Letters to the Editor
-
Wish I'd seen this post and thread earlier
Not specifically familiar with the case (and don't usually deal with Alberta law), but a few quick points -
1) The Alberta "commission" is very likely obliged to investigate, although the initial focus of the investigation may be to determine whether the complaint is, for example, trivial, vexatious, filed in bad faith or inappropriate to be dealt with under the human rights law. It is very likely that it cannot simply dismissed without at least a basic review of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.
2) The "government agent" would have no authority to levy penalties - the "government agent" would simply be charged with fact-finding (or, perhaps, to mediate a settlement) and making a decision whether the complaint warrants a full hearing or whether it can be dismissed.
3) This likely would not have taken the form of a "hearing" and, as such, likely was intended to be private. Meeting with the "government agent" would be part of a process aimed at determining whether a hearing is warranted.
4) The penalties levied under human rights law in Canada pale in comparison to the damages available through anti-discrimination lawsuits in the US. Moreover, while I can't say for sure whether this is true in Alberta, in some provinces, complainants are restricted to complaining through the administrative law system, i.e., one cannot sue.
5) Don't get me wrong - human rights law in Canada is taken very, very seriously (it is considered to be quasi-constitutional in nature) and arguably the bureaucracy for enforcement can be heavy-handed. However, as someone who regularly becomes involved in the process - always trying to advocate on behalf of Respondents, i.e., those alleged to have infringed human rights law - while I might agree that the process can be improved, and I might agree that, generalizing, Canada tends to be err on the size of zeal in protection of human rights, in the final analysis, the Canadian approach and its "perniciousness" has been misrepresented in this piece as being something its not.
-
Stomach-Turning?
No way, that was awesome! Levant Pwned that beaurocrat!!
Now, that he had to report to adminster such a beat-down does twist my gizzards a bit, but the actual scene on the video was inspirational.
-
@Hans B
But perhaps instead of arguing who is more free (both sides have valid arguments) we should simply admit that all of us, in the US, in Canada and in Europe, are less free than we were ten years ago, and do something about it.
I don't believe I've argued anywhere that we in Europe are more free. I was argueing that Americans are less free to speek their mind as they think they are (see fighting words and imminint danger test, apart from all kinds of slander, libel and harassments laws). I was pointing out that Europe's limitations were an easy target because they are out there in the open in laws because of its civil law basis, while their limitations are hidden because they are established through jurisprudence.
I believe many people, including many legally trained people, have overlooked this very basic difference between both systems. European laws are debated in the open by democratically elected legislators. Some elements are to harsh to my liking, some have become outdated, some are to lax but in the end, this is what the electorate wanted. When the electorate decides that one element of the law is unjust, there are procedures to adapt it.
Adressing your concerns about Article 147-147a. Yes, I share them. To keep it into perspective, the last time it was used was in 1966 I believe and the complainant lost because the prosecution couldn't prove that the blasphemy was "malicious". I don't believe any Dutch judge nowadays is willing to rule on "malicious blasphemy" because the article would presume the judge has a factual knowledge who God is and isn't and what he feels or doesn't feel. How do we know if and when God is offended? I think you can imagine what the problem here is. The other articles have been covered in the hate speech laws so 147 and 147a have become obsolete in my opinion.
It also presumes that the state can make decisions in religious matters. That's a no no too. Because of these reasons, I would guess it is not used anymore plus that it will be thrown out in the not to distant future.
Personally, I see more of a fundamental conflict (and there is debate about that in the Netherlands) between "freedom of religion" and our hate speech and anti-discrimination laws. Several religious doctrines have some awful hateful articles and tenets of faiths and they hide behind them when justifying their opions or their behaviour.
The public opinion in the Netherlands favors debating things in the open instead of suppressing them, it actually is one of the stated causes for our liberal legislation. And it is that culture that to me is more important than any legislation.
I'm actually more concerned for the US about self-censorship. The battle-cry "think about the children!!!" paralysis a lot of free expression in my opinion.
-
Lord of the Flies
My main concern with an absolute interpretation of "freedom of expression" is a society that resembles a "Lord of the Flies" society.
Just imagine what would have happened if the war in Iraq had gone ‘smoothly’ and Katrina had hit Acapulco instead of NOLA. In what kind of atmosphere would the left be nowadays?
-
Interesting fact from Levant
He writes on his blog:
Officer McGovern claimed that sometimes human rights tribunals rule in favour of the accused. "We do find on both sides," she said, "in case you're interested." And later, "things can go either way, okay?"
But that simply isn't true. The federal Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate under their thought crime provision (section 13, the "hate messages" section, as it's called). But I can't find a single case of thought crime case that resulted in an acquittal in Alberta or federally. The Alberta commission has only heard one thought crime in recent years -- the Boissoin case that I mentioned -- and it was a conviction. I pointed that out, and noted that in the Boissoin case, hurt feelings were enough to convict the accused. No proof of discrimination or actual harm was needed (see paragraph 354 of that decision).