A Canadian inquisition??

Zombie's picture

Just to show you all that no country is perfect, here in Canada we have something of an inquisition going on over those silly mohammed cartoons.

Quote:
OK, it should be flamingly obvious that Ezra Levant's hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for having the audacity to exercise his right to free speech and free press to publish the infamous Mohammed Cartoons are going to be a high point in the struggle for freedom against Islamofascism and the nanny state. Mr. Levant is posting videos of the hearing on his YouTube channel, and we here at Wizbang think that the events shown there are so damned important, we're going to post the embedded YouTube videos here.

We also encourage anyone with the ability to do so to download and save the videos, as YouTube has a remarkable history of removing videos that show Islam in a bad way (also known as "speaking truth to psychos&quotEye-wink.

I`ll be downloading and saving these videos to my youtube channel and hard drive, I encourage you to do the same.

Link to source 

 

Morte alla tyrannus et dei

aiia's picture

Whoa, what the hell's

Whoa, what the hell's section 318? And what do the first 317 sections say?

 

 

Zombie's picture

I`m not a legal expert, but

I`m not a legal expert, but it could be something like section 3  paragraph 1 subsection 8 or something similar.

Morte alla tyrannus et dei

munky99999's picture

Criminal Code of Canada

Criminal Code of Canada

Section 318: Hate Propaganda

(1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

munky99999's picture

I'm sorry but I'm not going

I'm sorry but I'm not going to defend someone who is calling for the genocide of muslims. In the physical sense.

Zombie's picture

munky99999 wrote: I'm sorry

munky99999 wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not going to defend someone who is calling for the genocide of muslims. In the physical sense.

How does publishing the 12 cartoons that showed mohammed = genocide? 

Morte alla tyrannus et dei

munky99999's picture

Zombie wrote: munky99999

Zombie wrote:

munky99999 wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not going to defend someone who is calling for the genocide of muslims. In the physical sense.

How does publishing the 12 cartoons that showed mohammed = genocide?

Opps I mismatched guys. I was thinking about another guy who got charged this way.

 Ok wtf... he republished the cartoons... he clearly isn't calling for the genocide of the people...

Like the 2 good examples of this law in action is the westboro church who is calling for the death of homosexuals... The other guy who I thought this thread was about was calling for muslims to goto "heaven" sooner rather than later.

 Republishing the cartoons obviously aren't calling for the genocide of anyone...

 I'm thinking we dont have enough information or something.

aiia's picture

What justification did the

What justification did the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission in Calgary have to conduct a hearing on this matter? Was Ezra Levant compelled to appear?

In the United States, publishers would have told them to go fuck themselves. Perhaps Canadians don’t have as much freedom of speech as they thought. This clearly looks like an act of intimidation by the government.

nationalpost.com wrote:
The commission is investigating Mr. Levant's decision two years ago, as publisher of the Western Standard, to print a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
What is there to investigate? All this commission had to do was get a copy of the publication and read it.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

munky99999's picture

aiia wrote: What

aiia wrote:
What justification did the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission in Calgary have to conduct a hearing on this matter? Was Ezra Levant compelled to appear? In the US, publishers would have told them to go fuck themselves. Perhaps Canadians don’t have as much freedom of speech as they thought. This clearly looks like an act of intimidation by the government.
nationalpost.com wrote:
The commission is investigating Mr. Levant's decision two years ago, as publisher of the Western Standard, to print a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
What is there to investigate? All this commission had to do was get a copy of the publication and read it.

We have freedom of speech with 1 except... which is hate speech and that is the call for genocide. So you can't say you want to exterminate some group in public.

I want to learn how they showed he was calling for the genocide of muslims.

Sorry too skeptical. 

Zombie's picture

Skeptical how? Regarding

Skeptical how? Regarding his innocence or guilt?

Based on the interest shown I am going do some more research on this issue and find out exactly whats up with this issue. 

Morte alla tyrannus et dei

Zombie wrote: Skeptical

Zombie wrote:

Skeptical how? Regarding his innocence or guilt?

Based on the interest shown I am going do some more research on this issue and find out exactly whats up with this issue.

 

I would love that. I would love to research this more myself but know I just don't have the time.  I'd love a cole's notes version. 

aiia's picture

Is Canada falling?Once

Is Canada falling? Perhaps it has already fallen.

Once again Canadian free speech is under attack from a small group of Muslim fanatics.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24033

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have begun proceedings against Mark Steyn, author of America Alone.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

Thomathy's picture

I really don't understand

I really don't understand any of this.  I can't see how the CHRC could possibly be taking these kinds of things seriously.  I understand that, perhaps, if there was a complaint made to them, that they'd be compelled due to their obligations as such to investigate the complaint, but I can't imagine why showing the image of muhammed or writing unflatteringly about Islam could be construed as a Human Rights abuse.  Since when, as Europe does, did Canada begin pandering to the infantile whining of Muslim fanatics?

I'm so upset about this that I'm going to contact the CHRC and lodge a complaint about the Muslim fanatics.  Is any Canadian here willing to put something together with me and lodge a formal complaint?  Perhaps we can put together a petition?  Perhaps a number of essays from each of us as well as statements about our perceived abuse of Human Rights by the Muslim fanatics in Canada? 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

aiia's picture

Quote:Unlike in America,

Guy Rodgers Executive Director of ACT for America wrote:
Unlike in America, where the plaintiff who alleges he has been libeled must prove that the author libeled him, in Great Britain the author has to prove he didn’t. In other words, the burden of proof in Great Britain falls on the author, whereas in the United States, it falls on the person who alleges the libel.

 

I suspect this to be the case in Canada also and if this is true, neither Great Britain nor Canada has freedom of speech.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

Thomathy's picture

aiia wrote:

aiia wrote:

Guy Rodgers Executive Director of ACT for America wrote:
Unlike in America, where the plaintiff who alleges he has been libeled must prove that the author libeled him, in Great Britain the author has to prove he didn’t. In other words, the burden of proof in Great Britain falls on the author, whereas in the United States, it falls on the person who alleges the libel.

 

I suspect this to be the case in Canada also and if this is true, neither Great Britain nor Canada has freedom of speech.

Canadian freedom of speech should not be equated with American freedom of speech. It would appear, from the perspective of an informed person, that freedom of speech in Canada -as Canadians view it and as it is practised in Canada- is better adhered to than American freedom of speech in that people in Canada are not censored, fired, nor do they resign from positions because of what they have said despite their freedom of speech but because of the prescribed freedom of speech -and it happens less often than in the United States. Also, if Canada (and Britain) is supposed not to have freedom of speech, why is there less censorship of language in Canadian media and why are public access media granted more money than those in the United States?

I fail to see what you mean, aiia, when you say that neither Britain nor Canada have freedom of speech. If you mean that neither country practises freedom of speech as America does, then you are correct and for that I am thankful to live in Canada. Please, substantiate your claim that Canada does not practise free speech. You might as well also substantiate your claim that Britain does neither -and by extension to the rest of the first world democracies as these countries do not practise free speech as the United States does either.

It is extremely annoying and stomach churning to read an American tout about his free speech when he in fact lives in the least free western democracy by fact of the powers his president claims to have and to exercise and the bills which his congress has passed these last seven years. -More than annoying and stomach churning it is just silly.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

aiia's picture

Thomathy wrote:aiia

Thomathy wrote:
aiia wrote:

Guy Rodgers Executive Director of ACT for America wrote:
Unlike in America, where the plaintiff who alleges he has been libeled must prove that the author libeled him, in Great Britain the author has to prove he didn’t. In other words, the burden of proof in Great Britain falls on the author, whereas in the United States, it falls on the person who alleges the libel.

 

I suspect this to be the case in Canada also and if this is true, neither Great Britain nor Canada has freedom of speech.

Canadian freedom of speech should not be equated with American freedom of speech. It would appear, from the perspective of an informed person, that freedom of speech in Canada -as Canadians view it and as it is practised in Canada- is better adhered to than American freedom of speech in that people in Canada are not censored, fired, nor do they resign from positions because of what they have said despite their freedom of speech but because of the prescribed freedom of speech -and it happens less often than in the United States. Also, if Canada (and Britain) is supposed not to have freedom of speech, why is there less censorship of language in Canadian media and why are public access media granted more money than those in the United States?

I fail to see what you mean, aiia, when you say that neither Britain nor Canada have freedom of speech. If you mean that neither country practises freedom of speech as America does, then you are correct and for that I am thankful to live in Canada. Please, substantiate your claim that Canada does not practise free speech. You might as well also substantiate your claim that Britain does neither -and by extension to the rest of the first world democracies as these countries do not practise free speech as the United States does either.

It's obvious writers in the land of the British Monarchy cannot express an opinion without the fear of being called to prove everything he/she says. Thus you cannot freely express what you think of Islam or anything else without subjecting yourself to provide evidence for what you say.

Quote:
It is extremely annoying and stomach churning to read an American tout about his free speech when he in fact lives in the least free western democracy by fact of the powers his president claims to have and to exercise and the bills which his congress has passed these last seven years. -More than annoying and stomach churning it is just silly.

Now its your turn,show me where and how we are the least free western democracy.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture

aiia wrote:   I suspect

aiia wrote:
 

I suspect this to be the case in Canada also and if this is true, neither Great Britain nor Canada has freedom of speech.

And your point being ?

Whatever your point is. I hope that you are not implying here that the US have any lesson to give concering freedom of speech.

If that is what your are saying, tell me...

I'll refresh your memory... 

 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com

Thomathy's picture

Not true, not proof and two

Not true, not proof and two cases cannot form the basis of your claim if you're to be taken seriously. That is, just because some group makes a complaint and that complaint is taken seriously and a commission ensues doesn't mean that anyone who expresses an opinion, even if it is unflattering, or a cartoon of some prophet, and offends some group, will be taken before such a commission. In fact, it's not even clear that the Islamists here will be appeased, and even if they were, it doesn't prove that we haven't got freedom of speech. The commission is not elected and there are higher authorities in Canada which could be appealed to in such matters. I could write an editorial tomorrow slamming Muslims and not be hauled before a commission. The church in Windsor, Ontario that has been holding anti-Muslim services hasn't been hauled before a commission yet (look it up, it's really quite funny) and won't be. These two anomalous cases are abuses of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I can't see that they won't be judged as such and until these commissions conclude there is no reason to come to conclusions about the state of free speech in Canada. They may be said to be under assault, but I wouldn't concede that there is anything wrong with the freedoms I enjoy and I don't take kindly to someone suggesting that there is when I can clearly point out the problems with their freedoms and cite evidence.

I'll indulge your strawman here, even though you have yet to substantiate your claims.

The Patriot Act? Easily, this Act alone proves my point. But the excesses of executive power your president has taken, to the point of writing hereto unheard of signing statements to legislation wherein he states, either effectively or explicitly, that he will not obey by the legistlation passed by congress also adds to the evidence. Further adding to the evidence are the orders by the president to have American's phones taped, their emails intercepted, their mail read, their library records read and for librarians to be silent about it (librarians were quite vocal about this, however, and a court ruled that the gag order was unconstitutional and your congress changed this order), as well as orders given to the FBI allowing them to demand records of banks, colleges, hotels, hospitals, credit card companies, and others. The current administration has also authorized FBI agents to ((this is all without a warrant and without the need for otherwise legitimate security reasons, by the way, which would have been ensured by a warrant) attend church meetings, rallies, political meetings, and other activities on their own initiative, reversing a heretofore held to requisite that they provide their supervisors with proof that such spying, for lack of a better word, was relevant to a legitimate investigation... I could recite a number of other abuses of what I have understood are individual rights described in your constitution, but I'll stop there.

If you think any of those are unsubstantiated, a simple search should reveal media coverage of everything I've listed. If you are not convinced that your freedom in your country is at stake, or that the freedom you enjoy is very potentially, if not really, only a temporary condition, I seriously urge you to consider educating yourself about your governments' activities, of which you seem painfully unaware.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

darth_josh's picture

Ladies and gentlemen,Let's

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let's look at a tu quoque fallacy for starters. Pointing out someone else's problems with the same issue is not a valid counterargument either. Let's go back to talking about my favorite people to bash just north of us.

For starters my good little canucks, your 'charter' says:

Quote:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

So, right off the hop, you fuckers have some fundamental problems. lol.

The charter has far too many glittering generalities to be used as 'rule of law' anyway. Such as:

Quote:
 

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Well anyway. There are some good things too.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

aiia's picture

  Also the UK

 

Also the UK government is protecting the mohammedians' feelings from a silly childrens story...awwwwww, poor muslims.

A story based on the Three Little Pigs has been turned down from a government agency's annual awards because the subject matter could offend Muslims.

I'm wondering if the queen is wearing a head scarf?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

spike.barnett's picture

That guy was fucking

That guy was fucking hostile! I love it. Fight the power!

Vastet's picture

It pains me to admit this,

It pains me to admit this, but legally the US is far ahead of Canada when it comes to church and state seperation. Fortunately the practice thereof is far milder here than the same laws would be if applied there. Small consolation.

Once-Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

l.boisvert's picture

RRS in Canada we need a chapter in Montreal

Here in Canada we cannot say anything againt a religion fanatic or otherwise without being accuse of bigotry or prejudice or narrow minded we need to spread the word and the reality of it as rational. LETS GET Canadian  to get involve in the process with our friends in the USA. GOOD LUCK AND LETS GET TOGETHER NOW A+Larry