Canadian Human Rights Commission may get hit for their "Thought Crimes"

[mountainclmbr]

http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/govern...inquiry-i.html

I wonder if a new "Fairness Doctrine" along the lines of the CHRC is in our future....Edit to add that coverage of the HRC trial of Mark Steyn starts on post #8.

The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament's Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practises of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public "concerns" about the CHRC's "investigative techniques" and their "interpretation and application" of the section 13 thought crimes provision........


I don't think the CHRC is going to be a pleasant place to work for the next year or so -- longer if criminal charges are laid.

These official investigations are on top of the nearly-unanimous public outrage at the CHRC's behaviour, which has drawn criticism from across the ideological spectrum. Groups ranging from PEN Canada, to the Canadian Association of Journalists, to the former executive director of EGALE, to the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to every newspaper in the country from right to left, have united in opposition to the CHRC.......

No doubt, Canada's grievance industry -- the race hustlers, the second-rate lawyers, everyone who makes a buck off the system -- will be at any inquiry in spades, arguing desperately, maybe even in tears, for the retention of their meal ticket. They have to be countered; this can't become another convention of complainers-for-hire like the Canadian Race Relations farce I attended. It's got to represent not only the aforementioned pro-free-speech groups, but plenty of "severely normal" people, too. I think witnesses ought to include Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, to ask them what they think of the importance of freedom and the price we should pay to defend it.

[Tom2]

OK, what is the context of this article? As a US citizen, I have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

[Dust Monkey]

Context. I can happen here, hell its almost here in our law.

[SDC]

OK, what is the context of this article? As a US citizen, I have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Just as a fingernail sketch, what has been happening with the various "Human Rights Boards" in Canada is that anyone who feels aggrieved for any reason can and will file a complaint with one or more of those commissions, those comissions will look at the "evidence", and they will decide if that grievance is justified, and if so, how much the aggrieved party is due in recompense. That's fine, in and of itself (for example, if a restaurant owner decides he doesn't want to serve or hire people based on the colour of their skin).
However, the HRCs have gone way PAST that, to the point where an ex-member of the Canadian HRC (one Richard Warman) has made laying and collecting on those complaints his "work" of the past several years (awards are tax-free, and this weasel has collected thousands of dollars by claiming that he was offended by things that were said, printed, or published). It goes FURTHER than that again, in that the CHRC has taken to setting up false accounts with various message boards, posting offensive messages under those pseudonyms, and then turning around and suing the owners of those message boards for those offensive messages. At a hearing in Ottawa, they admitted that they had hacked into an innocent woman's wireless internet service so they could go online and do these sorts of "false flag" operations. Since the HRC was set up under Trudeau, it has had a 100% "success rate", in that every complaint made has been upheld, and the aggrieved party has been awarded money. In many cases, people who are faced with this sort of legal steamroller decide that it's not worth it to hire a lawyer with their own money and fight a bogus charge, simply because they know they're going to be forced to pay anyway. In a recent case, a medical pot user who was told to "take it outside" by a restaurant owner won by default, even though it's illegal to smoke ANYTHING in a restaurant to begin with. Another case currently on-going involves several Muslims who were "offended" that an author quoted a Muslim imam as saying that (paraphrased) "Muslims will win the war against the west because we breed faster than they do". It is an ugly, ugly mess, and I can only hope that these kangaroo courts get closed down, and soon.

[Tom2]

Well good. there you go, some background to explain why folks are upset with the organisation, not just that they are. Yes it could happen here with something like a super charged ACLU I suppose. Thanks for the clarification to explain the post!

[tube_ee]

Christopher Hitchens' brilliant speech about the Canadian hate speech law. I think it was before the HRC, but I might be wrong about that.

In any case, it is a devastating defense of the freedom of speech, even when such speech is offensive.

Of course, coming from Hitchens, who's an equally-opportunity offender, you'd expect that.

I'm a fan, BTW. Even when I disagree with him, I could only wish to be able to wield language so well. I'd love to see a debate between Hitchens and Buckley. If they ever crossed swords, I'd like to see it.

--Shannon

[mountainclmbr]

For those who have not been following this case:

Among the people being persecuted by the HRC is Mark Steyn. Excerpts of his book "America Alone" were printed in a Canadian publication and the HRC is now all over him. Here is the thread that documents the persecution of Ezra Levant by the same commission. It contains Youtube documentation of his first interrogation by a HRC commissioner. The commissioner expected him to grovel like all the rest, but his statement was that he was not requesting that the charges be dropped, he wanted the fullest of their prosecution on the stupid charges. It is really amazing video. Also some text from this posting:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/whats-this-all-about.html

For readers tuning in for the first time, here's a quick summary of what's going on.

1. Two years ago, the now-defunct Western Standard magazine reprinted the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. I was the publisher.

2. In response, a radical Muslim imam named Syed Soharwardy asked the Calgary Police Service to arrest me. They didn't, of course. So Soharwardy complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, a government agency. Here's his hand-scrawled complaint; here's my reply. For two years, using government lawyers and taxpayers money, they have been pursuing me, infringing on my natural rights of free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

3. On January 11th, a government "human rights officer" interrogated me for 90 minutes. Instead of bowing my head, I used the opportunity to challenge the moral and legal basis of the complaint, and the human rights commission itself.

4. I recorded the interrogation and posted video clips to YouTube. In the past week, they have been viewed nearly 400,000 times and were at one point the fifth most watched videos on all of YouTube. Though Canadian talk radio shows and op-ed columnists have covered the story well, I have seen only one newspaper report on the subject. I can't understand why mainstream reporters and editors do not think it's newsworthy that a publisher can be summoned by a government bureaucrat, and grilled as to his political thoughts. I'm pleased, though, that the support from pundits has come not just from the right, but from the enlightened left.

5. I've got some ideas of what people can do. Although my case is being prosecuted by the hapless, lame-duck provincial government of Alberta, it is politically more likely that change will come first to the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission. That commission is currently hounding columnist Mark Steyn on similar thought crime charges.

6. The blog posts below expand on various details of the case. If you are interested in the videos, they are all posted below, with commentary. Here are three of the more popular clips:

my opening statement:

[mountainclmbr]

The HRC trial of Mark Steyn started today, 6-2-08. here is a live blog from the trial:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/02/l...t-i/#more-1527

So we are in, and almost ready to go. As trials of the century/year/week go, this one is decidedly down-market: the courtroom would make a good walk-in closet. Maclean’s legal team is out in force, a phalanx of half a dozen suits. The opposing counsel, by contrast, is one suit and two or three badly-dressed juniors. If I didn’t know the stakes, I’d be rooting for them. Actually I am rooting for them, in a strange sort of way. Don’t tell my employers, but I’m sort of hoping we lose this case. If we win—that is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese is—then the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how “reasonable” it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved. Hang on, we’re starting…

9:33 AM PST
The three member-panel has entered, chaired by Heather MacNaughton. She hasn’t gotten six words out before one of the spectators shouts out, “could you speak up please?” To her credit, she takes it in stride…

9:36 AM
The Chair is reviewing the legal history of the complaint. Apparently they have no jurisdiction over the Maclean’s website. So that’s a relief…

9:39 AM
“Proceedings before the human rights tribunal are considerably less formal than before a court,” the chair advises. Yes, indeed: unburdened by stuffy old rules of evidence, for example…

And...

10:57 AM
Just coming back from a break. Lots of media interest, it seems: CBC, CTV (I’m told), the National Post, local media, and a guy from the New York Times, who’s doing a piece comparing how the two countries’ legal systems deal with speech cases. Needless to say, he can’t believe what he’s witnessing…

And....

11:04 AM
Under Section 7.1, he continues, innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism.

Or in other words, there is no defence.

11:08 AM
Maclean’s does not recognize the right of governments at any level to monitor the contents of magazines. We will call no witnesses, but will simply ask that the complaint be set aside…

[Mr. James]

I would humbly suggest all Americans watch these cases very closely. Not only are publishers being hauled into the dock, but so are clergymen (for inciting hatred of homosexuals) and private business men.

I submit these practices will be coming to a state or commonwealth near you sooner than you may choose to believe.

Vigilance, my friends, eternal vigilance.

Bob James

[mountainclmbr]

http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/pakist...olish-fre.html

Like many of you, my Internet home page is the newsy Daily Times of Pakistan.

Here is their report that six high-ranking Pakistani officials will fly to Brussels today to "ask" the European Union to restrict freedom of speech:

Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

My favourite part of the story is the last two sentences. They fit together perfectly, almost like a Shakespearian rhyming couplet:

...the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Sources said that the delegation would also hold discussions on inter-religious harmony during its meetings with the EU leaders.

Got that? If Western governments don't censor their press, they should expect more terrorist attacks. And, with that threat as their opening offer, they're now willing to begin "discussions on inter-religious harmony".

But just as long as everyone knows what will happen if the West decides to be disharmonious.

I note in passing that the Pakistani delegation isn't coming to Canada. Why bother? Our human rights commissions are already doing what Pakistan wants, prosecuting Islamic fatwas using the resources of the state.

[Standing Wolf]

Well, heck. Once again, Canada shows it's a second rate imitative nation.

We Americans invented all this hundreds of years ago. What's the matter, Canadians? You've been asleep all this time?

Sit down and shut up. We invented witch hunts.

[mountainclmbr]

And more from this trial today!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11

Controversial author and social commentator Mark Steyn said Friday he wants to lose his case before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in Vancouver. Instead, Steyn wants to take the "hate speech" case to an actual court of law.

Steyn said a negative ruling would allow the case to go forward in the legal system -- instead of being heard by what he has called a panel of "pretend judges."

The tribunal is wrapping up a case brought by a member of the Canadian Islamic Congress "on behalf of Muslim residents in the province of British Columbia" against Maclean's magazine. They claim a book excerpt by Steyn republished in the national news magazine in October 2006 promoted hate against Muslims.

In his closing arguments to the panel, the complainants' lawyer, Faisal Joseph, said Steyn's article portrayed Muslims in a contemptuous fashion without offering an alternative point of view.

"There has never been a case in this country where there has been such clear, concise evidence of hatred," he said.

The complainants say Maclean's forced the tribunal showdown because the magazine wouldn't print their response. They want the tribunal to order the magazine to publish a counterpoint.

Maclean's has said the group wants a 5,000-word response, with control over editing and even the magazine's cover. The magazine has said it published 27 letters to the editor in the article's wake.

I am offended by Obama's pastor's hateful sermons. Can I take it to Canada? Probably not. The PC filter would prevent me from being "genuinely" offended.

[mountainclmbr]

It seems these HRC investigators are held to no standards. in Ezra Levant's case, the team of investigators (I think it was 15 investigators) had been working on the case for a year and none of them had actually read the offending article in the magazine. It has been many years now and still no trial.