Turn about is fair play

Flea
#1. April 15th, 2008, at 1:15 AM.

I can think of several more worthy recipients of such a complaint.

Robert McClelland
#2. April 15th, 2008, at 1:22 AM.

Snort. The guy is so buffoonish he doesn’t even realize that his actions will legitimize the HRCs.

john begley
#3. April 15th, 2008, at 1:38 AM.

ah dinna fash yerselves…it’s ALL grist for the mill….more humour…MORE jackanapery…MORE confusion and charges and countercharges and libels and labels and lunacy till everyone comes to their senses and falls down laffing….exhausted with the comic stupidity of it all…

but i AM wondering ,so where IS my federal government in all this ?

Kevin
#4. April 15th, 2008, at 2:01 AM.

I wish the CBC would read excerpts from the book each day.

stephen.reeves
#5. April 15th, 2008, at 2:38 AM.

Of course there are idiots out there who will read this guys hate speech and go out and kill someone.

Blazingcatfur
#6. April 15th, 2008, at 3:21 AM.

“Snort. The guy is so buffoonish…”

I see Mclelland has taken to referring himself in the 3rd person now.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#7. April 15th, 2008, at 3:57 AM.

Remind me to check my serotonin levels, I actually agree with McLelland on this. While it’s gratifying to see these invective spewing caliphate theocrats get bitch slapped, I don’t like the fact we have to go to the feds to do it for us.

The end result will be all Canadians being too afraid to debate Islam openly.

I would much prefer the freedom to contront his more belligerent ideas in a public form and allow him the opportunity to defend himself there as well.

Shutting down the debate with fed interference or SLAPP litigating does us no good.

That said, a few of these HRC actions must be done to send the message to this belligerernt special interest that the liabilities for making social/civil trouble in a host society are universal and can backlash on any overly pushy special interests.

Four Horse
#8. April 15th, 2008, at 5:12 AM.

The CHRC can’t suck and blow on this. Either we are all equal under the law and the CHRC prosecutes this claim using the same techniques it has used winning its previous Section 13 cases, or it stands down.

Wonder, who at the CHRc wants this case file?
Wonder, who at CHRC will be busy and have to beg off the Hate Squad?
Wonder, who at the CHRT will handle this Tribunal matter and who will claim they have too busy of a schedule already?

Any guesses ?

Bill
#9. April 15th, 2008, at 6:35 AM.

Bad idea. If they need to be denormalized this is not the way to go about it.

Sean
#10. April 15th, 2008, at 6:50 AM.

Tch. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that.

Blazingcatfur
#11. April 15th, 2008, at 7:27 AM.

The CHRC will not hear this case. They consider Muslims oppressed they are therefore cut slack and deemed not to have to abide by the same standards as you or I.

Montjoie
#12. April 15th, 2008, at 9:45 AM.

I trust Blazingcatfur is correct, and I think that’s the guy’s point. The HRCs exist to squelch speech that causes hatred of the DOWNTRODDEN, not the citizens. ’sokay to hate the citizens. Sheesh.

Rod Blaine
#13. April 15th, 2008, at 10:03 AM.

Depends whether you think X shouldn’t be a crime at all, or whether you think it should be but in practise is being prosecuted in legally or factually dubious cases.

Eg, I think defamation should remain unlawful - when someone purports to make assertions of fact that are either (b) untrue or (b) of no public relevance or benefit - but that doesn’t mean I agree with the way censors like Warman, Lee Kwan Yew or Eugene “Bull” Connors used the libel laws to shut down their critics.

It would have done Lee Kwan Yew a power of good to be sued for making libellous statements against Western civilisation. In the state of Victoria, Australia, some of the loudest Muslim supporters of “religious vilification” laws (originally being used against - you guessed it - Christian pastors) changed their tune once Christians started turning up to certain mosques and recording what was being preached therein against the Jews.

I think hate speech should be illegal, provided that it’s interpreted strictly as “incitement to murder, assault or vandalism” (or maybe “incitement to discriminate in providing goods and services”), with a close causal/ temporal link. I think some of the more exciteable “Behead Rushdie” imams in the West are guilty of hate speech in the strict sense. I don’t think Steyn is guilty of it for saying “Hey, you progressive sorts, remember a certain Rev Malthus?”

Peter
#14. April 15th, 2008, at 4:17 PM.

Of course bcf is right. The blogosphere is all ablaze with arguments about whether hate speech should be proscribed, but few are tackling the sub-text—who are the oppressed minorities needing protection and deference, and who gets to define them? Human Rights codes originated under the formative experiences of the Holocaust and Jim Crow, both seared forever on the Western conscience as secular original sins, and their public support rests largely on images of those atrocities. Kinsella makes a good career out of pretending we’re still in the 40s or 50s. If those two dramas were still with us, I might be a supporter too. There is a lot of toilet talk from both sides, but one thing that is clear is that you can use the most scurrilous offensive language provided you direct it as widely as possible and pretend your target is part of a powerful establishment. Dawkins can attack religious people in a way he could never talk about, say, Jews. “Conservative” seems to be a modern euphemism in progressive circles for an alliance between robber barons and a mass of scary, unwashed yahoos , so they’re fair game (even though in an earlier age the unwashed were exactly the constitutency they championed–the left has become such prudes). Sontag’s cancerous white race remark set the standard for what has devolved into a highly corrupted ideological straitjacket. Thus aboriginals get a perpetual pass no matter what they do. The Americans play the role of Satan, and who cares what anybody says about Him? But we are now ambivalent about anti-Quebec stuff because, hey, they beat us up too and therefore must mind their manners.

This might explain why most of the left is so tongue-tied about Islamicism. Having defined Muslims as a kind of global oppressed minority (”Bad Israel. Badder Bush!), they are terrified of admitting the reality of what is unfolding before their eyes for fear it will crack that safe paradigm that has served them so well for years. The right isn’t helping much by failing to challenge those screaming an equivalency between Islam and Islamicism and by allowing themselves to be manoevered into championing the likes of Lemire.

MarkCh
#15. April 15th, 2008, at 9:36 PM.

This is the way to denormalize the CHRC - as long as everyone except the complainant remembers to keep repeating that the complaint should not go through, and was laid only to show the stupidity of the CHRC.

ebt
#16. April 15th, 2008, at 10:38 PM.

Let’s be a little clearer about this. The point of this complaint is that it complies exactly with the rules that the CHRC invokes against the rest of us, and yet it will be dismissed. It has the exact purpose of denormalizing the CHRC, since it proves that the CHRC is a fraud and is breaking the law.

The American legal scholar Glenn Reynolds was musing last week that he couldn’t understand why Canadians weren’t exactly doing this. The answer is that the various human rights commissions have been carrying on in this openly illegal way for more than twenty years now, and there is no one left to prove the point to. Well, there’s a new audience in the outside world now, so this is how you get it across to them.

Jan
#17. April 15th, 2008, at 11:32 PM.

I think, with respect to the defense of free speech, it is a case of removing the speaker from the speech. The speaker being entitled, within conventionally established legal limits, to express whatever his personal thoughts and beliefs. Speech, odious or otherwise, is what is deserving of public dissection, challenge, derision or disgust.

If we cannot separate these two things as being distinct within the realm of human rights, I fear we could progress to the point where the transmission of ideas becomes so regimented as to be purposeless. This amazing technology which allows us such opportunity as never before to express ourselves, to read a multitude of expressions and ideas from more than a billion different sources could be reduced to a slide show of pleasantries, a library of litergy or a limitless web of infomercials.

Somebody below also asked, essentially, if defending Marc Lemire’s right to express himself, and to describe for himself what he is or is not, means an attempt (I’ll assume on my part) to resurrect the Heritage Front. My answer is no. Those kinds of inquiries might better be put to CSIS.

Whether Marc Lemire is or is not a neo-Nazi, and the man has repeatedly denied this accusation, is not for me to judge, in so much as I don’t really care as he, at one time, saw no more potential to influence public opinion/policy than I.

That is until, he was elevated to defendant at a CHRT at which point he and his case may indeed have been given such greater opportunity. But now the serious question being asked is no longer about how we might describe Marc Lemire. It is once again, can S. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights act be compatible with the broader framework of rights, specifically the right to free expression.

For that I think we all owe Richard Warman, as a catalyst to this discussion, a debt of gratitude.

john begley
#18. April 16th, 2008, at 2:34 AM.

i say use the HRCs to the hilt….manipulate them ..utilize the what are in actual fact the ‘useful idiots’ of the mis en scene…..jack them up by their own farts or whatever the frogs and that upstart crow Wagstaff said …” hoist them by their own petard”.

DCardno
#19. April 16th, 2008, at 7:18 AM.

“The right isn’t helping …by allowing themselves to be manoevered into championing the likes of Lemire.”

But other than on Kinsella’s blog (and Warman’s diary, I suppose) that’s not happening. In most of the commentary I see from “the right” they are holding their nose beside Lemire and muttering something along the lines of ‘even assholes have rights.’ Very few people are “championing” Lemire - they are championing his right to speak, a very different thing. In stating the situation as you do you fall into exactly the mindset that Kinsella (et al) are trying to promote - that one cannot separate the right to speak from the use that is made of it.

lrC
#20. April 16th, 2008, at 10:30 AM.

If the HRCs selectively refuse to hear complaints, the HRCs will certainly delegitimize themselves.

If the HRCs hear the complaints, then the ideologues will be on the receiving end of their own weapon. It might temper their enthusiasm. The entire matter is a thumbnail image of the problem with broad government power: it’s wonderful while you control it, and it’s the worst threat imaginable while you don’t.

Peter
#21. April 16th, 2008, at 6:35 PM.

DCardno:

I’m not Kinsella. There is no way I am attributing Lemire’s views to anyone or even sympathy for him. And I understand the legal logic behind it all. My point is a practical one and addresses the impressions of the distracted middle mainstream, who aren’t going to spend hours delving into the vagaries of Commission procedures, blogger-tracing or the wording of S. 13. If you are going to fight for freedom of artistic expression, better to line up behind D.H. Lawrence than Larry Flynt.

Also, much more time seems to be spent on all sides arguing about neo-Nazis, who aren’t a threat, than about Islamist activists, who are.

DCardno
#22. April 17th, 2008, at 12:13 AM.

“If you are going to fight for freedom of artistic expression, better to line up behind D.H. Lawrence than Larry Flynt.”
No. You line up behind whoever’s freedom of expression is circumscribed - you don’t play the pick-and-choose game; you recognize that the Kinsellas, Warmans, and Halls of the world are certainly going to accuse you of sympathy to whatever disgusting cause is espoused by their current target; you fight that canard by never, ever, suggesting that you are defending the person or the cause, only their right to express their view.

“…much more time seems to be spent on all sides arguing about neo-Nazis, who aren’t a threat, than about Islamist activists, who are.”
Sure. Because, by-and-large, the people who see Islamists as a threat are the same peole who see shutting down free speech as a bigger threat. The people who like to shut down contrary opinions find neo nazis (and shape-shifting space reptile theorists) to be convenient tools to scare the ‘distracted middle mainstream’ into ill-thought agreement.

Peter
#23. April 17th, 2008, at 5:30 AM.

“You line up behind whoever’s freedom of expression is circumscribed - you don’t play the pick-and-choose game;”

Not everybody comes to freedom of speech through that abstract and absolutist route and not everyone who describes his/herself as a conservative is a secular libertarian. Nor do a lot of folks supporting Steyn/Levant and very concerned about the whole human rights gig necessarily buy into all the shibboleths about Truth always winning out in the marketplace of ideas, etc. For one thing, that seems to be in conflict with the argument that it should all be a matter of criminal law. For another the lines between speech and action start to get pretty fuzzy on the extremes. For yet another, I can’t understand those who say we are free to use any social sanctions we wish in response to speech that offends us (and indeed should do so to keep social intercourse civil and safe) but we all have a prima facie duty to rush to the barricades to give aid and succor to a vulgar and intimidating jerk just because somebody wants to shut him up. The word “disgusted” does not describe a political opinion. For a fourth, time, place, syntax, volume and context can all make worlds of difference to the nature of speech and its effects. For a fifth, I doubt the average Canadian Joe and Mary would ever say they wanted absolutely no restrictions on speech anywhere, anytime against any target under any circumstances. But anyway, Dcardno, let’s not forget why they used to call the Conservatives the stupid party. Are you itching for a nice high-profile schism between the 100% free speechers and the 98%ers.

dcardno
#24. April 17th, 2008, at 11:11 AM.

Peter

Go ahead - be a Liberal.

Peter
#25. April 17th, 2008, at 6:36 PM.

I suppose I should be grateful you didn’t accuse me of revisionist cosmopolitanism or some such thing. Do you favour banishment to the tundra or a re-education camp?

Jan
#26. April 17th, 2008, at 11:20 PM.

Peter, I’m finding your post a bit hard to follow but with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Joe & Mary Canada, I’ll take my chances that besides the ever present vulgar and intimidating jerks, they would be sensibly prone to heed the likes of:

PEN Canada
Noam Chomsky
The Globe & Mail
National Post
Ken McVay
Toronto Star
Rex Murphy
Calgary Herald
Canadian Association of Journalists
Alan Borovoy
Maclean’s
Mark Steyn
Ezra Levant
Courageous MP Keith Martin (and apparently a “huge” number of others who are suffering from an extreme case of laryngitis)
Joseph C. Ben-Ami
Steven Skurka
Catholic Insight
Canadian Muslim Congress
David Warren
Eye Weekly
Mark Milke
Western Standard
and, too many other guest columnists in every major Canadian newspaper to mention

pitted against,

Well, I honestly don’t want to list them as my gentle nature desires to further save them from embarrassment but if you would like to compile one, be my guest.

Peter
#27. April 18th, 2008, at 12:29 AM.

Jay:

Add my name to that list, please. But it’s one thing to go after S. 13 and a badly corrupted and incestuous human rights cabal, another to say that that anything that comes out of anyone’s mouth anytime in any style and at any volume is an “idea” or even “speech” in the normal sense, and should be protected. I’m not sure everyone on your list would go that far, although I could be wrong. I have some problems with that, mainly because of two arguments that relate to the fringe. The first is that speech starts to blend with actions or incitement, and legalistic distinctions between the two can be a distortion of what the whole game is about. The second is that freedom of speech is not the only important freedom and there can be conflicts on the extremes.

But Jay, there is nothing terribly new about this debate. The classical liberal/libertarian approach based upon first principles meets the more traditonal empirical perspective that can’t quite square the theory with what they observe and experience around them every day. But they should be adversaries only in closed sessions. It’s like those who support democracy because it frees and validates human nobility and those who, like Churchill, see it as a squabbling mess indulging the scummy and fallible, but nonetheless far superior to anything else. Both viewpoints should be welcomed when the Mongols appear on the horizon.

Jan
#28. April 18th, 2008, at 1:41 AM.

That would be “Jan” but I’ll forgive the offense.

And, I’ll gladly add your name to the not so squabbling but nonetheless messy list forthwith.

Peter
PEN Canada
Noam Chomsky
The Globe & Mail
National Post
Ken McVay
Toronto Star
Rex Murphy
Calgary Herald
Canadian Association of Journalists
Alan Borovoy
Maclean’s
Mark Steyn
Ezra Levant
Courageous MP Keith Martin (and apparently a “huge” number of others who are suffering from an extreme case of laryngitis)
Joseph C. Ben-Ami
Steven Skurka
Catholic Insight
Canadian Muslim Congress
David Warren
Eye Weekly
Mark Milke
Western Standard
and, too many other guest columnists in every major Canadian newspaper to mention

Peter
#29. April 18th, 2008, at 3:41 AM.

Now I’m blushing on several counts.

DCardno
#30. April 18th, 2008, at 3:52 AM.

Peter: “Add my name to that list, please…”

But it doesn’t belong there, Peter. You are not in favour of Free Speech - you advocate some sort of Free Speech Lite™ where inoffensive speech is fully protected and we pat ourselves on the back for our courage. You are clear that defending -say- Lemire’s right to speech is distasteful, and even strategically unwise: “The right isn’t helping much by… allowing themselves to be manoevered into championing the likes of Lemire.” Where Warman asks of Icke “What possible benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?” you ask of Lemire, “What possible benefit can there be in defending his right to speak?” No doubt you have a tortuous polysyllabic explanation - but it is a distinction without a difference: you believe in the kind of free speech that is not personally offensive, that doesn’t issue from “a vulgar and intimidating jerk” and where the “time, place, syntax, volume and context” meet your personal standards. As always, freedom of speech for ideas and expressions one agrees with or finds not too unsettling is not freedom, it is comfortable conformity, and you and Kinsella are welcome to it. We don’t have to like the speech we hear, and oftentimes don’t - we can find it digusting and offensive, and can make all possible arguments in opposition to it - but we are called on to defend the right of the speaker to express him- or herself.

You ask why we should rush to give aid to the jerk you referenced, “just because somebody wants to shut him up.” You entirely miss the point: it is not “somebody” who wants to shut him up, it is the Government of Canada, acting in our name - and that is intolerable.

Jan
#31. April 18th, 2008, at 4:12 AM.

I only aim to please.

Jan
#32. April 18th, 2008, at 4:46 AM.

DCarno, we must always respect the right of others to change their minds. Indeed, when we believe they are in error and have them convinced, doubly so.:-)

I think Peter has the light. Do not extinguish that light, however dimly lit you might find it.

Peter
#33. April 18th, 2008, at 4:53 AM.

“it is not “somebody” who wants to shut him up, it is the Government of Canada, acting in our name - and that is intolerable.”

You would prefer lynch mobs? Although you seemed to determined to make a small gulf a huge one, I’m simply not going to go as far as you, Dcardno, mainly because we don’t share preceptions of the reality of human nature in extremis, your radical and ultra-rational separation of speech from the rest of public life, your apparent absolute priority of free speech over everything else and what the Canadian public will accept in the end. If that gets me barred from the club, so be it. But be careful with those absolute principles of yours, Dcardno. You may find that the tighter you hold on to them, the more people, life, Canada, etc. will disappoint and anger you.

DCardno
#34. April 18th, 2008, at 8:00 AM.

“You would prefer lynch mobs?…separation of speech from the rest of public life… absolute priority of free speech over everything else…”

When you get tired of straw men, Peter, then we can talk.