Court ruling a victory for opponents of hate speech

jacee · June 23, 2018

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/22/court-ruling-a-victory-for-opponents-of-hate-speech.html

When Mohamad Fakih opened his restaurant’s doors to a Liberal Party fundraiser last July, some uninvited guests showed up: Kevin Johnston and Ranendra “Ron” Banerjee, two men who have become fixtures at anti-Islam rallies across the GTA. In videos posted online, they stood outside Fakih’s restaurant Paramount Fine Foods and suggested it was a “nefarious” business that only served customers who are “jihadist” or “raped your wife at least a few times.”

Fakih sued for defamation; ...

But before the case has even gone to trial, a Superior Court of Justice judge has already delivered a preliminary victory for Fakih, ruling Banerjee’s videotaped comments “involve hallmarks of hate” and do not relate to a matter of public interest.

So ... It goes to trial. I'm glad to see there are some teeth in the law to stop these two hateful idiots.

Kevin Johnston also faces charges for hate crimes for previous online threatening behaviour regarding Muslim prayers in an elementary school.

Edited June 23, 2018 by jacee

betsy · June 23, 2018

2 hours ago, jacee said:

Court ruling a victory for opponents of hate speech

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/22/court-ruling-a-victory-for-opponents-of-hate-speech.html

When Mohamad Fakih opened his restaurant’s doors to a Liberal Party fundraiser last July, some uninvited guests showed up: Kevin Johnston and Ranendra “Ron” Banerjee, two men who have become fixtures at anti-Islam rallies across the GTA. In videos posted online, they stood outside Fakih’s restaurant Paramount Fine Foods and suggested it was a “nefarious” business that only served customers who are “jihadist” or “raped your wife at least a few times.”

Fakih sued for defamation; ...

Those are indeed defamatory claims, unless they can prove them to be true.

cannuck · June 23, 2018

Curious, though, that a Muslim restauranteur with obvious Liberal Party ties can get his interests served by the courts, but fundamental Islamist terrorists can spew their crap, raise families and train them as combatants, fund ISIS then go out and kill our allies and get a big hug from the Drama Teacher In Charge and $10 MM reward.

Michael Hardner · June 23, 2018

9 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Curious, though, that a Muslim restauranteur with obvious Liberal Party ties can get his interests served by the courts, but fundamental Islamist terrorists can spew their crap, raise families and train them as combatants, fund ISIS then go out and kill our allies and get a big hug from the Drama Teacher In Charge and $10 MM reward.

Ok, well rather than look on the surface, think about the actions and process and you might understand better. The other thing to keep in mind is that judges strive for objectivity, which means that we won't always agree with them.

cannuck · June 23, 2018

Let me give you a bit of objectivity that you might be able to understand: Judges are political appointees who may struggle with objectivity in many cases, but reflect their political OBLIGATIONS when called upon to do so. Think of Andy McMechan going to jail for the heinous crime of selling his own barley from a courtroom where Mr. Justice Ross Whimmer blatantly executed his boss's (Goodale) instructions with "I can find nothing whatsoever in the Wheat Board Act that would compell a farmer to seek a license to sell his barley" but proceeded to jail a Canadian citizen who had committed no offense under the Act. Don't even get me started on the ultimate political venue - the Supreme Court.

Michael Hardner · June 23, 2018

4 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Let me give you a bit of objectivity that you might be able to understand: Judges are political appointees who may struggle with objectivity in many cases, but reflect their political OBLIGATIONS when called upon to do so. Think of Andy McMechan going to jail for the heinous crime of selling his own barley from a courtroom where Mr. Justice Ross Whimmer blatantly executed his boss's (Goodale) instructions with "I can find nothing whatsoever in the Wheat Board Act that would compell a farmer to seek a license to sell his barley" but proceeded to jail a Canadian citizen who had committed no offense under the Act. Don't even get me started on the ultimate political venue - the Supreme Court.

Ok, well if the justice system is so corrupt what do you suggest ?

This case strikes me as a straight up case of defamation, ie from the OP “raped your wife at least a few times.”

There are so many people these days who are bent on depicting reasonable and traditional process as some kind of horrifying crime that it's mind-numbing to try and wade into that, so I mostly don't. If you are depicting this case as a sort of judicial conspiracy, conscious or not, then there's not much for us to talk about. I would be much more interested in listening to Conservatives like Argus who want to expedite and improve the efficiency of our system.

cannuck · June 23, 2018

I was merely making an observation as to how comments made by thousands of Canadians every day with impunity seem to rate instant attention and retaliation by authorities when the target is politically affiliated. I was not in the courtroom so have no idea how accurately the information is being presented, the circumstances nor if defamation or damages have been adequately proven. I have enough experience with the process to have very low expectations of objectivity.

Michael Hardner · June 23, 2018

42 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I was merely making an observation as to how comments made by thousands of Canadians every day with impunity seem to rate instant attention and retaliation by authorities when the target is politically affiliated.

So you think it's unusual that walking around with a defamatory sign in front of a political party fundraiser is noticed more than a comment made by thousands of Canadians every day... is noticed ? OK then.

dialamah · June 23, 2018

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

I was merely making an observation as to how comments made by thousands of Canadians every day with impunity seem to rate instant attention and retaliation by authorities when the target is politically affiliated. I was not in the courtroom so have no idea how accurately the information is being presented, the circumstances nor if defamation or damages have been adequately proven. I have enough experience with the process to have very low expectations of objectivity.

Are you suggesting that thousands of Canadian every day say that restaurants owned by Muslims only serve Jihadists and rapists?

turningrite · June 23, 2018

I believe many have reached an incorrect conclusion about this matter. Some are holding the ruling as a victory in the ongoing effort to expand restrictions on hate speech, although it doesn't seem to do anything of the sort. Rather, the defendants in this suit reportedly argued a free speech defense based on Ontario's fairly recent anti-SLAPP legisation. The court rejected this defense as being inapplicable to the circumstances. Had the defense strategy succeeded, a precedent would indeed have been set. It appears, then, that as the court rejected a novel free speech defense relating to a civil court defamation matter no new ground has been broken. The status quo remains intact.

Edited June 24, 2018 by turningrite

Argus · June 23, 2018

10 hours ago, jacee said:

Court ruling a victory for opponents of hate speech

Uhm, no. It was a defamation suit.

dialamah · June 23, 2018

10 hours ago, jacee said:

But before the case has even gone to trial, a Superior Court of Justice judge has already delivered a preliminary victory for Fakih, ruling Banerjee’s videotaped comments “involve hallmarks of hate” and do not relate to a matter of public interest.

28 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uhm, no. It was a defamation suit.

Clearly it is more than a defamation suit, since prior to the defamation suit going to trial, the judge had to affirm that hate speech existed and so the defendants couldn't use a "free speech" defense.

taxme · June 23, 2018

6 hours ago, cannuck said:

Curious, though, that a Muslim restauranteur with obvious Liberal Party ties can get his interests served by the courts, but fundamental Islamist terrorists can spew their crap, raise families and train them as combatants, fund ISIS then go out and kill our allies and get a big hug from the Drama Teacher In Charge and $10 MM reward.

It appears to be rather obvious that Muslims are getting a bunch of free passes these days in Canada with the help of our prime mistake of Quebec(Canada). I wonder why this is so? If it were not for Canadian nationalist patriots like Kevin Johnston none of us would even know as to what is being said or being done that is going on in the Ontario Islamic territories. The Muslims are laughing at their host Canadians and are running themselves all the way to the Islamic bank of Canada thanks to Trudeau with our tax dollars. Oh, the joy of it all.

Edited June 23, 2018 by taxme

taxme · June 23, 2018

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Are you suggesting that thousands of Canadian every day say that restaurants owned by Muslims only serve Jihadists and rapists?

Hey, you never know.

turningrite · June 24, 2018

10 hours ago, Argus said:

Uhm, no. It was a defamation suit.

A lot of people don't appear to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law. Even some media outlets have reported the issue as involving "hate speech," a concept that strictly speaking is a criminal law matter. Technically, the court rejected a novel free speech defense in this suit and in so doing broke no new ground. As I indicated in a previous post, the status quo prevailed.

Edited June 24, 2018 by turningrite

cannuck · June 24, 2018

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

Are you suggesting that thousands of Canadian every day say that restaurants owned by Muslims only serve Jihadists and rapists?

The hundreds I encounter would consider that polite conversation. I don't think the politically correct set has any idea of how much Joe Lunchbucket is distressed over the embracing of very non-compatible cultures as residents.

dialamah · June 24, 2018

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

The hundreds I encounter would consider that polite conversation. I don't think the politically correct set has any idea of how much Joe Lunchbucket is distressed over the embracing of very non-compatible cultures as residents.

That is a shame. If they had their way, I've no doubt that as a nation we would be offering apologies and and compensation to Muslims in 50 or 75 years, as we have to other groups when we've allowed our collective fear and ignorance to over-ride our humanity and common sense.

betsy · June 24, 2018

Quote

In videos posted online, they stood outside Fakih’s restaurant Paramount Fine Foods and suggested it was a “nefarious” business that only served customers who are “jihadist” or “raped your wife at least a few times.”

You can't post anything, or claim something like this in public........ unless it's true. It's damaging to a reputation. Expect to be sued.

Edited June 24, 2018 by betsy

Army Guy · June 24, 2018

I agree that these people have crossed the line, and need legal action brought against them.....they need to be held accountable...

jacee · June 25, 2018

On 6/23/2018 at 7:59 AM, cannuck said:

Curious, though, that a Muslim restauranteur with obvious Liberal Party ties can get his interests served by the courts,

but fundamental Islamist terrorists can spew their crap, raise families and train them as combatants, fund ISIS then go out and kill our allies and get a big hug from the Drama Teacher In Charge and $10 MM reward.

Still flogging that dead horse?!

That was the courts too: The government violated his Constitutional rights. Settle now, or pay more.

And yes, even a Muslim has recourse to the courts when defamed.

This is a surprise to you? :rolleyes:

Edited June 25, 2018 by jacee

eyeball · June 25, 2018

16 hours ago, cannuck said:

The hundreds I encounter would consider that polite conversation.

You sure encounter a lot of assholes.

Quote

I don't think the politically correct set has any idea of how much Joe Lunchbucket is distressed over the embracing of very non-compatible cultures as residents.

Fuck Joe.

jacee · June 25, 2018

16 hours ago, cannuck said:

The hundreds I encounter would consider that polite conversation. I don't think the politically correct set has any idea of how much Joe Lunchbucket is distressed over the embracing of very non-compatible cultures as residents.

Some Joe Lunchbuckets don't get how their cheapskate rich bosses twist their nuts to make them hate somebody ... other than their bosses who terrorize them with constant fear of losing that crappy low wage job. (Ya, must be the Muslims' fault your life sucks. Couldn't be the greedy rich bosses!)

But other Joe Lunchbuckets get it, and they are facing down the bosses at the bargaining table and facing down the white supremacists at their Islamophobic hate rallies.

Love is better than hate.

jacee · June 25, 2018

On 6/23/2018 at 8:16 AM, cannuck said:

Let me give you a bit of objectivity that you might be able to understand: Judges are political appointees who may struggle with objectivity in many cases, but reflect their political OBLIGATIONS when called upon to do so. Think of Andy McMechan going to jail for the heinous crime of selling his own barley from a courtroom where Mr. Justice Ross Whimmer blatantly executed his boss's (Goodale) instructions with "I can find nothing whatsoever in the Wheat Board Act that would compell a farmer to seek a license to sell his barley" but proceeded to jail a Canadian citizen who had committed no offense under the Act. Don't even get me started on the ultimate political venue - the Supreme Court.

I shudder to think how it would work with you in charge.

'Throw their babies in the cages!'

Edited June 25, 2018 by jacee

jacee · June 25, 2018

On 6/23/2018 at 2:35 PM, taxme said:

It appears to be rather obvious that Muslims are getting a bunch of free passes these days in Canada with the help of our prime mistake of Quebec(Canada). I wonder why this is so? If it were not for Canadian nationalist patriots like Kevin Johnston none of us would even know as to what is being said or being done that is going on in the Ontario Islamic territories. The Muslims are laughing at their host Canadians and are running themselves all the way to the Islamic bank of Canada thanks to Trudeau with our tax dollars. Oh, the joy of it all.

Muslims are getting the same treatment under the law as everyone else. Some people don't like that equality under the law. Love it or leave it!

Creepy Kevin Johnston offered a reward for creepy people to terrorize children by sneaking into a school and recording children's Muslim prayers. The school board was not amused and he's facing hate crime charges. He's not a "patriot". He's just a pathetic creepy hatemonger. 'Patriots' don't threaten children.

Edited June 25, 2018 by jacee

cannuck · June 25, 2018

3 hours ago, jacee said:

Muslims are getting the same treatment under the law as everyone else. Some people don't like that equality under the law. Love it or leave it!

Creepy Kevin Johnston offered a reward for creepy people to terrorize children by sneaking into a school and recording children's Muslim prayers. The school board was not amused and he's facing hate crime charges. He's not a "patriot". He's just a pathetic creepy hatemonger. 'Patriots' don't threaten children.

I will agree that Johnston is a little off the deep end, but let's take a look at the rest of your post.

How is recording prayer "terrorizing" anyone? Did he lock them in a closet and threaten them with harm if they didn't say what he wanted? Where was the "threat"? (In fairness, I have no knowledge of the actual incident, and am posting in fleeting hotel stops flitting from country to country - so feel free to summarize).

I have spent many years travelling and working in the Levant and MENA, and have a large number of friends within Islam. I am very familiar with what "they" (moderates and fundamentalists) think, say and teach about the West, infidels and particularly Jews. I can understand why people are offended by Johnston and Banerjee, but I am totally bemused and baffled how the politically correct from the left choose to ignore the matching hate speech, teachings, preachings and activities (such as those that radicalize extremists and fund terrorists from within our borders) and worse yet codify and criminalize what those who oppose such things have to say - giving a pass and even giving credibility to those who propose to destroy the (largely and generally Christian) values that Canadians have come to accept since the founding of the country.

Muslims are NOT getting the "same treatment under the law", they are getting laws made to accommodate them within OUR culture and OUR country.

As a footnote, I am not Christian, Jewish nor Muslim - I do not believe in ANY organized religion of any kind - and feel they are all a fundamental flaw of the human condition.
"