The HRCs don’t charge people. They arbitrate complaints by citizens against other citizens. That fact alone and the writer’s inability to grasp the concept renders the article worthless.

I don’t have any magic solutions and I would really like to see a Royal Commission on this one, but I will tell you one thing. If I’m in a public (’cause the free-speechers think that makes a big difference) hockey arena and hear the crowd chanting “Ragheads go Home” at a Muslim kid playing, I want it stopped fast, firmly and however, Charter of Rights be damned. So why is the printed word all that different?

Originally Posted By Ti-Guy No one really cares what bloggers say. I think this is an attempt at self-glorification, SL.

I obviously disagree with you, but even if you’re right doesn’t that make them a great target …. a few blogs…. who cares…. what do they matter…. see above

The typical answer is “Well we just argue back, show facts, and stuff” but that assumes that a person is actually looking for the facts, and that the rebuttals can be found.

The bar should definitely be set very high, but I don’t think it should be eliminated.

Originally Posted By Ti-GuyNo one really cares what bloggers say. I think this is an attempt at self-glorification, SL.

The issues with regard to people like Steyn relate to the audience they can command with mass media. There’s an issue of scale here. And if you are not worried about that, just wait until the public airwaves are filled to capacity with FoxNews and hate-radio, where “more speech to combat hate speech” will be as effective as spitting against a tsunami.

And so you believe that unelected government officials should be the gate-keepers? What if they don’t care for your views one day?

As to scale, if a blogger from her basement in Saskatchewan can command the audience that SDA gets, I would say that scale is only limited by interest in the message – good or bad interest.

The issues with regard to people like Steyn relate to the audience they can command with mass media. There’s an issue of scale here. And if you are not worried about that, just wait until the public airwaves are filled to capacity with FoxNews and hate-radio, where “more speech to combat hate speech” will be as effective as spitting against a tsunami.

Needless to say, I stand with you and the likes of Ron Good and the Carbuncle who have been saying this for ages.

The answer to hate speech and the bile spewed by idiots like Styen and Levant is MORE speech, not less.

I heartily await some of the SDA commenters here vociferously condemning the use of SLAPP suits by Ezra Levant as much as they do against HRC.

Both are an afront to free speech and expression.

The danger in giving the government the power to control debate is that power corrupts, and as you can see, the road to hell is paved with the good intentions of meddling bureaucrats. As a society, we are developing the technology to provide instant information to the masses, we need to learn to grow up, act like adults and deal with the realities of what that means.

But on the other hand, like any other administrative tribunal, the Human Rights Commissions do two things: a) they perform the grunt-work that no court has the time or resources to undertake, while Commission decisions are properly reviewable by Canadian courts, and b) they are far more accessible to common folks like me than the formal court system.

Can the system be abused? Certainly. What’s called for is better screening mechanisms at the outset. The bar for banning Internet speech should rightly be a high one. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.