Calling Rev. Boission
John Simpson alleged certain verses of the Koran discriminate against people of Christian and Jewish faith and filed his complaint against Indigo Books & Music Inc. (TSX:IDG), the store’s parent company.Simpson’s complaint came under Section 7 of the Human Rights Code.
The section states that a person must not publish any statement that is likely to expose a person or group to hatred or contempt because of their religion.
But B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Barbara Humphreys says Simpson didn’t explain how the Koran, the central religious text of Islam that has existed for more than 1,300 years, had a negative impact on him.
Humphreys dismissed the case after ruling that Simpson’s complaint would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code. canadian press via blazing catfur
Cool. A new defence to Human Rights complaints. Sure this is a piece of hate speech but calling it that would not “further the aims of the Human Rights Code”. Sure this honour killing is a murder but calling it that would not further the aims of the Criminal Code.
And I love the impact test. Just for fun, how did the Rev. Boission’s comments “impact” Mr. Lund – the complainant – negatively? Or, for greater fun, how have any of the people who Richard Warman has complained about impacted Richard Warman negatively?
Great jurisprudence. Insightful. Clever. Supreme Court of Canada worthy.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 am
I will take a punt on predicting the Correct Thinking reply. This will be an unstable combination of formal neutrality of the utmost abstraction (“You wouldn’t ban ‘Dianetics’ or the Buddhist scriptures, so why treat the Quran unequally?”) with realist critical jurisprudence (“Christians are in no danger of being persecuted around the world, but Muslims are constantly suffering violent pogroms. We on the Left stand with the Oppressed and the Vulnerable, not with the powerful and the already-privileged”). There will be little or no intellectual effort expended on reconciling the two extremes.
Now, Dawg, comrade, over to you.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 am
Jay, what are you on about? Do you think a complaint against the Bible would get any further? Do you really believe that the complaint against Boissoin was simply for reading a Bible verse or two out loud with no further comment? Ditto for Jessica Beaumont?
Ezra Levant, from whom so much of this silliness seems to spring, has already shown that he doesn’t know how to read these decisions with the slightest comprehension—see, for example, his ludicrous misreading of the “hand-washing” case. The Blazing Kitteh is no different. It’s all reports of reports. Don’t be like them. Go and read the actual decisions.
In the meantime, let me note that there are some horrendous passages in the Bible and the Talmud, but frankly, so what? Human Rights Codes don’t imply burning the holy books of any religion. But when the dread Tribunals keep on dismissing cases, instead of being pleased you keep on stamping your feet in fury. The Inquisition brings the Comfy Chair. The tyrant has nodded off again. The Star Chamber features beer and a light lunch. Lacking actual case files and jurisprudence to prove that we’re in the grip of dictatorship, you’re reduced to making stuff up.
Come on, Jay, you’re better than this.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:52 am
It was dismissed, just as the cases against Levant and Macleans were, because it was a frivolous complaint.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 am
I’m not sure where this will leave future decisions Jay, as the whole HRT process is just one large amateurish ad hoc cluster frig. It’s acceptance of case precedent is sporadic at best.
I note also that in this decision the “excuse” issued by the HR potentate approximates a procedural condition for a complainant to prove palpable damage. But again, this could just be part of the pattern of HRC discrimination against majority group complainants.
The only thing that you can count on from the HRC/HRT process is uniform contempt for majority groups.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Dawg, the impact test invented by Ms. Humphrys is brilliant. It apparently requires a complainant to show specific negative impact on themselves – and on that basis neither Lund not Warman would have had a chance in a single one of the complaints they brought.
I am well aware of what the specific complaints Lund and Warman brought were. My point here is that Ms. Humphrys has now created a whole new defence. Which simply serves to underline how incoherent Human Rights Commission jurisprudence has become.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“the impact test… requires a complainant to show specific negative impact on themselves”
Formerly known as “locus standi” in the dead white male jurisprudence that the Canadian peoples gloriously overthrew in 1982. Like China rediscovering capitalism – reinventing the wheel decades after declaring wheels to be oppressive.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Having said that, a requirement of concrete “injury in fact” would not be a severe hurdle for a court in this case. Instead of Lund and Lucy as complainants, the commission could hear from a gay teenager who claimed to have been bashed (or from the family of someone killed) shortly after Bo[i]ss[i]o[i]n published his letter to the editor.
(The causal link between sermons denouncing X and violence against X-ers is well established. We frequently see gangs of Catholic youths beating up Pill-using heterosexuals, or smashing condom vending machines, whenever the Pope preaches against contraception. And whenever Baptist pastors rail from the pulpit against the demon drink, saloon-owners across the Bible Belt have to fear for their lives. Conversely, homophobic violence is almost completely unknown amongst the irreligious, as a few minutes spent on the streets outside British pubs and niteclubs at 2 am will confirm).
So perhaps Cssr H would need to take a different tack if a different complainant wanted to ban the Quran. The ghost of Aqsa Parvez, fr’ex.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Robert: So they were awarded costs? I missed that.
Derek
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Jay wrote:
“Cool. A new defence to Human Rights complaints.”
Jay,
When you tire to making of an ass of yourself by misstating the law, you might try to do a little research. (Surely you remember research—or were you playing foosball the day they taught that at law school). I found this in under two minutes. Its from a real court, with a real judge and everything.
[12] The British Columbia Human Rights Commission has discretion under section 27 of the Code to dismiss a complaint where proceeding with it would not further the purposes of the Code. The purposes of the Code require the Commission to look at more than just the individual rights of the complainant and respondent. In considering how to “foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation” and in promoting “a climate of understanding and mutual respect,” the Commission must look beyond the individual complaint. It can take into account whether it will advance the purposes of the Code to use public funds for further investigation of a complaint and a possible hearing of a complaint which can be settled reasonably. It is entitled to sift through complaints and remove a number of them from the time-consuming process of investigation and hearing at public expense. Scott v. CPAC (Crescent Gardens)2003 BCSC 222 at para. 12
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 am
Indeed tw.
Now, would you like to play with the negative impact on the individual test Ms. Humphrey invented.
Having introduced the fun idea of total subjectivity by way of s. 27 we are now able to dismiss stuff we don’t like; but I am still puzzled as to the brand new test of negative impact to the individual ‘cause as I read it, neither Lund not Warman have suffered any negative impacts at all.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 am
Jay,
You’re puzzled because you’re lazy and wilfully ignorant. Without having read Simpson’s (idiotic and clearly vexatious) complaint, I can’t comment on its deficiencies, but consider that you’re talking about three different complaints filed under three different statutes. Maybe, just maybe, they contain different provisions regarding filing complaints on behalf of others.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“It was dismissed, just as the cases against Levant and Macleans were, because it was a frivolous complaint.”
Does anyone know at what stage of the process it was dismissed? It is a big, big difference to the defendant if a charge is dismissed shortly after it is filed, versus having to endure lengthy delays and very expensive litigation. That is a large part of the purpose of many of the complaining parties, to use the government to run up a legal bill against political enemies. These parties don’t even have to pay for one side of this litigation – the tribunal does it for them. So, even if a tribunal ultimately dismisses a claim after a hearing, the complaining party will still have achieved an important objective – harassing dissenters.
Is it more “idiotic and clearly vexatious” to complain about offense from the Koran or to complain about offense from cartoons about Mohammed? If “Jay” in post 11 were replaced with the name of a group like “Muslims,” then wouldn’t post 11 be actionable in Canada: “Muslims – you’re puzzled because you’re lazy and wilfully ignorant.” Replaced with “Christians,” and you know the result would be different. Bigger question: why should Canadian law not care whether you are insulted as an individual, but care if you are insulted as a group?
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Watergate,
The complaint against Levant did not make it to hearing (Despite this, he claims to have spent $100,000 in legal fees. I’ll leave it to you to determine whether this claim is even remotely credible.)
The Macleans case could have been dismissed, had the magazine’s counsel brought a motion for dismissal. But they didn’t.
Don’t buy the BS that the tribunal pays the complainant’s costs. It doesn’t.
In answer to your question about the Koran v. the cartoons. Both are equally ignorant. Neither has a hope of success.
As for your final question – “Bigger question: why should Canadian law not care whether you are insulted as an individual, but care if you are insulted as a group” – the fact is that Canadian law cares very much if you are insulted as an individual. The law of defamation will protect an individual’s reputation in ways that those who bring hate speech claims coudl only dream of. While human rights speech complaints are easy to dismiss and hard to prove, you can make a libel case last for years. As Ezra Levant is about to learn.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“Don’t buy the BS that the tribunal pays the complainant’s costs. It doesn’t.” I never said that it did. Rather, the tribunal carries the water for the complaining party by doing the prosecution. The complaining party just files the complaint, and sits back and lets the tribunal do all of the work, with government-paid lawyers.
“The law of defamation will protect an individual’s reputation in ways that those who bring hate speech claims could only dream of.” Nope. Is there any provision in Canadian defamation law that requires some governmental tribunal to investigate and prosecute defamation claims? Or, like any other civil action—except for hate speech before a tribunal – must the complaining party pay his or her own attorney to file and prosecute the case?
Are you threatening Ezra Levant (whom I have never met and do not know) with a libel case that is years-long? Why would you, or anyone, make a threat of lengthy litigation? If you have a good claim, you want it resolved quickly. Only if you have a bad claim do you want the case to last a long time, because you know that the true penalty is not an ultimate judgment, which will be lost if you have no case, but rather the penalty is to force the other party to spend a lot of money in legal fees.
The claim against Levant did make it to an investigation that required him to be questioned at length by some gov’t agent—he posted the videos. Did the above-referenced Koran-discrimination case make it that far? I doubt it.
The cartoon claims did have a hope of success in Canada. In the US? Not a chance – look up “Hustler v. Falwell”. After reading that decision, no one in the US ought to fear saying horribly hateful things against public figures that are intended to inflict emotional harm. Sure, we have claims for defamation, saying factually untrue things, but that requires “actual malice” for public figures. The cartoons were never claimed to be somehow factually untrue, but merely hurtful and/or hateful. What happens if you file a claim like that in the US? You learn what “Rule 11” means in a real hurry.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I didn’t realize I was up against a professional Levant critic. Try a search of Truewest and “Ezra Levant” and you get a bunch of hits. That’s why Truewest knew about the recently-filed suit against Levant so quickly.
Does Truewest work for some Canadian HRC, or is he or she a friend of Kinsella, or is Truewest yet one more fake internet name for Richard Warman? I’ve posted at Ezra’s website suggesting that he ask such questions in discovery in the suit filed against him. The answers will be interesting – Warman has already been exposed for posting things under false names, so it’s very likely that he and/or others attacking Levant are continuing with this pathetic tactic.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Watergate,
I haven’ got the time or patience to explain to just how little you know about Canadian defamation law, proceedings before Canadian human rights tribunals and commissions and, for that matter, me. But to be brief – just about every word in your last two posts is false. Crawl off and do some research and stop pretending the US law governs anywhere but, well, the US. And no, I’m not Richard Warman, nor have I ever met Richard Warman, worked for a human rights commission or tribunal or ever filed, prosecuted or defended a human rights complaint.
However, I am of the view, shared by many, that Ezra Levant is a blowhard and a disgrace to the legal profession.
BTW, I knew about Kinsella’s suit against Levant because the author of this blog was crowing about it before the ink was dry on the affidavit of service.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
““Don’t buy the BS that the tribunal pays the complainant’s costs. It doesn’t.” I never said that it did. Rather, the tribunal carries the water for the complaining party by doing the prosecution. The complaining party just files the complaint, and sits back and lets the tribunal do all of the work, with government-paid lawyers.”
You said that everything that I said was false. Is this part false? Doesn’t the commission, not the complaining party, prosecute the claims?
I don’t pretend that US law is the same as Canadian law; I’m really glad it isn’t, because I live in the US and am eternally grateful for the First Amendment. Those pathetic HRCs wouldn’t last thirty seconds in the US (except on college campuses, but that’s a different matter).