Should the federal "hate telecommunication" law be repealed?
Sat, 2008-02-02 07:10
#1
Should the federal "hate telecommunication" law be repealed?
Sat, 2008-02-02 07:10
#2
Liberal MP Keith Martin announced the other day that he plans to introduce a private member's motion calling for repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The section bans electronic communication of anything deemed "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."
That's the section that is being used (for example) in the complaints against Ezra Levant and against Peace and Earth Justice, among others - all hotly debated on babble.
I'm not sure why Keith Martin took this initiative, but in my view it's obviously the right way to go. Section 13 restricts freedom of speech in circumstances which don't amount to a hate crime or hate speech as per the Criminal Code.
But [url=http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iyEY0kIqKnSixkYsuN02IkjF2P... [/url] to what the NDP human rights critic said:
quote:
NDP MP Wayne Marston said he was "deeply troubled that any Liberal" would try to weaken human rights legislation. While some complainants may try to abuse the act, Marston said his party has "great confidence" that human rights tribunals can weed out the frivolous complaints from the genuine ones."That's the role of the human rights commission to make that determination."
Your thoughts?
[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2008-02-02 07:36
#3
Keith Martin has become a big hero to white supremacists over this and the Liberals have now carpetted him and ordered him to with draw his bill - so its all academic.
Hopefully, the bad publicity will help defeat that excreable Keith Martin in the next election.
One of the great mysteries in Canadian politics is what makes him popular in his riding. I find him one of the most unctuous, grating people in politics.
Sat, 2008-02-02 08:00
#4
I have no doubt that Keith Martin is execrable - I'll take your word for that.
But what do babblers think about Section 13 of the CHRA:
quote:
Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
In other words, the law prohibits exposing an identifiable group (e.g. Jews, Germans, Muslims, males) to "contempt" by telephone or internet messaging - but not by radio or TV.
Such legislation appears to exist [b]nowhere else in the world[/b], as the [url=http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/watch_on_hate-en.asp]CHRC itself[/url] notes:
quote:
To the best of the Commission’s knowledge, this is the only non-criminal legislation in the world that deals specifically with hate on the Internet.
This section is currently being used to persecute [url=http://pej.org]Peace, Earth and Justice news[/url], because it posted a number of anti-Israel articles.
Regardless of the cowardly Liberal party's antics, I believe this section must be repealed. It infringes on freedom of speech, while true hate crimes are more than adequately covered by the Criminal Code.
Sat, 2008-02-02 08:27
#5
I've changed the thread title to de-politicize it, so that hopefully we can discuss the issue without arguing about who is best - Liberals, Cons, or NDP.
Sat, 2008-02-02 08:31
#6
I support Keith Martin on this one.
Sat, 2008-02-02 09:13
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]One of the great mysteries in Canadian politics is what makes him popular in his riding.[/b]
He actually isn't that popular in his riding, though he is known to be accessible.
He has kept his seat, because the CPC, after his walk to the Liberals, fielded a totally unacceptable fundamentalist Christian candidate, who was completely out of touch with the demographics in that riding, and the NDP had a new candidate who was not a local to even the Victoria area. And there was a very popular local man who was running under some other independant party banner, that indeed sucked a good portion of the NDP's supporters to him. Had this man not run, the NDP might have gotten in.
I disagree with Martin.
Sat, 2008-02-02 10:41
#8
Question: Was David Ahenakew, the native leader, rightly for charged with hate crimes for [url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1039918876117_39/?hu...
quote:
"The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war," Ahenakew said."That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."
Ahenakew wasn't beating anybody up because they were Jewish, or bombing a school. He just said something.
The Criminal Code abridges free speech too. So its just sleight of hand to say the Human Rights Act goes too far in limiting free speech, the Criminal Code is all we need -- because it does the same thing.
Should we remove these provisions from the Criminal Code as well?
(Note exactly the same arguments being made now against the Human Rights Tribunals were made against the criminal hate speech laws when they were brought in. I don't see how supporting one and not the other is consistent).
[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]
Sat, 2008-02-02 10:50
#9
I have no idea whether he was breaking hate laws or not. But if he was, then hate laws are stupid. I have known lots of racist idiots who have said just as terrible things in my presence. But I don't think people should be criminalized for being racist morons unless they've actually been violent, threatened violence, or incited violence. And that's already covered by existing laws.
Sat, 2008-02-02 11:04
#10
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]Was David Ahenakew, the native leader, rightly for charged with hate crimes for saying: [/b]
I'm with Michelle. Either the charges against him were entirely without foundation - or if not, then they disclose a fatal flaw in the legislation. I'm glad the courts have reversed gears here and hopefully a different result will ensue.
I say that as the child of Jewish genocide survivors. His comments are hurtful and disgusting, but we don't need laws to prohibit them. The overwhelming majority of humanity has learned to reject such opinions.
You may be right. There may be a need to amend or delete some Criminal Code provisions in addition to Section 13 of the CHRA. I just thought Section 13 is such an obvious sore thumb, in that it gives the Commission power to sanction internet "contempt" speech, but not the same speech on radio or TV!!
Sat, 2008-02-02 11:28
#11
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
I just thought Section 13 is such an obvious sore thumb, in that it gives the Commission power to sanction internet "contempt" speech, but not the same speech on radio or TV!![/b]
There doesn't seem to be anything strange about this.
All radio and TV broadcasts are regulated by the government. You have to have a licence and there's federal legislation governing what you can and cannot do. One assumes "broadcast standards" like no hate speech are written into the pertinent legislation regulating them.
There is no general legislation regulating "broadcasting" on the internet (you don't need a federal licence), so it seems logical hate speech laws governing it were written to the Human Rights Act instead.
[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]
Sat, 2008-02-02 12:25
#12
saga
Here is an argument for repealing Section 13:
[b](CHRC) Freedom-snatching Commie-Commissions[/b]
[url=http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/nov14-07_chrc-are-communists.html]http:...
(posted slightly tongue in cheek)
I think the value of Section 13 is that it is smoking the bigots out into the light of day, where we can get a clear shot at them. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Or as my hero Granny Clampett might say:
"If yer gonna shoot the varmints heads off, they gotta stick em outta the hole first!"
I don't think it is necessary to harass and criminalize people like David Ahenekew who foolishly spout off racist nonsense on a single public occasion: Whether there were any formal legal or other actions against him as a result, clearly he has destroyed his own reputation and credibility. That is sad, but it was a personal choice and those are the consequences in our society.
I DO think, though, that we should seek-and-destroy organizations that EXIST and RECRUIT young people in order to promote hatred.
I also think there must be non-criminal means to hold employers, landlords, etc. accountable for discrimination.
[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]
[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]
Sat, 2008-02-02 12:36
#13
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]
All radio and TV broadcasts are regulated by the government. You have to have a licence and there's federal legislation governing what you can and cannot do. [/b]
Your point is flawed. The CRTC regulates telephone systems as well. Yet the CHRA bans "contempt" messages by telephone, yet specifically excludes radio and television.
quote:
[b]There is no general legislation regulating "broadcasting" on the internet (you don't need a federal licence), so it seems logical hate speech laws governing it were written to the Human Rights Act instead.[/b]
Well, Section 13 precedes the internet (except in its unknown military phases...), and it doesn't specifically mention the internet - so the question remains, why exclude radio and TV from the purview of the Human Rights Commission??
Sat, 2008-02-02 12:42
#14
saga
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:All radio and TV broadcasts are regulated by the government. You have to have a licence and there's federal legislation governing what you can and cannot do.
.................
Your point is flawed. The CRTC regulates telephone systems as well. Yet the CHRA bans "contempt" messages by telephone, yet specifically excludes radio and television.[/QB]
They do not regulate the content of telephone conversations, I don't believe, so I think you are drawing a false comparison.
Sat, 2008-02-02 12:45
#15
remind
While I am quite appalled at the site linked to above regarding CHRC. I was interested to see, what types are against the CHRC hate legistlation. Particularily given his absolute totalitarian actions within a minority government position.
quote:
Stephen Harper: "Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
Sat, 2008-02-02 12:46
#16
I think that limits on free speech should be defined in terms of threats of violence or slander. In my opinion, Ahenakew's quote could be seen as slanderous and threatening, although I don't see much point in continuing to persue this as I have heard that he will be facing a new trial for this same matter. Ahenakew's reputation is in the toilet and he is in no position to carry out anti-Jewish hate campaigns.
The activities of those white-race-cult types should continue to be watched and opposed because the KKK in the USA has often used 'freedom of speech' as a justification for their persecution of African-Americans and other people.
Sat, 2008-02-02 12:53
#17
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
Your point is flawed. The CRTC regulates telephone systems as well. Yet the CHRA bans "contempt" messages by telephone, yet specifically excludes radio and television.[/b]
I think I see the point you're trying to make. TV and radio should be subject to the CHRA like everything else. The fact that's not seem suspiciously like a sop to big business.
I suppose the only argument is that the CRTC has had an historical role regulating content on the public airwaves, and this (I assume) now includes hateful content as society has evolved.
The whole human rights regime has been put together on an ad hoc basis (like most things in Canada) over the last twenty years; and there seem to be complimentary and overlapping agencies.
(As an aside, here's a question: Should CTV or other private network be able to run a program called "The Holocaust is a Hoax" which consisted of the presentation of white supremacist literature as fact? Would censoring it off the airwaves be an infringement of free speech? Would you complain to the CRTC if they broadcast such a program?)
[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]
Sat, 2008-02-02 13:30
#18
The original intent of our hate laws and CHRC Section 13 was to provide a defence against those who would villify minorities. We are trying to build a strong multicultural country and it stands to reason in my view that the most vile speech directed against faith, racial and ethnic minorities ought to be dealt with as a statement against hate.
I have never quite understood why laws of libel and slander against individuals are strongly supported but libeling and slandering a vulnerable minority gets slammed even from those in progressive circles as of late.
I suppose the real problem is to better define the most vile of hateful comments; what is contemptible, what constitutes the libeling of a group etc. Just because the likes of Levant are now whining (sadly rightfullly so)people are reacting more to the extremes instead of looking towards finding the correct balance. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not an option I want to see, I lean more towards defending the vulnerable. And keep in mind that virtually every major democracy in the world has hate laws with the singular exception of the USA,
Sat, 2008-02-02 13:30
#19
[url=http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/05/26/1124/]This is an article[/url] about how Section 13 was used last year by B'nai Brith to intimidate Peace, Earth and Justice News into removing 18 articles about Israel from their website.
Section 13 is so broad in its language ("likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt") that it could be used to shut down half the threads on babble.
Sat, 2008-02-02 14:05
#20
saga
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b][url=http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/05/26/1124/]This is an article[/url] about how Section 13 was used last year by B'nai Brith to intimidate Peace, Earth and Justice News into removing 18 articles about Israel from their website.Section 13 is so broad in its language ("likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt") that it could be used to shut down half the threads on babble.[/b]
"the articles “are virulently anti-Israel to the point that they meet the criteria of crossing the line of legitimate criticism of the state straight into anti-Semitism.”"
I don't see how we can come to any conclusions about this for ourselves without access to the offending articles.
Sat, 2008-02-02 14:10
#21
Again Unionist, some laws need to be fine-tuned. You dont throw it out just because it needs some work.
Sat, 2008-02-02 14:12
#22
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
[b]"the articles “are virulently anti-Israel to the point that they meet the criteria of crossing the line of legitimate criticism of the state straight into anti-Semitism.”"
I don't see how we can come to any conclusions about this for ourselves without access to the offending articles.[/b]
I didn't really ask for you to come to any conclusion for yourself. I just stated my concerns about how this legislation is used to shut down anti-Israel articles on a progressive website.
If you're really that interested, you could start by looking over the PEJ site to determine its overall position and principles. Then you could check out B'nai Brith and see who is more worthy of belief.
Or, you can just keep challenging me without giving your own opinion on the question raised in the thread title.
That's what freedom of speech is all about. You've got it.
Sat, 2008-02-02 14:14
#23
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]Again Unionist, some laws need to be fine-tuned. You dont throw it out just because it needs some work.[/b]
Agreed - although I'm not convinced even an amended Section 13 would serve any legitimate need not already covered by the Criminal Code provisions.
How would you fine-tune Section 13? And do you agree with its use against the PEJ website?
Sat, 2008-02-02 14:32
#24
saga
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I didn't really ask for you to come to any conclusion for yourself. I just stated my concerns about how this legislation is used to shut down anti-Israel articles on a progressive website.
If you're really that interested, you could start by looking over the PEJ site to determine its overall position and principles. Then you could check out B'nai Brith and see who is more worthy of belief.
Or, you can just keep challenging me without giving your own opinion on the question raised in the thread title.
That's what freedom of speech is all about. You've got it.[/b]
I have no opinion about the articles because i have not seen the articles.
Can someone be virulently opposed to Israel's actions? Of course. Can someone express that opposition in a form promoting hatred against all Jews? No.
It is the job of the HRC to distinguish between the two, and I believe that is why we need Section 13.
Sat, 2008-02-02 15:13
#25
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
[b]
Can someone be virulently opposed to Israel's actions? Of course. Can someone express that opposition in a form promoting hatred against all Jews? No.[/b]
I believe - and I have written - that there is no such thing as Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state".
How does that fit in your schema? Should a tribunal be assessing whether that is acceptable to be written on the internet in Canada or not?
That's the kind of thing B'nai Brith complained about. And that's the kind of article PEJ withdrew on its lawyers' advice while the case winds its way through the courts.
So?
Sat, 2008-02-02 16:56
#26
remind
Thanks unionist, I must say, I have changed my opinion, based upon how you presented the situation and what it in fact means and does.
Repealed.
Sat, 2008-02-02 17:39
#27
saga
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I believe - and I have written - that there is no such thing as Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state".
How does that fit in your schema? Should a tribunal be assessing whether that is acceptable to be written on the internet in Canada or not?
That's the kind of thing B'nai Brith complained about. And that's the kind of article PEJ withdrew on its lawyers' advice while the case winds its way through the courts.
So?[/b]
Sorry, need to see the original, see what they actually said, rather than 'the kind of thing' they said.
I must say, though, that website is not exactly a hotbed of racism.
I have a Palestinian friend. I don't accept Israel's right to try to starve them out. I think it is barbaric. Nor do I accept the right of a Jewish state to discriminate against people who lived there before their state was formed.
Fact is, I believe Israel has a right to exist, but not a right to oppress.
Is that anti-semitic? Am I promoting hatred?
Sat, 2008-02-02 17:53
#28
saga
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Thanks unionist, I must say, I have changed my opinion, based upon how you presented the situation and what it in fact means and does.Repealed.[/b]
Section 13 is used to try to quell the white supremacists, and one of the few tools we have to prevent them from spreading hatred and recruiting disaffected youth.
I really think the arguments about Israel are specious, designed to undermine the act, and I question the sources and motives of those attempts. Section 13 is the bane of white supremacists' existence for very good reason: IT WORKS.
The fact that some churches and religions are now throwing their lot in with the white supremacists (I saw that opinion on a discussion board)only speaks to their campaign of hatred against homosexuals: They want to preserve their right to promote hatred against homosexuality.
I do not see these motivations as raising any legitimate concern about the act, but rather as evidence that it is working the way we want it to.
As for Israel's right to exist as Jewish state ... no problem ... so long as there is no discrimination against non-Jews who live there too.
Sat, 2008-02-02 17:57
#29
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]
I have never quite understood why laws of libel and slander against individuals are strongly supported but libeling and slandering a vulnerable minority gets slammed even from those in progressive circles as of late.
[/b]
But Section 13 goes way beyond libel and slander. it attempts to punish speech that is "likely to expose" identifiable minorities to "contempt". This is such a broad net that could capture pretty much any opinion. We already have slander and libel law on the book. There is no need for Section 13.
As an identifiable minority I am glad to hear an MP has taken the initiative to correct this law, and I don't particularly care whether white supremacists are happy or unhappy about it. I hope NDP also finds the courage to support the motion. will be writing to them tonight.
Sat, 2008-02-02 18:17
#30
M. Spector
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080202.AHENAKEW02/TPS... is to be retried[/url].
Sat, 2008-02-02 18:30
#31
remind
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
[b]The fact that some churches and religions are now throwing their lot in with the white supremacists (I saw that opinion on a discussion board)only speaks to their campaign of hatred against homosexuals: They want to preserve their right to promote hatred against homosexuality. [/b]
I need to see proof of this, and concrete proof in original format please, before I can even commence to think about it, let alone discuss it.
Such as it is, it is merely a personal accounting, of one's opinion, of what was stated on discussion board, that is also unknown, nor linked to.
What is even more of concern is the broadly generalizing nature of the personal accounting, "some" churches and religions is too broad of a term.
If you are going to post your opinion or personal perceptions as facts, and then make accusations of the stongest sort from them, there then needs to be references, with quotes and sources.
Had you not started your sentence with "the fact", and had started it with "in my opinion" the burden for proof would not be so high.
I am sure you won't have an issue with providing the facts on who these churches and religions are, as you require such a high threshhold of proof yourself.
Sat, 2008-02-02 19:26
#32
saga
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] I need to see proof of this, and concrete proof in original format please, before I can even commence to think about it, let alone discuss it.Such as it is, it is merely a personal accounting, of one's opinion, of what was stated on discussion board, that is also unknown, nor linked to.
What is even more of concern is the broadly generalizing nature of the personal accounting, "some" churches and religions is too broad of a term.
If you are going to post your opinion or personal perceptions as facts, and then make accusations of the stongest sort from them, there then needs to be references, with quotes and sources.
Had you not started your sentence with "the fact", and had started it with "in my opinion" the burden for proof would not be so high.
I am sure you won't have an issue with providing the facts on who these churches and religions are, as you require such a high threshhold of proof yourself.[/b]
Well, unfortunately remind, I am not able to access that board anymore. Seems the board's owner did not like my response to her statement that she was getting to the point where she was considering throwing her lot in with the white supremacists: I think I may have suggested that it was an appropriate association. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I don't think it is any secret that there are religions, churches, that continue to defend their right to preach and protest against homosexuality under the guise of 'protecting family values' (WHOSE family?). Some of them are getting caught by Section 13, and I do think that is good because I do believe they are promoting hatred, and I believe that is their intent.
I am merely pointing out examples that in my opinion indicate that Section 13 has an important purpose, and is effective in weeding out hatred from freedom of speech.
The decisions of the HRC are here:
[url=http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/tribunal/index_e.asp?filter=year]http://www.c...
And here is one of their decisions:
[url=http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1106_8705ed26oct07.pdf]http://w...
Sat, 2008-02-02 21:08
#33
quote:
Originally posted by sanizadeh:
[b]
But Section 13 goes way beyond libel and slander. it attempts to punish speech that is "likely to expose" identifiable minorities to "contempt". This is such a broad net that could capture pretty much any opinion. We already have slander and libel law on the book. There is no need for Section 13.
[/b]
Libel and slander are just "words". They do not invoke violence. Libel and slander are words of contempt and defamation against an individual found under civil law judged on the balance of probabilities in the same way Section 13 is judged. Why is an individual's worth so much more than that of a vulnerable minority?
Forgive this example but I am trying to make a point.
Could a Jewish accountant sue for libel and slander if he was wrongly and publicly identified as a thieving coniving person who ought not be trusted?
If the word "person" was changed to "Jew" would the libel still be valid?
If Jews as a group were called thieving coniving people who ought not be trusted, would a group slander or a hate law be invoked? Something to think about.
[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: ohara ]
Sat, 2008-02-02 21:21
#34
It's not a great example, ohara.
If an article is posted claiming that Albertans are conniving greedy right-wing rednecks, and that they should be subject to draconian restrictive laws, Section 13 can't be invoked - because provincial origin is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA.
Likewise if someone posts an article saying that people on welfare are parasites who should be locked up or deported.
But apparently it can be used to squelch articles saying that "Israel is an apartheid state" (one of the accusations of B'nai Brith against PEJ).
Are you starting to get why Section 13 is pretty bad news that needs to be "fine-tuned" (your words)?
I say repeal it first, and if someone wants to bring it back in a form that doesn't unduly restrain freedom of speech and the press, fill yer boots.
Sat, 2008-02-02 22:19
#35
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]Again Unionist, some laws need to be fine-tuned. [/b]
So why should Mark Steyn's comments be exempt? I was a bit surprised to see the recent op/ed piece by the CJC co-presidents that opposed any CHRC action against Steyn or Macleans.
Sun, 2008-02-03 04:44
#36
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]It's not a great example, ohara.If an article is posted claiming that Albertans are conniving greedy right-wing rednecks, and that they should be subject to draconian restrictive laws, Section 13 can't be invoked - because provincial origin is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA.
Likewise if someone posts an article saying that people on welfare are parasites who should be locked up or deported.
But apparently it can be used to squelch articles saying that "Israel is an apartheid state" (one of the accusations of B'nai Brith against PEJ).
Are you starting to get why Section 13 is pretty bad news that needs to be "fine-tuned" (your words)?
freedom of speech and the press, fill yer boots.[/b]
Well Albertans , unionist, are hardly a "vulnerable" minority now are they?
Your interesting meanderings do not in any way address my issues. Oh they sure do take us off course but in no way answers what you claim is not a "great example".
Sun, 2008-02-03 04:55
#37
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]Your interesting meanderings do not in any way address my issues. Oh they sure do take us off course but in no way answers what you claim is not a "great example".[/b]
I think it's questionable to have laws banning internet postings (but not radio or TV broadcasts!) which are "likely to expose an identifiable group of people to contempt". I think better-tuned criminal law provisions would be preferable, but the incitement of hate would need to be more explicit.
I gave my example merely to show the arbitrariness of the law.
[b][i]Section 13 prohibits postings ridiculing white heterosexual Protestant males (for example) yet allows postings ridiculing welfare recipients from St. Henri or Cфte-des-Neiges.[/i][/b]
Explain that to me, please.
Sun, 2008-02-03 05:00
#38
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]So why should Mark Steyn's comments be exempt? I was a bit surprised to see the recent op/ed piece by the CJC co-presidents that opposed any CHRC action against Steyn or Macleans.[/b]
Perhaps someone might post the op-ed being referred to however, if what you post here is correct i would say that the cjc co-presidents seem to get it.
And maybe that is exactly what is wrong with the law. The human rights commissions ought to have more leeway to decide which complaints are non-meritorious or frivilous. As it stands now each complaint is subject to a complete review procedure that entails a full investigation, interviews etc.
I for one want to see human rights legislation maintained.i sorta like ohara's analogy with libel laws. They are not criminal laws. They are under civil law procedures.
I'm not a lawyer but i do think there is such a law as criminal libel though like our criminal hate laws are not widely used. Hence the less restrictive civil procedure of civil libel.
Isee ohara's point that our human rights legislation is comparable to civil libel.
Sun, 2008-02-03 07:37
#39
saga
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I think it's questionable to have laws banning internet postings (but not radio or TV broadcasts!) which are "likely to expose an identifiable group of people to contempt". I think better-tuned criminal law provisions would be preferable, but the incitement of hate would need to be more explicit.
I gave my example merely to show the arbitrariness of the law.
[b][i]Section 13 prohibits postings ridiculing white heterosexual Protestant males (for example) yet allows postings ridiculing welfare recipients from St. Henri or Cфte-des-Neiges.[/i][/b]
Explain that to me, please.[/b]
Being a welfare recipient is not one of the "protected grounds". That's a function of the law, not the work of the commission. However, it bothers me too that there is a limited group who have access to the process. Income level certainly could be a "grounds" too, but the legislation has to change.
I agree with the posters who pointed out that this is similar to civil proceedings for defamation, and I believe it is absolutely necessary. Many are testing the limits of the law on the internet now, pushing the boundaries of 'hate'. There have to be limits, imo.
[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]
Sun, 2008-02-03 07:39
#40
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
[b]Being a welfare recipient is not one of the "protected grounds". That's a function of the law, not the work of the commission.[/b]
That's my point, saga. The law is no good. Check the thread title.
Sun, 2008-02-03 08:04
#41
And that's my point you are wrong. It is not a matter of the law being "no good". Its a matter of the law needing adjustment and/or those who administer the law gain a better understanding.
Sadly people get wrongly convicted of crimes such as murder. Do you say the law is "no good" lets get rid of it or do you work to make both the law and/or its administration better?
Sun, 2008-02-03 08:16
#42
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]And that's my point you are wrong. It is not a matter of the law being "no good". Its a matter of the law needing adjustment and/or those who administer the law gain a better understanding.Sadly people get wrongly convicted of crimes such as murder. Do you say the law is "no good" lets get rid of it or do you work to make both the law and/or its administration better?[/b]
Ok, you may be right. The only reason I said "repeal" was because Keith Martin was actually proposing this and I wanted to provoke some discussion.
Ohara, or someone else, can you try your hand at re-drafting Section 13 so that it's not so broad ("likely to expose to contempt"... wow); so that it proscribes the kind of hate propaganda ohara cited ("Jews are greedy, grasping, etc.") - but still allows me to say things like these:
"Israel has a right to secure borders as recognized by the U.N., but it has no 'right' to exist as a 'Jewish state'"
"Israel is an apartheid society"
"I support a single new State covering all of historic Palestine, with a government chosen by all the people, and with no ethnic or racial or religious laws".
Unless, of course, you think some of the above [i]should[/i] be banned - then we can have that discussion instead.
Sun, 2008-02-03 08:21
#43
saga
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]That's my point, saga. The law is no good. Check the thread title.[/b]
I see. Yes the narrowness of the 'protected grounds' is bothersome. However, I hardly see the value in repealing the law because it is not broad enough. I do see the value of adding 'income level' as a grounds for discrimination, though.
Repealing the law would be punitive to those who need it because of disability, sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. I don't see it as constructive to deny service to these groups currently covered by the legislation simply because another group needs access, though.
You are not saying the process doesn't work, but simply that it should be extended to more people ... right?
As for your statements re Israel ... I am still not convinced that these are "the same" kind of comments currently under attack at HRC. Also, we do not know the outcome of that process yet.
[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]
Sun, 2008-02-03 08:38
#44
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Ok, you may be right. The only reason I said "repeal" was because Keith Martin was actually proposing this and I wanted to provoke some discussion.
Ohara, or someone else, can you try your hand at re-drafting Section 13 so that it's not so broad ("likely to expose to contempt"... wow); so that it proscribes the kind of hate propaganda ohara cited ("Jews are greedy, grasping, etc.") - but still allows me to say things like these:
"Israel has a right to secure borders as recognized by the U.N., but it has no 'right' to exist as a 'Jewish state'"
"Israel is an apartheid society"
"I support a single new State covering all of historic Palestine, with a government chosen by all the people, and with no ethnic or racial or religious laws".
Unless, of course, you think some of the above [i]should[/i] be banned - then we can have that discussion instead.[/b]
No need to be so smarmy. You have of course every right to say those things. You would be wrong of course but you never cared about that before.
No one I ever heard of has been hauled before the HRC for making those ridiculous claims. You make reference to some complaint by Bnai brith that you suggest are based on these absurd statements yet you give us no link to them. So unless and until we can see thme fo ourselves no such claims to the HRC have been made to the best of my knwoledge.
Sun, 2008-02-03 08:46
#45
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]No need to be so smarmy. You have of course every right to say those things. You would be wrong of course but you never cared about that before. [/b]
You are so accustomed to being attacked on this site that you tend to react that way even when no attack is intended. I meant what I said. You may be right. And I had no idea where you stood on the anti-Israel specific statements.
quote:
[b]No one I ever heard of has been hauled before the HRC for making those ridiculous claims. You make reference to some complaint by Bnai brith that you suggest are based on these absurd statements yet you give us no link to them. So unless and until we can see thme fo ourselves no such claims to the HRC have been made to the best of my knwoledge.[/b]
I can't show you the actual complaint, because it seems to be unpublished. But I did provide a [url=http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/05/26/1124/]link[/url] earlier to a Globe and Mail article. Here is how the complainant himself describes it:
quote:
“There are a number of calumnies that need to be exposed,” Mr. Abrams, a Victoria businessman, said in an interview. “The idea that Israel has no right to exist or that Israel is an apartheid state,” he cited as examples.
Here is more:
quote:
Some question Israel’s right to exist or compare Israeli policy with Nazi persecution of Jews. One article, entitled We Should Nuke Israel, is an apparent spoof of a column in The Toronto Sun proposing a tactical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.Anita Bromberg, director of the legal department of B’nai Brith Canada, which has joined Mr. Abrams in the complaint, said the articles “are virulently anti-Israel to the point that they meet the criteria of crossing the line of legitimate criticism of the state straight into anti-Semitism.”
You know, ohara, you and I can both get a flavour for what these articles really said from the above descriptions. We've seen lots of this stuff. And there isn't a single solitary specific hint or quote of anything that actually looks anti-Semitic. You know and I know that B'nai Brith would have cited those if they existed.
Thoughts?
Sun, 2008-02-03 09:35
#46
I don't have a deep problem with the law, although one can quibble about the idea of "likely to expose an identifiable group to contempt" on a prohibited ground.
Since the prohibited grounds are race, religion, etc, the only messages which would violate the law are ones which treat race, religion, etc. with contempt.
Someone, above, mentioned that such messages should become actionable if they are slanderous.
It is important to understand that libel and slander legally relate only to individual persons. You cannot legally "slander" blacks, Jews, or Muslims as a group.
So, this provision is broadly analogous.
Of course, people can make complaints on spurious grounds, but these should not lead to an actual hearing. So, unless the Human Rights Commission were to actually hold a hearing into some unfounded complaint, I don't find the fact that a complaint has been made very terrible.
There are some flaws in this law, but overall it has a positive purpose, and, I think, effect.
Sun, 2008-02-03 10:06
#47
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]ISince the prohibited grounds are race, religion, etc, the only messages which would violate the law are ones which treat race, religion, etc. with contempt.Someone, above, mentioned that such messages should become actionable if they are slanderous.
It is important to understand that libel and slander legally relate only to individual persons. You cannot legally "slander" blacks, Jews, or Muslims as a group.
.[/b]
That was my point Jeff, I understand that slander and libel can only apply to the individual. I was wondering why no one seems to have a problem with individuals being libeled but huge 'free sppech" issues when groups are targeted for hate or "libel" (forgive the legal term but I am trying to make a point)
Sun, 2008-02-03 10:44
#48
Ohara - comments on my last post about PEJ.net?
Sun, 2008-02-03 10:50
#49
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]That was my point Jeff, I understand that slander and libel can only apply to the individual. I was wondering why no one seems to have a problem with individuals being libeled but huge 'free sppech" issues when groups are targeted for hate or "libel" (forgive the legal term but I am trying to make a point)[/b]
Personally I think that the libel and slander laws are also too broad. I would like to make the complainant show some proof that an alleged libelous word has actually caused specific material loss when suing. Currently, "likely to expose to contempt" appear to be sufficient.
Also, provisions must be added to have the complainant pay the legal cost to both the accused and the public if his/her complaint is found without merit (even at the investigation phase). That might put a stop to frivolous charges.
[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]
Sun, 2008-02-03 10:51
#50
Unionist, as much as I believe the comments alleged to have been made by pej.net are scummy and offensive everyone, Ezra Levant, ohara, unionsit we all have the right in canada to be scummy and offensive, though some I mist say practice this right far more than others.
If however, as I believe it is correct to say that "nationality" is part of our hate laws it is then an offence to hatefully target nationalities one must show care to ensure that the offence is against national policies and not nationalities.
Other than that without seeing the exact allegation of offence I can be no clearer.
Sun, 2008-02-03 10:55
#51
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
[b]
Perhaps someone might post the op-ed being referred to however, if what you post here is correct i would say that the cjc co-presidents seem to get it.[/b]
They "get it"? Why is it ok to encourage contempt of Muslims? I'm having difficulty understanding is why some people who support section 13 seem to think there should be an exemption when you're talking about Muslims. Steyn's article seemed pretty contemptuous to me. It's certainly as contemptuous as the PEJ articles - however the CJC has remained silent about the complaint against it. Why the double standard?
The only person who has been consistent here is Alan Borovoy.
[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]