Alright, here we go.
First off, George Jonas writes for the National Post‘s Full Comment section: Saving the Canadian Human Rights Commission through amputation:
Richard Moon is the law professor retained last year by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to write a report about the regulation of “hate speech” on the Internet. He didn’t strike people as a libertarian when he got his commission, so he surprised many when he recommended the repeal of Section 13, the controversial “hate speech” provision, from the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The other day, Moon outlined in the Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture how he arrived at his recommendation, leaving little doubt he threw the dead ballast of s. 13 overboard to save the leaky vessel of the CHRC. He reasoned, he said, that speech should be prohibited only if it advocated, threatened or justified violence against an identifiable group, not if it merely defamed or stereotyped it, and that prohibition against preaching violence should come under the Criminal Code, not the Human Rights Act.
“I argued,” the professor explained, “that 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, emphasizes the effect of the action on the victim rather than the intention or misconduct of the actor and employs a process that is designed to engage the parties and facilitate a non-adjudicative resolution of the ‘dispute’ between them.”
Professor Moon mentioned this almost in passing, to get it out of the way, before embarking on a spirited defence of the human rights industry against its critics. I’d like to dwell on his description of human rights law for a moment, though, because it illustrates perfectly why such laws don’t fit easily or simply into a free society’s system of laws and should be repealed altogether.
You had to know this one was coming:Oh, we’re the Thought Police and we’re okay.We sleep all night and we search all day.(They’re the Thought Police and they’re okay.They sleep all night and they search all day.)We censor speech, we’re really nice,We’re full of sanct’mony.Our dossier is stuffed with rude talk and calumny…We censor speech, we schmooze like madWith worldwide counterparts.We go to lavish confabs where we display our “smarts”…We censor speech, we sanitize,We hunt down the “Nazees”We’re just like Wiesenthal as most everyone agrees…Oh, we’re the Thought Police and we’re okay.We sleep all night and we search all day.(They’re the Thought Police and they’re okay.They sleep all night and they search all day.)
Second, a bit of a grab bag. A little more coverage of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant’s testimony before the HoC Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights from Dustinsmart.com, and what appears to be the National Review. Meanwhile, Free Dominion notes Markham Hislop’s article for S.E. Calgary News: AB Human Rights “Kangaroo Court” A Threat To Small Newspapers Like SECN.
Third, Faisal Joseph gets back in the game. From the London Free Press: $1M lawsuit by officer alleges racial profiling:
By Joe Belanger
A London police officer has launched a $1-million lawsuit against the force and six colleagues, claiming he was the victim of racial profiling that sparked an internal investigation, fuelling rumours and suspicions he associated with a man linked to organized crime.
Omnar Hassan, a 12-year policing veteran — a decade of it with the London force — yesterday was also to have filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights commission, his lawyer said.
His complaint seeks changes in training, policy and procedures to “deal with the systemic problems they’re (the force) either ignoring or not dealing with,” said lawyer Faisal Joseph.
Hassan, 40, contends he felt “betrayed and humiliated.”
His complaint also states Hassan feared the accusation damaged his reputation and opportunity for advancement. He argues it eventually led to harassment from some co-workers, causing him “serious physical and emotional difficulties.”
Named as lawsuit defendants are the London police board and six officers — two constables, two sergeants, one staff sergeant and one inspector.
The lawsuit contends Hassan suffered “nervous shock, emotional upset, depression, frustration and fixation” over how he was treated, which the action describes as “predatory, high-handed and callous” and amounting to “constructive dismissal.”
Fourth, via Scaramouche: A no muss, no fuss Halloween costume:
What every free-speecher should be wearing this year–the duct tape get-up:
Read it here.