A guest post
W Keeler
Another victory for FREE SPEECH. This time it was struck by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Dec.3, that overturned the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) ruling against Stephen Boission for writing and sending a scurrilous letter against homosexuality which had been published June 17, 2002 in the Red Deer Advocate.
Five years later, November 29, 2007, the AHRC announced their ruling: “paragraph 357 excerpt “In this case, the publication's exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the `guise' of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code”.
Several months later came the “remedy”.
14. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:
a.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
b.
That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.
c.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.
d.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.
e.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00
It is obvious that the remedies are ludicrous and unenforceable.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation declared that “In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint. No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive.”
Another victory for FREE SPEECH. This time it was struck by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Dec.3, that overturned the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) ruling against Stephen Boission for writing and sending a scurrilous letter against homosexuality which had been published June 17, 2002 in the Red Deer Advocate.
Five years later, November 29, 2007, the AHRC announced their ruling: “paragraph 357 excerpt “In this case, the publication's exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the `guise' of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code”.
Several months later came the “remedy”.
14. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:
a.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
b.
That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.
c.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.
d.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.
e.
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00
It is obvious that the remedies are ludicrous and unenforceable.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation declared that “In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint. No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive.”
19 comments:
It is as if the AHRC were run by a bunch of pathetically-correct progressives, similar to the local, swarming thinskins armed with their ad hominem pitchforks to bring down Gordon [Frankenstein] Gilchrist a while back. Alice in Wonderbland declares the ethos of "life, semi-liberty and the pursuit of the common good."
The appeal court had this to say about the AHRC's arrogant assumption of extended powers:
"The direction to cease and desist the publishing of 'disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals' is beyond the power of the Panel. 'Disparaging remarks' were not defined by the Panel. But clearly, 'disparaging remarks' are remarks much less serious than hateful and contemptuous remarks and are quite lawful to make. They are beyond the power of the Act to regulate and the power of the Province to restrain."
What kind of bureaucracy would presume to order any citizen of Canada to shut-the-f**k-up for the rest of their life about making "disparaging remarks about gays" and not just gays, but also homosexuals. (Yes, that's right, the pathetically correct bureaucraps of the AHRC makes a differentiation between gays and homosexuals.)
Canada's 14 Human Rights Commissions have morphed into insidious political bureaucrazies a la 1984 that enforce the socialthink (socialstink) of progressive pathology. Finally a real court has declared that government-enforced Nicespeak is Newspeak which is Nospeak.
FREE SPEECH used to be the preserve of The New Left. Recall the wonderful images in the early 60s of U of C's Berkley students rallying for free speech, calling for the government to get out of the speech and thought-crime business. Ironically, it is now The neo-cons that are rallying for Free Speech. This is a ludicrous situation in itself -- FREE SPEECH belongs to all. You either have it or you don't.
I guess nobody who sits on a Human Rights Commission in this country has ever bothered to read Voltaire, to wit: "I disagree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Sadly, there's no 'remedy' for Human Rights Commissions and the meddlesome do-gooders who infect them either.
I am confused about your stance. You appear to simultaneously adopt two contradictory positions:
1. there is no remedy in our current society to an affront to free speech by a body like the AHRC, and,
2. you applaud the remedy afforded by the court overturning the AHRC decision.
Perhaps these gentlemen would be happier in that glorious land of free speech we call Alberta.
Of course they have their own brand of frontier justice there, where offensive comments are dealt with by a direct punch in the mouth rather than the bureaucratic approach of a complaint to a commission.
Now that's freedom.
The remedy is quite clear; abolish the laws that mandate HRCs to behave like censorshits.
The common good in Western society has been enriched by the expansion of free speech.
"I disagree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." quote of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, not Voltaire.
There is Justice Ater All
With this comment, Antonia Zerbisias, earlier this week in a Broadsides blog post, reported this very good news:
"Jean-Claude Rochefort, 60, is accused of uttering threats against women from April to December 2009. He has already been charged with possessing an illegal firearm.
"Rochefort created a website where authorities say he posted hateful, aggressive and menacing comments about women. Rochefort also referred to Marc Lepine, the gunman who killed 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique in 1989, as 'Saint Marc.'
"One image shows the Montreal university with the caption 'Where it all started.'
"Another caption says 'where it could happen again, with the right people and the right equipment.'
"Rocherfort has said his website is 'humorous,' and that feminists made a hero out of the Polytechnique shooter by constantly talking about the tragedy."
I can't imagine that Voltaire would be caught dead defending this stuff.
Human Rights Commissions promote and defend Human Rights
Here's an example from a report about pay equity in New Brunswick:
"Last night the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission hosted a panel discussion on pay equity issues in New Brunswick. Panel members included representatives from government, the NGO sector, an academic and a practicing labour and employment lawyer.
"This effort by the Commission should be applauded, as the initiative was successful in providing a forum to discuss pay equity with participants, as well as, attract attention to the issue from local media. It is events such as these, in accordance with the Commission's educational mandate, which are so often overshadowed by the highly demanding complaints investigation and resolution functions of the Commission."
The reporter concluded with these remarks made to high school students about pay equity:
"I reminded the students that great injustices and inequalities don't only occur in such far off places as India or Uganda.... I ask the girls in the class if they plan on working after finishing school - they all said yes. I then told them to be prepared to earn 86 cents for every dollar the boys sitting beside them would earn."
William Hayes makes a common mistake. There are criminal code provisions that cover death threats and incitement to violence. Charges of this nature also come with a real court, with real judges, with rules of evidence.
HRCs do not do the above. Wm Hayes' presentation of this to justify the exercise of HRCs in the censorshit business is bogus and without merit.
William Hayes, a volunteer sock-puppet for the HRC bureaucrazy, makes a strawman arguement about pay equity in New Brunswick.
The issue is speech, not equity.
Insofar as your self-serving arrogant presumption that "I can't imagine that Voltaire would be caught dead defending this stuff."
Sorry William, but putting words into the mouths of the dead and making them side with your arguement is the height of ludicrousmess.
Mr Hayes would be better advised to care about his own speech, rather than the speech of others.
Sowboy, er uh Cowboy said, "offensive comments are dealt with by a direct punch in the mouth rather than the bureaucratic approach of a complaint to a commission. Now that's freedom."
No it is not. It is a criminal code offence forbidding violent assault against human beings.
I took immediate note of the fact that Mr. Keeler wrote the first comment on this post by Mr. Keeler. I saw this as a portent. Interesting that of 11 comments so far, 6 are from the person who wrote the post in the first place.
It seems Mr. Keeler is his own public as well as the focus of that public's attention and freedom of speech is only available in Mr. Keeler's world if a person can find space to get a word in edgewise.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Voltaire
Wally is right about the quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire lived from 1694 to 1778.The quote is often attributed to Voltaire although he likely never actually said those exact words.
The quote is from a 1906 biography "The Friends of Voltaire" by S. G. Tallentyre. Referring to Voltaire S. G. Tallentyre, a pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, wrote, "The men who had hated [the book], and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now"
Hall / Tallentryre used the words to paraphrase Voltaire's attitude, not to directly quote him.
Voltaire did actually say similar sounding words, such as, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
Spineless Anonymouse wrote, "I took immediate note of the fact that Mr. Keeler wrote the first comment on this post by Mr. Keeler."
I posted it because it was left out of the original post.
Spineless Anonymouse wrote, "of 11 comments so far, 6 are from the person who wrote the post in the first place."
The subsequent comments specifically address the comments made by others. Tsk tsk, what a terrible terrible thing to do.
Spineless Anonymouse has all the edgewise needed to fully comment on Spineless Anonymouse's favourite and only topic: Wally Keeler.
Even in nations that accord free speech the honour it is due, not all speech is lawful. In Canada, blogger Jean-Claude Rochefort has been charged with uttering death threats against women, a victory for truly free speech.
What needs further to be acknowledged is that speech can be completely lawful, yet shamefully and reprehensibly hurtful. From time to time on this blog, we have read complaints about “thin-skinned” people, about weaklings, and about people who need to toughen-up.
Such complaints are the refuge of verbal bullies intent on blaming their victims for the noxious consequences of their own bullying speech.
Such talk so near to Christmas reminds me of what Scrooge said in a bit of callous, hateful, yet utterly free speech: people not sufficiently robust to survive the rigors of Victorian England should die without delay and reduce the surplus population.
Let me commemorate here, with sorrow and humility, a young woman who has died as a result of the callous, hateful, free speech of others. I speak of Abigayle Kempton, a victim of verbal bullying. Her story Turning tragedy into hope is told with simple eloquence on the Cramahe Now blog.
The story mentions the Anti-Bullying Initiative (ABI), named in honour and memory of Abigayle. ABI has raised funds to provide college scholarships for students attending the three high schools in Cobourg.
This strongly worded comment of mine may in fact be no better than the bullying comments of others that it condemns. I can’t quite decide whether it's part of the solution or part of the problem. However, Deb O. once remarked that life is too short for..., with which I certainly do agree. So, I’m going to take a furlough from participation in this blog. It has been rewarding to share this comment space, so ably managed by blogger Ben Burd, with energetic, good-natured participants. I wish all of you well in the New Year.
"ribbit...ribbit..."
Bill - William - Mr. Hayes: do not abandon us here on the Burd Report. We look forward to, respect, and need your comments.
You bring a most thoughtful and well researched perspective to our scene, and we would all miss hearing from you.
If you need to take a break, go for it, I've done that too at times. But don't just go away, please. Keep the faith...
William, I respect your comment here very much. It struck me as powerfully pertinent.
The ABI initiative is to be supported. The lesson there has a direct bearing here as regards that blitzkreig kind of of insult-barrage, which is also experienced elsewhere on the internet. Civility disappears too often when the relative "distance" of the written word online comes into play.
I particularly endorse your exposure of the underlying bullying tactic of "Don't be so weak" or "Don't be so thin-skinned" which are a form of blaming the victim.
Your analogy to Scrooge's speech is very apt.
Given the refreshing way you have hit the nail on the head with this comment, I completely agree that it would be a terrific loss if you never posted comments here again. But if you need a holiday from the fray, that is completely understandable and in your case, well-earned.
My reply to Mr William Hayes' tear-jerker appeal for censorshit can be seen here at a performance I did before an audience of peers and colleges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBlhQSbP5NE
Post a Comment