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

All wet: The CJC explained its position vis à vis the “human rights” fracas back in the March issue of its publication, AMCHA: 

Our Position is Clear

CJC Editorial

Canadian Jewish Congress has found itself under attack lately from an unexpected direction. The National Post has let loose its phalanx of columnists and editorialists to engage in a war of words. The issue: human rights organizations and specifically Canada's anti-hate laws.

This began with a decision by a number of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Islamic Congress to launch complaints with provincial and federal human rights commissions against Ezra Levant and Macleans magazine, respectively. Levant was cited for re-printing the offensive "Danish cartoons" of Mohammed when he was publisher of the now defunct Western Standard. Macleans was under the gun for printing a portion of a book written by Mark Steyn that the complainants believed was hateful towards the Muslim community.

CJC's position was clear from the outset. We believe that these complaints ought not to have come before the human rights commission. That noted, we were very much concerned that the resultant storm against these complaints emanating from editorialists and others was unbalanced, and presenting human rights anti-hate laws as "undemocratic, unconstitutional, contrary to Canadian values" and more. As copresidents Sylvain Abitbol and Rabbi Reuven Bulka wrote early on in this controversy in the Canadian Jewish News:

"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 ofdiscrimination and promoting equality ofopportunityfor all Canadians. "

CJC has long been in the forefront advocating for anti-hate laws that we saw could be used as a fence of protection against hateful diatribes attacking vulnerable minorities. Indeed the Supreme Court of Canada ruled these laws to be constitutional. The Court noted that the bar for conviction under these statutes is set high -as it should be -to ensure a proper balance between the right to free speech and the right to be free from hateful speech. CJC believes these sections to be powerful remedies against those who would bring violence and hatred into the public square.

Anti-hate laws under our criminal code and human rights legislation continue to offer much needed protection for minorities in Canada. Yes, by all means let's fix the parts of the law that are broken, but let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

That’s the best they could come up with—that worn out baby/bathwater cliché? Memo to Tammy and his chuckleheads: The baby’s a killer. The bathwater’s toxic. THROW THEM BOTH OUT!

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:33 | link | comments (3)

Comments:

#1  09 July 2008 - 11:57

 

An absolute disgrace to Canadian Jewry. Proving, I suppose, that even rebbes can be dummies.

More fundamentally- who do these jamokes actually represent? "Canadian Jewry" in the same sense that el-Masry represented "All the Muslims in British Columbia" at the BCHRC hearing? Or maybe a bunch of old guys on the CJC board making a foursome at Maple Downs?

Anonymous

#2  09 July 2008 - 16:49

 

They sure as heck don't represent me--nor most of the "Jewry" I know.

scaramouche

#3  09 July 2008 - 17:16

 

So, then, what would it take to get a Canadian Jewish "Not in our Name" program going? Because, currently, the CJC and BB are viewed as the public voice of Canadian Judaism...

Anonymous

Comments: