Dr Dawg, have you seen Greenwald today on this topic? I was kind of disappointed. I agree with him, except he struck me as glib and thin on evidence, mixing up several different levels of Canadian law and extrajudicial bodies on the way to making a very general rhetorical point.
Yes, my attention was drawn to his column by "We Move to Canada."
It's unbelievable how many people think that an actual hearing is going on, that Levant was compelled to attend, etc., etc.
Greenwald is like any other American who weighs in to tell Canadians what we should and shouldn't do--best ignored. His facts, as you point out, are plain wrong, and that's really all anyone needs to know.
He has more than 250 comments in the thread at his place. Truth be told, I don't have the time or the inclination to read all of them to see if his gross errors of fact have already been corrected.
Happy New Year to you too Dr. Dawg!
Don't read the comments unless you want to read arthurdecco's explanation as to why the laws exist ("extreme pressure from Jewish groups") and, having noted that Levant is "[an] obnoxious Jewish racist", the "cause and effect and the ironies inherent in any group [guess who] attempting to control the prejudicial thoughts of others by force."
Does he qualify as a "troll" for purposes of your earlier post?
Levant didn't even have to appear--he could have sent a letter.
Except that the Commissioner (or was it the Investigator) seemed interested in asking him questions, and it is difficult to teach a piece of paper to respond. In any event, while Ezra was not summoned, subpoenaed, or even frog-marched into the hearing, he did not (realistically) have the option of ignoring it - Section 30(3) of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act provides that:
A human rights panel, on proof of service of notice of a hearing in accordance with this Act on the person against whom a complaint was made, may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that person and decide on the matter being heard in the same way as though that person were in attendance.
So when you say that "It's unbelievable how many people think that an actual hearing is going on, that Levant was compelled to attend..." it is probably because he was compelled to attend (if only to protect himself from an adverse determination), and if there is not a "hearing" going on, it is only because they are at the "investigation" phase which precedes a hearing. This is a rather nice distinction, wouldn't you agree?
By the way, an investigator has the power to make oral or written enquiries of any person under §23(1)(b) or demand production of records and documents under §23(1)(c), and refusal to participate or provide the required materials may be subject to a court order compelling participation or production under §24, and that court order may be made with or without notice.
It is disingenuous to suggest that Levant was not forced to participate in this exercise - and I know you wouldn't try to be disingenuous, now would you?
Not disingenuous in the least. The issue is one of law. Levant is a lawyer. He could just as well have made his point--that the current law against inciting hatred was not breached by the publication of the cartoons--in a registered letter. If it hadn't been for his pontificating, the entire session that he voluntarily attended and taped wouldn't have been longer than a commercial.
Marky:
Where are artdecco's comments? Not here.
Dr. D, they are part of the Greenwald piece and comment thread that was being discussed.
http://letters.salon.com/
opinion...843009fea1.html
Ah, thanks, Mark. It's early in the morning here, and I'm not through my first cup of coffee yet. I read your comment in Haloscan and literally lost the thread. Sorry about that.
Yes, arthurdecco qualifies as a troll, and did so well before recent commentary. It's still a mystery to me why he has progressive defenders.
Dr. D,
Any further thoughts on how the HRC laws and commissions fit in with the hate speech provisions of the CCC?
When I read the Alberta legislation it seems that the statute sets up a framework where an offense, if committed, is an offense against the state governed by this quasi-criminal legislation. The laws don't strike me as civil laws and the HRC's don't strike me as arbitration bodies.
It's odd in a way that the standard/tests are different in the CCC and in these laws, as both sets of legislation seem to be geared at regulating the same thing. I think you wrote recently that the HRC laws ease the bureden on the courts who must deal with CCC charges-that makes sense to me, except that that the actual test is different.
Marky Mark, how is the actual test different?
skdadl,
Here is a link to the Criminal Code provisions:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.html
Please take a look at ss. 318 and 319 and in particular 319:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/c.../cc/
cc.319.html
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Here is a link to the Alberta legislation:
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Document...ts/acts/
H14.CFM
Note section 3:
Discrimination re publications, notices
3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) the display of a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation displayed to identify facilities customarily used by one gender,
(b) the display or publication by or on behalf of an organization that
(i) is composed exclusively or primarily of persons having the same political or religious beliefs, ancestry or place of origin, and
(ii) is not
Here is what was cut off:
[(b) the display or publication by or on behalf of an organization that
(i) is composed exclusively or primarily of persons having the same political or religious beliefs, ancestry or place of origin, and
(ii) is not] operated for private profit,
of a statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating a purpose or membership qualification of the organization, or
(c) the display or publication of a form of application or an advertisement that may be used, circulated or published pursuant to section 8(2),
if the statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation is not derogatory, offensive or otherwise improper.
So in the case of the CCC the federal Crown is obliged to enforce the CCC and in the case of this Alberta legislation the Alberta HRC is obliged to enforce that statute. But the tests aren't the same.
Marky (and skdadl),
The test for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The test for a successful civil action is "balance of probabilities," a lower bar. Provinces cannot pass criminal legislation per se.
In the absence of provincial legislation in this area, we would be left with the CCC and no other means of mediating or regulating the discriminatory conduct of some people against others. I am not uncritical of institutional responses to social problems that may indeed require a transformation of society, rather than regulation, but the HRCs do act as a bit of a safety valve.They quite clearly have mediation as a key part of their roles.
I take your point that there is overlap, but the CCC and the HRAs really come at the same problem in different and complementary ways.
Levant didn't even have to appear--he could have sent a letter.
Appearing to in an interrogation by the state in regards to some cartoons he published makes him look good and makes the HRC/Canadian state look bad. Of course he was going to turn up.
My bet is it won't. It certainly shouldn't.
The investigation should have been stopped prior to offering this golden opportunity to Mr Levant. If that was not possible the law needs to be changed so that it becomes easily possible.
Marky Mark,
aurthurdecco is an ignorant anti-semitic fool. Any so-called progressive that defends him is at the very least a fool along with him. One of the reasons I rarely, if ever read MyBlahg anymore and certainly don't comment there. And if you swing by Rusty Idols, you'll see a few other progressives and leftists that don't like the idea HRC and these kinds of charges either (including me).
That being said, Dawg is right - Levant could have answered this with a registered letter. That he appeared in person, video taped it and is making this into a big deal shows just how contrived and manufactured this outrage is.
Levant is an anti-muslim authoritarian twit and is using this as a vehicle to further spread hatred and mistrust of muslims and anger people into supporting his position.
Of course, John Milton warned that this kind of censorshipand action to correct speech and expression would have this very effect. In 1644, in Areopagitica.
454 years later and we still haven't figured it out.
Mike - the fact that he might be required to appear at all, whether by letter, in person, or by sending a representative is an affront in a country that claims freedom of thought and expression as its second "fundamental" right. That he chooses to publicize the proceedings is his right - a transparent process requires public knowledge and access.
What it seems to come down to here is that people who don't like Ezra (and calling him an anti-muslim authoritarian twit puts you in that camp, I imagine) don't like the fact that he is getting any publicity out of this. Too bad: Levant is under no obligation to avoid making the HRC look overly intrusive, nor is he obliged play along with their strategy of avoiding publicity about their actions. If Levant is truly the twit you claim him to be, the publicity will show that up soon enough; if the Commission is truly the interfering, overreaching busybody that he thinks it to be, then the publicity will bear that out, too. I think much of the concern expressed by the "progressive" blogosphere is rooted in fear of that second outcome, which might tend to discredit HRCs.
...and is using this as a vehicle to further spread hatred and mistrust of muslims...
I disagree; he is using this escapade to spread distrust of Human Rights Commissions, and perhaps spark a re-evaluation of the enabling legislation. That is significantly different than spreading hatred of Muslims, although it doesn't make nearly as enticing an accusation.
So the Sask Court of Appeal says David Ahenakew should have a new trial. Should Levant express support in principle for Ahenakew?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatc...4/
ahenakew.html
Well, Ahenakew went farther than Levant; calling people "a disease" is worse than publishing cartoons that they claim to be offended by. Even at that, I don't support a hate crimes charge against Ahenakew. Take away his Order of Canada - that's an honour, which he had shown himself to be unworthy of - but otherwise let him float away in well-deserved obscurity. Obviously, I can't speak for Ezra, but in principal he should support the Crown in staying charges against Ahenakew. Why don't you drop him a note and find out, Holly?
Actually Deaner, the only thing Levant is using this escapade for is self-promotion. Fozzie Bear has never been anything but a self-promoter. His only 'success' - which has certainly bever been in any business sense - has ever been in that domain. Interalted with his cultivation of rich and powerful 'friends'.
btw - I don't think the complaint has any merit and the matter will be dropped, but outside of the usual '23%ers' I believe you will find that most Canadians aren't engaged in the matter at all and will just see Ezra for what he is - a posturing, whiny, self-aggrandizing self-promoter.
2nd btw - it's also quite rich and hypocritical for someone who regularly deleted comments which disagreed with him at the Western Standard to hold himself up as a 'defender of free speech'. It only matters to him when it's his 'free speech'.
And the headline of to-day's National Citizens Coalition Blog is:
"Ezra Levant – Freedom Fighter!"
Check it yourselves at
http://nationalcitizens.ca/blog/
Heh. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. : )
Frank - even posturing, whiney, self-aggrandizing self-promoters have rights, no? Even if they are smug, smarmy, toadying, self-satisfied lackeys they retain those rights. The issue is not whether you agree with Ezra, or even like him; it is whether he has the right to freely form and express an opinion without hindrance from the state. To put it another way, it is about whether you would be willing to have an HRC complaint laid against you (for instance, for your promotion of hatred and contempt against whiney self-promoters), and whether it is appropriate to have that hanging over the head of every Canadian.
As for what he does (or did) at the Western Standard, please tell me you recognize the distinction between a blog owner deleting comments from their private property (whatever that might say about their intellectual honesty and confidence), and an officer of the state determining whether speech is acceptable or unacceptable and therefore whether the speaker should be restricted from speaking or even punished for the beliefs expressed. The fact that he may be a weasel, twerp, or self promoter, or that he censors comments on his blog does not mean his right to speak should be abridged, any more than David Akenahew's (see above).
Perhaps the hypocrisy doesn't lie in deleting comments form his own blog--Deaner has a point--but his attempt a few years ago to go after a newspaper for--yes--publishing a cartoon.
I understand the point about Deaner makes, well, actually two points he makes
1) re: comment deletion. Yes, I understand the distinction. But still, it's difficult to see someone as seriously railing against 'censorship' when he practices it himself.
2) yes, I understand his 'right' (didn't I say I think the affair is without merit?). However, does not the complainant also have a 'right' to have his or her 'complaint', no matter how frivilous' addressed? I have no concern or worry about having a complaint laid against me via any HRC. Bring it on.
Bonus 3) Dawg, thanks for that reminder about The Gateway. Did I not say something about Levant's interest in and defense of 'free speech' only extending to his own personal expression?
Bottom line Deaner, despite my 1) and 2) above - Make no mistake about it, when it comes to defending 'free speech' or 'hate speech' Levant is a fraud.
OK, I've already given him 10 minutes more attention than he's worth. I'll go along with John at Dymaxion on that.
Dr. Dawg
I see that you have been very busy promoting and defending your position all over the blogosphere.
For what it is worth I agree with you on a couple of things.
I don't much care for Ezra either and I find that his pontificating style puts me off even though I agree with him in general on this issue. I would rather see Fred Thompson play Ezra in the videos.
It is wrong for people to beat up on the Alberta HRC employee who is just doing her job. It is as ignorant as yelling at the front line support staff at a call centre.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I can't imagine that we will see all of the HRC's closed down. I do hope there will be some clearer definition of their mandates, and looking at some of the org. charts, I hope their remaining duties can be carried out on a much less grandiose scale.
I assume that the first move in this direction would have to come from the federal government. Let's hope Mr. Harper is following this story.
Doug:
Thanks for that. When I get linked to, I run over to see what's what.
I see nothing mutually exclusive in the statements a) Levant is a posturing, obnoxious fool; and b) the complaint against him has no merit. Too many people cannot comprehend this, and imagine that I support the complaint.
The vitriol directed against the AHRC official is particularly sick--Shaidle wandered over to Daimnation to take a shot at me, and called the official "unprincipled." WTF?
On my way to agreeing mostly with Deaner, I'd like to thank Doug Newton for saying a fair word for the Alberta HRC interviewer. Levant has used Hannah Arendt's great weapon against that interviewer -- the banality of evil -- and while I think that we have always to be aware of how easily sleepy bureaucrats can slip into that role, I also think that that was serious overkill in this case. That woman did not look or sound like Eichmann to me.
All of the extra/quasi-judicial bodies bother me. I know why they happened. I am a survivor of a 1960s literature department, wherein sex-harrass was just a perk of the job for the faculty. So something had to be done.
But I'm also a believer in democracy, which to me means rock-solid belief in civil liberties, the most fundamental of which is that nobody messes with anybody else's mind. It is not a crime to be a jerk or to be stupid -- if it were, most of us would be in jail.
The HRCs bother me. It seems to me that they fuzz the lines of democratic principle. Incitement is a crime, and it should be, but criminalizing anything short of that seems to me to set a dangerous precedent. It authorizes pre-emption, and we all should know by now where that leads.
Why don't we all work on getting the Anti-Terrorism Act revoked? Why isn't Ezra Levant disturbed about that kind of legislation, a clear violation of any good democrat's commitment to the defence of civil liberties?
That Levant or Steyn or whoever has to deal with these complaint is trouble enough. Even if its a minute, its a minute they can't spend with family, watching TV, or rubbing their favorite car with a diaper. Noble things to do with their time? Debatable, especially if their family are bigger jerks then they are, but it's their time none the less -- and now it's gone.
Dawg - much as I am reluctant to rely on myblahg's accuracy, the cartoon furore may well have happened as described - in fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. I can only say that even hypocrites have rights (and weasels, and self-promoters, and...). It is not necessary to think that Ezra is anything but a stain on humanity to see that the idea of calling him on the carpet to explain his thoughts and motivations is ill-suited to a mature democracy. Your position seems to be that the process is fundamentally acceptable, and that the charge (if it is a "charge," not being a criminal matter) should eventually be dismissed. My position is that even having the process (aside from discrimination in hiring / provision of services / accommodation / etcetera) is a failure; it should simply not exist, or to the extent it exists to address those other concerns, it should specifically exclude this sort of issue.
Most y'all fail to make an important distinction between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM.
There is not now nor has there ever been a " RIGHT to say what one likes".
We have FREEDOM of expression.
There is a big difference and y'all can ponder the significance of that distinction whilst I ramble.
Ezra reminds me of these people we see in court sometimes on charges of tax evasion. We call them the " postal people" because, it seems, if you send a letter to Her Majesty asserting the right to be recognized as a "flesh and blood man" you are no longer subject to income tax. Should you be charged you need not appear in court because it has no jurisdiction over the flesh and blood man.
It sez so right there in the Magna Carta and half a dozen other misconstrued and butchered statutes and legal principles. It's probably in the Oakes test as well. To a layman it might sound very convincing but every time we hear it we just roll our eyes the same way the interviewer does in those vids.
To some those vids may seem like Ezra's one man remake of " The People vs. Larry Flynt" but to me he is no different than the postal people- obstinately standing on some imaginary "right" and using philosophic platitudes and legal principles in a most ill manner as authority for doing so.
His misuse of the Oakes test is a good example - he must be aware of Kane v. Alberta Report( 2001), where the Court of Queens Bench tells the HRC that the Oakes test is not to be used in its determinations. Why? "... It would turn every complaint into a constitutional challenge and would require the Director or complaintant to justify the legislation every time."
That is exactly what Levant is attempting to do here. Sadly, for Levant, the Supreme Court of Canada and the US Supreme Court ( about 40 years before Canada !) have both held hate speech laws are constitutional and do not offend freedom of speech.
It seems clear to me that Levant is on a crusade to a) stroke his ego and b) eliminate HRC's and hate speech. It also seems clear that to gain traction for "b" he has to misrepresent, pervert and abuse the purpose, procedures and process of the HRC. At this rate he may soon find himself before another quasi-judicial body - the law society discipline committee - for conduct unbecoming.
Sit back child'en whilst I ramble on s'more
We value the freedom of expression so much that one can depict children engaging in violent S & M sex so long as the work contains a sufficient veneer of " artistic merit ". Most perverts who posses porn of that nature are quick to claim it on par with Pablo Picasso. So too the hate monger is quick to wrap his words in "political discourse" and, like the postal people, hold up some non existent all trumping ancient " right" to say what ever he wishes in that arena.
One can not defame a person- even in the course of a political discussion- unless, that is, one has the RIGHT to speak in the House of
( Oops the ramblin be scamblin ) ... to continue
One can not defame a person- even in the course of a political discussion- unless, that is, one has the RIGHT to speak in the House of Commons where he/she has the privilege ( something different again from a "Right" or "Freedom" ) of immunity from prosecution.
The evil that liable laws seek to eradicate is the unwarranted exposure of an individual to contempt/hate and the negative consequences that flow from being esteemed so ( e.g. employment difficulties).
Now if Levant were to show up in court one day and huff and puff about unconstitutional liable laws and how his sacred right to be obnoxious trumps any injury to John O'Doe's reputation; or if he were to not even address the issue as to whether or not he actually defamed John O'Doe and spend the whole time railing about the affront to his sacrosanct right to be an asshole; or whine about how a kangaroo court of political appointees won't even apply an improper legal test to his individual case --- would he be hailed as a martyr or a nutcase?
"Yes" , we might tell Ezra, " we agree -freedom of speech is very important in the search for truth and the preservation of democracy and, odd as it may sound, the search for truth can be advanced if speakers face no consequences for telling lies and spreading contempt. However, democracies have a forum where that search can be undertaken - Parliament. It is a limited forum and one in which you have no right to participate.
It must be limited forum because free and democratic society is keenly aware of the damage libel can occasion. Indeed, one of the utilities of a free and democratic society is the protection it affords against libel. Civil society has instituted laws, procedures and a forum to give effect to that protection.
One of the accepted and long standing procedures is an obligation to file a denial or assert a recognized defense upon being accused of committing a libel. It may be a bummer but it is no affront to constitutional rights or freedoms to be dragged into legal proceedings over something once said. It's how civil society settles these things,,um, civilly.
If Levant were to carry on the same way about libel laws as he is now about the HRC and hate speech he would look like the postal people to y'all too. Freedom of expression has never been found to contain a right to defame. Anyone who raised a stink about the fascist libel laws curtailing their god given human right of free speech would be dismissed as a candidate for the funny farm.
Funny thing - there is no real difference between libel laws and hate speech provisions. That's what the US Supreme Court said more than 50 years ago in upholding a state law nearly identical to s. 2 of Alberta's statute. The procedures and forums may be different but both laws seek to prevent and cure the same evil - reputations unjustly damaged and subject to hate and contempt.
If there is n
f there is no constitutional protection for speech that defames an individual there is no protection for speech that defames an identifiable group of people; therefore states are free to legislate against words that are likely to expose a group to hate/contempt.
John O'Doe is a hard working Irishman. Ezra calls him a lazy, drunken sod who fights all the time. O'Doe complains - "hey people are going to hold me in contempt, nobody is going to hire me". Nobody but Ezra is going to get his or her constitutional knickers in a knot about O'Doe's complaint and the grave threat it posses to our beloved freedom.
Ezra sez all Irish are lazy drunken sods who fight all the time. O'Doe complains = ""hey people are going to hold me in contempt, even though the guy at the mall knows the Irish aren't like that he's not going to hire me because he's worried too many people think that's the Irish and he'll loose business."
Oh but now merely listen to O'Doe's complaint and you're on the slippery slope to jackboot city. Pity poor Levant who is to suffer the indignity of being drawn into civil society's process of determining the validity of complaint's like O'Doe's.
It is clear that Ezra has no right , freedom or privilege to defame O'Doe so where is the exemption that allows him the ability to get indirectly what he can't do directly? If someone alleges direct defamation why do we expect Levant to be subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum yet if someone alleges indirect defamation it is an affront to Levant's very personhood to defend his remarks?
As an engineer and a scientist I am afraid I tend to remain isolated in my ignorance of things outside of what I am interested in. But can anyone confirm that what Frank Frink posted above about Mr. Levant deleting posts on his blog is accurate and if so can this be confirmed? Also were the deleted posts of substance or commercial spam.
I will happily acknowledge that most if not all of the posters on this thread are more knowledgeable than I am on legal matters and the issue of freedom of speech (and in fact until this happened I didn't even know who Mr. Levant was). But as an uninformed outsider I think that discrepancies like this should be made clear. If Mr. Levant was consistent in position and defended the freedom of others to speak then, as a private citizen, I would be willing to defend his. If he doesn't defend the free speech of others then he is not worth a second thought.
I realize that this is not a legal opinion, but in my experience, the progress of law is influenced by things such as this. For example in regards to global warming the science is quite solid, however the confusion planted has acted to derail the legal/regulatory process.
Regards,
John
Nbob: Reading your post seems to confirm an idea that I had. Is it true that Mr. Levant was not charged with anything but was involved because someone filed a complaint that was filed? (I thought this when I first read about the issue, but then decided I must be wrong because there was such a cry against it.)
If so then isn't all this moot until the HRC determines whether there is something to the complaint or not. Also, wouldn't the HRC not be doing its job if it didn't investigate such complaints?
Regards,
John
Nbob - all true, but you miss the point that Mr O'Doe must open his wallet to prosecute a libel action (or act as his own counsel - and even then, he will have some expenses), even if he hopes to eventually recover costs from Mr Levant, and the process will involve procedural safeguards that do not apply to HRCs. Absent criminal speech, Mr Levant will not face the unlimited resources (and patience) of the state, and at no time will he be judged by -say- a divorce lawyer serving as a part-time Commissioner.
I would be much more satisfied if we simply relied on the Criminal Code to regulate "hate speech;" it is a crime - let's treat it as such when it is that serious (and we can meet the criminal burden of proof), and let it go when it is not.
To paraphrase the young liberals, circa 2005: "It's the Charter, stupid."
Ezra has been compelled to respond to a government body (despite Dr. Dawg's dissembling on the matter) as a result of an offended party complaining about a political publication. This is the state compelling him to appear before them for the exercise of a fundamental freedom as enumerated in the Charter.
It seems that people like Dr. Dawg and Nbob (whose comparison of hate speech to defamation is interesting but wholly misplaced since he confuses criminal and tort law) seek to slay their enemies at the expense of the civil liberties they themselves claim to champion.
You cannot pick and choose which Charter Rights exist based upon the political leanings of the person exercising those rights.
What "dissembling?" I think Levant is legally blameless, and the complaint shouldn't proceed. And it is the HRC process that I sincerely hope will establish that conclusion.
RJ,
If you're saying that the various human rights statutes contravene the Charter, someone is free to make that argument in a court case.
None of the people deploying that rhetorical point have read Section 1.
Actually, I have read s.1.
The Keegstra decision "saved" the Hate Crime provisions of the Criminal Code--even though they were judged a violation of s.2(b) of the Charter, they were considered a reasonable limit within the ambit of s.1.
This is quite distinct from the Human Rights Complaint procedure which has no issues with ignoring the Charter (cf. Boissoin decision cited by Ezra) in order to deliver a remedy to a complainant. Whether the HRC's actions in this could be so "saved" under s.1 is what needs to be adjudicated--before the courts and debated in Parliament. To declare that s.1 ab initio saves the HRC provisions in this case is foolish at best.
Either the Charter rights are to be protected, or they are worthless and we should rid ourselves of the illusions that this piece of paper acts in any way in our interests--I would hope that those on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Ezra would see that the Charter has merit and that political speech, even the most offensive political speech, must be protected.
What is at issue here is not whether or not Ezra's publication of the cartoons is hate speech or not, but whether the state has the ability to force a citizen to say what the state wishes him to say through legislation and procedures in direct contravention of the guarantees of Freedom of Expression. I would have thought that with a Harper government, those on the opposite end of the political spectrum would be arguing profoundly in favour of limiting the abilities of governments to do so. 
Erza and his allies read "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" as "no limits on anything".
What is at issue is whether there are reasonable limits to free speech in order to maintain peace, order and good government. Conservatives wrote those ideals into our constitution and they have served us pretty well over the years.
Maybe we should wait and see what the process produces, hmm? Seems to me the Ezra-supporters are going off half-cocked, given that the current "Inquisition" (or is it a crucifixion or Kristallnacht? I get so confused, sometimes) is to determine if the complaint should even be heard.
Afternoon Dr. Dawg,
I must commend you on the clarification of the role played by HRCs. There is indeed a great deal of confusion (much of it intentional of course) about the need for HRCs
This bears repeating in my view:
"The test for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The test for a successful civil action is "balance of probabilities," a lower bar. Provinces cannot pass criminal legislation per se.
In the absence of provincial legislation in this area, we would be left with the CCC and no other means of mediating or regulating the discriminatory conduct of some people against others. I am not uncritical of institutional responses to social problems that may indeed require a transformation of society, rather than regulation, but the HRCs do act as a bit of a safety valve.They quite clearly have mediation as a key part of their roles."
So Greg, by your logic, the Government could shut down the Libloggers and Blogging Dippers in order to maintain Peace Order and Good Government? This bunch of ne'er-do-wells have wreaked untold havoc on the polite political discourse that passes for Canadian politics, neh?
The Charter is part of the Constitution--in fact it is the pre-eminent part. And where laws are inconsistent with the Charter, they are of no force and effect. You can't pick and choose which rights of the Charter you want people to have, or which people can have them--either it applies to everyone, or no-one.
Dr. Dawg: It is the process itself that is the infringement. Whether the complaint is ultimately dismissed, Ezra's Charter Rights have been infringed.
Ezra's Charter Rights have been infringed.
Precisely how?
Because, Dr. Dawg, the operation of a government process whereby one must justify political speech to an agent of the state or risk facing penalties works effectively to stifle political speech and debate in a nation where freedom of expression is considered a fundamental freedom.
Here we have a publisher of a political magazine called to account for his publishing of articles that the state has de facto deemed offensive. Had the HRC not deemed them offensive, they would have told the complainants to do what the Calgary Police told them: in effect, go pound sand.
Here we have a citizen of a country that is questioned by the government on his political views--a country which considers freedom of expression so sacred that it embodies it in its highest law.
Here we have a government body that has taken upon itself to decide what areas of speech are "permitted speech" and which are not. Not only that, but it does not appear to be bound by any rules--let alone by the Charter--in injecting itself into political discourse in an arbitrary and erratic way.
You may say, well it's part of the process. Ezra will be questioned and exonerated or the claim will be dismissed.
But the process is the problem. The process is the infringement. The HRC by taking upon itself to cast its net wide over determining what is and what is not permitted discourse in Canadian society, has infringed on all of our freedoms.
Don't let your rather obvious dislike of Ezra in this matter lead you down a path where the Charter becomes meaningless.
Not just the AHRC. There are also Criminal Code provisions against hate speech. And inciting riots. And libel. Horrors! I've been living in a police state for most of my life, and didn't even know it.
Sarcasm Dr. Dawg? Let's try to keep this civil, shall we?
There are some very stringent legal tests required to be met before a prosecution can be launched under Criminal Code s.319. Same as unlawful assembly. And Defamatory Libel. In the civil courts, the test for defamation is also quite high. In none of those examples is political speech curtailed. And in all of those cases, the accused is eligible for all the protections of due process and the Charter.
The process of the HRC is arbitrary and completely ignorant of the Charter protections. Not only that, but the test required by the AHRC is very low indeed. In fact, the Boissoin decision utterly neutered and ignored the effect of s.3(2) of the Alberta HRCMA (i.e. "...nothing in s.3(1) shall interfere with the freedom of expression on any subject") as well as ignoring the impact of s.2(a) and 2.(b) of the Charter. All that was required was for the AHRC in that case to find a "a circumstantial connection between the hate speech of Mr. Boissoin and the CCC and the beating of a gay teenager in Red Deer less than two weeks following the publication of Mr. Boissoin's letter."
I wonder if you'd be happy with your liberties being abridged because of a "circumstantial connection" to something you wrote and an event you had no control over.
At the end of the day Dr. Dawg, I'll ask you this: Do you support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, then do you agree that governments should act in ways that cause minimal infringement to the fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated therein? If you answered in the affirmative to both questions, then how, in your interpretation, do the actions of the AHRC in Ezra's case square with your beliefs in the Charter?
Because I don't see how they can.
Sorry. I'm just getting a little irritated by the huge, steaming mountain that people are making out of this molehill.
Indeed I do answer in the affirmative to the two questions you posed. And it is for precisely that reason that I'm pleased that the complaint against Levant is being screened, rather than going directly to a hearing. Why Ms. McGovern is seen as part of the problem is beyond me: she's the filter that every state process affecting the freedom of citizens should have.
"Ezra's Charter Rights have been infringed."
Oh the irony - the guy who once proudly printed "Its the stupid Charter" buttons.
Maybe not so stupid when its convenient, eh Ezra?
FWIW, I agree with dcardno - we should not have the process, as it gives whack-jobs like Ezra a platform to spread their nonsense and an air of martyrdom, non of which this hypocrite deserves.
I still can't believe that the MSM didn't cover my speeding ticket defence last week.
Bastards.
Commenting by HaloScan
