The last List for November coming your way…
First: The staunchest defender of the human rights racket, Pearl Eliadis, is out to defend her bread and butter with another editorial on why the peasants must be prevented from speaking their minds for their own good. She is responding to Mark Mercer’s recent editorial on how the censors are in fact facilitating the spread of “hateful” material through their “denouncing” activities. Besides making the amusing assertion that free-speech warriors are all on the right, there’s plenty more in her rambling, incoherent editorial:
Mercer’s unqualified opposition to “censorship” runs contrary to the law, both here and in most countries with legal systems worthy of that name.
This does not make the Superior Court of Justice a “censor.” What it does is to remove the “rights-shield” from defamatory speech
There are significant differences between supporting well-established legal exceptions to free speech and being a “censor.”
The free speech extremists conflate efforts to limit extreme forms of speech, like the ones mentioned above, with authoritarian and heavy-handed censorship. This is as intellectually dishonest as if I called Mercer a supporter of genocide because of his free speech position.
Finally, there is the issue of why commissions like the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission receive and investigate speech-related complaints. It is because it is in their legislation and, in one form or another, always has been. They are not “overstepping” or “expanding their jurisdiction” as many allege. Commissions are doing their jobs as mandated by Parliament in accordance with international human rights law.
So it’s not “censorship”, it’s just removing that annoying “rights-shield” from any speech that she disagrees with. In addition, apparently once censorship becomes a well-established legal exception to free speech, we’re not longer allowed to refer to it as “censorship”. I guess that goes without saying…
Complainant: What is the liability of the investigator of the Canadian Human rights Commission for biased and deliberately negligent investigation Report?
Lawyer: What actually happened?
Complainant: What happened is that investigator conducted the investigation and in the Reports is using logic, which is designed to protect the Respondent by all means.
Heh. Damn that infernal logic. God designed it to favor the respondent, so we must get rid of it!
Filed under “Pitfalls of Text-message Grammar”
Third: Um, hey Catholics, please don’t use the devil’s tools:
They are urging Catholics and others to contact the Star and also complain to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Press Council about the article as inciting hatred towards Catholics and an attempt to intimidate a religious denomination to change its beliefs and internal disciplines.
The defamatory article is a humour piece by the Star’s Joey Slinger, which has since been taken down. You can see it on a forum here.
I guess at the very least, if a complaint is actually launched, the anti-Christian bias will be proven yet again…
Fourth: Your latest update in the Carasco vs Moon complaint: A fellow professor at the University of Windsor fires back at the laughable assertion that the Tribunal is objective and neutral:
Prof. West’s view that the human rights tribunal has a quasi-monopoly on objectivity and neutrality is clearly incorrect.
Fifth: Never forget to visit Binks!