Canada's Star Chambers

[Ben Kenobi]

There's been no ruling on this, so I can't say what the **** is going through your head when you say this is an indication Canada is a totalitarian state.

This 'well known douchebag', is one of the most respected Canadian political commentators.

Secondly, why should he be hauled in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions for publishing a factual article?

Somebody took exception to an incendiary article by well-known douchebag Mark Steyne and it is going through the various court processes now, and you are pretending like this is the indications of a totalitarian state (which, by definition, control all aspects of life)?

It's not me, Asher. The CHRC's have never had a failed conviction. 100 percent conviction success rate. Star Chambers are an essential feature of a totalitarian state.

[Asher]

SUMMARY FOR NEWCOMERS TO THIS THREAD:

Ben thinks the fact that people have rights to bring complaints infront of the Human Rights Commission in Canada constitutes Canada being a "totalitarian state". In Ben's world, the complete lack of having Human Rights Commissions would constitute a non-Totalitarian state.

I am not making this up.

[Ben Kenobi]

And your complete GULLIBILITY TO SENSATIONAL RIGHT-WING LOON NUTJOB COLUMNISTS.

Name a source you find reliable. I've got a quote from the CBC, from the tyee and from the NRO.

I've got plenty of articles from all sorts of people on all parts of the political spectrum.

Name one, otherwise quit complaining about how the source isn't as pure as the driven snow.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This 'well known douchebag', is one of the most respected Canadian political commentators.

He's less respected than Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly, assuredly. This is saying something.

Secondly, why should he be hauled in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions for publishing a factual article?

It's not me, Asher. The CHRC's have never had a failed conviction. 100 percent conviction success rate. Star Chambers are an essential feature of a totalitarian state.

You must be completely retarded.

This is Canada -- you can make human rights commission complaints. There's been no ruling either way here and you are claiming the very fact that someone can make a claim on the basis of human rights makes this country totalitarian.

This is a new level of bat**** crazy for you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Name a source you find reliable. I've got a quote from the CBC, from the tyee and from the NRO.

I've got plenty of articles from all sorts of people on all parts of the political spectrum.

Name one, otherwise quit complaining about how the source isn't as pure as the driven snow.

YOU ARE QUOTING EDITORIALS. All of which by people or sources with known conservative views. The site it comes from doesn't mean ****.

THIS IS NOT EVEN THE POINT.

The point is you are protesting the very fact that someone can lodge complaints to the human rights commission. You think the existence of such a commission constitutes a totalitarian state.

I don't give a **** about any sources you have or care to link, because the FACTs are:
1) Someone made a complaint to the human rights commission
2) There is NO RULING ON THIS YET AT ALL.

Deal with the realm of facts, for once in your life.

[Kontiki]

It's stunning how Ben seems to outdo himself with almost every thing he posts these days.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben thinks the fact that people have rights to bring complaints infront of the Human Rights Commission in Canada constitutes Canada being a "totalitarian state". In Ben's world, the complete lack of having Human Rights Commissions would constitute a non-Totalitarian state.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

Here's another one from CBC.

Why are you so pissy here Asher? You afraid of the truth?

Free speech, eh? Why is Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn?

The bookshop across the street from my office here in Washington is once again offering America Alone, Mark Steyn's 2006 polemic about the Muslim diaspora in the West.

But it now carries this splash on the cover: "Soon to be banned in Canada."

Inside the latest edition, Steyn, a conservative New Hampshire-based columnist who writes regularly for a number of Canadian publications, advises the reader: "If you're browsing this in a Canadian bookstore, you may well be holding a bona fide 'hate crime' in your hand."

That is a bit of self-promotion, of course, designed to sell even more copies of a book that is already a New York Times bestseller. It also happens to be true.

Steyn, at the moment, is effectively being tried, by a quasi-judicial panel in Vancouver, for insulting Islam.

Normally, that's the sort of proceeding you'd expect to hear about in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not the West. But the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, in the cause of protecting minorities, asserts its right to judge and even restrict speech.

Currently, it is hearing a complaint about Steyn's book from Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Elmasry is going after both Steyn and Maclean's magazine, which excerpted his book when it was published two years ago.

The complaint states that the article "discriminates against Muslims on the basis of their religion. It exposes Muslims to hatred and contempt due to their religion." Elmasry complains that Steyn's book tars entire Muslim communities as complicit in violent jihad.

Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress (Canadian Press)
In Canada, such a proceeding is evidently unremarkable. With the exception of Maclean's and the National Post, the two national outlets that Steyn writes for, coverage in the Canadian media has been notably limited.

Here in the U.S, though, where freedom of expression and the public right to know is taken very seriously, it is front-page news when an organ of government — a neighbouring Western government at that — hauls a journalist before its bar to judge his writings.

'Deafening silence in Canada'
A New York Times reporter has been covering the B.C. tribunal, and filed a front-page story recently. The version on its website carried this headline: "Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech."

On the same day, one of the best-read articles on the website Real Clear Politics was entitled "Deafening Silence in Canada."

It's not that Americans ignore racism. That is not the case by a long shot. This country has laws defining hate crimes and judges can tack on extra punishments when it is proved that violence is motivated by racial bias.

But where speech is concerned, Americans take a nearly absolutist view. It is protected, period, unless someone is directly inciting physical harm as in "Let's take this gasoline and set fire to that synagogue."

The U.S. Supreme Court has generally agreed with jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes that the right to swing your fist stops at the beginning of the other guy's nose. To paraphrase Nat Hentoff's anti-censorship treatise Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee, offensive speech in this country ought to be combated with more speech.

Free to be contemptuous
Now, I have read Steyn's book. And Elmasry's accusation that it treats Islam contemptuously is certainly true.

Steyn, like many social conservatives, practically seethes with contempt for certain Islamic laws and customs. He mocks Western leftists who, out of a sense of moral relativism, defend them.

"Non-Muslim females in heavily Muslim neighbourhoods in France now wear headscarves while out on the streets," he writes, demanding to know why feminists don't speak out more.

His conclusion oozes sarcasm: "Yes, yes, I know Islam is very varied and Riyadh has a vibrant gay scene, and the Khartoum Feminist Publishing Collective now has so many members they've rented lavish new offices above the clitorectomy clinic."

As the New York Times reporter characterized it: "The tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal."

Adds the dispatch from Vancouver: "Things are different here."

Different, eh?

As I have often tried to explain to my American colleagues, we Canadians simply don't have a history of free speech comparable to what exists in the U.S.

Our institutions have been controlling speech and information for so long that we barely blink at things that would shock an American.

Canada currently has a federal government that tries to control almost every syllable spoken publicly by its bureaucrats and every bit of information disseminated to the public. Americans, who insist on scrutinizing politicians' medical records and tax returns, simply would not stand for such secrecy.

Canada also has a Security of Information Act, which though recently revamped is still based largely on the draconian British model of official secrets. While its reach is being tested in the courts, and increasingly found wanting, it still effectively criminalizes the disclosure of anything the government wants kept secret.

What's more, Canadians love turning to governments to protect us from speech or expression that offends. Though we are sometimes unhappy when we get what we ask for. (Ask the feminist groups that pushed for a restriction on pornography, only to find the new law used by Canada Customs to block gay and lesbian fiction, as well as straight erotica.)

What goes around

Elmasry may come to regret having launched this complaint against Steyn. Like others who have sought to control the speech of others, he is someone who tends to shoot from the lip himself.

In 2004, Elmasry told television interviewer Michael Coren that any Israeli of military age, 18 or older, civilian or not, might be considered a legitimate target for militant attacks. He was also quoted in 2003 as saying "it is clear that homosexuality is forbidden and if someone wants to insist on doing it, they will be held accountable in the end."

Gay rights groups and pro-Israel Jewish groups no doubt remember those remarks and are probably watching the B.C. tribunal's deliberations with great interest along with other advocacy organizations who consider their members hated and insulted on a routine basis.

(Elmasry's complaint was laid before three human rights commissions: Ontario's, which declared it lacked jurisdiction but went on to castigate Steyn anyway; British Columbia's, which began hearings two weeks ago; and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has opened a case but not yet begun hearings.)

Speaking as someone who's lived in the rough-and-tumble American marketplace of ideas for many years now, I prefer the speech-versus-speech approach.

I have read Holocaust denial material here and I remain convinced the Holocaust happened. I've read tracts demonizing homosexuality and don't consider gays a threat to anything. I've read accounts by reporters who laid bare national security secrets and I've watched other reporters interview jurors at the end of a criminal trial — all things that can be suppressed in Canada.

There is no chance whatever that either Mark Steyn's or Mohamed Elmasry's utterances would be censored here.

Here, they'd be left to argue with one another and the public might be better informed for having listened.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

Here's another one from CBC.

Why are you so pissy here Asher? You afraid of the truth?

It's not the truth. Canada is NOT prosecuting this guy.

What the **** is wrong with you, or the author of this article you quoted. You guys are crazy. I honestly wish I could deport you, you shame this whole country.

Someone RAISED A COMPLAINT.
The complaint is BEING REVIEWED.
NO RULING HAS BEEN MADE.

This is NOT the government prosecuting someone. This is NOT the government censoring someone. This is called DUE PROCESS when somebody makes a complaint.

You may be familiar with this analogy: Let's say I sue you for sexual harassment because you used a smiley face for corresponding with me. You are protesting the fact that there is due process behind the concept of this lawsuit, irrespective of the pending result. That is crazy.

BTW, this was first raised to the Ontario Human Rights commission, which rejected the case and took no action. It's now raised against the BC Human Rights commission, which has not ruled.

[Ben Kenobi]

YOU ARE QUOTING EDITORIALS. All of which by people or sources with known conservative views. The site it comes from doesn't mean ****.

Fine. Cite a source or an author that meets your approval list.

Otherwise Qwitcher *****ing.

The point is you are protesting the very fact that someone can lodge complaints to the human rights commission. You think the existence of such a commission constitutes a totalitarian state.

No, as the articles state, the Human Rights commissioners are:

1. Not accountable
2. Acting as censors and shutting down speech they personally disagree with.

The commissions are being misused from their original purpose and what they were created for. I don't see what your problem here is Asher. I have significant misgivings with the commissions have a 100 percent conviction rate.

I don't give a **** about any sources you have or care to link, because the FACTs are:

Ahh, so why do you trust wikipedia, over other sources which say the same thing as to the factual evidence in this case?

Secondly, if you accept the facts, don't you have an issue with the fact that the commission has a 100 percent conviction rate to everyone who is brought before them?

1) Someone made a complaint to the human rights commission
2) There is NO RULING ON THIS YET AT ALL.

He's been there 6 months, and so far no one who has been brought before the commissions have been acquitted. Not one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fine. Cite a source or an author that meets your approval list.

Otherwise Qwitcher *****ing.

WHAT SOURCE DO YOU NEED?

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

Are you contesting my claim that the Ontario HRC rejected this claim and it's now under review by the BC HRC with no result?

Because THESE ARE THE FACTS. I don't need to hear ANY more of your bull**** editorial people complaining about this because it's completely irrelevant. What columnists think means nothing and certainly doesn't constitute being a totalitarian state.

No, as the articles state, the Human Rights commissioners are:

1. Not accountable
2. Acting as censors and shutting down speech they personally disagree with.

This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

The HRC has taking NO ACTION in this case. Of the two HRC this has been reviewed by, one has rejected the claim and took no action and the other is still under review.

Ahh, so why do you trust wikipedia, over other sources which say the same thing as to the factual evidence in this case?

You are seriously contesting the claim that the BC HRC hasn't ruled on this yet?

You are so ****ing out there.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not the truth. Canada is NOT prosecuting this guy.

Yes, the Commissions are prosecuting Steyn after a complaint filed by the Human Rights Commissions.

What the **** is wrong with you, or the author of this article you quoted. You guys are crazy. I honestly wish I could deport you, you shame this whole country.

You have the problem with the 5 different authors I've quoted. I'll quote more if you like.

Someone RAISED A COMPLAINT.

Who is that someone asher? C'mon I know you know the facts of this case. Who complained.

The complaint is BEING REVIEWED.

Also true, and what has Steyn had to pay to meet his court costs?

NO RULING HAS BEEN MADE.

The star chamber's ruling is all but certain, he'll be found guilty, and have to pay the court costs of both himself and the complainant plus damages.

This is NOT the government prosecuting someone. This is NOT the government censoring someone. This is called DUE PROCESS when somebody makes a complaint.

Due process? Why then are the Human Rights Commissions not subject to overrule from the courts? Is Steyn permitted an appeal? What evidence is required for the submissions, and the complaints to be considered valid? Secondly, why is it the costs are paid for the complainant, but not for the defendent?

You may be familiar with this analogy: Let's say I sue you for sexual harassment because you used a smiley face for corresponding with me.

Go right ahead. You should file a human rights commission complaint for my posts here. I encourage you, no I dare you to do so.

You are protesting the fact that there is due process behind the concept of this lawsuit, irrespective of the pending result. That is crazy.

These commissions, once again, have a 100 percent conviction rate, and no evidence is required beyond the fact that the complainent says the speech was offensive to him.

I've got a wakeup call to you Asher, these are star chambers. What is to stop the Islamic Conference from saying that gay pride parades are equally offensive to their religion and shutting them down?

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you contesting my claim that the Ontario HRC rejected this claim and it's now under review by the BC HRC with no result?

No, you've never said that until now.

How can I contest something you've never said before?

No, I don't contest that fact at all. I am asserting that the outcome is all but certain, given the previous cases and their outcomes.

Because THESE ARE THE FACTS. I don't need to hear ANY more of your bull**** editorial people complaining about this because it's completely irrelevant. What columnists think means nothing and certainly doesn't constitute being a totalitarian state.

Well, I'm sorry Asher. Our civil liberties are under assault here in Canada, and you are happy because it's the people you disagree with that tend to be prosecuted. Some folks have more foresight to see that civil liberties are not solely the property of liberals.

This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

Is it? Find a source that says otherwise.

The HRC has taking NO ACTION in this case. Of the two HRC this has been reviewed by, one has rejected the claim and took no action and the other is still under review.

No action yet. Now, do you dispute my argument that the commissions have a 100 percent conviction rate?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, the Commissions are prosecuting Steyn after a complaint filed by the Human Rights Commissions.

Who is prosecuting? Show me a factual link from an independent source that the government of Canada is prosecuting Steyn.

You have the problem with the 5 different authors I've quoted. I'll quote more if you like.

I'm not sure why you have difficulty with this concept. I don't care how many op-ed pieces by right-wing shills you quote, it doesn't matter. I'm surprised you didn't quote this one:

http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=29345&CHID=36

A frightening “hate crimes” trial in Canada offers Americans a look at the future of the First Amendment if Muslim immigration to this country continues unabated. Conservative writer Mark Steyn, it seems, “offended” the Muslims in British Columbia, and now not only the Muslims but also the Canadian diversity police want their pound of flesh.

That seems nice and credible.

Who is that someone asher? C'mon I know you know the facts of this case. Who complained.

Islamic congress.

Also true, and what has Steyn had to pay to meet his court costs?

Don't know, don't care. If you are making the claim that DUE PROCESS should not be observed, I would counter that such a claim would make you a TOTALITARIAN. The irony.

The star chamber's ruling is all but certain, he'll be found guilty, and have to pay the court costs of both himself and the complainant plus damages.

SO YOU ADMIT THERE IS NO RULING.

**** off, again. Jesus christ.

I've got a wakeup call to you Asher, these are star chambers. What is to stop the Islamic Conference from saying that gay pride parades are equally offensive to their religion and shutting them down?

NO ONE HAS SHUT DOWN ANYTHING HERE.

And I honestly don't give a **** if they shut down gay pride parades.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who is prosecuting? Show me a factual link from an independent source that the government of Canada is prosecuting Steyn.

The commissions, which are a part of the government of Canada (here's a hint, who cuts their cheques), are prosecuting steyn.

I'm not sure why you have difficulty with this concept. I don't care how many op-ed pieces by right-wing shills you quote, it doesn't matter.

Fine. Then tell me a source that meets your criteria as reliable.

Otherwise stop *****ing about the people who wrote it.

Islamic congress.

Thank you Asher. Now, why are you claiming I don't know the facts of the case?

Don't know, don't care. If you are making the claim that DUE PROCESS should not be observed, I would counter that such a claim would make you a TOTALITARIAN. The irony.

I'm arguing that the courts do not follow due process, not that the process of due process should not be followed.

Is anyone else having trouble following my argument here or is it just Asher as usual?

Nobody's asking you to post in this thread. The fact that the thread causes you so much anger and frusteration is a sign to me that I'm right over the target here.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, you've never said that until now.

How can I contest something you've never said before?

Read the ****ing thread, I've said it multiple times.

No, I don't contest that fact at all. I am asserting that the outcome is all but certain, given the previous cases and their outcomes.

So you are saying BC's HRC will rule in favour of the Islamic congress given that Ontario's HRC ruled against?

Well, I'm sorry Asher. Our civil liberties are under assault here in Canada

Our CIVIL LIBERTIES will be under assault once you get your way and disband human right commissions and stop the process of human rights complaints. As of now, our civil liberties are being observed.

and you are happy because it's the people you disagree with that tend to be prosecuted. Some folks have more foresight to see that civil liberties are not solely the property of liberals.

Oh, you're so ****ed.

Do you think I'm a fan of Islam? Really? Islam is more of an "enemy" to homosexuality than Christianity is, for christ sakes. Islamic nations openly execute children for suspected homosexuality. I am in no way on "their side", nor did I ever say if I even disagreed with the guy's article.

The difference here is YOU are the one that wishes to trample on civil liberties by revoking people's right to raise complaints to human rights commissions.

Is it? Find a source that says otherwise.

You want me to find a source to say that the HRC hasn't ruled and there's no censorship going on here? What the FLYING **** is wrong with you.

No action yet.

Why the HELL did you just ask me for a source when you just NOW admitted there is "No action yet" indicating THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP GOING ON indicating MY STATEMENT WAS CORRECT.

Holy ****.