Glenzilla does an admirable job pointing out the appalling prosecution/investigation of Ezra Levant in Canada for what can only be described as thought crimes, and makes several very important points:
Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the most dangerous step a society can take — though it is that — it’s also the most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure. Worse, it converts its advocates into martyrs — as one sees from the hero-worship now surrounding people like Levant and Steyn, who now become self-glorifying symbols of individual liberty rather than what they are: hateful purveyors of a bitter, destructive, authoritarian ideology.
There are numerous ways to combat advocacy of rancid ideas. Using the power of the Government to force people to “justify” their opinions to government tribunals and face punishment for them is, by far, the most malevolent — far more dangerous than the expression of any particular idea could ever be.
***Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless presidential powers they’re cheering on will only be wielded by political leaders they like, many hate speech proponents convince themselves that such laws will only be used to punish speech they dislike. That is never how tyrannical government power works.
Amusingly enough, Ezra Levant has numerous supporters here in the United States. Most notably in the blogosphere is Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs, where you can all of the videos. Additionally, STOP THE ACLU rallies to Levant’s defense.
I say amusing, because if there is one organization in the United States who would LEAP unflinchingly to Ezra Levant’s defense, it would be the ACLU. And we know how LGF and STOPTHEACLU feel about that organization. Even when they are right about an issue (in this case, the bullshit Levant is being subjected to), they are still so horribly wrong.
ThymeZone
As a card-carrying ACLU guy myself (yes, actual card right here in my wallet) …. kudos for saying so.
ACLU is your best defense against government attacks on our freedoms. Sign up and send money.
Tsulagi
The Party of Bush, where intelligence is a bug, not a feature. And they squash that bug on a daily basis.
gypsy howell
Me too. Just being able to say I’m a “card carrying member of the A-C-L-fucking_U” is worth the annual donation. I’m surprised I can still get through airport security though.
myiq2xu
Andrew Shepard (Michael Douglas) in The American President
dslak
The mantra of conservatives who see their own subjected to violations of civil liberties is “Freedom for me, but not for thee.” They can consistently decry the use and abuse of hate crimes legislation because, for them, it’s never about the law: It’s about who it’s being applied to.
For further reference: See the case of Scooter Libby.
jrg
Glenn Greenwald is correct (as usual). Laws that limit speech will always cause more problems than they solve.
As far as our friends to the right here in America, they miss the point entirely… But then again, no one is asking them to tolerate someone else’s dissent. Wankers.
Napoleon
Semi on topic, does anyone know why Steyn (who is mentioned by Glenn) is no longer with the Atlantic? My subscription is up in a few months and though there are people who write for it I really like, such as James Fallows, there are others, perhaps numbering more then those I like, that it make me sick thinking I could be advancing their view point by resubscribing, like Meg M. and at times Sully. Anyways, Steyn was the worst until he disappeared from their masthead a few months ago.
On point, I have always thought that most of or nearly all of the rights complains about the left were BS or were about people or ideas that have zero chance of going anywhere or influencing anyone (like Ward Churchill) while all of the rights whacked out ideas are treated seriously and/or have champions at the highest levels of government, but the one area that from time to time in my life the left has seriously veered toward true stupidness is thought police type stuff. Nothing like what Canada apparently does (Glenn has a few times in the past commented on the Canadian law and it sounds like something that could never past constitutional muster) but still uncomfortably close to holding people accountable for what they think and say and not what they do.
myiq2xu
Pundits should be accountable for what they say, but not by law. They should be held accountable by editors, publishers and other executives of news organizations that wish to be considered “respectable” and “serious.”
When hacks and propagandists like Kristol, Matthews, Steyn and others of that ilk are not held accountable, we all suffer because political discourse is degraded.
louisms
I carry the card too. I can think of no other organization so commonly reviled by those very people whose freedoms it safeguards. In this relentlessly partisan society, the ACLU stands as a model for an adherence to principle over prejudice, so it inevitably pisses people off.
Jake
A test of stupidity: Will anyone from STOPTHEACLU complain that the organization isn’t helping Levant?
Ted
But it doesn’t, in their view. They demand the ‘freedom’ to define yours and everyone’s freedom how they want to. The ACLU works to deny them that. It takes away their freedom!
Bob In Pacifica
myiq2xu, pundits are held accountable. That is, their bank accounts fill up as they pander what their handlers want pandered. Big fat accounts.
Regarding the fellow in Canada, yes, it’s punishing thought crimes, or even punishing presumed thought crimes, or perhaps even another step or two between thought and substance. This is the nature of the new world before us. As our conversations, emails and other means of expression are no longer concealed from government, the only frontier left for government to exploit is our thoughts. Wrong-thinking will be punished. Until your dreams can be read there is torture to make you comply.
Meanwhile, how ’bout those Pats?
mightygodking
The Levant case is mostly viewed the same here in Canada. It’s a bunch of students throwing a hissy.
Brachiator
Of course, we have a mild version of this with the FCC’s irrational but almost semi-automatic “indeceny” fines, and increasing attempts to dictate media content because they are protecting children.
And Greenwald is right on point here when he writes, “Using the power of the Government to force people to “justify” their opinions to government tribunals and face punishment for them is, by far, the most malevolent — far more dangerous than the expression of any particular idea could ever be.”
The idea that anyone should be accountable to the government for his or her ideas is reprehensible.
Good point, although sometimes both American conservatives and American liberals appear to yearn for something similar to Canadian laws when it comes to “protecting society.” For example, Canada has in the past sought to ban some type of pornography because the depictions and thoughts harmed women, even though the material was ordered by some feminist book shops. Canadian media coverage of the notorious Paul Bernardo murder trial was restricted, in part in order to “protect” the public.
Apparently for some, the nebulous idea of “human rights” trumps any notion of individual liberty, just as for some the idea of protecting society or the family trumps an individual’s right to that old fashioned, idealist stuff — the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
lutton
makes me want to go rent “Brazil” again
rawshark
I would argue with the idea that Bush followers think. Faranheit 451 has come true. We’ve stopped reading so we’ve stopped thinking and processing information. You can’t get news from tv or radio it comes too fast. Before you can process what you heard 3 more thoughts hit you. Flashing lights and loud noises have replaced rational thought. Bush followers don’t think the powers will only be wielded by people they like unless the thought was put to them. And it hasn’t because it would raise a doubt, since I’m on the 451 theme I’ll finish with the money quote,
grumpy realist
I’m slightly on the other side, but partly because I get pissed at watching pundits like Bill Kristol get everything wrong for years on end and never get held account for it.
Which is why I WOULD have something like a “timeout for N years” for any pundit who continually gets things consistently wrong.
And for people who want to pass themselves off as “scholars” such as the Doughy Pantload and his piece of “Liberal Facism” crap, I’d say: put up or shut up. Defend it as a work of scholarship and show you know exactly what scholarship is.
“Freedom of speech” for an individual does not mean a thesis committee can’t fail a badly done defense.
There’s something like Gresham’s Law “Bad Money Drives Out Good Money” when it comes to intellectual pursuits as well, and if we don’t have some sort of policing, all of the currency will end up debased.
myiq2xu
Ever notice that nobody ever wants the government to pass a law to stop speech they approve of?
It’s probably just a coinky-dink.
John Spragge
Point of order: the courts restricted the coverage of the Bernardo trial to protect the integrity of the judicial process (i.e. prevent publicity from unduly influencing the jury). Afterward, they prevented the publication of any part of the videos Barnardo and Holmulka made in order to protect the privacy of the victims.
Napoleon
I am probably the only other person here that remembers that case. I was (and still am) living in Cleveland when it was going on and, I am not making this up, the local TV stations (whose signals carry to Canada apparently) didn’t run the story during the black out because of Canadian law. I was literally subject to a blackout due to Canadian law. Didn’t the Canadians seize a bunch of papers from Buffalo when they crossed the border?
To tell you the truth, the one time when I can see a government blocking publication of something is in this kind of case, where it may prejudice a trial, so long as the block expires after the case (its not like the press was not permitted to print whatever it wanted once the trial was done).
By the way, I “lucked out” and just happened to pass in to Canada at Niagara on my way to east of Toronto shortly after a judgment came back (it was the beginning of a Labor/Labour day weekend that I was going to spend in Canada) and had flipped the radio to Toronto to pick up traffic reports to figure out the best way to pass though and it was wall to wall coverage about the conviction. The Toronto Star must have had 30 pages on the story the next day, literally everything they had saved to print during the entire matter. Holy cow, was he and his wife deviants.
If I remember correctly the idiot was caught in part because he returned some cement for a refund that was left over when he got rid of one of the bodies by putting it in cement (or something similar). He had bought the cement using cash so they never would have traced it to him, but when he returned what was left he had to fill out a form and give his name.
Brachiator
I’m with you on this grumpy. I finally threw up my hands with respect to pundits when William Safire wrote a column proclaiming that he only had to put down his opinions, and that he didn’t have any particular need to be right.
Pundits are often little more than the political equivalent of psychics or the astrology column of your newspaper. For amusement purposes only. There are psychics who predict a lot of stuff at the beginning of the year, and even when they are shown to have been spectacularly incorrect, they just keep on predicting (sometimes even claiming that their failures were successes), and people keep on reading them.
There are times when I favor some kind of “truth in punditry” rule, in which columnists, and bloggers, are forced to face up to their more spectacular misses. And the most egregious offenders maybe should be forced to sit on the sidelines for a while. Or maybe be busted back to reporter status, and forced to produce some actual news.
Napoleon
Well I guess John Spragge heard of it also. My understanding of why coverage was restricted is the same as his. Personally I actually think that is superior to our system, so long as it is limited. For anyone not familiar with the case the videos were, more or less, of the killings.
Muslims Against Sharia
Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let’s consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This “investigation” will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals’ claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and radicalize moderate Muslims. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
Jim Treacher
I’m with John: No matter what you think about government intrusion on free speech, the important thing is that conservatives are always wrong.
John Cole
I’m with Jim. What is really important when the GOP and the LGF/Stoptheaclu crowd has fucked up everything they have touched is distorting what John Cole says.
Willem van Oranje
I’m no legal scholar but I want to point out one thing. Glen has on several occasions compared the US legal system based on Common Law with the European legal system based on Codified Civil Law. I don’t know about Canada. As an Anglo-Saxon country it is probably based on Common Law as well but it might have become more mixed now, both legal systems tend to incorporate certain elements from each other.
Both legal system have a couple of fundamental differences though and as a consequence, this is reflected in legislation. In the US, jurisprudence is basic to the law; in Europe it isn’t. Stare decisis and habeas corpus are basic concepts in Common Law but are meaningless in European Civil Law. “Legislating from the bench” is impossible in Europe.
When comparing European Hate Speech laws with the situation in the US, you are comparing apples to oranges. It might well be that comparing Canadian Hate Speech Laws with the judicial practice in the US is comparing apples with oranges as well.
In the US, isn’t their case law where you are prohibited from slandering, defaming, libel, or harassin someone else? These are examples of limiting the freedom of speech. Behaviour, including speech, which has the intent to do harm to life, limbs or private property; to disturb the peace; or threaten someone is also prohibited I think.
Both in Canada and in Europe, the basic premise of the law is that any individual has the freedom of expression, of association, and freedom of the press. Hate speech laws are subordinate to that law.
Another one is that any individual has a right to feel secure in life, limbs and property. Sometimes, those freedoms and those rights clash. Any legal system tries to define the extremely thin line between both of them. Your freedom and your rights ends where my freedom and rights begins.
There are hundreds of ways that lead to Rome. You do it your way, Europe has it own ways. You are probably glad to have your own peculiar legal and judicial system, we in Europe are glad to have our own legal and judicial systems. It’s an illusion to think there is one system that is perfect (let alone functions perfectly), and absolutely no system is safe from abuse. Authoritarians and tyrants are known for corrupting those systems and for disregarding the law to enhance their goal.
I’m sure everybody is going to throw the “Holocaust Denial” argument in my face. I want to point out that the Holocaust took place in Europe and that that fact is essential in understanding why several countries have outlawed its denial and/or the specific use of Nazi-parafernalia. Especially minorities in Europe had been betrayed by their governments. These governments had failed to guarantee their right to feel secure in life, limbs and property. In order to restore trust in government, it was essential that governments secured that right very explicitely, and that took precedence over freedom of expression. For now. In that sense, it can be compared with a restoration-act or affirmative-action laws. I hope we will be able to abolish that particular law soon though. Because I fully agree that such laws can and will have an adverse effect.
On several occasions, especially by rightwingers, I have seen accusations that you can be convicted for thought crimes in Europe. That’s rubbish. When studying those examples, you will always find that there was one or more specific threat that accompanied a particular speech or action.
Jim Treacher
Oh, okay, you aren’t just using this as another excuse to bash people you don’t like. My mistake.
Chuck Butcher
Ah yes, the 1st must be defended, like or detest the speech. Funny how the other numbers in the BOR get considerably less enthusiasm. I am reminded of the quote regarding giving up liberty for security.
The US Constitution and BOR were designed as dangerous documents – that is exactly why they were a NEW developement. Having rights that precede and preempt the government is a fucking dangerous idea and dangerous in practice. Get over it and get on with it. Disarming the citizenry benefits only one group, authoritarian elites. The same is true right down the line.
John Cole
No. If I wanted to just trash them I would not have bothered linking the Greenwald post. I would have just linked “STOPTHEACLU” and let their post speak for itself.
BTW- I suppose you go to EVERY post at LGF and write the same thing- “Oh, okay, you aren’t just using this as another excuse to bash people you don’t like.”
Jim Treacher
No, because I don’t read LGF as often as I read Balloon Juice. Sorry about that.
Krista
I agree that it’s an absolutely ridiculous law. I don’t think it has any teeth, however. To my knowledge (and correct me if I’m wrong), nobody has ever served time under it. Even Levant basically went into the meeting, told them he wasn’t going to retract a damn thing and re-published the cartoon today.
My guess is that it’s going to be dismissed. The whole damn thing has just been such a silly waste of time and money.
As far as the Bernardo/Holmolka trial goes, though — part of me wishes they hadn’t had the media blackout. Holmolka cut a deal, and let me tell you, if the public had fully known her role in the murders (believe me, she was just as sick as Bernardo was, if not more so), no deal would have been cut — the public pressure to lock her away forever would have been overwhelming. So now, that psychopathic, murderous bitch is sunning her ass in the West Indies. A frigging sham of justice, that’s what that case was.
Jim Treacher
“To my knowledge (and correct me if I’m wrong), nobody has ever served time under it.”
The process is the punishment.
Jake
I know squat about Canadian law, but where does public opinion normally enter into sentencing?
Yes, I am snarking on you a little bit.
Krista
No, I know you’re snarking on me. And I’m probably just engaging in some wishful thinking. But a lot of the public was royally pissed that plea bargain was struck behind the scenes, and that she never actually faced a jury — a jury who, once having seen those tapes, would have surely locked her away for good.
Paul L.
You really think so?
ACLU Endorses Bill To Supress Free Speech Of Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers
The ACLU backtracked on this after this became public when they could not silent the board members who protested.
Krista
I can’t see how false advertising would be protected under free speech laws — besides, Stop the ACLU is not exactly what you’d call an impartial news source now, is it?
Robert McClelland
Glenzilla does an admirable job pointing out the appalling prosecution/investigation of Ezra Levant in Canada for what can only be described as thought crimes
Greenwald is just as ignorant about Canada as every other American. He’s buying, hook, link and sinker, the bullshit being peddled by the right whingers.
So here’s the real story of what is going on.
A Canadian citizen filed a complaint against Ezra Levant. His claim is that Levant violated his human rights as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Alberta Human Rights Commission–who are acting as nothing more than an arbitrator in this dispute between two Canadian citizens–has done nothing more than ask Lerant for his side of the story.
That’s as far as this has gone. Nobody is being prosecuted for “thought crimes” nor is the government working to censor Levant.
Now stop sniffing the rightwing bullshit.
Paul L.
Stop fake clinics from false advertising
Planned Parenthood wants to get rid of the label “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (CPCs).
How is it false advertising? They offer assistance and options to woman with unplanned pregnancies. But if that does not include abortion, it is false advertising.
I’m sure that Planned Parenthood offers other options than abortion.
Jim Treacher
Which is none of their business.
Chuck Butcher
I don’t know British or Canadian law, but it seems that they’ve always been pretty strong on libel and slander. How a publication could violate Human Rights outside libel or slander is a bit beyond me. If the ones p-o’ing the Muslims hadn’t been so poorly executed I’d have published one just to make the point of f-off. But then I can be an equal opportunity offender, since I’ve called Democratic votes for a couple BushCo measures treason as a violation of their oath – and named them.
Claiming a service or product not supplied to get people in the door is an FCC matter. It is called “bait and switch” and is prohibited, whether it’s about abortion or furniture. I provide construction services, what I offer in my advertising had better be true or I’m in several jambs.
Robert McClelland
Which is none of their business.
Really? Then tell me, Jim. How should Mr. Soharwardy (the complainent) and Mr. Levant resolve this dispute? Should they meet up somewhere and duke it out? Maybe that’s how disputes are resolved in America, but in Canada we believe in resolving our disputes in a civilized manner. And it’s the job of the Human Rights Commissions in Canada to act as the arbitrator in cases where one citizen complains that another has violated their human rights.
Perhaps you also believe Jim, that the role of arbitrator would be better off handled by the private sector. Wal-Mart for instance could open up a little kiosk to hear human rights complaints.
Jim Treacher
Really.
For the purposes of argument, let’s say there really is a dispute to resolve in the first place, other than a thin-skinned man requiring a balm for his bruised ego because someone said something he didn’t like about his religion. I’d say that once Mr. Soharwardy has expressed his opinion that Mr. Levant is a big poopie-head for disrespecting Mohammed, that’s pretty much the end of it. He’s free to dislike Mr. Levant, tell everyone he knows what an awful person Mr. Levant is, call up radio talk shows, leave blog comments, gripe to random passersby on the street, etc. You might have heard of it: Free speech. Bringing in some sort of “human rights commission” to force the bad man to say he’s sorry is infantile.
I believe that in cases where someone has expressed an opinion, there’s no need for an arbitrator at all.
Jim Treacher
Or, if that’s too tricky for you, how about this: Nobody has the human right to go through life without being offended.
Robert McClelland
Bringing in some sort of “human rights commission” to force the bad man to say he’s sorry is infantile.
Yes it is. Which is why it’s guaranteed that the Alberta Human Rights Commission will determine that the complaint has no merit. But regardless of that, the Alberta HRC is obligated to investigate the complaint; which is all that they’ve done.
Now maybe in America you do things different. Maybe in America for instance, if you call the police to report that you’ve been robbed the desk clerk who takes your call has the authority to simply dismiss your complaint as not being valid and hang up on you without investing it. Here in Canada however, we believe that complaints should be investigated before a decision is made on its validity. And that is all that has happened in this case. The Alberta HRC has merely conducted an investigation to determine if the complaint is valid.
Jim Treacher
That’s the problem.
So you’re equating “He was mean to me!” with armed robbery?
Which is a silly thing to do, once they’ve read it.
Jim Treacher
http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf
Robert McClelland
So you’re equating “He was mean to me!” with armed robbery?
No, I’m merely pointing out that in any civilized society there is a process to be followed in matters such as this. Not following these processes leads to anarchy and chaos.
Think about it. Imagine if you felt that someone had libelled you but when you filed the lawsuit the court clerk simply decided you had no case and tossed your paperwork into the shredder.
I can keep giving you examples of the world you’re endorsing.
Jim Treacher
Yes: Debate. Free speech. Not government intervention.
There was no libel here. If there had been libel, he would have filed a libel suit. What inept analogy will you try next?
I hope so, they’re bizarrely entertaining.
p.a.
I remember the headline from an old Onion article: ‘ACLU defends right of Nazi party to burn down ACLU headquarters.’
Jim Treacher
The libel analogy is particularly inapt, because there are legal penalties for filing nuisance libel lawsuits. Not so here.
Laertes
I hadn’t heard about the case. As I browsed this comment thread, I was idly wondering how it was that the troglodytes at LGF somehow landed on the correct side of an issue…
Treacher: “…Mr. Levant is a big poopie-head for disrespecting Mohammed”
And the light is shed.
If the Caliphate were to invade Hell, the LGFtards would at least make a favorable reference to the devil in a bitch thread.
Beej
I had one of those “D’oh” moments back in Constitutional Law when my law professor made a statement to the effect that the 1st Amendment was put there precisely to protect speech that some or all of the citizenry hate and despise. After all, if it is something most or all have no problem with, who needs the 1st Amendment?
Napoleon
Robert McClelland is clearly right here. Full disclosure, I am an attorney, although I don’t do any litigation any more. Unless arbirtators and judges have developed a sixth sense that we don’t have here in the US, they need to have both parties make their cases before making a decision (if Canadian agencies are like the US version there is no dismissal for failure to state a claim based soley on the complaint).
Glenn Greenwald should know better
Napoleon
PS, people ask me often “can you sue for that” or “can I get sued for that” and my stock answer is “sure, you can sue for anything, but that is not to say you won’t get kicked out of court”.
People should save the outrage for when the commission comes back with a decision.
Jim Treacher
The outrage is that some sort of commission is even making a decision in such a matter. It’s not the government’s business. Oh, but I forgot, you’re a lawyer…
Napoleon
So the complaint lands on the commissions desk in the parallel universe you live in and it magically disappears because, well just because it shouldn’t have been there in the first place so majically it disappears, but there is no need for, you know, a human to pick it up and make a determination because, well just because they shouldn’t be making a determination and besides, it will just magically dissappear because it didn’t belong there in the first place. I guess that is the magical legal pony at work in that legal system.
Meanwhile hear in the real world someone has to pick it up and make a determination on what they should do with it and governement commissions (like worker’s comp commissions and the like) do that routinely by then having both parties make what amounts to an informal presitation (no stenographer, maybe a tape recording) and then they make a determination.
Jim Treacher
No, it appears on whichever functionary’s desk it lands on, she reads it, and she says, “Well, that’s pretty silly.” Although after reading the complaint, I guess you don’t think so.
Jim Treacher
By the way, thanks for that look into the legal mind. Two people can’t just disagree on how wonderful a historical religious figure is. It must go to arbitration.
Napoleon
Except if you had bothered to read what I have said you would have seen that I said
So she likely simply could not simply toss it at that point (and even if she could she would have to read it in such a way that if under any reading of the complaint it could arguably state a claim it would go forward). She must allow both people come in and make their case NO MATTER HOW SILLY THE CASE MAY BE.
Why are these handled this way? Very simply to keep attornies out of it. If they suddenly started applying rules of dismissal and evidence that apply in, say, US District Court, then everyone would have to get attorneys to protect themselves so that suddenly someone like Levant wouldn’t only be out an afternoon, some stamps and copy paper but some serious jack to retain an attorney.
Jim Treacher
THAT’S THE POINT.
But you know what, you’re right. It’s only a preliminary hearing. The grievance police are only encroaching on free speech a little bit. “We’d just like to ask you a few questions. What were your motives when you exercised your right to free speech? Failure to comply will be noted and copies kept on file.” Yes, things are much more orderly in the real world you live in. I’m emigrating. I just bought a ticket and my bags are packed. If I’m offended by something I read in my happy new home, the government will take care of me.
pharniel
essentially the point is that the correct response in a free society is to start a newsletter or blog talking about how desipcable the person who wrote the hatefullness is and address thier points.
not to go running to mommy government to keep the bad thougths away.
ImJohnGalt
I will say as a Canadian (well, dual American/Canadian) citizen, that the HRC is a severely disfunctional body. Some of their rulings defy reason.
That said, Jim, I’m not sure why you think a “functionary” ought to be able to determine what the tribunal hears. What if you had an anti-semitic “functionary” who arbitrarily determined there was no validity to a claim that there was a teacher teaching to third-graders that the holocaust didn’t happen? Just based on the filing of the teacher?
There is a process, it is followed, and a ruling is made. I won’t argue that the rulings are sometimes egregious, but the process (much like the legal process) must be respected, for society to work. That Canadian processes are not necessarily the same as American ones in no way changes this. But castigating them for hearing it is like castigating a grand jury.
Also, I was fine with the Homolka/Bernardo ban. It is in *no* way edifying to anyone but the most prurient individuals to know the details about how despicable human beings can be. I feel about people who hang on every word of those types of stories the same way I feel about people who read Perez Hilton. Read a book, morons.
ImJohnGalt
Er…dysfunctional, sorry.
Jim Treacher
Why would that be the business of some “human rights council”?
Jim Treacher
I mean, shouldn’t the parents be appealing to the school to do something?
ImJohnGalt
Assume the school fired the teacher. The teacher could then appeal to the Human Rights Commission for reinstatement. The HRC would be obliged to hear the case.
That’s how it works here. This is not America.
Jim Treacher
You got that right.
ImJohnGalt
Hope this isn’t too much, but I thought it was a reasonable response from Canuckistan Bob, in Greenwald’s comments:
Jim Treacher
Well, I got as far as:
They do now, apparently.
Patisan
According to the Globe and Mail, the complaint has gone forward not because of claims hurt feelings or insults, but substative losses caused by Mr.Levant deliberately fostering a climate of hate resulting in death threats against Muslims and increased security costs for the Mosques and the community as a whole.
Jim Treacher
Death threats, right. Climate of hate. Because of some cartoons.
Has anybody checked out his claim that the last house of worship to be attacked in Edmonton was his own synagogue? Even if it’s true, ahh, it probably doesn’t really mean anything.
ImJohnGalt
Jim, my understanding is that the complaint was not for publishing cartoons, but rather because someone wrote on The Western Standard’s website, and was defended by Levant:
Story here
At least let’s be on the same page about what we’re outraged at, can we at least do that?
Now, I’ll happily agree that Levant should not be responsible for what is written by his blog commenters, but when told about a possible violation of Canada’s hate crime laws, he might have taken it down.
Jim Treacher
Or he might not have. Either way, it’s not the government’s business. Reading that story, apparently the magazine’s apology wasn’t enough for Mr. Soharwardy. Right out of the grievancemonger’s playbook.
So what results has this climate of hate produced? Besides rude blog comments. Anyone can claim to feel threatened, but has anything Levant published incited any violence? Any credible threats, even?
Patisan
Actually Jim, it is the Government’s business.
Your country was founded on the ideals of Life, Liberty and Happiness, ours was founded on Peace, Order and Good Government.
Notice that word, Order.
Notice the absence of the word, Liberty.
The Canadian Charter of Human Rights, protects some individuals against certain violations of their Human Rights.
Each Province has established a Human Rights Commission to hear and investigate complaints of alleged violations of Human Rights. The have the ability to award punitive damages arising from valid claims, ranging from $100 to $10,000.
Upon recieving a complaint, they must investigate. The investigation starts with informal volentary hearings in which they first hear the plaintiff’s side of the story, then the accused.
It is completely up to the accused if they want to attend a hearing and tell their side of the story. The HRC has no power to compell a witness to appear.
Levine chose to film the preliminary hearing and grandstand. Quell suprise! No differnt than choosing to run long after the tempest, the Danish Cartoons, in the vain hope that their inflammatory nature would get his base readership back and save his paper.
If the HRC finds that there are legitimate grounds for the complaint, they can arrage mediation in which both sides reach a mutually agreeable decision, or they can compell a finding.
This is what we do in Canada, rather than having private lawyers file suits, torts and cease and desist orders and bakrupting someone into silence.
In Canada, we don’t have Free Speech. We have Free Speech with consequences.
In the US, you have Free Speech with Qualifications.
Personally, I would rather appear before a bureaucrat, at the time and place of my own convenience, to explain my side of the story, than be tasered and dragged out of a public forum, arrested, charged, held in detention, post a large bail, only to have all the charges later dropped for an expression of free speech.
“So what results has this climate of hate produced? Besides rude blog comments. Anyone can claim to feel threatened, but has anything Levant published incited any violence? Any credible threats, even?”
We will find that out when the HRC releases its findings.
BTW, Alberta is “our” Texas.
Jim Treacher
Ve must haff ORDER! Well, good luck with that.
Partisan
Well Jim, it seems to work just fine up here.
We can wear a T-shirt to a mall, museum or public space with out
getting arrested.
We can go to a public meeting, and heckle a politician to our hearts
content with out getting tasered and arrested on bogus charges.
We can protest publically in front of a venue, rather than being
confined in cages 1000 yards away in a so called Free Speech Zone.
We can hang protest signs off Highway overpasses, put them on our lawns
or fly the flag upside down if we choose so, with out fear of arrest.