Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

BubberMiley · January 16, 2008

Some of us are fanatics about "freedom".

And yet support prohibition. (See Merle below.)

Wilber · January 16, 2008

W,
Again, 'being offended' doesn't have anything to do with it, which leads me to wonder why you avoid talking about the real facts.

Do you not think that your argument is strong enough ?

If people were not offended why were they rioting? What is their agenda?

I agree with Black Dog and FTA when it comes to Levant and would suggest that the same reaction should have applied to the Danish cartoons. Instead there were riots and attempts to intimidate.

guyser · January 16, 2008

If people were not offended why were they rioting? What is their agenda?

Probably for the same reasons that the riots start at those meetings (damn, WTO or ??) held in Quebec City, before that in Seattle...et al

(they werent G8summits were they?)

Most seem to be professional agitators with an agenda, to agitate. Reasons dont matter

blueblood · January 16, 2008

So the general consensus is that Ezra Levant has the right to publish offensive cartoons and the Muslim population can call Ezra Levant an a**hole.

Sounds fair to me. No need for tattling to a judge.

A similar situtation is this...

Just like some Showcase shows are full of softcore porn and are shown at times when young children are still awake (IMV reprehensible). Taking Showcase to court and staging riots for that would be ludacris, they have that right. Instead I lock out that channel and get to call them the perverted bastards they are. They have their right to free speech, I have mine.

Peter F · January 16, 2008

Keep in mind that the worst of these cartoons were total fakes constructed by the Imam involved. Not drawn by Danish artists/cartoonists.

So I have read. WS published them nonetheless and I don't think they were part of an expose of the Imam.

Peter F · January 16, 2008

I just fail to see how so many can become so outraged that a "radical" terrrorist-type has taken the unthinkable step and used a pen and paper to try to further his agenda.

Here here. No riots, no mobs and no bombs. Its the civil western way - and some believe there should be no such forum to air complaints.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Peter F

DogOnPorch · January 16, 2008

So I have read. WS published them nonetheless and I don't think they were part of an expose of the Imam.

Aye...but he didn't reprint those.

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

No, I don't believe in 'if' anymore. 'If's' an illusion...

---

jbg · January 16, 2008

MH:
That's pretty much my point. I think adjudicating matters of speech should be outside the bailiwick of these tribunals.

At last a moment of rare agreement.

Here here. No riots, no mobs and no bombs. Its the civil western way - and some believe there should be no such forum to air complaints.

Why should a complainant force a speaker to spend thousands, and subject himself to "sensitivity" courses, merely for expressing an opinion?

Peter F · January 16, 2008

Why should a complainant force a speaker to spend thousands, and subject himself to "sensitivity" courses, merely for expressing an opinion?

Nobody's forcing anybody to spend thousands for expressing an opinion. Nobody is forcing anybody to be subjected to sensitivity courses for expressing an opinion.

In the present case, a complainant has alleged that mr Levant contravened the Alberta Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act

wich states:

Discrimination re publications, notices
3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

Alberta Queen's Printer

Edited January 16, 2008 by Peter F

Argus · January 16, 2008

Also, this sentence misrepresents the complaint:
The offensiveness isn't the problem here, it's creating a climate of hatred against a group that is the problem.

Most people would say the group itself is responsible for creating a climate of hatred towards it, by the actions of some of its own members, the complicity of many more, and the support of many, many more for those actions and for backward, barbaric cultural and political beliefs.

Argus · January 16, 2008

Argus (jan15 11:14)
So it seems nobody saw the cartoons. If they had, they wouldn't have been upset.

And here I thought the cartoons had been published somewhere....

I saw the cartoons. They were all fairly mild, and at best, slightly critical social commentary.

Nothing for civilized people to get upset at.

Argus · January 16, 2008

I mean, people file misguided applications all of the time...some to Human Rights, some to court, some to other places / people. If this guy is so radical and so wrong in his filing, then one would expect a lawyer to respond with a statement that the application is improper and not in the jurisdiction of the tribunal...maybe even cite some law that backs that position.

No. One would expect a clerk to respond on behalf of the agency that this type of complaint is without merit and drop it.

Instead, Levant openly calls the tribunal "kangaroo court", mocks the applicant for submitting his complaint in handwriting (wtf difference does this make?) and spouts off about George Orwell and the end of democracy while conjuring up images of a gestapo-type "state interrogation".
I mean, really, if you push the limits of free speech, you cannot possibly think that you won't eventually offend someone and have complaints filed against you.

Apparently you are unclear about the concept of freedom of speech. It does not mean freedom to say what you want unless you offend someone and they sic the dogs on you. And Human Rights Agencies generally ARE like kangaroo courts, staffed by political hacks and zealots.

You may ultimately be right in your position, and it may ultimately cost you money to prove that. But how is it that our concept of freedom and democracy is fostered if we have a situation where someone should be afraid to even file a complaint because they will be personally attacked and ridiculed, along with the very institution to which they complain?

As opposed to someone being afraid to state their opinion for fear some wacko group will take you to the human rights tribunal and cost you thousands of dollars in defending your right to free speech?

As with many lawyers, your commitment to the process above all else, be it results, fairness or justice, is showing loud and clear. Levent dares to question the process! The holy process! Damn him, the heretic! How dare he question the process! Doesn't he know that lawyers put this together!? Who is he, a mere mortal, to question us!?

If someone reports me to the Law Society for something I feel is frivolous, I will respond that I think the complaint has no merit. I will not attack the Law Society's integrity for accepting and then looking into the complaint. Nor will I make fun of the person who complained for not using a typewriter.

The law societies generally have no more integrity than human rights agencies - often less, since they're the product of the clubby environment of self-regulation which allows so many injustices to perpetuate. But that's neither here nor there. You chose to be a member of that club and abide by its rules.

Mr. Levant needs to grow up...alot...and simply deal with what is a cost of doing business when you choose to publish controversial material.

Dealing with lawyers is the cost of doing business any time you express your opinion? And you find that to be perfectly normal, do you?

And he needs a lesson or two about how to do so with a level of tact and respect for the system...

Respect the system! The holy system! The process is all! Do not dare question the process!

I'm surprised lawyers don't want to wear halos instead of wigs in court, as a further demonstration of how noble and holy they think they are.

the very system that will protect his right to publish controversial things.

The "system" does not protect his right to publish controversial things. In fact, the only thing which can get in the way of publishing controversial things is the system. The only hindrance on publishing controversial things is the system.

White Doors · January 16, 2008

Indeed Argus. Great post.

Is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms now referred to as 'The System' in legalese?

FTA, I think you are getting the 'system' and the 'process' mixed up.

Nothing wrong with the 'process' when it is not used by complaintants as a means to an ends in and of itself.

Sometimes the 'process' is the goal. The complaintant wants to 'process the crap' out of the defendant hence limiting the defendants right to free speech.

You are so far buried in the process you are forgetting your role in society.

The system works for society, not the other way around and when the process itself becomes a weapon that is wielded by the 'offended', then that certainly needs to be looked at and questioned.

FYI

You just got out debated by mere plebians.

What a great society we live in eh?

Michael Hardner · January 16, 2008

Argus,

Most people would say the group itself is responsible for creating a climate of hatred towards it, by the actions of some of its own members, the complicity of many more, and the support of many, many more for those actions and for backward, barbaric cultural and political beliefs.

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 ?

Michael Hardner · January 16, 2008

Indeed Argus. Great post.
Is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms now referred to as 'The System' in legalese?

FTA, I think you are getting the 'system' and the 'process' mixed up.

Nothing wrong with the 'process' when it is not used by complaintants as a means to an ends in and of itself.

Sometimes the 'process' is the goal. The complaintant wants to 'process the crap' out of the defendant hence limiting the defendants right to free speech.

You are so far buried in the process you are forgetting your role in society.

The system works for society, not the other way around and when the process itself becomes a weapon that is wielded by the 'offended', then that certainly needs to be looked at and questioned.

WD,

Two points:

1) The fact that anyone may or may not be 'offended' is immaterial, and from my observation this argument is used when someone doesn't have enough real arguments.

2) Levant himself has indicated that he wants to take this to the supreme court, so this isn't a case where people are being dragged through process to persecute them.

White Doors · January 16, 2008

WD,
Two points:

1) The fact that anyone may or may not be 'offended' is immaterial, and from my observation this argument is used when someone doesn't have enough real arguments.

2) Levant himself has indicated that he wants to take this to the supreme court, so this isn't a case where people are being dragged through process to persecute them.

He only wants to take it to the supreme courts so that the process cannot be wielded as a weapon like it is against him and Steyn.

He wants to change the very process that is being used against him.

Let us all hope that he wins.

guyser · January 16, 2008

Indeed Argus. Great post.
FYI

You just got out debated by mere plebians.

What a great society we live in eh?

Uh...yeah ok.

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

stay tuned...

White Doors · January 16, 2008

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

stay tuned...

There should be no precendents and legel loopholes to allow a clerk to even see a complaint like this in the first place.

Please do try and keep up.

guyser · January 16, 2008

There should be no precendents and legel loopholes to allow a clerk to even see a complaint like this in the first place.
Please do try and keep up.

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 would change your tune in a second when it is your lawsuit the clerk decides.

Lawsuits , and or complaints to tribunals/commisions in many cases are frivilous, as this one may be, but it is a cost of doing business and they (publishers editors etc) factor that in.

I will attempt to keep up. Want me to drop some crumbs for you to follow?

jbg · January 16, 2008

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 ?

No they wouldn't. Blacks mostly live their lives and want the same things for their families as everyone else. I can't say the same for homicide bombers and homicide pilots.

White Doors · January 16, 2008

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 would change your tune in a second when it is your lawsuit the clerk decides.

Lawsuits , and or complaints to tribunals/commisions in many cases are frivilous, as this one may be, but it is a cost of doing business and they (publishers editors etc) factor that in.

I will attempt to keep up. Want me to drop some crumbs for you to follow?

1) where are you getting this 'clerk' issue from?

2) these cases are not going to 'court' they are being heard by a 'tibunal'.

3) If these people could have sued criminally or civily, they would have - they didn't which tells me their lawyers told them they would lose and be liable to a counter suit.

4) The 'process' I was talking about getting rid of are these tribunals themselves. Levant has no opportunity to counter sue here within this process. This is risk free badgering by the 'offended'.

Get it yet?

Michael Hardner · January 16, 2008

jb:

No they wouldn't. Blacks mostly live their lives and want the same things for their families as everyone else. I can't say the same for homicide bombers and homicide pilots.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

Here's the quote:

Most people would say the group itself is responsible for creating a climate of hatred towards it, by the actions of some of its own members

'The group' in this example is the entire group, not just the criminals within it.

jbg · January 16, 2008

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

stay tuned...

I take it that HRC's are "administrative" proceedings as opposed to "judicial" proceedings. In my neck of the woods, complaints against attorneys are handled the same way.

If the clerk opening the mail sees that the dispute is ineligible for consideration, he or she closes the file. Examples would be complaints about the political views of a lawyer, or complaints about the appearance of an attorney on a social date (those do come). A grayer area are fee disputes. Generally, the clerk will close the file, but refer to the complaint to a different body that informally mediates fee disputes. Either way, the result is that an ethical grievance against the attorney does not proceed, and the file is closed by the clerk.

I would expect, if Canada had ironclad free speech, that HRC complaints dealing solely with the insulting or hateful content of speech (provided that hte speech does not encourage violence) would be administratively dismissed by a clerk. Nothing stops the complainant from going to a Court or making a better case that he or she has a complaint.

guyser · January 16, 2008

1) where are you getting this 'clerk' issue from?

From argus' post, the one you said great post argus. You agreed with it.

2) these cases are not going to 'court' they are being heard by a 'tibunal'.

Yes I know....and? I have been pulled up in front of one before. Unfounded was the verdict. So?

3) If these people could have sued criminally or civily, they would have - they didn't which tells me their lawyers told them they would lose and be liable to a counter suit.
4) The 'process' I was talking about getting rid of are these tribunals themselves. Levant has no opportunity to counter sue here within this process. This is risk free badgering by the 'offended'.

Get it yet?

Their lawyer may or may not have. I have no idea.

Levant isnt being sued. I doubt it is risk free.

Peter F · January 16, 2008

If the clerk opening the mail sees that the dispute is ineligible for consideration, he or she closes the file. Examples would be complaints about the political views of a lawyer, or complaints about the appearance of an attorney on a social date (those do come). A grayer area are fee disputes. Generally, the clerk will close the file, but refer to the complaint to a different body that informally mediates fee disputes. Either way, the result is that an ethical grievance against the attorney does not proceed, and the file is closed by the clerk.

Well, apparently the clerk in this case thought different.

I would expect, if Canada had ironclad free speech, that HRC complaints dealing solely with the insulting or hateful content of speech (provided that hte speech does not encourage violence) would be administratively dismissed by a clerk. Nothing stops the complainant from going to a Court or making a better case that he or she has a complaint.

To quote the Act again:

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

Is the complaint frivolous and if so can the 'clerk' recieving the complaint dismiss it summarily?

The Act:

Who may make complaint
20(1) Any person, except the Commission, a member of the Commission and a person referred to in section 18, who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person has contravened this Act may make a complaint to the Commission.

(2) A complaint made pursuant to subsection (1) must

(a) be in a form acceptable to the Commission, and

(b be made within one year after the alleged contravention of the Act occurs.

RSA 1980 cI‑2 s19;1985 c33 s8;1996 c25 s22

Settlement of complaint

21(1) Where the Commission receives a complaint, the director shall, as soon as is reasonably possible, attempt to effect a settlement of the complaint by means of a conciliator or through the appointment of a person to investigate the complaint.

(2) Where a conciliator is unable to effect a settlement of the complaint, the director may appoint a person to investigate the complaint.

(3) The director shall forthwith serve notice of any action taken under subsection (1) or (2) on the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made.

1996 c25 s22

Director’s powers re complaint

22(1) Notwithstanding section 21, the director may at any time

(a) dismiss a complaint if the director considers that the complaint is without merit,

(b discontinue the proceedings if the director is of the opinion that the complainant has refused to accept a proposed settlement that is fair and reasonable, or

(c report to the chief commissioner that the parties are unable to settle the complaint.

It seems the 'clerk' cannot dismiss any complaint no matter how frivolous the clerk may consider the complaint to be. Only the 'Director' can do so - and, it seems, the Dirctor did not think the complaint was frivolous.

So far I see nothing wrong with what has happened here. Everything seems to conform with the will of the people of Alberta as expressed through thier elected representatives in the provincial legistlature.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Peter F