Jump to content

Supremacist group praises Liberal MP's proposal


Recommended Posts

Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is the section being used by a Muslim group in filing a complaint against Mark Steyn for an article in Macleans. It has also been used by lawyer Richard Warman in pursuing numerous "hate message" complaints.

MP Keith Martin has introduced a private member's motion into the House of Commons to rescind the section of the CHRA.

Supremacist group praises Liberal MP's proposal

OTTAWA -- A Liberal MP is being hailed as a poster boy for free speech on a white supremacist website.

Victoria MP Keith Martin was praised Friday on stormfront.org, a website that proudly displays the logo "White pride world wide" and links to radio addresses by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

Martin earned the dubious distinction after giving notice that he plans to introduce a private member's motion calling on the government to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The controversial section prohibits electronic communication of anything deemed "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." It is at the heart of investigations by human rights tribunals into complaints against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant and Maclean's magazine for publishing material some Muslim groups found offensive.

The cases of Levant and Maclean's writer Mark Steyn have sparked much furious debate, nowhere more so than among right-wing bloggers. They point to the cases as proof that the Canadian Human Rights Act is being used to gag free speech in general and Christian conservatives in particular....(more)

http://tinyurl.com/3axuhf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is the section being used by a Muslim group in filing a complaint against Mark Steyn for an article in Macleans. It has also been used by lawyer Richard Warman in pursuing numerous "hate message" complaints.

MP Keith Martin has introduced a private member's motion into the House of Commons to rescind the section of the CHRA.

I wonder why it is so distateful to the media when someone promotes white pride?

Other colours do it.

Imagine a whites only school, media or movie award - or even worse - a whites only hospital?

Let me see - Korean only shopping mall, black only schools, muslim only schools oh, and lets not forget the black actors awards, french only health clinics in cornwall ontario and of course the indian only reservations.

Try a whites only residential area in down town hog town some time. Or a no french allowed medical clinic in ontario.

Hmmm..... If it is so bad does that mean you can only be racist if you are white?

Seems to me the author of this article has a "not so hidden" agenda.

Dion will be forcing the member to withdraw the motion - another social re-engineering example by the limp wristed liberal gang.

Dr. Martin may be on to something, but he is about to be given a good kick in the ass by liberal leaders.

Borg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate the way this news story has presented the issue.

Since when is Stormfront's opinion on anything worthy of a news story?

Is the implication that Mr Martin's idea is a bad idea because white supremacists like it?

Is the implication that white supremacists are the primary beneficiaries of Mr Martin's idea?

Mr Martin's proposal should not be debated through the distorted lens of whether neo-nazis think. It should be debated on its merits.

As for the proposal itself, I'm undecided.

I am conflicted on the idea of whether there should be a legal means of dealing with the Zundels of the world. The argument is sometimes made that suppressing such messages just adds to their appeal among the susceptible. It's argued that such ideas should be allowed into the realm of public debate so that they can be exposed as lacking truth or merit. However, the argument might also be made that the sort of people susceptible to such ideas in the first place often have limited ability to discern truth or merit and little facility to participate or understand such debate. I can see both sides of the issue. I'm not sure that allowing malicious attempts to incite hatred is of benefit to society in any way, but some would argue a slippery-slope principle applies here, or that the value of the principle in itself is more important than possible adverse affects from individual incidents.

Very mixed feelings from me with regard to Section 13 itself.

However, I think that the specific incidents that prompted Mr Martin to take up this cause were the complaints filed against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. I don't believe these are examples of what Section 13 was designed to prevent. I view these as attempts to promote/provoke legitimate public debate. They can certainly be defended as such, regardless of how sincere one believes Levant or Steyn are. I think the complaints can only be viewed as an interference in legitimate public discourse, and therefore these complaints are an abuse of the process.

Therefore, I take a cowardly and weasel-like position: perhaps instead of throwing out that whole section of the act, perhaps the manner in which the complaints are audited could be overhauled to make it less prone to abuse.

However, I applaud Mr Martin for bringing this issue to Parliament, as it is an issue that has sparked much debate among Canadians, whether Parliament wishes to discuss it or not.

More information about Section 13 of the CHRA can be found here:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/watch_on_hate-en.asp

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, I take a cowardly and weasel-like position: perhaps instead of throwing out that whole section of the act, perhaps the manner in which the complaints are audited could be overhauled to make it less prone to abuse.

Good political position. You will find many MPs who agree that the complaint against Steyn is ridiculous but who will not want to throw out a provision that catches neo-Nazis:- ergo, amend 13(1) to tighten it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the same logic as the legalization of marijuana, the neo-nazis already exist and spread messages of hate, being illegal or not is not going to stop them. There is already laws in place for dealing with the uttering of threats, which the neo-nazis also do.

This law is a good idea. If you get offended suck it up. Offend the neo-nazis back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am undecided on the bill. I think that the overzealous pursuit of people exercising free speech is what drives this private member's bill.

I think that a debate on what constitutes free speech and what constitutes hate is warranted. At the very least, how the legislation is worded or how it is carried out needs to be looked at.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am conflicted on the idea of whether there should be a legal means of dealing with the Zundels of the world.
The criminal code contains provisions to deal with hate speech. These human rights tribunals need not intervene in cases of hate speech. (And frankly, I wonder what good they do in other cases too but I'll leave that argument for another day.)

Here's what Alan Borovoy - legal counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association - now says about free speech and human rights tribunals:

Borovoy has been particularly vocal in denouncing what he views as misuse of the country's human rights commissions.

He notes two Alberta cases that have attracted media attention -- that of Ezra Levant, who is appearing this month before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for publishing the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and that of Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who wrote to a Red Deer newspaper claiming that gays, among other things, are "just as immoral" as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.

Levant and Boissoin are accused of promoting hatred towards Muslims and gays, respectively.

Borovoy believes neither case belongs in front of a human rights commission. He speaks from a position of intimacy on the issue, since he helped establish the commissions in the 1960s to stop discrimination against minority groups in the employment and housing sectors.

"Nobody ever thought the commissions would have anything to do with expressions of opinion or the dissemination of news reports. That wasn't on the table," he says.

CanWest

Here's a quote from a long article in The Tyee that makes the same argument:

So, the Canadian Islamic Congress, "in order to protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance," as it claims, is engaging in a time-honoured Canadian tradition by seeking a legal disposition of the question about whether Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine have committed the offence of waging propaganda against an identifiable group, in this case, Muslims. Right?

No. Not right. And this is the part that's new, and not just a tiny bit disturbing.

The Criminal Code prohibits any incitement of hatred against any identifiable group that is likely to result in a crime. It also prohibits the willful public promotion of hatred against any identifiable group. Break this law and you could find yourself in prison for up to two years.

But the Canadian Islamic Congress isn't using the Criminal Code to go after Maclean's and Steyn. Any reasonable person who reads the 70-page brief that forms the basis of its complaint will see why the case is being taken to human rights tribunals instead. It's because there's absolutely no way a criminal charge would hold up.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a free country of free men and women, you cannot qualify free speech or press. Either you have it or you do not and you live in a tyranny. The only restriction's should be as they have been for 800 years un English Common Law, which Canadaian Law is formed. Show the harm. Who was incited to panic in the movie threatre when someone called out fire when none existed and caused harm. That is the test that has withstood the ages of fairness and is a fair restriction. Neither Steyn or Levant incited anything. They excited a Religious Nutcase Zealot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Mark Steyn said that got him into trouble with 'Canadian Human Rights Commission'.

Mark Steyn that said a high Muslim birthrate, combined with Muslims "hot for jihad," could conquer a West that is unwilling to stand up for its civilization.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...c58&k=16602

This of course does not say much for the federal government who allow Muslims into this country WITHOUT knowing for sure they are terrorist.

With the terrorist track record Muslims hold for atrocities around the world one could possibly wonder why this group is not banned from immigrating to Canada initially since identifying terrorist is next to impossible to determine and since there is 'just' requirement being 'national security'.

I think Mark Steyn is only reiterating what most intelligent Canadians are thinking anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Mark Steyn said that got him into trouble with 'Canadian Human Rights Commission'.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...c58&k=16602

This of course does not say much for the federal government who allow Muslims into this country WITHOUT knowing for sure they are terrorist.

With the terrorist track record Muslims hold for atrocities around the world one could possibly wonder why this group is not banned from immigrating to Canada initially since identifying terrorist is next to impossible to determine and since there is 'just' requirement being 'national security'.

I think Mark Steyn is only reiterating what most intelligent Canadians are thinking anyways.

Tsk, tsk - your questions could get you in trouble with the government appointed thought police.

Borg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kieth Martin is on the right track here. As for Allen Borovoy being upset about the abuse of human rights commissions,it is to laugh. A lot of thinking Canadians at the time were warning him and his fellow travellers this was going to happen. I blame him and his ilk for this persecution of people who think outside the politically correct box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Steyn that said a high Muslim birthrate, combined with Muslims "hot for jihad," could conquer a West that is unwilling to stand up for its civilization.

And If Mr.Steyn was simply pointing out that those of the Islamic faith had hight birth rates that would be fine - however, he is suggesting that we non-islamic types must do something to protect ourselves. The implication being that we must take some sort of action. He certainly isn't talking about immigration - because I'm sure a man with Mr. Steyn's command of the language could very easily state something along the lines of 'the west must stop Muslims immigrating' - as Leafless does.

No. Mr Steyn, I think, was alluding to other things - but typical mealy-mouthiness, was too cowardly to actually speak the words he meant. The West must become violent with Islam in general in order to save our civilization from Islamic conquest. Note, that according to Steyn it is Muslims - in general - who are a danger to our civilization. So we must take action against Muslims.

Thats what I think he means - and thats why I think he is advocating Hatred and encouraging violence - but being coy enough to not actually speak wth words.

He deserves everything he gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An sleazy attack masquerading as a news report. Why is anyone surprised? This is typical of the lack of professionalism and leftist bias of the Canadian media.

As for the section of the so-called human rights act involved - it should be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kudos to the http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinions/ for an excellent piece on how the HRC and 'hate speech' is abused. Who is taking away our freedoms, certainly not the conservatives or westviking and his 'buddies' :)-

http://206.75.155.198/pwgsc/showfile.asp?L...GM/0802042X.htm

There are those who disagree vehemently with Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. Both men are staunch conservatives whose success is built largely upon the ability to provoke. Mr. Steyn is a brilliant writer who sometimes pushes the boundaries of mainstream opinion; Mr. Levant is an unabashed self-promoter. Yet even those Canadians who take issue with the opinions or methods of Messrs. Steyn and Levant should be more offended by the gross overreaching of this country's human-rights commissions in investigating the two men's work.

Mr. Levant's case is the more straightforward of the two. He has been taken to the Alberta Human Rights Commission by a group called the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada because his now-defunct magazine, the Western Standard, republished controversial Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an unflattering light.

In Mr. Steyn's case, it is not the writer but his publisher, Maclean's magazine, that is being targeted. Offended by an excerpt from Mr.

Steyn's book (America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It ) in which he claimed that Muslims "hot for jihad" could exploit their religion's high birth rate to conquer the West, the Canadian Islamic Congress demanded equal space in Maclean's - along with full editorial control and promotion on the magazine's cover - to respond. When they were denied it, they took their complaint to the Canadian, Ontario and British Columbia human-rights commissions.

-snip-

Levant's case, commissions are far too zealous in providing. (Liberal MP Keith Martin has talked of introducing a private member's bill to make a similar change to the Canadian Human Rights Act.) Established in the 1960s and 70s, human-rights commissions were intended to curb such problems as workplace discrimination. While that need has considerably diminished, it may be argued that the odd case still merits the commissions' continued existence. They may still play a valuable role, too, through public education and participation in the shaping of public policy. But they were never intended to serve as thought police, charged with stamping out all unpleasant arguments and ideas. cont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "brilliant" writers like Steyn is the top of rightwing intellectualism, I'm in serious doubt about their long term survival, at least in the intellectual domain. Whenever I stumble on another of his brilliant pieces, it's every bit as angry, regorgitated, fear and hate dripping drone, as anything coming from our own original and brilliant writers of the jenre on this board.

Nevertheless I'm extremely opposed to any formal prosecution. If only for the fact that it adds importance and credibility to these ridiculous writings. These writings for democracy are like healthy exposure to the outside elements for the immune system. No organism can survive without immune system, and no democracy can exist without being able to survive a good deal of controversy. And if somebody fails to undestand the line between a spoken word, and physical violence, it's their problem and they'd need to go for a timeout, in custody if necessary. Or, simply retire to numerous locations on this planet where the line does not exist. The jurisdiction of human rights commissions over media must end. What doesn't fall under criminal, or civil legislation should be possible to say without fear of repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...