Friday, December 19, 2008

CHRC: it's OK to say gays should be "beheaded", Jews "spread corruption", Hindus must "be killed" (As long as your not White)

 

License to Hate

 

Rob Breakenridge from AM770.

 

An outrageous, but not surprising, decision from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Or to put it another way, on its own it would not be outrageous, but in the context of every other decision from the federal commission and its provincial cousins, it is most outrageous indeed.

 

A complaint was filed in April of this year by a Quebec resident named Marc Lebuis (we spoke with him at the time - more here). The complaint was in regard to the writings of a Montreal imam named Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti. Some examples:

 

Homosexuality is a "perversion"
Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"
Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
"Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded

 

More here, including the imam's views on women and "infidels". Mr. Lebuis has been informed by the CHRC that they have no interest in this complaint:

 

“ ...the majority of the references in “Islam or Fundamentalism” are to “infidels”, “miscreants” or “western women”. These are general, broad and diversified categories that do not constitute an “identifiable group” under Section 13 of the Act. As we have also mentioned, the extracts that identify groups on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination (homosexuals, lesbians, Christians, Jews) do not seem to promote “hatred” or “contempt” according to the criteria set forth in the Taylor case. Therefore, the document on which the complaint is based does not seem to meet the requirements of Section 13 of the Act for a complaint.”

 

In other words, the imam is off the hook. As Mark Steyn notes:

 

I support the right of Imam al-Hayiti to say exactly what he likes. It's far better to let these guys sound off and clear up any confusion. But I'm puzzled by the decision of Commissar Lynch's enforcers: If it's okay for Imam al-Hayiti to say homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated", why is the Reverend Stephen Boissoin under a lifetime speech ban merely for objecting to gay marriage?

 

More on the Boissoin case in a moment. I want to direct you to another decision from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal: Warman v Bahr:

 

[41] The posting made by "SS-88" to the discussion thread titled "Homosexuals" advocates for the termination of the very lives of homosexuals and "retards." Advocating wholesale extermination of the members of these groups is a complete denial that members of these groups might have redeeming qualities and is an expression of "extreme ill will."

(...)

[43] The posting made by "WhiteEuroCanadian" to the discussion thread titled, "Homosexuals" denies that homosexuals are human beings. Such a denial, a rejection of the very humanity of persons belonging to this minority group, is an expression of "extreme ill will," and is hatred and contempt for the purpose of s. 13(1).


Now, look again at the imam's words:

 

Homosexuality is a "perversion"
Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"
Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
"Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded

 

Do you see a massive disconnect here? The description of the anti-gay writings in the Bahr case would easily apply here. The imam indeed seems to be advocating "wholesale extermination" of homosexuals and certainly his words are "a rejection of the very humanity of persons belonging to this minority group".

 

Or as noted in this ruling:

 

"Hatred" has been defined as a feeling of deep ill-will, an emotion that allows for no redeeming qualities in the person to whom it is directed. Contempt suggests looking down upon or treating as inferior the object of one's feelings (Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at paras. 60 - 61). Material is likely to "expose" members of the targeted group to hatred or contempt if it is more likely than not to leave members of the targeted group vulnerable to extreme ill-will, or if it creates the conditions in which hatred and contempt are likely to flourish (Citron v. Zundel, (No. 4) (2002), 41 C.H.R.R. D/274 at para. 134). 
 

The federal commission clearly did not want to take on this complaint, and was clearly looking for some excuse to drop it. However, in the process they've exposed themselves as blatant hypocrites - which was Mr. Lebuis's point in the first place.

 

 

REST OF ARTICLE AT:  http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/TheWorldTonight/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10016827

 

 

 

 

CHRC: it's OK to say gays should be "beheaded", Jews "spread corruption", Hindus must "be killed"

 

From: http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/chrc-its-ok-to-say-gays-should.html

 

 

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has rejected a human rights complaint filed against a radical Muslim imam who published an viciously bigoted book about gays, Jews, women, Christians, and even called for the murder of infidels.

Marc Lebuis, the publisher of the Quebec blog Point de Bascule, filed a complaint with the CHRC back in April, after reading a hateful book called "Islam or Fundamentalism"  You can see a copy of the book in its entirety here. (It's in French.)

The book plainly meets all the tests of section 13, including the jurisdictional test -- it was written by a radical Muslim cleric here in Canada, named Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, and it was published on the Internet by him, too.

More importantly, Al-Hayiti's book seethes with hate. According to Lebuis's careful notes, it included statements such as these (I've included only a portion of them):

Homosexuals

·         Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"

·         "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"

Infidels

·         Most Infidels “live like animals”

·         "sending our sons and daughters to the schools of the Infidels has devastating effects on their beliefs, their behavior and their character. For the children of Infidels are the most pervert children. At a very early age, they adopt the behavior of their parents "

Men are superior to women

·         "men are superior to women and better than them". In general, "men have a more complete intellect and memory than women"

Muslim women are superior to Infidel women

·         "The veiled Muslim woman is a light in the darkness of the 20th century, she carries the torch of modesty, of chastity and of Islamic values"  

·         “male Infidels will not be happy with us until our women are in their beds, in their magazines and in their dancing clubs !”

·         "If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man ... their marriage is invalid, in fact it is adultery"  

Muslims are superior to Infidels

·         "... a Muslim must never put his brother in Islam at the same level as an Infidel. In fact, to place Infidels at equality with Muslims is one of the greatest form of ignorance and injustice"

·         "The rule is that the most disobedient among Muslims is better than the most virtuous, the most polite, the most honest and the most loyal among the Infidels"

Christianity

·         "It is because of this religion of lies, which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery"

Jews

·         Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth"

·         Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing"

Slavery

·         "owning slaves is not prohibited"

·         "Allah has allowed men to marry two, three or four women, but one who fears he will not be fair can marry only one or have slaves."

Democracy is contrary to Islam. Jihad is a duty of sedition

·         "Democracy is a system in total contradiction with Islam"

·         "... freedom is unknown in Islam, it contradicts Islam, therefore it is a false concept"

·         "[freedom] serves to justify corruption" and "stooping to the lowest levels of bestiality"

·         “Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck”

·         in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. "The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam." The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or “be killed"

Dear reader, don't get me wrong. I don't believe it should be against the law to have this much hate in your heart. I'd want to make sure that Al-Hayiti's calls to violence (cut an apostate's neck, kill Hindus and Buddhists, etc.) didn't meet the standard of criminal incitement, and I'd hope that CSIS was attending his sermons to make sure he wasn't going even further off the cuff. But plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism, misogyny, anti-gay bigotry, etc., ought to be legal. The answer is denunciation, debate, marginalization, etc. -- not government censorship.

But that's not the approach taken by the CHRC. They have prosecuted Canadians for much less. But they refuse to prosecute anyone who, well, isn't Christian.

As readers will know, I was specifically acquitted of section 13 charges for publishing the exact same words for which Rev. Stephen Boissoin was found to have committed "hate speech", by both the CHRC and the Alberta HRC. That's because I'm Jewish, and Rev. Boissoin's Christian. HRCs have a special hate for Christians.

And, despite the fact that there do exist a number of radical Muslim inciters like Al-Hayiti in Canada, not a single radical Muslim (or radical Tamil, or radical Sikh) hate-monger has ever been prosecuted.

And, so it is again: the CHRC has rejected Lebuis's complaint. The rejection states:

...the majority of the references in “Islam or Fundamentalism” are to “infidels”, “miscreants” or “western women”. These are general, broad and diversified categories that do not constitute an “identifiable group” under Section 13 of the Act. As we have also mentioned, the extracts that identify groups on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination (homosexuals, lesbians, Christians, Jews) do not seem to promote “hatred” or “contempt” according to the criteria set forth in the Taylor case. Therefore, the document on which the complaint is based does not seem to meet the requirements of Section 13 of the Act for a complaint.

Translation: when a radical Muslim says gays should be killed, Buddhists should be killed, women may be treated like slaves, etc., those victims are not legally considered to be "identifiable groups" -- they have no human rights.

Gays, women, Buddhists, Jews, etc., do have human rights that can be offended only when white supremacists do the offending. When radical Muslims are doing the offending, gays, women, Jews, etc., can just get a thicker skin.

It's B.S., of course. It's an excuse made up out of thin air -- there is no such jurisprudence. The rejection is tarted up to look official, or rooted in some sort of rule of law. But it's not. It's raw politics. In the politically correct war of censorship that the CHRC wages on Canadians, Muslims are exempt from the law (as are Tamils, Sikhs and even Jews).

That's a form of corruption.

This is proof that the CHRC is a political weapon, not a human rights agency, and certainly not an agency that deserves to be called any sort of legal apparatus.

This is proof that the Official Jews have made a grave mistake in being Canada's loudest defenders of HRCs. For HRCs have no problem going after pro-Jewish voices like Maclean's magazine, or Fr. Alphonse de Valk, or the Christian Heritage Party, etc., (even if they're eventually acquitted, for the lengthy, costly process itself is the punishment) but they'll never go after the true haters -- people who actually call for murders.

This is a particularly egregious case, for the offensive work is particularly grotesque, and it borders on criminal incitement (I'm not a criminal lawyer -- it may in fact cross over that border).

The CHRC's hypocrisy isn't new.

Their double-standard isn't new.

What's new is that this is happening in Quebec.

So far, Quebec has largely ignored the human rights battles in the rest of Canada. I'm not quite sure why, but it hasn't been a big issue there. I did note this editorial in La Presse calling for the abolition of section 13, but that's about it.

I think this issue will change it.

First of all, Lebuis is an articulate, smart and passionate bilingual advocate, with an increasingly popular blog.

Second, the story already received good exposure today in Le Devoir (I'll post the whole story when I can find it.) Here's a Google translation of the first part of that story, but the headline says it all:

Canadian Human Rights Commission: attacking gays, westerners and Jews isn't necessarily hateful

I think that would irritate any Canadian who believes in tolerance, equality, peace and freedom. But Quebec is particularly sensitive to the issue, having just gone through a province-wide exercise about how far they should go to "accommodate" radical Islam. That accommodation debate was formally styled as accommodating any minority, but it was really a proxy for dealing with Islam. The answer was pretty unanimous: Quebeckers don't want special rules or exceptions. This headline is therefore doubly powerful: it shouts out the special exception given to a radical Muslim cleric, and it points out that the exception in fact has to do with hating Quebeckers.

I believe the debate on the CHRC has now officially started in Quebec.

 

 

More at:  http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/chrc-its-ok-to-say-gays-should.html

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Lemire submits Moon report for the Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

Lemire submits Moon report for the Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

 

The Lemire case will be the direct beneficiary of the recent Moon Report commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to study Section 13 and “Hate laws” on the Internet.

 

The report by University of Windsor professor, Robert Moon, examined many of the same arguments that are in issue in the Lemire case. After a 29 day hearing, spread across 5 years, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is addressing the Constitutional Challenge filed by Lemire back in December of 2005.  Closing arguments in the case were held in September, 2008.

 

The principle recommendation by Robert Moon was to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and not allow the CHRC any ability to investigate cases relating to Section 13 (Canada’s internet censorship provision).  Editorials in the mainstream media have reached across the country in a unison voice to repeal Section 13.

 

 

Earlier today, Barbara Kulaszka, legal counsel for Marc Lemire filed the Moon report before the Tribunal.

 

 

 

 

December 2, 2008

 

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,

160 Elgin St., 11th Floor,

Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

 

Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405

 

 

To the Tribunal:

 

The Canadian Human Rights Commission released on November 24, 2008 a report by Professor

Richard Moon of the University of Windsor entitled “Report to the Canadian Human Rights

Commission Concerning Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Regulation of

Hate Speech on the Internet.”

 

The report was commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in June of this year.

 

The mandate given to Professor Moon was to study “the most appropriate mechanisms to address

hate messages” and more particularly those on the Internet, with specific emphasis on the role of

section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

 

The primary recommendation of the report was that section 13 should be repealed for the reasons

outlined in the report.

 

The respondent is requesting that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this study, which is attached

hereto as a pdf file. While the respondent relies on his own statement of facts and submissions,

this study by Professor Moon is an important and unique examination of section 13 which bears

on the constitutional issues raised in this appeal.

 

It is submitted that the report would be useful in the determination of the constitutional issues

and should be considered by the Tribunal.

 

Yours truly,

Barbara Kulaszka

 

 

 

 

 

Silencing Thought:

 

The Human Rights Industry's War on Freedom of Expression

 

Pre-Order from Amazon.com

 

The Fight for Freedom Continues

 Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the final submissions which we've just finished consumed the most time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spent a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running.

 My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the System and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. Our case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

 How you can help:

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

 

PayPal:   Send your donation to:   admin@stopsection13.com

MoneyBookers:  Send your donation to: marc@lemire.com

     

Every single cent raises goes directly to this case and the legal defence fund.

 

 

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

 

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

 

 


 

Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

 

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law 

and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

 

·         Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street 

PO Box 92545 

Toronto, Ontario 

M5A 2K1 

Canada

 

 

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Media Bonanza: Editorials show overwhelming support to repeal Section 13!

Canada’s mainstream media is alive with editorials and opinion articles denouncing the Canadian Human Rights Commission and demanded an end to the repression of Section 13.  (Canada’s Internet censorship provision)

 

The editorials cross all party lines.  From the National Post, to the Globe and Mail to the Toronto Star.   Section 13 is the disgrace of Canada.

 

Sadly our elected officials are busy sitting on their hands and want to keep reviewing and studying the impact of a repeal of Section 13. 

 

A political solution might come one day, but the first test, and a direct benefactor of the Moon report will be the Marc Lemire Constitutional Challenge, which is currently awaiting a decision from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, on exactly the same grounds that Moon studied.

 

Thanks for the Moon Report, Lemire’s constitutional challenge just gained huge momentum!

 

Please help the Marc Lemire Constitutional Challenge.   The best chance to overturn Section 13!

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the final submissions which we've just finished consumed the most time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spent a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running. 

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mainstream Media Editorials and Opinion Pieces on the Repeal of Section 13 in response to the Moon report

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL: Common sense on free speech

“For too long, Canadians accused of discriminatory speech before a human rights tribunal have been denied any real defence. It is thus refreshing to see a report commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission propose legislative changes that would divert at least some of such cases to Canada's courts, where proper defences exist--truth, fair comment and predictable rules of procedure to name but three.

Moon's report was commissioned after the CHRC's difficult spring. A controversial prosecution revealed several instances of what looked like Orwellian tactics by the CHRC -- commission agents provocateur posing as racists in chat rooms, for instance -- and the Canadian public further became aware of the CHRC's perfect score in obtaining convictions.

..

As simple justice requires an accused person be tried in a setting where the possibility of acquittal exists, Moon's conclusion that hate speech prosecutions be the exclusive province of the Criminal Code is welcome.

It is not everything free-speech advocates have been asking for. But it is far more than a baby step in the right direction.

Parliament should act on it.

Calgary Herald - November 26, 2008,  Page A-18

 

 

 

EDITORIAL:  FREE SPEECH AND HATE SPEECH - Common sense on offence

“Allowing a human-rights commission to police the country's newspapers and magazines for their coverage of religious or other minorities is a terrible idea, yet that is the law, though most Canadians may not realize it. Now, an independent report requested by the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommends a repeal of the section on hate speech in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The report is a much-needed blast of common sense.

 

By accident more than design, the Canadian Human Rights Commission assumed responsibility over the news media. Initially, the anti-hate portion of the rights act covered telephone messages. After the Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in 2001, the human rights commission's responsibility extended to the Internet. Today, most news organizations operate websites. Hence, the commission is in a watchdog role that sits awkwardly in a free society.

 

The hate-speech provision of the rights act is much broader than the hate law in the Criminal Code. It requires only a likelihood that the speech will cause hatred or contempt, rather than an intent to promote hatred. The wording is broad enough to encompass written material that uses satire to achieve its aims, or that reflects stereotypes, or merely seems to. There is no defence of fair comment. It allows the commission (or people who complain to it) to take aim at those who give offence. Yet open debate in a democracy is grounded in the right to offend. "Any attempt to exclude from public discourse speech that stereotypes or defames the members of an identifiable group would require extraordinary intervention by the state and would dramatically compromise the public commitment to freedom of expression," says Richard Moon, a law professor at the University of Windsor, in his report. "Because these less extreme forms of discriminatory expression are so commonplace, it is impossible to establish clear and effective rules for their identification and exclusion." Stick to banning expression that incites violence, he says, wisely, and leave it to the Criminal Code, rather than the rights act. (His recommendation that we need a mandatory national press council, if the voluntary provincial ones don't become more vigorous, would be a ridiculous way of enshrining what he objects to in the human rights act.)”

Globe and Mail – November 25, 2008

 

 

 

EDITORIAL: At last, common sense on free speech

“At last, someone with some authority has had the courage to state the obvious about the absurdity of the Canadian Human Rights Commission policing the nation's news media (or any other media) for offensive comments about particular religious or ethnic groups.

 

"Any attempt to exclude from public discourse speech that stereotypes or defames the members of an identifiable group," Moon wrote in a report commissioned by the CHRC and made public this week, "would require extraordinary intervention by the state and would dramatically compromise the public commitment to freedom of expression."

No kidding. The chief scandal here is that Moon had to write these words at all. Such a notion should have been glaringly obvious to the parliamentarians who wrote the law, the commissioners who enforced it and even the law students and lawyers who regularly abused it by pressing frivolous complaints. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are among the primary liberties guaranteed us in our constitution. That they should have been undermined by a body established for the very purpose of defending human rights is a travesty.

Unfortunately, the CHRC seems determined to cling to its powers. Chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demoted Moon's recommendations to "suggestions," and said they would be part of a wide ranging public consultation on the commission's role. "We can envision Section 13 being retained with some amendments," she told the National Post.

 

What nonsense. Parliament should act on Moon's report without delay. Fundamental notions of free speech and free expression need no further consultation. Not in Canada.”

Montreal Gazette – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

EDITORIAL - Free speech, and hate

“Beyond that, does society need to cast additional chills on freedom of speech and spirited public discourse, to combat hatred? In the Star's view, no.

 

But a controversial section of the Canadian Human Rights Act does just that. Section 13 makes it a "discriminatory practice" to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" via the Internet. That can be interpreted to cover defaming or stereotyping, a wider net than inciting hatred. Unlike the Criminal Code, there's no need to prove intent. And the penalty is serious. The federal rights tribunal can order the offending party to desist, to smarten up, and to pay as much as $30,000 in damages and penalties.

 

Given Criminal Code protections, this needlessly chills free speech.

 

That's why Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should heed the advice of Richard Moon. In a cogent report released this week, the University of Windsor law professor argues that Section 13 should be repealed.”

Toronto Star – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

EDITORIAL:  Resisting the censors

“The right to free speech includes the right to argue and offend. You'd think this would be self-evident, yet it requires defending, here in Canada and internationally.

 

Professor Richard Moon, a constitutional expert, recently prepared a report for the Canadian Human Rights Commission about regulating hate speech on the Internet. Mr. Moon sensibly recommends the commission get out of the business of regulating what Canadians write and say.

In general, though, the state must not dictate which jokes cross the line, or which terms perpetuate stereotypes. Misguided attempts to safeguard religious groups from intolerance can ultimately have the opposite effect.

Canada has already spoken clearly at the UN. It can continue to lead the defence for free speech by repealing its own vestigial anti-blasphemy law, and by removing the Canadian Human Rights Commission's mandate to police expression.”

Ottawa Citizen – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

EDITORIAL:  The Internet - No place for rights commission

“An independent report by the University of Windsor's Richard Moon says the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be stripped of its power to investigate online hate messages.

Moon's assessment of the true role of the human rights commission is correct, but nothing will change unless the government introduces legislation to repeal the commission's sweeping powers.

 

The will is clearly there. Just last month the Conservative party voted in favour of a resolution to eliminate the human rights commission's authority to "regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints" related to the Internet.

The ball is now in the court of Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who oversees the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Nicholson says he wants the all-party justice committee to hold public meetings and report back to Parliament before any decision is made.

 

That's fair, but there's no reason to make this a long, drawn-out process. Hold the meetings, file the report, then accept the findings commissioned by the commission itself:

 

Internet hate messages should be investigated by police. The law must be amended to reflect that fact.”

Windsor Star – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

EDITORIAL:  No need to hate free speech

This week's report advocating the repeal of the unfair and intrusive hate-speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act is a victory for common sense and free speech.

 

There is no place in a democracy that values robust debate for a Big Brother-style bureaucracy policing expression that some deem to be offensive.

 

In the Internet age, such an approach is impossible.

It's welcome news that Moon recommended that hate speech should be handled by the Criminal Code alone -- and only if it involves extreme expression that advocates, justifies or threatens violence. Censoring speech that stereotypes or defames minority groups isn't practical, Moon explained.

 

What a breath of fresh air. Stop trying to clamp down on the media -- and anyone else engaging in the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of expression -- and focus on the real hate-mongers. In a real court.

 

Over to you, Rob Nicholson.

London Free Press – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

EDITORIAL:  Moon’s Spin on Hate

“My hero is a guy called Richard Moon. Other people have their Sidney Crosbys or Beyoncés, but I want Richard Moon’s autograph. I’m thinking of mounting his picture on my office wall. He’s the man.

 

Who, you ask, is Richard Moon? Well, he’s a professor at the University of Windsor who has written a report, released this week, recommending that the Canadian Human Rights Commission no longer investigate complaints relating to hate speech.

 

Who cares about that, you snort? You should, as the Human Rights Commission and all its little provincial sprouts make it their business to monitor your every thought, word and deed and decide whether or not you’re playing by the rules.

 

The only problem is the commissions make the rules with zero input from me or you and they have a tendency to get zealous in their defence of the allegedly offended.

But in this social networking age, every errant thought is posted on the Internet and the thought police are wearing themselves ragged trying to stem the tide.

 

So instead of trying to shut down hate-filled stupidity wherever it rears its head, destroying free and honest expression in the process, Moon offers the following common sense approach: “Find ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes and defames.” Argument, debate, discussion, dialogue: Whatever you want to call it, it beats the kind of kangaroo court justice practised by human rights commissions.

 

Now, let’s just hope someone doesn’t complain to the human rights commission about Richard Moon.

Metro News (Ottawa) – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

A victory for free speech:  With the release of the Moon report, Parliament has no excuse not to kill the censorship powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

“The fact that the CHRC continues to cling to its censorship powers -- even after Moon's dramatic rebuke -- shows how out of step with Canadian values the CHRC has become. When it was created in 1977, the CHRC was designed to be a shield, protecting the civil rights of Canadians. A generation later, they've mutated into a sword, violating our freedoms. And their Kafkaesque conduct violates our norms of natural justice, too.

 

It's no longer even a matter of serious debate in Canada. The entire political spectrum has rebelled against section 13, with critics as diverse as Egale, the gay rights lobby, PEN Canada and the Toronto Star joining the National Post, the Canadian Association of Journalists, Noam Chomsky and even TV's Rick Mercer calling for section 13 to be repealed. The only people who don't seem to get it are those with a personal stake in censorship -- the bureaucrats and lawyers who make a living off the law; as well as the ethnic lobby groups that support them, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and Canadian Islamic Congress.

 

It's Parliament's turn to act. A Liberal named Keith Martin and a CHRC consultant named Richard Moon both support repeal of section 13 -- the Conservatives should make it unanimous and non-partisan, and just do it.”

National Post – November 25, 2008

 

 

 

Kill section 13

'The principal recommendation of this report is that section 13 be repealed so that the censorship of Internet hate speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law." We can't recall the last time reading 28 words gave us such an exquisite frisson.

However welcome Prof. Moon's report recommendations are, there are signs the CHRC is already seeking to undermine them. Rather than sending the report directly to Parliament, the commission has called for public consultation followed by its own set of recommendations sometime in the middle of next year. This sounds too much like an attempt to water down Prof. Moon's conclusions.

 

What is to prevent the commission from using its consultations as a way to marshal special interest groups to oppose the report? Indeed, the commission is eager to keep its role as speech cop. And special interests are similarly eager to keep using the commission to intimidate their critics into silence.

 

The government needn't wait. It should use the occasion of Prof. Moon's report to axe the CHRC's power to limit free speech now.”

National Post – November 25, 2008

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Kay on censorship, press councils and hate speech: Three observations on Richard Moon's CHRC report

“(1) Give Richard Moon credit: He is the first person (to my knowledge) who has properly articulated the fundamental tension between the concept of human rights and the regulation of hate speech. He does so in Section 4(b) of his report, which I would urge readers to peruse carefully — especially this part: "The principal recommendation of this report is that section 13 be repealed so that the censorship of Internet hate speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law. A narrowly drawn ban on hate speech that focuses on expression that is tied to violence does not fit easily or simply into a human rights law that takes an expansive view of discrimination and seeks to advance the goal of social equality through education and conciliation. For reasons discussed in the next part of this section, the process established in the Canadian Human Rights Acts (CHRA) for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination is poorly suited to section 13 complaints. More generally, there is a tension between the general purpose or ethos of the CHRA and the narrow definition of hate speech adopted by the CHRT and, with some refinement, supported in this report."

 

This is an important insight, and one that critics of the CHRC (such as me) would do well to appreciate. As Moon writes (in not so many words), the CHRA is a touchy-feely document designed to address every imaginable psychic threat to minority communities. It is therefore understandable that bureaucrats tasked with upholding the CHRA would bring this all-encompassing mission to every aspect of their labours — including censorship. The result, Moon notes, is "a tension between the general purpose or ethos of the CHRA, and the narrow definition of hate speech adopted by [Moon himself]."

 

This, more than anything else, explains why Section 13 can't be fixed with tweaks: It is not the statute per se that is the problem, but rather the conflict between Canada's free-speech constitutional tradition and a CHRC bureaucracy whose mission in life is statutorily guided by bleeding-heart political correctness.

National Post – November 25, 2008

 

 

 

 

Keith Martin: Time for Parliament to take action on free speech

“While Prof. Moon’s report is excellent, the actual power to implement his recommendations, or any others that relate to the CHRA, resides not with the commission but with Parliament. It is the nation’s elected representatives who are ultimately responsible for the act. Therefore the ball is, as they say, now in Parliament’s court.

 

Last year, I introduced two initiatives to protect our freedom of speech. The first was a motion to remove section 13.1, the most noxious part of the Human Rights Act. The second initiative involved a request put to members of the House of Commons’ justice committee to conduct a public study of the CHRA, and by extension, the activities of the commission.

In an open and liberal democracy, we have a right to be protected from hate speech, but we do not have a right to not be offended. Canadians laid down their lives in two world wars to give us the cherished right of free speech. It is now the duty of Parliamentarians to stand up and protect it.”

National Post – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

Steve Janke: Who will correct damage already done by CHRC?

“So what of the people who have paid thousands to defend themselves in front of these tribunals?  What of the thousands that have been doled out as fines by people found guilty by a tribunal that is not a court of law?

 

Worse yet, what of the people who have been humiliated by the CHRC, forced to pen apologies or more.  By more I mean forced to go beyond apologizing for a specific incident, and instead promising to not speak again on a given subject.

 

Using the Moon report to fundamentally redefine the CHRC is a great first step, and I'm hoping we'll see action on it soon.

 

But I think there has to be a look back as well.  Incompetence at the CHRC has inflicted a lot of damage.  If a crown attorney or a judge was found to be corrupt or incompetent, every case touched by that person would be subject to review.  And yes, in all likelihood, people who deserved to be punished would go free because of the taint that could not be scrubbed off.  But we'd accept that for fear of the hurt suffered by innocent people because of this corruption or incompetence.

 

I think we ought to do the same here.  Yes, it'll be expensive.  Yes, some bad people will benefit.  But I think any judgment or decision handed down by the CHRC in which Section 13 played a role ought to be reviewed by a proper commission made up of members of the legal profession.”

National Post – November 26, 2008

 

 

 

 

See GoogleNews Archive on Repeal of Section 13 and Moon Report

As of Nov 26, 2008 @ 10:00pm – 122 news articles in GoogleNews

 

 

 

 

It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

 

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

 

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com