Reactions to story from Pajamas Media

• 

  The drama continues.

  http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/the_drama_continues
  139 days ago in Redstate | Conservative News and Community · Authority: 2,094

  The drama continues. By Paul J Cella Under pressure from the fanaticism and treachery of the Jihad, which is abetted by the peculiar manias of Liberalism, Free Speech is perishing. In Canada a sordid drama continues, with Mark Steyn actually managing to
• 

  Ever Want To Know What Life Would Be Like In the U.S.A. Without the Bill of Rights?

  http://littlemissattila.mu.nu/archives/263126.php
  139 days ago in Little Miss Attila · Authority: 99

  Look north. Kathy Shaidleherself, of course, potentially a victim of Canada's repressive attitude toward freedom of speechrecounts some of the leadup to the upcoming tar-and-feathering of Mark Steyn and Maclean's in Canada: So, Â"when the British
• 

  Can't happen here?

  http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/05/cant_happen_...
  139 days ago in Classical Values · Authority: 446

  I'll be gone most of the day, but I highly recommend reading Kathy Shaidle's excellent PJM post, "Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'." In Canada, where there's no First Amendment, writers can be hauled before kangaroo courts and so-called "human...
• 

  For those of you who insist that pot is perfectly harmless

  http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-05-21-000...
  139 days ago in five feet of fury. (unrecycled white trash.) · Authority: 403

  For those of you who insist that pot is perfectly harmless Oh dear, Johnny "I'm Too Cowardly To Blog and Insult People Under My Own Name" Maudlin is up early today. His dealer must be coming over. I understand Pyjamas Media is a privately
• 

  Canadian Hate Speech

  http://www.mangledcat.com/archives/000665.html
  19 days ago in MangledCat · Authority: 5

  I have to wonder if the commentary from Heather Mallick posted on the CBC website will draw the attention of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. I'm sure you remember them. They were the esteemed council that dragged Mark Steyn and McCleans Magazine into court for alledged "Islamaphobia." Given some of the commesnts from Mallick, it would seem to me that an investigation would be warranted: "What normal father would want Levi 'I'm a f---n' redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?" Mallick asked. "I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don't the Palins? I'm not the one preaching homespun values but I'd destroy that ratboy before I'd let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you. ... Turn your guns on Levi, ma'am." And I'm quite sure that Mallick considers herself classy and dignified. Nice.
• 

  Ask Jack Layton about being endorsed by Mohammed Elmasry today: noon EST

  http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-09-17-000...
  20 days ago in five feet of fury. (a racist is someone winning an argument with a liberal.) · Authority: 377

  Ask Jack Layton about being endorsed by Mohammed Elmasry today: noon EST Arch socialist "Taliban" Jack Layton is hosting a radio show today on CFRB, from Noon to 1PM EST. Listeners can call in with questions. Maybe you can ask him how he feels about his party being endorsed by Mohammed Elmasry, who believes that all Israelis 18 and over are "legitimate targets for terrorism", and who more recently led the persecution of Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine. Via email: NDP Leader Jack Layton will host his own one hour talk show across the Astral Media Radio Newstalk Network on Wednesday, September 17th from noon to 1p Eastern. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May have also been invited to host their own talk shows to be carried live on Montreal's CJAD, Toronto's CFRB, Hamilton's Talk820, CKTB in St. Catharines, CJBK in London and News Talk Sports AM 1150 in Kelowna. Astral Media is still waiting for those three party leaders to choose their dates. "The NDP confirmed Monday that Jack Layton will host his own talk show this Wednesday." said Steve Kowch, the National Director of News Talk Programming for Astral Media Radio. "The rules are simple. Only the leader is in the studio to take as many calls as they can from Montreal, Toronto, Southern Ontario and Kelowna, BC. Listeners will be invited to call a toll free number to speak to the party leaders." During the Ontario election CFRB in Toronto, CKTB in St. Catharines and CJBK in London aired talk shows hosted by the province's main political leaders. It was such a success with the leaders and listeners that Astral Media Radio has decided to make this format available to the main federal party leaders during the current election campaign. 
• 

  Thinking....

  http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2008/08/thinking.html
  50 days ago in Head Noises · Authority: 19

  Growing up, my folks taught me to fight fair.They also taught me that a lot of other folks won't. There's really not much you can do about cheaters, in the short run.So.... When I started to learn actual history, I grew to have a distaste for those who look for the good features of folks, and try to attack them in the areas those good things open up.So I dislike folks who are maybe ten years older than me, and have "Vietnam Vet, Can't Work" signs on the side of the freeway. They are preying on charity.I dislike con-artists who set up things "for the troops"-- especially if they target the grieving.I dislike the poisonous spiders who target the elderly, going in to "take care of them"-- around whom jewelry, electronics and anything else of value "just vanishes," and whom end up as the sole beneficiary of the wills.I really, really dislike those who use even the utterly BS, but possibly well meaning works of things like the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission to attack someone who has been attacked by racists.Jeeze, guys, why don't you go watch the first Spiderman movie where there's a bus full of kids vs Mary Jane?Shoot, I can't even like Ghandi because of the back-alley garbage of using the Brit's distaste for harming those who won't fight back against them.This might actually be a rather reasonable view-- the first thing that happens when you use someone's good nature against them is that said good nature tends to go away....
• 

  Sticks and stones

  http://colmilquetoast.blogspot.com/2008/06/sticks-and-stones...
  117 days ago in Col. Milquetoast's Blog · Authority: 2

  sigh The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s plans for their future headquarters. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will have their viciousness adjudicated at a latter date." just doesn't have the same ring to it. The Chief CommissarCommissioner of the CHRC says "Freedom of expression is the life blood of democracy"...and so we need to limit freedom of expression just like how we sometimes have too much blood and need medieval leech treatment or how we need to cut ourselves repeatedly like we were an emo kid wearing eye make up and a corn chip hair cut. And of course an unelected bureaucrat should decide when you've been bled enough. Three concise reasons freedom of speech is important : 1) freedom of speech for the sake of freedom of speech 2) restricting speech does not change what people think 3) restricting speech inhibits discussion and limits the opportunities for people to have bad ideas discredited
• 

  The death of free speech in Canada?

  http://irishspy.typepad.com/public_secrets/2008/06/the-death...
  117 days ago in Public Secrets · Authority: 51

  The death of free speech in Canada? You wouldn't think it of the most polite nation in the world, would you, but free speech, a cherished cornerstone of Western liberal civilization, is under furious assault in Canada. The attackers are the multiculturalist, politically correct, self-loathing Left and the cultural jihadists claiming to be fighting "Islamophobia." The weapon is the star chamber of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions (both federal and provincial), which have the authority to bar someone from ever speaking or writing about a topic, and to prevent a publication from carrying that writer's articles. What's that word I'm thinking of? Oh, yeah -- "censorship." The latest victim is Mark Steyn, a brilliant Canadian satirist and commentator who resides in New Hampshire. His most recent book, America Alone, was excerpted in Canada's Maclean's magazine in 2006. For what Steyn wrote, and Maclean's for daring to publish it, both were hauled before the British Columbia HRC to answer charges of inciting hatred or contempt against Muslims. If they lose (and Canadian HRCs have a 100% conviction rate -- Stalin would be proud), Steyn could be barred from publication in Canada and Maclean's forbidden to carry his column. Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle reports on the Steyn/Maclean's show trial for Pajamas Media. Perhaps most appalling is the support so-called journalists in Canada are giving to the Human Rights Commission in its quest to stamp out the very liberty they depend on: So Mark Steyn’s guilty verdict seems a fait accompli. As he predicted in May, his “career in Canada will be formally ended next month.” Canada’s liberal mainstream media more or less shrugged. A veteran journalism professor condemned the “xenophobic” Steyn in an online forum for professional reporters, accusing Steyn of failing to express his opinions “in food [sic] faith,” then scolding prissily that “everyone must obey the law.” With professors like that training journalists, it is no wonder that the state-run, taxpayer-funded CBC got the name of Steyn’s book wrong, their local reporters admitted they knew nothing about the case they’d been sent to cover, and rival outlet CTV published an amateurish, glorified book review in lieu of an objective, unbiased news report. A couple of savvier columnists begged the Human Rights Commissions to come after them, to help boost their book sales. Be sure to read the whole thing, and the previous article on l'Affaire Steyn. Free speech is under assault around the West from a grotesque alliance of the multi-culti Left and Islamists who want to take the world back to an idealized (and very uni-cultural) seventh century. Steyn and Maclean's travail is just one glaring example. Technorati tags: Mark Steyn, MacLean's, Canada, Human Rights Commission, British Columbia, America Alone, Kathy Shaidle, censorship, free speech, cultural jihad 11 June 2008 in Canada, Cultural Jihad, Free Speech, Islamism |
• 

  Hate speech laws are hateful to liberal freedoms

  http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/06/07/hate-speech-laws-are-hat...
  122 days ago in Club Troppo · Authority: 144

  It’s a little surprising that, outside the RWDB blogs, virtually no attention has so far been paid to the current trial of Canadian right wing pundit Mark Steyn on (effectively) religious vilification proceedings by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission.  Admittedly it’s all happening in far away Canada, but Steyn is a fairly well known figure in Australia and even visited on a speaking tour quite recently. The Steyn proceedings are extremely disturbing for the future of liberal democracy in Canada, and by extension parts of Australia that have enacted similar “hate speech” laws (e.g. Victoria). Indeed it’s in some respects more disturbing than the not dissimilar proceedings against Australian fundie god-botherers Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot of Catch the Fire Ministries (the VCAT decision in which was mercifully reversed by the Court of Appeal in any event).  Like Nalliah and Scot, Steyn’s “hate speech” comments dealt with Islam and its more extreme and worrying elements.  Unlike Nalliah and Scot’s rather bizarre diatribe, Steyn’s words were undeniably part of mainstream political discourse. That such discussion could be prohibited in a supposedly liberal democratic country is quite extraordinary and even frightening.  Personally I agree with most of what Steyn had to say, albeit that I might have expressed it a bit less trenchantly and with a few more qualifiers.  But that really is beside the point.  The whole point of freedom of speech is that one is free to speak, within very broad limits, irrespective of whether others may disagree or be offended. There was, however, a MSM article about the Steyn case in The Australian today, by its pseudonymous columnist Jack the Insider.  Unfortunately it is replete with both factual and legal errors, both major and minor.  I’m not sure exactly at what institution Jack is an “Insider”, probably the back bar at some Surry Hills pub judging by his Oz photo and the quality of his thinking (or lack of same). Jack says: “More recently, the Canadians introduced a charter of rights and freedoms, again without constitutional amendment. “  In fact the Canadian Charter was enacted as part of Canada’s Constitution by the Uk Parliament by the Canada Act 1982. Jack also says: “The charter enshrines freedom of expression but makes no mention of freedom of speech.”  But that’s because “freedom of expression” is a wider term than “freedom of speech”, designed to convey that images and symbolic speech as well as words are covered by the constitutional freedom. However, the major defect in Jack’s “reasoning” is his claim that the Steyn proceedings are a consequence of Canada’s possessing a bill of rights at all.  The basic premise of Jack’s article is that the Steyn case is a salutary reminder of the dangers for Australia if we had a constitutional bill of rights (or indeed any bill of rights).  In fact if anything the Steyn case is made possible by the fact that the Canadian Charter is a weaker form of bill of rights, at least as to freedom of speech, than its US counterpart, and by the fact that the Canadian Parliament apparently regards other values like protecting racial, religious and other minorities from being offended as more important than free speech.  Hence it has enacted the Human Rights Act (roughly equivalent in its scope and objects to Australian states’ anti-discrimination laws and the federal Racial Discrimination Act, Sex Discrimination Act and Disability Discrimination Act) under which Steyn is being prosecuted.  The Canadian Charter rights (including free speech) are expressly qualified by Article 1 in a manner which to a significant extent limits their effectiveness as restraints on the legislature.  Article 1 provides that the Charter ”guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That seemingly innocent qualifier has been interpreted by the Canadian courts and Human Rights Commission in a manner which makes its constitutional guarantee of free speech almost meaningless, or at least subordinate to a very wide range of other collective rights and interests: Although freedom of expression is an important fundamental value, we in Canada value just as much the equality rights of all individuals. Equality means a respect for the inherent dignity of all human beings whatever their colour, race, language, sex or religion. Freedom to express one’s idea ceases to be freedom of expression or opinion when it is used to stand in the way of the promotion of equality. Freedom of expression ceases to be a fundamental characteristic of democratic values when it becomes a vehicle for the promotion of hate. (See Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1992] 3 F.C. 155, at para. 60) As a result the Canadian Charter is effectively useless in protecting free speech where that speech sufficiently offends someone because of their colour, race, language, sex or religion! By contrast, the US Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is expressed in unqualified terms and has long been interpreted not to permit any law which abridges free speech unless it is appropriate and adapted (to use the Australian expression) to regulating lewd and obscene language or images, profanity, libel and insulting language only when it amounts to “fighting” words i.e. language likely to provoke immediate violence/serious breach of the peace.  Consequently a ”hate speech” law not dissimilar to the provisions under which Steyn is being pursued was held to be unconstitutional in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul in 1992.  However, Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights at all*, neither a strong US-style one nor a weaker (in free speech terms anyway) Canadian one. Consequently there is no constitutional impediment whatever to Australian parliaments enacting laws like the Canadian Human Rights Act under which Mark Steyn is being pursued (subject to the qualification explained below). Indeed, as I observed earlier, there are close parallels between the Steyn proceedings and the Catch the Fire Ministries case in Victoria. The entire premise of Jack the Insider’s article is therefore fundamentally misconceived. The Steyn case is not the result of Canada having a bill of rights, if anything it’s a result of its having a form of bill that is too weak to provide the effective protection of free speech that its US counterpart does. The Steyn case doesn’t provide a lesson for Australia about what can happen if a country has a bill of rights (as Jack believes), because Steyn-type prosecutions can happen and already have happened in Australia. If anything, the lesson we can draw from the Steyn case is that Australia needs a strong US-style guarantee of freedom of speech rather than a Canadian-style one with weasel words that subordinate free speech to other and potentially freedom-denying values.  It’s more than a bit of a worry when the only discussion in the Australian media of an important legal matter like the Steyn case is the sort of ignorant, incoherent garbage spewed out by Jack the Insider. *PS Just a quick qualifier. Australia does in fact have a limited implied constitutional freedom of political speech, and several Justices in the recent (2004) decision in Coleman v Power  (namely Justices Gummow, Hayne and Kirby) appeared to favour a strong US-style interpretation whereby a law which incidentally burdened free political communication would only be valid if appropriate and adapted to preventing a real and immediate threat of breach of the peace.  For example, Kirby J said: It follows that s 7(1)(d) can, and should be, construed so that it conforms to the Lange test as reformulated in this appeal. As so construed, “insulting” words in the context of the Act are those that go beyond words merely causing affront or hurt to personal feelings. They refer to words of an aggravated quality apt to a statute of the present type, to a requirement that the insulting words be expressed “to” the person insulted, and to a legislative setting concerned with public order. They are words intended, or reasonably likely, to provoke unlawful physical retaliation. They are words prone to arouse a physical response, or a risk thereof. They are not words uttered in the course of communication about governmental or political matters, however emotional, upsetting or affronting those words might be when used in such a context. In such communication, unless the words rise to the level of provoking or arousing physical retaliation or the risk of such (and then invite the application of the second limb of the Lange test) a measure of robust, ardent language and “insult” must be tolerated by the recipient. In Australia, it must be borne for the greater good of free political communication in the representative democracy established by the Constitution. If that reasoning achieves majority High Court support, and if Steyn’s words were held to be concerning political rather than just religious matters (as I think they are at least in part), then it may well be that Australia’s constitutional system would already prevent a Steyn-type case in this country 11. KP: although I note that the Victorian Court of Appeal didn’t think much of a similar argument in Catch the Fire Ministries - I think they’re wrong [↩].  But if that is so, it’s because we already have limited US-style constitutional bill of rights protections.  Update - Legal Eagle also has an excellent post on the Steyn case, with some useful quotes from the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Catch the Fire Ministries.

Advertise on Technorati

Advertise on Technorati