http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1691982
Relevant portion:
How does this comment differ from what everyone who has responded in this thread says is permissible?
You can believe whatever the hell you want. There is no law moderating any belief you have in your mind. Once that belief gets out, however, and spurs others to action (or tries to), then it crosses the line.
Saying “I believe the Bible says to kill gays and you should believe it too” is a belief that does not directly insist on action. Once again, you can believe what you want. So long as that belief stays firmly in your head, you can believe in genocide but still act like you don’t.
When the belief is translated into action, or used as a catalyst to spur action, then it becomes harmful to other people, violates their rights and their selves, and that’s what makes it illegal.
The law is neutral in matters of your mind when it comes to hate. Imagine 2 people, one a racist that acts like he’s not, and the other not a racist but acts like he is. Outwardly, the law is concerned only with #2, because he acts it. That’s the difference between belief and Popescu’s action. When he made his beliefs known, it was ok, but when he encouraged people to kill gays, he becomes dangerous.
I think I get what you’re saying but isn’t “You should believe it too” also a direct call to action? The action is “believe it.” It seems the better point is that it’s calling others to an action that is also not in itself illegal.
What claims are totally false? Do people get ‘hauled’ up in front of the commision? Yes, they do. People being accused of something most likely don’t go voluntarily.
Do people get hauled up for spurious and politically correct reasons? Yes, they do. Ezra Levant, for example.
And we have it from the horse’s mouth, Monette Maillet, who confirms a 100% ‘conviction’ rate. When someone on the board tells you it is 100%, what is your responsibility after that when you are arguing against the process? I guess if you want to prove the process is wrong AND the people who run it incompetent that they don’t know what the results of the process are. I don’t think that was Sam’s argument, although it probably would be a good tact to take.
But in my post #61 above, all he said was that he believed that gays should be executed. Now, unless the quote is inaccurate, he doesn’t incite anyone to violence or “encourage” people to kill gays.
To use a very apt parallel, if I am in a state that does not have capital punishment on the books and say, “I believe that murderers should be executed” am I encouraging people to take the law into their own hands and do violence against convicted murderers? Of course not. I am simply stating a policy position and that seems to be what he is doing here.
He is simply doing what you, and every other respondent in this thread, is saying is very much permissible under the law.
Sam’s claims were full of lies, which he repeated from Ezra Levant, so I’ll assume the lies were Levant’s. You cvould have read all the posts in this thread a bit more carefully but let’s review Sam’s post:
That is plainly false. As has been explained in detail, the tribunal process begins only when a case is referred to it by the CHRC. The tribunal itself can haul nobody before it.
This is plainly a lie. The cases were not dropped because of “heat,” they were dropped because their was not sufficient evidence to prove the accusations.
This is also a lie. The tribunals had (and it’s no longer true, but might have been when Levant published his screed) llegedly found liability in all cases of hate speech complaints. The rate was not 100% overall, however, as this statement deliberately states, because of course the vast, vast majority of cases brought before the CHRT are not related to hate speech - they have heard a very small number of hate speech complaints - and in fact many other types of complaints are dismissed. Furthermore, the judgments are in any event not “convictions.” The Tribunal is not a criminal court.
This has been demonstrated to be utter bullshit.
This has been demonstrated to be an outright lie. In fact they are not “mainly activists and bureaucrats.” They are mainly lawyers with extremely impressive credentials.
I believe Ezra Levant has every right in the world to publish Danish cartoons that make fun of Mohammad (being an atheist, in fact, I wish he’d do more of it.) Ezra Levant is also a liar, and you’d be a fool to believe everything he says.
Before you make claims on who is reading or not reading the thread, you should look a little closer. I’m the one who quoted Monette Maillet. She is the one confirming that the 100% figure is correct. Is her quote correct? Is she a member of the HRC? If Sam got his knowledge based upon what she said then how is he lying when a fricking board member agrees with him? Geez, man.
How many angels on pins again? One is the arm of the other. They don’t exist in isolation.
And again Ezra Levant was in front of the tribunal. Apparently the Commission thought the case had enough meat to it to pass it up the line, or it didn’t have the balls to tell the accuser to get lost when it should have.
How many angels on pins again?*
He could well be a liar. But in this case he was accused of something that any rational person would see that he didn’t commit and the tribunal/commission, wtf ever, didn’t stop it until he had to defend himself to them.
*I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass here, but you act like the average person cares whether it is a criminal issue. You can be fined based upon the tribunal’s findings and that is enforceable by the courts. And to talk of mediation is laughable. As I asked earlier does mediation take into account false accusations? So, does the defendant get to ask for remuneration from his accuser if the accusation is groundless in the same hearing?
Again, you need to pay closer attention to the difference between what Ezra Levant said, and what Monette said. I can explain it again if you like; Monette says the CHRT had a 100% rate of finding for the complainant in hate speech cases, which, again, I’d assume was true at the time. Levant stated the tribunal had a 100% “conviction rate”, period, e.g. in all cases, which is a lie.
You can look up the CHRT’s findings online. 99% of the cases it hears have nothing to do with hate speech; it seems the vast majority are employment-related.
I’m sorry, but the statement “The tribunal can haul anyone before them it wants” is a lie, pure and simple. It’s exactly equivalent to saying “The traffic court can haul anyone before it they want.” Well, no, they can’t, not unless you’re accused of a summary offense and the cops give you a ticket and you elect to contest it and so on. Levant is trying to characterize the CHRT as some sort of star chamber (I notice you conveniently dropped the issue of whether defendants have rights and whether the tribunal is made up of experienced lawyers - major lies) and it’s simply not.
Um… actually, that’s exactly what happened. Mr. Levant’s case was never brought before any tribunal. He was - famously - interviewed by a person from the ALBERTA Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. The Commission dismissed the complaint (one of them; there were two complainants on the same issue. One changed his mind, feeling the compaint was not justified; the other was dismissed) and did not refer it to a tribunal. So, in fact, things worked exactly the way you suggest they should.
I think, and this is not clear in the article, that Popescu only brought up the Bible when he was charged with a crime, and not before. His initial response gave the impression that the source of his gay homicide fury came from himself, whereas in subsequent court hearings, he clarified that he only meant that he agreed with the Bible and its gay homicide fury.
I see his statement as being different in the following way:
- I believe gays should be killed.
- I believe in the Bible that says gays should be killed.
In the former, he seems to attribute the incitement to himself, which is seemingly what the Canadian government convicted him of. No matter your beliefs inside, if you state a preference that you think violence should be done to a group, then you’re guilty. In the latter sentence, by stating a belief that comes from elsewhere, he avoids the charge that he himself wants gays killed, it just happens to be what his favorite book says should happen. In this cause, the source of the homophobia is the Bible and not himself. Presumably, that extra degree of seperation makes conviction not congruent to the law.
Or a mistake when he is only concerned with what pertains to him at the moment?
My issue is with you calling people liars when they could be just wrong on the point of how many angels dance on the head of pins. Would Levant have been wrong if he limited his statement to just hate speech? No. Was Levant being brought up before the Commission on employment related complaints? No, he wasn’t. So, if he makes a statement to the effect that these things have a 100% conviction rate, then he isn’t incorrect as it pertains to him. But, I guess you expect him to make all sorts of footnotes and caveats whenever he is talking to everyone. Makes for boring statements that no one will listen to.
Now you can argue that isn’t what he meant because he is the scum of the earth, etc., but it doesn’t make him a liar. The same thing with Sam. If he got his facts from Levant and then confirmed by Monette, how is he a liar? Do you expect everyone to dig to the root of all issues before they post? I guess because someone isn’t a rocket scientist they shouldn’t talk about space travel, either?
Sorry, I just get bent out of shape when people call others liars when they have no basis for it. If you disagree with someone say why and stop making accusations that skew the discussion.
We have and Employment department already. Why do we need another government body for just this aspect?
Who cares who it is made up of? Lawyers don’t have agendas like other people? When Syed Soharwardy filed a complaint with the Commission it would have had the details of the complaint including the original article in the Western Standard (which if anyone can find, I’d be grateful if you posted it as I can’t find it anywhere). If the Commission was impartial it should have said to Syed to suck it up at that point. It didn’t. The only reason that any rational person can deduce as to why is because they thought Soharwardy had justification in his complaint. So, the Commission ‘hauled’ Levant in to hear both sides of the complaint. What is there to hear from Levant? He was a publisher of a periodical. Should he have to explain himself to every Tom, Dick, and Mohammed who comes in off the street with a bone to pick? Did he say, “Kill all Muslims”? No, he published pictures that had been published before by other newspapers in other places of the world to explain what all the fuss was about and why the Muslims were on a rampage. Maybe, heaven forbid, he even made some disparaging comments about Muslims who go on rampages over lousy cartoons!
Angels and pins again. If Levant had told the Commission to screw off, then what would have happened? Why does he need to go in front of a Commission at all if the Commission is so impartial as you claim?
As well you should. But I had lots of basis for it. Sam’s post contains a myriad of falsehoods and distortions which have been explained in detail.
I’m sure they do. Not relevant. What you were asking me is to prove where the lies were. I simply went over them, and one of them was the claim that the tribunal was largely not made up of legal professionals. The fact is that it’s false to say the tribunal is mostly made up of people who aren’t lawyers. You wanted to know what lies I was talking about, and that’s one of them. You’re welcome.
You then go on to whine about the details of the incident. I don’t really care, thought I largely agree it was a waste of Levant’s time and taxpayer dollars. I don’t like hate speech law, think s.319 is far too broad, and am happy the CHRT said it was unconstitutional. I’m glad the Levant case never went before the tribunal. You wanted to know what lies I was referring to. So I explained. They have been explained at great length. If you want to discuss the usefulness of such commissions then we can do that, but you first need to get your facts straight.
Look, this isn’t personal and I’m not taking the side of the hate speech campaigners. Sam’s post was full of bullshit. I called him on it, as did others. You wanted to know what the bullshit was and I said what it was. Evidence and details have been provided to you. If you don’t like the facts and want to split hairs and pretend Sam and or Levant did not write the things they obviously wrote I can’t help you with changing reality.
When did I claim the Commission was impartial? Sorry, but I’ve claimed no such thing. You need to get your facts in order.
I think you are the one splitting hairs about convictions and tribunals can’t haul people in front of them. But whatever. Levant claiming that the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate isn’t a lie when it applies to the thing he was hauled up for. If he left off the facts that in total there isn’t a 100% conviction rate then it might be misleading, but it isn’t a lie. And, frankly, Sam can come in here and defend his reasons for posting what he did.
You are correct, it looks like Spoons was the one that said that unfounded cases would be dropped.
To answer your question:
Depending on the employment and/or the nature of the employment, employment in Canada is governed by either federal or provincial laws. If the employment is of a type enumerated in s. 92(10) of the Constitution, or is just plain for the federal government in any category listed in s. 91, it is governed by the Canada Labour Code. All other employment is governed according to provincial employment standards legislation. Thus, for example, the employment of a railroad worker resident in Alberta is governed by the *Canada Labour Code *(railroads are listed under s. 92 (10)(a)), while the employment of a retail clerk in Alberta would be governed by Alberta’s Employment Standards Code.
Knowing this, it is easy to understand that human rights complaints related to employment would be brought before a federal human rights commission if they were somehow involving claims of discrimination in the federal government or were involving employment in a federally-governed field. The complainant who claims that he or she didn’t get a job with the federal government based on race would go to a federal human rights commission, for example. If the same complainant felt he or she didn’t get a retail job for the same reason, a provincial human rights commission would be the place to complain to.
The federal-provincial distinction in employment may seem odd, but ss. 91 and 92(10) are why it exists, and why government regulation in the area of employment (and consequent human rights legislation and regulation) seems to be duplicated.
I know there are two jurisdictions, provincial and federal, but I don’t know why each jurisdiction needs two departments to handle labour issues. Other than for politiicians to cater to those who think such things are needed. Let the corresponding labour-employment departments handle all complaints related to employment issues. And let the courts decide if someone is spreading hate speech, or if someone deserves compensation for getting their feelings hurt by what others say.