scaramouche

...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

About me

User: scaramouche
Irreverent, contrarian, delighted to be out of synch with the zeitgeist, I depend on my sense of humour (such as it is) to keep me sane in this wacky world.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Counter

visited *loading* times

« View the previous post.  |  Home  |  View the next post. »
Saturday, 24 October 2009

The censors come roaring back: I won’t be able to catch Jennifer Lynch and Professor Richard Moon testify on Monday in front of the parliamentary committee that has already heard from Steyn and Levant: I’ll be en route to a conference in Washington about free speech. But from the links Mark has posted on his site today, and from previous knowledge of what makes Jen ‘n’ Dick tick, I have no doubt both with back the retention of Canada’s surreal “justice” system, the one that is grounded in Marxist mumbo-jumbo and not eight centuries of English Common Law (and is thus a farce and an embarrassment of historic proportions). Prof. Moon is the gent who was commissioned by the Jen’s commission to look into state censorship--Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act--and who shocked everyone on both sides of the debate when he recommended that the section be removed forthwith. He’s been striving to re-establish his bona fides with his landsman in the human rights biz ever since, and does so yet again in a long snoozapalooza of a piece in the National Post, a preview, no doubt, of his upcoming testimony. (In case you don’t feel like tackling it, here’s a synopsis: While Moon still thinks Sec. One Three should be revoked--oh, not because he’s against censorship per se, but because he doesn’t think it can do what it’s supposed to, i.e. “censor” the Internet--he remains a steadfast supporter of the “human rights” system. He is highly critical of Steyn and Levant and others, who are “spinning” the issue (It apparently doesn’t occur to the prof that he and Jen and their gang “spin” just as vigorously--only in the opposite direction). And he doesn’t like the tenor of the debate--or even the fact that there is a debate--and would prefer that we all knock it off and allow the “human rights” bunch to get back to the critical work of ridding their domain of “discrimination”.
Well, what did you expect him to say?
Another chap who has absolutely nothing new to add to the discussion but who can always be counted on to add his two cents worth because he likes hearing the sound of his own voice so much: Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Unlike Prof. Moon, Bernie remains convinced Section 13 must remain in place. Otherwise, Jews and other “vulnerable” minorities remain at risk from scary Aryans of the Third Reich ilk. Here’s what Bernie has to say, ironically, to Capitol News Online, another Steyn link (ironic not because of his words, but because Bernie and the other Official Jews want to lasso the Web and scrub it clean of unacceptable chatter--you know, like they do in China):
Supporters of keeping the provision, such as Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, say it’s a necessary limit on free speech because the intent is to curb discrimination.
“Don’t throw it out,” says Farber.
He points to a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that upheld Section 13 as a justified limit on expression.  The decision was in response to an appeal of a lower court ruling that found John Ross Taylor of the Western Guard Party in contravention for having pre-recorded hate messages on an answering machine…
Farber wants a fix instead of a repeal because keeping hate speech in civil law actually softens the blow for offenders.
 “Civil remedies are far better than the criminal,” says Farber, because the civil order is to cease and desist with a potential fine whereas “a criminal finding leaves you with a record for the rest of your life.”
So as I understand it, Bernie prefers the “civil” route because…he doesn’t want the likes of John Ross Taylor and his roto-dial-up hate line (how quaint it all seems today) to be saddled with a criminal record? M’kay. You would think that's exactly what Bernie would want him to have, Taylor's being a hateful "Nazi" and all. More likely Bernie doesn’t want to give up Section 13, his threadbare security blankie, because of how it’s set up to favour the complainant (otherwise known as the “victim”), and how it has dispensed with such encumbrances as truth as a defence, fair comment, regular rules of evidence, burden of proof and other stuff that tends to get cases like John Ross Taylor’s thrown out of a real criminal court that has real rules. And that, oh yeah, how it picks up the legal tab for the person doing the kvetching, but not the person being kvetched about, who may also have to endure years of hounding and harassment from “human rights” apparatchiks until the case if finally wrapped up, the process, as Ezra Levant has correctly pointed out, being part and parcel of the punishment.
Meanwhile, of course, neither the criminal nor the civil remedies afford protection from real hate speech being spewed every day by Muslim Jew-haters--in mosques, on university campuses and on the Internet; speech that authorities, for reasons that should be painfully obvious to the Jews, have no intention of doing anything about. Which makes Bernie and Co.’s willingness to torch free speech--the first freedom; the freedom that makes all other freedoms possible--for the sake of the illusion of security all the more short-sighted, delusional and pathetic.
Also shameful. Very, very shameful.
That said, while Ezra may remain optimist that we’re making headway in the free speech debate (Ezra being an incurable optimist), my read of it is far less sanguine. I hope I’m wrong, but I (an inveterate pessimist) predict that the parliamentarians may decide to tinker a bit with Section 13, but that when the dust has settled, state censorship will still be a go, and the human rights industry will be reinvigorated by the failure of will of politicos across the spectrum to roll up their sleeves and make the changes that are necessary to ensure that Canada is and can remain free.

Update: The National Post’s Joseph Brean takes a stab at explicating Professor Richard Moon’s attempt to get back into the good graces of the “human rights” industry thinking about “hate speech,” HRCs and the “froth” of the cranky “right-wing”:
…"Searching neo-Nazi websites for hate speech and engaging with individuals on those sites to determine their identity involves ethical challenges that should not be dealt with by private citizens," Prof. Moon writes.
He did not mean that human rights commissions are corrupt star-chambers or kangaroo courts full of illiberal censors and fuzzy-headed social engineers who should all be fired, but his advice seemed harmonious with that popular right-wing conception.
As the issue grew in prominence, due in large part to Mr. Levant's summer publicity tour for his book Shakedown, Prof. Moon has seen his nuance lost in the froth of a campaign that, he says, "encourages the fragmentation of the civic audience into insular ideological communities that are unable to engage with each other."

He takes issue with the coverage of everyone from Rex Murphy, to CBC Radio's The Current, to the National Post editorial board, charging that the media gave too much latitude to critics such as Mr. Levant.
His written comments to the Commons committee -- first delivered this week as a lecture at the University of Saskatchewan, to be published in fuller form in the Saskatchewan Law Review -- are supplementary to Monday's testimony about the legal context.
But they are sure to invigorate a campaign that has a tendency to smack down its critics -- even, maybe, its heroes -- as publicly and personally as possible…
I must admit that, initially, I was as confused by Brean’s “spin” as I was by Moon’s statement about societal “fragmentation”. The word “froth” seemed to suggest that Brean was seeing things as Moon does, but after reading the above a few times, I concluded that he was really just describing things as Moons sees them. Maybe. I think. And I don’t know about Brean, but I found Moon’s “fragmentation" blather to be utterly--albeit unintentionally--hilarious: Who but a member of the “human rights” establishment would even speak like that and make an easily comprehended idea about divisions within society unnecessarily abstruse in order to show how goshdarned “smart” he is?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments (8)


Comments:
#1  24 October 2009 - 13:46
 
If Bernie Farber doesn't want Canadian citizens to have a criminal record, why is he always showing up at trials asking for people to be jailed for offending him? Farber testified at Gustav Mueller's trial, and about a dozen others. He proudly crows that he has been court certified for his testimony about "hate" at criminal trials.

Is it possible Bernie Farber is lying?
Anonymous
#2  24 October 2009 - 16:20
 
I don't think he's lying. I think he's equally committed to both Section 13 and the criminal hate speech laws, but under the circumstances (i.e. the parliamentary committee taking testimony about Section 13) he's trying to give excuses for retaining it, even if they don't make much sense. Were folks looking into the wisdom of maintaining the hate speech laws, no doubt Bernie would be talking about how much more effective the criminal route is than the "civil" one.
User: scaramouche Contact me View user's mediablog scaramouche
#3  24 October 2009 - 19:33
 
Moon was paid to produce his report. Shouldn't he have to declare a conflict of interest? After all, he had a business relationship with the CHRC.

- Natasha
Anonymous
#4  24 October 2009 - 21:11
 
Natasha--see my update. Of course he has a conflict of interest, but that nuance may be lost on the parliamentarians who, from my read, don't quite seem to "get" the whole free speech thing at all. And it's not like "conflicts of interest" ever elicited so much as a second thought in CHRC quarters--the reason it had no problemo with that other Dick, the solo Section 13 complainer, who used to be a CHRC employee. What's most interesting here, I think, is that Professor Moon is obviously working very hard to try to get back in with the "human rights" gang after what they perceive to be his betrayal--something the parliamentarians would be aware of had they been following the "frothing". I sincerely hope that some M.P. who's at least semi-awake will have the stones to point that out on Monday. 
User: scaramouche Contact me View user's mediablog scaramouche
#5  25 October 2009 - 01:21
 
Scaramouche I have to  conclude that you are stalking Farber, I mean "Capital News online", What the heck is that? That you found Farber quoted there tells me your interest in him is more than just a bit of a fetish.
Anonymous
#6  25 October 2009 - 10:41
 
Yes, I'm "stalking" him--on Steynonline where I found the link. Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.
User: scaramouche Contact me View user's mediablog scaramouche
#7  25 October 2009 - 17:41
 
Sure you did Holmes. We believe you. And all those other Farber comments just rolled into your blog accidently. If I were Farber I'd increase the security at work. You are one scary person.
Anonymous
#8  26 October 2009 - 06:32
 
Farber is the scary one who works constantly behind the scenes to rob all Canadians of their free speech rights just to treat his own nazi paranoia. 

Considering Canada's sacrifices defeating the real nazis, this pretense that the HRC's are the only thing preventing a break-out of the 4th Reich is insulting to the max.  Farber should be ashamed of himself and apologize to Canadians.
Anonymous
Comments: