Roadkill
It’s obvious why I was acquitted and Boissoin was convicted. I’ve been a political pain in the neck for the HRC. Rev. Boissoin? He was quiet, so he’s roadkill. But neither of us are free — we both have to have our views checked out by the government. ezra national post
Fire. Them. All.
And never be roadkill. Shine a light and keep a video camera handy.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:10 am
So, even with the Human RIghts Commissions saying that these claims are not valid, you are still requiring a ban on the right to claim somewhere in a cheap and cheery way? Are you saying, then, that you have determined there can never be discriminatory speech, that the law must be altered so that the test is tightened to protect only those who suffer from true discriminatory speech or that it is awful when people you like are made to protect our rights and freedoms as opposed to just talking about them?
I think McLeans and to a lesser degree the more frantic and dramatic of respondents/defendants have done us all a service by showing these classes of claims are not to be entertained. As we go forward they will be treated according to the new precedent that has been set. This is how law works, is it not?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Alan, my view is that the state should not be involved in the regulation of speech, discriminatory or otherwise.
As for precedent: a cynic might suggest that the precedent set in these matters is that high profile people who scream blue murder get off and the Reverend Boissons of the world are placed under lifetime gag orders.
The HRC’s recent rediscovery that Taylor did indeed set a very high bar for the muzzling of speech is pleasant but not re-assuring as it still leaves the HRCs with their lousy process, lack of rules and underhanded practices regulating a fundamental right.
Repeal of s.13 and its clones at the provincial level is really the only way to get the government out of the regulation of speech business.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Alan, with respect: Tribunals and commissions are political agencies, not impartial courts. The purpose behind these types of agencies is not judicial; they are specifically created to achieve political/social ends without the requirements of due process and objectivity required of courts.
Addtionally, taking someone to court (and I mean an actual “courts”) ought never to be “cheap and cheery”. Instead, it ought to require a commitment from the complainer that is at least as equivalently expensive and rigorous as it is for the accused.
August 8th, 2008 at 5:15 am
“Tribunals and commissions are political agencies, not impartial courts…”
This is simply not true – but thanks for the due respect. The false distinction between courts and tribunals as instruments of societal regulation is itself a political statement voiced by those who do not like values related to open accessible justice. There have always been cheap and cheery venues going back to the court of common pleas as well as petitions and any number of ways that since the medieval era access to justice has been provided. It is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.
The funniest thing is that if one wanted to change the right to bring claims like those found in s.13, all one has to do is lobby conservative politicians. This is a classic case of wilful blindness to the fact that Harper and his provincial counterparts could deal with this with the stroke of a pen. Railing against the tribunals doing the job the legislators have given them is simply sad and blantantly political.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:21 am
voiced by those who do not like values related to open accessible justice
That’s not true, at least in my case.
I like justice that is equivalently open and accessible to both the accused and those bringing the charges. I decidedly do not like a situation where someone can bring a baseless or unsuccessful charge without any fear of having to pay for the proceedings and the defense costs if the case is deemed without merit.
I also like it justice clear, objective rules of evidence, strict adherence to due process, the whole “beyond a resonable doubt” thing, and I like it to be about actual instances where there has been an instigation of tangible, discernible and specific damage. You know, things like fraud, misrepresentation, theft, physical assault and murder. Not things like “Gee. true or not, reasonable or not, someone might not like me if you say that.”
Especially in cases like defamation, libel and slander, and accusations of discrimination and so-termed “hate crimes”, I reiterate: “it ought to require a commitment from the complainer that is at least equivalently expensive and rigorous as it is for the accused.”
Oh, and I’m not a democrat, small or large D.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Well, you are not concerned with the state of the law then but your wish for a society that is less democratic to meet your point of view, the remedy for which is political. We are back to asking why conservative legislators in Canada have not remedied these human rights provisions in whose direction all the moaners and groaners should have been pointing this question from the outset.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Jay – just to be the gadfly – would you then be concerned about this state intervention against speech?
“Entering Canada by a U.S. citizen isn’t an absolute right, and if you’re coming here only to disrupt the social order and to promote what we consider to be bordering on hate crimes or hate language, they shouldn’t come into Canada,” Martin said.”
From the CBC today.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Alan, revolting as I find such people they have a right to announce that Canada is not Blessed. Now, happily, we have a right to deny them entry to Canada for pretty much any reason at all.
Customs: “Purpose of your trip.”
Loon: “Disrupting a funeral for publicity purposes.”
Customs: “Good bye”
However, and it pains me to say this, I think the government should be extremely leery of actually exercising that right to deny entry save and except where the person is likely to directly incite violence.
Rev. Phelps, odious as he is, does not, so far as I know call for violence though he certainly would like a good deal more smiting than seems to be the case at present. Apparently, God is unwilling to oblige.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Canada has the right to bar entry to what it deems as trouble makers, as do all countries, this is not regarded as state infringement on free speech to its citizens or legal residents.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Well, you are not concerned with the state of the law then but your wish for a society that is less democratic to meet your point of view, the remedy for which is political.
Oh, I’m very concerned with the state of the law.
Democracy is a merely method, a tool for making group decisions…it is not an overall societal end state, so I don’t call myself a democrat any more than I call myself a hammerer even though I’m wiling to use one in those few instances where it’s appropriate.
For the minimum necessary things it can be argued the State is required, democracy is only one of a number of available methods—and not at all always the best. I am probably closer to classical liberal or anarcho-capitalist than I am a democrat, if only because I am painfully aware of the many many areas of my life and yours where it simply shouldn’t matter what “other people” think, period.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“...Democracy is a merely method, a tool for making group decisions…it is not an overall societal end state…”
See, you are being honest and that is good. I fundamentally disagree with you, that democratic process is the best protection of the substance of liberty, but even having a disagreement you are extremely civil not to mention clear. Very unbloggy and good for Jay attracting you to his stable of comment makers. And no patronizing or sarcasm in that at all.
I do believe others should play a role in governing my liberty but only part of it. To me as a leftist libertarian, humans are both ants and eagles – at times acting and needing communal action and at other times needing autonomy.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Now, happily, we have a right to deny them entry to Canada for pretty much any reason at all.
Citation, link, reference?
What I have seen in a quick read of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is that we have the right to deny entry to “serious criminals,” those who present a risk to the security of the country, people smugglers, and corrupt foreign officials. I wish, I hope you are correct – I just don’t believe it.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Alan: First, thank you. And back atcha.
I appreciate your position, and I know you understand me that the democratic method can be useful. I’d also add that I would accept the process personally far more than I would be willing to enforce it on others, which is to say I strongly believe in cooperation when ethically possible, and there are certainly times when the democratic method works better than others for group decision making.
My problem with viewing the method as an end state can be illustrated by what happened in the Soviet Union after the crumbling of the monolith. For decades, soviet citizens fought For Democracy as an end state; but they had very little depth when it comes to “how, when and where to use it”.
The result is that ex-KGB types (in other words: experienced political operatives and manipulators) were able to quickly fill the politically theoretical void.
We have similar misunderstandings here in the West, but we also have a British common law history and (certainly in the United States but not quite so much in Canada) fairly clear and generally understood and accepted constitutional limits on governmental (or collective) power. The “free speech” issue is a good example of how the difference between the US and Canada plays out.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:07 am
dcardno, without a reading of anything, I would say that as a sovereign nation, we have a right to restrict the entry of any non-citizen or documented immigrant for any reason. I would absolutely deny entry to the same funeral disrupters whose rights I would defend if they were Canadians. (Of course, in my world, ‘interference with a sacred rite’ would be defined as ‘public mischief’ and be dealt with immediately by police intervention and later with stiff fines.) Under various agreements and policies, we may have limited that right – refugees, student visas, NAFTA work categories come to mind (I am free-wheeling here, may be quite wrong about each example) but the right still exists, and I would hope there are clear limits to each exception – our refugee policy is broken almost beyond repair.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“So, even with the Human RIghts Commissions saying that these claims are not valid,”
If the claims are not “valid” then the legal costs of defending against invalid claims are similarly “invalid”..being proved innocent is punished with punitive costs…a civil outrage! ... as are most of the ad hoc processes this asinine speech code star chamber.
Close. Them. All.
We have courts for legitimate damage claims if they aren’t valid in court why punish someone with a quasi-legal witch hunt process of legitimizing claims a court would reject as groundless. In section 13 speech code enforcements HRC’s make punitive actions against people with no real damages beyond hurt feelings and vindictive natures. Anyone who thinks they have a right to go through life without being offended is not civilly mature enough or worthy of living in a free society.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Ricardo – I agree that we should have the right to exclude people, even on a whim, and there is no doubt that keeping this gang of lunatics out of the country was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, I search in vain for the legal basis – which means that those who celebrate this decision must also celebrate when
sayMichael Moore is refused entry on the grounds that Stockwell Day finds him to be a pompous gasbag. Somehow, I doubt they will be so pleased.August 9th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Alan, more on this…
My point may have been clearer had I originally written “Tribunals and commissions are primarily social engineering agencies, not impartial courts. The purpose behind these types of agencies is not merely judicial; they are specifically created to achieve political/social ends without the same rigorous requirements of due process and the demonstrable objectivity/neutrality required of courts.”
I understand that any judicial system is political in the widest use of the term, but the examples I provide in this other thread might better clarify the difference in focus I’m referencing between courts and tribunals. Reading my following comments there will also provide more explanation of my point of view.