Moon is one of Canada’s leading experts free speech law, and is the author of a seminal work, The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression. As part of his review, he will look at Section 13 and consider the mandates of human rights commissions and tribunals, along with other government institutions involved in addressing hate messages on the Internet. He’ll also consider whether other government or non-government organizations could play a role. In a brief interview Tuesday, Moon said the public debate over the Maclean’s complaints is evidence that such a review is needed. “I don’t think anybody could pretend that there isn’t a serious issue to be considered here.” At this point, he said, he is “reading comprehensively” and will meet privately with people on all sides of the issue to hear their perspectives. He doesn’t plan to accept written briefs or hold public hearings. (Source)
I find this attempt at damage control so condescending and ridiculous. Who is going to accept what this professor concludes, if it is anything other than a complete gutting of Section 13? Not the freespeechers, that’s for sure. (Jennifer Lynch thinks she’s a freespeecher too, but someone has not yet disabused her of that sick fantasy).
Ezra Levant really hits this out of the park with his post about how ridiculous it is for the CHRC to appoint someone to study this issue. That’s like having the old USSR Politburo call in the KGB to report on how superior communism is to democracy. No one is going to give any credence to it.
And that’s part of the problem with Ms. Lynch and the CHRC. They have to appeal to some quasi-government official authority in order to help “solve our crisis”. Well, here’s a newsflash for her and the rest of the buffoons at the CHRC: calling in an academic to tell us what we should be allowed to think or say kind of proves the point of how statist and fascist the CHRC is.
But since Dr. Moon is reading comprehensively, I’ve got 4 questions he should read and think about:
1. Since the CHRA prohibits grounds of discrimination based on religion, is it a discriminatory practice for a person to communicate on a matter that is likely to expose another person to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that such a person subscribes to Nazism? In other words, is it acceptable to hate a Nazi?
2. The Commission seeks to eliminate prohibited grounds for discrimination as this is a matter relating to “natural justice” as Ms. Lynch has claimed. Since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Canada v. Taylor (1990) that truth is no defense in S. 13(1) cases, in what respect does the Commission seek justice when it disregards a defense made by a respondent which is true?
3. “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
Is the above statement a “hate message” as defined in S.13(1) of the CHRA?
4. In a normal court of law, defendants are provided with proper legal representation if they are unable to afford a lawyer. Why is it the practice of the Human Rights Establishment to discriminate against poor people who cannot afford a lawyer by refusing to pay for their legal representation? What other forms of unjust discrimination does the CHRC participate in?