Human Rights Complaint against Canadian Website

[Posit]

Are you suggesting that blonds are an "identifiable group" and that I was promoting hatred against them, Kimmy? Should we issue a directive to the police to frisk women to look for dark roots? Maybe we should ask for DNA samples to seek if the blond gene is really there? Or were you just having a blond moment?

(BTW Kimmy...just between you and me...that isn't hate speech defined by law. It is a comedy shtick.)

Edited July 22, 2007 by Posit

[ScottSA]

Are you suggesting that blonds are an "identifiable group" and that I was promoting hatred against them, Kimmy?

Absolutely. If you don't see that, just exchange "blonde" for the sob story of your choice. Let's see:

I can understand why Blacks would want Black children. After all they wouldn't want their kids to be smarter than them.....

I can understand why Jesse Jackson would want black children. After all he wouldn't want his kids to be smarter than him.....

We could do this all day, and each time, in each variation, it still comes out as clearly identifiable hate speech. Btw, has anyone reported Posit for this egregious breach of forum rules?

[ScottSA]

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport...icle.jsp?aid=53

Reframing the Enemy

'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right

By Bill Berkowitz

Pat Buchanan, sometime presidential candidate and radical right darling, says he is opposed to

Television commentator Pat Buchanan says it is being used to "de-Christianize" America. Washington heavyweight William Lind claims it is turning U.S. college campuses into "ivy-covered North Koreas." Retired naval commander Gerald Atkinson fears it has invaded the nation's military academies. Immigration activist John Vinson suggests it aims "to distort and destroy" our country.

I hate to break the news to you, but Antonio Gramsci is the one who developed cultural Marxism. He was hardly a rightwing fundamentalist.

[kimmy]

Well, you did call me "genetically inferior".

Presuming to judge a person's intelligence or genetic fitness by examining a characteristic such as hair color, or skin color, or the shape of their cranium puts you firmly in the camp of the most hateful and despicable ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries.

I would think that most people, especially a supposed "progressive," would be utterly ashamed to have said such things. And yet, here you are, proud as a peacock and congratulating yourself on your wit.

It speaks for itself, Posit.

-k

[geoffrey]

I agree. They culture their speech towards a certain extreme right wing ideology. Just like the line between extreme conservatism and fascism is blurry, so is the line between the right to free speech and the promotion of hatred. By grooming discussion in only one direction they prove they have control over, and moderation over their members. If one person is found to be promoting hatred and they have done nothing about it then they are all guilty by fact they have control.

Oh. I see. Your problem is that the forum is "extreme right-wing."

If it were rabble and "Harper" was crushing 'left-wing freedom love speech' against Jews, Christians and all the other favourite targets of that side of the poltiical spectrum, then this whole thing would be an unacceptable.

No?

Are you suggesting that blonds are an "identifiable group" and that I was promoting hatred against them, Kimmy? Should we issue a directive to the police to frisk women to look for dark roots? Maybe we should ask for DNA samples to seek if the blond gene is really there? Or were you just having a blond moment?

Being blonde is a genetic thing. Beyond that, there are culturally indentifiable groups. As a white guy, I could put on a turban and carry a dagger and claim I'm a Sikh. I figure that would make me a visable group.

Blonde jokes are clearly an attack on an indentifiable group and with your reasoning in this thread, those that tell them are a grave threat to society and must be prosecuted at once.

[sharkman]

I agree. They culture their speech towards a certain extreme right wing ideology. Just like the line between extreme conservatism and fascism is blurry, so is the line between the right to free speech and the promotion of hatred. By grooming discussion in only one direction they prove they have control over, and moderation over their members. If one person is found to be promoting hatred and they have done nothing about it then they are all guilty by fact they have control.

I was a member of Rabble for a while and their spit drooling hatred of any conservative thought was actually scary. There were a few of us conservatives on that forum, and although the hate speech was ridiculous, as far as I know, no righties complained about human rights violations, although it was far worse than anything I've read on FD.

But the part that gets me is that the offending content has not been revealed, at least to this point. And instead of investigating the person who apparently made the comments, they go after the forum. Your point about all being guilty for doing nothing is wrong. First, there is no grooming of discussion, it is simply the result of birds of a feather flocking together mostly having similar positions on issues of the day. Much like Rabble. And posters can't censor another's comments anymore than they can here.

[jefferiah]

I agree. They culture their speech towards a certain extreme right wing ideology. Just like the line between extreme conservatism and fascism is blurry, so is the line between the right to free speech and the promotion of hatred. By grooming discussion in only one direction they prove they have control over, and moderation over their members. If one person is found to be promoting hatred and they have done nothing about it then they are all guilty by fact they have control.

I was a member of Rabble for a while and their spit drooling hatred of any conservative thought was actually scary. There were a few of us conservatives on that forum, and although the hate speech was ridiculous, as far as I know, no righties complained about human rights violations, although it was far worse than anything I've read on FD.

But the part that gets me is that the offending content has not been revealed, at least to this point. And instead of investigating the person who apparently made the comments, they go after the forum. Your point about all being guilty for doing nothing is wrong. First, there is no grooming of discussion, it is simply the result of birds of a feather flocking together mostly having similar positions on issues of the day. Much like Rabble. And posters can't censor another's comments anymore than they can here.

Even if you say they should go after the poster, his comments were no where near as graphic or foul mouthed as Posit's own. In fact I see little to be overly offended at in them. And the woman is not even muslim. If Posit wishes to promote the charge made by a woman who claims she was offended at something relatively mild which was not even said against her, he must surely understand that the same could be done to himself by people who actually are blonde or caucas when he said something which is a more clear example of racism.

Edited July 22, 2007 by jefferiah

[sharkman]

Since we are discussing hate speech here in our own back yard, I dug up an example aimed at the

religious. I couldn't immediately find the original post, but found the one where Drea reaffirms her previous statement. Post 202 if it's not immediately obvious.Yikes!

Oh, here's the original post.

ALL religious zealots should have their tongues cut out and their hands mutilated so they cannot communicate their filth.

How's that for hate speech?

Edited July 22, 2007 by sharkman

[B. Max]

But the part that gets me is that the offending content has not been revealed, at least to this point.

Yeah apparently it has. But get this, the complaint was made over a year ago.

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=84514

This is at least part of the complaint that would suggest muslims are the one's promoting hatred against themselves.

[jefferiah]

Freedominion does not promote free speech, I know from experience

Margrace I have only perused Freedominion a handful of times, and I am not a member there, so I don't know very much about them, but this statement of yours is irrelevant whether it is true or not. I will explain why.

Freedominion is not a government entity. It is a private site. Therefore it is like comparing a school to your house. Now if someone comes into your house Margrace and starts saying things you don't like or bringing up topics you are not comfortable with or anything that you find distasteful, you have a right to ask them to leave. And if they don't leave you have a right to eject them. The person could be "banned" from your house but it is not taking away his right to free speech in the rest of the nation. You simply have the right to decide who you want in your house. As far as private matters are concerned this is a very important right. It means you don't have to invite people over to your house who you don't like. This is a good thing.

Now in this case a woman is coming into to the private website (not unlike your house) and complaining about something very trivial that was said within because it offended her when the statements were not even about her. She calls the case before a tribunal. Legal action can be taken against the site. People may have to pay large fines.

Now I don't know what happened to you at Freedominion's private site, but it would seem like you were banned for something or given warnings---ie If you want to stay in my house don't do this.

Now what would be very interesting is to see what sort of totally excessive ridiculous legal action was taken against you by Freedominion. Did they send you before a tribunal? Were you fined by the moderators? Did Freedominion send out their police to have you arrested?

Now look Margrace, a few weeks ago I was booted from an IRC chatroom because I questioned some girls who were bashing Paris Hilton and wishing that she would rot in jail as to why it is that so many people feel a need to even worry about her. I was kicked immediately. A few minutes later I was allowed back in the chat, and I complained to the girl that kicked me "Look all I said was....blah blah blah" and then I was promptly kicked again with the message (Just cuz I felt like it). I have been booted from many places..right wing, left wing, religious, etc. You are not the only one. But it is nothing to get all hot and bothered over.

As to this particular chat room, I was allowed back in a third time. Now I could have complained about how it was ridiculous to ban a person for talking about Paris Hilton, but I figured "Well, if I want to talk about Paris I have many many venues to do it in. So maybe I will just go back in and talk about something else. It is her chat after all, and I am sure we can get along." And I went back in, forgot about Paris, and had a good time chatting, even with the lady that booted me. You see it's no big deal because first off its her business to kick whoever she wants in her private chatroom, and also I can still talk about Paris Hilton elsewhere. But if a "conservative" man cannot post a reasonable "conservative" question (like the one he posted as to why a certain group would support a certain other group) on a "conservative" forum, then where can he post it?

Edited July 22, 2007 by jefferiah

[B. Max]

Connie Wilkins owner of free dominion interviewed in the next few minutes on the Michael Coren Show.

http://www.cfrb.com/

[ScottSA]

Connie Wilkins owner of free dominion interviewed in the next few minutes on the Michael Coren Show.

http://www.cfrb.com/

Thanks. I almost missed it because it was stuffed into another thread for some reason.

[B. Max]

Connie Wilkins owner of free dominion interviewed in the next few minutes on the Michael Coren Show.

http://www.cfrb.com/

Thanks. I almost missed it because it was stuffed into another thread for some reason.

You noticed that too.

[sharkman]

Here's a thought: instead of stuffing threads into one another to conserve space, why not delete outright some of the threads started by offenders who go nuts with the thread starting nonsense. For instance, at present in the Federal section, out of the most recent 20 threads, a full 10 are started by one person. A bit whacky if you ask me.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sharkman

[scribblet]

Apparently, Connie Wilkins of Free Dominion will be interviewed by Michael Coren on radio CFRB this Sunday at 7:30 pm.

I'm away so tried to listen on dial-up but it was on and off, really slow connection. From what I heard she did very well, I would have called in except I couldn't use the phone line and listen.

One of the worst aspects of this is that the complainant doesn't have to pay a dime out, the HRC does the investigating etc. but the defendant(?) has to hire a lawyer and pay. I don't like Bill W's posts and find that FD is too religious and anti abortion based, but I do support free speech so will donate something to the cause.

[jbg]

I keep reading how a guy on this board brags about shutting down the CBC forum. IMO that is something totally without merit of any kind. Matter of fact I think working to shut down a Canadian forum whether left, right or center, speaks to the character (or lack of) of anyone involved in what appears to be nothing more than an exercise in egotism. Which could be the case with this FD thing. Or, ideology.

I wAS NOT happy that the result of the National Post article that another poster and I did "source" resulted in the CBC Board's shutdown. The other poster was.

The CBC Board was part of a Crown Corporation. What I think happened was that the moderation degenerated over time. When the article came out, higher-ups in CBC, for the first time, read the forum and saw that its condition was beyond redemption.

[jbg]

If the CHRC case is successful, owners and moderators across the country will have a new role - that of censor. Note I say moderators too, because they are also responsible for content. Depending on the ruling this could have a major impact on boards such as this.

That's why the historical accident of the US's First Amendment, which by its terms is absolute, is far preferable to the Charter language.

Contrast this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

with this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The provision in the Charter stating that "Fundamental Rights" are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" is a dangerous carveout. In other words, the "default" is that the people have the rights until the government says otherwise, exactly the opposite of Canada. The First Amendment prohibits Congress and now, by way of the 14th Amendment the States, from restricting free speech. The Charter language is far more permissive of government action.

Granted, in the States, this seems to be giving legal bordellos in Nevada the right to advertise. Oh well, nothing is perfect.

Edited July 23, 2007 by jbg

[B. Max]

The provision in the Charter stating that "Fundamental Rights" are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" is a dangerous carveout. In other words, the "default" is that the people have the rights until the government says otherwise, exactly the opposite of Canada. The First Amendment prohibits Congress and now, by way of the 14th Amendment the States, from restricting free speech. The Charter language is far more permissive of government action.

Granted, in the States, this seems to be giving legal bordellos in Nevada the right to advertise. Oh well, nothing is perfect.

The choosing of the word charter was no accident. Bill of rights and charter of rights by their definition are two different things. A charter of rights means to grant, where as a bill of rights means to recognize. The American bill of rights does not grant or confer rights to anyone. The implication is that in a bill of rights, the ownership of those rights are retained by the people, while with a charter of rights the ownership of the rights are retained by the government. You are right it is extremely dangerous as we are now witnessing. These HRC's are in no small way the government demonstrating their exclusive ownership of those rights to the point they can twist, bend , apply them some and deny them to others. Unlike the American bill of rights which limits government power, the charter of wrongs and special rights actually increased government power and was the prelude to a tyranny.

[capricorn]

If Free Dominion simply ignored the complaint and did not comply with the CHRC's requests, would the CHRC have the mandate to bring the case to Criminal Court? If the case went to Criminal Court and the Court found in favour of Free Dominion wouldn't the complainant then not have to pay the defendant's court and legal fees?

[ScottSA]

If Free Dominion simply ignored the complaint and did not comply with the CHRC's requests, would the CHRC have the mandate to bring the case to Criminal Court? If the case went to Criminal Court and the Court found in favour of Free Dominion wouldn't the complainant then not have to pay the defendant's court and legal fees?

Good question...does anyone have the answer? I smell lawyers on this board, so I suspect there are some hereabouts who might be able to answer.

[B. Max]

If Free Dominion simply ignored the complaint and did not comply with the CHRC's requests, would the CHRC have the mandate to bring the case to Criminal Court? If the case went to Criminal Court and the Court found in favour of Free Dominion wouldn't the complainant then not have to pay the defendant's court and legal fees?

I have often wondered along those same lines. I think it even brings into question the legitimacy of these kangaroo courts in the first place and would seem to be unconstitutional, but then so are activist judges.

[Moxie]

The defendant has stated that she had no prior contact or knowledge of the complaint.

What I find absolutely assine is that Canada visa vie the Liberals sent our troops to Afghanistan to root out Radical Islamists called the Taliban who were harbouring our Enemy correct? Our Federal Spy Agency is mandated to root out Terrorist in Canada yes? So our troops are placing their lives on the line to fight the evil Radical Islamists correct? So why is one arm of our government sending our men/women to die for this cause and another is persecuting a forum for publishing an inoffensive article that discusses Radical Islam? He clearly made every effort to state he had issues with Radical Islamists and not Moderate Muslims so where is the hatred? Sorry but the Feds should be wading in on this issue, are our troops fighting Radical Islam and if so why is this forum being punished for posting an Article on subject that is front page news everyday?

The fact that complaintant won't pay a red cent makes me angry, I'd like to see a clause added that would hold the Tribunal and the complaintant financially accountable if the ruling is against the complaintant and for the defendant. It would stop frivilous complaints such as the one lobbed at Free Dominion, how soon before someone takes offense to any opinion not mirroring their own and does the self same thing to this forum. The socialist in Canada are doing everything they can to remove our cultural bonds and take away our right to free speech or in our case Freedom of Expression. I consider her complaint an attack on my personal beliefs and I hope she gets squashed like a bug but she won't she'll win they always do.

[Rue]

Well the Charter of Rights is definitely not absolute, the entire charter is subject to the word "reasonable" so to me that made the entire thing a qualified set of rights to begin with as opposed to entrenched rights that can never be changed.

In regards to limits on freedom of speech no a political forum will not be shut down simply because of debate. The reason for that is most forums carefully censor out any dialogue when it becomes abusive. They do so not out of politics but for the common sense reason if there is too much abuse the forum quickly deteriorates and no one uses it any more.

That said, for me to be charged with a hate crime, I would argue it has to be more then an expressed unpopular political opinion clearly done to an audience debating.

It would have to be presented to the public at large, and tell the public to go and hurt and hate someone.

I personally think censoring political opinions only should be done in extreme circumstances where no other remedy is available and someone is getting hurt or could be hurt.

Man I can't think of anything more fragile and precious then freedom of speech.

Me personally I only see the need for censorship when it comes to child porno or violent porno.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

If Free Dominion simply ignored the complaint and did not comply with the CHRC's requests, would the CHRC have the mandate to bring the case to Criminal Court? If the case went to Criminal Court and the Court found in favour of Free Dominion wouldn't the complainant then not have to pay the defendant's court and legal fees?

Good question...does anyone have the answer? I smell lawyers on this board, so I suspect there are some hereabouts who might be able to answer.

Not Criminal Court Scott. At least in my legal opinion. I doubt you could prove criminal intent needed to prove a criminal charge.

In regards to a human rights violation my legal reasoning which I think will be the case is as follows-in this case the political opinion was expressed in a forum specifically designed to engage in political debate.

The person knew or ought to have known when they went on the forum there might be political opinions she did not agree with and they were not specifically made to her but in a general context.

That to me distinguishes it froma hate crime where you direct a non specific audience to hurt or injure someone.

I think another reason you won't see a court interfering is a common sense one. Most forums police themselves and do not allow anyone to personally atack another or get too abusive.

Its a context that prevents hate mongering making it highly unlikely a court feels it needs to protect anyone.

I mean for heaven's sakes if you go on a forum to debate a political opinion then feel you can claim someone's opinion is a human rights violation that makes a mockery of human rights and turns them into such a subjective concept you could never even begin to create the legal doctrine for its application.

Its a nonsense bull-shit nuisance claim that will be thrown out.

(lol, if I am wrong I am the first to be thrown in jail along with my soon to be prison mate Leafless ahah he will be trapped with the Zionist prisoner from hell)

[B. Max]

Well the Charter of Rights is definitely not absolute, the entire charter is subject to the word "reasonable" so to me that made the entire thing a qualified set of rights to begin with as opposed to entrenched rights that can never be changed.

The left love to say as an argument to limit free speech, that you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. But what if the theatre is on fire. This case is the perfect example of that analogy.