Oh, I forgot to add one point, making something else clear: the various provincial Human Rights Commissions do not in fact levy fines that end up in government revenues, they levy compensation payments to individuals (not groups) that can show that discrimination caused them actual damages. In the Levant case, the complainant is trying to claim that publishing the cartoons caused him, as a descendant of Mohammed apparently, actual damages. Pretty thin, actually. But then so are a lot of civil court case claims; the difference here being that the complaint is a lot cheaper to make since everything is pro se.

Though, once again, let me make it clear that I think that the whole business is a bad idea in theory, and pretty much screwed up in practise; stupid and inefficient, though not, in my experience, perverse in outcome.

I tried to make it clear, but obviously I did not spell it out clearly enough, and a lot of you, including Glenn, seem to have bought Mr. Levant's trumped-up bullshit version because it makes a lovely ideological point.

True, hate-crime speech is on the books in the Canada's Criminal Code. This is unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with THIS story whatsoever; Mr Levant has not been charged with anything by the government. Glenn's update has absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of the Levant case; fine if you want to argue about criminalizing speech, I fully agree, but the Levant case is not an example of this.

What has happened is that a fellow citizen has alleged that Mr. Levant's actions have caused him material harm (which is pretty dubious to put it mildly), and is seeking redress from the Human Rights Commission because the actions were based on discrimination and hate (which has some basis, though more accurately it might better be described as grandstanding and provocation). As in any other tort type civil case, if the matter did go to a hearing, he would have to prove that actual harm was done, and if he could, he would receive compensation for that damage (no punitive damages, just the actual harm done) from Mr. Levant. Who, if he refused to pay, would have recourse to the regular court system (which is actually absurd to talk about, we are are way way beyond hypothetical here).

Because a citizen has laid a complaint alleging harm by another citizen, the government is compelled to investigate, to determine if there are any substantive matters in the dispute, and if there are, attempt to mediate them, and failing that, conduct a public (yes public) hearing. Contrary to Mr. Levine's version, at no time is any party to the dispute compelled to meet with the investigator/mediator. They even let him video tape it, and will not sanction him in any way for posting the video.

Mr. Levine likes to hear his own voice, and like many neocons, loves to present himself as the victim of persecution by political correctness run amok, and, (I kid you not) in particular the victim of persecution by Muslims (who are of course all violent extremists). He is aided in portraying himself thusly by the grandiose name the Commission has, even though it in practise does not amount to not much more than a equal opportunity office or some such.

Many ludicrous and frivolous civil law-suits are laid in the US too, often on politically charged matters. The Commission just provides a venue where those who cannot afford a lawyer can have a hearing, if and only if in the opinion of Commission investigating/mediating staff there is a case.

How Clear Can I Make This?

1. This is a government investigation of a complaint by a Canadian citizen, not an investigation/prosecution/witch-hunt by the government. Should not the government investigate allegations of hate causing harm?

2. This is about substantive damages (if any) to the complainant, not simply Mr. Levine's speech.

3. This was a voluntary meeting with an investigator/mediator, not a compulsory interrogation for thought-crime.

4. All proceedings of the Commission are public, not secret.

5. The sole sanction the Commission has is to order restitution for openly established damages, and this sanction is fully subject to the open rigours of an open civil court.

So, nice point about the noxious fruit of hate-speech laws, I fully agree. Too bad you got suckered into using such a terrible example to illustrate your point.