First: Here’s a good example of how to combat hate speech:
Tsawwassen’s Cran Campbell regularly monitors the “Rants and Raves” section of the popular online classifieds’ Vancouver site and flags any comments he deems racist or hateful… Since he started his campaign to rid the website of hate speech, Campbell says he now finds far fewer racists and hateful remarks.
Good for him. It doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights, and it’s clearly achieving results. Yet at the same time, he is doing it the wrong way:
For several months, Campbell has been spearheading a crusade to quash a federal private member’s bill that seeks to abolish a section of the Human Rights Act that deals with Internet hate speech.
…of course, Section 13 hasn’t proven to be effective in the slightest, and clearly infringes upon freedom of speech without due process. Why can’t we do the first and not the second?
Second: As I’ve said all along, the backdoor inclusion of “environmantal sensitivities” as a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code is primed to infringe on your freedom in ways that the SOPA authors could only imagine. Now, the Ontario Teachers’ union is claiming that wireless internet in schools is contrary to the human rights of the environmentally sensitive, and should be banned. Smart phones are next.
The fact that Electromagnetic Sensitivity has never been included as an “environmental sensitivity” is lost on these people. There is no medical evidence of any such condition; the only proof offered is that there is no evidence to disprove it – using that logic the OHRT would have to admit that the God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster do indeed exist. Furthermore, there is nothing in legislation or case law that recognizes ES as a disability – but that might change with the SmartMeters complaint in the BCHRT.
Third: A confidential closed-doors settlement is simply contrary to modern justice. I can understand how the parents of a boy, who was given a haircut by an education assistant at school, believe that their son was assaulted. That should be handled by the police, by crown prosecutors, and the courts to decide on an appropriate remedy and punishment, in such a way that all educators and the general public are clear on the state’s expectations and penalties. But a closed-door settlement, in which the taxpayers ultimately responsible to fork out money for the settlement are simply not represented, is not justice. There is no admission of guilt, no ruling if any law has been breached, and no due process. It’s a far cry from justice.
Fourth: The Vancouver Courier has more on VANDU the pro-drug lobby that was a joint complainant in the Downtown Ambassadors case that was recently dismissed. Not only were their legal bills essentially covered by the taxpayer during the hearings, VANDU’s very existence is dependent on taxpayer dollars – to the tune of almost $300,000.