Ben-Ami on the CHRA
Third, the government should take a stand against the ideological position that the state has an interest in regulating what people think and say. It should introduce a bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in a way that will limit the purview of federal human rights commissions and it should allow a free vote on the bill. There’s no question that there is a lot of stupid and despicable thought and speech out there, but it is a dangerous illusion to think that this can be stamped out by replicating the most odious practices of a police state. Inevitably, a campaign to suppress offensive thought and speech will mutate into a campaign to suppress dissenting thought and speech. As a practical matter then, amending the CHRA would be a measured and welcome policy in response to the controversy surrounding human rights commissions. joseph ben-ami
This is smart and pragmatic. Especially the free vote element. A free vote would take the wind out of the sails of the Toronto Party and the Lying Jackal and his ilk by greatly reducing the partisan element of the debate. Essentially it would be a debate about whether the state has any business regulating speech. (And spare me libel, copyright and incitement arguments – the first two are about property the third about counseling assault (like Lucy did when he suggested a pie be thrown.))
November 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Alan tried to write:
I was going to make a point about the third [class of free speech protections – libel, copyright and incitement arguments]. You can’t say that it is not the role of the state when it reaches inciting hatred as that is at the extreme criminal law and at a lesser point still within mischief or breach of the peace. But all enforceable by the state though the court and police systems and not administrative tribunals. And libel is not about property, it is about reputation – though they are connected. Civil society has a layer of regulation that is about decency on a human to human level. Loss of that respect leads to many wrongs including potential loss of property values. But it is not limited to that. A poor and unknown person without wealth can be libeled if, through the status, dignity is denigrated. This becomes a useful tool in creating a civic identity and standards of speech and interrelation – not socialism but civic republicanism. Without that, there is only true moral relativism, that Satan spawn of Ayn Rand’s wacko ideas.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“And spare me libel, copyright and incitement arguments…”
B-b-but Jay! The Man arrested and jailed me when I published photos of the Mayor’s children on the way to their school, together with a map of their walking route, under the headline “Maybe His Honour would like to rethink his vote for Ordinance 1234 before someone gets hurt…? THINK OF THE CHILDREN, MR MAYOR!”
So why, by the same token, can’t I legally haul the rabble-rouser Mark Frankencrist (who, by the way, is RIGHT-WING – end of argument!) before the Justice Committee to get $90 million in punitive damages off him (in an utterly conciliatory, non-legalistic and non-adversarial proceeding, of course) for his daring to blaspheme the very Name of Trudeau in 1987?
Why isn’t sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander? Why are you elevating liberalist formal equality over –
Excuse me…
[sound of cassette ejecting]
... Why are you drawing legalistic distinctions instead of supporting the most basic principle of elementary justice, that like cases be treated alike?