...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

Three strikes yer out: The Canadian Jewish Congress was wrong about the Danish Motoons (condemning their publication as being "inexcusably provocative”), wrong about wanting Queen’s Park to pay for religious schools (thereby funding sharia schools), and wrong, wrong, wrong, about using HRCs as a security blankie to “protect” Jews from hate (at the cost of our most crucial freedom—free expression). Here are the two guys who head up the outfit that claims to represent the interests of Canadian Jews, but which went off the rails some time ago, attempting to rationalize their devotion to Canada’s cockamamie kangaroo “courts,” an exercise which succeeds only in highlighting their own breathtaking—and sick-making—cluelessness. From the Halifax Chronicle Herald:

…In the past, the Canadian and provincial human rights commissions have played an important role in protecting Canadian society, and particularly its vulnerable minorities, from the corrosive effects of hate speech.

They have also historically been effective in breaking down barriers of discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity for all Canadians.

In the interest of full disclosure, we should note the Canadian Jewish Congress has made use of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on a number of occasions over the decades in order to protect the rights and security of the Jewish community when threatened by extremist racists and hatemongers. In our view, these individuals not only put our community at risk, but promoted a worldview that was antithetical to core Canadian values.

In some cases, our complaints were accepted and led to a human rights tribunal or to mediation; and in other cases, our complaints were denied. This is part of the process, and we accepted the outcomes.

But while we have always argued that the state has a fundamental role to play in protecting vulnerable minorities from hate speech and the harmful impact of hate, there have to be limits on the limitations.

Plainly put, it’s the responsibility of the human rights commissions to assess complaints as they are tendered and to determine if those complaints fall within the ambit of the relevant human rights legislation, and then to determine if the complaints are legitimate, vexatious or frivolous.

Human rights commissions must constantly recalibrate where the balance lies between free expression and its abridgement, but the determination of where to place the fulcrum must always be based on the statutory standard that such expression is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

This cannot be meant to take into account speech that is merely offensive, "politically incorrect," unpopular or critical, or that hurts feelings. In a sophisticated country such as Canada, offence should not be given or taken so easily.

In our estimation, the complaints against Maclean’s and Levant fall well short of the mandated standard of the provincial human rights commissions petitioned for redress and should not have been accepted. In the case of the latter, while the CJC deplored Levant’s decision to reprint the offending cartoons, there must be no doubt that in a free and democratic society, he has the right to be offensive.

Yes, our community knows only too well that words hurt and have been used as weapons of hate. But there must be some parameters and standards for state action to kick in. If every statement or publication that is unpopular or causes hurt feelings is actionable, then none is.

And as we have seen from the firestorm of criticism of these decisions, such abuse of legitimate human rights mechanisms vitiates their effectiveness and brings into disrepute their true value and necessity.

In the end, the appropriate application of statutory criteria is our best defence against those who would eliminate the law to protect their interests, and against those who would use the law to promote a narrow political agenda.

Memo to CJC mucky-mucks: the “appropriate statutory criteria” can be found in Canada’s regular hate laws, the contravention of which are determined in courts were justice does not favour one side and where the person in charge is a judge, not a hack bureaucrat with hard leftist leanings and a head full of Marxist mumbo-jumbo. (Although Canada has plenty of lefty judges--like the four on the Supreme Court who, back in the '80s, validated the faux-courts' ability to adjudicate matters of "hate speech"). Period. Full stop. Now, thanks to Mo Elmasry and his sockies, the light of day has been shone on the foul HRC proceedings, and it looks like your days of getting the 'roos to shut down the last three neo-Nazis in Saskatchewan (and lining the pockets of your favourite honoree) may finally be coming to an end—and not a moment too soon.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments (1)

Comments:

Comments: