I'm glad you noticed this.
Apparently, a Speechy warrior, after having tossed off a full complement of ethnic slurs, wouldn't have the vocabulary necessary to combat a student facilitator.
(Not, by the way, that I think this is a particularly worthwhile initiative)
The truth is, neither do I. It really shouldn't be necessary, as I said.
But it seems that there is no such initiative after all.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall-
My, my, my ... seems this battle cry of the FreeSpeechers applies only in certain situations. I'd say I was shocked but my mother taught me never to lie.
It's big, or maybe not so big business, Dawg. It's the 15 minutes of blogosphere fame that never end. It has little to do with speech anymore. The cast of characters you've named have carved themselves a niche, and they will burrow as far into the brain as they can. I am giving them up for Lent. Whenever that is.
Dr Dawg: Actually, I was pointing out, amongst other things, the plight of a long-haired (I think the only one then), Rolling Stones fan at Queen's in 1964-65, faced with the might of intolerant Applied Scientists. Who once dragged me off the street into a residence bathroom to shower me silly--but I had the wit to claim (falsely) that such treatment would do irreparable damage to my articifial leg, for which they would be held sternly accountable. Released, grudgingly.
No stinkin' facilitator needed. And attitudes did change over time. One physical and mental cripple (as a good friend calls me today, referring not to the brain I have assumed) did cope. Imagine that facilitator o'erhearing.
There is something lacking at your posts, at least occasional stabs at humour.
Do elucidate what is wrong with the Blockleiter analogy, broadly taken, not in the sense that Queen's could employ Nazi methods physically or legally.
I have the honour to remain,
Your humble and obedient usual suspect,
Mark
Ottawa
"The Speech Warriors™ have made it their mission to support the right of every last neo-Nazi, homophobe and Islamophobe in the country to trumpet their hate to the world."
I'm thinking exaggerated, absolute statements like this are the hallmark of a tyrant. And certainly not the starting point for a productive discussion.
Why do you consistently neglect to mention the wide support being voiced for CHRA/CHRC reform at many different points on the political spectrum?
Hasn't being called out for your recent posting of that hateful Latuf cartoon made you give any thought to your own potential breach of Sec. 13? I'm not an expert -- like the elites at the CHRC -- but your posting about the Gaza blockade seemed very contemptuous of Israel. I hope it doesn't provoke anybody in the Canadian-Palestinian community to commit a violent act.
Dawg, I have to compliment you, the sheer quality of your trolls is staggering.
I'm thinking exaggerated, absolute statements like this are the hallmark of a tyrant.
I'm thinking a sentence like that is the hallmark of someone who doesn't know the definition of the word "tyrant."
Dawg, if the bien pensant at Queens want to drop "facilitators" into the mix they can certainly do so.
And some of us will laugh at them.
I suppose politically correct finger waggling makes someone feel better and gives the appearance of "concern" and, best of all, creates jobs for busybodies, all of which, must be weighed against the hoots of derision these pc police are creating.
Of course, the right to make a horse's ass out of yourself and your institution is sacred and I will defend it to the death. Just as soon as I stop laughing.
[Of course, when this doesn't work - which it almost certainly won't - what then? Real hall monitors with the power of, hmmm, detentions? Time outs? Spankings?
Oh the fun we will have.]
Tyrant: 3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
QED
Those crazy speechers at the Globe and Mail weigh in,
"Who thought this could work? Surely not someone who has ever been inside a university residence. Only someone bent on the perfectibility of humankind, a Soviet idea that sounds nice but led to the Gulag. globe and mail
I dont think the "Dialogue Monitors" is a free speech issue as long as there are no sanctions for non-PC conversations.
IMHO, its just dumb policy, and a waste of public resources. Its hard for anyone to take supposedly cash-strapped Universities seriously when they are wasting dough on stuff like this. If someone did this on a voluntary basis or with funds from a private donor there really wouldnt be much to criticize.
What part of "Turns out this was all a false alarm" do some folks here not understand?
And, Dawg, I fear that CTV's backing and filling on the story may not be entirely reflective of the University's intent here:
""If people are having a conversation with offensive content and they're doing it loud enough for a third person to hear it ... it's not private," said Jason Laker, dean of student affairs at Queen's.
"If you're doing anything that's interfering with what other people need to be doing, that's not cool." globe and mail
One way or another, the reaction of the Speech Warriors to this has been enlightening. Even you, Jay, referred to "tyranny" by referencing Kathy's slipshod book. "Tyranny?" For exercising the self-same right to free speech that you folks defend when it's a Nazi or a homophobe doing the speaking?
I could cut this double-standard with a knife. Seems to me you folks have been caught with your pants well and truly around your ankles on this one.
Dr Dawg: I still think my pants are firmly, er, hip.
Mark
Ottawa
'What a fuss about an omelette!'
Dawg - MacLeans has its own article which is a little more ambiguous whether monitors would step into conversations.
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/educ...administration/
So Jay, why is the free screechosphere so silent today on a real court backing up the HRCs.
[Of course, when this doesn't work - which it almost certainly won't - what then? Real hall monitors with the power of, hmmm, detentions? Time outs? Spankings?
Oh the fun we will have.]
Actually I was thinking they'd rhetorically beat you to a bloody mess, like I did the last time you said something inane.
Where's the double standard? Many of those opposed to Sec. 13 oppose censorship and having others tell us what public policy issues we can talk about -- like whether radical Muslims are a threat to Canada -- or how we can talk about them -- via editorial cartoons, for eg. Being opposed to both the CHRC's dictatorial behavior and the similar interference with free speech we were led to believe was going to happen at Queen's is all of one piece.
If the administration is not attempting to dictate what can be discussed and how it is to be discussed, there's not a problem. If they decide to offer training sessions, debates or discussion forums to help students, who voluntarily attend, learn how to effectively discuss controverial topics, that's fine too. The university is free to proselytize.
When I was a university student, lefties would attend the public speeches of speakers they opposed and filibuster the event -- forcing its cancellation. That's an instance where their free speech rights should be abridged.
Monitors stepping conversations is not a free speech issue?
Wha?
Like the fact there are no sanctions makes it okay?
It is not okay. They're trying to steer the conversation. If I want to have a controversial debate about abortion with a hardcore feminist, that is my right, and if I want to call her a name and she wants to do the same, that is between us, not between us and Queen's or their busybody surrogates.
Robert, possibly because Tremaine is just such an asshole.
(And the matter was argued, so far as I can tell, on admin law grounds rather than constitutional ones. But I have not read the decision.)
"They're trying to steer the conversation."
This is a keeper.
They're trying to steer the conversation.
How does one even begin to parody such a deluded statement from the Queen of "Abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong because I say it is"?
I picked up on that sentence too. I thought that's what a lot of "free speech" consisted of. But the Speech Warriors are somewhat inconsistent on the issue of free speech, to put it mildly.
But the Speech Warriors are somewhat inconsistent on the issue of free speech, to put it mildly.
Actually they've been very consistent. Their position has always been: Rightwingers can say whatever they want and the left should shut the fuck up.
I believe there is some misconception of what free speech actually means. It means that the gov't guarantees its citizens the right to say anything they please as long as it is not libelous or incitement of violence.
"Speech warriors" are against the gov't deciding what is appropriate outside of those exceptions. It would only be hypocricy if we were to advocate that the government prevent certain views from being articulated. Which is clearly not the case. People, for example, who believe any criticism of Islam to be "Islamophobia" have the right to chastize others in public as much as they please.
What I personally object to is my tax dollars being used to hire moderators to encourage points of view which I do not necessarily agree with. If a Queen's University official hears something they feel is racist or homophobic, or "Islamophobic", they are free to attempt to intervene without the use of my money.
Aw, Charles, come on. If there is a weaker use of that hoary old "my tax dollars" ploy, I have yet to see it.
Universities are supposed to be places of conversation. And that's all that's being proposed here--more conversation. Assuming, that is, that the story is correct, which appears not to be the case.
Let's be honest and upfront here, shall we? The speech that the Warriors like to defend is invariably hateful speech. Speech on the other side of the question, however, has provoked giant outrage--there have been proposals to boycott the university, get a letter-writing campaign started to shut the alleged initiative down, even encouragement of physical violence.
Jay Currie is backing away, saying he just wants to laugh at it all; and you are maintaining that your taxes are the real issue. Both are wise rhetorical moves in my opinion. Because the Speech Warriors' hidden agenda has now been revealed for what it is, thanks to this little incident, and it's not a pretty one.
Dawg,
Come on, indivuduals have the right to boycott institutions that do things that they do not agree with. That is not a violation of freedom speech. It is only a violation if the government prevents people from speaking. Do you honestly think that without moderators in our Universities the left would have no voice?
Universities are places of conversation. They always have been. If you do not understand that using tax-payer dollars to promote one particular viewpoint is morally repugnant, then I do not know what to say. Let's put it this way, would you be pleased if Queen's hired me to go around and encourage people to take the viewpoints you disagree with?
Btw, advocating violence is also morally repugnant. In fact, it is borderline criminal.
"If there is a weaker use of that hoary old "my tax dollars" ploy, I have yet to see it."
That says it all. Having concerns that our tax dollars be spent wisely is now a hoary old ploy. Another absolute statement from an absolute tyrant. Spoken like somebody with a deep guilt for years of gluttony at the government trough.
"The speech that the Warriors like to defend is INVARIABLY hateful speech."
We defended Levant and Maclean's. You told us to chill out, that they would be cleared because their speech was not hateful. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Mmmm. I remember a student on campus as the U of O who proudly recounted the following experience. He overheard, then observed a confrontation outside the doors leading to the library. A man was berating in loud and abusive terms a woman who shrank, physically from the epithets he threw at her. Every time she opened her mouth to respond, he pre-empted her reply with increasingly hateful comments.
So the third party went up to the man and asked him what time it was. That broke the drama, the man stopped to check his watch and the woman escaped.
If I were trapped in a screaming, invective-riddled discussion with Blob Blogging Wingnut, I would offer to give her a back rub. That would probably drive her shrieeekkking from the room.
I don't mind conversation facilitators, as long as they're all philosophers.
Student 1: Abortion destroys innocent human lives!
Student 2: You just want to control my uterus!
Facilitator: Hey, can I tell the two of you a story about a violinist who needs to use someone's kidneys? What about "people seeds"? Did ya ever hear that one?
Students 1&2: What the hell are you talking about, you weirdo?
Etc.
CN:
I didn't say their speech was not hateful. I said that it would not meet the legal bar.
In any case, the badly-brought-up are simply not welcome here, and that evidently includes you. So long, troll. If you don't like it, blame your parents.
Terrence, surely you can't imagine that the hall monitors would interfere in a conversation about abortion...
Dawg, thank Heavens we righties have you and McClelland to dig out our agendas for us. I really can't imagine what we'd do without you. But, please, decide whether we are consistent or inconsistent - it's all so confusing.
Dr. Dawg,
"Any civilized person should speak up, of course, when homophobic slurs and so on are uttered. It shouldn't take hired facilitators to get the job done, even if this were actually happening."
After the facilitators do the job that you wish them to do, should the person/persons ignore them and continue as before, what then should happen?
"Let's be honest and upfront here, shall we? "
Sure. Let's roll.
"The speech that the Warriors like to defend is invariably hateful speech. Speech on the other side of the question, however, has provoked giant outrage--there have been proposals to boycott the university, get a letter-writing campaign started to shut the alleged initiative down, even encouragement of physical violence."
Do you think this statement applies to each and every one of the speech-warriors (tm)? It sounds a bit hyperbolic.
What happens when you find someone who defends neo-Nazi speech on principle yet doesn't encourage violence? Are they excluded from the category speech-warrior (tm)?
Do you think all letter-writing campaigns by speech warriors (tm) prove they are hypocrites?
Do you believe all boycotts by speech-warriors(tm) prove them as hypocrites?
What is the definition of a speech-warrior(tm) anyway? Sounds kind of vague. Can a member of the ACLU defend neo-nazi speech on principle or must they resign and join the speech-warriors (tm)?
I'm serious. I find your arguments circular. Speech warriors (tm) are people who defend speech that you don't defend but also don't defend the speech that you support?
The symbiosis is quite beautiful to behold.
This isn't a comment, it's an interrogation.
Let's just say that I'm talking about a group of Canadian bloggers with whom you are entirely familiar, and whom I have named in a number of posts. They're presently re-posting Boissoin's hateful diatribe, as though it's daring or something.
I have demonstrated more than enough inconsistency among them in this post and in others. Go back and read them, once you've come down to earth.
Dr. Dawg,
" This isn't a comment, it's an interrogation."
It's an attempt at dialogue. Do you find my method of speech/conversation/debate troublesome?
I find it a valuable tool in understanding the underlying psychology and beliefs of the person with whom I'm trying to interract.
If this makes you uncomfortable, I'd be happy to become more confrontational. I'm just not sure of the rules so I don't get banned.
As I stated, I find your method of characterizing these speech-warriors(tm) tactics as an interesting reflection of your own tactics.
They disagree with some speech, they protest it.
You disagree with some speech (namely theirs), you are here protesting it.
If you care to define this list of speech-warriors(tm) for me, I would appreciate it. It's hard to tell which of them are prone to violence and which are just prone to boycotts or letter writing campaigns.
If they are prone to just boycotts, how do they differ from your views on boycotts or letter writing campaigns.
If you both agree that these are valid forms of protest, how is it that they are speech-warriors(tm) and you are not?
Please help me understand.
Try not to be so obviously disingenuous. That might be a good way to begin a serious dialogue.
Incidentally, your mask is slipping.
Dr. Dawg,
" Try not to be so obviously disingenuous. That might be a good way to begin a serious dialogue."
What bearing does being disingenuous have on a discussion? Either my questions deserve responses in their own right or they do not. Either my points are valid or they are not.
If I understand you correctly, you support HRCs because some speech should be restricted. Right?
If I understand your characterization of the speech warriors(tm), they think other forms of speech should be restricted. Right?
If I understand your characterization of the speech-warriors(tm) correctly, they support some types of speech that you do not.
If I understand you correctly, you support some types of speech that they do not.
However, I am here observing you and I am here observing you observing a gaggle of alleged speech-warriors(tm) that you have so far refused to name or even define in a conrete fashion.
I'm beginning to feel like I'm watching some lost episode of "Night Gallery" where some poor individual is trapped in a hall of mirrors.
Have you some response beyond ignoring my observations and questions?
notafanoffacilitators
I don't think the difference between Dawg and speechers rests on the sorts of speech restricted; rather it rests on whether speech should be regulated at all and, if so, what protections should be in place to protect free speech and provide a fair hearing to people who are accused of "going too far."
Speechers, in so far as they are not absolutist about speech, tend to believe that in order to deprive someone of a constitutionally enshrined right, the state should meet the criminal standard and that there should be specific defences (truth for one) to the charge. Plus we would like the rules of evidence and procedure followed. And, finally, we tend not to want government spies trolling the net under false names to entrap people and then lying under oath about having done so.
Dawg and the censorship people are not terribly concerned with procedure, evidence and proof; are cool with government agents trolling for the right sorts of bad guys and when it comes to lying under oath are relaxed with that so long as the objective is to silence Nazis. They see constitutional rights as subordinate to the needs of "nice" as defined by those fine people in government service. One might call it a subjective view of rights.
"Terrence, surely you can't imagine that the hall monitors would interfere in a conversation about abortion..."
Jay,
Heh. This might be sarcasm. Or not. My detector is broken.
But I've heard people claim, in a university context, that pro-life/anti-choice speech just is hate speech.
Well, so be it. Once the philosopher-facilitators get involved in the conversation, the formerly opposed sides of the debate will find new and shared ground by mocking him mercilessly.
Having read all your links, Dawg, it seems to me that the tone is not as you describe it but one of mockery instead. The "speech warriors" are using their right to free speech to mock the officious attempts (real or imagined) to moderate their spoken words. A tempest in a teacup, it would seem.
A thought: you recently banned a commenter for verbally abusing your co-blogger, giving him a metaphorical kick-in-the-nads, if you will. He had used his right to free speech, offended your sensibilities, and you used yours to eject him from the premises. No laws broken, and no need for outside authority to moderate the exchange; all as it should be. If such a thing is possible here in cyberspace, why is vociferous objection in realspace considered two-faced? How is strongly-worded protest against moderation of speech logically equated with hypocrisy? If an attempt to have the "facilitators" silenced by official means was made, I would agree with the charge of hypocrisy, but mocking them is entirely consistent with a freedom-of-speech stance, in my opinion.
"If an attempt to have the "facilitators" silenced by official means was made, I would agree with the charge of hypocrisy, but mocking them is entirely consistent with a freedom-of-speech stance, in my opinion."
My understanding is that Dr. Dawg is suggesting that the mockery is actually a departure from their initial position. In particular, that the original intent was to have Queen's administration cancel the program - I'm not sure if that qualifies as official means to you.
I am referring to the means rather than the intent, LS. I have no doubt that their intent was to have the program cancelled, but the choice of method would determine the hypocrisy involved. If they planned to simply shout the program into the dustbin, their actions would seem consistent with their opinions; if they applied through official channels to have a decision made in their favour, they would be doing exactly what they lambaste Warman or the CIC of doing. I do not recall any mention of that type of action in this case in Dawg's links.
Terrence, I was indeed being sarcastic for exactly the reason you cite. A pro-life position has been taken as an anti-woman position on various campuses.
LS and FR, I'm not sure I want the administration at Queens to cancel a program which will, no doubt, be an enduring source of mirth in somewhat cheerless times. And I agree with Dawg's skepticism as to the likliehood of this having the slightest effect other than to inoculate the poor undergraduates against any argument to curb speech.
If I had to invent a program to underline the lunacy of speech laws this would be it. Let it expand across the country. And don't confine it to campuses. Put the speech police in bars, coffee shops, street corners the better to alienate the citizenry from the very concept of the regulation of speech.
NAFOF:
What bearing does being disingenuous have on a discussion?
Whether I choose to engage in one with you.
Jay:
Dawg and the censorship people are not terribly concerned with procedure, evidence and proof; are cool with government agents trolling for the right sorts of bad guys and when it comes to lying under oath are relaxed with that so long as the objective is to silence Nazis. They see constitutional rights as subordinate to the needs of "nice" as defined by those fine people in government service. One might call it a subjective view of rights.
You know better than this. What a wonderful collection of straw.
fergusrush:
The exact-same language is being used by the Speech Warriors in this case as in their perennial whining about HRCs and HRTs. "Tyranny," "thought police," "infringing on individual liberties," etc., etc. ad nauseam.
Supposedly the Queen's experiment (if it is actually transpiring) is just another exercise of unfreedom. And yet it's just more speech. The fact that the Speech Warriors are in a tizzy about it is, as I said, very revealing.
The initiative as described is just an extension of programs at high schools these days in which trained student facilitators intervene in bullying situations. It's harmless, if it's happening, and might even do some good. Almost by definition it's non-coercive.
What has the Speech Warriors' knickers in a knot, I'm afraid, is the notion that anyone would want to interfere in any way, even verbally, with the expression of hateful discourse. It's a knee-jerk reaction on their part, I suspect, having defended the right to be hateful for so long.
You see here merely mockery, but one of the commentators I linked to wants people to write to the Queen's administration to protest; and several have retained comments that slide into suggestions of physical violence against the administrators (funny how that came unbidden to their minds). Indeed, much of the truly scary stuff is in the comments. I suggest you read them as well as the posts.
It's the flapping and alarums that drew my attention, in any case. If the Speech Warriors just want to mock, that's fine by me--that's just more speech--but it's their, uh, intensity in this instance that's frankly a study in political pathology.
Dr. Dawg,
"What bearing does being disingenuous have on a discussion?
"Whether I choose to engage in one with you."
You don't need that excuse to justify your reluctance to engage. You can just say "No, I don't want to."
Still, I hope you'll allow me to continue to query you on your beliefs. That's how we sharpen our minds best. When challenged.
"The initiative as described is just an extension of programs at high schools these days in which trained student facilitators intervene in bullying situations. "
Where is the bullying equivalent?
Two people minding their own business, overheard by another, who then approaches to lecture the first two on what constitutes proper speech. Add in the fact that this buttinsky was hired by the university for this very purpose. It seems to me, the bullying is being carried on by the university via their proxy. There is a power imbalance in this discourse.
"What has the Speech Warriors' knickers in a knot, I'm afraid, is the notion that anyone would want to interfere in any way, even verbally, with the expression of hateful discourse."
Picture this. It's 1950s America. Berkeley hires "facilitators" to go around listening for unAmerican speech, especially communist speech. The "facilitators" are directed to engage and inform the offending parties of the advantages of democracy and the horrors of communist gulags and backwards economic practices.
The solution to Soviet misinformation operations on American campii is more speech.
I wonder what the free speech movement of the 60s would say about this?
Terrence and Jay:
Until the day when you experience the following: you are standing at a peaceful demonstration in support of women's reproductive rights* with your 2 year old toddler in a child carrier on your back, and are personally confronted by a raving fetus fetishist, screaming vile obscenities at you, including the words "Baby Murderer!" and you back away because you sense that this individual could and would do violence to you, if there were no witnesses around, you are free-speechifying out of your ass.
That happened to me and my daughter, and it wasn't the speech that scared me, revolting as it was. It was the force, the intent, the body language and the zealot gleam in that man's eye.
A bit late to join the discussion but here goes....
Jay Currie and "the Speechies" would like to see Section 13 gone, and anything considered hate speech held to a criminal standard...that is ...proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It sounds plausible, and it's the hate mongers' favourite dodge. Indeed the reason that we need something akin to the "likely to incite hatred against persons on prohibited grounds" is because there are lawyers here like Doug Christie who have in the past been clever enough to use the criminal standard as a loophole which which to exculpate their client from hate mongering.
The example that comes to mind is the case of Ernst Zundel. Zundel, now a guest of the German government, ran an international neo-Nazi propaganda publishing and distribution operation out of Toronto for many years.
When charged criminally for hate mongering his legal team turned the proceedings into a grotesque circus, by insisting that the veracity of the Holocaust be put on trial.
Under section 13, and a specific historic decision by Judge Pensa to the effect that people who are affflicted by expression that is OBVIOUSLY false and hateful should not be required to tie themselves in knots proving the veracity of their torment.
You can see something about it here:
http://www.zundelsite.org/englis...012/
001217.html
Obviously, goons like Lemire, Zundel and others of their ilk, would like to hide behind the mommy skirts of free speech as much as possible. So something like Section 13 puts some closure on what is and what is not likely to incite hatred... how it affects it's victims and the intentions of the perpetrators.
Here's a better version of that decision.
It's known as the Pensa "Interim" decision.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/
en...decision_98.cfm
Trust me on this one...Ez, Kate, the Fourniers and their circle of sycophants, in my view, really do not have a grasp on the significance of this decision.
Lemire certainly does. That's why he and his backers would seek to co-opt as many supplicants as possible using the hook of "free speech." In their case, I think it's a big scam.
It's possible that Ez could have, because of his past legal training understood or sensed this...but I have seen him make so many blindly libellous, distortionary and simply hysterical blunders that I hold no hope for him ever understanding or appreciating its benefits. His recent experiences have simply soured him past himself...
This is not to say the the HRC's or the delivery of services are perfect. Far from it. But because of section 13, we have a kinder, more compassionate society.
Emile
"This is not to say the the HRC's or the delivery of services are perfect. Far from it. But because of section 13, we have a kinder, more compassionate society."
I'd appreciate a source for this.
And what of those who oppose the HRCs on principle AND find neo-nazis abhorent?
As I asked Dr. Dawg a few posts back, I now ask of you
"After the facilitators do the job that you wish them to do, should the person/persons ignore them and continue as before, what then should happen?"
"That happened to me and my daughter, and it wasn't the speech that scared me, revolting as it was. It was the force, the intent, the body language and the zealot gleam in that man's eye."
What you describe crosses the line from speech to intimidation.
deBeauxOs, as fergus rush points out, that is not speech that is intimidation and, from what you describe, is likely criminal assault.
Emile, Pensa is a really good illustration of how badly decided Taylor was and how important it is to a) repeal s. 13, b) revisit Taylor. Here's the Commission in Pensa,
Bearing these principles in mind, we accept the proposition that truth is not a defence to an alleged violation of s. 13(1) of the Act. We note that the truthfulness of a statement is not listed as an explicit exception in s. 15 of the Act. Moreover, in our view, there is nothing in s. 13(1) of the Act which allows for an implied defence of truth.
Hi Jay,
I know that that part of the decision seems contradictory and almost Orwellian, but you've taken that piece or are interpreting it out of its intended context.
The intention of the legislation is that it's to be apply to expression that is OBVIOUSLY hateful. And that those afflicted by said expression should not be tied up in knots endlessly proving the veracity or non-veracity of the alleged obvious group libel. And the threshold for what is considered "obvious hate" is actually rather high.
There are very few if any successful section 13 cases that I have ever studied that did not contain existentially hateful language, ie: language that called for or justified genocide.
If you like, we can pick out one or two cases and examine the invective that was found to be "over the top." We also now have a few cases to look at that either settled out without a hearing, or at which the standard of invective wasn't high enough to sufficiently offend on prohibited grounds.
I'll anticipate your next point.
But what about the people who have been charged under Section 13, required to defend themselves and then acquitted? What about their out of pocket costs?
My own answer to that, is that it's one of the most important things that needs fixing in this process as soon as possible.
notafanoffacilitators:
"After the facilitators do the job that you wish them to do, should the person/persons ignore them and continue as before, what then should happen?"
Usually, a section 13 decision will order a cease and desist of the allegedly offensive material. In whatever form that takes. They can order fines to be paid to the government as well. Sometimes community service, an apology or such like are ordered as well.
The the respondent refuses to comply with the order, and the tribunal considers it grievous enough, then they might ask for an order for contempt charges to be heard. The end result of that could be a criminal charge with a fine and a possible term of imprisonment. One case that went that way was a number of years ago with a fellow who ran a hate phone line out of Vancouver. Ordered by a tribunal to cease and desist, he moved his operation across the border and operated it out of the US. When it came to attention of the Tribunal, he eventually received about 3 months in jail for being a smartass.
The phone line guy was Tony McAleer. You can google that one. If I recall correctly, one of his dialup rants called on people to kill gays.
Examples of "obvious" group libel, negative sterotypes..
Black people are intellectually inferior and are sexual deviants.
All Homosexuals prey upon children.
The Jews control all the banks and all the media.
The Holocaust didn't happen and the reason we have heard so much about it is because it's a money-making scam by Jews.
Chinese people are poor drivers.
Polish people possess inferior intelligence.
Irish people are all drunks.
Muslims are violent and cruel.
Thai females are all prostitutes.
Emile,
Perhaps you missed the context. I was discussing the Queen's facilitators.
After they approach and lecture people having a private peaceful discussion amongst themselves, telling a few off-colour jokes, and those people then ignore said facilitators and continue having a private, peaceful off-colour joke telling session, say in a courtyard on campus, what should happen to them?
Are you suggesting they should be reported to an HRC?
deBeauxOs,
Are you sure he just wasn't upset that you called him a "fetus fetishist"?
In any event, sounds like a bad guy, though I have a story of my own:
When I was in high school in London, ON, I worked late at night downtown (that's what the proletariat kids have to do to save for college, just to let you know.)
Anyway, I was walking home one night, and spotted a street preacher from some Christian group standing on the corner talking about the Bible. As I was approaching, a group of thuggish, black-clad teenagers surrounded the poor guy and started screaming in his face, swearing, and generally acting like... thugs.
The might have called in a fetus fetishist, for all I know. The preacher wasn't up to swearing back at the people harrassing him. Good thing that, as an atheist, I was. The thugs backed off and left him alone.
But, you know, that didn't turn me against free speech. It did turn me against thuggery, in all its forms.
On the other hand, maybe the preacher should have filed a complaint against the bozos harrassing him. Maybe that's what you should have done. I'm sure the police would have taken you seriously.
This poor preacher guy, I doubt anyone but me really cared what happened to him. But serves him right for being a "fetus fetishist", no?
notafanoffacilitators :
Just guessing here from what you've posted...it looks to me like Queen's has hired or engaged "facilitators" to maintain general civility and keep an eye on things.
Equivalent to a disco hiring bouncers for everybody's safety and comfort.
Not even a distant cousin to a section 13 matter.
Emile, dumb as this is, by posting these examples you may very well have opened Dawg up to a complaint.
Now, is it a valid complaint? Probably not: however, the fact is that the overbreadth of the law and the absence of the defence of truth or quotation for a particular illustrative purpose, context as it were, or even a requirement to prove malicious intent, means the complaint might be possible.
Now I know perfectly well why you gave those examples (or at least some of those examples). But the principle argument as to why s. 13 must be repealed is that it is so vague and so broadly drafted that it chills speech beyond the point of reasonable necessity. The cure is very much worse than the disease.
That said, this thread is about the Queens' facilitators and it would be polite to pull it back to that topic.
*might have called "him" a fetus fetishist. Not "might have called in".
Jay:
Fear not. You are starting to believe your own propaganda!
Context is all-important--as you should have detected when the complaint against Ezra was thrown out. Or do you really think it was because he was Jewish, as he fatuously claims?
Emile
"Just guessing here from what you've posted...it looks to me like Queen's has hired or engaged "facilitators" to maintain general civility and keep an eye on things.
Well, that certainly was a non-responsive response.
I clearly stated that this private conversation was peaceful. If they continued telling off-colour jokes, do you think they should be reported to the HRC by the facilitators or do you have some other action in mind?
I'm just wondering when speech in response to speech escalates to the next level when the facilitators find out that their attempts to "coerce/influence/direct/control/" another person's peaceful speech fails.
Jay,
In theory, you could face an assault charge every time you shook your fist at someone, given the vague, overbroad wording of s.265(b) of the Criminal Code, which states that a person commits an assault when "he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose."
And yet, strangely, fists are shaken every day - and birds are flipped, curses uttered, and invective spewed -- without charges being laid.
If you're going to go on about the law, you might put a little effort into learning basic principles. Such as the basic principle that legislation need not enumerate every possible situation to which it applies or defence available in order to avoid vagueness. That why we have courts and tribunals - to fill in the blanks between the broad strokes.
Of course, if you subscribe to Ezra's theory that anyone not annointed a judge (preferably by a Conservative justice minister) is a legal zombie, incapable of applying precedent or exercising judgment, then I suppose that lack of specificity would keep you awake at night.
Jay, that was a disingenuous comment.
There have been a few facetious complaints already attempted by cynical racists trying to make trouble for anti-racist education sites that way.
Indeed its one of the loopholes in the HRC scenario that need tweaking. But you/we knew that already.
One that comes to mind was the matter of CAERS, the Canadian Anti-racism education and Research Society in Vancouver. Some years ago some skinhead thug types thought they'd make some trouble that way. They made some trouble for a while. But the complaint got tossed.
If you'll re-read my above post, the first thing I said was that THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF GROUP LIBEL.
The warm and fuzzy exculpation play has been done to death already too.
The standard is high. And it's been to supreme court already. The expression samples have to clearly incite deeply held emotions of hatred and contempt. It's quite clear.
Doesn't truewest make part of the speech warriors case for eliminating/changing Sec. 13(1) when he says: "And yet, strangely, fists are shaken every day - and birds are flipped, curses uttered, and invective spewed -- without charges being laid."?
The free-speechers' point is that charges COULD have been laid if the "assaulted" person simply claimed to have honestly and reasonably believed the assaulter had the "present ability to effect his purpose". This could be embellished with claims of subsequent sleepless nights, inability to work, constipation, etc. A priori, the test seems a subjective one that is only later tested objectively at a trial.
Of course, the vast majority of people have the good sense not to pursue charges -- because they know the context of the assaulter's actions (and, often, their own role in inciting them) and that the time and effort to teach "the other" a lesson isn't worth it. And, obviously, lack of corroborating evidence that typifies such cases is a factor.
With Sec. 13(1) complaints, the evidence is usually available -- the printed Danish Mohammed cartoons, for example. And, the cost to complain is almost negligible: just hastily scrawl a fuzzily-worded narrative incorporating the key words "blashphemy", "incitement", "fear", "multicultural", "tolerance", etc and then just sit back and let government-funded zealots -- whose continuing mortgage payments depend upon making a mountain out of any molehill -- go to work on your behalf.
Emile claims that "The standard is high." and "It's quite clear.". Yet, Levant's case -- OBVIOUSLY legitimate free speech -- took 9 mo's to be cleared.
Rookie:
"Levant's case -- OBVIOUSLY legitimate free speech -- took 9 mo's to be cleared."
That's just a wee bit of oversimplification, I think. The complainant chose to discontinue the case on their own volition.
Strictly speaking, sarcastic graphic depictions of the Prophet Mohammed are considered deeply offensive.
Was Levant's reprinting of the Danish cartoons a deliberate "poke in the eye" to the Muslim community? Or was it to provoke discussion of news of the day? Or was it about a struggling publisher creating sensation in order to garner attention to and increase the viability of his publication?
We won't know now.
It was wending it's way through HR channels in Alberta, but now that the complainant dropped the case, we won't know.
Levant claims that he's incurred some $100,000 defending himself to date (which I've never seen substantiated and which I somehow doubt)and has commenced legal action against Mr. Soharwarty the complainant to recover his costs.
Emile:
There's no doubt that "sarcastic graphic depictions of the Prophet Mohammed are considered deeply offensive". Every day, editorial cartoons are published in leading newspapers which many find deeply offensive. For example, I winced at the Latuf cartoon used by Dawg a few posts back.
But, how is it that Levant could be subjected to extended stress and costs for RE-PUBLISHING cartoons critical of one religion --one which has adherents beheading innocent journalists, while others can achieve best-seller status by writing that the very belief in God is foolish and that ALL religions are dangerous?
IMHO, the difficulty we're all having is deciding how society can agree on when offensive speech describes a group in a dishonest way that truly affects the security -- not the sensibilities -- of individual members of that group.
Except when responding to Dawg's absolutism re: the "speech warriors", I'm personally trying to understand how we can legitimately discuss public policy topics despite offending many people. Given that the CHRC and AHRC even entertained the complaints against Levant and Maclean's, I honestly have no sense of what constitutes incitement of contempt or hatred. Nor whether those words belong in the CHRA.
Despite Dawg's reckless claims that those of us opposed to Sec. 13(1) are INVARIABLY concerned only with defending hateful speech, I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to rewrite Sec. 13(1), whether it needs to be eliminated or whether there just need to be more SCOC decisions to clarify its meaning to Canadians.
I'm working my way through "Mill’s Liberalism, Security, and Group Defamation" to see if it provides some answers. If you're interested, you can find it at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
pape...ract_id=1088405.
Perhaps "Rookie" could favour us with one name of a person defended by the Speech Warriors who has not been an utterer of hateful speech, whether that speech meets the high HRT bar or not.
Progressive speech, on the other hand, is to be resisted, even with physical violence.
Rookie:
Ah yes! John Stuart Mill. Icon of the US 1st amendment. "Bad" to be rectified with "Free" speech.
All well and good in theory...but not everybody owns the hythetical printing press, or is able or articulate enough to be equally heard.
I depends what the "goal" of your society happens to be. The US scenario is that it's a melting pot. All are to submit to the prevailing culture. Whatever that is.
Canadian scenario is multicultural. People of diverse backgrounds and creeds living side by side with equal rights and in theory equal opportunities.
Out of this came Canada's Charter of Rights, of which the CHRA Canada Human Rights Act is a derivative.
One of its basic tenets is that in Canada's cultural mosaic, there have always been (and will likely be for some time to come) identifiable "groups" who have historical impediments to achieving equality.
There's more to this, obviously, but to try and simplify,parliament has ruled that hate propaganda, incitement to hatred and hate-motivated violence deserve to be controlled for the common good.
According to our charter rights, we are therefore free to express ourselves as we wish, however if we cause perceived harm, then those so afflicted are entitled to remedy and redress.
Dr Dawg,
The comment of mine you link to above is, as I trust is fairly clear, a tad hyperbolical and not entirely serious (as indicated by at least one subsequent reply). I’d have thought you’d realise that, having had several, lengthy exchanges with me. As such, your linking it to it in this context is rather misleading. That it should be taken as evidence of some actual physical intent is not entirely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
Best,
David
David:
Let us, for the sake of argument, set aside the comment to which I linked. This initial comment in your post may be somewhat more difficult to explain away:
Will they dare to be surprised if their presumption meets with emphatic resistance and, one hopes, an occasional fit of violence?
[Emphasis added.]
Dr Dawg,
“Let us, for the sake of argument, set aside the comment to which I linked.”
Perhaps we shouldn’t set it aside quite so readily. It does, I think, illustrate one of the problems with the project being discussed, and with your apparent enthusiasm for it. You’ve taken a flip comment – one which is subsequently explained as intended to highlight the issue of subjectivity, humour and other difficulties - and linked to it as evidence of something that it isn’t. Ditto the “one hopes” comment. This is hardly a trivial issue and shouldn’t be set aside quite so readily.
But I’m already involved in one discussion on the subject, in which I’ve outlined my objections and some of the more obvious concerns. I don’t want to get embroiled in a second one and risk repetition. You are, of course, welcome to join us.
Again, best.
Dawg: I think I'll ban myself from here. There's no light at the end of this tunnel. "Hateful" means what Dawg says it means -- period, full stop. And "troll" means "someone who embarrasses Dawg by effectively rebutting one of his arguments".
Buh-bye.
Emile: Take a closer look.
Heh. Unable to persuade me to make a martyr of you, you now indulge in self-martyrdom. I seem to have unwittingly called your bluff.
I use both "hateful" and "troll" in their common-or-garden meanings. There are plenty of folks here on the conservative side of things, making vigorous cases without being insulting or profane. Sorry that this proved too stern a test for you.
Did I miss something?
Rookie bailing out because Dr. Dawg didn't automatically move the goalposts and re-frame the discussion?
Oh well, I guess you just can't please everyone.
"Any civilized person should speak up, of course, when homophobic slurs and so on are uttered."
And who are you to decide what is homophobic? Are you gay? Has a deputation of gay people selected you to be our spokesman?
Why are you qualified to be the arbiter of what is proper and what is not?
Who died you and made you Lord High Protector of All Minorities?
Where were you and your ilk when I, whilst standing in front of the attacker to protect my boyfriend was head-butted and had two front teeth knocked out by a real homophobe,?
Sitting pretty in your safe, tenured, candy-assed university spouting this same kind of drivel - talking shops of high minded but abstract theory and "solidarity" that have a personal cost of zero.
The 6 people I was with - lefty pacifists to a man - couldn't run away fast enough.
The one man who intervened, with whom I established a long friendship was a dyed in the wool conservative, who, even though he was uncomfortable about "queers", rushed to my defence and prevented my injuries from being much worse. Where would your calculus rate that good man?
This is wholly representative of all my actual experience of homophobia.
You lefty gay-wads are all talk and will reassure yourselves that you are "right-on", choosing soft targets for your campaigns for so called equality and tolerance - while completely failing to get in the faces of those who actually exhibit hate.
Where are you now - as Californian homos resort to the N word and attack Christians and Mormons because they didn't get their way on proposition 8?
Where are you and your socialist compatriots on the vicious homophobia of Muslims?
Sitting pretty in your tenured candy-ass universities trying to control words rather than actions.
Organise a homophobia workshop on a council estate. Stand up in front of one of the lower class bully boys (the same lower class scum that you are so ardent should be supported by my taxes) that attacked me or just shut the hell up, because otherwise you are just blowing smoke and using my sexuality to score political points against people you don't like. And that's the real point here - it's not that you are motivated by any real desire to help people - you just don't like views that don't coincide with your own.
I detest your implication that free speech doesn't matter - that it is OK to open windows into mens souls over a dining room conversation whilst ignoring racism and homophobia in the communities that you view as "protected".
I detest the implication that, as a gay man, my personality is so fragile that I need YOU to stop people from making jokes about gayness or associating gayness with anything less than the totally positive. Some of the vilest people I have met are gay. Bitchy queens and racist middle class bigots whose behavior is never questioned because they have a special status in the minds of lefties. Gay men who have beaten their partners and who lie and
Continuation:
Gay men who have beaten their partners and who lie and cheat with gusto. White straights do not have a monopoly on bad behavior.
Double-standards. Blog posts about "tolerance". Welcome to the lefty world of the politics of appearance. Cost and danger free but with all the social benefits of being "right-on".
TTM:
Feel better now? 
For the record, I've confronted neo-Nazis--real ones--face-to-face. Don't be so damned casual in your assumptions.
Have you ever stood up for speech that you don't agree with?
In what way? For example, many conservatives comment freely in my combox. Does that count?
And standing up to neo-nazis -
Canadian Neo-Nazis. OOOH how scary they are - I seldom go a day without reading of the horrors they perpetrate!
I feel safer already knowing that you are in protecting us all.
There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
TTM:
Did you carry those goalposts off all by yourself?
So there is no response to any of the points I raise in my "rant"?
If the man who saved me during the attack still refers to homosexuals as queers - is he evil?
Where in your calculus does he rank?
Should he be prosecuted or re-educated for using the word, despite having demonstrated his commitment to my safety at risk of his own?
Please set out exactly how your interpretation of his language will allow for my gratitude to him.
Not deleting conservative comments on your blog is not support of free speech.
TTM:
Those goalposts are still in motion.
I think running a forum in which most comments are welcome no matter how bitterly I disagree with their content indicates some kind of mild attachment to free speech. But I'm far from a free speech absolutist.
I don't tend to refer to people with whom I disagree as "evil." Well, maybe one or two of them.
If a person uses the word "queer" pejoratively, is it out of bounds for me to disagree with him? What about my right to freedom of speech?
Emile, I am always delighted to hear that context is a defence. The Commission in the Levant matter arrived at the conclusion that Ezra published the Boisson letter "with the goal of furthering a public debate on freedom of expression".
This is a sensible view. Unfortunately, it is not a view which has, until now, been expressed in any of the Commission's decisions. And it is a view which was expressly disavowed in Simon Fothergill's submissions on behalf of the Department of Justice in the Lemire matter.
Context is derived from intent and the intent of a respondent has never been seen as a defence against a s. 13 complaint.
Were I to publish "All x's are child molesters" and had a complaint filed against me I would love to have the defence of "just fostering public discussion". But the problem is that if that defence is open it would be virtually impossible for a complainant to win.
In fact, the Commission is just making stuff up. They don't want to go after Ezra because they are well aware that Ezra will put up a hugely political fight. So they have invented an exemption - more or less just for him. (One of the reasons why many of us have published Boisson's sad little letter is to extend this exemption. Xtra Magazine published it because they thought speech regulation was wrong.)
tw, you are absolutely right about the law going to criminal assault. But it would be interesting to see the ruckus raised if the decision to prosecute, on a statistical basis fell more heavily on, say, Aboriginals than people of more pinkish hue.
(And that is to ignore the tort.)
Context is derived from intent and the intent of a respondent has never been seen as a defence against a s. 13 complaint.
Oh, nonsense.
Admittedly, there's more here about the intent of the complainant, but clearly intent is an arguable issue. And with respect to Warman's alleged contravention of S.13, the finding notes "the very limited context" of Warman's use of offensive language. Technically a breach, in other words, but de minimis non curat lex.
Jay,
I see you've finally resorted to the "poor persecuted white Christians" argument. You have fun with that.
Let me know when you're back to making serious points.
The reason that intent or context has never been considered by the tribunal is that, in the handful of decisions made in s. 13 complaints, intent and context has always been clear. Cases in which intent is not clear or the context has been ambiguous have not been allowed to proceed.
It is disingenuous to suggest, as Jay has here, that merely posting examples of hateful speech will put you on a fast-track to a HRT hearing. But then disingenuousness seems to be the speechers' stock in trade.
Jay,
I found Ezra's republishing of Boisson's letter boorish, hysterical self-aggrandizing and unnecessary.
My heros don't hang around with neo-Nazi goons either.
Dawg, the case you cite demonstrates little more than the Commission taking care of its own.
tw, as to poor persecuted Christians I don't think I mentioned any...
As to intent and context in many of the matters which have been before the Tribunal the respondents were self represented or represented by an "agent" rather than counsel. In most of those cases the question simply was not pleaded.
Emile, sometimes you have to be more than a little rude to push the ball down the field.
I'm glad to hear your heros behave as mine do.
Jay,
Have you actually read any of these cases? Because in all of them, the tribunal considers intent - if not in terms of liability, then in terms of penalty. Because s. 54(1.1.)(b) directs the tribunal, in determining penalty, to consider "the wilfulness or intent of the person who engaged in the discriminatory practice".
Please, since you have devoted so much time to riding this hobby-horse, point me to the case in which the respondent says, "Please, spare me the fine, which I can ill-afford to pay. Iit was never my intent to expose (Group X) to hatred or contempt but merely to raise certain socio-cultural facts that might be of interest to the public or, at the very least, to my fellow member of the Western Ethnic Cleansing Association."
I see that Ezra has launched a pre-emptive strike against the Moon Report, attacking Prof. Moon as a bought and paid for flunky of Jennifer Lynch and the CHRC. Typical Levant really - why offer logic when libel is available?
So, given that Moon isn't credible, I guess we should disregard his recommendations:
1. section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) would no longer deal with hate speech, in particular hate speech on the Internet.
2. If s. 13 is not repealed, it should be redrafted to bring closer to the Criminal Code hate speech provisions.
3. Non-state actors, such as ISPs and media, should be encouraged to take a larger role in anti-hate activities.
Professor Moon states that proof of intention in the way that Jay means is not even required under the Criminal Code: http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/pdf/
m...n_report_en.pdf (p.32)
Dawg,
You must forgive Jay. He learned the law at the feet of Ezra Levant. No wonder he's confused.
Commenting by HaloScan
