OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper must assure Canadians that he does not favour scrapping the Canadian Human Rights Commission in light of the fact that 20 of his MPs have endorsed plans to eliminate the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Liberal MP Bob Rae said today.
Just a reminder. There's two human rights radicals in the Tory race--Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier--and two purported moderates--Frank Klees and Red Tory no-hoper Christine Elliot. Its a testament to how far the PCPO has drifted right that the kind of OHRC "reform" suggested by one of these moderates, Klees, would involve lifting the prohibition signs advertising "Whites Only Served" and "No Irish Need Apply".
So far:
Eugene McDermott, Candidate of Record, Conservative party of Canada Don Valley East
Kevin Nguyen, 2008 Conservative candidate, York West
Lois Brown, MP Newmarket-Aurora
...are down with that lovely idea.
10 comments:
Interesting. Note that the Liberal press release only addresses eliminating the commissions. It doesn't even touch on the issue of whether or not they should be adjudicating expression.
The Ontario PC race has shifted the debate in an unfortunate way (IMHO). By making it about the commission's in their entirety and/or Ontario's narrow discriminatory signs provision they lose the wide swath of moderates who oppose both censorship and discrimination in the workplace, the provision of services etc.
Of the folks I've spoken to about this issue many support throwing the adjudication of hate speech back to the courts. Not a single one of them however would support eliminating the work of commissions in combating actual discrimination. Nor would they (I expect) support the types of signs that the OHRC narrowly prohibits.
...they lose the wide swath of moderates who oppose both censorship and discrimination in the workplace, the provision of services etc.
What censorship? What wide swath?
If it's the "wide swath" of idiot children who don't even know the meaning of the word "censorship," fuck 'em.
Ti-Guy you can carry on being a douche all you want. I have thick enough skin for that. Fact of the matter is that for most people the unacceptable form of censorship is the overt act of the state, not the neo-marxist claptrap you spew.
If the anecdotal conversations I've had on the subject are any indication of public opinion, opinions are more nuanced than the Randy Hillier's on the one hand and the Warren Kinsella's on the other would have us believe.
Very few Canadians would approve of a laissez faire approach to discriminatory practices. But they are less excited about having a quasi-judicial tribunal adjudicating expression on a civil standard without an intent
requirement.
By advocating the elimination of the system in its entirety their coalition shrinks. They lose people like Alan Borovoy and Keith Martin.
Fact of the matter is that for most people the unacceptable form of censorship is the overt act of the state, not the neo-marxist claptrap you spew.
All I hear here is the plaintive cry: "Teach me to read!" I've got a few brochures for Frontier College if you're interested.
If the anecdotal conversations I've had on the subject are any indication of public opinion...
Why on Earth do you think they would be? If I could convince myself the people I talked to represented public opinion, I'd be less overwhelmed with despair. For one, they seem to understand what "censorship" means, see a material difference between "state censorship" and the real censorhship a corporatised media engages in effortlessly by margalising "unacceptable" ideas or amplifying fringe ones, and don't throw around the word irresponsibly, thus removing it of any explanatory power.
But they are less excited about having a quasi-judicial tribunal adjudicating expression on a civil standard without an intent
requirement.
This would the "wide swath" of people who have an articulated opinion on this of course. Really, Casey...you're full of shit.
By advocating the elimination of the system in its entirety their coalition shrinks. They lose people like Alan Borovoy and Keith Martin.
I'm counting on it. Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that Alan Borovoy really is disappointed his Canadian version of the ACLU never had the renown its American homologue had and would welcome additional incidents of hate speech to give it renewed purpose.
Meanwhile, in the free screechers' most favouritest country and bastion o' freedom, the rot gets fouler...
All I hear here is the plaintive cry: "Teach me to read!" I've got a few brochures for Frontier College if you're interested.
Been there, done that. Seen your brand of marxism for the tripe it is. Not all of us have the trust in state power that you seem to.
For one, they seem to understand what "censorship" means, see a material difference between "state censorship" and the real censorhship a corporatised media engages in...
I see a material difference between the two as well and characterizing the latter as "censorship" ignores the impact of independant media and the ability of any individual to start a blog or publish a pamphlet. When the state steps in all discussion is over. That to me is real censorship.
I'm counting on it.
You better count on it. As long as the issue is eliminating human rights commissions it is a fringe issue. When it is the appropriate venue (if any) for adjudicating speech your side is considerably weaker.
Seen your brand of marxism for the tripe it is.
Good. Maybe you can explain it to me, because, try as I might (and I have) I've always found Marxism mystifying. I'm trying again by forcing myself to listen to this series of podcasts, but honestly, I'm having trouble getting through the professor's introduction.
Not all of us have the trust in state power that you seem to.
Yeah, I'm all alone here in my uncritical support of state power. Careful, Casey...you're really starting to sound like one of the juvenile radicals the NDP appeals to.
I see a material difference between the two as well and characterizing the latter as "censorship" ignores the impact of independant (sic) media and the ability of any individual to start a blog or publish a pamphlet.
And when has *our* state prohibited this? Surely, the Publications Assistance Program and state support for public media would make that claim seen a little hysterical, no?
When the state steps in all discussion is over.
If only...
As long as the issue is eliminating human rights commissions it is a fringe issue. When it is the appropriate venue (if any) for adjudicating speech your side is considerably weaker.
Any Liberal communications strategist is going to effortlessly conflate the free screechers with the racists, bigots and chauvinists who are using this tactic to remove these tribunals from mediating any and all civil rights disputes, because the free screechers have provided so much evidence and because they're the same people.
Even you could do that, Casey...as long as you take your Ritalin.
KC,
The Ontario code does NOT have a section for extreme speech, only a section (13, oddly enough) for symbols (like signs) that express an intent to discriminate. So the PCPO either goes all in or, like Klees I think, eliminates section 13 of the Ontario code in the hopes that it will satisfy the inchoate anger of the Tory base on this issue. Presumably Klees is assuming that the base is too dumb to figure out that the two codes are different. Pretty safe assumption?
BCL - I'm aware that Ontario doesn't have a s. 13 equivalent. I think it is a mistake both politically and ethically to eliminate the narrowly drafted provision in the OHRC. No doubt Klees is probably trying to take advantage of the fact that people don't realize that.
My point was that far fewer people would support eliminating HRCs/HRTs than would support elimating the s. 13 equivalent federally and in those provinces that have one.
Ti Guy -
And when has *our* state prohibited this? Surely, the Publications Assistance Program and state support for public media would make that claim seen (sic) a little hysterical, no?
I read this over multiple times and I dont follow. There are material differences between true state "censorship" and the effects of media concentration (which is far short of a monopoly).
Any Liberal communications strategist is going to effortlessly conflate the free screechers with the racists, bigots and chauvinists who are using this tactic to remove these tribunals from mediating any and all civil rights disputes, because the free screechers have provided so much evidence and because they're the same people.
You always accuse people of lying, and now who is just lying. There are plenty of people out there--and I've encountered many--who are perfectly comfortable with anti-discrimination laws and not with censorship laws (or at least the ones we have now). They are NOT one and the same.
I read this over multiple times and I dont follow. There are material differences between true state "censorship" and the effects of media concentration (which is far short of a monopoly).
This is irrelevant. I was responding to your specious claim that Canadians should be wary of an intrusive State that limits expression through independent media; an absurd claim, given existing State support *for* independent media. Those hate rags Catholic Insight and The Interim get tens of thousands a year from the PAP, for instance.
There are plenty of people out there--and I've encountered many--who are perfectly comfortable with anti-discrimination laws and not with censorship laws (or at least the ones we have now).
I'm one of them. However, I don't call complaint-driven dispute resolution censorship (let alone State censorship), because it isn't.
The free sceechers are one and the same, however. Check out the hate-fests Ezra hosts in his comments section on a daily basis.
Anyway, you forgot to raise my consciousness with respect to my Marxist tendencies. Doubtless an oversight. Please try again. If you don't, I'll have to leave it here, because you're boring me. I'm sure I've had this exact same discussion with you before
Post a Comment