|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: human rights complaint against Maclean's dismissed |
 |
|
| Quote: |
TORONTO, June 26 /CNW/ - Maclean's magazine is pleased that the Canadian
Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the
Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing
position that the article in question, "The Future Belongs to Islam," an
excerpt from Mark Steyn's best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece
of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of
normal journalistic practice.
Though gratified by the decision, Maclean's continues to assert that no
human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the
mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial
decisions of the nation's media. And we continue to have grave concerns about
a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be
pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same
complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to
say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those
parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions
with regard to speech issues.
|
http://tinyurl.com/4w4ay9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Allah Allah! A great outcome. Still a few to go, unfortunately. The HRC's are now going after comedians.
http://www.canada.com
| Quote: |
Comic faces human rights hearing in B.C. after lesbian jokes
David Wylie, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A Canadian stand-up comedian will face a human rights tribunal hearing after a woman complained she and her friends faced a "tirade of homophobic and sexist comments" while attending one of his shows.
Pardy could not be reached Wednesday for comment. However, the tribunal's decision says she alleges she was discriminated against over her sex and sexual orientation when Earle made public comments "intended to humiliate her." The ruling says Earle and Pardy "have very different versions of who was to blame for the incidents, how it came about and how it escalated." There is also a dispute over what role alcohol played in the incident.
Canadian stand-up comic, Guy Earle, who will face a human rights tribunal hearing in British Columbia after Lorna Pardy, a lesbian, complained she and her friends faced homophobic and sexists insults during one of his shows in Toronto.View Larger Image View Larger Image
Canadian stand-up comic, Guy Earle, who will face a human rights tribunal hearing in British Columbia after Lorna Pardy, a lesbian, complained she and her friends faced homophobic and sexists insults during one of his shows in Toronto.
"Mr. Earle does, however, admit that he used comments which he now regrets," says the tribunal. "Those admitted comments may go to establish discrimination."
Reached Wednesday, Earle said he was the show's MC when Pardy and two of her friends walked in, sat in the booth closest to the stage and began heckling him and other comics.
"Two of them started making out, flipping me the bird and saying I hated lesbians," he said.
"The reader or the listener or whatever has no feeling for the environment of the comedy show that is triple-X, edgiest-show-in-town, controversial and offensive, so when you walk in there you're making an agreement to be a party to this controversial show."
"You just change one little verb and you take it out of context and all of a sudden it's time for me to drink a glass of hemlock," he said. "They were drunk, they were being jerks and I was very rude and visceral to them because, like I said, if you have a heckler, what you want to do is put them in their place by offending them, so I tried to hit them where it hurts and the only thing I had to key on was the fact that they were lesbians.
"I don't care if they're lesbians, heterosexuals, homosexuals or giraffes." |
Canada will be socially regulated until it resembles a liberal arts faculty. Group think enforced with formal and informal sanctions, humorless, and all together uninspiring and boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Steyn should have appealed this decision! Joking aside, I was kind of hoping this would have gone to trial, as it would have forced the public consciousness to acknowledge a possibly dangerous precedent-setting case. On the bright side, this could also be a sign that the 'Powers that Be' are getting the picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| a possibly dangerous precedent-setting case |
There's no way the government was ever gonna order a magazine to publish apologia for a religion, written by adherents of the religion itself. You'd end up with every newspaper in Canada having to include pro-Scientology op-eds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The HRC's ain't the government. They are rouge flunkies with a hard-left agenda. They let them off the hook because their bread and butter depended upon it.
They will simply return to harassing average citizens for crimes of political correctness. Your average joe Canadian doesn't have 800$/hr for top lawyers. And remember, the HRC's previously had a 100% (soviet style) conviction rate. Even fucking Saddam wouldn't have been so bold.
Canada is developing a predatory government.
http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/now-magazine-editor-only-lesbi.html
| Quote: |
Congratulations to CHCH TV out of Hamilton. They had me on a show today, along with a comedian, debating the decision by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to put a comedian on trial for unfunny jokes about lesbian hecklers. I say congratulations, because the CHCH editors managed to find someone in Canada who was willing to defend the BCHRT's decision to have the trial. That's impressive.
They found this support in the personage of Susan Cole, the senior entertainment editor of Toronto's NOW Magazine, pictured at left. She's smiling -- I think -- which is odd, because Cole has a very particular definition of what's funny.
She called the remarks by the comedian in question "hate speech" and "discrimination", and said they "weren't funny". That's pretty impressive, given that there hasn't been a trial yet. But I think Cole understands the human rights industry just fine -- everyone's guilty; it's just a matter of who's unlucky enough to be charged.
Until now, HRCs have tried to dress up their political censorship as something else -- not as political hygiene, but as eradicating "hate". That's a neat trick, given that hate, like love, is an innate human emotion, and can't really be eradicated through laws -- though hate can surely be exacerbated by them. But now HRCs -- with Cole's delighted support -- are now taking it upon themselves to determine what is or isn't "funny", even at a comedy night.
Finally, we have some top talent looking into the matter of what is or isn't funny. Forget about Jerry Seinfeld or Jay Leno; we've got the dour sourpusses at the HRCs on the file. Once they come up with the magic recipe, wannabe comedians around the world will simply have to follow the instructions of the HRCs, and -- presto! -- the laughs will follow. At least that's the logic of a government agency that seeks to be the arbiter of what is or isn't funny.
I was asked by the host how this would affect Vancouver; I said I doubt the Just For Laughs Festival would be visiting anytime soon -- talk about a frenzy of hate crimes! And I asked if Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock, both of whom use the word n*gger the same way you and I use the words "and" and "the", would be allowed into town.
Cole had a quick answer: yes they would. Because they're allowed to make Black jokes, even using the word n*gger. But Whites can't. I'd have to read the transcript to be sure, but I think Cole implied that not only would the same joke told by a White comedian be illegal, it wouldn't even be funny. This, from the "senior entertainment editor" of an arts magazine.
That's nuts, of course. But, from a "human rights" "law" point of view, Cole is actually spot on. Under our "human rights" "jurisprudence", Mark Steyn and Maclean's were subjected to a five-day "hate speech" trial for "Islamophobia" in Vancouver for quoting radical Muslims. The radical Muslims who made the offensive remarks weren't charged (though the BCHRT asserts its jurisdiction not only nationally, but internationally); but Steyn and Maclean's were charged for repeating them. That's actually Cole's logic: a lesbian can crack a joke about lesbians. But a straight woman, or a man, can't. Same joke; but only a special victim group is allowed to tell it.
That's perfect politically correct logic for you -- and it's why, for example, Canada's feminists have been largely silent about the Muslim honour killings, polygamy and even female genital mutilation in Canada. Because Cole is merely a white woman; her poker hand is trumped by women of colour; and nothing beats the full house of a foreign-born, visible minority, Muslim. So traditional liberal values like free speech, the equality of men and women, and non-violence towards women, take a back seat to the politically correct value of not insulting "the other".
Cole was genuinely excited about this comedian being charged with "hate speech" for making fun of lesbians -- all the while acknowledging that the same jokes would be fine if the joke-teller was lesbian. What a horrid world Cole wants us to live in.
It got me thinking, though. What kind of jokes could Barack Obama tell? His mom was White; is he Black enough to tell Black jokes? How about someone who is one quarter Black? One eighth? Are they only allowed to tell gentle Black jokes, but the really tough ones are reserved for very black-skinned Blacks?
Could a straight woman pretend to be a lesbian in order to tell jokes about lesbians? How would Susan Cole propose to check her bona fides? And how about bi-sexuals?
Could a transexual -- a man who "became" a woman -- tell jokes about women? Even if he was still six feet tall, and looked pretty masculine?
Can anyone tell a joke that begins "a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar", or would you need two people to tell that one?
Can you convert to Islam, tell some Muslim jokes, and then convert back when the show is done (provided you're not executed for apostasy)?
If a lesbian tells a joke about lesbians, and it's not funny, do you still have to laugh? If you don't, is that discrimination?
There are so many rules about the "new comedy". All of which are lustily supported by a very angry woman named Susan Cole, and soul mates on the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. I'm sure that the comedians of the world will be hanging on their every word, and following their position papers on what jokes are funny and what jokes aren't.
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize-winning writer, was sentenced by a troika to eight years in a labour camp for writing a joke about Joseph Stalin -- he made fun of Stalin's moustache, calling him "the whiskered one". An estimated 200,000 Russians were sent to the Gulag for making jokes.
It is a mistake to think that freedom only grows; that once achieved, it always remains. The malign human instinct to control one's neighbours, to silence one's foes, is eternal. There are Stalins in every generation; they must be met with Solzhenitsyns in every generation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The HRC's ain't the government. |
Well, their salaries are paid directly by the state, and they have the legal authority to make people appear at their meetings and force them to pay fines. So yeah, I'd say that qualifies them as part of the government.
| Quote: |
They let them off the hook because their bread and butter depended upon it.
|
I would agree with that, because if Maclean's had been convicted, the public opinion backlash would have been so swift and so severe that the HRCS would find themselves disembowelled by parliament and legislatures, by year's end at the latest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They are not part of the formal legal system, nor have they been held accountable in any way. Their salaries are paid by the state, and they are empowered by some silly "act" but they act more like an independent gang of PC thugs, doing what they please. They totally disregard all standard procedures of a legal proceeding. My point isn't a technical one but rhetorical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roch
Joined: 24 Apr 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: Been There and Been Through That... |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| They are not part of the formal legal system, nor have they been held accountable in any way. Their salaries are paid by the state, and they are empowered by some silly "act" but they act more like an independent gang of PC thugs, doing what they please. They totally disregard all standard procedures of a legal proceeding. My point isn't a technical one but rhetorical. |
Hello,
The same sort of thugs railroaded me at Dullhousie University in the South End of Halifax, Nova Scotia: Black Feminista named Grace from a very well-known ex-Africville clan (think of a carving knife) with a renowned hatred of Whitey treated me in a racist and very, very hostile and uncivilised manner at the Students' Union Building.
I eventually told the thing off and was consequently barred by her cronies in Kangaroo Court where my "peers" were self-admitted anti-Americans: One Muslim immigrant from somewhere in the Middle East and another from either Ghana or Nigeria; two or three morbidly obese Femi-Nazis from Halifax-Dartmouth; an aboriginal lesbian from the reserve at or near Steubenackadie, N.S. (sp?); and, for the icing on the cake, a few Black males and females from New Glasgow, N.S. and several others from the infamously violent and largely Black-populated housing projects of the West End and Central areas of Halifax: "The Pubs" near the Halifax Shopping Centre (St. Andrew's Avenue area for Bluenosers reading this) and Muniacke (A.K.A., "Maniac") Square just North of Citadel Hill on Gottingen Street near the Canada Employment Centre, respectively.
The last group's apparant leader, a female, yelled at me in "trial" that I was not allowed to cross-examine my accuser and that my witnesses were not allowed to testify on my behalf.
The real kicker was when the Head of Student Services at Dullhousie Penitentiary - some white shmuck with local connections who's the epitome of dull, cowardly, inethical, and provincial - refused to, although it was in his official job duties, become involved in my case. He also refused to ensure that I received even partial reimbursement for my Students' Union Fees for the semester.
Speech Codes are not part of Classical Liberal thought and must be continually exposed as such. In fact, Affirmative Action and government Set-Asides were struck down as un-constitutional in at least eleven states in the U.S. in the 1990s and have been under fire from opponents since their inception worldwide.
Let's pray that the large scale re-awakening of the Canadian populace concerning human dignity and all that this notion entails sweeps the nation quickly enough to become a major issue at the ballots in federal and provincial elections.
R |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roch
Joined: 24 Apr 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Polite-minded posters may send me specific questions about my experiences with Reverse Racism and Grace Carving Knife and Crew at Dullhousie University via P.M.
Yours respectfully,
Roch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In Canada, "tolerance" is a one way street. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roch wrote: |
| ...Reverse Racism... |
Don't use this phrase. It is in itself racist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roch
Joined: 24 Apr 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Roch wrote: |
| ...Reverse Racism... |
Don't use this phrase. It is in itself racist. |
Sorry, eh, and I must be punished...
Apologetically,
R&B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roch
Joined: 24 Apr 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| No no. No punishment. We're on the same team. |
Madam/Sir:
I was being facetious towards you.
Thanks a lot for your replies.
Respectfully,
Roch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some good news:
| Quote: |
Today's decision by the Supreme Court of Canada about defamation law has shifted the balance from plaintiffs to defendants -- in other words, towards greater free speech. The court calls it a modernization, which it is -- phenomena like talk radio shows, partisan TV panels and the Internet were not around when defamation law was developing (it actually goes back 400 years). It also brings us more in synch with the U.S. approach to free speech, and breaks away from the European model of soft censorship.
In other words, it should terrify Canada's human rights commissions. I had no doubt before this decision that Canada's HRCs were conducting themselves in an unconstitutional manner -- exceeding the narrow censorship powers granted to them in the 1990 Taylor decision. Now it's a certainty that section 13 would be batted down by this free speech-loving court.
The facts of this case involved B.C.'s radio legend Rafe Mair, and a conservative activist named Kari Simpson. But the law applies to all cases in Canada going forward, not just theirs.
The decision is written in pretty plain English, unlike some of the 200-pages of opaque gobbledegook the court became known for in the 1990s that were likely the sign of indecision as much as anything. This decision is pretty clear.
Here are some key lines from the ruling:
In my view, with respect, the Court of Appeal unduly favoured protection of Kari Simpson�s reputation in a rancourous public debate in which she had involved herself as a major protagonist...
In the absence of demonstrated malice on his part (which the trial judge concluded was not a dominant motive), his expression of opinion, however exaggerated, was protected by the law. We live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones.
...Mair has a reputation for provoking controversy. With controversy has come a measure of commercial success. His listeners expect to hear extravagant opinions and, according to his counsel, discount them accordingly.
...There is concern that matters of public interest go unreported because publishers fear the ballooning cost and disruption of defending a defamation action. Investigative reports get �spiked�, the Media Coalition contends, because, while true, they are based on facts that are difficult to establish according to rules of evidence. When controversies erupt, statements of claim often follow as night follows day, not only in serious claims (as here) but in actions launched simply for the purpose of intimidation. Of course �chilling� false and defamatory speech is not a bad thing in itself, but chilling debate on matters of legitimate public interest raises issues of inappropriate censorship and self-censorship. Public controversy can be a rough trade, and the law needs to accommodate its requirements.
...In much modern media, personalities such as Rafe Mair are as much entertainers as journalists. The media regularly match up assailants who attack each other on a set topic. The audience understands that the combatants, like lawyers or a devil�s advocate, are arguing a brief. What is important in such a debate on matters of public interest is that all sides of an issue are forcefully presented, although the limitation that the opinions must be ones that could be �honestly express[ed] . . . on the proved facts� provides some boundary to the extent to which private reputations can be trashed in public discourse.
The decision doesn't end defamation suits, of course. It merely moves the fulcrum a bit, by widening the scope of what constitutes "fair comment". Fair comment must still be rooted in true facts; but if those facts are clear, and the defamer's comments are clearly his own views, the court will give latitude to even "outrageous" and "ridiculous" opinions. |
http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/a-major-shift-in-defamation-la.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
