Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Panal with John Robson and Peter Stockland
Dr. Robson is a columnist with the Ottawa Citizen, a broadcaster with News Talk Radio 580 CFRA in Ottawa, an Invited Professor at the University of Ottawa and a policy analyst with Breakout Educational Network.
Mr. Stockland is Executive Director, Centre for Cultural Renewal. Formerly, Stockland was a Vice President of Readers’ Digest Magazines Canada Ltd., editor-in-chief of The Gazette in Montreal, editorial page editor of the Calgary Herald and has worked as a journalist throughout Canada during his 30-year career in the media.
Conformity in the name of Diversity:
Dr Robson starts:
There is a concern that our rights are being eroded at the same time that we are obsessed with human rights. While we have the Canadian Charter, we are reading Shakedown.
Ezra Levant says that the HRC were a beautiful idea that failed. My job is to take issue with this statement.
It was impossible for them to succeed because they were founded on a faulty idea of how you secure rights.
In the West we have had, throughout our history, a good idea of what rights are.
The Charter did three things it should not have done. These issues need to be looked at separately because often we tangle them up.
One: It tried to establish popular sovereignty as opposed to Parliamentary sovereignty. They were dealing with the question, can you have rights in the long terms without a constitution starting We the People? However the end result was that neither ended up being sovereign.
Two: We got rights from above in a glowing and abstract way. It sounds better than lots of fiddly little details but ultimately is not a good idea.
Three: It promised more than there was and things that could not be given. It promised human satisfaction, self esteem, and things that may not even be possible this side of the grave, and are certainly not given by the government.
When he was young he didn't like the notwithstanding clause but as he got older he understood. Albert Venn Dicey in Law of the Constitution wrote about that with us freedom of the person is not a special privilege but the outcome of the ordinarily law of the land enforced by the Courts. This sounds weaker than the American style of we the people. However, the English have a long history of being very free.
What Venn Dicey says about rights is that they do not float down in a sweet smelling cloud but rise from specific laws that have specific remedies to prevent people from doing specific wrongs.
The proclamation in a constitution or charter of the right to personal freedom or indeed of any other right gives of itself but slight security that the right has more than a nominal existence. Students who wish to know how far the right to freedom of the person is in reality part of the law of the constitution must consider both what is the meaning of the right and, a matter of even more consequence, what are the legal means by which it's exercise is secured. (Rough quote from Dicey)
We can gather here not because of the constitution but because we have specific laws and remedies if someone tries to prevent us.
When we have procedural protections freedom wells up from below.
What the law needs to do in order to secure personal liberty is the same in popular and parliamentary sovereignty.
English law does not grant freedom for political meetings, or even concerts, but it provides individual rights for the people that might attend such meetings.
There is an infamous American ruling that at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence. Some would say that we cannot, existence has been defined by the Almighty and we can either bow to it or break ourselves upon it. Others would agree with this ruling and still believe in freedom of speech.
We cannot enforce this in law. We cannot enforce in law everyone's idea of their own reality.
The American first amendment is a bunch of don'ts and nots. Congress shall not do so and so, or make this kind of law.
The Magna Carta says there are specific acts the state cannot do and specific remedies if they violate that.
The Charter says we have the right to freedom from unreasonable search or seizure but unlike the American has no specific don'ts or remedies.
The Charter says government is committed to promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians. How can you sue with this? Who can you charge if the government fails? You could word it in such a way such that it would be enforceable. Such as Government shall respect contracts. Etc. but not like this.
People say that the Soviet Constitution gave rights and yet look what happened. However the Soviet Constitution said that the safety of the revolution is of the highest importance. Therefore they could do whatever they wanted.
The Charter gave us metaphysical madness, botched popular sovereignty, and makes promises it can't deliver on.
People make the argument of necessity, but necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. Is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves as William Pitt said.
We have been deprived of our procedural rights.
Peter Stockland speaks next:
He wants to give a practical case study.
In Montreal a pro-life conference was disrupted by a bunch of pro-choice activists who tried to prevent it from proceeding. He chose this example because the whole thing is available on youtube in 19 parts.
At the beginning of the conference someone gets up to introduce the speaker. Before she even finishes four people start banging on the table and shouting slogans. Over time the number of protesters grows to twenty.
After a time the police arrived but order was not restored. Eventually in a Kafkaesque moment, the pro-life club had their membership suspended because someone complained about it. The victims were further victimized.
At the time the protesters got up and started singing nursery rhymes. They tried to trivialize the conference.
It was chilling to think that these were all post-charter kids. They grew up in a Canada where government enforces the primacy of the subjective, HR Commissions, the Charter, etc.
This shows how attitudes have shifted from the classical attitude of rights.
We should do an analysis of different event disruptions. If you did such an analysis of disruptions across the country I think you would find reoccurring words that would give you the key to the mindset behind such actions.
This shift in attitudes takes the form of a series of mantras. The primary one is that code must triumph civilized behaviour. The codes, the law, themselves are the remedy. The codes permit them to disrupt these meetings. The mantra is that “This is Not a Debate”. Organizers of the pro-life conference offered to to host a debate but pro-choicers didn't bring someone forward. When protesters were reminded of this they said that it was not a debate. They were not there to debate. It was like they owned the conference.
This is not a continuation of the political correctness debates of the 90s. That was mostly about prissiness, what you can say. This is about I don't want to hear what you have to say and I don't have to go away from where you are saying it.
At one point we see a girl handing out the McGill equity code. She is standing in front of a person trying to speak. She is saying I have a right to be here and disrupt you because I have the code in my hand.
Equity is no longer each to his own in a fair way, it is existential and cannot be violated.
Someone said that the conference was in violation of the Charter, McGill equity policy, and “Me”. The Me is the most important. The codes don't exist to police the interaction between views. They are there to protect ME from harassment even when she had to seek out the harassment.
A fellow says we have a right to a hate speech free campus. It is about me. I am protected from hate speech, which is speech I hate. If I hate it it must spread hate and thus must be hate speech.
These are not babies, they are in their 20s.
What is importnat in that definition of hate speech is that they assume they own the space. Hate speech has no place on OUR campus. It is not YOUR campus too. I am denying you the right to exist here, not just to speak. It establishes a proprietary relationship.
Click on part 8 of the Youtube if you cannot watch all 19. This is when a policeman shows up.
It illustrates the relationship that this Post-Charter generation has to authority. Authority is to be argued with, cajoled. One protestors asks a policeman do you want the media to see you dragging students out of the classroom? Police says yes, if I have to.
They ignore the policeman because code trumps law.
These codes exist to enforce the social orthodoxies of the post-charter world. The young people are not rebels, they are safeguarding their orthodoxy.
Freedom of speech is about the ability to call the orthodoxy into the public square, challenge it and make it defend itself.
This freedom of speech is seen as just something to be silenced.
Q1 Protestors from Greenpeace have taken over Parliament costing perhaps thousands, at another event the immigration minister was invited by a church group and experienced the same thing. Isn't this the same thing as happened when we were young in the 60s? Perhaps it is our chickens coming home to roost.
A1 No, this is the opposite. There was at that time at least an attempt at intellectual engagement, but not now. There is also the issue that what was dangerous in opposition is more so in power.
Q2 The authorities in McGill were at a loss how to deal with this. What can they do?
A2 Those protesters were very lucky that pro-lifers are very civil. They can't do that everywhere. In his hometown if people did that at a union meeting they wouldn't walk home.
We must take back intellectual space that has been taken from us. Most people don't like disorder. We need to bring back civil discourse.
Q3 Once there was a concept of a “big law” that came from beyond the statutes. We have abandoned that. The British system is based on common law, unwritten, the court is discovering the rules of truly just behaviour, God's law. Also, disruptions of private meetings are one thing but public government meetings are different. When government people impose agendas they are in breach of the public trust and disruptions are completely in order.
A3 Acting in that way to start civil disobedience (government meeting) is quite different from actions to impose obedience. If we are engaged in civil disobedience then we accept the punishment. These young people don't see it that way.
(Somewhat dissenting view) Unless we see the system as completely illegitimate, disrupting the process of law is very serious and should be discouraged.
Q4 What seems to be growing up is social Darwinism.
A4 No question about it.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: Suppressing Dissent
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Gerry Nicholls is former VP National Citizens Coalition (NCC) and Editor of Libertas Post. As a senior executive with the NCC, Canada’s largest organization for the defence of economic and political freedoms, he was the chief creative force behind the organization’s communication campaigns.
Freedom of speech is very important.
His legal theory is never get in trouble with the law. He is a very law abiding citizen
On Nov 28, 2001 RCMP officer came to his office to charge the NCC with a crime. They said that they had violated the election gag law. This is a bad and dangerous law which free speechers should oppose.
This law puts limits on how much money citizens or organizations can spend on political advertising during elections. It gives politicians a monopoly on election debates. We were always opposed to it because if we don't have free speech in elections we don't have free elections.
The NCC has gone to court multiple times and succeeded in getting it declared unconstitutional. Stephen Harper was the President of NCC and was so opposed to this law that he personally brought a challenge to the government about the matter.
TheNCC wanted to win this debate in the court of public opinion as well as in the courts so they ran a series of ads in Oct 2000, to coincide with their court dates. By coincidence, there was a federal election at the same time. This posed a dilemma.
The law is very vague. Any ad that takes a stand supporting or opposing a political party or candidate or taking a stand on an issue that is connected to a party falls under this legislation. The NCC decided that this wasn't an issue that was connected to a party. They even took it to a Constitutional lawyer who gave it the green light.
As it happened, a Liberal saw the ad and turned it in to Elections Canada. However it took them over a year to lay charges against the NCC. He suggests that this might have been to embarrass Harper on the eve of running for leadership of the Canadian Alliance (Harper had called the head of Elections Canada a jackass during their election gag law debates). He might be called paranoid to even bring up the question because Elections Canada is a government department, it is impartial and doesn't hold grudges.
However, another story. During one election campaign the wheat board ran an ad on an election issue against the Conservatives, This was declared okay. Suggests that there might be bias because Elections Canada used a strict definition of the law for the wheat board and a loose standard for the NCC ad.
When you have a law that is vaguely worded it gives the government licence to go after people they just don't happen to like.
People claim that HRC have no due process. Even when there is due process this stuff is not a walk in the park. Elections Canada used every trick in the book to drag it out. The NCC lawyer said he had never seen anything like it. In the end it cost about $100,000.
There was also a psychological effect. Another time when they were threatened they decided to pull the questionable ad instead of fighting because they didn't want to go through that again.
It creates a chill. People will self-censor and not run any political ads during an election because they don't know if it will break law.
Now courts have said that the gag law is constitutional.
To end on a positive note:
The internet is outside the jurisdiction of Election Canada so encourage people to run ads there.
We now have allies on the left because the Conservatives are in power and Liberals don't like censorship when the shoe is on the other foot.
Our third reason for optimist is the PM who is very much opposed to election gag laws. It is disappointing that he hasn't done anything about it. He has had a minority but he will probably have a majority soon so we need to encourage him.
Q1 Would you consider in the lead up to the next election encouraging newspapers to run ads as editorials?
A1 Yes that would be legal although newspapers can't give free advertising to get around election gag order. If it was an op-ed it would be legal.
Q2 If there is no gag law how would you deal with big money using sophisticated manipulation to influence people?
A2 He rejects the premise that a lot of money can influence people. People are intelligent enough to see the issues. Campaigns can outspend their opponents and still lose.
Q3 There are many things that Elections Canada has done to cripple democracy.
A3 Yes, we have had many run-ins with Elections Canada. They play hardball and they play for keeps.
Gerry Nicholls is former VP National Citizens Coalition (NCC) and Editor of Libertas Post. As a senior executive with the NCC, Canada’s largest organization for the defence of economic and political freedoms, he was the chief creative force behind the organization’s communication campaigns.
Freedom of speech is very important.
His legal theory is never get in trouble with the law. He is a very law abiding citizen
On Nov 28, 2001 RCMP officer came to his office to charge the NCC with a crime. They said that they had violated the election gag law. This is a bad and dangerous law which free speechers should oppose.
This law puts limits on how much money citizens or organizations can spend on political advertising during elections. It gives politicians a monopoly on election debates. We were always opposed to it because if we don't have free speech in elections we don't have free elections.
The NCC has gone to court multiple times and succeeded in getting it declared unconstitutional. Stephen Harper was the President of NCC and was so opposed to this law that he personally brought a challenge to the government about the matter.
TheNCC wanted to win this debate in the court of public opinion as well as in the courts so they ran a series of ads in Oct 2000, to coincide with their court dates. By coincidence, there was a federal election at the same time. This posed a dilemma.
The law is very vague. Any ad that takes a stand supporting or opposing a political party or candidate or taking a stand on an issue that is connected to a party falls under this legislation. The NCC decided that this wasn't an issue that was connected to a party. They even took it to a Constitutional lawyer who gave it the green light.
As it happened, a Liberal saw the ad and turned it in to Elections Canada. However it took them over a year to lay charges against the NCC. He suggests that this might have been to embarrass Harper on the eve of running for leadership of the Canadian Alliance (Harper had called the head of Elections Canada a jackass during their election gag law debates). He might be called paranoid to even bring up the question because Elections Canada is a government department, it is impartial and doesn't hold grudges.
However, another story. During one election campaign the wheat board ran an ad on an election issue against the Conservatives, This was declared okay. Suggests that there might be bias because Elections Canada used a strict definition of the law for the wheat board and a loose standard for the NCC ad.
When you have a law that is vaguely worded it gives the government licence to go after people they just don't happen to like.
People claim that HRC have no due process. Even when there is due process this stuff is not a walk in the park. Elections Canada used every trick in the book to drag it out. The NCC lawyer said he had never seen anything like it. In the end it cost about $100,000.
There was also a psychological effect. Another time when they were threatened they decided to pull the questionable ad instead of fighting because they didn't want to go through that again.
It creates a chill. People will self-censor and not run any political ads during an election because they don't know if it will break law.
Now courts have said that the gag law is constitutional.
To end on a positive note:
The internet is outside the jurisdiction of Election Canada so encourage people to run ads there.
We now have allies on the left because the Conservatives are in power and Liberals don't like censorship when the shoe is on the other foot.
Our third reason for optimist is the PM who is very much opposed to election gag laws. It is disappointing that he hasn't done anything about it. He has had a minority but he will probably have a majority soon so we need to encourage him.
Q1 Would you consider in the lead up to the next election encouraging newspapers to run ads as editorials?
A1 Yes that would be legal although newspapers can't give free advertising to get around election gag order. If it was an op-ed it would be legal.
Q2 If there is no gag law how would you deal with big money using sophisticated manipulation to influence people?
A2 He rejects the premise that a lot of money can influence people. People are intelligent enough to see the issues. Campaigns can outspend their opponents and still lose.
Q3 There are many things that Elections Canada has done to cripple democracy.
A3 Yes, we have had many run-ins with Elections Canada. They play hardball and they play for keeps.
Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: Rethinking the Lessons of the Holocaust
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Joseph C Ben-Ami is President and CEO, Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. Ben-Ami’s resume includes serving as Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values, Director of Government Relations and Diplomatic Affairs for B'nai Brith, and serving as a policy aide to Stephen Harper.
He has the most controversial and sensitive topic, Rethinking the Lessons of the Holocaust.
He thought very long and hard about this, and then long and hard again. There are some still living who suffered at the hands of the Nazis and he does not want to hurt them in any way. He is also worried that his words could be twisted and used by holocaust deniers.
He has not really experienced any personal anti-semitism until the last few weeks when he had to have some contact with holocaust deniers.
Max Yalden has a prestigious resume. He wrote a column in the national Post about the HRC saying that after two disastrous world wars and the horrors of the holocaust we are surely obliged to judge rather differently the issue of unfettered free speech.
He seemed to be saying that the Nazis were allowed to come to power and cause the holocaust because they were allowed to unfettered liberty to propagate their anti-semitism.
There is no evidence to support that.
To be sure there were those who supported the Nazis because of their anti-semitism, which was a plank in their platform. However they never won a majority of seats in any free election.
It must be noted that there were other tyrannies that arose in Europe at the same time that were not about anti-semitism. Mussolini's Fascism and Communist Russia are two examples. Although they had some anti-semitism that was not a major theme and some of them had leading figures in those movements that were Jews. The Italians also resisted the German anti-Jewish policies.
If so many other dictatorships were in power at the same time, could the Nazis have come to power without their racism? It is reasonable to suggest yes.
The question how did they come to power has no simple answer. They capitalized on several issues. One thing that helped, though, was the way they tried to suppress all of their opposition.
Malevolent dictatorships in general do not win over the population, they suppress dissent. The successful dictatorships don't use force to legislate uniformity but remove awareness that there is another option.
The lack of organized, coherent, opposing opinion helped to bring Germany to War (In WW1?)
What happened in Nazi Germany is not what happens when hate is tolerated, but when it is empowered. They did not invent the apparatus they used to suppress civil liberties, they used what the Weimar Regime already had in place. The Weimar Republic tried to break up meetings, banned political groups, and shut down newspapers in the name of protecting democracy.
As a matter of fact, one of Hitler's jobs was to spy on the national socialist parties, it was while doing that that he became influenced to join them.
Canada and others who fought Germany, except Russia, were strong supporters of liberties including freedom of speech. It is true they suspended some during the war years, but not nearly to the level of the dictatorships. There is no evidence that even these limits helped the war effort, but may have hindered such good things as protests of the Japanese internment.
You should be troubled by the willingness with which some young people are willing to engage in the activities that helped to bring the Nazis to power. He is not calling these people Nazis by any means, but these tactics that try to suppress all alternatives to the officially accepted view can be used by malevolent dictatorships.
Only small groups of people are ever actively engaged in arguing, most people just rely on getting information from those who are arguing.
These laws have the best of intentions. However the reality of politics is that you are never in power forever. Laws that you brought in for good reasons can be used against you by people who are malignant and can suppress your rights. While we are not on the verge of that in Canada, some people are starting to try to do that.
The only guarantee of our liberties, the only answer to bad ideas, is good ideas. We cannot bring in laws that could someday be used against us, to stop us from bringing forward good ideas.
I can say today that Ernst Zundel is a buffoon. What happens if I can't say that anymore?
Remember that the Weimar republic was a democracy.
Q1 This is what happens when governments deny opponents the opportunity to speak. You say that this is what happens not when hate is tolerated but when it is in power. I would suggest that this is also the case when peace is in power. Germany was building up a massive army and Chamberlain suppressed pro-war dissent. So it is not a matter of who or what is in power but whether free speech is suppressed.
A1 That is a very good point. To clarify, the empowerment of hate was addressing the suggestion that allowing hate will cause holocausts. By the way you can't stamp out hate. It is impossible. My point is that the Nazis did not come to power because they were anti-semites but because they used successful strategies. Then when they came to power they had the ability to rule tyrannically. We need to prevent governments from having illegitimate censorship powers because even democratic governments can be arbitrary. We should also be concerned about central control of education which is another topic.
Q2 Why is it easier for young people to be drawn into a we are democratic so you can't speak headspace. Thanks the young people who are here.
Q3 Challenges the idea that anti-semitism was incidental to the rise of the Nazis. It was central to Hitler. Hatred of Jews is an undercurrent that defines all despotic governments
A3 We can find some middle ground. Yes anti-semitism was central to the Nazis. It is an open question, would need to look at it, that it is involved in many dictatorships, perhaps it is a good indicator of where things are going. All he is saying is that if we could go back in time and remove anti-semitism from the Nazi party they would probably still have come to power and launched a brutal war. To say that without anti-semitism in the Nazi party none of these bad things would have happened is naive. This is about limiting power. Governments can't have the power to suppress dissent.
Q4 Sophie Scholl (some remarks about her being beheaded for saying something about social darwinism.)
Joseph C Ben-Ami is President and CEO, Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. Ben-Ami’s resume includes serving as Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values, Director of Government Relations and Diplomatic Affairs for B'nai Brith, and serving as a policy aide to Stephen Harper.
He has the most controversial and sensitive topic, Rethinking the Lessons of the Holocaust.
He thought very long and hard about this, and then long and hard again. There are some still living who suffered at the hands of the Nazis and he does not want to hurt them in any way. He is also worried that his words could be twisted and used by holocaust deniers.
He has not really experienced any personal anti-semitism until the last few weeks when he had to have some contact with holocaust deniers.
Max Yalden has a prestigious resume. He wrote a column in the national Post about the HRC saying that after two disastrous world wars and the horrors of the holocaust we are surely obliged to judge rather differently the issue of unfettered free speech.
He seemed to be saying that the Nazis were allowed to come to power and cause the holocaust because they were allowed to unfettered liberty to propagate their anti-semitism.
There is no evidence to support that.
To be sure there were those who supported the Nazis because of their anti-semitism, which was a plank in their platform. However they never won a majority of seats in any free election.
It must be noted that there were other tyrannies that arose in Europe at the same time that were not about anti-semitism. Mussolini's Fascism and Communist Russia are two examples. Although they had some anti-semitism that was not a major theme and some of them had leading figures in those movements that were Jews. The Italians also resisted the German anti-Jewish policies.
If so many other dictatorships were in power at the same time, could the Nazis have come to power without their racism? It is reasonable to suggest yes.
The question how did they come to power has no simple answer. They capitalized on several issues. One thing that helped, though, was the way they tried to suppress all of their opposition.
Malevolent dictatorships in general do not win over the population, they suppress dissent. The successful dictatorships don't use force to legislate uniformity but remove awareness that there is another option.
The lack of organized, coherent, opposing opinion helped to bring Germany to War (In WW1?)
What happened in Nazi Germany is not what happens when hate is tolerated, but when it is empowered. They did not invent the apparatus they used to suppress civil liberties, they used what the Weimar Regime already had in place. The Weimar Republic tried to break up meetings, banned political groups, and shut down newspapers in the name of protecting democracy.
As a matter of fact, one of Hitler's jobs was to spy on the national socialist parties, it was while doing that that he became influenced to join them.
Canada and others who fought Germany, except Russia, were strong supporters of liberties including freedom of speech. It is true they suspended some during the war years, but not nearly to the level of the dictatorships. There is no evidence that even these limits helped the war effort, but may have hindered such good things as protests of the Japanese internment.
You should be troubled by the willingness with which some young people are willing to engage in the activities that helped to bring the Nazis to power. He is not calling these people Nazis by any means, but these tactics that try to suppress all alternatives to the officially accepted view can be used by malevolent dictatorships.
Only small groups of people are ever actively engaged in arguing, most people just rely on getting information from those who are arguing.
These laws have the best of intentions. However the reality of politics is that you are never in power forever. Laws that you brought in for good reasons can be used against you by people who are malignant and can suppress your rights. While we are not on the verge of that in Canada, some people are starting to try to do that.
The only guarantee of our liberties, the only answer to bad ideas, is good ideas. We cannot bring in laws that could someday be used against us, to stop us from bringing forward good ideas.
I can say today that Ernst Zundel is a buffoon. What happens if I can't say that anymore?
Remember that the Weimar republic was a democracy.
Q1 This is what happens when governments deny opponents the opportunity to speak. You say that this is what happens not when hate is tolerated but when it is in power. I would suggest that this is also the case when peace is in power. Germany was building up a massive army and Chamberlain suppressed pro-war dissent. So it is not a matter of who or what is in power but whether free speech is suppressed.
A1 That is a very good point. To clarify, the empowerment of hate was addressing the suggestion that allowing hate will cause holocausts. By the way you can't stamp out hate. It is impossible. My point is that the Nazis did not come to power because they were anti-semites but because they used successful strategies. Then when they came to power they had the ability to rule tyrannically. We need to prevent governments from having illegitimate censorship powers because even democratic governments can be arbitrary. We should also be concerned about central control of education which is another topic.
Q2 Why is it easier for young people to be drawn into a we are democratic so you can't speak headspace. Thanks the young people who are here.
Q3 Challenges the idea that anti-semitism was incidental to the rise of the Nazis. It was central to Hitler. Hatred of Jews is an undercurrent that defines all despotic governments
A3 We can find some middle ground. Yes anti-semitism was central to the Nazis. It is an open question, would need to look at it, that it is involved in many dictatorships, perhaps it is a good indicator of where things are going. All he is saying is that if we could go back in time and remove anti-semitism from the Nazi party they would probably still have come to power and launched a brutal war. To say that without anti-semitism in the Nazi party none of these bad things would have happened is naive. This is about limiting power. Governments can't have the power to suppress dissent.
Q4 Sophie Scholl (some remarks about her being beheaded for saying something about social darwinism.)
Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: True North Strong and Free: Why Canada’s founders thought freedom mattered
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Dr. Brian Lee Crowley – Past President and Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and author of Canadian bestseller Fearful Symmetry: the fall and rise of Canada’s founding values.
It is often said that in Canada we are lucky, lucky to be peaceful, to have our natural resources, and to be able to attract so many newcomers. However people make their luck and we are lucky because we have been endowed by our ancestors with a set of beliefs in freedom, rights, dignity of work, and the centrality of the family. It is our responsibility to make sure this luck doesn't run out.
Our founders had high hopes for Canada. We have preformed feats in arms and building that are far out of proportion to our small population. Living in the shadow of America we sometimes forget that we have no reason to be ashamed. Our forbearers believed in us because of our set of beliefs and who we were, and who we expected newcomers to become.
The Confederation debates were about what type of government could best secure liberty. The contemporary view is that the founders were dull, uneducated men who were just making a deal and could not have given a thoughtful defence of the Parliamentary form of government. They are seen as just stuck to the status quo, uninterested in any enlightenment ideas about social contracts and so forth.
However this is not accurate. They were not simple minded, but thoughtful men who were centrally concerned with rights and freedoms. They were informed about enlightenment ideas and social contracts. They were interested in what we would today call civil liberties, as opposed to the positive rights that are so popular today.
When they talked about rights they were talking about free speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of religion.
The debate was a debate of means. When we study this we find thoughtful, intelligent men who we have every reason to be proud of.
The Constitution Fathers were familiar with American documents including secessionist papers, the Federalist Papers, the New Zealand constitution, European constituions, British history, and Canadian history.
One said that there can be no strong government without life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that all government comes from the consent of the government. This is the foundation of British government.
Not a few of the Founding Fathers thought that the British tradition better secured liberty than the American. Others admired America.
They believed that their chiefest care was to protect the individual, to protect the rights of the minority against the minority. That British liberty was better than American equality.
Central to the debate was that we all have the obligation to exercise our rights and responsibilities. If we deprive people of that, with social assistance for example, it is to make people less than human.
What made Canada different from America was that there was a stronger work ethic and less dependence on the public system.
It was thought that Canada would be a beacon to the world and that the 20th century should be filled by Canada because of our commitment to liberty.
Canada is free, and freedom is our nationality. That is much more stirring than our modern refrain that Canada is free, free medicare.
Man must be free to seek his own improvement and control his own destiny, good or bad.
An activist government has a corrosive effect on people's character. People have to deal with their own problems.
We are in the danger of over government. It is doing great harm to us.
We are moving nearer to socialism, nearer and nearer in the mist to the edge of the abyss. This was said when government was spending 11% of GDP. In 1993 it was spending over 50%.
A Mayor of Ottawa said that recipients of welfare should develop independence.
Those who opposed Mother's Support said it should be left to the local institutions who could know the character of those they were helping and help them to get off charity as soon as possible.
They opposed Roosevelt's New Deal and American style interventionism as socialism bordering on communism.
In 1938 a report was made that deplored the fact that Canada has fallen behind in supporting people. This report was shelved.
Following the New Deal we were probably the most laissez-faire country going.
After a brief flirtation with the welfare state in the Marsh report, Mackenzie King reverted to the laissez-faire state.
The Liberals depended on free enterprise and the free market to bring the economy and country back after the war (WW2)
Between the 30s and 60s more money was spent by America on social welfare than by Canada.
Any non-essential interference by the government was repugnant to the Liberal party (laughter in room) (In the 40s-50s?)
After 1957 election the Liberal roots of liberty were strong although there were conflicts within the party.
They believed that social welfare was hurting the liberty and dignity of people.
We are persuaded that State paternalism is the enemy of all progress. (1940-50)
In the Maritimes they argued that free trade was the best option to help their situation, welfare the least.
Medicare is not the same as a welfare state. Tommy Douglas said they were not interested in paying able bodied people who wouldn't work. They supported those too old or handicapped to work. Those who were able bodied were given workfare. Money for work.
The view of Canadians as more left-wing, more welfare statish, kinder, gentler, than Americans is new and is only sustained by consigning our founders to a dusty trunk. Our welfare programs are American imports.
We rapidly caught up and passed the States though. We began to associate the values of our first century with foreign values. Values that have nothing to do with us.
It is our responsibility to bring back self reliance, liberty, small government, and personal responsibility. We must challenge the smelly little orthodoxies of the day and document the failures and cruelties of the big, bossy, Nanny state.
If Canada has enjoyed a long run of good luck it is because of the values that we got from our fore bearers. If we go back to them we will continue making our own luck.
Q1 A movement is healthy when it can engage in self criticism. When taking a triumphalist view of Victorian Canada, how about how indigenous peoples are and were treated?
A1 Excellent question. That comes up in the States as well with slavery and indigenous peoples. There is a difference between the values we subscribe to and what we actually do. When we fall short we understand that we are falling short. It takes centuries to bring our actions into line with our ideals. Shortcomings in action do not negate the values of ideals.
Q2 Mentioned Federalist papers and American constitutions. What is his view on the difference in influence between the British and American systems on Canada?
A2 Not sure can go this % America this % British, we drew from both for our inspiration. Our founders also drew a link between the British and Americans, they did not see them as incompatible.
Q3 What is the division of powers in matters of taxation between the Provincial and Federal governments? Someone is bringing a constitutional challenge to the HST because the Federal government is overreaching itself.
A3 Ottawa is not limited on the powers of taxation, only provinces are.
Dr. Brian Lee Crowley – Past President and Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and author of Canadian bestseller Fearful Symmetry: the fall and rise of Canada’s founding values.
It is often said that in Canada we are lucky, lucky to be peaceful, to have our natural resources, and to be able to attract so many newcomers. However people make their luck and we are lucky because we have been endowed by our ancestors with a set of beliefs in freedom, rights, dignity of work, and the centrality of the family. It is our responsibility to make sure this luck doesn't run out.
Our founders had high hopes for Canada. We have preformed feats in arms and building that are far out of proportion to our small population. Living in the shadow of America we sometimes forget that we have no reason to be ashamed. Our forbearers believed in us because of our set of beliefs and who we were, and who we expected newcomers to become.
The Confederation debates were about what type of government could best secure liberty. The contemporary view is that the founders were dull, uneducated men who were just making a deal and could not have given a thoughtful defence of the Parliamentary form of government. They are seen as just stuck to the status quo, uninterested in any enlightenment ideas about social contracts and so forth.
However this is not accurate. They were not simple minded, but thoughtful men who were centrally concerned with rights and freedoms. They were informed about enlightenment ideas and social contracts. They were interested in what we would today call civil liberties, as opposed to the positive rights that are so popular today.
When they talked about rights they were talking about free speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of religion.
The debate was a debate of means. When we study this we find thoughtful, intelligent men who we have every reason to be proud of.
The Constitution Fathers were familiar with American documents including secessionist papers, the Federalist Papers, the New Zealand constitution, European constituions, British history, and Canadian history.
One said that there can be no strong government without life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that all government comes from the consent of the government. This is the foundation of British government.
Not a few of the Founding Fathers thought that the British tradition better secured liberty than the American. Others admired America.
They believed that their chiefest care was to protect the individual, to protect the rights of the minority against the minority. That British liberty was better than American equality.
Central to the debate was that we all have the obligation to exercise our rights and responsibilities. If we deprive people of that, with social assistance for example, it is to make people less than human.
What made Canada different from America was that there was a stronger work ethic and less dependence on the public system.
It was thought that Canada would be a beacon to the world and that the 20th century should be filled by Canada because of our commitment to liberty.
Canada is free, and freedom is our nationality. That is much more stirring than our modern refrain that Canada is free, free medicare.
Man must be free to seek his own improvement and control his own destiny, good or bad.
An activist government has a corrosive effect on people's character. People have to deal with their own problems.
We are in the danger of over government. It is doing great harm to us.
We are moving nearer to socialism, nearer and nearer in the mist to the edge of the abyss. This was said when government was spending 11% of GDP. In 1993 it was spending over 50%.
A Mayor of Ottawa said that recipients of welfare should develop independence.
Those who opposed Mother's Support said it should be left to the local institutions who could know the character of those they were helping and help them to get off charity as soon as possible.
They opposed Roosevelt's New Deal and American style interventionism as socialism bordering on communism.
In 1938 a report was made that deplored the fact that Canada has fallen behind in supporting people. This report was shelved.
Following the New Deal we were probably the most laissez-faire country going.
After a brief flirtation with the welfare state in the Marsh report, Mackenzie King reverted to the laissez-faire state.
The Liberals depended on free enterprise and the free market to bring the economy and country back after the war (WW2)
Between the 30s and 60s more money was spent by America on social welfare than by Canada.
Any non-essential interference by the government was repugnant to the Liberal party (laughter in room) (In the 40s-50s?)
After 1957 election the Liberal roots of liberty were strong although there were conflicts within the party.
They believed that social welfare was hurting the liberty and dignity of people.
We are persuaded that State paternalism is the enemy of all progress. (1940-50)
In the Maritimes they argued that free trade was the best option to help their situation, welfare the least.
Medicare is not the same as a welfare state. Tommy Douglas said they were not interested in paying able bodied people who wouldn't work. They supported those too old or handicapped to work. Those who were able bodied were given workfare. Money for work.
The view of Canadians as more left-wing, more welfare statish, kinder, gentler, than Americans is new and is only sustained by consigning our founders to a dusty trunk. Our welfare programs are American imports.
We rapidly caught up and passed the States though. We began to associate the values of our first century with foreign values. Values that have nothing to do with us.
It is our responsibility to bring back self reliance, liberty, small government, and personal responsibility. We must challenge the smelly little orthodoxies of the day and document the failures and cruelties of the big, bossy, Nanny state.
If Canada has enjoyed a long run of good luck it is because of the values that we got from our fore bearers. If we go back to them we will continue making our own luck.
Q1 A movement is healthy when it can engage in self criticism. When taking a triumphalist view of Victorian Canada, how about how indigenous peoples are and were treated?
A1 Excellent question. That comes up in the States as well with slavery and indigenous peoples. There is a difference between the values we subscribe to and what we actually do. When we fall short we understand that we are falling short. It takes centuries to bring our actions into line with our ideals. Shortcomings in action do not negate the values of ideals.
Q2 Mentioned Federalist papers and American constitutions. What is his view on the difference in influence between the British and American systems on Canada?
A2 Not sure can go this % America this % British, we drew from both for our inspiration. Our founders also drew a link between the British and Americans, they did not see them as incompatible.
Q3 What is the division of powers in matters of taxation between the Provincial and Federal governments? Someone is bringing a constitutional challenge to the HST because the Federal government is overreaching itself.
A3 Ottawa is not limited on the powers of taxation, only provinces are.
Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: Human Rights Commissions and the Subversion of Law
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Robert Martin is Professor Emeritus, University Of Western Ontario Law School. One of Canada's foremost constitutional experts and a prolific writer, Professor Martin is the author of several books, including The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada has Undermined Our Law and Our Democracy, Critical Perspectives on the Constitution, and Speaking Freely: Expression and the Law in the Commonwealth. His articles and columns have appeared in several newspapers, including: London Free Press, Lawyers Weekly, Law Times, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, Policy Options, Manchester Guardian Weekly, Canadian Bar Review and Irish Times. Professor Martin is a former candidate for the Federal NDP.
The phrase Nanny State does not begin to capture the nature of the Canadian welfare state. It is more of a Mommy State, it is not something coming in from outside but is imposed from within.
He ran as an NDP candidate at one time, now calls it the Now Defunct Party and regrets that association. The central idea of that party, if it can be said to have an idea, is nothing outside the state.
Contemporary Canada is a totalitarian theocracy. Nothing is allowed to stand in the way of the religion of equality. Freedom has been a casualty.
Looking at multiculti Canada there "ain't none" freedom of speech. This ideology is founded on post-modern lies. They think there are no truths, only different narratives. Canadians prefer lying to truth telling. Canada has embraced the soft tyranny of caring and loving female lawyers rather than jackboots.
Censorship is the norm today in Canada.
Negative censorship involves the state saying you may not say something or you will be punished.
Positive censorship involves the state saying you must say things or you will be punished. Sorry.
In pursuance of equality, Canada has been involved in positive censorship.
Canada imposed positive censorship on global TV by making all these rules about how the handle minorities in reporting/journalism and all sorts of things to make broadcasting equity.
Negative censorship, Canada has a holy inquisition in the HRC. They got into the business of thought police over a nasty man called Taylor. He was involved in the Western Guard Party that established a dial-a-hate message. They spread around leaflets that had the number so you could dial-a-hate message if you want to. As a result of this the law was changed to include Section 13, the hate speech laws.
Eventually Taylor was brought to the CHRC and told to cease and desist. The CHRC decisions have the status of a judicial decision and disobeying them could involve a criminal contempt of court charge. Taylor disobeyed and was brought back twice, eventually being sentence to one year in prison.
Taylor is, fortunately, dead but the HRC continue their thought police role.
Taylor challenged the decision to the Supreme Court relying on the Charter which by that time was in force.
The Court upheld the Section 13. Dixon held that it was so important to ensure that people's feelings were not hurt they were able to override a charter right. This decision has been upheld as divine revelation by subsequent HRC.
In the 1940s Ontario passed laws that signs like "No Jews Allowed" were prohibited. Considering the war they were involved in that made considerable sense. Other laws were later passed banning discrimination in housing and jobs.
Some amusing decisions
A stand-up comedian was heckled by two drunk women who started to throw drinks at him. The comedian, noticing that they were lesbians, made insulting remarks about it. One woman made a complaint to the BCHRC and this is still in progress.
Steve Kindos has a restaurant. Gibson who smokes cannabis for medical reasons was doing so right outside the restaurant. He was asked to stop and the HRT found that that was discrimination. However Kindos was contacted by the Liquor licensing board who told him that he would lose his liquor license if he allowed Gibson to smoke in his restaurant. This seems to be based on a Monty Python sketch.
Less amusing cases:
Boissoin, concerned about homosexual activism, wrote a letter to the editor which was "rude" and "provocative" as Levant said. Darren Lund who is not homosexual brought a complaint. A lawyer involved in this case said that if people were allowed to hide behind the rubric of political and religious debate it would undermine the human rights laws. Boissoin was ordered to cease and desist, was given a gag order against saying anything disparaging about homosexuality, and was ordered to pay Lund and his chief witness $7000. Now people are encouraged to spy on their neighbours.
The question in my mind is, why did the Tribunal stop short of ordering Boissoin burned at the stake? Keep in mind that this cease and desist and gag order was an order to perpetuity.
MacLeans magazine had complaint brought about "Future Belongs to Islam" in 4 Commissions who all dismissed it.
Steyn rebuts the argument that there is no right to cry fire in a crowded theater by saying that if there is a fire you not only may but must cry fire.
Hugh Owens (Saskatchewan) was convicted of an anti-homosexual ad, that was overturned.
Boissoin was just acquitted by Queen's Bench.
This fall the Ontario Tribunal decided that Section 13 of the Act was now unconstitutional. The ability of the Tribunal to level fines undercut everything Dixon had said about Section 13. In a bizarre act the Commission is now seeking Judicial review of it's own order.
The question now is what is to be done? Where did this thought police, the HRC come from. It comes from pseudo-history. This pseudo-history says that Canada's history is nothing but one long litany of human rights abuses, an Auschwitz from sea to sea. Pseudo-history is endless and provides the justification for the thought police because without them Canadians would revert to their natural tendencies for abuse.
What is to be done: An unremitting hostility toward our useless universities who produce an endless stream of illiterate ideologues. (much laughter and clapping)
(Someone yells out the media, Martin responds that there is an unfortunate tendency to blame the media for everything)
Robert Martin is Professor Emeritus, University Of Western Ontario Law School. One of Canada's foremost constitutional experts and a prolific writer, Professor Martin is the author of several books, including The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada has Undermined Our Law and Our Democracy, Critical Perspectives on the Constitution, and Speaking Freely: Expression and the Law in the Commonwealth. His articles and columns have appeared in several newspapers, including: London Free Press, Lawyers Weekly, Law Times, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, Policy Options, Manchester Guardian Weekly, Canadian Bar Review and Irish Times. Professor Martin is a former candidate for the Federal NDP.
The phrase Nanny State does not begin to capture the nature of the Canadian welfare state. It is more of a Mommy State, it is not something coming in from outside but is imposed from within.
He ran as an NDP candidate at one time, now calls it the Now Defunct Party and regrets that association. The central idea of that party, if it can be said to have an idea, is nothing outside the state.
Contemporary Canada is a totalitarian theocracy. Nothing is allowed to stand in the way of the religion of equality. Freedom has been a casualty.
Looking at multiculti Canada there "ain't none" freedom of speech. This ideology is founded on post-modern lies. They think there are no truths, only different narratives. Canadians prefer lying to truth telling. Canada has embraced the soft tyranny of caring and loving female lawyers rather than jackboots.
Censorship is the norm today in Canada.
Negative censorship involves the state saying you may not say something or you will be punished.
Positive censorship involves the state saying you must say things or you will be punished. Sorry.
In pursuance of equality, Canada has been involved in positive censorship.
Canada imposed positive censorship on global TV by making all these rules about how the handle minorities in reporting/journalism and all sorts of things to make broadcasting equity.
Negative censorship, Canada has a holy inquisition in the HRC. They got into the business of thought police over a nasty man called Taylor. He was involved in the Western Guard Party that established a dial-a-hate message. They spread around leaflets that had the number so you could dial-a-hate message if you want to. As a result of this the law was changed to include Section 13, the hate speech laws.
Eventually Taylor was brought to the CHRC and told to cease and desist. The CHRC decisions have the status of a judicial decision and disobeying them could involve a criminal contempt of court charge. Taylor disobeyed and was brought back twice, eventually being sentence to one year in prison.
Taylor is, fortunately, dead but the HRC continue their thought police role.
Taylor challenged the decision to the Supreme Court relying on the Charter which by that time was in force.
The Court upheld the Section 13. Dixon held that it was so important to ensure that people's feelings were not hurt they were able to override a charter right. This decision has been upheld as divine revelation by subsequent HRC.
In the 1940s Ontario passed laws that signs like "No Jews Allowed" were prohibited. Considering the war they were involved in that made considerable sense. Other laws were later passed banning discrimination in housing and jobs.
Some amusing decisions
A stand-up comedian was heckled by two drunk women who started to throw drinks at him. The comedian, noticing that they were lesbians, made insulting remarks about it. One woman made a complaint to the BCHRC and this is still in progress.
Steve Kindos has a restaurant. Gibson who smokes cannabis for medical reasons was doing so right outside the restaurant. He was asked to stop and the HRT found that that was discrimination. However Kindos was contacted by the Liquor licensing board who told him that he would lose his liquor license if he allowed Gibson to smoke in his restaurant. This seems to be based on a Monty Python sketch.
Less amusing cases:
Boissoin, concerned about homosexual activism, wrote a letter to the editor which was "rude" and "provocative" as Levant said. Darren Lund who is not homosexual brought a complaint. A lawyer involved in this case said that if people were allowed to hide behind the rubric of political and religious debate it would undermine the human rights laws. Boissoin was ordered to cease and desist, was given a gag order against saying anything disparaging about homosexuality, and was ordered to pay Lund and his chief witness $7000. Now people are encouraged to spy on their neighbours.
The question in my mind is, why did the Tribunal stop short of ordering Boissoin burned at the stake? Keep in mind that this cease and desist and gag order was an order to perpetuity.
MacLeans magazine had complaint brought about "Future Belongs to Islam" in 4 Commissions who all dismissed it.
Steyn rebuts the argument that there is no right to cry fire in a crowded theater by saying that if there is a fire you not only may but must cry fire.
Hugh Owens (Saskatchewan) was convicted of an anti-homosexual ad, that was overturned.
Boissoin was just acquitted by Queen's Bench.
This fall the Ontario Tribunal decided that Section 13 of the Act was now unconstitutional. The ability of the Tribunal to level fines undercut everything Dixon had said about Section 13. In a bizarre act the Commission is now seeking Judicial review of it's own order.
The question now is what is to be done? Where did this thought police, the HRC come from. It comes from pseudo-history. This pseudo-history says that Canada's history is nothing but one long litany of human rights abuses, an Auschwitz from sea to sea. Pseudo-history is endless and provides the justification for the thought police because without them Canadians would revert to their natural tendencies for abuse.
What is to be done: An unremitting hostility toward our useless universities who produce an endless stream of illiterate ideologues. (much laughter and clapping)
(Someone yells out the media, Martin responds that there is an unfortunate tendency to blame the media for everything)
Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: "Human Rights Chill" and its effect on Press Freedom
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Panel of Barbara Kay and Bjorn Larsen
Barbara Kay is a National Post columnist. Kay taught English Literature and Composition at Concordia University and in the Quebec CEGEP system. She is the founding editor and is currently the editor-in-chief of First Fruits, and was a frequent contributor to and sat on the board of Cite Libre.
Bjorn Larsen is Co-founder of the International Free Press Society and President of the International Free Press Society - Canada. A successful international businessman, Larsen immigrated to Canada from Norway in 1975.
Barbara Kay starts:
Notes the cautionary tales of Steyn and Levant, free speech martyrs.
It is becoming normal for the government to interfere in citizens' thoughts.
The HRC are biased in what cases they will take. Because of who the people are who sit on those panel they are biased depending on who is speaking, to whom they are speaking, and even in what language they are speaking. They only fight hate speech toward minorities, non-christians, homosexuals, etc.
Point de Bascule brought a case against an Imam that called Quebec women whores and homosexuals degenerates. This was not considered hate by the CHRC.
Barbara Kay has sympathy with those who have suffered under the HRC because of a run in she had with the Quebec Press Council, a HRC wannabe. This incident was highly publicized in Quebec but not in the English press.
During the Hezbollah war thousands marched, supposedly in defence of peace and justice, but it was in reality a virulent anti-Israel march with Hezbollah flags and “Jews are Assassins” signs. This was given credibility by the attendance of some politicians. It was not a peace march, it was made up of Islamic groups who excluded Jewish groups who tried to get involved. They talked about the massacre of Lebanese by Israel
The title of the article was Quebecistan, in it she noted the numbers of Lebanese in Canada and that this number would swell as people in Lebanon cashed in their Canadian citizenship and moved to Canada now that Lebanon is dangerous. Liberals who aren't fussy about how they get votes would support this. She also said that the left has a history of supporting anti-colonial terrorists, with it's anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, etc.
It was a provocative column but business as usual for her section. It could have been worse, she could have pointed out that 53% of Quebecers said Canadians should be more sensitive to concerns of terrorist groups.
Quebecistan became a cause celebre.
She was served notice by the Quebec Press Council for undo provocation, generalizations set to encourage prejudice, altering facts, etc. It was a very official document, looking exactly like a subpoena. When it came she had an adrenaline rush, never having committed a crime before, and called the newspaper in a panic to know if she would be fired. They reassured her that the Press Council had no authority over the National Post. She didn't even need to defend herself.
In the ensuing censure they never identified a single fact that was actually in error.
The Council had no real power but was still very intimidating.
She did get censure form over 200 angry emails.
Does the Press Council represent Quebec journalists? She was at a panel with over 100 journalists and even journalists who disagreed with her column defended her right to say what she said.
In August someone else wrote a column with exactly the same points but it was alright because it was written in French. "Real Quebecois" can say whatever they want within Quebec in French, but not when they are writing in English for the world to read.
Thought monitoring bodies have no business here. People do not campaign for such positions. Quebec newspapers now self censor to avoid the Press Council.
On the good news front:
Bernie Farber said that now CBC is starting to monitor it's own bias, because he is getting less complaints about them.
Al Jazeera is coming. This is good because it shows an opening to other ideas.
The internet undermines these bodies.
Q1 Another example is where a college taught one anti-feminist course on men while 50+ were taught on women's studies. The men's course was shut down but the HRC decided that this was not because of bias against men.
Bjorn Larsen up next:
When Geert Wilders was prosecuted for his movie Fitna, the Free Speech Society was founded and decided to call for the repeal fo all hate speech laws.
Free speech, you use it or you lose it. Larsen has been with (Wilders?) to prestigious universities. Unfortunately students and professors were only really interested in talking about responsible speech not free speech.
How can you have no hate speech laws? Speech laws are thought laws.
We are in favour of repealing all hate speech laws because we believe we need to set the bar high.
In Europe it is much worse than in Canada. It is a criminal charge and can involve prison sentences. Wilders stands to go to jail for 2 years if found guilty over Fitna for insulting Islam etc.
Another case was where a female politician ended up with a suspended sentence for called Mohammed a pedophile at a private event.
Another Belgian politician had an article written in a party newspaper pointing out crime rates of immigrants.
There have also been deaths. Theo Van Gogh made a movie about violence against women is Islam. In 2006 he was murdered. Geert Wilders and woman who made the pedophile remark were named as the next victims and so live under protection in jails and army barracks.
It might seem like I am an Islam basher but I am not. It is just because that is where most of these things come from.
There are other battles. American Hollywood people being called racists for disagreeing with Obama. Radio people fearing because of the fairness doctrine.
The Free Press Society attempted to print copies of the Mohammed cartoons in commemoration of the crisis. Not one Denmark printer would take the job. They had to go to Latvia. Sometimes when he goes to speak there are threats and the events are cancelled.
If we cannot speak our most precious freedoms endangered.
The Free Press Society is about practicing free speech. We have politically incorrect debates. The marketplace of ideas is better than an unelected bureaucracy in Ottawa or any other capital.
Panel of Barbara Kay and Bjorn Larsen
Barbara Kay is a National Post columnist. Kay taught English Literature and Composition at Concordia University and in the Quebec CEGEP system. She is the founding editor and is currently the editor-in-chief of First Fruits, and was a frequent contributor to and sat on the board of Cite Libre.
Bjorn Larsen is Co-founder of the International Free Press Society and President of the International Free Press Society - Canada. A successful international businessman, Larsen immigrated to Canada from Norway in 1975.
Barbara Kay starts:
Notes the cautionary tales of Steyn and Levant, free speech martyrs.
It is becoming normal for the government to interfere in citizens' thoughts.
The HRC are biased in what cases they will take. Because of who the people are who sit on those panel they are biased depending on who is speaking, to whom they are speaking, and even in what language they are speaking. They only fight hate speech toward minorities, non-christians, homosexuals, etc.
Point de Bascule brought a case against an Imam that called Quebec women whores and homosexuals degenerates. This was not considered hate by the CHRC.
Barbara Kay has sympathy with those who have suffered under the HRC because of a run in she had with the Quebec Press Council, a HRC wannabe. This incident was highly publicized in Quebec but not in the English press.
During the Hezbollah war thousands marched, supposedly in defence of peace and justice, but it was in reality a virulent anti-Israel march with Hezbollah flags and “Jews are Assassins” signs. This was given credibility by the attendance of some politicians. It was not a peace march, it was made up of Islamic groups who excluded Jewish groups who tried to get involved. They talked about the massacre of Lebanese by Israel
The title of the article was Quebecistan, in it she noted the numbers of Lebanese in Canada and that this number would swell as people in Lebanon cashed in their Canadian citizenship and moved to Canada now that Lebanon is dangerous. Liberals who aren't fussy about how they get votes would support this. She also said that the left has a history of supporting anti-colonial terrorists, with it's anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, etc.
It was a provocative column but business as usual for her section. It could have been worse, she could have pointed out that 53% of Quebecers said Canadians should be more sensitive to concerns of terrorist groups.
Quebecistan became a cause celebre.
She was served notice by the Quebec Press Council for undo provocation, generalizations set to encourage prejudice, altering facts, etc. It was a very official document, looking exactly like a subpoena. When it came she had an adrenaline rush, never having committed a crime before, and called the newspaper in a panic to know if she would be fired. They reassured her that the Press Council had no authority over the National Post. She didn't even need to defend herself.
In the ensuing censure they never identified a single fact that was actually in error.
The Council had no real power but was still very intimidating.
She did get censure form over 200 angry emails.
Does the Press Council represent Quebec journalists? She was at a panel with over 100 journalists and even journalists who disagreed with her column defended her right to say what she said.
In August someone else wrote a column with exactly the same points but it was alright because it was written in French. "Real Quebecois" can say whatever they want within Quebec in French, but not when they are writing in English for the world to read.
Thought monitoring bodies have no business here. People do not campaign for such positions. Quebec newspapers now self censor to avoid the Press Council.
On the good news front:
Bernie Farber said that now CBC is starting to monitor it's own bias, because he is getting less complaints about them.
Al Jazeera is coming. This is good because it shows an opening to other ideas.
The internet undermines these bodies.
Q1 Another example is where a college taught one anti-feminist course on men while 50+ were taught on women's studies. The men's course was shut down but the HRC decided that this was not because of bias against men.
Bjorn Larsen up next:
When Geert Wilders was prosecuted for his movie Fitna, the Free Speech Society was founded and decided to call for the repeal fo all hate speech laws.
Free speech, you use it or you lose it. Larsen has been with (Wilders?) to prestigious universities. Unfortunately students and professors were only really interested in talking about responsible speech not free speech.
How can you have no hate speech laws? Speech laws are thought laws.
We are in favour of repealing all hate speech laws because we believe we need to set the bar high.
In Europe it is much worse than in Canada. It is a criminal charge and can involve prison sentences. Wilders stands to go to jail for 2 years if found guilty over Fitna for insulting Islam etc.
Another case was where a female politician ended up with a suspended sentence for called Mohammed a pedophile at a private event.
Another Belgian politician had an article written in a party newspaper pointing out crime rates of immigrants.
There have also been deaths. Theo Van Gogh made a movie about violence against women is Islam. In 2006 he was murdered. Geert Wilders and woman who made the pedophile remark were named as the next victims and so live under protection in jails and army barracks.
It might seem like I am an Islam basher but I am not. It is just because that is where most of these things come from.
There are other battles. American Hollywood people being called racists for disagreeing with Obama. Radio people fearing because of the fairness doctrine.
The Free Press Society attempted to print copies of the Mohammed cartoons in commemoration of the crisis. Not one Denmark printer would take the job. They had to go to Latvia. Sometimes when he goes to speak there are threats and the events are cancelled.
If we cannot speak our most precious freedoms endangered.
The Free Press Society is about practicing free speech. We have politically incorrect debates. The marketplace of ideas is better than an unelected bureaucracy in Ottawa or any other capital.
Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: Surveying the Litigation Landscape
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Karen Selick is Litigation Director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. She was called to the bar in Ontario in 1978 and spent 7 years as a corporate lawyer, then 24 years in private practice before moving to the non-profit sector in 2009.
Has the job of bringing constructive ideas about what to do, a nuts and bolts talk, not philosophical. We will look at history.
Her talk has five sections.
What do the statutes say?
What did the courts say? Particularly about twenty years ago.
What has changed?
What are the possibilities?
What are other things we can do?
(asks everyone to get out statute excerpts handout)
Canadian Charter Sec. 2
This guarantees freedom of speech etc. but must be read in light of section 1. It gives freedom in section 2, but potentially takes them away in section 1.
Then there is the Canadian Human Rights Act Section 13.
In the Criminal Code there is the anti-genocide promotion section.
Section 319 prohibits incitement likely to cause breach of peace and promoting hatred.
In the Criminal Code there is a defence of truth, public benefit, religion. Important defences.
Provincial legislation. There is a dividing line between the three western provinces and the other provinces. In Ontario for example you can't have No Jews or Don't Serve Jews signs, this is similar to other Eastern provinces.
In the West it is much wider. Saskatchewan is the broadest. Sect 14 prohibits any thing that exposes to hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.
ln BC and Alberta it is more limited but similar.
What have courts said? Most of these go back about 20 years.
The Keegstra case was about the constitutionality of Sect 319. The Supreme Court of Canada in a 4-3 decision upheld the law. Agreed that it violates freedom of speech but argues that it is justifiable. The person who wrote the dissent, McLachlin, is now Chief Justice. She quoted Borovay who said that Weimar Germany had anti-hate speech laws, but that did not stop Hitler. In fact the trials of Nazis accused of hate were used by Nazis to propagate their views. Anti- hate laws don't stop but may help hateful people.
The Taylor decision about the constitutionality of Section 13 agreed with Keegstra and Justice McLachlin again wrote the dissent.
Then there was the Zundel case which was prosecuted under the spreading false news legislation which was a 4-3 decision in favour of free speech and that statute was struck down.
Ross, a teacher, had a HRT case brought by parents who opposed him teaching their children in a poisoned environment. This was actually an unanimous case.
Justice McLachlin was also on the dissent side when they upheld election gag laws.
These are negative censorship cases, where you can't say something.
There are also positive cases, where people have rights to state resources by pamphleting in airports and advertising on buses. These are red herrings.
The Supreme Court has shown willingness to change it's stance on constitutional things. There is reason for optimism in this and because there are new people on court.
In 1990 the court was very specific that only the most heinous speech should be prosecuted. They might not be happy with the way that this was watered down by other people.
Justices are not impervious to public opinion and what is going on in Canada. I can't help but wonder if McLachlin would go against Taylor today if a case got to her.
The CHRT has found Section 13 not valid because of the penalties attached. This has been appealed by the Commission because they want clarification.
Boissoin case was a really strange decision. It found that he did not violate the law but declined to rule the hate speech law unconstitutional. There are also 7 places in that decision where he said that if they tried to enact a freestanding decision against speech that would be beyond their powers but since he interpreted this law as being only incitement to discrimination it is allowable. Free speech is not a provincial power, housing, and so discrimination in housing, is. The court didn't really seem to get all the NCC's arguments.
Other case is Saskatchewan over anti-gay pamphlets. This is also being argued on the basis of freedom of religion.
Alternatives to legal answers:
People who are members of minorities that are supposed to be beneficiaries of these laws, Jews, visible minorities, gays, etc should say they don't want hate speech laws.
Swamp the HRC with things. Like Ezra reprinting Boissoin letter.
Q1 Agree with point about vulnerable groups, protecting them like this is two sides of a coin of pity and condescension. As we would expect in a state governed by the religion of equality some people are more equal than others. Some rules are: No person of European decent may say anything that offends a visible minority. Heterosexuals cannot insult homosexuals. Christians cannot insult non-Christians. It is, however, permissible to say anything about Europeans, heterosexuals, Christians, etc.
A1 You know they say anti-semitism is about self esteem. When I hear someone making an anti-semitic remark I don't go oh what is wrong with me, I go what is wrong with him?
Q1 The Neo-Nazis are not rational. Some deny the holocaust, some see it as their greatest moment.
A1 About self-esteem, we are not made of brown sugar.
Q2 I agree we are not dealing with a rational movement in white supremacists. If we are portraying ourselves as free speech we are selling ourselves short. We are fighting higher powers, devils, some of these things that help HRC. We think McLachlin can help but she has bent rules before. The point should be that we need to self censor so there is no need for Big Brother to censor.
A2 Well I believe in being polite but I'm not going to self censor if what I say is true.
Q2 Like the cartoons incite violence
A2 But they are the news, shouldn't that be published?
Q2 Pictures of aborted fetuses shouldn't be shown because the wrong people get mad.
Q3 The cartoons didn't incite violence until the Imams whipped it up
Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium Prospects for Political Action
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Randy Hillier and Brad Trost
Randy Hillier (sorry don't have bio)
Brad Trost is the Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Humboldt in east central Saskatchewan. Prior to his election, Brad worked as an exploration Geophysicist, having graduated from the University of Saskatchewan with Bachelor degrees in Geophysics and Economics.
Hillier starts:
Prospects for Political Action, there is tremendous, unlimited potential.
You have to understand our marketplace. Our free-market conservatives are not silver spoon teacup people. They are motivated by productivity and objectives. They are not into abstracts but clear objectives.
To take them away from their work you must demonstrate that there is value in it for them. Then they will be engaged. Look at the NCC, Lanark Landowners Association, and Ontario Landowners Association. People felt they belonged and were productive.
C-68 is an example of a situation where socons took control and ownership of an issue.
As conservatives or classical liberals the prospects are many and many people will be happy to get involved.
As conservatives we need to be mindful of political correctness stifling speech. I have said many things that people said should not be said. If you can justify it, you can say it. If you swim against the PC stream you need to have a tough skin. But conservatives have tough skin, it is the other guys who have thin skin and get offended.
We can't be afraid of being Conservatives
Trost begins:
He read an article about what influences most politicians:
Numbers are important
They would rather have friends than enemies
They want to keep their job
They are safe as long as no one finds out what they are doing.
You don't often find philosopher kings who sit down and say what is best for the country.
Now people who come to these conferences are more ideology driven. What drives some people nuts is the difficulty of getting things done.
Things are difficult right now because
We have a minority government. Essentially we are ruling in 3 month terms because of confidence votes, so we have a very short political attention span.
There are however politicians and people interested in these issues, mostly Conservative backbenchers but also others.
So what is the carrot and the stick for other politicians?
The long gun registry was passed in 1995. Who thought that it would be politically unpopular? Many people supported it who would be embarrassed to say so now.
The opposition to it is something that grew over time. It is now looking very possible we may get rid of the registry.
One person really championed that this was wrong and kept bringing it up. Grassroots began to form groups. They started to make allies with people who might not be natural allies. Soccer Moms in cities started to oppose it because of the cost.
People are busy. They have to take junior to soccer, the in-laws are coming. They have to see where they are being affected.
The Art of Being Realistic. Some people want to add lots of other things to bill that may not be realistic although these demands can be used as wedge to get other things done.
Q and A
Q1 These comments were sometimes focused on fighting policy with policy. There are so many policies, it is a way to get nowhere. Should we focus on setting down principles so we don't have to fight every issue. How well does public consultation work? Are their fundamental flaws in the system?
A1 Hillier speaking for PCs Public consultations are a facade and a sham. You might as well stay home. The decisions are already made. It is just to pacify people and make them believe they have a voice. As for deliberations afterwards, they require knowledge that politicians just don't have. Politicians respond to political power and voting blocks. I agree that we need to start fighting on principles not just issues.
Trost has a similar experience. It is the moulding of public opinion that counts. We have a Westminister style government but are moving towards a Presidential style. Right now we have an odd hybrid that is not as good as either.
Q2 At the riding level is there any point working with and helping politicians in their riding. Trying to mold the politicians, work on their campaigns. People seem to be saying that headquarters is just sending down messages to MP/MPPs to just be warm and fuzzy and agree with the leaders.
A2 I would say is beneficial. not everyone who runs for public office has carefully thought out positions on issues. You can't separate principles from practical application. You can help those people with loose ideas, help them solidify their ideas. Even headquarters looks for sounding boards and ideas from MPs.
Hillier: Short answer is yes, be involved. There is a disempowerment of backbenchers and people in general in society. Demonstrate that there is value in the relationship between constituants, riding associations, and MPs/MPPs, this will help backbenchers regain their power.
Q3 Mr. Trost you said we need a champion, will you be it?
A3 There are about 5 MPs who are into this issue. MPs have only so much political capital that they can spend in only so many directions. He hasn't decided to make this number one but some others may.
Q4 Have been involved in political campaigns. If you are frustrated should stay on advocacy side.
A4 From Ben-Ami (the questioner) is involved in good work particularly on municipal which is often neglected.
Hillier: Not one or the other
Q5 Are we being stifled by niceness, Hillier stretched all the boundaries, would he suggest others do so?
A5 It is not for everyone. Some people are afraid of stretching boundaries. Politics is not about being nice. It would be nice to change things by just having nice discourse but it won't happen. You need to stretch the boundaries to make those changes that you believe in your heart are necessary for this country.
Q6 There are no lost causes. Be patient, we are conservatives, it might happen. Even the Abyssinian empire might come back
Q7 Has come here mostly about freedom of conscience Are there any political movements afoot about this right for doctors?
A7 Yes, and this is being worked on.
Hillier is not aware of specific groups. He did campaign on this issue. If you need to find an association to champion something that is dear to you. Look in the mirror and you will find the leader of it.
Randy Hillier and Brad Trost
Randy Hillier (sorry don't have bio)
Brad Trost is the Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Humboldt in east central Saskatchewan. Prior to his election, Brad worked as an exploration Geophysicist, having graduated from the University of Saskatchewan with Bachelor degrees in Geophysics and Economics.
Hillier starts:
Prospects for Political Action, there is tremendous, unlimited potential.
You have to understand our marketplace. Our free-market conservatives are not silver spoon teacup people. They are motivated by productivity and objectives. They are not into abstracts but clear objectives.
To take them away from their work you must demonstrate that there is value in it for them. Then they will be engaged. Look at the NCC, Lanark Landowners Association, and Ontario Landowners Association. People felt they belonged and were productive.
C-68 is an example of a situation where socons took control and ownership of an issue.
As conservatives or classical liberals the prospects are many and many people will be happy to get involved.
As conservatives we need to be mindful of political correctness stifling speech. I have said many things that people said should not be said. If you can justify it, you can say it. If you swim against the PC stream you need to have a tough skin. But conservatives have tough skin, it is the other guys who have thin skin and get offended.
We can't be afraid of being Conservatives
Trost begins:
He read an article about what influences most politicians:
Numbers are important
They would rather have friends than enemies
They want to keep their job
They are safe as long as no one finds out what they are doing.
You don't often find philosopher kings who sit down and say what is best for the country.
Now people who come to these conferences are more ideology driven. What drives some people nuts is the difficulty of getting things done.
Things are difficult right now because
We have a minority government. Essentially we are ruling in 3 month terms because of confidence votes, so we have a very short political attention span.
There are however politicians and people interested in these issues, mostly Conservative backbenchers but also others.
So what is the carrot and the stick for other politicians?
The long gun registry was passed in 1995. Who thought that it would be politically unpopular? Many people supported it who would be embarrassed to say so now.
The opposition to it is something that grew over time. It is now looking very possible we may get rid of the registry.
One person really championed that this was wrong and kept bringing it up. Grassroots began to form groups. They started to make allies with people who might not be natural allies. Soccer Moms in cities started to oppose it because of the cost.
People are busy. They have to take junior to soccer, the in-laws are coming. They have to see where they are being affected.
The Art of Being Realistic. Some people want to add lots of other things to bill that may not be realistic although these demands can be used as wedge to get other things done.
Q and A
Q1 These comments were sometimes focused on fighting policy with policy. There are so many policies, it is a way to get nowhere. Should we focus on setting down principles so we don't have to fight every issue. How well does public consultation work? Are their fundamental flaws in the system?
A1 Hillier speaking for PCs Public consultations are a facade and a sham. You might as well stay home. The decisions are already made. It is just to pacify people and make them believe they have a voice. As for deliberations afterwards, they require knowledge that politicians just don't have. Politicians respond to political power and voting blocks. I agree that we need to start fighting on principles not just issues.
Trost has a similar experience. It is the moulding of public opinion that counts. We have a Westminister style government but are moving towards a Presidential style. Right now we have an odd hybrid that is not as good as either.
Q2 At the riding level is there any point working with and helping politicians in their riding. Trying to mold the politicians, work on their campaigns. People seem to be saying that headquarters is just sending down messages to MP/MPPs to just be warm and fuzzy and agree with the leaders.
A2 I would say is beneficial. not everyone who runs for public office has carefully thought out positions on issues. You can't separate principles from practical application. You can help those people with loose ideas, help them solidify their ideas. Even headquarters looks for sounding boards and ideas from MPs.
Hillier: Short answer is yes, be involved. There is a disempowerment of backbenchers and people in general in society. Demonstrate that there is value in the relationship between constituants, riding associations, and MPs/MPPs, this will help backbenchers regain their power.
Q3 Mr. Trost you said we need a champion, will you be it?
A3 There are about 5 MPs who are into this issue. MPs have only so much political capital that they can spend in only so many directions. He hasn't decided to make this number one but some others may.
Q4 Have been involved in political campaigns. If you are frustrated should stay on advocacy side.
A4 From Ben-Ami (the questioner) is involved in good work particularly on municipal which is often neglected.
Hillier: Not one or the other
Q5 Are we being stifled by niceness, Hillier stretched all the boundaries, would he suggest others do so?
A5 It is not for everyone. Some people are afraid of stretching boundaries. Politics is not about being nice. It would be nice to change things by just having nice discourse but it won't happen. You need to stretch the boundaries to make those changes that you believe in your heart are necessary for this country.
Q6 There are no lost causes. Be patient, we are conservatives, it might happen. Even the Abyssinian empire might come back
Q7 Has come here mostly about freedom of conscience Are there any political movements afoot about this right for doctors?
A7 Yes, and this is being worked on.
Hillier is not aware of specific groups. He did campaign on this issue. If you need to find an association to champion something that is dear to you. Look in the mirror and you will find the leader of it.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Boissoin Ruling Quotes
I have read a few legal decisions since I started following the HRC and they are very seldom, if ever, that funny. However Mr. Justice E. C. Wilson obviously has a very active sense of humour, and complete and utter contempt for the Alberta HRT ruling. A few of the more interesting quotes follow.
Following bolds all mine.
Dealing with the matter of the "assaulted gay teenager" the Justice said.
Regarding the panel's finding that this was not a political piece and that it was not part of an ongoing debate (there is no debate about homosexuality? seriously?)
He makes a disclaimer but....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23640442/Boissoin-Ruling
The judgment was not wholly one sided. It upheld the hate speech laws but argued for a very narrow definition of them. It also critiqued the letter pretty strongly although it decided that it was legal. The Justice also severely critiqued some of Boissoin's less than orthodox legal opinions or allegations.
All things taken into consideration however, this ruling is decidedly much better for the free speechers than for the Tribunals.
Blazing Cat Fur has more. http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2009/12/boissoin-wins-appeal-against-insane.html
Following bolds all mine.
Dealing with the matter of the "assaulted gay teenager" the Justice said.
[19] During final argument the Panel agreed with counsel for the Appellant that "no one gave evidence that in fact this individual was attacked because of their sexual orientation" (239/5-8).He interpreted Section 3 (The hate speech section) as only being applicable in relation to something like employment, lodging, etc.
[20] Unfortunately no one seemed to appreciate that there was no evidence of an assault at all,nor any evidence as to the accuracy of the news report of the alleged assault nor of the quotation attributed to the alleged victim. No evidence was provided of the details of the reporter's interview, what questions were asked, nor how the subject of the Appellant's letter to the editor arose during the interview. The reporter never testified nor did the alleged victim testify.
[21] No one seemed to appreciate that there was, perhaps, an even more significant problem in the evidence. Assuming there was an assault, there was no evidence to support the inference, let alone conclusion that the assaulter had previously read the letter to the editor or had been influenced by it to commit his crime.
[22] The significance of all these oversights cannot be overstated. For example, some counsel relied upon this hearsay as proven fact to support their arguments.
[23]Unfortunately, in arriving at her decision, the Panel also mistakenly presumed that the newspaper report provided evidence of an assault and/or that the letter served as some sort of trigger for that assault. The Panel then utilized those erroneous presumptions to help draw conclusions of great legal significance in the case - that the letter violated s. 3(1)(b) of the Act and that the Panel had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint. These fundamental deficiencieswill be discussed in greater detail later in these reasons. pg 7
Simply put (in the fact context of this case) s. 3(1)(b) is directed at eliminating statements which are hateful or contemptuous of a person or class of persons due to their sexual orientation, and which are also likely to cause others to engage in any of the discriminatory practices listed in the Act. pg 10Speech that might lead to violence is none of the province's business.
However, I disagree with any implication that the Province has jurisdiction to regulate hateful expressions that may lead to violence. That is a matter governed by the criminal law power reserved solely to Parliament. pg 10Hate speech, apparently, is not really hate speech unless it actually influences someone to a hateful or discriminatory act or is likely to do so. In other words, it must be linked to actions.
As has been explained s. 3(1)(b) requires some causal link between publication of the message and the infringement of rights contained in the Act. pg 11Intent must be considered (Wow).
Thus the Panel only purported to apply Rooke J's test in order to reach its decision and failed to go further and assess the likelihood that the letter's contents would make it more acceptable for others to manifest hatred or contempt toward homosexuals by engaging in discriminatory activity prohibited by the Act. pg 12
...s. 3(1)(b) applies only to hateful expression that itself signals an intention to engage in discriminatory behaviour, or seeks to persuade another person to do so... pg 12
Thus a panel's examination of a complaint must include some consideration or assessment of a writer's intent. Reasonable inferences in that regard may also be drawn notwithstanding a respondent's claim of no discriminatory intent. pg 12He cautions against overactive imaginations.
Speculation in the guise of reasonable inferences and overly enthusiastic interpretations or extrapolations of "cause and effect" must be avoided. Care must be taken not to simply move from a finding that the message is hateful or contemptuous to then presume that discriminatory practices are likely to ensue. pg 15With regard to Boissoin's letter.
But inferring some sort of call for discriminatory practices prohibited by provincial law is an unreasonable interpretation of the letter's message.[60] Again, and it bears repeating, absent some sort of connection or linkage between the impugned message and discriminatory practices the Act has no authority to restrain the message. pg 16With regard to a fear that this letter could cause impressionable young people to act out.
Additionally, it is curious that the witness seemed to be of the view that young and impressionable youths who are at risk of acting out, are readers of newspapers and, in particular, of letters to the editor of newspapers. The source of this view was not explained and thus its reliability cannot be ascertained. pg 16-17A strongly worded critique of the panel's decision to deal with the complaint.
Letters to the editor are not expert testimony about the hateful nature of an article. Especially when they contradict each other. And who gave her permission to ignore and discount conservatives anyway?
the Panel mistakenly found its jurisdiction to deal with the complaint by relying upon two erroneous conclusions. The first error was "the circumstantial connection" between the Appellant's letter and the assault on the gay teenager in Red Deer."...
With respect, the Panel got it somewhat backwards. The test for jurisdiction is not that the letter addressed issues of a "Local or Private Nature"? but whether the letter's content runs afoul of s. 3(1)(b) of the Act.This fundamental error is fatal to the Panel's decision. This mistake is in addition to the factual error concerning the "circumstantial connection" of the letter to an unproven assault. The significance of this error was previously discussed in these Reason and need not be repeated. pg 17-18
With respect, there is no basis to settle the "reasonable person's understanding" of the letter's message simply upon reading subsequent letters to the editor. The Panel further erred in her inferential conclusion that these subsequent writers were persons of reasonable intelligence.They may very well have been but how the Panel came to her conclusion isn't explained nor, in any event, is it clear that these writers, were in fact, "informed about the context", which is a requirement of Rooke, J's. reasonable person test. But even if she was correct in her conclusion,the Panel said nothing about the contradictory letters to the editor which were supportive of the Appellant. Why were all of those writers ignored? The danger in even partially relying upon anything akin to a public referendum when applying principles of law is obvious. pg 18Boissoin's letter was not hateful by the strict test of the law.
In my view the Panel erred in its finding that the impugned letter was hateful and contemptuous of homosexuals and the Panel further erred by failing to properly conduct the required s. 3(2) balancing act. pg 22The Justice noted that we don't censor Mein Kampf
In this regard, it is unfortunate that Crown Counsel, in the course of crossexamining the appellant's sole expert witness, asked that witness if he could explain the difference between the letter and Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf." The damning innuendo is obvious. (On the other hand, if a parallel could be fairly drawn it should be noted that, far from being restrained, Mein Kampf is available at the Calgary Public Library.)The Justice is well informed about the context of the debate it seems.
I also observe that the Panel made no reference to the observations of E.G.A.L.E. Canada who castigated the content but supported the publishing of the letter. 58 pg 22-23Our good Judge seems to agree with Ezra Levant and co.
With respect,complaints about factual error or false reasoning by the author would seem to be properly met, at least at first instance, by counter speech correcting those failures - not by restraining the remarks.With regard to the "militaristic tone" used, the Judge suggests a rather interesting explanation; metaphor.
By analogy, critics might reflect upon the language contained in the well-known hymn"Onward Christian Soldiers". Surely no one can reasonably suggest that Christians singing the hymn at Sunday church service are being called upon to march into an actual war against non-Christians.Obviously the Justice hasn't met some New Atheists, but to continue.
Regarding the panel's finding that this was not a political piece and that it was not part of an ongoing debate (there is no debate about homosexuality? seriously?)
This next passage is priceless.
All of these findings were based upon a significant misapprehension of the evidence.[103]
Regarding the absence of pre-existing debate (and presuming that "political expression"can only be relied upon by an author who writes in response to earlier published commentary) I do not understand why the Panel restricted a consideration of "pre-existing debate" solely to previous letters to the editor of a particular newspaper. Such a narrow construct seriously skews the inquiry concerning the scope of public debate or discussion of public issues. But the factual error lies in the Panel's oversight of the Affidavit with attached Exhibit of Joe McLaughlin,editor of the Red Deer Advocate which specifically documents the newspaper reports, columns and letters to the editor pre-existing the publishing of the Appellant's letter. This material clearly indicates that there was an ongoing debate concerning the general topic in question.....
Had the Panel been alive to all this evidence, she could not have come to the conclusions that she did. Her erroneous conclusions stripped the Appellant of any credible, contextual basis to claim the letter manifested political or religious expression. pg 25
In the result I am satisfied that the individual and cumulative errors committed by the Panel permit of little deference to her various findings of fact and/or application of the law to those facts. Her errors of law led her to incorrect conclusions. The panel's decision cannot stand. pg 25The Justice calls the Panel on her bias and unfair handling of the case.
Justice Wilson calls them on their money grubbing tactics.
It is surprising the Panel held that she had no evidence before her having acknowledged that she had the Appellant's sworn affidavit. There was no affidavit in response. Nor was the Appellant examined on his affidavit. Thus she had no contradictory evidence. All she had were contradictory submissions. pg 30
The Respondent's third basis to seek the continued involvement of the C.C.C. as a respondent is of particular concern. Dr. Lund wished the C.C.C. to remain in order to ensure he had a greater opportunity to recover damages from the C.C.C. since Mr. Boissoin was impecunious. That is not, of course, a basis for joinder. The liability or responsibility of the C.C.C. is the required connection - not its financial situation. This is wholly apart from the fact that the Act would not grant Dr. Lund "damages" in any event. pg 30-31The Justice works on the outmoded basis of innocent until proven guilty.
With respect, the Panel's conclusion is mystifying. She relies on the absence of evidence from or on behalf of the C.C.C. to come to her conclusion without identifying any evidence that could support a conclusion that the C.C.C. contravened the Act. pg 31I think despite his repeated use of the word "respect" our Justice has little respect for the Panel.
I find the Panel erred in law in determining the onus of proof and erred in law in fixing any sort of liability upon the C.C.C. I find the Panel misapprehended or ignored evidence on this issue before her, such that no deference to her findings is warranted. pg 32With regard to the gag order, cease and desist order, apology, and $7000 fine.
The remedies imposed are set out at paragraph 14 of that decision. All are without legal foundation or beyond the authority granted by s. 32 of the Act for the following reasons: pg. 33With regard to allegations that the complaint was pre-judged because of a decision by the Chief Commissioner.
Clearly the Chief Commissioner's decision suggests findings that both the Appellant and the C.C.C. had violated the Act. Small wonder the Appellant complains of an appearance of bias on the part of the Panel inasmuch as she was appointed by the Chief Commissioner who had already given an opinion on the matter. The panel was clearly aware of the Chief Commissioner's decision because she referenced it in her own judgment.
Unfortunately the Panel did not express a cleansing self instruction that she had disabused her mind of both the unfortunate words and apparent prejudgment expressed by the Chief Commissioner. In such circumstances this was mandatory self instruction I suggest.With respect to biased cross-questioning in which Boissoin was asked if he referred to the HRT as a kangaroo court and the Panel's decision that this was a relevant question.
[162] The Chief Commissioner's language was problematic for another reason. It provided an early signal to the complainant to maintain his complaint and to take carriage of the proceeding. After all, the Chief Commissioner had essentially told him that his was a provable complaint. Fairness requires that no party perceives they are at an advantage or disadvantage over the other party based upon interlocutory communication from the adjudicative body.
[163] The Chief Commissioner should not have said what she did but having done so, the Panel was obliged to express the required self direction. pg 35
With respect, whether either or both individuals called the commission a "kangaroo court" was irrelevant to that or any other issue and was highly prejudicial to the Appellant's interests at the hearing. If he said it, it might suggest to a reasonable bystander that the Appellant felt nothing but disdain for the Panel and the Panel's work.The fact that a reasonable bystander might conclude that Justice Wilson feels nothing but disdain for the Panel will not be mentioned here.
He makes a disclaimer but....
I hasten to add that in all those situations involving unfortunate language or intemperate cross-examination, I am not suggesting that the Panel was, in fact, prejudiced against the Appellant or had prejudged the complaint.pg 35-36There is a good deal more in the "Reasons for Judgement" I encourage you to read it for yourself.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23640442/Boissoin-Ruling
The judgment was not wholly one sided. It upheld the hate speech laws but argued for a very narrow definition of them. It also critiqued the letter pretty strongly although it decided that it was legal. The Justice also severely critiqued some of Boissoin's less than orthodox legal opinions or allegations.
All things taken into consideration however, this ruling is decidedly much better for the free speechers than for the Tribunals.
Blazing Cat Fur has more. http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2009/12/boissoin-wins-appeal-against-insane.html
Friday, December 4, 2009
Boissoin Ruling Overturned
Detailed review to follow.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23640442/Boissoin-Ruling
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23640442/Boissoin-Ruling
Thursday, December 3, 2009
I Just Know Sir Humphrey Wrote This
If any of my readers has not watched Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister go order it now. If recession has tightened the pocketbook a little, watch some clips on Youtube.
This is a review of an Ottawa Citizen article. For the record this is not about the torture allegations or the Colvin case. It is simply about the incomparably stupid and dangerous ideology about the public service exhibited by some in the article.
No public figure making public accusations is immune to criticism, investigation, attack, and rebuttal. To place anyone, regardless of their position or job, above this is to destroy a sacred institution called democracy. You can look the word up in a reputable dictionary if you need some help with interpretation.
Translation in Crime Speak: Fingerprint us and we will wear gloves
Translation in Leftist Legal Speak: Punishing people makes them angry. Angry people commit crimes. Therefore we shouldn't punish anybody for anything.
Translation in Mafia Speak: You come after us and we break your legs. Then you won't be able to come after us any more.
Translation in Human Rights Speak: We suffer severe trauma when investigated. It offends us. Therefore don't investigate us.
Translation in Pro-Choice Speak: Civil Servants have hard and intensely private decisions to make. If we don't make it safe and legal for them to make those decisions without interference they will break the law and put themselves in dangerous situations to cover up their original decisions.
Translation in Finance Speak: We are corrupt. If you investigate us we will commit more crimes. Therefore please ignore all jealous accusations such as "Ponzi Schemes" and "Insider Trading".
Now if we could just add Jennifer Lynch to the list of civil servants who have felt the "Conservative government’s public lashing".....
Can you imagine a world where there would be no avenue to attempt to get rid of the Lynch and her cohorts?
This is a review of an Ottawa Citizen article. For the record this is not about the torture allegations or the Colvin case. It is simply about the incomparably stupid and dangerous ideology about the public service exhibited by some in the article.
The Harper government’s attack on a senior diplomat could be the final blow in the unravelling of Canada’s once-sacred tradition of an independent, non-partisan public service, warn experts.Translation: Unless civil servants are allowed to do whatever they want to do (including attacking politicians) we will be undermining a "sacred" tradition. Call me a heretic and burn me at the stake but I thought the "sacred tradition" was that elected representatives keep the unelected government responsible, accountable, and under control.
“This (independent public service) is a cornerstone underpinning our institutions and if we don’t have a public service that speaks truth to power we might as well have everything run out of the Prime Minister’s Office.”If I might be pardoned the expresion ROFLOL. If Colvin is speaking the truth in power, then shut up and let the man get on with the job because we will certainly never know if he is a righteous defender of the truth or a nasty little partisan troublemaker by just implicitly believing that every word he speaks is divinely inspired. From all I've heard (and I admit that I haven't been following very closely) Colvin has not been treated gently. What else did he expect? If he is a whistleblower uncovering government corruption did he expect to have the red carpet throw out for him? Does anyone like people who are blowing the whistle on them? Then again if he is falsely accusing the government of serious crimes he should likewise expect attack.
No public figure making public accusations is immune to criticism, investigation, attack, and rebuttal. To place anyone, regardless of their position or job, above this is to destroy a sacred institution called democracy. You can look the word up in a reputable dictionary if you need some help with interpretation.
“Let’s stop pretending the old rules still apply and we should be playing by the same rules when we have public servants not only being publicly attacked but turning their guns on each other. If that’s what we want then we will have an even more cautious public service that won’t take notes, keep records or speak out,” said Savoie.....Translation: If you try to investigate us we will destroy all the evidence and hide everything possible. Therefore don't attack us or we'll make sure you can't.Gar Pardy, a retired Canadian diplomat, said public servants watching the Colvin saga unfold must be terrified that they could be the next one dragged into the national spotlight where their work is publicly dissected and savaged.
And such fears encourage public servants to destroy records to avoid such public grilling, Pardy said.
Translation in Crime Speak: Fingerprint us and we will wear gloves
Translation in Leftist Legal Speak: Punishing people makes them angry. Angry people commit crimes. Therefore we shouldn't punish anybody for anything.
Translation in Mafia Speak: You come after us and we break your legs. Then you won't be able to come after us any more.
Translation in Human Rights Speak: We suffer severe trauma when investigated. It offends us. Therefore don't investigate us.
Translation in Pro-Choice Speak: Civil Servants have hard and intensely private decisions to make. If we don't make it safe and legal for them to make those decisions without interference they will break the law and put themselves in dangerous situations to cover up their original decisions.
Translation in Finance Speak: We are corrupt. If you investigate us we will commit more crimes. Therefore please ignore all jealous accusations such as "Ponzi Schemes" and "Insider Trading".
“The substance of what he said isn’t in dispute, it is the backlash and admonishment for giving his versions that’s the concern here. We shouldn’t go after public servants when they give their view of what they think happened. Whether or not it’s contradicted by other evidence is not the issue. He was just doing his job.”"On the Big Rock Candy Mountain..." Backlash and admonishment sound about status quo for anyone making any controversial public claim. Look, I understand that sometimes the government can try to find a civil service scapegoat to cover for themselves. If you think that is what is happening talk about that. Don't use some wide brush to talk about how we shouldn't attack civil servants. Civil servants are the problem that democracy was created to solve, or at least contain. Let's not pretend that they are the Mother Teresas who are being brutally victimized by the evil politicians. If you want to be ruled by the civil servants move to a Communist country.
Maybe (or maybe not) the government makes wrong decisions but at least they are accountable to voters. If the civil service makes wrong decisions they are only accountable to the politicians. If the politicians can't fire them for doing a bad (or perceived bad) job, what then?Colvin isn’t the only one to face the Conservative government’s public lashing.
There was Linda Keen, the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission who was fired after she insisted on keeping the Chalk River nuclear facility off-line because of safety concerns.
Marc Mayrand, the chief electoral officer, and William Corbett, elections commissioner, also faced similar attacks over their decisions.
Now if we could just add Jennifer Lynch to the list of civil servants who have felt the "Conservative government’s public lashing".....
Can you imagine a world where there would be no avenue to attempt to get rid of the Lynch and her cohorts?
Imagine no elections
It's easy if you try
No MPs to bug us
Above us only us
Imagine all the people
Living life our way
Imagine there's no inquests
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to call account for
And no activists too
Imagine all the people
Living in ignorance
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no one to fire us
I wonder if you can
No need for union meetings
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing to pay our wage
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
It's easy if you try
No MPs to bug us
Above us only us
Imagine all the people
Living life our way
Imagine there's no inquests
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to call account for
And no activists too
Imagine all the people
Living in ignorance
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no one to fire us
I wonder if you can
No need for union meetings
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing to pay our wage
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Climategate and Newsgate
Conrad Black: A teeming rain forest of irrelevant climate claims:
Small Dead Animals says
Excusing themselves for not adequately covering the story because the competition did has got to be a MSM first.
Link to the non-partisan, "Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists"
Updates:
You just can't make some people happy. We got everyone writing to our offices, nagging us to death about "Why aren't you covering this?" and "What kind of biased propaganda organ is the CBC anyway?", so we cover the story. Now we've got all this mail about it was the wrong sort of coverage! Like this here letter from, what's his name? The Doggerel Party. Complaining that we were telling the public a pack of nonsense and ignoring the real issues at stake. What did he expect? Don't they realize that some of our CEOs have good money down at the bookie on the Liberals regaining power with the Greens as opposition? What were we supposed to do? Let the Cons (funny how Conservatives admit to being cons isn't it) win?
Elizabeth May, not only can she not get a seat, she cannot even manage to keep the allegiance of people interested enough in global warming to attend a debate. When the debate started 61% of the audience favoured her side. When it ended, only 53% did. And they barely even mentioned climategate. Terrence Corcoran aids in the demolition by skewering the pro-global warming arguments and wanting to know why there couldn't have been a fact checker to pop up and object every time they used a false proof. Just for the record, they also had to shut off May's mike at one point to get her to stop an attack.
Lorne Gunter thinks the story is very important. He also deals with why it is not being properly reported on by our Lords and Masters in MSM.
"As Lord Lawson wrote in his book, those worried about imminent environmental catastrophe, as compared, for examples, to nuclear terrorism or even large meteoric collisions, “need not worry about saving this planet. They are already living on another one … We appear to have entered a new age of unreason … It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet.”"
Small Dead Animals says
"Well, it finally happened. Much of Canadian media broke radio silence on Climategate today...For perhaps the first time in the history of mass media, the gatekeepers broke a major scandal to an audience fully 10 days ahead of them.
It's a spin doctor's worst nightmare...
I don't think my friends in traditional news gathering truly appreciate what it is they've done. I don't believe they fully comprehend how gravely they have injured themselves, and how they're driving home the razor into an industry already struggling for survival with abbreviated, dismissive, misleading reports and "denier" and "conspiracy nut" slurs.
The bloggers tried to warn them. The opinion columnists tried to warn them, the talk hosts tried to warn them. Their readers, viewers and listeners tried to warn them."
Even the MSM can't blame the internet's superior speed for 10 days of delay. If it was a sports game they could have covered it overnight.
Bolds are obviously mine.Thank you for your e-mail of November 28 addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. Since CBC News falls in my remit, perhaps I can reply.
You wrote, in substance, to ask why CBC News had not carried a story concerning the thousands of e-mails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that had recently ended up on the Internet.
I suppose the short answer is CBC News did carry the story. On CBC News.ca, it was posted on November 26 under the headline, “Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists”. I expect we will be carrying more stories about the stolen documents and the fallout from their publication in the days before the opening of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on December 7.
With the clearer vision afforded by hindsight, we should have noticed the story and picked it up sooner than we did, but its absence is certainly not evidence of partisanship or CBC “suppression” of the story.
To be fair, the story’s significance seemed only gradually to emerge. As I understand it hackers tried to post the stolen e-mails on a scientific website on November 17. By the weekend, climate change skeptics were analyzing and re-posting them, arguing that they demonstrated collusion among climate change researchers in an effort to overstate the case for global warming, a conclusion vigorously disputed by the scientists involved. The growing debate sparked wider attention the following week (I see The New York Times carried the story on November 21, the National Post on November 24, the Toronto Star on November 28 and The Globe and Mail on December 1).
As you might expect, CBC News editors are faced daily with choosing - from among the thousands available in Canada and around the world - the few dozen stories that they feel are the most significant and will be of the greatest interest to Canadians. It is a decision made all the more difficult by the limited resources and time available in our news programs and our Internet pages. Of course, we cannot include all, or even many, of the stories taking place around the country and the world, but thank you for drawing this one to our attention. We will continue to follow it.
Thank you again for your e-mail.
Finally, it is my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca
Sincerely,
Esther Enkin
Executive Editor
CBC News
Box 500, Station “A”,
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6
Excusing themselves for not adequately covering the story because the competition did has got to be a MSM first.
Link to the non-partisan, "Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists"
Updates:
You just can't make some people happy. We got everyone writing to our offices, nagging us to death about "Why aren't you covering this?" and "What kind of biased propaganda organ is the CBC anyway?", so we cover the story. Now we've got all this mail about it was the wrong sort of coverage! Like this here letter from, what's his name? The Doggerel Party. Complaining that we were telling the public a pack of nonsense and ignoring the real issues at stake. What did he expect? Don't they realize that some of our CEOs have good money down at the bookie on the Liberals regaining power with the Greens as opposition? What were we supposed to do? Let the Cons (funny how Conservatives admit to being cons isn't it) win?
Elizabeth May, not only can she not get a seat, she cannot even manage to keep the allegiance of people interested enough in global warming to attend a debate. When the debate started 61% of the audience favoured her side. When it ended, only 53% did. And they barely even mentioned climategate. Terrence Corcoran aids in the demolition by skewering the pro-global warming arguments and wanting to know why there couldn't have been a fact checker to pop up and object every time they used a false proof. Just for the record, they also had to shut off May's mike at one point to get her to stop an attack.
Lorne Gunter thinks the story is very important. He also deals with why it is not being properly reported on by our Lords and Masters in MSM.
What is keeping this story from being reported is a mindset rather than a conspiracy. It is socially and intellectually easier to take the word of the pleasant, safe crowd claiming to be interested in saving the Earth. Standing with the skeptics is harder work, not to mention riskier.
To continue on my little National Post run here. An article about a French scientist who has come up with a somewhat different temperature graph from the prevailing model, and his difficulties in getting data. So much for well we must be right because everyone else agrees with us. How does that work when no one else can get their hands on the data?
Meanwhile:
One, a sudden realization on the part of our climategate friends in September that the raw data had been deleted decades ago. After years of dreaming up excuses why no one could see it, as soon as excuses ran out the data turned out to have been missing all along.
Two, the fact that in the climategate emails they professed themselves willing to destroy the data rather than make it public.
His third point, or rather question, is to ask why no one is connecting the first two.
Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail has some invigoration prose. Climategate is "a scandal that has swept the world of climate science like a mighty hurricane". The hacked emails are "pretty damning" and " gives a pile of ammunition to those who believe global warming is a giant boondoggle." The article concludes:
Meanwhile:
"My dog ate the data". Watts Up is pointing out an interesting connection between two things.Prof Jones said: ''What is most important is that CRU continues its world-leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.
''After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.''
One, a sudden realization on the part of our climategate friends in September that the raw data had been deleted decades ago. After years of dreaming up excuses why no one could see it, as soon as excuses ran out the data turned out to have been missing all along.
Two, the fact that in the climategate emails they professed themselves willing to destroy the data rather than make it public.
His third point, or rather question, is to ask why no one is connecting the first two.
Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail has some invigoration prose. Climategate is "a scandal that has swept the world of climate science like a mighty hurricane". The hacked emails are "pretty damning" and " gives a pile of ammunition to those who believe global warming is a giant boondoggle." The article concludes:
"“What has been noticeably absent so far in the Climategate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigours of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking,” American climate scientist Judith Curry wrote. She figures the damage inflicted by this affair on the credibility of climate research “is likely to be significant.”Gerald Warner of the Telegraph also heats it up.Academic spats, name-calling, data-massaging and cozy peer review by friends are not exactly rare in the world of science. You'll find them anywhere that careers, reputations and resources are on the line. The difference is we are not usually asked to wager billions on the findings. Given the stakes, it's hard not to conclude that climate science is too important to be left to scientists."
Good Hunting my blog friends!Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been *******.
The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
OHRC Hearing Live Blog
Not by Miss M this time but by the Doggerel Party of Canada with input from the Corgis.
The complaint revolves around a chihuahua service dog but I won't give away the fun.
Body of the Live Blog Here
Additional commentary on What is a Real Dog? (Corgi point of view) and HRC in general.
The complaint revolves around a chihuahua service dog but I won't give away the fun.
Body of the Live Blog Here
Additional commentary on What is a Real Dog? (Corgi point of view) and HRC in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
