Gentlemen, Start your Ewes
With respect to that, let me quote my late comrade Oriana Fallaci once again, from the very first line of my (rigorously fact-checked) obituary of her in The Atlantic Monthly:“You go fuck yourself. I say what I want.”Oriana Fallaci via Mark Steyn
Poor Mr. Miller the Journalism “Doctor” has foolishly asked Mark some questions…he gets answers.
Here’s a hint Mr. Miller, and it is a cliche and I apologize, a rock in a gunfight is worse than useless. Time to just close down your completely beclowned blog, retire, and stop teaching those poor Ryerson “University” students how to do fact free journalism. Give it up. You’re done.
How dumb is the good Mr. Miller? This dumb.
3. Now that you’ve found what purports to be the actual quote, why do you persist in using it to gleefully make sport of all Muslims, portraying them as uncivilized, vulgar, menacing people who are prone to do the unthinkable and shag or “roger” sheep? Here’s what you wrote in your Fallaci review: “I enjoy the don’t-eat-your-sexual-partner stuff as much as the next infidel, but the challenge presented by Islam is not that the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers. If I had to choose, I’d rather Mohammed Atta was downriver in Egypt hitting on the livestock than flying through the windows of Manhattan skyscrapers. But he’s not.”It is your use of the alleged quote to promote an inaccurate religious stereotype that I find dishonest. Bestiality is not condoned by Islam. That is a fact. It is prohibited. john miller
Yo, Miller, it is not “prohibited” according to Khomeini. Rather, if you nail the sheep you can’t eat it. A prohibition would read, “Don’t screw sheep.” The Ayatollah’s brilliant rule simply requires that you not have mutton post coitus.
How silly are you Miller, Steyn is uninterested in sheep shagging. If the boys want to nail sheep rather than the World Trade Center or entirely innocent bystanders in Bombay (Mumbai) Steyn is down with that. Now, Miller, before you retire, see if you can grasp the point. It really is not that hard.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Obviously there’s something else “not quite hard” over Ry High way…
December 4th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Many years ago, as a student in elementary school, we had to take this mandatory course. I believe it was called.. er, umm, – comprehension.
Perhaps, the good “journalistic doc” needs a review on the subject.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Yo, Jay,
Don’t be an ignorant asshole. Not to the defend the Ayatollah, but the fact that a religious leader provides guidance on appropriate behaviour after the breach of a prohibition hardly means there is no prohibition. While I profess no particular knowledge of Islamic doctrine, I’d lay odds that sheep-shagging is considered verboten in Mulsim societies as it is elsewheres.
The real problem with Steyn and Fallaci’s use of the quote is the implicit suggestion that bestiality is somehow peculiar to Muslims or at least more common in Muslim societies. The prevalence of bestiality jokes in Western society (where men are men and sheep are nervous) suggests otherwise. Indeed, I suspect that most folks who grew up in farming communities – like, say, Conservative MP from rural ridings—know of boys who lost their virginity to the heifer or a horse.
Speaking of bestiality jokes, here’s one to brighten your day:
An American couple were driving down a road in Australia when they came across a sheep farm. As the drove on they saw a farmer placing the hind legs of a sheep inside his rubber boots.
The Americans, overly friendly and naturally curious, pulled over and inquired of the farmer, “Shearing?”
The farmer scowled in reply: “No, git yer own.”
December 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Yep; Prof. Miller actually gets it completely bass ackwards. What Steyn wrote was:
“I enjoy the don’t-eat-your-sexual-partner stuff as much as the next infidel, but the challenge presented by Islam is not that the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers.”
In other words, he doesn’t see sheep-shagging as the problem at all. How could it be, given their rates of reproduction?
December 4th, 2008 at 9:54 am
truewest,
The fact that the Ayatollah even issued a ruling on what to do with the critters afterwards does its own implicit suggesting, does it not?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Isn’t the main problem here just that JournoDoc, like so many others of his political stripe, is simply an irremediably humorless git? (Oh, sorry, humourless; this is a Canadian blog, right.) Quin correctly observes above what just about everyone seems to have missed, which is that Steyn’s point is that sheep-shagging isn’t the real problem, or the consequence we should be concerned about, there are much bigger challenges presented by the spread of militant Islam.
But listen up, JournoDoc:* it’s a JOKE. Steyn is phrasing his point in the form of a JOKE. The appropriate response to a JOKE is to (1) laugh if you find it funny; (2) ignore it if you don’t. Available Response (3), tut-tutting because the joke makes fun of some identifiable ethnic or other group and reproaching the joke-teller for being insensitive, has a limited sphere of appropriateness. Maybe if your kids are around and you’re trying to shield their ears. But there’s a whole lot of jokes in that category and that makes for a lot of tut-tutting. (Do you tut, by the way, when identical jokes about sheep-shagging are made about Welshmen? or New Zealanders? or country bumpkins in general?)
*I’d put this on JournoDoc’s site if he allowed comments.
I think truewest is right to point out that it’s problematic to imply that only Moslems engage in sheep-shagging, or ever have done so. Society doesn’t have to prohibit something that nobody does, and if it’s prohibited in Leviticus that’s pretty good evidence the ancient Israelites were doing it. It’s also prohibited in most if not all US state criminal codes and no doubt in Canada too. But Ann Landers isn’t the one getting questions on what is the right thing to do with a sheep after it’s been, hrm, porked; apparently Khomeini was getting those questions. That does show where such concerns are currently being raised.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Further to Mike Baughman’s comment. Either Khomeini was obsessed with bestiality or there is a significant occurrence of the act within the ranks of their believers. Otherwise why mention it at all? Let alone make such a big deal of it!
December 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Stay down Doc, stay down!
December 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Hey true west,
I was wondering when you would re-surface.
We can now add to your stirring defence of censorship, and your indifference to due process, a total lack of humour.
BTW, still posting anonymous comments are we.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Of course, the humorous thing to Westerners is that Islam asserts highly detailed control over the most inconsequential incidents and choices in life. Just peruse some of the questions at Ask-Imam.com and you’ll find that Khomeini’s strictures regarding the post-coital disposal of livestock are by no means untypical:
– “the latest generations of mobile phones (3G) have video phone capabilities, is it permissible to use this facility?” (Not for watching movies, no. Prayer is OK as long as you don’t touch the words on the screen without ritual cleansing beforehand.) – “Is medical insurance permissible?” (No.) – “During Ramadan are you allowed to talk to your fiancé, or significant other?” (Nooooooo.) – “If my urine touches an area when it is dry and i touch it again is it paak or napaak” (Um.)
In short, they’re a ridiculously superstitious and insecure lot, but then most of us already knew that. Fallaci and Steyn are just making hay from one lurid example of the minefield of complex rules and regulations that Muslims have to negotiate every day. Would Muslims and their leftist enablers prefer that we bring up Khomeini’s detailed rules for intercourse with pre-pubescent girls?
December 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
truewest error…”shearing” is “sharing” in an NZ accent , not Australian.
“humourless” is correct English….tho “humorless” is an acceptable American varient.
The “Doctor” with the BA needs a quick honorary Phd from somewhere…so at least something he claims isn’t BS.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Craig,
Did you drop by to make a point? Or just to piss in my ear? Is life as a second-rate academic really so slow that you have to haunt the comboxes, trying to pick fights?
Well, here’s something to fight about. How can a tribunal ruling that certain speech is hateful and therefore a form of discrimination amount to censorship, when speech amount to censorship, when most reasonable people who are careful about language use the term censorship to describe schemes involving prior restraint. And if finding liability for hate speech is censorship, then why isn’t finding of liability for defamation censorship.
Perhaps you can ask one of your brighter students to explain it to you.
Bill,
Congratulations. You are the most pedantic person in the blogosphere. Take a bow.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Be wrong and be proud, comrade truew…
Use Miller as your inspiration…BA…BS.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
TW,
Piss in your ear? Hadn’t really crossed my mind, but whatever gets you going. And anyway, as you say, there’s not much else to do down here in this little second-rate college town I live in . . .
As for your convoluted argument about censorship, I would ask one of my brighter students to explain it to me, but I think that even they would have trouble parsing your sub-literate ramblings:
“How can a tribunal ruling that certain speech is hateful and therefore a form of discrimination amount to censorship, when speech amount to censorship . . .”
WTF? “When speech amount to censorship . . .” Have you been taking writing lessons from the law fools?
But overlooking your faulty grammar, I would say that censorship does not necessarily involve prior restraint. A vague law like Section 13 with its 100% conviction rate is just as likely to limit free speech as an outright ban on certain forms of expression. And if you want to see prior restraint, look no further than the AHRCs ruling in the Boisson case (which Jay has written about eloquently). The good reverend was given a lifetime ban on any “hate” speech against homosexuals.
Does that not trouble you even a little bit?
As for the distinction between defamation and section 13 – are you kidding me? Can you really not see the difference between having to prove real harm, with truth as a defence, and a loser pays rule, and a system where the legal standard is a vague “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”?
Anyway, we should probably stop inflicting this “pissing match” (your idea) on our host.
BTW, Don’t you find it odd that you know who I am, but you are still too shy to come out of the closet?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Craig,
Forgive me my typos and maybe I’ll forgive you your ignorance of defamation law.
First, permanant injunctions are a commmon remedy in defamation law, which is the same the lifetime ban imposed on Boissoin. Second, libel is actionable per se, meaning that there is no need to show actual damages. Third, the defence of justification is seldom successful at trial in defamation law, nor would it be successful if, for example, you attempted to use it in Boissoins defence. Or do you believe it is true that homosexuals are evil and must be dealt with by any means available. Fourth, the loser pay rule only applies if the matter goes to trial (which few defamation claims do) , and even then it covers only a fraction of the legal costs of defending an action.
And please, spare me the 100% conviction rate canard. As has been explained repeatedly, only a handful of s. 13 complaints even make it to the CHRT. And if you’re taken the time to read any of them, you’ll see that they are of such an extreme nature that any vagueness in the standard is entirely academic.
As for my identity, I am Truewest. It’s a name I’ve chosen and it’s the only one I’ve used online. Doesn’t seem odd at all.
Bill,
I take it back. You’re the most pedantic person on the Internet. Now piss off.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Awww…truewsy… chin up sweetie…
There’s a solution to your problem.
Ewe can convert to Islam and fornicate with livestock in a sharing, supportive environment…or at least within a formal structure that relates agricultural economics to religious poltics. Can’t think of any other religion that has such expansive instructions on a doctrinal non event.
It’s a win, win … and the sheep won’t tell.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
TW,
OK. let’s dial down the rhetoric.
You are right. I am not a lawyer merely a humble historian – case in point, I didn’t realize that permanent injunctions were a feature of defamation law.
But isn’t the real difference here between political speech – what I think about homosexuality or Islam – and what I say about an individual – he’s a liar, an adulterer, etc.
A court can adjudicate the latter claims, call witnesses, gather evidence on the damage to the individual’s reputation, etc. But hate speech laws deal with claims that are political or philosophical – Islam is X; white people are Y. I don’t want courts (much less ones that operate the like the HRTs) to be deciding whether political opinions are true or not. Or even worse (because truth is not a defence under section 13) to be deciding whether someone was harmed in some subjective way.
I value free debate to much for that.
If Boisson wants to say homosexuality is immoral, he should have the right to do so. And you and I should be free to argue with him, or to boycott him, etc.
Finally, my understanding is that the common law of defamation and libel do not recognize group claims (like the HRAs do). Don’t you think that it’s almost impossible to quantify how much (if at all) a group has been harmed by certain speech?
December 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Craig,
The difference between political speech and personal attack is not always clear. Certainly, the line is drawn at different points in different legal systems.
For example, in the US, personal attacks are politicians and other public figures are considered political speech under the doctrine set out by Sullivan v. NYTimes, whereas in Canada, Stephen Harper can mainatain defamation suit against the Liberal Party, filed for suggesting that he countenanced a bribe to independent MP Chuck Cadman.
In Canada, various legislatures have chosen to draw the line at hate. The Alberta human rights statute doesn’t bar people from expressing opinions on homosexuality or Islam, but it does provide a remedy in the event of more extreme attacks on groups. Whether Boissoin’s letter ventured into that extreme is a matter of judgment, but sentence like “Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps” and “It’s time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn” don’t exactly make gay folks in Red Deer feel welcome. As for the truth defence, it seems an odd fit in cases of group defatamation. Could Boissoin conceivably prove that all gay people engage in “premeditated strategies” aimed at “recruiting our young into their camp”? If he can prove that one gay person has done that, is his general attack and the sting that touches every gay person justified?
Is it easy to quantify the impact of those words? Maybe not, but then again, a certain level of damages are presumed in libel actions. In fact, there’s not a huge difference in dollars and cents terms between nomimal defamation damages and the typical human rights hate speech award. And I can guarantee you that contesting the human right complaint – or settling it – is far cheaper and easier than fighting a defamation claim.
BTW, the common law of defamation has been changed by statute in any number of ways. (For example, radio and television broadcasts are treated as libel rather than slander, which can make a huge difference. And there are different rules for newspapers than for the rest of us). It is open to the legislature to amend the statutes to permit claims for group defamation, opening the door for defamation class actions against folks like Steyn and Levant (or for that matter, the CBC, which was the target of an unsuccessful class action filed by Bomber Command vets after the airing of the Valour and the Horror). They have, instead, chosen to allow far more limited (and far less technical) claims to be brought under human rights statutes. I think it’s a wise choice. And even if I didn’t, I’d find the chill that HR statutes place on speech far less worrisome than the chill that results from the vexatious defamation suits filed by folks like Ezra Levant and by Mark Steyn’s pal and patron Conrad Black.
December 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
TW,
I still see section 13 as different from libel and defamation law.
Section 13 seeks to prevent certain groups from some subjective sense of harm (likely to . . .). And it does so with no defence of intent or truth or any need to prove damages. Indeed, it allows people like Warman to bring complaints who are not even members of the group in question! And it also says nothing about extreme opinions (as you claim). Indeed, what Boisson said is well within a traditional reading of Christian doctrine.
My position is that section 13 limits our ability to have an open debate about controversial issues. If Mark Steyn wants to say that radical islam is a threat, or Boisson that homosexuality is immoral, I think they should be free to do so. And you are free to disagree. The danger to our democracy lies in the direction of too much regulation of speech and not too little.
You seem to want to have the common law recognize group defamation. I would be more comfortable with a well-crafted statutory change along these lines than continuing to regulate speech with these quasi-judicial tribunals. Free speech is too important to be adjudicated by people like Lynch, Warman, Steacy, etc.
But if we did allow for group defamation, surely truth should be a defence – that is, if the CBC report was factually correct the vets should have no cause of action.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Naiveté walks.
The Canadian fascist left aim to have “offence” as the only requirement for guilt at law under HRC rules.
Your good faith suggestion of a “truth” defence to imaginary “crimes” lets them know you don’t understand their politics at all.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Craig,
Defamation law also seeks to prevent subjective harm. In Canada, the definition of a defamatory publication is one “which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule” Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3. Not that different from the language of s. 13.
The difference is that defamation law is far more powerful tool than any statutory remedy available to groups attacked by the likes of Steyn or Boissoin. If only Muslims or homosexuals could incorporate, they could follow the path of the Church of Scientology, which, as a legal “person”, can maintain $500 million defamation suits against authors and publishers who would write about its shenanigans.
Instead they are left with modest provisions such as s. 13, which limit only the most extreme speech (btw, I don’t “claim” that; the Supreme Court of Canada decided it 18 years ago in CHRT v. Taylor,[1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. As someone who writes about the relationship between law and political theory, you might want to bone up on the relationship between statute and case law in common law legal systems.) Those provisions, in my view, are far less damaging to free speech than any group defamation statute would be. And don’t get me started on the chilling potential of defamation class actions.
Section 13 clearly allows Steyn to say radical Islam is a threat or Boissoin to opine that homosexuality is immoral. It does not, however, permit Boissoin to tell lies about a grand homosexual conspiracy to victimize children with “repugnant and premeditated strategies. (Or are you suggesting that there IS a grand homosexual conspiracy to do just that and that Boissoin should be given a forum to uncloak the smoking gun?) As Prof. Moon pointed out in his report, the notion of proving the “truth” of the sort of statements captured by s. 13 is laughable and would result in proceedings turning into a platform for loopy conspiracy theories, holocaust denial and other nonsense.
Incidentally, Lynch, Warman and Steacy don’t adjudicate anything. They work for the commission, which investigates complaints. And when the commission investigated the complaint against Steyn, it dismissed it. Which was apparently not good enough for Marky Mark, who donned the martyr’s robes as if they were custom-tailored for him.
Wonder if he wears them when he’s out shagging sheep?
December 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Craig,
Not to split hairs too finely, but it is wrong to say, “if the CBC report was factually correct the vets should have no cause of action.” The existence of a cause of action is a question of law; for example, if the law holds that a group can’t sue in libel, then the Bomber Command vets would have no cause of action (which is, in fact, what the court found). Whether or not the CBC could prove the truth of the claims in the program (including the truth of innuendo pleaded by the plaintiffs) is a matter of fact.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Bad news truewsy…
I think those sheep are trustworthy but I fear those goats are blabbing…
So a style-guide question …re the closet thing….
Hypothetically, if “one” were a “poofter” (Sth Hemisphere usage, means “gay”) AND a goat f****r, does that mean billies are primo pussy vs nannies?
Always intrigued….
Or will you invoke Section 13?
December 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Bill,
I apologize for calling you “pedantic”. You are clearly a babbling, ignorant, blowhard fuckwit. In short, a typical member of the remedial reading class of the Canadian right.
There, feel better now?
December 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Get between our Believer truewsy and his Ewe…..(praise his name) …
…there’ll be sulking galore.
And Section 13 shall be your guide.
The Canadian fascist left sound so young.
Fatally, these kiddies have no corporate memory… yet poor truewsy has an unselfconsciously adolescent life plan for other people’s free speech.
Canada’s Red Guard fascists ….don’t feed them.
December 7th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
True West,
I need some time to digest your comment. But here’s a few points off the top of my head:
I understand that the common law fills in the meaning of statutes like section 13. But if so, and if Taylor was a narrow decision which limited section 13 to extreme statements, then why wasn’t the Macleans case thrown out by the investigators in B.C., instead of dragging Steyn and the magazine through an expensive ordeal? (I can’t remember if BC got rid of its commission or not). Or why is the AHRC still investigating Ezra over the Mo’ toons? You can’t have it both ways – either section 13 is only for extreme speech or it isn’t. If it is, then you should be more concerned than you seem to be about those who have been caught up in the HRCs net recently (for example, the Catholic magazine edited by Father De Velk (name?)
As for truth as a defence being impractical, I think you and Moon are wrong. After all, the Irving-Liptstadt defamation case in England was adjudicated largely on the basis of the factual accuracy of Irving’s revisionist history of Nazi Germany (see the book by Richard Evans). And didn’t the same factual questions come up in the Zundel case?
As well, the more you equate defamation and libel law to section 13, the more I want to liberalize the former rather than accept the status quo on the latter. However, you argue that Ezra and Conrad Black can significantly “chill” speech via threatening a libel suit, but seem far less concerned that the human rights commissions can have an equally negative effect on open debate.
I am for absolute free speech (bar a threats, incitement to violence and circumscribed defamation law). Attempts to regulate hate speech just makes martyrs out of people like Akenahew (sp?). I say let him spew his vile nonsense and let the rest of us denounce him or ignore him.
Thanks to Jay for hosting this long exchange!
December 7th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Craig,
BC did indeed get rid of the commission, which served to screen out cases like that brought against Macleans. The new scheme allows defendants to bring a preliminary application to dismiss, which most defendants bring as a matter of course. (Visit the BCHRT decisions site and you`ll see that about 1/3 of the decisions are preliminary applictions to dismiss). For reasons known only to Macleans and its counsel (two first-rank defamation lawyers with scant experience before human rights tribunals) no such application was made in that case. It was such a significant oversight that the tribunal raised the issue at the beginning of its reasons.
As for Ezra and the cartoons, I’m not sure the investigation continues. I frankly doubt that it does. (I also doubt that Ezra dropped $100K on lawyers on the complaint and that the commission has spent $500K investigating it, but i digress)
On the issue of the defence of truth (technically, justification, but let’s not split hairs), I’m not suggesting that it is never pleaded or necessary. I only notet that if you have another defence available – privilege, consent, fair comment—it will likely be easier to make out and present less risk (in Canada, a failed justifiction defence will likely result in an increased costs award).
Certainly, justification was successfully pleaded in Irving-Liptstadt. But let’s remember that a) Irving was the plaintiff in this case b) the defendant could draw on 50 years of research in making out the defence c) the defamation was as much about Irving’s historigraphical practices and use of historical documents as it was about historical truth and d)that it took the defendants five years, 32 days of trial, a 349 page judgment and probably upwards of a million pounds to prevail. It may have been desirable to plead justifiction in that case. It was hardly practical. And it is hardly analogous to giving Boissoin a platform to “prove” some grand gay conspiracy that justifies his attack on gay people in his letter.
Having said all that, I certainly see the merits of your argument against hate speech statutes—criminal, HR or otherwise—as being counter-productive and chilling. I certainly I have more time for that principled and practical argument than the invented controversies, personal demonizations and general bullshit that Ezra and others, including Jay, traffic in so regularly in their attempts to “denormalize” human rights law. (Funny how nobody notes that Ezra is against human rights law generally and that most of the cases he bitches about are NOT brought under the hate speech provisions.)
I agree with you that defamation law in Canada should be reformed. Even a reformed defamation law, however, will operate to chill some speech. And while I am not, contrary to popular belief, a huge fan of s. 13-like provisions, I am not entirely persuaded that a group of people who are harmed by speech—as gay people in Red Deer surely were by Boissoin’s letter—should not have access to some remedy, just as an individual who is harmed by a false accusation has the remedy of defamation law.
There is no such thing as absolute free speech. Beyond libel law and hate speech statutes, commercial law creates consequences for misrepresentations and securities law dictates what you are allowed to say about your shares—and also what you must disclose. Strange as it may seem, the criminal code still contains sections dealing with blasphemous libel and sedition. (And, I note, it was Conservative MPs who were brandishing the term “sedition” when the threat of a coalition government arose last week.) Hell, we live in a country where the PM can still sue the opposition party for libel. And where the largest newspaper chain can sue a printer for creating a non-profit parody of the Vancouver Sun.
So I hope you’ll understand if I don’t think that a law that primarily limits the most extreme ravings of a bunch of neo-nazis is the biggest threat to free speech in Canada, even if it does from time to time inconvenience Mark Steyn and those who want to bash Muslims. I’m open to a reasoned discussion—and, despite our earlier harsh words, I think we’ve had one here, for which I thank you – and I’m open to persuasion. Becuase in my view there’s too much at stake to allow the discussion to be defined by the gross misrepresentations, libels and lies that the self-described “speechers” – from Levant to Free Dominion – have indulged in to date.
Regards,
TW
December 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
True West.
This has been a very informative exchange. You’ve convinced me that libel/defamation law are in fact closer to section 13 and its provincial equivalents than I had thought (although I still think there are significant differences). In doing so, you are in effect ‘normalizing’ the commissions by making what they do seem similar to a more familiar aspect of our law.
And I agree that there is no such thing as absolute free speech. The question is where do we draw the line. I prefer, for reasons I have already stated, that the limits on speech be very narrow and defined. And I don’t think section 13 as it operates now does that. In fact, it (and its provincial analogues) seem to be catching a lot of comment that I consider anything but extreme, or racist, or prejudiced – again, not just Levant and Steyn, but the Catholic magazine ‘Insight’, and even that poor comic in B.C. My sense is that they’ve gone beyond the narrow decision in Taylor; and that were some of their more recent cases to be appealed to a real court they’d be overturned and section 13 declared unconstitutional (I was hoping that Macleans would lose so that something similar could happen to section 7).
So where are we? I am still for getting rid of section 13. And for allowing the Boissons and the Lemires of this world to say what they want. I fear the power of the state more than I do a handful of extremists. I also think that censoring such people gives them an audience they would not otherwise have and is thus counterproductive (this is a point Ezra and other ‘speechers’ make frequently). I also think that once you get into trying to decide what constitutes ‘hate’ and ‘harm’ and what is ‘likely to cause’ offence, you are on a slippery slope to a more wide-ranging censorship.
After all, what you call ‘Muslim bashing” I may consider fair comment about a violent and misogynistic creed. I should be free to make the latter point and you the former.
And the fact that Islamic countries are trying to bring back blasphemy law in the name of human rights only strengthens my sense that I don’t want to be anywhere near any slopes, slippery or not.
Must go now and finish my book or I will be summarily fired from my mediocre college!
December 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Craig,
We’ve had human rights commissions for decades. I don’t need to normalize them. Their role in dealing with speech issues is, however, more recent. And clearly more controversial.
A few points: – The constitutionality of a law isn’t determined by its application in a particular case. If a tribunal misapplies Taylor, then the decision may be overturned on appeal (actually judicial review) without disturbing the law itself. – The complaint against the comic wasn’t based on the hate speech provision of the BC Act, but on the section governing provision of services. (It may be worth noting that he was hosting an open-mike standup night in a restaurant and it appears tht the complainants weren’t there for the comedy. Still, it’s a weak case. ) – There is no evidence that s.13 chills non-hate speech. Indeed, given the small number of cases brought under hate speech provisions in the last 18 years, there’s very little evidence it has been misapplied. – There is no prohibition against speech that is “likely to cause offence”. None. As for deciding what constitute “hate” and “harm”, tribunals and courts deal with more subtle questions every day. Give them some credit. – I’m not big fan of fundamentalist Muslims – or fundamentalists of any stripe. There are, however, 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, including more than a few in Canada who don’t deserve to be painted with the same broad brush as the extremists. And speaking of blasphemy, perhaps we should deal with our own blasphemy laws – there are more than a few criminal blasphemy statutes in western countries – before we deal with crazy mullahs – the only reason the Boissoins and Lemires of the world have a broader audience is as a result of hate seech complaints is because people like Ezra and Jay insist on making them out as martyrs.
That said, you make a reasonable argument for the repeal of s. 13. As for me, I’d prefer that our efforts be directed towards reforming defamation law so that public figures like Steve (Mugabe) Harper can’t use it against his political opponents. But that’s not nearly as sexy as ranting on about kangaroo courts.
Good luck with your book.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
tw, for God’s sake don’t get all classy on us!
I should think that reform of defamation law and the repeal of s. 13 are not mutually exclusive.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Jay,
I can’t wallow in the mud with folks like Steyn and Shaidle ALL the time. Besides, civility begets civility.
As for the reform of defamation law (which actually has a profound chilling effect), I don’t see many speechers championing that cause, unless they’re cast in the role of defendants (in which case any suit is a SLAPP suit).
No, they’re too busy wailing about the handful of cases brought under hate speech provisions (which have minimal chilling effect) as if these were the end of the world.