Flagrant Attack on Freedom of the Press

[Michael Hardner]

jeff,

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.

As I said, I don't find anything here offensive myself. Describing a global conspiracy smacks of the 'protocols of the elders of Zion' though, and as such... well... you know...

You seem to understand the question, but...

A lot of people don't seem to be getting that Canadian law differentiates between saying 'such-and-such a group is a bunch of jerks' which is deemed to be offensive and 'such-and-such a group is a part of a global plot to take over the world' or even 'such-and-such a group is subhuman and doesn't deserve to live'.

It's almost like some of you are learning about this for the first time.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

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

Can you please at least acknowledge that I'm talking about the law in Canada ?

[August1991]

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.

If that's the case, then the RCMP should be charging Steyn or Macleans under the Criminal Code's provisions for hate speech.

But that's not what's happening here. Instead, the CIC has gone to three human rights panels and two of them have said they will investigate. The third is still deciding. God knows where this fishing expedition will lead.

That the CIC and other members of the Assocation of the Perpetually Offended should seek to express their revulsion by such means is unsurprising. There are a great many people in this country who seem to have no clue about what freedom of speech means, or why it was invented. What is astonishing is to find so many of them in the employ of the human rights commissions.

No: rather, I wish I were astonished. What’s truly astonishing is that the commissions should have been granted such powers to begin with. As Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argued recently, “during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.” To be acting as censors, he wrote, was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions.”

...

I don’t propose to get into the merits of their complaint: suffice to say I think it is baseless. The point is, I shouldn’t have to. Maclean’s shouldn’t have to. There is only one proper outcome for this affair: not merely that the CIC’s complaint should be thrown out, but that the commissions’ power to hear such cases should be removed. They have no business meddling with speech.

Andrew Coyne

[Moxie]

Mr. Coyne is bang on, they should not have the power to investigate hate "Speech" because it's under the criminal code. It should be a police issue if someone lays a complaint of "Hate Speech". This organization has far to much power, and they are hearing cases that are outside their mandate in my opinion.

If radical Islamists can attack a magazine or a media personality for an "Opinion" none of us stand a chance, and that in a nutshell is their goal. To silence the opponents of Polical Islamists and they are winning.

[jefferiah]

You seem to understand the question, but...

A lot of people don't seem to be getting that Canadian law differentiates between saying 'such-and-such a group is a bunch of jerks' which is deemed to be offensive and 'such-and-such a group is a part of a global plot to take over the world' or even 'such-and-such a group is subhuman and doesn't deserve to live'.

But I see nothing wrong with saying that either. If it is your opinion that such and such a group is trying to take over you should be able to put it in writing. Or even if you wish to say that such and such a group is subhuman. Did he say such and such a group does not deserve to live?

[White Doors]

But I see nothing wrong with saying that either. If it is your opinion that such and such a group is trying to take over you should be able to put it in writing. Or even if you wish to say that such and such a group is subhuman. Did he say such and such a group does not deserve to live?

Of course he didn't. I actually READ the book which Mr. Hardner readily admits he did not. He isn't agitating people to take up arms anywhere. He isn't asking that Muslims be punished AT ALL.

Clearly Mr Hardner's PC sensibilities got the best of his as he cannot cite a law that Mr. Steyn broke.

Clearly, he doesn't even know what hate speach is let alone what Mr Steyn actually even said.

This is a bell weather. Anyone concerned about the future of this country should be watching this very closely.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, WD

Of course he didn't. I actually READ the book which Mr. Hardner readily admits he did not. He isn't agitating people to take up arms anywhere. He isn't asking that Muslims be punished AT ALL.

Clearly Mr Hardner's PC sensibilities got the best of his as he cannot cite a law that Mr. Steyn broke.

Clearly, he doesn't even know what hate speach is let alone what Mr Steyn actually even said.

This is a bell weather. Anyone concerned about the future of this country should be watching this very closely.

You seem to imply that if he did agitate people to take up arms, then this would be hate speech.

Do you think so ?

I would draw the line at calling a certain group less than human, or implying that all people of a certain religion are guilty. And I think Steyn has done that. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that he's arguable published hate speech.

If not, then I think the courts could decide that.

If I was expressing a 'PC sensibility' then I would be expressing disgust and revulsion at him 'insulting' people of a certain religion, or somesuch. I'm not doing that, and you're not doing your argument any good by grouping insults with communication that is arguably close to hate speech.

[White Doors]

Ok, WD

You seem to imply that if he did agitate people to take up arms, then this would be hate speech.

Do you think so ?

I would draw the line at calling a certain group less than human, or implying that all people of a certain religion are guilty. And I think Steyn has done that. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that he's arguable published hate speech.

If not, then I think the courts could decide that.

If I was expressing a 'PC sensibility' then I would be expressing disgust and revulsion at him 'insulting' people of a certain religion, or somesuch. I'm not doing that, and you're not doing your argument any good by grouping insults with communication that is arguably close to hate speech.

Yes, if he asked people to commit violence against a visable minority, that would be hate speech and THAT would be handled in the courts, not some 'human rights tribunals'. what a crock.

No, you are not a lawyer and neither are the people at the human rights commissions. If they are so sure that it is hate speech why not go to a federal prosecutor and help them build a case and bring it to COURT?

This is not court, this is a kangaroo court and the CIC knows this.

This complaint isn't going to the courts Hardner, or did you not only NOT read the book but you haven't even read about the issue? No COURT is deciding here, it is a TRIBUNAL.

That is the whole freaking issue.

You can't see the issue because you are too busy twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to be the most PC person on the board.

THINK

[Michael Hardner]

WD

Yes, if he asked people to commit violence against a visable minority, that would be hate speech and THAT would be handled in the courts, not some 'human rights tribunals'. what a crock.

No, you are not a lawyer and neither are the people at the human rights commissions. If they are so sure that it is hate speech why not go to a federal prosecutor and help them build a case and bring it to COURT?

I believe that they do that as a last resort.

"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."

This is not court, this is a kangaroo court and the CIC knows this.

This complaint isn't going to the courts Hardner, or did you not only NOT read the book but you haven't even read about the issue? No COURT is deciding here, it is a TRIBUNAL.

I don't need to read the book. I'm not going to read the book because I don't have time and I'm not interested in reading it.

Would you rather have these issues take up time with the police and courts straight off ?

That is the whole freaking issue.

You can't see the issue because you are too busy twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to be the most PC person on the board.

THINK

Again, calling somebody PC because they want to uphold the law is pretty indiscriminate. Do you support Zundel ? It not, then you are PC by your own definition.

[White Doors]

Again, calling somebody PC because they want to uphold the law is pretty indiscriminate. Do you support Zundel ? It not, then you are PC by your own definition.

Man, do you even read what you post? There is no law that they are ruling on here unless you think Mr Steyn was blocking someone's employment or right to rent an apartment.

There is no ruling on 'law' here. Just a complaint because someone doesn't like what someone else says.

Hate speech does not cover that and neither are these tribunals supposed to cover it, according to your own quote.

So if you still refuse to see where the issue here, then that is saying alot about you.

You are choosing your PC status over the law. Plain and simple.

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

Man, do you even read what you post? There is no law that they are ruling on here unless you think Mr Steyn was blocking someone's employment or right to rent an apartment.

There is no ruling on 'law' here. Just a complaint because someone doesn't like what someone else says.

Hate speech does not cover that and neither are these tribunals supposed to cover it, according to your own quote.

So if you still refuse to see where the issue here, then that is saying alot about you.

You are choosing your PC status over the law. Plain and simple.

You are calling me PC because I think that Steyn's comments might warrant a legal investigation by police, that's what I see.

It's got nothing to do with who the CIC complained to, or whether tribunals should exist - it's got everything to do with his comments being worthy of investigation. Because I think so, you say I'm 'PC'.

[jefferiah]

WD,

You are calling me PC because I think that Steyn's comments might warrant a legal investigation by police, that's what I see.

It's got nothing to do with who the CIC complained to, or whether tribunals should exist - it's got everything to do with his comments being worthy of investigation. Because I think so, you say I'm 'PC'.

So then you must also consider Carolyn Parrish and anyone on this board who has said something about Americans as a group to be criminals.

Sometimes it is not a very nice thing to do, to make generalizations, Michael Hardner, but when you give the law power over little niceties where you can punish people for saying something you consider out of line or not very nice, then you are living in very dangerous times.

[White Doors]

WD,

You are calling me PC because I think that Steyn's comments might warrant a legal investigation by police, that's what I see.

It's got nothing to do with who the CIC complained to, or whether tribunals should exist - it's got everything to do with his comments being worthy of investigation. Because I think so, you say I'm 'PC'.

THICK

[Michael Hardner]

Jeff,

So then you must also consider Carolyn Parrish and anyone on this board who has said something about Americans as a group to be criminals.

Sometimes it is not a very nice thing to do, to make generalizations, Michael Hardner, but when you give the law power over little niceties where you can punish people for saying something you consider out of line or not very nice, then you are living in very dangerous times.

Go back and read my posts. As I have said numerous times, I'm not offended and it has nothing to do with me being offended.

[Michael Hardner]

Wd,

THICK

Rather than name calling, why not explain yourself or point out where I'm wrong.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I find it pretty rich that a group of Muslims would try to counter accusations of a globaMuslim conspiracy to take over the free world, by

1. trying to squash free speech in a free country

2. demanding access to someone elses (free press) magazine.

This is the ultimate in either

1. Irony or

2. Stupidity

Especially since they're trying to make the point that they're NOT trying to take over the world....

My two cents

[jefferiah]

Jeff,

Go back and read my posts. As I have said numerous times, I'm not offended and it has nothing to do with me being offended.

No but you did consider things Steyn said to warrant legal action, even though you were not personally offended. So then you must also consider Carolyn Parrish and posters on this board legally liable as well.

[Oleg Bach]

No but you did consider things Steyn said to warrant legal action, even though you were not personally offended. So then you must also consider Carolyn Parrish and posters on this board legally liable as well.

Between the Islamic and Jewish Congress - I would say they should shut up and appreicate Canadian hospitality - these groups are now allied - and are pushing for more power - deny them the ability to abuse the host - which is us! Ingrates must be dealt with firmly...if you don't nip it in the bud now - you will be walking into court rooms where the calender is not just adjusted and manipulated by Jewish lawyers but Islamic ones also - eg. "sorry but it's Mohamids birthday and the case can not be heard for a month" - we either run an even and fair secular ship or we do not - it's up to us to maintain control of special interest groups - we have to many already and it makes things unmanageble.

[Michael Hardner]

What did she say ? Did she say that Americans are a death cult ? Did she say that all Americans are part of a global conspiracy ?

[jefferiah]

What did she say ? Did she say that Americans are a death cult ? Did she say that all Americans are part of a global conspiracy ?

Did Steyn say that all Muslims are part of a Global conspiracy?

[Oleg Bach]

What did she say ? Did she say that Americans are a death cult ? Did she say that all Americans are part of a global conspiracy ?

Weapons dealers are not just American..nor is America the only nation that profits through violence - on the over all - Americans are wonderful and fine people - "death cult" - those that kill in the name of God - who they insult as if the all mighty needs assistance to murder - these are the death cultists - the Arab and Jewish world have always admired death and so-called heroics that go with the loss of life - conflict is primative - and any "religious" group that insists on violence - whether it be Jew - Islamic or Christian should be surpressed - the concept of God - is simply to allow goodness to take place - there are no grey areas between life and death - or good or evil - it's a black and white world - and that should be respected if we are to survive and have a good quality of life - rule of law - not rule of legalist...when I heard a lawyer say of my wifes stolen inheritance "It may be immoral but it is legal" - that line changed my life and I lost all respect for legalist - be they Jew or nominal Christain - what good can come from the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Islamic Canadian congress? - we don't need private governments - best to ignore these jerks that push for power unearned.

[jefferiah]

"Most "christians" are quite willing to kill to fulfill sick prophecies,edicts etc.,"--Kuzadd

This is a quote by a fellow poster here who calls herself Kuzadd. Do you think this is an actionable quote? Should she be under criminal investigation?

[Michael Hardner]

jeff,

He said:

Islam, however, has serious global ambitions, and it forms the primal, core identity of most of its adherents -- in the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere.

To say that 'Microsoft has serious global ambitions' or 'America has global ambitions' is not to say that there's a conspiracy. To say that Islam does - does that not imply a conspiracy to you ? Be honest.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think "death cult" is a pretty reasonable description of radical Islam. It's a bunch of people who encourage and practise suicide and killing to reach their hardline religious goals. What distiguishes that from any other "death cult"?

[Michael Hardner]

Fine, then Jerry. Go and hand out leaflets. Put it on your show. I don't care whether you do or not, or whether you're offended or not.