Bankrupting pastors = A teachable moment

Yeah, teachable all right....

Anyway, getting back to business, please see my event blog post yesterday if you need context for this post.

Moon actually did a very good job, more or less, all things considering. Hiring him was Jennifer Lynch's biggest mistake, almost as big as the Alberta HRC deciding to investigate Ezra Levant. Not quite, but almost.

His point was that getting involved in hate speech under the level of violence would involve extraordinary government power and would compromise freedom of speech. At present there is far too great a danger of speech chill. You'd almost think he was listening to Ezra. Watch out Prof. Moon, the habit might grow on you.

He talked about the fact that the commission should always be the one prosecuting hate speech cases (If they don't repeal the hate speech act presumably). Frankly the significance of the whole point somewhat eluded me. The phrase polishing brass on a sinking ship springs to mind.

Moon did get in a sly hit at Warman for his Neo-Nazi postings, I hope Warman heard and benefited. Not holding my breath though. To even things out Moon did take a few shots at the media darlings who spout off with personal attacks like some people whose names we will not mention. You do realize, Moon, that your very presence there (not to mention $50,000) is due to those intemperate and unprofitable attacks? Just checking, just checking.

Bernie Farber talks about how they speak for the widest cross section of Jews, needless to say setting off Ezra Levant's short fuse who called him "appalling" on his blog.

Mark Freiman was up next. His case boiled down to this, you need to censor "dehumanizing" and "demonizing" speech because by the time it gets to advocating violence it is too late. Hate speech propaganda is used to anesthetize a population so that when it actually gets to violence people will look the other way.

I think there are some practical problems with Freiman's arguments. The way I see it is this. Any real attempt to bring matters to a genocidal level would not start with dehumanizing speech. They would start with "critical" speech (Like maybe anti-Israel hysteria) Then it would gradually increase in intensity, at the level that society would bear, until it finally reached the dehumanizing level. However this would be done "frog in boiling water" style. So gradually that by the time "dehumanizing" and "demonizing" speech became widespread enough and socially acceptable enough that it could anaesthetize an entire population, it would already be too late.

We already know that the commissions won't deal with politically correct hate speech. Consider the Imam who called for the murder of homosexuals. Or the music group that wanted to kill all the Christians and would enjoy watching them die. Or even just the new atheists. Any effective attempt at marginalizing and demonizing a group would likely move at the level that society could tolerate and thus would not be prosecuted for hate speech.

Frieman even admitted that Section 13 or equivalent would not stop genocide if there were other factors in play.

The problem with government censorship is that whatever you intend to protect one group can be turned around against them. I read a line recently that in England it is now more rude to accuse someone of anti-Semitism than to be an anti-Semite. Why should it not be considered demonizing in the future to refer to someone as a racist or anti-Semite even if they are? Could it not have potentially been considered demonizing for someone to call Hitler evil and genocidal before he got into power?

Besides which if you have censorship, what prevents a genocidally inclined government from censoring opposition in the name of security and doing their own anesthetizing?

Section 13 is not going to stop a genocide. Unless you were to stop all critical speech (which would incidentally necessitate a genocide) you cannot prevent by legislation a gradual increase in hate speech to the point of violence.

Anyway, if we are talking about extreme, evil, dehumanizing speech, why do we want to focus on words not on punishing people? If it is so dangerous wouldn't we want to focus on those people?

Moves on to talking about how naive Ezra is because he thinks genocides could never happen in Canada again. Ezra does want to know "Does he really have such a low opinion of his fellow Canadians? Does he really think that, were it not for the CHRC, his neighbours would throw him into the ovens?" but I don't think Levant is naive. I think he just doesn't believe that censorship laws would help anymore than they did in pre-Hitler Germany. He also doesn't trust the left (small wonder) and is of the opinion that as a Jew the people he would prefer guarding his back are evangelical Christians, who happen to be very high up on the HRC enemy list. http://ezralevant.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=evangelical+christians&IncludeBlogs=1 Nothing like silencing your allies to advance your cause.

Bernie Farber passed around pictures of racist defamations on Jewish tombs. The points were appropriately brought up that such vandalism is already a crime and that Section 13 has no jurisdiction over such acts anyway. The excuse? Well section 13 acts as an official denouncement of the acts and such civil cases can help young people understand that acts of this type are not acceptable. That is so spectacularly weak it is stunning. If our young people don't understand that racist graffiti is not acceptable in Canada then we have a problem which a few obscure little cases before an administrative tribunal that almost no one pays attention to are not going to fix it. Also note my title, Bankrupting pastors = A teachable moment.

A little disagreement here. The CJC think that Section 13 is quite alright but if anyone wants to amend it for clarity they won't object. Moon wants it repealed.

Moon also thinks there should be an intent provision which Freiman considers dangerous. Might want to rethink that when you realize that your friend Warman there is about to be investigated for intent-less hate speech. (Or at least we assume it was intent-less) By the way, any bets that the Warman case is going to be anything more than a rerun of today, nothing to see here folks, you can go home, everything was completely ethical thank you very much?

Question of whether demonization is subjective, for the record people, it is. Christians for example cannot be demonized. See above.

Moon ends on an interesting point that the HRC is not competent to handle Section 13 cases because they have a very broad definition of discrimination. That is probably as good an argument as any for why the HRC shouldn't have jurisdiction over a toothpick (although Moon considers it appropriate in non-speech cases).

So end the fun, games, and highjinks at your friendly Parliamentary Committee.

Tune into Ezra Levant, Deborah Gyapong, Blazing Cat Fur, Binks, and Mark Steyn for more.

“Another such victory over hate speech, and we are undone.”

Something which should be running through Jennifer Lynch's head on a regular basis these days.

(By the way, this is a commentary on the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights yesterday, see my event blog post below for context.)

Jennifer Lynch, head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission seemed to have one agenda and one only at the committee, look how great we are! Canada needs us so much, it is so lucky to have us! Aren't you just so proud of me?

Savor it bloggers, let it linger on your tongue. Only a desperate person would need that much frantic self-esteem therapy.

She also broke the Guinness world record for most use of the words "balancing", "equality", "vulnerable" and "untruthful" in a serious speech. Okay so nix the serious speech bit, but anyway.

Then there was her habit of pausing for a long time before answering any questions. It made her sound as though she hadn't expected that question and was scrambling to figure out how to respond to it. It didn't improve her appearance of honesty. Honest answers are easy, figuring out how to lie consistently is much harder.

By the way, guess who Lynch was sitting beside during the second hour of the meeting? Richard Warman who is under investigation for hate speech. I'll let you draw any conclusions about the appropriateness of that.

The strawman in the room is the phrase "unfettered freedom of speech". How many times does Ezra have to give his disclaimer about of course it's not unfettered before they will stop talking about "some people". Having got that out of the way, what is ironic about pointing to the Charter in support of freedom of speech? Lynch does it herself. The issue is, what constitutes a reasonable limitation? That is not something that you can directly bring out of the Charter itself without reference to other tradition and law.

She is at least qualified to lead a human rights commission in one way, someone so intolerant of criticism directed at her would probably be very sensitive to anyone else's feelings. Except Levant and Steyn's of course. I wonder if Levant should bring a libel case against Lynch for calling him a liar. It would at least force all the evidence into the open.

The Commission provided a complete and balanced report? Does anyone believe that after today? Probably not. Really, big surprise. A government bureocracy found that, when all the evidence was in, they preformed a vital function, weren't corrupt, and shouldn't be fired.

Hate speech strikes at the root of equality if you didn't know. Let me guess, freedom of speech also strikes at the root of government too. Or are we not quite there yet? (Mind you if criticism of government wasn't allowed then Section 13 wouldn't be in danger and thus equality for millions wouldn't be jeopardized... Thomas Friedman said "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks, but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century." He was talking about environmental issues but maybe he and the HRC should have some talks...)

Does anyone else find it funny that when we are talking about extreme, demonizing, dehumanizing speech, a case actually made it to the tribunal and the victim never even bothered to show up? Just a thought, just a thought.

Why should I even bother to comment on her comments about the strongest ethics of her employees? Truth is stranger than fiction after all. Well almost, Jennifer Lynch's fictions that an entire department worth of civil servants have never deviated from the straight and narrow is so weird that it might almost be stranger than fiction. She should remember that she is talking to a group of MPs who know what civil servants are like, not a bunch of lay people. She likes that term by the way, lay people. So helpful for condescendingly marginalizing her opponents.

The HRC are servants of the public, far above petty squabbling and libel suits. They much prefer private drive by smears and avoiding debates. After all, you just never know what might come out in court...as they have already found out.

What about the Neo-Nazi postings? The commission did no such thing, that event never happened. Well maybe it did happen but only once. And it was harmless and bland.

Lemay seems to think that Section 13 is quite clear and doesn't need amending or repealing.

I like Mr. Woodworth's comments about it not being fear but a fierce affection for freedom of speech that drives Canadians. Lynch's answer is almost totally off topic.

Event Blogging: Jennifer Lynch, CJC, and Richard Moon before the Committee on Justice and Human Rights

House of Commons

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Review of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Section 13)

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a transcript but a summary of the events and speeches in my own words. It it a very rough summary for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only, not the speakers' exact words, or even very close to their exact words. It also probably contains many errors due to the speed with which I had to take it down. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or transcripts if you want to know anything for sure.

The meeting starts on a high point of irony, the committee being seated under a painting representing the "Spirit of the Printed Word" Savour it people.

Jennifer Lynch was up first, alternating between English and French every few minutes.

She is pleased to be here and to contribute to the discussion. Introduces Philippe Dufresne (Who did not, for the record, speak).

The rights to equality and dignity and the rights to freedom of speech are not new. The role of the commission is to provide competent and balanced help in navigating this difficult issue.

Parliament established the Human Rights Act to help foster equality, in Canada we are committed to multiculturalism. The HR Act brings a powerful vision to Canada.

{Quotes Section 2 of Act} This is what inspires them.

The Human Rights Commission brings access to justice for the most vulnerable members of society. They have heard thousands of cases and achieved many victories. These victories include improving accessibility to public transportation, bank machines, and some television programming. Protecting workers from all kinds of harassment, supporting aboriginal rights, and supporting the rights of working mothers.

Discrimination and hate speech continue in Canada. Freedom from discrimination is a Charter right, thus it is ironic that people point to the Charter in support of unfettered freedom of speech.

This debate has been mostly decided by Parliament already. The Commission has narrowly applied Section 13 according to the Dixon ruling {quoted the Dixon ruling} The Macleans case is a perfect example of how well the Commission works. While the speech was offensive, it did not meet the strict criteria of hate speech and was therefore dismissed. This was the only case heard against mainstream media.

The Commission does not regulate offensive speech. Some people have been levelling unsubstantiated charges against the commission, even before this committee, referring to them as psychologically disturbed, dress-up Nazis, and comparing them to Saddam Hussein. Allegations made against commissioners Sandy Kozak and Dean Stacy are irresponsible, hurtful, and untrue.

The Commission serves the public interest and serves Parliament. They provided a complete and balanced analysis to Parliament on the situation. Professor Moon released his findings on the matter. After all the research was done, the HRC found that an administrative answer to hate speech, as well as the criminal code provisions, was necessary. The goal of the hate speech laws is to remove the hate speech; the goal of the Criminal Code is to punish the perpetrator.

The HRC recommends amending, not abolishing, Section 13. Hate Speech strikes at the core of equality. Canada must not waver in her commitment to equality.

Brian Murphy

The Committee heard Mr. Levant's evidence before, most of it seemed evidentiary and procedural. In Mr. Murphy's opinion there needs to be a broad debate on Section 13 and hate speech. Levant was arguing that we should limit it to the Criminal Code, speech that relates to violence. President Obama in America also seems to be moving toward similar legislation. Section 13 is not that. It prosecutes extreme speech that Justice Dixon described as being "extreme ill-will" and "calumny" These are very old fashioned words, do you think we need to update our terminology? Move towards a more American approach? Stay the same?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC is here to protect equality. Hate speech can cause harm. It strikes at the root of equality and exposes people to discrimination and in extreme cases violence. The HRC is comfortable with the way Section 13 has been applied. The statistics speak for themselves in this regard. Of 70 or so complaints that have been brought to the commission only 21 were found to be hate. Of the 19 that went to the Tribunal, 16 were finally convicted. In a recent case the material was found to be hate speech but the law was not applied because of the penalty provision. In another case, neither of the parties showed up.

The HRC doesn't regulate offensive speech, Dixon only allows for the regulation of extreme speech.

The Act should be amended so that is clear.

Serge Menard

Mr. Menard has a good understanding of the Quebec system but didn't understand how important the federal commission was. He thought this was covered under provincial systems.

Now that the Tribunal has found Section 13 unconstitutional, where do things stand?

Jennifer Lynch

The Commission has appealed for judicial review. Section 13 was more often subject to penalty than mediation. We appealed because the Tribunal can't declare something unconstitutional because of the way it is applied.

Serge Menard

That was not his question, he wanted to know where it is now, is it at the appeal level?

Jennifer Lynch

The Commission is a screening body, the Tribunal hears cases.

The appeal will go to the federal court.

Serge Menard

How do you live with this?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC always processes cases according to their rules and responsibilities. There is only once case in the works right now and we will only be seeking the public interest not penalties.

Serge Menard

The Moon Report recommended that Section 13 be repealed but suggested reforms if it was not repealed. What do you suggest?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC filled its special report and in it they analyzed Moon's report. They recommend that Section 13 not be repealed. They recommend that it be reformed.

Moon suggested that the definition of hate should be inciting and condoning violence. The Commission does not agree because that definition is too narrow. Moon also brings up procedural issues, for example that only the commission, and not individuals could bring complaints. The Commission doesn't agree. However the Moon report was very helpful to the commission.

Joe Comartin

When Levant and Steyn were here they made very serious allegations. Has any analysis and investigation been done by the commission into these matters?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC play a vital role in access to justice and thus we must have a fair and transparent process. Employees of the Commission have the strongest ethics and have not erred from them. This storm of allegation has unfortunately been taken as fact.

Canadians can have pride in the commission's employees.

Joe Comartin

Have you conducted a detailed investigation?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC has conducted an internal inquiry and so has the RCMP and the Privacy Commissioner. There has been no breach of ethics or law by any employee.

Joe Comartin

Has any civil lawsuit been brought against Levant?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC is a servant of the public, leaders and catalysts in equality.

The accusations are unfortunate and untrue.

Joe Comartin

Also libellous if not true.

Jennifer Lynch

The organization cannot bring libel suits. The Department of Justice will support legal costs in defence, not costs to bring charges.

The HRC has responded to these accusations in other ways.

The debate is how they balance two fundamental Charter rights.

Joe Comartin

Did you examine the practices in other countries with similar systems?

Jennifer Lynch

There are approximately 150 countries that signed legislation protecting people from hate and hate speech. Canada is one of the few that covers the internet. They could provide more information if desired.

Brent Rathberger

He is very confused and concerned. You say that the allegations are untrue and unsubstantiated.

You say there will be no libel suit because of the costs to individuals. The HRC doesn't have that downside because complainants don't need a lawyer.

Jennifer Lynch

Canada is fortunate enough to have a place where vulnerable people can go for justice.

Brent Rathberger

But defendants don't have that advantage?

Jennifer Lynch

They don't need council, the process is informal.

They have recommended that the Tribunal have authority to award costs in exceptional cases.

Brent Rathberger

Is there a Code of Ethics?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC employees subscribe to the Public Servant's code of ethics. Their lawyers also subscribe to lawyer's ethics codes etc.

Brent Rathberger

Dean Stacey posted on a Neo-Nazi site under a false name. Is that ethical?

Jennifer Lynch

The Commission and its staff did no such thing. That event never happened. We have statute to investigate hate so staff did go to Nazi sites for that.

Brent Rathberger

Steacy said he had posted under Jadewarr.

Jennifer Lynch

Steacy did make one post, it had nothing to do with hate speech. He also engaged in a very bland email trail.

Brent Rathberger

Jadewarr was a private citizen's domain.

Jennifer Lynch

No it wasn't, you are getting confused.

Marlene Jennings

The HRC recommend a clear definition of hate speech as in the Taylor case. If that happens the commission should have power to dismiss complaints at an early date if it does not have jurisdiction over it. This power it does not currently have.

Why does the commission not have power to prosecute at the tribunal? The Commission is not a party in the complaint when it goes before the tribunal.

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC has power to initiate complaints and is in fact considering doing it more. A while ago the HRC represented the public interest in every case before the Tribunal but for various reasons they only do so occasionally now.

Lay people are confused and need clarification.

Marlene Jennings

Individuals should bring cases to the commission but the commission should prosecute at the Tribunal level.

Marc Lemay

Before you amend law you must be very careful. LeMay has read the Moon report. However he thinks that Section 13 would be difficult to amend as it now stands {Sec 13 1 and 3} Considering other HR Act sections we cannot just amend Section 13. He does not agree with repealing the section.

What about Section 13 is not working?

Jennifer Lynch

Section 13 cases represent less than 2% of HRC cases. One case in particular has become prominent. In response to this concern they did an in-depth analysis.

The HRC supports the amending of Section 13 so that it is better understood.

The HRC has an obligation to investigate every case in its jurisdiction. They think that this should be changed so that the commission can dismiss complaints early if needed.

Stephen Woodworth

You say that ordinary people don't have to fear being prosecuted for offensive speech. When he goes door to door and hears people talk about this, which he does, he doesn't hear fear. He hears a fierce affection for freedom of speech.

The Commission does have punitive measures such as speech bans. Mr. Woodworth was in the judicial system for over 30 years and even though there were extreme safeguards, the judicial system still made mistakes.

Constituents are concerned that free speech does not have the same safeguards. For example why not award cost in every case where the accused was innocent?

Jennifer Lynch

The HRC must find a balance between freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination. This balance was achieved in Taylor.

The HRC are an administrative body, the language of prosecution does not apply to them. The tribunal is quasi-judicial, they don't prosecute either.

The HRC follows justice, freedom of expression is protected as the statistics have shown.

Section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of speech. Section 15 protects equality and freedom of discrimination. Section 1 says that everything in the Charter is subject to reasonable limitations.

Stephen Woodworth

You missed my point, I was talking about procedure.

Richard Moon

In his report he recommended repeal of Section 13 and that hate speech cases should be handled by the Criminal Code.

Censorship should only be about violence. The failure to ban this type of extreme speech on the internet is a problem because on the internet it can avoid a critical public and encourage violence.

Other less extreme but offensive and harmful speech should not be banned because to do so would involve extraordinary state power and would damage freedom of speech. Other ways should be found to deal with this type of speech.

Freedom of speech is affected every time a complaint is heard, even if it is dismissed. The commission must hear all complaints that are not vexatious or trivial, and they may be reluctant to dismiss any case because to label it trivial would downplay the hurt feelings of the victim.

Individuals should not be complainants. Hate speech because of it’s nature, is usually only found by those who are looking for it or who stumble upon it. The burden in time, money, and in some cases threats, of going through with a hate speech case should not be born by individuals.

In addition, going on Neo-Nazi website is fraught with such ethical difficulties that it should not be handled by individuals.

The HRC shouldn’t be involved in hate speech cases.

The media seems to focus on people who are more interested in personal attacks than debate, they talk about things like a 100% conviction rate, racist postings, and “crazy” cases like the MacDonald’s cases.

Section 13 should be repealed.

Bernie Farber

For 90 years the CJC has represented the broadest cross-section of Jewry and advocated on their behalf. In Jewish tradition we believe that words are very powerful and that evil words can have evil consequences.

He introduces their President, Freiman, an expert in Constitutional law and involved in the Ernst Zundel case.

Mark Freiman

The CJC believes that it is important to protect the vulnerable. Section 13 is constitutionally appropriate because it only deals with dangerous speech. The CJC does not believe that the Criminal Code by itself is an adequate substitute.

It is not advisable to restrict hate speech laws to only material that advocates violence.

Section 13 is not without problems. There can be improvements in weeding out frivolous cases, speeding up the process, and protecting respondents.

There is a need to understand the context. Section 13 does not deal with speech in the abstract or even with all speech. It only deals with speech delivered via telecommunication methods. Censoring speech is common practice, TV networks for example do it all the time. Canada has defamation laws, contempt of court, advertisement laws, pornography rules, these are all limits on speech.

This legislation prevents harm and danger. Is hate speech harmful? Yes, you have only to look at Nazi, anti-Tutsi, etc. propaganda to know that.

Does Section 13 deal with only dangerous speech or also with politically incorrect speech? Only dangerous speech that dehumanizes, says that people are worthless based on their group. That such groups have no redeeming features.

Demonizing precedes violence. If society wants to protect people then it must start there, not with violence.

Human rights law appropriately focuses on messages not people.

Is Violence key? Violence is the spur but by that time it is too late. It must be stopped at the demonization stage.

The HRC is not dangerous or biased. The Dixon definition is a good one. There is also the appeals system as additional protection.

Things could be improved if the commission could reject complaints at an early stage, sometimes award costs, and have more specialisation.

Brian Murphy

Freiman said that words can do harm. He also reviewed Shakedown and agreed with Levant that there are some procedural issues.

Levant is a minority but makes that case that he can defend himself. Times have changed, the holocaust won’t happen again. Is he naïve? Would Section 13 or equivalent have prevented genocide?

Mark Freiman

No, Section 13 couldn’t have prevented genocide if other forces were in play. However the constant demonization of Jews helped Nazis by anesthetising the population so that they looked the other way when the holocaust started.

Yes, Levant is naïve, he believes history has stopped.

Brian Murphy

Do you think a balance has been struck in the tension between freedom of speech and anti-demonization?

Mark Freiman

There could be improvement.

Canada has a very broad definition of expression, even including such things as lap dancing and pornography.

Bernie Farber (I Believe)

Only 60 years ago over 6 million Jews were killed in one of the worst genocides in history. Just a few days ago in the Jewish Memorial Gardens swastikas and racist comments were written on tombstones in the sacred burial grounds. (Pictures of this were passed around)

Does Canada want to allow this?

Marc Lemay

If he heard correctly Freiman doesn’t want to appeal Section 13 but would support clarification. Mr. Lemay believes Section 13 is already quite clear.

Mark Freiman

Section 13 is already clear but you could amend it to include Dixon’s definition.

Marc Lemay

Is there really a need to include Dixon?

Mark Freiman

There is no need but it could be done if people want to.

There are administrative issues that can be improved. Specialization, dismissal of complaints, staff staying on the job and not rotating out.

Marc Lemay

Does Moon share your opinion?

Richard Moon

It would be more appropriate to repeal Section 13. Improvements could be made but they would not be good enough. If it was amended it should require intent and measure impact.

The cases finally convicted by the tribunal were very extreme., it is what comes prior to that which is the problem.

Joe Comartin (I believe)

Moon made a lengthier article submission to a law school, can the committee see that before it is published?

Richard Moon

That shouldn’t be a problem, it is a lengthier version of a speech he gave recently.

Joe Comartin (I believe)

How can demonizing speech be dealt with?

Richard Moon

Hate speech laws should only focus on violence. It is not necessary to prove that violence actually happened, but using violence is a measure of extremity. Indeed all of the Section 13 convictions were so extreme that they could almost be criminal.

There needs to be a consideration of intent.

Mark Freiman

These debates are profitable unlike some others.

The intent provision is dangerous. We need to focus on words not people. Dehumanization and demonizing are indirect incitements to violence. You will never be able to prove a state of mind.

Marc Lemay

Can Moon comment on specialization and intent?

Richard Moon

He didn’t look into specialization much. There is no reason why not, although it might not be practical.

There are criminal code provisions such as 320.1 which enables government to take down material without bringing charges. This is not used enough.

Brent Rathberger

It is reprehensible to defame Jewish headstones, synagogues, etc but what protection was Section 13 against that?

Mark Freiman Or Bernie Farber (Sorry)

Section 13 acts as an official denunciation. It may be superfluous but it may not be. Would taking down websites prevent this? He doesn’t know but it might be helpful if the internet wasn’t there to incite this kind of thing.

Brent Rathberger (I think)

They were criminal acts not covered under section 13

Mark Freiman Or Bernie Farber (Sorry)

Perhaps the use of civil cases could help to educate young people that this is not acceptable.

Brent Rathberger

His problem is “Likely to expose”. You said “demonizing and dehumanizing”, who gets to define that?

Moon says that Criminal Code is best, will section 319 need amending? Not advocating violence is not a criminal code defence.

Richard Moon

Yes there would be a need to look at the Criminal Code, it might be acceptable, he doesn’t know. There are concerns with issues like the Attorney General having to approve cases. That might need to be looked into.

Marlene Jennings

Commission should have carriage of case before tribunal.

Does not agree with Rathberger that demonization is subjective.

Richard Moon

In his report he did recommend that the committee have carriage.

Mark Freiman

Demonization is not subjective. The word “likely” as used in this law doesn’t mean anything, it is the same as if it said exposes someone to hatred.

Marc Lemay

He has his answers and is meditating on them.

Joe Comartin

Should there be a better definition of skills for commissioners?

Answer (Possibly Moon)

Yes, better control is always good.

Russ Hiebert

Alan Borovoy says section 13 stifles freedom of press, has no defence of truth, and is too vague. There is support for recovery of costs sometimes, why not always?

Richard Moon

He suggested repeal so did not give much thought to costs. It would make sense to have more support for people who are targeted.

The law does appear vague but legislation narrows it. The problem is not with the language of the law but it’s location within a body that regulates discrimination.

The HRC has a wide definition of discrimination, the hate speech laws require a narrow definition. Therefore the HRC should not be regulating it.

Round-Up, Shriveling Weeds and Catching Horses

On the subject of freedom to shut up, the Vancouver Olympics is looking likely to become an exercise in exactly how totalitarian can we get while everyone is distracted watching scantily clad people figure skating. How about... only "celebratory" signs or a $10,000 fine and 6 months in jail?

Official word is that only has to do with "ambush marketing" not speech critical of the Olympics. Except that....the bylaw doesn't specify that. It seems the B.C. Civil Liberties Union, amongst others, is not amused.

Good news is that the Prime Minister has come in on the side of free speech, saying that freedom of speech "...is what our country is all about". News flash Mr. Harper, Sir. Unless you want to have the press howling the word hypocrite at you, you might want to consider the connection between that statement and Section 13. Why shouldn't Vancouver expect to get away with it if YOUR people in Ottawa can?

There will however be "free speech zones" which in the mind of some people should be enough to satisfy everyone. If I may be so bold as to reprint a letter to the editor written by someone on a similar occasion,

"In light of SUU officials plan to designate "Free Speech Zones" on campus, I thought I'd offer my assistance. Grab a map. OK, ready?

All right, you see that big area between Canada and Mexico, surrounded by lots of blue ink on the East and West? You see it?

There's your (my edit) Free Speech Zone.

Jeffrey Wilbur

Senior communication major from Bountiful"

If I could venture a criticism Mr Wilbur I would change it to, "...see that big area above Mexico surrounded by lots of blue ink on the East and West and white paint along the top?"

For the record, if anyone can find me a "I am critical of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics" button for my sidebar, I'll put it up. I don't think Vancouver has jurisdiction in Ontario. Hope not anyway.

Britain's "The Guardian" has decided to play a 1984. History we don't like, doesn't exist. And since we don't like the idea that Israelis could achieve anything worthy of recognition, they haven't.

By the way, you should notice that the Israelis who won, Shimon Perez, Yitzhak Rabin, and Menachem Begin, won for their peace treaties with the Arabs. The Arabs who took part in the treaties and shared the Nobel prizes, Yasser Arafat and Anwar Sadat, weren't edited out. So here is our lesson for the day, why should Israel attempt peace when the world is going to hate and censor them if they try?

I know. The Guardian is sick. Actually worse than sick.

Gotta love this passage: "Parent, if you have a young son and you want him to grow up to be a man, then you need to keep him away from pop culture, public school and a lot of Nancy Boy churches. If metrosexual pop culture, feminized public schools and the effeminate branches of evanjellycalism lay their sissy hands on him, you can kiss his masculinity good-bye—because they will morph him into a dandy." Doug Giles (Apparently his girls don't rate very high on the sissy list either. Not while taking down ACORN in their spare time anyway)

Quote of the Month

"Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion." Harvey Weinstein with reference to why they are supporting Roman Polanski.

Hey keep it down back there, don't you know that you can choke to death if you laugh too hard?

P.S. Double points to anyone who can identify the compass picture and why it is significant.

"...giving school officials discretion holds the potential for discrimination and requires the kind of threat assessments that only law enforcement is equipped to make."

Because NO ONE does impartial and common sense like the government....Oh wait, school boards are the government, right? My head hurts.

Quote from "The Un-Aborted Obama" by Mike S. Adams

"...4. You been supported by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals throughout your political career. What if I trapped a dog in a cage and dismembered him slowly with a pruning tool I stuck through the bars of the cage? What if I then sucked out the bloody body parts with my Black & Decker power vacuum? Would PETA demand my arrest? Would they succeed? Would this not be eerily similar to what licensed doctors do to babies? Isn’t that more serious than animal abuse? Even more serious than ACORN funding brothels with tax-payer dollars? Is this a procedure we want to nationalize?

5. When a white abortion doctor kills a black baby is it a hate crime?

6. Jesse Jackson was pro-life before he decided to run for president. He switched to the “pro-choice” position because he wanted to be the first black president. This, he thought, would show that America is no longer racist. Jesse still opposes the death penalty because – at least he claims - it is racist. In the American health care system, over 9000 black babies are aborted every week. Has the criminal justice system ever executed 9000 innocent blacks in a single week?

7. A Democrat historian once told me that, during its history, the mostly Democratic KKK lynched almost 5000 blacks. Today, the mostly Democratic pro-choice movement applauds (and even defends as a “right”) the mutilation of over 9000 blacks on a weekly basis. You probably think it is unfair to compare pro-choicers to the KKK. But unfair to whom? Klansmen were never such prolific killers.

8. What would happen if we started shooting unborn babies with guns? Would you then decide to oppose abortion?"

Original article here at Proud to Be Canadian.

Quotable Quote

"How strange it seems that physical science should ever have been thought adverse to religion. The pride of physical science is, indeed, adverse, like every other pride, both to religion and truth; but sincerity of science, so far from being hostile, is the path-maker among the mountains for the feet of those who publish peace."

John Ruskin, "Arrows of the Chase" found in a 1912 book "God and Home and Native Land, The Trinity which Inspires Noble Living in Young and Old"

Interesting Looking Trailer

Event Blogging: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn before a Parliamentary Committee

House of Commons

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Review of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Section 13)

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a transcript but a summary of the events and speeches in my own words. I wrote it in the first person so that it would flow better but it it a summary, not the speaker's exact words, or even very close to their exact words.

The meeting took place in a rather large room with plenty of seating for the 40 observers and media people who showed up. The committee was seated in a hollow square under "The Fathers of the Confederation". Steyn and Levant sat with their backs to the audience.

Levant began with a ten minute presentation.

He began by thanking the committee and noting with pleasure that it was a bi-partisan one, because freedom of speech and checks and balances in justice are certainly bipartisan concerns.

Last month Athanasios Hadjis of the CHRT ruled that Section 13 of the Human Rights Act was unconstitutional and that the CHRC was "aggressive and confrontational". In a March ruling by another Tribunal member, the Commission's actions were called "disturbing and disappointing". These members, both Conservatives and Liberals, agree that the HRC is abusive and that they will not convict people charged under Section 13.

Before we go farther into talking about what the CHRC does we should cover what it doesn't do. It doesn't help minorities, gays, or Jews.

In the last decade almost all of the Section 13 complaints have been brought by one person, a privileged white lawyer named Richard Warman. Warman worked for the CHRC and began filling complaints with the Commission while working there. This is an obvious conflict of interests. Not content with that, he also got all of his expenses paid by the Commission to testify at trials.

What of the CHRC conduct?

Warman, as it turns out, is a member of Neo-Nazi organizations. He logs into these websites and writes posts saying that gays are a cancer, Jews are scum, and that white police should be loyal to their race. However, shocking as this is, what is more shocking is that he is not alone in this conduct. At least 7 staff members at the CHRC are also members of Neo-Nazi organizations including Dean Steacy, Sandy Kozak, and others. Some of them even hacked into the account of a private citizen, Nellie Hachme, to cover their tracks. The RCMP considers the case unsolved, but the Commission is the only suspect.

The CHRC also lacks a written ethics code.

They hired Sandy Kozak after she was drummed out of the police force for corruption.

They "borrow" evidence from police lockers without a search warrant.

Steacy has defended their actions saying that they are not breaking any rules. There are no rules to break. Jennifer Lynch also defends the Commissions and attacks anyone who would speak against them.

Section 13 is illiberal and a threat to human rights. My hope is that this committee will be repulsed by what they have heard today.

Mark Steyn’s 10 minute presentation.

There is something wrong with Canada's conception of human rights. Until last month the Tribunal had a 100% conviction rate. Even show trials in oppressive regimes feel the need to let someone off every once in awhile to keep up appearances.

If you are convicted of a Section 13 crime you can be given a lifetime speech ban.

Section 13 tries people for pre-crimes not crimes.

Until Macleans and I intervened last year the Lemire case was going to be help in secret.

Section 13 is at odds with our legal inheritance dating back to the Magna Carta. It protects pseudo-human rights.

Ignatieff said that collective rights without individual rights ends in tyranny, you cannot make something that is merely desirable into a right, and that freedom of speech is the foundation of all rights.

There are 33 million people in Canada but only one uses Section 13. In England a man by the name of Matthew Hopkins named himself Witch-Finder General and went around collecting witches and turning them in for a pound a head. Richard Warman has now made himself Hate-Finder General of Canada.

The CHRC abuses the extremely narrow definition of Section 13 laid out in Taylor.

There would be no real change in Canada if Section 13 was abolished except that Richard Warman would have to witch-hunt on his own dime. Take Lemire for instance. He was convicted for writing an article that was read by a total of 8 people. In other words, if you factor out Warman and co, no one read it. It would be hard to find anything more unlikely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt. As a matter of fact, there would be less hate speech in Canada if the psychologically disturbed people at the CHRC did not write and publish it.

Sometimes organizations get so riddled with corruption that the only answer is to take away it's powers or disband it. The CHRC is now beyond saving.

A period of questions came next and here I must admit my debt to the Macleans liveblog for the committee member names. I couldn't see them from where I sat and wasn't going to guess at spelling. I also used the liveblog to double check a few facts and to help me figure out which of my scrawled notes had been said by whom.

Brian Murphy: (He talked for a long time but the substance of the questions were) Do you believe there are limits on free speech when it gets into the realm of extreme hate speech? Speech where people are depicted as having no redeeming qualities? Do you believe the Criminal Code laws are legitimate? They have higher standards. Are there any limits on freedom of speech?

Levant - Of course, fraud, forgery, copyright infringement, and death threats are examples of legitimate boundaries on freedom of speech. However in these speech is incidental - the crime is really something else like violence. Section 13, on the other hand, criminalizes thoughts and ideas.

It is also wrong to consider the HRT punishments as light ( A reference to a remark by Murphy that I didn't catch) and there are extreme differences between the procedures in the Tribunal and those in a criminal court.

Justice Dixon upheld Section 13 on the grounds that only evil ideas would be prosecuted. He did not envision today's situation where they are prosecuting political ideas, where there are punitive fines, and they use entrapment. We also have a greater respect for freedom of speech now than then.

Steyn - Dixon had a very narrow definition of Section 13. He didn't think that Macleans and other mainline news media would be prosecuted.

Yes words can be offensive, but repellent ideas need to be brought out into the sunlight where they will whither. This cannot be done in a regime of censorship.

Lynch says that she is committed to abolishing “hate“, but that is impossible because hate is part of what it means to be human. In fact Lynch may harbor a teensy weesny bit of hate for Levant and myself (laughter from audience).

Serge Menard - What are you asking for? You started by saying that 2 Tribunal members had declared the law unconstitutional, what tribunal are you talking about?

Levant - The Human Rights Tribunal

Menard - But only judges can declare laws unconstitutional.

Levant - They declared it was unconstitutional, they did not strike the law down.

Menard - They have no right to strike it down, only the Attorney General.

Are you saying that Section 13 is bad, or that there is a problem with individual people in the HRC? Are you implying that Section 13 is good but people who enforce it are bad?

Steyn - No, Section 13 is badly written. It says anything that is "likely" to expose someone to hatred. There is now a very broad definition of likely and it is being used and abused by ambitious employees of the HRC.

Levant - We should repeal Section 13, leave prosecutions to the Criminal Code, and bring in a Forensics team to evaluate the CHRC

Menard - Who should be the forensics team?

Levant - The Auditor General

Menard - Have you asked the Auditor General?

Levant - No but I will take your suggestion and do so immediately.

Menard - What are you asking us?

Levant - We have the material. The Auditor General can confirm it but it is for the people here to act.

Menard - You seem to be angry more at individuals.

Steyn - No we have a principled and philosophical objection to this. I even opposed Dixon. We knew that Section 13 was bad in theory, now we know that it is evil in practice.

Joe Comartin - Would you be willing to come back in the future to the Committee?

Levant - Yes and I can send documents if you want. When I first heard about what the CHRC was doing I was so shocked I didn't believe it. I thought it was some kind of conspiracy theory but it turned out to be true.

Steyn - Yes, and I share Ezra's concerns. I couldn't believe it when I got an email about the prospective secret trial. Secret trials have no place in this country, not over hate speech anyway.

Comartin - You would be satisfied to leave the Criminal Code laws? Would you be willing to have the government declare that such and such is hate speech but not make it a criminal offence? That you aren't allowed to say hate speech but it isn't a criminal offence?

Levant - I am Jewish but I would stand with the Berlin Jewish (Association?) in support of publishing Mein Kampf. If you try to ban something, you will only glamorize it.

The head of Egale said that there are three reasons to allow hate speech.

1. It lets you know who the bad guys are.

2. Hate speech allows for teachable moments.

3. Banning hate speech outsources personal responsibility to bureaucrats.

Comartin - These theories seem to make sense but Hitler rose to power even though his work was widely published.

Steyn - The problem with that is that Weimar Germany had it's own version of Section 13. The Nazi party was prosecuted 200 times for hate speech and Hitler wasn't even allowed to speak in public some places. This just glamorized them, what is it that is so dangerous that we are not even allowed to hear it?

I think if Hitler came back today he would laugh about anti-holocaust denial laws, because it would show that his ideas still had power.

Rob Moore - What do you think about Professor Moon's report?

Levant - Professor Moon was paid enormous amounts of money, over a thousand dollars a page, by the CHRC to write a report and he still called for the repeal of Section 13. Someone hand picked by the CHRC recognized that things were wrong, that should tell us something.

Steyn - Moon is certainly no friend of Levant and I but he still found Section 13 to be a bad law. It is completely unworkable in the internet age and can only be applied capriciously. Unless we want to regulate the internet the way China does.

Moore - How does the Criminal Code mesh with human rights law? What differences are their in HRT and Criminal trials.

Levant - There are so many differences. You have the right to a speedy trial, as opposed to my trial which lasted 900 days and never even came to a conviction. Another trial lasted for 6 years.

In some provincial commissions you can have warrantless search and seizure.

I focused on the procedural problems to appeal to anyone here who might be in favour of censorship, for I believe even they must be opposed to what is happening now.

There is no legal aid.

The disclosure practices would be laughed out of a real court.

We do not want to wait for 10 years while this makes it's way to the Supreme Court. Parliament should be the one to act.

Steyn - The biggest problem is that truth is no defence. I quoted an Imam, accurately, but I was prosecuted for doing so because it was offensive for me to quote him. This allows people to define their own reality.

Moore - What impact did this have on your financial status?

Levant - It cost me around $100,000. In a real court I would either have had legal aid or my costs reimbursed since I won. However besides that there is an issue of justice, Steyn and I won because we were articulate and we had money to pay for lawyers. Most other HRC targets don't. We do not believe that anyone should be above or below the law but that is what is happening.

Ujjal Dosanjh - Others see redeeming qualities in Section 13, do you?

Levant - No, and neither does Egale, PEN Canada, the CCLU, and every newspaper board in this country.

Dosanjh - Do you believe there should be anything between naked free speech and the Criminal Code?

Levant - No

Dosanjh - What about the school teacher who made all those anti-Semitic remarks, is that acceptable?

Levant - No it is not acceptable, but it should not be illegal either. I fear bureaucratic idiots misusing these laws more than I fear what he said.

Steyn - One problem with this is that there is no equality in the prosecutions. An Imam in Montreal said much worse things but he was not investigated.

Dosanjh - Was the firing appropriate?

Steyn - Yes the school board firing was appropriate as was parents refusing to allow their children in his class and other social answers. But he should not have been prosecuted by the government.

Marc LeMay - I am having trouble following, have you read the Taylor decision? Do you agree with it?

Levant - Disagree

LeMay - Well, we are stuck with the Supreme Court interpretation, Parliament can only amend or repeal.

Steyn - Yes, but the HRC are not following the narrow interpretation of Taylor.

LeMay - Dixon said it agreed with section 2D of the Charter.

Levant - There is a great distinction between 19 years ago and today. Then they did not levy fines. They were to be mediators, now they are aggressive. They are also political.

LeMay - The hate speech law in the Criminal Code is also worded broadly, would we have to repeal that too?

Levant - No, the Criminal Code doesn't have the same procedural problems.

LeMay - We are not responsible to investigate people, only Section 13.

Steyn - Even with broad language there are traditional protections in the Criminal Code that are not in administrative tribunals.

Brent Rathberger - Do you agree with Moon that language which incites or condones violence should be illegal.

Levant - We have always had laws against violence. Language cannot burn down synagogues of kill people, you need to change real laws before you can do that.

We cannot criminalize emotions or ideas.

Steyn - I agree with the incitement to violence ban, but in Saskatchewan a man was but under a speech ban for his opinion on gay marriage.

Rathberger - Do you think there is any room for costs in getting rid of frivolous lawsuits?

Levant - Yes it would help but there are still too many problems.

Steyn - I agree with Ezra. Common law has been worked out over the ages to arrive at what we have today. While it may be tempting to think that we can shortcut the system and arrive at a better solution, we should not. There are reasons why the law is the way it is.

THE END

To repeat my earlier disclaimer, this is not a transcript and nothing in here should be considered a quote. It is just a rough summary from my notes, pen and paper notes at that since I didn't want to try taking a laptop through security.

White Flag

I know I said I wasn't going to. I didn't have the time to get a Facebook account. I was not going to do it.

And then....when I discovered that I was spending too much time reading my brother's... I gave in.

My justification is that I can use it like a mini-blog, and perhaps increase the readership on my real blog. With any luck.

CHRC Appeals the Lemire Case

The Canadian federal hate speech law, a.k.a. section 13, may be on the verge of being struck down. This law prohibits speech that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of an identifiable ground, such as sexual orientation and religion among others. Section 13, or rather it's provincial counterparts, are the laws responsible for such things as the prosecution of mainstream news media for hate, lifetime speech bans against pastors, and the ruling that public display of certain Bible references is illegal. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which has been responsible for prosecuting section 13 cases, in a stunning decision ruled that the law is unconstitutional because it violates freedom of speech. Now, that decision is being appealed to a real court of law which will almost certainly agree that the law is in fact unconstituitonal. If this goes through, it will be one of the greatest victories for conservatives in years.

http://ezralevant.com/2009/09/tribunal-the-chrc-has-been-bre.html

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/whats_new/default-en.asp?id=570&content_type=2