Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[Peter F]

Lol.

You people just don't get it. When I watch South Park it does not make me hate the thousands of groups they poke fun at. But the attempt by some of the Islamic community to undermine western free speech......that is very likely to expose muslims to hatred or contempt.

If somebody feels Mohammed was a pedophile and wants to draw him as such he should have that right. That has nothing to do with promoting hatred against Muslims. It has a lot to do with Muslims demanding that non-Muslims show respect for a man they don't revere.

That's fine, you think the complaint is full of poo. Help yourself to it. The complainant thinks different.

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

Yes, I would have rather him charged in court. That way his ultimate victory could set a legal precedent that could quash future silly actions such as this.

That's fair. It seems like you have more of a problem with tribunals, and their attendant issues - scope creep etc.

I can definitely see your point there.

[Rue]

I don't think for a moment that all Muslims in Canada feel this way any more than all Muslims in Denmark feel that way. In fact, Muslims in Denmark made it clear that they did not agree with the fundamentalist Danish Muslim who incited and inflamed the issue to begin with. Sadly, many if not most moderates are frightened to speak out against their fanatical co-religionists. You're creating a straw man by suggesting that those who deplore censorship by radical Muslims necessarily assume that all Muslims favour censorship.

Sorry just read your comment about the Strawman arguement-Point taken. It was not germaine to the issue we were discussing.

[Black Dog]

MH

Tribunals are used to resolve disputes and keep low-level issues out of the legal system. In the case of this type of material, there is definitely a broad range out there and I think that a tribunal, well managed and tightly reined, is a good approach. Getting the police involved in every case is probably too heavy an approach, and doing nothing is too light an approach.

and Peter F:

It seems that in each of these cases, the Commission only seriously considered wether the published material is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt, as per clause 3(1)( of the Act.

I disagree. When it comes to matters of restricting speech, I would say 9 times in 10, doing nothing is the correct approach. The fundamental issue here is not whether the material in question exposed a group to hatred or persecution, but whether producing material that potentially exposes a group to hatred and persecution should be regulated at all. Put another way: there's already laws that cover unreasonable speech (uttering threats, incitement). beyond that, we're talking about thought crimes.

[Michael Hardner]

BD,

Well exactly:

I disagree. When it comes to matters of restricting speech, I would say 9 times in 10, doing nothing is the correct approach. The fundamental issue here is not whether the material in question exposed a group to hatred or persecution, but whether producing material that potentially exposes a group to hatred and persecution should be regulated at all. Put another way: there's already laws that cover unreasonable speech (uttering threats, incitement). beyond that, we're talking about thought crimes.

So you would have the police investigate 9/10 innocent people then ?

[Peter F]

MH

and Peter F:

I disagree. When it comes to matters of restricting speech, I would say 9 times in 10, doing nothing is the correct approach. The fundamental issue here is not whether the material in question exposed a group to hatred or persecution, but whether producing material that potentially exposes a group to hatred and persecution should be regulated at all. Put another way: there's already laws that cover unreasonable speech (uttering threats, incitement). beyond that, we're talking about thought crimes.

On the face of it I agree with you. It's usually best to ignore the ranting of fools. Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

The Western Standard did go broke after all. Nevertheless, the enabling legistlation is there. Perhaps such legislation should be repealed.

But as long as it stands then the AHRC is doing the job its been mandated to do.

[White Doors]

WD,

That's fair. It seems like you have more of a problem with tribunals, and their attendant issues - scope creep etc.

I can definitely see your point there.

Thanks, but one more step MH. Yes, I DO most certainly have troubles with the tribunals, because they can be wielded as a weapon thereby restricting free speech even when the claims are ludicrous such as this, but the same complaint could be made over and over again as there is no 'precedent' on decisions made.

Therefore, they should be scrapped poste haste and these complaints settled thought the courts like everything else.

ie: My work has bathrooms for men and women. The mens room is WAY at the end of the floor, crossing some over crowded halls that could be dangerous. The woman's restroom is very close to me.

I demand access to the woman's washroom and am denied.

THAT case has more merit than this.

[Black Dog]

So you would have the police investigate 9/10 innocent people then ?

The police (ie. uttering threats) or other legal remedies (such as in cases of defamation).

peter F:

But as long as it stands then the AHRC is doing the job its been mandated to do.

Well, that's not my bone of contention. The law around this needs fixin'.

[Michael Hardner]

WD - that means that you would have had, in this situation, the police phoning up and saying "a complaint has been lodged against you which we're investigating - please provide a statement".

I don't see how that is better than a tribunal, myself. A tribunal can step in and arbitrate a solution between the parties. Police charge, or don't charge.

But, I think your idea is consistent at least, with regards to your understanding of the flaws that tribunals do have.

[jefferiah]

That's fine, you think the complaint is full of poo. Help yourself to it. The complainant thinks different.

The complainant is full of poo as well. But here is the thing: a person can make a complaint which is full of poo, and the HRC's don't bother to dismiss it, which in turn means a person can be subjected to a trial and is forced to hire a lawyer, etc etc. That's full of poo. And so are you.

[guyser]

How is this any different than the numerous product liability suits, the defamation of character, the slander suits etc?

They all have to be defended, they all incur costs to the defendant, warranted suit or not. I understand a meritless suit can be thrown out, but costs are incurred already.

[FTA Lawyer]

Thanks, but one more step MH. Yes, I DO most certainly have troubles with the tribunals, because they can be wielded as a weapon thereby restricting free speech even when the claims are ludicrous such as this, but the same complaint could be made over and over again as there is no 'precedent' on decisions made.

Therefore, they should be scrapped poste haste and these complaints settled thought the courts like everything else.

ie: My work has bathrooms for men and women. The mens room is WAY at the end of the floor, crossing some over crowded halls that could be dangerous. The woman's restroom is very close to me.

I demand access to the woman's washroom and am denied.

THAT case has more merit than this.

In today's world, almost all tribunals report their decisions and use them as precedent. An earlier post here cited such precedents that are posted on the human rts. tribunal website. You are really just wrong on this point.

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.

FTA

[jefferiah]

How is this any different than the numerous product liability suits, the defamation of character, the slander suits etc?

They all have to be defended, they all incur costs to the defendant, warranted suit or not. I understand a meritless suit can be thrown out, but costs are incurred already.

If Mohammed, the Terrorist Pedophile Prophet, feels that he has been defamed by the cartoons and that he has lost business because of the Danish depictions of himself, let him sue.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

How is this any different than the numerous product liability suits, the defamation of character, the slander suits etc?

Are these generally tried by the Human Rights Commission?

[guyser]

Are these generally tried by the Human Rights Commission?If Mohammed, the Terrorist Pedophile Prophet, feels that he has been defamed by the cartoons and that he has lost business because of the Danish depictions of himself, let him sue.

Does not matter. Warranted or not , costs are incurred and plenty of posts here suggesting that the cost of defense is a concern.

[jefferiah]

Does not matter. Warranted or not , costs are incurred and plenty of posts here suggesting that the cost of defense is a concern.

Well those cases you mentioned are entertained by actual courts of law. Do you think this would hold up there? You asked how it was different. I told you.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[guyser]

Well those cases you mentioned are entertained by actual courts of law. Do you think this would hold up there? You asked how it was different. I told you.

ok , I meant in the context of

They all have to be defended, they all incur costs to the defendant, warranted suit or not

[jefferiah]

ok , I meant in the context of

But in a court of law this would be thrown out along with other cases which are out to lunch and therefore less costs would be incurred.

[guyser]

But in a court of law this would be thrown out along with other cases which are out to lunch and therefore less costs would be incurred.

While that may be true , significant costs could and would be incurred.

[jbg]

jbg,

You're misrepresenting the role of the tribunals. Hurt feelings have nothing to do with it.

What does it have to with?

[Peter F]

If Mohammed, the Terrorist Pedophile Prophet, feels that he has been defamed by the cartoons and that he has lost business because of the Danish depictions of himself, let him sue.

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

[jbg]

That's fine, you think the complaint is full of poo. Help yourself to it. The complainant thinks different.

So why doesn't the complainant invite Levant to debate publicly rather than fascistically shut him down?

[jbg]

I disagree. When it comes to matters of restricting speech, I would say 9 times in 10, doing nothing is the correct approach. The fundamental issue here is not whether the material in question exposed a group to hatred or persecution, but whether producing material that potentially exposes a group to hatred and persecution should be regulated at all. Put another way: there's already laws that cover unreasonable speech (uttering threats, incitement). beyond that, we're talking about thought crimes.

Black Dog, I must express the highest admiration for your post here. You and I almost never agree but it is nice to see leftists of different stripes agreeing on one thing; the right to say your opinion.

[Peter F]

So why doesn't the complainant invite Levant to debate publicly rather than fascistically shut him down?

Perhaps the complainant is a lousy debater? Perhaps he is in awe of Levants debateing skills? Perhaps he thinks Levant smells bad and can't remain in the same room with him? Perhaps he thinks Levant and witless fool not capable of civil debate? Pick a reason...any reason will do.

Also, He's not 'fascistically' shutting anyone down.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Peter F

[jbg]

Perhaps the complainant is a lousy debater? Perhaps he is in awe of Levants debateing skills? Perhaps he thinks Levant smells bad and can't remain in the same room with him? Perhaps he thinks Levant and witless fool not capable of civil debate? Pick a reason...any reason will do.

Why don't they pick a cogent, well-educated jihadi Muslim to conduct the debate? I'm about 70% sure they can find one.

Also, He's not 'fascistically' shutting anyone down.

No, the HRC is trying mightily to.