The B.C. Tribunal has a process for getitng rid of frivolous complaints – which they did not use becasue as the lawyer for Mclean’s himself told me, the case was not frivolous. Horse’s mouth.

Agree with you on the international effort to make insulting a religion a free speech violation. But that is not what we are talking about in the Maclean’s case. It may have been in the Alberta case – the right response is to turf those cases – not to get rid of protections that may be important in the real thing.

I do make a distinction between the nutbars and free absolutists.I make it all the time, for heaven’s sake. I don’t know why you keep tying to say otherwise.

But there are nutbars out there and reporting on what they have been up to is fair game.

As for the “countless” liberals who support repeal, I have not met them. One, actually. Maybe you could intoduce me to the others?

Keith Martin is normally a sensible guy but has lost it on this. He barely won his seat. He will milk / has milked this issue for all it is worth. And by the way, Martin actively misleads Canadians on his web site about HRCs not being accountable to parliament (they are, in law) and the ridiculous statement that HRC’s have a “100% rate” of success (well closer to 10 % overall, but who is counting?). As for the low process nonsense – even Moon who is a free speech supporter bordering on absolute says that the mischaraterizations of commission process are shocking.

The RWB study said that the level of free press went up in Canada this year not down – it is a meta level test and certainly a better starting point than no factual base whatsoever.

“I agree that some of the attacks on the complainants have been over the top, but frankly proponents of s. 13 havent shown much more decorum. Anyone who opposes the provision is linked to neo-nazis which is ridiculous.”

KC,

…since almost all of the substantive arguments for CHRC abuses came directly from neo-nazi sources, and since these were often regurgitated wholesale by people who really ought to have known better, what is wrong with pointing that out? For the record, I usually argued that those arguing against section 13 were “suckered” by neo-Nazis, not themselves neo-Nazis.

Also ask yourself: why, if the people arguing against HRCs were so sure of their arguments, was it necessary for them to go bring up all of these ridiculous charges of abuse and then sanitize the source of these charges?

- I dont know how a study can prove that there has been no chilling effect. The gross numbers on reporting dont show much other than that there has been a spike in interest. How many editors declined to publish legitimate stories because of this process? Point me to those studies.

- Editors screening for libel is a much different process. The standard for libel is much clearer. If something is true you are more or less in the clear. The standard for hate is different, and relies on the use of very ambiguous and subjective terms and concepts.

- I dont accept that hate speech laws can’t transform into blasphemy laws. In fact there is a considerable international movement right now led by the OIC that seems to blend the concepts of hate and blasphemy in a disturbingly Orwellian fashion. The complaint against Ezra Levant was no doubt a hybrid, if not mostly a complaint about blasphemy.

- That the CHRC did not consider the complaints frivilous (the BC HRT never opined on the matter I dont believe) is disturbing in and of itself, although I take some solace that it never made it to the commission.

- You can keep suggesting that opposing HRC jurisdiction over speech is still a far right issue but the facts say otherwise. The resolution at the Conservative convention was not a nail biter. It was an almost unprecedented blowout. The resolutions on crimes against pregnant women, etc. were far narrower. Keith Martin may not speak for the Liberal Party but countless other Liberals agree with him–whether they acknowledge it publicly or not. Im personally a card carrying member of that part. Remember that the CPC has 143 seats in the new house (effectively 145 with the two independants). It only takes 10 members to pass a bill from other parties. This issue has gone mainstream. Not that I favour such a process, but if I had to guess I would suspect a referenda on the issue would be a blowout against the provision.

- Last time I checked this was still a liberal democratic society (although some days I have to wonder) not some collectivist utopia. If you dont like the reigning orthodoxy of the mainstream media the obligation is on you as an individual to speak louder. I can agree that perhaps some action is needed to limit media ownership concentration but any direct state action to ‘uncorner’ the marketplace of ideas or bring ‘balance’ will not fly in our political culture.

On your progress/ “flip side” argument – whomever that is directed at – there is no evidence of a chilling effect. First, reporting and blogging on the subject has actually gone up not down. Seocnd, Reporters without borders ranked Canada ahead of both the UK and the US this year on its free speech index. Third, I don’t think editors having to screen for human rights violations is any more unacceptable than it is for libel or any of the other acts of due diligence that reputable publishers have to undertake.

Speech that incites hate and discrimination is not the same thing as a blasphemy law.

As for whether the complainants’ case was frivolous, both the CHRC and BC tribunal had the opportunity to speak on this matter and both came down quite differently than you. Saying that a case does not meet the legal threshold of hate speech is a far cry from being frivolous. McLean’s could have tried to kick out the case as frivolous on a preliminary basis in BC – they did not even try because they knew they would lose, according to their lawyer whom I interviewed. Maybe you know something I don’t.

My point on the CPC is that this party is moving to the right and revealing its colours. This resolution and a couple of others show it. People may agree – and so be it – But it represents an opportunity for the centre and left.

Keith Martin’s views do not represent the Liberal Party of Canada, to the best of my knowledge, and there is a reason the party did not speak out in support of his motion. Which, by the way, you can’t find on his web site, let alone on the site of the Party. Martin is generally a pretty sensible guy, but not on this issue.

The need for discrimination-based hate laws is not marginal! I certainly agree with that – but it has gained prominence thanks to a concerted media campaign from outlets with a direct interest in the outcome. The free market of ideas has been cornered, at the expense of even a modicum of balance or accuracy about the current process.

That is what needs to be fixed. We can debate the rest.

I’m sorry but this is not a fringe issue anymore. It may have been at one point but it has gone mainstream–in part because these complainants brought what appears to many people (even supporters of s. 13) to be a frivilous complaint. Voices in support of s. 13 seem quite rare these days. Prime Minister Harper–to his credit–was years ahead of us all on this matter. I think there are the votes in the House of Commons to repeal s. 13. The only question is whether or not Harper has the will, and whether Dion will whip the vote. Even if he did I dont think he has the political capital to keep his members in line.

- The flip side of the “progress” you see in publishers looking at the things they publish through a “human rights” lense is the chill that might bring to legitimate topics of discussion. For instance the role of religion (minority OR majority religion) and organized religious groups on state policy and civil society are legitimate topics of discussion that may not receive the coverage they deserve because publishers are fearful of prosecution. I think Rob Breakridge put it best:

Yes, religion is one of the defined groups to which protection from discrimination is granted, but somewhere along the line an important distinction became blurred, or erased outright.

If we can no longer make that distinction, then any critique of any religion is off limits — it becomes a de facto blasphemy law.”

- I think its ludicrous to characterize the suppression of expression as a merely administrative task. This isnt like whether or not a business hires minorities. Our views go to the heart of who we are, and limited as the right to free expression may be it deserves the same level of due process and standard of proof as any criminal offense.

- Im not accusing anyone of linking absolutists and extremists. Im accusing some proponents of s. 13 of linking absolutists and moderates who see this as a debate about the proper procedures, standards and venue for dealing with hate speech. I havent heard many arguments in favour of the HRC process is that its “hard” to make out the criminal offence. Boo hoo. So is proving murder, theft, terrorism, etc. Should we hand those matters over to administrative tribunals?

- Like I said, I look to the courts for law, not values. Im not an idiot. I went to law school too and I know that the courts have set limits on free expression–some I agree with, some I dont. I’ve actually read Blencoe (although I dont see what it has to do with expression). I’ve also read Taylor, Zundel, Keegstra and various other cases on hate speech. In terms of values I find myself agreeing with the dissenters in Taylor and I actually consider that to be “at risk” jurisprudence given the narrow margin. I just dont know why proponents keep making the argument that “free expression is limited in Canada”. Yes, we know that. Move on.

My position, and that of various others (Keith Martin, Allan Borovoy to name a few) is that yes there is a line where free speech must yield to societies interest in preventing hate but that line has been wrongly drawn by the courts and the legislatures.

While e-hate and blog bullies are part of the debate, they are an under-reported aspect. What I have done is to get a dialogue going on the real threats and attacks on human rights activists in the context of this debate. Most of the readers I have been in contact with have been unaware that this was even going on. There have been criminal prosecutions and arrests. The least offensive have led to successful libel suits. These are, by the way the “real world” of law practice – not a theoretical “bubble.”

I find it incredible that Canadians should accept this type of behaviour from anyone – left or right – and yes comparable behaviour on the other side of the debate is equally unacceptable.

Second, KC seems to suggest that I am conflating the extremists with free speech absolutists. That suggests that either KC has not read the piece or is reading every third page. Free speech absolutists are obviously in a different category. But I think they are wrong headed, and part of what my article tries to get at is the critiques brought by this second group and to see if they are valid. I don’t think they are but at least a reasonable debate can be had with some of these people. What I object to here is that the debate should be able to be achieved without lying about human rights commissions, mischaracterizing the legislative record, or spinning tribunal decisions so fancifully that they become unrecognizable.

Finally, the evidence of what has been posted on blog sites by even free speech absolutists of the milder variety shows genocidal comments, either out of laziness in screening or a desire to pump up the attention levels.

For all their bluster, my sense from the media I have debated on this question is that editors and senior news staff are starting to ask themselves the question, not only about libel but also about whether a piece will expose the paper to litigation on the human rights front. They may not like it, but it is part of the publishing business, and is progress.

Finally it is no accident that the Conservative party of Canada has opted for repealing s. 13. That shows the influence of the reform wing, and their lack of understanding of or interest in Canada’s international law commitments and the Supreme Court’ record. And KC’s notion of batting the issue back to criminal courts suggests that what HRCs do is somehow criminal in nature if not in form. That is completely wrong. I would encourage a reading of the SCC Blencoe case for starters.

That is certainly a good point, and I just want to clarify that neither I nor (I presume) the guest on the show meant to insinuate that all opponents or detractors of HRCs are Neo-Nazis. Her point, at least as I understand it, is that having such controversial and radical people publicly coming down on one side of the issue might hinder the credibility of others on that same side. This may or may not be a valid inference to draw, but I think that her point was just that the visible public support of certain groups might hinder rather than help the cause.

We tried to schedule an alternative perspective on the subject, but nobody we approached was willing to go on the record. We have had a difficult time finding anyone other than Alan Borovoy raising considerable issue with HRCs before 2007 besides neo-Nazis, but we would welcome the resources if you have them on hand.

And there are still a few places on this site where you haven’t commented on the subject.