The Canadian government is investigating a paper for publishing the famous Danish Islam-related cartoons (under some type of anti-hate law).
LGF put up two videos (click)of someone from the newspaper, defending himself to some type of government judge (or similar agent). Both videos are well worth watching. One sees the defense categorically refusing to grant his accuser’s underlying premise, and refusing to grant that the law may legitimately deprive him of his rights.
Well worth watching.
The defense argues that he has the right… “to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think”.
The defendant/publisher has a web-site where he has some more video from the hearing. Check out his opening statement. “It is especially perverted, that a bureaucracy calling itself the ‘Alberta Human Rights Commission’ would be the government agency violating my human rights.”
I quite like this guy, especially for his opening speech and for him saying he doesn’t answer to the state. It is sad that you see fewer people defend themselves in such a way.
This was super cool to watch, what a courageous guy! His opening statement was perfect, right down to the last sentence. After a couple videos, I had the impression that the lady didn’t understand what she’d gotten herself into.
Yes, she was out of her depth. On his web page, he even mentions how he thought he might face some zealous enforcer, but found a measly clerk (my words). Her mediocrity probably won’t stop her from enforcing the law; it will just make her ignorant of the ramifications. In the final analysis, Canadian voters are responsible for her actions.
The guy’s web-page also has a place where one can donate. I urge a small donation – even a symbolic $1 – as a vote of support. Sometimes, when going up against a bureaucracy like this, moral support is just as meaningful as financial.
Unfortunately, Canada never broke with Great Britain, as the US did, over the issue of free speech and therefore one’s right to speak freely is rather limited. Section 319 is the law of the land up their, which would fortunately be unconstitutional in the US. Norway and Sweden part company on this as well – Sweden has severe restrictions on free speech which Norway has rejected in favor of free speech (not sure whether it’s as free as in the US). Interestingly, if you denounce Muslims as evil murderous scumbags as a matter of religious belief, then hate speech is legal.
Interestingly, if you denounce Muslims as evil murderous scumbags as a matter of religious belief, then hate speech is legal.
Not in the People’s Republic of Victoria, where it is illegal for people of other religions to pray that Muslims will repent. Just ask Pastor Danny Nalliah - it took a lot of effort for him to get his name cleared. The law itself - which nominally allows criticism of religion so long as it is not vilification of practitioners - is known as the law against blasphemy.
Australia didn’t break with the UK, either (though I am no fan of the present calls for a bill of rights as it is mostly socialised crud).
According to that Wiki article, “the Supreme Court of Victoria,upheld the appealand ordered that the matter be re-decided, without hearing new evidence, by a Judge (other than Higgins) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Islamic Council of Victoria was ordered to pay half of Scot’s and Nalliah’s legal costs for the appeal.”
Also, in this Nalliah there seems to have been actual “incitement to violence”. This reference implies that he asked his followers “to pull down Satan’s strongholds. … brothels and gambling places, mosques and temples.”
My point is not that “incitement to violence” is a valid reason to suppress free speech (I think the forum has that discussion somewhere). My point is that there is hope for Australia yet. Even though this pastor’s speech was worse than the cartoon example, and was actually asking people to tear down mosques, the state supreme court stood by him.
Analogously, the Canadian HRC might be corrupt, but perhaps some higher Canadian court will still uphold Mr. Levant’s rights.
An aside: David’s point about Canadian law not being sympathetic to free speech may be right. It seems clear that their HRC does not think free-speech is that fundamental. After all, their task is to curtail it. Mark Steyn quotes from a transcript of a hearing berfore the Candian HRC:
MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?
MR. STEACY (HRC Investigator): Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.
MS KULASZKA : Okay. That was a clear answer.
MR. STEACY (HRC Investigator): It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.
An aside: David’s point about Canadian law not being sympathetic to free speech may be right. It seems clear that their HRC does not think free-speech is that fundamental. After all, their task is to curtail it. Mark Steyn quotes from a transcript of a hearing berfore the Candian HRC:
It would be interesting to hear him try and give an objective reason as to why he won’t give any consideration to foreign concepts. Seems to me as if he is just sticking to habits and performing under his home customs.
It would be interesting to hear him try and give an objective reason …
I don’t know. If they were truly foreign, then – as someone who is enforcing the law – he can use that to say that he is not concerned with foreign law, only with Canadian law. However. I just checked and the Canadian Constitution says:
2.- Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a. freedom of conscience and religion;
b. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c. freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d. freedom of association.
So, even though speech is not mentioned, “expression” is a wider term. Also, the “freedom of the press” is listed explicitly; so, that should be of some help to this particular case.
I don’t know. If they were truly foreign, then – as someone who is enforcing the law – he can use that to say that he is not concerned with foreign law, only with Canadian law. However. I just checked and the Canadian Constitution says:
So, even though speech is not mentioned, “expression” is a wider term. Also, the “freedom of the press” is listed explicitly; so, that should be of some help to this particular case.
So, he’s ignoring freedom of speech, even though it IS within his own national constitution, because it’s popular as an American concept? Doesn’t sound to me like a guy that has earned his degree.
So, he’s ignoring freedom of speech, even though it IS within his own national constitution, because it’s popular as an American concept?
You will notice, though, that the Canadian statement is whimpy. Nothing like " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". So let’s go to the top of the Canadian Constitution: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. That was done and encoded in section 319. This same document says, on an equal footing with the freedom to speak, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”. But we know that this clause actually governs not just the relation of the individual to the government, but the individual to society. In fact, it also says “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians” – a constitional requirement for multiculturalism.
In other words, freedom of speech is allowed in Canada, as long as it doesn’t conflict with other requirements such as the multiculturalism requirements.
Yes, it’s the same nonsense as the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”). Whenever you have a document where your rights are listed instead of a document where the government’s rights are restricted your rights depend on arbitrary decisions of the government.
On a separate point, if I had to identify the single most important Mr. Levant has got such wide exposure it is that he had video. If he did not have it, and had blogged all the same facts, I suspect people would not have passed on his article the way they passed on the links to his video. There’s probably a lesson in activism in there.
