289 replies to this topic

[Rue]

It's beside the pojnt raised by the OP but I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for Levant. Muslims find this sort of thing objectionable and they have a right to prosecute their case just as Levant (a Jew) would have a right to prosecute a case against somebody who might deny the Holocaust.

Levant is a publisher. He must have known what he was getting into.

No you do not have the right to prosecute someone in Canada for denying the holocaust. You are wrong. Prosecutre refers to a criminal code proceeding. It is not a criminal act to deny the holocaust. It might be a criminal act to use any words in a context to encourage others to engage in an assault or battery, property vandalism or other criminal consequence. Just stating something contraversial does not make it criminal.

Criminal law requires the Crown to show there was a deliberate intent to commit a crime or assist in the committing of a crime and that is why the criminal code is very rarely used in hate crimes prosecutions.

More to the point someone denying the holocaust and someone drawing a political cartoon are NOT the same thing at all. One is a denial of a fact that may offend some, the other an act of political expression that does not deny a fact, but also may offend some.

Even more to the point, this is not about allowing people to censor others because they don't agree with them.

The point Levant was making as a Canadian citizen and NOT A JEW is that censoring anyone's political views, including Nazis or racists, may not be the appropriate way to do it.

That was the point.

You reduce it to the feelings of some Muslims. Its not about feelings. The law is about maintaining a set of rules that can not acknowledge one group's feelings at the expense of another's but has to walk a fine line and try allow everyone the same right to express feelings.

As a Jew I do not think censoring Nazis through a Human Rights Commission is the way to do it. I don't think censoring them is the way to do it at all.

In the case of Jim Keegstra teaching holocaust denial in schools, yes that had to be stopped because its not appropriate in a school. If he wanted to preach that crap outside school it would be a different story.

With Ernst Zundel, he disseminated hate messages on the telephone through his answering machine, and on the inter-net which made it federal jurisdiction.

The feds stepped in reluctantly because it was shown he was also involved inciting physical attacks against persons, vandalizing property and engaging in criminal activities and the encouraging of criminal activities and technically he was not a citizen of Canada and so was violating Immigration laws.

The on-going legal case against the aboriginal chief in Saskatchewan in my opinion as a lawyer was deliberately anti-semitic but he did not encourage people to commit a crime, he just stated ignorance and hatred. The best way to deal with that is to openly challenge him and call him out on it. Its not a criminal matter.

It would be a criminal matter if he had said at the end of his speech go out and beat up Jews. Its a fine line. Some people believe his words automatically can be inferred to say that.

The problem is, what if in another case we are wrong with the inference? if we can use presumed inferences to prove a crime, that becomes subjective and for a law to work it can not be subjective it must remain objective and not based on emotional reaction but logical reasoning.

My attitude is if you can't handle a political cartoon don't read it and openly debate it. When Levant produced these cartoons it was in a clear context of challenging freedom of speech and the human rights tribunals and was not done to encourage hatred.

If some idiot newspaper wants to produce anti-semite cartoons, and many have over Israel, then I have the choice to debate them openly and write editorials to the paper and hell go out on the street with a placard and have a tantrum and ask people to not buy the paper. That is how freedom works.


This isn't even about Muslims and their religion as far as I am concerned. That cartoon could have been about any one. The principles remain the same regardless. My comments are made in general and not specifically to the poster I am responding to-I am just talking rhetorically. I respect the poster's opinion.

Edited by Rue, 24 March 2008 - 09:32 AM.

[Rue]

I think the best way to deal with freedom of expression disputes is openly outside government involvement when possible.

Edited by Rue, 24 March 2008 - 09:33 AM.

[eyeball]

QUOTE(eyeball @ Mar 23 2008, 02:11 PM)
No we shouldn't. If we do it won't be long until someone starts asking if we should abolish human rights too.

We have no need for Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals.
We can as easily provide a section of the regular courts, similar to a small claims court to assist those with a legitimate grievance under the CHRA.

CHRA Section 13 has to go. It is very bad law, improperly written using undefined terms and allowing conjecture.

The same courts that are to be shackled with things like mandatory sentencing and elected judges? No thanks.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. A beef about one section of the CHRA is prompting calls for scrapping the Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals that protect and promote human rights. Mark my words, get rid of these and just as soon as somebody has a beef with someone's human rights, they'll suggest we have no need for someone's human rights.

We need more commissions not less. That said we need more human rights too - as far as I'm concerned we're only just scratching the surface.

[Wilber]

We need more commissions not less. That said we need more human rights too - as far as I'm concerned we're only just scratching the surface.

We definitely need a commission to look into the conduct of Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals. Form enough politically appointed commissions with the power to impose penalties and we will no longer need courts. I'm at a loss to see how this results in more human rights.

[August1991]

This is an example of what I'm talking about. A beef about one section of the CHRA is prompting calls for scrapping the Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals that protect and promote human rights. Mark my words, get rid of these and just as soon as somebody has a beef with someone's human rights, they'll suggest we have no need for someone's human rights.

We need more commissions not less. That said we need more human rights too - as far as I'm concerned we're only just scratching the surface.

Once again, eyeball, I ask you: what do you mean exactly by "human rights"?

The Charter of Rights explicitly (and solely) protects you against the State. The Charter does not apply to the activities of individuals. It only restricts the activities of the federal and provincial governments. (Before the Charter, Canada had a large body of common law that formed an equivalent to the Charter.)

If this is what you mean by Human Rights, then I am all in favour. But we are not discussing here restrictions on what the State can or cannot do.

Canada's Human Rights Commissions supposedly adjudicate the private dealings between individual Canadians. For example, should you have the right to refuse to marry someone outside of your religion or not? Or, on what basis should you have the right to refuse to rent a basement apartment in your house to someone?

IOW, we are not discussing State discrimination (i.e. the government imposing a higher tax on men than on women, or refusing to grant a marriage license to two men but not a mixed couple). We are discussing private discrimination between individuals. Should you have the right to discriminate in your private choices? Is that not a "human right"?

[capricorn]

Canada's Human Rights Commissions supposedly adjudicate the private dealings between individual Canadians. For example, should you have the right to refuse to marry someone outside of your religion or not? Or, on what basis should you have the right to refuse to rent a basement apartment in your house to someone?

Exactly. The simple fact is that human rights commissions have lost their way and have been allowed to stray into areas they were not initially intended to delve into. They have overstepped their jurisdiction and have to be stopped in their tracks.

[eyeball]

Once again, eyeball, I ask you: what do you mean exactly by "human rights"?

The Charter of Rights explicitly (and solely) protects you against the State.

The Charter does not apply to the activities of individuals. It only restricts the activities of the federal and provincial governments. (Before the Charter, Canada had a large body of common law that formed an equivalent to the Charter.)

If this is what you mean by Human Rights, then I am all in favour. But we are not discussing here restrictions on what the State can or cannot do.

There seems to be lots of people who want to get rid of the Charter too. What's left to protect me from the state if they ever manage to get the upper hand, politicians? Forget it.

Canada's Human Rights Commissions supposedly adjudicate the private dealings between individual Canadians. For example, should you have the right to refuse to marry someone outside of your religion or not? Or, on what basis should you have the right to refuse to rent a basement apartment in your house to someone?

IOW, we are not discussing State discrimination (i.e. the government imposing a higher tax on men than on women, or refusing to grant a marriage license to two men but not a mixed couple). We are discussing private discrimination between individuals. Should you have the right to discriminate in your private choices? Is that not a "human right"?

The issue seems to be a backlog due to a high number of frivolous cases and CHRC employees allegedly overstepping their authority, can't these be fixed without throwing the CHRC out? I think our country is becoming increasingly right-wing, corporatist and authoritarian and I want as many layers of protection from these as possible. I regard these commissions as being like the collection of diverse malware programs I use to protect my computer. You need more than one kind and sometimes a few of the same kind to ensure you keep all the bugs out.

By the way, what's to protect a human from a corporation in the absence of a HRC? The nanny-state? I don't think so.

Edited by eyeball, 24 March 2008 - 09:29 PM.

[maldon_road]

Exactly. The simple fact is that human rights commissions have lost their way and have been allowed to stray into areas they were not initially intended to delve into. They have overstepped their jurisdiction and have to be stopped in their tracks.

Most of that is because we have had foolhardy amendments to human rights law ( eg, Section 13 of the CHRA), appointees who are advocates rather than impartial administrators and governments not prepared to correct the excesses. The La Forest Report of 2000 would have corrected some of the problems in the CHRA but the government of the day did not act on its recommendations.

As somebody who has worked with the CHRC for a long time I want to see reform, not useful law scrapped.

[fellowtraveller]

It's beside the pojnt raised by the OP but I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for Levant. Muslims find this sort of thing objectionable and they have a right to prosecute their case just as Levant (a Jew) would have a right to prosecute a case against somebody who might deny the Holocaust.

Levant is a publisher. He must have known what he was getting into.

You do not understand the process then......
'Objectionable' does not equate to actionable(or should not in a democracy), and doubly so when "Muslims" do not have to prosecute anything themselves or face any jeopardy whatsoever for bringing the most frivolous actions against anybody they decide has offended their delicate sensibilities. They do not have to pay a cent to accuse, to bring a serious and expensive complaint, and are represented - for free- at every stage by the HRC itself. The defendant is obliged to defend himself at his own expense, and is often unable to confront his accusers. Sickening.
And you endorse this?

[jbg]

You do not understand the process then......
'Objectionable' does not equate to actionable(or should not in a democracy), and doubly so when "Muslims" do not have to prosecute anything themselves or face any jeopardy whatsoever for bringing the most frivolous actions against anybody they decide has offended their delicate sensibilities. They do not have to pay a cent to accuse, to bring a serious and expensive complaint, and are represented - for free- at every stage by the HRC itself. The defendant is obliged to defend himself at his own expense, and is often unable to confront his accusers. Sickening.
And you endorse this?

I think any deviation from the adversarial process created by English common-law and in use in every first-world English-speaking country is alarming. Indeed, one of the things that distinguishes the First World from the Third World is the rule of law and predictability of adjudications.

[Sean Hayward]

The great irony here is that the so-called Human Rights Commissions, dedicated to the cause of human rights, are, unintentionally, one of the most restrictive and abusive forces on human rights in this country.

[August1991]

Wow.

Readers had good reason to be repelled by The Future Belongs to Islam, a Mark Steyn book excerpt published by Maclean's magazine in 2006. Steyn described many Muslims as "hot for jihad," argued that their high birth rate ensures that in Europe a "successor population" already is in place, and announced "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be." It was an Islamophobic polemic.

That said, Maclean's should not have been hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission by complainants who felt their human rights had been violated by the article's content.

As the commission ruled this week, it lacks jurisdiction. The carefully drafted Ontario Human Rights Code covers discrimination only with respect to such things as housing, employment and the provision of goods and services. It doesn't cover the media. Nor should it.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, however, does prohibit exposing people to hatred or contempt on the Internet. And the B.C. code bans hateful statements and publications. Complaints against Maclean's have also been filed under those codes, so this case isn't over yet.

And while the Ontario commission rightly ruled itself out of the specific issue of the Maclean's article, it did not stop there. The commission served notice it intends to foster a "constructive debate" on "Islamophobia in the media" and how it can be addressed.

That has an ominous ring. Canada's Criminal Code already prohibits publicly inciting hatred through the media or other means. The libel laws also provide an outlet. And readers of newspapers such as the Star can complain to the Ontario Press Council. Surely that is protection enough in a society that cherishes freedom of the press.

Human rights commissions, federal and provincial, should stick to policing hateful acts, not words.

The Toronto Star

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, an intellectual with the right mixed name, copied Americans and started this so-called Human Rights system in Canada. For the (English Canada) Toronto Star to question French Canada's Pierre Trudeau, there is a change a foot. What is it?

Edited by August1991, 12 April 2008 - 12:24 AM.

[August1991]

There seems to be lots of people who want to get rid of the Charter too. What's left to protect me from the state if they ever nage to get the upper hand, politicians? Forget it.

The Charter supposedly protects us (individuals) against the State. In fact, under common law, an individual was probably better protected against governments before Trudeau's Charter.

Canada's Human Rights legislation (American-inspired, contrary to Canadian history) touch private relations between Canadians. The State is now involved in our personal choices.

----

In 1919, America changed its Constitution and adopted Prohibition. English Canadians, ever practical, imitated the Americans. French Canadians, wise about such matters, didn't.

Political Correctness is like Prohibition, and it will have the same end.

[jbg]

In 1919, America changed its Constitution and adopted Prohibition. English Canadians, ever practical, imitated the Americans. French Canadians, wise about such matters, didn't.

Political Correctness is like Prohibition, and it will have the same end.

Your lips to G-d's ears. And that is the only part of the Constitution ever directly repealed.

[eyeball]

The Charter supposedly protects us (individuals) against the State. In fact, under common law, an individual was probably better protected against governments before Trudeau's Charter.

Canada's Human Rights legislation (American-inspired, contrary to Canadian history) touch private relations between Canadians. The State is now involved in our personal choices.

----

In 1919, America changed its Constitution and adopted Prohibition. English Canadians, ever practical, imitated the Americans. French Canadians, wise about such matters, didn't.

Political Correctness is like Prohibition, and it will have the same end.

You've lost me. How is political correctness the same as Prohibition and where did you ever get the idea that Prohibition has ended here or in the US?