| || |
...and, to be honest, I wish he'd stayed in the Witness Protection Program instead of unleashing 50 pages of sentimental and ahistorical twaddle:
The triumphs of Fascism in
No Canadian who had a proper respect for the history of his country could write that sentence. Which is why it alone is a good example of why we need free speech. Nobody who gave it ten minutes' study would think that the Dominion of Canada, one of the oldest, peacefully evolved, constitutional democracies on the planet, is as "fragile" as the
Ezra Levant dismantles the Nicholson Report pretty thoroughly. What he doesn't address is how the government's "audaciously false propaganda" strikes the fellows suing him and
Next month the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, encouraged by the squish Nicholson and the polytechnic lite-
I don't know why any self-respecting person would want to work in the "journalistic" environment Nicholson and Co are creating, a world in which audacious propagandists will be free to use "human rights" courts as a threat to browbeat the press into serving as spineless pliable propagandists. Personally, I'd rather be Eliot Spitzer's hooker. The principles are the same, but the hourly rates are higher.
Five Feet of Fury
"[Alexander] Tsesis is a left wing kook -- but the Canadian government hangs on his every word"
So today The
A junk history-riddled, illogical and highly fiskable defense riddled with "scholarly" quotations from...
an American professor on Ted Kennedy's payroll.
You think I'm kidding.
Nope: Teddy's lawyer-friend has tossed our Feds, and fans of censorship everywhere, a life preserver. Too bad it's full of holes.
It will be hard to top Ezra Levant's incredible fisking of this pathetic document.
But look at the second half of that sentence: tolerant, liberal societies can be fragile. First, the
It gets even more muddled. (...) The government is arguing that we should limit speech because we've seen how the Nazis could limit speech. Huh?
But he's asking other bloggers to try, so knock yourselves out.
What's sad, and frankly insulting, is that the Feds used a clearly biased American law professor to make their points about Canadian law and society.
You see, Tsesis's writings are being relied upon extensively in this apologia for Section 13.1.
Tsesis's claims suggest that this "Minority Report" style law -- which makes, say,
When I attended the
What's important to emphasize here is that the Conservative government is not just remaining silent on the out of control "human rights" commissions, it is an active participant in a process that is flawed both in principle and in practice.
We need a Royal Commission to examine both, because the legal principles no longer resemble anything of the Western inheritance of inherent human rights and freedom that extend back 800 years.
The Act doesn't even resemble the Universal Declaration on Human Rights from 60 years ago. It seems to be some wonky concoction whipped up by left-leaning ideologues and social scientists who owe more to scientific determinism and
We need a Commission to thoroughly examine the logical consequences of this kind of thinking, one with the legal erudition and philosophical grounding to help get us back on our proper foundations.
Ezra Levant has obtained a copy of the government brief in support of Subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
1. The Conservative government believes that the constitutionality of section 13 has already been approved by the Supreme Court, and so it shouldn't be questioned again; and
2. In any event, section 13 is a reasonable limit on free speech.
1. In the 18 years since the constitutionality of section 13 was examined in 1990, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a more and more abusive approach to its application, exceeding the narrow permission granted by the Supreme Court eighteen years ago.
2. The government's arguments that hate speech is the precursor to violence -- and that laws banning speech are necessary to prevent violence -- are absurd. They're logically false and they're historically false.
Dead Reckoning FUBAR
This is a copy of an e-mail I sent today to the Attorney-General of
For some months I have been following the unfolding drama of the human rights complaints against
The guiding case in this matter is a 4 to 3 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, John Ross Taylor et al. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General of
The key weakness in the majority decision is the following Polyanna utterance supporting the court's opinion that section 13 is a reasonable limit on the free expression guarantee of section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"The phrase "hatred or contempt" in the context of s. 13(1) refers only to unusually strong and deep‑felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification and, as long as human rights tribunals continue to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pay heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in that phrase, there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section."
I have read
We have now been treated to the spectacle of the Ontario Human Rights Commission declining to pursue the complaint but issuing a condemnation of
Rest at: http://deadreckoningfubar.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-to-g-re-freedom-of-speech.html