Posted on 06/08/2008 10:16:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Two American Web sites - one conservative, the other Catholic - are at the heart of a Canadian prov incial government hearing against Maclean's magazine, Canada's largest national newsweekly.
The magazine was brought before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's best-seller "America Alone" under the title "The Future Belongs to Islam." The first part of the hearing began last Monday and ran until Friday afternoon.
The American Web sites introduced by the complainants are FreeRepublic, a popular conservative discussion forum, and Catholic Answers, an evangelism and apologetics site popular among young Catholics. Both American sites are based in California.
Faisal Joseph, an attorney for the Muslim group that brought the charges against Maclean's, introduced discussions on the two U.S. sites as evidence that Mr. Steyn's 2006 article had exposed Muslims in North America to hate. Posters on both forums had commented on the Maclean's article, with some comments expressing strong anti-Islamic sentiment.
Mr. Joseph also cited postings from Five Feet of Fury, the Web site run by Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle, and the Brussels Journal, a Web site that styles itself "the voice of conservatism in Europe."
Maclean's has no control over how anonymous Internet posters respond to articles that appear in its magazine - particularly when the Web sites hosting the discussion are outside Canada's jurisdiction and the commentators are Americans protected by the First Amendment, attorneys for Maclean's argued.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com:80 ...
"I would love to be hauled before the tribunal," he said. "I would tell them to their faces that you are political appointees, this is not a court of law ... and you are not judges, you are jokers."
And so the big chill begins. Gentlemen, start your engines!
I would love to spend a few minutes with these socialists and their terror enabling knee-padders. They’d be Toothless in Vancouver.
“I would tell them to their faces that you are political appointees, this is not a court of law ... and you are not judges, you are jokers.”
So...What else can one say? He says it all, and well.
Sounds like Canada is turning ChiComese.
Mr. Fatah is right on.
Thugs with a government seal of approval. These commissars and their show trials are a disgrace, and this travesty goes on with a Conservative Prime Minister no less. Shameful.
I log into FR every day expecting a ban notice.
That’s not meant as a dig at you, but at what’s going to be required in the not so distant future for any public discussion forum that wants to survive the enemy lovers’ rise to power.
Freedom of Speech has been redefined from something guaranteeing Americans’ ability to stand up to their own government, into something that gives absolute protection to any and all hostile ideologies that demand the destruction of the US.
And, “protection of the freedom of speech” is now morphing to mean prosecuting anyone who dares speak out against an enemy ideology which is designed to destroy the US.
We are not so far behind the Canadians and the EUnix on this.
Say what? What states?
Coming soon to a State near you. An inhuman rights commission.
How dare you say that?!? That can't be! He's a Muzzie, and we at FR all know that Muzzies can't be right! </sarc>
Pennylvania, for one.
Heck, they already have one in Philadelphia. Ever heard of Joey Vento and Geno’s Steaks?
The Ontario Human Rights Commission dropped a similar case; apparently the British Columbia version figures to take up where they left off.
This law in Canada cannot stand for long. "Guilt by non-association" is being used to take someone down?
Anyone here want to say violent things about this Canadian law, such that the backers of the law are charged with inciting violence and are put in jail as a result??
Fatah is daring this political tribunal to drag him before them so he can call them a bunch of jokers. He thinks the tribunal will likely provoke a backlash against Muslims.
Yeah. I thought he told them to stuff it?
Ever read Franz Kafka? That seemed so bizarre when I read that stuff 35 years ago.
That’s what it looks like and I’d be surprised if the tribunal pushes it, they know Fatah will make a lot more noise than he already has.
"My feeling is - and I could be wrong - but they're trying to trigger a backlash against Muslims, so that the imams and the Hamas and the Hezbollah people back in the Middle East can say: 'Look, we told you that the West is at war with Islam,'" he said.
I wonder if McClean's lawyers have considered calling Mr. Fatah as a witness?
Canadian hate speech rules - like US lib efforts to attack talk radio are for all practical purposes just the politically-correct equivalent of “book burnings.” It’s evil-appeasing state terrorism designed to create a submissive, divided, ignorant and controllable population.
Terrorism is a psychological strategy for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear and intimidation among the civilian population. When people are afraid to express their thoughts, to engage in free speech and association, to the point where they are even afraid to think certain thoughts because they may be construed as “hate,” then they are no longer free. They have lost their freedom of conscience.
They aren't "Laws" as of yet. At best they would become provincial rulings, which then would have to withstand a supreme court challenge before it could become president setting.
If that happened, then you would see federal government redefining the Canadian charter at some point.
There isn't a lot the Harper government can do at this point, except introduce a charter amendment to put an end to these attempts in provincial courts to curb free speech.
But it would be better to wait until he had a majority government to do so.
This is not the first time FreeRepublic has come under the watch of Canada's human rights commissions. About a year ago, its Canadian sister-site FreeDominion was forced to move its servers to Panama in the fallout from its own federal human rights investigation.
Free Republic and Catholic Answers are the two websites I hang out on the most. On Catholic Answers, muslims are constantly coming on and trying to proselytize. They lie, dodge questions and argue. They can’t make any headway so they get frustrated, then insulting and finally leave or get banned, then new ones come on or they return under a different screen name. They are given a voice in the forum along with all other religions in the “non-Catholic” part of the forum (where the discussion is usually very civilized).
They definitely abuse the privilege.
I can see an expanded “Fairness Doctrine” leading down the primrose path to domestic HRCs here (does anybody else get a flutter from the initials being the same as for Hillary?). Yes we have our “Bill of Rights” and “Free Speech” but our Canadian cousins have it in their “Basic Rights” and what good has that done them? If we continue to elect people who have no problem in appointing judiciary that believe in a “living Constitution”, we too will see the “Bill of Rights” turned into “Bill of Ontological Uncertainties” / a list of oxymorons.
“That’s what it looks like and I’d be surprised if the tribunal pushes it, they know Fatah will make a lot more noise than he already has.”
Nothing would surprise me about this story.
But Mr. Fatah is widely respected among moderate Muslims in Canada. He is also widely respected among the Canadian unions for being a staunch defender of workers’ rights.
So an attempt to bring him before a government tribunal would draw a lot of attention.
Bkmrk for reference
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.