Salami Tactics

That's the thing about radical Islam.

It starts off wanting a mutually acceptable counter-article and ends up denying others the right to see a mutually acceptable counter-article.

Of course, when it comes to Islam, there is no 'mutually acceptable'. It's 'my way or the highway', in some cases quite literally.

"One of the weakest political leaders in the modern history of Canada"

Thomas Mulcair has been getting himself in the news again today by claiming that

Mulcair added federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion would lose all credibility if the Grits endorsed the budget or abstained from voting to allow the minority government to survive a confidence vote. He complained that the Liberals have been mailing out pamphlets saying they are standing up to Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's ultra right-wing agenda, but have refused to defeat the government and force an election.

"They're actually maintaining the Conservatives in power," Mulcair said. "Stephane Dion, right now, is proving that he is one of the weakest political leaders in the modern history of Canada."

No, Thomas. The weakest political leader in the modern history of Canada has to be Jack Layton for maintaining the Liberals in power. Whilst charging the Canadian taxpayers $5 billion for the 'pleasure'.

Give me today my daily bread ...

Is everybody who comes out in favour of Section 13.1 of the HRA in some way dependent on it for their livelihood? I quote from an article in today's Montreal Gazette by Pearl Eliadis, a ..... no, see if you can guess what she does for a 'living'.

"First, there has been no suppression of speech. No complaint has been filed against Steyn, who is free to express his views and has being doing so with regularity in multiple venues. The complaints against Maclean's magazine ask for the right to more, not less, information by demanding publication of the "other side" of the story."

The complainants can publish the "other side" of the story wherever they please. What they don't have the 'right' to do is "demand" the publication of it by Maclean's.

"There might or might not be such a right in Canada"

This comment only really has true comedy value when you get to the end of the article.

"Second, freedom of speech has its limits. According to the Supreme Court, "hate propaganda contributes little to Canada ... in either the quest for truth... or the fostering of a vibrant democracy." In other words, the nature of hate speech is so far removed from the spirit of constitutional guarantees that it enjoys little judicial deference."

Again, an interesting point and one which I would agree with. However, who decides what is "hate propaganda" and what isn't "hate propaganda"? Should it be the Supreme Court or should it be an anonymous bureaucrat who was only ever given the job on an HRC because she would undoubtedly give the 'correct' verdict.

"Third, journalists have hinted, through words like "interrogation," "prosecute" and "convict" that commissions are exercising court-like powers. Most people instinctively recognize the language of the criminal law, and are perfectly capable of understanding the implications for citizens unjustly caught in its jaws.
In fact, no commission in Canada has such powers. Criminal law and human-rights law are entirely separate. Human- rights commissions operate in a much less confrontational way, trying to find common ground, seeking settlements and, where discrimination actually is found to exist, recommending remedies. They have no power to make orders, except to dismiss a complaint."

Has anyone told the commissions this?

"Inciting hatred or contempt is very serious business, even on the non-criminal side. It takes objective proof, and there must be evidence.

Are Levant and Steyn hatemongerers? Maybe not. But no one has decided that."

Where to begin?

First of all, even the most cursory reading of the Human Rights Act shows that "objective proof" and "evidence" need not be in immediate supply. The section in question states that "It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically ... any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" - the key word being "likely". How can there be 'evidence' when the incitement of hatred or contempt is only "likely" to occur?

Secondly, Levant and Steyn are up against commissions that have a 100% 'conviction' rate. The very fact that the 'cases' are being heard is enough to assume their 'guilt'.

The hammer hits home with the final line.

"Pearl Eliadis is a human-rights lawyer in Montreal."

No, really? You mean she has a vested interest in arguing for the retention of Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act as without it she'd have no job.

Oh, that explains that then.

UPDATE

Of course, a quick piece of Googling reveals that "Ms. Eliadis also has extensive experience in the public and non-profit sector, including as ..... a former Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission ... "

See Ezra Levant for his take on the piece.