I assure you in the case of Mr. Levant, he was thrilled to be able to fight the AHRC in public. It’s his thing.
Really, there just isn’t any evidence that the doomsaying is merited; I think it’s pretty obvious from some of the comments in this thread that people seem to think Canada has some sort of political correctness police force that is approximately one billion times more powerful than the human rights tribunal system actually is.
The human rights tribunal system isn’t perfect, but neither is the criminal court system, or ANY governmental or quasigovernmental system. Every country’s criminal justice system, after all, puts people in prison who should not be there; in the USA it’s quite likely that it’s KILLED a few people who shouldn’t have been killed. But there’s not a smidgen of evidence, none at all, that human rights tribunals are having a chilling effect on free expression. As a matter of fact, most Canadians are barely aware, or aware at all, of their existence.
But how is that different from libel and slander laws? Anyone with a word processor and the filing fee can start an action for defamation, and the defendant has to spend money to defend. Doesn’t that have a chilling effect?
Canadian human rights? Come on, Canada is pretty much a utopia when it comes to human rights. I’m calling narcissism of minor differences. It’s just a bunch of nitpicking and debating how many angels one can place on a pinhead. When in Canada, do as the Canadians do…
Some excellent comments from Northern Piper and RickJay address your questions, but I’ll add that Mr. Levant is himself a lawyer and to the best of my knowledge, represented himself in the matter. So aside from his time, and expenses (photocopying, etc.) the matter cost him nothing.
The issue isn’t whether people actually end up getting persecuted, it’s whether these laws have a chilling effect on speech, and they almost certainly do. In the US, that would be more than enough to invoke the 1st amendment to strike the laws down.
Libel and slander cause substantial damage to the one lied about. And secondly, it has to be a lie. Truth is no defense in hate speech trials.
So you’ve got a situation where no one is actually harmed, except for their feelings, and no one can be sure what’s okay to say and what’s not okay to say because it doesn’t matter if what you say is true or not. That’s pretty darn chilling to free speech.
Not everything can be proved by a link. Maybe I shouldn’t have expressed the opinion as if it was a certainty, but it’s pretty close. And it’s supporters apparently think it has a chilling effect, and that’s how the like it. As Ann Coulter found out, when she was warned by a professor to watch what she says because Canada doesn’t have free speech.
‘Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.’ ) Houle goes on: ‘Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.’ ”
I must be dim, I’m missing the part in your quote where Houle states Canada doesn’t have free speech. He was simply pointing out that "Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.” " and he was likely familiar with Ms. Coutler’s famous approach to public speaking.
He said “Somewhat different”, which is a genteel way of saying Canada doesn’t have free speech. When you can be prosecuted for speech that does not do substantial harm, or i’m sorry, be sued, then speech is not free, it is restricted.
No, somewhat different is somewhat different. The US restrictions on incitement linked to imminent lawless action is not much different from the restrictions on advocating genocide.
You would be better to read Houe’s statement is “Canada is not the US. Typically most visitors don’t need this pointed out but you seem a bit dim Ms. Coutler.”
In this context, “Somewhat different” is a way of avoiding saying what he really means. The laws in Canada are different in kind, not just degree. In the US, you are free to say whatever you want. If your speech causes actual harm, that harm is actionable. In Canada, no actual harm need be caused. Nor is there a clear legal standard as to what constitutes hate speech. that does have a chilling effect because people do not know what they can and can’t say. And even if what they say is true, it’s still actionable, because truth is no defense. Which by the way, is seriously Orwellian. It says that some truths must not be spoken aloud.
No speech in the US is restricted in certain areas, as it is in Canada. Since these countries are neither politically or legalistically identical the areas differ.
Take my example of incitement linked to imminent lawless action in the US. The case that I can find best linked to this is Brandenburg v. Ohio where 'Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." So note - speech can be limited based on imminent lawless action.
In other words Canada is different and expressing and advocating lawless actions towards identifiable groups is illegal. So in Canada it’s illegal to say “We should get our guns and kill the homosexuals”, in the US the person would likely have to add “now!” to be considered breaking the law.
The complaint filed in December 2007 was against Maclean’s (a news magazine) though it did cite excerpts of Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone” which was published and available October 2006 - available several months prior to the complaint.
The federal Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) dismissed the complaint against Maclean’s in June 2008. They said “The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers … Overall, however, the views expressed … when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision.”
So, the Canadian Islamic Congress thought Muslims were being unfairly portrayed and subjected to hatred and contempt. They went to the Commission and were told they had no valid complaint.
Somehow I fail to feel the chill air of newspeak on my cheek.
I would have thought it goes without saying that Canada suffers from discrimination, stupidity, venal behaviour and xenophobia just like any other society. All western democracies deal with these in more or less similar manners but they’re not identical and their value is determined by their population at large not some comparison to a mythical American ideal.
Here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/30/boissoin-ruling.html is a story of a man who was charged with Human Rights Violations because of a letter to the editor he wrote. He was ordered not to write disparaging things about gays anymore and was fined 5,000. His conviction was later overturned on appeal but if a Human Rights Tribunal thinks it can fine people and order them not to speak on a subject anymore then there is obviously confusion about what is legal to write or say.
Are you saying that when Steyn suggests – aside from his twisted assessment of the war in Bosnia - that the way do deal with Muslims is to cull them like they did in Bosnia – that THAT is not an incitement?