Comments on: CHRC Embarrasses Canada…Again

By: M

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:05:27 +0000

Technically, in this article Steyn also insituates that baseball teams are only for “guys”, literally tells Italians to fuck themselves (albiet through a quote…but the mosquito thing was a quote too), and uses the word “injuns”.

…I heart him.

By: JdB

JdB — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:48:57 +0000

Structures like the Canadian Human Rights Commission are dangerous because they are inherently political (appointees are often politically connected lay people) and their decisions are not arrived at with reference to juristic principles; thus, their decisions tend to be little more than genuflections to the political zeitgeist backed with threats of State action. They are kangaroo courts where the rules of evidence and procedure are overly malleable, and where there are no consequences associated with spurious complaints, except of course for the respondent who may end up paying for representation. What would the claimant’s costs in a civil action are transferred to the State.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:48:57 +0000

Try this one on for size:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/editorial/story/4219546p-4812904c.html

By: Tyler Handley

Tyler Handley — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:21:30 +0000

I don’t see many Muslims condemning violence on behalf of the faith, but I think we should strongly support those who are outspoken.

By: A.H.

A.H. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:52:50 +0000

It is also interesting that you would use that quote, as the CHRC would most likely agree with you.
In the case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. the CHRC and the Supreme Court upheld secular and non-believer rights and gave a strong precedence. Striking down a law that prohibited businesses from operating on Sundays. Declaring that there was no secular basis to the law. Please don’t make the absolute assumption that an entity protecting religious freedoms does not also protect secular freedoms. The law does not prohibit anyone to use it, in fact I think it speaks volumes that they would use democratic and impartial means to dispute rather than to result to violence and destruction as you have suggested. I personally think that is wonderfully rational and reasonable. Also many Muslims I know, and even in the media are extreme critical themselves of Islam. In fact i often find that they are the ones who make the most noise.

By: A.H.

A.H. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:24:20 +0000

I wasn’t speaking about political repercussion outside of Canada, but repercussions towards the judiciary acting as an impartial, non-partisan, unbiased entity. If it can’t investigate cases which involves a basic freedom, asking itself hard questions pertaining to the limit freedom of speech then it has not done it job, and there wold be no reason for it to exist. To simply ignore the issues and questions is not conducive for ration and reasonable judgment. If you read any of the comments you would see that the CHRC did in fact drop it, after much review and discussion.

By: A.H.

A.H. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:16:56 +0000

Yes you are right ,i meant the CIR….waaaay on the other spectrum of the CMC

By: Tyler Handley

Tyler Handley — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:59:32 +0000

Good points A.H. You’re implying that I’m being harsh on the CHRC, and you’re right, I am. Maybe too harsh, but I still disagree with their recent actions. And about the Muslim Canadian Congress, I thought it was the Islamic Canadian Congress that filed the human rights complaint. It was Mohamed Elmasry who filed it, the same guy who claimed that all Jews over 18 in the West Bank are valid targets for murder because they’re considered “soldiers” to him. The CIC has been using the CHRC to gain a wider audience and spread the mostly false notion of “islamophobia.”

By: Velvet Hammer

Velvet Hammer — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:57:59 +0000

“Had the CHRC not taken the complaint seriously what would be the repercussion of that action? ”
Repercussions such as?
Car-b-ques, embassies burned, villages torched, murder????
Heh.

The CHRC should of ignored the complaint at face value. Or at the least after a quick investigation dropped it.

Muslims whine every chance they get. They do not want to hear of any criticism of Islam. Period.

Now I ask is that free speech or the Islamic way?
Bear in mind we are focusing on their expectations of how westerners in the west should behave.
Not muslims under sharia law.

Which brings to mind this quote by Fleming Rose of Danish Mo Toon fame.

“…But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.”

The west needs to take a stand before it ends up on it’s knees.

By: A.H.

A.H. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:02 +0000

The question of what is offensive and dangerous is of course not very clear cut. There are fine lines between what is deemed acceptable and what is’nt, you’re right. But too much of a good thing can sometimes lead to bad consequences, and the limitations that are included in the Charter helps us in that sense. What its also there for is to protect against extremism, Muslim, religious, conservative AND liberal. I often find that the CHRC is often attacked not because it itself a liberal champion, but because the entirety of the Canadian legal system, and maybe the country itself is often deemed to be “liberal” and the commission is simply a part of that. The CHRC fits very well into our legal system, could it be perceived as a wider problem among those that think its simply just leftist philosophy going too far? What is too far? How can we find and define these limits? WHO can define these limits?