Ann Coulter cries that Canada is bullying her

[Asher]

A traffic court with significant financial penalties and where the prosecution is paid for but the defence not.

They are a foul brew of criminal and civil courts with busy-body bureaucrats.

What defense costs can there possibly be? I cannot fathom this.

You do not need a lawyer. If you're dumb, you'll hire one. But the penalties are less than legal costs.

Just show up, say your ****, be done with it. Don't listen to Ezra and don't be so dramatic.

[KrazyHorse]

Mark Steyn was never prosecuted.

I fixed the error. America doesn't have human rights commissions that can call you up to testify before they decide whether to prosecute you for hate speech or not, so I think my confusion is excusable.

HUAAC?

[Asher]

I don't care how bad the "bite" is. Canada is attacking free speech in ways that seem more and more unreal the more I learn about them.

So your issue was Mark Steyn and the HRC/HRT, when the HRC/HRT looked at the complaint then simply dismissed the issue, thereby protecting freedom of speech.

But you still have a problem with the HRC/HRT, even though they're clearly functioning in the example you cherrypicked?

[Drake Tungsten]

HUAAC?

I take it you mean HUAC? Fair point, but I think almost all Americans agree that was a bad idea. Canada could learn from our past mistakes.

So your issue was Mark Steyn and the HRC/HRT, when the HRC/HRT looked at the complaint then simply dismissed the issue, thereby protecting freedom of speech.

No, my original issue was with Canada prohibiting hate speech in the first place. Now, I also take issue with Canada setting up extra-legal commissions to deal with cases involving hate speech that shouldn't have been prohibited in the first place.

[notyoueither]

That would be hilarious, if so. The dude's a ****ing lawyer who specializes in HRC/HRT issues. Why would it cost him A DIME?

He's a publisher and an activist. I doubt he is an expert on any area of law.

Yes, he has a hate on for the HRCs, but you are being misleading in describing him as some sort of expert in arguing before them.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm actually on a mission to change the standard abbreviation. Both "American" and "Activities" are capitalized.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm actually on a mission to change the standard abbreviation.

Godspeed.

[Asher]

The only really sensible argument against the HRC/HRT system is the approach nye is taking: that the "prosecution" is paid for and the defense is not.

And I can see where he's coming from on this. I'm not sure how much the system costs to run each year, but perhaps it would be better if "defense costs" are covered as well.

I do like the idea of not wasting a real court's time (they're backlogged as it is), with (frankly) ****ty issues like this. They are not very common, they are not really court-centric type cases. There really should not be a whole lot of "prosecution" or "defense" going on. In a well-functioning system, a tribunal of experts (ex-judges, lawyers, etc) would look at the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court, as well as previous precedents, and decide if the case in question is in violation of that.

In cases like free speech, the only evidence there need be is evidence of the speech. Period.

I think there's room for a lot of optimization here. But in any case, so long as there's an appeals path up to the traditional court system, in terms of whether this is some kind of "dangerous" system, it's clearly not. The only possible issue that I see is that of unbalanced funding.

[Asher]

He's a publisher and an activist. I doubt he is an expert on any area of law.

Yes, he has a hate on for the HRCs, but you are being misleading in describing him as some sort of expert in arguing before them.

The guy has written the de-facto book on HRC/HRTs. It's literally published. http://www.amazon.ca/Shakedown-Gover...9577948&sr=8-1


He's practically the go-to expert on how they operate. He's obsessed over them almost his entire life.

If anything, he's monetarily gained from his HRC/HRT experience. It's the foundation for his book, it's the reason he got Coulter's attention, it's the reason he gets paid for interviews all the time. All of his whining about how much it cost him is, no doubt, a lie.

The man lacks integrity, having been sued successfully for libel among other things. He's a little ****.

[Drake Tungsten]

The only really sensible argument against the HRC/HRT system is the approach nye is taking: that the "prosecution" is paid for and the defense is not.

You never answered my question on hearsay. If the evidentiary standards in the HRC really are lower than in the court system (and allowing hearsay would be a serious lowering of those standards), that's easily the most ****ed up part of the HRC system.

[notyoueither]

What defense costs can there possibly be? I cannot fathom this.

You do not need a lawyer. If you're dumb, you'll hire one. But the penalties are less than legal costs.

Just show up, say your ****, be done with it. Don't listen to Ezra and don't be so dramatic.

Dude.

You get prosecuted because you hurt someone's feelings. Assuming the offended party gets the HRC to bite, they pay zero for the proceedings.

Once you are prosecuted you face significant fines. Your defence is on your own dime.

Ezra Levant was investigated for reprinting the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The fact that the HRC even looked at it is an indictment of the HRC system.

[Asher]

You never answered my question on hearsay. If the evidentiary standards in the HRC really are lower than in the court system (and allowing hearsay would be a serious lowering of those standards), that's easily the most ****ed up part of the HRC system.

I'm not sure about hearsay, but even if that was the case, it's not a big deal because the appeals path is straight to the court system.

[Asher]

Dude.

You get prosecuted because you hurt someone's feelings. Assuming the offended party gets the HRC to bite, they pay zero for the proceedings.

Once you are prosecuted you face significant fines. Your defence is on your own dime.

You face $10K in punitive fines. That's it. Another $20K in restorative fines if applicable, also.

How much does a lawyer cost? 300-400 bucks an hour or something ridiculous?

Do the math.

Everything I've read about the HRC/HRT shows there's very little need for a lawyer. If you say something, it either is or isn't hate speech.

If someone complained against me to the HRC, I would most definitely NOT hire a lawyer.

Ezra Levant was investigated for reprinting the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The fact that the HRC even looked at it is an indictment of the HRC system.

The HRC needs to look at everything. What would you suggest, they randomly select complaints?

The HRC is the filter before the HRT. They look into all complaints then decide which ones have merit. If you lawyer up at the HRC phase, you deserve to lose all of that money.

The Muhammad cartoon stuff never even went to a tribunal.

[Asher]

You also DO NOT get prosecuted because you "hurt someone's feelings".

If you make it to the tribunal, where any so-called "prosecution" would take place, then the person complaining has a good case. Which means you did more than "hurt someone's feelings", you may have broken the law.

So let's keep this debate honest. Let's not pretend like some ******* can point at you on the street and say you called him a _______ and suddenly your tens of thousands of dollars in the hole, because that's what you are apparently implying.

And what's the alternative to the HRC/HRT? A civil suit? How much does it cost to defend one of THOSE? Ask our friends in America, who love their civil litigation, how much better their alternative is.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not sure about hearsay, but even if that was the case, it's not a big deal because the appeals path is straight to the court system.

I've been looking and can't find any site claiming that hearsay isn't allowed in the HRC system. That's pretty ****ed up.