Canada's Star Chambers

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Exactly. In the US a judge rules before a trial as to whether or not the proposed case meetstheminimum for a hearing. It is called DUE process.

In the US, you can't sue someone over an editorial, unless there is libel. This case should be a non-starter.

This isn't a lawsuit though and it's not a legal issue. So it is not handled the same way.

The due process for such complaints are they need to be raised infront of the Human Rights Commission, which will review the case. This is what is going on now.

There's nothing totalitarian about it. It's by this process that human rights in Canada start. For instance, if there were a case where religious people felt they were being persecuted, it could end up infront of the HRC as well in the same manner.

It also appears that if you don't like the decision in Ontario you can take it up in BC, and I would then assume any province or territory.

The reason they moved it was because of jurisdiction alone, it's not a case of going to each province.

Further, this isn't being charged with a crime so "douple jeopardy" doesn't come into play either...

Let me make this clear because I don't think you comprehend this. This is not a prosecution or a criminal offense. What it is is a citizen group who feel their human rights are being infringed upon. In such cases, it goes before the human rights commission to determine if this is or is not the case. This is all.

To me, this is a GOOD thing. It is not a symptom of a totalitarian state to have a commission whose purpose is to ensure human rights are being respected, as much as Ben tries to argue and twist things.

[Deity Dude]

What power does HRC have and what sentence can they impose? Can they imprison, can they fine? Just curious.

I know it's not a criminal prosecution, it seems more like equivalent of a civil case in the US.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
What power does HRC have and what sentence can they impose? Can they imprison, can they fine? Just curious.

I know it's not a criminal prosecution, it seems more like equivalent of a civil case in the US.

It is neither.

The human rights commission:

investigates complaints, attempts to facilitate a resolution between the parties if appropriate and refers matters for which a resolution cannot be found to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which holds hearings and hands down rulings.

The Tribunal:

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body established in 1977 by the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is directly funded by the Parliament of Canada and is independent of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which refers cases to it for adjudication under the Act.

The Tribunal holds hearings to investigate complaints of discriminatory practices and may order a respondent to a complaint to cease a practice as well as levy fines.[1]

Its decisions can be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada which can also issue and enforce decisions made by the CHRT if violations continue and imprison an offender for contempt of court if a decision continues to be disregarded. This has happened in the cases of John Ross Taylor in 1981 and Tomasz Winnicki in 2006.

So the commission directs to the tribunal, at which case a "trial" is actually started. At which point it can be appealed up to the federal courts, all the way up to the supreme court.

Ben paints the HRC as a "Star Chamber", but they're not even CLOSE to being like one.

[Arrian]

From the article in the OP:

The Canadian Islamic Congress has instigated three separate proceedings under three separate human rights codes against a 102-year-old national magazine over the publication of an excerpt from a book, thereby inviting the tribunals to trespass upon free-press rights well beyond their competence. British Columbia's human rights tribunal has already scheduled hearings for next June.

This entire escapade is not just a threat to Maclean's and Steyn specifically but to journalists generally, and also to pamphleteers, bloggers and just about anyone who might occasionally express a public opinion on a subject of public interest. It also threatens to invite the wrath of the Supreme Court of Canada, which should be expected if Maclean's and Steyn find themselves forced to fight this all the way up. The result could cause great harm to the credibility and the legal clout of human rights tribunals across the country.

=! Totalitarian State. Not even close.

Disturbing? A bit - I'm curious now to see how this plays out. It's clear that Steyn's a bit of a loon, but it also seems pretty clear he hasn't violated Muslim human rights. I'd like to see how the tribunals rule, and (depending on how they rule), what happens then.

You know what this is, Ben? This is a civil society trying to work **** out. It is entirely possible that some things need to be changed, because they're not quite right now. That is a long, long, long way from "totalitarianism."

Which you know full ****ing well.

-Arrian

[Asher]

BTW, contrary to Ben's statements above that this poor loon is paying for everything out of his own pocket, Macleans (the magazine who published his article) is the one funding the defense, not the columnist.

Further, the punishment would be an article in an upcoming issue of Macleans:

If Maclean's is found to have violated BC's Human Rights Code, it could face sanctions, including payment to the complainant "an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them." However, Faisal has stated that he only wants the Tribunal to order Maclean's to publish "an appropriate response."[4]

The Tribunal's hearing concluded on June 8, 2008. A ruling is pending.[5]

[Slade Wilson]

I notice all counter replies conveniently ignore the 100% conviction rate of the star chambers and rules obviously designed to assist in conviction.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
I notice all counter replies conveniently ignore the 100% conviction rate of the star chambers and rules obviously designed to assist in conviction.

That's not an argument. If it happens, we'll see. Basically, there's nothing at all to complain about until the Supreme Court rules one way or another.

And these are not star chambers, nor do they have any real power. They're low-end quasi-courts that filter cases before they go to the real courts, really.

What the commissions rule before in unrelated cases has no bearing on this argument. This isn't the case of "conveniently ignoring" them, it's the case of having the intelligence to recognize unrelated nonsense and ignoring it as such. Additionally, it's my understanding that Ben (or his unbiased, op-ed sources) are misrepresenting the number. The "100% conviction rate" only refers to section 13, or "hate speech", as far as I know. And the reason for that is quite obvious -- the kind of **** that makes it all the way to the tribunal for "hate speech" is typically blatant (like the neo-nazi a couple years back).

[Slade Wilson]

So your only response is to ignore it.

Its quite obvious that with that success rate, whatever they are, they have been setup to obtain convictions or have rules that result in convictions. Likely the only way to avoid conviction would be to avoid being there. That this has a prohibiting effect is apparently not realized.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
So your only response is to ignore it.

Its quite obvious that with that success rate, whatever they are, they have been setup to obtain convictions or have rules that result in convictions. Likely the only way to avoid conviction would be to avoid being there. That this has a prohibiting effect is apparently not realized.

As I've said. This isn't relevant, you guys are trying to predict based on past performance which is simply not the facts as we know it today. Maybe I'm bat**** crazy for living in the world of now with the known facts, but so be it.

As I've said, the "hate speech" cases the HRT sees are stuff like Neo-Nazis posting things asking for all jews to be killed on the internet.

THIS CASE is very much different. It's not "hate speech" (section 13, the "100% conviction rate" one you speak of which is only 1 of 3 sections that is at play here) in the sense that they typically see. This is a far more thorny issue, I wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way. What I do know is, what they rule now is meaningless.

I can see this climbing its way to the supreme court before anything happens. Frankly, anyone mentioning "100% conviction rate" in this context has no real argument to stand on because it refers to cases different than this one and only in the context of a low-end quasi-court which really doesn't have a lot of power.

[Slade Wilson]

Im not arguing the OPs article point, except that 100% rates cannot occur in a fair and unbiased system. I would agree if you said 99% rate is no indicator of future success....but 100% is a good indicator of rigging.

Like i said before, this has a suppressive effect giving a clear message that people making comments along those lines will be in hot water.

[Asher]

100% is an indicator of small sample size and bone-head easy cases.

Have you noticed that the claims of "100% conviction rate" actually never mention the sample sizes?

[Ben Kenobi]

What power does HRC have and what sentence can they impose? Can they imprison, can they fine? Just curious.

I know it's not a criminal prosecution, it seems more like equivalent of a civil case in the US.

It's not reviewable, nor can you appeal. They cannot imprison, but they can confiscate property and they can fine. They can garnish wages, etc until the fine is paid.

[Ben Kenobi]

As I've said. This isn't relevant, you guys are trying to predict based on past performance which is simply not the facts as we know it today.

The facts are that the cases have a 100 percent conviction rate, of those that go to trial.

As I've said, the "hate speech" cases the HRT sees are stuff like Neo-Nazis posting things asking for all jews to be killed on the internet.

Some cases have been about that, but there have been others. Ever hear about Ezra Levant?

THIS CASE is very much different. It's not "hate speech" (section 13, the "100% conviction rate" one you speak of which is only 1 of 3 sections that is at play here) in the sense that they typically see. This is a far more thorny issue, I wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way. What I do know is, what they rule now is meaningless.

Why is it meaningless. Even if Steyn wins, he'll be out several hundred thousand dollars that his defense has cost him over the last 6 months. That is a deterrant to everyone else who shares his opinions. If Steyn loses, it will fund many more challenges, and set a precedent for future restrictions on freedom.

I can see this climbing its way to the supreme court

It's not reviewable Asher. These are 'quasi-judicial' courts. They are not linked to the rest of the system, and they cannot be appealed. Steyn can't take it up to the Supremes, because the Supremes have no jurisdiction over the Human Rights Commissions.

because it refers to cases different than this one and only in the context of a low-end quasi-court which really doesn't have a lot of power.

Again, are you aware that this case is not isolated, and that there have been plenty of other defendents like Stephen Boissoin and Ezra Levant, just to use Alberta as an example. Are you calling Mr. Levant a neo-nazi?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not an argument. If it happens, we'll see. Basically, there's nothing at all to complain about until the Supreme Court rules one way or another.

Great argument, except that these are not regular courts. The commissioners are not judges as they do not have the same training or the same responsibilities. They also cannot be subject to judicial review, overruled by a higher court, and the fines the levy cannot be appealed.

What the commissions rule before in unrelated cases has no bearing on this argument. This isn't the case of "conveniently ignoring" them, it's the case of having the intelligence to recognize unrelated nonsense and ignoring it as such.

Is Mr. Levant a Neo-nazi? I'll post his video of the proceedings if you continue this line of argumentation. Or, you could concede the point and we'll move on.

Additionally, it's my understanding that Ben (or his unbiased, op-ed sources) are misrepresenting the number. The "100% conviction rate" only refers to section 13, or "hate speech", as far as I know. And the reason for that is quite obvious -- the kind of **** that makes it all the way to the tribunal for "hate speech" is typically blatant (like the neo-nazi a couple years back).

Again, you seem to be saying that all the others, except for Mr. Steyn are hateful neo-nazis spouting racist rhetoric. Yet the question remains. First of all, if they only prosecute neo nazis, how is it that Steyn was charged in the first place. Secondly, it stands to reason that if the Islamic Council filed a complaint about Steyn, that they have filed other complaints previously.

Are you saying that the complaint against Steyn is the very first one filed by the Islamic Council?

[Ben Kenobi]

However, Faisal has stated that he only wants the Tribunal to order Maclean's to publish "an appropriate response."

I'm glad you posted that Asher.

Faisal wants them to publish articles for the equal length that Steyn has been permitted to publish as a paid columnist.

In other words, they want to become the editors of Macleans for an issue. I would love to see the muslims file a complaint to say Xtra west and ask in lieu of fines that they be allowed to publish a version of Xtra west that talks all about Muhammed and his hadiths, and how gay people deserve to be stoned.

Yes, Faisal's request is entirely appropriate, and a clear cut violation of freedom of speech.