Zero sum.

LawIsCool: Correct us if we’re wrong, but you’re reading our site from a California Department of Justice computer in Sacramento. We have a name, address, your real e-mail address (as opposed to the one provided), direct telephone number, and how long you appear to have worked there as well, but we would never disclose such information publicly.

Can we assume you are a lawyer too, or at least work in a legal-related capacity?

If so, then your statement would be self-referential.

Let’s modify your rules slightly and suggest that law is not always zero sum. Some examples we can think of immediately include Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), arbitration, mediation, negotiation, and policy work.

We like this game, and that’s why we find it pretty cool.

LawIsCool: We’re waiting too, so that you can actually direct your inquiries to the people directly involved, instead of people commenting on it.

The word “freedom” generally means that there are no limits, lawiscool. The best argument against your foolishness (and the foolishness of the HRC) is the fact that certain individuals/committees within these HRC-like outfits (or the govt) get to decide what is “hateful” and thus “against the law”. Very slippery slope, buddy. How in the heck can anyone define that when it is technically possible for every single human being on this planet to have a different opinion on such things?

No wonder we took many of your hockey clubs away from you, and left you with curling and the occasional Steve Nash charity hoops game……Canada deserved it for establishing ridiculous institutions like the HRC.

LawIsCool:

Yes, you are correct – this is a uniquely Canadian institution.

We don’t mind your disdain, just understand that our definition of freedom is different that yours.

And we proudly proclaim that we have a longer history of protecting minorities from unbridled freedom of speech than the U.S., although we could do more for other minorities such as Native Americans. Their experience of American freedoms hasn’t been so positive, nor have that of African-Americans, or Hispanics.

Think that will never happen? Karma’s a bitch.

LawIsCool: Actually, we think that’s exactly what happened, which is what all the fuss is about.
Our views here are not homogeneous in any respect, so that line of reasoning is futile.

The most egregious accusation against Steyn is that he had the temerity to quote a European Muslim whose remark that had the unintended consequence of dehumanizing his co-religionists. How could this possibly be a crime.

If you have your way, there will come a time very soon in Canada that scholarly expositions of Islamic theological intolerance – i.e., a critical reading of certain passages in the Quran and the Hadith – will be criminalized as hate speech. It’s time for YOU to awaken!

LawIsCool: That would be considered retaliation for a human rights complaint, and we’re glad we have such intent openly expressed. It is not being considered a crime, i.e. in a criminal court, yet. But who knows how the complainants might proceed? (Better to ask them).

I heard about it from BigCityLiberal…

“We’ve simply been supportive of the issue, and feel that there is enough substantive content to justify a tribunal review.”

I’m afraid I’m unhappy with the whole way the tribunal process works.

I appreciate your responses, and I’ll try to avoid taking up anymore of your time. Thanks.

If it’s the process you object to, there are avenues to address that within the system.
We actually enjoyed the discussion with you; it’s probably the first we’ve had on the subject that was actually intelligent and civilized. Thank you for hopefully demonstrating to others the way it should be done. Then again, you did come here from BigCityLiberal…

My concern about the way the Canadian legal system treats freedom of speech goes back to the 1980’s when gay/lesbian/feminist bookstores had books seized for being obscene or demeaning. The details of the HRC are relatively new, and disturbing, to me. The rest of your statements are predicated upon the idea that I support Mr. Steyn’s and Mr. Levant’s comments, which I don’t. I also don’t support Sunera Thobani’s comments, but I wouldn’t want her censored either. Is there litmus test for freedom of speech that I wasn’t aware of?

Why are they new to you now? Do you actually have a Tribunal case of gay literature from the 80’s? Cases we have found seem to protect homosexual rights.
We predicate our idea on the basis that you heard of HRC through Steyn supporters, and therefore read their material, in some way at least linking you to them.
Yes, there are “litmus tests” of sorts. See the many case excerpts we have posted on the site. Go further back.

With regards to Mr. Chomsky’s quote, you should really consider the whole quote rather than just a subset, “If you’re in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

You assume we despise Steyn’s speech (despise is a strong word.). But we feel equally the same for neo-Nazis, or other groups that create contempt for minorities in Canada, or child porn for that matter. You never did respond to that limit of freedom of speech and say you are in favour of it.

You despise Steyn/Levant’s views, so you want them censored. Ergo, you’re not in favor of free speech. It appears that the complaints against them are all about politics, and the your own blog tends to support that, and so do your backhanded accusations against me. The thing that I find so depressing about the whole process is the way in which people who should be fighting censorship, to defend everyone, seem enticed by it’s power.

Actually, no, we’ve never said that anywhere here. Again, please distinguish this site from the complainants in the case.
We’ve simply been supportive of the issue, and feel that there is enough substantive content to justify a tribunal review. The opposition we’ve found towards this sentiment has only reinforced that conclusion, as it has with many of our peers – an entire generation of lawyers.

From looking at the links you provided ( http://lawiscool.com/2008/01/10/even-jihadists-have-the-right-of-free-speech/, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/, http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry071218-085900, http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/09/21/4519835-sun.html, http://lawiscool.com/2008/01/06/murphy-challenges-steyn-on-human-rights/)

LawIsCool: Good job. Keep looking, there are more.

I can see that you are pretty darn consistent…in supporting censorship. All of those links are arguing in favor a censorship because the target is a bigot, a jerk, or a hypocrite. All of which are irrelevant to whether you believe in freedom of speech. In fact, those links show quite clearly the danger of censorship in that the dislike of the person being censored is used as a primary argument in defense of the censorship. The one leftist mentioned, Sunera Thobani, is being offered as a bizarre fig leaf to defend the censorship. As if the charges made against her somehow justified the law (although I’ll note they were quickly dropped). In my opinion, it’s simply another example of why the HRC is wrong. Ms. Thobani never should have even been charged.

If censorship in your definition means limits on freedom of speech in preventing promotion of hatred, then yes. This is completely consistent with Canadian law. We do believe in the rule of law, and the manner in which it defines free speech.
We’re assuming you don’t believe in child pornography? (If you do, we have some people in red uniforms and funny hats that we’re on good terms with that would love to visit you). The point is that there are limits, and in this case you fail to see the limits because you are probably the one being limited.
Ms. Thobani’s supporters did not call for disbanding of the CHRC, especially not before it had even gone before review.
If you truly have faith in the system, then believe Maclean’s will be vindicated.

The other argument you seem to be making is that there is a lot of precedent in Canada to the HRC actions. That may be true, but it’s still not a real defense of the HRC nor is it proof that you believe in freedom of speech, it’s simply an indication that this is a tragedy with a long history behind it. That’s not something to celebrate, it’s something to lament.

Perhaps, for you.

But the question still remains: Why are you all worked up about it right now?
Where was your opposition to it a year ago, or more, when it was other perspectives that were targeted?

Again, we claim that the Chomsky quote is most applicable to people like yourselves, who are only rallied up currently out of personal offense, and not any principled belief in free speech.

Once you strip away all the BS about “incitement” (as if there is a danger that one will read Maclean’s and then charge out into the street with a gun) the case is obviously about the state censoring an opinion it doesn’t like. Pure and simple. You *like* the power of censorship and so you’ll accept any justification to use it as long as you control it. You like the politics of the HRC so you approve what it’s doing without caring about the process or precedent. You’re eagerly grasping for the whip to keep trouble makers in line.

What happens when somebody decides abortion is genocide? Or the Koran is banned for containing thought-crimes (there’s some nasty stuff about women/christians/jews in there)? The same arguments you’re using now to defend the case against Maclean’s could be used against things you care about in the future.

LawIsCool: We agree entirely with the Chomsky quote, and liken opponents to the Maclean’s case more to Goebbels than anyone else. We have previously established limits to free speech that apply to other communities and ideologies (views on abortion abound, and the case is established by the SCC; the other example you cite is largely due to misunderstandings out of context promoted by people like Steyn).

Take some time, look around, and you will see how many different opinions we have here. We’re consistent in that there is freedom of speech, but limits that apply to everyone within those freedoms.

LawIsCool: One which others from another areas of the political spectrum have patiently endured.
But nobody called for disbanding of Human Rights Tribunals then, or claimed free speech was being stifled.
If the complaint against Maclean’s is without grounds (which seems unlikely at this point) then he has nothing to worry about. Any “punishment” afforded to him in the process is largely self-endured and minimal (relative to criminal law cases), as nobody would have even heard of the case had he not protested so loudly.