| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| A convocation of clowns |
| 2008-07-06 |
| The dismissal by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) of the complaint against Maclean's magazine and columnist-author Mark Steyn was the right decision. The complaint, under the hate message provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was brought by Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). It may be fairly surmised that the CHRC did not rule in favour of Elmasry and the CIC -- given the record of its past rulings being almost without exception in favour of complainants -- because the defendant was the widely read Canadian weekly newsmagazine, and its publishers would have appealed any decision against it. The reason complaints of the sort brought against Maclean's are not dismissed out of hand by federal and provincial human rights tribunals is due to section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, and similar codes in provincial statutes.It reads in part that any communication 'likely to expose a person or persons to hatred' can be prosecuted on the 'prohibited ground of discrimination.' Section 13(1) covers the same ground as does the hate-propaganda Section 319 of the Criminal Code. The difference is that anyone taking offence has recourse under the human rights act provision -- a National Post editorial explained -- to 'have an investigation launched and force a fellow citizen to undertake a legal defence, without having to comply with the rules of due process or the evidentiary standards that prevail in an actual courtroom.' Freedom of speech CHRC and its provincial counterparts should never have been given authority to prosecute matters relating to freedom of speech protected by the Canadian constitution. Those who insist that free speech is not unlimited and the Canadian tradition in this respect is somewhat different from that of the United States, are not denied recourse to law by bringing their complaint under the Criminal Code to a court properly constituted where the rights of all parties are fairly treated. The problem with the CHRC's use of section 13(1) to put a chill on free speech has been known for some time, and decried mostly by those of conservative persuasion subjected to the farcical hearings of the human rights tribunals. But it took the clownishness of the CIC complaint to make it amply clear to an increasing number of Canadians why the censorious provision of section 13(1) is a blot on Canadian democracy. There is irony here that it took Elmasry and his cohorts in the CIC to lodge their complaint of no merit against Maclean's, and in the process put the human rights tribunals in the dock of public opinion as no other previous complainant had done. Through the ages clowns have served many purposes apart from providing humour. Shakespeare and Moliere used clowns to illuminate absurd situations, to expose the emperor when he is without clothes or when the law is an ass, and to make clowns utter words others would dare not say out of propriety or fear of reprisal. This is what the CIC cohorts did as clowns for Canadians, revealing to them the scandalous redundancy of the Human Rights Act section 13(1). It is now for Canada's Parliament to do the right thing by revoking the section and saving Canadian democracy from dishonour as a result of its use. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #6 http://www.plasticnipple.com/images/clown_penis.jpg One of the better clown depictions. GIS for "evil clown" is impressive. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-06 13:40 |
| #5 "In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"[1] [2]" - wiki |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-06 08:34 |
| #4 I find it all very interesting. If you listen to the left and the prevailing conventional wisdom amongst the chattering classes, all the talk is about how the "current administration", devout Christians, and conservatives in general are eroding our freedoms. But in reality, the opposite is true. It is secularists and leftists who are largely responsible for erosions in human freedom today. And the examples are boundless. This bit with the HRC in Canada is only the most recent example, others include: -Speech codes and mandatory 'diversity training' in the education industry, particularly at the undergraduate level but not limited to there -the hyperregulation in the EU which includes jail sentences for critiquing Islam, gay marriage, etc., and has in effect made it illegal for devout Catholics to practice medicine, in some cases - with said hyperregulation being some day instituted here being one of the most desired goals of the left leaning party here in the U.S. -a so-called 'free' press in the U.S. which is almost entirely populated with far-left anti-Christian ideologues and which has no compunction about abusing their Constitutionally protected status to affect the outcome of elections -leftists living in the West coddling and making excuses for leftist dictators like Robert Mugabe because they are absolutely terrified to have ANY person whose politics are left of center portrayed in even the most remotely negative fashion, for fear the stigma may reach themselves some day etc. Meanwhile, the film industry is making movies like "V" which attempt to portray conservatives and devout Christians as the ones guilty of commiting these sorts of things when the opposite is actually going on. The words "projection" and "transference" leap to mind immediately. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2008-07-06 05:45 |
| #3 I gather the HR process is inquisitional; the accused is expected to accept pre-determined guilt, and then abjectly seek mitigation. What year is this? |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-07-06 04:34 |
| #2 Simple: loser pays. Sue those islamist a-holes for the legal fees and lost work time. Liens agains their property, garnish all wages, etc. Thats one of the major the problems with the system - there is no penalty for the losers that bring false charges. (Another one is the presumption of guilt) |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-06 01:48 |
| #1 This whole thing is quite a stain on Canada. What was that aphorism? "The dark curtain of fascism is always descending on the US, but only seems to actually fall on Europe" or some such. Given what I think could be called our own constitutional crisis (usurpation of war power, treaty power, and direct defiance of ennumerated powers by the SCOTUS), it's sad to see how Canada has beclowned itself all these years. Some of the best citizens of both nations continue to risk all to promote, inter alia, the rule of law in benighted regions of strategic importance - while back in North America, the rule of law looks a lot more tattered than it has in modern times ..... |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-07-06 01:11 |