The BCHRC should pay attention.For reasonable people who believe in equality and safety for all, it is easy to condemn Boissoin’s hurtful and inflammatory language. Furthermore, the temptation is strong to want to silence such an angry diatribe which might find an audience of people willing to join his war against equality.
While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.
If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.
Plus, it is far better that Boissoin expose his views than have them pushed underground. Under the glaring light of public scrutiny, his ideas will most likely wither and die.
h/t Ezra Levant
(You know, I really don't know much aboutwhat Ezra thinks about a lot of things; I'm just not that familiar. But I agree completely with his opinion regarding so-called Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. There are courts for real grievances.
Commissions and tribunals are insults just by their existence; they are designed specifically to control people politically as opposed to control acts of aggression or fraud.)
What Mark Steyn and Macleans are putting up with in BC is both absurd and frightening; the Commissioners are acting like ideological thugs--but the Alberta Human Rights Commission order against Rev. Stephen Boisson is so dementedly juggernautish in it's bullying, the reasonable mind staggers.
As Mr. Levant (properly) puts it:
There's more--and it's not pretty. Go Read. And pay attention (and, no--as it happens I don't agree with the good Rev one tiny bit...but that's not the point).It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I'll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward...
That's insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints -- and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh -- and for his "suffering". Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but "as a result of his complaint". People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint -- as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who's going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
8 comments:
While I don't like Ezra very much, he is right on this.
As I said over at some of the prog blogs earlier, this whole action only reinforces the main reason I do not like the HRCs and its taken right from John Milton and "Aeropagitica" - that attempting to censor and suppress the press and speech only serves to give them unwarranted legitimacy and popularity to the very views one is attempting to silence.
In Steyn's case, "America Alone" was pretty much a screed critically panned and popularly ignored in Canada by all but the most diehards on the right. Now it is popular, if only in the "I wonder what the big deal about this is" kind of way.
Forget that he is factually wrong and bases his entire argument on selected demographics, ignoring a lot of other social and political realities in Europe.
But, thanks to a bunch of Muslim students (who, ironically, were probably trying to do things the "Canadians way" - thus disproving Styen's thesis) have handed Steyn a bully pu.pit and a platform to spread his ideas farther then they ever would have on their merits without the free publicity.
That's why Steyn and Ezra really want to lose in this battle - they get more publicity for their books and their pet causes.
So, in the absence of HRC the Muslims would have had to do the right thing in this situation - get their competing views and a thorough "fisking" of Steyn's nonsense in a competing publication.
At least that's what I think free people do in a free society when confronted with ideas they do not agree with or that are factually wrong.
I do like Ezra, quite a bit--which is not saying I always agree with him. I just think he'd make a fun neighbour.
And he is so preciously, so exactly right on this one.
I'm disappointed at the failure of many on the left to recognize the severity of what's at stake here because of the concentration on Ezra's personality or the merit of Ezra's arguments.
I loved what Egale.ca had to say on the issue with Boisson: While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.
If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.
That's very true for the LGBT community--but it's equally true for most reasonable people no matter where they are on the political spectrum.
Free citizens have nothing to gain from allowing or placing restrictions on political (or any other type of) speech/expression.
If it isn't a lie and it isn't a direct, explicit call to visit theft, murder or fraud upon other human beings, it *passes*...and by the same standard, it's then really also none of the government's proper business.
Oh I do agree with you Ron.
I think a great many on the left would also agree with you - JJ at the Unrepentant Old Hippie (who is a self-professed lefty with strong libertarian leanings) agrees as well.
Yes it is hard to stomach such proper ideas when the emanate form someone who practices what he preaches only when it is convenient. I guess we lefties just have to try harder eh? I mean, it would be easy if every person fighting for free speech was likable. I suppose that is entirely the point.
If it isn't a lie and it isn't a direct, explicit call to visit theft, murder or fraud upon other human beings, it *passes*...and by the same standard, it's then really also none of the government's proper business.
Amen to that.
I don't know. I used to think that the answer to hateful speech designed to inflame violence and horrible activity against various vulnerable grous was to allow more freedom for the other side-- opposed to the speech to present their point of view and that the marketplace of ideas would win.
The problem is however that we don't live in a world where reason dictates the majority of peoples' view on any matters. In fact, based on the unreasoning of the world, the market-place of ideas is sometimes impotent in dealing with those who incite violence against others.
A good example of this would be in the case of Rwanda when the radio broadcasters kept calling for "death to the cockroaches" - and whipped people up into a frenzy which ultimately led to a genocide.
So long as a STATE exists which can be used by demagogues to inflict the violence of the monopoly on the instigation on the use of force upon others, I don't think that demagoguery in the form we call "hate speech" should be allowed exist completely unfettered.
For one example, Ezra Levant had no problem with his "Star Blogger" Kate McMillan excercising her free speech to advocate to have native activists "locked up" for expressing opinions she disagreed with.
In fact, in the discussion - Ezra deemed that Kate's comment was fair, and that I should be banned from his site for my objections to it. I can only conclude therefor that Levant's loyalty to "The market place of ideas" was/is a paper-thin veneer.
When people use *their* free speech to advocate for the State to apply instigatory force against others, they should be shut down on the basis that they have just advocated for exactly that.
Furthermore, the exact same people who are whinging about this topic -- did think it reasonable to advocate for the State to lock up people who hold opinions they don't like.
In essence I think free speech is an important principle which needs to be adhered to. Levant et al. however don't really have a problem with the State interferring in the right of free expression. Their concern is actually that the State isn't attacking the people they want it to attack, and is instead attacking them.
They can FOAD for all I care, in that respect.
They are only getting what they were calling for to be done to other people, not that long ago either!
Levant et al. however don't really have a problem with the State interfering in the right of free expression. Their concern is actually that the State isn't attacking the people they want it to attack, and is instead attacking them.
They can FOAD for all I care, in that respect.
They are only getting what they were calling for to be done to other people, not that long ago either!
The same could be said for all sorts of people--it's still not a good enough reason to support the kinds of restrictions on expression that the HRCs are calling for.
And there is--as you know--a difference when someone bans someone from a blog (rightly or wrongly), as opposed to when a State bans or restricts speech.
As for this: A good example of this would be in the case of Rwanda when the radio broadcasters kept calling for "death to the cockroaches" - and whipped people up into a frenzy which ultimately led to a genocide.
I think I covered that when I wrote: "If it isn't a lie and it isn't a direct, explicit call to visit theft, murder or fraud upon other human beings, it *passes*...and by the same standard, it's then really also none of the government's proper business."
In any case--there are real courts to use when determining this stuff; commissions and tribunals are just expedient political shortcuts used to accomplish what would be difficult or impossible without them.
If someone calls for the State to lock up people who have committed to crimes - simply for expressing a point of view that isn't like -- that *is* calling for violence to be inflicted upon people.
As for the case in Rwanda -- there were courts and a judicial system in place however it wasn't until after the genocide that the people involved in the cockroaches radio broadcasts were prosecuted. By that time the horrific damage was done. That seems like closing the barn door after the cow is already out.
I never said that Ezra banning me from the Shotgun blog was censorship Ron. Don't put words in my mouth.
I simply pointed out that Mr.Free Speech had no problem with allowing comments on his blog about calling for the instigation of force being weilded against native activists for the "crime" of expressing a point of view that Kate McMillan disagreed with.
When Kate and her minions were cheering on her proposition -- Ezra made sure that anybody who would have discussed the opposing point of view were not allowed to contribute to the discussion.
Ezra Levant and most of the right-wing nuts involved in this lawsuit are hypocritical shits and I for one hope that they get nailed to the wall for their libel against Richard Warman.
to crimes = no crimes
The libel case is a court case with all the usual rigorous procedures and standards, so we'll see how that goes.
Ezra's still right about the HRCs in the cases I was discussing here.
Post a Comment