The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Liberals, White Supremacists, and Human Rights
an_alt
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Well, the title is a little overblown, but here's the story...
In Canada, we have such a thing as a human right commission which describes itself as, "The Canadian Human Rights Commission is empowered by the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction."
The CHR Act contains section 13 which prohibits speech "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." This section is currently being used to prosecute Ezra Levant, a publisher who reprinted the infamous Mohammad cartoons as well as Mark Steyn, an award winning author whose book excerpt was reprinted in Maclean's, a major Canadian news magazine.
A Liberal Party (actually closer to the center than left) MP has introduced a private members bill in parliament to do away with section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and has taken a backlash from his own party, but has refused to withdraw the bill saying, "To not be offended is not a right. Freedom of speech is a right."
Human rights tribunals in Canada do not follow regular legal procedures, rules for evidence, or the presumption of innocence. The CHRC takes the role of a crown/district attorney on behalf of the complainant. No one called before the CHRC under section 13 has ever been acquitted, except for the Canadian Nazi Party which got off because it doesn't actually exist.
Where do the White Supremacists fit in? The CBC ran the story with the focus that hate groups supported the legislation.
Here's the CBC story Liberal MP lauded by white supremacists
An article by Mark Steyn Mark Steyn: 'Why don't you sue me?' complaining that the complaint against him would never hold up in a court of law
The opening statement by the publisher of the magazine which reprinted the cartoons
and a leading liberal blogger on why the status quo shouldn't change There is no freedom to message hate
What are your opinions? Should speech that is, "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", be regulated at all? Should issues like these be in the human rights commission scope?
In Canada, we have such a thing as a human right commission which describes itself as, "The Canadian Human Rights Commission is empowered by the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction."
The CHR Act contains section 13 which prohibits speech "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." This section is currently being used to prosecute Ezra Levant, a publisher who reprinted the infamous Mohammad cartoons as well as Mark Steyn, an award winning author whose book excerpt was reprinted in Maclean's, a major Canadian news magazine.
A Liberal Party (actually closer to the center than left) MP has introduced a private members bill in parliament to do away with section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and has taken a backlash from his own party, but has refused to withdraw the bill saying, "To not be offended is not a right. Freedom of speech is a right."
Human rights tribunals in Canada do not follow regular legal procedures, rules for evidence, or the presumption of innocence. The CHRC takes the role of a crown/district attorney on behalf of the complainant. No one called before the CHRC under section 13 has ever been acquitted, except for the Canadian Nazi Party which got off because it doesn't actually exist.
Where do the White Supremacists fit in? The CBC ran the story with the focus that hate groups supported the legislation.
Here's the CBC story Liberal MP lauded by white supremacists
An article by Mark Steyn Mark Steyn: 'Why don't you sue me?' complaining that the complaint against him would never hold up in a court of law
The opening statement by the publisher of the magazine which reprinted the cartoons
and a leading liberal blogger on why the status quo shouldn't change There is no freedom to message hate
What are your opinions? Should speech that is, "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", be regulated at all? Should issues like these be in the human rights commission scope?
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, SteamPony wrote:I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
an_alt on
0
Posts
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Seriously, if you can't laugh at yourself or your religion you need to stab yourself in the eyesocket with a golf club.
There is no right to not be offended by what others have to say. This applies to everyone. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen.
I'm from the US though, we're pretty weird about these things.
And that first thing is just inflammatory. Of course people who use hate speech are going to be in support of the protection of their rights. Its important for the rest of us to defend them on basis of the larger principle, or just based paranoia of who the government will go after next.
Which part?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It's not some double-secret kangaroo court - it's an administrative judicial body, with full rights to procedural fairness and appeal guaranteed. It also does not carry criminal sanctions - just a payment of damages like a civil court - so "acquitted" is the wrong word to be using.
I understand the need to keep minorities from oppression, but these have always struck me as rather bullheaded ways of addressing the issues.
On the black screen
For regular legal procedures, the tribunals are not run by judges or lawyers necessarily. ("The Commissioners come from different parts of Canada and a variety of backgrounds.") The process is somewhere between a criminal and custody case. "The Commission can initiate complaints." "The CHRC is mandated to conduct employment equity audits of employers and to assess employers’ compliance with the obligations and requirements of the Act." "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is similar to a court although its proceedings are more flexible because it is an administrative tribunal." Uh, I could go on.
For evidence, "The more flexible nature of the Tribunal’s proceedings means that the strict rules of evidence do not have to be followed ."
For the presumption of innocence, from the tribunal website, "The Tribunal holds public hearings to render a decision on cases referred by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Based on evidence and the law, it decides if discrimination has occurred. If the answer is yes, the Tribunal decides how to compensate the victim and how to prevent similar cases of discrimination in the future." This describes a civil "preponderance of evidence" rather than a criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt."
For the crown attorney, from the tribunal website talking about the commission "It may act like a crown attorney and fully participate at the hearing in the public interest by leading evidence to prove a case of discrimination."
How's that?
Edit: Fair enough, "acquitted" wasn't the right term to use.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Like I said - and like the quotes show - there is very little difference between it and a regular court. You are presumed as innocent as you would be in any other court in Canada except for a criminal court, because it isn't a criminal court.
If people don't like the result, they can always appeal to a regular court. The only reason they are slightly different is so they can be staffed by people familiar with the subject matter, rather than judges who have to be able to handle all sorts of cases.
Just trying to make sure that people don't get the wrong impression - as they would from the OP - that these are some kind of judicial black holes.
At any rate, do you feel about the CHRC taking on these issue? Should Ezra Levant face likely financial penalty for publishing the cartoons? Is Keith Martin right or wrong in trying to remove section 13?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I personally think he should get a handshake and a published apology for being put through this.
I'm not a Canadian so I haven't followed many of the incidents that this "tribunal" has investigated/ruled on. I do know though that as totally fucked as the United States is about some things, this particular point is something I'm always proud of.
Our right to offend the shit out of someone.
Edit: I do think it's important to point out it took people like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin to get us to the point we're at now, and maybe this is the start of something similar for Canada?
This isn't an issue of protecting freedom of speech for an unpopular minority opinion. People who, for example, support the war in Iraq or abolishing national healthcare, aren't being sued here.
The CHRC goes after people who promote hateful speech, racist and bigoted opinions. Those don't deserve to be protected. Quite the opposite, it's the victims, the minority groups being targeted by this hatred, who deserve protection. And that's what the CHRC is for.
See, while that's an ideal, I think it could be too easy to abuse a system like that. It's that whole balance between responsibility and freedom thing, I think.
Do you consider Canada's hate speech laws in the criminal code to be lacking or unable to do this?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, or wilfully promote hatred against an "identifiable group."
An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
This kind of the central point here. Do the victims deserve protection? Protection from being offended? I sure as hell dont think so.
This part makes me uneasy. It is vague and over-inclusive and looks like it can be established by private criticism of a group. I'm not really sure what it means, what it's limits are, or whether or not I can be hailed into the CHRC for something I say or write until it's brought against me.
Had this been an American statute, I think a person has a pretty strong case of prior restraint on speech and press.
I'm bothered less by the court acting as attorney for complainant, but am distrustful and suspicious of the loosening of due process and evidence standards. Maybe the nature of the court makes it not matter as much since the remedies are probably small and limited to compensation or injunctions. While I haven't looked it up, I doubt the court allows punitive damages.
It's a minority/unpopular opinion speech regardless if you dislike what it is about or not. The CHRC is deciding what it thinks is bad for speech or not.
And why do people need to be 'protected' from these other peoples opinions or speech? How are they victimized?
It's speech.
It's difficult to explain to morons why Nazis should have a voice. They were considering banning protest at funerals because of the Westboro cocksuckers (not sure if that actually went anywhere). And yeah, fuck them, and that sucks, but if they can do awful shit, I'd like to be able to do awful shit with the same amount of freedom. It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. I'm so fucking happy that we have the ACLU.
I just have to link this satirical Onion article on the ACLU defending Nazis' rights to burn down ACLU headquarters.
Except the situation has one more twist.
The Mark Steyn fiasco is tied to one of Canada's most prominent magazines. Maclean's Magazine published an except of the Steyn's book "America Alone". It was your standard anti-islamic thinly vield biggotry that you normally find in Maclean's. After the publishing the Islamic Congress of Canada was understandably offended by this and then wrote a rebuttal that they asked Maclean's to publish as well.
The fun part begins when the editor of Maclean's refuses to publish the rebuttal. And THAT is what the ICC is bringing against the CHRC. They're claiming that Maclean's is discriminating against them due to the fact that they are a Muslim organization. They aren't complaining against the views or the speech presented in the article, but they claim to be victims to the fact that they aren't allowed to be published in the magazine.
Now it's tenuous at best. Maclean's can simply claim they didn't have space, or they simply did not want those views published in their magazine. They like the ICC as people, but don't agree with their views. Now the CHRC needs to decide whether or not there was discrimination because of religion.
My views? It's obvious that they are discriminating against the ICC because they're Muslim, but I don't want an governmental organization deciding what a private organization can or can't publish. I don't want to lose that standard of living.
And the whole Ezra Levant thing is him being a right wing inflammatory douchewad. While he does deserve a straight kick in the nads but a CHRC judgment, he does not.
Lameass Bullshit Illustrated
Mark Steyn quoted a European Muslim saying how Muslims were 'multiplying like mosquitoes' and that is what the ICC are pissed about.
Yeah, because repealing the Fairness Doctrine has worked really well for us.
Rush Limbaugh being a douche is no excuse for restricting the property and free press rights of his parent company. Particularly when the Fairness Doctrine didn't even apply to all media types so the Gray Lady could be as big a dick as it wanted to somebody and keep any response off their Op-Ed page.
So, yeah, whoo free speech and all that. I should probably spend the $50 and become a card carrying member of the ACLU.
Yes, but this is an issue of print media which has historically been given a greater protection than electronic media. Admittedly the distinction is a bit specious (spectrum scarcity), but the Court since Miami Herald has never recognized any First Amendment access to print media. I was wrong in mixing the two when I made the reference, but maybe Canada does require right of access for personal attacks in the print media.
AngelHedgie, I'm particularly interested in your opinion on the original topic.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
The Fairness Doctrine was retarded and counter to free speech.
I disagree heartily and encourage people to descend upon you in a savage and violent manner.
That's your right.
This is not.