Western Standard vs HRC

[The_Nice_Guy]

Looks like Western Standard's facing the Human Rights Commission over the stuff they've published. Let's see what the Canadians are made of.

A link of Ezra Levant's opening statement to youtube. Get it before it's taken down, which in all likelihood, is probably going to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

Some great stuff in there. And it seems like the Canadian government is going to take this seriously.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I like that guy.

[Darth Wong]

Looks like Western Standard's facing the Human Rights Commission over the stuff they've published. Let's see what the Canadians are made of.

A link of Ezra Levant's opening statement to youtube. Get it before it's taken down, which in all likelihood, is probably going to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

The least you could have done was say what the fuck this is about. For our readers, it's about a newspaper defending itself from the Alberta Human Rights Commission on some sort of unspecified accusations regarding the publication of cartoons making fun of Islam.

Some great stuff in there. And it seems like the Canadian government is going to take this seriously.

The Alberta government, not the Canadian government. Alberta is the most fundie province in our Confederation, and it doesn't surprise me at all that the people there would interpret "religious freedom" to mean "you can't insult religion". We nicknamed them "Texas North", for fuck's sake.

[Rogue 9]

Wait one fucking minute. He's been hauled before a government commission to answer for publishing political cartoons? That's just out of line.

[Darth Wong]

Wait one fucking minute. He's been hauled before a government commission to answer for publishing political cartoons? That's just out of line.

In a region which is heavily fundamentalist, people tend to think that way. Even though Alberta is primarily fundie Christian, if you have the attitude that religion is sacrosanct (which most fundies do), you're more likely to think that someone's rights have been violated if you blaspheme his religion.

As I said, it's Texas North.

[Glocksman]

I haven't been following it closely, but isn't some other Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuing a case against Macleans for publishing Mark Steyn's pieces that it considers hate speech?

[Rogue 9]

Watching the other videos of the hearing up on his YouTube profile, I've got to say he handled it brilliantly, at least in the parts I've watched so far. "But the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is because it's my bloody right to do so." Classic.

[Darth Wong]

I haven't been following it closely, but isn't some other Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuing a case against Macleans for publishing Mark Steyn's pieces that it considers hate speech?

It's possible, but it's hard to say what merit those accusations have unless we can see the particular passages they're talking about. It's illegal to incite acts of hatred toward minority groups in Canada, and while we know the guy is a raving imbecile and typical reactionary conservative, I don't know which particular passage they're complaining about. When a guy rants continually against tolerating the presence of Muslims in Canadian society, one might argue that he is advocating violence toward them. Again, it's hard to say without seeing the passages in question.

In any case, that has nothing to do with the Cartoon Case, which has nothing whatsoever to do with inciting violence or hatred toward anyone. Please refrain from further red-herrings.

[Glocksman]

Please refrain from further red-herrings.

It wasn't meant as one. Sorry.

Back on subject, I found these passages from Levant's site interesting:

I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

Is it *really* that bad up there, or is he exaggerating?
Either way, the mere fact that the commission is even acting on the bullshit complaints is as he points out, exercising a chilling effect on speech.

Here is an exchange between me and Officer McGovern. I talked about the chilling effect that human rights complaints have not just on the victims -- e.g. the people and companies named in the complaints, like we were -- but on other media who see what could happen to them if they dare upset thin-skinned whiners. It's similar to the phenomenon of libel chill, except it's worse. Libel chill is when reporters are worried about writing a story for fear of being sued. But that's not much more than a healthy fear -- if a story's facts are true, it's defensible in defamation law. More than that, any would-be plaintiff would have to finance his own lawsuit, be subject to well-known rules of court, and have to pay the costs of any failed nuisance suits. None of those restraints are checks againt "human rights commission chill": truth is not a defence; plaintiffs complain for free; taxpayers pay for the prosecuting lawyers; rules are arbitrary; legal precedents are not applied consistently; and instead of judges, tribunals are stacked with activists, many not even lawyers.

The worst part is that there is no deterrent to spurious complaints -- there is no cost to making false accusations. That's where the "human rights chill" comes in: why would any rational publisher or editor report on sensitive subjects (read: radical Islam) if they knew they would be tagged with a no-win complaint?

That's the point I was making. And after I made it, Officer 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.

All from ezralevant.com

[Adrian Laguna]

As I said, it's Texas North.

Texas isn't that bad, I think there are other states better suited for nicknaming Alberta, like Alabama (they both start and end with the name letter!). Texas has several major metropolises which are decent places. Hell, didn't Einy move there after New Orleans went the way of Atlantis?

On the other hand, of the 50 American states I think only three or four ban the sale of sex toys. Texas is one of them. I think it's because the state is so dammed big. Even with a bunch of big cities the rural hick population is still huge.

[Rogue 9]

Is there any public record of this beyond Mr. Levant's own videos and statements? What we've seen so far is of course fairly damning, but we have to remember that, video or not, so far all we've got is Mr. Levant's own statements and videos, and we're not seeing the raw footage; he's putting up what he terms "the most interesting exchanges." There's nothing wrong with that and I see no reason to assume he's being duplicitous, but it'd be nice to have a source other than the one man.

[Darth Wong]

Is there any public record of this beyond Mr. Levant's own videos and statements? What we've seen so far is of course fairly damning, but we have to remember that, video or not, so far all we've got is Mr. Levant's own statements and videos, and we're not seeing the raw footage; he's putting up what he terms "the most interesting exchanges." There's nothing wrong with that and I see no reason to assume he's being duplicitous, but it'd be nice to have a source other than the one man.

That's a good point. In fact, when someone is known only for running conservative websites and newspapers, it's pretty much a safe bet that he's spin-doctoring everything he says, even if he's not outright lying about it. It's probably worth noting that he hasn't actually been brought up on any criminal charges.

[Rogue 9]

Oh, I'm sure he is, but the very fact that a governmental body, informal or not, is having a hearing like this is reason for concern from my perspective. As far as I can tell even he's not claiming that he's being charged as a criminal, and that the penalty sought is a public apology from him, but even that's absurd given what he supposedly did "wrong." I don't give a damn how conservative the man is; to take him to task for printing editorial cartoons is ludicrous.

I'd never heard of Ezra Levant before this thread, so if he's known for lying or spinning this sort of thing I'm ignorant of it. Searching for news articles related to him returns a flurry of results on the current case from what appear to be local publications, blogs, and the National Post (which he appears to write for); no mentions in the mainstream news networks are extant.

[Darth Wong]

I'd like to know what penalty he faced if he simply ignored this "commission". Commissions ask people to testify about things they investigate all the time, but the people are not necessarily required to attend upon threat of legal action.

For example, look at the various commissions to study videogame violence etc. If the head of a game company under "investigation" chooses to testify before such a commission, he's probably doing so as a proactive measure, to try and make sure they hear his side of the story. It doesn't mean he was actually dragged before the commission against his will, which is the way he's painting it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I just checked the bylaws of the Human Rights Commissions in Alberta, and it seems that the penalty is that if he does not respond in person or in writing, they "appoint an investigator"

Which in my experience is code for "you get shafted"

So he was forced by practicality.

[Darth Wong]

I just checked the bylaws of the Human Rights Commissions in Alberta, and it seems that the penalty is that if he does not respond in person or in writing, they "appoint an investigator"

Which in my experience is code for "you get shafted"

What experience would that be? And what precisely does it mean to say he would "get shafted" if they appointed this investigator? What authority would the investigator have to punish him?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Dealing with judicial affairs at a university, being on a judiciary board with a fraternity etc etc etc.

Without the actual input of the person involved, all there is is one person's say so and whatever evidence is gathered by the investigator. Which may or may not be worth a damn.

In these sorts of "investigations" the person heading it often has their minds made up before the person ever responds (I have been on the receiving and giving end of this)

This is because there is no legal presumption of innocence or real rules of evidence and enforced impartiality (I have been trying to reform my fraternity's judiciary board with some success)

As for "shafted" what do you think it means? It means that the complaint will probably go especially worse for them. It is sort of like how a person accused of a crime who refuses to comment in the media will get tied to the back of a metaphorical truck and dragged through the mud

The investigator, from my reading of the bylaws, has the authority to recommend to the regional manager how to rule on the matter.

[Darth Wong]

Dealing with judicial affairs at a university, being on a judiciary board with a fraternity etc etc etc.

And what the fuck does that have to do with a citizen dealing with a real government, rather than some rinky dinky university student board? Governments "appoint investigators" all the fucking time. They've been appointed for such stupid bullshit as studying rock music lyrics. Most of the time, such an appointment is just gravy for a friend of someone in high places: a way to get paid $300,000 for something that a high-school student would normally do for a class assignment. Unless this person can actually levy fines or something, it doesn't mean shit.

As for "shafted" what do you think it means? It means that the complaint will probably go especially worse for them.

Unless that leads to fines or imprisonment, that means nothing whatsoever.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And what the fuck does that have to do with a citizen dealing with a real government, rather than some rinky dinky university student board? Governments "appoint investigators" all the fucking time. They've been appointed for such stupid bullshit as studying rock music lyrics. Most of the time, such an appointment is just gravy for a friend of someone in high places: a way to get paid $300,000 for something that a high-school student would normally do for a class assignment. Unless this person can actually levy fines or something, it doesn't mean shit.

It's analogous in process and the mentality of the individuals involved. As for the university, judicial affairs is not run by students. We are talking about the people that suspend and expel students, levy fines on greek organizations, etc. It is the same fundamental process. Not as well funded and dealing with smaller issues perhaps. But the process, looking over the bylaws, is exactly the same.

Of course you just made my point for me in terms of the fact that it is gravy for a friend of someone in high places. No qualifications, and looking over the rules of evidence, they are hardly required to be thorough.

And yes, looking over it, the Alberta commissions CAN levy fines. They cant imprison, but they can levy compensation and other fines ( in the form of punitive damages depending on how broadly the law is read)

They also have the power to subpoena documents, search rooms and dwellings, etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Note: I am NOT saying that because I deal with university judicial affairs etc that I am an expert on canadian commissions. Only that my experience dealing with commissions of similar process and composition makes me somewhat leary of any investigation undertaken by said commissions of similar process and composition.

[Darth Wong]

Note: I am NOT saying that because I deal with university judicial affairs etc that I am an expert on canadian commissions. Only that my experience dealing with commissions of similar process and composition makes me somewhat leary of any investigation undertaken by said commissions of similar process and composition.

Jesus fucking Christ, what part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand? It's not about how thorough or fair this "investigator" will be. The question is whether the investigator has any real legal power to do anything to you. The fact that some dipshit student board investigator can demand to search your dorm room means precisely fuck all when talking about what an investigator appointed by the HRC in Alberta can legally do. You're literally basing your argument upon some asinine assumption that the word "investigator" universally denotes a certain level of authority.

[The_Nice_Guy]

The interesting thing is, nobody knows what will happen if Levant doesn't comply if the HRC rules against him. From what I've managed to scrounge up, the HRC has the authority to impose fines, but other than that... zilch. I've even read comments that the HRCs are strictly speaking not part of the judicial process, so what the heck are they?

So what if the fine is not paid, or if Levant wants to appeal against the fine?

I have no frikkin idea. But apparently a lot of people on Levant's side actually want the HRC to rule against him, so they can take it to the Supreme Court and dismember the HRC once and for all.

[Androsphinx]

The Federal Court of Canada appears to back up a lot of the HRC's decisionss. A rather distasteful gentleman called Tomasz Winnicki was sent to prison for disregarding a tempory injunction against writing until his tribunal had met.

As well as fines, they also appear to have rather broad powers to prohibit people from publishing on subjects in Canada - Steyn (fwiw) has mentioned a case where a woman who placed an anti-gay advert in a newspaper with biblical quotes is banned from publishing on those biblical quotes forever.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Note: I am NOT saying that because I deal with university judicial affairs etc that I am an expert on canadian commissions. Only that my experience dealing with commissions of similar process and composition makes me somewhat leary of any investigation undertaken by said commissions of similar process and composition.

Jesus fucking Christ, what part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand? It's not about how thorough or fair this "investigator" will be. The question is whether the investigator has any real legal power to do anything to you. The fact that some dipshit student board investigator can demand to search your dorm room means precisely fuck all when talking about what an investigator appointed by the HRC in Alberta can legally do. You're literally basing your argument upon some asinine assumption that the word "investigator" universally denotes a certain level of authority.

You misunderstand me. When I was referring to the powers of investigation of these "investigators" to levy fines and conduct searches I was reading from the rules set forth in Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism act which gives this comission in Alberta its power. Just to clear things up, I may not have been clear in my writing

[Darth Wong]

You misunderstand me. When I was referring to the powers of investigation of these "investigators" to levy fines and conduct searches I was reading from the rules set forth in Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism act which gives this comission in Alberta its power. Just to clear things up, I may not have been clear in my writing

OK, thanks for that clarification.

As for this HRC, I get the feeling that he tried to jump-start publicity for the way they handled this complaint because he is afraid that they will not find him guilty of hate crimes after all, so rather than wait for them to render a verdict and levy a fine (at which point one would normally appeal), he is thinking that they'll probably let him off, thus deflating his call to outrage, hence he must go on a publicity campaign immediately. The fact is that this is all over a defunct newspaper, that his precious free market apparently rejected. Anything less than a fine would be absolutely meaningless; you cannot order a corporation to cease and desist anything if it is defunct, and that presumes they would do so anyway. So I'm guessing that he wants to get in his grandstanding.