babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Should the federal "hate telecommunication" law be repealed?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Should the federal "hate telecommunication" law be repealed?
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 07:10 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Liberal MP Keith Martin announced the other day that he plans to introduce a private member's motion calling for repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The section bans electronic communication of anything deemed "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

That's the section that is being used (for example) in the complaints against Ezra Levant and against Peace and Earth Justice, among others - all hotly debated on babble.

I'm not sure why Keith Martin took this initiative, but in my view it's obviously the right way to go. Section 13 restricts freedom of speech in circumstances which don't amount to a hate crime or hate speech as per the Criminal Code.

But listen to what the NDP human rights critic said:

quote:
NDP MP Wayne Marston said he was "deeply troubled that any Liberal" would try to weaken human rights legislation. While some complainants may try to abuse the act, Marston said his party has "great confidence" that human rights tribunals can weed out the frivolous complaints from the genuine ones.

"That's the role of the human rights commission to make that determination."


Your thoughts?

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 February 2008 07:36 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Keith Martin has become a big hero to white supremacists over this and the Liberals have now carpetted him and ordered him to with draw his bill - so its all academic.

Hopefully, the bad publicity will help defeat that excreable Keith Martin in the next election.

One of the great mysteries in Canadian politics is what makes him popular in his riding. I find him one of the most unctuous, grating people in politics.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 08:00 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have no doubt that Keith Martin is execrable - I'll take your word for that.

But what do babblers think about Section 13 of the CHRA:

quote:
Hate messages

13. (1) 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.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

Interpretation

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.


In other words, the law prohibits exposing an identifiable group (e.g. Jews, Germans, Muslims, males) to "contempt" by telephone or internet messaging - but not by radio or TV.

Such legislation appears to exist nowhere else in the world, as the CHRC itself notes:

quote:
To the best of the Commission’s knowledge, this is the only non-criminal legislation in the world that deals specifically with hate on the Internet.

This section is currently being used to persecute Peace, Earth and Justice news, because it posted a number of anti-Israel articles.

Regardless of the cowardly Liberal party's antics, I believe this section must be repealed. It infringes on freedom of speech, while true hate crimes are more than adequately covered by the Criminal Code.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 08:27 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've changed the thread title to de-politicize it, so that hopefully we can discuss the issue without arguing about who is best - Liberals, Cons, or NDP.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 February 2008 08:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I support Keith Martin on this one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 February 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
One of the great mysteries in Canadian politics is what makes him popular in his riding.
He actually isn't that popular in his riding, though he is known to be accessible.

He has kept his seat, because the CPC, after his walk to the Liberals, fielded a totally unacceptable fundamentalist Christian candidate, who was completely out of touch with the demographics in that riding, and the NDP had a new candidate who was not a local to even the Victoria area. And there was a very popular local man who was running under some other independant party banner, that indeed sucked a good portion of the NDP's supporters to him. Had this man not run, the NDP might have gotten in.

I disagree with Martin.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 02 February 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Question: Was David Ahenakew, the native leader, rightly for charged with hate crimes for saying:
quote:

"The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war," Ahenakew said.

"That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."



Ahenakew wasn't beating anybody up because they were Jewish, or bombing a school. He just said something.

The Criminal Code abridges free speech too. So its just sleight of hand to say the Human Rights Act goes too far in limiting free speech, the Criminal Code is all we need -- because it does the same thing.

Should we remove these provisions from the Criminal Code as well?

(Note exactly the same arguments being made now against the Human Rights Tribunals were made against the criminal hate speech laws when they were brought in. I don't see how supporting one and not the other is consistent).

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 February 2008 10:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have no idea whether he was breaking hate laws or not. But if he was, then hate laws are stupid. I have known lots of racist idiots who have said just as terrible things in my presence. But I don't think people should be criminalized for being racist morons unless they've actually been violent, threatened violence, or incited violence. And that's already covered by existing laws.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 11:04 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
Was David Ahenakew, the native leader, rightly for charged with hate crimes for saying:

I'm with Michelle. Either the charges against him were entirely without foundation - or if not, then they disclose a fatal flaw in the legislation. I'm glad the courts have reversed gears here and hopefully a different result will ensue.

I say that as the child of Jewish genocide survivors. His comments are hurtful and disgusting, but we don't need laws to prohibit them. The overwhelming majority of humanity has learned to reject such opinions.

You may be right. There may be a need to amend or delete some Criminal Code provisions in addition to Section 13 of the CHRA. I just thought Section 13 is such an obvious sore thumb, in that it gives the Commission power to sanction internet "contempt" speech, but not the same speech on radio or TV!!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 02 February 2008 11:28 AM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I just thought Section 13 is such an obvious sore thumb, in that it gives the Commission power to sanction internet "contempt" speech, but not the same speech on radio or TV!!

There doesn't seem to be anything strange about this.

All radio and TV broadcasts are regulated by the government. You have to have a licence and there's federal legislation governing what you can and cannot do. One assumes "broadcast standards" like no hate speech are written into the pertinent legislation regulating them.

There is no general legislation regulating "broadcasting" on the internet (you don't need a federal licence), so it seems logical hate speech laws governing it were written to the Human Rights Act instead.

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 02 February 2008 12:25 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is an argument for repealing Section 13:

(CHRC) Freedom-snatching Commie-Commissions
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/nov14-07_chrc-are-communists.html

(posted slightly tongue in cheek)

I think the value of Section 13 is that it is smoking the bigots out into the light of day, where we can get a clear shot at them.

Or as my hero Granny Clampett might say:

"If yer gonna shoot the varmints heads off, they gotta stick em outta the hole first!"

I don't think it is necessary to harass and criminalize people like David Ahenekew who foolishly spout off racist nonsense on a single public occasion: Whether there were any formal legal or other actions against him as a result, clearly he has destroyed his own reputation and credibility. That is sad, but it was a personal choice and those are the consequences in our society.

I DO think, though, that we should seek-and-destroy organizations that EXIST and RECRUIT young people in order to promote hatred.

I also think there must be non-criminal means to hold employers, landlords, etc. accountable for discrimination.

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 12:36 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:

All radio and TV broadcasts are regulated by the government. You have to have a licence and there's federal legislation governing what you can and cannot do.

Your point is flawed. The CRTC regulates telephone systems as well. Yet the CHRA bans "contempt" messages by telephone, yet specifically excludes radio and television.

quote:
There is no general legislation regulating "broadcasting" on the internet (you don't need a federal licence), so it seems logical hate speech laws governing it were written to the Human Rights Act instead.

Well, Section 13 precedes the internet (except in its unknown military phases...), and it doesn't specifically mention the internet - so the question remains, why exclude radio and TV from the purview of the Human Rights Commission??


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 02 February 2008 12:42 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:

All radio and TV broadcasts are regulated by the government. You have to have a licence and there's federal legislation governing what you can and cannot do.
.................
Your point is flawed. The CRTC regulates telephone systems as well. Yet the CHRA bans "contempt" messages by telephone, yet specifically excludes radio and television.

[/QB]


They do not regulate the content of telephone conversations, I don't believe, so I think you are drawing a false comparison.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 February 2008 12:45 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While I am quite appalled at the site linked to above regarding CHRC. I was interested to see, what types are against the CHRC hate legistlation. Particularily given his absolute totalitarian actions within a minority government position.

quote:
Stephen Harper: "Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 02 February 2008 12:46 PM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that limits on free speech should be defined in terms of threats of violence or slander. In my opinion, Ahenakew's quote could be seen as slanderous and threatening, although I don't see much point in continuing to persue this as I have heard that he will be facing a new trial for this same matter. Ahenakew's reputation is in the toilet and he is in no position to carry out anti-Jewish hate campaigns.
The activities of those white-race-cult types should continue to be watched and opposed because the KKK in the USA has often used 'freedom of speech' as a justification for their persecution of African-Americans and other people.

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 02 February 2008 12:53 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Your point is flawed. The CRTC regulates telephone systems as well. Yet the CHRA bans "contempt" messages by telephone, yet specifically excludes radio and television.

I think I see the point you're trying to make. TV and radio should be subject to the CHRA like everything else. The fact that's not seem suspiciously like a sop to big business.

I suppose the only argument is that the CRTC has had an historical role regulating content on the public airwaves, and this (I assume) now includes hateful content as society has evolved.

The whole human rights regime has been put together on an ad hoc basis (like most things in Canada) over the last twenty years; and there seem to be complimentary and overlapping agencies.

(As an aside, here's a question: Should CTV or other private network be able to run a program called "The Holocaust is a Hoax" which consisted of the presentation of white supremacist literature as fact? Would censoring it off the airwaves be an infringement of free speech? Would you complain to the CRTC if they broadcast such a program?)

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 02 February 2008 01:30 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The original intent of our hate laws and CHRC Section 13 was to provide a defence against those who would villify minorities. We are trying to build a strong multicultural country and it stands to reason in my view that the most vile speech directed against faith, racial and ethnic minorities ought to be dealt with as a statement against hate.

I have never quite understood why laws of libel and slander against individuals are strongly supported but libeling and slandering a vulnerable minority gets slammed even from those in progressive circles as of late.

I suppose the real problem is to better define the most vile of hateful comments; what is contemptible, what constitutes the libeling of a group etc. Just because the likes of Levant are now whining (sadly rightfullly so)people are reacting more to the extremes instead of looking towards finding the correct balance. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not an option I want to see, I lean more towards defending the vulnerable. And keep in mind that virtually every major democracy in the world has hate laws with the singular exception of the USA,


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 01:30 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is an article about how Section 13 was used last year by B'nai Brith to intimidate Peace, Earth and Justice News into removing 18 articles about Israel from their website.

Section 13 is so broad in its language ("likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt") that it could be used to shut down half the threads on babble.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 02 February 2008 02:05 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
This is an article about how Section 13 was used last year by B'nai Brith to intimidate Peace, Earth and Justice News into removing 18 articles about Israel from their website.

Section 13 is so broad in its language ("likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt") that it could be used to shut down half the threads on babble.


"the articles “are virulently anti-Israel to the point that they meet the criteria of crossing the line of legitimate criticism of the state straight into anti-Semitism.”"

I don't see how we can come to any conclusions about this for ourselves without access to the offending articles.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 02 February 2008 02:10 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again Unionist, some laws need to be fine-tuned. You dont throw it out just because it needs some work.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 02:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:

"the articles “are virulently anti-Israel to the point that they meet the criteria of crossing the line of legitimate criticism of the state straight into anti-Semitism.”"

I don't see how we can come to any conclusions about this for ourselves without access to the offending articles.


I didn't really ask for you to come to any conclusion for yourself. I just stated my concerns about how this legislation is used to shut down anti-Israel articles on a progressive website.

If you're really that interested, you could start by looking over the PEJ site to determine its overall position and principles. Then you could check out B'nai Brith and see who is more worthy of belief.

Or, you can just keep challenging me without giving your own opinion on the question raised in the thread title.

That's what freedom of speech is all about. You've got it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 02:14 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Again Unionist, some laws need to be fine-tuned. You dont throw it out just because it needs some work.

Agreed - although I'm not convinced even an amended Section 13 would serve any legitimate need not already covered by the Criminal Code provisions.

How would you fine-tune Section 13? And do you agree with its use against the PEJ website?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 02 February 2008 02:32 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I didn't really ask for you to come to any conclusion for yourself. I just stated my concerns about how this legislation is used to shut down anti-Israel articles on a progressive website.

If you're really that interested, you could start by looking over the PEJ site to determine its overall position and principles. Then you could check out B'nai Brith and see who is more worthy of belief.

Or, you can just keep challenging me without giving your own opinion on the question raised in the thread title.

That's what freedom of speech is all about. You've got it.


I have no opinion about the articles because i have not seen the articles.

Can someone be virulently opposed to Israel's actions? Of course. Can someone express that opposition in a form promoting hatred against all Jews? No.

It is the job of the HRC to distinguish between the two, and I believe that is why we need Section 13.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 03:13 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:

Can someone be virulently opposed to Israel's actions? Of course. Can someone express that opposition in a form promoting hatred against all Jews? No.

I believe - and I have written - that there is no such thing as Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state".

How does that fit in your schema? Should a tribunal be assessing whether that is acceptable to be written on the internet in Canada or not?

That's the kind of thing B'nai Brith complained about. And that's the kind of article PEJ withdrew on its lawyers' advice while the case winds its way through the courts.

So?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 February 2008 04:56 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks unionist, I must say, I have changed my opinion, based upon how you presented the situation and what it in fact means and does.

Repealed.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 02 February 2008 05:39 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I believe - and I have written - that there is no such thing as Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state".

How does that fit in your schema? Should a tribunal be assessing whether that is acceptable to be written on the internet in Canada or not?

That's the kind of thing B'nai Brith complained about. And that's the kind of article PEJ withdrew on its lawyers' advice while the case winds its way through the courts.

So?


Sorry, need to see the original, see what they actually said, rather than 'the kind of thing' they said.

I must say, though, that website is not exactly a hotbed of racism.

I have a Palestinian friend. I don't accept Israel's right to try to starve them out. I think it is barbaric. Nor do I accept the right of a Jewish state to discriminate against people who lived there before their state was formed.

Fact is, I believe Israel has a right to exist, but not a right to oppress.
Is that anti-semitic? Am I promoting hatred?


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 02 February 2008 05:53 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Thanks unionist, I must say, I have changed my opinion, based upon how you presented the situation and what it in fact means and does.

Repealed.


Section 13 is used to try to quell the white supremacists, and one of the few tools we have to prevent them from spreading hatred and recruiting disaffected youth.

I really think the arguments about Israel are specious, designed to undermine the act, and I question the sources and motives of those attempts. Section 13 is the bane of white supremacists' existence for very good reason: IT WORKS.

The fact that some churches and religions are now throwing their lot in with the white supremacists (I saw that opinion on a discussion board)only speaks to their campaign of hatred against homosexuals: They want to preserve their right to promote hatred against homosexuality.

I do not see these motivations as raising any legitimate concern about the act, but rather as evidence that it is working the way we want it to.

As for Israel's right to exist as Jewish state ... no problem ... so long as there is no discrimination against non-Jews who live there too.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 02 February 2008 05:57 PM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

I have never quite understood why laws of libel and slander against individuals are strongly supported but libeling and slandering a vulnerable minority gets slammed even from those in progressive circles as of late.


But Section 13 goes way beyond libel and slander. it attempts to punish speech that is "likely to expose" identifiable minorities to "contempt". This is such a broad net that could capture pretty much any opinion. We already have slander and libel law on the book. There is no need for Section 13.

As an identifiable minority I am glad to hear an MP has taken the initiative to correct this law, and I don't particularly care whether white supremacists are happy or unhappy about it. I hope NDP also finds the courage to support the motion. will be writing to them tonight.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 02 February 2008 06:17 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ahenakew is to be retried.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 February 2008 06:30 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
The fact that some churches and religions are now throwing their lot in with the white supremacists (I saw that opinion on a discussion board)only speaks to their campaign of hatred against homosexuals: They want to preserve their right to promote hatred against homosexuality.
I need to see proof of this, and concrete proof in original format please, before I can even commence to think about it, let alone discuss it.

Such as it is, it is merely a personal accounting, of one's opinion, of what was stated on discussion board, that is also unknown, nor linked to.

What is even more of concern is the broadly generalizing nature of the personal accounting, "some" churches and religions is too broad of a term.

If you are going to post your opinion or personal perceptions as facts, and then make accusations of the stongest sort from them, there then needs to be references, with quotes and sources.

Had you not started your sentence with "the fact", and had started it with "in my opinion" the burden for proof would not be so high.

I am sure you won't have an issue with providing the facts on who these churches and religions are, as you require such a high threshhold of proof yourself.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 02 February 2008 07:26 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
I need to see proof of this, and concrete proof in original format please, before I can even commence to think about it, let alone discuss it.

Such as it is, it is merely a personal accounting, of one's opinion, of what was stated on discussion board, that is also unknown, nor linked to.

What is even more of concern is the broadly generalizing nature of the personal accounting, "some" churches and religions is too broad of a term.

If you are going to post your opinion or personal perceptions as facts, and then make accusations of the stongest sort from them, there then needs to be references, with quotes and sources.

Had you not started your sentence with "the fact", and had started it with "in my opinion" the burden for proof would not be so high.

I am sure you won't have an issue with providing the facts on who these churches and religions are, as you require such a high threshhold of proof yourself.


Well, unfortunately remind, I am not able to access that board anymore. Seems the board's owner did not like my response to her statement that she was getting to the point where she was considering throwing her lot in with the white supremacists: I think I may have suggested that it was an appropriate association.

I don't think it is any secret that there are religions, churches, that continue to defend their right to preach and protest against homosexuality under the guise of 'protecting family values' (WHOSE family?). Some of them are getting caught by Section 13, and I do think that is good because I do believe they are promoting hatred, and I believe that is their intent.

I am merely pointing out examples that in my opinion indicate that Section 13 has an important purpose, and is effective in weeding out hatred from freedom of speech.

The decisions of the HRC are here:
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/tribunal/index_e.asp?filter=year

And here is one of their decisions:
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1106_8705ed26oct07.pdf


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 02 February 2008 09:08 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sanizadeh:

But Section 13 goes way beyond libel and slander. it attempts to punish speech that is "likely to expose" identifiable minorities to "contempt". This is such a broad net that could capture pretty much any opinion. We already have slander and libel law on the book. There is no need for Section 13.

Libel and slander are just "words". They do not invoke violence. Libel and slander are words of contempt and defamation against an individual found under civil law judged on the balance of probabilities in the same way Section 13 is judged. Why is an individual's worth so much more than that of a vulnerable minority?

Forgive this example but I am trying to make a point.

Could a Jewish accountant sue for libel and slander if he was wrongly and publicly identified as a thieving coniving person who ought not be trusted?

If the word "person" was changed to "Jew" would the libel still be valid?

If Jews as a group were called thieving coniving people who ought not be trusted, would a group slander or a hate law be invoked? Something to think about.

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: ohara ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 February 2008 09:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not a great example, ohara.

If an article is posted claiming that Albertans are conniving greedy right-wing rednecks, and that they should be subject to draconian restrictive laws, Section 13 can't be invoked - because provincial origin is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA.

Likewise if someone posts an article saying that people on welfare are parasites who should be locked up or deported.

But apparently it can be used to squelch articles saying that "Israel is an apartheid state" (one of the accusations of B'nai Brith against PEJ).

Are you starting to get why Section 13 is pretty bad news that needs to be "fine-tuned" (your words)?

I say repeal it first, and if someone wants to bring it back in a form that doesn't unduly restrain freedom of speech and the press, fill yer boots.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 February 2008 10:19 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Again Unionist, some laws need to be fine-tuned.

So why should Mark Steyn's comments be exempt? I was a bit surprised to see the recent op/ed piece by the CJC co-presidents that opposed any CHRC action against Steyn or Macleans.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 February 2008 04:44 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
It's not a great example, ohara.

If an article is posted claiming that Albertans are conniving greedy right-wing rednecks, and that they should be subject to draconian restrictive laws, Section 13 can't be invoked - because provincial origin is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA.

Likewise if someone posts an article saying that people on welfare are parasites who should be locked up or deported.

But apparently it can be used to squelch articles saying that "Israel is an apartheid state" (one of the accusations of B'nai Brith against PEJ).

Are you starting to get why Section 13 is pretty bad news that needs to be "fine-tuned" (your words)?

freedom of speech and the press, fill yer boots.



Well Albertans , unionist, are hardly a "vulnerable" minority now are they?

Your interesting meanderings do not in any way address my issues. Oh they sure do take us off course but in no way answers what you claim is not a "great example".


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 February 2008 04:55 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Your interesting meanderings do not in any way address my issues. Oh they sure do take us off course but in no way answers what you claim is not a "great example".

I think it's questionable to have laws banning internet postings (but not radio or TV broadcasts!) which are "likely to expose an identifiable group of people to contempt". I think better-tuned criminal law provisions would be preferable, but the incitement of hate would need to be more explicit.

I gave my example merely to show the arbitrariness of the law.

Section 13 prohibits postings ridiculing white heterosexual Protestant males (for example) yet allows postings ridiculing welfare recipients from St. Henri or Côte-des-Neiges.

Explain that to me, please.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 03 February 2008 05:00 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

So why should Mark Steyn's comments be exempt? I was a bit surprised to see the recent op/ed piece by the CJC co-presidents that opposed any CHRC action against Steyn or Macleans.



Perhaps someone might post the op-ed being referred to however, if what you post here is correct i would say that the cjc co-presidents seem to get it.

And maybe that is exactly what is wrong with the law. The human rights commissions ought to have more leeway to decide which complaints are non-meritorious or frivilous. As it stands now each complaint is subject to a complete review procedure that entails a full investigation, interviews etc.

I for one want to see human rights legislation maintained.i sorta like ohara's analogy with libel laws. They are not criminal laws. They are under civil law procedures.

I'm not a lawyer but i do think there is such a law as criminal libel though like our criminal hate laws are not widely used. Hence the less restrictive civil procedure of civil libel.

Isee ohara's point that our human rights legislation is comparable to civil libel.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 03 February 2008 07:37 AM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I think it's questionable to have laws banning internet postings (but not radio or TV broadcasts!) which are "likely to expose an identifiable group of people to contempt". I think better-tuned criminal law provisions would be preferable, but the incitement of hate would need to be more explicit.

I gave my example merely to show the arbitrariness of the law.

Section 13 prohibits postings ridiculing white heterosexual Protestant males (for example) yet allows postings ridiculing welfare recipients from St. Henri or Côte-des-Neiges.

Explain that to me, please.


Being a welfare recipient is not one of the "protected grounds". That's a function of the law, not the work of the commission. However, it bothers me too that there is a limited group who have access to the process. Income level certainly could be a "grounds" too, but the legislation has to change.

I agree with the posters who pointed out that this is similar to civil proceedings for defamation, and I believe it is absolutely necessary. Many are testing the limits of the law on the internet now, pushing the boundaries of 'hate'. There have to be limits, imo.

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 February 2008 07:39 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:

Being a welfare recipient is not one of the "protected grounds". That's a function of the law, not the work of the commission.


That's my point, saga. The law is no good. Check the thread title.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 February 2008 08:04 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And that's my point you are wrong. It is not a matter of the law being "no good". Its a matter of the law needing adjustment and/or those who administer the law gain a better understanding.

Sadly people get wrongly convicted of crimes such as murder. Do you say the law is "no good" lets get rid of it or do you work to make both the law and/or its administration better?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 February 2008 08:16 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
And that's my point you are wrong. It is not a matter of the law being "no good". Its a matter of the law needing adjustment and/or those who administer the law gain a better understanding.

Sadly people get wrongly convicted of crimes such as murder. Do you say the law is "no good" lets get rid of it or do you work to make both the law and/or its administration better?


Ok, you may be right. The only reason I said "repeal" was because Keith Martin was actually proposing this and I wanted to provoke some discussion.

Ohara, or someone else, can you try your hand at re-drafting Section 13 so that it's not so broad ("likely to expose to contempt"... wow); so that it proscribes the kind of hate propaganda ohara cited ("Jews are greedy, grasping, etc.") - but still allows me to say things like these:

"Israel has a right to secure borders as recognized by the U.N., but it has no 'right' to exist as a 'Jewish state'"

"Israel is an apartheid society"

"I support a single new State covering all of historic Palestine, with a government chosen by all the people, and with no ethnic or racial or religious laws".

Unless, of course, you think some of the above should be banned - then we can have that discussion instead.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 03 February 2008 08:21 AM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

That's my point, saga. The law is no good. Check the thread title.


I see. Yes the narrowness of the 'protected grounds' is bothersome. However, I hardly see the value in repealing the law because it is not broad enough. I do see the value of adding 'income level' as a grounds for discrimination, though.

Repealing the law would be punitive to those who need it because of disability, sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. I don't see it as constructive to deny service to these groups currently covered by the legislation simply because another group needs access, though.

You are not saying the process doesn't work, but simply that it should be extended to more people ... right?

As for your statements re Israel ... I am still not convinced that these are "the same" kind of comments currently under attack at HRC. Also, we do not know the outcome of that process yet.

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 February 2008 08:38 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Ok, you may be right. The only reason I said "repeal" was because Keith Martin was actually proposing this and I wanted to provoke some discussion.

Ohara, or someone else, can you try your hand at re-drafting Section 13 so that it's not so broad ("likely to expose to contempt"... wow); so that it proscribes the kind of hate propaganda ohara cited ("Jews are greedy, grasping, etc.") - but still allows me to say things like these:

"Israel has a right to secure borders as recognized by the U.N., but it has no 'right' to exist as a 'Jewish state'"

"Israel is an apartheid society"

"I support a single new State covering all of historic Palestine, with a government chosen by all the people, and with no ethnic or racial or religious laws".

Unless, of course, you think some of the above should be banned - then we can have that discussion instead.


No need to be so smarmy. You have of course every right to say those things. You would be wrong of course but you never cared about that before.

No one I ever heard of has been hauled before the HRC for making those ridiculous claims. You make reference to some complaint by Bnai brith that you suggest are based on these absurd statements yet you give us no link to them. So unless and until we can see thme fo ourselves no such claims to the HRC have been made to the best of my knwoledge.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 February 2008 08:46 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
No need to be so smarmy. You have of course every right to say those things. You would be wrong of course but you never cared about that before.

You are so accustomed to being attacked on this site that you tend to react that way even when no attack is intended. I meant what I said. You may be right. And I had no idea where you stood on the anti-Israel specific statements.

quote:
No one I ever heard of has been hauled before the HRC for making those ridiculous claims. You make reference to some complaint by Bnai brith that you suggest are based on these absurd statements yet you give us no link to them. So unless and until we can see thme fo ourselves no such claims to the HRC have been made to the best of my knwoledge.

I can't show you the actual complaint, because it seems to be unpublished. But I did provide a link earlier to a Globe and Mail article. Here is how the complainant himself describes it:

quote:
“There are a number of calumnies that need to be exposed,” Mr. Abrams, a Victoria businessman, said in an interview. “The idea that Israel has no right to exist or that Israel is an apartheid state,” he cited as examples.

Here is more:

quote:
Some question Israel’s right to exist or compare Israeli policy with Nazi persecution of Jews. One article, entitled We Should Nuke Israel, is an apparent spoof of a column in The Toronto Sun proposing a tactical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Anita Bromberg, director of the legal department of B’nai Brith Canada, which has joined Mr. Abrams in the complaint, said the articles “are virulently anti-Israel to the point that they meet the criteria of crossing the line of legitimate criticism of the state straight into anti-Semitism.”


You know, ohara, you and I can both get a flavour for what these articles really said from the above descriptions. We've seen lots of this stuff. And there isn't a single solitary specific hint or quote of anything that actually looks anti-Semitic. You know and I know that B'nai Brith would have cited those if they existed.

Thoughts?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 February 2008 09:35 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't have a deep problem with the law, although one can quibble about the idea of "likely to expose an identifiable group to contempt" on a prohibited ground.


Since the prohibited grounds are race, religion, etc, the only messages which would violate the law are ones which treat race, religion, etc. with contempt.

Someone, above, mentioned that such messages should become actionable if they are slanderous.

It is important to understand that libel and slander legally relate only to individual persons. You cannot legally "slander" blacks, Jews, or Muslims as a group.

So, this provision is broadly analogous.

Of course, people can make complaints on spurious grounds, but these should not lead to an actual hearing. So, unless the Human Rights Commission were to actually hold a hearing into some unfounded complaint, I don't find the fact that a complaint has been made very terrible.

There are some flaws in this law, but overall it has a positive purpose, and, I think, effect.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 February 2008 10:06 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
ISince the prohibited grounds are race, religion, etc, the only messages which would violate the law are ones which treat race, religion, etc. with contempt.

Someone, above, mentioned that such messages should become actionable if they are slanderous.

It is important to understand that libel and slander legally relate only to individual persons. You cannot legally "slander" blacks, Jews, or Muslims as a group.

.


That was my point Jeff, I understand that slander and libel can only apply to the individual. I was wondering why no one seems to have a problem with individuals being libeled but huge 'free sppech" issues when groups are targeted for hate or "libel" (forgive the legal term but I am trying to make a point)

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 February 2008 10:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ohara - comments on my last post about PEJ.net?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787

posted 03 February 2008 10:50 AM      Profile for sanizadeh        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
That was my point Jeff, I understand that slander and libel can only apply to the individual. I was wondering why no one seems to have a problem with individuals being libeled but huge 'free sppech" issues when groups are targeted for hate or "libel" (forgive the legal term but I am trying to make a point)

Personally I think that the libel and slander laws are also too broad. I would like to make the complainant show some proof that an alleged libelous word has actually caused specific material loss when suing. Currently, "likely to expose to contempt" appear to be sufficient.

Also, provisions must be added to have the complainant pay the legal cost to both the accused and the public if his/her complaint is found without merit (even at the investigation phase). That might put a stop to frivolous charges.

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 February 2008 10:51 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unionist, as much as I believe the comments alleged to have been made by pej.net are scummy and offensive everyone, Ezra Levant, ohara, unionsit we all have the right in canada to be scummy and offensive, though some I mist say practice this right far more than others.

If however, as I believe it is correct to say that "nationality" is part of our hate laws it is then an offence to hatefully target nationalities one must show care to ensure that the offence is against national policies and not nationalities.

Other than that without seeing the exact allegation of offence I can be no clearer.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 03 February 2008 10:55 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:

Perhaps someone might post the op-ed being referred to however, if what you post here is correct i would say that the cjc co-presidents seem to get it.

They "get it"? Why is it ok to encourage contempt of Muslims? I'm having difficulty understanding is why some people who support section 13 seem to think there should be an exemption when you're talking about Muslims. Steyn's article seemed pretty contemptuous to me. It's certainly as contemptuous as the PEJ articles - however the CJC has remained silent about the complaint against it. Why the double standard?

The only person who has been consistent here is Alan Borovoy.

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 February 2008 11:03 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. That would be my concern.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 03 February 2008 11:15 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Section 13 was designed to deal with John Ross Taylor and the hate messages he was leaving as the answering machine message for the Western Guard. I read recently (I don't remember the source) that the minister drafting the legislation specifically added in section 13 in response to complaints about Taylor; that's why the "telphonic" reference is there. When computer bulletin boards and then the internet arose the section was applied because, initially, that's how the internet was transmitted (and still is for most people). The section was never really designed for mass media and so we have the odd situation where Macleans is being brought before the CHRT not for anything it published in its print magazine but for posting those contents on the internet. But how can you write regulations that say an internet posting by a mass media outlet is ok but one by an individual or small outlet isn't? And is it appropriate to use the CHRT to prosecute public hate speech that doesn't meet the test of the hate speech provision in the Criminal Code?

Interesting questions and I don't know the answers. I suspect, though, that this will ultimately be a question for the courts which may indeed find, as with the "False News" law some years ago, that section 13 is overly broad and inconsistent with the Charter. This might not result in it being thrown out altogether but in it being tightened somewhat and in some litmus tests being introduced.

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 February 2008 11:26 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Personally I think that the libel and slander laws are also too broad. I would like to make the complainant show some proof that an alleged libelous word has actually caused specific material loss when suing.

Suppose I find out your real name, and then create a telephone message, sent to thousands, which falsely tells people to be careful because you are a pedophile.

Why should a fair system require proof of "material" loss? Wouldn't it be fair to ASSUME that lying about you like that would worsen your life unfairly?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 03 February 2008 12:05 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You know, ohara, you and I can both get a flavour for what these articles really said from the above descriptions. We've seen lots of this stuff. And there isn't a single solitary specific hint or quote of anything that actually looks anti-Semitic. You know and I know that B'nai Brith would have cited those if they existed.

Thoughts?


unionist ... is this not a case still in progress?

If so ... would it not be best to wait for the outcome ?


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ch11lawyer
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10582

posted 03 February 2008 02:18 PM      Profile for ch11lawyer        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
Question: Was David Ahenakew, the native leader, rightly for charged with hate crimes for saying:

Ahenakew wasn't beating anybody up because they were Jewish, or bombing a school. He just said something.

The Criminal Code abridges free speech too. So its just sleight of hand to say the Human Rights Act goes too far in limiting free speech, the Criminal Code is all we need -- because it does the same thing.

Should we remove these provisions from the Criminal Code as well?

(Note exactly the same arguments being made now against the Human Rights Tribunals were made against the criminal hate speech laws when they were brought in. I don't see how supporting one and not the other is consistent).

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]



Freedom has always required a significant degree of courage, a willingness to debate on the merits, and rule of law. Freedom is definitely not for cowards, or for children who cower behind their mothers from the world.

Jews have always done best in an atmosphere of freedom. While some Jews may have received temporary succor in the royal courts of Europe when needed as financiers, the favor never lasted, and the people never forgave them for sidling up to oppressors. In Europe, the freedom and well-doing of the Jewish people was always, at the best of times, fickle. As we all know it ended in tragedy in Hitler's Germany.

By contrast, the Jews in the US, Canada and Australia, where all that the people and countries cared about was what newly arrived pioneers could do and had to offer, and not how they worshipped, have always done well. They have advanced to the highest levels of business, the professions and government.

B'Nai B'rith has taken the "cowering" approach by asking for "hate crimes" and "human rights" laws to be passed, in order for the government to be enabled to persecute people like Zundel and Ahenakew for what they've said, and positions they've taken. Those positions are horrific and wrong. The Jews should, by right, be standing up strongly for the rights of Zundel and Ahenakew, since their rights are the very rights that have enabled Jews to thrive. Levant and Steyn recognize this, hopefully. There is no principaled way to let them speak, and to muzzle Zundel and Ahenakew.


From: NYC Area | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 February 2008 03:16 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ch11lawyer:
Jews have always done best in an atmosphere of freedom. [...] They have advanced to the highest levels of business, the professions and government. [...] The Jews should, by right, be standing up strongly for the rights of Zundel and Ahenakew, since their rights are the very rights that have enabled Jews to thrive. Levant and Steyn recognize this, hopefully. There is no principaled way to let them speak, and to muzzle Zundel and Ahenakew.

Is there really no way to stop offensive posts from crossing the border?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 03 February 2008 03:39 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ch11lawyer:

Freedom has always required a significant degree of courage, a willingness to debate on the merits, and rule of law. Freedom is definitely not for cowards, or for children who cower behind their mothers from the world.

Jews have always done best in an atmosphere of freedom. While some Jews may have received temporary succor in the royal courts of Europe when needed as financiers, the favor never lasted, and the people never forgave them for sidling up to oppressors. In Europe, the freedom and well-doing of the Jewish people was always, at the best of times, fickle. As we all know it ended in tragedy in Hitler's Germany.

By contrast, the Jews in the US, Canada and Australia, where all that the people and countries cared about was what newly arrived pioneers could do and had to offer, and not how they worshipped, have always done well. They have advanced to the highest levels of business, the professions and government.

B'Nai B'rith has taken the "cowering" approach by asking for "hate crimes" and "human rights" laws to be passed, in order for the government to be enabled to persecute people like Zundel and Ahenakew for what they've said, and positions they've taken. Those positions are horrific and wrong. The Jews should, by right, be standing up strongly for the rights of Zundel and Ahenakew, since their rights are the very rights that have enabled Jews to thrive. Levant and Steyn recognize this, hopefully. There is no principaled way to let them speak, and to muzzle Zundel and Ahenakew.


There is if you have laws against hate speech. Too bad you don't.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ch11lawyer
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10582

posted 03 February 2008 03:58 PM      Profile for ch11lawyer        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:

There is if you have laws against hate speech. Too bad you don't.


Those laws are a terrible idea. I'm a Jew saying this, mind you.

From: NYC Area | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 February 2008 04:16 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
I do see the value of adding 'income level' as a grounds for discrimination, though.
So I could go to jail for saying "Eat the rich"?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loony Tune
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3398

posted 11 February 2008 06:13 PM      Profile for Loony Tune   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bump.

In light of some comments having been made about the CHRA not applying to licensed broadcasters, I thought this information might be of interest.

TheBroadcasting Distribution Regulations under the federal Broadcasting Act governing licensed broadcasters contains a provision along the lines of s.13 of the CHRA:

quote:
8(1) No licensee shall distribute a programming service that the licensee originates and that contains...

(b) any abusive comment or abusive pictoral representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental disability.



From: Where the deer and the antelope play but the skies they are cloudy all day | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 February 2008 07:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Personally, I think hate laws are a sham in Canada. Why have them when we have a record number of children living anywhere below poverty and a growing homelessness problem? If the two stoogeocratic old line parties want me hate them for their hatred of Canada's most vulnerable, then they're doing an excellent job of it.

So where do we sign up for the hatefest?

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 11 February 2008 10:59 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
So I could go to jail for saying "Eat the rich"?

No ... they are not yet on the list. Go to town!

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 February 2008 07:42 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the aftermath of the terrorist crimes of September 2001, the government in Ottawa extended the scope of Section 13(1) in the Canadian Human Rights Act – originally applicable only to telephonic communications - to make it apply also to the Internet.

Section 13(1) permits legal action against persons whose statements are allegedly "likely" to expose racial, religious and various other identifiable groups to "hatred or contempt." In his book The New Anti-Liberals, published in 1999 by the Canadian Scholars' Press, A. Alan Borovoy - for many years the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association - expressed alarm about the "sheer breadth of the prohibition against speech" even in the statute as it then existed.

[...]

As Borovoy points out, the Act does not recognize any defence based on "truth or reasonable belief in the truth of the statements at issue." Truth or lack of it is simply irrelevant. Thus, if it makes points distasteful to a particular group, even a scrupulously documented scholarly work may provoke a legally valid complaint.

There is also no need for an accuser to provide evidence that the accused had any intention or desire to promote "hatred or contempt." Like truth, intention is irrelevant.

To make matters worse, an accuser is not required to show that the words of the accused really did promote "hatred or contempt," but merely that they were "likely" to do so. An assessment of the "likely" consequences of anything is bound to be more subjective than a judgment based on ascertainable facts about what has actually occurred.

Moreover, since the prohibitions included in the Human Rights Act are not part of the criminal law, an accused can be subjected to penalties without either trial by jury or a requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


Academic Freedom and Canadian Law


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 13 February 2008 09:17 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What about morons? Shouldn't they be protected? They're vulnerable to those tricky smart people who are able to figure things out and stuff.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 13 February 2008 09:47 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been reading some of the Section 13 rulings issued by the CHRC (all of them, by the way, since 2002 were initiated by one individual: Richard Warman--he must be the most abused person among all of Canada's 30 million souls, poor thing).

These opinions are written with logic that comes straight out of Alice's "Wonderland". For example, the rulings effectively define the word "likely" (as in "material likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt") to mean "any possibility whatsoever". Section 13 might as well be written to read: "material that has any probability, other than zero, of exposing persons to hatred or contempt". If lawyers sit on the tribunals, they should be disbarred for incompetence. If car mechanics were as proficient with a wrench as these jokers are with a pen, vehicles would turn right when the driver turned the wheel to the right, they would look like the flying car out of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (only they wouldn't be able to fly), turning on the lights would result in abrupt braking, applying pressure to the brake would cause the trunk to pop open, and vehicles would be positively guaranteed to run out of fuel anytime they were further than 20 miles from a petro station.

These people are clowns with power.

[ 13 February 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 13 February 2008 10:35 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I've been reading some of the Section 13 rulings issued by the CHRC (all of them, by the way, since 2002 were initiated by one individual: Richard Warman--he must be the most abused person among all of Canada's 30 million souls, poor thing).

These opinions are written with logic that comes straight out of Alice's "Wonderland". For example, the rulings effectively define the word "likely" (as in "material likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt") to mean "any possibility whatsoever". Section 13 might as well be written to read: "material that has any probability, other than zero, of exposing persons to hatred or contempt". If lawyers sit on the tribunals, they should be disbarred for incompetence. If car mechanics were as proficient with a wrench as these jokers are with a pen, vehicles would turn right when the driver turned the wheel to the right, they would look like the flying car out of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (only they wouldn't be able to fly), turning on the lights would result in abrupt braking, applying pressure to the brake would cause the trunk to pop open, and vehicles would be positively guaranteed to run out of fuel anytime they were further than 20 miles from a petro station.

These people are clowns with power.

[ 13 February 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]


Richard Warman reports hatred on the net, I believe. It is a dirty job, without pay, but he does it.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 13 February 2008 10:54 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
Richard Warman reports hatred on the net, I believe. It is a dirty job, without pay, but he does it.

Evidently, no one who is the actual subject of the moronic and ugly speech at the heart of the complaints is bothered enough to file a complaint with the CHRC.

Only Warman.

It's as though the CHRC would have nothing to do, at least so far as Section 13 claims go, if Warman didn't exist.

How odd is that?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 February 2008 03:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seriously?? I didn't know that.

That's incredible! Here's the Wikipedia article on him.

Sounds like he's mainly just focused on white supremacists and neo-nazis.

[ 14 February 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 14 February 2008 05:21 AM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is also no need for an accuser to provide evidence that the accused had any intention or desire to promote "hatred or contempt." Like truth, intention is irrelevant.

Human rights law is not about intent. It is about outcome. A police force can and actually did put a person's height as a critera for hiring police officers. Women were "out-heighted" by men.

The result was discrimintion against women and people of Asians physical characteristics.

Outcome is the criteria, not intent.


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 14 February 2008 05:33 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Seriously??

Yup. I've looked at all of the rulings issued by the CHRC since 2002 which address a Section 13 claim and Warman is the only complainant for all of them.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 May 2008 07:06 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
So I could go to jail for saying "Eat the rich"?

Only if you add "...with cheap wine."


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca