Western Standard vs HRC

[The_Nice_Guy]

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.

Given the fact that no 'defendent' in the HRC has ever been acquited, what do you think are the odds of that? And watch the video. Does the woman seem 'reasonable' to you?

I can see why you're so skeptical, but you should be worried about the HRC and what it means than Levant's grandstanding, instead of doggedly defending the Canadian system when this portion is clearly a blemish and should be removed ASAP.

Besides, grandstanding in the defense of free speech is wrong. If it takes an extremist to point out that the emperor wears no clothes, he may be an extremist, but the facts don't change.

And right now, the facts are saying that the HRC has the support of the Supreme Court in Canada, and have the authority to squash free speech with fines(at least).

[Darth Wong]

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.

Given the fact that no 'defendent' in the HRC has ever been acquited, what do you think are the odds of that?

It's a goddamned cartoon, involving a "hate crime" that has been mocked openly on every late-night talk show in the land. This isn't baseball, where people blindly assume that past statistics should necessarily predict the future. Are any of these past examples not neo-Nazis, since the only examples people show me tend to fall into that category?

And watch the video. Does the woman seem 'reasonable' to you?

Not really, but Levant spends virtually the entire time arguing about whether hate-speech laws should exist at all, rather than talking about the merits of the case itself. And you wonder why I think it's grandstanding.

I can see why you're so skeptical, but you should be worried about the HRC and what it means than Levant's grandstanding, instead of doggedly defending the Canadian system when this portion is clearly a blemish and should be removed ASAP.

I'm not "doggedly defending" anything. I have made no statements about how reasonable the HRC is. I'm simply pointing out that until they actually CONVICT him and PUNISH him, people ranting about persecution are just spewing bullshit. I'm not saying it necessarily won't happen, particularly in Alberta where religious supremacism is stronger than anywhere else in the country (something I pointed out right away), but until he actually gets punished for something as absurd as a Mohammed cartoon, I don't see any justification for complaining about how unreasonable that punishment is.

Besides, grandstanding in the defense of free speech is wrong. If it takes an extremist to point out that the emperor wears no clothes, he may be an extremist, but the facts don't change.

And right now, the facts are saying that the HRC has the support of the Supreme Court in Canada, and have the authority to squash free speech with fines(at least).

Free speech does not include hate speech in Canada, and if you want to make an argument against that idea, you should do so with actual reasons, rather than invoking the standard American Idiot notion that free speech is absolute.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Free speech is not absolute in the U.S., as it happens. In fact inciting hatred or violence against others is not covered by the First Amendment under case law. Therefore it is hardly unreasonable to ban hate speech.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I'm not saying it necessarily won't happen, particularly in Alberta where religious supremacism is stronger than anywhere else in the country (something I pointed out right away), but until he actually gets punished for something as absurd as a Mohammed cartoon, I don't see any justification for complaining about how unreasonable that punishment is.

Let's wait and see then. My guess is they'll still fine him, and then the shit hits the fan.

Found a link that gives a bit more detail on what Levant is actually being 'investigated' for.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

Uhm, so it was the cartoons?

[Darth Wong]

Found a link that gives a bit more detail on what Levant is actually being 'investigated' for.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

That doesn't really give any more detail. It just gives us the usual American rant about how freedom of speech is absolute, complete with slippery-slope fallacies.

I would be curious as to what precisely Levant printed in the "now defunct" newspaper that caused this complaint, since there have been plenty of Mohammed cartoons published in various places around Canada, many of which are considerably less obscure than this "Western Standard" newspaper that nobody ever heard of. For example, the University of PEI reprinted the infamous Danish cartoons with no HRC complaint or inquiry. The University of Toronto, with a considerable Islamic student population, printed a cartoon of Jesus and Mohammed having a homosexual kiss. And yet neither of these actions drew any scrutiny relating to hate-speech laws.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Free speech is not absolute in the U.S., as it happens. In fact inciting hatred or violence against others is not covered by the First Amendment under case law. Therefore it is hardly unreasonable to ban hate speech.

I would disagree to an extent. It is not unreasonable to ban things like "lets go kill the jews" these things are inciting violence by calling for it. Saying "I hate the jews, lets not let them into our country club" is not inciting violence, and is thus protected.

Inciting hatred=covered by first amendment
Inciting violence=/ covered by fist amendment.

[Rogue 9]

[I would be curious as to what precisely Levant printed in the "now defunct" newspaper that caused this complaint, since there have been plenty of Mohammed cartoons published in various places around Canada, many of which are considerably less obscure than this "Western Standard" newspaper that nobody ever heard of. For example, the University of PEI reprinted the infamous Danish cartoons with no HRC complaint or inquiry. The University of Toronto, with a considerable Islamic student population, printed a cartoon of Jesus and Mohammed having a homosexual kiss. And yet neither of these actions drew any scrutiny relating to hate-speech laws.

He claims that the inquiry is about these cartoons. The scarce external sources on the matter seem to confirm that this is correct (see here), and the HRC officer says that that's why he's there during one of the video clips and never contradicts him when he says that he is there for publishing the cartoons.

In the complaint itself (warning: PDF), Soharwardy specifies "hatemongering cartoons" as the source of his complaint (though he takes awhile to say just what his problem is; scroll down to page 4; the much easier to read typed portion of the complaint on page 6 also names only the cartoons). Apparently Mr. Soharwardy felt that the response of the Calgary police was "not reasonable" (page 15 of the complaint), indicating that he first tried to get the police to shut down the Standard before going to the HRC, and the police refused.

Attached to the complaint are scans of the relevant pages of the Western Standard. I'm failing to find much more than the cartoons and standard right-wing editorial content, but most of the articles are difficult to read due to the very low copier resolution. Regardless, it wasn't the content of the articles that was complained about.

[Darth Wong]

This case may potentially end up being regarded as an important legal precedent, if it should ever go to trial. Despite some comments made earlier by others who assumed that this sort of thing goes on all the time, it's actually quite unprecedented for complaints to be made about material of this nature. In the past, the HRC was basically an anti-discrimination board as Levant notes, but it also went after people like Neo-Nazis. This particular complaint was actually launched two years ago, and the inquiry is only starting now.

If the HRC does overstep its bounds and become, in effect, a censorship board, I can't believe that this action would survive a legal challenge. Here in Ontario, the OFRB (Ontario Film Review Board) was neutered by a provincial judge because it was deemed to have expanded its role to become a de facto censorship board. If the OFRB got its knees cut off for trying to overstep its bounds, I can't see why the same thing wouldn't happen to the HRC if it's not careful.