Posts Tagged ‘free speech

Rob Nicholson is being hoodwinked by his bureaucrats

- August 16th, 2011

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has been a staunch defender of his flawed Bill C-51. He needs to stop listening to his bureaucrats who are leading him down the garden path.

There are many problems with C-51, in particular, its attempt to expand Canada`s hate speech laws. Hate speech laws, like hate crimes laws should be scrapped.

You beat someone up, go to jail or be fined. You slander someone, face the punishment. Hate laws just chip away at the idea of equality by saying the same crime committed against me is more heinous if it is committed against someone else.

So scrap the law.

But that`s not my immediate argument with Nicholson. Bill C-51 will expand the definition of communication in the criminal code to include posting a link, passing along an email etc. I`ve said this, others including lawyer Alan Shanoff have said this.

Here`s the change proposed in C-51 and sure to be included in the omnibus crime bill coming this fall.

5. The definition “communicating” in subsection 319(7) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“communicating” means communicating by any means and includes making available;

That new definition could make a hyperlink on a blog or Facebook a crime. Even if you are denouncing some nut job, technically, you could be a criminal.

In his letter to the editor today Nicholson says our interpretation is faulty.

RE “Policing of Internet hatred tangled web for government “ by Alan Shanoff (Aug. 14): Contrary to what was reported in your article, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, does not propose “making hyperlinking a crime.” This is currently not the case, nor would it be the case if former Bill C-51 became law. You fail to note that under section 319(1) — public incitement of hatred — the requirement already exists that the communication in question be in a public place and that the person is found to have incited hatred against an identifiable group and the incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. A breach of the peace could include causing/organizing a riot, inciting an assault on another person, desecrating or inciting to desecrate a monument, or any other act that amounts to a criminal offence. Furthermore, section 319(2) — wilful promotion of hatred — requires that the communication not be in a private conversation, and that it wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group.

The threshold for the commission of these two offences goes beyond simply posting a hyper-link; all the elements of the above mentioned offences would need to be present. Again, former Bill C-51 was designed to simply clarify the current text of the Criminal Code to ensure it addressed modern technology such as the Internet. There is no major change to the current offences and to suggest otherwise is misleading.

The Hon. Rob Nicholson

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Well colour me unconvinced.

Here`s what section 319 (2) says in full.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So I post a link and someone decides that what is at the other side of that link is a hateful piece of commentary. I wilfully posted the link so that people could read it. I have by the definition communicated something. Now I am a criminal.

Suppose the article, opinion piece or what have you never calls for anyone to be harmed, targeted or what have you but is just critical of a group. Are you confident enough in our PC ways to give a crown prosecutor and a judge the ability to send you to jail for two years

I`m not.

I`ve asked Minister Nicholson on the show to debate this, he has never returned calls or emails on this. He and his staff are wrong and need to fix this but I`m betting there is ego involved here.

May as well ban Steyn from the BBC

- October 30th, 2010
mark-steyn-color

"Controversial Author Mark Steyn" TM

There was a time when the best thing that could happen to a British band trying to make it big was to have their songs banned by the BBC.

The ensuing controversy and the sight of a 45 or LP in the record shop with a sticker plastered on it saying “BANNED ON THE BBC” would be enough to ensure a spot on the charts. A story in the London Free Press today brought that phenomenon to mind.

“Controversial author Mark Steyn” TM was scheduled to speak at the London Convention Centre on Monday, November 1st.  Depending on who you believe the location for that gig was either cancelled due to concerns from local Muslisms or over concerns about protestors interrupting the event.

Either way organizer Andrew Lawton found another city run venue to host his event and as Jonathan Sher reports in the Freeps today, ticket sales are going well.

They will come next week to London from as far away as Detroit, Cleveland and perhaps even sunny California, to hear a conservative commentator shut out of one public venue only to find another.

Mark Steyn will speak Monday at Centennial Hall but already buzz about his appearance has led to 800 requests for tickets, said the event’s organizer.

“We even have one woman and her husband who say they’re flying in from Santa Barbara (California) just for this speech,” said Andrew Lawton, of strictlyright.com, the organization bringing Steyn to London.

Lawton expects to sell all 1,000 seats on Centennial’s main floor and hopes to fill some of the balcony, too.

“We’re going to have no trouble filling the venue,” he said Thursday.

Read more here.

I expect to hear Steyn myself tonight with far less controversy as he speaks at a dinner to honour my Sun Media colleague Ezra Levant.