I guess the Prof. Moon decided to read the writing on the wall and recommend the repeal of S. 13(1) of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act. I confess that I am astonished, however. The bolded section below represents some of the points summarized by the CHRC….
1. The first recommendation is that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) would no longer deal with hate speech, in particular hate speech on the Internet.
This might be the greatest victory the blogosphere has ever won. Outside of taking down the main stream media from time-to-time, this really is a feather in our collective caps. A great deal of gratitude goes out to our captain-in-arms, Ezra Levant, who led the charge and took the SLAPP suit hits for us during this ride.
Hate speech should continue to be prohibited under the Criminal Code but confined to expression that advocates, justifies or threatens violence. In the fight against hate on the Internet, police and prosecutors should make greater use of section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, which gives a judge power to order an Internet service provider (ISP) to remove “hate propaganda” from its system.
Although the whole “hate propaganda” ruse is still on the books, at least Dr. Moon has the common sense to restrict the prosecution of expression to those statements which advocate violence. That’s a big leap forward in the Canadian “Human Rights” culture of corruption and jackboot enforcement. I can hardly believe my eyes in reading this.
Each province should establish a provincial “Hate Crime Team,” composed of both police and Crown law officers with experience in the area to deal with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes including hate speech under the Criminal Code.
This causes me some concern. I wonder if we are simply replacing one jackboot with another more vicious and powerful one. All we need is for CHRC-type employees filling out job application forms with the RCMP. Can you imagine that? This new “Hate Crime Unit” will be like the CHRC on legislative steroids.
2. The second part of the recommendations concerns changes that should be made to section 13 of the CHRA if it is not repealed.
These changes would reshape section 13 so that it more closely resembles a criminal restriction on hate speech.
changes to the language in order to clarify that the section prohibits only the most extreme instances of discriminatory expression, that threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group;
Again, we see a more restrictive application of “hate crimes” to advocating for violence only. That’s a good sign.
the amendment of section 13(1) of the CHRA to include an intention requirement; and
Poor Mark Steyn. He was having such fun with his complaint. With this sort of NECESSARY provision, he won’t be a target anymore.
the amendment of the CHRA to establish a distinct process for the investigation of section 13 complaints by the CHRC. Under the amended process, the CHRC would receive inquiries and information from individuals or community groups but would no longer investigate and assess formal complaints.The CHRC would have the exclusive right to initiate an investigation in section 13 cases. If, following an investigation, the CHRC recommends that the case be sent to the CHRT, the CHRC would have carriage of the case before the Tribunal.
I’m not too sure what to make of this. What does this mean? That Dean Steacy and the gang would simply be moved out of the CHRC and into the “investigative wing” of the Hate Crimes Unit under Section 13(1)? What good is that? Some administrative shuffling between departments does not remove the threat of the Human Rights enforcers.
This would remove the significant burden that under the existing system falls on the complainant. It would also enable the CHRC to dismiss (decide not to pursue) a “complaint” earlier in the process, when it finds that the communication at issue does not breach the section 13(1) standard and is unlikely to succeed at Tribunal.
Significant burden for the complainant? Only the CHRC would write such crap, all the while blindly refusing to see the onerous conditions that respondents are under. It’s sick. Really sick. If Parliament had any testicular fortitude, it would completely gut the CHRC, fire all of its managerial employees and put the department under the direct supervision of a parliamentary committee. Furthermore, if there were any justice, there would be a full and impartial judicial inquiry into the illegal and fraudulent tactics of the CHRC with fines and prison terms ready to be handed out. That’s what should happen to make these thugs understand the hell they have put Canadians under for the past thirty years.
Fire. All. Of. Them.
Fine. Most. Of. Them.
Imprison. Some. Of. Them.