The Shotgun Blog
« Hey commenters! | Main | If it matters, measure it: Poor reporting could be hiding poor performance in Canada’s municipal governments »
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Some 'haters' are more equal than others . . .
Just when you thought the Lynch mob at the Canadian Human Rights Commission had hit rock bottom, they hand down this decision.
So far silence from the Jackal, Dawg, Big City Liberal, and others in favour of limiting free speech.
Dawg, however, did find the time to praise Lucy's latest cash grab.
Posted by Craig Yirush on December 17, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053684cb2d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some 'haters' are more equal than others . . .:
Comments
I'm confused. Do you folks want complaints upheld or disallowed? This was a disallowed complaint. It joins a lengthening list of other disallowed complaints. From your perspective, free speech was upheld yet again. What's your problem?
Truth be told, I don't see much difference between this case and Boissoin, except that the Imam's ravings are confined to a little-read book, while Boissoin trumpeted his hatred in the local newspaper. Almost immediately afterwards a gay man was savagely beaten.
Incidentally, Warman won a defamation suit. Unless you consider that defamation law is an attack on free speech, you should try to think a little harder. Fromm gets coal in his stocking this Christmas, and good on him.
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-18 7:10:28 AM
...and some of the people doing the beating were apparently (allegedly?) connected to Boisson through his church work.
But otherwise I ditto Dawg's sentiments.
Also, it isn't really a decision, is it? Its a letter from an investigater explaining why the complaint will not be taken any further and, hence, why no decision will ever be handed down.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-12-18 7:25:58 AM
The CHRC's have gotten a little selective don't you think? What with this Abbou fellow and his book "Islam or Fundamentalism" which spews hatred at just about everybody, one would think the Stalinists over at the CHRC would be all over it, but they're not. Good. As much as I find that sort of bile to be completely despicable, its just one radical Muslims opinion.
So!, let's hope that those fun loving goose steppers over at the CHRC are finally being reigned in on all fronts, and a pox on their house.
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-18 7:38:32 AM
"Almost immediately afterwards a gay man was savagely beaten." This is a spurious correlation. Impossible to prove. Could have happened with or without Boissoin.
The fact that the Commission decided not to investigate the complaint (given the despicable contents of the Imam's document) adds further proof that the Commission is a farce. This simply strengthens the argument that it should be disbanded.
Fromm, however, is apparently guilty of defamation, and deserves any fine he gets.
Posted by: Charles | 2008-12-18 8:31:57 AM
dawggie sez: "Almost immediately afterwards a gay man was savagely beaten."
It was a gay teen. There was no beating. It was a single punch that broke the kid's jaw. There was no connection between the letter and the punch the kid took to the head. No assault charges were ever filed. The kid didn't file the HRC complaint nor did he make the connection between his adventure and Boissoin's letter. Darren Lund, an uninvolved socialist activist with a history of Christian bashing used the assault as an opportunity to further his own agenda of removing any and all references of God from the public square. Lund fabricated the connection and Lund filed the HRC complaint.
bcl sez: "...and some of the people doing the beating were apparently (allegedly?) connected to Boisson through his church work."
Ya see, now you're just making stuff up. I guess though, judging by your proven history of making stuff up, we shouldn't really expect anything else from you.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-12-18 8:50:50 AM
No, NAMBLA Dick, that's from the decision itself.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-12-18 9:41:19 AM
Nambla D writes:
"The kid didn't file the HRC complaint nor did he make the connection between his adventure and Boissoin's letter"
The last bit is false:
"The young man who was assaulted made a statement to the media in which he mentioned Mr. Boissoin’s letter.
From the decision.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-12-18 9:52:59 AM
Poor NAMBLA-Dick. When he's not out harassing female bloggers, he's getting his facts wrong in public yet again.
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-18 9:56:31 AM
facts: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1104840
When you're done with that, bcl, you need to check your facts on highway windmills:
http://www.no-libs.com/index.php/2008121899846/MyBlog/Retards/M.J.-Murphy-aka-BigCityLib-Makes-Stuff-Up.html
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-12-18 10:28:27 AM
NAMBLA-D,
The material about Boisson's connection to the assailant is marked "apparently", although (as Boissoin mentions at FreeD) he didn't really challenge any of Ms. Dodd's testimony at the hearing.
The kid in fact did mention the letter.
Thanks for the fact checking on my post re highway turbines. Naturally I will make the necessary changes without acknowledgement.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-12-18 11:30:11 AM
There are some pretty sick people hanging out at WS, for sure. "Too Sad" is good company for NAMBLA-Dick. Naturally the gutless wonder is hiding behind a pseudonym, but I suspect he's a certain SDA regular about whom I may have more to say anon.
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-18 11:41:36 AM
Okay, what gives? What's with this nambla tag? Do you boys have a legitimate reason for accusing someone of homosexual pedophilia? If not, you should cut it out.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-18 11:55:19 AM
NAMBLA-Dick created a website that mimicked that of an enemy of his, and pointed all traffic to NAMBLA, thereby increasing the traffic to the latter and giving that foul organization new readers. As such, he is a NAMBLA enabler, and some of us have been calling him on this for some time.
When he isn't up to this sort of thing, he harasses female bloggers. In one recent case, he suggested that an obviously overwrought woman blogger kill herself. He seems fascinated by the sex lives of female bloggers.
Yup. Our Richard is a sweetie.
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-18 12:05:10 PM
Oh, really? Thanks for the response.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-18 12:15:34 PM
When you run out of sockies, you sick fuck, let me know. Maybe we can have a meeting.
Posted by: Friend of Dawg | 2008-12-18 12:56:46 PM
Hey, Friend,
Let's keep it classy and not sound like the right-wing sickos who hang out here, OK?
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-18 1:14:43 PM
Pathetic
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-18 2:31:55 PM
I've had to delete two comments and ban an IP. I hate doing that. Don't make me do that.
If you want to discuss inconsistent behavior at the CHRC, great. Otherwise, stay out of this thread.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-12-18 3:01:38 PM
Terrence, duly noted. Dawggie's comment needs a response though. I'll keep it short. On the NAMBLA point, Dawggie is correct. Anybody that typed www.canadiancynic.com into their browser went to a page that explained how CC thinks that 45 year old men having sex with 14 year old boys. It then redirected the user to NAMBLA where they could see the crap that CC was enabling.
I feel no shame in that.
On his assertions re harassment, dawggie, as usual, isn't being honest. Instead of derailing the thread, you can read up on the adventure here:
http://www.no-libs.com/index.php/2008120996393/MyBlog/MoonBats/Fem-Nazi-MoonBat-Unhinged.html
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-12-18 4:19:27 PM
oopsie... that should read:
"Anybody that typed www.canadiancynic.com into their browser went to a page that explained how CC thinks that 45 year old men having sex with 14 year old boys should be legal. It then redirected the user to NAMBLA where they could see the crap that CC was enabling."
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-12-18 4:22:02 PM
Dawg and BCL,
The point of the post was simple: if you believe in restricting hate speech then you should be in favor of subjecting this imam to a complaint. After all, what he wrote was the equivalent of what Boisson got censored for; and far worse than anything Velk said, let alone Steyn or Ezra.
This decision shows that the commission and those of you who flack for it are not interested in cracking down on anti-semitism or misogyny or other forms of hate if the perpetrator is not some impecunious neo-nazi.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-12-18 4:22:41 PM
Craig:
You are making very little sense.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. I support a high bar for speech complaints. I've posted enough--and you've visited my site enough--to know that I take neither an unduly restrictive approach (I did not support the complaint against MacLean's, for example) nor a libertarian one.
If the Imam had been preaching his hatred in the local papers or at rallies, I think there might be a good case against him. But who the heck knew about him or his trashy little book until someone wanting to make a cheap political point dredged it up from the depths?
Go kick another straw man.
As for NAMBLA-Dick, Polly Jones isn't the only woman blogger he's stalked:
http://unitewasp.blogspot.com/2008/12/because-i-dared.html
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-12-18 4:36:44 PM
Dawg,
Why does it matter that it wasn't in a public fora or in a newspaper? It was in print and on the internet. As such, there's no material difference between his words and Boisson's or Lemire's (who, btw, only wrote on an obscure blog site).
The fact that you are sanguine about this tells me you don't really care about hate speech unless it comes from the Christian right or the neo-nazi fringe. Such hypocrisy.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-12-18 6:04:27 PM
It wasn't on the Internet. Why should I discuss this with you if you can't even get the basic facts right?
The question is whether this obscure book had the effect of exposing people to hatred or contempt. The key word here is "expose." Not likely, at least until Bascule made people aware that the Imam's book even existed.
Lemire's site, on the other hand, has relatively wide Internet distribution. And he's the darling of the far-right at the moment, a veritable free speech martyr. Not that he has had a complaint against him upheld by the CHRC (a different body, but to you folks they all look alike, right?)
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-18 7:08:26 PM
These people (Islamists and others) are bound and determined to spread Hell on earth. Their attempts to do good have bad consequences. May God help us weather all the bad consequences of their good intentions. Even writing on this blog may have bad consequences. Maybe all discourse of whatever kind should be outlawed. Maybe the ostrich has the best idea.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-12-18 7:56:37 PM
Dawg - you are the one who doesn't have the facts straight. First, it was PUBLISHED. You know, like in a book. What more do you want? The complainant claimed it was also on the web. If it's not, so what? It was still publicly available. As for Lemire's site - are you kidding me? It was an obscure url until Warman decided to make him a martyr (which is one of the reasons why restrictions on hate speech are counterproductive).
(And how do you know that this vile book did not expose anyone to hatred or contempt?)
I still don't see why you can't see the hypocrisy here. There is NO material difference between this Iman and Boisson and Lemire and countless others who have been charged under section 13.
Which leaves those of us who care about the equal application of the law wondering why some are charged and others are not.
As for your last claim, I don't know what you are talking about. The CHRC is the body that upheld the complaint against Lemire, isn't it? (and he is now before the CHRT). And wasn't it also the same CHRC which refused to hear Bascule's complaint? But then what do I know. I am just an ignorant 'speech warrior' (or whatever slander you clever 'progressives' are employing these days to traduce those of us who still believe in liberal values like free expression).
Posted by: Craig | 2008-12-18 7:57:14 PM
poor dawggie... Responding to a radical fem-nazi after she attacks you on her blog isn't called stalking. It's called "responding". If you and your feminist friends can't handle that, you need to remove your panties and put on some big boy pants.
Oh, and if you're going to cite a discussion, cite the actual discussion as opposed to the fem-nazi's rant about the discussion.
http://unitewasp.blogspot.com/2008/12/ooooh-thems-fightin-words.html
Pay careful attention to the very last comment where she admits to deleting the post that got the conversation started.
Sorry Terrance... That'll be my last response to dawggie's whining in this thread...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-12-18 7:57:18 PM
Dawg - you are the one who doesn't have the facts straight. First, it was PUBLISHED. You know, like in a book. What more do you want? The complainant claimed it was also on the web. If it's not, so what? It was still publicly available. As for Lemire's site - are you kidding me? It was an obscure url until Warman decided to make him a martyr (which is one of the reasons why restrictions on hate speech are counterproductive).
(And how do you know that this vile book did not expose anyone to hatred or contempt?)
I still don't see why you can't see the hypocrisy here. There is NO material difference between this Iman and Boisson and Lemire and countless others who have been charged under section 13.
Which leaves those of us who care about the equal application of the law wondering why some are charged and others are not.
As for your last claim, I don't know what you are talking about. The CHRC is the body that upheld the complaint against Lemire, isn't it? (and he is now before the CHRT). And wasn't it also the same CHRC which refused to hear Bascule's complaint? But then what do I know. I am just an ignorant 'speech warrior' (or whatever slander you clever 'progressives' are employing these days to traduce those of us who still believe in liberal values like free expression).
Posted by: Craig | 2008-12-18 11:48:41 PM
The point is that the CHRC is inconsistent in its approach and treatment. If the Immams book is aimed at Muslims as it is apparant it is then it can indeed have a negative impact. The Canadian government could go so far as to add an entire religion to its terrorist watch list. Now wouldn't that be silly.
Posted by: DML | 2008-12-18 11:51:10 PM
There appear to be new comments in this thread, but they aren't coming up. Is it just me?
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-19 6:13:10 AM
"As for your last claim, I don't know what you are talking about. The CHRC is the body that upheld the complaint against Lemire, isn't it? (and he is now before the CHRT). And wasn't it also the same CHRC which refused to hear Bascule's complaint?"
Sigh. The CHRC doesn't "uphold" anything. It's not a Tribunal. And the CHRT hasn't found against Lemire--at least, not yet.
You are correct, however, that it's the CHRC that is the (non-)actor here. But the Boissoin case was filed and decided in a different jurisdiction (Alberta), which was my point.
Section 13(1) deals with Internet communications. Where does this trashy book appear on-line? (Given that the CHRC letter doesn't address this point, I guess I should concede that it was, but it still isn't clear to me that it showed up on the Web.)
Lemire has been infecting the Internet for more than a decade. He's far better known--and has a much wider audience--than this Imam non-entity. I'd say we have apples and oranges here. Boissoin would have been a better pick for inconsistency, even though his case was handled in a different forum, but as noted, his hatred was far more "in-your-face," and at least one of his young followers was involved in a gay-bashing shortly after his inflammatory letter appeared in the newspaper.
This Imam is worth keeping an eye on, though.
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-19 6:29:28 AM
Well, shoot. Here's the wretched book:
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/IMG/pdf/L_Islam_ou_l_Integrisme_3ieme_edition_.pdf
Apologies all around, and to complete my humiliation, a h/t to Mark Steyn for the reference.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Posted by: Dr. Dawg | 2008-12-19 6:42:10 AM
I don't want to defend the CHRC, but here's what seems to be going on:
Person A (say, Boissoin) publishes proposition x.
Person B (the Imam) publishes proposition y.
In terms of content, x and y are basically equivalent. I don't think anyone can deny that is the case here. If anything, what the Imam published is more systematically hateful.
It's reasonable to ask: why should the law treat A and B differently?
The argument from the other side is simply that context matters. And, unfortunately, I think Section 13(1) supports that contention.
"It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically...any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt..."
Context matters because two otherwise identical propositions published in different contexts may not have the same likelihood of exposing persons to hatred and contempt.
Put concisely: if no one knows you've published hateful proposition x, then you haven't really published something that is likely to expose someone else to hatred/contempt.
That may be one of the more pernicious aspects of Section 13(1), because judging the "likelihood" on the basis of the context seems incredibly difficult to me.
In my opinion, laws should be written so that two competent judges, faced with the same law and the same fact set, should have a high probability of converging on the same judgment. When it comes to the question of whether a law applies or not, there should be no room for "reasonable disagreement."
I don't think Section 13(1) meets that standard. There are probably other laws that don't (I'm thinking of torts here, I guess.) But because Section 13(1) touches on freedom of speech, it is even more imperative that it meets the standard.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-12-19 11:55:09 AM
Dawggie, if you're going to cite a discussion, cite the actual discussion as opposed to citing the woman's rant after she lost the debate. If you keep this up, folks are going to think that you're being misleading on purpose...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-12-19 1:21:14 PM
Dawg,
I responded to your post yesterday but the comments don't seem to be working.
Even if the Imam's hateful screed wasn't on the internet, it was published as a book in Montreal and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of section 13.
As for likely to expose, I see no evidence that this is any different than Lemire's website which was also obscure until Warman decided to make him a martyr. Or Boisson's op-ed. Or Velk's magazine.
I think you are being hypocritical here - if hate speech is so dangerous that we need section 13 then it has to be applied impartially to all.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-12-19 2:41:36 PM
Hm, now why aren't comments working?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-12-19 5:08:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.