The Rants of Issachar
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Free Speech is liberal value...
The free speech issue and the so-called "human rights" tribunals are still making news. I'm a little behind here, but if you don't already know Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a private members motion calling for subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be deleted.
It's about time!
Of course not everyone is happy. Warren Kinsella thinks it's a bad idea, and he points to a post with a very long set of comments on Jason Cherniak's blog. Now it's one thing if Kinsella and a political blogger and a party official think that Mr. Martin is wrong, but I'm very disappointed to find out that Liberal Party leader Stephané Dion agrees and has asked Martin to withdraw the motion.
I'm really not a died in the wool Conservative voter. In many ways I'm a liberal. (Which is more than you can say for Stephané Dion on this issue). Seriously. Does the leader of the Liberal party even know what liberalism is? Here's a hint Mr. Dion: It is the political ideology that is primarily concerned with individual liberty! Freedom of speech is fundamental to liberalism.
What I find most frustrating about this issue is the fact that some people who I know are quite intelligent and educated, (and who have told me they don't wish to be named on my blog), seem to think that there should be legal consequences to saying or publishing things that simply upset people. This has nothing to do with whether or not things should be said. (The legal right to do something doesn't imply you should do it). This is about whether or not it should be illegal to say certain things.
I'm also frustrated by this seemingly pervasive sophism that action and speech are the same thing. (i.e. To insult someone is to assault them). There's a few examples in the comments on Jason Cherniak's post, but this is one of the more direct. Playing games with words can be fun, but it doesn't make speech into assault. Yes, I know that there are phrases like "an assault on the senses" in English, but that doesn't mean the man on the bus "attacked" you with his 14 day old body odour. We all know there's a difference between words and actions, and I'm disgusted that people who call themselves liberal would pretend that there isn't.
It's about time!
Of course not everyone is happy. Warren Kinsella thinks it's a bad idea, and he points to a post with a very long set of comments on Jason Cherniak's blog. Now it's one thing if Kinsella and a political blogger and a party official think that Mr. Martin is wrong, but I'm very disappointed to find out that Liberal Party leader Stephané Dion agrees and has asked Martin to withdraw the motion.
I'm really not a died in the wool Conservative voter. In many ways I'm a liberal. (Which is more than you can say for Stephané Dion on this issue). Seriously. Does the leader of the Liberal party even know what liberalism is? Here's a hint Mr. Dion: It is the political ideology that is primarily concerned with individual liberty! Freedom of speech is fundamental to liberalism.
What I find most frustrating about this issue is the fact that some people who I know are quite intelligent and educated, (and who have told me they don't wish to be named on my blog), seem to think that there should be legal consequences to saying or publishing things that simply upset people. This has nothing to do with whether or not things should be said. (The legal right to do something doesn't imply you should do it). This is about whether or not it should be illegal to say certain things.
I'm also frustrated by this seemingly pervasive sophism that action and speech are the same thing. (i.e. To insult someone is to assault them). There's a few examples in the comments on Jason Cherniak's post, but this is one of the more direct. Playing games with words can be fun, but it doesn't make speech into assault. Yes, I know that there are phrases like "an assault on the senses" in English, but that doesn't mean the man on the bus "attacked" you with his 14 day old body odour. We all know there's a difference between words and actions, and I'm disgusted that people who call themselves liberal would pretend that there isn't.
2 Comments:
Posted by: 
ArthurTophamFree Speech is liberal value...
Hi Andrew,
Wow, quite the view! It's pretty obvious that you are a fairly transparent sort.
I have been following the commentary on the Jason Cherniak blog for quite sometime now and find it most interesting. I also have attempted to post a comment too but, alas, have failed in that attempt.
Like you said in your recent comment there’s no law that states any blogger has to post every comment submitted and I agree with you but at the same time I also feel that certain posts, which are exceptionally relevant to the topic being discussed, ought to be included if for no other reason than that they would add information that undoubtedly would be most helpful to others who have queried one point or another and haven’t received any specific answers to their questions.
That was what prompted me to make my own post. The question was regarding the definition of what constitutes “hatred”. It was asked but not sufficiently answered. I had the answer and I tried to post it. I waited a reasonable amount of time, assuming that Jason was likely flooded with comments, but it never appeared. Next I wrote to Jason personally asking that he reconsider. He didn’t bother to reply.
Now the reason that I feel he is purposely avoiding my post (censoring is the correct term) is because he doesn’t want the information that I was offering to readers to be made available. There are different reasons as to why but you will most likely figure that out if you read what I wrote to Jason personally and also sent as a comment. I will append them below.
You are located in B.C. as I am and also as “The Rat”, another commenter on Cherniak’s blog, is. I sent my post to the Rat and I believe it is on his site but I haven’t been back to check if it still is.
Anyhow this is long enough.
If you choose to not publish this in your comments I would ask that you at least have the decency to contact me and let me know why, one way or another.
Thanks,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
---------------
Feb. 3, 2008
Dear Jason,
Early yesterday (Saturday, Feb.2) I submitted a comment to your post “There is no freedom to message hate”. I have waited patiently for the moderator (assuming it is you) to okay that comment. Due to the nature of the other comments plus my own unique position within the context of this discussion I felt that what I had to say was quite relevant.
So before I take this any further I would like to hear from you on the matter. Is it just a case of so many posters before me also adding their comments that my turn hasn’t come up or is it that you’ve decided freedom of expression/speech is only for those who meet your personal standards?
If nothing else, considering the recent posting by John Murney where he asks, “Could somebody please define 'hate' for me? I used to be for the idea that anti-'hate' laws were needed. However, we recently had a debate on this subject on my blog, and I now see that the problem is that 'hate' can be a pretty broad term. where does it begin, and where does it end?” I believe it is incumbent upon you that you at least post the definition of the term “hate” as defined by Ms. Sandy Kozak and contained in my post below. This will at least give commentors a reference point for further discussion.
The thread is extremely valuable Jason and is providing a great deal of opinion on the subject that many a survey would not achieve. Keep it up but also keep it open to ALL opinions.
In case my comment got lost I am including it again below this letter.
I would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
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”
------------------------------------------------------------
Comment to Jason Churniak’s post submitted on Feb. 2, 2008 by Radical Press:
Dear Jason,
I am one of the more recent publishers in Canada who has had a complaint laid against them by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. My ultimatum to “Respond” to the said complaint arrived in my mailbox on November 20, 2007. I reside in the province of B.C.
Unlike the cases of Levant and Steyn who are both Jews and the complainant is a Muslim, my complainants, Harry Abrams, B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and “the League” are both Zionist Jews and I am a baptized Christian.
In my case the complainants are contending that I and my website http://www.radicalpress.com are promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel”. Their allegations are based upon the many articles which I publish that are critical of political Zionism and the Israeli state.
Prior to writing my “Response” I asked the CHRC “hate-crimes” Investigator Ms. Sandy Kozak, for a definition of “hate” which the CHRC uses in such cases. I am posting her reply here for the benefit of anyone who wishes to understand the context within which this semi-judicial organization operates and how they view this controversial term.
From: SANDY KOZAK
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007
To: Arthur Topham
Subject: Re: CHRC complaint
Mr. Topham,
In response to your email of 28 November 2007, the following information should answer the questions you posed about the meaning of ‘hate’ and our investigation of these types of complaints. Further, I would recommend that you submit a full response to the allegations initially, however, further information can be submitted later if necessary.
The investigation will examine whether there is support for the complainant’s allegation of hate on the internet by considering:
i. whether the material which forms the basis of the complaint was observed on the Internet;
ii. whether the communication of the material has at least partially taken place in Canada;
iii. whether the material is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on characteristic(s) based upon a prohibited ground(s)
iv. whether the Respondent communicated or caused to be communicated the material which forms the basis of the complaint.
What constitutes “hatred” is not defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is a question of fact. It is generally accepted to refer to extreme ill-will and is an emotion which allows for “no redeeming qualities” in the person at whom it is directed. “Contempt” is similarly extreme and includes circumstances in which the object of one’s feelings is looked down upon, belittled, despised, dishonored or disgraced.
Sincerely,
Sandy Kozak
Investigator
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Anyone interested in my case can review it by going to the following urls listed below. The first is to an article which contains the Response and the second is to the Response itself.
1. KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628
2. Response to CHRC re: complaint from Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629
Feedback is always appreciated and can be sent to Radical Press at radical@radicalpress.com
Thank you.
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
-------------------------
ArthurTophamFree Speech is liberal value...Hi Andrew,
Wow, quite the view! It's pretty obvious that you are a fairly transparent sort.
I have been following the commentary on the Jason Cherniak blog for quite sometime now and find it most interesting. I also have attempted to post a comment too but, alas, have failed in that attempt.
Like you said in your recent comment there’s no law that states any blogger has to post every comment submitted and I agree with you but at the same time I also feel that certain posts, which are exceptionally relevant to the topic being discussed, ought to be included if for no other reason than that they would add information that undoubtedly would be most helpful to others who have queried one point or another and haven’t received any specific answers to their questions.
That was what prompted me to make my own post. The question was regarding the definition of what constitutes “hatred”. It was asked but not sufficiently answered. I had the answer and I tried to post it. I waited a reasonable amount of time, assuming that Jason was likely flooded with comments, but it never appeared. Next I wrote to Jason personally asking that he reconsider. He didn’t bother to reply.
Now the reason that I feel he is purposely avoiding my post (censoring is the correct term) is because he doesn’t want the information that I was offering to readers to be made available. There are different reasons as to why but you will most likely figure that out if you read what I wrote to Jason personally and also sent as a comment. I will append them below.
You are located in B.C. as I am and also as “The Rat”, another commenter on Cherniak’s blog, is. I sent my post to the Rat and I believe it is on his site but I haven’t been back to check if it still is.
Anyhow this is long enough.
If you choose to not publish this in your comments I would ask that you at least have the decency to contact me and let me know why, one way or another.
Thanks,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
---------------
Feb. 3, 2008
Dear Jason,
Early yesterday (Saturday, Feb.2) I submitted a comment to your post “There is no freedom to message hate”. I have waited patiently for the moderator (assuming it is you) to okay that comment. Due to the nature of the other comments plus my own unique position within the context of this discussion I felt that what I had to say was quite relevant.
So before I take this any further I would like to hear from you on the matter. Is it just a case of so many posters before me also adding their comments that my turn hasn’t come up or is it that you’ve decided freedom of expression/speech is only for those who meet your personal standards?
If nothing else, considering the recent posting by John Murney where he asks, “Could somebody please define 'hate' for me? I used to be for the idea that anti-'hate' laws were needed. However, we recently had a debate on this subject on my blog, and I now see that the problem is that 'hate' can be a pretty broad term. where does it begin, and where does it end?” I believe it is incumbent upon you that you at least post the definition of the term “hate” as defined by Ms. Sandy Kozak and contained in my post below. This will at least give commentors a reference point for further discussion.
The thread is extremely valuable Jason and is providing a great deal of opinion on the subject that many a survey would not achieve. Keep it up but also keep it open to ALL opinions.
In case my comment got lost I am including it again below this letter.
I would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
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”
------------------------------------------------------------
Comment to Jason Churniak’s post submitted on Feb. 2, 2008 by Radical Press:
Dear Jason,
I am one of the more recent publishers in Canada who has had a complaint laid against them by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. My ultimatum to “Respond” to the said complaint arrived in my mailbox on November 20, 2007. I reside in the province of B.C.
Unlike the cases of Levant and Steyn who are both Jews and the complainant is a Muslim, my complainants, Harry Abrams, B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and “the League” are both Zionist Jews and I am a baptized Christian.
In my case the complainants are contending that I and my website http://www.radicalpress.com are promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel”. Their allegations are based upon the many articles which I publish that are critical of political Zionism and the Israeli state.
Prior to writing my “Response” I asked the CHRC “hate-crimes” Investigator Ms. Sandy Kozak, for a definition of “hate” which the CHRC uses in such cases. I am posting her reply here for the benefit of anyone who wishes to understand the context within which this semi-judicial organization operates and how they view this controversial term.
From: SANDY KOZAK
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007
To: Arthur Topham
Subject: Re: CHRC complaint
Mr. Topham,
In response to your email of 28 November 2007, the following information should answer the questions you posed about the meaning of ‘hate’ and our investigation of these types of complaints. Further, I would recommend that you submit a full response to the allegations initially, however, further information can be submitted later if necessary.
The investigation will examine whether there is support for the complainant’s allegation of hate on the internet by considering:
i. whether the material which forms the basis of the complaint was observed on the Internet;
ii. whether the communication of the material has at least partially taken place in Canada;
iii. whether the material is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on characteristic(s) based upon a prohibited ground(s)
iv. whether the Respondent communicated or caused to be communicated the material which forms the basis of the complaint.
What constitutes “hatred” is not defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is a question of fact. It is generally accepted to refer to extreme ill-will and is an emotion which allows for “no redeeming qualities” in the person at whom it is directed. “Contempt” is similarly extreme and includes circumstances in which the object of one’s feelings is looked down upon, belittled, despised, dishonored or disgraced.
Sincerely,
Sandy Kozak
Investigator
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Anyone interested in my case can review it by going to the following urls listed below. The first is to an article which contains the Response and the second is to the Response itself.
1. KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628
2. Response to CHRC re: complaint from Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629
Feedback is always appreciated and can be sent to Radical Press at radical@radicalpress.com
Thank you.
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
-------------------------
Posted by: issachartest comment.
issachartest comment.
