According to
this site, Storseth's private member's bill to repeal Section 13 (the hate-speech provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was debated again in the HOC yesterday. Not a single other mention of it in the MSM that I can find. The gov. and press are sure keeping this on the down-low. I suspect because they realize that legislation that both weakens press accountability and strengthens the hands of hate-groups would prove not-so-popular if given a lot of exposure.
PS. Indeed it
was debated yesterday.
"...Under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence..."
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the most common distortions bandied about by opponents to the now nearly defunct S13.
Here's the reasoning behind not allowing the truth debate unlimited
rein...
http://www.zundelsite.org/chrc/interm_decision.html
(from Taylor) Strange as it may sound, the establishment of truth is not in issue in this case. Unlike the statutory defences set out in s. 281.2(3) of the Criminal Code which make truth a defence to criminal prosecution for public incitement of hatred against any group distinguished by colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin, no equivalent defence is available in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Parliament has deemed that the use of the telephone for this kind of discriminatory message is so fundamentally wrong, that no justification for the communication can avail the Respondents...
...We find this passage from Taylor to be instructive in that, consistent with a focus on effect rather than intent, it is the effect of the message on the recipient, and ultimately on the person or group vilified, that is the focus of the analysis. The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient. The objective truth of the statement is ultimately of no consequence if the subjective interpretation, by virtue of tone, social context and medium is one which ëarouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.í Therefore, in our view, whether the message is true or not is immaterial. Whether it is perceived to be true or credible may very well add to its impact, but its actual basis in truth is outside the scope of this inquiry....Given our understanding of the ultimate issues before us, it is not helpful to this Tribunal to this expert on the underlying truth of the statements considered by him to contain anti Semitic themes.