Comments on: Harper must act now to protect free speech

By: Eileen

Eileen — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:32:57 +0000

Well now if some people have it their way we won't have freedom of speech,unless we conform to the belifts of their religon,theirs a minster that got taken of the air because he voiced his oppion on some thing ,without even a question,this Country is not Canadian any more believe me and it's going to get worst believe me before the return of Christ,so read em and weep my friend…Canada is not Canadian any more….God Bless….Jesus lover !!!

By: mendelbot

mendelbot — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:04:36 +0000

Free speech is now right wing hard stuff.

By: shel

shel — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:26:21 +0000

i used to disrespect Maclean's centrist, statist, effete and antilibertarian stance on issues.
after this article, i now respect them.

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:36:52 +0000

You've hit the nail right on the head. One of the most insightful, politically savy analyses I've read.

By: LoudanBellicose

LoudanBellicose — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:35:35 +0000

One must commend Maclean's, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant for exposing this fraud on the Canadian people.
I would also hope that the writers keep pursuing this outrage until someone goes to jail.

By: Gerard Singer

Gerard Singer — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:08:18 +0000

As an American I should be thankful for the first amendment, but to me that's not the real lesson here: it is the practice of all bureaucracies to expand their mandates and budgets, to the point where rights are infringed and original purposes are lost. That, it seems to me, was the real wisdom of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams et al — to recognize this point. Not that we in the US have followed it very well. Anyway, a good article — and for us, cautionary.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:23:42 +0000

BCL,

Will you be defending Lucy on your site?

By: Frank, Toronto

Frank, Toronto — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:07:40 +0000

I can’t believe that Canada fought against Nazi Germany and participated in the cold war against the Soviet dictatorship only to allow de facto censorship committees to take root a few decades later. That’s what the Human Rights Commissions are, they are a disgrace and must be abolished even if the brain-dead leftists see an attack on these commissions as being an attack on human rights. To abolish these commissions is the best safeguard for Canadians’ basic right to free expression.

Historical note—during the 1930′s the Nazi government had a lot of influence outside its borders and it successfully persuaded the socialist Belgian goverment, among others, to pass laws that barred the press from reporting anything negative about Nazi Germany. Later, when war finally came, many Belgian citizens sympathized with the Nazi’s because they had never been allowed to here the truth about them. The moral of this story: never let a government commission censor free speech, no matter how lofty its proclaimed values are.

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:03:50 +0000

The conviction rate is most CERTAINLY related to cost. A $1000 fine that has a two percent probability of being assessed is entirely different from that fine that comes with a 99.6% probability of hitting you.

And you unwittingly (I think) hit it on the head about civil court. The complainant had better have a decent case or it's gonna cost him. Sharpens the mind big-time, in deciding whether the case should even take place.

Oh, and thanks for your permission for me to be generous with beggars, Jack. That's all I needed to remain the generous person I am. Phew.

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:57:12 +0000

Haven't been by this page in a while, so sorry for the slow response. But are you truly equating a DUTY OF CITIZENSHIP (serving on a jury when called) with taking your lumps from the state because somebody objected to your expressed thoughts? Wow.

Not that it really is anyone's business, but no, Ezra didn't get a penny from me. And that is to my shame, buddy, for I was a useless silent partner in the quest to rebuilding freedom in this country.

By: marlowe anderson

marlowe anderson — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:52:31 +0000

Harper is weak-kneed on abolishing section 13 of the Human Rights Commission law; He needs to be prodded to do the right thing as he did by having Canada's UN delegation walk out on the Iranian President's so called "address" to the member states. To their everlasting credit, several other member nations walked out as well.

By: PaulHuedepohl

PaulHuedepohl — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:33:34 +0000

How am I supposed to read this Jack? "Treat someone with power who doesn't recognize basic freedoms with the respect they feel they deserve and they will inevitably come round"? Really? In what universe did that actually work?

I guess the difference between you and the "zealots" is we don't just believe in the PRINCIPLE of free speech. Speaking for myself alone, I believe in free speech. And I for one won't apologise for the outraged tone. I'm not sure what crowd you roll with Jack, but I don't hear a lot of people, outside of the "rights industry", demanding more restrictions on their basic rights and freedoms.

By: PaulHuedepohl

PaulHuedepohl — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:31:42 +0000

How am I supposed to read this? "Treat someone with power who doesn't recognize BASIC freedoms with the respect they feel they deserve and they will inevitably come round"? Really? What universe did that happen in?

By: C.W.

C.W. — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:34:48 +0000

The editorial cites MacLeans sense of “responsibility to its readers” – a responsibility, first and foremost, to get facts right, and avoid fabrication. But a few months ago, spectacular errors were pointed out, with no correction or acknowledgement from editors, despite requests. MacLeans claimed that “about 10 million Finns died under Lenin, almost half due to starvation”.

Finland’s population of 5 million was smaller during Lenin's time (about 3 million). 10 million of them could not have died. Nor would any have died under Lenin, who never ruled Finland (Finland was independent in 1917 when Lenin arrived in Russia). The article may be confusing Finland with the Ukraine, where, some estimates suggest, casualties from the “Holodomor” (starvation under forced collectivization) ranged from 2.6 million to 10 million. But this event occurred decades later, under Stalin, not Lenin, who was then dead.

Not only does MacLeans have the wrong country, but apparently the wrong leader and wrong time period.

An error of this magnitude requires a correction, and an acknowledgement from the editors who signed off on it. When and if editors acknowledge errors like this, we might trust that MacLeans takes seriously its “responsibility to readers”, and deserves the freedoms it claims.

By: MarkNS

MarkNS — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:36:17 +0000

So I guess the Toronto Star and EGALE and PEN are all supporting this right wing agenda too? Wow…quite the conspiracy.

By: DanielShays

DanielShays — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:17 +0000

The fact that left wing moonies consider the right to speak without bureaucratic approval a dreaded right wing agenda item explains much about why the left is dying. Good riddance too.

By: Vlad

Vlad — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:06:14 +0000

When you think of it all Section 13 is about is prosecuting pre-crimes. Remember Minority Report? Your opinion could possibly in some 7 degress of Kevin Bacon result in a crime being committed against some unknown minority at some unknown time. In fact it is far worse than the program envisioned in Minority Report. Fact is something happened to Harper's courage along the way from the NCC to Ottawa.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:35:38 +0000

The best quote I've ever read on the subject, made by a Canadian:

"The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties, in order to say that you're doing it to protect yourself and others, you are going against those rights and conventions, you are no better than the person who doesn't believe in them at all."

I like Levant, I like BCL, even a little Warren K – Somewhere in the middle is where it needs to be. Not some vague section in a code that does not even deign to allow itself to be governed by the standard rules of law.

A lot of people died for that principle.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:53:27 +0000

I'm just saying that there are lots of people like me out there who are in favour of free speech in principle, but when I look around and hear the tone people use in attacking Section 13 I wonder if its opponents aren't all a bunch of nuts. Take Levant himself: never arguing, always playing to the peanut gallery. It makes me quasi-indifferent to the fate of Section 13. (Spare me the lectures on "first they came for the funny little men in pink ties and pin-striped suits" etc.)

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:52:59 +0000

By: Latarnik

Latarnik — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:40 +0000

John you must be a member of that self-appointed higher casts of Holy Cows, who extort money for being offended. There are some degenerates who deserve to be offended. Clifford Olson, Karla and Paul Bernardo should be offended forever. John if you expect that society will follow your unrealistic, perverted dreams, you should live in Stalin's Soviet Union. Those times are gone and will never come back. If somebody is going to introduce them in Canada, I will risk my life to stop them. Government is not supported by taxpayers to protect some Holy Cows from being offended by normal human activities like free exchange of opinions. Human Rights Commission and Section 13th has been hijacked by supporters of Inhuman Wrongs. I let some believe that Earth is Flat or is only 6000 years old. It does not bother me a bit, as long as they are not going to ban the airplanes, (so they will not fall of the earth into space).

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:49:10 +0000

A tad presumptuous? or clueless? or just blind? look around – not a lot of support for 13.1- Who's venting? Com'on Jack – We all are.

By: janwebb

janwebb — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:28:48 +0000

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Liberals allow for no other ideology than their own –that is truly scary. I am Canadian (6th generation) but it is more than apparent to me that Liberals do NOT reflect my values. They have abandoned the truth that principles, not entitlement, are what makes both an individual and a country strong.

By: janwebb

janwebb — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:21:11 +0000

In a New York minute!

By: janwebb

janwebb — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:20:29 +0000

So I suppose suppressing free speech would be anti-Hitler?? Somehow I think YOU missed it.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:09:29 +0000

Yeah, but you free-speech zealots are in a minority. If you shout loud enough, the majority will shout back at you twice as loud. It doesn't help your case to vent, especially in those terms. So are you interested in helping your case or just in venting?

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:07:30 +0000

"one common person up against a bureaucracy with untold number of lawyers working ON BEHALF of the person who complained"

Maureen, that description fits the criminal justice system.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:05:39 +0000

Feels good to have something to vent your disrespect on, eh? Honestly, old people these days!

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:50:05 +0000

And so, as an individual I should be permitted to represent my "group" (whether or not I actually find myself a member of that group) because "wah-wah that bad man said bad things"? And I get this taxpayer-subsidized collosus to pick my fights for me? Ugh.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:27:42 +0000

Well said!!!!!!

By: Rob H

Rob H — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:33:24 +0000

Repealing Sec 13 would be a good start. The whole HRC boondoogle should be shut down. These people are politically appointed hacks sucking off public funds because they couldn’t make anywhere near the same money any real job they could get. They will always try to create, exaggerate and expand “human rights” and their authority. They are pretentious posers who presume to be the people who can judge what are human rights and what are not. Doesn’t Macleans get it yet? Fire. Them. All.

By: Boadicea

Boadicea — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:25:14 +0000

The most frightening thing in this story is Harper's statement that the government needs to find an "appropriate balance" to settle the issue of free speech. The second most frightening thing is Macleans' (and presumably other Canadians') apparent inability to recognize that that is the crux of the problem. It is not merely about repealing Section 13. It is about getting government out of the business of policing speech, unless the speech promotes criminal activity such as incitement to violence or actual violence.

By: smalltowncheap

smalltowncheap — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:58:33 +0000

Harper can't do anything about the HRC's or section 13 because Warren Kinsella would not aprove. What else can account for his avoidance/inaction?

By: PaulHuedepohl

PaulHuedepohl — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:00:32 +0000

Until these "institutions" are treated with the (dis)respect that they deserve, they will continue trundling along as an "essential" part of the Canadian "mosaic".

Don't shoot the messenger!

By: Maureen

Maureen — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:59:19 +0000

No lawyer is needed to face an HRT – what planet have you being living on? No sane person should think of taking on a HRT without a lawyer – one common person up against a bureaucracy with untold number of lawyers working ON BEHALF of the person who complained would be the most foolish thing to do in the world. It is bad enough that the HRT follows no rules of evidence so that it is almost impossible to predict what type of information you need to bring forward and as was seen in the Lemerie situation, the HRT didn't even think it was important to share transcripts, findings or anything with the accused prior to the 'hearing' and even tired to hold the hearing without the accused present. You obviously have a lot of faith HRC/HRT, but most Canadians are smarter than that!

By: Maureen

Maureen — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:52:16 +0000

Oh yes the good old and tired 'hidden agenda'. Unfortunately it would take nothing at all for the MSM and the opposition parties to run with that and Canadians would believe it.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:30:43 +0000

How so?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:09:02 +0000

Do you have anything positive to contribute to this discussion, John? If not, at least reduce your carbon footprint and stop posting such useless comments

By: Mike T.

Mike T. — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:05:58 +0000

this is an incorrect reading of the case.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:34:48 +0000

"Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals."

No mention in the ruling of hate speech, no illegal comments were made but a lifetime ban. Maybe that's your version of Canada – Not mine. I don't even know how some people even call themselves Liberal.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:12:20 +0000

In the case of Rev B – he made no illegal comments but disparaging ones. Good to know that in Canada disparaging comments are considered hate speech.

By: R.B. Glennie

R.B. Glennie — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:12:08 +0000

which is of course my point: anyone not bringing a lawyer as a defendant to a HRC hearing has a fool for a client.

A fool is exactly what our friend Conway Twitchell is, on the other hand.

By: Robert McClelland

Robert McClelland — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:09:37 +0000

Lifetime speech bans for making disparaging comments – nice slap on the wrist.

Nobody has been given a lifetime speech ban and the hate speech was more than merely disparaging comments.

What a crock of BS

I agree, so why did you post it.

By: Fred - Brandon MB

Fred - Brandon MB — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:02:57 +0000

Repealling a section of the Human Rights Act, no matter how valid, is political suicide, especially for a Conservative PM. The opposition have long tried to demonize the Conservatives and create the boogeyman of a "hidden agenda". An action like this would simply add fuel to the smoldering BS.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:38:42 +0000

A mental exercise regarding Rev. Boissoin's order: imagine if an anti-gay bureaucrat had ordered a gay activist to apologize to a Catholic priest, and then to write a public renunciation of his gay lifestyle in a newspaper.

It's unthinkable. At least to some.

Sec 13.1 is not a cheap mans court. This is not about accessibility to some form some of personal justice. If you want that then the complainant should pay – not have it paid for. All cases should go before a real judge and follow the criminal code. The SCC made it very clear Sec.13.1 was supposed to used in "extreme" case's of "hate" not the current string of BS it used for now.