'Insider trading' comes to mind...goldhound wrote:Warmans twin, separated at birth?
"roundup the usual suspects ...and we will figure out what they are guilty of later............!"
 As I noted in the introduction to these reasons, issues related to the constitutional validity of the Code
were severed from the issues that I have decided in these reasons. I reserve the right to hear and decide those constitutional issues.
Pat Johnson -Jewish Independent wrote:December 21, 2001
Doug Collins' final case
Dead writer is still the subject of a human rights decision.
He haunts us still. Months after the death of former North Shore News columnist Doug Collins, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that a 1998 [B.C. Human Rights Tribunal] decision against Collins and his newspaper did not contravene the [BC]Human Rights Code.
Collins, with his lawyer Doug Christie, had claimed that the Human Rights Tribunal exceeded the law when it ordered him to pay $2,000 in damages to Harry Abrams, a Victoria resident, for "injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect." The North Shore News was also ordered to publish a summary of the tribunal's decision and cease publishing statements that expose Jewish persons "to hatred and contempt."
Christie, on behalf of Collins, maintained that the decision was "not a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society...." Human Rights Tribunal member Tom Patch considered the issue, reviewing the relevant aspects of the original case and came to the conclusion that the earlier tribunal decision did not violate the limits to free speech permitted under Canadian law and judicial precedents.
The position of Collins (and, after his death, the Collins estate) was that section 7(1)(b) of the B.C. Human Rights Code contravened provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Patch pointed out that section 1 of the Charter recognizes the validity of justifiably limiting human rights and stated that the B.C. Human Rights Code is an example of that justification.
Nisson Goldman, a lawyer and chair of Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific Region, said the decision reflects Canadian legal precedents, which recognize that certain types of speech are not legally permissible, specifically if they are seen to cause public harm.
"This country is different than the American concept," he said. Goldman acknowledged that this decision could be appealed to a higher court, even conceivably reaching the Supreme Court of Canada, but he doubted the matter would be taken much farther.
"I think this Collins chapter is now closed," he said. Abrams, who initiated the complaint, told the Bulletin that he has been vindicated.
"It's a decision that upholds a system and essential human rights mechanism of remedy and redress for people and groups who have been defamed for basic characteristics about themselves that they cannot change, such as ethnicity, gender or degree of disability, this time involving hate in public media," he said.
"There is a distinction that deserves to be made, to media managers, journalists, editors and publishers, that there are marked distinctions between hate propaganda and reasonable discourse. Also, what we've reaffirmed, is that there's a backstop available for media that refuse to govern themselves according the most basic ethics of journalism."
The fact that his opponent was dead when the decision came down has little practical effect on the issue at hand, said Abrams. But he had harsh words for the legacy Collins left.
"One less hate-monger in the world is always an improvement," said Abrams.
For those who viewed Collins as a hero of free speech, Abrams suggested a tribute: "Let them name a bunker after him!"
Abrams, who has been critical of Canadian Jewish Congress for being too bureaucratic, said his success at bringing Collins before the tribunal is an example of what an individual citizen can do.
Like Goldman, however, Abrams acknowledged that the other side could appeal to a higher judicial body; but Abrams was defiant.
"It's still possible that Christie will try," said Abrams. "But let him try. We're ready."
Narrow Back wrote:Re: Harry Abrams. I think this says it all:
Red Green wrote:Narrow Back wrote:Re: Harry Abrams. I think this says it all:
Is he still a member of did he get banned?
Narrow Back wrote:Red Green wrote:Narrow Back wrote:Re: Harry Abrams. I think this says it all:
Is he still a member of did he get banned?
He was banned. From what I remember there was an issue of altered documents. Something like that. I don't have the details. He occasionally posts on ARC. If you Google "anti racist canada harry abrams" you can get an idea of what he's up to these days.
That quote was in reference to a discussion of the word 'goy[im]'.Harry Abrams wrote:And Ed [Kennedy], if I was going to lie to you....it had better be at least profitable in some way.Narrow Back wrote:Re: Harry Abrams. I think this says it all:
Harry posted an article on FreeDominion which he ascribed to Marc Lemire as the souce of the content through adding the line 'by Marc Lemire'.Narrow Back wrote:He was banned. From what I remember there was an issue of altered documents. Something like that. I don't have the details.Red Green wrote:Is he Harry Abrams] still a member of did he get banned?
Harry has left comments following 'Anti-Racist Canada' threads, and is obviously charmed by the spirit and intent of that site.Narrow Back wrote:He occasionally posts on ARC. If you Google "anti racist canada harry abrams" you can get an idea of what he's up to these days.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest