New Tory Hate Speech Laws? Richard Warman On Government's New Anti-Terror Initiatives

So I read this this morning:

OTTAWA — The Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online.

There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. “Do we need new offences? If so which?”

Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.

I emailed Richard Warman, an expert the legal status of on-line hate-speech, and he was kind enough to offer these brief comments:

Extreme online hate posts that target groups or justify violence based on their religion, race, or nationality were illegal under s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Conservative Party MPs voted unanimously to repeal s. 13 in June of 2012.  The Conservatives destroyed the only effective legal protection against online hate speech.  Conservative MP Brian Storseth described himself as "ecstatic".  Jonathan Kay of the National Post said "good riddance".

It was the Conservatives who dismantled the law that protected Canadians from online terror.

It would be beyond ironic if the Tories were to resurrect, or create something indistinguishable from, the law they spent so many years trying to get rid of.

Your Daily Nazi: Marc Lemire Throws In The Towel

From Richard Warman's site:

It was only a matter of time after the Supreme Court unanimously upheld civil law controls on hate speech as constitutional in the Whatcott case, but Marc Lemire has finally admitted that his parallel attack on the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibition on Internet hate-speech (s. 13) has been gutted (‘please ignore my legal arguments found at paragraphs 84-115 of my previous Federal Court of Appeal factum’).

[...]

Mr. Lemire caves on the now legally (even more) entrenched facts that civil controls on hate speech are reasonable limits on freedom of expression, are justifiable in a free and democratic society, and are a pressing and substantial objective to avoid the serious damage caused as history has shown. Reading bumps on people’s heads to know what their intent was is still out. Hatred and contempt as narrowly defined by the Supreme Court in Taylor have been properly interpreted by human rights tribunals.

Relevant court docs have been supplied through the link.

I keep writing about this issue because the courts have essentially rejected the various Speechy arguments against S.13 and against hate speech laws in general.  So, even if bill C-304 passes the Senate, a new clause can be inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act under more favorable circumstances without worrying about constitutional issues.

At the moment, incidentally, C-304 seems pretty thoroughly stalled in the upper house.

News Flash! Unenforcable Human Rights Law Enforced! Mark Steyn Conned Again!

As Ezra is still crying into his corn-flakes over the fact that his Speechy revolution crashed and burned in Alberta, and has a snowball's chance in hell of advancing anywhere else in the country, I won't pick on him this morning. Luckily, in the Speechy Wars, Mark Steyn serves as velvet rubber to Ezra's iron dick and, though the whole silly notion that the enforcement of Section 13 has been suspended began with Ezra, Mark picked up the refrain quickly enough:

Indeed. As we've all observed, neo-Nazi website poster Richard Warman is now a busted flush. Justice has not only to be done, but to be seen to be done, and even "human rights" justice can no longer be seen to hang out with such a creepily narcissistic obsessive as Warmfront. But the larger point is, as Ezra says, fascinating. The endgame for Maclean's and me has always been to get this thing to the Supreme Court and have Section 13 and its provincial equivalents struck down. That takes a long time and it's expensive (which is why we encourage you to buy a copy of Shakedown, or take out a subscription to Maclean's).

However, it is a remarkable tribute to the speed with which the law has been "denormalized" (in Ezra's word) that the Tribunal has, in effect, concluded that Section 13 cannot be enforced. Like many laws, it remains on the books, but even the kangaroo courts understand that it can no longer be enforced. It reflects worse on them than on the accused.

Previously, I attempted to debunk this nonsense, but my argument depended on the interpretation given to a number of statements made in the decision to the Warman v. Ouwendyk case . A more direct path to the same conclusion would be a recent example of the CHRT's ordering 13's enforcement.

And, oh look! Here is just such an example--a ruling issued in the Richard Warman v. Canadian Heritage Alliance and Melissa Guille case from April 21, 2009:

...in contrast to the ruling in Warman v. Northern Alliance and Jason Ouwendyk, the ruling in the present case simply suspended the Tribunal's cease and desist order for 30 days pending the motion on the constitutional challenge. After the 30 day period has elapsed (which is presently the case), the cease and desist order comes into effect.

[9] Ms. Guille and the Northern Alliance are therefore, subject to an order of this Tribunal to cease communicating the material that was found to be contrary to s. 13 of the Act and any material that is similar in content.

So there you have it. Section 13 is still in effect. Ezra and Steyn are still bullshitters.

Why We Fight...

...for Canadian Human Rights system. Or at least why I do:

Kimberlee sent me the original picture from which the one CBC used was cropped. Plus a couple of extra shots exclusive to BCLSB. The cat is named Monday:

Maybe Mark Steyn and Ezra and Marc Lemire are sending around excellent shots of themselves wearing nothing but Speedos that I'm not seeing, but otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, I'm on the right side of this one.

Here are a couple of the best stories dealing with the case, plus some brief commentary on the possible philosophical issues behind it.

As an update, there may be two further dancers beyond Kimberlee and Bridget that will be stepping forward shortly, and apparently several male ex-employees of the bar in question who may be pursuing legal action against its owner. There seems to be quite a bit behind the story.

So stay tuned! Human Rights! Good looking older women! This one has it all!

PS. No gratuitous piggery in the comments. There's a lady present.

The Leaders On Section 13

The Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee has managed to get statements from three of the five federal political leaders on a question that matters a great deal to Western Standard readers, and supporters of freedom of expression in general. Just what is their stance on section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act? It is this section of the CHRA that has led to tribunal hearings against Maclean's and our former publisher Ezra Levant.

The question was asked in French, and what follows is a Babelfish translation, which is far from perfect. You can read the original documents by following this link. If someone has a proper French translation, please send it to us.

What follows is pretty garbled, but it sounds like E. May, S. Dion, and G. Duceppe are pro-section 13. Dion may even be saying that he wants the provision strengthened, but I wouldn't swear to that.

It doesn't surprise me that Harper gives no response. Question: Whats the best way to tell your most fervent supporters to go fuck themselves? Answer: Don't tell them anything! Let them infer it from your silence!