Where’s Lucy when you need him?

geokstr
#1. April 17th, 2008, at 11:07 AM.

You had better make sure that you use single-sided fax paper or the HRC will automatically disallow your complaint on procedural grounds, as they have done in the past.

Bob Herron
#2. April 17th, 2008, at 1:46 PM.

If we all did this the HRC would use it as a reason to hire more people and have a bigger budget. The objective should be to get rid of these drones totally. Getting rid of S13 is not enough. See “not washing hands not a health risk” in MacDonalds’ Restaurant case in BC.

Terry M
#3. April 17th, 2008, at 2:37 PM.

Can people outside Canada complain?

Kathy Shaidle
#5. April 17th, 2008, at 8:18 PM.

I’m proud to say I don’t speak a word of French, so I don’t get it.

Blazingcatfur
#6. April 17th, 2008, at 8:38 PM.

Hmm this may work even though you yourself are not a member of a designated victim group per the Marxist ideological guidelines of the CHRC.

Jan
#7. April 17th, 2008, at 8:44 PM.

Oh dear, I am not sure how many more elephants can fit inside the Commission offices.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#8. April 17th, 2008, at 10:49 PM.

Jay, rather than validate the HRC censorship of the free press , why didn’t you call this to the attention of the CJC and BB? Jews have the two largest political NGOs in Canada at their disposal to ferret out antisemitism…make them serve this legitimate purpose rather than endorse government power to censor political commentary.

Alan
#9. April 17th, 2008, at 11:48 PM.

I think you have opened your mind to the fact that s.13 is not as two dimensional as you might have been told, that an appropriately restrictive test for its application based on Charter principles (because human rights codes are subject to the Charter) might give orginary people recourse to remedy that they could never afford through the court.

And conservatives are that interesting in restricting government power to censor, do it directly by lobbying the Federal Conservative Party who has control of the legislative agenda and can amend the Act. That has nothing to do with Human Rights Commissions.

ebt
#10. April 18th, 2008, at 12:00 AM.

Legally, the CHRC can’t do anything about anything on the internet that isn’t actually posted in Canada. If your server is outside Canada, then the publication takes place where your server is located, and is not subject to Canadian law. Since it’s not against the law for him to post it, it’s not against the law for you to help him do it.

Of course, the problem is that the CHRC simply ignores the law. There’s nothing to stop them from coming after you and convicting you no matter what you do or do not do. The only question is whether they like you or not. If they like you, you can do whatever you want, and we’ve seen them and their pets post swastikas and publish anti-semitic hate to their black little hearts’ content. If they don’t lie you, they’ll take you down and there’s nothing you can do to avoid it.

Sean
#12. April 18th, 2008, at 12:52 AM.

Et tu, Currie?

Sean
#14. April 18th, 2008, at 1:03 AM.

It may be short lived. That’s a very hateful graphic you’ve got on your Web site above these comments, and, well…

… um …

…I *do* have a fax machine, single-sided, no less. And now my fingers are itchy.

:-p~~~

Peter
#16. April 18th, 2008, at 4:17 AM.

I hope you remembered to ask for punitives, Jay. But don’t get your hopes up. Rumour has it the Commission is meeting today to discuss whether they can reject any complaint that comes from a hateful fax machine.

Sean
#17. April 18th, 2008, at 4:37 AM.

“I might make use of the Lucy/Stacey ‘But we’re the good guys’ defense.”

I don’t think you get your good guy merit badge until you can prove you’ve mastered hijacking unsecured wireless access points. So please refrain from claiming “good guy” status until you can produce the accompanying badge as certification of your rank.

RobertJago
#18. April 18th, 2008, at 5:57 AM.

Good on you. Let’s bury them under these complaints.

Hannibal Lectern
#19. April 18th, 2008, at 8:17 AM.

Jay,

To up the ante, the graphic needs to show the guy smoking a high tar cigarette in the presence of kids not buckled into their car seats. With the windows closed. And soldiers. In our streets. In our cities. In Canada.

And an itty bitty purple dinosaur in the screaming in the back seat.

Tim Nielsen
#20. April 18th, 2008, at 2:42 PM.

If you’re looking for non typical targets to hit with complaints to CHRC, look no further than our friends at the CBC (mostly radio) who have repeatedly bombarded us with messages that are likely to expose Conservatives, Christians, Gun Owners, Replublicans, George Bush and/or friends of George Bush, and Americans in general, to hatred or contempt based on their race (WASP) religion (conservative Christian) ect (political views).

If that doesn’t work, maybe you can hit someone on the comedy channel for telling a Newfie joke (Those never fail to offend me!)

Good Luck!

David
#21. April 19th, 2008, at 8:57 AM.

I have been thinking of the CBC anti-Americanism angle for a while. I remember specifically a couple of years ago Air Farce selected George W. as their food cannon target. This was so old, tired and predictable (why not Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe etc.?) that it I tuned out ever since.

Can you imagine a cartoon of Mohammed not only been shown on the CBC but being plastered with slop? And if they did - the uproar - Maybe we should demand equal opportunity for him.

Anyway, I have been waiting for some ex-patriot American to file a complaint - but then if there is one thing you can say about the Yanks, they are not prone to whining.

Another tactic might be to launch a complaint against the CIC and the law students, saying that their whining is “likely” to cause people to dislike Muslims. I am certain that their speech in this regard is stirring up a lot more ill-will than Mark Steyn and Macleans.

Finally, with regard to the word “likely” in the legislation. In a real court this might be interpreted in some real statistical sense - except it would be applied to an event that had already occurred, not in the future. I did a search on the OJ trial and discovered that the chance that DNA experts testified that the blood was “likely” his to the tune of a 1 in 50 billion chance that it wasn’t his!! That was not good enough for the jury, who came to believe as I recall that the sample was planted by the police.

Mark Francis
#22. April 19th, 2008, at 10:11 PM.

“Legally, the CHRC can’t do anything about anything on the internet that isn’t actually posted in Canada. If your server is outside Canada, then the publication takes place where your server is located, and is not subject to Canadian law. Since it’s not against the law for him to post it, it’s not against the law for you to help him do it.”

Incorrect. In Canadian law, the publishing of Internet content occurs at the client computer, not at the server.

This blog on an American server

http://greencompostheap.blogspot.com/

got suspended due to a lawsuit launched in BC.

ebt
#23. April 26th, 2008, at 3:09 AM.

No, Mr. Francis. Publishing occurs where the material is made net-accessible. That’s at the server site.

In Canadian law, a tort occurs in a province if the damage occurs in that province, so the place of publication is irrelevant if the material can be read in the province. Your lawsuit had nothing to do with the place of publication.

The problem which both you and I overlooked, and which motivated me to dig this thread up, is that the Human Rights Acts do not restrict themselves to what you publish, but forbid you to CAUSE to be published the various things they object to. This prevents you from getting any advantage from publishing abroad. You cause a blog entry to be published when you transmit it to the publisher, wherever he may be, and you do that transmitting from your home in Canada.

My apologies if anyone was misled by my earlier observations, which were accurate as far as they went, but didn’t go far enough.