Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does the Levant case set any kind of precedent in Canada?

There was never a case. (Strong hint, video cameras are not allowed in Canadian court rooms)

Sorry, does the Levant inquisition set any kind of precedent in Canada?

The human rights tribunal is below the court system. Precedent can only flow from the court of appeals or the SCOC.
In this particular case the plaintiff withdrew his complaint. The system is used frequently by a very few people in order to put a chill into peoples speech, and has been very effective. Despite Skydekker's opinion about how "the system works" the cost of defending oneself has been a very effective stick wielded by these people and groups. When Mr. Levant fought back the bullies backed away, stating they didn't understand how strongly Canadians felt about freedom of expression.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Despite Skydekker's opinion about how "the system works" the cost of defending oneself has been a very effective stick wielded by these people and groups. When Mr. Levant fought back the bullies backed away, stating they didn't understand how strongly Canadians felt about freedom of expression.

Much higher costs related to law suits keep Phelps spewing his hatred.

If my choice is between costs suppressing hate speech or costs fuelling hate speech, I would prefer they suppress hate speech. Hence my preference for the Canadian system.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If my choice is between costs suppressing hate speech or costs fuelling hate speech, I would prefer they suppress hate speech. Hence my preference for the Canadian system.

Your definition (actually some bureaucrat's) of hate speech. My definition would include virtually all religious dogma, particularly the bits where they tell my mother I'm going to hell. But then again, I don't disagree with their right to spew their lies.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Your definition (actually some bureaucrat's) of hate speech

No, the definition of the Law and judicial system.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Okay, so back to my original question...

If he was let of the hook with that argument then how the hell is the government ever going to silence anyone's "hate speech" without exposing the whole process as capricious?

because they are two different things. Hate speech falls under the criminal code (federal). The human rights tribunal in the Levant "case" is a provincial body, which has absolutely nothing to do with the federal criminal code and any case law associated with it.

read the following link:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/report_moon_rapport/page2-en.asp

Okay, so it's clear the words I used stumbled upon a division of authority over "federal hate speech" and "provincial offensive speech" that I wasn't aware of. I'm sorry, it was not my intention to suggest that decisions made at a lower level should define the case law for decisions at a higher level.

So, setting aside the federal enforcement for a moment...

Quote

The purpose is not to condemn and punish the person who committed the discriminatory act. In contrast to the criminal ban on hate speech, an individual may be found to have breached section 13 even though she/he did not intend to expose others to hatred or realize that his/her communication might have this effect. The focus is on the effect of the act and not the intention with which it was performed...

...The CHRT may also order the person to pay an amount not exceeding $20,000 "to a victim specifically identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice." Finally the CHRT may order the person to pay a penalty of not more than $10,000; however, in deciding whether to order payment of a penalty, the CHRT must take into account "(a) the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice; and (b) the wilfulness or intent of the person who engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty."

Section 57 of the CHRA provides that for the purposes of enforcement a tribunal order may be made an order of the Federal Court. The consequence of this is that a breach of the CHRT’s order constitutes a contempt of court and is punishable by fine or imprisonment.

I'll ask my question for a third time (slightly rephrased)

If he was let off the hook by the tribunal with that argument then how the hell is the provincial government ever going to silence anyone's "hate speech" section 13 violation, fine them, and award damages as provided in the CHRA without exposing the whole process as capricious?

[wmw999 2,644]

Quote

gain, within the law you are correct and I agree with you. But, "words" and names are used everyday to silence (or try and silence) people, using the power of coercion gained within the PC movement

Do you really think that I say everything that comes to mind or what I want to say, or could it be that I control some of what I think? Maybe it's PC, maybe it's just politeness.

If you want to say something badly enough, say it. It's not against the law, unless you're yelling "fire" somewhere crowded or something like that. There are consequences sometimes. Are you against consequences?

Or do you want people to be able to give their opinion on whether some races should get the same opportunities without anyone calling them a racist? If someone can say the one, someone else can say the other. Note: I'm using race because it's easy, and not because I think you're a racist. It's an EXAMPLE.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If he was let off the hook by the tribunal with that argument then how the hell is the provincial government ever going to silence anyone's "hate speech" section 13 violation, fine them, and award damages as provided in the CHRA without exposing the whole process as capricious?

He was never let off the hook by the tribunal, as you state. The complainant withdrew the complaint. There was never an actual hearing, nor a ruling. Just a lot of bombastic speaking. He really should get a talk show on Fox.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

gain, within the law you are correct and I agree with you. But, "words" and names are used everyday to silence (or try and silence) people, using the power of coercion gained within the PC movement

Do you really think that I say everything that comes to mind or what I want to say, or could it be that I control some of what I think? Maybe it's PC, maybe it's just politeness.

If you want to say something badly enough, say it. It's not against the law, unless you're yelling "fire" somewhere crowded or something like that. There are consequences sometimes. Are you against consequences?

Or do you want people to be able to give their opinion on whether some races should get the same opportunities without anyone calling them a racist? If someone can say the one, someone else can say the other. Note: I'm using race because it's easy, and not because I think you're a racist. It's an EXAMPLE.

Wendy P.

Race is a good example and no, I would not think you would call me one
But the PC madness is being used daily to stiffle conversations. A race example is one centered around an Obama policy. One who does not agree with it may be called a racist. It happens. Some just do not acept that other may not agree with them or do not think it possible to disagree with thier logic so it must be a race issue and places the name.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But the PC madness is being used daily to stiffle conversations.

Just like the yelling of "communist" or "liberal" or "unpatriotic" is being used to stiffle conversation. One of the clear trends in the US is the complete degeneration of any form of public debate. The clear lies being told on a continued basis are a good example.

PC isn't the cause, societies penchant for demanding to be right is to blame. Just look on here and see how quickly debate detoriorates and compare it with how often people actually change their opinion.

(Never mind that opinion is now being shaped by news entertainers who tell Muslims to take a flying carpet or a camel in stead of an airplane)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Race is a good example and no, I would not think you would call me one
But the PC madness is being used daily to stiffle conversations. A race example is one centered around an Obama policy. One who does not agree with it may be called a racist. It happens. Some just do not acept that other may not agree with them or do not think it possible to disagree with thier logic so it must be a race issue and places the name.

And if somebody does that, incorrectly and too often, it will be seen as the cheap, diversionary tactic that it is and the person crying "racism" will be discredited and the original speaker will gain in public acceptance and approval.

This is part of the free marketplace of ideas. Enter it, compete vigorously! If the market deems your ideas worthy then they will gain acceptance. If you are afraid of the cost of entering that marketplace then that is on you, not on your opponents.

All this has nothing to do w/ freedom of speech, which is freedom from government interference such as fines, imprisonment, or silencing.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

If he was let off the hook by the tribunal with that argument then how the hell is the provincial government ever going to silence anyone's "hate speech" section 13 violation, fine them, and award damages as provided in the CHRA without exposing the whole process as capricious?

He was never let off the hook by the tribunal, as you state. The complainant withdrew the complaint. There was never an actual hearing, nor a ruling. Just a lot of bombastic speaking. He really should get a talk show on Fox.

So given that...

Quote

The focus is on the effect of the act and not the intention with which it was performed

...what would have been the likely outcome had the complainant NOT withdrawn the complaint?

You do realize that curtailing free speech at the whim of the offended is actually worse than what I was originally arguing against, do you not?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Race is a good example and no, I would not think you would call me one
But the PC madness is being used daily to stiffle conversations. A race example is one centered around an Obama policy. One who does not agree with it may be called a racist. It happens. Some just do not acept that other may not agree with them or do not think it possible to disagree with thier logic so it must be a race issue and places the name.

And if somebody does that, incorrectly and too often, it will be seen as the cheap, diversionary tactic that it is and the person crying "racism" will be discredited and the original speaker will gain in public acceptance and approval.

This is part of the free marketplace of ideas. Enter it, compete vigorously! If the market deems your ideas worthy then they will gain acceptance. If you are afraid of the cost of entering that marketplace then that is on you, not on your opponents.

All this has nothing to do w/ freedom of speech, which is freedom from government interference such as fines, imprisonment, or silencing.

I understand your points, but I disagree with your conclusion. It does have to do with freedom of speech. Just with out the laws

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Race is a good example and no, I would not think you would call me one
But the PC madness is being used daily to stiffle conversations. A race example is one centered around an Obama policy. One who does not agree with it may be called a racist. It happens. Some just do not acept that other may not agree with them or do not think it possible to disagree with thier logic so it must be a race issue and places the name.

And if somebody does that, incorrectly and too often, it will be seen as the cheap, diversionary tactic that it is and the person crying "racism" will be discredited and the original speaker will gain in public acceptance and approval.

This is part of the free marketplace of ideas. Enter it, compete vigorously! If the market deems your ideas worthy then they will gain acceptance. If you are afraid of the cost of entering that marketplace then that is on you, not on your opponents.

All this has nothing to do w/ freedom of speech, which is freedom from government interference such as fines, imprisonment, or silencing.

That's pretty smart. That is - for a Southern Man.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I understand your points, but I disagree with your conclusion. It does have to do with freedom of speech. Just with out the laws

So, it appears what you want is for one party to have freedom of speech (say in criticising Obama in our example) but to place limits on what the other party might say in refutation (you can't call the other speaker a racist). Man, that to me is a limitation on free speech. Who would decide what is allowable debate and who would enforce those rules?

Correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I think we are just going around in circles.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I understand your points, but I disagree with your conclusion. It does have to do with freedom of speech. Just with out the laws

So, it appears what you want is for one party to have freedom of speech (say in criticising Obama in our example) but to place limits on what the other party might say in refutation (you can't call the other speaker a racist). Man, that to me is a limitation on free speech. Who would decide what is allowable debate and who would enforce those rules?

Correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I think we are just going around in circles.

it has got nothing to do with any one party
I just obama as an example. That is far from the only one

But what can be talked about an how is judged and commented on daily by the self apointed pc police.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

He was never let off the hook by the tribunal, as you state. The complainant withdrew the complaint. There was never an actual hearing, nor a ruling. Just a lot of bombastic speaking. He really should get a talk show on Fox.

Incorrect. The hearing that the youtube shows is a legal part of the tribunal process. Mr. Levant was there under subpoena. The evidence he gave was part of that which would have been used to determine whether he would have to pay the plaintiff had it gone to conclusion.

[wmw999 2,644]

I think the "party" he's talking about is a person, and not the democrats or republicans.

paraphrase to:

So, it appears that you want for one person to have freedom of speech (e.g. to criticize affirmative action), but that someone else can't refute him using whatever words they choose (e.g. "racist.")

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

...what would have been the likely outcome had the complainant NOT withdrawn the complaint?

Based on history, it would appear it would have been dismissed.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I think the "party" he's talking about is a person, and not the democrats or republicans.

paraphrase to:

So, it appears that you want for one person to have freedom of speech (e.g. to criticize affirmative action), but that someone else can't refute him using whatever words they choose (e.g. "racist.")

Wendy P.

The word can be used but to what end?

Once the names fly most any chance at a conversation is gone

What point does it serve to call me a racist if I disagree with an Obama policy or I am called that because I did not vote for him?
What is the purpose at that time?

I see only one purpose

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Quote

He was never let off the hook by the tribunal, as you state. The complainant withdrew the complaint. There was never an actual hearing, nor a ruling. Just a lot of bombastic speaking. He really should get a talk show on Fox.

Incorrect. The hearing that the youtube shows is a legal part of the tribunal process. Mr. Levant was there under subpoena. The evidence he gave was part of that which would have been used to determine whether he would have to pay the plaintiff had it gone to conclusion.

It is like pre-trial. It matters, but isn't really the actual trial.

[pbwing 0]

Quote

Mr. Levant was there under subpoena.

Not according to the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. "Firstly, I would like to point out that no one is ever “hauled” before a Commission investigator. Individuals who have had a complaint made against them are invited to respond in person or in writing to the allegations of the complainant. This opportunity is provided to ensure fairness in the process."

[wmw999 2,644]

It's a word; it describes what they think. If that's the basis of their disagreement, can they not state it? Remember, not everyone's perception of racism (or any other ism) is the same. And there isn't one "right" definition. Really.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Mr. Levant was there under subpoena.

Not according to the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. "Firstly, I would like to point out that no one is ever “hauled” before a Commission investigator. Individuals who have had a complaint made against them are invited to respond in person or in writing to the allegations of the complainant. This opportunity is provided to ensure fairness in the process."

I stand corrected. Nonetheless, not appearing is, not defending yourself. You do not have the option to not comply with their findings.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

...what would have been the likely outcome had the complainant NOT withdrawn the complaint?

Based on history, it would appear it would have been dismissed.

Okay, so if he had been let off the hook by the tribunal with the argument he gave, then how the hell would the provincial government ever silence anyone's section 13 violation, fine them, and award damages as provided in the CHRA without exposing the whole process as capricious?

[pbwing 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...what would have been the likely outcome had the complainant NOT withdrawn the complaint?

Based on history, it would appear it would have been dismissed.

Okay, so if he had been let off the hook by the tribunal with the argument he gave, then how the hell would the provincial government ever silence anyone's section 13 violation, fine them, and award damages as provided in the CHRA without exposing the whole process as capricious?

I don't think 'the argument that he gave' had any bearing on the complaintant dropping the issue. Nor would it have had any bearing on what the Commissioner ruled.

No matter how offensive Levant wanted to be, (in my opinion) it would have not meet the criteria for Section 13. Republishing those cartoons had nothing to do with hate or hate messages.

Also, it's my opinion that this whole process would not have made it out of the discovery phase (which is what Levant was taping). I honestly believe the investigators would not have enough to continue the complaint.