Why is it that its decent groups like CJC that have to continue reminding us of the need to be vocal?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news...html?
id=1747869
Good on you Dawg for advocating on this one. It boggles the mind that nothing has happened here.
Has there in fact been no complaint about Hossein to the CRHC? That would seem to me to be the logical venue.
Welcome to the dark side, Dawg. The system isn't fair, and Lebuis' point was to make that lack of fairness known to people on all sides of the political spectrum.
We can't have a system in place meant to cater to all, when it only caters to an elite few: Richard Warman, the "official" Jews of Canada, and our oh-so-tender-hearted Islamic community. If we are going to really be equal in this country, no animals can be more equal than others.
RG
Dr Dawg, I disagree with your premise that he has a point.
Marc Lebuis was not offended by what the Imam wrote he wanted to test the system with his notion neutrality.
In the context of the site "Point de Bascule" that proudly boast that it attacks Islam and the so-called problems that he sees with Muslims.
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/s...ip.php?
article9
When you read the actual passages that he cites, I think that it does warrant a comparison to what is spewed by the so-called Free Speech Warriors and other miscreants of the right...
I've started to read the book "Islam ou l'Integrisme" and did not see much different from what I'd hear at many catholic Sunday churches or my synagogue...
Being offended by that book is one matter, calling it hate would by proxy be calling all religion hateful. It's quite the slippery slope.
Yes there are over the top passsages like this one:
Une autre façon utilisée par ces mécréants pour nier la différence des sexes est l’enseignement de l’homosexualité aux jeunes enfants à l’école. Les professeurs du primaire enseignent maintenant à leurs élèves qu’un garçon peut jouer à la poupée et qu’une fille peut jouer aux camions. Ou que les garçons peuvent porter du rose et que les filles peuvent porter du bleu, alors que tout le monde sait que le bleu est une couleur de garçon et que le rose est une couleur de fille. On enseigne même aux enfants que l’homosexualité est une chose normale et dans certaines écoles, on enseigne aux enfants un livre qui s’intitule «mes deux papas» ! Tout cela est fait dans le but de détruire chez les jeunes enfants, la différence des deux sexes.
But that could easily be written by a blogging tory...I'm sure that SUZE ALL CAPS would likely approve...
Marc goes further in being disingenuous by quoting the book out of context.
Sorry but his complain is much ado about nothing...
Would somebody whose french must be better than mine translate these:
"Les homosexuels et les lesbiennes méritent d’être « anéantis dans cette vie »"
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/s....php?
article681
and this from the only quote in the text with the word "aneantir":
"Sans oublier le nombre incroyable d’homosexuels et de lesbiennes (qu’Allah les maudisse et les anéantisse dans cette vie et dans l’autre)"
pg. 195 here:
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/
I...me_edition_.pdf
If I don't miss my guess, Chuckles is insisting (certainly in his english translation of his french webpage) that the writer means homosexuals ought to be put to death:
"Homosexuals and lesbians should be 'exterminated in this life'"
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/s....php?
article682
Doesn't a real translation come up with ". . . homosexuals and lesbians, whom God curses and crushes in this life and the next, . . . ."?
(Another Rev. Phelps? It sounds like his usual "God hates fags" riff.)
Assuming my translation's correct, is this stuff, for all that it's obvious bullshit ie putting ridiculous words into the mouth of a putative Almighty, really actionable by the CHRC?
"Aneantir" means to annihilate or destroy. Since when is it legal to call for the annihilation of homosexuals?
Then there's this: « Les homosexuels qu’on trouve en train de faire la sodomie, on coupe la tête de celui qui le fait et de celui qui le subit .»
Even the disgusting Rev. Boissoin didn't call publicly for the beheading of gay men.
In the book - once again that Marc quotes out of context the word anéantisse appears like this:
Les mécréants de l’Occident, ainsi que certains musulmans égarés, ne savent plus ce qu’être un homme ou une femme signifie. La femme veut devenir l’homme et l’homme veut devenir la femme ou a peur d’être un vrai homme. Sans oublier le nombre incroyable d’homosexuels et de lesbiennes (qu’Allah les maudisse et les anéantisse dans
cette vie et dans l’autre) qui sèment le désordre sur la terre et qui veulent de plus en plus s’afficher.
I don't see where the author calls hate against homosexuals...
He states that Allah will "smite" them.
I agree with Todd's interpretation. Sorry Dawg.
Dawg said:
"'Aneantir' means to annihilate or destroy. Since when is it legal to call for the annihilation of homosexuals?"
But that's not what it says.
"Aneantir" certainly means "to destroy", but he's attributing this quality to Allah, not calling for anyone (certainly nobody mortal) to do it.
As for the beheading, he seems to be pointing out that Islam has punishments for a list of crimes, homosexuality included, and apparently lists who advocated them. But this seems to be nothing more than a description, not a call for Muslims to do it.
I don't know the criteria for the CHRC to convene a hearing over this stuff, but this just doesn't seem to be enough. Maybe somewhere else in the book, but I don't think it's where Chuckles wants it to be.
God save us from religion. What a pile of crap.
Here's the Boissoin decision:
http://
www.albertahumanrights.ab...ren113007Pa.pdf
Both men use religion as a vehicle for their visceral hatred. Are their comments qualitatively different?
Are their comments qualitatively different?
Yes.
The first comment is:
Come on people, wake up! It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn.
That is an incitement to violence not present Al-Hayiti's book.
Dear Pseudonym "Dr. Dawg";
You raise a very interesting point about so-called "hate laws", and how their application is selective, ambiguous and political.
I can give you quite a few examples of how the CHRC makes completely political and selective decisions.
In the above case you quote, the CHRC specifically ruled that the words of Al-Hayiti, did not meet the test of “hate” as defined by the Taylor SCC decision. That in itself is non-sense and laughable.
But let’s compare this passage, which the CHRC has been prosecuting for close to 6 years, as alleged “hate speech.”
[link and racist "Immigrant Poem" deleted--ed.]
In their closing arguments and in multiple written submissions, The CHRC claims the “immigrant Poem” is extreme hate and extreme ill will.
In their closing arguments of the Lemire case, the CHRC submitted that:
86. “Canadian Immigrant Poem” is implicitly about Pakistani immigrants and refers explicitly to immigrants on the basis of religion, race, colour, and national and ethnic origin. It refers to immigrants as “aliens” and “trash”, who arrive in Canada “wearing turbans”. It stereotypes these immigrants as non-contributors to Canadian Society who take unfair advantage of welfare and other Canadian social assistance programs, live “fourteen families” in a house and are so unpleasant as to force their white neighbours to move away.
87. It is submitted that this is a gross caricature of Pakistani and other East Asian immigrants to Canada, amounting to an expression of extreme ill will and utter contempt, and as such is likely to expose Pakistani immigrants to hatred or contempt within the meaning of section 13
If you wanted to post material within the bounds of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, what possible guidance would you get from the two CHRC decisions?
It's ok to want to exterminate someone. But a poem is bad and will cost you over $100,000 in legal bills, loss of time, reputation, etc etc etc.
But thats the devil in the details of so-called "hate laws." They are MEANT to be ambiguous, and as vague as possible. Thus the very wording of Section 13 is so vague it can be selectively applied. Section 13 says: to “expose” people to words, which are likely to cause “hatred and/or contempt”
The ambiguity of so-called “hate laws” leads to the maximum chilling effect possible on speech and expression. No one knows where the line is. It is not clear what can or can not be said. Truth and intent are no defence. Not to mention the 100% conviction rate.
This all add up to a major chill on freedom in Canada, which must be remedied by removing the Section 13 albatross around the neck of thinking Canadians!
Well that did not take long for White Supremacists like Marc Lemire to show up....
Presumably Bernie or Lucy or the Jackal are, even now, making out the complaint against Hossein to the CHRC.
Of course the CHRC can initiate complaints itself but it prefers not to.
"Marc Lebuis was not offended by what the Imam wrote he wanted to test the system with his notion neutrality." (How can you possibly know and it is irrelevant in any even see Warman.) Indeed he did. And it failed.
However, the Commission's relative failure is not the free speech point; rather, the point is that by its own statute the CHRC strips Canadians of s.2 Fundamental Rights using a capricious and arbitrary process.
It would make very little difference if a complaint about Hossein is or is not accepted by the Commission where the complaint against the Imam was not. The point is that there is no way to tell in advance what criteria will be used to assess a complaint, how it will be investigated and what defences (if any) are available to the respondent.
If we are going to take away Constitutionally protected rights we need a robust process in which the rights of the accused are fully protected. And, yes, that does mean that few will be charged and even fewer convicted. Which is as it should be when it comes to removing people's Charter rights.
Mr. Lemire:
Racist material is not welcome on my blog, and will not be permitted.
CWTF:
And yet "whatever steps are necessary" might be considered ambiguous (although not by me, I hasten to add), while citing the Word of God to justify annihilating gays or beheading them is not?
We're making distinctions without a difference here.
Jay:
One could probably point to contradictory judicial decisions as well--a shoplifter getting a conditional discharge here, a six-month sentence there--but that doesn't bring the justice system as a whole into disrepute.
Personally I think all three of the individuals mentioned crossed the line. One can always cherry-pick inconsistencies to commit the fallacy of composition. But that being said, we really do have here some egregious ones.
Al-Hayiti's writings are, as it were, speech to nobody. Boisson's letter was used by Boisson to stir up a bunch of impressionable kids at his mission to go out and gay bash (which they did). Context is everything.
Hossein's case is a bit different again, and I wonder if someone at the CJC/BB won't lodge an S13 complaint against him if efforts to go after him with the Criminal Code don't work.
"Marc Lebuis was not offended by what the Imam wrote he wanted to test the system with his notion neutrality." (How can you possibly know
If you bothered to read Marc's little rant, he states quite clearly that he wants to test the system's neutrality. That is his first goal. Stop being so stupid Jay.
Maybe it's the subtlety of the French language that escapes a few but I fail to see the "hate" in his book.
If ever there was a case that screamed for Canada's hate laws, on the surface this would appear to be one.
Jay Currie, you seem very selective in your targeting of who should consider a CHRC complaint. However next to Richard Warman I believe B'nai Brith have logged the largest number of Section 13 complaints. I always wonder with your bunch why they usually get a free pass.
Jay, I seem to recall that at one stage you were filing s. 13 complaints yourself. If it is somehow a failing of other filers that they have not filed against Hossein, shouldn't it also be a criticism of you?
Jay filed section 13's?
That's a new one on us.
More details please!
Google coughs up this, but there may have been others.
Buckets, I was turned down flat on the "kosher" cartoon complaint - too subtle.
On the other two I never heard one way or another on the Sikh terrorist matter and had the option of filing further material on the other one. Which I did not have time to do.
Dawg, the problem with refusing to post "racist material" (which I might add is entirely your call) is that stuff like "The Immigrant Poem" sets the bar so very low. If there was a competition for dumbest poem this would win in a walk. But, surely we should be able to judge for ourselves whether it rises to the level of "hate speech". And to do that we have to be able to read the dreadful bit of idiocy.
I would be surprised Dawg, if your readership was incapable of handling this nasty minded tripe without ill effect or the desire to march off for a bit of Paki bashing.
The "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" distinction some have raised seems rather unhelpful, even dangerous.
If I say, "According to holy scripture, homosexuals ought to be given the death penalty," then I'm simply describing the contents of holy scripture.
But if my intended audience consists of people who believe they ought to do what holy scripture says they ought to do, then have I crossed the line from description to prescription? But all I would be doing is letting people draw their own conclusions...
All this raises an abstract question:
If Oq counts as hate speech (e.g. "Homosexuals ought to be killed") and Op (perhaps along with a few other neutral premises) logically implies Oq, then should Op also count as hate speech?
Jay is right: Lemire's poem really is dumb!
I mean, rhyming "together" with "better"? Really?
Dawg said:
"while citing the Word of God to justify annihilating gays or beheading them is not?"
Um, couldn't one find passages in the Bible with that same justification? Off-hand, I can think of the old standby that justifies (if it doesn't actually demand such behaviour from devout Christians) murdering Wiccans. We could even go so far as to attack Shakespeare for this sort of thing as well.
"Personally I think all three of the individuals mentioned crossed the line."
In the case of the french book, the writer certainly crossed a (personal) line: it's easy to see why lots of people could find the book at best pointlessly tiresome and at worst full of brainless rejectionism of anything non-muslim. But did it cross an official line? I'd have been a bit surprised if it did.
Currie said:
"The point is that there is no way to tell in advance what criteria will be used to assess a complaint, how it will be investigated and what defences (if any) are available to the respondent."
So it's a system you want? Not terribly feasible when the subject matter under scrutiny can reflect a _lot_ of human ingenuity that a "cookie-cutter rule" couldn't match.
Unfortunately, it's as much a strength of the current method as a weakness that each case has to be individually assessed by individuals who are members of wider groups instead of a total system.
Terence said:
"But if my intended audience consists of people who believe they ought to do what holy scripture says they ought to do, then have I crossed the line from description to prescription? But all I would be doing is letting people draw their own conclusions..."
Partly, but that's where knowledge of context matters, I'd think.
Continuing on my Shakespeare riff, what might happen if Othello were performed in front of a bunch of Aryan Nation goons? And who performed it and why?
We can continue talking about the real and putative effects of media on impressionable minds if you like . . . .
(Bring on the porn!)
Inu Sensei,
In the past you have exercised your right to block certain people from posting on Dawg's Blawg. I'm a little bit surprised you haven't blocked Marc Lemire.
But if you allow his post at all, you could maybe allow all of it, for the convenience of your readers. I see you did allow his link. Just a thought.
bigcitylib,
"Al-Hayiti's writings are, as it were, speech to nobody."
Are they not addressed to all True Believers, who know who they are, and are sure and proud thereof?
Back to Jay's Section 13 complaint above. Courtesy of Buckets we have a link to what appears to be a letter from Jay Currie to the CHRC.
If that was all that there was to your complaint, I can see why it didn't get much action.
Go to the CHRC URL and look up "how to file a complaint,"
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactiv...qr/page3-
en.asp
Also there wasn't a positive ID on who exactly might have posted or hosted the offensive comments and I think there needs to be a pattern of invective, not just one posting to make a complaint begin to hold water.
k_z:
The truth? I was running out of ban space and cleared the deck a while back. I'm handling the trolls and fascists on a case-by-case basis at present: Lemire hadn't visited here for more than a year. Anyhow, he's banned now.
I take you and Jay's point: I probably should have scrubbed the entire post. But if you want to read that little poem, you'll have to go looking elsewhere. Meanwhile, k_z, thanks for the prompt--the link is now gone.
Todd,
I'd think accounting for relevant differences in context would be difficult.
If Q is a proposition that would expose people to hatred and contempt, if x uttered it, and instead x utters P and P->Q, then (one might think) x has uttered statements that could be expected to expose others to hatred and contempt, just in virtue of their logical connectedness.
The connection between performing Othello before an audience of Neo-Nazis and exposing others to hatred and contempt seems more tenuous (after all, logical implication between two statements is a particularly rigorous kind of connection.) What if there just happen to be neo-Nazis in the audience, and they draw the hateful conclusions?
As a nominal "speech warrior", the kind of HRC case I worry about most is one where I might express P (say, that the Muslim birthrate is higher than the non-Muslim one) and other people I don't know, haven't met, and won't meet (the Neo-Nazis in the audience) believe P->Q, and Q.
True propositions combined with false conditionals can lead to hateful inferences. But a hateful inference, based on a false conditional, can end up exposing people to hatred and contempt. Why should I be held accountable just for expressing a proposition that leads exactly nowhere unless the bigots in our midst combine it with their twisted beliefs?
I know I'm a bit late Dawg but I have to address some of the absurdities from those defending this document.
I've read the whole thing. I can tell you for a fact that this thing oozes with hate. But not just hate for women, Jews, and homosexuals, but of our entire society.
Now I'm not advocating that we prosecute this guy. But we need to wake up. We can't ignore despicable people like this like we are doing now.
First. BCL. Have you even read the document? Because your dumb statement is refuted in the preface.
« Ce livre est dédié à tout mes frères et sœurs en Islam qui ne lisent pas l’arabe et qui n’ont pas accès aux écrits des savants de l’Islam1 sur le sujet, ainsi qu’aux nouveaux convertis à l’Islam, afin qu’ils trouvent des réponses claires et convaincantes sur un sujet autour duquel circulent tant de confusions. »
Get it? This book is written for all Muslims. Speech to nobody indeed.
Jews:
« La même chose est vraie pour les Juifs, même sur la terre qu’ils occupent injustement en Palestine, ils ne l’occupent que pour la remplir de corruption et pour transgresser les lois d’Allah au nom de la laïcité. »
« La plupart des juifs ne recherchent que les intérêts matériaux et l’argent, à part cela ils n’ont rien. »
« Les juifs furent maudits parce qu’ils transgressaient la Loi et faisaient des péchés et ne s’interdisaient pas entre eux de le faire. »
Jew hate anyone?
Women:
« Ces versets sont des preuves que l’homme est supérieur et meilleur que la femme, et nous verrons les raisons de cela plus tard. »
Interesting ... men are superior to women.
Homosexuals:
« Sans oublier le nombre incroyable d’homosexuels et de lesbiennes (qu’Allah les maudisse et les anéantisse dans cette vie et dans l’autre) qui sèment le désordre sur la terre et qui veulent de plus en plus s’afficher. »
See that? Homosexuals create chaos on earth. What do you think the solution to that is?
The author wants to create an Islamic state. He wants Muslims to rally for the creation of an Islamic state. This is what he would like to see in an Islamic state:
« Ces idoles sont les principes de démocratie, de droits de l’homme, de laïcité, de liberté, d’égalité, de modernité, ainsi que beaucoup d’autres principes qui ne sont supportés par aucune preuve d’Allah, ni par aucune raison, ni logique ou preuve scientifique. »
He wants to get rid of our "false idols". You can figure out what those are.
« Les homosexuels qu’on trouve en train de faire la sodomie, on coupe la tête de celui qui le fait et de celui qui le subit, comme le prophète l’a ordonné (Sahih Ibn Majah : (2/83) no. 2075). Celui qui quitte l’Islam, on lui coupe le cou, le prophète dit : »
In his perfect society, homosexuals would be execute because they create chaos. Nice.
I could go on forever but I don't want to pollute your blog.
Funny that Dawg leaves the racist, anti-semitic and homophobic posts by the Muslim hater but then deletes others written by the other guy.
Terrence said:
"I'd think accounting for relevant differences in context would be difficult."
Sure, it can be. But it doesn't have to be.
"If Q is a proposition that would expose people to hatred and contempt, if x uttered it, and instead x utters P and P->Q, then (one might think) x has uttered statements that could be expected to expose others to hatred and contempt, just in virtue of their logical connectedness."
But this formula takes _no_ account of context whatsoever. Yes, as far as it goes, it seems logical (although there might be a bit of a leap in the P->Q, which, I think, is one place context would matter), but it's far from the real world.
"The connection between performing Othello before an audience of Neo-Nazis and exposing others to hatred and contempt seems more tenuous (after all, logical implication between two statements is a particularly rigorous kind of connection.) What if there just happen to be neo-Nazis in the audience, and they draw the hateful conclusions?"
I think you've demonstrated my point, though: if there just happened to be neo-Nazis drawing hateful conclusions in the audience, and the play's producer had no reasonable idea this would happen, I think it's equally reasonable not to see deliberate incitement.
"As a nominal 'speech warrior', the kind of HRC case I worry about most is one where I might express P (say, that the Muslim birthrate is higher than the non-Muslim one) and other people I don't know, haven't met, and won't meet (the Neo-Nazis in the audience) believe P->Q, and Q."
This sounds like a reasonable worry, given what some might feel as a Kafka-esque fear of not knowing what Authority thinks (whether this fear is really valid or not). The only thing I can think of to reply to this worry is that you aren't your brothers' keeper (unless it's been legally mandated).
"True propositions combined with false conditionals can lead to hateful inferences. But a hateful inference, based on a false conditional, can end up exposing people to hatred and contempt. Why should I be held accountable just for expressing a proposition that leads exactly nowhere unless the bigots in our midst combine it with their twisted beliefs?"
I agree: you shouldn't be (pace to context).
But I also like to think of my fellow human beings that they can see connections between what they might innocently say and what ugly reactions (not from bigots but from those the bigots would harm) can come about because of it or even just be able to find out the truth of a statement.
Charles says:
"See that? Homosexuals create chaos on earth. What do you think the solution to that is?"
Since you seem to be so concerned about it, you tell us what you have in mind as a Final Solution.
See, I can turn stupid bullshit around, too. It's dead easy.
If you're trying to argue the ideas in the book are simply wrong (if not many of them being vile and stupid), you're preaching to the converted.
If you're trying to argue they deserve a stronger official response, you'll have to show the criteria.
If you're arguing that the HRCC is biased in favour of Muslims, you've got an even heavier row to hoe.
"In his perfect society, homosexuals would be execute because they create chaos. Nice."
Read the _whole_ thread before you start typing, Sonny.
Todd,
"See, I can turn stupid bullshit around, too. It's dead easy."
I didn't turn anything around Todd. The author clearly states that:
1. He thinks homosexuality is immoral.
2. He thinks homosexuals create chaos in our society.
3. He thinks Muslims should fight for a society which would mete out the death penalty for homosexuals.
You don't think this encourages hate?
"If you're trying to argue the ideas in the book are simply wrong (if not many of them being vile and stupid), you're preaching to the converted."
I am. I consider many of his ideas to promote hate towards very specific groups. I take issue with anyone that says there is no hate in his writings.
"If you're trying to argue they deserve a stronger official response, you'll have to show the criteria."
I'm not. It's one of the first things I stated.
"If you're arguing that the HRCC is biased in favour of Muslims, you've got an even heavier row to hoe."
I never said that sonny. I couldn't care less about that in fact.
"Read the _whole_ thread before you start typing, Sonny."
Not worth it ...
I have to admit that I'm with Charles on this one. This is simply inexcusable writing in any civilized society: divisive, hateful, racist, misogynist crap.
Charles said:
"1. He thinks homosexuality is immoral."
Right.
"2. He thinks homosexuals create chaos in our society."
Right.
"3. He thinks Muslims should fight for a society which would mete out the death penalty for homosexuals."
Where does it say this?
In any event, I'm not sure encouraging people to fight for a certain type of society fits into the criteria for official action to be taken.
"You don't think this encourages hate?"
I don't know. It's offensive to me, to be sure (mind, though, that a lot of things offend me that almost everyone else, not even just right-wingers, takes for granted as normal and natural), but the one who's opinion mattered on the point of encouraging hatred says not. I'm curious to know the reasoning, but I'm not about to assume automatically that there is an inherent bias towards Muslims in the CHRC (which is itself a racist stance).
"I consider many of his ideas to promote hate towards very specific groups."
Fine. Your definition of promoting hatred is obviously much more flexible than mine. I look forward to examining your demand to have several of Shakespeare's works destroyed and teaching them banned for promoting hatred towards women, blacks, and jews.
"I take issue with anyone that says there is no hate in his writings."
Then why are you writing anything? Nobody here is saying the writing doesn't "have hate in it".
Again: read the thread before you open your mouth. If it's too much for you to keep up-to-date on what's been said, don't bother the adults who do show that respect.
"So it's a system you want? Not terribly feasible when the subject matter under scrutiny can reflect a _lot_ of human ingenuity that a "cookie-cutter rule" couldn't match."
Actually, I don't think a "system" is possible: one man's hatred is another man's revealed religious truth is another man's belly laugh.
This is the general point made by us speechers vis a vis s.13. There is no objective test for hatred and therefore no means in principle to determine where "the line" is to be drawn. Given the seriousness of depriving an individual of their s. 2 Rights it is improper for the state to arbitrarily do so. But the subjective nature of the assessment of hate speech means that is all the state is capable of doing.
This is a problem at the criminal level but, at least at that level there are the built in procedural protections and presumptions which make conviction very difficult. But at the CHRC/HRC level those protections and presumptions don't apply although the removal of a citizen's s. 2 Rights is still in issue.
Hateful as the Imam or Mr.Hossein's rants may I would argue that it is impossible to construct an administrative remedy which would be both effective and fair. And rather than destroy these turds' Charter Rights unfairly I would prefer them to rant on alienating as many Canadians as possible.
Todd,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply!
"I think it's equally reasonable not to see deliberate incitement." But isn't one of the major problems with Section 13(1) and its provincial equivalents precisely that they don't take into account factors like the intention of the speaker?
And even if the CHRT tends to consider intention, I don't really find justification for such consideration in Section 13(1) of the CHRA. The key clause is "likely to expose", which suggests that what is important is the possible causal connection between the utterance and the attitudes of other people.
This is why I brought up the example of a hateful inference. Uttering P can be causally connected to other people coming to believe Q, without the speaker wanting or desiring people to make the required inference.
I should say that, like you, I trust most people will be able to distinguish innocent cases, in which a hateful audience does all the work of making the inference, and not-so-innocent ones where the speaker has a more direct role in the process.
However, I'd still like the law to reflect the distinction. And while I trust Canadians to be able to see and appreciate it, I'm more apprehensive about government bureaucrats being able and/or willing to do so.
Thanks again!
"Where does it say this?"
Reread the document. Or get someone who is literate in the language to explain it to you. He goes through pages explaining how he would like to set up his "ideal" society and what that would entail.
"I look forward to examining your demand to have several of Shakespeare's works destroyed and teaching them banned for promoting hatred towards women, blacks, and jews."
Where did I say this? You have an annoying habit of making stuff up. I am not, and have never been, in favour of destroying or banning literature.
"Then why are you writing anything? Nobody here is saying the writing doesn't "have hate in it"."
Good grief. Are you serious? "Maybe it's the subtlety of the French language that escapes a few but I fail to see the "hate" in his book." (CWTF) I was actually hoping he/she would take a look back and maybe be swayed by what I was trying to explain.
"Again: read the thread before you open your mouth. If it's too much for you to keep up-to-date on what's been said, don't bother the adults who do show that respect."
Again, not worth it.
big City Lib says
"Al-Hayiti's writings are, as it were, speech to nobody. Boisson's letter was used by Boisson to stir up a bunch of impressionable kids at his mission to go out and gay bash (which they did). Context is everything."
You are a Liar. Show me where gays were bashed as a direct result of the reverend's article.
Curry said:
"This is the general point made by us speechers vis a vis s.13. There is no objective test for hatred and therefore no means in principle to determine where 'the line' is to be drawn. Given the seriousness of depriving an individual of their s. 2 Rights it is improper for the state to arbitrarily do so."
So we agree on the impossibility of an objective test. But we seem to differ on what is to be done.
Arbitrariness? Given that an official body has to be contacted by a complainant, then the body (or at least an individual in it) has to examine the situation to determine validity, then, assuming the body agrees something happened, methods of adjudicating the matter are proferred, then, if they're rejected, the matter _might_ go before a higher authority (whose decision can then be appealed in higher legal institutions), the term "arbitrary" isn't the first one that comes to my mind. It's not as though any member of the government can simply see something s/he doesn't like, push a button or make a phone-call, and >poof< someone's in jail or slapped with a fine.
"This is a problem at the criminal level but, at least at that level there are the built in procedural protections and presumptions which make conviction very difficult."
Aside from putting more burden on an already overburdened criminal-court system and assuming you don't want the cops to get the ability to charge someone with "hate crime", that leaves it up to individual plaintiffs to fork over money to seek some kind of justice, plaintiffs who, typically but not always, are not from the dominant culture which permits (and even encourages) hatred against the minority (relatively speaking). You do realize that not everyone can afford justice if there's a price-tag on it, right?
"I would argue that it is impossible to construct an administrative remedy which would be both effective and fair."
As far as that goes, I agree; the effective remedy for hate has to involve much more, usually including The State and expenditures as well eg education, better quality lives for everyone, etc. But with a State that is devoted to budget cuts and tax breaks (as demanded by the ruling class and given as sops to the better off working class and professionals), not to mention maintaining class society in the teeth of its effects, that's not going to happen any time soon. So we're left with doing the best that can be done.
Terrence said:
"But isn't one of the major problems with Section 13(1) and its provincial equivalents precisely that they don't take into account factors like the intention of the speaker?"
It's not enshrined in law there, no, but it's something that can be told to investigators or argued during a tribunal. The complainant can explain this kind of stuff to the investigator.
"This is why I brought up the example of a hateful inference. Uttering P can be causally connected to other people coming to believe Q, without the speaker wanting or desiring people to make the required inference."
Then I'd expect you'd get to explain how intention wasn't there and the appearance of Q was circumstantial.
"And while I trust Canadians to be able to see and appreciate it, I'm more apprehensive about government bureaucrats being able and/or willing to do so."
What, aren't our government bureaucrats Canadians, too, subject to the same strengths and foibles attributed to Canadians in general? You've got to get out of this bourgeois fixed idea that The (Guilty) State is something apart and essentially different from The (Innocent) People. It's wrong and clouds ones judgement.
Charles said:
Oh. That's right: Charles doesn't think it's worthwhile to pay attention to what's been said.
No sense paying attention to what he has to say, then . . . .
Todd,
You make some excellent points (your response to Jay was great, too.) But I wanted to pick on this:
"What, aren't our government bureaucrats Canadians, too, subject to the same strengths and foibles attributed to Canadians in general?"
I'd say "maybe not." For one thing, only certain kinds of people are going to end up occupying these roles. There's no guarantee that their traits will match the traits of Canadians more generally. It may be that those drawn to positions at places like the CHRC/T have traits very rare in Canadians more generally (whether they are positive or negative traits is a different question.)
But on particularly cynical days, I begin to agree with Plato that people seeking power over other people are precisely the kind of people who shouldn't be given any power. That goes double for those seeking the power to strip people, even neo-Nazis, of fundamental rights.
Second, bureaucrats have interests, the same as anyone else. We should expect them to use the power they're given to advance their interests. That's why the vagueness of Section 13(1) worries me, ultimately: we can talk about how context can and should be incorporated into an assessment about whether or not P counts as hate speech. But these are fuzzy judgments, about which there can be, at least in some cases, reasonable disagreement.
Why should we not expect bureaucrats to make use of this inherent subjectivity to advance their own agendas? I might argue that this is exactly what's going on with this hateful Imam, Al-Hayiti. Those at the CHRC/T don't want to act against him, not because of fear (that's silly), but because it's not really in their interests to do so.
I would prefer a very specific law that removed the potential for biased, self-serving judgments on the part of bureaucrats, at least as much as possible.
Finally, public actors are not always subject to the same kind of accountability as private ones. This is related to the previous point: if the CHRC dismisses a complaint against someone like Al-Hayiti, it's unlikely that anyone is going to be fired. The CHRC can direct its resources toward safer targets -- or merely those less congenial to whatever ideology its employees happen to favor.
In theory, the Canadian public should hold the CHRC accountable, but then rational ignorance rears its head. I said trust Canadians to be able to see the difference (if folks like you and I point it out), but I don't trust them to have enough motivation to pay attention to the CHRC to discover it on their own.
"You've got to get out of this bourgeois fixed idea that The (Guilty) State is something apart and essentially different from The (Innocent) People. It's wrong and clouds ones judgement."
I'm not sure why my cynicism about government is bourgeois. Much of it comes from thinking about public choice economics, but it reached epic proportions
Grr... character limit!
Just as well. The rest of what I said was rather self-indulgent. Suffice to say, I worked in Washington, D.C. for a while as a public policy analyst.
What a wretched hive of scum and villainy! That's where my cynicism really took off.
Terrence, it is interesting to look at s.13(1) from a public choice theory perspective. Up until 18 months ago the only people who really had a stake in 13(1) were Richard Warman, the CJC, the Lying Jackal and a few bureaucrats at the CHRC. The section was rarely used and then, largely, to silence various basement "Nazis".
However, s.13(1) is also invested with a particular spin by various Liberals and NDPers. Nevermind the administrative removal of s. 2 Charter Rights; rather, it is a litmus test for political parties' commitment to "Human Rights".
Now, there is not a particularly huge constituency for "Human Rights" but there is - at least in Stephen Harper's mind - a significant constituency which would oppose the removal of "Human Rights". Taking on s.13(1) could (and will be) spun as an attack on such vital Canadian values as toleration and multiculturalism notwithstanding the fact it is antithetical to both.
Until quite recently, the possibility of such spin and the fact the section was only used against select basement fascists meant there was no significant group invested in its repeal.
Then came the Islamic sockpuppets, Ezra's publication of the Mo cartoons and the lifetime silencing of Rev. Boisson. At that point it was no longer about the easily dismissed basement dwellers but rather about opinion, which while you might not agree with it, was not entirely beyond the pale. (con't)
Public choice theory suggests that political actors respond to individuals and groups who are deeply invested in an issue and largely ignore people whose interest is minimal.
The free speech position succeeds when it can mobilize elites - mainly media and political - in favour of repeal of s. 13 and, more importantly, divorce s. 13 from the rest of the Human Rights discussion. The success we have enjoyed so far has largely been in drawing elite attention to the absurdly vague provisions of s. 13 and making it clear how this directly effects their interests rather than being ring fenced on the basement dwellers.
However, the second prong of the attack is to denormalize and ridicule the pretensions of an administrative arm of the government to being able to strip Canadians of their Charter Rights without due process and the full protection of the law.
Essentially we have to meet the Jackal/CJC/CHRC spin on "Human Rights" with the fact that people are losing their Charter Rights as the result of the capricious and arbitrary proceedings of a Kangaroo Court.
That effort is proceeding apace helped by the facts a) it's true, b) the CHRC and the coward Lynch are hopeless at PR (which they should not be doing in any case), c) the CHRC manages to be so entirely hamfisted when it comes to s. 13 when it is being applied to non-subterraneans who actually have counsel, d) the the CHRC is prepared to apply s.13 with de facto exemptions for select groups.
Terrence said
"For one thing, only certain kinds of people are going to end up occupying these roles. There's no guarantee that their traits will match the traits of Canadians more generally. It may be that those drawn to positions at places like the CHRC/T have traits very rare in Canadians more generally (whether they are positive or negative traits is a different question.)"
Oy, this is one big supposition you've got going. Statistically speaking, a big enough sample size has a pretty fair chance of having the same characteristics as the larger sample the smaller is drawn from, no? The public servants (as opposed to the politicians) are a fair-sized sample, I'd expect, same as any corporate body that exists solely in the geographic boundaries of the country.
Of course, one needs a certain level of education and capability to do ones job and certain personality types will do better in certain positions and tend to gravitate there, but I don't see how "special" people are "attracted" to jobs that would automatically differentiate them from all others in society.
"Second, bureaucrats have interests, the same as anyone else."
True, but how are they different from others' interests? We're not talking about a stalinist state after a revolution in an autocracy where government workers fight to hold onto jobs by finding scapegoats for execution and taking bribe money as a matter of course. If what I argued above is the case, Canadian government workers will largely be more-or-less centrist to right-wing liberals to conservative in ideological outlook. I agree that certain jobs will likely be more attractive to certain ideologies than others ie less likely to find conservative-types in CHRC but little reason to assume they're wild-eyed radicals. What other "interests" can they have that makes them automatically suspect?
"Those at the CHRC/T don't want to act against him, not because of fear (that's silly), but because it's not really in their interests to do so."
If they arbitrarily refused to do their jobs, they'd be open for censure if not getting fired. Besides, most people in normal situations simply want to do the jobs they've been given and feel good about it afterwards. What would the person who investigated this get out of not doing his job? It'd have to be a lot better reward than the chance of getting called on the carpet or fired.
"Finally, public actors are not always subject to the same kind of accountability as private ones."
I'd argue the opposite because this is an area where "government-hating" conservatives have been successful at getting this meme popularized not to mention the fact that governments are at least theoretically open to public scrutiny. Who watches the private watchmen?
The rest of your supposition assumes that the person in charge at CHRC personally overseas and vetoes or not each and every case out of his/her own ideological preferences (which I fin
(cont'd)
The rest of your supposition assumes that the person in charge at CHRC personally overseas and vetoes or not each and every case out of his/her own ideological preferences (which I find a bit hard to believe in a fair-sized section of a bureaucracy) or that there's some overarching conspiracy at work among all its members, for neither of which is there any evidence. And stepping on one little imam whose book most members of Canadian society would find offensive would hardly be that big a deal. There's a reason why it didn't set the wheels in motion, but I don't think it's pure ideology of any kind.
"I'm not sure why my cynicism about government is bourgeois. Much of it comes from thinking about public choice economics, but it reached epic proportions"
Your cynicism is in lock-step with the idea advanced since the start of liberal capitalism: government is an alien force that stands over and apart from the populace, ignoring that it's from the population (or at least certain sections and classes) that government is generated (ideologically as well as physically).
Public choice theory is derived from liberal ie plain vanilla economic theory, which goes far to echo and reinforce the biases and ends of the bourgeois ruling class.
"Suffice to say, I worked in Washington, D.C. for a while as a public policy analyst."
OK, and I've worked in the Canadian bureaucracy as a temp for a few years. I've seen and heard stuff that seems to match my general impressions and knowledge of Canadians at large.
Curry said:
"Then came the Islamic sockpuppets, Ezra's publication of the Mo cartoons and the lifetime silencing of Rev. Boisson. At that point it was no longer about the easily dismissed basement dwellers but rather about opinion, which while you might not agree with it, was not entirely beyond the pale."
So you really don't have a problem with silencing "freedom of speech" as such; it's just the freedom of those you happen to like even just a little bit that upsets you.
"people are losing their Charter Rights as the result of the capricious and arbitrary proceedings of a Kangaroo Court"
Wow. What an exaggeration, and with nothing of substance to back it up, either.
Well, the Big Lie has worked in the past . . . .
I wish Currie et al. would get off this "lifetime silencing" nonsense. Boissoin was told to go forth and sin no more. The rest of us are also silenced for life, without having to have complaints upheld against us: we can't defame, we can't broadcast hate, we can't incite riots...
But unlike the Christian in question, we don't have to be formally instructed.
Commenting by HaloScan
