Ah, Reasons
The Steyn article discusses changing global demographics and other factors that the author describes as contributing to an eventual ascendancy of Muslims in the ‘developed world’, a prospect that the author fears for various reasons described in the article. The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.
For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed. mark steyn
Now my commentors truewest and Dr. Dawg will, no doubt take this as evidence that the system works and that Taylor really can be used to dismiss complaints which are not, in fact, about hate speech.
My sense is that Taylor works if you have deep pockets, have said nothing which is even close to hate speech and, most importantly, have dimwits like the Socks and the CIC as the complainants. At a guess the CHRC watched the Mohammedan legal titan present his “not a case” in BC and realized just how stupid these kids are. The CHRC also watched as virtually every newspaper in the country denounced s.13 and it realized that there was growing political momentum in support of Dr. Keith Martin’s motion to repeal s. 13.
The one two punch of appointing a tame academic to make recommendations and then to dismiss the Socks crazy charge is pretty transparently designed to reduce the political heat the Commission is feeling. And, I suspect, it will do just that.
Summer is here, Ms. Lynch and her remaining supporter, the Lying Jackal, will retire from the field and hope this will all blow over.
Our job is to make sure it doesn’t.
Even with Taylor rules the mere threat of a CHRC complaint, not to mention the CHRC investigator’s rule-free techniques, put an ongoing chill on political conversation in Canada. The overbreadth of s. 13 means that for less well heeled respondents, the CHRC remains a real threat.
Fire. Them. All.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
You guys are simply shameless! I must say I’m enjoying all the long faces on the Right, though. Nothing worse than a sore winner.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Right on time Dawg.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Jay,
You really must fix your blog so its viewable by IE; it’s a pain firing up Firefox every time I want to take you to task for the nonsense you post.
But I digress.
You guys can muse on about backroom conspiracies all you like – there’s no denying those tinfoil hats are very attractive—but anybody who read Taylor and any of the earlier CHRT decisions on s.l3 could have predicted this result. Steyn may be a bigot and blowhard, but he’s not a hateful bigot and blowhard..
And what sort of stuff crosses the line set by Taylor?, I hear you ask.
Well, here’s a sampling of what landed Terry Tremaine (currently being hailed as a martyr over at Ezra’s) in hot water earlier this year:
Fundamentally we (and all ethnic groups and races) must see the Jews as alien poisoners (sic) who always try to get others to do their dirty work. That way they can always claim innocence and do not get their hands dirty. Nor do they have to spend any of their own precious gold. They have openly declared that they would rather destroy the world than have their own national existence threatened (the Samson Option). We must accept that they are serious about that. We must turn that around and say, better that the Jews and Israel be destroyed than have the world destroyed.
......
If Negroes were only stupid, collectively speaking, but otherwise innocent we could regard them like children. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I found them to have a natural tendency to violence as a first resort and to be natural born thieves. In the four years I was in the Bahamas I had maybe half a dozen disputes with Negro males over what would normally be considered minor issues. In each case I was threatened with physical violence. They are cowards as well, brave only in packs like hyenas, since each case I did not back down and the other guy scurried away. I found that even the educated among them are natural born thieves.[...] The rule when you are among Negroes : If it isn’t nailed down, glued down, or welded down to the floor it will disappear.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I’ll try to get the comments fixed over the weekend tw…I have been hella busy on endless web related stuff.
I responded to your post over at the dawg’s but, realistically, Terry Tremaine was, eventually charged criminally. Which, while I am not thrilled with s. 319 of the Criminal Code, afforded him the actual protections of the Rule of Law.
I don’t have to agree with or like what Terry Tremaine writes – but before the state intervenes I believe that the standard, at minimum, ought to be criminal. Taylor, if the HRC’s paid attention to it, begins to get it; but realistically, abridging a s. 2 right should only occur with a full trial under Criminal rules.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:01 am
A disgusting display of enraptured swine rolling in their own feces.
All we see here is an admission that Macleans was too big a fish to get in the boat. The oppression of little nobodies with the typical silent HRC snubbing of Taylor will continue.
Frankly, anyone convicted under 13(1) should appeal. From the decisions I have read damn few come within the confines of Taylor…Envoking Taylor to abandon a hard kill is a pathology with HRTs.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Nah, if the little punks are too lippy, just pick them up and question them for a while. Make sure everybody knows they been out violating human rights. Like that little Levant creep. Stretch it out for a couple of years. Give him something to think about. Sooner or later, these wise guys will get the message. Or run out of money. Criminal charges? What, you want to argue this stuff in front of a judge. A jury? Wise up.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
ER: ever think it is the HRCs who may start to experience budget pinch when they continuously embarrass their governments and inflame the voters?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“abridging a s. 2 right should only occur with a full trial under Criminal rules.”
I can assure you, all kinds of cases get thrown out of criminal court that had no business being there in the first place. The stakes are higher, and yet it is quite easy to get a person arrested and charged even with a frivolous complaint. And if you think that the complainant eventually gets in trouble for it, think again. It rarely happens.
Changing the standards of the HRCs will not prevent frivolous complaints.