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.

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.

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.

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

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.

can’t wait for warman to fleece shaidle.

KEvron

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

“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.

Originally Posted By RightGirlThanks SL. And guess what – you already are!

RG

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?

If your problem is with the HR Act, then the solution is to change the Act, not the Commission.

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.