Human Rights speech complaints

Yeah I remember that it was specifically implimented to close down the "white power" message line. I called it once, it was funny. This guy on the line was like: "The Big Lie Is...." and then on from there.

I thought though that it had been amended to spefically mention the internet? In anycase that is what it is being used for, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
I thought though that it had been amended to spefically mention the internet?[/b]

---

If you follow the link, you'll find it has.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sangie:
[b]Pookie;

As a quasi-judicial body, the OHR Commission has no business commenting, once it found it has no jurisdiction.

But it is also a public institution that has an educational and political role. Hence its comments.[/b]

---

Maybe, but its comments go WAY beyond education. As a quasi-judicial body, it is incredibly inappropriate for it to issue legal opinions on matters over which it has no jurisdiction.

Pogge,

My point is that section 13 and its provincial equivalents have existed and have been perused for a long time. It is only when Muslims havecomplained that the right wingers and islamophobes (from the right and from the left) have started this 'free speech' and 'free market' of ideas as a trojan horse to put Muslims in their place.

It is beyond me that progressive people bought to this free-market-theory derived unbridled free speech, tossing away any notion of political imbalance of power and inequality in means to propagate opposing views.

Should the National Post start bashing people on welfare, that would be OK. Welfare people can have their own "National Post" and respond.

quote:

---

Maybe, but its comments go WAY beyond education. As a quasi-judicial body, it is incredibly inappropriate for it to issue legal opinions on matters over which it has no jurisdiction. pogge

---

I cannot agree more.

Human rights commissions are known to be arrogant, above the law, unaccountable, oppresive and basically they can do what they want.

When criticized, they point to their role as quasi-judicial entities. No politician dares question what they do because that would be "interference" in a quasi-judicial agency. Yet, when one points out that they lack the transparency, consistency and fairness expected from judicial entities, they counter that by saying they are administrative entities (read government bureaucracies) and thus do not have to operate as judicial entities.

That is the problem with hr commissions (and other -albeit less arrogant- quasi-judicial agencies.

[ 10 April 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]

quote:

---

I cannot agree more.

---

It's not me you're agreeing with. My name seems to have gotten attached to a quote from someone else.

quote:

---

Yes probably so...but our hate laws are complaint driven. Have there been actual complaints against Canadian Bloggers and others who posted what you believe constitutes hate? If not I urge you to do so. Petsy

---

Not so. hr commissions have the authority to initiate complaints. Rarely done, though. It depends of the political weight of the constituency that is targeted.

Like don't wait for a commission to initiate a complaint because Muslims have ben targeted. Would not fly politically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I don't remember the "Free Planets" guy directly advocating deportation or mass killing or anything like that. It was all the usual anti-semitic ravings of the usual kind. He never threatened anyone, it was all pretty "theoretical," jews are a threat etc. etc. Anyway it was deemed to cause harm and he did time.

Of course the point is that his writing might be siezed upon a justification for commiting violent acts against Jews. My point is that this article is shown precisely to do that by encouraging people to recomend deportation and mass killing.

It was shown to directly incite those ideas.

[ 10 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

---

So then get the Attorney General of a province to consent to an indictment under s.319 of the Criminal Code. Have a trial with all of the usual trappings, safeguards, procedures and penalties. A situation as you describe is utterly beyond the adjudicative competence of any human rights tribunal in this country.

[ 10 April 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Oddly the case made by Muslims against a major media outlet failed even though it was able to establish a casual relationship to hate crimes being committed, in the first case this was not so, it was only conjecture that hate crimes would be the likely result, I believe.[/b]

---

It is wrong to claim that this was a case for "Muslims". The same way that everything done by a Jewish organization is not necessarily the viewpoint of all or most Jews.

This was an HRC complaint filed by Elmasri's Canadian Islamic Congress, which is an unelected organization. There is no evidence that the majority in Muslim community agree with it. Elmasri represents Canadian muslims as much as I do. Probably even less [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] No Canaidan muslim group can claim legitimacy on behalf of Muslims in Canada as there is no grassroot support for any of them.

Your argument about double standard is correct. There would have been no debate if, for instance, a Jewish organization had complained. That's why we should be grateful to CIC and those three students, because it would have been impossible to draw attention to problems in Human right code without their complaint. They deserve an award in recognition of their unintended role in preserving freedom of speech in Canada!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Furthermore my picture is that this issue was rasied originally by some law student who then appealed to the CIC for aid. the case did not orginate with the CIC, as far as I know. They came in later at the students request.

Did I miss something?
[/b]

---

Likely the other way around. My understanding is that there were three complaints:
- A federal HRC complaint filed by Mohammed Elmasri
- A BC complaint filed by Mohammed Elmasri and another person
- An ON complaint filed by Mohammed Elmasri and the law students

It seems to me that the main complainant is Elmasri, but probably he was obliged to find someone from each of those provinces to file his complaint in provincial HRC commissions.

In addition to that, those law students were already closely associated with CIC. Khurrum Awan was an active member and a recipient of a CIC scholarship in 2004 (see
[url=http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/mc/media_communique.php?id=516]He...)
So it seems it all goes back to CIC again.

[url=http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/413495]The Star[/url] weighs in:

quote:

---

Readers had good reason to be repelled by The Future Belongs to Islam, a Mark Steyn book excerpt published by Maclean's magazine in 2006. Steyn described many Muslims as "hot for jihad," argued that their high birth rate ensures that in Europe a "successor population" already is in place, and announced "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be." It was an Islamophobic polemic.

That said, Maclean's should not have been hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission by complainants who felt their human rights had been violated by the article's content.

And while the Ontario commission rightly ruled itself out of the specific issue of the Maclean's article, it did not stop there. The commission served notice it intends to foster a "constructive debate" on "Islamophobia in the media" and how it can be addressed.

That has an ominous ring. ][b]Canada's Criminal Code already prohibits publicly inciting hatred through the media or other means. The libel laws also provide an outlet.[/b] And readers of newspapers such as the Star can complain to the Ontario Press Council. Surely that is protection enough in a society that cherishes freedom of the press.

---

As has been pointed out by others, the Criminal Code is sufficient and is the appropriate tool to deal with any hate speech that should be banned.

I agree with some above that there wasn't any real msm opposition to section 13 complaints until there were Muslim complainants. This is indicative of bias in society, but it still doesn't negate the validity of the concerns raised. I was against it when it was ruling against prairie preachers publishing homophobic bible quotes, and I am also against prosecuting holocaust deniers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
[b]Aeople here who would want to drop section 13 of the CHRA also in favour of dropping libel and slander laws?[/b]

---

No, such laws are needed. I wouldn't say the Canadian common law versions are perfect in their formulation and application, but society needs such protections for individuals obviously.

quote:

---

[b]Would you settle for group libel laws?[/b]

---

You'd have to provide a "for instance".

No, it's kind of the obverse of that.

With group libel laws, it's the group that is the victim, not the offender.

We already have such laws, which are erroneously called "hate" laws.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b][url=http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/413495]The Star[/url] weighs in:

As has been pointed out by others, the Criminal Code is sufficient and is the appropriate tool to deal with any hate speech that should be banned.[/b]

---

I'm no fan of Barbara Hall but the Star can't suck and blow on this.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has a mandate for specific things: to protect people who face discimination when seeking employment or services, and to foster an overall awareness and respect for human rights.

The Maclean's case clearly falls outside their mandate on the former. No one was fired or kicked out of their apartment or anything like that.

However, they still have a responsibility to foster respect for human rights and human dignity. The racist crap that Steyn regularly spews is hateful, dangerous and creates an environment in which people feel it's okay to be racist. And Steyn's just one of many who are growingly talking this way.

So the Commission doesn't ban him. Or censor him. But they [b]do[/b] say "we need to talk about this". And we should. Because the next time someone [url=http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/782.html]burns down a place of worship[/url] there might be people inside.

This is all pretty clear if you actually [url=http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/782.html]read the statement[/url]. Either the Star believes that the Human Rights Commission has no role in promoting human rights or they let the Commission do it's job.

[ 14 April 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=70559]Rick Salutin:[/url]

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has declined to rule on a complaint brought by Arab and Muslim groups against Maclean's and writer Mark Steyn. The OHRC said its mandate doesn't cover such things but added, like a consolation prize: "Freedom of expression should be exercised through responsible reporting." This is clearly wrong. Freedom of expression is exercised through irresponsible reporting — or what some people see that way. That's when the need to protect it arises.

The interesting part of the case is that the complainers asked not for an apology or correction — but for the right to reply, unedited, in Maclean's. Maclean's refused. I think this clarifies the stakes on both sides. For Maclean's owner Ted Rogers, what counts is not his right to free expression but his right to distribute massively what he chooses (through those he hires) to express. It's the reverse of the freedom to sleep under a bridge, which is available to rich and poor alike. The other guys are free to publish magazines, too. But the complainers demanded the right to express themselves with the same reach that Ted Rogers provides to Mark Steyn. Call it the right to equal amplification of free expression. That doesn't sound unreasonable, but it turns a legal issue into an economic one. How you respond to that in a society where money controls media, I have no idea.

Here is how the system is supposed to work. You elect the representatives who choose the officials who apply the laws those elected representatives make up.

You can check it out in this Wikipedia entry on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament]Parliament[/url]. That would be a good place to start.

Many reasons Sven not the least of which is that there must be a complaint filed citing the entire work on the internet. Section 13 only deals with complaints of hate publications on the internet

My academic background is in Canadian and Modern European History. I own a copy of Mein Kampf that I purchased over 20 years. It's a very important primary source in studying the 9133-1945 period.

There's a lot there, Stargazer.

But, does your earlier comment only apply to paper books?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]
I also do not think I'd like Canada to have asshole hate mongers like Bill O'Really and his ilk spewing crap on a station like Faux news.
[ 27 June 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ][/b]

---

Fox News was given CRTC approval in Nov. 2004 and is broadcast in Canada including Rogers, StarChoice and Shaw.

This highlights yet another form of selective censorship that goes on under another name: the CRTC.

Compare allowing the comments of O'Reilly and others with the CRTC treatment of Al Jazeera.

After considerable pressure from B'nai Brith and others, al Jazeera was prevented from being broadcast in Canada by the CRTC by making extraordinary monitoring requirements so onerous that carrying it is economically unfeasible. Contrast that with the CRTC subsequent approval of the Fox News channel (of course without any such monitoring).

Meanwhile, many right-wing so-called "free speech" commentators, including Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, have selectively inverted the CRTC's bias with their own bizzaro logic--that is, they deplored, as if it was real, the fake CRTC "approval" of al Jazeera, and compared that to the CRTC (only temporary) rejection of Fox News.

As far as I know, no revisiting of this issue has taken place in the columns of these "brave" and selective defenders of free expression.

====
From the CBC on the English Language Al Jazeera:
"London Times said the reporting was "slick, fast-paced and thoroughly professional" and had "no political quarrel" with the coverage.

The company says it expects Al-Jazeera International will be seen in 80 million homes around the world, mainly in the Middle East, Europe and Africa.
But it is not being broadcast in Canada and can be seen in only a few places in the U.S.
The English-language network is an offshoot of the successful Arab network based in Doha, Qatar. The Arab-language network received CRTC approval to broadcast in Canada in 2004.
But the CRTC ordered a delay of the signal so carriers can monitor for offensive content and no cable company has been willing to take up the task of monitoring the station 24 hours a day, a condition that has also discouraged them from taking on the English-language network."

============
Al-Jazeera should be available in Canada
by Tony Burman, Editor in Chief of CBC News
Friday, November 17, 2006 | 10:06 AM ET

"The long awaited launch on Wednesday of the Al-Jazeera English language news network brought a strikingly different perspective on the news into the homes of 80 million households worldwide.

Well, not quite worldwide.

If North Americans want to see it on their home televisions, they will have to go to Tel Aviv not Toronto. Haifa not Halifax. And Nahariya not New York.

Yes, a network that is unavailable to Canadians on our own cable systems – largely because its Arabic counterpart, which has antagonized leaders throughout the Middle East and the U.S., has been accused by some Canadian groups of ‘anti-Semitism’ – is freely available throughout the State of Israel. In fact, there are more than a few people in Israel who respect Al-Jazeera.

In a feature article in The Jerusalem Post about the launch of the new channel, Daniel Seaman, head of the Israeli Government Press Office, was quoted as saying:

“I have only the utmost respect for (the Arabic service of) Al-Jazeera in Israel. They’ve tried their best to be fair, and even if I disagreed with their coverage at times, it was not one-sided. Given their audience, they show the Arab side, the Palestinian side of the conflict, but they also present Israel’s side …They’re much better than CNN or BBC.”

At a time when issues in the Middle East, Iran and Iraq are defining our world, why wouldn’t Al-Jazeera English be available on our television sets in Canada or the United States?...."

[ 27 June 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]

Thank you for making my point better than I ever could. The example you gave is a classic example of how "free speech" is limited to those on the Right and also how hypocritical those same people are when they defend "free speech" for others who hold their views.

No other speech is tolerated.

Honestly, does anyone here think the Right would do the same as we, on the left have been doing for them? Would a large group of right-wingers rally to have Al-Jazera on TV? Not a chance!

And I was real excited about getting that channel as a welcome vacation from the right of centre and right MSM news.

Where is the outrage from the far right? They were behind blocking the channel. That's where they were.[/b]

---

I don't know the specifics regarding Al-Jazeera in Canada. But, I think the more opinion the better.

"We" are not the ones alleging outrage, the Right is. They have no compunction against suing; oppressed minorities rarely do, knowing how easily things could turn to worse for them. When some dare to do so, the vaguely libertarian pseudo-left among us levels at them its peculiar brand of anti-authoritarian, freedom-of-corporate-giants'-speech outrage.
We deserve a Mark Steyn to rub our noses into our collective cowardice/complicity.

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

A very interesting decision. It isn't so much what you communicate but the language with which you choose to communicate. So to say there is an Islamic conspiracy does not constitute hate speech, but to substitute the word [i]Islamic[/i] with something derogatory might. Hmmmm.

So the lesson is, if you want to right hate speech and get away with it, couch your language in the style of academia or journalism and avoid the use of slurs.

Of course, if you want to be published in Macleans it is best you target a group that it is fashionable to hate such as Muslims.

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

From what I read, the commission agreed that the article was offensive but not hate speech. If it was hate speech, it did not matter whether it was in the academia or journals.

---

But the decision explains why it wasn't hate speech. And it wasn't hate speech because the message or the intent wasn't to breed fear or hate. It wasn't hate speech because it didn't use "epithets or slurs to create a tone of profound denigration and disgust".

ETA: In fact, the decision acknowledges the author "fears" Islamic ascendancy, the Islamic conspiracy so to speak, and wrote the article intending to offend Muslims.

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]
ETA: In fact, the decision acknowledges the author "fears" Islamic ascendancy, the Islamic conspiracy so to speak, and wrote the article intending to offend Muslims.
[/b]

---

In a way, the decision acknowledges that offensive speech is not always hate speech.