It Doesn’t Happen Very Often –
– but every once and a while I find myself in agreement with Conservative Party of Canada policy recommendations, this is one of those times.
The following is up for vote at the CPoC convention this week.
The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I’m afraid that
It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any 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.
(emphasis mine)
– is just too vague for my liking.
Gee, how often to I get to agree on something with the likes of Small Dead Animals, Five Feet of Fury, Blazing Cat Fur, Jay Currie, Girl on the Right, The Daily Bayonet, and the Free Dominion all in one post — do you suppose they’ll make me part of their blog burst?
Thanks SL. And guess what – you already are!
RG
I agree. In fact, censorship bothers me bigtime. It’s a slippery slope I can’t support.
Perhaps you should call yourself ‘CenterStage’
Well, I’m in agreement too and I’ve always stated such when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I just don’t go around trying to make myself a self-aggrandizing martyr over it.
Oh CG, he’s still definitely stageleft.
So I’m hoping that once RightGirl and the other Speechy Warriors are done with the HRC, they spend some time trying to get the laws that support SLAPP suits repealed.
Ya think ole Ezra will be down with that? Cuz that stifles free speech even more than HRCs….
“Oh CG, he’s still definitely stageleft.”
I was just being facetious, Mike.
One battle at a time, guys! I mean, feel free to take up the gauntlet yourselves in the meantime. You may want to start with serial SLAPP-suiters Warman & Kinsella.
We’ll meet you in the fight when we’re done with this one, ok?
RG
RightGirl,
I was referring to serial SLAPP-suiter Ezra Levant. In case you missed it. And I’ve donated to both Mark Francis and Merle Terlesky.
So guess what, if your are siding with Ezra right now, you are already on the wrong side.
Its a hypocrisy thing.
So if it’s just too vague for your liking shouldn’t you be in favour of it being defined better?
@Robert McClelland: Given that I do not believe that Canadians have any special right not to be offended – no.
Do we not already have actual criminal ‘Incitement to Hate’ laws?
Given that I do not believe that Canadians have any special right not to be offended – no.
Incitement to hate is not merely offensive and you know it.
Do we not already have actual criminal ‘Incitement to Hate’ laws?
Yes, but they don’t deal with speech that infringes on our charter rights and it’s very difficult for a person or persons who aren’t influential to initiate criminal proceedings in these types of cases.
Your argument is basically like arguing for weakening the police if you don’t like a particular law.
If your problem is with the HR Act, then the solution is to change the Act, not the Commission.
Robert,
If Ezra Levant publishes the Mohammed cartoons to sell papers and pretend he is doing something heroic that is stupid and transparent – but it is not a hate crime.
- and that is not going to change until Exra Levant starts telling his readership (such as it was) to take action, or discriminate, against the followers of Mohammed.
In my personal opinion Levant is a bigoted, attention grabbing, circus clown (and gods know I do enjoy mocking and ridiculing him for that) – but until he crosses a line a lot more solid than publishing cartoon sketches that some people find offensive what has he done other than show that he is a bigoted, attention grabbing, circus clown that has offended people?
If someone is at the front of a room telling those assembled that homosexuality is a sin, and that all homosexuals are gonna burn in hell that is a stupid opinion – but it is not a hate crime.
– and it’s not going to change from being a stupid opinion to a hate crime until that person tells those assembled to purge the village of gays, or to commit violence on them, or to discriminate against them.
It is my opinion that the fundamentalist preachers and their followers who spout off their literal truth of the bible, anti-gay, anti-same sex marriage, are a bunch of ignorant twits to be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity – should I be charged with a hate crime for holding that opinion, or indeed for mocking and ridiculing them in public at every opportunity?
We have many rights. There is the right to safety of the person, there is the right to freedom of religion, there is the right to mobility, the right to freedom from persecution, the right not to be threatened, and (among many others) the right not to be discriminated against, but, as I have said many times before, there is no Canadian right not to be offended.
However, having said that – what would you suggest to clarify section 13 that is not already covered under the criminal code?
Don’t expect it to happen too often Right Girl. The Conservative Party of Canada (and a large portion of their membership) is a politically and socially authoritarian organization that thinks they have some sort of right to tell me and others what we should and should not do, and how I and others should or should not conduct our lives – and I object to that strenuously, we’d all be better off if they’d simply leave us alone.
I support the deletion of section 13.
Even if I were convinced otherwise, I would still like to remove the phrase
“by reason of the fact that a person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
This bit makes some of us less equal than others before the law – by intention.
For example, Conservatives are regularly mocked and exposed to hatred or contempt and even though they are minority made visible by their lack of knuckle hairs they are not eligible to file a complaint.
SL – that’s very libertarian sounding of you – don’t let word get out!
The fact is, in situations like this we sometimes have to put party politics aside and just deal with the problem. For example, the one MP to start this ball rolling was Liberal Keith Martin. Not a Tory, but a Grit. And our little cabal supported the heck out of his attempts to get rid of the ridiculous S. 13(1) and it’s thought-crime/future-crime persecutions.
When this is all over we can go back to arguing policy, but if we can agree that one thing is wrong and work together to fix it, well, good!
RG
section 13 is unamerican! heh.
can’t wait for warman to fleece shaidle.
KEvron
@RightGirl – Not Libertarian – anarchist…. and it’s no secret.
RightGirl, FWIW, I too am an anarchist – a market anarchist, but an anarchist nonetheless.
That ain’t a secret either.
Meaning, of course, that just because I despise Ezra, think he’s a hypocrite and refuse to support him doesn’t automatically make me a “liberal” as some of your compatriots like to assume.
Wow, is this a Kool-Aid party? I’ll just go on nursing this beer and figuring that the bar is set quite high enough with 13(1) and similar sections in the provincial and territorial acts.
Try to recall that the speech martyrs won all of these complaints. But a handful of vicious homophobes and neo-Nazis did not. A good thing, too–setting the community against minorities in its midst is intolerable. we aren’t talking hurt feelings here. We’re talking about incitement, and ordinary citizens on the receiving end of this divisive hatred should be able to have redress without paying a fortune for a lawyer.
There’s a decent if inconclusive discussion of words/deeds here:
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/11/violence-against-women.html
Dr Dawg.
I’m nursing some green tea with maple syrup. Quite good.
I understand the desire to protect designated groups of people in our society from hatred, but..
I don’t like the idea of a quasi judicial tribunal making judgments based on vague criteria.
I don’t think that it’s fair that the accused must pay their own legal expenses while the complainant is backed by the state. Like a SLAPP suite?
And..
I don’t agree that the best way to discourage divisive behaviour is to have different limits on free speech for designated groups rather than limits that apply to all Canadians.
Any law that lawyers like, I am going to be highly suspicious of.
Lawyers like all the laws!
I seem to have wandered into a nest of anarchists. Virtually. In RL I’m in quite a different nest about now.
I’ll let y’all know how the debate goes.
For those not following his adventures among the Blue Meanies, Dr. Dawg is the Left’s secret emissary at the Tory policy convention this week.
FWIW,
I shall not let the existence or non-existence of Section 13, nor even of the the entire HRC decide how I defend or fight for human rights.
I really could care less.