This stuff writes itself

In my newly adopted role as Internet scold and human rights “activist” I can’t help but notice how just reporting the news can tend to incite hatred or contempt for a particular group. Here is Terry Milewski of the CBC on the Surrey Sikh Vaisakhi parade:

For some Sikhs, that cause involves reverence for the shaheeds, or martyrs, who died in the bloody battle for Sikh independence during the 1980s and early ’90s. That was when separatist groups like the Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation took up arms against India, hijacking buses and planes and, in 1985, blowing up Air India’s Flight 182 with the loss of 329 lives.

But those were a small minority of the victims. By various estimates, between 12,000 and 20,000 people died in the Sikh rebellion, and the Sikh police chief who crushed it, K.P.S. Gill, estimates that 60 per cent of the those victims were Sikhs — including hundreds of Sikh police officers in Punjab.

Both the BK and the ISYF are now banned in India, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. as terrorist organizations. Former members of both sit on the committee of the Dasmesh Darbar temple. For them, the mastermind of the Air India bombing and the founder of the Babbar Khalsa, Talwinder Singh Parmar, is a martyred hero.

Parmar is considered by the RCMP to be the worst mass-murderer in Canadian history — a fugitive who fled Canada after the bombing and was killed by Indian police in 1992. But last year, posters of Parmar and other martyrs adorned the parade floats in Surrey, with the approval of the Dasmesh Darbar leadership. Speaking to CBC News about Parmar, temple president Sudager Singh Sandhu, formerly of the ISYF, said, “I love him. He’s a great man.” cbc.ca

Simply by reporting the story and quoting the temple president the CBC creates the impression that Sikhs support terrorism and mass murder. Simple minded people could easily accept that view of Sikhs and treat anyone in a turban with hatred or contempt.

This same story line was echoed in the Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun. It was posted on the internet.

(Now, some of you might be tempted to point out that what Milewski reported was, er, true. Doesn’t matter. Under s. 13 the truth of a report is not a consideration. The only question is whether the matter would tend to promote hatred or contempt. It is a very low bar.)

Update: Filed. Just against the CBC as I’ve not the time to chase dow the exact stories at the Globe and Mail and Vancouver Sun. It is, I fear, a bit boring, but here it is with a big finger wag from your very own online scold. My pointy finger is waving.

Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1,
Canada
April 17, 2008
By Fax

Dear Sirs,

Re: s. 13 Complaint: CBC story published April 15, 2008 and Posted to the Internet

On April 15, 2008 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, located at P.O. Box 3220, Station C, Ottawa, ON K1Y 1E4 published an article which I believe is in direct violation of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifically it is “matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

This offensive article was, as well, published on the internet and can be seen at: http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/news/080415-vaisakhi-milewski.html (A screen shot is available.)

I wish to initiate a complaint pursuant to s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to this publication on the basis that it is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, in this case, religion.

I am available by phone or email at the addresses above.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours truly,

Written by jay on April 18th, 2008 with 30 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and culture and free speech and law and media.

[+] Digg: Feature this article
[+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
[+] Furl: Bookmark this article

‘Roos blink (October 10th, 2008)
Outtakes (October 9th, 2008)
‘Roo down (October 9th, 2008)
Dead Men Walking (October 1st, 2008)
Media Strategy from the Prof (October 1st, 2008)

30 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Blazingcatfur
#1. April 18th, 2008, at 1:12 AM.

I remember the “love” when I posted on this Sikh Facebook site dedicated to Terry M. (facebook log in required). Tarek fateh took a beating here too, thanks to some friendly Muslims who had set up a separate “I hate Tarek site”.

http://tinyurl.com/4bmnqa

I see they took the bad pictures down. But I stll have em;)

http://tinyurl.com/3z9xp9

http://tinyurl.com/48ybua

Jan
#2. April 18th, 2008, at 2:00 AM.

Would you be inciting somebody to ah, er, how could I describe it . . . fax submission?

john begley
#3. April 18th, 2008, at 2:50 AM.

lovely little essai….a perfect little snapshot of what this struggle is all about.

kaptaan
#4. April 18th, 2008, at 10:59 AM.

Cat Fur, didn’t I hose you down some time back when you were out and about on the Sikhs? I see that you got the self-promo in though…

Blazingcatfur
#5. April 18th, 2008, at 9:51 PM.

Ah Kaptaan funny that you would show up;) I thought you would still be wringing out your Turban;)

Dr.Dawg
#6. April 18th, 2008, at 10:11 PM.

By reprinting that story, you’re just as guilty as Milewski. At least, according to my new friend Ezra Levant, who claimed that my republication of a call for Warman’s execution was just as bad as his initial (unthinking) publication of it.

But all kidding aside, the varmints that Warman’s been going after aren’t reporters, but (for the most part) Nazis. Of course, when even a sensible guy like you wants to rescue Marc Lemire from the Nazism charge (apparently being the leader of a neo-Nazi organization proves nothing either way), I have to scratch my head and wonder: are Nazis and their organizations heading for full-time conservative rehabilitation?

what is it about Nazis that has excited the fierce support of so many of you? Ideological seepage? The thrill of the forbidden?

jay
#7. April 19th, 2008, at 12:35 AM.

Dawg, we really shouldn’t have to keep saying this but, for the record, I have no time at all for Marc Lemire’s politics I simply do not believe that the state has any business attempting to regulate what Lemire or anyone else says. However, in my new role as net scold I will be examining the implications of the state making regulating speech its business. I suspect those implications will cause more than a little concern.

Jan
#8. April 19th, 2008, at 1:13 AM.

The repetition of this “advocates of free speech are tying to rehabilitate Nazis”, despite being addressed on more than a few previous occasions as being nonsense, is beginning to sound like a propaganda effort.

Assuming you to be a fair and reasonable voice, who can understand the distinction between supporting the right to speak and supporting the speech, this certainly wouldn’t be your objective, would it?

Let me, for the record, assure you further. My philosophy in this area is more firmly in Voltaire than Goebbels.

truepeers
#9. April 19th, 2008, at 1:19 AM.

What Jay and Dawg seem to fail to appreciate is that what some call the “human rights world view” is itself a religion, one that is, on the religions spectrum, not too far from Lemire’s. And its members are often identifiable. The more complaints Jay files, the more he risks opening himself up to a Section 13 claim.

Now I know some of you want to distinguish politics and religion, but that’s just an artifice of old school Western religion. The Western secular is just another form of the sacred.

And I know some also want to distinguish Lemire “fascism” from what Jonah G. calls “liberal fascism”. But the differences, from the religious studies perspective, aren’t that great. The intellectual defense of this position comes ultimately not from Jonah but from the great scholar, Eric Voegelin, who showed that both modern liberalism and Nazism are forms of Gnostic political religion. Of course they are not the same form of Gnosticism, but the essential difference is that liberalism is just in less of a hurry to get to the same dead end as Nazism. Voegelin saw the connection between Weimar and Nazi Gnosticism, as he lived through it and then dedicated his life to the study of Gnosticism.

Dr.Dawg
#10. April 19th, 2008, at 1:20 AM.

Jay,

I’m just a little confused (there’s a soft lob for the trolls). I don’t think for one moment that you harbour Nazi sympathies. But in a post that seems to have gone the way of all flesh, you cast some quite illegitimate doubt upon Marc Lemire’s Nazi credentials. It was as though you were trying to rehabilitate this former leader of the Heritage Front.

If you responded, I didn’t see that response. But you did seem to go well beyond simply defending free speech, to pleading for the character of one of the main actors. I just found that a bit odd.

jay
#11. April 19th, 2008, at 1:46 AM.

Dawg, send me an email of what you recall the post casting “illegitimate doubt” on Lemire’s Nazi credentials as having said and I’ll see if I can find it. I don’t intentionally delete posts from this blog so it is bound to be around somewhere.

Frankly, I don’t know enough about Lemire or the Heritage Front to form an intelligent opinion as to whether he was or is a Nazi. I do have a fairly strict rule that only people who actively advocate a Hitlerian agenda are properly called Nazis. In a bag of mixed nuts it is, I think, important to distinguish between a peanut and a pecan.

I don’t need to know much about Lemire’s politics because defending his right to speak has nothing to do with what he says. I don’t need to “rehabilitate” Lemire because his rights do not, in my view, depend on who he is or was; they are simply the same rights as I would want Canada to accord to anyone of her citizens.

The few lefties still defending the CHRC seem to think “But he’s a Nazi” is a sufficient reason to deny a person the right of free expression. I reject the idea that rights can or should be denied on the basis of ad hominum arguments. We saw how well that worked when MacCarthyism and the Red Scare denied fundamental rights to Communists for no other reason than their party affiliation.

Flea
#12. April 19th, 2008, at 2:54 AM.

As I am definitely not a libertarian, I am in favour of all sorts of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. These do not, however, include quoting imams and being held accountable for the views you are quoting. Nor do they include republishing cartoons which are the (supposed) proximate cause of riot and mayhem. Both would once have qualified as “news”. Once the ideology of nice-ness means we must no longer represent the world warts and all we are walking over the cliff no matter what they enemy may say or do.

ebt
#13. April 19th, 2008, at 3:26 AM.

If Lemire was in the Heritage Front, how does make him any more of a Nazi than any other civil servant? The Heritage Front was so named because it was indeed a front. It was set up by a CSIS agent, Grant Bristow, and entirely funded by CSIS through him. Because he (and thus CSIS) provided all the HF’s money, he (and thus CSIS) had complete control over all their activities. And these never amounted to anything more than staging publicity stunts to get themselves photographed dressed as Nazis, so they could then be paid to go dressed in ordinary clothes and be photographed shaking hands with Reform Party MPs. Which is all they ever did, and all they were ever intended to do.

I’m sure a lot of people got into the Heritage Front because they wanted to be Nazis, but I can’t accept that being in the HF actually did that for them.

Blazingcatfur
#14. April 19th, 2008, at 3:35 AM.

I’m not sure, but I think a Flea just turned a Dawg into a Lemming.

Dr.Dawg
#15. April 19th, 2008, at 6:00 AM.

Since I have no differences with what Flea said here, I must conclude that BCF is blowing his usual smoke. In fairness to the latter, I don’t think he does it on purpose–he’s just not very bright, as I’ve observed before.

ebt: That’s a fascinating piece of revisionist history you just provided. You’re forgetting about Wolfgang Droege, for example, and the claim that Bristow “set up” the HF is blithering nonsense.

jay
#16. April 19th, 2008, at 6:30 AM.

Dawg, before dismissing ebt quite so blithely I would suggest reading Kevin Steel’s and Kevin Grace’s rather interesting examination of the matter. Just because the Lying Jackal left Grant Bristow out of the first edition of his book on right wing groups (for reasons he has never managed to explain) does not mean that Bristow was not there right from the outset.

Dr.Dawg
#17. April 19th, 2008, at 7:16 AM.

Kevin Grace? The fellow who links to white supremacists on his site? I think I’ll give that article a pass, Jay, with all due respect.

Bristow’s article in The Walrus in 2004 is a better read. To try to make the case now that the Heritage Front was a state creation to keep tabs on Nazi wannabes is really a bit much.

jay
#18. April 19th, 2008, at 7:24 AM.

Dawg, the link is to Kevin Steel’s site.

Now I realize that old Dawgs have a hard time learning new tricks but here is a hint: the drive by smear “links to white supremacists on his site” is simply tacky. Go read the article and, when you have finished, you can conclude whatever you want but at least you will be less ignorant than you are now.

Dr.Dawg
#19. April 19th, 2008, at 8:11 AM.

Why on earth did you mention Kevin Grace, then? If you think it’s “tacky” to point out his links to VDARE and Steve Sailer, I would suggest it’s even tackier to ignore them. It’s pert of this cosy little accommodation that I’ve been talking about–in your case just a politics that’s a tad too inclusive for my taste.

So I read Kevin Steele’s article. And I remain amazed at the conspiracy-mongering that is all the rage in conservative circles these days. It’s all a Liberal/RCMP plot, from Grant Bristow to the current raid on the Cons’ offices.

I enjoy your site, Jay, I really do, but these days it’s starting to look more and more like a place to read good (and not-so-good) fiction.

Jan
#20. April 19th, 2008, at 10:27 AM.

Ah, er, that would be a Conservative/CSIS plot in the former instance and a Liberal/RCMP in the latter.

It is such a bore to have to keep all these details straight when one is busy building conspiracy theories. Don’t you agree?

Blazingcatfur
#21. April 19th, 2008, at 8:12 PM.

Jay why do you even bother debating Dawgy? He has no interest in the truth of the matter. He is here simply to save face as best he can in defense of the indefensible - his mind.

calmage
#22. April 19th, 2008, at 10:45 PM.

Jay.. you have hit on the only way to force the HRC into looking at what it’s judgments can bring into effect.

I hope that the simple brilliance of this catches on, and the HRC is flooded with justifiable complaints made regarding discrimination against any and all issues that could even conceivably fall into section 13.

Christian Gilles
#23. April 21st, 2008, at 12:22 AM.

Jay,
“We saw how well that worked when MacCarthyism and the Red Scare denied fundamental rights to Communists for no other reason than their party affiliation.”
I just finished reading M. Stanton Evans’s “Blacklisted by History”. It was an eye opener, but apparently he left out important details. Which of their fundamental rights were denied to Communists and what did McCarthy have to do with this denial?

Dr.Dawg
#24. April 22nd, 2008, at 3:46 AM.

Precisely, Jay. That’s why I don’t have any truck with conspiracy theories, Conservative or Liberal. Why do you?

jay
#25. April 22nd, 2008, at 5:10 AM.

Because Dawg…the Lying Jackal knew precisely who Grant Bristow was and yet expunged him from the first edition of his book and then claimed he didn’t know him. That is not a conspiracy theory - that is a guy lying for some reason or another. I am curious about the reason.

john begley
#26. April 22nd, 2008, at 5:30 AM.

i’m sure i’ve already related how obersturmbanfuhrer doug collins and i barracked that pathetic cockbiter kinsella back in the 90’s in n van…oh dear sweet jesus..them were the days…

the poor smuk was quailing before our(my) jeering and calls of ’sorry war but that is bullshit’…anyway…i did my bit to further mankind…sure…regrets i’ve had a few…

Jan
#27. April 22nd, 2008, at 6:03 AM.

Methinks, Jay, I shall have to find another screen name. Dr. Dawg is apparently hard of reading.

The fact remains though, that Grant Bristow was involved with the Heritage Front from day one and intimately acquainted with its leadership. Why he did not merit a mention is indeed curious.

As for the alleged conspiracy theories, that was precisely my point. There are none, only some very good questions.

Dr.Dawg
#28. April 22nd, 2008, at 7:19 AM.

But Bristow was mentioned in the second and thrid editions of the book. Kinsella claims that he didn’t know Bristow at the time of the first edition, because the matter had not been made public.

Do have evidence to the contrary?

jay
#29. April 22nd, 2008, at 7:42 AM.

Yes Dawg…Kinsella filed a police complaint against Bristow several months before he completed the research on his book. Read about it here.

ebt
#30. April 26th, 2008, at 3:00 AM.

Since it’s been mentioned, I’m reasonably well aware of who Wolfgang Droege was. He was apparently a nasty character and a dangerous man. Such at least was the informed opinion of his cocaine supplier, who all too demonstrably had the measure of the man, so I’ll accept that assessment.

But what has this to do with the price of chickens? The Heritage Front was a CSIS front group, which they controlled and directed. Wolfgang Droege took part in it, and so somehow this makes everyone in it a real Nazi? Just as well Droege never went to a Star Trek convention, then, because all the people there would have become real Klingons.

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .

This stuff writes itself

Related articles

30 comments

Leave your comment...

A Note one Comments

Article search

Last articles

Categories

Sections

Monthly archives

Favourite sites

Away

Blogroll

Subscribe to this site