Peter F

On the face of it I agree with you. It's usually best to ignore the ranting of fools. Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. The Western Standard did go broke after all. Nevertheless, the enabling legistlation is there. Perhaps such legislation should be repealed. But as long as it stands then the AHRC is doing the job its been mandated to do.

That's fine, you think the complaint is full of poo. Help yourself to it. The complainant thinks different.

In this case, it may very well be impossible to fix blame on the Western Standard as the source. But that doesn't mean that fixing blame in other situations is impossible. Reading other cases of the same Hatred and Contempt nature at the AHRC website (Commission decisions) there are only three listed wich deal with the 'hatred and contempt' issue. Darren Lund v. Stephen Boissoin AND The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. (November 30, 2007) Quintin Johnson v. Music World Ltd., HMV Canada, and A.V.E. Entertainment (Formerly Known as Top Forty Music (May 7, 2003) Harvey Kane and The Jewish Defence League of Canada v. Milan Papez, Sr., Milan Papez, Jr. and The Silver Bullet (June 13, 2002) It seems that in each of these cases, the Commission only seriously considered wether the published material is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt, as per clause 3(1)( of the Act. So, my original contention that the AHRC would seek to find some sort of manifestation of the hatred and contempt and link that to the published material, as proof that the published material exposed folks to H&C, appears to be unnecessary. Which could explain why the act is worded the way it is. Because, as you say, fixing blame on source or another is next to impossible.

According to the complainant, the WS published cartoons that are likely to expose muslims to hatred or contempt. I am sure you and many others think the complainant is full of shit. Thats fine too. The complainant, however, still has a right to make the complaint if he/she/they think the cartoons as published will likely expose muslims to hatred and contempt. You can find the complaint and supporting documents (as kindly provided by Mr Levant) at the link noted in normanchateau's original post.

I expect them to make that determination based upon events. I imagine they will try to determine if there has been any manifestation of hatred or contempt towards Muslims that resulted from the publication of the cartoons by the Western Standard. I suspect they will not find any such manifestations nor will they find that the Western Standard advocated for hatred and contempt for Muslims, and the complaint will be denied. In other words, your are correct, how does one prove hatred and contempt? If there is no obvious and public hatred and contempt then such hatred and contempt remains nebulous and elusive. The AHRC, I expect, needs to deal with realities and not maybes and couldbes in order to find that the complaint is correct.

I believe the allegation is that publishing the cartoons would expose muslims to hatred or contempt. If true it would contravene the Alberta Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. The Alberta Human Rights Commission has been designated by the Act to hear the complaint, investigate and determine wether the Act has in fact been contravened - or not, as the case may be. The AHRC need not ask you, me, nor anyone else if they can investigate the complaint. They MUST investigate - they are required to by the Alberta Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. Only the Director of the AHRC can decree the complaint to be without merit and not investigate. In This case, the Director considered the complaint to have some merit - in that publications of the cartoons could, concievably expose Muslims to hatred and Contempt. So too bad for Mr Levant - or more likely good for Mr Levant, he seems to be enjoying it. Anyways, either the cartoons did expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or they didn't. The AHRC will make that determination - as they are mandated by the Legistlature of Alberta to do. Not you, not me, not anyone else but the AHRC.

See post #137 (I must be on 'ignore')

To quote the Act (again): I see nothing in there restricting the interpretation of a or b to employment or housing. In fact b would be very difficult to interpret in the sense of housing or employment.

Well, apparently the clerk in this case thought different. To quote the Act again: Is the complaint frivolous and if so can the 'clerk' recieving the complaint dismiss it summarily? The Act: It seems the 'clerk' cannot dismiss any complaint no matter how frivolous the clerk may consider the complaint to be. Only the 'Director' can do so - and, it seems, the Dirctor did not think the complaint was frivolous. So far I see nothing wrong with what has happened here. Everything seems to conform with the will of the people of Alberta as expressed through thier elected representatives in the provincial legistlature.

Nobody's forcing anybody to spend thousands for expressing an opinion. Nobody is forcing anybody to be subjected to sensitivity courses for expressing an opinion. In the present case, a complainant has alleged that mr Levant contravened the Alberta Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act wich states: Alberta Queen's Printer

Here here. No riots, no mobs and no bombs. Its the civil western way - and some believe there should be no such forum to air complaints.

So I have read. WS published them nonetheless and I don't think they were part of an expose of the Imam.

all reasons are excuses.

Argus (jan15 11:14) So it seems nobody saw the cartoons. If they had, they wouldn't have been upset. And here I thought the cartoons had been published somewhere....

Ah. That explains why we don't see Canadian soldiers crushed under capsized vehicles.

"The right to understand it was controversial"...Thats funny. I have never seen the cartoons and yet I seem to understand that many became so upset the by unviewed-by-me cartoons that they started a riot or two. So what would I have understood If I had seen the cartoons?

Actually BC, I fully agree with your position as stated in an earlier post: Desensitize them - ridicule religious figures till the cows com home. Its a good thing. Seriously, I agree with that 100%. But this isn't about free speach. This is about 'did Levant attempt to inspire hatred or not?' Personally I think that was his intent - but that is niether here nor there at this point in the thread. What I think is horseshit is the claim that I'm being abused because somebody can't publish the cartoons. People in editorial positions choose not to publish all sorts of stuff. According to many on this thread whenever someone doesn't publish something - my rights have been infringed upon.

So I must see the cartoons to determine if I should see the cartoons? ...already my jaw is locking up. ...and if somebody decided not to show the cartoons that would mean my free speach is being trodden upon right?

Jeez, My not being able to view cartoons ridiculing various religious figures will soooo cramp my free speach. Whatever shall we do.

Oleg - in my case you're preaching to the choir. Amen, brother.

He hasn't had his trial yet. It's ongoing now under the new military commissions act. Released transcripts here: USMilitary Commissions website I would like to add, that while these Commissions aren't the respectable Criminal Courts that the USofA is rightly admired for..they arn't Kangaroo Courts either, as I think, reading the available transcripts will show.

Yes, that is a very important thing. Sgt Speer fully deserved to live his life out to a fine old age with his wife, whom he loved, watching thier children grow. There ard a couple of thousand more US soldiers like him too.

From the original US commission charge sheet of 2005 (edited by me): Omar born 19 sep 86 in Toronto 1990 moved with family to Pakistan 1994 Father arrested and imprisoned in Pakistan, Omar and siblings return to Canada to live with thier grandparents 1995 Omar returned to Pakistan 1996 Omar moves with family to Afghanistan 1996-2001 Omar and family travel throughout Afhanistan and Pakistan 2002 Omar recieves weapons training in Afghanistan 27 Jul 2002 Omar captured in Afghanistan Omar Khadr returned to Pakistan from Canada in 1995 at the age of 9. Are you seriously suggesting that a nine-year old should have known what legal conundrum he was getting himself into? That returning to Pakistan with his family would eventually, 6 years hence, land him in some god-forsaken hovel in Afghanistan being bombed silly by the USAF. When the party of American soldiers approached, With his ears still ringing from the 500lb bombs, the 15 year old should have known that the approaching ssf boys were really medics and had absolutely no intention of causing him harm? Should he have understood that despite the weapons they were carrying they were in fact 'Medics'. Should he have recalled what he learned in Canada in grade 3 about the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War? But he did toss the grenade. If a Canadian 15 yr old did the same thing to an Al Queda guy they'd give him a fukin medal....The term 'self-defence' comes to mind. The real culprit here, I think, is the Canadian elementry school system. As for the lads intelligence value, I'm very doubtfull that Osama et al would entrust any secrets to him at all that would still be of any value to anyone 2 minutes after his capture. They're keeping him locked up because of the hundreds and hundreds of terror suspects they detained in Guatanamo, He's the only one that actually killed anybody - and not even a civilian passer by at that. The rest of them are being charged for driving Osama around or providing assistance and support to Al Queda. Many have been released back to thier home countrys. Those not yet charged are being held because they had Seiko watches or AK47's in thier house or somebody (secret somebody and not to be divulged) claimed they were terrorists. Why not Omar? Because he's the strongest case they've got...and pretty pitiful at that. They're keeping him because politically the whole Guatanamo thing has turned into an embarrassment and they are desperate to produce something...anything...to justify it.

The Father never returned to Canada after 1990, Omar never returned since 1995. From the original US commission charge sheet of 2005 (edited by me): Omar born 19 sep 86 in Toronto 1990 moved with family to Pakistan 1994 Father arrested and imprisoned in Pakistan, Omar and siblings return to Canada to live with thier grandparents 1995 Omar returned to Pakistan 1996 Omar moves with family to Afghanistan 1996-2001 Omar and family travel throughout Afhanistan and Pakistan 2002 Omar recieves weapons training in Afghanistan 27 Jul 2002 Omar captured in Afghanistan original charge sheet (pdf)

Thanks. That sounds fair. So - Yes. America was right to revolt. Allright....everybody in a circle...