In Canada, Thought Police on the March

[William Joyce]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=all

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

 

[Toro]

Yeah, this is ridiculous.

In Canada, they have these quasi-judicial panels called "Human Rights Commissions," which are almost always made up of liberal appointees who usually bring politically correct judgments.

 

[Gungnir]

How can you force someone to issue a rebuttal?

At most they could make a person say:
"I retract statement x because it is considered class y, and class y is something that is illegal for me to say."

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=all

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

After the "anti-semitism police," now everyone wants to kill everyone else's free speech. This is crazy. I think that we would all be better off with "equal time- equal space" laws. Insult me for 1000 words, I get to insult you back for the same space!

 

[eots]

Police Planted Provocateurs, Protesters Say
by Joan Bryden
OTTAWA — The Mounties and Quebec provincial police deny using agents provocateurs at this week’s Montebello summit, despite incriminating video evidence that suggests undercover cops tried to incite violence.The denials yesterday did nothing to quell mounting outrage over police tactics. Anti-globalization and union activists joined with opposition politicians to demand an independent investigation.

They also questioned whether police were acting on orders from the Prime Minister’s Office and called on both Stephen Harper and Quebec Premier Jean Charest to denounce such tactics.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow[/ame]
SEE VIDEO

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Police Planted Provocateurs, Protesters Say
by Joan Bryden
OTTAWA — The Mounties and Quebec provincial police deny using agents provocateurs at this week’s Montebello summit, despite incriminating video evidence that suggests undercover cops tried to incite violence.The denials yesterday did nothing to quell mounting outrage over police tactics. Anti-globalization and union activists joined with opposition politicians to demand an independent investigation.

They also questioned whether police were acting on orders from the Prime Minister’s Office and called on both Stephen Harper and Quebec Premier Jean Charest to denounce such tactics.
YouTube - Stop SPP Protest - Union Leader stops provocateurs
SEE VIDEO

Haven't they done this before? I seem to remember something like that.....

 

[Diuretic]

Haven't they done this before? I seem to remember something like that.....

It could be the same incident. The one I'm thinking of is where the Surete officers were identified by their boots. It was pretty stupid and very amateurish.

 

[politicsezine]

I used to read Maclean's back in the 1990s... but they've slipped really badly in recent years and become very conservative. It really doesn't surprise me that they published hate propaganda...

Here's a tidbit: Canadian small town newspapers are a breeding ground for hate literature. Because of the white majority in rural neighbourhoods the crap written about in small town newspapers goes virtually unnoticed and its amazing that more newspapers aren't being shut down for publishing hate literature.

 

[Diuretic]

I used to read Maclean's back in the 1990s... but they've slipped really badly in recent years and become very conservative. It really doesn't surprise me that they published hate propaganda...

Here's a tidbit: Canadian small town newspapers are a breeding ground for hate literature. Because of the white majority in rural neighbourhoods the crap written about in small town newspapers goes virtually unnoticed and its amazing that more newspapers aren't being shut down for publishing hate literature.

What about the TO Sun?

 

[Canucklehead]

I used to read Maclean's back in the 1990s... but they've slipped really badly in recent years and become very conservative. It really doesn't surprise me that they published hate propaganda...

Here's a tidbit: Canadian small town newspapers are a breeding ground for hate literature. Because of the white majority in rural neighbourhoods the crap written about in small town newspapers goes virtually unnoticed and its amazing that more newspapers aren't being shut down for publishing hate literature.

What constitutes hate literature in your opinion?

Canada's hate speech laws are meant to stifle discrimination and inciting of violence against specific groups. I see some of the value to this. That being said...

If I were to become bigoted and say "I hate all Aboriginal Canadians.", I'm not inciting violence against them and that's the most important thing. It should be my right to say the above statement and it should be an Aboriginal Canadian's right to say "I hate all white people".

My point is the law should protect people from real threats, not from being offended. If I say something hateful, then by all means, denounce me as a jackass. It's your every right to do so. If you don't like my words, don't listen to them/don't read them. Or voice your concerns to me and depending on the legitimacy of your complaint, I may retract my statement or I may tell you to shove it. It all depends.

If my hypothetical bigotry denies a qualified Aboriginal Canadian a job (say I'm an employer), then that should also be discrimination and against the law and be a punishable offence.

But if I were to get up on a podium and say "Kill all Aboriginal Canadians", I SHOULD be locked up. I'm inciting violence against people and that should be a punishable crime.

I think the American take on it is too laissez-faire and I think the Canadian take on it is too strict and controlling and politically correct. I think the right course lays somewhere in the middle where the law protects everyone equally from real threats and not protecting from being offended.

 

[feduptaxpayer]

I used to read Maclean's back in the 1990s... but they've slipped really badly in recent years and become very conservative. It really doesn't surprise me that they published hate propaganda...

Here's a tidbit: Canadian small town newspapers are a breeding ground for hate literature. Because of the white majority in rural neighbourhoods the crap written about in small town newspapers goes virtually unnoticed and its amazing that more newspapers aren't being shut down for publishing hate literature.

What constitutes hate literature in your opinion?

Canada's hate speech laws are meant to stifle discrimination and inciting of violence against specific groups. I see some of the value to this. That being said...

If I were to become bigoted and say "I hate all Aboriginal Canadians.", I'm not inciting violence against them and that's the most important thing. It should be my right to say the above statement and it should be an Aboriginal Canadian's right to say "I hate all white people".

My point is the law should protect people from real threats, not from being offended. If I say something hateful, then by all means, denounce me as a jackass. It's your every right to do so. If you don't like my words, don't listen to them/don't read them. Or voice your concerns to me and depending on the legitimacy of your complaint, I may retract my statement or I may tell you to shove it. It all depends.

If my hypothetical bigotry denies a qualified Aboriginal Canadian a job (say I'm an employer), then that should also be discrimination and against the law and be a punishable offence.

But if I were to get up on a podium and say "Kill all Aboriginal Canadians", I SHOULD be locked up. I'm inciting violence against people and that should be a punishable crime.

I think the American take on it is too laissez-faire and I think the Canadian take on it is too strict and controlling and politically correct. I think the right course lays somewhere in the middle where the law protects everyone equally from real threats and not protecting from being offended.

Then I think it is high time to dump the Canadian Human Rights(Communist)Commission because it would appear that as a part of their mandate they are to go after people who just give an opinion or speak political incorrectness. We already have the Criminal Code that takes care of anyone who is trying to promote hatred or violence. We don't need to waste anymore taxpayer's dollars on a useless outfit like the HRC.

It is plain to see that the HRC was created to go after politically incorrect people who may have a different opinion or point of view to our elitist masters and their agendas. The way they carryon with things one could compare the HRC to Stalinist type communist thugs. In a free and democratic society, outfits like the HRC should not exist at all. The HRC should be abolished. Many honest Canadian men and women have been hounded and persecuted for their political opinions and points of view. When people fear government, it is tryanny. When government fears people, it is democracy. Canada today has become undemocratic.

 

[Middleman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=all

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

So, these Muslims have such delicate self-images that some words in a magazine will damage their "dignity, feelings and self-respect"?

They sound like they need therapy, frankly.