Two California Web Sites Introduced as Evidence in BC Human Right Tribunal [FR included]

mediabistro.com ^ | Monday Jun 09, 2008 | Daily Fishbowl

[Jim Robinson]

Maclean's magazine, Canada's Newsweek, was brought before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for running an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book America Alone.

The California websites introduced as evidence were FreeRepublic and Catholic Answers. The claim was that their discussion boards proved that Maclean's inspire hate-speech toward Muslims.

The Washington Times reports:

"Numerous Canadians and Americans following the hearing denounced the case as absurd and that it is a threat to free speech that a provincial tribunal is asserting jurisdiction over the writings of a best-selling author residing in New Hampshire, based upon an out-of-province complainant offended by the response of anonymous American readers on American Web sites."

We also point out the absurdity of naming a site called 'Free Republic' in a very totalitarian type tribunal. What's next? The Southern Poverty Law Center and the overly permissive US Constitution?

[OB1kNOb]

Congrats, Jim! Your my favorite totalitarian. ;-)

[OB1kNOb]

No, wait. It’s the tribunal that’s being labeled totalitarian. Anyway Jim, your my favorite.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Obviously, we’re doing something right :-)

[Springman]

fanfan, your country strikes again ping.

[fanfan]

Thanks for the ping, Springman.

[mkjessup]

You know Jim, I’ve got a great idea for a poll sometime.

Poll FR members maybe along these lines:

Do you own a gun?

a.) Yes, own a gun.

b.) Yes, own several guns.

c.) Yes, I’m the neighborhood Arsenal of Democracy.

d.) Yes, but I had so many guns, I had to get rid of some of them under the SALT-II treaty.

e.) Yes, and when the human ‘rights’ tribunals show up at my door with the gun grabbers and other Commies, they’ll find out how many guns I have.

f.) “CHUNK-CHUNK” - Who goes there?!?!

And btw Jim, you are also my favorite totalitarian!!! LOL

[Petronski]

g) It is easier to list the guns I don’t own.

[Red6]

Freedom of speech and expression ONLY applies when talking about anarchists, communists, socialists, gays, Christian hating secularists and atheist, radical racial leaders (Black, Hispanic, Indian*in Canada*....), Muslims at there Mosques..... everything else has to worry abount hate speech, once it's adopted. In Germany for example you have “Volksverhetzung,” and indeed this law is near exclusively used to go after anyone right of what the social accepted norm is. You'll see rock throwing lefitists burning flags, and indeed the terrorist threat for years was from the left, but the law was only applied to anyone on the right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

Like hate crimes in this country, it's actually a double standard, where some people are more equal than others. If my wife is raped and murdered, well that's just a crime. But as soon as a non-special person kills a special person, a hate crime will be attached. Laws that feel good and pertain to hate speech and hate crimes are really about banning speech and bestowing a special legal status to a select few. But of course it's not sold that way to those who are not special.

[LibWhacker]

The claim was that their discussion boards proved that Maclean's inspire hate-speech toward Muslims.

Now THAT is just bizarre. These socialists must have worms in the head.

[Spok]

I suspect that hate speech toward Muslim’s may in part be inspired by destruction of the World Trade Center, the televised decapitations carried out on innocent people, the torture and execution of American soldiers and others in the name of Islam, random suicide bombings all over the world that target women, children and civilians, the public murders and mutilations of American contractors, so-called ‘honor killings’ of women and young girls, fatwa’s against writers and cartoonists, deadly riots over religious insults, real and imagined...shall I go on?

[FredZarguna]

A notice is always nice. But did we have to be named with the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Shudder.

[isrul]

Just what qualifies as hate speech? If I advocate eradicating all jihadist moslems who wish to kill us, is that hate speech? I’d rather it be considered a call to rational action.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Speech police today, thought police tomorrow.

[onedoug]

With islam waiting to pounce.

[freekitty]

I agree and let’s keep it that way.

[airborne]

Expressing conservative Christian values is now “hate speech”.

God help us all!

[mkjessup]

g) It is easier to list the guns I don’t own.

LOL!

I'm glad we patched things up FRiend!!! ;)

[FredZarguna]

You may go on, but that is not hate speech, it's truth speech. The prescience of Eric Blair(George Orwell) once again on display. Doublespeak in action: speaking the truth about Mohammedans is “hate speech,”speaking the truth about liberal politicians is “Swift Boating,” (McCarthyism required an historical context none of their dopey kids were capable of anymore), a super judicial kangaroo court elected by no one and designed to deprive Canadians of their fundamental rights is named a “Human Rights Commission”, and — of course — those opposed to liberty are called “liberals.”

[KarlInOhio]

Did Steyn have to bring his own kangaroo to this kangaroo court, or was one provided to him by the Canadian government?