Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[August1991]

The alternative to these admin. tribunals are lengthy and far more costly formal court proceedings. Generally, the public is very well-served by the business of these boards and tribunals...even though frivolous and vexatious complaints are submitted at times to each and every one of them.

Or, as I said before, I suppose we could go back to the days of the wild west out here in Alberta and just shoot people who deserve shootin' 'cuz they done double-crossed us here good folk. Frankly, I think you would find far more injustice in that society than if Ezra Levant finds himself having to battle off some improper complaint in a hearing room somewhere.

I hardly want to get into a debate here about whether various regulatory tribunals are justified or not or whether a civil court or simply choosing to deal with someone else is a better resolution method.

In this thread, the issue is whether Canada's Human Rights Commissions should exist and whether they should adjudicate so-called hate speech. My own thought is that these commissions have now such a backlog and investigators have so much leeway in accepting cases that they are thoroughly arbitrary. Quite apart from whether they should exist in principle, in practice they are a disaster and need radical reform.

Levant saw an opportunity to grandstand and seized on it, just as he did when he had the chance to publish the cartoons in the first place. From all his teeth gnashing, you would never guess he's probably quite delighted at the whole development. That certainly is evidenced by his behaviour before the tribunal: hell, he didn't even have to show up at all, but there he was, puffed up with self-righteousness and a bag full of Nazi analogies. "Free-speech martyr" looks so much better on a business card than "failed entrepreneur."

Another reason not to have such hate speech rules: they just turn people like Levant into martyrs and give them an excuse to grandstand.

Fine, BD. You think Ezra Levant is nincompoop. But even this American Leftist understands the hardly subtle point that it could be you BD appearing before this tribunal. I'm sure almost any poster on this forum at one point or another has expressed hatred or contempt for some group or another in at least sufficient degree to merit a HRC investigation.

----

Underneath it all, it is hard not to realize that the real purpose here is to cause grief and hassle and this purpose has already been achieved.

Many editors and writers in Canada will now think twice about publishing anything even remotely critical of Islam. Who wants to take the risk - even minor - of being hauled before a human rights tribunal? Some people will consider this to make Canada a better and more civilized country. I think rather that it turns Canadian discourse over to the bland, imaginary world inhabited by the likes of the CBC.

Is it any wonder that we have a history of borrowing ideas from our southern neighbours? We certainly don't like taking the risk of trying out new ideas. In the past, the Catholic Church and staid English protestantism formed a bulwark against any dangerous new idea. Nowadays, it's the Politically Correct Human Rights Tribunals.

Edited January 17, 2008 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Many editors and writers in Canada will now think twice about publishing anything even remotely critical of Islam.

Auguste,

What does that mean, exactly - 'critical of Islam' ?

Islam is a faith like all faiths - built on unprovable tenets and beliefs. It has a holy book which, like other holy books, has contradictions and even some odious passages. What is there to criticize in the faith that isn't equally critical in other faiths ?

Really, what we're talking about is criticizing Muslims, and further to that violent Muslims - people who, with their actions, have abrogated the faith that they claim to profess.

I can't see why anyone would be publishing anything singling that faith out as being less worthy than the other flawed 'great' religions.

As for criticizing Muslims, this is the whole point of the complaint: it didn't ridicule the actions of particular subgroup, it did so for the entire religion. That makes it at least worthy of discussion by the tribunal.

So I'm not sure what types of editorials publishers are thinking twice about now.

Hopefully, the tribunal will clarify to a degree what types of publications will, or won't warrant this process in the future.

[capricorn]

Hopefully, the tribunal will clarify to a degree what types of publications will, or won't warrant this process in the future.

I don't think the tribunal will do so. If it did it would amount to placing a limit on its own jurisdiction. These self-imposed limits would work against the tribunal's self interest, that is, handling as many complaints as possible to justify its existence and size.

IMO, any limits on the jurisdiction of HRCs would have to come about through a court of law.

[Moxie]

Well according to this court of law and testimony from HRC employees they troll the net looking to set up innocents to file a complaint against and then commence to fining them. Has the HRC become nothing more than a make workshop experiment for those that lean so far left they set up innocents to be persecuted. It appears to me that is exactly what they've become.

Link: A real court of law stripped the back the layers and it's ugly for HRC and it's investigators.

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan16-08_...eral-court.html

Snippet: Despite an Eastern Ontario snowfall that delayed the appearance of his counsel, Barbara Kulaszka , for an hour and a half. M arc Lemire walked out of Federal Court in Toronto today a happy man. By sheer persistence, he had wrung out of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions some amazing admissions. At least one investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission has adopted a false Internet persona and trolled the Internet engaging in conversations with prospective victims. In other words, the CHRC is spying on Canadians, not observing and investigating, but participating and instigating.

After claiming Sec. 37, under the Canada Evidence Act to rule out a number of key questions to Canadian Human Rights Commission employees, the CHRC had effectively shut down some important lines of inquiry. When this claim to not divulge certain information is asserted by the government, the only recourse is to seek judicial review in Federal Court. The information is placed before a judge and he determines whether revealing the information would endanger national security or the life or safety of a person. It might be used to keep confidential the location of someone in the witness protection program. It is seldom used in civil court.

M arc Lemire contended all along that the Commission was hiding behind Sec. 37 to cover up their spying on Canadians. Following his oft repeated motto “No Surrender”, M r. Lemire had persevered despite numerous Commission submissions and maneuvers made it clear he would go to Court, In a last minute effort to avoid Court, the Commission’s outside lawyer M argot Blight gave in on all points. Suddenly, what had once been information so sensitive it could not be revealed without imperiling the public interest was disclosed.

Among the information sought, protected but now revealed:

CHRC senior investigator Dean Steacy admitted: “I created the Jadewarr email address on yahoo.ca and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront,” a prominent White Nationalist website.

Steacy claimed to be “using the Jadewarr account in investigating Sec. 13 complaints.” Interestingly, he engaged M r. Lemire, whom he was not investigating, in private message exchanges..

Apparently, he was operating without instructions: “As an investigator I decided how to investigate.”

[see the full admissions from CHRC Lawyers]

Anyone want to debate the integrity and ethics of this Socialist Organisation??? How about the lack of morals and ethics of the far left and their love of this organization?? How about human decency and HRC lack there of. Totally vile, absolutely without conscience.

[Michael Hardner]

Moxie,

I think these things definitely need looking into. Government agents who try to act beyond their powers is a problem, and governments tend to bend over backwards to avoid investigation too.

[guyser]

How about the lack of morals and ethics of the far left and their love of this organization??

Really, was this necessary?

Apparently, he was operating without instructions:

Seems he was working on his own.

[August1991]

What does that mean, exactly - 'critical of Islam' ?

Islam is a faith like all faiths - built on unprovable tenets and beliefs. It has a holy book which, like other holy books, has contradictions and even some odious passages. What is there to criticize in the faith that isn't equally critical in other faiths ?

Really, what we're talking about is criticizing Muslims, and further to that violent Muslims - people who, with their actions, have abrogated the faith that they claim to profess.

I can't see why anyone would be publishing anything singling that faith out as being less worthy than the other flawed 'great' religions.

As for criticizing Muslims, this is the whole point of the complaint: it didn't ridicule the actions of particular subgroup, it did so for the entire religion. That makes it at least worthy of discussion by the tribunal.

So I'm not sure what types of editorials publishers are thinking twice about now.

Hopefully, the tribunal will clarify to a degree what types of publications will, or won't warrant this process in the future.

Michael, I cite your entire post because if I understand properly, in your view, there is legitimate reason to believe that Levant and Macleans/Steyn are "guilty" of exposing a person to hatred or contempt?

Warren Kinsella, in a recent post, referred to a punk band named "Tit Fuck Me Jesus". I choose this random example but there are (admittedly American) websites devoted to showing how Christian fundamentalists have taken over the Republican Party. Richard Dawkins (admittedly British) wrote a book critical of all religions.

Do they not also also expose certain people to hatred or contempt? Where do we draw the line? That seems to be the question but it's not the question at all. To return to your post, you ask me what does "critical of Islam" mean? Apparently, anything that can lead to a Human Rights Commission investigation. That's the main point of this exercice because how many will now ask: Who needs the hassle? Who needs the grief?

An editor or writer, sitting around the table or looking at the computer screen has to decide what to do. Like most human beings, they'll choose the easier route. Why create problems? Islam is largely off limits now and most editors or writers will approach it very carefully. It doesn't even matter who wins or loses these HRC cases. It's like a third-rail issue.

Edited January 18, 2008 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, I cite your entire post because if I understand properly, in your view, there is legitimate reason to believe that Levant and Macleans/Steyn are "guilty" of exposing a person to hatred or contempt?

Warren Kinsella, in a recent post, referred to a punk band named "Tit Fuck Me Jesus". I choose this random example but there are (admittedly American) websites devoted to showing how Christian fundamentalists have taken over the Republican Party. Richard Dawkins (admittedly British) wrote a book critical of all religions.

Do they not also also expose people to hatred or contempt? Where do we draw the line? That seems to be the question but it's not at all. To return to your post, you ask me what does "critical of Islam" mean? Apparently, anything that can lead to a Human Rights Commission investigation. Who needs the hassle? Who needs the grief?

An editor or writer, sitting around the table or looking at the computer screen has to decide what to do. Like most human beings, they'll choose the easier route. Why create problems? Islam is largely off limits now and most editors or writers will approach it very carefully. It doesn't even matter who wins or loses these HRC cases. It's like a third-rail issue.

No, A1991, I'm not passing judgement on them. I'm just saying that I can see that these tribunals could be a good thing if used well.

"An editor or writer, sitting around the table or looking at the computer screen has to decide what to do. Like most human beings, they'll choose the easier route. "

Easier route than what ? What kind of editorial are we talking about here ? Are newspapers editors really planning to condemn an entire religion in their editorials ? I doubt it.

[August1991]

No, A1991, I'm not passing judgement on them. I'm just saying that I can see that these tribunals could be a good thing if used well.

"An editor or writer, sitting around the table or looking at the computer screen has to decide what to do. Like most human beings, they'll choose the easier route. "

Easier route than what ? What kind of editorial are we talking about here ? Are newspapers editors really planning to condemn an entire religion in their editorials ? I doubt it.

Michael, it appears that it's acceptable to ridicule Jesus, insult Christians, argue that fundamentalist Christians have a secret agenda or blame all religions for the world's ills. But in Canada, you can't single out Muslims in any way whatsoever for any kind of commentary.

If you do, you run the risk of offending someone and finding yourself before a human rights tribunal. Who needs the grief? It's less risky not to say anything about Muslims at all. The subject is taboo.

----

Some will argue that that's a good thing. A civilized society should not single out a particular religious group (or any group) for discussion.

[jbg]

See post #137

(I must be on 'ignore')

You're not but you're not explaining how the cartoons "discriminate".

[jbg]

WD,

Who is to answer whether he exposed someone to hatred if not a tribunal ? They may choose to throw out future cases based on this one, but this may indeed be a 'first' so it's a good idea to set a precedent, IMO.

A real Court, applying the Charter and 800 years of common law, not some ad hoc "tribunal" whose job it is to salve hurt feelings. This is not a dodgeball game and a "judge" is not a schoolmarm.

[FTA Lawyer]

I can certainly accept that a number of good points have been raised in this thread...on both sides.

But going back to my original point, Levant is both a lawyer and a publisher (well, was I guess on the latter). You would think he would be able to make his criticisms of the tribunal and of the complaint against him in a collected and logical manner. Respect the process by complying with it (as he has done) and challenge its validity if indeed it is invalid.

If he wants to garner support for his plight, he really should be able to accomplish the above without resorting to name-calling of the tribunal and making fun of the complainant for his handwritten as opposed to type-written complaint form.

Rather than write things like this:

If the AHRCC allows such absurd, theocratic braggadocio to masquerade as

an argument in a secular tribunal it would be an embarrassment to Canada’s liberal,

secular, pluralistic democracy and the government of Alberta that is politically

responsible for the AHRCC.

He could have quoted from an only two-month old Ontario Court of Appeal case called Cusson v. Quon as follows:

124 For the following reasons, I disagree with the respondent's submission and would hold that the appropriate way for this court to reconcile the authorities is to adopt a public interest defence for responsible journalism.

125 It is hardly necessary to repeat here the importance of the rights protected by s. 2( of the Charter, namely "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication". These rights are an inherent aspect of our system of government and have been generously interpreted by the courts. Democracy depends upon the free and open debate of public issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those, such as police officers, who exercise power and authority in our society. Freedom of expression extends beyond political debate to embrace the "core values" of "self-fulfilment", "the communal exchange of ideas", "human dignity and the right to think and reflect freely on one's circumstances and condition": R.W.D.S.U. v. Pepsi-Cola, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156 at para. 32. Debate on matters of public interest will often be heated and criticism will often carry a sting and yet open discussion is the lifeblood of our democracy. This court recognized in R. v. Kopyto (1987), 62 O.R. (2d) 449 at 462 that "f these exchanges are stifled, democratic government itself is threatened."

All government administrative tribunals must comply with the Charter...so must protect Mr. Levant's s. 2( rights as a journalist discussing a public-interest matter...even where he has published something that could otherwise run afoul of the human rts legislation.

See, all of the hullaballoo could be avoided (including the hyperbole that has made it into this thread) by simply applying the law that we have to essentially exempt the Western Standard's publishing of the cartoons (relying on s. 2() while at the same time leaving the tribunal intact.

Maybe Chicken Little...I mean Ezra Levant has just done a really good job of convincing alot of people that the sky is indeed falling.

FTA

Edited due to emoticon problem

Edited January 18, 2008 by FTA Lawyer

[August1991]

See, all of the hullaballoo could be avoided (including the hyperbole that has made it into this thread) by simply applying the law that we have to essentially exempt the Western Standard's publishing of the cartoons (relying on s. 2() while at the same time leaving the tribunal intact.

FTA Lawyer, this is not law - it is politics.

Are you aware that Le Devoir (and several student newspapers) also published the cartoons too but the CIC did not take Le Devoir before a tribunal?

The Cadre, de la University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI), a été la toute première publication canadienne à reproduire l’ensemble des 12 caricatures originales, publiées pour la première fois dans le journal danois Jyllands-Posten en septembre 2005. Plusieurs autres journaux étudiants, entre autres The Strand (University of Toronto), The Peak (Simon Fraser University), The Gateway (University of Alberta) et The Chord Weekly (Wilfrid Laurier University), ont à leur tour présenté des versions similaires ou modifiées des œuvres originales.

Ce faisant, ils sont allés à contre- courant des principaux journaux canadiens. En effet, seuls les quotidiens Le Devoir de Montréal et le Western Standard de Calgary, ainsi que le bimensuel Jewish Free Press ont reproduit au moins une des caricatures.

Link

Of course Levant is a grandstander but so is the CIC. Worse, these Human Rights Commissions give them a public stage to play out their debate and far worse, it has the official stamp of the State.

The State's power should not be abused in such a manner. The Human Rights Commissions should not exist.

[White Doors]

WD,

Who is to answer whether he exposed someone to hatred if not a tribunal ? They may choose to throw out future cases based on this one, but this may indeed be a 'first' so it's a good idea to set a precedent, IMO.

How about a court? I think the justice system should be the one setting precedents, but I guess that's just me.

A tribunal cannot set legal precedents. All it can do is 'scope creep' which it has already shown it is very good at.

[Wild Bill]

I can certainly accept that a number of good points have been raised in this thread...on both sides.

But going back to my original point, Levant is both a lawyer and a publisher (well, was I guess on the latter). You would think he would be able to make his criticisms of the tribunal and of the complaint against him in a collected and logical manner. Respect the process by complying with it (as he has done) and challenge its validity if indeed it is invalid.

Mr. FTA, I can understand how given your profession you can champion the Tribunal, or the very concept of rule of law. In an academic way I share it.

That being said, perhaps I've misinterpreted your words or the tone in which they've been made in your posts but it seems to me that you're missing a crucial point.

Defending yourself costs time and money! True, we have legal aid programs but many citizens fall into a "gap" where they are not affluent enough to mount a proper defense but not poor enough to qualify for aid. Now Ezra doesn't appear to be a pauper but I doubt if a proper defense before the Tribunal will come cheap. You yourself would be quite aware that while a court may award you a judgement it may not address your costs. For that matter, you may indeed get a judgement but you will need further court action if your opponent simply refuses to pay!

Farmers have told me of cases on a larger scale where a mega-company like Monsanto invents a genetically modified crop. A farmer buys it and plants it. Come harvest the seeds from this crop "drift" over onto an adjoining farm. When these seeds germinate in the spring the other farmer is promptly sued by Monsanto for theft! There's never a court judgement because few farmers can afford to take on Monsanto's legal staff, so they simply "cave".

This situation scales down to more mundane levels as well. The ability to afford litigation can be used as a tool to achieve your goal against an opponent, even if you are well aware from the start that if it came to trial you'd likely not prevail.

Suppose you're a student journalist. You've been charged by the HRC for words published in a local paper or spoken at a student rally. It's not likely that the HRC would convene at the plaintiff's location. He would face travel expenses, loss of time from his studies and other costs. Surely someone like Ezra would incur a financial penalty for being forced to appear before such a court, "kangaroo" or otherwise. Or suppose you were a guest speaker at Queen's University and a student lobby group has you charged for politically incorrect views in your speech? You may have been from another country or at least some distance away. Travel expenses and time lost from your speaking tour may be enough of a valid fear to prevent you from even speaking at such a university. Would this not be an example of a legitimate reason to lose respect for "due process"?

More simply, I'm saying that there seems to be a guerrilla tactic today of using the threat of court action and the costs of a defence as a perverse way of attaining your goals. A charge of a human rights violation can fit this definition.

In this light, admonishments to "respect the process" can sound naive at best and cavalier at worst.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Wild Bill

[jbg]

See, all of the hullaballoo could be avoided (including the hyperbole that has made it into this thread) by simply applying the law that we have to essentially exempt the Western Standard's publishing of the cartoons (relying on s. 2() while at the same time leaving the tribunal intact.

Maybe Chicken Little...I mean Ezra Levant has just done a really good job of convincing alot of people that the sky is indeed falling.

I don't agree. I do not believe in applying balancing tests to constitutional rights. Those rights have to be nearlya absolute, and include not only the right to be free from punishment for speaking or publishing, but the right to even have to defend in a Court or tribunal a speech or publication.

Only where speech endangers public safety, i.e. falesly shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, or treason (i.e. publication of troop sailing times) should there be exceptions. A right to win a battle over a cartoon publication after expending thousands (not applicable since Levant is a lawyer) is not a right in any meaningful sense. It becomes a privilege and thus, the entire concept of these HRC's ought to be deemed unconstitutional.

Edited January 18, 2008 by jbg

[jbg]

Of course Levant is a grandstander but so is the CIC. Worse, these Human Rights Commissions give them a public stage to play out their debate and far worse, it has the official stamp of the State.

The State's power should not be abused in such a manner. The Human Rights Commissions should not exist.

Thus, it is a good thing that this is playing out in the manner in which it is. This plus the Macleans/Steyn situation will force the kind of debate that will define Canada as, hopefully, a free and liberal country and not an Islamofascist one.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, it appears that it's acceptable to ridicule Jesus, insult Christians, argue that fundamentalist Christians have a secret agenda or blame all religions for the world's ills. But in Canada, you can't single out Muslims in any way whatsoever for any kind of commentary.

If you do, you run the risk of offending someone and finding yourself before a human rights tribunal. Who needs the grief? It's less risky not to say anything about Muslims at all. The subject is taboo.

Fine, 1991, but this is a general comment about society's mores which is not what we're talking about. You specifically said that the tribunals would put a chill on editorial content, and now you're talking very generally. My previous point is still hanging there.

[Michael Hardner]

A real Court, applying the Charter and 800 years of common law, not some ad hoc "tribunal" whose job it is to salve hurt feelings. This is not a dodgeball game and a "judge" is not a schoolmarm.

jbg,

You're misrepresenting the role of the tribunals. Hurt feelings have nothing to do with it.

Again, I will add you to the list of people who feel that they have to fill their arguments with falsehoods, presumably because a real argument wouldn't be strong enough.

[Michael Hardner]

How about a court? I think the justice system should be the one setting precedents, but I guess that's just me.

A tribunal cannot set legal precedents. All it can do is 'scope creep' which it has already shown it is very good at.

WD,

Firstly, I will acknowledge your concerns about 'scope creep' and expanding jurisdiction. That is indeed a concern.

But let me ask you - would you have rather had Levant charged and hauled to court ?

Tribunals are used to resolve disputes and keep low-level issues out of the legal system. In the case of this type of material, there is definitely a broad range out there and I think that a tribunal, well managed and tightly reined, is a good approach. Getting the police involved in every case is probably too heavy an approach, and doing nothing is too light an approach.

[White Doors]

WD,

Firstly, I will acknowledge your concerns about 'scope creep' and expanding jurisdiction. That is indeed a concern.

But let me ask you - would you have rather had Levant charged and hauled to court ?

Tribunals are used to resolve disputes and keep low-level issues out of the legal system. In the case of this type of material, there is definitely a broad range out there and I think that a tribunal, well managed and tightly reined, is a good approach. Getting the police involved in every case is probably too heavy an approach, and doing nothing is too light an approach.

Yes, I would have rather him charged in court. That way his ultimate victory could set a legal precedent that could quash future silly actions such as this.

[Peter F]

You're not but you're not explaining how the cartoons "discriminate".

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.

[g_bambino]

jbg,

You're misrepresenting the role of the tribunals.

Don't be so hard on jbg; misrepresenting the role of the tribunals isn't such a hard thing to do. After all, what is the role of these tribunals? They're not courts of law, yet, they seem to "judge" whether or not someone has committed a crime. If you say that's wrong, they don't judge and cast rulings based on law, then it seems the tribunals would only be a group of people who listen to complaints about hurt feelings; they seem to play the role of kindergarten teacher for adults. I'm not sure which one it is - they sometimes appear to be a combination of the two - but, either way, human rights tribunals don't come out looking good.

Edited January 18, 2008 by g_bambino

[jefferiah]

According to the complainant, the WS published cartoons that are likely to expose muslims to hatred or contempt.

Lol.

You people just don't get it. When I watch South Park it does not make me hate the thousands of groups they poke fun at. But the attempt by some of the Islamic community to undermine western free speech......that is very likely to expose muslims to hatred or contempt.

If somebody feels Mohammed was a pedophile and wants to draw him as such he should have that right. That has nothing to do with promoting hatred against Muslims. It has a lot to do with Muslims demanding that non-Muslims show respect for a man they don't revere.

Edited January 18, 2008 by jefferiah

[Peter F]

But here's my point, even if one can prove hatred and contempt against a particular group exists, fixing blame on source or another is next to impossible.

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.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Peter F