CHRC Launches Review On Hate Messaging on the Internet

[maldon_road]

The regulator is doing a review of its own regulatory practices? This is a free speech issue. At a minimum it should be done by a Parliamentary Committee but certainly at arm's length from the CHRC.

Canadian Human Rights Commission Launches Independent Review On Hate Messaging on the Internet

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has launched a comprehensive policy review of how best to address hate messages on the Internet. Leading constitutional law expert Professor Richard Moon of the University of Windsor will conduct an independent study as an important part of this review.

Speaking today to the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), CHRC Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. said, "The current debate on how to balance freedom of expression with the need to protect Canadians from hate messages in the Internet age is an important one. We are confident that this review will provide insight into the issues and move the discourse one step further."

Growing public interest and continued advances in technology all point to a need to examine issues surrounding hate on the Internet. The Commission is dedicated to ensuring that the Canadian Human Rights Act remains effective. "Legislation must evolve – when necessary – to respond and reflect changes in society," said Lynch....

(full story)

HATE MESSAGES

[Topaz]

In California, if you saying anything like this you get a year in jail and Mike Reagan, former Prez oldest son, has found himself in this position. He didn't like this guy who is against the war and said he should be shot and that Mike would buy the bullets and he went on and on from there. So he had the guy on his radio program and the guy said he suing him and that he could go to jail for a year and MIke totally went in the opposite direction when he realize that he could REALLY go to jail. Mike apologized for what he said and that 's all he could do. On these radio programs, especially the Bush supporters they really get mean and say things they may believe but do for ratings. So how will this change if one can listen to these programs through the internet?

[charter.rights]

The regulator is doing a review of its own regulatory practices? This is a free speech issue. At a minimum it should be done by a Parliamentary Committee but certainly at arm's length from the CHRC.

Some of the people on this message board better start running for cover....now....

And the moderators should start vetting those borderline hate messages as well, or suffer the consequences. Knowingly allowing hate messages to persist (and allowing a forum for them) makes them as guilty as the promoters.

[maldon_road]

And the moderators should start vetting those borderline hate messages as well, or suffer the consequences. Knowingly allowing hate messages to persist (and allowing a forum for them) makes them as guilty as the promoters.

There's a big difference between someone ranting in a discussion group and using the power of the state to go after a magazine such as Macleans.

Any effort by the government to chill free speech should concern us all.

[Leafless]

Any effort by the government to chill free speech should concern us all.

Blame it all on pink Trudeau and the repatriation of the Constitution and the undemocratic unilateral ratifying of the Charter by the premiers of Canada.

It was a legal tyranny of the minority conspiracy, against the law abiding citizens of Canada.

[charter.rights]

Blame it all on pink Trudeau and the repatriation of the Constitution and the undemocratic unilateral ratifying of the Charter by the premiers of Canada.

It was a legal tyranny of the minority conspiracy, against the law abiding citizens of Canada.

No. Blame all the people that want to gain support for a racist point of view and then have others do their dirty work. If people like you were a little more self-regulating perhaps there would be no need for an investigation into the type of speech you promote.

BTW. I'm surprise you are posting on this topic. I thought you said you had a Clan meeting to go to today? Wot? Couldn't you go because your Hoodie is dirty?

[Argus]

In California, if you saying anything like this you get a year in jail and Mike Reagan, former Prez oldest son, has found himself in this position. He didn't like this guy who is against the war and said he should be shot and that Mike would buy the bullets and he went on and on from there

Are you really so incredibly dense and mindless you can't tell the difference between someone who advocates a person's death, and someone who complains about the violent sexism and bigotry of political Islam?

[Argus]

No. Blame all the people that want to gain support for a racist point of view and then have others do their dirty work. If people like you were a little more self-regulating perhaps there would be no need for an investigation into the type of speech you promote.

Who says there is any such need? A bunch of moronic social workers at the CHRC? Fire them all. Let's see how they like working as cashiers and waitresses - which is about all those idiots could otherwise find.

BTW. I'm surprise you are posting on this topic. I thought you said you had a Clan meeting to go to today? Wot? Couldn't you go because your Hoodie is dirty?

Another infant who can't tell the difference between racism and opinions he doesn't like or understand. Do you actually hold down a job? I'm guessing not, unless it involves pushing a mop in an empty building.

[Argus]

Some of the people on this message board better start running for cover....now....

And the moderators should start vetting those borderline hate messages as well, or suffer the consequences. Knowingly allowing hate messages to persist (and allowing a forum for them) makes them as guilty as the promoters.

Maybe we should all be rounded up and put in camps. That is the direction your type usually heads if permitted.

[maldon_road]

Who says there is any such need? A bunch of moronic social workers at the CHRC? Fire them all. Let's see how they like working as cashiers and waitresses - which is about all those idiots could otherwise find.

Section 13 was put in to go after the hard-core hate-mongers - the Jew-haters and the white supremacists. Even that was controversial since we already have a hate speech provision in the Criminal Code. But thanks to the pointy heads at the CHRC it has become the cry-baby provision. If you are a Muslim and don't like the comments Mark Steyn made about Islam in Macleans, by all means file a Section 13 complaint. As soon as the CHRC staff saw the complaint they should have left in the can to be used as bum wad.

[MontyBurns]

Who says there is any such need? A bunch of moronic social workers at the CHRC? Fire them all. Let's see how they like working as cashiers and waitresses - which is about all those idiots could otherwise find.

I would love to see all these people fired.

[geoffrey]

Bottom line, if people are dumb enough to follow hate literature, then they have much bigger issues.

Dealing with hate is more about education than it is about censorship. Censorship will do nothing but limit freedom.

The CHRC is amongst the biggest violators of human rights in Canada. Kangaroo courts that oppress opinion aren't exactly a symbol of free and democratic society.

[sharkman]

Some of the people on this message board better start running for cover....now....

And the moderators should start vetting those borderline hate messages as well, or suffer the consequences. Knowingly allowing hate messages to persist (and allowing a forum for them) makes them as guilty as the promoters.

This is particularly rich coming from you. Some of your comments have been among the worst I've seen on this board. Maybe you should take your own advice.