Author Faces Canadian Tribunal For Hate Speech 818
An anonymous reader writes "A Seattle Times editorial notes that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will put author Mark Steyn on trial for his book 'America Alone,' which has angered Muslims in Canada. Steyn is a columnist for the Canadian magazine Maclean's. According to the editorial, British Columbia bans all words and images 'likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.' Steyn is unapologetic, and is advertising his book as a 'Canadian Hate Crime' and daring the tribunal to 'pronounce him bad.'" The Canadian tabloid the National Post has coverage of what it calls "a media storm."
I'm no lawyer but ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Like I can write "I hate all jews," but I can't say "I hate all jews, lets set fire to their homes."
Talking negatively about a person, or a group, is not a "hate crime" because it's not a compelling enough reason for a reasonable person to be driven to some sort of criminal activity.
Like if I say, "most muslims don't respect women like we do in the West" (which in and of itself is up for debate) doesn't mean I think we should then chase after Muslims, show them contempt, etc.
Likely this will fail a Supreme court test. The REAL problem is how easy to file a complaint is, and how costly it is to defend against. Since these are not criminal proceedings you're not specifically provided with council. So you have to pay for that yourself.
Meanwhile, the person doing the complaining gets the government to pay for their legal council.
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Interesting)
Great flick.
Political Correctness is about doing the wrong thing for seemingly proper reasons.
Or, it's passive aggression writ large.
Hypocrtical maybe ??? (Score:1, Interesting)
You offended me, you should be on trial (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are not just trolling and really believe the crap you just spewed then I am highly offended by your attitude and plan on taking you to court. You obviously hate people who believe in Free Speech and you should be duly prosecuted under the laws you seem to think are a good idea.
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some egregious examples of our (US) government overstepping their bounds, of course, but by and large, this sort of worry is not a current concern for most first-world citizens. But all you have to do is look to a country like China, where *real* political censorship and oppression occurs, and you then see how easily things can go astray.
Are people in China inherently more susceptible to authoritarian regimes, or somehow less capable of existing in a democracy than other peoples? Do they desire freedom less than we do? I suspect not, but I fear too many people simply assume that it could never happen to us. I'm not talking about some tin-foil hat government conspiracy, but a slow and gradual erosion of our rights - a slowly boiling pot to the frog, as it were.
I'm always astounded at those individuals who, while at the same time espousing fear of government censorship, are all too eager to cede so much power to the government in various guises: social programs, education, health care, financial control, and taxation. Power inevitably tends to corrupt, yet people are so easily deluded into thinking "yes, but we'll use that power to make our world better!" All the good intentions in the world won't prevent a powerful government from becoming at best bloated, inefficient, and uncaring, and at worst, tyrannical.
It's pretty easy to see with an example like this how well-meaning intentions can go so badly astray. Only foolish reactionaries talk of radical change the government. Such changes will likely never happen, and while I'm sure it feels great to take a principles stand, it affects nothing in the long run. Instead, the true battle is incremental - every new power ceded to the government must be carefully questioned... Will this really make the lives of our citizens better in the long run, or is this just another potential method for a government to oppress and control it's population?
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:4, Interesting)
So a privately-owned business should be forced by government to give away wordspace because of some peoples' hurt feelings? Do you know much about this issue? Do you know the conviction rate of the HRCs? Are you aware of the tactics used by the HRCs?
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender. I think he's doing the best thing here by taking the fight to them instead of sitting back and letting it happen to him.
You know, what gets me about this is that some groups deserve to be hated. What about Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il? I have no problem whatsoever with exposing them to ridicule or hatred because, well, they've brought it on themselves. Even the "protected classes" from the story have members that have it coming to them, such as people whose sexual orientation is toward children or animals, or maybe the Kansas school board who wanted to teach creationism in science class because of their beliefs.
You can't be free unless you're able to hate someone and convince other people to do the same. It's not pleasant and usually not good, but it's still a necessary evil.
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:2, Interesting)
A recent poll shows that 36% of Muslims in the U.K. support the death penalty for any Muslim apostate. That's extremism, and it has far too wide of support within a certain community. If you can't confront an ideology because it is associated with a religion, or with a culture, you are bound to have that ideology spread without meaningful resistance. The prosecution of "hate speech" without an incitement to violence is a war on ideology, where one side is demanding that the other drop their weapons and run.
When a third of Muslims in civilized nations support DEATH for those who leave their religion, and half of the blacks in America either believe the government created AIDS or are unsure if they did, there is a disturbing spread of ideas that must be opposed. The removal of repudiation of ideals, simply because those ideas are associated with a religion or culture, feels nice to some, but silences others.
Also note that this is not just academic, because our (possible) next president was born to a Muslim father and left Islam for irreligiosity at a young age. Though most do not support the death penalty for prepubescent apostates, some do.
The restriction of criticism of religion or cultures, in any form, does not contribute to, and has no place in, a society that allows it's participants to choose from a marketplace of ideas.
The marketplace of ideas should not be a single podium, but a bazaar.
Ezra Levant's Blog (Score:5, Interesting)
Here [ezralevant.com] is a short video from his interrogation and a quote from his blog: "And after I made [my point], [Human Rights] Officer [Shirlene] McGovern said 'you're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure.' Well, actually, I'm not, am I? That's the reason I was sitting there. I don't have the right to my opinions, unless she says I do."
And here [ezralevant.com] is another video from the interrogation in which Levant expresses his disgust at being directed to answer to the government and characterizes the human rights officer as a thug.
Re:compared to the U.S. (Score:1, Interesting)
the almost absolute support for free speech in its system remains one of the best things about US.
You're kidding, right? You get mega-fines for saying naughty words on television, you get mega-fines for showing a nipple on television, you let the Church of Scientology censor Google and Slashdot, you let the MPAA censor websites so that they can't even link to websites with DeCSS on them, you have "free speech zones"... that's just off the top of my head, the list goes on and on.
The USA censors even benign things on a daily basis. It doesn't have anywhere near "almost absolute support for free speech". Please attempt to come to terms with that instead of submitting to your creepy state indoctrination.
Re:The world will be a better place.. (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem here is that blatant hate of Islam has earned a spot in mainstream media. Obviously, it has become ok to say, Muslims are uneducated, backwards, fundamentalist scum who ought to be rounded up.
Honestly, try saying half of what Steyn is saying about Muslims, about Asian-Americans or Jews, and I assure you wouldn't keep your nationally syndicated column for long. Racism is racism.
These hate speech tribunals are ridiculous, but Muslims ought to have access to the same civil protections provided to other minorities. It's hypocritical to define hate-speech based on whether you like the constituency at stake. If you dislike tribunals then fine, but don't pick and chose who you can bash on and who you can't.
Re:BC Human Rights Tribunal? (Score:3, Interesting)
You notice I said Government support, not legal action, nor slander suits. I do not believe this is a legal issue as much as it is a political issue and an image issue, and Governments are masters of both.
I do not approve of "hate speech" even when it is legal and acceptable at large - it is a commmon brainwashing technique to dehumanize your opponents. World War I was infamous for it, and the legend of the soccer match on Christmas Day was an attempt by someone to fight such degredation. The current conflict is filled with terminology aimed at eliminating the human factor. Both sides are guilty of such psychological warfare, warfare aimed at their own people so that there is unwavering support for their actions.
If there is ever a "just war", then it is hardly going to be necessary to use such techniques. It will be accepted as necessary, by all who are reasonable, without ever having to dehumanize a single element in the conflict.
Of course, stopping such tactics once started is very hard, and stopping others from continuing the cycle is even harder. They are not guilty of a crime, only guilty of being gullible. They're as much a victim as anyone.
So, in this case, I would not consider hate sppech to really be present, but if it were, then it is merely the repetition of hate speech from the political masters, and it is they who should be held fully responsible. They are the trigger-man, those who believe in political hate-speech are merely the victims of conditioning and should be pittied, not punished.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender.
Actually, if you are an author, I think quite the opposite is true. Nothing will make people want to read your book more than being told by the government that they aren't allowed to. I'm sure the publicity resulting from all this nonsense has done wonders for the sale of his book in Canada.
But on to the larger point. I think it is perfectly legitimate for public opinion to have an influence on sales. In a free society, I don't think government should be deciding what books you are allowed to read, but the public does have a right to an opinion, and consumers have the right to decide whether to follow it or not. That's as it should be.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes a pretty god damned insecure individual to feel threatened merely because someone does not like him/her. "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling" is NOT a threat. I'm really tired of how fragile and candy-assed and otherwise cowardly people are becoming. It is a trend that does not bode well.
Now that hypothetical example would constitute an actual threat. That example goes far, far beyond merely disliking or hating someone.
The Nazis are an instance where the size and power of the state spiraled out of control. The persecution of the Jews and the Reichstag fire and the climate of fear and distrust were means to that end -- if they were unsuccessful, different means would have been used. Having a "tribunal" of people who can decide whether you have committed a thoughtcrime or not (face it, this is what "anti-hate" laws are) is another means to increase state power. The Nazis would have approved.
How about we instead expose the unstated assumptions that are behind all of this? All of it assumes that just because you hear an opinion, you have zero choice but to believe it and to act on it. All of it assumes that just because you dislike or even hate someone or something, that you have no choice but to act on those feelings without regard to the harm that it might cause. In other words, you're all mindless idiots with no hope of deciding anything for yourselves.
Or, from the politician's point of view: "some of you seem to think you should be able to think for yourselves; well that might interfere with the expansion of state authority and the uniform, homogenous society it demands, so we have set up a tribunal to tell you what thoughts you may express and which thoughts are thoughtcrimes and have given it the power to persecute anyone who says something too controversial. That way, we can get you to think in terms of emotional outrage and whether or not you are 'offended' which suits us far better than if you were to think in terms of facts and reasoning. Rest assured that this is all for your own good and that our motives are entirely pure and that this power will never ever be abused." Will we ever wake up and get tired of this?
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:3, Interesting)
So does North Korea, but that doesn't mean I can't condemn them.
What would happen if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Inciting a riot is against the law even if it is just attempted, the same goes for inciting hatred to cause violence.
If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hate speech ? Bollocks !! (Score:3, Interesting)
that makes for around 42% of the vote in total. that is nowhere near majority.
additionally a lot of shady goings on happened in general elections the municipial districts they held for a long time - huge number of caucuses were discovered dumped in trash, huge number of printed fake ballots were found (that were not printed by election institution). yet somehow, all of these issues have went under the carpet during the investigations that ensued, when the AK party have regained power.
because they have been drastically improving the economy and human rights,
drastically improving the economy ? as in pardoning HUGE tax debts their finance minister's PERSONAL company has, by passing through FOUR laws through the assembly, and then installing new taxes to the public ? like taking unbounded amounts of debts from international sources to the extent that they are now trying to piecemeal sell EVERYthing that they can get ahold of ? did those idiots also tell you that the government is now trying to sell the lands that are under national part protection due to being the remaining little amount of forests of turkey, in western parts, to the construction industry so that those trees are going to be hewed down to erect apartment blocks that are not needed ? did they also tell you that they are trying to change constitution to pull that sh@t ? did those idiots tell you that in turkey the credit debt turkish people have is whopping in proportion to capita to the credit crisis that is taking place in america ? credit card debts are SO bad here that, bureaucratic regulatory boards had to put out special rules in order to remedy the debt load on people because of credit cards so the suicides would stop. yea, 1-1.5 years ago every month and a half a major suicide news of a citizen due to credit card debt was making the national press here. now they are not making any such news. you know why ? because ENTIRE turkish media has been piecemeal dismantled and sold to the supporters of the AK party. thats why the idiots (actually fools, naive personas) who are chanting that happy song to you there do not know about what really goes on in the country. the press is ENTIRELY owned by big corporations that are from the islamist core now. last piece of the press that was not affiliated with them, sabah group, last remaining national big group, was appropriated under phoney charges by bureaucratic regulatory boards they staffed, and sold to Calik group, which is an islamist company since the last 20 years. you know where did they find the money to buy it ? AKp has loaned them HUGE amount of cash at almost NO interest from the STATE bank that is used to pay government employee's wages and loan to government branches so that the country can go around. (ziraat bankasi). this scandal hit the press, DESPITE the stranglehold they have on the press, but guess what happened - nothing. every regulatory board, ministry, financial police even, are staffed by islamists now. calik group now owns the last block of turkish media that has the power to do impact on national level. others were appropriated and sold much earlier.
the corruption, im not going to even go into details of it, it takes PAGES long. just a municipial district of akp in s turkey had produced FIFTY corruption scandals that hit the national press. (actually that was a bit earlier before than the time sabah group was sold to calik, so we were able to learn it on the national level. now what goes on, god knows.) suffice it to say that one example is kanal 7, an islamist channel that funds akp, also runs a 'charity' named 'deniz feneri' that collects donations in turkey and in europe. the branch of 'de
I'm Read the Book (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno, I live in the US. Maybe having an opinion and sharing it is illegal in Canada.
Re:Tolerance is a two way street (Score:1, Interesting)
How does this work, redistributing "wealth" from those that don't have it, to those that already do? Or is this the kind of imaginary-land logic that only a liberal can understand? In the United States, about half do not contribute to any meaningful payment of the government through income taxes. They're actually given money from the upper half in the form of tax "rebates" (no payment, but a gift for being underproductive, taken from those who worked harder), food stamp cards so they can buy groceries with their neighbors money while buying beer, smokes and lotto tickets with "their" money, and numerous other items redistributed to them from others who committed the sin of working hard.
Speaking of right-wingers initiating war, Kennedy (Viet Nam), Kennedy (Cuba Bay of Pigs), Johnson (Viet Nam), Clinton (Yugoslavia), Truman (Korea), Roosevelt (Japan/Germany/Italy), and Wilson (Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc.) were all leftists, not right-wingers. In the 20th Century, "right wingers" were brought in to clean up the messes in many cases, as left-wingers instigated and made a mess. Right-winger incursions were minor and asymmetric compared to the left, but then again, the left was responsible for over 100 million deaths during WW-II and immediately following. The left's blood thirst in the Soviet Union, Viet Nam, Kampuchea, etc. was unprecedented historically. Liberals, as history has demonstrated, just can't seem to get along with other viewpoints without wanting to kill someone.
One wonders, if all liberals were forced to learn history and economics, would any be left (save for the population of Oppositional Defiance Disorder suffers which probably represents a large number of the unwell left).
good for the cannucks (Score:1, Interesting)
Ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:2, Interesting)
Hate crime legislation is controversial. It directly addresses the paradox of 'tolerate all but the intolerant'; which is a tenuous balance. Some societies just prefer to dodge the problem all together; and that seems to have problems too.
The Klein and the Steyn exploit this issue rather than address it, which, considering they are self-proclaimed journalists or social critics, is mildly ironic. It is an issue which should be explored more in mass media, because mass media makes it more relevant. The ready ability to reach a wide audience with statements demands a greater clarity than ever before.
And, no, I haven't read Steyns piece of shit. Frankly that is a paradox too. In order to know exactly what is wrong with it, first hand, involves indirectly rewarding him; which I am not willing to do. If I were to risk jail for stealing a book, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be this one.
Author Faces Canadian Tribunal For Hate Speech (Score:1, Interesting)
Genocide under this section means committing any of the following acts with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group; namely killing memebers of the group, deliberately inflicting conditions of life on a group calculated to bring about its physical destruction."
So you can hate anybody and say so but you can't wish them harm of or distruction in such as way it would bring about their physical destruction.
So free speech in Canada is alive, well and democratic.
Ezra Levant (Score:2, Interesting)
CRHC views on free speech (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=405744 [nationalpost.com]
Holy shite! Is this guy for real?
Re:And so it begins... (Score:3, Interesting)
A study could be done showing optimal ratios; but more useful would be finding a general trend in ratios. Its reasonable to assume its linear and goes down hill; however, it important enough to want to know what the graph is and aim for the better ratios.
Clearly, the system doesn't scale above certain limits (which I argue has been already surpassed.) I think 1,000 reps is not unreasonable; however, the ratio for that is still around 1:400,000 which is not good. The current system doesn't SCALE; the founders started with about 1:30,000 or so; which is on the order of an average mayor.
The US system (not being practiced) allows for modifications such as changing the operation of the house. Foolishly, the adaptation was to limit the House to 435 instead of considering many alternatives..