Mark Steyn's Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
 

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...f-461ff39cb6cd


This is absurd. I can't wait for liberals to push America in this direction!

I couldn't follow the article. What's this about?

Easy there on the conservative paranoia. I don't think you or Joe McCarthy have too much to worry about -- there would need to be quite a few amendments to the federal and state constitutions first.

And yeah, the article was hard to follow.

What's this about? LOL.

Those who tell don't know and those who know don't tell. :p

Canada has quasi-judicial bodies called Canadian Human Rights Tribunals to which the Canadian Human Rights Commission can refer cases it has investigated involving charges of discrimination. I don't know much more about them than that, but per the writer of the article, they run amok without being tethered by traditional legal defenses or other benefits of the common law and are otherwise bad and overly politically correct. I don't know one way or t'other on that, though the writer's tone leads me to discount him as someone whose representations I would accept at face value.

Don't mess with those of us who know. :eek:

Thanks! I call shenanigans. Or something.

Mark Steyn is a political author/satirist/whatever who has written controversial works on Islam, and how the expanding islamic population will impact the globe. Some of his writing was published in a Canadian magazine, and complaints were filed because apparently it served to further hatred against Muslims. So he's in front of a HRC this week in a sham tribunal.

There is a lot more about this in the Canadian press, so feel free to give it a look.

Also, Mystic, I'm not paranoid. Check out the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. This type of stuff is all over Europe, Canada and Israel. Hell, the UN Sec Gen went after the creator of "Fitna" while the UN has continually cowered to terrorist nations.

This stuff, though laughable, is pretty terrifying. What is even more disturbing is that a lot of Americans probably think that these "hurt feelings" courts are appropriate.

Here's what I got from the article (in addition to what MC already said):
1. In 2006, a Canadian journalist published a book called "America Alone".
2. A passage from the book was printed in a magazine.
3. The passage was "controversial" and didn't portray radical Muslims in the nicest way.
4. A prominent radical Muslim leader got ticked and filed a grievance with 3 different "human rights tribunals" (which MC explained) at the same time saying that the magazine was "spreading hatred about Muslims".
5. Initially, the group offered to drop the matter for money, so this leads to charges that threatening to bring something to a human rights tribunal is an effective way to extort people.
6. These "human rights tribunals" have a 100% "conviction" rate
7. The "commissioners" on the tribunals are not judges, do not have to be trained in law, appear to mainly be appointed out of commissions and groups that represent "human rights" issues (people from AIDS organizations, social welfare groups, etc.).
8. The tribunals are basically able to affect policy without any kind of legislative or legal oversight, the fear with this particular suit is that a ruling for the complainant will have a huge effect on freedom of the press and speech
9. Shiner is concerned that America will end up in the same situation, where every "offense" is prosecuted and PC-ness will rule the land.

I salute you on your accurate portrayal of my concerns.

Also, I'd like to note that people who go out and call Mark Steyn a hatemonger and racist probably will not be prosecuted under these HRC's, from what I gather.

See? I pay attention. :D

Oh, I know as well as anyone how quasi-judicial commission can do silly things. I've seen more than my share of them. I don't know much about the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, but I'm assuming that the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including the due process clause, still apply to Pennsylvania and any commission it may create.

As for Mark Steyn, I don't know anything about him, but he wasn't the person I was referring to when I said, "the writer's tone leads me to discount him as someone whose representations I would accept at face value." I was referring to the writer of the article to which you linked. His style reminds me of many writers, conservative and liberal, in whom I have little confidence as far as getting an accurate picture of the story.

And perhaps I wasn't careful enough in using "paranoia" -- my point wasn't so much "paranoia" in an of itself as it was "conservative paranoia." Liberals have no monopoly on stupid ideas. My reference to Joe McCarthy was intentional. What he led was in many ways the conservative doppelgänger of the PC-ruled hurt feelings tribunals we would both find intolerable.

Conservatives have plenty of stupid ideas. However, the ones I'm referring to with this thread, are promoted almost exclusively by liberals.