Richard Moon's report has called for the repeal of section 13

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Richard Moon's report has called for the repeal of section 13

Well it seems like there is an uproar across Canada about this, only I do not know quite what to make of the uproar. And who new Bernie Faber and the CJC, as well the B'nai Brithwere hard left, but yet we hear from Ezra today, that indeed they are. Go figure...Undecided One good thing that may come out of this is the dispelling of the notion that either organization speaks for all Canadian Jews.

Quote:
I have spotted some frowning faces, though: Canada's Official Jews, who have dined out on section 13 for thirty years, are apoplectic that their meal ticket is about to be shut down.

...As I've pointed out before, the vast majority of Canadian Jews who have opined on the subject are for free speech and against section 13...

Burny doesn't speak for the Jews. He speaks for the hard left. He revealed his colours during the recent federal election campaign, when he forced the CJC to join an anti-Tory coalition against global warming -- because you know that's a Jewish issue -- and then when he was the architect of the obscenely partisan election brochure published by the Official Jews... the only difference between it and the Liberal campaign platform was it had no mention of a carbon tax.

...I've spoken at length to PMO staff and cabinet ministers about Farber's malign influence in the Jewish community. I've pointed out that he represents no-one other than himself, and how Farber is little more than a left-wing activist. My views are shared by many of the people in the Conservative government, who have actually complained to me that, on the rare occasion when they consult Farber on various issues, he leads them astray, giving his "blessing" to radical Muslim groups that later embarrass the government...

Farber is a left-wing hack and an embarrassment to Jews. But what's the excuse for the B'nai Brith? They put out a press release denouncing Moon's report, too...But the B'nai Brith has traditionally been more in touch with Canada's grassroots Jews, and less susceptible to politically correct leftism masquerading as the Jewish interest.

But here's the good news: no-one gives a damn what Burny and B'nai Brith think. We know where the public stands; we know where the civil libertarians stand; we know where Liberal MPs like Keith Martin stand; and now we know where the CHRC's own consultant stands.

It's one thing to be pig-headed, like Burny and BB. But at what point to the bosses at both of those organizations cut their losses? How much longer will the Official Jews keep doubling down on their bets against freedom?

I tell you one thing, if you wanted to increase anti-Semitic feeling -- and ill-will in the Christian community, which is actually the Jews' best friend Surprised-- there is no better way than to be the new fascists of Canada...How bizarre, that not 70 years after the Holocaust, it's our tribe that is the bully, our tribe that is calling for a limitation of freedom, and our tribe that is so disdainful of public opinion.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/11/there-is-no-joy-in-jewville.html

http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?action=news&story=990

remind remind's picture

 Ya, I know, the missing R bugs me too, but alas, I cannot change it.

Quote:
If I didn't know better I'd say his blogpost is an anti-Semitic screed. 
  It is a pretty astonishing screed alright.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Jaku

Im of mixed minds here on section 13, but anyone who thinks Ezra levant speaks for anyone but himself is sadly mistaken.

akaMycroft is right in his assesment of these posts. Farber may be viewed here with great skepticism because of his position on Israel and that is understandable. However he has been wholly consistent on dealing with hate groups and anti-Semitism. Levant sounds honestly like he has totally lost his marbles. His hatred for Farber knows no bounds to a point of malignant libel. Levant frightens me a hell of a lot more than the Farber's of this world that's for sure.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Ya, I know, the missing R bugs me too, but alas, I cannot change it.

 Works OK in a tabbed browser: 

[IMG]http://i37.tinypic.com/15cols6.gif[/IMG]

aka Mycroft

Can someone put an 'R' in the title of this thread?

I'm starting to wonder if Ezra Levant hasn't been spending too much time with Doug Christie, Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire. If I didn't know better I'd say his blogpost is an anti-Semitic screed.

Consider:

Quote:

There is no joy in Jewville

Quote:

I have spotted some frowning faces, though: Canada's Official Jews, who have dined out on section 13 for thirty years, are apoplectic that their meal ticket is about to be shut down.

What a perverse world when it's the Gentiles who are for free speech, and the Jews are the book burners.

Quote:
I tell you one thing, if you wanted to increase anti-Semitic feeling --
and ill-will in the Christian community, which is actually the Jews'
best friend -- there is no better way than to be the new fascists of
Canada. Are they trying to out-bid Elmasry for that dishonourable
title? How bizarre, that not 70 years after the Holocaust, it's our
tribe that is the bully, our tribe that is calling for a limitation of
freedom, and our tribe that is so disdainful of public opinion.

Quote:
I'll have a post soon about how we can hurt Burny where it counts -- in
the pocketbook, the one Jewish stereotype he fully manifests. He
doesn't give a damn about freedom.

I'm no fan of Bernie Farber but Levant's completely lost the plot.

What I really don't understand is why Levant is urging a boycott of CJC but not of B'nai Brith which has been every bit as vocal in defence of section 13 as the CJC and has utilized it to boot. His rank partisanship is showing since the only thing to distinguish
CJC and BBC is the BBC's support for the Conservative Party.

Personally, I'm inclined to support Moon's support calling for section 13 to be removed in favour of strengthening the criminal code, nor am I a supporter of CJC or BBC and would not give my money to either but Levant has a real hate-on for Farber. 

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

"he forced the CJC to join an anti-Tory coalition against global warming -- because you know that's a Jewish issue"

Gee, How could global warming affect people who live beside the world's largest desert?

 "I'm inclined to support Moon's support calling for section 13 to be removed in favour of strengthening the criminal code,"

Agreed. All this clause has done is to raise the profiles of a bunch of forgotten reactionary nobodies. Ezra Levant cant keep a conservative publication afloat in Calgary. Even the Post dropped Steyn's column. And Kate and Kathy haven't been published in print in whoknowshowlong

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What Levant's glitch on Section 13?

Is he mad because he hasn't been allowed to slander Muslims to his fossilized heart's TOTAL content?  What does Farber want Canadians to be able to say that they can't say now?

oldgoat

Ya got your R.

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

What Levant's glitch on Section 13?

Haven't you heard him gripe, whine, and weep that he was forced to spend "900 days" and tonnes of money defending himself against a charge under section 13 after he re-published the Mohammed cartoons? It's a piteous tale. I personally felt so sorry for him that I was prepared to support assisted suicide.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Would you have offered the assistance yourself?

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Would you have offered the assistance yourself?

Of course not, I was just hypothesizing.

Innocent

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Wouldn't have blamed you if you had. 

remind remind's picture

Meanwhile, 4 known posters at Freedominion, and 4 unknown, are being sued for 150k under section 13, plus of course the owners for 50k.

Seems they do not realize the long term provocateurs in their midst.

Winnifred

I am very confused. This thread begins with a date of June 09 then reverts back to 2008.

Tommy_Paine

Levant sounds honestly like he has totally lost his marbles.

Yes, and he seems to have access to the PMO.

 

I guess if Bernie Farber is "the hard left", then we're so far left that we're on the right?  I'm trying to put this in some kind of scale.  I can't do it without utilizing folded up dimensions, and there's a few infinities I can't cancel out quite yet.

Meanwhile, those of us who are on the harder left aren't marching in lock step on section 13, as Levant's fevered brain seems to indicate. 

While Levant might like to make this into a left vs. right issue, I don't think support or opposition file themselves so neatly into those catagories.

 

Jaku

Ezra Levant has had a hard on for Farber for years. He has made his living lately trying to engage, provoke or make Farber react to his ianities. Hence they have become crazier and crazier. I went on to Levants blog to poke around (trust me you will want to shower later), he calls Farber a Nazi book-burner, a Dhimmi, he even claims Farber works hand in hand with Mohamed El Masry and that's just the tame stuff. We ought to give people like Levant no oxygen here. It will be the last I post of him.

Unionist

If I followed the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", I would definitely team up with Farber.

Thank God I don't.

 

Tommy_Paine

It will be the last I post of him.

That's a good point, Jaku. The person of whom you speak doesn't creep me out because of his ideas, but because I think he's a bagel short of a dozen. 

It's always controvertial, though, about where you draw the line in what you think is best to ignore, and what should be tackled head on.  One doesn't want to advertize for free.  But then, silence is often taken for agreement.

 

Tommy_Paine

Unionist wrote:

If I followed the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", I would definitely team up with Farber.

Thank God I don't.

 

Thanks for the guffaw of the day, Unionist.  Laughing

Ktown

Jaku wrote:

Ezra Levant has had a hard on for Farber for years. He has made his living lately trying to engage, provoke or make Farber react to his ianities. Hence they have become crazier and crazier. I went on to Levants blog to poke around (trust me you will want to shower later), he calls Farber a Nazi book-burner, a Dhimmi, he even claims Farber works hand in hand with Mohamed El Masry and that's just the tame stuff. We ought to give people like Levant no oxygen here. It will be the last I post of him.

I don't think Ezra has ever had a hard on for Bernie, I think that he dislikes Farber's attempt at censorship. He never calls farber a nazi book burner. Levant compares Bernie's attempt at censorship with that of El Masry. Please re-read whatever you thought that you have read. 

.0

Winnifred

I went onto Mr. Levant's site to verify for myself. My God this man is despicable!

And Ktown I found a few examples where Mr. Farber was referred to as a book burner.

http://ezralevant.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Farber+book+burner...

http://ezralevant.com/2008/11/lets-call-it-jews-against-book.html

And this is the ugliest where he does in fact make the comparision of Farber to a Nazi book burner

http://ezralevant.com/2008/10/first-burny-took-up-book-burni.html

There are at least 4 more but I did not want to pollute this site any further.

Unionist

Good news (IMHO):

[url=Hate-speech">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hate-speech-law-violates-ch... law violates Charter rights, tribunal rules[/url]

Quote:

At issue was a complaint lodged with the tribunal against Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org. Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman alleged that the messages posted on the site were discriminatory and exposed minority groups to “hatred and contempt,” key language under Section 13 of the law.

 

remind remind's picture

Well...only for Marc Lemire, as that is only how far it reaches as of yet.

Unionist

True, remind, from a legal standpoint, but it's rather amazing that the CHRT itself has made this statement and put the issue squarely on the table. My prediction is that Section 13 is gone. Let the Bernie Farbers of this world yelp all they want.

 

remind remind's picture

Oh I agree it is the death knell for Section 13, as this will translate to the other pending cases before the CHRC.

.

Ghislaine

Wonderful news! Thank you for posting that unionist.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Winnifred wrote:

I am very confused. This thread begins with a date of June 09 then reverts back to 2008.

It's simple, really,Winnifred.  Once you have reached the level of "Rabble Rouser For Life", you become a Timelord.

Jaku

Well I noted that Gus posted that the CHRC will be seeking a judicial review of this case. I do find it odd that the NDP seems supportive of section 13. Some here do not . On the otherside people like Ezra Levant seen to agree with those here that oppose section 13. Odd very odd.

Unionist

Stephen Harper sings the Beatles. Very very odd. I'm not discarding my Beatles albums.

sanizadeh

It seems CHRC agrees in principle that the penalties (up to $100,000?) are unconstitutional. They are only challenging the part of the CHRT ruling against Section 13 itself. But if some elements of it are unconstitutional, the parliament will have to review the whole Section 13 any ways. That would be the best opportunity to limit it or scrap it alltogether.

Jaku

 

Section 13 has already been found to be Constitutional by the SCC in 1990 (Taylor). Section 54, the penalty section, was introduced in 1998. It is quite possible to find section 54 unconstitutional while maintaining s13. The issue from all I have read seems to be the administration of section 13. If the administration is a problem you fix it. You do not find the law unconstitutional.

This law has run for almost 30 years. It has stopped some pretty disgusting neo-Nazis and racists dead in their tracks. Seems curious to me that the first time 3 Canadian Muslim students tried to use s13 against some hard right Neanderthals (Levant, Steyn), everyone, including some on the left, found issues with it. Levant et al then made Marc Lemire; head of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front the poster boy for "free speech".

Can it get any uglier? Yup and it did. Levant started making up stories about the personnel at CHRC. He even claimed they stole the WIFI connection of an innocent citizen to secretly go online. He then started accusing Warman of writing posts that were racist, he accused CHRC commissioner, Jennifer Lynch of being a liar and a coward; he attacked Jewish leaders including Leo Adler and Bernie Farber of being Nazi-like book burners even went as far as suggesting that Farber was in league with the Muslim students against him because he was a "dhimi" who converted to Islam. The guy is clearly one card short of a deck. All this to try to get people to think s13 is unconstitutional and some from all political spheres have bought it. All of Levant's personal attacks were of course nonsense and mostly all made up.

Thankfully both the NDP and the Liberals have seen through Levant and his merry band of rightwing troglodytes. They continue to support s13 while insisting that changes to its administration be made. This makes sense. Hopefully those here who have supported the elimination of s13 will take a second look. Remember those leading the "free speech" charge (please read hate speech) are Marc Lemire and Ezra Levant.

 

Unionist

We've debated this here ad nauseam. Section 13 is an anomaly within the CHRA, applying only to telephones and the internet, which mandates a human rights commission and tribunal to deal with speech that "is likely" to expose certain (not all) groups of people to "contempt" or "hatred".

It is offensive, unnecessary, and bizarre. The Criminal Code prohibits hate speech as well as criminal defamation, while the common law and the Code Civile provide relief for non-criminal defamation. That's good enough. Section 13 is an open invitation to suppress, not hate speech, but offensive speech. It must be repealed, and it's pretty clear that it will be one of these days.

 

Prophit

Yet Jaku's point is that this law has been already found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Unless there is something new being added to the section (which there is not) Im not sure how the SCC can now find it unconstitutional.

As for how one argues this matter, I have had the opportunity to read some of the blogs that Jaku mentioned. They are pretty disgusting and do attack people not policy. Thankfully its been kept pretty civil here.

I disagree with Unionist that Section 13 is "offensive,unecessary and bizarre". I choose to side with the Supreme Court on this matter which wrote in upholding the constitutinality of Section 13:

"The Court stated that the type of hate propaganda targeted by section 13 was of such a nature that it posed a "a serious threat to society":

... It undermines the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality. The international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and Canada's commitment to the values of equality and multiculturalism enshrined in ss. 15 and 27 of the Charter magnify the weightiness of Parliament's objective in enacting s. 13(1).

The decision also noted:

The terms of the section, in particular the phrase ‘hatred or contempt,' are sufficiently precise and narrow to limit its impact to those expressive activities which are repugnant to Parliament's objective of promoting equality and tolerance in society.

The Chief Justice went on to comment:

...as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section."

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/hoi_hsi/qa_qr/page2-en.asp

 

Unionist

Prophit wrote:

Yet Jaku's point is that this law has been already found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Unless there is something new being added to the section (which there is not) Im not sure how the SCC can now find it unconstitutional.

Look, go argue with someone who claims it's unconstitutional. I never did, did I? Hello? Is it conceivable to you that a law may be bad and stupid without being unconstitutional?

Quote:
I disagree with Unionist that Section 13 is "offensive,unnecessary and bizarre".

Material prohibited under Section 13 can be published in a book, or a newspaper, or proclaimed in a public speech - and the human rights tribunals have no authority to do anything about it. You don't find that bizarre? Or were you even aware of that?

The Criminal Code prohibits hate speech, and the courts enforce that prohibition. To have a different (much broader) definition for telephones and the internet - and to have a different tribunal which deals with those - is certainly bizarre and unnecessary. As to whether you find it offensive, we can agree to differ on the point. The Supreme Court never said it was a good idea. They merely said it was within Parliament's right to adopt it.

 

sanizadeh

Unionist wrote:

The Criminal Code prohibits hate speech, and the courts enforce that prohibition. To have a different (much broader) definition for telephones and the internet - and to have a different tribunal which deals with those - is certainly bizarre and unnecessary. As to whether you find it offensive, we can agree to differ on the point. The Supreme Court never said it was a good idea. They merely said it was within Parliament's right to adopt it.

And even the SCC ruled by a narrow vote (5-4 If I remember correctly), so they may come to a different decision next time. As Unionist stated, Section 13 has several major differences with the hate speech law: 1) It is much broader (anything that is "likely to expose" someone to "contempt"), 2) "truth" is not a defence in Section 13 (as opposed to the defamation law), and 3) the HRT does not follow typical rules of courts regarding evidences. If one believes hate speech is a serious crime, then let a serious court (and not a quasi judicial panel filled with laymen) deal with it properly.

Jaku

"the HRT does not follow typical rules of courts regarding evidences. If one believes hate speech is a serious crime, then let a serious court (and not a quasi judicial panel filled with laymen) deal with it properly."

 

There are numerous Tribunals that operate.

Labour relations tribunal

Enviroment safety tribunals

mental health tribunals.

 

All operate under similar administrative and civil procedures as established by law as does the CHRT. In fact a finding under the mental health act can incarcerate you indefinitley in a psychiatric hospital.

BTW Joe Comartin did an excellent job today as part of the Justice Committee in QandA against Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn during the s13 Hearings. Joe of course like most of his NDP colleagues strongly supports s13 of the CHRA.

Ghislaine

Jaku, Comartin is wrong to support s13. The criminal code provisions are sufficient.

 

The tribunals do not follow typical rules of court in many ways. One of the most glaring is that the defendant has no right to legal aid to defend themselves - and if their name is cleared they are without recourse to recoup any legal costs. Truth is no defense and the rules of evidence do not apply.

 

If anyone is interested, [url=http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEnti... Steyn and Levant's testimony today to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights [/url] is worth watching. Particularly when Steyn quotes extensively from Ignatieff's own book on human rights.

 

Comartin questions on whether they would support speech bans on incitements to genocide (ie Rwanda), however that is already covered by the criminal code.

Unionist

I heard Steyn. He quoted Ignatieff writing that "freedom of speech" was more fundamental than any other right, and that individual rights were more fundamental than rights of the collective. I thought he was going to carry on and quote him justifying torture (which doesn't quite fit the "individual above all" thesis, but arch-conservatives aren't really serious about protecting individuals anyway).

Notwithstanding the slimy and repulsive ideologies of Steyn and Levant - who would gladly see not just Section 13, but real human rights legislation revoked - Section 13 must be repealed. It is bizarre, unnecessary, and offensive to freedom.

Jaku

Comartin reflects the position of the NDP on this matter. In fact the Liberals and the BQ also support Section 13. Only the Tories, that's Stephen Harper's Tories and his cronies like Levant seem to be championing the end of this hate law. Its indeed a strange issue.

If there are issues with the administration of law one fixes the problems. Section 13 was correctly found to be constitutional. It provides a civil remedy to hate speech communicated in a form that is used commonly and daily. Do not think for a minute that people like Levant and Steyn just want to see the end of Section 13. They have their eye on any law that they feel limits speech. It matters not a whit to them and their followers if it is criminal or civil.

And for my understanding if you are so taken with ending section 13 that limits hate speech against identifiable groups, why not all libel and slander laws as well?

Unionist

Would you like Section 13 applied to books, newspapers, magazines, public speeches, movies, and television, Jaku? What is it about telephones and the internet?

 

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Notwithstanding the slimy and repulsive ideologies of Steyn and Levant - who would gladly see not just Section 13, but real human rights legislation revoked - Section 13 must be repealed. It is bizarre, unnecessary, and offensive to freedom.

I agree with you there. They sounded like they also opposed the criminal code provisions on speech - as it relates to hateful incitements to violence. As well, like you say, they would also repeal all the other aspects of human rights legislation that cover employment, housing, etc. I think it is sad however, that they are some of the most prominent proponents of repealing s.13 and that the NDP and a lot of NDP supporters are not in agreement.

Ghislaine

Jaku wrote:

If there are issues with the administration of law one fixes the problems. Section 13 was correctly found to be constitutional. It provides a civil remedy to hate speech communicated in a form that is used commonly and daily. Do not think for a minute that people like Levant and Steyn just want to see the end of Section 13. They have their eye on any law that they feel limits speech. It matters not a whit to them and their followers if it is criminal or civil.

 

This is not about Steyn and Levant. Other supporters of repealing s.13 include PEN Canada, EGALE and other lefties. I am sure Steyn and Levant also support the right to vote and agreeing with them on that one issue does not make one a supporter of their entire ideology. I don't disagree that they want much more than s.13 repealed, however no one (to my knowledge) in this thread has supported repealing more than that.

 

Jaku wrote:

And for my understanding if you are so taken with ending section 13 that limits hate speech against identifiable groups, why not all libel and slander laws as well?

 

Slander and libel fall under regular court procedure and all the rules of fairness and evidence that entails (notwithstanding our notoriously sexist/racist justice system - another thread topic). Truth is a defence. I have nothing against the criminal code sections on speech that would fall under the same procedures. s. 13 is far too broad and is being enforced in an unjust manner. As well, truth is no defense.

Jaku

No one has commented on the fact (for example) that the Mental Health Act which runs under basically the same administrative and civil procedures as does the CHRA in Tribunal ought to be repealed as well. Under a decision by a Mental Health Tribunal a person can be incarcerated in a psychiatric facility indefinitely. As poor as the administration of a CHRT may be the penalties under section 54 (which I do disagree with) will not result in losing your personal liberty. Where's the hue and cry aganst the Mental Health Act?

Ghislaine

Jaku wrote:

No one has commented on the fact (for example) that the Mental Health Act which runs under basically the same administrative and civil procedures as does the CHRA in Tribunal ought to be repealed as well. Under a decision by a Mental Health Tribunal a person can be incarcerated in a psychiatric facility indefinitely. As poor as the administration of a CHRT may be the penalties under section 54 (which I do disagree with) will not result in losing your personal liberty. Where's the hue and cry aganst the Mental Health Act?

Interesting how instead of answering unionist and I's questions and points you raise an entirely seperate issue. I know that remind has raised this issue in several threads.  If you would like to discuss it - why not start a thread on it and perhaps we will all share our opinions.

Now can you explain further why you support s. 13 and why it should not be repealed?

Unionist

Exactly, Ghislaine - and thanks for putting paid to Jaku's ad hominem argument of "look who's calling for repeal - so it must be wrong".

Alan Borovoy and Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, made an eloquent submission on the Moon report last January, concluding as follows:

Quote:
Accordingly, CCLA urges the Commission to recommend the abolition of S. 13 and an amendment to the anti-hate provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that they focus on the prevention of violence and not on the expression of hatred.

Perhaps Jaku missed my question earlier, so I'll repeat it for his benefit:

"Would you like Section 13 applied to books, newspapers, magazines, public speeches, movies, and television, Jaku? What is it about telephones and the internet?"

sanizadeh

Jaku wrote:

And for my understanding if you are so taken with ending section 13 that limits hate speech against identifiable groups, why not all libel and slander laws as well?

Because in libel and slander laws, the "truth defence" applies. In section 13, it does not ( as pointed out in Moon's report).

Prophit

All very interesting comment on an important issue. I have done some research through Google on section 13 and found this article originally published in the Globe and Mail by eminent constitutional lawyer Mark Freiman. For the record, Mr. Freiman is now President of Canadian Jewish Congress. He is nonetheless a respected authority on Canada's hate laws. He notes in part:

"The criminal law is a blunt tool to deal with this sort of hate speech. It is focused on the perpetrator and sets appropriately high thresholds, including proof of intent, before imposing punishment. Meanwhile, press councils and ISP "hate speech advisory committees" help promote responsibility in the media, but don't tackle the problem head-on.

What lies in between is a focus on the hateful messages themselves and on society's interest in protecting its members, including vulnerable communities, from their consequences. That's what Section 13 is designed to do. Its focus is not, as is often mistakenly assumed, on the impossible project of cleansing the Internet of hate. But, in removing what it can, it is directed squarely at denouncing the hate and denying it the legitimacy of status as an "opinion" or "point of view."

It is both unrealistic and counterproductive to look to the "marketplace of ideas" as an alternative to regulation in counteracting hate speech. History shows that when it comes to hate propaganda, the marketplace of ideas is as susceptible to market failure as an unregulated market in financial derivatives."

http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?action=oped&Rec=267

 

Unionist

Sorry, Prophit, what was the good Dr's opinion about books, newspapers, magazines, public speeches, movies, and television? What is yours, for that matter?


Prophit

If there is hate propaganda published or broadcast in "books, newspapers, magazines, public speeches, movies, and television", then it should be subject to the laws of the country. Now what are your thoughts on Mr. Freiman's piece?

Ghislaine

Or signs, unionist. You are forgetting signs - as in during a protest.

The Macleans complaint was rejected by the Cdn level of the commissions, as they do not have jurisdiction over magazines - however they put out a strong statement basically stating that they thought they should have jurisdiction and they thought it was hate speech.  There are various provincial levels with similar sections that do have jurisdiction over maagazines, etc. That is how the Macleans complaint made it to the tribunal hearing level in BC. The huge amount of media attention surrounding that scared them into deciding in Macleans favour - however Macleans mused about appealing the decision as they felt that based on an objective reading of the legislation they had violated it. "the little person" out there would not have been so lucky.

Ghislaine

Prophit wrote:

If there is hate propaganda published or broadcast in "books, newspapers, magazines, public speeches, movies, and television", then it should be subject to the laws of the country. Now what are your thoughts on Mr. Freiman's piece?

Well that is the point! section 13 includes only telephone message and the internet. So, you would add all of those other sources into section 13?

Pages