Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I don't see how editing out the non-toxic aspects of Section 13 constitute a misrepresentation of the toxic part, particularly since Section 13 has already been used more than once to censor the press.

If the rest of Section 13 saved kittens from trees and puppies from the pound it doesn't make its provisions for censorship any less egregious, at least from an American point-of-view.

It sounds like you're just as turned off by it as I am but don't wish to appear unpatriotic by criticizing your government too strongly to a foreigner. I can respect that.</STRONG>

That's not what it sounds like to me at all.

Look, I'm an American. I've read Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's like four, maybe six lines long. It's not a matter of the "non-toxic" versus the "toxic" parts. There's only one part. And interpreting it to say that "it is a hate crime to criticize Islam" is hyperbolic at best.

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:And interpreting it to say that "it is a hate crime to criticize Islam" is hyperbolic at best.

Agreed.  We can't say for sure it's a crime until someone is actually found guilty.

What is true is that journalists who criticize Islam are forced to lawyer up and defend themselves from charges which carry a prison sentence if they're found in violation.  So it is entirely accurate to say, "Canadian hate crime laws make it dangerous and expensive to criticize Islam."  Dangerous because it could land you in jail, expensive because you need a lawyer to do it.  That's censorship.

My apologies for the exaggeration.  The truth is bad enough in its own right.  Once the CHRC actually makes a ruling on one of these cases we'll know if it's really a crime or just dangerous and expensive to criticize Islam in Canada.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I think what the biggest gap here is that it should be understood that the Canadian Human Rights Act, of which section 13 is a part, isn't hate crimes legislation, and is totally separate from any decision about whether you're committing a crime. It's a victim protection legislation that handles things like not hiring someone because they're a woman -- it doesn't throw the employer in jail, it proscribes remedies, like making the employer develop an action plan to stop discrimination in their company. And indeed, section 13 has been upheld despite Canadian laws guaranteeing freedom of expression in part because, although the courts have ruled it does infringe freedom of speech, it's not criminal code, there's no prison sentence for violating it, and there is no process of getting convicted and having a blemish on your criminal record. As a result, it doesn't have the harsh effect on speech that it would if anyone had to fear the stigma of a criminal conviction or the harsh punitive effect of a jail sentence by it.

The focus of the law is on addressing specific cases with targeted censorship, only after it's found to be hate propaganda. You aren't required to stop spreading the messages until they decide you broke the law, or if the commission investigating decides it looks bad enough to tell you to pull the material down until they're done investigating. In either case, the instruction to stop takes the form of a cease and desist order -- "Take that garbage off your website and stop putting it up." There can be a punitive fine, at the discretion of the court, but that's worst of it.

The only people who go to jail over section 13 are those who decide to "be a hero" and ignore the instruction to stop. But that's not a result of section 13 or any other part of that law, it's just plain old contempt of court. It's common sense that if you're issued a cease and desist order by the courts, you can't expect to get off free if you just flagrantly defy it.

The point of section 13 is just to give the government the power to engage in targeted censorship against people or groups that habitually spread hate propaganda over telephone banks or the internet. It's not designed to scare people into holding back legitimate speech, and the law is structured accordingly. If it were harsher, it would likely have been struck down before this as being too bold in its infringement on freedom of expression laws.

[ February 29, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]

[Old School Gamer]

Thank you for the insights Jonathan.. Forumsdwarf I'm going to pass on responding to your last post in response to mine, it's not really worth responding to.

We're all learning every day, it's good to keep an open mind and not be thinking in a reactionary or limited way.  Peace, I've got nothing more to add here.

[ February 29, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:The only people who go to jail over section 13 are those who decide to "be a hero" and ignore the instruction to stop.

Mention Islam once, free pass.  Mention it twice, do hard time.  That's effectively a "1 strike law" for criticising Islam.  So what you're spinning as a freedom to criticise Islam is in fact a freedom to criticise Islam ONCE.  The second time you go to jail.  That's censorship of the press.

The CHRC has found every defendant guilty that has ever come before it.  A 100% conviction rate, no kidding.  There's a first time for everything, so maybe MacLean's magazine will win its case.  But if it doesn't, if it ever mentions Islam again journalists go to jail for criticising Islam.

Your "punitive fine" is also willfully ignoring the cost of legal defense.  The complainant has their legal expenses paid for by the government, but the defendent is left with huge legal bills.  If you need a lawyer to criticise Islam, that's censorship.  If the people trying to shut you up get all their expenses paid by the government but you don't, that's censorship.

Then there's the fact that the proceedings themselves are "quasi-legal", run by star chambers with no judges of law, no jury, and no clearly defined standards -- except for one, that is: every defendant ever brought up on charges under Section 13 has been found guilty.

So we're back to the toxic portion of Section 13, part 1, the part that's being used to censor MacLean's.  You mentioned Section 13 protecting women from discrimination in the workplace.  Here we go again: if the rest of Section 13 rescues kittens from trees and puppies from the pound, it doesn't mitigate part 1's provisions for censorship of the press, both the monetary censorship already realized and the gag orders enforceable by threats of incarceration that may yet come.

Ezra Levant is free today because the complainant dropped his complaint.  The case of Maclean's magazine is still pending.  If they're found guilty -- as EVERY DEFENDENT has been since Section 13 was written -- then it becomes a crime, punishable by hard time, for Maclean's to criticise Islam.  They'll have used up their one strike.  The money they paid for legal defenses is gone for good.

It is already expensive to criticise Islam, thanks to Section 13(1).  Time and a 100% conviction rate will tell whether criticising religion comes with hard time as well.

[Capntastic]

VOTE BARACK OBAMA 2008

[Forumsdwarf]

"Invade Pakistan!  Wooo!  Yes We Can!"

Ritalin is not a foreign policy.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I'm sorry Forumsdwarf, but I'm not going to try to respond to you point by point on the matter of the Canadian law. Your arguments are extreme and misinformed, and they are getting more so when I reply to you. In the fight against section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, you sound more like Marc Lemire than Mark Steyn, which is unfortunate, since Mark Steyn is the journalist you're ostensibly defending, and Marc Lemire is just a Canadian neo-Nazi with a chip on his shoulder after his antisemitic website got blasted under section 13. In reality cases have been thrown out before they go to tribunal, and the tribunal doesn't have the power to "convict" anyone of anything. There's absurdity to the system, but let the people involved defend themselves; you're overblowing it so bad that it's self-destructive. I know it sounds harsh, but I'm not really sure what else to say about the matter.

If you're interested, you can go here to read the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It deals with the facts of the law as it really is, but it's a bit older, prior to being amended to broaden the scope to the internet. Personally, I agree with the minority opinion that would strike it down.

The Maclean's case will be the first time the tribunal has ever ruled on a case involving a major media outlet and a journalist. If they decide against the magazine, I wouldn't be surprised if the law is amended or section 13 re-evaluated by the Supreme Court and struck down.

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:Nazi

Hmmkay ... I definitely concur with the opinion there is nothing further to be gained from this conversation.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Marc Lemire probably wouldn't call himself a "neo-Nazi" in so many words, but he's a white nationalist. I wouldn't suggest sparing much indignation over whatever words I happen to use to describe him.

[Fenrir]

Roll your eyes if you hate political discussions!

 :roll:

[Forumsdwarf]

I don't even know who he is.  That didn't stop you from comparing me to a Nazi because I'm opposed to censorship.

You're all class.

[Cthulhu]

Muffles bashes the Thread in the head with his -Iron Shovel-!
It is mangled!
The thread has been struck down.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I don't even know who he is.  That didn't stop you from comparing me to a Nazi because I'm opposed to censorship.

You're all class.</STRONG>

I hardly see how you not knowing something is going to stop me from making the comparison. I compared the tone of your arguments on free speech to his, as "the other Mark" fighting the same fight, relative to the arguments of the journalist Mark Steyn. You could take that as a complement, if you'd seen his sites about the issue, which is why I clarified that he's a neo-Nazi loon. But I did not compare you arguments to his on racial matters, which would have been groundless and absurd, as we aren't even talking about that.

Mark Steyn is acerbic but well-researched -- when he uses exaggeration for effect, he doesn't feel the need to abuse the facts or craft a fantasy world to construct his arguments in. Marc Lemire acts like the sky is falling and he's the victim of the cruel oppression of some kind of Canadian Third Reich (ironic in his case, but that's beside the point) -- much as you've wrongly claimed that Canadians don't have a right to free speech*, that if you mention Islam twice in Canada you go to jail, and that people are "defendants" who are "convicted" and "found guilty" (despite being corrected already on that). At least Marc Lemire has some concept of grounding himself in the real world when he's making his arguments, rather than becoming more disconnected over time. So yes, I compared your arguments to his. I was tempted to point out that he actually comes across as having a better understanding of the Canadian Human Rights Act than you do**, but I decided otherwise.

You'll live.

And do I have to mention again that I agree with the minority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that would have struck down section 13 if it were my choice? Not that it matters. My whole dispute with you is that I find it offensive to see you backhandedly insult Wiles as being clouded by nationalist sentiment for trying to correct to your false statements about his country. And when I try to clarify where you're screwing up after he gives up, you just go into a tailspin of presenting a complex -- and pointless, since I never said I disagree with you in principle -- construction of more inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

This is Marc Lemire:
http://www.freedomsite.org/

His website is a pleasant combination of white nationalism and a free speech/legal defense crusade. I particularly like the cake on the front page that smoothly combines the red, black, and white motif with a free speech slogan. But again, that side of things is not why I made the comparison. He can be applauded for fighting on the issue of free speech, but he's still a fool.

------

*the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Constitutional bill of rights): "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

**it's really obvious when you keep talking about "other parts" of section 13, even after I've told you there's no other parts to it (technically, there are a few sentences clarifying its scope; it only applies to telephones and internet, and not broadcast or print media, but that's not what we're talking about) -- what you mean is other parts of the CHRA, with different section numbers within the legislation. Does it matter? Not really, in this specific case. But if you actually knew the law you're trying to criticize, or would even take in the concept when you're being corrected on it, it would not just help you with not just trivial matters, but with other problems -- like your "one strike" eye-roller argument that totally misses the fact that the law only applies to patterns of repeated behavior (which Macleans is indeed accused of), not isolated postings.

[Fenrir]

Nothing good can be gained from continuing this thread. Please stop.