Flagrant Attack on Freedom of the Press

[August1991]

Is that not the case ? Is the quote from more than one person ? I don't care if he finds a single person or a handful of people - it's still a dirty propaganda trick designed to make people distrust all people from that religion.

If you hear hoofs beating, think horses not zebras.

As for your claim that the 'Elders of Zion' was laughable, the Nazis made it required reading so somebody took it seriously. To claim that we're more sophisticated today than we were then is to say you've never read the worst posts on this web board.

If the court of opinion were this forum, God knows what the verdict would be. But Steyn doesn't face this forum. He faces the Western world which eventually figured that Galileo was right and the Catholic Church was wrong. Heck, it even figured out the that the "Protocol of Zion" was a fraud.

Between a panel of political appointees in British Columbia and the collective wisdom of western civilization, I have no doubt whom I'll trust for an opinion. If Steyn's a raving neo-con fascist, the BC panel should not judge but defer to a higher court for a final opinion.

But the paradigm of "don't get the government involved if one or two parties are okay with it" is a slippery slope to no code at all.

Precisely. I'd prefer no Human Rights code or panels or tribunals at all.

In a civilized society, they have no reason to exist. Trudeau created them because the Americans had Civil Rights legislation and Trudeau thought they'd be a counterweight to government power. Well, they have become a tyranny unto themselves. They are Star Chambers of Political Correctness.

We need a Charter of Rights to protect us against the State. The State must be restricted in its power. But we don't need human rights panels to protect us against our fellow citizens. With our fellow citizens, we are always free to cross the street and go elsewhere.

Edited December 9, 2007 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

A,

If the court of opinion were this forum, God knows what the verdict would be. But Steyn doesn't face this forum. He faces the Western world which eventually figured that Galileo was right and the Catholic Church was wrong. Heck, it even figured out the that the "Protocol of Zion" was a fraud.

You might at least acknowledge that there were some bumps along the way.

As I said, I thought that we as a society were past that, but I don't think that anymore.

Between a panel of political appointees in British Columbia and the collective wisdom of western civilization, I have no doubt whom I'll trust for an opinion. If Steyn's a raving neo-con fascist, the BC panel should defer to a higher court.

Western Civilization, as it exists now, was designed to learn from its own mistakes.

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Dec 8 2007, 11:02 PM) *

But the paradigm of "don't get the government involved if one or two parties are okay with it" is a slippery slope to no code at all.

Precisely. I'd prefer no Human Rights code or panels at all.

In a civilized society, they have no reason to exist. Trudeau created them because the Americans had Civil Rights legislation and Trudeau thought they'd be a counterweight to government power. Well, they have become a tyranny unto themselves. They are Star Chambers of Political Correctness.

In a very civilized society, we might not need laws at all.

As I said, I hear your complaints about these tribunals, but now you're overreaching to call these things star chambers. Care to list some examples of their worst decisions ? Have they ever done anything worse than occupy the headlines, or call attention to the fact that certain people are discriminated against ?

[August1991]

In a very civilized society, we might not need laws at all.

On the contrary. A civilized society protects the meek and honest from the harsh and those who prevaricate. How?

Private dealings in markets with prices manage alot if there is clear property and contract law. I'm laisser faire dans mes affaires. Human Right tribunals are an invitation to wasteful litigation.

As I said, I hear your complaints about these tribunals, but now you're overreaching to call these things star chambers. Care to list some examples of their worst decisions ? Have they ever done anything worse than occupy the headlines, or call attention to the fact that certain people are iminated against ?

Examples? Steyn is one but there are others.

----

A Canadian Muslim who says he was blocked from a domestic Air Canada flight because of racial profiling has filed a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Link

A complaint against a young Alberta pastor to the Alberta Humans Rights Commission brought by a homosexual activist has been ruled in favour of the complainant, the Canadian Press reports.

Link

The law relating to drug and alcohol testing and the application of human rights legislation to recreational drug users continues to develop in Canada. Two cases involving failed pre-employment drug tests by admitted users of marijuana, one from Alberta and one from Ontario, are reviewed below.

Link

Alberta Liberals accused the provincial government Tuesday of ignoring basic human rights after a 14-year-old girl was forced to leave a Calgary soccer game for wearing a Muslim headscarf.

...

Stelmach said his government is willing to listen to anyone who is concerned over the issue through the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Link

In 1999, Dorothy Kateri Moore, a Mi'kmaq woman from Cape Breton, complained her boss at a sports store had discriminated against her by calling her "kemosabe," a word made famous in Lone Ranger movies. She complained to the Human Rights Commission. Three years ago, a commission board of inquiry found Moore's boss had not discriminated, because she did not tell him she found the term offensive.

Link

A Muslim woman who filed a human rights complaint after being suspended from her airport screener job for wearing a skirt deemed too long agreed Wednesday to trade in her uniform for casual attire and a new job.

But the measure is only an interim solution in the case, the Teamsters Union said.

Link

A Winnipeg family has filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission as part of a year-long struggle to keep their mother on the Alzheimer's drug Aricept.

Mattie Bars, 97, has been taking Aricept, a cognitive-enhancing drug, for almost two years.

Link

These are randomly chosen links. Such is our Human Rights panel "industry". And Trudeau thought that these panels would create a "counterweight".

Edited December 9, 2007 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for those examples. I'll look at them.

On the contrary. A civilized society protects the meek and honest from the harsh and those who prevaricate. How?

Private dealings in markets with prices manage alot if there is clear property and contract law. I'm laisser faire dans mes affaires. Human Right tribunals are an invitation to wasteful litigation.

The cocaine business is one example where government intervention may be helpful.

[August1991]

The cocaine business is one example where government intervention may be helpful.

Casinos too.

[Michael Hardner]

Casinos too.

Yes, they intervene in Casinos too - ensuring that the high rollers get free show tickets.

[Argus]

Thanks for the link, Auguste.

Yes, I do think there's a solid basis for a human rights complaint here, and not because it's a sprawling illogical mish mash of anecdotes masking as arguments.

Here are some excerpts:

This is hate mongering pure and simple, and a continuation of a traditional of racial propaganda literature that started with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

All your post demonstrates is that you have no more of a commitment to free speech or - one supposes - to any freedoms which offend you - than the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm for the Left. "If you offend me, you must be put in prison"

[Argus]

Did you read the excerpts I posted ?

How can you call these 'facts' and 'demographs' ?

Implying a global conspiracy and calling someone's faith a death cult are opinions, smears really.

Let's not hear any more whinging about political correctness - this type of hate mongering is something else entirely.

No, it's merely evidence of your political correctness. You don't even have the capacity to understand what was written. Even in your own summation above you're misquoting your own cites! That's how blind the politically correct zealots are.

A nation of teenage boys is an apt description of "Palestine", and their "death cult" is also quite an apt description. This is a group of people who worship martyrs, remember, where families of dead killers sing and dance and hand out candy as they beam with delight about the martyrdom of their young murderous offspring. Children trade bubble gum cards of suicide murderers, and their pictures are painted on walls and plastered on billboards.

But your mindset is the same as theirs "You offend me. Therefore, you must be silenced."

[Argus]

edit

Edited December 9, 2007 by Argus

[Argus]

Those quotes were not out of context. The context is obvious, and the quotes stand alone. There was no need to look hard, nor to have a bias to find examples of the offending material.

No, I imagine it never is with you.

[August1991]

I've never heard of this guy but he's right:

For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, "the process is the punishment" in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.

My hope is that this case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's will be fruitful. It will be, if it inspires enough people -- especially journalists, of all political persuasions -- to express outrage at what has been done; and inspires Canada's free citizens into the necessary political action to put an end to the human rights commissions themselves. The worst possible result is if the case fails to produce this response.

David Warren

[Moxie]

I have to laugh at the hyper-sensitive left, they scream racism racism over and over. Hello it's a religion he wrote about, not a race. Frankly it sounds like the complaintants couldn't brow beat the magazine into giving them five free pages to brag about how "Peaceful" Radical Islam is.

Here's an example of what is legal for Muslims to blather on about, it's ugly and this is racism. He shouldn't have any trouble defending his views, globally Political Islam is making life miserable for non-Muslims.

Link: http://www.muslimvideos.com/

Regarding the HRC, it's an organization that has far to much power. It's mandate appears to be punishing offenders for "Hurting anothers' feelings" more leftwing retard idiology at it's finest.

[luvacuppajoe]

I've never heard of this guy but he's right:David Warren

I wish I could share his confidence but I'm not convinced that a win against Steyn and Macleans is going to inspire anything positive. It may very well end up having the opposite effect.

[White Doors]

I can never understand how any proud Canadian could think that this prosecution of Steyn is a good thing. Obviously, more people need to be offended, more often.

I am offended almost everyday just by reading the newspaper.

This is sick and disgusting.

[Canadian Blue]

I can't believe that anyone would attack the essential liberties granted to all Canadian's so as to ensure that no ones feelings get hurt. While I think that Mark Steyn is a hack, he should be allowed to speak his mind on the issues so long as he doesn't encourage vigilante violence against a group of people.

[Michael Hardner]

As a general reply to anyone on this thread, I'm not 'offended' by Steyn's comments nor am I screaming 'racism', nor do I feel that hate speech should absolutely and utterly be banned in all cases. As I have said, my opinion on this matter has changed in the past, mostly in response to dangerous and stupid rhetoric that I have read.

But the fact is that hate speech IS illegal in Canada, and as such I believe that the hate-mongering in Steyn's article probably falls into that category. I'm sorry that so many of you are offended by the Canadian legal system, but you should focus your energy on the law rather than my emotions on this matter - which in the end aren't all that interesting.

Argus,

Read me clearly - Steyn doesn't offend me.

All your post demonstrates is that you have no more of a commitment to free speech or - one supposes - to any freedoms which offend you - than the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm for the Left. "If you offend me, you must be put in prison"

...

But your mindset is the same as theirs "You offend me. Therefore, you must be silenced."

[Michael Hardner]

Can Blue,

I can't believe that anyone would attack the essential liberties granted to all Canadian's so as to ensure that no ones feelings get hurt. While I think that Mark Steyn is a hack, he should be allowed to speak his mind on the issues so long as he doesn't encourage vigilante violence against a group of people.

Your 'essential liberties' are always limited. If you can't believe that someone would curtail them, then I'm afraid you don't understand the law.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Michael Hardner

[Moxie]

Writing about Political Islamists and Radial Islam isn't a hate crime, but I'm sure the radical Muslims will make sure any conversation that isn't PC will cease. More blather slather and appeasement at taxpayers expense to shut up those that see what's happening. Sharia Law anyone lest we offend.

On a side note, when England was debating their hate legislation a member brought up a valid point: The koran is a book filled with hateful violent surias about Jews and Infidels ergo the Muslims went batty as per norm and the Koran is exempt from the legislation. They are allowed to preach and teach hatred but a writer must curtail his words lest he offend those that offend the rest of society.

I wonder would a complaint made against the Koran be accepted as "Hate Mongering"?

[Michael Hardner]

Moxie,

Writing about Political Islamists and Radial Islam isn't a hate crime, but I'm sure the radical Muslims will make sure any conversation that isn't PC will cease. More blather slather and appeasement at taxpayers expense to shut up those that see what's happening. Sharia Law anyone lest we offend.

It sure is something for you to talk about 'blather' when you post without acknowledging my post in the least.

On a side note, when England was debating their hate legislation a member brought up a valid point: The koran is a book filled with hateful violent surias about Jews and Infidels ergo the Muslims went batty as per norm and the Koran is exempt from the legislation. They are allowed to preach and teach hatred but a writer must curtail his words lest he offend those that offend the rest of society.

I wonder would a complaint made against the Koran be accepted as "Hate Mongering"?

Certainly some excerpts would be actionable.

[Canadian Blue]

So should Ayaan Hirsi Ali for example be charged for spreading hatred due to her criticisms of Islam?

Your 'essential liberties' are always limited. If you can't believe that someone would curtain them, then I'm afraid you don't understand the law.

I'm not a big fan of thought crime.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content...130_111821_7448

[Michael Hardner]

So should Ayaan Hirsi Ali for example be charged for spreading hatred due to her criticisms of Islam?

CB,

Are you asking me my opinion legal question, as in 'does this satisfy the legal criteria for hate speech' or my opinion as to whether a particular statement satisfies my criteria for hate speech ?

Either way, post the excerpt if you care, and I'll tell you.

[Canadian Blue]

Not at this time, however look up any interview she's done and you'll notice that she is very critical of Islam in its current state. Keep in mind that she also was a part of the short film "Submission" which attacked Islam for its treatment of women.

However this only proves my point that putting too many limitations of freedom of speech can be largely negative upon the liberties we have taken for granted.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[jefferiah]

Certainly some excerpts would be actionable.

I think that if someone wants to say such and such a group is a bunch of losers they ought to be able to. No one raises the Human Rights alarm when people make generalizations about Americans. By your own standard Carolyn Parrish ought to be tried before the kangaroo courts. There is nothing he said that is so dangerous to society. If he had incited people to commit violent acts against Palestinians with a direct command to do so then perhaps this would be the type of freedom that could be curtailed, but making an opinionated assessment of a certain group ought never be illegal, regardless of whether you or I agree with that assessment. Reading what he said in the "actionable" quotes you provided, I don't think that this man should be considered a criminal. It amounts to what everyone else is saying......certain people think it should be their right to censor speech which they find offensive. Not speech which is directly harmful. Ridiculous.

Edited December 10, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

So,

Ayaan Hirsi

I just read some excerpts of hers and while they're critical, they're not written in the way Steyn's pieces are - they're more of a criticism of aspects of the religion itself rather than attempts to paint it was a conspiracy.

Of course, we're talking about law so there will be some grey areas. For me, the line is between Hirsi and Steyn.

[Argus]

Argus,

Read me clearly - Steyn doesn't offend me.

And yet your support for flagrant violations of freedom of speech and the press offends me very much.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Argus