Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 85
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124

    The People's Republic of Canada's Stalinesque "Human Rights" Commission show trial

    The Kafkaesque Show Trial of Mark Steyn

    At a surreal tribunal last week, ancient liberties came under assault from the Canadian thought police.

    Kathy Shaidle, 11 June 2008

    Author and columnist Mark Steyn’s week-long trial for “hate speech” began in a British Columbia courtroom on June 2.

    As previously reported in Pajamas Media, Steyn was accused of “flagrant Islamaphobia” after his bestselling book America Alone was excerpted in Canada’s oldest newsweekly magazine, Maclean’s, in 2006.

    If found guilty by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Maclean’s could be ordered to stop publishing Steyn’s column, or other articles “likely” to expose Muslims to “hatred or contempt.” In other words, a magazine that’s been published for over a century in an ostensibly free Western nation will now be subject to state sanction and preemptive censorship. Canadian Human Rights Tribunals boast a 100% conviction rate on such “hate speech” cases, and have already handed down lifetime bans against the likes of Rev. Scott Boision. That Christian preacher is now forbidden for life from ever citing Bible verses regarding homosexuality in his sermons, or “in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet.”


    Musing on his surreal circumstances, Steyn wrote in what may be one of his last columns for Maclean’s:

    By the way, I see I’ve been nominated for a National Magazine Award, to be handed out later this month. By then, Mr. Joseph [the complainants’ lawyer] will have succeeded in getting the B.C. troika effectively to ban me from Maclean’s and from all Canadian journalism. An impressive achievement. My book was a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, and the new paperback edition was at No. 4 the other day, and President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Jon Kyl, and (at last count) six European prime ministers have either recommended the book or called me in to discuss its themes.

    But in Canada it’s a hate crime.

    Most defendants at such show trials end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation as well as various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant. This is the PRC's idea of "fairness".

    Of course, if Mark Steyn were attacking Christianity instead of radical Islam, the Leftmedia would defend his right to free speech without censorship. But the Leftmedia in the West are almost silent on this farcical show trial.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 12-06-2008 at 04:06 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  2. #2
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Free speech held hostage by tribunal

    For five depressing days in a nondescript courtroom in Vancouver last week, one of the most important rights in Canada -- the right to free speech -- was repeatedly kicked in the head.

    It was a shocking, demeaning and unsettling spectacle that would be more at home in a totalitarian state than a country that claims to be a liberal democracy. But the attack on Maclean's magazine for daring to publish the Oct. 20, 2006 article, The Future Belongs To Islam, was entirely permissible under British Columbia's human rights laws. It is time those regulations, indeed the nation's human rights regulations, are rewritten. Much depends on this.

    The hearing before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal came in direct response to complaints made against Maclean's by two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress. It is obvious that those two individuals, one of whom is congress president Mohamed Elmasry of Waterloo, were sincerely offended by the article in question.

    It is equally obvious they were using a system created by democratically elected politicians to seek redress. This system, not the two men's ruffled feelings, is what Canadians should object to.

    Over the course of the week, the tribunal panel heard the complainants' lawyer argue that the Maclean's article was inaccurate, that it offended and hurt the feelings of Canadian Muslims and that it incited prejudice against this group. The panel was told, too, that the article was hateful and contemptuous of Muslims.

    These are serious complaints. But surely they miss the point about freedom of speech. In one sense, freedom is its own defence and the greatest justification of all for what Maclean's did.

    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that "everyone has . . . freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.'' The charter does not extend this freedom only to viewpoints that are accurate. And in any case, who are the members of a tribunal panel to determine the truth of a subject as massive as that as the role of militant Islam in the world today? Nor does the charter grant free speech only to those who do not offend, affront or cause anger. If that were the case, the nation's newspapers would be filled with white space and its airwaves silence.

    To be sure, free speech for individuals and the media is circumscribed by the laws of defamation, contempt of court and hate speech. But none of those laws has been arrayed against Maclean's. No court of law, which would convict only after proof had been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, has been asked to consider if the magazine violated Canada's hate-speech laws. No court of law, overseen by a judge and operating on more stringent standards of procedure and admissibility of evidence than a human rights tribunal, has been involved at any time.

    Instead it has been left to an administrative, quasi-judicial tribunal, a group of suited bureaucrats, to weigh the right of free speech in a nation of 33 million people against the rights of two complainants who claim, without any compelling evidence, to speak for a large number of Canadian Muslims.

    In a free and open society, the kind of society Canada wants and claims to be, citizens have the liberty to discuss important and controversial subjects. In 2008, in the aftermath of attacks launched by Islamic extremists against the United States, Britain and other countries, it is imperative that Canadians learn about and talk about this great global faith and the violent minority who would hijack it. That discussion will be difficult, even rancorous at times.

    But if it proceeds, it will lead to greater mutual understanding for all. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is impeding this discussion and the operation of a free press. The powers of this and other such tribunals should be curtailed so that the discussion goes on -- and true free speech in Canada survives.
    http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/363925
    Last edited by Axiom; 12-06-2008 at 05:10 PM.

  3. #3
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Please would you link to a source?
    yes certainly ,will edit above ,....
    jono - you might be interested in this , that i just unearthed
    http://www.tpuc.org/node/107
    Last edited by Axiom; 12-06-2008 at 05:11 PM.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    “For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant’s right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers—for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing. — Ottawa Citizen | Suing for silence | 9 December 2007

    See also Canadian Human Rights Commission EXPOSED!
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  5. #5
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    I've read the Steyn article. In brief, it was about Islam taking over Western nations peacefully by outbreeding their dominant ethnicities. It was certainly paranoid (rather like Hanson's guff about Asians swamping Australia, albeit marginally more intelligent). It was certainly biased and xenophobic and may well have reinforced or stimulated bias and xenophobia, and it tended to use the "not every Muslim is a terrorist" line in a way that made it quite clear the author considered eight-tenths of Muslims to be gung-ho for Osama. But I don't see why it should be the subject of legal process. Actually it was as much as critical of the West as it was of Islam, and, as far as pieces that are biased, xenophobic and paranoid go, it wasn't really abusive, uncivil or hateful, nor did it use language in a manner that greatly compounded the inflammatory nature of the views being expressed. I'm not sure it would be illegal under Tasmania's relevant laws for instance, since they contain exceptions for matters written in good faith for the public interest - and I suspect the determining factor for such things is the intent of the writer.

    What I would like to know though is this: if someone links to Steyn's piece on Chesschat, could Canadians be banned from accessing the site, and as a result of that, could Arrogant-One be prosecuted for a hate crime every time he signs up a hydra?
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 27-09-2009 at 02:45 AM.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Also, a lot of the most offensive things in Steyn's article were from Muslim leaders themselves!

    But if there was anything wrong, then it should be answered by sound logic, not by threats or censorship.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124

    Canadian preacher finally beats Human Rights Gedankenpolizei

    Canadian Lifetime Speech Ban Lifted
    Mark Steyn, 5 Dec 2009

    A couple of years back, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin committed the crime of writing a letter to a local newspaper objecting to various aspects of "the homosexual agenda." The Alberta "Human Rights" Tribunal convicted him of this crime and imposed a lifetime speech ban preventing him, in essence, from saying anything about homosexuality in public or private ever again anywhere for the rest of his life.

    The Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta has now struck down this outrageous decision. Mr. Justice Wilson's ruling could not be plainer. He rejects all the Tribunal's punishments as "illegal," not least the speech ban:

    The direction to cease and desist the publishing of "disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals' is beyond the power of the Panel. "Disparaging remarks"were not defined by the Panel. But clearly, "disparaging remarks" are remarks much less serious than hateful and contemptuous remarks and are quite lawful to make. They are beyond the power of the Act to regulate and the power of the Province to restrain.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  8. #8
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    This would appear to suggest that the original decision was at fault, not the legislation, per se, given that the decision has been corrected at appeal.

    Jono, you might want to reconsider using the term "Stalinesque" given that it is somewhat of a gross exaggeration and rather insensitive to the millions of people who died under this regime.

    I must confess that whatever one's perspective is on the limits of free speech, it's not really a good look to see Christians fight for the right to be racist, homophobic and otherwise prejudiced against minority groups. We saw this in the Victorian legislation where conservative Christians championed the cause of Catch the Fire Ministries, before realising that they were a pretty poor horse to back.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    While throwing the original finding out on virtually every ground the appeal judgement (which I have read in full and it appears to be a very considered and well argued judgement overturning a very shoddily and cluelessly conducted case) found correctly of Rev Boissoin's letter that:

    That the language may be jarring, offensive, bewildering, puerile, nonsensical and insulting may admit of little doubt.
    which is a marginally polite way of saying that the Reverend Boissoin is a fruitcake and an idiot.

    It is also notable that the appeal judgement endorsed the Godwin's Law type line I have run here against spurious Nazi (/Hitler/Stalin/fascist etc) comparisons:

    Similarly the panel ought to have made some mention of ignoring the controversial and hurtful innuendo contained in Crown Counsel's cross-examination of the defence expert which suggested that the content of the letter had some sort of parallel to Mein Kampf. Being compared to Adolf Hitler is no minor accusation to be levelled against anyone. It is offensive and damning if not proven.
    Yet Jono is quite happy to throw about hyperbolic and ludicrous comparisons to Stalin, Hitler and the Nazis, and did so with regards Stalin in the title of this thread.

    He also criticises Godwin's Law, even though such Nazi comparisons are the absolute epitome of intellectual crassness ("crass" being a call Jono usually deploys with great readiness).
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 08-12-2009 at 10:19 PM.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    which is a marginally polite way of saying that the Reverend Boissoin is a fruitcake and an idiot.
    and its also a way of saying "I don't agree with your beliefs". This whole sorry mess (Canada's experience) is what I fear happening in Australia if the hand-wringers and black armband brigade get their way and introduce an Australian Bill of Rights. I should have the right to express my views; and those that disagree with me should also be able to express theirs. As long as it is (a) just words, not actions; and (b) the words do not incite to violent actions ... then I think pretty much anything should be able to be discussed, promoted, and criticised.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    This would appear to suggest that the original decision was at fault, not the legislation, per se, given that the decision has been corrected at appeal.
    Not at all. It is still grossly unjust that one professing "aggrieved" party, at no cost, can impose huge costs and time expenditures on another party. It is also crass that offending or disparaging something can be a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Jono, you might want to reconsider using the term "Stalinesque" given that it is somewhat of a gross exaggeration and rather insensitive to the millions of people who died under this regime.
    The control of people's thoughts and show trials are things they had in common, so stop being so hypersensitive. Leftism is truly the philosophy of the easily offended.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    I must confess that whatever one's perspective is on the limits of free speech, it's not really a good look to see Christians fight for the right to be racist, homophobic and otherwise prejudiced against minority groups.
    Who said anything about racist, fearing the same or prejudiced against minorities? How about fighting for the government to stay out of what people say unless it incites violence? Also, such legislation usually undermines equality under the law by creating politically appointed victim groups; e.g. homosexuals insulting christians is OK, milder insults to Christians by homosexuals results in being hauled before these kangaroo courts. Also, bureaucracies by their very nature expand, so the cases they hear become wider and wider. E.g. in Australia, there are simply not enough racists to cause problems, so the human rights grievance lobby wants to extend their reach. Even worse:

    Race Discrimination Commissioner Tom Calma wants the burden of proof in cases of racial discrimination to fall on the alleged offender, instead of the person making the complaint. Mr Calma said Australia's laws made it difficult to prove there had been discrimination.

    A Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission analysis of other countries, including the US, Britain and Canada, shows that in those countries the onus of proof shifts to the person who has been accused of discrimination once the complainant has established an initial case.

    In Australia, the burden of proof rests on the person making the complaint.

    What does a lefty lawyer type do when leftist sacred cows conflict with a foundational legal principle such as presumption of innocence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    We saw this in the Victorian legislation where conservative Christians championed the cause of Catch the Fire Ministries, before realising that they were a pretty poor horse to back.
    Again, here is a case of a trumped up charge that led to the first judge making absurd comments about religion that were outside his purview and field of expertise. It also cost the defendants lots of money in court costs. It is irrelevant what the Dannys have done since then; they were still right in this case.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 09-12-2009 at 01:11 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    While throwing the original finding out on virtually every ground the appeal judgement (which I have read in full and it appears to be a very considered and well argued judgement overturning a very shoddily and cluelessly conducted case)
    It was, but the whole law is crass, since it imposes no costs on complainants and huge costs on defendants, and has a very low standard of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    which is a marginally polite way of saying that the Reverend Boissoin is a fruitcake and an idiot.
    Not a legal argument. And this should not be punishable by a fine and gagging—it should not even go before a court in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Yet Jono is quite happy to throw about hyperbolic and ludicrous comparisons to Stalin, Hitler and the Nazis, and did so with regards Stalin in the title of this thread.
    Fining or imprisoning people for religious speech that incited no violence, then prohibiting said speech is something they had in common.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  13. #13
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not at all. It is still grossly unjust that one professing "aggrieved" party, at no cost, can impose huge costs and time expenditures on another party. It is also crass that offending or disparaging something can be a crime.
    Firstly, it's not a criminal offence.

    Secondly, as the appeal judgment shows, mere offence or disparagement does not constitute an offence under the legislation.

    Your crass attempt at representing the legal implications of this legislation illustrates quite clearly why such analysis should be better left to those with even the slightest grounding in jurisprudence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The control of people's thoughts and show trials are things they had in common, so stop being so hypersensitive. Leftism is truly the philosophy of the easily offended.
    In what sense are people's thoughts being controlled? I don't see anyone getting prosecuted for what they think.

    As for being hypersensitive, I'm probably more offended by the ridiculous nature of your argument and your need and/or compulsion to resort to comparisons with Stalin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Who said anything about racist, fearing the same or prejudiced against minorities? How about fighting for the government to stay out of what people say unless it incites violence? Also, such legislation usually undermines equality under the law by creating politically appointed victim groups; e.g. homosexuals insulting christians is OK, milder insults to Christians by homosexuals results in being hauled before these kangaroo courts. Also, bureaucracies by their very nature expand, so the cases they hear become wider and wider. E.g. in Australia, there are simply not enough racists to cause problems, so the human rights grievance lobby wants to extend their reach.
    Of course you don't see what is said as being racist, homophobic or prejudiced against minorities. This is half the problem with you literalists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    What does a lefty lawyer type do when leftist sacred cows conflict with a foundational legal principle such as presumption of innocence?
    Which leftist sacred cows are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Again, here is a case of a trumped up charge that led to the first judge making absurd comments about religion that were outside his purview and field of expertise. It also cost the defendants lots of money in court costs. It is irrelevant what the Dannys have done since then; they were still right in this case.
    While I respect the appeal judgment and concede on that basis that their conduct did not fall within the scope of the legislation, there is no question in my mind that the Dannys made comments intended to inflame religious tensions and that they did not do so in good faith. Their conduct throughout that case was appalling and even went so far as to try to argue that Islam was not a religion, such was their profound dishonesty.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Firstly, it's not a criminal offence.
    It's still very costly and intimidating. Irrelevant objection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Secondly, as the appeal judgment shows, mere offence or disparagement does not constitute an offence under the legislation.
    It's extremely costly and intimidating even to get this far. It has already chilled debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Your crass attempt at representing the legal implications of this legislation illustrates quite clearly why such analysis should be better left to those with even the slightest grounding in jurisprudence.
    Prove me wrong then, instead of you pathetic attempts at arguments from authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    In what sense are people's thoughts being controlled? I don't see anyone getting prosecuted for what they think.
    This pastored was ordered not to preach on a topic. Obviously one can't control thoughts literally. But for all practical purposes they are controlled if one is streng verboten to speak one's mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    As for being hypersensitive, I'm probably more offended by the ridiculous nature of your argument and your need and/or compulsion to resort to comparisons with Stalin.
    Stop being a lefty wuss. Nothing I say imposes huge costs on people who disagree with me, unlike the Human Rights Gedankenpolizei of the People's Republic of Canada.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Of course you don't see what is said as being racist, homophobic or prejudiced against minorities.
    It isn't. The derivation of homophobe suggests "fear of the same", but we all know how ludicrously ignorant you are of Greek

    And there was nothing racist at all. But even that should not be punishable by law unless it incites violence. Better to refute racist silliness, including Holocaust denial, by argument and even ridicule than by court action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    This is half the problem with you literalists.
    What literalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Which leftist sacred cows are you talking about?
    Bill of Rights, protection of politically appointed victim groups above other in line with identidy politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    While I respect the appeal judgment and concede on that basis that their conduct did not fall within the scope of the legislation, there is no question in my mind that the Dannys made comments intended to inflame religious tensions
    Like what? The original judge Higgins made gross errors in fact. And the religious tensions were inflamed by the court case, not what was meant to be a talk to Christians. The worst thing the Dannys did was apparently make the Christians laugh; how shocking. They even told the Christians to love Muslims:

    "We have to love them".

    "Love should be not only in theory, in word, but should be shown in practice. You invite them for (a) cup of tea. You invite them for dinner, for lunch."

    "Of course do not criticise their culture . . . We should not criticise their dress . . . Don't be afraid of (the) Koran . . . there are a lot of things in (the) Koran, which are very similar from (the) Bible."

    The main "offence" was quoting the Koran.

    But Judge Higgins spruiked that they:

    “failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, that he preached a literal translation of the Quran and of Muslims’ religious practices which were not mainstream”.

    So I should stay out of legal questions completely, but judges can pontificate on religious matters? Daniel Scot is a former Muslim himself, so knows better than this christophobic judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    and that they did not do so in good faith.
    Irrelevant. Section 9 of the Act says a “person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Their conduct throughout that case was appalling
    Justice Nettle's statements in his appeal decision disagree; GF is just once again showing his lack of objectivity when it comes to love for leftist sacred cows and hatred of true (i.e. biblical) Christianity:

    "I have listened to the tape recording of the Seminar... Unlike [Judge Higgins], however, I was unable to perceive from the tape anything in the manner of Pastor Scot's delivery which rendered his statements more likely to incite the audience to hatred and other relevant emotion of or towards Muslims. To the contrary, as it seemed to me, what one hears is a speaker who, although endowed with an admirable command of the English language, speaks it as a second language with all the difficulties which that sometimes entails. I hear a degree of nervousness in delivery, a pattern of speech which is idiomatically incongruous and consequent double entendre which the speaker sounds not to have intended. Admittedly, his style is given to ridicule in places, and the ridicule results in cynical laughter at places. But on any analysis his plea to love Muslims and to "minister" to them comes across as sincere enough as do the sounds of his audience's reaction to it."

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    and even went so far as to try to argue that Islam was not a religion, such was their profound dishonesty.
    What are you on about? But even if you're right, the correct response is refutation, not court. The anti-vilification laws have incited conflict, not solved it. But extra litigation is good news for lawyer types. but there was no problem to solve. In March 2001, just months before the Government passed its laws, the then chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission said: “I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that suggests that discrimination is increasing.” As Andrew Bolt points out:

    “Pity our discrimination police. In 2001, they finally got these juicy laws to jail racists, but small problem: Victorians still refused to be rude. Indeed, we were so nice to each other that a year later the EOC conceded just five people in the entire state had complained of any religious vilification at all in the previous 12 months. Five. The EOC couldn’t accept the obvious — that we are decent — and claimed instead that people must have been too scared to complain. And, by heavens, it would fix that. Over the next year the EOC taught nearly 10,000 Victorians, particularly Muslims and Arabs, about the new vilification laws – and how to complain.”
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  15. #15
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snail King
    and its also a way of saying "I don't agree with your beliefs".
    It may say that as well and I assume that it does. Clearly it says much more than just that.

    This whole sorry mess (Canada's experience) is what I fear happening in Australia if the hand-wringers and black armband brigade get their way and introduce an Australian Bill of Rights. I should have the right to express my views; and those that disagree with me should also be able to express theirs. As long as it is (a) just words, not actions; and (b) the words do not incite to violent actions ... then I think pretty much anything should be able to be discussed, promoted, and criticised.
    I think the comments by Boissoin are not that far from inciting violence actually. There is an explicit call to take "whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness". There is no explicit suggestion that such action should be confined to actions that are legal. As Justice Wilson found in his appeal, potential to incite is still a matter that needs to be demonstrated based on evidence in court, and it may well be that Boissoin's comments have no innate capacity to incite - but if so I suspect that the main reason is that they are such a pile of longwinded incoherent babble.

    I am sceptical about a Bill of Rights on the grounds that such Bills tend to include too many rights that are sometimes then "protected" overzealously, but equally I don't see any merit in protecting a "right" to spout brain-damaged homophobic babble like Boissoin's. That said I don't see that much point in wasting state resources prosecuting him either.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •