Ezra won’t take no for an answer…
In paragraph 31 of your letter, you try to distinguish my acquittal with Rev. Boissoin’s conviction by saying the context is different – and that for the CHRC to find material illegal, it must appear in vile forums, like neo-Nazi websites. I know you’re pretty familiar with those neo-Nazi websites, as half of your office has membership privileges. But Rev. Boissoin’s publication didn’t appear in any of your favourite neo-Nazi sites. It appeared on the pages of the Red Deer Advocate, a moderate and mainstream newspaper.In paragraph 33, you state that my republication of Rev. Boissoin’s words were “more likely” to generate a debate, than to promote “hatred”. Again, that’s a fabrication: Rev. Boissoin’s column generated an enormous debate, both in the pages of the Red Deer Advocate and elsewhere. The debate is still going on, six years later.
But putting aside this factual falsehood, you falsely imply that hate speech jurisprudence grants an exemption for publications that create a debate. You just made that up, as a fig leaf to cover up your double-standard against Rev. Boissoin. ezra levant
I nearly spat out my beer…Watching Ezra make fun of the CHRC is a blood sport. The create debate exception, nowhere found in the CHRA, is lovely. Whenever accused of hate speech one simply has to click the heels of one’s emerald shoes together three times and murmur “debate”. The Commission will back right off.
Cool. Who knew?
Written by jay on August 28th, 2008 with
3 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and free speech.
- [+] Digg: Feature this article
- [+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
- [+] Furl: Bookmark this article
jay
#1. August 29th, 2008, at 12:04 PM.
As I already commented on Ezra’s site…. I don’t recall the CHRC censuring Rev. Boisson. I believe that was the AHRC. The CHRC decision that Ezra referred to concerned a complaint by Rob Wells where the respondent was a Craig Chandler.