The Criminal Standard
Kathy points out “Crazy Old Indian not guilty of hate speech”. The Lying Jackal suggests that the verdict in the second Ahenakew trial illustrates why the Criminal Code is the wrong method for dealing with hate speech and suggests that, once procedures have been reformed (even the Lying Jackal admits that the CHRC is in horrible procedural shape) the HRC process is the way to go.
Revolting as Ahenakew’s comments were I am inclined to think that the Criminal Code provisions have worked as intended. Essentially, hate speech charges under the Code are reserved for truly egregious speech intended to directly promote hatred. That Ahenakew said ignorant, anti-Semitic, things is not in issue; what was in issues, as it should be in any hate speech matter, is the intent. Not liking Jews – repellent as that is – and saying so should certainly make a person an outcast and can and should be contradicted. But it does not and should not result in a criminal conviction.
The Lying Jackal view of the world requires us to outlaw speech we find repellent; my view is that we should only criminalize speech in the narrowest of circumstances and with the requirement that the Crown prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. My view will allow all sorts of speech with which I disagree. And, by setting a high burden on those who want to prosecute speech, it will avoid the chilling which the absurdly low HRC standards create.
If we are to abridge a Charter guaranteed fundamental right we should make such abridgment very, very difficult. Abolishing the HRC’s jurisdiction over speech and leaving really nasty cases to the criminal process will accomplish this.
Ahenakew said vile and hateful things. But what he said, while confirming his status as a “Crazy Old Indian” did not meet the Criminal Code test for hate speech. So he was acquitted to face the opprobrium of his peers, his community and Canadians in general. Which is as it should be.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The Nazi’s were able to solidify control not because of their hateful speech, but because there was no free speech to oppose them.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I agree, Jay. I remember hearing Dawg on Brock’s show once making the Jackal’s point – 1)that hate speech is so vile/dangerous it must be made illegal; 2)that the best way to deal with it is by quasi-judicial tribunals. If #1 is really true, then these tribunals (even if reformed) are not an appropriate venue, especially since we are talking about infringing a constitutionally protected right (rather than adjudicating a quotidian labor/housing/employment dispute).
As for whether there should even be a criminal code sanction, I somewhat sceptical, given that all it does is make martyrs out of nobodies (see Zundel, Ernst).
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
As nutty as Ahenakew’s beliefs are, I’m glad he was, to some small degree, exonerated….still it doesn’t begin to compensate for the vindictive sabotage done him by the thought/speech gestapo.
If the law states his opinions are not a crime and there are no provable victims, it is an affront to civil justice he was damaged by the state for his political opinions at all. This was accomplished with the sovietization (commission/tribunal policy code enforcement). The HRC system essentially sets up speech codes which make politically incorrect opinion (only to the pathologic statist left) an actionable misdemeanor violation.
The state punishment of political opinion (and that was exactly what Ahenakew’s screed amounted to) in a free democracy is an abominable act. It is a civil abomination a thousand time more vile than prejudicial viewpoints.
Section 13 and its provincial counterparts should be repealed. The tribunals should be abolished and the commissions should revert to determining if a complaint of illegal discrimination in employment/housing/services is worthy of a civil suit, then provide services to the plaintive to take their claim to court.
The state does not belong in the speech sanitizing business. Whenever this happens politics always abominates the process and it becomes more civilly destructive than the alleged problem it attempted to solve.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:48 am
“we are talking about infringing a constitutionally protected right…”
Whose constitution is that? Nor ours.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:00 am
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I would think so Ben…that seems to be in our Charter. Perhaps Renee is reading a different document.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Renee – Would love to hear how you can read freedom of thought, opinion and expression out of our constitution.
It’s also the case that the HRCs routinely violate freedom of association (see the Brockie case). We need to talk about that more.