67 Replies to “Kathy Shaidle: Get Rid of Section 13!”
Hearsay is accepted as evidence by the HRC’s, so is it any wonder that trolls who supports the draconian section 13 would rely on hearsay while making the same type of irrelevant arguments, based in part on semantics, that the HRC’s use to prosecute people.
Victim Toews said, “If the National Post said Levant was prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the federal Human Rights Act, the Post is wrong.”
Actually, the quote that Lookout posted said that Section 13 was used against Steyn and a “similar provision in Alberta provincial human rights law” was used against Levant.
And then you post this gem: “This site is proof the education system, and especially adult literacy, has gone down the crapper.”
So what’s your excuse for misinterpreting the quote genius?
I for one like the snake on the Gadsen flag and am glad that Kathy wore it. Time for more of use to be wearing it.
As far as S13 goes, I have nothing but contempt for the statist morons that wrote this POS and will do everything in my power to ensure that they are ridiculed and shown to be the idiots they are. Such totalitarian ideas have no place in a free society. The whole notion of “prohibited grounds for discrimination” is idiotic. I remember walking out of a physicians organization some years back when they voted to prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference. My comment about sheep-shaggers or pedophiles now being acceptable members was met with criticisms that this wasn’t the intent of the resolution. As far as I recall, queers weren’t treated any differently before sheep-shaggers and pedophiles suddenly became acceptable.
For those totalitarian post-modernists who might be reading this, objective truth exists and objective truth always trumps subjective opinions. Reality is teaching the unicorn in every garage crowd some hard lessons now and will continue to do so in the future. Any legislation that ignores the concept of objective evidence is deserving of whatever measure of contempt one can feel for it.
@ Loki
Nature abhors a vacuum. NAMBLA has been patient and velcro gloves now come in all styles. The race to fill the vacuum is on.
Kathy Shaidle is such a fine speaker.
Brian Lilly, as usual, did a excellent job of hosting and drawing out the relevent points from his guest Kathy Shaidle.
We mustn’t forget that Kathy Shaidle herself was a defendent before the heinous Human Rights Commission during the exact same period as Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, and Mark Steyn were all collared by the same anti-free speech group of rent seeking Leftist supported tax parasites for merely hosting discussions about Islamic topics. This site is proof the education system, and especially adult literacy, has gone down the crapper.
~Victim Toews
So you say.
We here at SDA really don’t deserve you.
Ciao, may you go to a better place never to be sullied by our pedestrian ways again, oh Vic of the perpetually bleeding heart.
Technically, a person is not ‘charged’ under any so-called “human rights” legislation. Which makes it all the worse, because then they lose all the legal safeguards found in s.11 of the Charter. This is another reason why the HRCs are a disgrace. It was Pierre Trudeau’s doing and believe me, it was no accident.
The leftist nonsense that ‘the system worked’ is not true when the targets of complaints are out of pocket despite not being brought in for a full hearing. The system of freedom works when phony harassment complaints based on political disagreement cannot be brought in the first place.
One of many evil aspects of the HRCs is their bias. The folks at Point de Bascule laid a complaint with the CHRC over some anti-Semitic and anti-gay comments on a web site run by someone named al-Hayiti. They were far uglier than anything written by HRC victims like Stephen Boissoin. But because the writer was Muslim, the complaint was dismissed. And one of the HRC minions called the action a “stunt” in a letter to the editor.
Irwin Cotler is of course correct that all democracies limit freedom of expression. Expression that incites or threatens violence, for example, is against the law. But that’s because the purpose of government is to step in when one person uses force or fraud on another. Alleging that repealing s.13 an assault on freedom of expression is preposterous and idiotic. If we must act against “hate speech”, which is far from certain, then there should be only one such piece of legislation, the one in the Criminal Code. Otherwise it’s double jeopardy, which justice forbids.
‘VictimToews’ has noted the minor error of confusing the federal and provincial human rights acts/commissions, while ignoring the broader issue that the rationale behind these reprehensible laws and bodies are pretty much the same for all of them.
Here’s a long list of the problems associated with the HRCs, in point form:
– lack of due process
– right to a fair trial does not apply
– no presumption of innocence
– complainants get the full resources of the state working for them, while targets of complaints are on their own
– no legal aid for the targets
– complaints can be launched in multiple jurisdictions, to see what “sticks to the wall”
– legislation is in addition to the Criminal Code, being double jeopardy
– hearsay evidence is allowed
– documents are frequently not disclosed in a timely manner (if at all) and/or have portions “redacted”
– no search warrants are needed for investigators in some circumstances
– truth is no defence to any expression
– no “costs” rule for unsuccessful or frivolous complaints
– targets cannot file lawsuit for malicious prosecution
– entrapment is routinely used on targets of complaints
– tribunal overseers sometimes want to operate in secret, and have been known to attempt to exclude the target of the complaint from his own proceedings
– judges are appointed for life and are independent, whereas HRC tribunal heads are not
– HRC personnel are often radical activists with a personal agenda or vendetta
– bias toward “identifiable groups”, with the list written by leftist activists
– HRC proceedings are considered “remedial” even though there is no difference between fines from HRCs or from real courts
– “human rights” law is considered quasi-constitutional, even though it is made up on the fly by persons with no legal training
I don’t know if the last point is enacted somewhere or if it just another example of Antonio Lamer’s flakiness (see Heerspink, Supreme Court of Canada, 1982).
No one who upholds genuine justice could support a parallel system missing so many safeguards.
Victim – You’ve lied to us. You wrote:
“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.”
But, as we’ve told you, his magazine was published in both hard copy and the Internet.
You lied to us.
Oh – and your illiteracy is showing. You wrote: “Their buried in the silly posts..”. The correct form is They’re burried’. Heh.
ET – Mr. Education also plonked a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence @6:50. How that annoys me? But you know, it’s tough being ronery.
Black Mamba, I have no quibble with ET on this issue: all the provincial HRC “hate speech” sections are the progeny, if not the identical twins, of Section 13. Get. Rid.Of.Them.All!
Anyone who thinks that the process works fine IF a person is acquitted—which, after a 100% conviction rate, only happened when the HRCs bit off more than they could chew, with Steyn and Levant—is either a nitwit, who misunderstands what’s going on or a nitwit who’s quite happy for political enemies to be denied due process. (As Levant says, “The process IS the punishment.”)
As usual, VT has merely asserted (an awful lot of sheer bunk) and avoided all evidence provided that’s impossible to refute. And, like a toddler, this peraon simply keeps up the temper tantrum. With thanks to Revnant Dream for the succinct label, WHAT a “horse’s *ss”, as well as an intellectual and moral pygmy VT is.
Make that “person”.
lookout – “Anyone who thinks that the process works fine IF a person is acquitted—which, after a 100% conviction rate, only happened when the HRCs bit off more than they could chew, with Steyn and Levant—is either a nitwit, who misunderstands what’s going on or a nitwit who’s quite happy for political enemies to be denied due process. (As Levant says, “The process IS the punishment.”)”
Indeed. It’s as if they abolished double jeopardy, and then insisted “hey, you were charged 5 times, but you were aquitted 5 times! What’s the problem?” Only, you know, these HRCs aren’t even courts.
Would this VT from Ottawa actually be Dan? The comments he makes would his level of discourse.
This is Peter Hitchens (via batb at Reader Tips) talking about a particularly obnoxious and obtuse person at his blog:
“I demonstrated his amazing ability to contradict himself without ever realising he was doing so. . . . It is an amazing talent, comparable to the ‘Boneless Wonders’ which used to be on display at fairgrounds. The thrilling thing about it is that the performer is apparently quite unaware of the contortions through which he puts himself, and at the end of the business believes he has done nothing extraordinary. He does himself an injustice. I have never seen anybody spend so long missing the point, or so willing to repeat the exercise.”
It seems that we have someone just like that right here!
lookout at February 23, 2012 1:24 PM, the comment you re-posted cracked me up. Discussion is important, but refuting the blowhard who imagines he’s right, and has only his obstinacy to bring to the table, is an exercise in futility.
This issue has been going on for so long, we tend to focus on the Steyns and the Levants who had the guts and resources to resist. It’s easy to forget the smaller people who were hammered into submission, who lost livelihoods, or didn’t even bother to stick up for themselves, in the face of such Kafka-esque treatment. Let’s remember that the victimized (those put through the shredder of the kangaroo court process) not only had to pay to defend themselves, they would, if convicted have had to pay some sort of extortion to the complainant to compensate for bruised feelings.
Once accomplished, the repeal of this section, will do a great deal to restore individual rights in this country–a worthy thing to celebrate. It was won by people who not only put their livelihoods and reputations on the line, but who had brains and the tenacity to stick it out. I’m very grateful to them.
rita, well said. It’s good to think that fine, law abiding, independent-minded Canadian citizens, who don’t fit the politically correct mould, will be safe from the stalking of the tyrannical left.
I once shot an elephant in my pajamas.
How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.
What I do know is that SDA ROCKS!
Hearsay is accepted as evidence by the HRC’s, so is it any wonder that trolls who supports the draconian section 13 would rely on hearsay while making the same type of irrelevant arguments, based in part on semantics, that the HRC’s use to prosecute people.
Victim Toews said, “If the National Post said Levant was prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the federal Human Rights Act, the Post is wrong.”
Actually, the quote that Lookout posted said that Section 13 was used against Steyn and a “similar provision in Alberta provincial human rights law” was used against Levant.
And then you post this gem: “This site is proof the education system, and especially adult literacy, has gone down the crapper.”
So what’s your excuse for misinterpreting the quote genius?
I for one like the snake on the Gadsen flag and am glad that Kathy wore it. Time for more of use to be wearing it.
As far as S13 goes, I have nothing but contempt for the statist morons that wrote this POS and will do everything in my power to ensure that they are ridiculed and shown to be the idiots they are. Such totalitarian ideas have no place in a free society. The whole notion of “prohibited grounds for discrimination” is idiotic. I remember walking out of a physicians organization some years back when they voted to prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference. My comment about sheep-shaggers or pedophiles now being acceptable members was met with criticisms that this wasn’t the intent of the resolution. As far as I recall, queers weren’t treated any differently before sheep-shaggers and pedophiles suddenly became acceptable.
For those totalitarian post-modernists who might be reading this, objective truth exists and objective truth always trumps subjective opinions. Reality is teaching the unicorn in every garage crowd some hard lessons now and will continue to do so in the future. Any legislation that ignores the concept of objective evidence is deserving of whatever measure of contempt one can feel for it.
@ Loki
Nature abhors a vacuum. NAMBLA has been patient and velcro gloves now come in all styles. The race to fill the vacuum is on.
Kathy Shaidle is such a fine speaker.
Brian Lilly, as usual, did a excellent job of hosting and drawing out the relevent points from his guest Kathy Shaidle.
We mustn’t forget that Kathy Shaidle herself was a defendent before the heinous Human Rights Commission during the exact same period as Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, and Mark Steyn were all collared by the same anti-free speech group of rent seeking Leftist supported tax parasites for merely hosting discussions about Islamic topics.
This site is proof the education system, and especially adult literacy, has gone down the crapper.
~Victim Toews
So you say.
We here at SDA really don’t deserve you.
Ciao, may you go to a better place never to be sullied by our pedestrian ways again, oh Vic of the perpetually bleeding heart.
Technically, a person is not ‘charged’ under any so-called “human rights” legislation. Which makes it all the worse, because then they lose all the legal safeguards found in s.11 of the Charter. This is another reason why the HRCs are a disgrace. It was Pierre Trudeau’s doing and believe me, it was no accident.
The leftist nonsense that ‘the system worked’ is not true when the targets of complaints are out of pocket despite not being brought in for a full hearing. The system of freedom works when phony harassment complaints based on political disagreement cannot be brought in the first place.
One of many evil aspects of the HRCs is their bias. The folks at Point de Bascule laid a complaint with the CHRC over some anti-Semitic and anti-gay comments on a web site run by someone named al-Hayiti. They were far uglier than anything written by HRC victims like Stephen Boissoin. But because the writer was Muslim, the complaint was dismissed. And one of the HRC minions called the action a “stunt” in a letter to the editor.
Irwin Cotler is of course correct that all democracies limit freedom of expression. Expression that incites or threatens violence, for example, is against the law. But that’s because the purpose of government is to step in when one person uses force or fraud on another. Alleging that repealing s.13 an assault on freedom of expression is preposterous and idiotic. If we must act against “hate speech”, which is far from certain, then there should be only one such piece of legislation, the one in the Criminal Code. Otherwise it’s double jeopardy, which justice forbids.
‘VictimToews’ has noted the minor error of confusing the federal and provincial human rights acts/commissions, while ignoring the broader issue that the rationale behind these reprehensible laws and bodies are pretty much the same for all of them.
Here’s a long list of the problems associated with the HRCs, in point form:
– lack of due process
– right to a fair trial does not apply
– no presumption of innocence
– complainants get the full resources of the state working for them, while targets of complaints are on their own
– no legal aid for the targets
– complaints can be launched in multiple jurisdictions, to see what “sticks to the wall”
– legislation is in addition to the Criminal Code, being double jeopardy
– hearsay evidence is allowed
– documents are frequently not disclosed in a timely manner (if at all) and/or have portions “redacted”
– no search warrants are needed for investigators in some circumstances
– truth is no defence to any expression
– no “costs” rule for unsuccessful or frivolous complaints
– targets cannot file lawsuit for malicious prosecution
– entrapment is routinely used on targets of complaints
– tribunal overseers sometimes want to operate in secret, and have been known to attempt to exclude the target of the complaint from his own proceedings
– judges are appointed for life and are independent, whereas HRC tribunal heads are not
– HRC personnel are often radical activists with a personal agenda or vendetta
– bias toward “identifiable groups”, with the list written by leftist activists
– HRC proceedings are considered “remedial” even though there is no difference between fines from HRCs or from real courts
– “human rights” law is considered quasi-constitutional, even though it is made up on the fly by persons with no legal training
I don’t know if the last point is enacted somewhere or if it just another example of Antonio Lamer’s flakiness (see Heerspink, Supreme Court of Canada, 1982).
No one who upholds genuine justice could support a parallel system missing so many safeguards.
Victim – You’ve lied to us. You wrote:
“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.”
But, as we’ve told you, his magazine was published in both hard copy and the Internet.
You lied to us.
Oh – and your illiteracy is showing. You wrote: “Their buried in the silly posts..”. The correct form is They’re burried’. Heh.
ET – Mr. Education also plonked a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence @6:50. How that annoys me? But you know, it’s tough being ronery.
Black Mamba, I have no quibble with ET on this issue: all the provincial HRC “hate speech” sections are the progeny, if not the identical twins, of Section 13. Get. Rid.Of.Them.All!
Anyone who thinks that the process works fine IF a person is acquitted—which, after a 100% conviction rate, only happened when the HRCs bit off more than they could chew, with Steyn and Levant—is either a nitwit, who misunderstands what’s going on or a nitwit who’s quite happy for political enemies to be denied due process. (As Levant says, “The process IS the punishment.”)
As usual, VT has merely asserted (an awful lot of sheer bunk) and avoided all evidence provided that’s impossible to refute. And, like a toddler, this peraon simply keeps up the temper tantrum. With thanks to Revnant Dream for the succinct label, WHAT a “horse’s *ss”, as well as an intellectual and moral pygmy VT is.
Make that “person”.
lookout – “Anyone who thinks that the process works fine IF a person is acquitted—which, after a 100% conviction rate, only happened when the HRCs bit off more than they could chew, with Steyn and Levant—is either a nitwit, who misunderstands what’s going on or a nitwit who’s quite happy for political enemies to be denied due process. (As Levant says, “The process IS the punishment.”)”
Indeed. It’s as if they abolished double jeopardy, and then insisted “hey, you were charged 5 times, but you were aquitted 5 times! What’s the problem?” Only, you know, these HRCs aren’t even courts.
Would this VT from Ottawa actually be Dan? The comments he makes would his level of discourse.
This is Peter Hitchens (via batb at Reader Tips) talking about a particularly obnoxious and obtuse person at his blog:
“I demonstrated his amazing ability to contradict himself without ever realising he was doing so. . . . It is an amazing talent, comparable to the ‘Boneless Wonders’ which used to be on display at fairgrounds. The thrilling thing about it is that the performer is apparently quite unaware of the contortions through which he puts himself, and at the end of the business believes he has done nothing extraordinary. He does himself an injustice. I have never seen anybody spend so long missing the point, or so willing to repeat the exercise.”
It seems that we have someone just like that right here!
lookout at February 23, 2012 1:24 PM, the comment you re-posted cracked me up. Discussion is important, but refuting the blowhard who imagines he’s right, and has only his obstinacy to bring to the table, is an exercise in futility.
This issue has been going on for so long, we tend to focus on the Steyns and the Levants who had the guts and resources to resist. It’s easy to forget the smaller people who were hammered into submission, who lost livelihoods, or didn’t even bother to stick up for themselves, in the face of such Kafka-esque treatment. Let’s remember that the victimized (those put through the shredder of the kangaroo court process) not only had to pay to defend themselves, they would, if convicted have had to pay some sort of extortion to the complainant to compensate for bruised feelings.
Once accomplished, the repeal of this section, will do a great deal to restore individual rights in this country–a worthy thing to celebrate. It was won by people who not only put their livelihoods and reputations on the line, but who had brains and the tenacity to stick it out. I’m very grateful to them.
rita, well said. It’s good to think that fine, law abiding, independent-minded Canadian citizens, who don’t fit the politically correct mould, will be safe from the stalking of the tyrannical left.
I once shot an elephant in my pajamas.
How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.
What I do know is that SDA ROCKS!