Baglow is "a friend of this site" in spite of ad-hominem and a hilariously unjustified condescending attitude? Calling people here "liar" recently isn't friendly. I've stopped reading his comments: they insult the intelligence.
BTW, Brock's comments: On point.
Here's an excerpt that should be shouted from the rooftops: "The problem with Western society today, is we've allowed statist ideas [to] convince us that democracy itself is the means by which we are afforded freedom. It's a flawed assumption, shared by the Bush Administration and his banal apologists. There is no democracy without free speech. The virtue of being free to speak, and express yourself, is the catalyst for democratic revolution. Not the other way around.
"It's the ultimate flaw in socialism. When the well-being of the collective is valued over the individual, the very value of the individual is decreased implicitly. The body politic justifies extermination of problematic or dangerous expression of ideas on the grounds that doing so serves "the common good". This fundamentally destroys the cultural virtue of free speech, and undermines the value of democracy itself. Democracy is not a means by which to provide for free speech. Free speech is a means by which to provide for democracy."
In a sick twist, it is the free speech of freedom's enemies in democracies that undermine the system. Let 'em speak, I say. Read history, and beware.
Quibble: McCarthy's anti-Communist prosecutions were not about free speech or limiting same. Nor was McCarthy shooting journos or confiscating billions. It's naive in the extreme to equate McCarthy with Putin.
Well, as Dawg and I have sparred often enough and since he lost badly he resorted to banning me from his website despite my civility, I have to admit that I enjoy his arguments though predictable.
I have even gone so far as to defend him on SDA and here when others were calling for him to be banished.
His predictability comes from expecting him to say one thing today, then tomorrow contradict himself on a different topic hoping that noone noticed.
I noticed.
Hi Dawg!
"The complaint will be dismissed, in any case, and so it should be."
I'd be curious to know how Dr. Dawg knows this.
I'd also be curious as what he thinks of the following allegations:
That CHRC is a Kangaroo Court:
"In the 30-year history of the CHRC - the 'federal' commission - no Section XIII case which has gone beyond the initial 'discovery' stage has ever resulted in an acquittal of the defendant. That’s a 100% conviction rate." [External Link]
The apparent determination that someone convicted under Section XIII no longer enjoys the protection of that section, himself:
"Given these findings by the Tribunal, it can be deduced that the complainant [Kulbashian] is not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act or of s.13." [External Link]
That there has been "explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman" who appears to be manufacturing cases and using the CHRC for his own profit. [External Link]
Bruce:
1) Only 3% of all complaints submitted to the Alberta Human Rights Commission in 2006-7 proceeded to a hearing.
[External Link]
Even more arguable cases have failed--here's one that's on-point(scroll down to Quintin Johnson v. Music World Ltd.).
[External Link]
I am confident in my prediction.
2) It hasn't escaped my notice that people are slyly shifting from the Alberta Human Rights Commission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission when it serves their purposes. As just indicated (and you can review all of the case summaries at the AHRC site), there is not a 100% conviction rate before the AHRC.
As for the CHRC, there's a lot of winnowing that goes on before a case reaches a hearing there as well. I'm not surprised that a former officer from the CHRC (who has apparently brought half of the Section XIII cases forward, but I'd like to check that at some point, not to mention the over-all numbers) knows what cases can be successfully advanced, and picks them accordingly.
3) The Kulbashian case was decided on its merits. It was determined to be a frivolous case. The complaint against Warman was that he had used words that were themselves expressions of hatred, which was technically true, but intent is also a consideration.
4) Such "collusion" has yet to be proven. At this point it's just an allegation by interested parties.
For me, it's a matter of wait and see. On the Warman matter, in fact, I make no prediction whatsoever.
"It hasn't escaped my notice that people are slyly shifting from the Alberta Human Rights Commission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission when it serves their purposes" - D
I must have missed something, isn't Oscar Levant being investigated by both the Alberta HRC and the CHRC?
"The complaint against Warman was that he had used words that were themselves expressions of hatred, which was technically true, but intent is also a consideration." - D
Isn't that just another way of saying that unless one agrees with the purpose of the Act, then one has no recourse to relief from the Commission? "Given these findings by the Tribunal, it can be deduced that the complainant [Kulbashian] is not interested in furthering the purpose of the Act or of s.13."
"Such 'collusion' has yet to be proven. At this point it's just an allegation by interested parties." - D
In this case the prima facie evidence is pretty damning and I've seen no explanations for the Commission's actions - just a lot of name calling.
Bruce:
"Oscar" Levant? Ezra, alas, not nearly so talented. :)
Levant is being investigated by the AHRC. So far as I know, there is no CHRC complaint against him. I think you're thinking of Mark Steyn, who has been the subject of complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
In the Kulbashian case, as I understand it, the Commission was saying, in effect, that the complaint was not intended to curb the spread of hate within the meaning of Section XIII. It was submitted just to hassle Warman, who has successfully won a complaint against Kulbashian in a previous action.
There has been no name-calling from me vis-a-vis Warman. I'm completely agnostic on the issue, although the source of the claims is of serious concern. There is a technical discussion that is way past my level of competence here, if you're interested:
[External Link]
Scroll down to message 49 and beyond.
The odd thing about this, from a layman's point of view, is that the IP address in question was used by Warman posing as "Lucy,", and a message several weeks earlier to Stormfront, the one that led to the outcry recently, issued (we are told) from the same IP address, but other people had that address betweentimes. Anyway, as noted, I'm out of my depth here.
You've got me the commissions. On further research it appears that I've conflated Canadian Human Rights Commissions (plural) with the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. That's the danger or relying on the blogosphere where such distinctions can be lost.
Ezra Levant, not Oscar Levant, of course. There's probably a Freudian slip in there somewhere. Oscar was funny. Outside of this matter, I know nothing about Ezra.
"the complaint was not intended to curb the spread of hate within the meaning of Section XIII"
But isn't that my point? Isn't that just another way of saying that unless one agrees with the purpose of the Act, then one has no recourse to relief from the Commission? The "crime" depends not only on the thoughts of the defendant, but of the accuser, as well.
I've not seen the evidence that the IP address was used by others than Warman, or those with access to his equipment. The allegation, as summed up by Mark Stan, is that "when the defendant then made plain that he wished to subpoena the records of the ISP to uncover the author of the above post, the Canadian Human Rights Commission mysteriously dropped it from the case. This suggests an explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague." [External Link]
Bruce:
We have thirteen human rights commissions at the provincial and territorial level, interpreting provincial/territorial acts, and one federal human rights commission.
I'm missing your point about Kulbashian. Let me pose an analogy. I witness a crime in progress, hot-wire a car, and head for the nearest police officer I can find. I drive the officer back to the scene of the crime. The owner of the car has me charged with theft. The court holds that, technically, I did steal a car--but that the charge against me hardly furthers the purpose of laws against theft, and throws the case out.
I realize that, in reality, things would not be phrased precisely that way. Indeed, a theft change would not likely be founded by the police in the first place. But the state of mind of the accused is what's really at issue. The comments about Kulbashian's motives do seem apropos, however: the case had no merit, and the tribunal dismissed it as frivolous, saying in effect that the accuser was trying to shape Section XIII to his own purposes.
I agree with you that the CHRC handling of the case you reference needs a closer look. But at this point, the evidence seems at best circumstantial. I think we may hear more on all this shortly, however, but I've been wrong before.
Your analogy escapes me. Are you saying that Warman's "communicating hate messages" was necessary under the circumstances? Note, also, that Warman appears to have no special police powers.
Kulbashian is a reprehensible person, but that's not what investigator Sandy Kozak appears to be stating. Rather she is focusing on his motives in bringing the complaint.
My analogy, like all analogies, was inexact. What I was getting at was this: Kulbashian's case, according to the Commission, was not founded in the intent of Section XIII, but in a deliberate misreading of that intent. It was like a person using the n-word to ingratiate himself with the KKK so he can eventually bust them, and then being accused of racism himself.
Incidentally, I don't like entrapment, and there's at least a suspicion of that here. I'd like to know more, of course. Warman has been demonized for assiduously pursuing Nazis, but I'll support him so long as his activities are legal and ethical.
"Warman has been demonized for assiduously pursuing Nazis, but I'll support him so long as his activities are legal and ethical."
Who is doing the demonizing? Other than fellow Nazis and a handful of fringe lunatics, who else would be engaged in criticizing anyone for pursuing some of the most evil of our species? I understand why many are angry over Warman's methods, but it's a stretch to conflate that anger with displeasure over Warman's choice of targets, if that is in fact what you're doing, Dawg.
Personally, while I disagree with human rights tribunals prosecuting speech, I give Warman credit for taking advantage of the mechanism to go after the worst our society has to offer. Something good can be derived from something bad, on occasion.
Mike:
The hour is late, but let me give one example of what I am talking about. Blogposts with the identical headline "Five years in prison for quoting Scripture" appeared over a short period in places like this:
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
Some even linked to or quoted the judgement (the last link, for example--which indicated almost right away that the headline was a gross distortion of what had actually been the subject of judgment.
No fewer than thirty hate messages were at issue, many of them of the vilest type imaginable. The tribunal found that most of them were contraventions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Of the thirty messages, *only one* made any reference to the Bible, message 24. As you can see, that message is not a mere Biblical quotation, but is given a context.
The respondent was fined $1500 (not jailed for five years), and was enjoined from spreading hatred as follows:
"[80] I therefore see no reason to deny the order. Ms. Beaumont is ordered to cease and desist from communicating or causing to be communicated, by the means described in s. 13 of the Act, and particularly the Internet, any matter of the type contained in the messages at issue in this case that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."
This is interpreted by Connie Fogal of Free Dominion, who works with neo-Nazi Marc Lemire (Google him for yourself), as "The ruling banning her from citing Leviticus."
If you read the entire judgement, you will see for yourself what an utterly wild statement that is. But mainstream conservative sites just regurgitated this stuff without critique.
You comment: "I understand why many are angry over Warman's methods, but it's a stretch to conflate that anger with displeasure over Warman's choice of targets." Here, one Jessica Beaumont is being portrayed as a person who made the mistake of quoting from the Bible, and is facing five years as a result. Other than in the text of the judgment itself, she is made out to be almost a sympathetic figure, being pursued by the demonic Richard Warman before a "kangaroo court."
My question is this. If the conservative bloggers who picked up and reposted this story aren't displeased with Warman's choice of targets, why do they insist upon misrepresenting the case and Beaumont's behaviour so grossly? What possible purpose could it serve to place her in such a favourable light--as a Bible-quoting Christian, facing five years in jail? One doesn't, after all, and you know this, have to do any such thing to make out a case for unfettered freedom of speech.
So yes, you read my implication correctly, and I think it is justified.
"If you read the entire judgement, you will see for yourself what an utterly wild statement that is. But mainstream conservative sites just regurgitated this stuff without critique."
I agree Beaumont qualifies for neo-Nazi membership. As far as Kate at SDA is concerned, I haven't done any further digging, but it strikes me as unlikely (I'm hoping, anyway) that she knew the extent of Beaumont's racist rantings. If I'm right, then I doubt she would have linked to the headline. Do you have anything further in relation to that? If Kate has some defense along this line, then I question whether this constitutes evidence of "mainstream conservative sites" approving of this. Do you have any other examples?
I followed Warman's action against Winnicki, and I freely admit I was cheering in his corner, even if I don't agree with the process itself. I suspect every decent minded conservative (and that would be the vast majority of us on the Right, in my opinion) who was aware of the case felt the same way.
"Do you have any other examples?"
Sure:
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
We might quarrel about the word "mainstream" here and there, but these are not explicitly neo-Nazi sites, or anything like it.
"We might quarrel about the word "mainstream" here and there, but these are not explicitly neo-Nazi sites, or anything like it."
Yes, three of the five, I've never heard of. That leaves an awful lot of truly mainstream conservative sites who gave this a pass. In many cases, knowingly, I suspect.
I don't frequent Canadian Sentinel's blog, but I have seen him regularly mocked at some of the Leftist blogs I read from time to time. Kathy Shaidle receives the same treatment, as you know. In my view, both occupy ground on the far Right. As you may recall, many months ago, Kathy vowed to never post at Daimnation again after getting into a brawl with several of the other regulars. I have seen Mark C. link to Canadian Sentinel on occasion, lending credence to your contention that his site is "mainstream."
That being said, I still believe it matters whether they knew what Beaumont had actually said in totality. If they didn't do their homework, and impulsively linked to the headline only, then that provides a defense to the accusation they were angry with Warman for going after a white supremacist. If they did in fact know exactly what Beaumont was all about, then they were being dishonest (for not giving the full picture) and offensive, in my view. The only exception I would make in relation to such a criticism would be for those who provided full disclosure concerning Beaumont's remarks, but attacked Warman solely on the basis of their view that Warman is a serous threat to free speech.
Even then, it wouldn't have been a battle I would have chosen. As I said earlier, when Warman was going after Winnicki, I certainly felt conflicted to a degree.
I reject the argument that the anger many conservatives feel toward Warman equates to sympathy for white supremacists and neo-Nazis. I think that's what your pushing, Dawg, in a subtle, roundabout way, and if that's the case, it's a smear, plain and simple.
I don't think these things are ever, well, black or white. As you know, LGF recently described a "faultline" that has appeared in conservative ranks over alliances with the far right on the question of Islamism. There are some--and you are not, obviously, in my sights here--who don't see such alliances (e.g., with Nick Griffin of the BNP and with the Vlaams Belang crowd, and with various other frankly neo-Nazi formations) as problematic. There are others (and Charles Johnston leads the pack, but Damian is right there with him) who see such coalitions are very problematic indeed.
So there's little point in accusing me of smearing. In this case, I'm merely reporting--and voicing a certain suspicion about the, ah, *intensity* with which certain people have been going after Warman. Did every one of those whom we agree are "mainstreamers" fail to do their basic fact-checking?
My memory is failing me on Kathy's tiff with regulars here, but she regularly links to racial propagandist Steve Sailer. (Mainstreamer Kevin Grace has a link to Sailer on his page, and posts on a white supremacist site called VDARE, not that he has posted on Warman so far as I know.) In any case, I think the emphasis on Warman rather than on the wretches he's been going after is worthy of comment.
I was right there with you on Winnicki, by the way. I was the guy with the popcorn bowl, but you wouldn't remember.
Sorry for the delay, my Internet was more down than up yesterday. (the Bell guy who fixed the outside line today said the mice had been nibbling away at the wires in the box, and thereby attempting to stifle my online dissent).
"There are some--and you are not, obviously, in my sights here--who don't see such alliances (e.g., with Nick Griffin of the BNP and with the Vlaams Belang crowd, and with various other frankly neo-Nazi formations) as problematic. There are others (and Charles Johnston leads the pack, but Damian is right there with him) who see such coalitions are very problematic indeed."
You're describing a primarily European phenomenon, Dawg. When taking issue with your comments, I was focused on the North American context. European conservatives weren't on my radar, to be honest. That being said, Europe in general is much more xenophopic and anti-immigrant than Canada or the United States (not to mention more anti-semitic).
Even so, the BNP is a true fringe party in the political sense, enjoying no meaningful level of support. Vlaams Belang enjoys wider support, but not all of that can be attributed to the racially intolerant plank of its platform.
Here is an article describing a survey of multicultural tolerance taken in 23 western countries. I saved the National Post story from last year, but can't find it online.
"[External Link]
"Of the nearly 2,000 people surveyed in Canada, only 6.5 percent said they would not like to live beside a Muslim. Respondents in Greece (20.9 percent), Belgium (19.8), Norway (19.3) and Finland (18.9) were most likely to answer "No" to the question.
Results in the United States and Britain were 10.9 and 14.1 percent, respectively. The average percentage of negative responses in all Western countries was 14.5 percent."
I wonder how many Leftist critics of the United States who, fond of citing American Islamophobia, would be surprised to see Norwegians revealed as twice as intolerant of Muslims as Americans, according to this survey?
"So there's little point in accusing me of smearing. In this case, I'm merely reporting--and voicing a certain suspicion about the, ah, *intensity* with which certain people have been going after Warman."
Certain people, but very few in number, as I've pointed out. You're trying to depict this as a "mainstream" following, and there isn't any evidence of that here in Canada or the U.S. It's also worth mentioning that others, such as Damien in his recent posts involving Warman and David Icke, are "going after Warman," but are above "suspicion," of harbouring ulterior racist motives.
"Did every one of those whom we agree are "mainstreamers" fail to do their basic fact-checking?"
Well, I think we're talking about 3 people in total. Only they know for sure, but I doubt all 3 were in the dark as to what Beaumont was really all about. I suppose the only way to find out would be to ask them. Are they prepared to denounce Beaumont's racist statements, once ignorance of the existence of the statements is removed from the table? If they are racist, they may still lie about it, but the wording of a phony denial usually gives away the author's true sentiments.
" I was right there with you on Winnicki, by the way. I was the guy with the popcorn bowl, but you wouldn't remember.'
???
Shoot, did I really write "Connie Fogal," above? A million pardons! I meant Connie Fournier, not the current leader of the Canadian Action Party.
Posted at 2008-03-23 09:05:24 [PermaLink]