They only "win" if there are serious, dangerous proposals for legislative change, which Martin's thing is not (because it will never come to a vote). This is an issue of interest to journalists and journalist wannabes, but has no traction beyond these narrow groups.
And if it did, as an issue, move into the wider public conciousness, it would pit fighting Nazis against upholding something John Stuart Mill once said, and who do you think would win that argument?
Ask yourself why Harper doesn't want to touch this stuff with a ten foot pole? He has been trying to make people forget that kooks like Levant were ever a part of CPoC. The last thing he wants is to be accused of letting the old Reform gang ride again.
Not that I disagree with some of your proposals; I just disagree that anything has been "won" outside of the blogging nerdosphere.
I think the opponents of HRC's are winning the debate over the commissions having jurisdiction over expression; but if they want to get rid of the commissions altogether they are probably out of luck. I've met a few people who still think that "its my business and if I dont want goddamn [insert racial slur here] in my shop then thats my right" but I think most rational Canadians realize what a sad society that would create. For the most part those of that opinion are on the fringe. As you say there are elements of the commissions that could stand some overhaul, but I think their original mission--to ensure equality in employment, housing and other services--is still a legitimate public objective that should continue.
What I object to is having quasi-judicial tribunals suppressing one of our most basic rights using a low civil standard and without adequate procedural safeguards. Its not that I think speech is or should be a wholly unfettered right. I just think that if you are going to limit it you need to be damn sure what you're doing. Its the same reason that we dont send people to jail and thus deprive them of their liberty without being pretty damn sure they actually did something wrong. It is why I dont object to the criminal code hate speech provisions: the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the state in accordance with fair and judicially supervised procedures. Now some have said that getting rid of the Human Rights Act provisions would make successful prosecution more difficult. Now take that logic and apply to a true crime like assault (ie "we could punish more people by lowering the threshold and removing some of the procedural protections"). Such a suggestion would make any liberty minded Canadian's blood boil. So how can we allow for it with expression?
My other problem with the HRC's adjudicating speech is the low threshold that applies. There needs to be some de minimis standard below which claims are not adjudicated. Sure the turban bomb cartoon could be construed as mildly hateful but no more so than an episode of Family Guy, or the latest in the "Scary Movie" series. That needs to be balanced against a) their artistic merit, b) their newsworthiness, and c) the fact that banning them would be capitulation to some theocrats who think depictions that offend their religion should be banned.
Sure Steyn's article wasnt very nice and could theoretically exacerbate the hatred in some ignorant buffoon (who was probably hateful to begin with) but it was also a legitimate commentary on a political subject. It is undeniable that the prevalence of devout religiosity in a society shapes the character of that society (just look at the difference between BC and Alabama, or Canada in the 50s vs. now to see the truthfulness of this). Demographic shifts in that religiosity thus can have an impact on us all. Now we can overexaggerate these shifts or be alarmist about the consequences (as I
...think Steyn can be), but the fact remains that they are a legitimate subject of public interest and I'd rather take my chances with a few alarmists than take any chances by chilling that discussion.
But I digress. As on so many issues the extremes are the ones who are most vocal. Some of the more moderate opponents of the Steyn/Levant complaints--such as Keith Martin, and Alan Borovoy (not to mention yours truly)--have no interest in abolishing Human Rights Commissions in their entirety. Unfortunately we find ourselves caught between neo-Nazis and reactionary dipshits like Ezra Levant on the one side and folks so caught up in creating a multicultural utopia that they are willing to summarily discard one of our most fundamental freedoms on the other.
My two cents.
Further to my point here is Borovoy defending the need for a mechanism to police bona fide discrimination:
It's acceptable, of course, to ban speech that facilitates unlawful conduct, such as jobs or housing ads that specify "no Muslims need apply." But the idea should be to ensure that our human rights laws do not attempt to limit expressions of opinion.
...
We who campaigned for human rights laws and commissions were prepared to encroach on the free choice of those with power in order to prevent unfair harm to those without power.
The encroachment was narrow: The law limited the right of employers, proprietors and landlords to choose employees, customers and tenants on the basis of palpably unfair factors such as race and ethnicity.
In our view, it was appropriate to require that participants on the public market observe public standards of fair play. At the very least, that meant "no discrimination."
http://www.thestar.com/columnist.../article/
414860
"So far, we've let conservatives set the terms, and the damage is becoming more apparent by the day."
I don't about damage and I don't know who you're including in the "we" here. Certainly, the authoritarians set the terms when everyone else is being astonishingly accommodating to a variety of fabulists and people who are patently arguing in bad faith (for example, people who use this issue to argue left/right politics and economic policy), to the point where a few marginal, angry or barely-disguised bitter voices are allowed to overwhelm substantive discussion.
It's long been clear to me that these people don't believe in human rights protection at all and that's common to a variety of principled conservatives such as Kevin Michael Grace (and anyone who's ever breathed the air around Conrad Black). And they haven't been shy about it either.
That's the dividing line between people whose arguments I'll entertain and those I don't want to hear from at all.
By the way, I think you might be going a bit over board saying Steyn is "going to trial" in BC and the CHRC. The wiki article on him states just that "they are unresolved".
Steyn states that hearings are scheduled before both bodies later this year.
Wow, hats off to you.
For those on the reform route, there are two other issues I think need to be addressed. The first, rules and supervision for investigators, has been argued at length elsewhere. The second is one that plagues a lot of administrative tribunals (labour boards, licensing authorities, etc.), and that is the independence (both real and apparent) of the Tribunal from the bureaucracy feeding it, i.e. The Commission. Maybe this is more obvious to a court lawyer, but when we were there last month the cosy relationship was pretty obvious to me. Same building, escorts from the Commission to the Tribunal office, all-too-relaxed Commission lawyers, etc. Most folks thought the Chair was fair and he obviously could stand up to the Commission in his rulings, but if a Crown prosecutor had lost an appeal on excluding evidence and a motion for a closed hearing, and then tried to restrict questioning to the tightly defined literal and didn't ensure the files were present or the witnesses were prepared, he/she could expect a very icy blast and maybe other consequences from a judge. They aren't playing chess.
Public findings of racism or promoting hate by quasi-judicial bodies are serious stuff with serious consequences in the modern world. It's not like insults hurled in a bar or in the blogosphere or even across the floor of the House. Reputations, both personal and professional are at stake. They shouldn't be dealt with using the same procedure used to decide on building permits or rent reviews. The more serious the offence, the tighter and more legalistic the procedure should be and the more distant the adjudicator.
One quibble, Dr. Dawg. It was a great post, but I guess so much reasonableness and lucidity wore you out and you needed to spice things up with a little progressive hyperbole. Do you really think everyone was appalled at the OHRC for "daring to refer to a little unpleasantness"?
I think that some people were appalled at the OHRC's call for civility, yes. In court judgements, that sort of thing is called obiter dicta. I see nothing wrong with it.
Uh, no. obiter dicta means that part of a judgement that is not key to the decision and is therefore not binding on lower courts. It doesn't mean findings tossed out on a whim with no evidence or even a hearing. There is no word for that because no one ever does it. Do the Commissioners think that the mere fact of their appointment gave them some moral superiority and/or authority by osmosis. They were appointed, not anointed.
Well, I won't argue law with a lawyer. I meant the phrase in the sense of "things that are said in passing" but are not an actual part of the judgement. Don't judges ever thunder from the bench?
Don't judges ever thunder from the bench?
Yes but a) usually the judge has heard the case when they do so and b) the Commission isnt the judge, the tribunal is... so Hall's comments are actually more like a Crown Prosecutor releasing a public statement saying "yeah we think hes a filthy murderer but he committed the crime in Montana so we cant prosecute him" than Obiter.
Not usually on the record. 
Seriously, they are almost always extremely careful not to indicate or even openly telegraph a decision or even leaning before all evidence is in and the hearing is over. Some do so on principle, others because they know such is grounds for a slam-dunk appeal. Even in civil trials, the right to respond fully to an accusation before any decision is made is a bedrock.
I was employed by a human rights commission for a period of slightly over 10 years. This was the ONLY employment situation in which I was obliged to seek legal counsel and actually won a libel suit for defamation of professional character against my "manager".
Interesting point - the manager in question is still, some 15 years after the event, employed by an HRC. Also, the manager in question is still not allowed to contact me or my family, talk about me or my family, EVER again.
My period of employment with a Canadian HRC was among the most eye-opening of my life.
One last observation: I heard anti-francophone sentiment expressed by HRC staff virtually every day that I was employed by one. It crosses the mind that Canadians' traditional (and still largely socially acceptable) bigotry has remained unaddressed by successive governments ever since the passage of the Bilibngualism act way back when (circa 1972, if memory serves me well). Until Canada and Canadians address and "get over" the anti-francophone bigotry that characterizes English Canada, other bigotries will continue to flourish.
Canadians remain unrivalled for their collectively bloated sense of self-esteem and self-satisfaction. That's too bad. Thinking themselves superior to other national populations is PRECISELY what keeps Canada and Canadians firmly listed in the category of "also-rans".
Peter,
More like "yes Macleans has tilted to Islamophobia but nevertheless the complaint against them cannot not go forward for reasons X, Y, and Z".
Part of the problem here is that Maclean/Steyn defenders won't admit the obvious, and in many cases have retroactively elevated their opinion of Steyn so as to avoid the embarrassment of standing up for a racist wingnut (in the same way Lemire has been elevated from a Nazi to a free speech hero). You would get alot more sympathy from me at least if you were to quit playing that game and just admit that, yes his writings are garbage, and yes Steyn/Macleans are using their status as jouranlists to stir up enmity against the Muslim community, but that's the price we pay in a free society etc. Macleans won't do that because they don't want to admit that they've turned the magazine into a weekly version of the NP--taken it down market, in other words.
Good point, KC. It's not really my area but I'll go out on a limb and say a Crown prosecutor who openly and directly pronounced on the guilt of someone without charging them could be sued personally and might be in trouble with the profession or the Court. Judges tend to guard their prerogatives jealously.
Guilt is a legal concept, not a factual one.
Sorry, that should have been directed to KC.
BCL - Maybe its because I approach this issue as an anti-theist myself that I dont see his writings as racist. I think we've had this debate before but I dont see much different between what Steyn says and what people like Hitchens and Dawkins say--other than that Steyn only sees Islam as a threat.
I see ALL devout religiosity as a threat as I think all the major religious texts can be interpreted to condone violence and theocracy (as they can be interpreted to the opposite effect). As such an influx of the devoutly religious would concern me. Now maybe Muslims arent as devout as Steyn suggests and there isnt much of an influx (they are what like 2% of the Canadian population?) but I think its an argument that one should be entitled to make and we can all make up our own minds on.
If there were an influx of evangelical Christians from the American south you bet your ass I would have something to say about it. Its bad enough that I have to put up with crackpot fundamentalists like Charles McVety and Tristan Emmannuel.
No double standards here. This isnt about "brown people" for me at least as I think you think it is. It is about political ideology and its close ties with religion and the religious. I wouldnt want to generalize about all religious people but there is no disputing that cultural conservativism correlates heavily with religiosity. It is no coincidence that Mr. Awan--one of the Osgoode Hall four--spoke against gay marriage on behalf of the CIC at the parliamentary hearings a few years back.
Whats more Steyn is abundantly clear that his remarks should not be a blanket indictment of Muslims, yet somehow his comments to that respect have somehow been turned against him him.
I dont really see how any of that is racism.
Canadians remain unrivalled for their collectively bloated sense of self-esteem and self-satisfaction. That's too bad. Thinking themselves superior to other national populations is PRECISELY what keeps Canada and Canadians firmly listed in the category of "also-rans".
"Unrivalled?" "Bloated self-estimeem and self-satisfaction?" "Superior to other national populations?" "Also rans?"
Goodness, I'm going to spend the rest of the day apologising to the entire World for ever caring about what happens in my own damn country.
Canadian human rights laws and protection of human rights in Canada have nothing to do with what's happening outside of Canada and it's pretty presumptuous to start lecturing and scolding other Canadians yet again for "moral superiority."
If I need that, I know where to find it.
"The right of neo-Nazis to speak, as we've seen, has been vigorously defended."
WTF! By whom?
And are you not even the least bit concerned about the HRCs limiting debate about important issues of public policy?
Or about their lack of due process.
Maybe the enemies of the HRCs are winning because these bodies are so patently flawed.
The problem remains that you've hitched your defence of human rights bodies to the one indefensible area of (most provinces') human rights legislation, conceding only procedural matters here and there. I see no valid reason to restrict expressions that don't result in direct discrimination (or harm) against an individual. Prejudiced opinions against a group doesn't cut it; actions do, and they're already dealt with in the legislation. The answer to bigoted spews is criticism and counter-argument, combined with righteous spews -- not state sanction. Aside from the principles, it's also a losing strategy; as long as the Levants can use the one broad and illiberal area of human rights legislation in their crusade against it, they will do so to undermine every other aspect of it. Don't give them any chance at success.
It's not a binary distinction between supporters of human rights legislation (restrictions on speech and all) versus its opponents, and to hell with anyone who wants to lump opponents of the speech provisions in with Levant.
I'm with Borovoy on this issue: scrap the sections dealing with speech and publication where they exist and keep the codes.
FTR, the complaint by Elmasry and chums ("on behalf of Muslim residents of British Columbia", we kid you not) against Maclean's is scheduled to be heard by the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the commission was shut down in 2003) June 2-6. It's on the BCHRT's schedule, available at http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/hearing_s...ule/
default.htm
I'm with Borovoy on this issue: scrap the sections dealing with speech and publication where they exist and keep the codes.
But then, what'll these free speech warriors do? I'd hate for the newly-converted Jay Currie to be left without a process by which these things can't be mediated. Otherwise, the terrorists win.
Ian:
Thanks for the reminder about the BC Human Rights Commission--my memory was failing me. Correction made.
On the main point, though, one of the aspects of the human rights commission/tribunal process that I like is the power to mediate disputes among citizens. That function has been largely overlooked in the debates, but it's an important informal dispute resolution system that does not require the formal and expensive process of the court system, a process that is largely out of reach of ordinary citizens.
I don't defend the abuses of the complaints system, but they are an inevitable part of any such accessible forum. I have also noted before that I believe that the bar for proscribed speech should be set very high. But that doesn't mean that we should jettison those provisions altogether. I believe that the reform proposals that I have suggested should be sufficient to discourage abuse, while still permitting a role for the bodies in question to intervene against hatred and intolerance in our society.
The newly-converted will just have to get a life or something, I suppose. A tough slog, but I'm sure they're up to it.
Dawg: The former BC commission investigated and mediated complaints, and referred them to the tribunal; its other function was to engage in human rights education and promotion. Sounds innocent, but the commission basically ran from a perspective that seemed to side with whatever party made like the most oppressed. (OK, that's a slight caricature -- but they often came across like aged campus activists) The tribunal, which continued after the commission was scrapped, has a somewhat more restricted mandate: it's there to hear complaints and rule on (or dismiss) them.
Screening is necessary, although it has to be done by objective standards, lest it leave room for abuse -- in any one of many directions. You wouldn't want to leave much latitude for a screener whose worldview allows them to only notice certain kinds of discrimination. It doesn't correct the problem that there is legislation that proscribes expression that *might* lead to discrimination, rather than the discrimination itself. At best, it papers over it and prevents the more scurrilous complaints. Same with having complainants whose claims are rejected make good to the respondent.
As I've mentioned before, the relative accessibility of human rights bodies to the less powerful isn't reflected in the complaints over speech and publication that I'm aware of. The theory doesn't match the practice in that one class of complaints. A good justification for human rights bodies in general, though.
"...The second point is that respondents are currently required to foot their own bills, win, draw or lose. This is simply wrong. If a complaint is not upheld, reasonable costs should be awarded. The respondent has a right to be made whole, just as the complainant presently is when a complaint is upheld..."
Absolutely. However, if it's true that Section 13 cases at the federal level are always decided in favour of the complainant, that's a much bigger problem.
I think you make some very good points.
My chief concern is about the 'right of neo-nazis'. I guess their rights should be curtailed, but who is going to decide who is or is not a 'neo-nazi'?
Would someone advocating, let's say, the liquidation of socio-economic groups be a 'neo-nazi'? Or does the criterion have to be race?
At least a few intelligent bloggers have taken on this issue and understand the need to support the Human Rights legislation. However the real question you pose Dr. is where are the anti-racists? Where are people like Fo Neimi and Allan Dutton both in the past strong advocates of human rights law? Where is Dr. Karen Mock of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation where are their voices? Where indeed?
And by the way, Dr Dawg and others here, you have done a terrible disservice to the only mainstream credible group that has waded into this fight aagainst the Levants, Steyns and Lemires-Canadian Jewish Congress.
CJC ought to be recognized for carrying the torch here where most others have lacked the courage to show their face.
As a result the Jewish Congress has found itself being the target of attack from publications like the National Post, from Alan Borovoy on the referenced Star article and most of all Ezra Levant on his blog.
Now CJC is a pretty sophisticated advocay group and isn't afraid to fight back. Ezra certainly discovered this when he tried to take on CJC head Bernie farber a few months back on TVO's "The Agenda". Farber was part of a panel Levant sat on discussing human rights and free speech. Levant tried to do live on the show what he does on his blog. Trouble was that Farber was there to hit back and he had little trouble taking Ezra apart for engaging in facile and silly ad hominem attacks.
So YAY for CJC...if only other groups had the balls to do the same.
Nice to see all the fascists gathered to bemoan and cry that there still exist somewhere people who care about freedom of expression. If only they could be jailed and fined and threatened into submission.
Not only are you totalitarian thought police doing lasting damage to freedom of expression. You are also devaluing the term "human rights," turning it from an individuals protection against intrusive government into the governments base right to intrude endlessly and recklessly into everyone's lives and even their thoughts.
If I thought you cared in the slightest for human freedom I would say you should be ashamed, but I know better. There is no shame because there is no concept of a free society left among you.
*rolls eyes*
Nobody should be screening anyone's opinions, period! They should be countering them, arguing against them, refuting them. Once anyone get into the business of screening them, no matter how well intentioned, they are putting their personal opinion onto what opinions are valid and ought to be heard. The temptation to abuse that, even subconsciously, is just too strong.
Steyn and Levant also show how important it is for the public at large to stand up to the bullies.
I was referring to screening complaints.
hey, guess what guys? i found a piece of lint in my belly-button!
Actually it's not just about free speech anymore. As Ezra has pointed out, there are many idiotic decisions being trotted out for public scrutiny:
- The human right not to wash your hands after using the toilet while working at McDonalds
- The human right to smoke pot in someone's restaurant
- The human right to use Catholic facilities for gay marriage celebrations
and so it goes. Ezra's site has all the details.
The goal is to make the Commissions appear idiotic and scary to average Canadians.
And they've done all the heavy lifting....
Yeah Dawg, you're right. We're going to win this one.
It occurred to me that like other groups of totalitarian collectivists you guys don't know what free speech means or even why its important. Which isn't very shocking, north korea calls itself democratic, saudi arabia weighs in on issues of religious freedom, and canada has a human rights commission. It's a difficult slog in the world.
First it should be understood that mankind has had varying degrees of speech restrictions throughout history depending on who is in power and what is the orthodoxy. Every time the orthodoxy changes there will be fascists in the new orthodoxy who wish to prohibit blasphemy. Therein lies the power of free speech, free speech is there to allow blasphemy against the orthodoxy.
There is essentially no need for a concept of free speech to say things that the people in power consider acceptable disagreement, or just outright agree with. Which is why fascists like you guys always get into such a hissy fit over who ends up being defended in these free speech rows.
The problem is that Ezra is being less than honest with us. Take the McDonald's case, for example. The Commission didn't order that a longstanding employee, a person who had developed a bad skin condition, be permitted to handle food without washing her hands. The case turned upon whether an attempt had been made by the employer to accommodate her--for example, by finding her a job that would not involve contact with food, or the provision of gloves, etc.
There's a raft of jurisprudence involving the duty to accommodate. There was no departure from that here. But this is typical of the caricatures that Ezra and the speech warriors enlist on behalf of their cause.
Dawg, I agree with you that Levant, with his grandstanding and his own litigiousness, is a hard act to defend sometimes. However he isn’t the only person on that side of the debate, and his use of litigation is very junior league compared to that on the other side. I imagine score would look like: Warman 56, Kinsella 35, Levant 4. Pathetic.
You make a mistake in likening restrictions on artistic subsidies to censorship. No one has a right to subsidy, and artists should realise that if they cannot make a living by art, they should relegate it to a hobby. Removing a subsidy does not stop artistic creativity. Heck I would like to be a professional blogger, but I realise my limited abilities restrict it to a sideline. Why should artists be special?
I think there is a good case for abolition of the HRC’s. It seems a fact of life that such taxpayer funded bodies will inevitably fill up with left-wing activists – after all the poor dears could hardly survive in the competitive sector – who will always be prone to scope creep and pushing the envelope. As the sort of unfairness mentioned by Borovoy becomes scarcer, they will become ever more ambitious in their desperation to appear ‘relevant’. It’s not just Canada – look at the educational committee in UK that removed the three little pigs e-book from a competition, out of Muslim sensitivity (not that any Muslims had complained about it, mind you). The task of keeping such bodies sane is a never-ending one, however tight the rules.
There are no HRC’s here in Australia or anywhere else in the Anglosphere, yet we have the same insignificant number of neo-Nazis as you do. Genetics, not HRC’s, mercifully limits the production of such imbecility.
Hi, Sholto!
I knew someone would pick up on the artist's subsidy thing, so please bear with me as I try to make my case.
I find this entirely analogous to a business, setting up with articles of incorporation and what-not to serve the public, and then turning members of the public away because they are Black, or Jewish, or what-have-you. I think that the very approval of a business is a public trust, and (rightly, I think) such discrimination has been made illegal.
Now, remember that I am here making an analogy only. But when the government decides to make a pool of money available for which artists can apply, and then uses non-artistic criteria to adjudicate the applications, I think that is plain wrong. The government has absolutely no business forcing such applications through the fine mesh of their social-conservative prejudices. As a former grants officer myself (on the academic side), I would have stoutly resisted non-academic criteria being foisted upon me by some political reactionary or other. Once again, I think there is a public trust involved: this time, that artistic, not political, criteria will be used to judge applicants for the grants. Otherwise the whole thing is starting to smack of state-approved art. I didn't like that nonsense in the former USSR, and I don't like it when fundamentalist yahoos get up to those tricks here (I'm referring to Charles McVety).
Over to you. God, I miss that beer.
There are no HRC’s here in Australia or anywhere else in the Anglosphere, yet we have the same insignificant number of neo-Nazis as you do.
Australians don't all live all within 200 kilometers of the US, with all its various and sundry hate groups. All free speechy and well armed, I might add.
A reasoned approach as always Dawg. And I am entirely with you on C-10 save that I would scrap the subsidies altogether but if we are to have them they should not be used to censor expression.
The HRC's serve a limited purpose in situations of overt discrimination. But there is no reason at all that they should be allowed to adjudicate speech.
Steyn, Ezra, Kate and Kathy are winning because they have a very strong case against this abridgment of the Charter right to free expression. But they are also winning because of the unsupervised and inappropriate conduct of the CHRC investigators past and present as well as the wildly prejudicial conduct during the Lemire hearings. Peter has laid out the indictment and he has it right.
Meanwhile you will be delighted to know that I have put aside my philosophical scruples and begun a new part time career as a censorship advocate, suppressor of a free press and abridger of freedom of speech: I bring you Currie v LeDevoir. The initiating letter is filed against this vile bit of antisemitism in the French Canadian Political classes newsletter.
Frankly, Lucy was a piker. I suspect I can come up with one "hard case" a week. Of course I hope my friends (and Ti-guy) over here on the left side of the blogosphere will keep me posted. I mean I don't want to have to actually go to Rabble...just point me in the right direction. I may even be waving my pointy finger at the Zerb if she is naughty and forgets to say Zionist. Arthur, I am looking to disrupt you.
And, just in case you are wondering, the complaints will be researched and brought in the utmost good faith.
...philosophical scruples...
*snort*
Hi Dawg,
Yup it was good wasn’t it? Er, the beer that is, not your last posting!
I didn’t make my views on artistic subsidy very clear. Standing as I do to the right of the soup spoon, I have a visceral suspicion of any government subsidy, especially one that directly benefits such a small group. But I agree with you that as soon as we are selective about such things, we descend into subjectivity. For example, I certainly dislike the idea of subsidising what I think is porn masquerading as art. However that is merely my view – my porn is someone else’s art. As with free speech, the eternal question is where to draw the line. Removing subsidies (and HRC’s) eliminates this subjectivity.
Ti-Guy, re assorted hate groups in the US, what jurisdiction do the HRC's have there? Of all the excuses used to justify those bodies, this must be the weirdest.
Australians don't all live all within 200 kilometers of the US, with all its various and sundry hate groups.
*snort* *rolls eyes* *sighs* *snores*. Yanks to the left, Yanks to the right, but still Ti-Guy stood firm.
Dr Dawg, I admire that tightrope walk you are doing by defending freedom of artistic expression while calling for restrictions on political speech through the HRCs. Surely your effort to break down the first into artistic and non-artistic criteria is cerebral hair-splitting. The underlying reason hate-speech is proscribed isn't because it falls into this or that academic category, but because it causes great offence and alienation. Pretty tough to defend muzzling the neo-Nazis, homophobes, etc. but then tell everybody shocked by Piss-Christ to just suck it up, no?. And wasn't Levant before the HRC in the first place because of a little artistic expression?
Dawg Blawged:
"We've been diverted by the disingenuous use of "free speech" issues, which is only the thin edge of the wedge. Human rights legislation and the bodies that enforce it are the real targets."
Opponents of Human Rights legislation - and the bodies which were to be formed to enforce it - pointed to it being the thin edge of a wedge intended to reframe social mores in Canada by curtailing free speech.
What sprang from the initial and sequel persecutions of journalist Doug Collins through the BCHRT was a decade of good old-fashioned witch hunts for folks deemed deserving of 'hatred and contempt' due voicing same for others.
Canadians at the time were diverted by disingenuous use of the term 'Human Rights'.
One cannot blame the CJC and B'Nai Brith for actively pursuing goals compatible with the Simon Weisenthal cause by any means available.
One can, however, blame the Jewish community in Canada for losing sight of what brought about the conditions for Shoah - that being the vilification of a select group of German citizens due their beliefs, coupled with their persecution by government bureaucracies with the tacit approval of fellow citizens.
Forget 'tweaking' the bane - Canadians need to cure themselves of reliance upon government bureaucracies.
maikeru:
Let me get this straight--you're blaming the Jews for the Holocaust? I just want to be sure we're on the same page here.
Peter:
Later for you. My last paper goes in today.
Ti-Guy, re assorted hate groups in the US, what jurisdiction do the HRC's have there? Of all the excuses used to justify those bodies, this must be the weirdest.
The history of the hate propaganda laws goes back a ways, when Canada had few legal instruments to stop the flow of hate propaganda coming in from the US. I've seen documentation from the 60's that related to how Canada Post was pressured to apply all kinds of its own regulations to try and stop it. It was pathetic.
I'm sure those are elements not widely known way over there in your part of the "anglosphere."
Bonjour!
*snort* *rolls eyes* *sighs* *snores*. Yanks to the left, Yanks to the right, but still Ti-Guy stood firm.
Yank it some more, Peter. My "chain" is still too slack.
*rolls eyes*
LOL. Well-played, Ti-Guy.
but then tell everybody shocked by Piss-Christ to just suck it up, no?
No one put "Piss Christ" on the altar of Notre-Dame de Montréal in a similar way to how some, doubtless out of regard for art, would have stapled the Muslim cartoons to the Ka'baa, if they could have.
Surely, there are nuances here that don't escape even you?
This has patently been a campaign to provoke a civil emergency in Canada, and I don't see why the rest of us should be complacent about it.
Hi Dawg,
I must admit I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. I firmly believe that the human rights commissions have their place in Canada. They have, however, strayed off course. Complaints should be screened and the free ride for those who complain must end. As for the infamous section 13, I am vehemently opposed to it. The government does not have the right to regulate our thoughts or speech. Furthermore, what is the standard by which to judge speech and who should set it?
One last point. I find it intriguing that individuals on this site criticize Levant and Steyn for being on the same side as the hate-monger Lemire. Has anyone bothered to investigate who stands on the side of the HRC? I encourage all bloggers to investigate the views of Syed Soharwardy and Mohammed Elmasry ... anyone who agrees with their views concerning non-muslims, homosexuals, democracy, women, etc. should consider having their moral compass realigned.
Ti-Guy:
You, who just a few comments ago were
suggesting HRC's are all about defending us from the rapacious Yankee trader are accusing us of trying to provoke civil enmergencies!!?? Relax, Ti-Guy, I'm a moderate. Mom always assured me that black helicopters don't necessarily mean UN invasions.
I really don't think the Islamists would have been satisfied if the cartoons had only appeared in the Guggenheim.
Dawg re:
maikeru:
"Let me get this straight--you're blaming the Jews for the Holocaust? I just want to be sure we're on the same page here."
Your comment reminds me of long-ago conversations with my ex. Weird that.
The Shoah sprang from government bureaucracy - a fact that every bagel in Canada should reflect upon before allowing their voice to be seconded to CJC and BB spokespersons pursuing HRC/T complaints against fellow Canadians voicing anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Laura Cohen had it right when she opined:
"Levant, whose Alberta synagogue was firebombed (read: actual hate crime) will likely continue to remain friendless among the machers of the CJC, which has taken the position that censorious human rights legislation is a useful tool for fighting anti-Semitism"
Ezra Levant and Doug Collins have that much (and more) in common.
You, who just a few comments ago were
suggesting HRC's are all about defending us from the rapacious Yankee trader are accusing us of trying to provoke civil enmergencies!!??
Sorry, you misunderstood. The campaign is domestic, as far as I can tell...he said, ominously.
I really don't think the Islamists would have been satisfied if the cartoons had only appeared in the Guggenheim.
I agree. But there are times when it's appropriate to test those theories, and there are times when it's not. Early 2006 seemed to have been a particularly inopportune time to do that.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not productive to test the mores of people to whom one is an outsider, or to whom one is actively hostile. That's just common sense.
So, if it's not productive, what is it?
Dawg, your comment on McDonalds not finding alternative work for that employee is a red-herring. Among other things, the tribunal ruled that "There was no evidence of the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing".
What, pray tell me, does this have with alternative employment?
Admit it Dawg, you are defending the indefensible. Hardly surprising we're winning!
Gloat.
Australians are winning? Yay!
maikeru:
Buh-bye.
Sholto:
Have you read the judgement in its entirety? Here it is. Don't cherry-pick a word or phrase here and there. My summation was accurate.
I accept that McDonald’s hand-washing policies required employees to wash their hands more frequently than would have been the case in other service type jobs. However, the onus lies with McDonald’s to establish that it accommodated Ms. Datt in the face of its own hand-washing policies. (p.60)
As I said earlier, I accept that the goal of preventing the contamination of food is why McDonald’s established its hand-washing policy. This goal cannot be understated and it accords with common sense in the handling and preparation of food. (pp. 64-65)
Further, there was no evidence about the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing frequency. For example, there was no evidence to address whether the goal could have been met with hourly or half-hourly hand-washing or some other timed hand-washing frequency that Ms. Datt might have been able to meet. There was no evidence of the actual risk to the public if Ms. Datt, the only employee who had some form of hand-washing restriction, was provided with modified duties or a modified way of working. A workplace policy that necessarily restricts McDonald’s duty to accommodate a disabled employee might have to be varied in appropriate circumstances, with the appropriate mechanism in place to meet food safety requirements. (p.65--your quotation, in context)
No one put "Piss Christ" on the altar of Notre-Dame de Montréal in a similar way to how some, doubtless out of regard for art, would have stapled the Muslim cartoons to the Ka'baa, if they could have.
So if I read you right, neither of these things actually happened, ergo the cartoons are worse? Because "some...would have"?
Nice piece of logic there, mate.
1. Are HRC/HRT decisions challengable in a "real" court? If so, can costs be recovered if the court(s) overturn the HRC/HRT's decision?
2. If court challenges are allowed, can they be construed as "retaliation" against the original complainant, which the HR Act forbids?
3. From what I've read, Richard Warman launched a vast majority of Section 13(1) complaints -- despite not being a member of the allegedly offended group. IF TRUE, doesn't this undermine the argument that HRC/Ts have allowed the "poor little guy" to inexpensively seek redress? IF NOT TRUE, exactly what are the statistics regarding who has used Section 13(1) to seek redress? i.e. What proportion of complaints actually originate within the offended group?
My point: Isn't it possible that it's really the defenders of the HRC/T's role in controlling free speech via 13(1) who are promoting friction among Canada's various communities by providing an unneeded -- indeed dangerous -- tool for the likes of Warman to satisfy their appetite for social engineering -- in the process giving extreme groups the publicity they seek?
TSF:
All good questions. Peter will correct me if need be, but my understanding is:
1) As is the case with all quasi-judicial tribunals, the decisions of a Human Rights Tribunal are reviewable by a court. If the judgements are capricious, or contrary to law, they may be overturned. Court costs may be recovered, but I do not believe that the costs of defending oneself before the Tribunal could be claimed.
2)The use of the courts is not considered "retaliation" in the HRA sense of the word. It would be contrary to public policy for a body to exclude a citizen from mounting a court challenge of its decisions.
3) I shall ahve to reserach this matter. As I undertsand it, but will stand corrected if need be, there have not been all that many Section 13(1) complaints, but most of them have been Richard Warman's.
4) The question is whether Warman has misused the CHRC process. I do not believe he has.
So if I read you right, neither of these things actually happened, ergo the cartoons are worse? Because "some...would have"?
No, you read me wrong, mate. There is an issue of probability here, that's all I'm alluding to.
Both of these expressions are neutral to me; even as a faithful Catholic (...what?...what?), the Piss Christ (produced by a Catholic artist) doesn't offend me in the least (it's nothing I haven't seen before, and given what's gone on in the Church, it's almost whimsical). But I don't presume to understand the feelings of other people, let alone demand that they feel a certain way. That's remarkably authoritarian.
Looks good to me, Dr. Dawg. As you say, an appeal would not be a re-hearing, just a review of procedural fairness and legal accuracy.
The way you put #4 is interesting. As I have argued with my free-speecher friends, there is only so much personal "shocked and appalled" mileage we can get out of Warman and Steacy. The fact that they have done nothing legally wrong is the very problem and the basis of their criticisms and calls for reform.
I sure hope you aren't letting your tree branches interfere with your neighbour's sunlight, Dr. Dawg. He may not care a whit, but I'm thinking of suing you on behalf of all responsible homeowners across Canada. Mmm...punitive damages!
There is an issue of probability here, that's all I'm alluding to.
You mean there's an issue of probability that you made up out of nowhere with no evidence at all. Fair enough.
But I don't presume to understand the feelings of other people, let alone demand that they feel a certain way.
Unless they're Catholic, in which case your own indifference to Piss Christ over-rides any offence that they might take. But that's not "remarkably authoritatian," because it's okay to offend them. Great, thanks, very lucid.
Ti-Guy says: "This has patently been a campaign to provoke a civil emergency in Canada, and I don't see why the rest of us should be complacent about it." (I believe he's referring to a public discussion of the consequences of Muslim immigration for our country.)
Paul Watson, the esteemed environmentalist, calls human beings the AIDS of the earth and calls for the global population to be reduced to 1 billion from its current level of over 6 billion. Could his be a campaign to provoke a civil emergency on a slightly larger scale?
Would it be OK with our HRC/T's to publicly discuss related questions such as the following:
1. Should all countries be forced to reduce their populations by about 85% to meet Mr. Watson's target?
2. Or, should western countries be forced to reduce their populations by a greater percentage to reflect the higher per capita "load" they place on the earth's environment?
3. Or, should groups with higher than average birth rates be targeted first because their behavior diverges more from that required to achieve Mr. Watson's target?
4. Should Canada adopt a one-child-per-family policy a la China? If so, should there be gender-ratio targets? How would these be attained? Should abortions be forced on parents who already have one child? Or, as an alternative, should parents be allowed to take additional spouses to maintain an average of one child per couple or forced to pay a lifelong financial penalty perhaps?
5. On the off chance that some people -- clearly those who just don't get it, found Mr. Watson's widely-publicized views as hateful or, dare I say, murderous, should our various HRC/T's entertain a complaint against him? Or would he be immune because he is not (yet?)targeting any specific group protected from discrimination by our HR Act?
6. Given the huge success of the Kyoto Agreement, what international sanctions should be brought to bear on countries who fail to meet their targets? Should a global government with its own police force be established to ensure compliance with Mr. Watson's life-or-death target?
7. Mr. Watson also calls for only certain people to serve as parents -- to be qualified in some way analogous to the way we certify professionals. Is there a chance that this violates Canadians' current human rights? If so, could these rights be eliminated in the service of a higher objective?
I could go on but am looking forward to hearing how Mr. Watson was just being "rhetorical".
You mean there's an issue of probability that you made up out of nowhere with no evidence at all. Fair enough.
What a remarkable fabrication. You're very good. The finality suggested by "Fair enough" is always good for style points.
Unless they're Catholic, in which case your own indifference to Piss Christ over-rides any offence that they might take. But that's not "remarkably authoritatian," because it's okay to offend them. Great, thanks, very lucid.
And another one. I do indeed empathise or even sympathise with people who were offended by Piss Christ, but it's kind of odd to claim you can feel any one else's feelings, and it is authoritarian to demand that others feel a certain way or grow a thicker skin.
I await your bad faith response.
...But make it quick. I only have so much time today for Dawg's toxic fans.
"I believe he's referring to a public discussion of the consequences of Muslim immigration for our country."
You're incorrect.
What a remarkable fabrication. You're very good. The finality suggested by "Fair enough" is always good for style points.
Wow, that was so slick, I almost didn't notice your total inability to answer my point.
Which was (typing slowly, so you can keep up) to point out the silliness in your argument. Again, in your view, Piss Christ was okay, because no-one was putting it on the altar of Notre Dame, but the Mohammed cartoons were terrible, because people are putting them on the Ka'baa.
When I helpfully pointed out that no-one was, in fact, putting them on the Ka'baa, you asserted that some might, and we can never be too careful about the imaginary some. Especially when there's an imaginary probability of them doing so.
I don't actually expect a response from you - you seem to not be up to the task of defending your nonsense. But it seemed only fair to give you a chance.
I almost didn't notice your total inability to answer my point.
Gee, and I thought my refusal to be subjected to yet another inquisition was quite clear. Because that's all these discussions ever are: "Lefties/liberals/progressives/Liberal Fascists(tm)...Explain yourselves!"
Parading those cartoons in Canadian print media is on a scale far different than what occurred with Piss Christ, and carried with it a degree of provocation, which was the comparison I was drawing with my cut-to-the-chase hyperbole (I'm not writing grad studies dissertations here...I'm having fun, or trying to). If you want to be literal and start parsing language to prove, scientifically, that I'm being unacceptably wrong, go right ahead.
No, no. Of course the cartoons were a provocation, but Piss Christ wasn't. That was, how did you put it, whimsical.
You can hide behind whatever defenses you want ("inquisition"? Ye-freaking-gods), but if you cannot see the idiocy in that assertion, then you are beyond the help of logic. And I say that as a proud Lefty/Liberal/Progressive.
Maikeru posted
"Dawg re:
maikeru:
"Let me get this straight--you're blaming the Jews for the Holocaust? I just want to be sure we're on the same page here."
Your comment reminds me of long-ago conversations with my ex. Weird that.
The Shoah sprang from government bureaucracy - a fact that every bagel in Canada should reflect upon before allowing their voice to be seconded to CJC and BB spokespersons pursuing HRC/T complaints against fellow Canadians voicing anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Laura Cohen had it right when she opined:
"Levant, whose Alberta synagogue was firebombed (read: actual hate crime) will likely continue to remain friendless among the machers of the CJC, which has taken the position that censorious human rights legislation is a useful tool for fighting anti-Semitism"
Ezra Levant and Doug Collins have that much (and more) in common."
First off, Laura Cohen (if she is the same Laura Cohen who wrote that ugly piece in the National Post about the Jewish Congress) is so far from mainstream Jewish thinking it frankly isn't funny. I mean she's the one who felt Jews ought to be more interested in thinks like their children's summer camp fees than the hundreds of thousands being slaughtered in Darfur. This is not a person to hold up as a role model in the Jewish community.
Secondly, Doug Collins was a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denjier. This is who you positively compare Ezra Levant with? Even Ezra would hopefully balk at that one!!
So, provocation, or not:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/art...cles/view/
24513
That was, how did you put it, whimsical.
In relation to the child-abuse scandal of the Catholic Church, indeed it was. I certainly would prefer my child see the Piss Christ than have her be subject to sexual abuse by a priest.
I don't think you're reading what I'm writing very closely.
And I say that as a proud Lefty/Liberal/Progressive.
And that I'll just have to take on faith. I don't think it's particularly progressive to willfully mischaracterise what others have said.
And that I'll just have to take on faith
Faith is good, Ti-Guy. We all lean on it no matter how hard we pretend not to.
"Canadian Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Commission. Both have........a clause making it an offence to publish something likely to bring an identifiable minority into contempt."
Dr Dawg, You are obviously an educated and smart fellow. Please tell us you see a danger to democracy of this sort of open ended HRC clause.
Please tell us you can see the danger to liberal/left ideas and speech if the tables were turned and these HRCs were 'stacked' with conservative/right folks instead.
Regarding C-10, as far I can tell it's a tempest in teapots. The proponents claim they're against funding commercial porn (hard or soft), the opponents claim the sky is falling. I read the opponents as being a tad hysterical, so I'm not highly concerned - at the moment.
I'm for at least some government funding for the arts - no film would be made in this country without it - but grant-supported art has a lot to be said against it.
Nonetheless, those who want reasonable levels of arts funding should be more politically savvy. Granting agencies easily become parochial and indifferent (even contemptuous) of public attitudes. It's quite possible for them to undermine their public prestige to the point that governments can cut them off without significant opposition. Fund too many Piss Christs or Mapplethorpes and the peasants will rise up and torch your whole operation. Either the agencies show some self-restraint (call it self-censorship if you want but it just means attending to their public image) or the government should rein them in through mild measures like C-10.
I was amused by an overwrought speech by Atom Egoyan's on the topic. Wasn't his last film (or the one before) a big flop on account of it getting an NC-17 rating in the States? I remember thinking, Dude making this film has been your life for months. You've spent millions of other people's dollars on it. Did you never *think* about the rating in all this time? Did you not think it might be a *relevant consideration*?
It appears, Ti-guy, that you are still having problems with the concept of non sequitur, as evidenced by your linking the "Piss Christ", which is relevant to Dawg's mention of Bill C-10, with the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.
Although, it did draw attention from the fact that Dawg did not respond to Peter's question.
Dawg, you are right, I hadn’t read the full transcript (a little knowledge… as they say). However the full monty didn’t improve things much. It is entirely conceivable that McDonalds, were it to implement relaxed hand washing standards in response to the HR Tribunal ruling, could then be hauled up by another government agency… for insufficient hand washing. And only public servants with no knowledge of business could demand that McDonalds provide evidence of how much hand washing is necessary to prevent contamination. Any organisation is free to make those decisions itself, as long as it at least meets the legal minimum. A coterie of bureaucrats has no right to interfere as long as that requirement is met. Canada must be a horrible place to do business.
Jim R hits the bullseye when he imagined the left’s reaction if these commissions were staffed by rightist zealots. The Montreal Gazette accused the commissions of imposing a bland politeness on everyone. If only. It is much worse than that, with blandness imposed on only one side. The difference between left and right is that I would also object if my team were in charge and imposed restrictions on leftist speech and thought. The impulse to silence opposing views is very much the speciality of the left.
It appears, Ti-guy, that you are still having problems with the concept of non sequitur, as evidenced by your linking the "Piss Christ", which is relevant to Dawg's mention of Bill C-10, with the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.
Well, at least this time, you spelled non sequitur correctly...
I'm not having any problems at all, Fergus. Now, pipe down...adults talking.
I remember thinking, Dude making this film has been your life for months. You've spent millions of other people's dollars on it. Did you never *think* about the rating in all this time? Did you not think it might be a *relevant consideration*?
Adults talking? What was I thinking?
I love being Canadian. Every angry, bitter, talent-free mediocrity gets his say in this country.
"On the main point, though, one of the aspects of the human rights commission/tribunal process that I like is the power to mediate disputes among citizens."
Dawg: the above isn't true when it comes to section 13 'speech' cases. When it comes to a section 13 case, you go straight to the Tribunal.
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimi...n_hate-
en.asp#5
In relation to the child-abuse scandal of the Catholic Church, indeed it was. I certainly would prefer my child see the Piss Christ than have her be subject to sexual abuse by a priest.
In the words of my friend Cameron:
Again with the equivalencies that are not Ti-Guy.
Sholto,
Macdonalds can set whatever handwashing standards it wants, but if it wants to fire a longtime employee -- 23 years -- who can't meet that standard because she has developed a disability, it has to show that it is a bona fide occupational requirement and not some arbitrary rule devised by some clown at Hamburger U . To suggest that that rational connection is somehow anti-business is ridiculous, unless, like Ezra, you want to gut anti-discrimination law entirely.
Ah, for the good old days, where one could freely post signs saying "NO IRISH, NO DOGS, NO BLACK" and really make it stick.
Equally ridiculous is your suggestion that censorship is only practiced by the left. The Motion Picture Code, laws against blasphemous libel, loyalty oaths and blacklists and threats to fund museums that show modern art that treats religious subjects as other than kitsch are just a few example of limits on speech for which we can thank our friends on the right.
Human Rights commissions were designed to protect Canadians from discrimination (racial, gender and the like), in areas such as housing, workplace etc. in a timely and financially feasible manner.
Just how the HRCs got into the thought control business is beyond me. I do not think that there is any conservative vs left wing divide on the issue of the protection of free speech - Noam Chomsky, EGALE, PEN, Alan Borovoy, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn all condemn the HRCs.
HRCs:
Presumption of guilt, no due process, state sponsored (funded) prosecution with a 100% conviction rate - where the fines go into the complainants pockets (are some complainants serial abusers of the system?), radical Islams leveraging of HRCs to advance their highly illiberal agendas - this has just got to stop.
Regarding hate crimes: real courts with due process is the place to deal with them.
Truewest, you start by saying that McD’s can set their own standards, but then say it cannot be set by “some clown at Hamburger U”. Well who else would set it? It is impossible to say exactly what level of hand washing is required to prevent contamination – there are a million variables. Given that if they get it wrong they would be hauled before another tribunal, doubtless staffed by the same sort of litigation-happy leftoids as those in the HRC’s, their only sensible option is to assume a common sense level, and then add a safety margin. To suggest, as you do, that length of service absolves one from adhering to that standard, just shows how divorced from reality much left wing thought is.
I repeat, it is not up to business-hostile bureaucrats to decide whether a company’s standards are too stringent, especially when it won’t be them who carry the can if standards then slip the other way. McD’s, and presumably other businesses, are being constrained into an ever diminishing alleyway, with litigation either side.
As for the so-called right wing censorship, the examples you give are old ones, based on public morality. You may not agree with them, but you can’t say they are ‘political’ in the way that the HRC’s are. As for the museums, as has been discussed above, withholding a subsidy is not censorship.
"Well, at least this time, you spelled non sequitur correctly..."
Hey, thanks for noticing. I am making an attempt to proofread these days.
"I'm not having any problems at all, Fergus. Now, pipe down...adults talking."
So, to be clear, Bill C-10 and the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church are logically related, in your mind?
It's terrible isn't it Ti-Guy having to endure all those ignorant, and savagely brutish Canadians speaking up and making their opinions known. Once you've taken over the CBC why stop there? Perhaps you can make a bid to control all of our broadcasters to make sure we imbiciles can no longer voice our opinions. In fact ... have a Chiquita my friend ... your Republic awaits you.
Robert Jago:
Point made. Thanks for the clarification.
Sholto:
I have re-read the Tribunal's ruling, and I can't see where they are doing anything more than ruling that the employer should have made the effort to find this long-standing employee other work--which sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Sholto,
Actually, it's probably pretty simple to determine what level of hand-washing is necessary to prevent contamination. Indeed, someone at some university somewhere has probably devoted several years of their life to determining just that. The larger point, however, is that Macdonalds cannot set arbitrary standards, ones that are not integral to the job, and then rely on them to push out a 23-year employee who has developed a disability. Yeah, I know its a bitch that you have to continue to employ someone even thought their usefulness to you has diminished because of something beyond their control - so much easier to show them the door with a handshake and a bag of fries -- but somewhere along the line we as a society determined that it was wrong to allow businesses to dispose of their employees simply because they had the misfortune to develop a disability.
BTW, your characterization of HRT's as "litigation-happy" is goofy; its like calling courts "litigation-happy" - in both cases, the bodies were established to deal with disputes. Human Rights bodies act on complaint - Warman aside, they don't prowl the streets looking for injustice.
It's terrible isn't it Ti-Guy having to endure all those ignorant, and savagely brutish Canadians speaking up and making their opinions known. Once you've taken over the CBC why stop there? Perhaps you can make a bid to control all of our broadcasters to make sure we imbiciles can no longer voice our opinions. In fact ... have a Chiquita my friend ... your Republic awaits you.
Snarly attacks aren't opinion, "Charles," whoever the hell you are.
I love how they all have to venture far afield to find people to vilify. What makes them think the rest of us should have to put with them?
Ti-Guy said:
"I do indeed empathise or even sympathise with people who were offended by Piss Christ, but it's kind of odd to claim you can feel any one else's feelings, and it is authoritarian to demand that others feel a certain way or grow a thicker skin."
This is the argument against making frivolous human rights complaints for being "offended" in a nutshell, isn't it?
I can understand someone who says freedoms of speech and expression should be paramount and that there should neither be obscenity laws nor hate-speech codes. I can understand someone who thinks there is a case for both, however limited, on grounds of collective decency and civility. But I can't follow anyone who says we should consider one but not the other, except on the basis that he or she thinks what is important to him/her personally should govern.
A good letter in response to Alan Borovoy in today's Toronto Star.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/a.../article/
415704
"fatuous histrionics"
Statist goons always use descriptions like this to belittle those who oppose them.
100% "conviction" rates.
No oversight or review.
Accountable to no one, except themselves.
The Stasi would have been envious.
Mike S, sorry when you spittle at the mouth it’s hard to make any sense of what point you are trying to make.
The letter from CJC is pretty clear and factual. It showed how the Supreme Court defined hatred and contempt. What exactly the struck you that this was "stasi-like"?
Bellowing out epithets may sound good to your ear but frankly pretty meaningless for anyone who can read.
Dear Dr. Dawg,
I am not sure it is called "winning" or "losing" as only time will tell. But the spotlight on recent cases and judgements right across the country have horrified most Canadians.
This is not a case of a left or right political orientation but a moral and ethical Wrong and Right line in the sand the CHRC crossed over many times.
Clearly, the CHRC and their sisters and brothers were not listening and paying attention as the groundswell developed.
They (in their supreme arrogance and bureaucratic isolation) could not in anyway comprehend how they were vulnerable and now perceived and only until it was far too late did they even send out their 3rd stringers/wingers.
Given the dispute about whose Tech. expert is right - it really is necessary to call in the RCMP to determine what, if any, criminal offences were commited and the PCO to determine what exactly went wrong in a lack of policy and procedures that allowed low level minions to operate outside the law and to align themselves with a former staff member in a rather ODD fashion.
My 2 pennies worth.
Mordechai,
Use of informants, entrapment, agent provecteur and so on would fit "stasi like" to me.
But then it is a communist/marxist tactic that is ok?
LS from SK, with your definition of "stasi-like", no police force in the country could operate. CSIS would have to close down never mind the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing you have listed here has been proven anywhere but in your mind. They are and remain allegations until proven otherwise. I know you and your pals feel like you are your own "star-chamber" and can pass judgement anytime you want. But I have a rude surprise for you, Uh Uh, dont work like that.
Now as for this cute line from you:
"But the spotlight on recent cases and judgements right across the country have horrified most Canadians."
Is that right? Can you show me any poll which demonstrates that "most Canadians" have been "horrified". There may be disagreement, questions and more but "horrified", "most Canadians"?? Methinks you exaggerate but a tich.
Mordechai wrote:
"The letter from CJC is pretty clear and factual. It showed how the Supreme Court defined hatred and contempt. What exactly the struck you that this was 'stasi-like'?"
The concept of a thought crime is stasi-like enough - or should be to anyone interested in human freedom.
Use authoritarian tools and you're an authoritarian, regardless of your nobler instincts.
Under such thought crime concepts, abolitionists were guilty of stirring up hatred against slave owners, anti-fascists were guilty of encouraging hatred against several nations, and I am guilty of contempt for well-spoken nincompoops who don't realize their ideas are essentially statist in means and results.
And as far as spittle goes, it was not coincidental that long coats, often of leather, were so often popular amongst the minions of past authoritarian states.
Mike S, how exactly in terms of the violation does libel and slander differ from a violation of section 13?
>>>LS from SK, with your definition of "stasi-like", no police force in the country could operate. CSIS would have to close down never mind the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing you have listed here has been proven anywhere but in your mind. They are and remain allegations until proven otherwise. I know you and your pals feel like you are your own "star-chamber" and can pass judgement anytime you want. But I have a rude surprise for you, Uh Uh, dont work like that.
Humm seems like my previous comments got censored. Bad, bad Dawg.
Oh well, this from Ezra's blog may make my point even better:
"Maclean's shoots back
By Ezra Levant on April 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | Trackback
Maclean's magazine has been pretty quiet about its own persecution by Canada's human rights commissions. Mark Steyn has railed against them in his Maclean's column, and Charlie Gillis did a balanced report on Canada's Complainer-General, Richard Warman. But in the main, the magazine has taken the opposite approach to that which I took, both when I was publisher of the Western Standard, and now that the Western Standard, at least as a print magazine, is gone.
I think that's because of the nature of Maclean's: it's the establishment news magazine, over a century old, and it doesn't have anything to prove, unlike our scrappy upstart did. And we were, by nature, much more of a crusading publication. Maclean's reports the news, but they don't much want to make the news.
I think that all changed with Barbara Hall's abominable press release last week, in which she condemned Maclean's and Mark Steyn for the political crime of "Islamophobia" -- without the bother of an actual hearing into the matter. There was no caricature of the nosy censor that Hall did not fulfill; she was truly what central casting would send over if a Hollywood screenwriter requested a modern day Big Brother, straight out of George Orwell's book, 1984. I've written before that the human rights commissions are their own worst enemies when it comes to the PR war in which we are engaged. I don't think there's anything I could say that would damage the HRCs as badly as they can damage themselves. The truth about them is so abnormal, that people just wouldn't believe me -- until they hear it from the HRCs themselves.
If I were ever to have a debate against Barbara Hall, I think the smartest thing I could do, in terms of convincing the audience of the rectitude of my views, would be to give Hall all of my speaking time, in addition to her own.
It took Hall's attack to pull Maclean's into the thick of the debate. They've written a wonderful counterblaste, which you can read here. Hall's threat also elicited rebukes from the National Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and Toronto Sun -- again, something that no partisan reformer like me could have hoped to have accomplished..."
Editor's Note: Posts here are not "censored" (although cussing is discouraged). So post what you thought you had posted in the first place. The fault was yours. --DD
Ok...will try a condensed version to Mordecai,
A surprise to you and other star chamber functionaries is that unlike the police and CSIS, the HRC do not hold "police or peace officer" status under the criminal code.
I have no problem with any police force using powers given to them as they have oversight review - something the HRCs do NOT have.
In addition they are trained, again something HRCs appear to have overlooked preferring "on the job" indoctrination.
Dawg,
Perhaps the reason the critics of the human rights are "winning" is they don't hesitate to traffick in misinformation at every turn. Passages from decisions are quoted out of context (see Sholto's contribution, above), facts are distorted or invented, the process itself is mischaracterized as quasi-criminal (e.g. hate speech "charges") and unaccountable (disregarding the judicial review process, in which courts pay considerably less deference to the findings of HRTs than they do to, say, the findings of labour boards). It goes on.
Some of this likely arises from ignorance. Those who blather on about dealing with HRC matters in a "real courts" or requiring all HRT panelist to be retired judges clearly have no practical experience in or knowledge of either the ordinary courts or the human rights process. If they had, they would realize that a separate apparatus was necessary to deal with the various human rights acts, not only to allow self-represented litigants to appear without being tripped up by complex court rules, but because running every human rights complaint through the ordinary courts would be grossly inefficient.
But Levant is a lawyer. He knows - or should know -- better. His distortions of the process, from his gong show with McGovern to his latest post, are wilfull and dishonest attempt to do two things. One is to discredit a process that has done a great deal to eliminate discrimination in the provision of public services (which makes them anathema to doctrinaire libertarians like Levant, who worship slavishly at alter of freedom of contract and who argue, without any evidence in support and much evidence to the contrac, that the market will take care of discrimination). The second is to promote the brand of Ezra Levant, a project that the little pisher has devoted himself to since he wrote Youthquake while an intern at the Fraser Institute. (If you can get your hands on this tome, which predicts a generation of young fogies rising up to smite the welfare state and is written to reach folks who read at a Grade 3 level, grab it. It's a hoot.)
Fortunately, the decisions on human rights codes will be made by adults. And no political party, not even Stephen Harper's Conservatives, are going to shut down a useful process to appease a bunch of ideologues. They might win on s.13(1), but the larger goal is out of reach.
As for your suggested reforms, I think you go way too far.
Section 13(1) and its provincial equivalents could be improved by two changes. First, by requiring that the complainant be a member of the group under attack in the impugned publication; there's something unseemly about allowing someone like Warman to proceed as a private attorney general. Second, by allowing truth as defence. This would bring it in line with defamation law in common law Canada (although not with defamation law under Quebec's Civil Code, in which true statements can still be defamatory if published with malice.)
A
truewest:
Please post the remainder of your comments. There's a Haloscan character limit.
Damn HaloScan. As I was saying....
A screening process is probably a good idea. But it's not the only way to go. In tribunal-only systems, such as BC, screening takes place via motions to dismiss (about 40 percent of the tribunals decision consider applications to dismiss) A better idea is a procedure to mediate complaints or otherwise resolve claims by consent. Not every party to a human rights complaint is unreasonable or pigheaded (as Levant's successor at the Western Standard demonstrated when they apologized for allowing a post calling for the killing of Muslims).
And while I appreciate that your suggestion that successful defendants be "made whole" was made in good faith, in practice it would be a disaster. In any legal proceeding, exposure to costs awards operates as a serious bar to access to justice. It would have a profound impact on the human rights process. Respondents, who typically have much deeper pockets that complainants, would lawyer up and fight every point, knowing that if they win, they would not only recover some of their costs from the complainant, but that they would deter future complainants who might be frightened off by the the prospect of being saddled with a huge legal bill. Do you think the complainant in the Macdonalds case would have proceeded if her employer could have said, "Complain if you like, but if you lose -- and we have pretty good lawyers, so there's a chance that you will -- you're going to have to pay our legal bills"?
As it stands, the BC tribunal (and presumably others) has the power to order costs if a party breaches a rule or an order or is found to have "engaged in improper conduct during the course of the complaint". That is sufficient to make the process fair. To adopt the mandatory costs rule of ordinary courts -- i.e. loser pays winner -- would be a disaster.
BTW, since we're talking about costs, Ezra's claim to have spent $100,000 on the cartoon complaint to the AHRC seems about as credible as his claim that the AHRC spent $500,000 investigating the complaint.
Given that the complaint hadn't even gone to hearing, it seems to me that the only way Ezra could have run up a legal bill on that order of magnitude is if he paid his lawyers to paint his house and then hired them tgo wash his Hummer every couple of days.
Of course, Ezra could prove me wrong by posting a PDF of his legal bills on his website. I wait with bated breath.
truewest, I think what you have said is hateful. I am going to file a complaint against you with the HRC.
truewest:
I take your point about costs, but the problem is that a successful respondent is not made whole under the current process. Perhaps one way out of this dilemma might be for the Commission to appoint an advocate for the respondent. Neither side should be vulnerable, in my view. I agree with your scepticism about Levant's costs, however.
I do not support, at this point, the notion that one needs to be a member of the affected group to have the right to lodge a complaint. That simply reinforces identity politics. Why shouldn't a member of another group be permitted equivalent concern over an act of discrimination? Doesn't that hearken towards the social solidarity that we should be espousing?
Dawg,
A successful defendant in a civil action is never actually "made whole" either. A costs order in Supreme Court only covers a fraction of actual legal fees. Provincial small claims court judges can only order costs to address misconduct by a party, not unsuccessful actions. In most arbitrations, each party bears its own costs And, of course, a successful defendant in a criminal case gets only an acquittal, no matter how much he has spent on his defence.
As a society, we have decided that parties to a dispute should each bear at least some part of the cost of resolving it. I don't see why we should treat the human rights scheme any differently.
I take your point on the question of standing to bring a complaint under s.13, but limiting the ability to complain to people who may conceivably have suffered harm seems a reasonable limit on any dispute resolution system. Yes, we all suffer in some way if one of us is made a scapegoat, but the present wording appears to have encouraged Mr. Warman to act as a private attorney general or a professional complainant.
Hi Dawg, I missed out on yesterday’s badinage (got the kids this weekend. Ah, yes, I remember time…), so this offering may appear stale.
Re your remark that the tribunal was doing no more than finding alternate employment where hand-washing would be less of an issue, why then do they mention the subject at all? Part of their ruling did indeed focus on Datt’s ability to remain in a food-handling role. I still maintain that McD’s are fully entitled to impose whatever hygiene standards they wish, and it is not up to the tribunal to question them, as they clearly have here. Heck I often have to do things at work which I think are ridiculous, but he who pays the piper…
Ah, truewest, you still don’t get it, do you? You say that there are probably scientific guidelines about hand-washing, but note the ‘probably’, and no reference to such. Even if such guidelines existed, I would like to see a business try to use them as defence in a food contamination case. All businesses can do is cover their butts with arbitrarily high standards. If employees, however deserving, cannot achieve those standards then they have to go. It’s called capitalism, part of what Churchill described as the worst system in the world except for all the others. As Dawg said, it is possible McD’s did not make enough effort to find her, say, a clerical role, but that was only part of the ruling.
As for suggesting I had deliberately quoted out of context, I rapidly conceded to Dawg I had not got the full picture. There was nothing deliberate about it. What I wrote was an accurate, if partial, fragment of the ruling. As I later said, there were many other parts that were equally ludicrous, including the assertion that McD’s could have bundled up other duties to create a new position. Clearly these tribunalists have never run a business. As if.
If you had read my post accurately, you would have noted I said that the HRC’s, not HRT’s, were litigation-happy. Talk about misquoting. Well the HRC’s have indeed launched complaintless cases. And I can’t imagine that posting incendiary remarks under pseudonyms was done for any purpose other than drumming up business. They are not passive processors of complaints.
Sholto,
Actually, Churchill said DEMOCRACY was the worst system in the world except all the others. Democracy and capitalism do not necessarily walk hand in hand, as China has demonstrated recently. And one of the nice things about democracy is that it allows us to pass laws that ameliorate some of the excesses of capitalism. This includes holding responsible those businesses who figure they can send a 23-year employee packing because its cheaper and easier than adapting to her newly-developed disability.
The HRCs are no more litigious than the HRTs. They investigate complaints. They don't make them. And they don't prosecute them. Indeed, while it appears that CHR Act doesn't expressly bar employees from filing complaints, most other acts do.
For the record, I didn't intend to suggest that you deliberately quoted the commission out of context and if I left that impression, I apologize. However, I think it was sloppy and misleading.
A successful defendant in a civil action is never actually "made whole" either.
Quite true, at least not often, but then neither is the plaintiff. About a hundred years ago a French prime minister quipped: "I've been ruined twice in my life. The first time was when I lost a lawsuit and the second time was when I won one."
The system is built around the notion that litigation is a necessary evil of last resort with risks for both sides. What is noxious here it not so much that the defendants aren't made 100% whole, but that such is combined with the fact the complainants get a free pass to some kind of heroism for social change. Does anyone believe Warman brings these complaints reluctantly and with a heavy heart?
Peter,
I don't agree that complainants get a free pass -- commmission counsel doesn't represent the complainant, who generally must retain his own counsel or appear on his own behalf -- but I share your concern that the current legislation allows folks like Warman to make filing complaint their avocation. And whlie I'm not sure we should amend legislation based on the fact that some folks get a kick out of using it, I've tried to address that concern in my suggestions above.
Truewest, we just have to agree to disagree on where businesses should draw the line between employees and economics. Suffice it to say that most people now agree that a business in the competitive sector cannot run itself along the lines of Canada Post. Look at the Lessons for Employers section of the Canadian Employment Law Today report (http://www.employmentlawtoday.com/loginArea/
guestview.asp?articleid=153
, and the amount of extra bullshit that must be followed by companies as a result of this ruling. Anyway, time for both of us to move on!
If you really think my team is winning because of the reasons you gave above (even crediting my, er, sloppiness as a factor – I am honoured, sir), well that itself is probably a good reason why we are winning. You should be able to confront the fact that most people consider the HRC’s are an affront to common law and common sense. Sure we’re making hay out of it, but your side provided the grass.
A curse on haloscan. It converted the last digit of the URL in my last missive to a smilicon. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/436wjx
6 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
