Stageleft comments on Joesph Brean’s article on the HRC’s definition of their purview.
There are a lot of unpopular thoughts out there folks, a lot of narrow mindedness, a lot of bigotry, and a lot of racism, and it needs to be confronted head-on using facts, reality, mockery, and ridicule – not by authoritarian commissions that are already allowing themselves to be willingly misused telling us what we can and cannot say, and decided what is, or is not, in or out of bounds.
Cheers,
lance
*
“Have you asked your Candidate about the HRC’s?”
kathy shaidle did.
*
It depends
if you see some group are so sensetive to certain words and can be deadly civil violence itis better not to use it
if you think 100,000 people hear you or 1 million hear you and you get center of attention for talk good or make sense you watch more of waht you talking about
evne some old US talk show are spend so much time only for one hourshow becaue may be 20 million are watch them
like Michael jaskson’s sister take her cloth off in football and countrymustic American notlike it depend who is audenince is
if you are famous as nice person and never anybody complain about you in your life suddenly some stranger come and try to lable you for
harrasmetn and hate speech tehn you must see waht is going on and what is fishy smell come and why those peopel like Loblaw suddenly pick you up becaue you have gold in your hand not know that or center of attention and every bodylike you again this not like by big guys too
you have to watch who do you talk you cannot talk with one mood with all people
in certain subject certain age group may become interesed tehn you have talk to them to finaly ocme back and respect you not hate you
in media is poin to pass your message
let me give you simple formula
you say your message with nobody hate you
and you can say your message with all peope ormajorityhate you
what way you choose to talk
some time also you enter to new party and hate you because they are not familar with you later tehy will try to liek you and respect you
Human right comison try to say if you able to pass teh message and word with less offense is better to use all the time so much offense now if one or two times is passitmay not concerns but if you continusely hit Muslim are all bad tehy you hit heart of so many people to hate you
the best PM is teh person let us talk and lsiten carflly and not trust every thing he heard it but research whetehr ornot wehat we say istrue or false if he can not help us do not botehr us too if he cannot give more freedom do not generalize all law forall peopel give some times forpeopel can be change too
smart in communication is teh only way but need expericne to know it most of people and tlak with their heart to listen to you
Make sure you send in your questions for the leader’s debate:
question@elections08.ca
All of you reading this, do it!
Rights laws outdated in Internet age, hearing told
TORONTO — An adjudicator of a human rights hearing into an Internet hate case expressed serious misgivings Monday about whether a provision used to attack hate speech can continue to exist in the Internet age.
Wow! Keep going freedom fighters!
I’d like to encourage readers to press on the “Recommend this article” button at the bottom. I’m not sure if you need an account to do that, but please do it! This is how we publicize the issue.
mos: With respect: I don’t hang around here enough to know you, but I’m going to take your post seriously and I’m going to assume you mean well.
You wrote” “if you see some group are so sensetive to certain words and can be deadly civil violence it is better not to use it”
Well, yeah…it is usually not good to offend people, and I don’t know anybody who ever got insulted into changing their mind. Generally, there is no good reason to make people angry or to hurt their feelings.
But there are also those who earn and deserve insult, there are people who deserve hurt feelings. And sometimes speaking the truth will offend people. But we don’t need laws about that. Common sense normally works well enough.
We *do* need laws about people who feel compelled make “deadly civil violence” when they are not physically attacked, but merely offended.
And it is not wrong to insult such people; they are plainly earning it. They are criminals and killers, pure and simple.
There are important differences between words and bullets, or insults and bombs, or rudeness and murder. And, most importantly, between the momentary loss of inner peacefulness and the permanent loss of a life.
Words, insults rudeness and emotional undease are trifles, thet are of no consequence when compared to the value of a life.
Pay attention to the important things, mos.
mos: With respect: I don’t hang around here enough to know you, but I’m going to take your post seriously and I’m going to assume you mean well.
You wrote” “if you see some group are so sensetive to certain words and can be deadly civil violence it is better not to use it”
Well, yeah…it is usually not good to offend people, and I don’t know anybody who ever got insulted into changing their mind. Generally, there is no good reason to make people angry or to hurt their feelings.
But there are also those who earn and deserve insult, there are people who deserve hurt feelings. And sometimes speaking the truth will offend people. But we don’t need laws about that. Common sense normally works well enough.
We *do* need laws about people who feel compelled make “deadly civil violence” when they are not physically attacked, but merely offended.
And it is not wrong to insult such people; they are plainly earning it. They are criminals and killers, pure and simple.
There are important differences between words and bullets, or insults and bombs, or rudeness and murder. And, most importantly, between the momentary loss of inner peacefulness and the permanent loss of a life.
Words, insults rudeness and emotional unease are trifles, thet are of no consequence when compared to the value of a life.
Pay attention to the important things, mos.
rdg@rongood.net: Don’t feed the Trolls please. If you do, they crap everywhere.
Not unfortunately, unveiling the truth about Mohammad aka Allah and his ideology causes violence – as mos confirmed. It needs to be done more. It simply proves what incites Islamic violence – their prophet and his writings.
Give Harper a majority and the HRC’s will be history.
Mine actually called last night. I mentioned it to him and it was the first he says he had heard of it.
Probably telling the truth actually. NDP. Meh.
Left this comment with the G&M this am.
They didn’t moderate it. wow
” All charges under section 13.1 have been laid against white males.
All charges under section 13.1 have been as the result of complaints by the same Muslim activist.
This same activist has anti semetic views which are recorded in the public domain.
Nope, nothing to worry about here folks. Move along. ”
My leadership debate question has gone
To all leaders in the debates – both in French and English:
What, if anything, do you believe should be done immediately with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights(Commission) Act?
If nothing – please elaborate.
The lines must be jammed as my first e was returned as not being deliverable. It has gone again and will keep going.
Mark Lemire’s challenge (hearing) to the constitutionality of Section 13 is being live blogged over at Free Dominion (running yesterday and apparently another two days). For anyone in politics to say that “this is the first they have heard about all of this” is pathetic.
The Globe and NP were at the Lemire hearing yesterday (Monday) so let’s see what they report.
Doowleb writes, “All charges under section 13.1 have been as the result of complaints by the same Muslim activist”. I don’t believe this is correct.
I thought most of the Section 13 charges were brought forward by RW, an employee of the CHRC.
Clarification, anyone? Thanks.
I made it clear to my MP a while back that I won’t be voting for him as long as the Cons continue to be silent on the free speech issue (let’s face it, the HRC’s aren’t about rights, they’re mechanisms for left wingers and their Islamofacist allies to go after conservatives).
As of today I will be spoiling my ballot.
Something is seriously wrong with this country when a no-brainer like free speech cannot be debated openly during an election, when one side is afraid to mention it while the other, whose lack of principles are legendary, would think nothing of using it as a tool for gaining votes.
(Not to mention there’s something seriously wrong with a country where one party has to play down its chances of gaining a majority, where the leader has to go on TV in a freakin’ sweater vest to convince women to vote for him. Seriously, Canadian women, what is wrong with you?).
Matt–don’t spoil your ballot–reject it. Then there is a record of your wishes. As a former DRO I know that spoiling your ballot means nothing–it is assumed that the voter wasn’t intelligent to mark the ballot properly. I have done the same thing with my MP. Long past time Canadians take back their country.
I liked Prime Minister Stephen Harper before he started wearing sweaters on camera. The guy’s had to run the gauntlet and if the lib-left in the dis-Loyal Opposition and the unelected members of the dis-Loyal Opposition in the MSM had their way, he’d be walking the plank too.
He’s been acting strategically, MM. Remember, politics is the art of the possible not the impossible. Don’t you know we live in the Deranged Dominion? PMSH is practising the “doctrine of reserve.” And, if he gets a majority and I find out that this isn’t what he’s doing, I’ll let him know!
‘Sorry you’re going to reject your ballot.
PS: remember, Mohammed Elmasry endorses the NDP
http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/one-more-reason-not-to-vote-for-smilin-jack/
Clearly this thread is missing an obligatory
FIRE. THEM. ALL.
Borat Dion says that election is about “FURNACE – PURIUD”. Ok Borat – how about taking a principled stand on getting rid of Section 13. If Harper gets his majority and does not banish sec 13 to the ash heap of HRC history I will never vote for his party again. Its important for us to know where our candidates stand on this issue but its equally important for them to know where we stand as voters.
*
“rdg says… Pay attention to the important things, mos.”
yeah… like this triumph for human rights, for instance?
…
“For years, the Great Blue Heron Charity Casino in Port Perry, Ont., had a simple policy when it came to cleaning the casino’s bathrooms – male employees cleaned the men’s rooms and female staff the women’s.”
“That might have remained the case were it not for Joanne Seguin, a part-time washroom attendant who complained that the policy was discriminatory. Her complaint has turned into a five-year battle and so far she’s winning.”
five years for this… and people wonder why aboriginal land-claims take so long?
good grief.
*
To answer the question … YES!
The answer I got contained a ray of hope that this serious problem is being take seriously by those we wish to elect.
fired off my email.
had the CPC candidate in my riding pop by last week and when i asked if he was aware of the HRC controversy going on regarding free speech he asked what is the HRC? so i explained. then he said yes he was aware but true to a politician waffled. i am going to press him further in the coming weeks. he is a new candidate for this riding and i’m afraid he has a large uphill battle to try a dislodge the liberal incumbent.
Clearly Harper’s Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has never changed anything in his department as regards HRC’s. The Federal Government is still supporting section 13, still supporting Jennifer Lynch and pushing for limits of intellectual freedom in Canada.
This from the Nat Post atrticle by Brean:
Mr. Fothergill answered that if Section 13 puts a chill on public discourse, it is only to be around the fringes of hate speech, and that this is not “a terribly bad outcome.”
“A little bit of chilling … is tolerable,” he said.
(Not to mention there’s something seriously wrong with a country”
Yeah, Mississauga, there is something seriously wrong with this country – and you feel the best way to solve it is by throwing an electoral tantrum?
Harper remarked a few years ago the cause was about more than getting elected, it was about changing the mindset of a country. It isn’t going to happen overnight. I can vividly remember back in the nineties, thinking about the future of conservative politics in Canada and sadly accepting I would be governed by liberals pretty much forever.
Try to remember how far we’ve come.
Seriously, what will rejecting your ballot accomplish? Impress the scrutineers with your steely determination and high principles?
After a majority, if S.13 isn’t acted on, I would join you in disgust, but not yet.
My question is do we have the ability ourselves to prove how terrible the HRC system is? I’m not sure why we haven’t taken steps to lodge complaints and begin commissions over issues that will destroy any credibility the HRC’s have in the eyes of the public.
SUZANNE, we can send questions but will they be chosen? I don’t trust the media running the debates to be fair with anything in politics.
Just got a note from the CPC this AM. Their questionnaire indicates that HRC’s are very much on the radar screen. We the people will eventually decide. Very difficult to get “the people” on side about policy with the biased MSM.
Watched Global news last two nights. Got a chuckle from their toned down or negative coverage of SH, but free advertising for Stephan Dione or Jack. The Greens are getting negative coverage as well now they are on the road to 11 seats which they will take from Libs and NDP.
Thanks for the tip, George. I’ll be rejecting it.
Um Chris, the tantrum seems to be yours.
And indeed the mindset of the country needs changing; to my mind that would be best done living and breathing your principles, walking the talk, fighting the good fight, etc. In essence, not going along with the fascism, which is precisely what the Tories have done all these years.
Going the “hidden agenda” route, not doing anything until securing a majority, which as we all know is unnatural for the Tories in this country … I guess that’s a strategy, but not one to which I’d subscribe or recommend.
The rational thing to do is vote for the Conservatives and see. At least that way something might be done. If there’s another minority, it’s more likely nothing will be done.
Well, just remember…the canucks abroad are also pressing for accountability and answers before they cast their ballots and remember many are with our Armed Forces and services abroad so should get 3X the vote of a CHRC functionary or a serial desk complainer in DND:
http://www.expatica.com/fr/main.html
Well Yes…the G&M has a lot of chaffe…as they do want to become the next CHRC test case.
Bit late!
Hajis knows this as after the MacLeans fiasco they (CHRC/CHRT) cannot survive another broadside by a major warship with all guns firing when all Jadewarr and Lucy have are GM (not labelled) potatoe guns.
Harvey is cooking and Lynch is saying “Damn the torpedos – “full steam ahead” – coffee from my Joe Clark collection anyone?”
I chatted with John Weston, Conservative candidate for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky at lunch today and asked for his take on the HRCs. His reply was succinct – Section 13 is badly drafted and should be abolished. Weston is a constitutional lawyer.
Let me tell my real by my heart honestly
by best recommandation to nonMuslim and to the West
the majority of war if you see west was with ASIA
ASIA is conclude far eat like Vitenam Japon china
Rusian country , Middel East Palstine Sayrayeh
India, Pakstian , Iran, Afganstan
Second major war zone in history was:
in Eurpe we had only German and Youguslavia and bosnia as major most we can say EAST of Eurpope as major poor country even Germany who start the war beaus they were poor and they owe so much money
Euorpe war is almost finished
—
regard with all people live in ASIA
the secret is :
Only talk nicely and do not act with racisim and discrimination by dealy hold busienss name calling and colour or relgion calling
if you listen to this advice your problmes can be resolve
the amounf of F and B and S and A and all insult and BAWWWWWXSSSSSSSSS I saw among West I never heard in Asian people as I named them above even Rusian
if you can take middle clase and educated of people who live in Asia to like and respect you those middle class and educatd can talk with left and right and extermist and welcome you in
if you contiue talk and bullying because you can not see the solution or you do not get what you expect as answer from Asian or middle easter or even chinese or far east then do not push it by war
as we can see those war:
USA with Japan
USA with Vitenam,
USA with BLACK and slavery
USA with china
USA with Russia
USA with Palstine
USA with total IRaq
USA with all middle east
USA with Afganstand
all those Asain country has language and your communication with them your talk will cause
ring HRC adn if you talk with less offence with tehm and do not call Muslim terrorist or murderer
at lease educatd Mid class can be fix your todayproblme save so many life and can stop deadly war and can give relief with HRC
I am not part of HRC but I know what the complain came from Asain about West
again taht is secret receipee taht I share today with you
if you are smart follow my advice if not continue all method of talk and see waht you can gain out of it
Muslim can talk with bad mouthing in 99% they are not choose to do evne if you go to chinnes are talk nice not becasue they can not talk bad word of F and S but cluture of Asia is lesson no. one talk nicely to each otehr if you like to lisen and order some one else
let focus in Asia and Muslim
With all due respect, Irwin, the rational thing to do is to demand action in exchange for your vote.
Going on the “hidden agenda,” as you and others suggest, is an act of faith. And to my mind it’s completely unwarranted.
Thanks for the reminder about this!
Matt in Mississauga, I hear you. But I don’t think this is the time to bail on the Conservatives.
A CPC majority, I believe, would see some serious, positive changes to the direction of this country. Remember, PMSH and the Conservatives have been under constant, skewed, severe bombardment by virtually all the elites in this country. As batb has noted, politics is the art of the possible. I think we need to go for a majority (no thanks to Mississauga!) and then see what happens.
PMSH has already made some really good moves, in areas where he could bypass—thanks to the powers given to the PMO by the Liberals—the left-wing knuckleheads in Parliament. E.g., He cut funding to the by-feminists-and-homosexuals, for-feminists-and- homosexuals, taxpayer funded Court Challenges Program. This nefarious, arms’ length from public scrutiny slush fund, set up by the Liberals, has been used to change the social landscape of this country, by end running Parliament and using our left wing, Liberal appointed courts to change the rules of the game, re what constitutes both family and, by extension, human rights violations. (Borat Dion has stated that he would reinstate this despicable, elitist slush fund AND severe blow to democracy.)
I don’t expect a majority Conservative government, but would love to see one. If the Conservatives then proceed to act like
l(L)iberals, abandoning them next time around would certainly be warranted. Abandoning them now, with their actions severely truncated by the fact that their hands are tied behind their backs and their mouths gagged, I think is a mistake.
My opinion.
“FIRE. THEM. ALL.”
…out of a cannon!
MM, I agree with you. I disagree with your strategy as far as voting goes.
A gentle and steady hand will win. Realize that we are dealing with almost 80 years of Liberal hegemony. This is an oligarchy that will take gentle deprogramming to solve.
I believe in this country and I still believe that the majority in this country can make a positive change in this window of opportunity.
Alice in the looking glass comes to mind.
Thanks Hammy, here is the transcript of Day 2 via FreeDominion: They are part of the Canuck 6 and are working hard to expose the corrupt practices of the CHRC/CHRT:
“Warman Corrupted the Investigative Process,” Barbara Kulaszka Charges
OAKVILLE, September 16, 2008. The case for the defence in the Marc Lemire Internet case opened this morning.
A website named JRBooksonline has been laid at Marc Lemire’s doorstep. The prosecution alleges he owns or controls it. Mr. Lemire helped a U.S. citizen register this revisionist book seller outlet in 2000. “There is no prima facie evidence that Mr. Lemire ever owned or controlled this site,” Miss Kulaszka argued.
“Marc Lemire has a persona on his website. He uses his real name and photograph there and on STORMFRONT.. He uses his real name and a real e-mail address. However owns JRBooksonline does not do so. It is a different website in its look and feel and from a techie point of view it’s very primitive in comparison to the Freedomsite, as expert witness Bernard Klatt testified. It’s an old fashioned site offering historical books, like The International Jew, while the Freedomsite is a young person’s site in looks and it’s content is current,” Miss Kulaszka argued.
“Mr. Klatt testified that all a ‘Whois’ search proves is that a domain name is or is not available. There’s a disclaimer on a Whois search that they can’t guarantee the accuracy of the results. You can put any name in to register a domain.
When informed of the registration of JRBooksonline, Mr. Lemire informed the Commission that he had complained to ICANN, the organization that deals with registration complaints in Canada. When Hannya Risk, who was the investigator, should have gone to ICANN and seen that the registration had changed and been corrected.
“The complainant had notice as of June, 2005 that the registration of JRBooksonline had changed and Marc Lemire was no longer registered as the owner,” Miss Kulaszka explained.
“If this is remedial legislation, why would you drag a respondent through five years of proceedings, if he denies ownership and still not contact ICANN to find out why and how the registration had changed?” Miss Kulaszka argued.
“Investigator Hannya Risk was asked by Mr. Warman not to mention her search into JRBooksonline to Mr. Lemire as Mr. Warman was going to complain about JRBooksonline to the police. Warman did complain to the Police, who never even contacted Marc Lemire at all. Hannya Risk later said she regretted this. Mr. Warman trained Hannya Risk. She testified that was not his job and Harvey Goldberg and Dean Steacy said they were very surprised at this. Mr. Warman trained Ms Risk in the investigative techniques she was to use. He has entirely corrupted the process,” Miss Kulaszka charged.
Ms Kulaszka said in no other case was ownership attributed to a respondent solely on the basis of a WHOIS search. Referring to a dramatic moment in the hearings, Miss Kulaszka referred to a WHOIS search alleging Mr. Warman was the owner and technical contact for a website called “Ihatethehaters.com.’ The address was obviously phoney and inaccurate as was a registration for ‘warmanbooksonline.com’ Mr. Warman couldn’t explain how this could have happened. He does not understand how a WHOIS search works.”
“It is very important for this Tribunal to find that a WHOIS search proves nothing more than that he domain name is taken and they provide no guarantees as to the accuracy of the registration information,” she argued.
“Without further corroborative evidence tying Mr. Lemire to this website you should not find him responsible for communicating anything on it. No prima facie case has been made and, therefore, he has no case to answer,” Miss Kulaszka submitted.
The immigrant poem (an old water cooler poem that is at least 20 yeas old) was downloaded by Mr. Warman on the same day it was posted, she explained. “Ms Risk testified Mr. Warman first told her of the immigrant poem in a letter in June, 2004. In January, 2004, before he even knows of Mr. Warman’s complaint, Mr. Lemire had removed the message board. Ms Risk in February, 2004 tries to access it and cannot. This was not disclosed to Mr. Lemire until Ms Risk testified in May, 2007. The Commission must now have been in a panic. Mr. Warman prints of the immigrant poem in February, 2004, but does not show it to Ms Risk until June, 2004, but Mr. Lemire is not informed of this further allegation, and only finds out in June, 2005. He is never given a chance to respond. Ms Risk testified she went on to STORMFRONT but could not find the poem. I asked her why she had included the poem in the report and she said: ‘To show what Mr. Warman had given me.’”
“This shows what seems to be the undue influence Mr. Warman had over Ms Risk,” Miss Kulaszka charged. “Mr. Klatt did a diligent search of STORMFRONT’s data base and could not find the poem. There is no proof the poem was ever there. Mr. Warman’s credibility is sadly lacking.”
“I asked Mr. Warman why he used the cloak and he said he couldn’t remember. Even the url doesn’t show it comes from STORMFRONT. My submission is that you should not find that this poem was ever posted by Mr, Lemire,” Ms Kulazska submitted.
“Taylor requires not just one message but a series of messages. They were concerned not with how many people were accessing the messages but that there was a series of such messages. This showed intent,” Miss Kulaszka argued.
“Mr. Klatt testified that he’d done a web search of ‘The Immigrant Poem’ and found it on such mainstream websites as ‘Discover Vancouver’, Free Dominion and Country Living. Ordinary Canadians find it a humorous poem. Immigration policy is set by the government of Canada and is subject to criticism,’ she explained.
Evidence shows that, at the time in question, Mr. Lemire had 409 postings on STORMFRONT, Yet, Mr. Warman could only find one that allegedly comes under Sec. 13 and it’s a poem that you can find all over the Internet. According to a decision in the Guille complaint, Mr. Warman’s multiple messages on STORMFRONT and VNN were found to constitute ‘hate messaging’ within the Act, but the complaint was dismissed as vexatious,” she argued.
“I’m asking that, in regards to this poem, that his complaint be dismissed. It has not been proven on a balance of probabilities that it was posted by Mr. Lemire. It doesn’t meet the test of set out by the Supreme Court.”
AFTER MORNING BREAK
At the beginning of this case, said Miss Kulaszka, “The Commission said this entire website was the subject of this complaint, including many articles by Matt Lauder, Mr. Warman’s friend. Then, this was amended. When I asked him why he didn’t complain to Mr. Lemire, he said, in effect, Lemire must be made to pay for his actions. If he complained, he just might take the posts down. In his speech to the ARA, Richard Warman spoke of his tactics of ‘maximum disruption.’. There’s plenty of evidence from Jurgen Neuman and even Dr. Mock that the ARA was a violent band of thugs. Warman admits he then made a complaint to the police and, then, if they raid the victim, he loses his computer and is banned from the Internet. This makes doing research and communicating by the victim with his lawyer very difficult,” she added.
“Sec. 13 is made for inflicting maximum disruption on victims and is an abuse of process,” Miss Kulaszka charged. “It is an abuse for a respondent. It is not tied to real harm. Everything else in this Act is tied to real harm – someone has been denied employment or a service. Under Sec. 13 ‘anyone can file a complaint’. Mr. Warman doesn’t claim to be a member of any of the protected groups.”
“Under Sec. 13, there is no limit to the number of complaints a person can file,” she continued. Mr. Warman is a serial complainant who has, by last count, filed 26 separate complaints.
“If, after the complaint is filed, the respondent makes any disparaging remarks about the complainant, he can face heavy retaliation fines,” Miss Kulaszka explained. “ Mr. Kyburz tried to get Mr. Warman fired and for that faced a heavy fine. However, the complainant Mr. Warman can file a complaint against a respondent and cost him his job, as he did in the Terry Tremaine case. If you try to intimidate a complainant or witness, you face a ‘retaliation’ complaint, but Mr. Fromm has been attacked by the ARA who picketed outside his home, leafletted his neighbourhood and threatened to ‘burn him out’ and later broke up a fundraising meeting for Marc Lemire.”
Soon after the complaint was filed, Mr. Warman, using one of his pseudonym ‘Pogue Mahone’, asked Marc Lemire on STORMFRONT “who the hell is Richard Warman?” Had Lemire replied, he might have faced a retaliation complaint as well. This is a case of ‘testing the virtue of a person,’” she explained.
Mr. Steacy had signed up on the Freedomsite and this was not revealed to Mr. Lemire in any disclosure.
At the hearing in Ottawa, Ms Blight made an admission that previously the Commission had not disclosed pseudononymous communications between the Commission and respondents.
“At the Beaumont hearing,” Miss Kulaszka explained, “a document was submitted from Stormfront that said, ’Welcome Jadewarr.’ Mr. Warman denied knowing who Jadewarr was. Mr. Steacy testified, ‘Mr. Warman and Mr. Vigna came over to my office to run off a poem. They were present when I signed onto STORMFRONT as Jadewarr.’”
“I asked if Mr. Warman knew who Jadewarr was before the Beaumont case,” Miss Kulaszka continued, “and Mr. Steacy said: ‘Yes, he did.’”
AFTERNOON SESSION
Just after 1:00, Douglas Christie, the Battling Barrister, took the podium for his long awaited summation. “This is a most important decision. It will determine who controls the media in Canada.”
“I have been the counsel for John Ross Taylor, Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra and I have argued that hate is very hard to define. We see this case as meaning either the beginning of the end of freedom in a real way or the end of the beginning of the reclamation of freedom in this country,” he stated.
“I want to point of the effects of this legislation beyond the particular effects of Marc Lemire’s case,” Mr. Christie explained. “The effect of this legislation is to create a political elite who alone can communicate their views. There is nothing new about this. Sec. 13.1 has created a bureaucracy that has told us many times here: ‘You don’t get a free pass,’ and we’ve heard it hear,” Mr. Christie explained.
“I warned, in Keegstra, that these hate laws were a slippery slope and Sec. 13 makes that slope steeper and more slippery,” the Victoria-based lawyer added.
“Let’s take historical debate. This is an Act that will eventually silence historical debate. The Crusades were a religious conflict. If you take the position that the Crusades were justified because of the persecution of pilgrims, you could be seen to be exposing Moslems to hatred or contempt,” Mr. Christie elaborated. “You could say one side or another was right and you’d be advocating intolerance. Genghis Khan was a brutal man who invaded Europe and killed many people. He happened to be a Mongol. How could you discuss this without exposing Mongols to hatred or contempt?” Mr. Christie asked.
“As there is no good faith religious exception for religious belief in Sec. 13, this Section effectively outlaws intolerant religious expressions and is, therefore, intolerant. All religion is intolerant and, therefore, this Sec. 13 is excessive.”
“What was the greatest terrorist act in Canadian history?” Mr. Christie asked. “ The Air India bombing. The likely suspects were Sikhs; the only one convicted was a Sikh; the two charged and acquitted and their supporters who filled the court were Sikhs. To even report this on the Internet might be to expose Sikhs as dangerous people to hatred or contempt, even though it would all be true.”
“The dismissal of the Moslem complaint against Maclean’s was political in nature,” Mr. Christie argued. “The notion that you should punish a person more severely for not expressing remorse ignores the importance of truth. If a person believes what he says is true, why should he apologize?” Mr,. Christie demanded.
“Website chat rooms can be seeded with inflammatory comments. You couldn’t do that in Taylor with his telephone answering machine. No chance of a poster putting up a post and it’s photographed, even if there is an apology or a rebuttal doing that with the old telephone answering machine. “
”I thought hearing both sides or many sides was one of the indicia of a democratic society,” Mr. Christie stated. “What Miss Blight has demonstrated is an absolute liability offence. For the possession of a lethal drug, we require knowledge, intent and consent. My learned friend said it doesn’t matter whether you know about the post, or consent or intended for it to be there, if you own the site, you’re guilty. Criminal offences are not constitutionally protected acts, but freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected act.
We’re talking of imposed silence and when we have silence, we have the death of reason. What happens when I cannot tell you what I honestly believe lest I offend someone.
“Really Canada is seeking to impose our legal standards on other countries, seeking to prosecute Canadians for posting in other countries. It’s extraterritoriality. It is terribly disturbing for those of us who like to see Canada as a democracy. We place ourselves alongside China in repressing foreign dissent. Some American scholars are questioning whether to attend conferences in Canada for fear some of the views they might wish to express may be contrary to Canadian law,” Mr. Christie charged.
“Expression will be subject to one’s political enemies who can make complaints” and waste your resources, Mr. Christie explained. “There’s no constitutional right to commit a crime, but there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. Message boards and spontaneous public debate and discussion will become a thing of the past.
“Special interest groups are not the stakeholders of freedom of speech. The Canadian public are the stakeholders,” Mr. Christie added.
“It’s no defence to a constitutional breech to say you might be acquitted,” Mr. Christie responded to a query from Mr. Hadjis.
“What is done by the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’ is to provide you with a moveable goal post into which you can fit anyone you want to prosecute and exclude anyone you don’t want to prosecute.”
“It’s the old slogan, ’Nazis and fascists have no right to speak or organize.’ We defame them, we isolate them and then we criminalize and silence them. We don’t do that to communists, but we’ll to it to Nazis. This demonstrates it’s strictly political. It’s not what you say; it’s who you are that counts. The law is expansive and vague,” Doug Christie charged in a rapid fire of body slams to the Commission’s arguments.
“We’re here because this legislation is no joke. It has created a monstrous threat to freedom of speech. The passage of time has changed the nature of the communication, increased its volume, made it rebuttable from the time of Taylor. If Sec. 13 had attacked the activities of drug user, lawyers would be lined up for their defence of narcotics users, but as it attacks free speech, there are few to defend it. Apparently, drug users are more popular than free speech,” Mr. Christie argued.
“Hatred and contempt without reference to truth – which is not a Sec. 13 defence – is an invitation to hypocrisy,” Mr. Christie explained. “If this was a fair adjudicative process, the motives and credibility of the complainant would be an issue,” he added.
“I suggest to you that George Orwell provided a term – ‘doublespeak’ – to characterize Mr. Fothergill’s comments.
“The enemies of free speech don’t want to debate their opponents; they want to silence them. I don’t hesitate to say hate is right in some cases; hate for evil and hate where the lives of innocent people are at stake. We’re not allowed to argue the truth of what we say that might prove the validity of strong opinions,” Mr Christie explained.
“Another justification is to upset a particular political community. It is the ‘context of your mind’ that causes the breech. That should frighten and wake people up. These people are arguing with the force of the state behind them. Supposed ‘hate speech’ can only have any effect on those who seek it out and find it accords with their own experience. Their opinion will not be indoctrinated as long as they have the ability to go to other websites,” Mr. Christie argued.
“The Commission wants a cease and desist order against Marc Lemire for a website he neither owns nor controls. This legislation allows this absurdity,” Mr. Christie charged.
“Apparently, to have an honest opinion that people don’t like is to violate the law. It is implicit that truth is no defence, honest belief is no defence, intent is no defence,” he said.
“If we keep this legislation, we will undermine democracy and promote hypocrisy,” Mr Christie concluded his historic address.
I did talk to my MP in Regina Qu’apelle and Andrew Scheer told me that the HRC needs to be revamped as it is a threat to free speach. From what I know, it seems that he is not the only Cons who think that way.
Well in Regina…some do and others like IGNY don’t. IGNY is doing his best to become the new Trudeau and undermines Dion (as is he needs any help) at every opportunity.
Link from FFOF and BCF.
EXCLUSIVE: Michael Ignatieff fears “open season on minorities”
Inspired by my recent face to face with Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff, one of my readers emailed him about fellow Liberal Keith Martin’s private members bill to eliminate Section 13.1 of the “hate speech” laws — the one with the “likely” clause that makes pretty much any comment on any subject is potentially illegal.
My reader got this reply via email:
…thanks for your message about Keith Martin’s proposal. It blindsided the party, so we’re still working past that problem to look at the merits. I don’t want a free speech chill, but I also don’t want open season on minorities. So Im still working on it.
Interesting.
So Ignatieff fears that angry white Canadians are just dying to attack “minorities” and only a single sentence in Canadian law is preventing genocide?
(A law that, for years, was invoked primarily by one single solitary Canadian citizen?)
Or: is there some new fatal virus that’s spread by “hateful” words and causes “hurt feelings” leading to death?
More interesting:
One of the most famous victims of Section 13.1, Ezra Levant, is a minority (a Jew) being persecuted by another minority (a Muslim.)
Similarly, other HRC cases involve non-minorities (Christians) being persecuted by minorites (gays).
Ignatieff’s got hold of the wrong end of the telescope.
It’s open season BY minorities we have to do something about.
# Kathy : 2008-09-17 12:57:34 EDT