Alright, here we go.
First off, from Jay Currie: Rock meet Hard Place:
Poor Dawg, on certain issues he struggles to be a Speecher.
Dearly as I would love to see things like Israel Apartheid Week vanish this is not the way to do it. However, Dawg, the Committee and its origins should underline for you the fact that there are people in Canada who want to censor free speech. Leading the charge are your allies in attempting to retain s. 13 of the CHRA, the CJC and B’nai Brith.
These “unofficial” hearings spring from the same contempt for free speech as s. 13. They seek to end run the right of free expression and a free media enshrined in s. 2 of the Charter. And they do so on precisely the same logic: that there are some opinions which ought not to be allowed.
Now, Dawg, if you can see your way clear to opposing the All-Party Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism while supporting the retention of s. 13 you are a finer scholastic than I am. But I would not be at all surprised if the Parliamentarians at the conclusion of their “Hearing” propose to use that very section 13 to enforce whatever conclusions they come to equating “illegitimate” criticism of Israel to anti-semitism. Of course we’ll need another badly reasoned decision like Taylor to get around the rather blatant unconstitutionality of such an approach; but hope springs eternal in the heart of censors.
As it happens I think that a great deal of the left wing criticism leveled at Israel is either directly or by implication anti-Semitic. And I don’t think there is any question that both Hezbollah and Hamas and their supporters in the West are expressly anti-Semitic in a manner which should attract Criminal Code sanctions. (Yelling “Kill the Jews” during a march is not a nuanced disagreement with the Israeli settlement policy and is a clear incitement.)
Read it all here.
Second, a bit of a grab bag. Ezra Levant’s post – How far have we come? – is noted by Stupidica, while George Jonas’ article for the National Post – Saving the CHRC through amputation – is noted by the Soconvivium blog. Macleans’ recent retraction in regard to CHRC hacking allegations is noted by Blogging Canadians, with more commentary from Dawg’s Blawg here. Meanwhile, from Free Republic: Hate laws backfire on Jews, author says; and An internet success story: Shakedown by Ezra Levant.
Third, a chance to meet Ezra Levant in person. From Ezra’s blog: Join me for drinks in Toronto this Wednesday:
I’ll be in Toronto this Wednesday, Nov. 4, for a couple of events with my favourite educational charity, the Fraser Institute.
I’m doing a student event first, at 2 p.m. Admission is free. You can see the brochure for more details here.
Later that day, I’ll be with my friend Stephen LeDrew for what will surely be a lively debate — all the moreso considering it will be over drinks! Please join us at The Fifth Grill and Terrace downtown at 6 p.m. More details here.
See you Wednesday!
Fourth, from Scaramouche: Still searching for scary Nazis in the age of “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!”:
Welcome to the CJC’s redesigned website. And don’t forget to click on the “Hate Speech” link, so you can get a fix on where the Ceej’s head is at, censorship-wise (i.e. lodged firmly up its backside):ConclusionAs of this writing, the matter has not yet been resolved, but Canadian Jewish Congress has always maintained that the importance of section 13 lies in its ability to condemn formally expressions of hatred and to prevent their spread, rather than financially punishing the person who makes such statements.Finally, there are those who observe, with seeming seriousness, that pre-Hitler Germany also had strict laws against hate speech but that these laws were insufficient to prevent the Holocaust. Thus, according to their reasoning, hate speech laws are useless and should be revoked. This is poor logic and poor history.John Bookbinder, in his study of Weimar Germany, observes that “anti-Socialist or antisemitic violence, or for that matter inflammatory speech or writing, was dealt with harshly by the police and the judiciary” during the Wilhelmine era. We need to recognize that it was only during the post-war period of Weimar when German society – brutalized by the slaughter of the war, shocked by the unexpected defeat in the field, angered by the (perceived) punitive imposition of Versailles, abandoned by its Imperial traditions, and left unprotected by the collapse of the fragile democracy – plunged into social chaos. In the violence of the period that preceded the rise of Nazism, the legal system itself was a victim. To compare the situation of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to present-day Canada is ludicrous.Hateful speech has shown itself to be a necessary, if not sufficient precursor to acts of genocide and to the creation of systems of human misery that have spanned continents and generations.The discourse of intolerance, repeated over generations, caused slavery to be seen as a normal state of affairs. Indeed, in the United States, it took war, not rational argument, to end it.As for the Nazis, it took generations of repetition and elaboration of antisemitic tropes before they became self-evident.As Alexander Tsesis has observed, “the ideology was so deeply entrenched that it seemed logical to them to round up Jews, put them in concentration camps and eventually try to exterminate them.” How is it that ideas that seem abhorrent today were the conventional wisdom of a few decades ago?We cannot – and dare not – be insensitive to the power of language and its ability to shape our thoughts and behaviours. We ignore the power of language at our peril.The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that while “Nazi” language may be verboten in Pierre’s Trudeaupia, craven and/or clueless authorities have already signalled that it’s hands off when it comes to Islamic “antisemitic tropes”–and those are the ones that actually imperil us.
Update: Bernie’s Hate Speech Law Tribute Page is back on line.
My original take on the CJC’s paean to Section 13 (1):Professor Anuj Desai on Bernie’s new “Section 13 (1) is Good Cause I Said So” page.Shield into Sword. Of greater concern is that as the Macleans and Levant cases clearly illustrate Section 13 (1) is open to abuse by those whose goal is to promote a political agenda and limit political speech they disagree with. At further issue is that the HRC’s themselves are open to infiltration and a variant of “regulatory capture“, Ask EX-CHRC Staffer & current CJC Prez Mark Freiman about that;) Recent history has shown how Section 13 (1) and HRC’s in general have been co-opted as dangerous political weapons, these lessons cannot be ignored or fluffed off as mere administrative failings as the CJC would wish.
Oh Lordy, the CEEJ even cites Alexander “Specious” Tsesis, whose junk theories were debunked by
The CJC’s new “Hate Speech” page is every bit as specious as the arguments of Mr. Tsesis their legal champion.
First off the Taylor Decision it so righteously cites has been repeatedly abused by the CHRC in it’s application of Section 13 (1). The Taylor decision initially saved Section 13 (1) by finding it minimally impaired Canadians’ rights providing the Act’s overriding objective of remediation and conciliation was observed. As the Lemire decision and other case histories have indicated the CHRC has moved well beyond remediation and conciliation in 13 (1)’s application, stretching its interpretation of Taylor from
Fifth, Mbrandon2086 from Freedom Through Truth writes: The Gyapong:
But, as to the not mincing words part, she had this to say specifically, and though she was saying it about the particular source of her article, it goes deeper than that:
Instead you arrogantly assume that your changes are “prophetic” and assumed that eventually sociology would trump revelation and political correctness and the inclusive gospel of welcome would trump the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I offer these words to the Human Rights Commissions, as well, to all those hopey changers who think that they are above God. To those who are inventing more human rights on a regular basis, inventing the rights to let people file complaints to bash your fellow man with impunity because “I want what I want when I want it”, I say you are putting the people into bondage to a government and government institutions that cannot possibly love you, nor give you what you need, peace in your hearts.
Read it all here.
Sixth, via Scaramouche: Another selection from Left Side Story:
I feel prissy, oh so prissy,I feel prissy and hissy and right.And it’s pissy that free-speechers feel the need to fight.I feel balanced, oh so balanced.I have talents for “balancing” speech.And so prissy that I always practice what I preach.See that prissy gal at the conf’rence there?Who can that apparatchik be?Such a prissy smile, such a prissy mind, such a prissy mien,Such a prissy me!I feel certain and empoweredFeel like dancing and singing out loudFor I’m loved by the whole no-men-kla-tu-ra crowd.Free speechers chime in:Have you met our “friend” the CzarinaThe head of the CHRC?You never have seen such a keener.She is one who can’t stand it if you disagree.She says she loves “rights”.She says it’s her role.It’s not just the “rights”She loves the control.It must be the cold or some sort of bug.Or–hey, just a thought–she’s so frikkin’ smug.Keep away from her type of thinking.Know exactly what she’s been drinking:Purple Kool-Aid, Trudeaupian kind.Promotes “happy” thoughts–and effs up your mind!…
Read it here.
Seventh, from the Calgary Herald: Feds fight back in pot restaurant case:
By Jordana Huber
TORONTO — Federal government lawyers will ask a judge Monday to throw out the case of an Ontario restaurant owner who wants one of his former patrons stripped of his right to smoke medical marijuana.
This is the latest manoeuvre in the legal battle between Ted Kindos, owner of Gator Ted’s Tap and Grill in Burlington, Ont., and former customer Steve Gibson.
The restaurant owner is facing a human rights complaint for asking Gibson not to light up outside his business.
So Kindos is looking for a declaration from the Federal Court that people with a permit to smoke medicinal marijuana cannot do so in a public place or any licensed establishment.
Gibson contends in his human rights complaint that he’s being discriminated against because he has a disability. Kindos argues he could lose his liquor licence if he allows Gibson to smoke or hold the controlled substance in or out front of his restaurant.
The case is one of three dealing with medical marijuana working its way through the human rights complaints process in Ontario.
In court documents, federal government lawyers said they are seeking to dismiss the case, arguing there is no dispute that requires adjudication because Health Canada does not purport to authorize permit holders to smoke marijuana in violation of any applicable law or in an establishment subject to Ontario’s liquor licensing laws.
The regulations are “completely silent” in terms of where and when Gibson is authorized to use marijuana for medical reasons and there is no evidence he disregarded the terms of his permit in any way, according to the documents.
In addition, they argue Kindos lacks the standing to challenge Gibson’s permit renewal and that the regulations do not authorize Health Canada to refuse renewal of a permit on the basis an applicant has “flagrantly disregarded its terms.”
But Kindos’s lawyer, Gary Graham, said in court documents the medical marijuana regulations do allow Health Canada to refuse to renew a permit if any information, statement or other item in the renewal application is false or misleading.
Eighth, via Kathy Shaidle:
Andrew Richmond at firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Mark Stern was not being criminally prosecuted, he was not “on trial”. You and your cronies are a bunch of whiny terds.
“why is there not media outrage?” because nobody cares. Mark Stern is a douche-bag and everyone knows it, and so are you. TVO covered it for a fucking hour.
“The Tyranny of Nice” how fucking privileged you are, that all you have to whinge about is people took offence to an article and wanted to respond to it. go fuck yourself. you poop. lol
Andrew Richmond at email@example.com replies:
Spell check doesn’t fix names you dumbass!
Mark Stern, Mark Steyn whatever the fuck,
Anyways no one like you.
XOXO hugs and kisses
Once again: that’s Andrew Richmond at firstname.lastname@example.org
Read it here.
Finally, Police Can Seize & Snoop on Terry Tremaine’s Computer; and Maher Arar is a liar.