Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[BC_chick]

Is it your purpose to prevent the possiblity of negative reactions with prior restraint on what you admit is the legal exercise of free speech?

Your moral or ethical boundaries do not require others to observe same.

No..... I just think that the mainstream media shows extremely bad taste, if not outright irresponsible journalism, by depicting an anti-semitic or anti-Muslim agenda.

[bush_cheney2004]

No..... I just think that the mainstream media shows extremely bad taste, if not outright irresponsible journalism, by depicting an anti-semitic or anti-Muslim agenda.

Perhaps they do, but market share and demand trump "responsible journalism". The consumer will decide if "bad taste" is acceptable or not.

[BC_chick]

Perhaps they do, but market share and demand trump "responsible journalism". The consumer will decide if "bad taste" is acceptable or not.

Living up to your signature I see "Economics trumps virtue."

Different strokes I suppose. Pimping your wife also makes a good buck, doesn't mean most men would think it's a good idea.

[bush_cheney2004]

Living up to your signature I see "Economics trumps virtue."

Different strokes I suppose. Pimping your wife also makes a good buck, doesn't mean most men would think it's a good idea.

Yea, that and the Constitution of Canada. Is "pimping" one's spouse legal in Canada? Freedom does not include the right not to be offended.

[BC_chick]

Is "pimping" one's spouse legal in Canada?

Touche. I'll rephrase it then... prostituting your body makes for a good buck too - it doesn't mean most women think it's a good idea.

For the record, I am for complete legalisation of prostitution (as it stands prostitution is legal, but solicitation is not).

However, just as I'd prefer to see prostitutes in red light districts as opposed to in front of school children, I believe mainstream press ought to practice by a more universally accepted set of rules than Joe Blow's website.

Edited January 19, 2008 by BC_chick

[jbg]

Of course...and was printed in a "mainstream Canadian newspaper". Riots did not ensue....cars were not burned....death threats were not made. The market will judge newspapers on all content, offensive or otherwise.

I thought Jewish businessmen, lawyers, doctors, and investment bankers always riot and burn cars during their lunch hours. [/sarcasm]

[Argus]

Argus,

No, most people wouldn't say that.

Please explain your comment, this time with the example of blacks in the US. Would most people say that they are responsible for white racism towards them ?

I would, to some extent.

Historically, no, but in the modern context, the suspicion/dislike/disapproval of blacks by whites has more to do with actions than skin pigmentation. In fact, you don't need to go to the US, which at least has a long history of mistreatment of Blacks for other reasons to see this. You only need look at Canada, where many white people are highly dubious about the violence and crime we see coming from the Black community. Whites don't distrust Blacks because they think they're racially inferior due to their skin pigmentation - they dislike them because they fear they might rob or beat them. The other day I commented to a young woman at work on the shooting of an innocent bystander in Toronto by two idiots who had never been involved with the police before. Her response was outrage and then, to paraphrase "Let me guess - were they visible minority types?" And yes, they are, of course. It just seems that all-too often when one reads about outrageous acts of violence the perpetrators do not have white skin - even in a society which is overwhelmingly white. Jesse Jackson summed this up when he once stated that he was much more nervous about groups of young Black men he passes on the street then young White men.

[Argus]

Uh...yeah ok.

A clerk is supposed to dismiss complaints?. Well with that sound knowledge right off the top.....

stay tuned...

The terms of these types of bodies should be narrowly focused enough - and if we hammer away at the lawyers enough the wording actually understandable by mere mortals - that anyone can clearly see that these types of complaints fall outside that mandate and reject it. Clerks reject all sorts of applications throughout government, you know, because it doesn't follow the prescribed procedures or is inappropriate. If you apply for a passport, a clerk will reject if it doesn't follow their guidelines. If you file an access to information request a clerk will look it over and turn it down if it doesn't meet certain criteria. Clerks are the first line of screening and approval in almost every government body.

[Argus]

So, perhaps you feel any other frivilous suit should be pre-screened by some clerk, the same clerk that has no degree nor training , but happens to just work there.

You really don't know anything about how government operates, do you?

I guarantee you a clerk looks over every application first. Clerks always look over everything submitted to government first to make sure it meets guidelines. As for no training... clerks are as well-trained in their jobs as you are in yours - possibly better. If they're trained to weed out frivolous complaints, they will do so. You know, when you get your highly paid accountant to do your taxes and submit them to Canada Revenue it will be examined by a clerk to make sure it's complete, then, other clerks will check it over and reject or approve the accountant's work. If you get a notice of reassessment it's coming from a clerk who didn't like what you or your accountant did and is rejecting it.

[Argus]

Wait a second here.

Is your "clerk" licensed? If so , then she has training. If not, then he or she should make no action on anything recd, except to date stamp and direct it to the proper person. I am getting the impression that a clerk can open letters or complaints and go ..nah, and throw it in the garbage.That cannot be the case.

As for re-directing a complaint I am ok with, but outside of that, I am not.

We have clerks working here, secretaries and support personnel. They are under strict orders to not even so much as comment on anything concerning this business since they are 1) Unlicensed 2) uninsured . They cannot even answer , should a client call in, "how muchmoney is outstanding on my file?"

He or she would be fired for answering.

I'm getting the impression that a clerk to you is a minimum wage teenager who does photocopying. There are such clerks in government, of course, but there are also clerks who have in-depth knowledge of legislation, policies and procedure and are perfectly capable of making decisions. For example, when I was a clerk a few years back I was asked by the director to give a presentation of policies regarding contracting and purchasing rules and procedures to his senior managers, who kept screwing it up and getting into trouble. I had to explain to them how the FTA agreement and other international trading agreements affected what could be sole-sourced, and how the bidding processes would work depending on the type of good or service required and the amount involved. Almost everything in government is ultimately approved or rejected by clerks of one type or another. And a lot of time they know more about the rules than their bosses do.

[Argus]

Well, seeing as this is my first response to the criticisms of my post, I suggest it may be a bit premature to say that I've already been "out-debated".

Mr. Levant's right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the Charter. So is freedom of religion and many other things. Unless he would like to go back to the days of pistol duels (which he very well might prefer) all I am saying is that he can't use the laws when they serve to protect him and then piss on them when they cause him grief. That's what I mean when I refer to the "system" and having to "respect" it if you want it to work for you.

And I would argue that this is more legal arrogance. I would argue that people's right to freedom of speech is inherent, and that our ancestors fought for it and died for it. It's something we already have. All the Constitution does, or is supposed to do, in that respect, is tell the government "keep your greasy hands off this". It is not, therefore, the system which protects our rights but the system which is the only real danger to them.

(i.e. The societal principle that we should not tolerate frivolous actions is a product of our developed legal system.

Nonsense! That is a concept which exists throughout society. People make frivolous complaints all the time to every manner of agency and organization which serves the public in any way. All of those employees know how to deal with frivolous complaints. The legal system apparently has no way of discerning this, however, which is why we get so many absurd lawsuits.

I am simply taking the view that society at large has chosen to implement a tribunal to protect human rights by receiving and reviewing complaints from individuals who feel aggrieved. Common sense tells you that some complaints will be valid, some will be misguided and some will be outright in bad faith. Yes, I hope that all bad faith complaints are dismissed as early as possible. Yes I hope that all misguided complaints are determined sooner rather than later. BUT, I don't want to see valid complaints become the victim of the rantings of a person like Levant, who regardless of your view of his beliefs, clearly intends to evoke critical reactions with his publications.

The problem is that the mandate of these agencies are so broad, and the powers of idiots to interpret their roles even more broad, that almost nothing falls outside its sway. Another example of poorly written legislation, I assume, put together by idiots who, yes, happen to be lawyers. As for Levant, if you lawyers (and I count among you the politicians) would narrow the focus and clean up the language of the legislation you write then it wouldn't involve people like Levant - who regardless of your and others contempt for him (apparently because you don't like his politics) is a person of considerable accomplishment. Moreso than anyone on this site, I imagine.

And, I don't have to support the manner in which he is attempting to stick up for himself now if I want to be a defender of free speech. Ridiculing someone who complains against you for his poor handwriting isn't much of a compelling substantive argument. Publically referring to the tribunal as a kangaroo court while simultaneously asking it to treat you with respect and fairness makes no sense to me.

It makes sense to me in that he is obviously a crusader - which is a good thing, it seems, if you're on the Left, but makes you a fool if you're on the Right - and wants to expose the idiocy of these HR commissions and the legislation enabling them.

I worked with the system. I think Levant should do the same.

It's YOUR system. You're a card carrying member of it. Of course you work within it. At no cost and considerable profit, I might add. Those of us who are not initiates of the system and don't want to be dragged before it and spend tens of thousands of dollars on your arcane, inefficient, crap shoot of a system over vexatious complaints clearly have less respect for it than you.

[Argus]

The cartoons are just that cartoons. However they take a nasty swipe against a minority. Thats not very nice, and that IS against the law.

I saw them as social commentary, and the only one which could at all be described as "nasty" was the bomb in the turban, which in this day and age is extremely accurate social commentary on the state of Islam. It's not an attempt to insult a "minority" it's a comment on the violence and revolutionary fervor of Islam and it's billion adherents.

[Argus]

With all due respect to Argus, I think you have made his point far more effectively.

Look, I've never run a Human Rts. tribunal case...so I'm not going to speak to whether or not they are fair. They may very well turn out an unjust result in this case.

If they do, then you go to the Court of Queen's Bench and argue to have the decision overturned. If Queen's Bench doesn't give you what you want, try the Court of Appeal, then the SCC. I do believe in the overall fairness of our courts in Canada, imperfect as they certainly are.

Oh please! Yes, if you're wealthy or a corporation or government, and don't mind years in the courts, there are options. But the courts and legal system are not open to the public. They are simply not an option for most people. That is why the threat of legal action is often used to intimidate people even who know they can win - eventually - in any court dispute. The cost is too great. It is better to simply surrender. And these tribunals are even worse to a degree, because there is no actual cost to the complainant. He can lay his complaint, sit back, smile, and watch his victim having to spend endless time and money defending himself.

1. There was no mechanism whatsoever to monitor dangerous convicts once released from prison (National Parole Board)

We didn't use to release dangerous convicts until their sentence was up! When we paroled people it was due to their exceptional efforts at reform, or how obvious a miscarriage of justice their sentence was. Now we parole almost everyone, regardless of how dangerous they are. Parole is no longer an exceptional reward but a right!

2. A sour gas well got put up on your neghbour's land, 10 feet from your bedroom (Energy / Utilities Board - now split boards in Alberta)

3. You had no one to complain to if your bank freely released all of your personal information to anyone who asked for it (Information and Privacy Commissioner)

4. You had to take a police chief telling you to pound sand as the final word after you complained about one of his officers beating up your wife during a traffic stop (Law Enforcement Review Board)

5. You got fired becuase you went to a meeting with co-workers to discuss forming a union in your workplace (Labour Relations Board).

6. You got fired because you are black. (Human Rts. Tribunal)

And on and on and on and on...

And on and on and on. Yes, in order to preclude very, very few instances of injustice (how many times do police beat up people unjustly at a traffic stop, or banks give away your private information) we have this huge mass of bureaucracy and oversight.

And you know what? People still occasionally get fired for forming unions, or for being black, and people still get beat up by cops. What a surprise.

[Argus]

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.

In fact, one can look to France to see this in action. The laws there are even more broad, and the Muslims have used them zealously. The laws there are against insulting people of a religion and racial group - and carry up to a six month prison term. Needless to say, everyone is VERY careful about what they saw about Muslims or any other religious or ethnic group. Or anyone, actually.

[Argus]

But you're missing the point of the complaint. It's not that the prophet is ridiculed - but that Muslims are terrorists.

Point of order. As you have not seen the cartoons you have no basis whatever to make that suggestion.

[Argus]

jbg, would you be equally open to freedom of speech if a mainstream Canadian publisher printed cartoons which negatively stereotyped Jews?

I can't recall anything about those cartoons which negatively stereotyped Muslims in any way. Perhaps you could point it out to me.

[August1991]

This is a long and interesting thread. Some points get missed.

Reading though Argus' good comments, I noticed this:

The tribunals certainly can be used as weapons and cost people money they will never be able to recover. That is true of every governent licensing body, enforcement agency, the better business bureau, the internet, and every court in the land. Some bodies have better procedures for weeding out frivolous and vexatious complaints than others, but they all have to deal with the issue in some fashion.

I don't see how the fact that someone could put a website, pretend to be me, make all kinds of terrible statements as though I were making them, damage my business and reputation immeasurably, cost me tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the site shut down and then disappear into bankruptcy is therefore cause to terminate the internet.

This is the same logic of those who call for an end to human rts. tribunals because the complaint against Mr. Levant might be frivolous and vexatious.

Let's use your Internet example as a comparison. If all the benefits of the Internet come at the cost of the unfortunate and occasional misrepresentation, then I think no one would argue that on balance, the Internet is a good thing.

Compare the Internet with these Human Rights Commissions. How much good do they achieve compared to the harm?

[Peter F]

Point of order. As you have not seen the cartoons you have no basis whatever to make that suggestion.

True. Which is why I have not filed the complaint. The complainant did - not me. Ysee, He suggests that Levant violated the Act in that publishing the cartoons will expose him and others of his religion to hatred and contempt.

Considering your earlier post of 10:37am today:

I saw them as social commentary, and the only one which could at all be described as "nasty" was the bomb in the turban, which in this day and age is extremely accurate social commentary on the state of Islam. It's not an attempt to insult a "minority" it's a comment on the violence and revolutionary fervor of Islam and it's billion adherents.

I believe he (the complainant) may actually have a point. Edited January 19, 2008 by Peter F

[guyser]

Yes. I supported Ahenakaw. I supported Zundel. I feel very strongly on this issue.

Not all jews feel that way. Sabrina Citron and the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association filed the criminal complaint to the HRC which is what brought Zundel down and ultimately his deportation.

[DogOnPorch]

Pat Condell on the subject. Pat, in my opinion, often makes a lot of sense.

-----------------------------------------

We have to stand up to these Political Correctness Fundamentalists and Islamofascists and say enough is enough. We won't tolerate the erosion of our hard-earned rights to free expression and speech.

---YouTube Comment

[guyser]

Agreed...I guess some don't get it. Hence "hate speech laws" in Canada, not in the United States.

Interesting, what would you call this?

[edit] Federal prosecution of hate crimes

[edit] 1969 law

18 U.S.C. § 245 ((2), enacted in 1969, permits federal prosecution of people who "by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been" attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school. Penalties for hate crimes involving firearms are prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can bring life terms or the death penalty.[1]

Appellant courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law,[2] and the Supreme Court has declined to review those decisions.[3] Courts have also held that the law provides for criminal sanctions only, and does not create a cause of action for civil liability.[4]

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting, what would you call this?

[edit] Federal prosecution of hate crimes

[edit] 1969 law

18 U.S.C. § 245 ((2), enacted in 1969, permits federal prosecution of people who "by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with...

I would call that federal prosecution for assault and murder, not hate speech. Hate speech laws as written in Canada are not compatible with the US Constitution and Supreme Court rulings on a compelling state interest to supress such speech.

[Argus]

True. Which is why I have not filed the complaint. The complainant did - not me. Ysee, He suggests that Levant violated the Act in that publishing the cartoons will expose him and others of his religion to hatred and contempt.

Considering your earlier post of 10:37am today:

I believe he (the complainant) may actually have a point.

What you believe is of no value as you have not troubled yourself to actually examine the evidence.

[Hydraboss]

Compare the Internet with these Human Rights Commissions. How much good do they achieve compared to the harm?

If your question was sarcastic in nature, I would agree with you. The Human Rights Circus is of absolutely no use in this country. There are various legal systems available to whomever needs them: Criminal and Civil. If your complaint cannot be actioned in one of these two....it's a BS complaint.

So what good have the HRC's done? I can think of nothing. The downfall of the Circus has been mentioned previously in this thread: There is no cost or responsibility placed on the complaintant, and the people on the bench are far too busy making and skewing laws than applying them.

Applying the laws of Canada is for the courts, and they cannot do it worth a damn as it is.

[Peter F]

What you believe is of no value as you have not troubled yourself to actually examine the evidence.

I don't need to examine the cartoons. The complainant feels the cartoons expose mulsims to hatred and contempt. Wether I agree or not, or wether you agree or not is niether here nor there. He need not seek my opinion, or yours, or the Prime Ministers on the matter.

He filed a complaint on the matter - as is his right as a citizen of Canada.