I didn’t make mention of the case at all when I started the thread. I did make mention of de facto and de jure censoring of “hate” speech. In a subsequent post I gave examples of such censoring.
I’ve not claimed the Canadian government banned the song. I did claim, as did Rolling Stone and The Globe and Mail, that the song was banned. I stand by that.
It’s a quibble.
How do you answer the two questions posed in the OP?
To Mark Steyn? Yes. HE wasn’t the respondent.
He likes to give people the impression he was dragged before a court. He was not.
There is no interpretation of the facts, or any definition of the word “banned” used by an educated English speaking person, which allows your claim to be taken as correct. You were wrong, full stop.
It seems to me that we’re throwing criminal law, civil law, corporate policies and private actions into a big bowl and stirring everything together into a homogeneous mass.
There’s a difference between criminalizing hate speech (or any other kind of speech) and private individuals and organizations having rules against it. There’s a difference between someone being fired for calling someone an n, c or r and someone being thrown in jail for the same thing. There are reasons for treating these things differently, and there are plenty of people who agree with the distinction. I, for one, think it’s perfectly fine to fire someone, to shun him, to ridicule him for using many forms of hate speech, but at the same time I think it’s dangerous to allow the government to decide which opinions are OK to express.
It doesn’t seem reasonable that perhaps other publishers will be less willing to print his material in the future given what happened?
That’s what Canadian Broadcast Standards Council attempted. It failed.
How do you respond to the two questions posed in the OP?
Three things that the CBSC does not actually have the power to do.
Would you like to try again?
…
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
If you think that means the song was banned, I’m afraid that we are so far apart on basic concepts that there is little point engaging you.
[/QUOTE]
How do you answer the two questions posed in the OP?
I’ve no more to say on the topic of the CBSC. I made my case, you don’t buy it. A good time was had by all.
How do you answer the two questions posed in the OP?
Personally I am a free speech fundamentalist. I think that James Madison had it right all along. It should be legal to say that some race is superior or inferior, legal to deny that the Holocaust happened, legal to say that any or all religions are idiotic, legal to say that global warming is a hoax, legal to give bad advice on diet or medicine or child-rearing or anything else.
Any hate speech law gives someone in government arbitrary power to decide what others can and can’t say. No human being is good enough to deserve such power, especially not any human being who’s part of government.
That may be your personal interpretation, but it’s not a common one. 
Both the BC Human Rights Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act (at that time) specifically provided that publications likely to expose individuals to “hatred or contempt” could be a violation of the human rights law.
That was the basis for the proceedings against Steyn in both the BC Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. For the BC decision, see para. 21, which clearly cites the hate publication provision of the BC Act. The complaint to the federal Commission was based on s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which used similar language referring to “hatred or contempt.”
These provisions have normally been interpreted as a civil law form of regulation of hate speech, as opposed to the criminal prohibition of hate speech found in s. 319 of the Criminal Code, but both the human rights and the criminal law provisions are dealing with hate speech.
That in fact is how the Supreme Court dealt with them, when it upheld both s 319 of the Criminal Code in the case of R v Keegstra, and s 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in the case of Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor. The cases were argued together and decided the same day, and refer back and forth to each other as providing different approaches to hate speech.
Further, in the more recent case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, which upheld a similar provision in Saskatchewan’s human rights law, the SCC clearly treated it as a matter of hate publications.
So, the SCC and the various legislatures clearly do treat hate publications provisions in human rights laws as examples of hate publications laws, dealing with the issue as a civil matter, rather than as a criminal matter.
No, this is not correct. There has to be specific language in the human rights act making hate publications a breach of the Act to give the Commission and then the Tribunal or Court the jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
That’s why the Ontario Human Rights Commission tossed out the complaint against Steyn: there was nothing in the Ontario Human Rights Code which gave the Commission jurisdiction to consider a hate publication complaint: Commission statement concerning issues raised by complaints against Maclean’s Magazine:
And, as you noted, Parliament has repealed s 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, so the Canadian Human Rights Commission now does not have jurisdiction to hear a hate publication complaint.
That’s not a characteristic of human rights commissions, but of the Canadian court system generally.
We do not have a court which has jurisdiction to entertain actions under provincial law anywhere in the country. (For Americans, we don’t have a court that has diversity jurisdiction.)
Take the case of libel and slander. Suppose instead of a human rights complaint, someone thought that an article published by Macleans defamed them in someway, and the person had substantial connections to both BC and Ontario, so was concerned that the article affected his reputation in both those provinces.
The individual could sue Macleans in both the Ontario and BC courts, and if he alleged different damages in both those provinces, the actions couldn’t be consolidated, particularly if there were differences in the BC and Ontario laws of libel and slander. The BC courts would hear the BC action, and the Ontario courts would hear the Ontario action. The BC courts wouldn’t have jurisdiction to hear the Ontario action, and the Ontario courts wouldn’t have jurisdiction to hear the BC action. (The Federal Court is right out, because it doesn’t have jurisdiction over suits between private parties, nor diversity jurisdiction. It only has jurisdiction over suits against the federal government, or civil actions brought under certain federal laws.)
So, not a problem specific to human rights complaints.
NM upon preview. I will defer to my colleague Northern Piper, and his comments.
That’s my point. Although a lot of Americans (including some who have posted on this thread) seem to assume that American First Amendment law doesn’t permit any restrictions on freedom of speech, the First Amendment actually does permit such laws.
Libel and slander are simply one example, which are analogous in some ways to civil remedies for hate publications in Canadian law: libel and slander laws are government laws which regulate speech and put restrictions on what a person can say, at the risk of being brought into court and if found liable, paying damages.
I find it frustrating engaging in a debate on these issues on these boards, because of that absolutist mindset by some US posters.
In reality, there is a spectrum of regulation of free speech, and no country is absolutist, not even the US.
Northern Piper forgive me if I’ve you’ve already answered the questions in the OP and I’ve overlooked it, but I can’t help but wonder how you would answer.
Wouldn’t the First Amendment have to be repealed?
There’s an excellent blog post over at Popehat that identifies many of these tricks:
He goes on to point out that “hate speech,” is a rhetorical phrase, not a phrase with any meaning in free speech law. In other words, under American law, another phrase for “hate speech” is “constitutionally protected speech.”
It’s worth pointing out, though that while you’re correct about defamation (libel/slander) being recognized areas in which speech may be penalized, the list of such areas is small. And not subject to growth.