Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[Black Dog]

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.

You're arguing the state needs to protect us from hate literature by using an example of hate literature created and disseminated by the state. See any problems here?

[DogOnPorch]

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.

Nazi propaganda is freely reprinted and posted online...not just at hate web-sites, either.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters2.htm

Maybe we should take Calvin College to the HRC...

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

Paulie: Tony says this Russian used to be an interior decorator...

Christopher: Interior decorator?.. his apartment looked like sh*t!

---The Sopranos

[jbg]

Maybe we should take Calvin College to the HRC...

Maybe all insulting posts on all internet boards should be reported to the HRC. They'd have a full plate to work on.

[jefferiah]

jeff,

Again, this is beside the point.

It certainly isn't. Guyser compared the Danish Cartoons to slander or libel suits. I am pointing out that this is not a parallel.

[Michael Hardner]

BDog,

You're arguing the state needs to protect us from hate literature by using an example of hate literature created and disseminated by the state. See any problems here?

I guess you're saying that the state is more to fear than incendiary material. Fair enough. But I think such material can easily come from other sources.

[Michael Hardner]

It certainly isn't. Guyser compared the Danish Cartoons to slander or libel suits. I am pointing out that this is not a parallel.

Ok, makes sense. I didn't catch that you were already talking about slander and libel.

[jbg]

BDog,

I guess you're saying that the state is more to fear than incendiary material. Fair enough. But I think such material can easily come from other sources.

The State can be very powerful and can restrict or remove liberties, especially checked only be a weak Charter. If a cartoon of Mohammed's head being made into a bomb is a lot to fear, then we are in a lot more trouble than I realize.

[White Doors]

Macleans has been , not Steyn .

Wrong, they both have.

[White Doors]

WD:

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.

Macleans, Steyn and Ezra could all face a fine if found 'guilty' if the word is not 'charged' then fine, they are being investigated? Why are you people arguing over this?

very silly. They are being asked to defend what they wrote in their publications!

If you want to dance around that, then fine. carry on.

Anyone who believes in freedom of the press shoudl be very worried.

[White Doors]

You're arguing the state needs to protect us from hate literature by using an example of hate literature created and disseminated by the state. See any problems here?

ding ding!!

[jefferiah]

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.

Free speech is the answer, Michael. You are only seeing this from one side. You think the propaganda is the problem. The citizens of Nazi Germany did not have free speech. Hateful propaganda can be countered with reasoned argument in a society with free speech.

So if you don't want history to repeat itself, I suggest you get out there and start supporting Steyn and MacLeans. Start to impose limits on speech and you put the citizens of this country in a weak position where any tyrant who comes along could wield great power, much like Nazi Germany.

Edited January 24, 2008 by jefferiah

[Black Dog]

I guess you're saying that the state is more to fear than incendiary material. Fair enough. But I think such material can easily come from other sources.

So what? Without the power of the state to push such messages and-more importantly-stifle opposing views, the effectiveness of the material is dramatically diminished.

Macleans, Steyn and Ezra could all face a fine if found 'guilty' if the word is not 'charged' then fine, they are being investigated? Why are you people arguing over this?

very silly. They are being asked to defend what they wrote in their publications!

If you want to dance around that, then fine. carry on.

Anyone who believes in freedom of the press shoudl be very worried.

Obviously, I don't agree that they should be investigated, unless being a pretentious hack is an offense. That said, I'm not willing to feed their delusions of martyrdom by pretending they're facing some sort of firing squad.

[guyser]

It certainly isn't. Guyser compared the Danish Cartoons to slander or libel suits. I am pointing out that this is not a parallel.

I did not compare the two. I said that it was conveneient for Levant to sue when he felt maligned.

WD ,Perhaps you could show me where Steyn has been named along with Macleans? I am finding only Macleans.

[White Doors]

I did not compare the two. I said that it was conveneient for Levant to sue when he felt maligned.

WD ,Perhaps you could show me where Steyn has been named along with Macleans? I am finding only Macleans.

Did you not read the link I posted? Steyn says it himself.

SPOON FEED:

Since the CIC launched its complaint, I've been asked by various correspondents what my defence is. My defence is I shouldn't have to have a defence. The "plaintiffs" are not complaining that the article is false, or libellous, or seditious, for all of which there would be appropriate legal remedy. Their complaint is essentially emotional: it "offended" them. And as offensiveness is in the eye of the of­­fended, there's not a lot I can do about that

. Edited January 24, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

So what? Without the power of the state to push such messages and-more importantly-stifle opposing views, the effectiveness of the material is dramatically diminished.

Obviously, I don't agree that they should be investigated, unless being a pretentious hack is an offense. That said, I'm not willing to feed their delusions of martyrdom by pretending they're facing some sort of firing squad.

Politics aside, you simply MUST enjoy reading Steyn? he's a great writer!

;0

[Michael Hardner]

So what? Without the power of the state to push such messages and-more importantly-stifle opposing views, the effectiveness of the material is dramatically diminished.

The state isn't the only entity that has that kind of power. And our state already has controls against dictatorship, so it doesn't worry me.

[Black Dog]

MH

The state isn't the only entity that has that kind of power.

What others are there?

And our state already has controls against dictatorship, so it doesn't worry me.

So why invoke the example you did?

WD

Politics aside, you simply MUST enjoy reading Steyn? he's a great writer!

It's the internet age, man. Fatuous blow hards are a dime a dozen.

[guyser]

Did you not read the link I posted? Steyn says it himself.

SPOON FEED:

.

I read it. Dont really care what Steyn says, was he named or not? He may feel he is implicated, but that wasnt the question.

Turns out , from everything I can see, Steyn has not been named. Thus I asked. Whyte and Macleans have been named.

Spoon feed ?

[Michael Hardner]

What others are there?

So why invoke the example you did?

Answer 1: 'The mob'.

Answer 2: Because it shows that information can be dangerous, even if - especially if - its manipulation is subtle.

[Black Dog]

Answer 1: 'The mob'.

Like, the mafia?

Seriously, though: you're arguing the mob has more power than the state? I think you're wrong.

Answer 2: Because it shows that information can be dangerous, even if - especially if - its manipulation is subtle.

You can call Nazi propaganda many things: subtle is not one of them. That aside, we know information can be dangerous, but we're not talking about that: we're talking about to what degree "dangerous" information sghoudl be restricted by the state.

The thing that really surprises me about the Nazi thing, though, is that kind of ham-handed argument isn't really your style.

[gc1765]

A crime? naaaah

Stupid, yes...but not a crime.

[jefferiah]

A crime? naaaah

Stupid, yes...but not a crime.

Not even stupid. Those cartoons were a very newsworthy story. Why shouldn't they have been published for the public to see what all the commotion was about?

[Moxie]

Honestly Guyser sometimes you are thicker than a four by eight, here's a link which clearing lays out the complaint the HRC is persecuting Mr. Steyn for. Link: http://www.steynonline.com/component/optio...page/Itemid,33/

To debate a subject try researching it first Guyser.

What I find rather galling is that the NDP were responsible for the expanded mandate of the HRC in BC, Sask, and Alberta and those are the provinces that the Five Elmo's Boys filed complaints in. I guess they are judge shopping. It's okay for three provinces to use taxpayers' dollars to provide legal counsil for these five for FREE, it just tears me up to think several hundred thousands of dollars being wasted because these Five Men are crybabies and easy to offend. The HRC is a vile organization, absolutely vile. No wonder the NDP like's it so much, marxist Legislation to become "Thought Police", they can deem one of being guilty using "Pre-Crime thoughts", where the complaintant's opinion can be deemed rule of law but the defendant isn't allowed an opinion. Absolutely horrifying that Canada has slipped so far left that adjudicators can be thought police, how long before we are hauled off the streets and thrown in jail for offending those that use the HRC as seriel complaints? To far fetched, I don't think so.

Snippet from one of Rex Murphy's articles: Do they really want - after Ezra's example, mind you - to call Mark Steyn, the Victoria Falls ("The Smoke that Thunders") of prolific columnists - into one of their style-less chambers to "explain himself?" If Mr. Levant contains multitudes, how to describe Mr. Steyn? He is a prodigy of immense resource and industry. Compared to him, Trollope was a slacker, Dickens a wastrel, and Proust a miniaturist. He inundates. Books, columns, blogs and obiter dicta in a thousand venues - if Mr. Steyn goes before one or all of these commissions, he will be firing off columns between questions. He'll write a column on a question while it is being asked. I urge our guardians to consider their own interests: Stay a while before essaying this profitless and useless venture

Another Snippet: Steynposts Link: http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128/

Tuesday, 22 January 2008

Just to clarify, I have no interest in Richard Warman except insofar as he illustrates, at best, the superfluousness of Section 13 (if this provision is so necessary to Canadians, how come this one lone Canadian has been a plaintiff on every single Section 13 case since 2002?) and, at worst, the corruption of its administration by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. However, I was struck by a couple of things in this decision by the CHRC. This is the case of Kulbashian vs Warman from 2006. In essence, Warman had taken Kulbashian to the CHRC and Kulbashian retaliated by taking Warman to the CHRC. After all, Warman posts message at the same "hate" website Kulbashian does - as the "investigator", Sandy Kozak, conceded, technically:

Bearing the above in mind, this complaint is not clearly lacking in merit as the respondent [Warman]'s actions do amount to communicating hate messages albeit in a very limited context. Hmm. However, Investigator Kozak declined to proceed with the complaint on the following grounds. Since filing it, Mr Kulbashian had been found guilty by the Tribunal in the Warman vs Kulbashian Section 13 case. Therefore, Investigator Kozak concluded:

Given these findings by the Tribunal, it can be deduced that the complainant [Kulbashian] is not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act or of s.13.

Do I understand that right? Because Kulbashian had been found "guilty" of Section 13 "hate", he had no right to accuse anybody else of Section 13 "hate"? Because his conviction demonstrated that he was "not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act", he had no right to avail himself of its provisions?

Whatever happened to equality before the law? Suppose I decide to countersue, say, the Canadian Islamic Congresss and the Osgoode Four - Elmo's kids - because they've exposed me to "hatred and contempt". And suppose, while that complaint was being considered, the CIC/Maclean's suit was decided (as it almost certainly will be) in the plaintiffs' favour. Would the CHRC then deny me the right, as the author of the offending Section 13 "hate" speech, the right to make a complaint under Section 13? Would the fact that I have said repeatedly that the CHRC should not be in the thought-police business be taken to demonstrate that I was "not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act" and therefore should have no recourse to it?

By the same token, if you call for the introduction of private health care to Canada, should you be denied treatment in the Royal Victoria?

This is joke jurisprudence made up as they go along. More on the extremely active "activist" here.

[guyser]

Thanks for the link Moxie. Lets go there now shall we? In this article, posted by Steyn himself he says

Ken Whyte, the executive honcho at Maclean's, was of the opinion he should publish an excerpt from my book. That opinion comes up for trial at the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal in June, and at the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal shortly thereafter, and most likely at the Ontario "Human Rights" Tribunal a little way down the road

Nope , no mention of himself being brought into the complaint with Macleans, only Whyte and the mag.Why would he write only about Macleans and not himself being named

Lets keep looking, you know ....wink wink...for research.

Because I've always been opposed to "human rights" commissions in theory (I like proper courts with things like "due process"), I failed to appreciate until Maclean's present predicament how much worse they are in practice.

Hmm...Macleans predicament , nothing about his own, should he be named, which leads me to think he isnt named. ....

...and of course we could look at the press release.....

Human Rights Complaints Launched Against Maclean's Magazine

Maclean's Editor Prefers Bankruptcy Over Balance

TORONTO, Dec. 4 /CNW/ - The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) announced

today that it has launched several human rights complaints against Maclean's

Magazine. Separate complaints have been filed in response to the Maclean's

article The Future Belongs to Islam written by Mark Steyn and published on

October 23, 2006. The complainants argue that the article subjects Canadian

Muslims to hatred and Islamophobia by representing that Muslims are part of a

global conspiracy to take over Western societies and that Muslims in the West

need to be viewed as the enemy.

"....against Macleans Magazine" , hmm , did they forget to include Steyns name?

I asked a simple question since I could not find where Steyn was being charged by the HRC.

"Thick as a four by eight" too funny coming from you Moxie, lil queen of the rant that never makes sense. Lefties this lefties that oh boo hoo.

Now moxie, be a dear and show me where Steyn is named. (rhetorical, should you find you are wrong, do what others have done, like stop responding)

Simple question.

Edited January 27, 2008 by guyser

[gc1765]

Not even stupid. Those cartoons were a very newsworthy story. Why shouldn't they have been published for the public to see what all the commotion was about?

Did you not see what happened in Denmark? Do I really need to explain why it's stupid?

Unless you think riots and death threats are worth it to "see what the commotion was all about"...