Anonymous on Song for ...
Anonymous on Jen’s ...
Anonymous on Buying power: ...
Anonymous on A public forum ...
Anonymous on Who’s the ...
Anonymous on Jen’s ...
Anonymous on A public forum ...
Belmont Club
Blazing Cat Fur
butterflies and wheels
City Journal
conservativeinthecloset
Daniel Pipes
David Warren
Dhimmi Watch
Five Feet of Fury
Flaggman's Canada
Free Mark Steyn
Front Page Magazine
Honest Reporting Canada
Israel Pundit
israelinsider
israpundit
Jerusalem Post
Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy
Martin Kramer
Media Backspin
Melanie Phillips
Real Clear Politics
Steyn Online
stopahmadinejad
The American Thinker
The Optimistic Conservative
Tim Blair
VDH
today
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
visited *loading* times
The Globe’s S.O.S.: In an editorial that will likely not sit well with its in-house Islamists and Lefties (Rami Khouri, Sheema Khan, Rick Salutin, etc.) the Glib and Mewl, er, Globe and Muslim, er, Canada’s newspaper of record calls for the repeal of the nation’s Draconian “freedom from speech” provisions:
The dismissal of a human-rights complaint by a Muslim group against the Western Standard magazine is a good development in the series of such proceedings across the country. Even so, human-rights commissions should not be in a position to pass judgment on whether media reports and commentary are "likely to expose a class of persons to hatred or contempt," as the Alberta statute in question puts it, much as its several equivalents do elsewhere in Canada.
Controversy over the role of Islam in world politics is looming over the age-old debate on freedom of speech and its limits. In this case, the Western Standard had republished the Danish cartoons of 2005 depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a symbol of militant Islamism.
The complaint was made in May, 2006, and dragged on far too long. But Alberta is rather better off with its human-rights legislation than some other provinces; an ambiguous nod to freedom of expression has been fairly interpreted as an "admonition to balance."
The Alberta Human Rights Commission's investigator, who recommended against sending the complaint on to a panel for a hearing, took into account that admonition, observing that the Danish cartoons were newsworthy and a matter of public concern, and that the Western Standard had published them with commentary, and then showed some balance by publishing letters of varied opinions on this subject.
These considerations are healthy, since other human-rights statutes in Canada are lacking in protections for news reporting and fair comment, a point that was vigorously raised in the defence against a similar complaint against Maclean's magazine at the B.C. Human Rights Commission - a case in which judgment has been reserved since June.
Both the Alberta and the federal commissions in the recent sequence of complaints have rightly cited a Supreme Court of Canada judgment which held that, to comply with the Charter, the hate-speech sections of human-rights would have to aim only at genuinely virulent hatred.
In the end, though, human-rights commissions should advise their respective legislatures to repeal these dangerously vague sections, so that those who exercise the freedom of speech and press are no longer harassed by such complaints.
In the end, though, it’s not enough to repeal Section 13 and its provincial and territorial equivalents; the entire cockamamie apparatus must be torn down. But, realizing that the nation is so heavily invested in its Inquisitions, and thus likely incapable of bidding them adieu all at once, stripping them of their power to censor us is a good—and essential—first step. Alas, expecting them to ask "their respective legistlatures to repeal these dangerously vague sections" is, well, ridiculous; nobody gives up that kind of power willingly and without a fight.
