Saturday, June 07, 2008
Canada is no longer a free country
That's right. This decision is so offensive to basic human rights -- ironic, in that it comes from a "human rights" commission -- that Canada can no longer be regarded as a free country. Among other atrocities in the opinion, the right to avoid "hatred and contempt" is found to trump freedom of speech.
Of course, if you're looking for a silver lining, we no longer have to worry about Canadian sanctimony over Gitmo and such. After all, what's a few hundred untried foreigners compared to 30 million actual citizens forbidden to express contempt?
25 Comments:
By 
Grumpy Old Man, at
Sat Jun 07, 10:43:00 PM:
Unbelievable.
This is exactly what the critics predicted, implausibly, as we thought.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Sat Jun 07, 11:40:00 PM:
Can the United States now expect to be getting persecuted Canadians are political refugees??
By clint, at
Sat Jun 07, 11:43:00 PM:
Wow.
Thank God for Steyn and Macleans. It would have been so easy for the magazine to cave -- but they have the resources to actually fight this disgusting farce.
By 
, at
Sun Jun 08, 12:08:00 AM:
If contempt is a crime in Canada, is sarcasm merely a misdemeanor?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Jun 08, 12:21:00 AM:
What did you expect? In Western English-speaking countries, multiculturalism as an OFFICIAL national policy started in Canada in 1971 (a product of the whole English-French thing). Multiculturalism became the official policy of Australia in 1973. Most of the EU member states quickly adopted the policy after that. (Later Denmark and the Netherlands changed their minds.)
The Canadians created the monster. It is only fair that they get eaten by it first.
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 12:52:00 AM:
I agree it is unbelievable, but the Canadian law is certainly no worse than America's Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows habeas corpus to be revoked against those who have "engaged in, or supported hostilities against, the United States".
By randian, at
Sun Jun 08, 01:16:00 AM:
Is this what Mark Steyn can look forward to?
By Andrewdb, at
Sun Jun 08, 01:18:00 AM:
I should note that the Constitution (Art One, Section 9) allows the Writ to be suspended - which it was during the Civil War and again during WWII - it was further limited in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which Bill Clinton signed into law.
I personally don't think it is a good idea, but it is hardly a new concept with the Mil Comm Act of 2006.
By Escort81, at
Sun Jun 08, 01:26:00 AM:
Who knew that using somewhat militaristic language in a metaphorical way directed against gays (no matter how distasteful many may find it) could rise to the level of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? In a letter to the editor, no less?
So if I write a letter to the editor of a paper in Edmonton saying, "the Flyers will crush the Oilers next year, and the Oilers fans will retreat to their basement foxholes and drink themselves to death with cases of Moosehead," would this magistrate come after me? Have I "exposed" Oilers fans (as a protected class) to possible hatred and contempt? This is only a hypothetical; I don't want any potential liability!
Lesson for all: no matter how much you want to silence your opponents, resist the temptation to have the government try to help you in your efforts. The obvious exceptions to free speech -- specific and clear language directing others to commit acts of violence against certain parties ("You should go and punch and kick a medical device company executive today; they charge too much for their products, and lay around all day and blog!") -- might require some baseline of actual judgment.
We have Islamists crossing from Canada into the U.S. with a trunk filled with ordnance and targeting LAX, and these guys want to go after some anti-gay preacher? As long as the Islamists don't say anything mean-spirited before they act, I guess they are OK under the statute in question.
Squealer - the MCA applies to alien "unlawful enemy combatants," not citizens, and certainly not people writing a letter to the editor. Read "Willful Blindness" by Andy McCarthy (you can click on the link to your right) to read why the civilian criminal justice system is not the optimal setting to deal with terrorists, written by the man who successfully prosecuted some of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
By Gary Rosen, at
Sun Jun 08, 02:36:00 AM:
"the Canadian law is certainly no worse than America's Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows habeas corpus to be revoked against those who have "engaged in, or supported hostilities against, the United States"."
So in your eyes waging *war* is no worse than someone shooting their mouth off? Better get to rehab, quick.
By Gary Rosen, at
Sun Jun 08, 02:40:00 AM:
I wonder if Ms. Andreachuk would make the same decision against Muslims vilifying Jews or homosexuals? Not exactly a hypothetical question.
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 09:54:00 AM:
But, this is exactly where we are going. The speech of every American is self-censored so as to avoid offending some real or imagined "victim."
And this will lead us to the point where thought police will declare what we can say or think. If, let's assume. Hussein is elected and begins some ill-fated romance with Iran, he and the left wing media will attempt to stifle criticism because it would be "contrary to the best interests of the nation."
We'll see the same kind of convoluted thinking as the fairness doctrine is reimposed, employer opposition to unions is prohibited and any criticism of Hussein it decreed to be racists and, thereffore, prohibited.
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 10:52:00 AM:
What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.There are plenty of leftists and Islamists who have made statements that others consider offensive.
When the "Human Rights" institutions in Canada get swamped with complaints about leftists and Islamists, the untenability of the current "Human Rights" laws will be further exposed.When the "Human Rights" institutions can no longer function due to the high number of complaints it has to process, things will change.
The Islamists and leftists have gamed the system. Others can do it also.
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 02:45:00 PM:
This is very creepy. Americans would never stand for this kind of thing. I hope Canadians don't either.
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 03:02:00 PM:
yeah definitely not a good idea
Clintons speech
Who created the smear e-mails?
McCains Temper Tantrum
Electoral Maps
McCain's speech reviews
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 04:14:00 PM:
For those of you who are Harry Potter fans, does she not look and act exactly as you would expect Professor Umbridge to act? The world has lost its mind.
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 08:41:00 PM:
The MCA "which allows habeas corpus to be revoked against those who have "engaged in, or supported hostilities against, the United States".
Incorrect. The act revokes the statutory habeas rights of aliens.
American citizens or those here legally have Constitutional habeas rights which cannot be taken away by Congress.
If the President identifies a US citizen as an enemy combatant and they are detained, they do not lose their habeas rights.
By , at
Sun Jun 08, 08:53:00 PM:
Didn't want to get too deep into this but the Military Commissions Act specifically says:
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter
`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
The military commissions - where habeas rights do not apply - can only try aliens not US citizens. They may determine that you are a unlawful combatant but they have no jurisdiction over you if you're not an alien, i.e., a US citizen.
IOW, they must let you go.
By clint, at
Sun Jun 08, 09:07:00 PM:
"What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.There are plenty of leftists and Islamists who have made statements that others consider offensive.
"When the "Human Rights" institutions in Canada get swamped with complaints about leftists and Islamists, the untenability of the current "Human Rights" laws will be further exposed.When the "Human Rights" institutions can no longer function due to the high number of complaints it has to process, things will change.
"The Islamists and leftists have gamed the system. Others can do it also.
By Anonymous Boludo Tejano, at Sun Jun 08, 10:52:00 AM
---------------
If only.
Filing such a complaint before such a commission would be more likely to end up badly for you.
You make the mistake of believing that the HRC members are motivated by logical and legal reasoning, when they are motivated by a desire for social justice.
By , at
Mon Jun 09, 01:31:00 AM:
Sorry guys, the MCA has wiggle room enough to allow the President to decide a United States citizen is an unlawful enemby combatant and detain that person without habeas corpus, similar to what occurred to U.S. citizen José Padilla. For more explanation, see this Wikipedia article.
By , at
Mon Jun 09, 05:55:00 AM:
Steyn should take any publisher in Canada that prints a koran, any bookstore that sells a koran before the human rights commission. The koran calls Jews the son of apes and pigs, that is hateful speech actionable under the jurisdiction of the human rights commission.
By davod, at
Mon Jun 09, 08:38:00 AM:
"This is very creepy. Americans would never stand for this kind of thing. I hope Canadians don't either."
In the US, we already self-censor. And, depending upon who is running the Civil Rights division in the Justice Department (I am not sure if this is the correct term), we practice selective prosecution based upon Political Correctness.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jun 09, 10:58:00 AM:
"Sorry guys, the MCA has wiggle room enough to allow the President to decide a United States citizen is an unlawful enemby combatant and detain that person without habeas corpus, similar to what occurred to U.S. citizen José Padilla."
That power already exists, guys, and it has for 221 years. Which, of course, is how it was done in the first place.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" - Article I, Section 9, US Constitution
Given that Padilla (for the only modern example) was suspected of being a foreign agent and trigger guy for a WMD, it really isn't a stretch, IMO. You need only visit the annals of history to see when more oppressive things were done before. During the Civil War, President Lincoln had the military arrest, try, imprison, and in one case execute civilians who spoke out against the war.
US citizens were thrown in jail by the military for what they said and wrote. Outright saboteurs and spies in the border states were simply hanged.
But now Lincoln is viewed as a national hero, doing 'what needed to be done'
By , at
Mon Jun 09, 04:52:00 PM:
Sorry guys, the MCA has wiggle room enough to allow the President to decide a United States citizen is an unlawful enemby combatant and detain that person without habeas corpus
Sorry, Wikipedia? They are relying on some deeply misleading hysteria put out by the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights.
You need to go to the original source or material.
Here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109KYarF9::
More important, the President may have that authority but the MCA doesn't give it to him.
The MCA established military trials or commissions. The jurisdiction of the commission is limited to trying aliens.
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Alien unlawful enemy combatant.
Alien.
Don't believe me or Wikipedia; read the act (see above) detailing who the commissions have jurisdiction over.
By , at
Tue Jun 10, 12:28:00 PM:
You guys are like goats waiting to be thrown off a cliff by a bald eagle.
Regarding the MCA's applicability to citizens, the wording is ambiguous, and if it is not, then why are legislators who passed the law (Leahy and others) concerned that it is? One should have no doubt that if there is any loophole at all, Bush and his ilk will use it to cover their behinds, as in the Padilla case. And Padilla is not the only citizen who has been detained. There is also the case of Yaser Hamdi and others.
Not that we should be concerned only with the unlawful detentions of citizens... Lacking time and space here, I will only say that while losing the principle of habeas corpus for non-citizens may be legal, it still makes America guilty of first-degree hypocrisy, since such a suspension obviously requires us to forget the ideal that human beings have certain unalienable rights. Without habeas corpus, law is a farce.
The example of Lincoln only proves my point, since the Supreme Court ruled that his usurpation of the power to suspend the Writ was unconstitutional. And the earlier mentioned example of FDR only proves my position's moral legitimacy, since it led to the creation of internment camps for citizens that all Americans now agree was a bad thing and did nothing to improve out security.
Of course a bird can't throw a goat off a cliff, so why be worried.
