IN TODAY’S SUN (EARLY): WHAT THE END OF S. 13 WILL MEAN

[Narrow Back]

Speaking of irony, I can't resist posting this for laughs.

Ed Byrne slates Alanis Morissette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

I think even Ed Byrne would agree that the author of 'Web of Hate' using vile language to discourage the use of vile language is true irony. Not so ironic is that this will be lost on him and his groupies.

Blast, you edited your typo. I was going to ask whether you were suggesting that his language should be put in a vial and sealed with a cork.

[shiva]

Speaking of irony, I can't resist posting this for laughs.

Ed Byrne slates Alanis Morissette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

I think even Ed Byrne would agree that the author of 'Web of Hate' using vile language to discourage the use of vile language is true irony. Not so ironic is that this will be lost on him and his groupies.

Blast, you edited your typo. I was going to ask whether you were suggesting that his language should be put in a vial and sealed with a cork.

Actually, that is a good idea so maybe NB's typo was more apt than not.

[Narrow Back]

This morning when I read this post by Kinsella he had about 10 comments. Most people didn't seem to care this Orwellian law was scrapped. What's an oracle of wisdom to do? Why delete all dissenting views of course! That will teach em who has the superior argument!

[Narrow Back]

Speaking of irony, I can't resist posting this for laughs.

Ed Byrne slates Alanis Morissette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

I think even Ed Byrne would agree that the author of 'Web of Hate' using vile language to discourage the use of vile language is true irony. Not so ironic is that this will be lost on him and his groupies.

Blast, you edited your typo. I was going to ask whether you were suggesting that his language should be put in a vial and sealed with a cork.

Actually, that is a good idea so maybe NB's typo was more apt than not.

But is it ironic?

[virgey]

I have to agree, that Sun TV would be associated with someone like Warren Kinsella. Sun TV is becoming more and more of a disappointment. Why does Sun feel compelled to have a left wing radical such as Kinsella on their payroll, when CTV, and the state broadcaster (CBC), as well as some others, don't feel compelled to have a right wing opinion on their networks. We don't need the radical left's view on Sun TV, because we are constantly flooded with it from almost every other news outlet in Canada, as well as the U.S.

[Ogopogo]

From ARC:

Sec. 13 Repealed
Not all that much of a surprise:
Conservative government votes to repeal sections on hate speech from human rights code
It still needs to pass through the senate, but we're sure that is likely a formality.

A bit short sighted, but not exactly the end of the world either.

We understand the boneheads might be very happy, but they should consider the fact that Sec. 13 and the CHRT were used instead of the criminal code in many cases.

Acts of hate speech are serious crimes that should be investigated by police officers, not civil servants, he said, and the cases should be handled by “real judges and real lawyers,” instead of a quasi-judicial body like the human rights commission.

Be careful what you wish for.


From Dawg:

Harper legalizes hate
By Dr.Dawg on June 7, 2012 8:51 AM | 21 Comments and 0 Reactions


paranoia.jpg

Life for Canada’s neo-Nazis just got a whole lot better after the Harper regime voted yesterday to repeal restrictions on hate speech in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Having earlier eliminated the pay equity provisions of the Act, they are on the road, one suspects, to abolishing it outright—something that sketchier members of the base have been advocating for some time.

Some will object to my hed as a little over the top. Not at all. Yes, laws against outrageous hate speech continue to exist in the Criminal Code—just like those against blasphemous and criminal libel. But these are rarely invoked (the latter is used mostly by police to harass their critics). Even more rarely are charges under these provisions successfully prosecuted.

The bar for a successful criminal prosecution is (rightly) set very high: guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The standard at human rights tribunals, however, is the “balance of probabilities.” That’s the standard that applies in civil court cases: individual defamation, for example.

Repeal of Section 13 of the CHRA will have the effect of disallowing complaints based upon group defamation. A defamed individual may sue in civil court and win. But a member of a defamed group is now left with virtually no recourse at all.

Which is, of course, precisely the point. Repeal of Section 13 will delight those on the Right who have been strategically whingeing about free speech (for Nazis and homophobes, but not for the likes of progressive activists, educators, authors and scientists). Their bedfellows in the white nationalist movement will have hoisted a few steins in the ol’ Bierkeller last night as well.

This gives a pretty free hand, after all, to anyone who wants to demonize gays, Muslims, Jews, “non-whites” and immigrants on the internet or in recorded telephone messages. A victory for free speech? More a victory for hate and its inseparable companions, fear and anger—a victory, in other words, for conservatism itself.

UPDATE: Neo-Nazis thank their Conservative benefactors. [H/t]

[Connie Fournier]

Blah blah blah neo-Nazis blah blah blah....

[backhoe]

Blah blah blah neo-Nazis blah blah blah....

I can't decide whether it's more childish than boring or the other way around. It astounds me that any so-called adult can be so mentally vapid and emotionally retarded. It's a strange combination of hyper-partisanship and lazy "thinking," if you could go so far as to call it that.

[Connie Fournier]

Blah blah blah neo-Nazis blah blah blah....

I can't decide whether it's more childish than boring or the other way around. It astounds me that any so-called adult can be so mentally vapid and emotionally retarded. It's a strange combination of hyper-partisanship and lazy "thinking," if you could go so far as to call it that.

I know!! I can't believe anyone takes this crap seriously.

[Ogopogo]

This is what Dawg's update links to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08 ... tml?ref=tw

Bill C-304: Hate Speech Clause's Repeal Gives White Supremacists Rare Moment Of Glee

The Huffington Post Canada | By Daniel Tencer Posted: 06/08/2012 1:32 pm Updated: 06/08/2012 1:32 pm

A Conservative private members’ bill that repeals part of Canada’s hate speech laws has passed the House of Commons with scant media attention, and even less commentary. But it's being cheered by many Canadian conservatives as a victory for freedom of speech. And it's being cheered most vocally by another group: White supremacists.

Bill C-304, introduced by Conservative backbencher Brian Storseth, repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans hate speech transmitted over the Internet or by telephone. It passed third reading in the House of Commons on Thursday and is now headed to the Senate.

“This is a huge victory for freedom in Canada,” a poster calling him or herself “CanadaFirst” posted on the website of StormFront, a notorious white supremacist group. “However, we still have other unjust Zionist ‘hate’ laws that need to go.”

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

The new law doesn’t make hate speech legal on the web or by phone -- hate speech remains illegal under the Criminal Code. But by removing it from the Canadian Human Rights Act, it takes away the authority of the country’s human rights commissions to investigate online hate speech and request that violating websites be taken down.

That has alarmed the Canadian Bar Association, which said in a recent report it’s concerned that the law may be the start of a campaign by the Conservatives to weaken Canada’s human rights laws.

“The debate surrounding the expediency of section 13 has become the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country,” the CBA stated.

"Over the years, human rights commissions have remained at the vanguard of eliminating discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other grounds, and advancing equality," the CBA added.

Other supporters of the commissions say taking away their authority over hate speech will embolden racists and lead to more racial violence.

But human rights commissions have become bogeymen to many Canadian conservatives, and some others, who have campaigned for years to eliminate them altogether, painting them as bureaucratic tools of censorship.

In one famous case, conservative media icon Ezra Levant was hauled in front of an Alberta tribunal to explain his decision to run controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed in the magazine he ran at the time, the Western Standard.

Levant became a cause celebre for opponents of the commissions, and his decision to republish the cartoons online on the day of his human rights hearing was hailed as heroic by many conservatives.

But all the opposition parties voted against the private members’ bill in Parliament Thursday, with NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison arguing that it would now be much harder to prevent hate speech online.

“We do have a serious problem,” Garrison told the National Post. “If you take away the power to take (websites) down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even to talk to people about it and educate them about it.”

Garrison argued that the Tories are being dishonest by having these laws be introduced as private members’ bills, rather than government bills, noting that the Conservative Party of Canada made repealing human rights commissions’ ability to regulate hate speech a part of their platform.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the bill, tweeting on Thursday that the new law will “end arbitrary censorship powers of human rights commissions.”

Public opinion on human rights commissions is split. An unscientific poll on the CBC website shows a bare majority of people supporting the Tories’ move.

Quick Poll
Do you support the Conservatives' move to take hate speech out of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Yes. Human rights commissions were acting as agents of censorship, and we need to respect freedom of speech.

No. This is a step towards a more racist, less tolerant Canada.

I don't know.

[Narrow Back]

This is what Dawg's update links to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08 ... tml?ref=tw

Bill C-304: Hate Speech Clause's Repeal Gives White Supremacists Rare Moment Of Glee

The Huffington Post Canada | By Daniel Tencer Posted: 06/08/2012 1:32 pm Updated: 06/08/2012 1:32 pm

A Conservative private members’ bill that repeals part of Canada’s hate speech laws has passed the House of Commons with scant media attention, and even less commentary. But it's being cheered by many Canadian conservatives as a victory for freedom of speech. And it's being cheered most vocally by another group: White supremacists.

Bill C-304, introduced by Conservative backbencher Brian Storseth, repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans hate speech transmitted over the Internet or by telephone. It passed third reading in the House of Commons on Thursday and is now headed to the Senate.

“This is a huge victory for freedom in Canada,” a poster calling him or herself “CanadaFirst” posted on the website of StormFront, a notorious white supremacist group. “However, we still have other unjust Zionist ‘hate’ laws that need to go.”

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

The new law doesn’t make hate speech legal on the web or by phone -- hate speech remains illegal under the Criminal Code. But by removing it from the Canadian Human Rights Act, it takes away the authority of the country’s human rights commissions to investigate online hate speech and request that violating websites be taken down.

That has alarmed the Canadian Bar Association, which said in a recent report it’s concerned that the law may be the start of a campaign by the Conservatives to weaken Canada’s human rights laws.

“The debate surrounding the expediency of section 13 has become the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country,” the CBA stated.

"Over the years, human rights commissions have remained at the vanguard of eliminating discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other grounds, and advancing equality," the CBA added.

Other supporters of the commissions say taking away their authority over hate speech will embolden racists and lead to more racial violence.

But human rights commissions have become bogeymen to many Canadian conservatives, and some others, who have campaigned for years to eliminate them altogether, painting them as bureaucratic tools of censorship.

In one famous case, conservative media icon Ezra Levant was hauled in front of an Alberta tribunal to explain his decision to run controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed in the magazine he ran at the time, the Western Standard.

Levant became a cause celebre for opponents of the commissions, and his decision to republish the cartoons online on the day of his human rights hearing was hailed as heroic by many conservatives.

But all the opposition parties voted against the private members’ bill in Parliament Thursday, with NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison arguing that it would now be much harder to prevent hate speech online.

“We do have a serious problem,” Garrison told the National Post. “If you take away the power to take (websites) down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even to talk to people about it and educate them about it.”

Garrison argued that the Tories are being dishonest by having these laws be introduced as private members’ bills, rather than government bills, noting that the Conservative Party of Canada made repealing human rights commissions’ ability to regulate hate speech a part of their platform.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the bill, tweeting on Thursday that the new law will “end arbitrary censorship powers of human rights commissions.”

Public opinion on human rights commissions is split. An unscientific poll on the CBC website shows a bare majority of people supporting the Tories’ move.

Quick Poll
Do you support the Conservatives' move to take hate speech out of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Yes. Human rights commissions were acting as agents of censorship, and we need to respect freedom of speech.

No. This is a step towards a more racist, less tolerant Canada.

I don't know.

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmB3lRjCmc

[shiva]

This is what Dawg's update links to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08 ... tml?ref=tw

Bill C-304: Hate Speech Clause's Repeal Gives White Supremacists Rare Moment Of Glee

The Huffington Post Canada | By Daniel Tencer Posted: 06/08/2012 1:32 pm Updated: 06/08/2012 1:32 pm

A Conservative private members’ bill that repeals part of Canada’s hate speech laws has passed the House of Commons with scant media attention, and even less commentary. But it's being cheered by many Canadian conservatives as a victory for freedom of speech. And it's being cheered most vocally by another group: White supremacists.

Bill C-304, introduced by Conservative backbencher Brian Storseth, repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans hate speech transmitted over the Internet or by telephone. It passed third reading in the House of Commons on Thursday and is now headed to the Senate.

“This is a huge victory for freedom in Canada,” a poster calling him or herself “CanadaFirst” posted on the website of StormFront, a notorious white supremacist group. “However, we still have other unjust Zionist ‘hate’ laws that need to go.”

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

The new law doesn’t make hate speech legal on the web or by phone -- hate speech remains illegal under the Criminal Code. But by removing it from the Canadian Human Rights Act, it takes away the authority of the country’s human rights commissions to investigate online hate speech and request that violating websites be taken down.

That has alarmed the Canadian Bar Association, which said in a recent report it’s concerned that the law may be the start of a campaign by the Conservatives to weaken Canada’s human rights laws.

“The debate surrounding the expediency of section 13 has become the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country,” the CBA stated.

"Over the years, human rights commissions have remained at the vanguard of eliminating discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other grounds, and advancing equality," the CBA added.

Other supporters of the commissions say taking away their authority over hate speech will embolden racists and lead to more racial violence.

But human rights commissions have become bogeymen to many Canadian conservatives, and some others, who have campaigned for years to eliminate them altogether, painting them as bureaucratic tools of censorship.

In one famous case, conservative media icon Ezra Levant was hauled in front of an Alberta tribunal to explain his decision to run controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed in the magazine he ran at the time, the Western Standard.

Levant became a cause celebre for opponents of the commissions, and his decision to republish the cartoons online on the day of his human rights hearing was hailed as heroic by many conservatives.

But all the opposition parties voted against the private members’ bill in Parliament Thursday, with NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison arguing that it would now be much harder to prevent hate speech online.

“We do have a serious problem,” Garrison told the National Post. “If you take away the power to take (websites) down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even to talk to people about it and educate them about it.”

Garrison argued that the Tories are being dishonest by having these laws be introduced as private members’ bills, rather than government bills, noting that the Conservative Party of Canada made repealing human rights commissions’ ability to regulate hate speech a part of their platform.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the bill, tweeting on Thursday that the new law will “end arbitrary censorship powers of human rights commissions.”

Public opinion on human rights commissions is split. An unscientific poll on the CBC website shows a bare majority of people supporting the Tories’ move.

Quick Poll
Do you support the Conservatives' move to take hate speech out of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Yes. Human rights commissions were acting as agents of censorship, and we need to respect freedom of speech.

No. This is a step towards a more racist, less tolerant Canada.

I don't know.

How dare you, you race hustlers.

Do you, or do you not, share the ideology of the progressives who justified the murder of millions upon millions of people who refused to be engineered into accepting communism? Do you or do you not share the ideology of eugenicists like Margaret Sanger and Tommy Douglas who believed they were justified in culling the human race by removing inferior specimens? Were certain races not considered inferior by the founder of your ideology? See here for a possible answer:

http://www.wnd.com/2006/06/36692/

You are all either hypocrites of the first order or ignorant of the truth of the ideology you support. Take your pick.

In the meantime, I know who and what conservatives are and it isn't what you so recklessly and cavalierly suggest in conflating conservative support for getting rid of Section 13 with Stormfront members' support. So screw you!

[WestViking]

What disgusting and ignorant commentary.

Kinsella is a lawyer and fully aware the hate speech is a violation of the criminal code.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal proved incapable of dealing with alleged hate crimes while protecting the charter and legal rights of an accused. There is no excuse for the abuses of law by the CHRC and CHRT. The serial complainants who abused Section 13 to persecute alleged enemies of society will find proceeding in a criminal court that has rules and due process impossible. CHRA s13 was so badly written that someone could be found guilty of making some unknown person uncomfortable at some future date.

For a lawyer to defend that travesty of justice makes it understandable why Kinsella is now a third rate political commentator and pundit.

One would think that Sun News could do better.

[skeena484]

I'm done with SunTV. I'll have no truck or trade with anyone associated with Warren Kinsella.

Sun News is the best thing that has happened to Canadian journalism in my life time. I do agree that Kinsella is demented and so full of himself he will do anything to get attention. That's why I will neither read nor view anything Kinsella does. I do hope Sun News sees the light soon and gasses him. He's not just their token liberal he’s an idiot.

[WestViking]

Regrettably, we cannot ask Sun News to drop Kinsella and remain faithful to protecting the freedom of speech. Kinsella is a splendid example of why protecting free speech requires us to choke back rising bile on occasion.