ignoring that the rhetoric of Section 13/1 is so ambiguous, so vague, so lacking factual criteria, so outside of the realm of actual reality, that decisions are necessarily purely and only subjective. Therefore, I blame the subjective decision-making process of the HRCs.
And no, the HRAct is not for lawyers to decide – oh, and please note, that there are no lawyers on these HRCommissions; the HRAct is for the Parliamentary Legislature to decide. The Legislature should get rid of it. Totally or at least, Section 13.
The fact that Steyn and Levant were brought in front of Human Rights Commissions in the first place was a travesty.
Does anyone know what the punishment would be if they would’ve simply disregarded the charges against them and didn’t show up?
“Do not confuse the two terms, the Progressive Conservatives have always been Tories but have never been Conservatives.”
Sorry, I’ll go slither under a rock now.
VT says, again with no documentation—provide, please—that “Neither of them [Levant and Steyn] were prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the Human Rights Act”.
Also, this fact and intellectually challenged upstart writes, “I haven’t said Sec. 13 is good law or bad law”. Poppycock, because about the arbitrary persecution and kangaroo court procedure both of them were forced to endure, VT opines, “Other than the fact that Steyn and Levant did not receive costs, it seems to me like the system worked.” (I used inference to figure out that the HRCs and their use of Section 13 to harass and punish law-abiding citizens are A-OK with you.)
More documentation: “National Post editorial board: Abolishing S. 13 would be a big win for free speech
“National Post Editorial Board Sep 28, 2011
“. . . In 2007, Sec. 13 was used against writer Mark Steyn for material he wrote in Maclean’s magazine that four Muslim students claimed had offended them. That same year, a similar provision in Alberta provincial human rights law was used to prosecute Ezra Levant . . . In both cases, the clear intent of the complainants was to limit legitimate debate about religious extremism.
“The problem for censorship-minded activists is that proving hate speech in court is hard. Courts tend to abridge Charter rights such as freedom of expression only in the most extreme cases. It is unlikely that an anti-immigration screed on the Internet or a controversial editorial cartoon would prompt a real judge to shut down a website or fine a blogger. That’s why most activists prefer to rely on Sec. 13 of the CHRA and its provincial counterparts (which should also be written out of the law), instead of the criminal code. . . .”
See the full editorial at: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/28/national-post-editorial-board-abolishing-s-13-would-be-a-big-win-for-free-speech/
If VT expects to earn any credibility—in just a few days here, it’s been altogether lacking—s/he will have to do better than simply spout uninformed, disingenuous, and incorrect blather.
In Levant’s case, Sec. 13 would not apply because the material was published in a magazine. Sec. 13 only applies to material communicated on the Internet.
The internet?
Do you mean like the Western Standard’s internet forum “the Shotgun Blog” which showcased the Danish Mohammad cartoons??
So, we’re “getting rid of Section 13.1, eh? http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2012/nr20120214-1-eng.aspx
You’re sure of that, eh? Cgheck out the last part on this link:
Addressing Hate Crime
The term hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crimes) refers to criminal actions intended to harm or intimidate members of an “identifiable group” because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or other minority group status. Bill C-30 proposes that section 319 of the Criminal Code’s hate propaganda offences be amended to include national origin, sex, age, and mental or physical disability in its definition of “identifiable group.”
I’m sure to be on a “list”, now that I went there. I need a shower.
victim – I have no intention of telling you my name; I wasn’t the one who stated that people who post under a blog name rather than their real name are cowards. You made that claim. You ought to have the integrity of your opinions. Hmmm?
And, victim, as others have pointed out (and how is it that you don’t know this?), the HRAct says:
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.”
Do you see the word in the Section? ‘Internet’. That’s what it says. In the text.
Now, here’s the Alberta HRAct:
“3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate
against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred
or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical
disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital
status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that
person or class of persons.”
Gosh, Victim, the Alberta Act is just like the Canadian Act; except that it doesn’t use the word ‘Internet’. It uses the phrase “published, issued or displayed before the public”. This would include hard copy magazines – which is how they went after Steyn and Levant. And the Internet. Oh – didn’t you reject the Internet as a mode of communication in this issue?
Oh, and if I want to use capitals for emphasis, that’s my choice. Just as it’s your choice to both assert that posting under a blog name is cowardly and yet, yourself using a blog name. heh.
Now, I’ve a question, Victim, which I know you won’t answer. Do you think that this section of the HRActs – and it’s irrelevant in which province – is a ‘just law’?
Oh, Victim – The BC HRAct is just like the Alberta one. It includes hard copy and Internet.
Now, since both Levant’s magazine and MacLeans are available in hard copy and the Internet, then, ALL the HRActs would apply. So, Victim, both Levant and Steyn were indeed ‘subject to its profound gaze’.
Now, what you are doing, with your reductio ad absurdum focus on ‘well, he wasn’t prosecuted under THAT HR Act but under THIS HR Act, is to divert attention from the REAL ISSUE – which is the just-value of this section, in any HRAct, that pertains to the likelihood of speech, at some time in the future, “is LIKELY (my emphasis) to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.
Now, this is the real issue. I know you want to remain entrapped in personal hatreds, but the real issue, Victim, is the victimization of people within this section of the HRAct. Gosh, with all your outspoken concern for the downtrodden and hapless helpless, it’s really, really strange that you aren’t in the least bothered by this ‘law’. Heh.
Who or what is Robert McLalland, may I ask?
Sorry, “McClelland”.
Robert Howard “Bob” McClelland (ca 1933[1]) is a former broadcaster, journalist and political figure in British Columbia. He represented Langley in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1972 to 1986 as a Social Credit member.
He was named as a customer in the prosecution of an escort service in 1985.[1]
Why would anyone split hairs over the CHRC or their little provincial wannabees. They are all unelected and unaccountable professional busybodies. Slice it anyway you want and you still have Ezra being prosecuted for reprinting some stupid cartoons and having to come up with over a hundred thousand to defend himself while the idiot that laid the charge pays nothing.
Even Victim Toews should see this travesty of justice , but somehow I doubt it.
Look, Victim, stop moving into ‘reductio ad absurdum’ arguments.
Whether this section of the HRAct is numbered as Section 7 in the BC Act, or 3, in the Alberta Act or 13 in the Canadian Act is utterly and totally irrelevant. It’s the CONTENT of these articles that affects Canadians. NOT THE NUMBER. Get that?
They are all, almost identical, in that they outlaw speech – internet only in 13 or internet and hard copy in the others – that is ‘likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt’. That’s the issue.
The objectionable factor of the HRAct – whether it is section 3, 7 or 13, is that power that it gives to a ‘commission’ (not a court) to decide the FUTURE results of speech. Whew – now, why this doesn’t bother you, with your focus on freedom and justice – is beyond me.
Why you instead CHOOSE to focus on the number of the clause, and the fact that the HR Commission (under a LOT of national publicity) backed off these cases – when they hadn’t backed off so many of the others – well, that’s your mindset.
As for myself, my focus is on getting rid of this abusive clause, regardless of its number, because it is UNJUST and a violation of our fundamental right of free speech and free thought.
Kathy always does a good interview. Mainly because she knows what shes talking about. Unlike the usual airhead talking heads.
She has not been cocooned by money nor been a social by product of fame. She lives in the real World not the Planet of the wealthy or social climbers.
When it comes to knowing modern culture she shines.
Having a political conversion from the left, also gives her credibility when talking politics. She knows the left intimately, along with their subversive practices, their many illusions.
Victim Toews
Your an horses ass.
Barbara Hall herself said Steyn should be prosecuted. Is that a so called none interference statement? I call it slander myself.For what? Using an Imams own Quote!!!Better that the National Human abusers Federal Kangaroo court should turn it down Than lets its Political comrades in the Provincial HRCs do their dirty work for them.
Why sully the Federal organization of a Star chamber when you have minions in provinces with the same job of hounding anything not socialist or supporting money hungry aggrieved offending mongers.You never did answer about the time or expense of the real Victims who where charged or the FACT truth was no deference. By the way what about all those people who don’t have money or influence. How about all 13 cases being brought by one individual in section 13 cases?
How about Judges so inept they called in people about jokes? How about the suffering tax payer paying for this Marxist circus. This anti speech brigade who had actual criminals working for them.
“National Post Editorial Board Sept. 28, 2011
“In 2007, Sec. 13 was used against writer Mark Steyn for material he wrote in Maclean’s magazine that four Muslim students claimed had offended them. That same year, a similar provision in Alberta provincial human rights law [which, contrary to VT’s false assertion, defers to precedent from other jurisdictions] was used to prosecute Ezra Levant . . .”
Levant and Steyn got off, not only because they were high profile and able to publicize the insanity of the complaints and the process, but they had the HUGE financial resources—hundreds of thousands of dollars—to fight back. Their accusers paid NOTHING.
VT, if Section 13 had nothing to do with these travesties, on what grounds, with documentation, did any of the HRCs proceed with these “hate speech” cases? (I’ve noticed that this person generally ignores inconvenient questions.)
If VT expects to earn any credibility—in just a few days here, it’s been altogether lacking—s/he will have to do better than behave like a spoiled brat, insulting people while spouting uninformed, disingenuous, and incorrect blather.
ANY section of ANY HRAct is a fraud and should be eliminated.
And going back to when V.Toews(definitely McClelland) showed up,in not ONE post has it given ONE link to any of its “facts”.Could we please treat it as other trolls,and just ignore it??
ZING, if true, then this person has gone over to the dark side. I am old enough to remember that the Robert Thompson Social Credit people would never have thought that the HRC and its anti-free speech crusade in any form was a good thing.
@ Victim Toews at February 22, 2012 6:39 PM
“Never letting the facts get in the way of their argument”.
You sure you didn’t mean my instead of their? You seem to skip right over anything logical and ridicule every opinion that does not meet your preconceived notion of fact. Like a petulant little child. You would probably be much more at home over at Rabble.ca where like minded published authors with 3000 books and genius wives congregate. They also love demonstrating and will appreciate the wisdom and tenacity you continue to display. We have all been challenged and refreshed by your unique point of view but personally I’m already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth.
Victim Toews
I,m a product of a Liberal education via Trudeau
What Victim is totally ignoring is that the Human Rights Acts, whether in their federal or provincial form, are essentially the same. They all have that same anti-free speech section. Whether it’s called 13, 3, or 7 is utterly irrelevant.
And yet, rather than focusing on the CONTENT of this section, and debating its value or non-value, for some odd reason, which I can only assume is personal, Victim focuses on the fact that the actual charges were not laid by the federal HRAct (13) but by its provincial counterparts.
Who cares?
They all have the same societal function! The denigration and constraint of free speech.
Now, why Victim isn’t interested in this travesty against our freedom, and instead, only focuses on ‘she called it ‘that’, and it’s ‘this’ – is beyond me. Again, whether it’s this or that, the content is the same! Why oh why is Victim so utterly indifferent to the content?
Is his indifference the result of our education system or is it his own personal nature?
Thanks, ZING. Does he have a history of trolling? This one is tedious, although I am enjoying all this “Lying lairs (sic)” business. Do you still have a kid at Lady Evelyn, Vic?
VT, in response to the NP editorial I quoted, you write, “ If the National Post said Levant was prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the federal Human Rights Act, the Post is wrong.” Really? On what grounds do you assert this?
Documentation, VT. You’ve not proved your point. Mere assertion is not a proof.
Also, in matters of law, as I said before, precedents are definitely part of the equation. Provinces regularly follow the lead of established, federal law. E.g., In 1988, Ralph Klein did exactly what the Supreme Court told him to do, re expanding codified rights to be enforced by HRCs, including the AHRC. Correspondingly, the force of Section 13 has been and is definitely part of the provincial HRCs’ arsenals. (Not to mention, that they’re all teeming with left-wing activists.)
Go ahead and prove your case, with more than “just because I said”.
@ ET at February 22, 2012 7:44 PM
“Is his indifference the result of our education system or is it his own personal nature”?
Probably both. Another child raised by the book of Dr. Spock. Time outs and a medal for participation in everything. Doubt if he is still married as even a “genius” wife could put up with this obnoxious twit.
lookout – true enough, but I’m with ET on this; provincial or Mother Ship, it’s all the same tumour, and it needs zapping*. This has been explained to Vic several times, so I can only conclude that he’s still “arguing” about this here because he’s ronery.
*mixed metaphores are vibrant metaphores!
Okay, I looked him up. Seems like some senile old Jew-hater. (I prefer the term “Jew-hater” to “anti-semite” because if you say “anti-semite” you risk getting a jerk smirking on about how Arabs are semites too, betcha didn’t know that, ha ha, DIAF.)
Anyhoo, in the course of my explorations 2007-EBD introduced me to the term “negative capability”. Sounds like some Star Trek thing but it’s actually Keats.
Oh, and Kathy was great, but she always is. Loved the shirt.
Kathy is a Canadian treasure.
Thank you to a great Patriot.
You go girl, didn’t Harper slide a similar version of Section 13 into his snooping legislation?
RHTT, you are right, Kathy is a Canadian treasure championing freedom.
Rose, I agree somewhat and Toews messed up big time, but there is a lot of politics going on with this bill.
“…there is a lot of politics going on with this bill.”
Right and there isn’t much anti child porn associated with it either. More like – “The Install The Ability For “us” To Snoop, Or Else Bill”. You pay for it, too.
Mr Toews was very supportive of the LPOC version, Bil C-36, back post 911, too. I know, because CBC wrote up an article about that.
Go Kathy!!!
I love you Kathy, but the snake sweater has to go. It’s so OWS.
Did everyone catch what Shaidle said about Cotler as champion of section 13?
“He did it with the best of intentions”!
And THAT is always the problem with any law or regulation,they’re ALWAYS done with the best of intentions,and they almost invariably end up being used to abuse innocent parties,especially under hard socialist governments.
AND THAT is why so many of us are against Vic Toews latest venture into making the world safer and better. It will eventually come back to bite us all,especially when the NDP or Liberals inevitably hold power.
Get out your sack cloth and ashes and repent of S.13! A veritable blight on ‘free speech’.
S13 has only served to “expose Parliament as an object of hatred and contempt.”
Kathy is a long suffering hoot.
Free speech uber alles! Cotler’s defence of this useless piece of governmental apparatus is laughable….
http://ezralevant.com/2012/02/censoring-hitler-and-the-past.html
To wit: “Late you come, but still you come. You should have recognized the value of criticism during the years we were in opposition (when) our press was forbidden, our meetings were forbidden, and we were forbidden to speak for years on end.”
Now you are forbidden…as the double edged sword reveals it’s other edge.
Dame Justice may be blind but Irwin Cotler would have her deaf, and dumb as well.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I completely agree with dmorris … that is the logo of the left … it’s the good intentions that matter. The devastating results of most leftist policy is the pavement on the road to hell.
There needs to be a mandatory university degree for Liberal thinkers titled the phenomenon of unintended consequences 101.
I doubt if Toews had any idea what a can of worms he was opening. Listening to what the top cops wanted would have seemed reasonable when taken out of context without understanding the full ramifications. Any 13 year old could have probably told him the negatives on what he wanted. Toews is probably the typical politician with just enough computer savy to get by. I’m sure that by now he has a better idea of how intrusive the bill is. Police will always demand more power as authority and power go hand in hand and complete control is always the objective. Since politicians can never admit they may be wrong on their own legislation it will be interesting to see what he considers a happy medium.
“I love you Kathy, but the snake sweater has to go. It’s so OWS.”
Abe Forman
Abe baby,
The snake represents “Don’t thread on me”…it is worn by many TEA partiers…OWS wears Che Gavarra and the old USSR logo and other communist signs.
Google don’t thread on me for the history of it..Way before the current TEA party movement.
Thanks for that info Terry. I didn’t know that. But it still is a very unattractive shirt and it is the sort of thing that, as you described is worn by the OWS crowd … albeit with a different message.
I don’ t know if I would want to have a snake as my logo for any reason, that could be a PETA message as well.
There is a reason why organizations pay a lot of money for branding.
Kathy writes and speaks well. I’d like to hear her off-camera where she could say what she really thinks.
Free speech is an absolute and essential right. Offending people is a right and a privilege. Any society that doesn’t allow its citizenry the freedom to judge the content of free speech might just as well disallow them a vote for representation.
“In fact, the Canadian Human Rights Commission turned down the complaint against Steyn.”
the fools were trying to put a band aid on the hole in the side of the Titanic
The main issue is border line
if some one drink too much they tell him alcholist
if on opposite way some one too much to rules and made too big deal of every word come of mouth of person or pen and made them to law and guilty of crime it most cases can be ruleist new word in opposit of alcholist
it means too much too little
when legal issue pops up some one must pay legal fees in some case people donate free money to kathey sheidle to write all right or wrong toher blog and she does not change her mind even all facts proof otherwise
now she is upset some people may get legal aids for section 13 so so many cases can pay be legal aids include so many criminal cases that government pay for crown and government pay for lawyer and indirectly control both party to help crown and reported indirectly all facts to government and let legal aids lawyer snicth more to crown illegally but again some one pay some one for sure
now hate crime is result of made people first angry second they made people hated you by continue the same behaviour and third and worst to lead yourself or lead other party to crime as result of anger and hate to become hate crime and do all illegal as result of that and some part of counrty can disable
we saw all protesters who are angry their brought their ange to hate to smash glases of window of inncoent business people on street
now what is important to not allow anybody to made some people go underness of skin to lead to them to obvious crime to treat or kill or so any mischeif agianst each other to endanger safty and security of country or local people
if we see miniroty in Canada can be muslim to bother freely with no limit can easy majority inflence and not give them job not give them justice and not give tehir children to grow normal and similar way we saw in century ago how USA treat balck and black children to mental illness of hate and lead them not grow natural way and see love as all children need it too
nonmuslim has right to talk with border limit to not boost hate crime and put life and safty and sucurity of muslim in dange
we saw so many case crown atroney put muslim inmate to long term jail because the person was jewish antimuslim and wrote during her undergradut study that if anybody talk against Isreal and president of Isreal need to go to jail and same crown also wrote 53 pages help for hate toward women wear scarf and love to gay now that crown after 4 years add to big salary of 100,000 to 200,000 big salary of crown while in similar cases she let other party go with peacebond when she faces with muslim with scarf wearing and muslim link she instead to not bail person and force them to guilty please and long jail sentence for two years even for small assult charge ask for NCR AND force inmate to eat mental illness talbet and stay unvolutnery hosptilazation in mental hosptial for two years or long term of jail
why
because when she was undergradue already excecise her anger toward muslim now as she grow she has potentioanl of hate toward criminal muslim and now when see one case she lead to do as crown atronery to do hate crime and do illegal to put some one in justice to made them guilty because in reverse they hate muslim
then this time when jewish antimuslim crown want to act with big boss who keep put every drink driver to long term jail not to stop drinking in all city limit and not leave bar if thier drink leverl are not match anybody to drink then crown attonry who hate drink driver are not hate alchole as main iseu cause death here
every bar tender should not allow anybody in and out of their bar without check their alchol level
then we can see human right must ring the bell you can not put drink murderer simiilar than cold blooded murder in same jail and same year behind bar because person accidentaly go more limit it is crown who put law of drinkning in city permited are responsible of all death on raod and city
human right need while in case of muslim again nobody find guilty of any crime in canada it means human right also not care about muslim because human right also in canada run by nonmsulim too and burning queran is ok for them
justice need to server but cause of action of any crim or any hate crime is link to bigger fund raising from people to pay blog to increase hate against muslim is not right way too
snak is person to come to bite muslim in any shape
right!
lol
Don’t tread on me! has a long and honourable tradition of standing up for freedom from Government oppression and has no history with the leftist causes in any way, shape or form.
It’s interesting that there is such a cry being raised about C-30 and how invasive it “could” be and crickets about how invasive the fire-arms license application and referencing actually is. I guess to oppose the invasive aspects of the firearms bills would have been supporting individual freedom and we can’t have that, can we.
For my money, Kathy Shaidle can wear a flour sack and look good doing it. “Don’t Tread On ME!” is exactly the message needing delivered to the Ottawa mandarins who run this freak show we call a “free” nation.
Free to shut up and pay your tax, more like.
victim toews – the problem is that there shouldn’t be any Section 13 in the HRC mandate. The original mandate referred only to housing and employment practices and as such, had a modicum, but only that, of practical sense. Section 13 is pure outrageous, smug, pontificating nonsense.
Section 13/1 reads:
“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.”
Now, the key sentences are: “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.”
What does ‘likely’ mean in actual, operational, empirical reliability? Who gets to say that ‘this statement by X person’… is LIKELY to..expose a person(s) to hatred? Notice that this is a future-oriented framework. ‘Likely’ refers, not to the actual, but to the probable. Who determines the future? How can we judge what doesn’t exist?
Then, we come to the terms of ‘hatred’ or ‘contempt’. These are entirely subjective emotions and cannot be directly linked to a singular cause (that statement). After all, if I feel that you, Victim, are attempting to expose me to the ‘hatred’ and ‘contempt’ of the other readers on this blog, should my subjective emotional perspective be viewed as a violation of my human rights?
And finally, ‘on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination’ – which refers, in the fullness of wisdom, to “race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.” Whew.
The problem with such a noble list is simple: how does one separate one’s contempt for someone who is, let’s say, an ignorant and obnoxious twit, from his skin colour? Can’t he be ignorant and obnoxious all by himself? Hmmm?
Hate speech is covered in our regular laws under ‘incitement to violence’ and under libel laws. That’s all that should exist.
To have these Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals, which operate outside the courts, which assume guilt before innocence and thus, pay the plaintiff’s legal costs but not the defendants, and which are ‘judged’ by non-legal political appointees – this is a travesty of democratic freedom.
After all, there is no human right to ‘not be offended’, and it is a democratic travesty for a govt to constrain its citizens from criticism – of each other and of the govt.
What’s all this about Victim possessing superior critical thinking skills? S/he doesn’t even know the facts. Of course, s/he could do some research, using her/his superior education skills, but, no, s/he peddles untruths instead.
This ignorant poseur cavalierly writes (no documentation), “Steyn and Levant were not prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” WRONG.
Here’s what Ezra wrote in a Sun column, in November, 2011: “. . . The Alberta government, using its provincial version of Section 13, prosecuted me for 900 days . . .”
And, at Macleans, October 5, 2009, “A tandem appearance by Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard magazine, made for an unusually entertaining first day of hearings at a parliamentary committee probing the controversial powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
“Steyn and Levant were called as witnesses by the House of Commons Justice Committee because they have both clashed with the commission and emerged as impassioned advocates for the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which gives the commission the authority to investigate complaints about hate speech.”
About this, Victim also writes this asinine opinion: “Other than the fact that Steyn and Levant did not receive costs, it seems to me like the system worked.” Really?
How about this, again by Ezra (at Free Dominion) about his 900 day ordeal? “Taxpayers are out more than $500,000 for an investigation that involved fifteen bureaucrats at the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The legal cost to me and the now-defunct Western Standard magazine is $100,000.” And the accuser, who dropped the case, paid nothing. This is all OK with Victim?
About Section 13, itself, Ezra, back at the Sun (November, 2012): “In 1977, Pierre Trudeau rammed through the Canadian Human Rights Act — an Orwellian name for a law that actually destroys real rights.
“The entire law is a corruption of justice — it creates a kangaroo court, run by non-judges, that does not follow the same rules and procedures of real courts, but has massive powers to punish and fine people who aren’t politically correct.
“Truth is not a defence to being charged with ‘hate’ under Section 13. Fair comment is not a defence. Religious belief is not a defence. Telling a joke is not a defence. The law has nothing to do with truth or the right to have an opinion. It’s about whether or not you’ve offended someone or hurt their feelings.”
(Read the rest at http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/18/no-more-witch-hunts)
But Victim, who’s pontificated on an issue about which s/he seems to know nothing, says that this travesty of the rule of law is entirely acceptable. Well, I guess it is—if one lives in a totalitarian country. And Victim should remember that it’s the Liberals who are the authors of this tyranny. And it’s the Conservatives who are remedying it.
“BTW, “lookout,” the Alberta Human Rights Act was passed by the Alberta legislature. It will be a strange day indeed when Ottawa writes Alberta’s legislation. And it was a Tory government that passed the law that was used in the Levant case.”
You seem very angry. Who gave the Alberta legislature the template? The current “conservative” government is one strange beast if you consider it “conservative” at all.
Thanks for not reminding me how ugly I am.
My mother-in-law already took care of that 🙂
I hope it goes without saying that I don’t approve of good intentions. But Cotler did, hence our current difficulties.
And yes, the Gadsden Flag predates Occupy by 200 years.
PS: his use of the word “rubes” gives away the troll “Victim Towes” as Robert McClelland
dmorris at February 22, 2012 11:42 AM
You should post that sentiment over at
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2012/02/21/bill-c-30-fix-or-scrap/#comments
The current “conservative” government is one strange beast if you consider it “conservative” at all.
~PO’ed in AB
You should notice that the troll, like all Leftists, refers to the Alberta government as “Tory” not conservative.
Do not confuse the two terms, the Progressive Conservatives have always been Tories but have never been Conservatives.
All of the Human Rights Commissions should be de-commissioned and eliminated.
There are laws which already guarantee people’s rights in Canada and there is zero need for these kangaroo courts.
Victim Toews (are you Robert McClelland by the way? – you commented in a previous thread that you felt it was cowardly to post under a blog name’]
Now, your comment that Steyn and Levant were not connected to or prosecuted under HRA 13, isn’t accurate. The facts are, that a complaint by two plaintiffs (Soharwardy and the Edmonton Muslim Comm) was filed WITHIN THIS SECTION against both Levant in Alberta, and filed against Steyn/Macleans in Ontario and BC by the Cdn Islamic Congress. Got that?
You are slithering past the point; Section 13 enables someone to file a legal complaint UNDER THIS SECTION against another person for speaking/writing something that ‘might’, just might…expose someone else to ‘contempt or hatred’.
The fact that a complaint UNDER THIS SECTION was filed, and above all, that it COULD BE FILED, regardless of the outcome, is an act of injustice. This means that the defendant must hire a lawyer, go to an ‘investigation by a Human Rights Commissioner’ (Levant taped his)..and endure being targeted by a legally authorized govt ‘watchdog’.
Of course I blame the Human Rights Commission for its behaviour. First, any decent rational individual, with a moral commitment to justice, should never ‘work’ in such a commission.
Second, you are ignoring that the rhetoric of Section 13/1 is so ambiguous, so vague, so lacking factual criteria, so outside of the realm of actual reality, that decisions are necessarily purely and only subjective. Therefore, I blame the subjective decision-making process of the HRCs.
And no, the HRAct is not for lawyers to decide – oh, and please note, that there are no lawyers on these HRCommissions; the HRAct is for the Parliamentary Legislature to decide. The Legislature should get rid of it. Totally or at least, Section 13.
The fact that Steyn and Levant were brought in front of Human Rights Commissions in the first place was a travesty.
Does anyone know what the punishment would be if they would’ve simply disregarded the charges against them and didn’t show up?
“Do not confuse the two terms, the Progressive Conservatives have always been Tories but have never been Conservatives.”
Sorry, I’ll go slither under a rock now.
VT says, again with no documentation—provide, please—that “Neither of them [Levant and Steyn] were prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the Human Rights Act”.
Also, this fact and intellectually challenged upstart writes, “I haven’t said Sec. 13 is good law or bad law”. Poppycock, because about the arbitrary persecution and kangaroo court procedure both of them were forced to endure, VT opines, “Other than the fact that Steyn and Levant did not receive costs, it seems to me like the system worked.” (I used inference to figure out that the HRCs and their use of Section 13 to harass and punish law-abiding citizens are A-OK with you.)
More documentation: “National Post editorial board: Abolishing S. 13 would be a big win for free speech
“National Post Editorial Board Sep 28, 2011
“. . . In 2007, Sec. 13 was used against writer Mark Steyn for material he wrote in Maclean’s magazine that four Muslim students claimed had offended them. That same year, a similar provision in Alberta provincial human rights law was used to prosecute Ezra Levant . . . In both cases, the clear intent of the complainants was to limit legitimate debate about religious extremism.
“The problem for censorship-minded activists is that proving hate speech in court is hard. Courts tend to abridge Charter rights such as freedom of expression only in the most extreme cases. It is unlikely that an anti-immigration screed on the Internet or a controversial editorial cartoon would prompt a real judge to shut down a website or fine a blogger. That’s why most activists prefer to rely on Sec. 13 of the CHRA and its provincial counterparts (which should also be written out of the law), instead of the criminal code. . . .”
See the full editorial at:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/28/national-post-editorial-board-abolishing-s-13-would-be-a-big-win-for-free-speech/
If VT expects to earn any credibility—in just a few days here, it’s been altogether lacking—s/he will have to do better than simply spout uninformed, disingenuous, and incorrect blather.
In Levant’s case, Sec. 13 would not apply because the material was published in a magazine. Sec. 13 only applies to material communicated on the Internet.
The internet?
Do you mean like the Western Standard’s internet forum “the Shotgun Blog” which showcased the Danish Mohammad cartoons??
So, we’re “getting rid of Section 13.1, eh?
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2012/nr20120214-1-eng.aspx
You’re sure of that, eh? Cgheck out the last part on this link:
Addressing Hate Crime
The term hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crimes) refers to criminal actions intended to harm or intimidate members of an “identifiable group” because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or other minority group status. Bill C-30 proposes that section 319 of the Criminal Code’s hate propaganda offences be amended to include national origin, sex, age, and mental or physical disability in its definition of “identifiable group.”
I’m sure to be on a “list”, now that I went there. I need a shower.
victim – I have no intention of telling you my name; I wasn’t the one who stated that people who post under a blog name rather than their real name are cowards. You made that claim. You ought to have the integrity of your opinions. Hmmm?
And, victim, as others have pointed out (and how is it that you don’t know this?), the HRAct says:
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.”
Do you see the word in the Section? ‘Internet’. That’s what it says. In the text.
Now, here’s the Alberta HRAct:
“3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
published, issued or displayed before the public any statement,
publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate
against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred
or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical
disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital
status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that
person or class of persons.”
Gosh, Victim, the Alberta Act is just like the Canadian Act; except that it doesn’t use the word ‘Internet’. It uses the phrase “published, issued or displayed before the public”. This would include hard copy magazines – which is how they went after Steyn and Levant. And the Internet. Oh – didn’t you reject the Internet as a mode of communication in this issue?
Oh, and if I want to use capitals for emphasis, that’s my choice. Just as it’s your choice to both assert that posting under a blog name is cowardly and yet, yourself using a blog name. heh.
Now, I’ve a question, Victim, which I know you won’t answer. Do you think that this section of the HRActs – and it’s irrelevant in which province – is a ‘just law’?
Oh, Victim – The BC HRAct is just like the Alberta one. It includes hard copy and Internet.
Now, since both Levant’s magazine and MacLeans are available in hard copy and the Internet, then, ALL the HRActs would apply. So, Victim, both Levant and Steyn were indeed ‘subject to its profound gaze’.
Now, what you are doing, with your reductio ad absurdum focus on ‘well, he wasn’t prosecuted under THAT HR Act but under THIS HR Act, is to divert attention from the REAL ISSUE – which is the just-value of this section, in any HRAct, that pertains to the likelihood of speech, at some time in the future, “is LIKELY (my emphasis) to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.
Now, this is the real issue. I know you want to remain entrapped in personal hatreds, but the real issue, Victim, is the victimization of people within this section of the HRAct. Gosh, with all your outspoken concern for the downtrodden and hapless helpless, it’s really, really strange that you aren’t in the least bothered by this ‘law’. Heh.
Who or what is Robert McLalland, may I ask?
Sorry, “McClelland”.
Robert Howard “Bob” McClelland (ca 1933[1]) is a former broadcaster, journalist and political figure in British Columbia. He represented Langley in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1972 to 1986 as a Social Credit member.
He was named as a customer in the prosecution of an escort service in 1985.[1]
Why would anyone split hairs over the CHRC or their little provincial wannabees. They are all unelected and unaccountable professional busybodies. Slice it anyway you want and you still have Ezra being prosecuted for reprinting some stupid cartoons and having to come up with over a hundred thousand to defend himself while the idiot that laid the charge pays nothing.
Even Victim Toews should see this travesty of justice , but somehow I doubt it.
Look, Victim, stop moving into ‘reductio ad absurdum’ arguments.
Whether this section of the HRAct is numbered as Section 7 in the BC Act, or 3, in the Alberta Act or 13 in the Canadian Act is utterly and totally irrelevant. It’s the CONTENT of these articles that affects Canadians. NOT THE NUMBER. Get that?
They are all, almost identical, in that they outlaw speech – internet only in 13 or internet and hard copy in the others – that is ‘likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt’. That’s the issue.
The objectionable factor of the HRAct – whether it is section 3, 7 or 13, is that power that it gives to a ‘commission’ (not a court) to decide the FUTURE results of speech. Whew – now, why this doesn’t bother you, with your focus on freedom and justice – is beyond me.
Why you instead CHOOSE to focus on the number of the clause, and the fact that the HR Commission (under a LOT of national publicity) backed off these cases – when they hadn’t backed off so many of the others – well, that’s your mindset.
As for myself, my focus is on getting rid of this abusive clause, regardless of its number, because it is UNJUST and a violation of our fundamental right of free speech and free thought.
Kathy always does a good interview. Mainly because she knows what shes talking about. Unlike the usual airhead talking heads.
She has not been cocooned by money nor been a social by product of fame. She lives in the real World not the Planet of the wealthy or social climbers.
When it comes to knowing modern culture she shines.
Having a political conversion from the left, also gives her credibility when talking politics. She knows the left intimately, along with their subversive practices, their many illusions.
Victim Toews
Your an horses ass.
Barbara Hall herself said Steyn should be prosecuted. Is that a so called none interference statement? I call it slander myself.For what? Using an Imams own Quote!!!Better that the National Human abusers Federal Kangaroo court should turn it down Than lets its Political comrades in the Provincial HRCs do their dirty work for them.
Why sully the Federal organization of a Star chamber when you have minions in provinces with the same job of hounding anything not socialist or supporting money hungry aggrieved offending mongers.You never did answer about the time or expense of the real Victims who where charged or the FACT truth was no deference. By the way what about all those people who don’t have money or influence. How about all 13 cases being brought by one individual in section 13 cases?
How about Judges so inept they called in people about jokes? How about the suffering tax payer paying for this Marxist circus. This anti speech brigade who had actual criminals working for them.
“National Post Editorial Board Sept. 28, 2011
“In 2007, Sec. 13 was used against writer Mark Steyn for material he wrote in Maclean’s magazine that four Muslim students claimed had offended them. That same year, a similar provision in Alberta provincial human rights law [which, contrary to VT’s false assertion, defers to precedent from other jurisdictions] was used to prosecute Ezra Levant . . .”
Levant and Steyn got off, not only because they were high profile and able to publicize the insanity of the complaints and the process, but they had the HUGE financial resources—hundreds of thousands of dollars—to fight back. Their accusers paid NOTHING.
VT, if Section 13 had nothing to do with these travesties, on what grounds, with documentation, did any of the HRCs proceed with these “hate speech” cases? (I’ve noticed that this person generally ignores inconvenient questions.)
If VT expects to earn any credibility—in just a few days here, it’s been altogether lacking—s/he will have to do better than behave like a spoiled brat, insulting people while spouting uninformed, disingenuous, and incorrect blather.
ANY section of ANY HRAct is a fraud and should be eliminated.
And going back to when V.Toews(definitely McClelland) showed up,in not ONE post has it given ONE link to any of its “facts”.Could we please treat it as other trolls,and just ignore it??
ZING, if true, then this person has gone over to the dark side. I am old enough to remember that the Robert Thompson Social Credit people would never have thought that the HRC and its anti-free speech crusade in any form was a good thing.
@ Victim Toews at February 22, 2012 6:39 PM
“Never letting the facts get in the way of their argument”.
You sure you didn’t mean my instead of their? You seem to skip right over anything logical and ridicule every opinion that does not meet your preconceived notion of fact. Like a petulant little child. You would probably be much more at home over at Rabble.ca where like minded published authors with 3000 books and genius wives congregate. They also love demonstrating and will appreciate the wisdom and tenacity you continue to display. We have all been challenged and refreshed by your unique point of view but personally I’m already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth.
Victim Toews
I,m a product of a Liberal education via Trudeau
What Victim is totally ignoring is that the Human Rights Acts, whether in their federal or provincial form, are essentially the same. They all have that same anti-free speech section. Whether it’s called 13, 3, or 7 is utterly irrelevant.
And yet, rather than focusing on the CONTENT of this section, and debating its value or non-value, for some odd reason, which I can only assume is personal, Victim focuses on the fact that the actual charges were not laid by the federal HRAct (13) but by its provincial counterparts.
Who cares?
They all have the same societal function! The denigration and constraint of free speech.
Now, why Victim isn’t interested in this travesty against our freedom, and instead, only focuses on ‘she called it ‘that’, and it’s ‘this’ – is beyond me. Again, whether it’s this or that, the content is the same! Why oh why is Victim so utterly indifferent to the content?
Is his indifference the result of our education system or is it his own personal nature?
Thanks, ZING. Does he have a history of trolling? This one is tedious, although I am enjoying all this “Lying lairs (sic)” business. Do you still have a kid at Lady Evelyn, Vic?
VT, in response to the NP editorial I quoted, you write, “ If the National Post said Levant was prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the federal Human Rights Act, the Post is wrong.” Really? On what grounds do you assert this?
Documentation, VT. You’ve not proved your point. Mere assertion is not a proof.
Also, in matters of law, as I said before, precedents are definitely part of the equation. Provinces regularly follow the lead of established, federal law. E.g., In 1988, Ralph Klein did exactly what the Supreme Court told him to do, re expanding codified rights to be enforced by HRCs, including the AHRC. Correspondingly, the force of Section 13 has been and is definitely part of the provincial HRCs’ arsenals. (Not to mention, that they’re all teeming with left-wing activists.)
Go ahead and prove your case, with more than “just because I said”.
@ ET at February 22, 2012 7:44 PM
“Is his indifference the result of our education system or is it his own personal nature”?
Probably both. Another child raised by the book of Dr. Spock. Time outs and a medal for participation in everything. Doubt if he is still married as even a “genius” wife could put up with this obnoxious twit.
lookout – true enough, but I’m with ET on this; provincial or Mother Ship, it’s all the same tumour, and it needs zapping*. This has been explained to Vic several times, so I can only conclude that he’s still “arguing” about this here because he’s ronery.
*mixed metaphores are vibrant metaphores!
Okay, I looked him up. Seems like some senile old Jew-hater. (I prefer the term “Jew-hater” to “anti-semite” because if you say “anti-semite” you risk getting a jerk smirking on about how Arabs are semites too, betcha didn’t know that, ha ha, DIAF.)
Anyhoo, in the course of my explorations 2007-EBD introduced me to the term “negative capability”. Sounds like some Star Trek thing but it’s actually Keats.
Oh, and Kathy was great, but she always is. Loved the shirt.