Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

Argus · January 21, 2008

A,
I'm not sure why you picked France. I'm pretty sure I'm more likely to see racist material there than here, and I know that people spoke such things in mixed company when I lived there.

The idea, Argus, is that small "threats" (your word, not mine) to freedom of speech need to be balanced with small "threats" to personal safety. If the threats are indeed small, then a small tribunal probably is indeed the best way to engage the interested parties.

I don't think these cartoons are the slightest threat to personal safety. I don't think any reasonable person would think they were. I do, however, think these kinds of efforts to suppress freedoms lead to dislike, suspicion, and yes, even a small threat to the personal safety of Muslims.

In fact, if you asked most Canadians, in the privacy of their homes, where they would feel free to speak their minds, I believe an overwhelming number wish all Muslims would just leave Canada.

Michael Hardner · January 21, 2008

Argus,

The point is the idea that this so-called artist could be taken to some kind of poxie human rights commission because it could lead to hatred of Christians is patently absurd.
So why isn't taking someone to court over cartoons of Muhammad patently absurd?

Your question is rhetorical, as we don't know whether the other example would happen or not.

jbg · January 22, 2008

Okay. So the cartoons really have nothing to do with Islam and Muslims. Too bad neither the complainant, Argus nor the AHRC share that interpretation.

Steyn and Levant could win on that basis. That would do nothing to advance the cause of free speech in Canada.

jbg · January 22, 2008

this is a load of crap, anybody should be able to say whatever the hell they want to say about whoever they want to say it without that being a crime. This is about the freedom to express oneself. In a free society we cannot do without freedom of thought and expression. If people want to call Levant an asshole and a racist for printing that crap then that free expression should also be protected. The cartoons were not funny to me or entertaining in the least but I still say he has every right to print them.

First post I've ever agreed with you on. Let there be many more.

jbg · January 22, 2008

Mr. Levant is asking for this process to be tested, and as such will willfully take part in it. Also, there are many opportunities for someone to settle their issues within the tribunal without incurring large costs.

He makes a better "poster child" for this challenge than Bill Whatcott does.

White Doors · January 22, 2008

In the history of the HRC, all complaints about 'hateful speech' have won. The defendants have lost everytime.

kangaroo court.

it is plain to see.

guyser · January 22, 2008

this is a load of crap, anybody should be able to say whatever the hell they want to say about whoever they want to say it without that being a crime.

For the most part true.

For Levant , not true. It suited him to sue when people said bad things about him. He has sued many times.

Hypocrite for the most part.

Michael Hardner · January 22, 2008

In the history of the HRC, all complaints about 'hateful speech' have won. The defendants have lost everytime.
kangaroo court.

it is plain to see.

WD,

It might mean that they're turning away cases that are not as clear - cases that could go either way ?

White Doors · January 23, 2008

For the most part true.
For Levant , not true. It suited him to sue when people said bad things about him. He has sued many times.

Hypocrite for the most part.

You do realize the difference between libel and slander and what this subject is about - do you not?

White Doors · January 23, 2008

WD,
It might mean that they're turning away cases that are not as clear - cases that could go either way ?

It might. But do you believe it?

You are a believer in the process - you tell me.

Michael Hardner · January 23, 2008

WD,

I'll tell you what - I don't know.

The one ruling I remember posted here, I had to think about, but agreed with the HRD in that case. There was a complaint filed against Free Dominion that I definitely disagreed with, but I believe the HRD mediated a settlement there.

It might be that they know that certain cases can't have a mandated ruling, and that they encourage settlement for those 'grey' areas.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Michael Hardner

jbg · January 23, 2008

It might be that they know that certain cases can't have a mandated ruling, and that they encourage settlement for those 'grey' areas.

But even being forced into a "settlement" is an infringement of my free speech rights. Let's say I greet you, a total stranger, on Yonge and Bloor and say to you that you shouldn't wear a turban? Should I have to "settle" with you?

Michael Hardner · January 23, 2008

But even being forced into a "settlement" is an infringement of my free speech rights. Let's say I greet you, a total stranger, on Yonge and Bloor and say to you that you shouldn't wear a turban? Should I have to "settle" with you?

jb,

No, you shouldn't HAVE to settle. And if you didn't want to, you wouldn't have to.

The whole point of a settlement is that both sides ARE satisfied, and the court process is avoided. Often, it can just involve a discussion and an agreement. Very simple.

guyser · January 23, 2008

You do realize the difference between libel and slander and what this subject is about - do you not?

Sure do, it is part of how I make my living. (libel and slander)

jefferiah · January 23, 2008

Sure do, it is part of how I make my living. (libel and slander)

Then you ought to stop making the silly comparison.

White Doors · January 23, 2008

Steyn's perspective:

link: http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogcategory/15/100/

excerpts:

Do you remember a cover story Maclean's ran on Oct. 23, 2006?
No? Me neither, and I wrote it. Such is life in the weekly mag biz. But it was an excerpt on various geopolitical and demographic trends from my then brand new tome, America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It. I don't know whether my bestselling book is still available in Canadian bookstores, but it's coming soon to a Canadian "courtroom" near you! The Canadian Islamic Congress and a handful of Osgoode Hall law students have complained about the article in Maclean's to (at last count) three of Canada's many "human rights" commissions, two of which have agreed to hear the "case." It would be nice to report that the third sent the plaintiffs away with a flea in their ears saying that in a free society it's no business of the state to regulate the content of privately owned magazines. Alas, I gather it's only bureaucratic torpor that has temporarily delayed the province of Ontario's enthusiastic leap upon the bandwagon. These students are not cited in the offending article. Canadian Muslims are not the subject of the piece. Indeed, Canada is not mentioned at all, except en passant. Yet Canada's "human rights" commissions have accepted the premise of the Canadian Islamic Congress - that the article potentially breaches these students' "human rights."

Let's take it as read that I am, as claimed, "offensive." That's the point. It's offensive speech that requires legal protection. As a general rule, Barney the Dinosaur singing "Sharing is Caring" can rub along just fine. Take, for example, two prominent figures from Scandinavia. Extremely prominent, as it happens. In his Christmas address to the Swedish people, King Carl Gustaf hailed the dawn of "one new Sweden. Young people with roots in other cultures put Sweden on the map in musical styles, in the field of sports, with business ideas that were not there when I was younger...To welcome changes and to let the mix of cultures and experiences enrich our lives and our society is the only road ahead." Blah blah blah. Usual multiculti bromides. Could have been our own Queen's Christmas message or her vicereine on Canada Day. Stick it in the Globe and Mail and no one would bat an eyelid

If you examine Dr. Mohamed Elmasry's formal complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about my article, Grievance #16 objects to the following assertion:
"The number of Muslims in Europe is expanding like 'mosquitoes.' "

That claim certainly appears in my piece. But they're the words not of a notorious right-wing Islamophobic columnist but of a bigshot Scandinavian Muslim:

" 'We're the ones who will change you,' the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. 'Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.' "

Given that the "mosquitoes" line is part of the basis on which the HRC accepted Dr. Elmasry's complaint of "Islamophobia," I'm interested to know what precisely is the offence? Are Mullah Krekar's words themselves Islamophobic? Or do they only become so when I quote them? The complainants want a world in which a Norwegian imam can make statements in a Norwegian newspaper but if a Canadian columnist reprints them in a Canadian publication it's a "hate crime." It's striking to examine the Canadian Islamic Congress's complaints and see how many of their objections are to facts, statistics, quotations - not to their accuracy but merely to the quoting thereof. But, of course, they've picked the correct forum: before the human rights commissions, truth is no defence.

and my favourite part:

I note, too, that the Ontario Federation of Labour is supporting the Canadian Islamic Congress's case. As Terry Downey, executive supremo of the OFL, primly explains, "There is proper conduct that everyone has to follow"- and his union clearly feels my article is way beyond the bounds of that "proper conduct." Don't ask me why. I don't pretend to understand the peculiar psychological impulses that would lead the OFL to throw its lot in with Dr. Mohamed Elmasry and the CIC. Except that there seems to be some kinky kind of competition on the Western left to be, metaphorically speaking, Islam's lead prison bitch.
Oh, dear. Is that "offensive" to the executive committee of the OFL? Very probably so. I may well have another "human rights" suit on my hands. Heigh-ho. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

And I wonder if I can get charged for quoting it?

Edited January 23, 2008 by White Doors

guyser · January 23, 2008

Then you ought to stop making the silly comparison.

Silly?

Michael Hardner · January 23, 2008

WD,

And I wonder if I can get charged for quoting it?

Given that Steyn himself hasn't been charged, I guess the obvious answer is "no".

Steyn doesn't mention the worse parts of his article - for example the one where he implied that Islam is a "death cult" (that would mean the entire religion).

White Doors · January 23, 2008

WD,
Given that Steyn himself hasn't been charged, I guess the obvious answer is "no".

Steyn doesn't mention the worse parts of his article - for example the one where he implied that Islam is a "death cult" (that would mean the entire religion).

?? He has been charged. In the sense that he has to go to this kangaroo court the same as Ezra.

Did you read the article Michael? The part that 'offended' the CIC he quoted from an Imam in Europe.

Surely you don't need me to connect the dots here for you do I?

The CIC and Michael hardner do not agree as to which the 'worst parts' are.

And didn't you say that you never read this book?

Michael Hardner · January 23, 2008

WD

?? He has been charged. In the sense that he has to go to this kangaroo court the same as Ezra.
Did you read the article Michael? The part that 'offended' the CIC he quoted from an Imam in Europe.

Surely you don't need me to connect the dots here for you do I?

1) Nobody has been charged, which is a benefit of having HRC.

2) Being offended has nothing to do with anything as I have pointed out many many times. Again, bringing this up means you lack better arguing points.

The CIC and Michael hardner do not agree as to which the 'worst parts' are.
And didn't you say that you never read this book?

No, I didn't say that. I'm not going to read the Steyn book only because it would be a waste of time. I read a large excerpt of it, and found enough to warrant an inquiry on the published work.

guyser · January 23, 2008

?? He has been charged.

Macleans has been , not Steyn .

jbg · January 23, 2008

I read a large excerpt of it, and found enough to warrant an inquiry on the published work.

It is anathema to me that there could ever be anything "to warrant an inquiry" if the publication doesn't pose a clear and present danger to public safety.

Black Dog · January 23, 2008

WD:

?? He has been charged. In the sense that he has to go to this kangaroo court the same as Ezra.

Not the same thing as being charged. That's like saying you're a political prisoner when you get a speeding ticket.

Incidentally, Better Than Ezra was under no obligation to appear before the tribunal. He chose to do so.

jefferiah · January 23, 2008

Silly?

If the prophet Mohammed feels he has been slandered by the Cartoons let him sue. Even that would be ridiculous if it were possible. Everyday public figures are humiliated in caricature.

Michael Hardner · January 23, 2008

jeff,

Again, this is beside the point.

To my mind, there have been a lot of bad arguments against this process. The only good argument I can think of is:

We shouldn't ever act against any published material except possibly the worst types of hate literature.

In which case, you're saying that the worst propaganda of pre WW2 Germany should be allowed to propagate. So, please explain how history can be prevented from repeating itself.