macleans and cic: our silence

Jaku - there have been a number of threads on this issue.

I believe in free speech and I support Keith Martin's motion to get section 13 scrapped. PEN Canada (which advertises on rabble and advocates for free speech around the world), Noam Chomskey and several other left-wing organizations agree.

As well - your facts are a little incorrect, as the law students are not the complainants. The only complainant in the federal case is Mohammed Elmasry who refuses to speak publicly or debate the issue.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009767]He... is one of the threads for your reference.

[ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

I too am hearing the silence

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
[b] It's fascists vs. fascists.[/b]

---

Very succint at the extreme. But don't they say the fish stinks from the head down?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
[b]I'll make a couple of comments about Maclean's, Levant, and some other stuff:

I will side with Maclean's in that the magazine has editors who decide what gets published. Maclean's is free to publish what it wants so long as it is not libellous. Even though it is a national magazine and it tries to be fair, its editors are free to publish as fairly or unfairly as it wishes. There is no law that forces Maclean's to publish fairly. There is no government board to make sure that it must publish fairly. If any magazine were required to be fair, who would decide on the fairness of a magazine?

Ezra Levant made some excellent points when he videotaped his encounter at the Alberta Human Rights Commission, the most important point being that he does not need to justify to any government agency why he published the Danish cartoons in his now defunct Western Standard magazine. Some or all of the cartoons may have been inflamatory toward Muslims; however, was Levant libellous in publishing them? Did Levant know what he was publishing was false and cause injury to Muhammad? As Levant mentioned at the Alberta HRC, Muhammad is dead.

Why are Muslims the punching bag for right wing bloggers? I can only guess that the right wing bloggers think that Islamic and western conservative values are completely the opposite. Conservatives believe in free speech; Muslims don't. Conservatives believe in a market economy; Muslims don't. Conservative believe in discussing disputes; Muslims believe in issuing fatwas to chop heads of infidels. Conservatives believe in democracy by the ballot; Muslims believe in autocracy by the bullet. Conservative believe in equality for women (market equality that is); Muslims believe in hiding their women behind oppressive cloths such as the hijab and burqa. You can disagree with these thoughts and rightly so. I can only think that right wing conservatives believe that they have the right to espouse their viewpoints even if they offend other people. Conservative rally against "multicultism" in which they assume that Canada's cultural identities are government created rather than organically grown (or genetically modified). Canada is multicultural because the state says so--not because Canadians such as conservatives believe it.

I chuckled when Mark Steyn was interviewed on TVO last night when he talked about the growing population and influence of Islam in Europe. God/Allah help those freedom loving white Europeans who may be conquered by the Islamo-fascists. I chuckled because right wing conservatives support the Judeo-Christian Europeans against the Islamo-fascists. At the same time, they despise those same socialist Judeo-Christian European values creeping into Canada. Universal health care is for heathens. Childcare should be run privately. Public transit is for losers. There should be low or no gas taxes. Public displays of sexuality and nudity is a socialist plot to corrupt the children. Definitely "no" to gay sexuality of any kind.

When I think about the world conflicts between Christians and Muslims, I sometimes think that these are conflicts between Islamochristians and Christomuslims such as the conflict in Iraq over carrots. It's fascists vs. fascists.[/b]

---

What does this have to do with anything? The students are Fascists? Elmasry is a fascists? Muslims making complaints are fascist? Iraqi muslims with guns fighting occupation forces are fascists?

What?

Or is this thread just an opportune moment to chat up some long standing feelings that you have about "Islamofascists", since we are now on the topic of Muslim people? Fascism and Islam are synonymous, perhaps?

The CJC and other organization for various ethnic organizations routinely ask for investigations into hate crimes... are they all fascists too?

[ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It may be a conservative Muslim lobby group, and Elmasry may be a blowhard jerk, but this post has gone far beyond anything even remotely related to Elmasry's conservative ethics. It's a hodge-podge of generallizations, and not about Elmasry at all, and even you, I note, categorize him as "conservative" not a [i]fascist[/i], and even if he were a fascist the stroke of this missive stretches well beyond the scope of the present topic, dangerously lumping together various people as ideologically allied, with little substance to support it.

Regardless if the CIC represents Muslims as group in total, they are still "Muslims" making the complaint. This distinction is, I guess, important to make, but this kind of nuanced distinction is certainly not made in the post that I qouted from. The fact that it does not make this kind of distinctinon is in fact my point.

How on earth do we get from a conservative Muslim lobby group making a complaint to the Human Rights Board, at the request of a group of students, to purportedly "fascist" Muslims fighting US forces in Iraq?

The only substantive link is their shared Muslim identity.

[ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I find myself in the unusaul position of agreeing with Cueball ( [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] )

These students and yes even the jerk Elmasry have the right to use human rights legislation without being attacked and labeled.

And Michelle:

quote:

---

2. ezra levant and the hot-heads he attracts, have engaged in the worst kind of anti-muslim debate yet with the possible exception of warren kinsella the mainstream and the left have remained quiet on this as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that's true. You can speak out against what people write without trying to get them in legal trouble for writing it. babblers, for instance, are often debunking hateful stuff written by right-wing columnists. Doesn't mean we have to try and get the state to censor them or punish them for writing it.

---

Clealry you have not been on any of these right wing sites. This complaint has brought out every rightwing racist bastard who feel they now have permission to engage in the most vile of anti-Muslim language. If your stomach caqn take it check out "Blazing Catfur" or "smallDeadanimals". Then tell me that they have not used racism to advance their anti-Muslim agenda.

For a valiant fight against these bigots go on to Dr. Dawg's site or Warren Kinsella's site. You may take away a different view.

While Skinny Dipper is correct that Steyn does not have to justify his motive behind publishing his controversial article, as that burden of proof falls under criminal law, under human rights law we look at the impact on society and if the impact fosters the spread of hate. Many if not most agree that Steyn's article does spread hate.

So at what point do we draw the line in the sand? I hear concerns on this thread that evoking sec. 13, freedom on hate, would infringe on our freedom of speech. I find it concerning that some people hold that freedom of speech should be upheld at all costs - even if that means a violation of freedom from hate. A space filled with hate against specific groups does not foster democracy... if that is what you are trying to protect. Democracy [b]for all[/b] cannot be achieved when groups are shut up and shut out. Only the views of the White ruling class can be addressed if they are the only ones given the opportunity to express themselves. As such, protecting the freedom on speech at the expense of the the protection from hate erodes our multicultural society and the idea of equality.

If democracy is our ends then I ask can we achieve this end through freedom of speech alone? If the answer is no then we must ask ourselves what other motives we are trying to protect by prioritizing freedom of speech. Weather we like to admit it or not, protecting freedom of speech at the expense of freedom from hate ultimately works to secure White supremacy in society. It allows the White ruling class to propagate hate, which undermines the dignity and self-worth of the target group, in the name of Freedom of Speech. Is this the democracy we so strongly desire?

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Lost in Bruce County ]

First of all, I don't think there is a consensus that Steyn's book or article promotes hate. Even the complainants have failed to quote any specific hateful material there. As a muslim I find Steyn's article paranoid and a little ridiculous. But I do not want to live in a society that bans speech like his (I have emigrated from one such society and would never let canada become another one).

Regarding freedom of speech or press, everybody agrees that there are certain limitations to it. The question regarding section 13 is whether a comment or speech that is "likely" to "expose" someone to hatred crosses such limits. As Noam Chomsky noted, any limitation on freedom of speech should be in extreme cases where danger to individuals or groups are imminant and certain. "likely to expose" does not provide that grounds.

Why is freedom of speech (and freedom fo press) the most important element of demovcracy? well, I can probably answer this better than most as I have come from a country that does suppress freedom of speech. I was born and lived in Iran for decades and now living in Canada for several years, I can testify that most if not all differences between the two societies come from the issue of freedom of speech and association. When you restrict these freedoms , the govening system gets no feedback and never corrects itself. As a result, abuse of power becomes widespread and democracy and human rights suffer.

To paraphrase George Orwell, once you obtain the right to say 2+2=4, all other rights will follow.

Here is a story that affected me personally the most: in Iran during former president Khatami (whose name you might have heard) first term starting in 1997, the press were allowed more freedoms and a lively and active press flourished. Debates were common in newspapers and media. Corruption was exposed. People felt they could start having a saying in the real running of the counrty. Then in 2000 the supreme religious leader of the counrty severely criticized the media for crossing the red lines and what he called "weakening of the system". Within 48 hours, hundreds of defamation complaints were filed against most newspapers. Interestingly, Iranian speech code is not that different from Section 13; it bans "offensive and defamatory speech". After all, any speech is bound to be offensive to someone! The Tehran prosecutor general shut down dozens of newspapers over night, and charged their editors. One of the most prominent ones, a former interior minister in Khatami's administration, was sentenced to five years in jail for daring to suggest that Iran should not interfere in Israel-Palestine issue, among other things. The country became a dead zone, a ghost town within a few months.

That was the time I realized that there was no hope left in Iran.

Cueball, your point is correct and it is also true that Macleans and most other media are biased. However, if I have to choose between letting media have their own biases or having the government control what they can and cannot write, I'll go with the former. If we start to let government control the content or policies of the media, we'll end up in dangerous zones.

Regarding representation of muslim Canadians, I personally believe that no organization can ever claim to represent all muslims and the media and parties should stop searching for such representatives. Most lines are drawn along ethnic groups; as you correctly said, CAF represents Arab canadians. There are groups representing Iranian-Canadains, pakistani-Canadians etc. A muslim of Iranian origin has a different culture and concerns than a muslim of Arab origin or Indonesian origin or south Asian origin. Attempting to lump all in one group will fail.

I have made my position on this issue pretty clear over the few threads that we have had on it, and it is simply that generally I am opposed to such laws, but if we do have such laws then they should be applied without bias. These are two seperate issues, the defence of freedom of speech, and the application of laws without bias.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]I did not mean Zionists posting messages on babble. I meant an HRC [i]ordering[/i] rabble.ca to [i]publish[/i] the work of a Zionist, which is selected by the complainant.

How can you support such a precedent? I also think Layton is a poor spokesperson for progressive causes, as he has come out in support of the complaints against Macleans and Levant.

A right-wing site is [url=http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/researcher-needed/]asking[/url] people to search through rabble to find things that may fit the ambigous S. 13 criteria.

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ][/b]

---

Where did the complainants demand that the HRC order Macleans to publish their counter article? This is a bit of right wing skullduggery being parlayed here as a red herring. As far as I know the complainants never made a specific demand of the HRC in this regard. They did as far as I know, make this request when in direct discussion with Macleans, and Macleans demured.

All that amounts to is a group of people offering to write an response article, and Macleans made an editorial decision. This group, unable to get satisfaction directly from Macleans, then filed a complaing to get satisfaction through other means.

That is the way I understand the facts. There was no demand that the HRC authorize this group as officially representing Muslim people in Canada, and order Macleans to publsish thier views.

Am I wrong in this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Well what is bothering me is the sudden public concern about the activities of the HRC that seems to have surfaced when Muslim people are begining to use the system, as system that has been functionally in use for some time, and not one that people seem particularly concerned with. There was not a huge outcry when the "federation of Free Planets" wing nut anti-semite blog was shut down, and the proprietor jailed for a year under hate crimes legislation.

But this issue, just like what recently happened in Ontario with religious schools, and with the "Sharia courts" issue, surfaces as an area of grave public concern when Muslim people begin to assert rights others have been using for some time, rightly or wrongly.

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

---

This I agree with 100%. Section 13 was just as awful when bible quotes were deemed hate speech in letters to the editor for speaking out against homosexuality and anti-semitic wingnuts were being prosecuted. This is speech i find repulsive, but it should be protected. Incitements to violence should be illegal and should be covered by the criminal code, not these tribunals. They work reasonable well for dealing with employment and housing discrimination.

I think the reason this has so much attention is partly due to the fact that the complainants' are Muslim, but also due to the fact that it is not some obscure wacko being targetted, but MacLean's, which has a lot of resources etc. Orgs like PEN are speaking out now, when they should have spoken out a long time ago.

I almost hope that the HRCs rule in favour of the complainants because I would like the Supreme Court to settle it. Chief Justice. Beverly McLachlin was against S. 13 when the Supreme Court first approved its use and wrote a dissenting opinion.

ETA that Mark Steyn even [url=http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1225/128/]agreed[/url]with the law students, who made a similar point as yourself:

quote:

---

One of the better points Khurrum made off-air was that this is the first (federal) "human rights" complaint by a Muslim group, and that when it was just the Jews and gays milking this racket we didn't have any of this talk about scrapping Section 13 and abolishing the commissions. And he's right. Which is why the Canadian Jewish Congress position is untenable. As I said in my speech to the "legal jihad" conference in New York a couple of weeks back:

Canada and much of Europe have statutes prohibiting Holocaust denial. Muslims are not impressed by these laws. “Nobody can say even one word about the number in the alleged Holocaust,” says Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the favourite Islamic "scholar" of many Euroleftists, "even if he is writing an MA or PhD thesis, and discussing it scientifically. Such claims are not acceptable.” But a savvy imam knows an opening when he sees one. “The Jews are protected by laws,” notes Mr Qaradawi. “We want laws protecting the holy places, the prophets, and Allah’s messengers.” In other words, he wants to use the constraints on free speech imposed by Europe and Canada to protect Jews in order to put much of Islam beyond political debate. The free world is shuffling into a psychological bondage whose chains are mostly of our own making. The British "historian" David Irving wound up in an Austrian jail, having been convicted of Holocaust denial. It’s not unreasonable for Muslims to conclude that, if gays and Jews and other approved identities are to be protected groups who can't be offended, why shouldn't they be also?

They have a point. How many roads of inquiry are we prepared to block off in order to be "sensitive"?

---

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

No. Steyn does not agree with my point, Steyn is using a very similar point to further vilify "Saavy" Imam's who want to put part of Islamic thought out of bounds. The real point, and the point of this whole affair, was never so much the MacLeans article, or an overt attempt by Elmasry and co. to silence criticism of Islam,[i] but highlight an overt double standard [/i] that amounts to religious bigotry.

This bigotry and double standard is at the heart of the whole issue going back to the torrid "cartoons" affair. Much of the left now seems to clambered onto that bandwagon, attracted to the appeal to "freedom of speech" without noticing that the wagon is sponsored by the NSDAP. They want the right to attack Muslims without regard to any legal sanction, and absolute freedom of speech naturally benefits them in a majority European society, since they have most of the natural power within it, and advantage will be accorded to them.

Bigots always appeal to the general principle of freedom of speech, but previously, such appeals have fallen on deaf ears as far as the left is concerned, but now things are different it seems, and in fact, the CJC is for once being consistent.

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Why not its just like Malcolm X demanding restitution of black rights through segregation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Why not its just like Malcolm X demanding restitution of black rights through segregation?[/b]

---

Are you being serious or sarcastic?

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Lost in Bruce County ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b][url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wmacleans101.... rights commission rejects Muslim complaint over Maclean's article[/url]

This tortured and tendentious ruling is simply more evidence why such laws are dangerous and should simply be repealed.[/b]

---

And replaced by what? The press deserves a free pass?

I'm just confused, who's proposing better laws and what are they?