Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:22 pm    Post subject: Supreme Court twists the Charter of Rights Reply with quote

Nothing changes! Even after the Conservative government appoints two new justices!

It isn't that I care about homosexuals that much. I mean, I have a lot of trouble uinderstanding why they are a protected group, and why so much is going on in the schools to accommodate homosexuality. But didn't we get rid of 'hate' crimes?
Quote:

Andrew Coyne: Supreme Court twists the Charter of Rights in its haste to limit free speech

The very first line in the Supreme Court’s calamitous decision in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott gives a clue to where it is going. “All rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” it declares, “are subject to reasonable limitations.”

This is a legal truism, but as always it is as important what the Court did not say. It did not choose to begin a ruling on an important freedom of speech case with a ringing affirmation of the importance of free speech, or what an extraordinary thing it is to place restrictions upon it.

Indeed, in its haste to get on with the limiting, it did not even pause to properly quote the section of the Charter that grants the state such authority. The Charter “guarantees” the rights set out in it, Section 1 declares, “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The limits don’t just have to be reasonable. They have to be “demonstrably justified.”

Where the Court’s view of such limits is expansive and approving, the Charter is grudging (“only”) and cautious (“demonstrably”). That’s as it should be. If we accept the bedrock premise of a free society, that government is its servant and not its master, then it is up to the state, always, to ask the citizens’ permission before it intrudes on their liberty, and to prove its necessity: it is never the citizen’s obligation to show why he may remain unmolested. That spirit is lamentably absent from the Court’s reasoning.

Well, it gets one thing right. It is not enough, the Court writes, that material such as the flyers distributed by William Whatcott, a Saskatoon Christian activist, in contravention of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, is offensive or repugnant. Rather, it must involve some harm to others. But look at how loosely the Court defines “harm.”

The code itself outlaws material that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred” any person or group, on the usual list of prohibited grounds. It is not necessary, that is, to show the material in question actually exposes anyone to hatred — only that it might. The Court then upholds the ban on the grounds that the hatred to which individuals might or might not be exposed might in turn lead others to believe things that might cause them to act in certain unspecified but clearly prejudicial ways: it “has the potential to incite or inspire discriminatory treatment,” or “risks” doing so, or is “likely” to, or at any rate “can.”

After all, the Court reasons, “when people are vilified as blameworthy or undeserving, it is easier to justify discriminatory treatment.” Perhaps it is: but does such discriminatory treatment in fact result? Can the Court draw any causal link between speech that “tends to” expose to hatred, for example among the dozens of people who may have received Whatcott’s fevered tracts, and any actual increase in prejudice, let alone acts of discrimination? No it cannot, and what is more it does not care to.

As it has in the past, the Court argues that the state’s inability to demonstrate the harmful effects of hate speech, far from weakening its case, only confirms it: it is a sign of the “particularly insidious” nature of hate speech that it works its harm in ways not visible to hundreds of human rights investigators. Rather, it is sufficient that “Canadians presume” such hateful expression “may lead to harm.” So: from demonstrably justified to presumably justified.

If the Court is inclined to wink at the state’s traditional need to prove its case, it is not so indulgent of the defendant. As anyone who follows the workings of human rights tribunals can attest, they are a strange parody of ordinary criminal courts. Not only is it no defence that the accused had an honest belief in what he said: it is not even a defence that it is factually true. Here, too, the Court is at peace. As the decision primly advises, “truth may be used for widely disparate ends.” I cannot quite believe I am reading these words, even now.

There are long passages like this in the ruling, wherein the Court reels off, without supporting evidence, the many harmful effects it supposes hate speech is likely to cause. It “opposes the targeted group’s ability to find self-fulfillment.” It “impacts on that group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate.” It “acts to cut off any path of reply by the group under attack.” It is “an effort to marginalize individuals” based on their membership in a group, to “silence” their “voice,” and so on.

It might be interesting to know whether any of this is true — have Jews, for example, the most persistent target of hate speech through the ages, been “silenced”? — but apparently it does not matter: the government is not required to prove its case is true, and the defendant is not saved if his case is. At one point the Court muses that a failure to ban hate speech, in so far as it “silences” the targeted groups, may be “more rather than less damaging to freedom of expression.”

From which we may conclude that any government that relaxed such restrictions would soon find itself condemned by the Court — as a threat to free speech.
http://fullcomment.nationalpos.....ee-speech/


This is something I care about. Some say Andrew Coyne is gay himself, and he cares. It isn't anti-gay to say so, imho. It isn't about that, anyway.

It's about the fundamental nature of the freedom of speech.

I've sent those jerks $200 a year since Preston Manning was at the helm, and that's it. I'm through. I encourage anyone else who thinks civil rights is important to do the same thing.

Comments?
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sick. Yup that Liberal rag constitution can be invoked to abrogate itself!!

The supreme court is so out of touch with this ruling.

I guess now i have to find EVERY negative reference to Krishna in this province and complain to the Saskatchewan human rights commission - oh right - they don't cover Krishna here - they said so. Not only that - they further victimized me and the other victim!

Homosexuality is unnatural and no court is going to clean up that fact. At age 15 I was molested by a 37 year old HOMOsexual police officer - cursed my life it did [this is in no way a dark reflection on police] - I ought to be able to publish my thoughts on this sinful contaminated lifestyle choice but - we're not allowed? It is sad that telling the truth is no defense...
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There seems to be depressingly little interest in basic rights amongst big C Conservatives.

It's a shame.

Here's a link to Ezra Levant spelling out what the decision can mean.

http://jr2020.blogspot.ca/2013.....rible.html

We abandon our heritage bit by bit. More and more I can see that patriating the Constitution was, perhaps, Trudeau's biggest mistake.

The Charter is being shredded, and we don't even have the benefit of common law anymore. And you have to go looking to find anyone that cares.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Supreme Court twists the Charter of Rights

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB