“I wanted to let you know that linking to non-public officials who may be involved in this process could make things worse. Even if you do not live in Canada, at best it will increase the sympathy of the Tribunal to the complainants. It doesn’t matter if you’re not officially affiliated with Steyn, because they can use it as an example of harrassing behaviour that his articles and books are encouraging.
Stick to the content, not the personas. The Canadian legal system is a little more tricky.”
So: write to all your various elected officials, your newspapers & editors, spread the word to other concerned people. We need to reign in and– if they can’t be reformed– disband the extra-judicial powers of Canadian Human Rights Commissions, to protect Canadian freedom of speech, and our other fundamental rights.
The problem can be traced to the overweening powers of Canada’s human rights tribunals. Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, underlined the danger last year after the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed a human rights complaint against the Western Standard for republishing a set of Danish cartoons that many Muslims found offensive. In an article in the Calgary Herald, Borovoy wrote: “During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create (human rights) commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.” To be acting as censors, he wrote, was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions.”
To quote Rory Leishman,
Canada’s power-grabbing human rights commissioners evidently have scant regard for the freedoms they suppress or for the original understanding of the codes they are supposed to uphold. Otherwise, the British Columbia tribunal and the Canadian and Ontario human rights commissions would have promptly dismissed the CIC’s complaints against Maclean’s as entirely without merit….
.. Meanwhile, Tom Flanagan, professor of political science at the University of Calgary and former campaign manager for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has waded into the controversy. He urges: “All who write and speak in the public domain should rally to Mark Steyn’s defence. If so-called human rights commissions can be used against him, they can be used against anyone who dares to express an idea worth debating.”
Stay on target: cutting back the HRCs themselves, via petitions, the media, public opinion & the political process– so this doesn’t happen to anyone else for the “crime” of having an opinion somebody else doesn’t happen to like.
Or just go ahead and keep being difficult, and damn the torpedoes.
Sign The Petition
A Swift Sunrise 
On that threatening Western Civilization:
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2006/10/little-historical-irony.html
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2006/10/variant-on-decidedly-tragic-historical.html
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2006/10/christian-liberty-versus-tyranny-of.html
Why is noweday all about muslims. I get so tired of these guys! If I don’t like something nobody bothers, but when they don’t like something everybody must listen. And damm, those loony left does listen to these freaks. What’s wrong with these people!
Well Dutch, they’ll start listening when they target homsexuals, but it’ll be to late by then I think. Yje gay community certainly shut us up thanks to the HRC.
May I suggest flooding (within the law ofcourse) the HRC with human rights violations with outlandish complaints that seem offensive or are offensive to you. If alot of Canukers could somehow band together, and simultaniously file complints in each Province and Major city at the same time, surely the rest of the country would see the stupidity of the HRC and demand justice for tax dollars well wasted? Wait, these are my ame fellow Canadians who let the scandalous Liberal governemtn reign supreme.
Looks like we join the UK.
Personally, I’ve got at least 7 legit claims I can file (but I’m not spiteful enough to actualy abuse the system), I want something like the guy in the states who’s suing god to send that same message about frivioulsous lawsuits.
Are we mice or are we men?
Snakes eat mice folks, lots of them in Canada.
Merry Christmas.
What about non-Canadians. Can they sign too?
Saith Binks– I don’t see why not…
so why doesn’t somebody do something about it?
If speaking freely to Elmasry and the law students were not forbidden by the Canadian laws, it would nevertheless be a waste of time and perhaps even ruinous. Niccolo Machiavelli, in the sixth chapter of the third book of his discourses on Titus Livy, gives examples of that ruin which speeches bring when silence would suffice. For Quintianus delivered only the name of the Senate to Commodus, when he ought to have delivered that which Lucilla had sent to Commodus on their behalf. And Messer Antonio Da Volterra accused Lorenzo De’Medici and thereby saved the one he accused.
Garth, I honestly have no idea where to begin. But I am so in on it.
The real problem is, how many Canadians can talk publicly about these matters without fear of offending someone? And risk losing thier jobs?
Over opinions and not actions.
It’s bloody obsurd.
I have yet to hear any intellectual political dicuscions in the work environment and the morning commute. Or any thing intellectual while attempting to engadge.
We’ve become drones.
Those who apparently think for themselves, seem to get frowned on, and sentanced to what seems to me, “sensitivity” training of sorts.
You know something, I’ve been noticing alot of Christian persecution spots on tv, and ofcourse in the news (when found). And still they are clueless.
Are we pre 1940 again?
Who cares what a lawyer thinks? Lawyers got us into this mess!
I for one have no plans to soften my criticism of anyone. All these people are public figures (of their own making) and I can say what I want about them.
My being rude about them has INCREASED sympathy for Steyn and co., not for the HRC. I’ve been on this case since day one, and my strategy of satirizing and mocking those involved has worked to get this case a higher profile.
Mark himself just called the law students “nellies”. That’s the spirit.
The spirit of Tom Paine and Jonathan Swift and PJ ORourke and Lenny Bruce and Private Eye magazine.
None of whom were lawyers.
Lawyers are known wimps and are too smart for their own good. Let ordinary people react as they naturally would — with untempered outrage and, yes, a name being called here and there — and see the results WE get for a change.
If that lawyer wants to do something useful, he should stick to his knitting and offer to defend me pro bono if someone objects to my website.
Otherwise, leave the polemical strategies to those of us who know perfectly well what we’re doing, thank you very much.
Greetings from Gulag 17, Room 101. The only hope is Ron Paul for President. Tell all your American friends to check him out. The r3VOLution starts with him, or at least the movement of which he is the most visible member.
While you are at it check out moneymasters.com to see the root cause of it all.
Group rights/civil rights is one layer of the problem. Only individual rights, endowed by God, not secular governments, can prevent 1984.
If you imagine petitions are going to stop Leviathan you are dreaming in technicolour. Canada is 90% owned by “the Crown”. Who is “the Crown”?
The USA is now up to 60% (and counting) owned by the Federal Government. Who is the Federal Government? Did I hear someone say the People? Wrong!
PS: I also don’t give a damn what a bunch of old dead Italians have to say. Have you been to Italy lately? They’ve had 100 governments in the past century, half of them communist, and men live at home until they’re 40. Pleeeeze.
David W:
We voted in a “Ron Paul” a long time ago, a “Ron Paul” gave us this nonsense in the first place.
In your post you identify what’s wrong with society but I am sad to say it has nothing to do with your accusations.
There is a reason why most American’s aren’t touching Ron Paul in terms of popularity.
A blimp? LOL C’mon. I picture Homer crying in his Beer when he sold the tickets to Barney “hey there… blimpy boy….”
Maybe instead of jumping on the latest bandwagon in terms of who’s popular (Al Gore, John Kerry, Ross Peroit, ect) just cause you’ve now become a political specialist since the elections are around the corner, doesn’t mean you are pushing the right cause.
But hey, that’s the beauty of the free world, for now isn’t it? I can hold an opinion like that, you can rebuttle, and well that’s just how it goes eh?
Despite our politics here, David W, I’m sure you agree with even that much.
Please be an informed voter at the polls, not a ninny voter who believes such things as insder jobs in regards to 9/11.
However wrong and unfactual that is, you’re free to state otherwise and people have for the last 6 years unprosucuted, despite thier tyrannical views on the gov and or war.
Sorry I had an after thouht here.
The world indeed is a stage, but the politcal stage is not a place for acting.
Kathy,
Seems as if that is EXACTLY what they want.
YG
I\’m with Kathy. Even if Steyn doesn\’t win, we can at least drag their names through the mud.
And if they make him a martyr, there will always be someone else to replace him.
If you want to kill the Human Rights Commissions dead – a noble cause – the most effective method is to politely but forcefully ask your MP every chance you get when funding for the CHRC will be cut off.
Be persistent. Be public. Quote Borovoy. Cite the Steyn matter but also Catholic Insight.
Write, email and show up. Many MPs have New Years levees. Go and ask when the CHRC’s funding will be cut off. Point out that the CHRC has ceased to reflect Canadian values.
Rinse and repeat. It killed the copyright legislation.
I think Machiavelli would approve Kathy Shaidle’s (December 24, 2007 at 11:11 am) lack of respect, but not the carelessness of her reading or the irrationality of the grounds for her indifference to that counsel of his which I have indicated.
“Kathy Shaidle Says:
December 24, 2007 at 8:56 am
Who cares what a lawyer thinks? Lawyers got us into this mess!
I for one have no plans to soften my criticism of anyone. All these people are public figures (of their own making) and I can say what I want about them.
My being rude about them has INCREASED sympathy for Steyn and co., not for the HRC. I’ve been on this case since day one, and my strategy of satirizing and mocking those involved has worked to get this case a higher profile.”
=============================================
I’m with you- I am so tired of schoolyard bullies like hypersensitive muslims, the CHRC, and jackals like Richard Warman using legal and quasi-legal means to silence people they don’t like.
If you can’t speak without fear or favor, you aren’t really free, are you?
Steyn’s a great writer- I’ve followed him since his media observer days at the old broadsheet American Spectator.
I was doing some reading on this Warman guy.
And guess what? Everything written above can actually work to their favour.
See: http://www.nelligan.ca/e/new_warman.cfm
I think a lot of Steyn supporters didn’t think this out very well before going on a rampage.
As for Rishi’s comment, I tend to agree somewhat. Steyn has really crossed the line in a number of places, also due to lack of forethought. Might be better to sacrifice him. There are plenty others ready to take his place, and will probably do better as well with more than a high school education.
Oh, and check this out. CHRC can find out who you are if you are operating site that mentions peoples names in a way that is alleged to be harrassing of individuals: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Sept8-07_CHRC_and_Police.html
Anyone you list here by name can file a complaint.
Not a smart move man, you’re not helping the cause.
Crossed the line? What line? The line some dude named “Marco” has drawn in the sand? I see no such line. I don’t acknowledge its existence. I’m not subject to the subjective figments of your imagination.
Lack of forethought, eh? That indicates that you have magical powers, Marco: the ability to discern Mark Steyn’s exact thought processes before he wrote his book. Wow, have you considered bottling that special, heretofore unknown power of insight, or at least offering your services to CSIS ?
Ooooh, “harrassment”. I’m shaking. El-Mockery and co. are public figures. I can criticize them as much as I want. They started this. I don’t recognize the legitimacy of the HRC to begin with, and certainly not this oh-so-convenient imaginary “rule” they’ve cooked up to keep their processes as one sided as possible. Don’t you understand Marco: the HRC has NO legitimate authority over any of us. It is a quasi-legal entity. The only authority it has it that which we give to it, when we foolishly give in to its demands.
Marco, whoever you are: rather than hide behind anonymity, Mark Steyn and others publish their opinions under their real names. You really sound gutless in every way.
Aren’t their any real men in Canada anymore? Or is the whole place really over run by timid lawyers and their dupes?
PS: for someone who dropped out of high school, I’d say Mark Steyn has done pretty well for himself. When was the last time you were invited to the White House, eh?
Ooooh, Marco’s getting heavy on yo ass Kathy. Let’s harass him some more and see what threat he comes up with next.
Marco, there are a fair number of us who are happy to sign our real names to what we write.
The BCHRT will have no trouble finding me as I have begun the process to intervene in the Steyn/Mcleans matter. As a former magazine editor, publisher, journalist and now blogger, I have several points to make on the case.
Beginning with the fact that freedom of expression implies nothing at all about a right of rebuttal.
What’s with “real names?” I see half the people above using only half their name or a pseudonym, but anyone who dissents even slightly you seem to want their name, address, and life story. Not all of us have web sites or blogs, but it doesn’t mean we’re not following the story.
Anyhow, I’m one of those people who are sort of undecided on the issue. But when I see how low you guys go here, it really is discouraging. If you want a fan club site then great, but if you are trying to persuade the public, you are failing miserably.
I was looking at a Warman case, and looks like people have been sued for libel for a lot less than what you have here: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/warman-v-fournier
But then Kathy won’t care anyways, regardless of what anyone says, will she? (Strange character, that one).
Doesn’t look like you took the “lawyer’s advice” above. But most people don’t until after the fact.
I am sure that “Marco” is really Richard Warman trolling to get people to say something so he can slap another lawsuit. Warman loves to pretend he is a woman on neo nazi message boards and post objectionable comments (http://www.richardwarman.com/covert_ops.html) Any time Warman’s name is mentioned on a website. Suddenly tons of trolls show up to say some defamatory. Just look at what Warman did to FreeDominion.ca. “MARCO” is clearly Richard Warman
Wouldn’t that be funny if it was?
The CIC files a minor, non-monetary complaint against Maclean’s (not Steyn). Steyn fans rush to his defence, making it a bigger case.
The big CHRC guy himself, Rich the War Man walks in, and sues the fans for libel for every name they erroneously list here.
That would be sight to see. Heck, I would pay to see that show.
Michelle calls me strange because I don’t agree with her opinions or take useless advice from timid, legalistic people. I’d say being “undecided” on an issue as clear cut as this one makes you (whoever you are) the strange one.
Please prove that we’re not doing a good job of informing the public. Evidence please? Interest in this case is growing all the time (it just made the Washington Times and Reuters). What would you suggest? Some milquetoast, polite blog that would attract zero attention? How Canadian.
We like first and last names because too many people on the web hide behind anonymity, like you do. (See the comment about Richard The Crybaby Warman above) Funny how many of these brave trollers are on the Left. I guess it’s like, Speaking Anonymity to Power or something.
I’m pretty sure Craig’s comment of flooding is probably illegal.
I don’t know much about this Kathy person, but I will say that she comes across as pretty obnoxious.
And the overall flavor of this site reeks of hatred. It seems to be all about bashing a specific group, and nothing about free speech. So much for making a good case to the public.
Dear Mark,
RE: When barristers in short pants wet them…
Sunday, 06 January 2008
by Mark Steyn
Greeting from my dark and dingy basement somewhere in the bowels of Vancouver’s Bolshevik east side! 🙂
Marc Lemire sent me notice of your article and after reading it over I thought it appropriate to write you and correct a few of the more blatant misconceptions that you appear to be labouring under. Some of them may be due in part to M. J. Murphy’s “challenge” to you which contained a number of errors. I have corrected them in an email that I sent him.
First off though I do need to say thank you for bringing my case to the attention of your readership. That is most appreciated especially seeing as how my already “six” viewers had seen the material and I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out where in hell the seventh would come from!
Now I do have a confession to make before going any further and that is to say I had never heard of you or your site or your book or your fame and fortune or whatever until this whole sordid affair came up with Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the CHRC. (as per your own ignorance of my basement press).
Being a publisher in the alternative media and still forced to run my website using the ancient dial up system of yore I rarely surf the net in search of redneck sites and so, alas, I missed yours. I suppose therefore that I ought to be grateful to Harry Abrams for drawing my attention to it. He’s quite the mover and shaker that Harry is.
Getting back to your reply to Murphy at LawIsCool you immediately jump to conclusions that have absolutely no basis in reality. Your suggestion that I must be an anti-Semite and a white supremacist flies in the face of fact. I’m thinking who the hell is he talking about here? Me? A fellow who’s lived and worked as a school teacher on native Indian reserves and who was a founding member of the Quesnel Multicultural Society (yah, yah, I know…) and has been married to a Jewish lady for thirty years and is a Christina to boot? Me? A white supremacist! Sheesh! And you are a spokesperson for the Zio-freaks who run America? And they actually believe you? Let me know when your job comes available. I’m sure I could probably fill your shoes without too much effort and do a much better job of neo- conning them than even you.
Then, to compound your charismatic crassness you’ve the audacity to suggest that I’m some local loser crouching in a basement hovel posting for six readers. My oh my Mark, such chutzpah coming from the golden goy of ultra-right ranters!
Indeed you ought to know the truth and that is I write from a 4,000 square foot home located on acreage in the foothills of the Cariboo Mountain range in central B.C.; one, incidentally that I completely built by myself from the footings to the final flue liner that juts out from the chimney top and overlooks the peaceful Cottonwood River valley.
But all that aside Mark I still concur with your assessment of who is the greater danger to our basic freedoms and it’s the likes of the “War Man” (a good Zionist Jew lawyer) who is by far the most clear and present danger to all free-thinking Canucks.
I particularly enjoyed your comment about the lawyer who recommended appeasement to “get off the hook” and what you want to do with that hook. I had had a hook in the water for some time now Mark and I believe a sucker just took it, along with the line and sinker. It’s only 12 lb. test but hey, I’m sure if I play it long enough I’ll eventually drag the bugger up on shore.
So again, thanks for the plug. You may hear more of this case in the coming months ahead. In the meantime you might actually read my Response to the CHRC to find out more. You never know you just might learn something new. It’s at http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629
Peace bro,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
radical@radicalpress.com
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
————————————————————
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/858/128/
When barristers in short pants wet them…
Sunday, 06 January 2008
by Mark Steyn
I’m pretty sure Craig’s comment of flooding is probably illegal.<<
If flooding the hrc over magazine articles to which were not responded to in the time frame Macleans alocated by wanna be lawyers none the less, dress code at the airports which lead to a promotion, poor work perfomance in telemarketing, danish cartoon reprints, and lord knows what else isn’t illegal….
Then explain to me how flooding the HRC with [u]legit[/u] complaints are illegal?
Maybe I should sue you for wasting my time for stating the obvious.