"it's all a big laugh until they come after someone on your side, right?"
Who are "they"? The Human Rights Commission accepts complaints from Canadians. They then evaluate the complaint based on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then, if the complaint has merit, pass it along to the HR Tribunal.
[External Link]
It would seem that this could be a valuable tool for tackling hate speech of all kinds and leanings.
As far as I can tell, the reason that Steyn is in trouble with them instead of El-Masry being called out for his demonstrated antisemitism is that nobody has presented them with a legal document outlining the complaint. Too bad nobody knows any Canadian lawyers with an interest in stopping that sort of thing....
I WOULD actually like to know why all the complaints have been launched against right wing figures. It certainly isn't that Conservatives aren't willing to use the law to squash dissent.
Posted at 2008-01-03 10:36:51 [PermaLink]"Indubitably" a racist?
I, er, "dubit" it quite a bit. I would, in plainest terms, be utterly shocked to find Steyn a racist, having never read him make a comment that suggested racial bigotry.
Specific quotes would be welcomed if you're inclined to persist in that claim.
"dara" - you're wrong (of course).
A human rights commission can launch a probe into "hate" speech, without responding to a specific complaint.
Also, the rulings are based on human rights law as it is "read into" by various human rights commissioners; little to do with the actual Charter of Rights...
Conservatives have not as yet attempted to use the Human Rights Kangaroo Commissions because they view as illegitimate; you can be sure that when and if they do avail themselves to these bodies, the Toronto STar / CBC will suddenly start condemning them...
"bigcityantisemite" -
if there were any justice, an anti-semite like yourself would be the one subjected to public shaming...
thanks
Conservatives using frivolous legal proceedings = "squashing dissent." Liberals using frivolous legal proceedings = "necessary public shaming." Got it.
Elmasry's infamous appearance on Michael Coren's TV show did, in fact, lead to an investigation by federa authorities - which I opposed:
[External Link]
Well, I know what I'd tell the CHRC - it could be characterized as "short, obscene, and of Anglo-Saxon origin". Probably "hate speech", yannow.
Followed by a "Come get me" with a "digitus impudens" flourish...
As someone who rememebrs when this commission was first set up, I think the commission itself should be shamed.
The whole thing is orwellian in tone and stinks to high heaven.
Why, for instance, is a body established to protect free speech and human rights sucking up to and sympathising with theocratic fascists?
They are just beyond stupid, and in fact are so riddled with soft prejudices against old-stock Canadians that they themselves should be called on the carpet for lack of objectivity and uniform standards.
To remark, as Steyn did, about high Muslim birthrates and the implications of that birthrate now consitutes racism?
Gimme a break!
Roundhead,
From [External Link]
"Can the Commission initiate a complaint?
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Commission can initiate complaints, but it has rarely done so in the past. At present, almost all of the complaints the Commission investigates are initiated by individuals or organizations. "
So while you are right, it's irrelevant as it isn't used and has nothing to do with Steyn's case or any other that I've heard of (feel free to provide examples).
Damian,
You're lumping the HRC in with a vague "federal investigation", I can't find any info on a complaint being filed and investigated.
While I agree that people should be allowed to spout whatever they want to, there is a clear and accepted definition of "hate speech" in Canada which, in my view, doesn't go overboard in restricting other reasonable speech. I think that when people cross that line they should be called out for it. At the very least, if a complaint had been filed against Elmasry, he might have been given the "not this asshole again" treatment when complaining about Steyn.
You both seem to be of the opinion that the HRC shouldn't exist. On what basis do you judge the HRC to be "illegitimate"? Have "conservatives" gone though any democratic motions to address this apparent glaring problem with Canada's justice system?
More to the point, are you under the impression that legally defined "hate speech" will be a declining problem in Canada or that we shouldn't do anything about it in the years to come. I keep hearing on this blog about the foreign hordes coming to take away women's rights, isn't the CHRC standing in the way of that?
Dara approves of free speech, but when people cross a "line" that Dara personally approves of, they should be called on it.
got it!
Lots of us moan "there goes El-mo again" when he shows his face, actually. We are called racists when we do. By, you guessed it, you.
Why is it necessary for an official complaint of some kind to be filed before it is "ok" to call him an asshole?
Why does your entire worldview revolve around Big Government keeping everyone in line?
No I don't think we should "do" anything about "hate speech" because there is no such thing as "hate speech" so it shouldn't be a crime. Hate is a feeling. Feelings can't be crimes.
Unless you're a "progressive" (sic).
John P,
"Why, for instance, is a body established to protect free speech and human rights sucking up to and sympathising with theocratic fascists? "
Further to my points, they aren't "sucking up", they're evaluating legal documents(complaints) which are meant to demonstrate a violation of Canada's laws. From the sounds of it, they will end up rejecting the case against Steyn, not because of the gender, religion, past statements, or race of the complainants, but on the merits, or lack thereof, of the complaint itself.
Without a counter example of them throwing out a complaint about "theocratic fascists" because it was submitted by a group of white people, it's hard to establish a bias on their part. If you have any examples of their prejudices or lack of objectivity, please do present them.
So far, they are just doing their job, which regardless of what you think about it, Canadians like me pay them for.
When it comes out that the passage being complained about is a direct quote from a mullah and Steyn just reiterated it, what will the result be. Will this group file a complaint against themselves.
Those were not Steyn's words he just told us what mullahs think.
Kathy, I "personally approve" of the way my government has established our human rights laws. I also "personally approve" of the laws against murder and arson but you don't seem to be giving me "credit" for those.
Last time I checked, supporting existing laws isn't "progressive".
I call you a racist because you are and you have flat out admitted it multiple times on this blog. You think that some people are inferior because of their background. You don't see anything wrong with it and I understand that, but the successive governments of this country have, and have legally and democratically put up barriers to you publicly advocating your hatred.
If you think that's wrong, you have the same number of votes as I do so I don't see why you're complaining to me.
It's true that weapons such as the Human "Rights" Commissions can be turned in any direction in the long run. That flexibility can tempt one to make one's peace with their existence. Instead, it seems safest for the Canadians to get rid of the Human "Rights" Commissions by any prudent means, so dangerous have they become to intellectual liberties.
If the Canadians appear unable to remove the commissions alone, it seems best for foresighted Americans to find prudent means to do so, themselves, as the Human "Rights" Commissions are a corrupting example for the Americans with regard to the American regime. And Canadians ought to consider how dangerous it is to set a bad example for the Americans' factions. If Canadians try to destroy the intellectual liberties of Canadians, Canadians can hope to fight back and win, but if the Americans continue to develop a taste for destroying intellectual liberties, the Canadians will have few resources against them.
I love it! Our resident Engineer is lecturing our Lawyer-Host on the Law.
"Objection, YerHonour!"
Dara an engineer? I doubt it. Engineers solve problems they don't create them. Also engineers don't have much respect for bureaucrats. My husband, an aerospace engineer, who has been involved with bureaucratic pen pushers who had to ok tech transfer stuff has little respect for non-techies making decisions on subjects they don't even understand. The trouble with our government is that it is comoposed of too many lawyers and social science types and too few pure and applied scientists. The latter are too busy solving problems while the former through their idiotic legislating and rule making are creating them.
Posted at 2008-01-03 14:18:29 [PermaLink]Dara,
Are you a "thr**t-p*l*sh*ng w*nk*r"? And if not, can you show us some proof against that allegation? Can you explain your thoughts on this matter in terms of the Charter's first article?
Cheers
J.M. Heinrichs:
try English the next time, 'kay?
As seen by the attacks on Dara, ad hominem is the main refuge of a true conservative. Heaven forbid that this post be discussed on its merits.
I think Damian, with respect, has wrongly interpreted BigCityLib's position. He's not defending abuse of process. He doesn't think the LawIsCool bunch have a case. But he *is* pointing out that Macleans ain't what it used to be. I think the mag started going downhill when they hired Barbara Amiel, myself, but publishing Mark Steyn, with his "they're breeding like rabbits" meme, his "yellow peril" redux, really marks a new low for them. Nothing wrong with "public shaming" for this crowd--good ol' freedom of speech, right?
I'm on record as opposing the law stoonts' action. They escalated their demands to the point of parody. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Human Rights Commissions aren't the enemy here, any more than the court system.
Dr. Dawg,
Read Daily Kos and The Huffington Post, especially the comments, if you want to see ad hominem attacks.
This thread has become a continuation of the Dara and Kathy show. Considering Dara continues to label Kathy a racist, I think he's quite at home with ad hominem argument.
Bruce, what does it take for you to recognize racism when you see it? Is it "ad hominem" to point out the obvious?
"Arabs are violent retards?" Repeated references to Steve Sailer and V-Dare? Oh, and this one: [External Link]
I mean, if the word has any meaning at all, it applies to not a few posts by Kathy.
Dr. Dawg, Ad hominem argument consists of attacking your opponent personally rather than addressing the substance of the argument. Whether the personal attack is true, or not, is irrelevant.
Posted at 2008-01-03 16:29:37 [PermaLink]As long as there's a 'pee on Dara' line forming, I might as well take this opportunity to offer Dara these clips in answer to his pre-Xmas rant on CO2:
> [External Link]
> [External Link]
> [External Link]
> [External Link]
Is it not racist when 'oppressed' minorities use the human rights tribunals as a stick to bash 'whitey'?
Posted at 2008-01-03 16:34:35 [PermaLink]'"Who are "they"? The Human Rights Commission accepts complaints from Canadians. They then evaluate the complaint based on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then, if the complaint has merit, pass it along to the HR Tribunal."
I'm completely not understanding what Dara's point is:
1) That's precisely what Damian was saying, that this is a sword that can in theory cut in all directions.
2) As you point out, in practice it only cuts in directions the HRC deems to have merit, which would seem to resolve the mystery of why everyone doesn't exploit it equally.
If Dara stopped there, Bruce, I might agree with you. But he doesn't. Isn't it at least mildly ad hominem to harp on some fancied peccadillo on Dara's part, rather than address his argument?
Posted at 2008-01-03 16:40:00 [PermaLink]"It would seem that this could be a valuable tool for tackling hate speech of all kinds and leanings."
Oh, what benefit to humankind! Damn, I'm reminded yet again why it is a total *effing* waste of time to read certain people's comments.
And baglow... These aren't "attacks" on "Dara" but criticism of his patently lame viewpoints, such as this point is aimed at your error. If one takes it as an "attack" on one's person every time someone points out how dead wrong or silly one's comments, one will forever suffer insult. [That, Johnny, was English for "grow-up and get a helmet."]
Cheers. Dan, Bruce, they're yours. I'm going for dinner.
Ran:
I can see why you're no longer blogging here. "Lame" fits...yes, siree.
Ad hominem means attacks on the person instead of the argument. And here you are, lamer, claiming that the attacks on Dara are only on her "viewpoint."
"I love it! Our resident Engineer is lecturing our Lawyer-Host on the Law."
"Dara an engineer? I doubt it. Engineers solve problems they don't create them."
"Dara,
Are you a "thr**t-p*l*sh*ng w*nk*r"?"
Go play with yourself, Runny, if you aren't already worn out.
"Indeed. Just think of how much Jamaican immigrants contribute to our culture and economy: monotonous, illiterate music that all sounds the same, filthy hairstyles, those little tricoloured Rasta doohickies."
Racist? Is it ad hominem to say so?
If someone dislikes most Jamaicans but likes (e.g.) most Barbadians and Grenadans, is it fair to call him or her a racist? Is someone who considers particular cultures inferior to others a racist? Lots of people think there's something wrong with (e.g.) Afrikaner culture and that there was something wrong with the culture of the old Confederacy. Are they white-hating racists, or do they conceivably have a point? Last I heard, Kathy Shaidle had quite a low opinion of the particular culture or subculture she hersef was born into. Does that make her a self-hating racist, or might there be something wrong with that culture?
Posted at 2008-01-03 18:18:27 [PermaLink]Dr. Dawg waded in,
"As seen by the attacks on Dara, ad hominem is the main refuge of a true conservative. Heaven forbid that this post be discussed on its merits. "
Ah, yes, your first response to me last week was this little tidbit.
"Misreading, as usual. Is this a condition, or an attitude? "
You failed, as usual, to address my substantive post questioning your assumptions and instead made a personal attack.
Please learn from your mistakes before making sweeping generalizations about political motives based on a few blog postings.
I think the mag started going downhill when they hired Barbara Amiel, myself, but publishing Mark Steyn, with his "they're breeding like rabbits" meme, his "yellow peril" redux, really marks a new low for them." DAWG
Please! Before Amiel came on board I used to use Maclean's as toilet paper in the outhouse at our summer cottage!
It was a bit slippery, of course, ( those glossy mags always are) but by the 70s Eaton's catalogues were becomming rare, so....
The first article I read by her and which I found quite entertaining was called "Upchuck" and concerned pornography.
That was in '78, or so, and seeings I was in a northern B.C. lumber camp, I showed it to several co-workers.
They laughed as well, and despite their generally low education levels, they got it.
@DARA
The CHRC is a joke. It has failed in its mandate by concentrating on "victim issues" rather than on bread-and-butter questions concerning REAL human rights abuses.
They're simple-minded toolies. Could it be, Dara, that Elmo is attempting to distract attention from hard-core issues such as 'honour' killings, and that in the myopic stupidity of the CHRC he's found a few highly educated dupes?
No doubt we're soon to recieve YET another righteous lecture from our moral betters condemning the rampant and systemic islamophobia that is progressiveily over-running the entire country!
And which threatens to throw us into a full blown civil war!
Or whatever.
For dramatic effect Elmo may even present his brief/fatwa whilst sporting a stylish, fitted bullet-proof under-vest signed "Hamas".
And this, after having invited all the media.
Perhaps you could step in, Dara, and provide for the poor soul's personnal security as he enters and leaves the commission.
You see, there is a sucker born every minute.
And 90% of 'em are to be found on the left!
And as for *hate* speech? I don't think that really exists, and as one commenter above pointed out, hate is an emotion.
Exhorting someone to attack and murder members of identifiable groups is already covered by the law; it's called *incitement to murder*, I believe.
@Millie Woods
I work for the gov't and I agree with you. There are far too many people from the humanities and far too few from hard-science backgrounds to formulate effective and coherent policies in many, amny fields involving the public interest.
It's a legacy of Trudeau, I think, and a situation that emerged big-time in the late 60s.
Eights:
"You failed, as usual, to address my substantive post questioning your assumptions and instead made a personal attack."
You didn't post anything substantive. You seldom do. Instead, you deliberately misread waht I wrote, as usual, and expect me to respond to your "translations."
Please let me know when you post something substantive.
Dawg,
As evidenced by your response to me and in general with this
"As seen by the attacks on Dara, ad hominem is the main refuge of a true conservative. Heaven forbid that this post be discussed on its merits. "
You just don't get it. These are ad hominem criticisms. You are failing to address the arguments while prefering to attack the character of the individuals (and groups) that oppose you.
I have no such compulsion because my argument with you is about you and your hypocrisy and your inconsistent standards of debate.
You, on the other hand pretend you are above it while complaining about it from others...as you have just demonstrated...for the umpteenth time.
If you were truly interested in avoiding ad hominem arguments, you wouldn't address me at all and you wouldn't slander conservatives by claiming a few blog posts represent their preferred debating style...especially on your first posts of the subject.
I now await the obligatory name calling and/or personal character attack further buttressing my point.
Dr D; "...claiming that the attacks on Dara are only on her "viewpoint."
"Her"?!
LOL...Oh man, even your allies are picking on you, Dara.
Ran; how come YOU get to go for dinner break! ;)
What I want to know is, where's PEN? Remember PEN? Champion of writers everywhere? Fearless proponent of free speech for all? Yo, PEN! Here's a writer being intimidated! Free speech being threatened by the state! PEN, are you there? Helloooo?
Posted at 2008-01-03 20:07:34 [PermaLink]Damn,
I go out to paint the town red and come back to what is certainly a peeing contest. I couldn't be bothered to respond to most of it, as Ran said... it's not worth it. Dan, I'd watch those except I'm busy washing my hair tonight.
My one and only point is that despite the many posted opinions of the CHRC, nobody has anything to say about any actual failures on their part to "bring to attention" people who sorely need a huge ugly white spotlight on them as documented in a proper complaint submission.
The CHRC relies mainly on these submitted complaints like the one against Steyn, and nobody is stepping up and generating them about people like Elmasry who aren't attracting the attention they deserve from the left or maybe Richard Warman. Instead, because Elmasry put the time in, he was able to use the system to his own purpose, which seemed to be mainly to get his name opposite Mark Steyn's in the paper.
If he was dragged before the commission, Elmasry wouldn't have such an easy time positioning himself as "Canadian Muslim Spokesperson", he'd be too busy explaining himself to be able to so subtly interject his asshole self into every big issue that comes up. There's a real problem to solve Millie, and I think there's an answer provided by this legal mechanism. Surely even Ran must concede that he couldn't brush a human rights investigation off then go right into a discussion of the motivations behind the sensational murder of a Muslim child.
Finally, it's part of Canadian law and I haven't heard any public debate about changing it nor do I presume to lecture Damian about it. Should this be an election issue for the CPC? It seems to have a lot of support here. Maybe if its gone I'll get to hear about some logistics from the usual suspects instead of their "simple" euphemisms.
Dara and Dawg: Since you both seem to support the HRC concept completely, why not have a discussion with Alan Borovoy who helped set up this mess. Borovoy is now on the record as describing the present actions of the HRC's as a Frankenstein.
BTW - check out Rex Murphy on last night's The national where he weighed in on this topic - it should be available on the archives or YouTube somewhere. I also find it interesting the issue of the Western Standard hasn't been raised. They were taken to the Alberta HRC after publishing some of the dreaded Mo cartoons during the height of the controversy. Good tactic on the part of the Muslim who filed the complaint. He files it, the HRC runs with it (no bias of course) and the Western Standard has to spend $75,000 to defend itself. What did the complainant have to pay? Why nothing of course.
BTW - How I detest dial-up which I'm on right now.
BigCityLib: For the record, thanks to the HRC, I've just subscribed to Macleans which is something I haven't done in fifteen to twenty years. Steyn's book will be coming out in paperback this month, that'll be my next purchase.
Posted at 2008-01-04 07:14:20 [PermaLink]Is miscalling Dara "her" at one point supposed to be derogatory? Misogyny dies hard, doesn't it? And, just for once, I wish people would get the concept of "ad hominem" down. Insulting people isn't ad hominem. Trying to win an actual argument by emotion (the original meaning of ad hominem) or by drawing attention to the person instead of the ideas is ad hominem. But sometimes there are simply no arguments being made and no ideas to be refuted.
On the HRCs, which is the topic here, I confess some misgivings. Back in the day, my complaint was that they effectively channelled discontent into a bureaucracy that "managed" this discontent, with resolution wait times approximating those for hip replacements. It was, in other words, a classic institutional response to a real problem.
That being said, though, the anger about the HRCs seems a little premature in the cases being discussed. They haven't even had a hearing, much less issued a ruling, and people are already jumping up and down. Whether the charges are "frivolous" or not, and I think they are, will be up to the HRC to decide.
I am one of those who believes that public shaming of Steyn and his latter-day Yellow Perilism is fine and dandy. But the dice do seem to be loaded against respondents, at least financially. If a complaint is found to be frivolous, the complainant should surely be responsible for the costs of the respondent. Fair's fair, after all.
"My one and only point is that despite the many posted opinions of the CHRC, nobody has anything to say about any actual failures on their part to "bring to attention" people who sorely need a huge ugly white spotlight on them as documented in a proper complaint submission."
Again, this completely misses Damian's point. It isn't that everyone should be equally at risk of indiscriminate HRC threats, it's precisely that the people who are exploiting it today are liable to be on the receiving end tomorrow.
Complaining about conservatives not "stepping up" and abusing the law for their own ends seems bizarre. If you can't imagine the possibility that conservatives might simply have consistent principles, an alternative explanation is that conservatives can't imagine that the HRC does either.
"If a complaint is found to be frivolous, the complainant should surely be responsible for the costs of the respondent. Fair's fair, after all."
But Dawg, this is precisely what we're arguing. The tribunal doesn't even have to rule against you for you to be "punished": the penalty is having to fork out to defend yourself, which happens whether you win or lose. Pretty soon people will say, "I won't express myself because if I'm hauled before the HRC I can't afford the lawyer's fees."
That's a highly effective intimidation tactic. Free speech will become an unaffordable luxury.
Some here seem a bit confused about how 'public shaming' should be done. On-line mockery of the target is one of the proper methods of shaming someone. I'm sure there are others. Forcing the target to hire lawyers and spend large amounts of time and money to defend himself against legal charges is several steps beyond 'public shaming' in the harm it does and the greed and malice it exhibits. By their mockery of the unfortunate law students who are suing Steyn, his defenders have shown that they know how to publicly shame people without harming them in any material way.
Posted at 2008-01-04 09:09:51 [PermaLink]Otter,
You've defined the use of the HRC as de facto "abuse". That's where the disconnect is and my corollary is that all you conservatives are doing is "imagining" about the HRC's principles.
Like I said before, it's part of Canada's legal system. It will be used(abused) as long as it's there. Bitching about how they're so biased is hollow if the bias is in the input, i.e. filed complaints coming exclusively from one side.
If you fundamentally disagree with it, then do something democratic about it. Again, I have heard no political discussion whatsoever of closing these commissions down. That does seem to be the direction that most of this post is pointing but the only actual non-imaginary argument made is John B's late mention of the Western Standard being $75k out of pocket for printing stupid cartoons. I have to agree, that's terrible, got any more?
My point was that frivolous complainers ought to be liable for all of the legal and associated costs of the respondent. Surely that would help to re-balance things.
Posted at 2008-01-04 09:17:21 [PermaLink]Dr. D; on the minor note...."Is miscalling Dara "her" at one point supposed to be derogatory?"
No. It's a throwback to a long ago argy bargy with Dara re the confusion HE causes by not spelling his name, online, in the traditional way ie 'Daragh'.
The proof of that is the TWO recent "her" references by posters; G*d knows how many others are confused!
He does it intentionally, I'm sure.
DV:
Thanks for the backstory! Best to you for 2008.
God forbid that someone on this blog would be confused about another culture.
Posted at 2008-01-04 10:40:48 [PermaLink]With the Dawg and Dara about, it's difficult to ascertain a Canadian culture.
"thr**t-p*l*sh*ng w*nk*r" = "Throat-polishing wanker". I borrowed it from Habib.
Cheers
Thanks for the clarification J.M., but I'm afraid that if you want your throat polished, you'll have to try another website or maybe your friend Habib can accommodate you.
Posted at 2008-01-05 11:34:06 [PermaLink]I love it when Heinrichs pops in, myself. I do enjoy the sound of banjos.
Posted at 2008-01-05 11:47:38 [PermaLink]Banjos?
Yet another Brit disparaging Appalachia’s Scotts-Irish culture. Doesn't Canada have laws against that sort of thing? What good are the Human Rights Commissions if they can't prevent hillbilly jokes? I'd be offended if I wasn't laughing.
1. Thank you, Dawg. Your childhood memories are precious.
2. Dara, you missed the point, as usual.
Cheers