Posted on 11/27/2007 6:05:18 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
In the statist's world, your rights are whatever the state says they are. You can really see this concept at work in this breathtakingly bad Canadian decision reported by Eugene Volokh:
Richard Warman, a lawyer who worked as an investigatory for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, often filed complaints against "hate speech" sites — complaints that were generally upheld under Canadian speech restrictions. Fromm, a defender of various anti-Semites and Holocaust denials, has been publicly condemning Warman for, among other things, being "an enemy of free speech." Warman sued, claiming that these condemnations are defamatory.
Friday, the Ontario Superior Court held for Warman — chiefly on the grounds that because Warman's claims were accepted by the legal system, they couldn't accurately be called an attack on free speech.
This case leaves one's head just spinning with ironies, not the least because it is a great example of how libel law as practiced in many western countries outside the US is itself a great enemy of free speech. The logic chain used by the judge in this case should make every American appreciative of our Constitutional system and our view of rights as independent of (and if fact requiring protection from) the state:
[25] The implication, as well as the clear of meaning of the words ["an enemy of free speech" and "escalated the war on free speech"], is that the plaintiff is doing something wrong. The comment "Well, see your tax dollars at work" also implies that Mr. Warman misused public funds for this "war on free speech".
[26] The plaintiff was using legal means to complain of speech that he alleged was "hate" speech.
[27] The evidence was that Mr. Warman was successful in both the complaint and a libel action which he instituted.
[28] Freedom of expression is not a right that has no boundaries. These parameters are outlined in various legislative directives and jurisprudence. I find Mr. Fromm has exceeded these. This posting is defamatory.
The implication is that there are no fundamental individual rights. Rights are defined instead by the state and are whatever is reflected in current law. In this decision, but fortunately not in the US, the law by definition can't be wrong, so taking advantage of a law, in this case to silence various groups, is by definition not only OK, but beyond the ability of anyone to legally criticize. There is much more, all depressing. Here is one example of a statement that was ruled defamatory:
Thank you very much, Jason. So, for posting an opinion, the same sort of opinion that might have appeared in editorial pages in newspapers across this country, Jason and the Northern Alliance, his site has come under attack and people who are just ordinary Canadians find themselves in front of the courts for nothing more serious than expressing their opinion. This is being done with taxpayers' money. I find that reprehensible.
OK, so here is my opinion: Not only is Richard Warman an enemy of free speech, but the Canadian legislature that passed this hate-speech law is an enemy of free speech and the Canadian Supreme Court is an enemy of free speech. Good enough for you hosers?
I guess I will now have to skip my ski trip to Whistler this year, to avoid arrest at the border.
It is not just Neo Nazi types that are attacked by this:
A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.
Ping
I think that we in Canada need a Paul Shankland or a Doug from Upland. The left are notoriously lacking in humour. They may laugh when someone takes a tumble though. Or even when a bogus view of the interaction between Muslims and rural hicks is given a sitcom status.
An Iranian "refugee" in Toronto has plagued the life out of the Ontario courts for years. Filing suit after suit. He has used words of absolute hate against Canada. Yet the Major,former Iranian Airforce pilot soldiers on. I stand corrected, but they are just scared of him. The poor Canadian who gets in the sights of the Human Rights Commission, is up against it. I can think of no more damning indictment against the Human Rights Johnnies.
I do not think though, that the comments made against Mr Warman et al, would jeopardise an American citizen trying to cross into Canada. Perhaps the remarks were made tongue in cheek. At worst case scenario, they would be turned around and go back to the Land of the Free.
No brave soul myself for leading off. Why? One. I would get a fairly reasoned hearing against the Human Rights Commission. This by the local judiciary. Two. The lights are a twinkling across the St Mary's River. The snug little city of Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. Just to know that America and the First Amendment is there.
To digress. I was advised of the book "The New Dealers War". Thomas Fleming is the author. I have it. Basic Books (2001). Double price by the time Coles of Canada got it for me. Still exploring the world of books- lucky me.
A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.
I doubt that Mr. Warman would be able to make the distinction, which is probably why Free Dominion is under attack.
For Mr. Warman any criticism of government or a government employee is defamatory.
Really, ICE shouldn't let this guy in ~ not even for his monthly grocery run to an American supermarket so he can evade Ontario's health care taxes.
The enemies of free speech should not be allowed to lead comfortable, smug lifes.
I believe he knows what he is doing.
The Major, Keyvan Nourhaghighi zeroed in on a Toronto judge. He ranted about corruption, rotten Canadian judges. He ranted about filthy Canadian lawyers. (Did he have some reason?) He said "Queen Victoria slept with a thousand dogs".
The venerable Globe and Mail, once a great bastion of free speech, now less so, had an article. Titled
Keyvan Nourhaghighi's war. Journalist Peter Cheney, dated 2006.
The reason, in a slight diversion from your statement, is one that I feel must be addressed. Yes, you are right, but this wonderful language- English, allows a qualifier.
That is so called hate speech is outlawed (1) If the speaker is of a vulnerable and targeted group.(2) If the speaker of of the extreme right wing.
Others of so called minority groups can rant on. They can lie and accuse others. This they can do with impunity. I quote The National Post, journalist Robert Fulford. (Last Saturday) His review of the attack of a woman Professor J Canizzo, whose exhibition at the Royal Museum of Ontario which was anti-white and anti colonialist took place 17 years ago.
She was physically threatened. An activist group jumped on her as racist. She resigned from the University of Toronto and returned to Italy. No Human Rights Johnnies charged this group.
Poor Canada.
BTTT
The group that pounced on the professor for the exhibition had slumbered for four months. Nothing had been said. Suddenly the group- titled something like Africans for truth, jumped in. Non-students came into the college. Crying "You white racist bitch". Grafitti was smeared on her residence. She was assailed by people of colour.
Poor Canada.
Thanks Anti-Bubba182.
You are welcome.
An educational read thanks to Anti-Bubba182, for warning us what we will have to deal with.
BTTT
btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.