Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
What's this about? LOL.
|
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.
Hybrid Mode
