The Shotgun Blog
« Landlords in Ontario answer to bureaucrats, not the market: rent control | Main | Harper, Ignatieff reach deal to stave off summer election »
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Left-o-sphere and the CHRC
Academic and blogger Marc Bourrie had a good post recently on the Orwellian tactics of Commissar Lynch and the CHRC. Given that he has done doctoral research on the history of state censorship in Canada, his opinions on this matter carry some weight.
But there's another reason why his post is worth reading, for if you take a look at the comments section you will discover everything you need to know about the intellectual bankruptcy of the port side of the Canadian blogosphere. In response to Bourrie's reasoned criticisms of the HRCs, the luminaries of Canada's nutroots - Dawgie and BCL in particular - have nothing to say. They evince no concern about due process, the rule of law, free speech rights, Warman's internet shenanigans, etc. No, for them the real issue is Ezra Levant's honesty (Robert McClelland calls him a "lying douchebag" in the first comment).
Setting aside the hilarity of BCL lecturing anyone about factual accuracy, the refusal of these bloggers to debate the real issues is in sharp contrast to the principled stance taken by Borovoy, Saul, PEN Canada, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Egale Canada, Professor Moon (and many other left of center voices), all of whom have come out against Section 13 and its provincial equivalents (or at the very least admit that there are serious problems with the way the commissions and tribunals operate).
But why bother debating the real issues when you can smear your opponents as liars and crypto-Nazis?
Posted by Craig Yirush on June 18, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink
Comments
Sorry but no real surprise there, since the reason is clear. Supporters of state tyranny such as the HRCs are unable to come up with any valid reason for their support, so they resort to childish name-calling and blatant dishonesty. They also show a lack of intelligence in not realising that the time will come when they will also be attacked with the same tool.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-18 8:11:46 PM
Craig,
Actually, Bourrie's thesis was on WWII censorship not the history of state censorship. That censorship, as I understand it, took the form of prior restraint on publication. Whatever else human rights tribunal do, they do not exercise prior restraint. Rather, they offer remedies similar to those provided by civil courts in defamation actions: monetary penalties and injunctions preventing further publication or repetition of the offending words. Is that properly described as censorship? I don't think so. Not apples and orange, perhaps, but certainly peaches and plums.
As for Lynch, while she's under no obligation to debate Levant (as Dawg has pointed out, Stephen Harper doesn't debate people who criticize him) there's no denying that her handling of this was a P.R. bomb.
That said, she is correct that many of her critics have only a glancing relationship with the truth. Certainly Levant's accounts of various human rights cases are so shamelessly torqued and distorted that if he tried to foist them on a judge, the blast from the bench would straighten his hair. And as Prof. Moon pointed out, Levant and his acolytes are too happy to make things up.
But having decided to make that point in a G&M op-ed, Lynch had should been prepared to back it up the next day.
Should there be a debate about s. 13? Sure. Are there people from across the political spectrum opposed to that provision and others like it? Yup. But not all opponents are as principled or as honest as Alan Borovoy or Prof. Moon. And despite your attempt to pretend that discussion of Levant's honesty is a mere distraction, some of most unprincipled and dishonest are stalwarts of the right-o-sphere.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-18 9:55:06 PM
truefeelings: Um, you honestly don't think an injuction never to criticize homosexuality ever again isn't censorship??
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-06-18 11:53:51 PM
Grant,
The actual order was a prohibition on "making disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals", which, if you care to parse it, conforms precisely to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" stand that Boissoin purported to hold.
In any event, would you care to explain how that remedy is somehow different or more odious from the permanant injunction against repeating the libel that is typically granted against an unsuccessful defendant in a defamation suit?
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-19 12:11:39 AM
truefeelings:
The issue you originally raised was the nature of censorship. You implied that the sine qua non of censorship was "prior restraint", and immediately proceeded to exclude punitive injunctions as a "prior restraint." This seems self-contradictory to me, for two reasons:
First, I should have thought it obvious that an injunction is a form of censorship, whether justified or not, inasmuch as it prohibits (further) speech (of the same kind) before it takes place. Now, you might think that imposing an injuction on certain kinds of speech that you find hateful or offensive is justified; whereas I do not. But that isn't the issue: whether justified or not, it is still censorship.
Second, I presume that HR decisions are generalizable, such that if it is punishable for one person to say "X" then it is punishable for anyone to say "X." Thus an injunction against one person amounts to an injunction against all - even those who have not yet committed the offensive breach. Thus the injunction amounts to "prior restraint" against all and sundry as surely as Bob's your uncle.
You change the subject - from the nature of censorship, to the possible justifications for censorship - when you talk about defamation. The relevant distinction is between words that (merely) offend people (with certain sensitivities), and words that actually cause harm to an identifiable individual. Yes, an injunction against re-uttering defamatory words is censorship; but it is justified by the harm principle. Offense to others, not so much.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-06-19 12:49:09 AM
Well, since your website ate my last comment, you can read my extended response here:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/06/me-on-chrc.html
Put briefly, I have listed the many, many posts where I have shown Ezra's accusations against Warman, the CHRC, and etc., to be false.
I have also listed some of the many, many, many posts I have written on the flaws in the CHRC processes, Warman's "shenanigans", the Moon Report--in fact, almost every aspect of this issue, both provincially and federally. I have actually left out most of the stuff on Bill 44, the Ontario leadership campaign, etc. I would also encourage reading Mr. Bourrie's post, and note that I in fact make a number of factual claims in the comments there that have been thoroughly sourced.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 6:07:54 AM
"[Human rights tribunals] offer remedies similar to those provided by civil courts in defamation actions: monetary penalties and injunctions preventing further publication or repetition of the offending words. Is that properly described as censorship? I don't think so."
Punishment after the fact for publication is the same as preventing publication, and is in fact worse, because preventing publication at least makes the rules clear to all concerned. Canada's HRTs, on the other hand, seem to make things up as they go, the truth be damned.
"[Jennifer Lynch] is correct that many of her critics have only a glancing relationship with the truth. Certainly Levant's accounts of various human rights cases are so shamelessly torqued and distorted that if he tried to foist them on a judge, the blast from the bench would straighten his hair."
Given Lynch's openly expressed contempt for truth, to the point of suggesting its removal as a defence in criminal proceedings, it's hard to imagine her having any use for the truth, or even being particularly adept at recognizing it. And if Jennifer Lynch, as a lawyer, were to try to foist some of HER arguments on a judge--triple hearsay, truth no defence, law no defence, et cetera, et cetera--she'd emerge from that courtroom looking like she'd been depth-charged for six hours.
"And as Prof. Moon pointed out, Levant and his acolytes are too happy to make things up."
Since Lynch has no use for the truth herself, why should she care?
"Despite your attempt to pretend that discussion of Levant's honesty is a mere distraction, some of most unprincipled and dishonest are stalwarts of the right-o-sphere."
And some of Lynch's most unprincipled and dishonest supporters are stalwarts of the left-o-sphere. What's your point? And what's with this sentence structure? You're dropping words here and there.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 6:28:30 AM
"The actual order was a prohibition on "making disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals", which, if you care to parse it, conforms precisely to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" stand that Boissoin purported to hold."
Except making disparaging remarks is not a sin. Otherwise you would be burning in the lowest sub-basement of Hell. Also, to specifically protect homosexuals and other minorities but not people across the board suggests that it's okay to make disparaging remarks against one of the unprotected groups. Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi non sit exceptum.
"In any event, would you care to explain how that remedy is somehow different or more odious from the permanant injunction against repeating the libel that is typically granted against an unsuccessful defendant in a defamation suit?"
How about the fact that in a bona fide libel case, the statements in question have to be demonstrably false?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 6:32:33 AM
"Since Lynch has no use for the truth herself, why should she care?"
I think the point is that 3rd parties looking at this issue should care for the truth, and the fact that EZRA has no use for it. You think Ezra should be allowed to bullshit because Ms. Lynch--according to you--doesn't mind?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 6:54:46 AM
Excellent article Craig, but remember: the left has always been suckers for victimization and whining. It should be no surprise!
Posted by: Dane Richard | 2009-06-19 7:12:01 AM
Grunt,
I think that, in the interests of accuracy, the term "censorship" should be reserved for those schemes involving prior restraint, rather than extended to those that deliver consequences post-publication. But if you want to bandy about the C-word willy-nilly, to the point that it become meaningless, hey, it's a free country.
It is free country even if the right to say any damn thing you like is constrained by law. Free speech is not absolute in any country in the world; even the U.S., where the First Amendment has established the broadest scope of protected speech, does not extend that protection to libel or to "fighting words".
As for your other points:
I think you're wrong to assume that HR decisions are "generalizable". The orders that emerge from such decision are specific to the individual, just as injunctions issues post-judgment in defamation cases apply only to the defendants. Only that individual faces sanction for a breach of the injunction or the order, so no, an injunction against one person does not amount to an injunction against all. A person republishing the hate speech or the libel may face an independent complaint. Or he may not. In legal matters involving speech, like all matters involving the use of words, context matters.
Your suggestion that HR hate speech provisions govern speech that "(merely) offends" is likewise without foundation. Indeed, this argument, which lies at the centre of Levant's attack on s. 13, is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest aspect of his shtick. The jurisprudence makes clear that hate speech encompasses only the most extreme forms of expression and that section 13 is designed to address the harm caused by that speech. In Taylor, the leading SCC decision on section 13, Chief Justice Dickson made the following comments:
"Parliament's concern that the dissemination of hate propaganda is antithetical to the general aim of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not misplaced. The serious harm caused by messages of hatred was identified by the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, commonly known as the Cohen Committee, in 1966. The Cohen Committee noted that individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological distress, the damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct. This intensely painful reaction undoubtedly detracts from an individual's ability to, in the words of s. 2 of the Act, "make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have". As well, the Committee observed that hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners, even if subtlely, that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior. The result may be an increase in acts of discrimination, including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and even incidents of violence."
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-19 8:27:55 AM
the refusal of these bloggers to debate the real issues is in sharp contrast to the principled stance taken by Borovoy, Saul, PEN Canada, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Egale Canada, Professor Moon (and many other left of center voices)
I'd love to debate any of these people. However, there's not much critical disagreement, since those parties don't vilify, defame, fabricate and outright lie when they've presented their cases. Their positions are principled and coherent and I, as a supporter of the tribunals, have no problem with that.
You Speech Warriors, on the other hand, are real pieces of work. I don't think you even recognise anything remotely resembling the truth. And the hate that comes so easily to you all remains a very big concern.
I know the lies and the hate are all you have left. But I'm wondering: Is it all you ever had?
Posted by: Ti-Guy | 2009-06-19 8:33:16 AM
I see the Fact Free Fat F*** has graced us with his presence and once again offered his views on legal matters.
Sorry, Shane, but I'm afraid your answer, "In a bona fide libel case, the statements in question have to be demonstrably false" is incorrect. In fact, under Canadian law, there is a legal presumption that any statement capable of bearing a defamatory meaning is both false and published maliciously.
But, hey, thanks for playing.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-19 8:35:32 AM
And to reinforce Truewest's last point, the Moon report basically gave the CHRT a pass on the kind of speech that it was actually ruling upon. All Warman's cases, for example, met the Taylor test and if I remember correctly most would have met the criminal code requirement.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 8:36:41 AM
"You Speech Warriors, on the other hand, are real pieces of work. I don't think you even recognise anything remotely resembling the truth."
So is that the logic behind the CHRC's proposal to remove the defence of truth from the Criminal Code: because they "think" that "speech warriors" are incapable of recognizing it in the first place, and so by extension it ought to be removed as a factor altogether?
"And the hate that comes so easily to you all remains a very big concern."
Other people's feelings are none of your concern and they do not need to apologize to you for having them. Who told you you had the right to legislate emotion? Why don't you just rip up the Charter and start erecting marble busts of yourselves throughout the land while you're at it? It is remarks like this that garner you comparisons with the Thought Police. And it's not much of a stretch, apparently.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 8:44:59 AM
I know there is no point in taking Shane seriously, but what the CHRC report actually says about the truth defense is:
"As this issue has resurfaced since the original drafting of the legislation, Parliament may wish to include considerations about the defence of truth in its deliberations."
This falls somewhat short of a proposal to remove it.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 8:57:29 AM
"I see the Fact Free Fat F*** has graced us with his presence and once again offered his views on legal matters."
Careful, TrollWaste. That sort of language can get you hauled in front of a human rights tribunal, if fat people decide to take offence. Or for that matter, a bona fide civil lawsuit. According to you and Lynch, the truth is no defence, although the truth is I'm not nearly so tubby as you imply. This may come as a shock to a coach potato like yourself, but bones and muscle have mass also. According to a fitness consultant, my lean body weight--minus ALL fat--is about 200 lbs. Yours would be, what, half that?
"Sorry, Shane, but I'm afraid your answer, "In a bona fide libel case, the statements in question have to be demonstrably false" is incorrect. In fact, under Canadian law, there is a legal presumption that any statement capable of bearing a defamatory meaning is both false and published maliciously."
But also a special defence in the case that the remarks are basically accurate. Presumption is not proof, and a remark is not necessarily defamatory just because the plaintiff says it is. That is up to the judge. A bona fide judge. Not a 21st-century witch-finder with delusions of omniscience.
But hey, thanks for the kind thoughts.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 8:57:52 AM
"'As this issue has resurfaced since the original drafting of the legislation, Parliament may wish to include considerations about the defence of truth in its deliberations.' This falls somewhat short of a proposal to remove it."
You may not dance. Why bring the subject up at all, if not for that? The only options are to retain it or to delete it. Don't play word games with me, BCL. I, at least, post under my real name. I, unlike you, am not afraid to attach my real name to my opinions.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 9:03:28 AM
Because Moon brought it up in his report. And you can find my name easily enough.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 9:07:00 AM
"All Warman's cases, for example, met the Taylor test and if I remember correctly most would have met the criminal code requirement."
However, his habit of going undercover and posting the very kind of messages, under the screen names Axetogrind and Pogue Mahone, that he has been suing others for, has earned him censure from the very CHRT he has used to advance his agenda. And then there was that incident where the CHRC apparently hijacked some poor innocent's computer so they could pull exactly the same kind of shady, agent-provocateur-like trolling...
But hey, if you want your behaviour controlled by a kinder, Canadian version of the KGB, then by all means, continue supporting these travesties of justice.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 9:11:41 AM
The wifi thing was debunked along time ago. See links to the post I ref above.
In any case, I think its pointless engaging you, Shane. You simply move from one point to another as the previous point gets refuted, until the result is a big circle and it has to start all over again.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 9:16:01 AM
But hey, thanks for the kind thoughts.
I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing the author of this post. I have no desire to engage "Fact-Free Fat F*cks" in any more conversations. I've heard it all before, and it doesn't get any less dishonest with each reiteration.
Posted by: Ti-Guy | 2009-06-19 9:33:59 AM
"The wifi thing was debunked along time ago. See links to the post I ref above."
ummm... No it wasn't. Sorry Murphy but your links aren't anything more than you, Stolow and Baglow spinning yourselves around in circles...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-06-19 9:35:49 AM
Yeah, NAMBLA-D, us, the privacy commission, and the RCMP. We're all in cahoots with Warman.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 9:37:30 AM
You're lying again Murphy. The RCMP investigation was kaiboshed over jurisdictional issues, The Privacy commission interviewed HRC lackies to the exclusion of all others and Stolow's stuff was a complete attempt to baffle with bullshit...
C'mon, you can do better than that...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-06-19 9:44:53 AM
Which is to say that Stormfront's owner (who helped Lemire launch the complaint) wouldn't let the police into his records. Similarly with the privacy complaint. Telling too is the fact that Lemire quietly excised the allegation from his constitutional challenge.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 9:49:42 AM
See YOUR links, BCL? Am I to take as objective the information provided by a man who rants on his own blogsite at the "Conservative menace"?
Finding insufficient proof of guilt is not proof of innocence, and that CHRC agents have been trying (rather amateurishly) to pull undercover sting operations on KKK-esque Web sites is beyond dispute. As is their delusional self-importance, to the point where they express a marked reluctance to cooperate with investigations and show contempt for official panels, refusing to even attend some hearings until they receive assurances there will be no cameras present.
But hey, freedom of speech is an American idea, and so horribly un-Canadian. Just ask Dean Stacey, racist anti-American and Sam Fisher wannabe.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 9:58:31 AM
...stormfront wouldn't let the RCMP into their records...
Yeah, I can see how that conversation went;
"Hello, I'm dudley doright with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Up here in Canada we persecute and prosecute people for having thoughts our thought police find offensive to our thought police. I don't have a court order but would you mind providing all of your computer logs so I can have a little look-see?"
Right.
The fact remains... The hacking issue hasn't been as "debunked" as you, Stolow and Baglow assert...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-06-19 9:59:39 AM
"Because Moon brought it up in his report."
What Moon brought up in his report is irrelevant--the CHRC are on record as questioning the defence of truth. Which is no more than what I said. Lay all the smoke screens you like.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 10:00:28 AM
"In any case, I think its pointless engaging you, Shane."
Don't think, BCL; makes my dick itch. Tell me what you know, or can prove. Despite what Jennifer Lynch and TrueWest think, the truth does matter. The basic rationale for all legal proceedings is to uncover the truth. Otherwise they're simply show trials.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 10:04:20 AM
Of course the wi-fi nonsense has been debunked, utterly and absolutely, notably by the painstaking work of "Buckets." NAMBLA-Dick knows this, and he's blowing smoke as usual.
On the main point, all has been said. Ezra is indeed mendacious on the subject, and, at this point, I must conclude that the same is true of Craig. I've amply documented every assertion that I've made on the subject, and he's been to my place to look.
And I have on many occasions discussed "the real issues," staking out a position that is neither free speech absolutist or heavily pro-censorship. But this sort of thing merely enrages simple-minded binary thinkers like Craig and his brainless acoloytes, so I'll leave it there.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2009-06-19 10:28:49 AM
truefeelings:
Your suggestion that HR decisions are not generalizable in the way that I indicate is a real head-scratcher. The law proscribes what it pleases legislators to call "hate speech"; HR tribunals interpret what constitutes hate speech according to their own ideological and inconsiste standards; and while each decision *directly* affects only the parties to the complaint, they collectively also make up the "common law" in this area and indirectly affect everyone. As such, they do - and they are *meant to* - inhibit similar speech by others, by the population generally. That's how it works in law, don't you know? And that's as much a case of "prior restraint" as the old law the proscribed (e.g.) homosexual publications.
But it is much worse than this. HR tribunals have an even more chilling effect on speech, because there is a substantial cost to the defendant for participation in an HR complaint process. Since complaintants get a free ride, and since defendants cannot expect to have their costs recovered from the State or from the complainant if they are successful, rational speakers will tend to stay well clear of the amorphous boundaries set by HR tribunals on hate speech. In fact, rational speakers will stay well clear of the types of speech engaged in by Levant and Steyn, even it if has been "cleared" by the HR tribunals, for fear of becoming caught up in the system (and eventually "winning"). This is the HR equivalent to "libel chill" - only it is much worse due to the financial incentive structure in HR complaints as opposed to civil suits.
You say, "The jurisprudence makes clear that hate speech encompasses only the most extreme forms of expression and that section 13 is designed to address the harm caused by that speech." Wish that it were so! If it were, then the impugned provisions in the Act would be that much less objectionable. But it wasn't so "clear" to Alberta's HR minions that Levant was called in to answer for publishing cartoons - cartoons! For Christ sake, if THAT could conceivably be actionable in the eyes of the minions at the HRCs, then nobody with half a brain and a modicum of independent thought is safe from their meddling. Come on, how can you honestly maintain the pretense that anything is "clear" about this area of the "law"?
I'm not a big fan of Kant generally, but I think his foundational ethical idea applies well to speech-acts.
That is, types of speech which defeat the purpose of speech should be banned, or at least should be actionable in some forum. So defamation and fraud, which rely upon misrepresentation that is antithetical to the purpose of speech itself, are out.
But all of the forms of speech specifically targeted by the HRCs rely upon the agency of intermediaries to bring about actual harm, as distinct from mere offense. (Yes, you can stretch the concept of 'harm' to include hurt feelings, and this is a free country, so go ahead if it makes you feel better.) If you must censor and ban, at least censor and ban the intermediaries who actually discriminate and cause actual harm, whether motivated by the offensive speech of others or not.
By the way, your lawyerly nit-picking with Shane over the nuances of defamation law leave much to be desired. The real issue (it cannot have escaped you) isn't one of burden of proof; the real issue is one of substance: truth is an absolute defence to defamation - conspicuously not so for "hate speech."
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-06-19 10:45:50 AM
Mornin', Br'er Dawg. [best Foghorn Leghorn imitation]
The REAL issue is that we have a quasi-judicial tribunal with complete and total contempt for any proceedings and standards but its own, to the extent that it now recommends we remove a fundamental keystone of Western justice from our criminal code: the defence of truth.
Now Jennifer Lynch has the gall to complain that the media is responsible for the CHRC's loss of face. The possibility that their own conduct might have had anything to do with it never entered her mind. She speaks like a frustrated artist scolding the world for not understanding her work.
As I said before, once a public official starts blaming the media, the end is near. Blog her out of this one if you can.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 10:46:58 AM
Baglow; Your "Buckets", being a poli-sci prof, doesn't have the tech background required to discuss toasters letalone switching stations and ip assignments. Why do you guys keep trying to pull this crap?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-06-19 10:51:37 AM
Richard, they keep trying what I call the smoke and mirrors act, because they are unable to come up with facts. They are incapable of dealing with facts and truth and are only wired to to deal with feelings.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-19 11:05:37 AM
Exactly, Alain. They cop huge attitudes to mask the thinness of their arguments and prod their opponents with sticks in the hope of derailing meaningful debate. Their screeds drip with the foulest bile, ironically spewing the very thing they claim the HRCs are most effective at eradicating--hate.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 11:24:20 AM
Heh. Flail away, NAMBLER. You couldn't be more wrong about Buckets, but in any case, all those investigations you nutbars were basing your hopes on sort of disappeared in the morning breeze--didn't they? Is there one hanging fire that I've forgotten about?
The wi-fi issue is pining for the fjords, my boy.
Shane:
You've been around this controversy long enough to know that the so-called "defence of truth" doesn't apply in a number of areas of law--for example, contary to popular belief, in defamation law, where even the truth won't save you if it was advanced for a clearly malicious purpose.
In the case of one of the trials against Zundel (admittedly I'm going by memory here), the court took judicial notice of the Holocaust. So Zundel's "truth" that there was no Holocaust could not be argued--avoiding a replication of an earlier travesty.
You folks are getting all your ideas from criminal law. Try civil and administrative law for a change. You people are in way over your head. And when truewest, a litigation lawyer, tries to instruct you, you tie even more weight to your feet.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2009-06-19 12:06:26 PM
"You've been around this controversy long enough to know that the so-called "defence of truth" doesn't apply in a number of areas of law--for example, contary to popular belief, in defamation law, where even the truth won't save you if it was advanced for a clearly malicious purpose."
And are Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's purposes malicious? "Clearly malicious" is pretty damned hard to qualify. It's one thing to write "Richrad Warman is a furniture thief!" It's quite another to point out that he's a serial litigator whose purposes may be insidious in themselves and who has engaged in highly questionable, if not yet clearly criminal conduct.
"In the case of one of the trials against Zundel (admittedly I'm going by memory here), the court took judicial notice of the Holocaust. So Zundel's "truth" that there was no Holocaust could not be argued--avoiding a replication of an earlier travesty."
Truth is not in the eye of the beholder; the Holocaust is an historically accepted fact. The truth defence therefore does not apply to Zundel. That said, he SHOULD be perfectly free to deny its existence, just as there are people who deny the roundness of the Earth, yet escape prosecution.
"You folks are getting all your ideas from criminal law. Try civil and administrative law for a change. You people are in way over your head. And when truewest, a litigation lawyer, tries to instruct you, you tie even more weight to your feet."
Even civil and administrative law have higher standards of proof than these latter-day Star Chambers, Dawg, which is the point. Compared even to the farce of traditional civil law, the human rights process is grossly one-sided and lends itself to horrible abuses by both commissioners and plaintiffs, which is the crux of the blizzard of complaints that have forced them on the defensive. A blizzard of complaints to which they have no ready answers except condescending talk about the moral purity of their mission and the insolence of the mere vulgar who dare to question their betters.
TrueWest is a lawyer? Well, I'm shocked. He sure spins like one. I've often wondered if he had a professional or financial stake in the tribunals' well-being. This revelation doesn't prove that, but it does explain a lot, nonetheless. Dickens spoke true when he said that the one great principle of the law is to make business for itself.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 12:33:08 PM
"And are Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's purposes malicious?" According to three different human rights tribunals/commissions, no.
Your ad hominem re "truewest" is not. That all ya got?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2009-06-19 1:26:04 PM
"is noted." Sorry.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2009-06-19 1:26:40 PM
"staking out a position that is neither free speech absolutist or heavily pro-censorship."
Translation: I will only violate other people's civil rights to enforce opinions I agree with.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-06-19 1:27:03 PM
I thought Professor Moon's comments re: the truth defense were pretty interesting.
As I recall, Moon argued that a truth defense is not needed with respect to hate speech because hate speech (for the purposes of the Act) is by definition false.
Maybe that's what this is supposed to refer to:
"As this issue has resurfaced since the original drafting of the legislation, Parliament may wish to include considerations about the defence of truth in its deliberations."
What I want to know from Canadian leftists is if they'd support removing the truth defense, if such a proposal were in the offing.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-06-19 2:12:03 PM
"Your ad hominem re "truewest" is noted."
Just so long as his "300-pound fact-free fat fux" is, also. And you should know that "appeal to authority" is as much a logical fallacy as "argumentum ad hominem."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 2:20:01 PM
"As I recall, Moon argued that a truth defense is not needed with respect to hate speech because hate speech (for the purposes of the Act) is by definition false."
They still have to make the case it was hate speech, though, don't they? And declaring something to be manifestly true simply because somebody says it is is basically the same as saying that the truth does not matter.
"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?...And if the Party says it is not four but five, then how many?"
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 2:22:49 PM
""And are Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's purposes malicious?" According to three different human rights tribunals/commissions, no."
Yes...at no cost to the plaintiffs and all to the taxpayer and the defendants. Correct?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 2:25:07 PM
Dawg -
You are a lying sack of [expletive deleted]. Your sole "contribution" to this debate has been to defame those of us who believe in free speech as sympathetic to Nazism. And when called on it (as you were last February with your asinine charges of hypocrisy re the Pally students) you backed down (I particularly enjoyed your false charge about Deb G's alleged hypocrisy).
At least BCL, TW, and even Ti-Guy are willing to debate the issues.
Posted by: Craig | 2009-06-19 2:25:29 PM
"I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing the author of this post. I have no desire to engage "Fact-Free Fat F*cks" in any more conversations."
You lie, you vermin-ridden pustule of a bottom-feeding shyster that fell out the back end of a horse. You love it, you revel in it, and you'll ride in to the defence of your beloved star chambers again and again and again, naked and with the horse draped over your shoulders, if you have to. The best way you can prove me wrong is to simply leave.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 2:29:44 PM
TW -
My main point (which I think still stands) is that we need an honest and open debate about this topic, free of the kind of ad hominem that Dawg engages in.
Bourrie is an honest broker who repeatedly tried to bring the discussion back to the issues, but was unable to because his interlocutors were more interested in name-calling.
Our exchanges over at Jay's place have been heated at times, but also instructive (at least for me). And I see no reason why left-wing bloggers can't rise to the intellectual level of the luminaries I mentioned at the end of my post.
Posted by: Craig | 2009-06-19 2:35:33 PM
...and even Ti-Guy
Gosh I'm flattered.
Same old cesspool...
Posted by: Ti-Guy | 2009-06-19 2:37:36 PM
"As I recall, Moon argued that a truth defense is not needed with respect to hate speech because hate speech (for the purposes of the Act) is by definition false."
Right. Sometimes when I read this it strikes me as an a prior ethical decision. If you want to say that Catholics are entirely without value, then we will reject your argument up front. It will not be true. I am for the most part okay with that.
"What I want to know from Canadian leftists is if they'd support removing the truth defense, if such a proposal were in the offing."
I haven't really decided yet. The argument(Borovay) is that a book (of legit history) outlining the atrocities of Nazi Germany for example might meet the CC requirment even if it was true. The CHRC counter is that this would only happen if the book used these facts to infer that Germans as a people were entirely without value. F
urther, the practical effect of the truth defence (the one we actually see in practice) is that you get whackjobs up there arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen. They get a platform and we have to rehash all the same old facts over and over again. And that is just not a worthwhile use of time.
Remember, the Borovay scenario is entirely theoretical. It doesn't apply to any tribunal case that has in fact come up. So, maybe, maybe not...
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2009-06-19 2:38:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.