WE STILL BE FRIEND TOGeTHER FOR SEVERE TREAThening BY SOME GOVERNMENTs OF some COUNTRies... some INSTITUTION LAW STILL SHOW HOW TO PROTECT RIGHT OF people and all...only THAT for SURVIVal.
SUGAR dump into CASE CONSULTING.....TRAGEDY case THAT be CURE BY MERCY...some are OVER THAN SECURITY dam.....and UNDER SAME ROYALTY status WITHin the SAME LAND OF PEACEfully...look OVER HERE...NO RACE UNFAIR...!!!
ยังคงคิดถึงราชาเพลงพอพที่เพิ่งจากไป และมีงานที่ทำค้างไว้ ที่คล้ายจะปัญหาเดียวกัน โชคดีจัง ที่เกิดมาเป็นคนไทย นิสัยคนไทย ทั่วไป ใจดี ยิ้มง่าย เป็นมิตร ช่วยเหลือ พึ่งพา ไม่เคยดูถูกแบ่งแยกเชื้อชาติศาสนา ผิวพรรณ ชาติมหาอำนาจยังเกรงใจ เพราะเรารักมันทุกชาติ ผูกพันกันหมด ไม่ได้แสดงว่าเราเป็นมิตรศัตรูอะไรนักหนา ประเทศที่คิดอยากจะมารังแก เอาเปรียบเรา ในสมัยโบราณ ก็เลยถ่วงดุลกันเอง เพราะไม่อยากทำร้ายจิตใจสยามประเทศ เพราะเราผูกมิตรกับคนประเทศใหญ่น้อย ด้วยความจริงใจ แม้นิสัยคนไทยแท้รักสนุกสบายค้าขายไม่เก่ง และจำต้องออกกฏหมายมาจำกัดสิทธิ คนที่ไม่อยู่ในอาณัติของเรามั่ง เราก็ยังคงไม่ไปบังคับขู่เข็ญจะเป็นจะตาย ให้เขายอมจำนนทำตามข้อจำกัดทุกกระเบียดนิ้วซะที่ไหน มีช่องว่างของกฏหมายหรือข้อยกเว้นอันใดที่จะสมานฉันทรักกัน เพื่อสันติภาพร่วมกัน เราก็พยายามสารพัด อยากให้อยู่กันอย่างสันติ โถ ยิ่งคนที่หนีร้อนมาพึ่งเย็น จะไล่ตะเพิดเปิดเปิงไปก็กระไรอยู่ ต้องฟูมฟัก ให้ข้าวให้น้ำให้ที่พักอาศัย จนบ้างก็ไม่กลับแล้วล่ะ ขอเป็นคนสัญชาติไทย ทำมาค้าขาย สุจริตอดทน มีความพอเพียง พอนานไป คิดถึงเหมือนกัน กลับไปดูซิ ว่าที่ทวดปู่ย่าเคยเกิดที่นั้น มันอบอุ่นบริบูรณ์เหมือนสยามประเทศไหม ปรากฏว่าเมืองเราว่าบ้านนอกชนบทจะตาย ที่ทวดเราจากมายิ่งลำบาก เอาละช่วงนี้กำลังช่วยกันเรื่องความร่วมมือในภูมิภาค ขอให้มีสักวันเหอะที่ฝันจะเป็นจริง ให้บ้านเมืองได้รอดพ้นจากวิบัติภัย จากสงคราม การก่อการร้าย สงครามกลางเมืองและอะไรต่ออะไรสารพัด ที่กัดกร่อนความสามัคคีของคนในภูมิภาค ที่เขาว่ากันว่า คนยากจนยังเต็มเลย ให้มันเจริญร่วมกันเสียที อย่าให้พวกที่เขาว่าประเทศที่เจริญแล้ว ต้องมาเชิญไปเปิดใจ ขอฟังให้รู้ว่าไอ้หัวหอกในภูมิภาคนี้ มันมีนโยบายและการปฎิบัติเพื่อความเจริญในภูมิภาคร่วมกัน อย่างแน่แท้ มีน้ำยา ไม่ใช่นโยบายน้ำท่วมทุ่ง บังคับภาคปฎิบัติบางพวกที่มันไม่มีสหภาพคอยช่วยปกป้องเป็นปากและหูให้ ให้มันทำงานโต้รุ่งยันสว่างไปสิบชาติโน่น เวลาเปลี่ยนขั้วพรรคผู้มอบนโยบายที ขืนร้องแรกแหกกระเชอ จะย้ายนายมันไปเข้ากรุให้หมดเลยเชียว เอาเป็นว่า รักกันดีกว่า เดี๋ยวคนที่เขาไปประชุมสัมมนาดูงานแลกเปลี่ยนนโยบายการค้าการลงทุน ตามงบรีบด่วนจะได้นำสิ่งใหม่แปลกมาช่วยกันฟื้นฟู ให้เราค้าขายสนุกสนุกสนานข้ามพรมแดนอย่างที่มันเป็นสินค้าที่ไม่ใช่พวกที่ติดแล้วมึนเมาแบบยาบ้ายาตายทั่งหลายนั้น ไอ้พวกค้าขายผิดประเภทพวกนี้มันจะได้สาบสูญไปมั่ง
ไม่ต้องมาเป็นสินค้าชูโรงที่ไม่รู้จะเอาหน้าไปซุกไว้ไหน อายเขาทั้งโลกใบน้อยนี้ เดี๋ยวคนดูถูก หาว่าไม่มีปัญญาผลิตนวัตกรรมอย่างอื่นเรอะ ผลิตอัจฉริยะปัญญาชนให้ไปกินค่าจ้างผลิตจากเงินสกุลแพงอย่างเดียวเรอะไง บ้านเมืองนี้ ไม่มีปัญญาจ้างผลิตของนวัตกรรมหรือคนที่เก่งฉลาดเรอะ ทำสถาบันผลิตนักศึกษาปัญาชนชั้นยอดอย่างนี้ ไว้รองรับพวกประเทศที่ว่าค่าเงินสูงกว่าเรา เท่านั้นหรือ
เขาว่าบ้านเมืองกำลังจะคืนชีพ ไม่เหมือนพวกที่ว่าเจริญที่สุดที่นอคไปแล้วบางประเทศ โอโห เก่งจัง ตัวแค่นี้ อดทนต่อไปดีกว่า ตามสโลแกนหนังน้ำเน่าปนดีของประเทศพวกที่อยู่ใกล้พระอาทิตย์ขึ้น พวกนี้เขาปลุกระดมสร้างกำลังใจคนในประเทศเขาให้สู้ตาย ไม่ยอมแพ้ ต่อโชคชะตา บางประเทศเจอสภาพแพ้สงคราม บ้านเมืองวิบัติหดหายหมด ต้องมาเอาอิฐมาซ่อมมาเรียงใหม่ทีละก้อน ให้มีของเดิมไว้ระลึก ทำใหม่เมือนเดิมเปี๊ยบก็ได้ มานะอดทนสู้เหลือเกิน สมองช่างอัจฉริยะ ผลิตมันแต่นวัตกรรมใหม่มาขายชาวโลกอยู่นั่นแหละ ของหรูแพงมหันตโลก ทั้งสิ้น
ดีใจจัง เราส่งออก แต่เราก็มีข้าว มีผักผลไม้กิน ไม่ใช่นำเข้าทุกอย่าง พอคิดว่าเมืองอื่นมันน่าจะมีความสุข ก็กลัวอดหยาก ไม่มีของกินเยอะเหมือนเมืองเรา ก็คิดว่า โชคดีจัง ที่อาศัยอยู่เมืองไทย มีแผ่นดินให้เหยียบ ไม่ใช่ว่า เห็นแต่ปุยเมฆและท้องทะเล เป็นโรบินฮูดหรือลี้หลบภัยสารพัดอย่างที่จำต้องจากบ้านเมืองไป กลับมาพัฒนาบ้านเมืองได้ก็มา เอาความรู้ความฉลาดกลับมา แต่ค่าเงินน้อยอยู่ต้องอดทน ส่วนพวกที่มีปัญหาคดีแพ่งคดีอาญาทั้งหลาย อยากจะรอจนอายุความสิ้นสุด หรือให้เขาแก้กฏหมาย ว่าไม่มีทางขาดอายุความ ก็รอเกิดเมืองนี้ ชาติหน้า ละกัน ไม่งั้นก็สู้มันไป ความยุติธรรม มีน่า ว่ากันไปตามกระบวนการทางกฎหมายไป
โชคดีจัง มีข้าวกิน
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/tag/terrorism/page/4/
This map, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, and last updated 24 August 2008, shows the worst terrorist attacks, worst meaning attacks resulting in 100 or more fatalities:
http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/
http://www.un.org/advocates/2000/bios.htmwww.un.org
Bui Nakhirunkanok
In 1988, Porntip (Bui) Nakhirunkanok of Thailand was crowned Miss Universe. In the same year, Ms. Nakhirunkanok established her own children’s fund, responsible for benefiting the lives of her country’s underprivileged youth. She has spoken out on behalf of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ms. Nakhirunkanok continues reaching out to young people by promoting education and self-esteem. In 1995, Ms. Nakhirunkanok organized and starred in a ten-city concert tour to raise funds for the children of Thailand. Her philanthropic work has built schools, fed undernourished children and provided housing for the needy. In recognition of Ms. Nakhirunkanok’s various contributions and accomplishments, she was presented with a Royal Medal of Honour by the King of Thailand.http://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php?blog=30
http://www.hmongza.com/index.php?showtopic=12835&st=80http://lawiscool.com/tag/macleans/
What’s Behind the Veil of Justice?
An abridged version of this piece was published today in the Toronto Star. Reproduced here for interest with permission of the author, all rights reserved.
Veils and justice
February 04, 2009
Faisal Kutty
Here they go again. Muslims just don’t give up trying to change our values and roll back hard fought rights of equality and justice. Though this time, we may have nipped it in the bud early – but should we?
Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman’s “admittedly difficult decision” to force a complainant to testify without her niqab, or face covering, in a sexual assault case has unleashed a torrent of discussion and debate. Again, the usual suspects with too little knowledge, appreciation or understanding of the complexities of the issue have jumped into the fray.
The ruling once again brings to the fore questions surrounding the limits of accommodation in a liberal multicultural society. But this time, in a novel twist, the clash pits a person’s religious right with the right of a defendant in a criminal trial to due process and procedural fairness; namely that of being able to face his or her accuser in open court. Obviously, both are important rights in a liberal democracy.
The niqab – which a small fraction of orthodox Muslim women use to cover their faces, and not to be confused with the hijab or head covering – is attacked by some as a symbol of oppression. By others as a badge of political Islam. By others as a public-relations nightmare for their “moderate” or more palatable versions of Islam. By others as something that should be compromised in the two-way dance of accommodation. And still by others as not compulsory or even totally unnecessary from a strict Islamic legal point of view.
Bah, humbug to Tarek Fatah
Ihsaan Gardee, The Calgary Herald
December 14, 2008
Reproduced with the permission
While Canadians hunker down for the festive season, bombarded by incessant shopping jingles and reruns of A Christmas Carol, many are also simply trying to weather the economic storm which is now battering the world and has finally reached our shores.
It was with this in mind that the initiative to launch a food drive in conjunction with the CBC and the cast and crew of one of Canada’s newest and most talked-about sitcoms, Little Mosque on the Prairie, embarked.
No holiday season would be complete, however, without the naysayers and those who would seek to divide Canadians instead of uniting to help them in their time of need. In this case, the role of Ebenezer Scrooge is played with aplomb by Tarek Fatah [who writes for and is frequently interviewed by Maclean's magazine], who has taken it upon himself to bah, humbug this project.
In the rush to pen his Dec. 11 column, “CBC and jihad,” attacking the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. for teaming up with the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIRCAN) on an anti-hunger initiative, Fatah omitted more than just facts. Accuracy and truth went out the window too.
Apart from a passing mention of CAIR-CAN’s involvement in what he terms “an admirable deed,” Fatah’s diatribe seems to focus more on his own fears and insecurities–seeing Islamists lurking around every corner and hiding in every shadow–while mudslinging at highly respected grassroots organizations. Perhaps using the logic that a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth, Fatah seems content to spew the same unsubstantiated allegations time and time again.
To paraphrase from the movie The American President, many of us operated under the assumption that the reason that Fatah (and those like him) devotes so much time and energy shouting at the rain is that he simply doesn’t get it. Well, we were wrong. Fatah’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Fatah’s problem is that he just can’t sell it.
For the record, CAIR-CAN is an organization whose vision is to be a leading voice that enriches Canadian society through Muslim civic engagement (such as this project) and the promotion of human rights. Formed as a sister organization of the U. S.-based CAIR, the two remain completely distinct and autonomous operationally while co-operating on issues of mutual concern and sharing best practices.
Furthermore, CAIR-CAN has acted as an intervener on several high-profile human rights cases, including that of Maher Arar’s rendition to torture in Syria, and continues its work on day-to-day issues of discrimination and civil liberties violations. Recognized for its professionalism and commitment to the universal principles enshrined in our Constitution by organizations and individuals such as Amnesty International and author/ activist Naomi Klein, CAIR-CAN has worked and will continue to work on behalf of all Canadians.
Finally, CAIR-CAN does not now nor will it ever receive or accept funding from foreign governments. Period.
Having said this, even in the story, there is hope at the end for Ebenezer Scrooge.
We welcome Tarek Fatah to come out and help distribute the food collected by this initiative to feed the hungry this holiday season. Then, just maybe, he’ll see for himself that when, as Canadians, we are united, we can accomplish miracles.
Ihsaan Gardee is the executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN).
Kashif Ahmed of Law is Cool is a Board Member of CAIR-CAN. Note that this piece is provided for interest alone.
John Miller’s Open Letter to Mark Steyn
John Miller, a journalism professor at Ryerson University, posted a series of open letters on the Maclean’s controversy. His most recent one, Open letter to Steyn, documents plagiarism and gross errors of fact.
See also his previous posts:
- Posted in General" href="http://www.thejournalismdoctor.ca/ViewBlog/9/">Steyn: I beg to differ
- Posted in General" href="http://www.thejournalismdoctor.ca/ViewBlog/7/">Freedom or hate?
- Posted in General" href="http://www.thejournalismdoctor.ca/ViewBlog/3/">Journalism has limits
- Posted in General" href="http://www.thejournalismdoctor.ca/ViewBlog/1/">The case against Maclean’s
Will Canada’s only national news magazine continue to keep on an author of such poor journalistic integrity? What does this say about the editors that allowed this poorly researched material to be published?
h/t Big City Lib
Updates
The quote in question [as opposed to the book] is a proven hoax.
Aside from faulty translations by translators unknown even to the publishers, experts who were approached to do the intro refused on the basis of questionable authenticity and misrepresentation. The bulk of the work is not even authored by Khomeini himself, and the experts strongly advised against publication.
Tony Hendra, the Bantam Books editor who previously worked as a comedian and then an editor for National Lampoon, has said publicly,
I can understand why people might look at my background [and lack of familiarity in this area] and think that it’s a hoax. But if it’s a hoax, I am the one that has been hoaxed.
Hendra has gone on since to write The Great White Hype, and work as editor-in-chief for Spy magazine. Good entertainment, but not the stuff of well-researched peer-reviewed publications.
What’s even more interesting is that the quote in question doesn’t even exist in the Farsi original, according to the former director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago. There is good reason that this source has rarely been cited by credible scholars and academics in the field.
So much for responsible and accurate journalism by Canada’s only national news magazine. The responsibility for catching that journalistic blunder, 25 years after it has been discredited, falls squarely on the shoulders of the editors, who we’ve been told do read this site.
See the post at Big City Lib on the info we leaked to him.
We’re more interested in an apology by the publishers rather than Steyn himself, for the reasons expressed above.
Update 2
Steyn’s reponse best clarifies the need for responsible journalism.
We can’t blame him for his background as a high-school dropout, but it seems his education is based on a Persian girlfriend, and a right-wing radical who has violated the Swiss criminal code for racist content that he “adores.”
Steyn refuses to acknowledge it as a hoax because he is still unfamiliar with the source documents in their original language, no matter how many translations and jpegs he provides of books. We’re pretty sure he didn’t learn Farsi in high school. We still want a citation of the quote from a Western academic in a reputable journal, only because leading academics over a quarter of a century ago who do speak Farsi said the quote simply did not exist in the Farsi original (though may have existed in Farsi duplicates, i.e. the one Steyn cites, that may include unverified extraneous material).
This process is revealing enough, because Steyn has demonstrated that his (mis)information about this “very important issue” is not an informed one. He also conveniently ignores that all of his citations are deliberately taken out of context; nowhere is bestiality justified - it’s actually abhorred, and measures cited are punitive.
Citing factually inaccurate information as authoritative is actually just as bad as saying it yourself. He has yet to cite a single academic journal that uses the quote he references. He does go beyond simply citing Fallaci, suggesting that rising Muslim immigration would be accompanied by beastiality,
This, it seems to me, is the most valuable contribution of Oriana Fallaci’s work. I enjoy the don’t-eat-your-sexual-partner stuff as much as the next infidel, but the challenge presented by Islam is not that the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers.
[emphasis added]
We expect this from high school dropouts, but not from Canada’s national news magazine.
He then tries to provide surrounding material to further lend credibility to his erroneous quote. Our response to that would be to again cite the original debunking listed above. Ivan Nabakov, director of the French publisher the Bantam book was based on, and who acknowledged their inability to independently verify the authenticity of the text, said,
The only unfair thing about the book, is that you could do the exact same thing with the Talmud if you wanted to. A 40-page extract from that could have people rolling on the ground with laughter.
We tend to afford world religions more respect than that on our site. Bantam’s chairman, Marc Jaffe, also cited in the same article, would seem to agree,
I wouldn’t want to put any religion up for ridicule.
Cheap jokes, even “en passant,” can lead to false prejudices and hate crimes when presented in this way. Physical security and workplace discrimination are not things we can lightly dismiss. The publishers of Canada’s national news magazine should know better, and the editors should be more vigilant when the best citations for their star author are right-wing blogs.
Update 3
It seems Steyn is still going on about this. Oh yeah, that’s what he does for a living.
Let’s clarify a few points:
- Steyn has yet to identify a reputable scholar writing in a peer-reviewed journal that he based his article on when doing the original research
- Not only did he not go to college, he did not finish high school either
- Nowhere above do we actually cite a green or blue little book (we only link to Miller’s assertions)
- We have academics stating in print over 25 years ago that:
- the specific quote he uses about sheep-shagging does not exist in their Farsi originals
- Farsi originals do exist that attribute quotes to him that are taken from other sources
- editors and publishers all relied on second hand sources and were unable to verify its authenticity
Our position of the quote being a hoax is based on the reluctance of these scholars at that time to either authenticate or uses these quotes out of their original context. Steyn took our bait and has indicated that when he wrote this piece he did not engage in any serious academic research. He relied on a) a convicted indicted hate criminal b) a Persian girlfriend. He finally suggests looking up experts now to verify his Farsi translation, and the veracity of his Farsi original.
The point, which he seems to miss, is that he should have done this before putting the quote into print. He seems unaware that the veracity of the quote was even questioned, despite the time lapse between this time and his article. We could care less if it’s true or not; there’s not much to laugh at when placed in context and when contrasted to other Abrahamic faiths. What we do care is that the editor’s at Canada’s national news magazine did not appear to provide enough editorial scrutiny at the time of publication. His showdown, ‘you pick someone and I’ll pick someone,’ should have happened with the editorial staff before any of this went into print.
As with so much of Steyn’s work, his approach is highly reminiscent of other racists in history who would denigrate religion by removing context, using faulty translations, and even fraudulent materials, to encourage hatred towards a domestic minority. His position that Western women should be the breeding grounds for his version of civilization is chauvinistic enough without him making reference to female undergarments towards a mixed gender team.
Perhaps these editors, and the Steyn fans, care to comment about all of this on his site. Oh that’s right, he doesn’t allow comments at all, anywhere.
Update 4
Steyn seems to have a difficult time reading, so we’ll spell it out for him, yet again.
We make no personal representations of the accuracy of any quote or book, anywhere here. We do cite reputable experts that note that the specific quote he uses has been forged in at least one copy. They note other Farsi copies include extraneous material, meaning someone else wrote it but they include it in the same book. More recently, we demonstrated that the specific Farsi translation Steyn claims to use is greatly flawed.
None of this matters, and is a distraction from the real issue at hand (even though he fails to address these points).
What we have pointed out is that Steyn did not do any real research before writing about this”very important issue” (or reproducing it) in Canada’s only national news magazine. We’ve noted repeatedly that he did not even finish high school. Not to belittle him the way he belittles others. But to point out that someone with that little formal education is hardly qualified to make accurate assessments about any global issues. Indeed, he has gone on the record a number of times and has been proven grossly wrong.
The problem here is with the editorial staff that afford him complete leeway to write absolutely anything he wants, unverified, unchecked, and without so much as a second thought. This is part of the reason that Prof. Moon suggests the creation of mandatory press councils, because there are times when the press themselves behave in an irresponsible way. Canadian readers depend on them for accurate and well-thought out information, not cheap laughs that can result in hate crimes.
And because we know you are reading this we say, “shame on you, editors of these publications.”
Law is Cool Podcast: Human Rights Commissions
If you have been following magazines and blogs for the past year, you are probably aware of the human rights and free speech controversy involving Mark Steyn and Maclean’s. Starting in 2005, Maclean’s ran a series of articles by Steyn and Barbara Amiel which, according to a group of Osgoode Hall law students, cast Muslims in a dangerously negative light. Frustrated, the students asked the magazine to provide space for them to write a 5,000-word rebuttal article. After the Editor-in-Chief refused, the students filed a human rights complaint against the magazine with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
What came next can only be described as a firestorm of controversy in the media. A number of journalists and media outlets cried foul, arguing that Human Rights Commissions were being used to impose political correctness on the media creating a chilling effect on free speech. Former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant took up the cause, as did a number of editorial boards across the country. The intense media criticism of Human Rights Commissions soon caught the attention of federal politicians, with Liberal MP Keith Martin calling for the repeal of hate speech provisions from federal human rights law. A vicious war has erupted on the blogosphere; several prominent figures in the controversy have received death threats via email and in blog comments. Neo-Nazi websites have openly advocated for the execution Richard Warman and other human rights lawyers.
In this episode of the Law is Cool Podcast, Omar Ha-Redeye attempts to cut through the media spin to find out what Human Rights Commissions really are and how they work. Omar interviewed two experienced human rights lawyers to get their views on the current controversy.
The first is Montreal-based international human rights lawyer Pearl Eliadis. She argues that the media coverage of the Human Rights Commission controversy has been unbalanced. She claims that Canadians are being “lied to” about the role of Human Rights Commissions and the character of freedom of speech in Canadian law. She recently wrote an article in Montreal’s Maisonneuve magazine called “The Controversy Entrepreneurs”. In that article, she seeks to dispel seven “myths” surrounding the controversy, including:
- Free speech is an absolute right.
- Human rights laws were not made to restrict speech.
- Human rights laws only apply to discriminatory conduct, not discriminatory speech.
- Human rights laws do not apply to the media.
- Human Rights Commissions dispense “parallel justice,” “prosecuting” and “convicting” people outside of normal legal channels.
- Human Rights Tribunals are rabid, out-of-control bastions of political correctness with 100% conviction rates.
- Free speech is under attack by frivolous, expensive, time-consuming complaints.
Eliadis deconstructs each of these myths and argues that Human Rights Commissions play a valuable role in the protection of all human rights, including freedom of speech. In her interview with Omar, she notes that it is unfortunate that many involved in this controversy have sought to paint the law students who brought the original complaint with the same brush as radical Islamists. In this sense, she says, an equality-seeking group has become further marginalized by bringing forward its complaint. She notes that the Commissions have characterized Mark Steyn’s writing as inaccurate, fear-mongering, and lacking in objectivity.
Ultimately, Eliadis believes that journalists such as Steyn and Levant who attack Human Rights Commissions are doomed to fail. Since some of the people who support the abolition of these Commissions have links to white supremacy groups, Eliadis believes that any such project will likely fail.
Next, Omar interviewed Donna Seale, former Co-Counsel for the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. Seale currently runs a consulting business in Winnipeg that provides educational seminars for employers on human rights issues relating to employment and the workplace. Her blog, generally updated on weekly basis, is clearinghouse of workplace human rights information.
Seale notes that Human Rights Commissions serve in a “gatekeeper” capacity to try to resolve complaints before they proceed to an expensive and time-consuming tribunal process. She believes that the Commissions are valuable because they are less adversarial than tribunals and their goal is to resolve conflicts quickly and amicably between the parties.
Seale also argues that it is a mischaracterization to portray the Commissions as guardians of political correctness that have a chilling effect on speech. Indeed, she claims that hate speech-related cases are extremely exceptional. She says that most of the cases heard by Provincial Human Rights Commissions relate to discrimination in employment, services, and housing. She rejects the argument that Human Rights Commissions should be abolished because they “do no good.”
In Seale’s consulting business, she seeks to help both employers and employees understand their roles and responsibilities in terms of meeting their human rights law obligations in the workplace. She believes that litigation can be avoided if both parties work together to understand their respective roles in terms of human rights.
Public speech has real consequences
Available online at The Star Phoenix
Consequences of public speech real
Kashif Ahmed, Special to the StarPhoenix
Friday, November 14, 2008
The recent decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to dismiss a complaint against Maclean’s magazine brings to light the issue of free speech striking at the core of Canadian social cohesion and political debate.
From a strict legal perspective, the tribunal was correct, as was the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to toss out the case against Maclean’s brought by a Muslim group over an article written by Mark Steyn. Yet, the B.C. tribunal was not alone in its recognition that Steyn’s piece was riddled with an anti-Muslim message.
The Ontario commission stated that, while freedom of expression was paramount, it was concerned about “the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians.”
Although the commission did not have jurisdiction over the complaint, and even if we question its suitability to make public commentary, it still raised an important point. It was not simply one article written by Steyn. Rather, it was a series of pieces in Maclean’s that appeared to promote one single theme: Muslims are a dangerous group of aliens in western and Canadian society who cannot coexist peacefully with their fellow citizens.
It’s not the B.C. tribunal that wrongly questioned the professionalism and judgment of Maclean’s, as a recent Calgary Herald editorial suggested. Rather, the decision to publish those articles without including a legitimate discourse that entertained the views of Canadian Muslims is why the record of the national magazine is tarnished.
It is also of concern that Maclean’s chose to publish Steyn, who is unapologetic about his history of using xenophobic epithets such as “gooks,” “Chinks,” and “Japs.” (For the record, Steyn was not a respondent in the human rights complaint).
And yet some important questions are not being asked. What useful social function in Canada is served by repeatedly demonizing a minority community and making wild claims about it in the name of free speech? Does it strengthen the social fabric of Canada and bring communities together? The only result, in this case, is to increase public misunderstanding and misinformation.
The recent United States presidential race was a further example of what can occur when bigotry is not challenged. Since 9/11, years of Islamophobic rhetoric adopted by certain extreme American political elements led to “Muslim” or “Arab” becoming smear terms in the campaign. So much so, that in a response to a supporter’s false claim about now president-elect Barack Obama, Republican contender John McCain denied that Obama was an Arab or Muslim, and then said the Democrat was a “decent family man,” as if Muslims or Arabs could not possibly be decent family men.
American Muslims watched with shock as their identity was denigrated and reduced to a political slur. The smearing was finally challenged when Republican and former secretary of state Colin Powell denounced the campaign’s bigotry on NBC’s Meet The Press.
Is this a road that we, as a Canadian collective, want to go down as well? There are real consequences that result from free speech that is divisive and vitriolic, yet is not deemed by law to be hateful. Hence the apparent pontificating from the B.C. and Ontario human rights bodies on the Maclean’s case. There certainly is not an epidemic of Islamophobia in Canada, but the Muslim community and its representatives remain concerned.
Perhaps the human rights commissions should not be in the business of determining what constitutes hate speech. Many people think taxpayers’ money and human rights bodies that were created to deal largely with employment discrimination should not be used to adjudicate issues already covered by the Criminal Code — as demonstrated by the criminal trial of David Ahenakew over his alleged promotion of hatred against Jews.
Undoubtedly, freedom of expression must be closely guarded in Canada. Our treasured Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we, the Canadian public, demand no less. Yet, the debate should not overshadow the crux of the matter at hand: Our social cohesion and relations are severely undermined when us-versus-them attitudes and messages creep into the mainstream and try to divide us along ethnic and religious lines.
Indeed, our shared Canadian successes depend on our mutual willingness to reject such attempts at discord and division in the 21st century and our desire to rise above the sordid political game of suspicion.
In Defense of Free Speech…
On June 28 2008, the Canadian Human Rights commission dismissed the complaint against Maclean’s magazine (Rogers Media) concerning an article by Mark Steyn, and rightly so. (The complainants held that the article, among others, established a pattern of discrimination, and following repeatedly rebuffed attempts to respond in Maclean’s magazine, felt compelled to bring further action).
As many of you are aware, one article, “The Future Belongs to Islam”, is an opinion piece in which Steyn employs demographic information to support his opinion that the future of the Western world is in peril/doubt because of the spread of Islam.
While I am not a fan of Mark Steyn’s “neoconservative” ideology, as a self-described left-of-center civil libertarian I am certainly a fan of freedom of expression. Even if you do not agree with his arguments, he should have the right to express them without remaining worryingly susceptible to the retributive power of the state.
In fact, if it is held necessary that a body is to rule on the acceptability of certain speech, in order to protect vulnerable groups, the bar should be set exceedingly high. And according to previous rulings, the Supreme Court agrees. From the recent Maclean’s decision:
“The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 that this legally prescribed limitation of fundamental Charter rights [Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act] was reasonable and justifiable, but warned that caution and restraint would be required in the application of the section so that the limitation on free speech would be minimized to the greatest possible extent.”
From Taylor:
“The guarantee of freedom of expression is not unduly impaired by s. 13(1). The section is not overbroad or excessively vague. Its terms, in particular the phrase “hatred or contempt”, are sufficiently precise and narrow to limit its impact to those expressive activities which are repugnant to Parliament’s objective. The phrase “hatred or contempt” in the context of s. 13(1) refers only to unusually strong and deep‑felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification…”
The test was whether Steyn’s writings were so extreme and malicious in nature as to elicit hatred or contempt against the subjects:
“The court interpreted ‘hatred’ to mean a feeling of extreme ill-will that allows for no redeeming qualities in the person towards whom it is directed while ‘contempt’ “encompassed looking down upon or treating as inferior the object of one’s feelings.”
In an earlier related case referred to in the decision, Warman v. Kouba, it is made clear as to what type of material is considered to warrant intervention and censorship. Steyn’s writings certainly do not meet this benchmark. Hence, the commission concluded that the views expressed in the article:
“when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court.”
A decision is pending from the BC commission.
Hateful Publications in B.C.
It’s true, we’ve heard this before. The Missing Sockpuppet compares the case of Abrams v. North Shore Press at a B.C. human rights tribunal to the complaint against Maclean’s.
The similarities are uncanny.
So why wasn’t there a campaign to end human rights commissions back in 1996? That’s right, there was - but it was all neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
What’s perhaps most interesting is that the published articles in question, found at the end of the case, are less inflammatory than the contents in question from Maclean’s.
The Missing Sockpuppet has done an entire series on this subject.
So why the double standard? Some Canadians apparantly have less rights today in contemporary society than others, what the Missing Sockpuppet calls the turban effect.
But all the more reason for human rights tribunals to step in to create a more level playing field.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/pm.obama.jackson/index.htmlObama distances himself from Jackson saga
- Story Highlights
- Barack Obama understated in his response to Michael Jackson's death
- White House issued no official tribute following the entertainer's death
- Obama showed no interest in getting involved in debate over singer's private life
- Moscow summit offered Obama chance to get as far from Jackson story as he could
CNN
(CNN) -- They were the two most famous African-Americans in the world: President Barack Obama and Michael Jackson.
The White House appeared to be putting deliberate distance between the Obama administration and the memorial events following Michael Jackson's death.
But when millions of people paused this week to watch Jackson's memorial service in Los Angeles, the president was about as far away as he could get.
That President Obama was in Moscow at a summit -- negotiating weapons limits and other agreements -- was obviously no sleight to the late entertainer.
But even before Obama left the country, the White House seemed to be keeping its distance.
There was no public gesture from the president's office when Jackson died, no official tribute to one of the most remarkable Americans of our time.
The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Obama had "written to the family and has shared his feelings with the family privately."
When the president was pressed by reporters for a public statement, there was careful nuance in his words.
"He became a core part of our culture," the president said in a July 7 interview with CNN ahead of the Jackson memorial service. "His extraordinary talent and music mixed with big dose of tragedy and difficulty in his private life." Did Barack Obama strike the right tone in his understated response to Michael Jackson's death? Sound Off below
Don't Miss
The "big dose of tragedy and difficulty" was a gentle phrase to address unproven allegations of child abuse, the odd changes Jackson made to his appearance and the still unexplained circumstances of his death.
Republican Congressman Peter King wasn't as delicate about the deceased.
"This guy was a pervert, he was a child molester," King said.
"I just think that we're too politically correct, no one wants to stand up and say we don't need Michael Jackson."
But Jackson had his defenders. Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee praised him at his funeral and alluded to the problems in his past.
"As members of the United States Congress, we understand the Constitution, we understand laws, and we know that people are innocent until proven otherwise."
Obama apparently didn't want to be part of the debate.
He said a few words, offered his sympathies and left Michael Jackson to the people who wanted to mourn him.
