Canada's human rights commissions, federal and provincial, for their efforts to censor speech that merely 'offends.' Given enormous powers by the state, even to issue gag orders for life, human rights commissions and tribunals are not bound to give an accused the same rights they'd get in a court of law. The accuser has their case paid for by the state, while the defendant must pay out of pocket, even when the charges are absurd.
A Pertinant Fact:
Prince George, B.C. – A Prince George man has had his human rights complaint against the Treasure Cove Casino, its owner, some employees and the BC Lottery Corporation, dismissed. Glenn Miller has also been ordered to pay $1,000 each to; Mr. John Major, Steve Leach and Treasure Cove Supply Limited.
8 comments:
I've never understood the CAJ's position on this. From what I understand, the complaint against Maclean's Mag (Styen) was for equal time (a rebuttal) and the one against Levant was to censure him for spreading hate (publishing the Mohammed cartoons) neither of which had a chance of success, according to most sensible people.
Yet the CAJ circled the wagons around these two despite their deliberate attempts to inflame racial tensions against Muslims.
Several Canadian journalists, and a few journalism teachers, felt the CHRC complaints didn't have a leg to stand on and would be dismissed (they were right).
They also disagreed with the CAJ's knee jerk response in defense of these two idiots who make a career of racial insults disguised as legit journalism.
Go figger. It's why I left the CAJ.
I will fight for people's right to free expression, and agree the CHRC shouldn't be involved in free speech issues, but cannot support the CAJ's position on human rights commissions. I wonder if there was any debate within CAJ whether it would be perceived supporting racial attacks against Muslims? Doubtful.
BCL.. I'm not sure of your point.
Are you suggesting that being the subject of a pointless which-hunt is compensated by a $1,000.00 cost award (which, in fact, will not likely be paid)?
The bottom line is this:
Whether we want to look at human rights abuse under the umbrella of criminal law, or under a separate administrative tribunal system - there needs to be a vigilant gate-keeper to assure that there is no cause for an accused to even be notified if the complaint is meritless.
Think of it this way. If the system worked, neither Ezra Levant, nor Mark Steyn, would have become martyrs to the free speech cause because the complaints would have been properly dismissed from the start.
The fact that so much has been said - and that Levant has now been afforded the publicity to sell his book is proof, in an of its self, that the system is broken.
A report was published yesterday that the Catholic Church was complicit in the abuse and molestation of children in Ireland.
Is here any suggestion that this information does not have the likelihood of exposing the Catholic Church, and by implication, Catholics, to "contempt", and is therefore, prima facie, an offense under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
Should we be able to discuss when a religious order or group engages in offensive conduct - even if that discussion leads to "contempt" of the members of that group? I would think so.
Is there any argument but that some Muslims are engaging in conduct that is offensive in the name of their religion? And should we be prohibited from freely discussing that issue - including satire (the cartoon)?
As a lawyer, while I don't practice in the area of administrative law, I can imagine a half-day hearing, with preparation, would cost a minimum of $5,000.00 for my client - perhaps as much as $10,000.00.
A $1,000.00 cost award, against someone who may be indigent, is hardly evidence that the might of the Human Rights Commissions is not a tool of oppression to free speech.
"If the system worked, neither Ezra Levant, nor Mark Steyn, would have become martyrs to the free speech cause because the complaints would have been properly dismissed from the start."
Ezra's case WAS dismissed.
And in any case, there is no question that both Ezra's writings and Steyn's "resemble hate speech". So it is not entirely unreasonable that the commissions involved might have wanted to take a closer look, finding in the end that they did not in fact cross the line.
Incidentally, given your line of argumentation, I suppose you would repeal libel laws due to the fact that they can be abused or used frivolously (By Conrad Black and Ezra himself, for example)?
BCL.. yes, the complaint was dismissed, after a hearing and much publicity.
And no, I don't advocate repeal of libel laws - as that is an even playing field. I can sue you, but I have to hire a lawyer. The government does not hire lawyers for complaintants in libel actions.
And I don't oppose human rights tribunals - as I indicate, I think that there just should be a fairly strong hurdle to overcome before the machinery of the state kicks in and requires an accused to defend himself.
And that - in my mind, is not being done. Neither Levant's publication, nor that of Macleans, as offensive as they might be to Muslims, crossed the line into the promulgation of violence against a group. Contempt? Perhaps - but that standard is staggeringly low - as pointed out with the reference to the Catholic Church.
We need to be able to put religion up to scrutiny - more harm and inhumnity is effected in the name of "faith" than any other cause, and when that faith begins to appear to create risk of harm to others not of that faith - well, criticism and potentially, contempt, is more than appropriate.
Actually, as typically interpreted by the Tribunals it ("Contempt")has not been a staggeringly low standard. Moon essentially gave the Tribs a clean bill of health in the report. For example, all of Warman's cases would have met the criminal standard (but it is hard as heck to get the police to act on these, hence the tribunal route).
BCL.. yes, the complaint was dismissed, after a hearing and much publicity.At least with Ezra, there never was a hearing as far as I know. And all of the publicity about it looked to me to be of Ezra's own making.
". . . there needs to be a vigilant gate-keeper to assure that there is no cause for an accused to even be notified if the complaint is meritless."- roblaw
Good point. The gatekeeper can not be in the employ of the HRC either.
Post a Comment