Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[guyser]

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.

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.

[Moxie]

(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

Well that is a piece of absurb legislation, one could argue that Rap and Gangsta rap are violations of my Rights. Chanting filthy versus about white hoes isn't acceptable to me, so I should commence to filing a complaint? Modern art and dance offends me and my race should I file a couple dozen complaints. Dove's campaign showing chubby women offend me and my race and religion. The list of things that could be deemed "Offensive" is a mile long according to the above stupid legislation.

Republishing pictures of Mo is called Current News, riots and fanatical youth burning up entire blocks was the NEWS and the pictures were the excuse for their behavior. Ezra had the guts unlike MSM to report the news. He did not violate anyone's human rights, zip nadda. However that's not what this organization is about anymore. They are leftards enforcing marxist rules against our thoughts and our belief of Freedom of Expression. We need them crushed like bugs.

Hopefully he won't get whacked by some nut jobs because he has the courage to stand up and speak against Canada's Communist HRC Commision.

[Michael Hardner]

Again, Moxie, there's nothing about being offended in there.

If you really thought you had an argument, I feel that you wouldn't make extra things up out of thin air.

Well that is a piece of absurb legislation, one could argue that Rap and Gangsta rap are violations of my Rights. Chanting filthy versus about white hoes isn't acceptable to me, so I should commence to filing a complaint? Modern art and dance offends me and my race should I file a couple dozen complaints. Dove's campaign showing chubby women offend me and my race and religion. The list of things that could be deemed "Offensive" is a mile long according to the above stupid legislation.

FYI - there was a complaint filed in the last year or two, with respect to rap lyrics. I don't think it has been heard yet.

[guyser]

( Chanting filthy versus about white hoes isn't acceptable to me, so I should commence to filing a complaint? Modern art and dance offends me and my race should I file a couple dozen complaints. Dove's campaign showing chubby women offend me and my race and religion. The list of things that could be deemed "Offensive" is a mile long according to the above stupid legislation.

How does Dove's campaign or modern art fit in with....

(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

[FTA Lawyer]

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?

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.

(i.e. The societal principle that we should not tolerate frivolous actions is a product of our developed legal system. But, the existence of a Human Rights Tribunal is also a product of that same developed legal system. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad so to speak.)

Also, I'm not arguing that frivolous claims are to be embraced...on the contrary. I am asked to give dozens of opinions regarding Legal Aid coverage in this province, and I often take the view that coverage should be denied...due to lack of merit. By your logic, because several people apply to Legal Aid for frivolous reasons, we should scrap the Legal Aid system altogether. Seems to me that means many meritorious applicants would miss out.

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.

Don't forget, I support Levant's publishing of the cartoons. I think he made the right call, and I admire that he had the guts to do it. But come on...he can't possibly be surprised that he put himself into a political hot-zone by doing so.

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.

I've acted in discipline hearings for university students, police officers and inmates, including parole hearings...all with varying degrees of procedural fairness and administrative integrity. I have had more success than failure...sometimes dealing with maddening unfairness (in my opinion) but I have never referred to a panel or hearing officer as a kangaroo. For a shining example that just hit the paper today, check this out:

"Secrets" in Police Discipline

Do I think my client got treated unfairly by the process? You bet. Did I rail like a fool about it on a blog? Nope. I simply made my argument to the hearing officer, and ended the discipline hearing...and then opposed the subsequent court challenge...and won that too.

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

Let the all-wise members of this board now tally the score on who's winning the debate

FTA

[August1991]

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.

this may be the difference.

FTA, you are not questioning the existence of these human rights tribunals. You seem to believe they work and will eventually render a just decision.

I can't speak for Argus or Levant but it seems to me that they question the very existence of these tribunals. In Levant's view, he shouldn't have to appear in front of this tribunal at all. The fact that he has shown up at all shows his respect for the "system" - while he simultaneously works towards the demise of these tribunals.

I'll only add that Argus has made the valid point that as a lawyer, it is in your personal interest to have tribunals of various sorts - as long as you personally are not called before them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

[DogOnPorch]

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.

1.5 Billion Muslims apparently...quite the minority. I still think the cartoons are not offensive by our standards. No worse than other political cartoons.

However...if one wants to see real hate speech, one need to look no further than political cartoons from the Arab world.

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

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

A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.

---Salman Rushdie

[jbg]

Well that is a piece of absurb legislation, one could argue that Rap and Gangsta rap are violations of my Rights. Chanting filthy versus about white hoes isn't acceptable to me, so I should commence to filing a complaint?

I don't like Barry Manilow's music. Next radio station that plays him is getting a Human Rights complaint.

[FTA Lawyer]

this may be the difference.

FTA, you are not questioning the existence of these human rights tribunals. You seem to believe they work and will eventually render a just decision.

I can't speak for Argus or Levant but it seems to me that they question the very existence of these tribunals. In Levant's view, he shouldn't have to appear in front of this tribunal at all. The fact that he has shown up at all shows his respect for the "system" - while he simultaneously works towards the demise of these tribunals.

I'll only add that Argus has made the valid point that as a lawyer, it is in your personal interest to have tribunals of various sorts - as long as you personally are not called before them.

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.

Is it a hidden secret that I have a vested interest in legal proceedings? I am a lawyer...I do make my living helping people with legal problems...not sure where the "breaking news" is on that point.

But here's the thing...the point I make that seems not to be getting through is that we all benefit from such tribunals. Oh, sure, we love to criticize the hell out of their existence, but we sure would scream more if:

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

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...

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.

FTA

[White Doors]

Also, I'm not arguing that frivolous claims are to be embraced...on the contrary. I am asked to give dozens of opinions regarding Legal Aid coverage in this province, and I often take the view that coverage should be denied...due to lack of merit. By your logic, because several people apply to Legal Aid for frivolous reasons, we should scrap the Legal Aid system altogether. Seems to me that means many meritorious applicants would miss out.

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.

But you conveniently forget the key point.

Maybe you can recall it for me?

Were these tribunals set up to deal with cases involving free speech or were they meant to settle cases of discrimination in regards to employment and housing?

Thanks - now you can see my perfectly valid point that this 'process' is being wielded as a weapon.

[Peter F]

But you conveniently forget the key point.

Maybe you can recall it for me?

Were these tribunals set up to deal with cases involving free speech or were they meant to settle cases of discrimination in regards to employment and housing?

Thanks - now you can see my perfectly valid point that this 'process' is being wielded as a weapon.

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.

I see nothing in there restricting the interpretation of a or b to employment or housing. In fact b would be very difficult to interpret in the sense of housing or employment.

[Black Dog]

Quick point here.

August:

In Levant's view, he shouldn't have to appear in front of this tribunal at all. The fact that he has shown up at all shows his respect for the "system" - while he simultaneously works towards the demise of these tribunals.

Respect for the system? please. 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."

Edited January 17, 2008 by Black Dog

[White Doors]

In Alberta it is against the law to discriminate against anyone in the following areas of activity:

employment

employment applications or advertisements goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public (for example, restaurants, stores, hotels, or provincial government services)

tenancy (residential or commercial rentals)

public statements, publications, notices, signs, symbols, emblems, or other representations

membership in trade unions, employers' organizations or occupational associations

equal pay

Albertans are protected from discrimination on the grounds of:

race or colour

gender, including pregnancy

religion, including native spirituality

ancestry

where you were born

age (except in tenancy and services)

physical disability

mental disability

family status (who you are related to by blood, marriage or adoption)

marital status

source of income

sexual orientation

Complaints of discrimination must fall within the protected areas of activities and grounds and have taken place in Alberta. The Commission cannot accept a complaint that falls outside these areas and grounds, took place in another province, or is about something that took place more than 12 months ago.

link: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/faqs/p...uman_rights.asp

Can you kindly show me where Levant discriminated against someone by publishing those cartoons?

thanks!

[Peter F]

link: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/faqs/p...uman_rights.asp

Can you kindly show me where Levant discriminated against someone by publishing those cartoons?

thanks!

See post #137

(I must be on 'ignore')

Edited January 17, 2008 by Peter F

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

From your post:

public statements, publications, notices, signs, symbols, emblems, or other representations

The article in question was a published representation.

[White Doors]

See post #137

(I must be on 'ignore')

Your not, but you are close.

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.

Please show me how Levant did this. How did publishing those cartoons contravene this?

Did he discriminate? I suppose. Not everyone could see the cartoons unless they bought an issue of the Western Standard.. I can see how that would be discrimination..

Did he expose a person or class to hate? Yes, himself. But he isn't asking the tribunal to prosecute himself on behalf of himself.

anything else?

[White Doors]

WD,

From your post:

The article in question was a published representation.

holy cow. thanks! Yes, it was the western standard. glad to see you have kept up.

So what did he do wrong exacltly? Did he expose someone to hatred?

I don't see where unless you are talking about himself. He was exposed to alot of hatred.

he certainly didn't discriminate anywhere except by charging for the price of the magazine.

I guess that would be discriminatory to the people who could not afford to buy it?

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

So what did he do wrong exacltly? Did he expose someone to hatred?

I don't see where unless you are talking about himself. He was exposed to alot of hatred.

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.

[Moxie]

WD,

From your post:

The article in question was a published representation.

Thankyou, that is EXACTLY the point. He reprinted those pictures as NEWS. CAIR and it's foot soldiers are pissed off, that is not a violation of their human rights it's human EMOTION.

I think there is a bigger issue at play, Political Islamist are trying to silence any voice that speaks out against Radical Islam. Authors and individuals are being sued willy nilly by multiple Muslim Organizations, to SILENCE them. This tactic of intimadation worked in Europe and England, will they be allowed to silence us because the left stand side by side with the Islamist desire to crush our right to express our opinions??

A few examples: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read....2D-549192C8579A

Snippet: As well, the plaintiffs claim that the article and the protest are threats to them – that somehow me writing or demonstrating against “them” could cause them physical harm. However, during a hearing that was held for the case, on October 29th, where 70 to 90 members of the Muslim community packed the courtroom, witnesses for the plaintiffs admitted that neither I nor any of the other protestors ever threatened them in any way, physical or otherwise. In fact, it was us that were threatened, when someone posted to the internet that “there better not be a protest or else.”

The suit against me is entirely a frivolous one, which attempts to deny my First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Really, the only threat that I pose to organizations such as these is my very existence. They do not want me writing about their friends and they do not want me giving speeches about their friends, because they fear that what I write and say may lead to arrests and the closures of groups – because what I write and say is fact and nothing less. So by taking me to court, they feel that they may have a chance to shut me up – to force me into financial ruin and shut me up.

Second one: http://dutchdaily.blogspot.com/2008/01/you...gners-here.html

Snippet: Listen well, you crazy freak. We are here to stay! Hahahaha. Drop dead! I am a Dutch Muslim and I will stay that way until I die."

Ismaili contends: "You are the foreigners here!!! With Allah on my side I fear no one. Me and my fellow Muslims are alive! Your species is being consumed by hatred. Let me give you some advice: Convert to Islam and find peace at heart!"

Now what exactly made Ismaili go snap? A certain Jos

[Michael Hardner]

Authors and individuals are being sued willy nilly by multiple Muslim Organizations, to SILENCE them. This tactic of intimadation worked in Europe and England, will they be allowed to silence us because the left stand side by side with the Islamist desire to crush our right to express our opinions??

Moxie,

Well, then why did they go the Human Rights route instead of suing Levant ? If their intention was to intimidate, they could have done as Conrad Black did with his biographer and dropped writs on anybody to do with Levant.

Your post does more to make their actions seem fair than otherwise.

[Peter F]

Please show me how Levant did this. How did publishing those cartoons contravene this?

Did he discriminate? I suppose. Not everyone could see the cartoons unless they bought an issue of the Western Standard.. I can see how that would be discrimination..

Did he expose a person or class to hate? Yes, himself. But he isn't asking the tribunal to prosecute himself on behalf of himself.

anything else?

I believe the allegation is that publishing the cartoons would expose muslims to hatred or contempt.

If true it would contravene the Alberta Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. The Alberta Human Rights Commission has been designated by the Act to hear the complaint, investigate and determine wether the Act has in fact been contravened - or not, as the case may be.

The AHRC need not ask you, me, nor anyone else if they can investigate the complaint. They MUST investigate - they are required to by the Alberta Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. Only the Director of the AHRC can decree the complaint to be without merit and not investigate. In This case, the Director considered the complaint to have some merit - in that publications of the cartoons could, concievably expose Muslims to hatred and Contempt. So too bad for Mr Levant - or more likely good for Mr Levant, he seems to be enjoying it.

Anyways, either the cartoons did expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or they didn't. The AHRC will make that determination - as they are mandated by the Legistlature of Alberta to do. Not you, not me, not anyone else but the AHRC.

[Black Dog]

moxie

the left stand side by side with the Islamist desire to crush our right to express our opinions??

As someone who considers themselves of the left, I would never want to crush your right to express your opinions.

The more you talk, the better we look.

Peter F

Anyways, either the cartoons did expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or they didn't. The AHRC will make that determination - as they are mandated by the Legistlature of Alberta to do. Not you, not me, not anyone else but the AHRC.

On what basis will they make that determination? This is my problem: how does one prove something as elusive and nebulous as "exposure to hatred and contempt?"

[Peter F]

Peter F

On what basis will they make that determination? This is my problem: how does one prove something as elusive and nebulous as "exposure to hatred and contempt?"

I expect them to make that determination based upon events. I imagine they will try to determine if there has been any manifestation of hatred or contempt towards Muslims that resulted from the publication of the cartoons by the Western Standard. I suspect they will not find any such manifestations nor will they find that the Western Standard advocated for hatred and contempt for Muslims, and the complaint will be denied.

In other words, your are correct, how does one prove hatred and contempt? If there is no obvious and public hatred and contempt then such hatred and contempt remains nebulous and elusive. The AHRC, I expect, needs to deal with realities and not maybes and couldbes in order to find that the complaint is correct.

[Black Dog]

I expect them to make that determination based upon events. I imagine they will try to determine if there has been any manifestation of hatred or contempt towards Muslims that resulted from the publication of the cartoons by the Western Standard.

Okay: now how do they prove that?

I suspect they will not find any such manifestations nor will they find that the Western Standard advocated for hatred and contempt for Muslims, and the complaint will be denied.

I suspect you're right, which only underscores the absurdity of taking on such cases in the first place.

In other words, your are correct, how does one prove hatred and contempt? If there is no obvious and public hatred and contempt then such hatred and contempt remains nebulous and elusive. The AHRC, I expect, needs to deal with realities and not maybes and couldbes in order to find that the complaint is correct

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.