EYE ON A CRAZY PLANET
Showing posts with label Canadian Human Rights Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian Human Rights Commission. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Two wasteful Canadian institutions bite the dust
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the part that allowed for kangaroo court Human Rights Commissions to fine and censor Internet and phone messages based on the "likelihood to cause hate" has finally been voted out of existence by Parliament. There will be a one year phasing out period.
And in other good news, the wasteful Canadian International Development Agency, which was a trough for lunatic, anti-Western NGOs in Canada to feed from, has been eliminated and its functions merged into the new Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.
Despite the warnings of fear mongers, Hate Speech will remain illegal in Canada, but prosecutions will have to meet the standards of courts of law, not the opinions of 3rd rate patronage appointments without law degrees.
Canada will also continue to provide foreign Aid, but in a more sensible, cost effective way.
And in other good news, the wasteful Canadian International Development Agency, which was a trough for lunatic, anti-Western NGOs in Canada to feed from, has been eliminated and its functions merged into the new Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.
Despite the warnings of fear mongers, Hate Speech will remain illegal in Canada, but prosecutions will have to meet the standards of courts of law, not the opinions of 3rd rate patronage appointments without law degrees.
Canada will also continue to provide foreign Aid, but in a more sensible, cost effective way.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
The welcome death of Section 13 and the arrogance of Canada's censors
Depending on who you talk to, a government lawyer named Richard Warman is either admired or reviled for his unrelenting effort to punish hate speech in Canada. Joining neo-Nazi online forums, Warman has identified a number of public hatemongers and successfully pursued judgments against them through Human Rights Commission rulings.
His goal of working towards a Canada without racism and illegal discrimination is an admirable one. From all credible accounts, Warman's efforts are the result of the noblest of motives; the desire to contribute to society and continue, in a different form, the fight against Nazism and fanatical racism that his relatives had done in battle during the Second World War.
But there is a dangerous flip side to the Human Rights Commissions that Warman and others have utilized to serve their aim. Conceived for the purpose of fighting illegal discrimination in employment, housing, education and so on, they have morphed into tools used by special interests to try to prevent any form of speech that they consider offensive.
They have been used to intimidate people who have not promoted discrimination or racism but have merely expressed ideas. Some of the most notorious abuses were the cases of Ezra Levant being prosecuted for publishing cartoons of Islam's founder Mohammad and Mark Steyn and Macleans magazine for an article about the affect of Islam on western society. Though both cases were ultimately dismissed, there are obvious problems with a quasi-judicial system presided over by individuals of questionable qualifications and dubious judgement, that forces defendants to appear at their own expense, while plaintiffs can launch frivolous publicly funded cases.
The notion that an ideology that is antithetical to the freedoms that western civilization has achieved is above criticism, because of an idolatrous deification of the secular concept of multiculturalism, should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in liberty and democracy. But that is precisely how Human Rights Commissions have been used, with the assistance of its petty-minded functionaries who believe that free speech is only "an American concept" without value in Canada.
Yet that is how Canada's Human Rights Commissions have been employed by defenders of Islamism. While in Canada, the majority of Muslims have rejected violent jihad, but that rejection is not universal, and Islamic nations like Iran are ruled by leaders who embrace the murderous methods of terrorism.
There is a regrettable, though somewhat amusingly illogical arrogance to the Human Rights censors who appear to think they possess a secret knowledge of the human capacity for hate. I was going to ask Richard Warman a question about that a few months ago at a public forum put on by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. At that event, Warman debated Canadian Civil Liberties Association General Counsel Nathalie Des Rosiers about the soon to be undone Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act that deals with hate speech. That debate took place, somewhat ironically, at the same place that almost exactly a year earlier was the site of an anti-Israel forum featuring the author of an anti-Semitic thesis sanctioned by the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Warman had described a short film called "Fitna" about Islamic radicalism produced by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, as "criminal hate speech."
Fitna is not the ravings of xenophobic "right wingers" against Muslims and Islam. It is a compilation of images of Islamic leaders and demonstrators expressing approval of terrorism,murder, and repressive dictates against Muslim and non-Muslim alike. To be sure, those portrayed in Fitna are not representative of all Muslims. But Wilders did not invent those images and they are a significantly sizable minority within the Islamic world to be of serious concern to those in the West who believe in democratic ideals.
Wilders himself was described by Warman as a "far right" politician. Fitna is a warning against a religious and political ideology that suppresses women and denies them abortion rights, persecutes and kills Gays for their sexuality, persecutes religious minorities, and has no respect for free speech. In what kind of bizzaro world is someone who seeks to defend abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights and free speech against those who suppress them considered a "right-winger"?
The question I intended to ask Warman was that as he had seen Fitna and had not been transformed into a raving Islamophobe, how is it that he sees fit to try to deprive others of that right on the basis that it would affect other people differently than it did him? Does Warman believe he is so intellectually and morally superior, like some inner party member of Orwell's 1984, that he is of a special class of person capable of correctly processing information the rest of us can not?
As it happened, I didn't get the chance to ask Warman that question, because just as it was my turn at the microphone, I was cut ahead of by Bernie Farber, the anticipated next head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Farber, another proponent of civil hate speech regulation, used his time with Warman to engage in the verbal equivalent of mutual masturbation in which the two men lavished praise on each other, and so consumed all the remaining question and answer period.
Fortunately, questions related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act will soon be moot. As a result of a Private Members' Bill put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth, the law that let unqualified censors determine the free speech rights of Canadians will soon be repealed. Hate Speech will still be a crime in Canada, but it will have to meet the test of standards necessary for criminal prosecution in genuine courts presided over by real judges. Given the plentiful opportunities for abuse and mischief afforded by Section 13, its death is not only welcome, but long overdue.
Canada's arrogant censor class need to understand that free speech is not a privilege over which they have final say, but a basic human right that should be infringed on only under the most serious of circumstances.
His goal of working towards a Canada without racism and illegal discrimination is an admirable one. From all credible accounts, Warman's efforts are the result of the noblest of motives; the desire to contribute to society and continue, in a different form, the fight against Nazism and fanatical racism that his relatives had done in battle during the Second World War.
But there is a dangerous flip side to the Human Rights Commissions that Warman and others have utilized to serve their aim. Conceived for the purpose of fighting illegal discrimination in employment, housing, education and so on, they have morphed into tools used by special interests to try to prevent any form of speech that they consider offensive.
They have been used to intimidate people who have not promoted discrimination or racism but have merely expressed ideas. Some of the most notorious abuses were the cases of Ezra Levant being prosecuted for publishing cartoons of Islam's founder Mohammad and Mark Steyn and Macleans magazine for an article about the affect of Islam on western society. Though both cases were ultimately dismissed, there are obvious problems with a quasi-judicial system presided over by individuals of questionable qualifications and dubious judgement, that forces defendants to appear at their own expense, while plaintiffs can launch frivolous publicly funded cases.
The notion that an ideology that is antithetical to the freedoms that western civilization has achieved is above criticism, because of an idolatrous deification of the secular concept of multiculturalism, should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in liberty and democracy. But that is precisely how Human Rights Commissions have been used, with the assistance of its petty-minded functionaries who believe that free speech is only "an American concept" without value in Canada.
Yet that is how Canada's Human Rights Commissions have been employed by defenders of Islamism. While in Canada, the majority of Muslims have rejected violent jihad, but that rejection is not universal, and Islamic nations like Iran are ruled by leaders who embrace the murderous methods of terrorism.
There is a regrettable, though somewhat amusingly illogical arrogance to the Human Rights censors who appear to think they possess a secret knowledge of the human capacity for hate. I was going to ask Richard Warman a question about that a few months ago at a public forum put on by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. At that event, Warman debated Canadian Civil Liberties Association General Counsel Nathalie Des Rosiers about the soon to be undone Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act that deals with hate speech. That debate took place, somewhat ironically, at the same place that almost exactly a year earlier was the site of an anti-Israel forum featuring the author of an anti-Semitic thesis sanctioned by the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Warman had described a short film called "Fitna" about Islamic radicalism produced by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, as "criminal hate speech."
Fitna is not the ravings of xenophobic "right wingers" against Muslims and Islam. It is a compilation of images of Islamic leaders and demonstrators expressing approval of terrorism,murder, and repressive dictates against Muslim and non-Muslim alike. To be sure, those portrayed in Fitna are not representative of all Muslims. But Wilders did not invent those images and they are a significantly sizable minority within the Islamic world to be of serious concern to those in the West who believe in democratic ideals.
Wilders himself was described by Warman as a "far right" politician. Fitna is a warning against a religious and political ideology that suppresses women and denies them abortion rights, persecutes and kills Gays for their sexuality, persecutes religious minorities, and has no respect for free speech. In what kind of bizzaro world is someone who seeks to defend abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights and free speech against those who suppress them considered a "right-winger"?
The question I intended to ask Warman was that as he had seen Fitna and had not been transformed into a raving Islamophobe, how is it that he sees fit to try to deprive others of that right on the basis that it would affect other people differently than it did him? Does Warman believe he is so intellectually and morally superior, like some inner party member of Orwell's 1984, that he is of a special class of person capable of correctly processing information the rest of us can not?
As it happened, I didn't get the chance to ask Warman that question, because just as it was my turn at the microphone, I was cut ahead of by Bernie Farber, the anticipated next head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Farber, another proponent of civil hate speech regulation, used his time with Warman to engage in the verbal equivalent of mutual masturbation in which the two men lavished praise on each other, and so consumed all the remaining question and answer period.
Fortunately, questions related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act will soon be moot. As a result of a Private Members' Bill put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth, the law that let unqualified censors determine the free speech rights of Canadians will soon be repealed. Hate Speech will still be a crime in Canada, but it will have to meet the test of standards necessary for criminal prosecution in genuine courts presided over by real judges. Given the plentiful opportunities for abuse and mischief afforded by Section 13, its death is not only welcome, but long overdue.
Canada's arrogant censor class need to understand that free speech is not a privilege over which they have final say, but a basic human right that should be infringed on only under the most serious of circumstances.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
No-longer chic spoof mag desperately tries to regain relevance with soft anti-Semitism
If you hear a discussion about the spoof magazine Adbusters, the thing people would find most surprising is that it's still around.
The magazine, founded in 1989, garnered attention for itself with irreverent ad spoofs in its early days. Their alleged point is something that they call "culture jamming," a term that has failed to enter the popular lexicon and would leave anyone who hasn't committed the collected works of Naomi Klein to memory scratching their heads. The term is a description of altering something (i.e. an advertisement) and spoofing it in a near identical form to reverse its meaning. It may have eluded the geniuses at Adbusters that the word "irony" already covers most of what they intend to do, but it's so much cooler when you can take credit for originating a catch-phrase. In this case, as in so much else, they failed. Cowabunga, ad dudes!
If there's anything media hates more than being despised, it's being ignored. Right now, Adbusters is trying to promote a worldwide boycott of Starbucks. I wasn't even aware of that until I checked their website today, which is an indication of what global reach Adbusters has.
So in that vein, one sure-fire and acceptable way to get admiration for yourself from the radical leftist community, while incurring contempt from the mainstream, is to engage in soft anti-Semitism. Then, when reasonable people express outrage, you can say how your free speech is being denied, even though it isn't. If the Adbusters geniuses wanted to find out about real attempts at the denial of free speech in Canada, they could ask Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn, who were hauled before our kangaroo-court "Human Rights" commissions at great expense because of respectively publishing cartoons depicting a dead middle eastern warlord and for critiquing the influence of Islam on Western culture. Both cases were dismissed after considerable cost and inconvenience to the defendants.
But back to Adbusters. In 2006, they decided to identify supporters of the Iraq war and put down 50 names with special indicators of the Jewish ones. I didn't see the issue, so I can't say whether they used little yellow stars of David for that or not.
But in keeping with the Nazi theme, this time, the sad, irrelevant characters at Adbusters have now decided to use a motif that radical, discredited Islamists and anti-Semites have attempted for quite some time by comparing the Gaza strip to the Warsaw ghetto. Only the most puerile minds who are either moral imbeciles or have a less-than-superficial understanding of the history and circumstances of the Warsaw Ghetto would suggest any similarity to Israel's reaction to attacks from Gaza. The contradictions are too innumerable to list, but the most basic and obvious is that unlike Hamas re: Israel, the Jews of Europe had not pledged to eliminate Germany. They were not launching rockets at German civilians, there weren't luxury malls and hotels and vacation beaches in the Warsaw Ghetto. The people of Gaza were not relocated there from conquered areas, but are the indicginous population, and the Warsaw Ghetto saw its population annihilated, whereas the population of Gaza has at least tripled due to births since 1967.
But the people at Adbusters either aren't interested in facts or are too stupid to process them correctly.
Which accounts for their current spurious complaint about "censorship" regarding the Canadian Jewish Congress's call to have people alert outlets that are selling Adbusters that their content is anti-Semitic.
What the CJC has asked is for "community members to take a moment to see if their local bookstore or newsstand sells the magazine, to show the clerk or the owner the offensive material and to tell them that “this is anti-Semitic and shameful.”
Based on this, Shoppers Drug Mart has decided to pull its distribution of Adbusters. That's not censorship, it's using economic influence to express oneself. No one is denying Adbusters the right to publish. The CJC hasn't pulled Adbusters in front of an HRC, although they have as much grounds to do so as those who were offended by Mohammed cartoons.
What is very funny about this situation is that the dimwits at Adbusters who are advocating the "worldwide boycott of Starbucks" are decrying a boycott directed at them. I guess they missed the irony of that, or should I say, "culture jamming?"
No, "culture jamming" sounds like a term only an idiot would use. Let's stick to "irony".
The magazine, founded in 1989, garnered attention for itself with irreverent ad spoofs in its early days. Their alleged point is something that they call "culture jamming," a term that has failed to enter the popular lexicon and would leave anyone who hasn't committed the collected works of Naomi Klein to memory scratching their heads. The term is a description of altering something (i.e. an advertisement) and spoofing it in a near identical form to reverse its meaning. It may have eluded the geniuses at Adbusters that the word "irony" already covers most of what they intend to do, but it's so much cooler when you can take credit for originating a catch-phrase. In this case, as in so much else, they failed. Cowabunga, ad dudes!
If there's anything media hates more than being despised, it's being ignored. Right now, Adbusters is trying to promote a worldwide boycott of Starbucks. I wasn't even aware of that until I checked their website today, which is an indication of what global reach Adbusters has.
So in that vein, one sure-fire and acceptable way to get admiration for yourself from the radical leftist community, while incurring contempt from the mainstream, is to engage in soft anti-Semitism. Then, when reasonable people express outrage, you can say how your free speech is being denied, even though it isn't. If the Adbusters geniuses wanted to find out about real attempts at the denial of free speech in Canada, they could ask Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn, who were hauled before our kangaroo-court "Human Rights" commissions at great expense because of respectively publishing cartoons depicting a dead middle eastern warlord and for critiquing the influence of Islam on Western culture. Both cases were dismissed after considerable cost and inconvenience to the defendants.
But back to Adbusters. In 2006, they decided to identify supporters of the Iraq war and put down 50 names with special indicators of the Jewish ones. I didn't see the issue, so I can't say whether they used little yellow stars of David for that or not.
But in keeping with the Nazi theme, this time, the sad, irrelevant characters at Adbusters have now decided to use a motif that radical, discredited Islamists and anti-Semites have attempted for quite some time by comparing the Gaza strip to the Warsaw ghetto. Only the most puerile minds who are either moral imbeciles or have a less-than-superficial understanding of the history and circumstances of the Warsaw Ghetto would suggest any similarity to Israel's reaction to attacks from Gaza. The contradictions are too innumerable to list, but the most basic and obvious is that unlike Hamas re: Israel, the Jews of Europe had not pledged to eliminate Germany. They were not launching rockets at German civilians, there weren't luxury malls and hotels and vacation beaches in the Warsaw Ghetto. The people of Gaza were not relocated there from conquered areas, but are the indicginous population, and the Warsaw Ghetto saw its population annihilated, whereas the population of Gaza has at least tripled due to births since 1967.
But the people at Adbusters either aren't interested in facts or are too stupid to process them correctly.
Which accounts for their current spurious complaint about "censorship" regarding the Canadian Jewish Congress's call to have people alert outlets that are selling Adbusters that their content is anti-Semitic.
What the CJC has asked is for "community members to take a moment to see if their local bookstore or newsstand sells the magazine, to show the clerk or the owner the offensive material and to tell them that “this is anti-Semitic and shameful.”
Based on this, Shoppers Drug Mart has decided to pull its distribution of Adbusters. That's not censorship, it's using economic influence to express oneself. No one is denying Adbusters the right to publish. The CJC hasn't pulled Adbusters in front of an HRC, although they have as much grounds to do so as those who were offended by Mohammed cartoons.
What is very funny about this situation is that the dimwits at Adbusters who are advocating the "worldwide boycott of Starbucks" are decrying a boycott directed at them. I guess they missed the irony of that, or should I say, "culture jamming?"
No, "culture jamming" sounds like a term only an idiot would use. Let's stick to "irony".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)