If it's good for Canada, it's good for us

Keith Topolski marks a great day for Canadian free speech.

We have recently seen the disgraces of the Racial Discrimination Act in prosecuting and, indeed, persecuting leading conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Bolt for no other reason than he offended a few delicate petals by calling for an end to racism.

This law is clearly an attempt to shut down debate and needs to be removed.

And indeed, there is hope. And yet again, it comes from the brilliant conservative government in Canada led by Stephen Harper. Courtesy of Ezra Levant in the Toronto Sun, read on to see what is happening in Canada, and what should be happening in Australia.

For 34 years, Canada has had a disgraceful censorship law that violates our human rights.

In 1977, Pierre Trudeau rammed through the Canadian Human Rights Act – an Orwellian name for a law that actually destroys real rights.

The entire law is a corruption of justice – it creates a kangaroo court, run by non-judges, that does not follow the same rules and procedures of real courts, but has massive powers to punish and fine people who aren't politically correct.

But the worst part is Section 13, the censorship provision. Section 13 creates a word crime – the crime of publishing or broadcasting anything that can cause hurt feelings.

Back in 1977, that law was focused on telephone lines and answering machines. But 10 years ago, it was expanded to include the Internet.

So it even covers things like whatever you post to your Facebook page. Section 13 says "it is a discriminatory practice ... to cause to be ... communicated ... any matter that is likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt."

So if you publish anything on Facebook, or on your cellphone voice message, that might make one person feel bad about another, you've just broken the law.

Truth is not a defence to being charged with "hate" under Section 13. Fair comment is not a defence. Religious belief is not a defence. Telling a joke is not a defence. The law has nothing to do with truth or the right to have an opinion. It's about whether or not you've offended someone or hurt their feelings.

Section 13 is an insane law. So un-Canadian, so contrary to our traditions of liberty that go back centuries, inherited from the United Kingdom.

It's no surprise that this law had a 100% conviction rate in Canada for the first three decades of its existence. This federal law was copied by provincial legislatures. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan all have censorship provisions, too.

I found out about this the hard way. In February of 2006, I published a magazine called the Western Standard. We reported on the major news story that month – riots around the Muslim world purportedly in response to some pretty banal Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed. Those riots killed more than 200 people, and we wanted to show our readers what all the fuss was about. But a radical Muslim imam in Calgary named Syed Soharwardy complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

He said I violated his human right not to be offended. He wanted to ban the cartoons, and his hand-scrawled complaint even bitched about the fact that I dared to publicly defend my right to do so.

I laughed off that little nut-bar. I mean, get a life – you're in Canada now, no Saudi Arabia. But to my surprise, the Alberta Human Rights Commission took his complaint and ran with it.

The Alberta government, using its provincial version of Section 13, prosecuted me for 900 days, with no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers. It spent $500,000 prosecuting me, before dropping the case – and leaving me with my $100,000 legal bill. But sometimes freedom wins a round.

Last week, the federal justice minister, Ron Nicholson, stood up in the House of Commons and answered a question about Section 13. 

The question was about a private member's bill, put by Brian Storseth, an MP from northern Alberta. Storseth has introduced a private member's bill, C-304, to repeal Section 13. But private member's bills have little chance of passing without the endorsement of the government.

But Nicholson did endorse it. He called on all MPs to support it, too. Bill C-304, Storseth's bill, is now effectively a government bill. And with a Tory majority in both the House and Senate, this bill is as good as done.

No more witch hunts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. No more persecuting their political and religious enemies.

This is the best thing the Harper government has done in five years. Freedom is on the march.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.

Comments

[dante]

1.

"So if you publish anything on Facebook, or on your cellphone voice message, that might make one person feel bad about another, you've just broken the law"

But that is not what our dear Mr Bolt did. He had fabricated evidences upon which he then made some insane conclusions.

Now, let’s get this correct once and for all. Mr Bolt lost his case in court because he had his facts WRONG. He had an opportunity to appeal which he declined because he had his facts WRONG. Mr Bolt case had nothing to do with freedom of speech.

There have been very vitriolic comments about our PM by radio personalities that go well past insults. They were abusive and they were inciting violence. Yet these people have not been brought to court DEMONSTRATING that you can have an opinion, what you cannot do is have your facts WRONG and then base your conclusions on your fabricated WRONG facts.

Is that clear now? If it isn’t, please read this again and again until it gets into your (insert opposite of ‘thin’) skull.

[kraka]

2.

I've been following the trevails of mark Steyn and Ezra levant for years-they look to have finally won the battle against the PC brigade. Dante-I'll forgive your rant because you are probably unaware of the facts and the devious nature of this type of legislation. mark Steyn was hauled through the courts because he ACCURATELY quoted an imam's own words. If you accurately quote someone their own words-in your mind should they then be able to be offended by the same words and use this type of legislation to stifle your right to free speech.The well meaning behind this type of legislation does not hide the fact that the uniintended consquence is you have less right to free speech.

[Brett]

3.

Even if AB had some of the facts "WRONG", that is hardly grounds for the type of process to which he was selectively subjected.

In case you haven't noticed (because of your left-myopia); people in all walks of life and endeavors get things "WRONG" every day of the week. If are going to start silencing / shooting people because they get their facts "WRONG" then there really won't be many leftists or Labor politicians running around.

It is clear to most people; regrettably you are not one of them.

[Richo]

4.

"Now, let’s get this correct once and for all. Mr Bolt lost his case in court because he had his facts WRONG."

You clearly have not read the judgement in full.

A quote from Bromberg's ruling para 424

"Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/holmes-bolt-bromberg-and-a-profoundly-disturbing-judgment/3038156

So it doesn't matter if he had got his facts wrong or not, he still would have got done because he didn't write his piece in a pleasant tone.

Is it clear now Dante? Or should I use bigger font?

[Oldman]

5.

It does matter, "if he got his facts wrong or not" because, as Justice Bromberg recognises, it is clear that Bolt made up facts to suit his case, (as he often does), that the article contained "significant errors of fact and distortions of the facts". In other words, Bolt was deliberately and knowingly dishonest - the reason for Justice Bromberg's, satement, "I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith.". Geddit?

I guess some rally to Bolt in much the same way flies are attracted to garbage.

[Will Kane]

6.

Canada is also in the process of getting rid of their gun registry for rifles and shotguns.

We should follow that too.

[Richo]

7.

Read the Jonothan Holmes article. He is on your side of the fence.

"Andrew Bolt failed the test of reasonableness and good faith because "insufficient care and diligence was taken to minimise the offence, insult, humiliation and intimidation suffered by the people likely to be affected by the conduct and insufficient care and diligence was applied to guard against the offensive conduct reinforcing, encouraging or emboldening racial prejudice."

And he (Bromberg) specifically mentions, not just the wrong facts, but "the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides."

In other words, if you want the protection of section 18D of the act when writing about race in a way that's likely to offend, you need to be polite, not derisive, calm and moderate rather than provocative and inflammatory, and you must eschew 'gratuitous asides'.

If you did all that, of course, you'd be unlikely to offend anyone in the first place. So there doesn't seem much point in section 18D. And you'd also struggle to express your view in a way that would attract readers in a popular newspaper."

Get it?

[Oldman]

8.

I read the Judgement in full, as much as I value Holmes work, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.

The statement by Bromberg had little to do with "niceties" and more to do with substance. To disparage someone with a German father who identifies as Aboriginal is one thing but when the fathers of a group of Aboriginal people are full-blooded and you deliberately twist or omit facts to vilify and pour scorn on the group, then you deserve everything that get thrown at you.

[Dante]

9.

There is nothing unusual in having WRONG facts and people are not punished for this. What is NOT acceptable is to build your opinion and conclusions based on those WRONG facts. Bolt declared that a number of fair-skinned aborigines were claiming to be aborigine for their private benefit, and this was not TRUE.

It's interesting that Bolt defends his freedom to associate himself with any ethnic group he chooses but he denies this same right to the people he vilified.

Not for a millisecond I suggested that we should "start silencing / shooting people because they get their facts "WRONG". But as a society we must demand that conclusions reached based on wrong facts are corrected. Claims have to have solid bases before they are made. Bolt failed this simple test. If he had retracted his comments and apologised for his gross inaccuracies, we wouldn't be talking about. It's called being 'decent'!!!

The fact that even in this right wing website about 40% disagree with Bolt is a clear indication that the Court and I are not alone to demand 'decency' in reporting. What is wrong with admitting you made a gross error of judgement? Is Bolt so disillusioned to believe he is above the Law and can say whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, to whoever he pleases? Nobody is above the Law, and that is one of the bastion of our Australian society. Let's not corrupt it as they have managed to do in other countries. Of course I'm not naive enough to believe that 'the law is equal for everybody' but at least, every now and then, people that believe to be above the law (as my friend Berlusconi asserts) are caught out.

If his case had any leg, he would have appealed. Bolt has shown poor journalistic skills, he has NOT checked his sources, he made wild assumptions and he has been found out. Case closed!!!

[Dante]

10.

Stick to the fact, don't fabricate evidence, it can't be that hard. If your only skills to "attract readers" is by 'gratuitous aides' and by using 'derisive tone', 'provocative and inflammatory language' then maybe Bolt should question if he is in the correct profession. The hamster wheel has several openings!!

[John Mc]

11.

Bolt didn't appeal because the RDA was applied as written. The problem isn't the legal process, it's that the law is morally void. You can't be found guilty of offending someone in a free country with free speech. You might be found guilty of defamation, or inciting violence, or of knowingly making fraudulent claims. Bolt was convicted of being offensive, and that has no place in a modern free democracy and all Australians should be ashamed that we have laws on our books that violate the universal civilised concept of free speech.

[Pip]

12.

Mr Topolski,

I suggest you watch this video, concerning amongst other matters, the curtailment of free speech because commentary by some is considered relative to others as "hate speak".

It is a book study by the Hudson Institute on John Fonte’s, Sovereignty or Submission. If you have trouble accessing the video of the Hudson Institute's Center for American Common Culture book discussion of Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? Wednesday, September 21, 12:00 to 1:30 pm. Go to:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=880
and click on the video link to get to: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17416673

Key words:
Democratic Deficit>> Post Democracy>> Disaggregated State>> Supranational>> Transnational Progressive>> Transnational Pragmatist>> Training>> Civil Society>>Change Agents>> The New Class>> Stateless World>> Global Governance.

Warning Dante:

The Hudson Institute is said to contain many Neo-cons!

[James Hughes]

13.

Someone in Bolt's role has a responsibility to have it right. Free Speech does not = the right to distortion through public media. Attitude and tone are again a separate matter.

[Pip]

14.

Andrew Bolt was trying to make a point about freedom of speech in the prevailing zeitgeist of interpreting any thing in this relativistic orthodoxy as likely to give offence to someone or more correctly, some group.

Levartch wrote the legislation that "being offended" meant that discrimination/ defamation had occurred. Behrendt's his wife. They were "trying on" the Law as much as Andrew Bolt was, from the opposing side.

The commentary from the Neocons is very important, I know you don't want to bother about it because you are Transnational progressives. If you care genuinely about free speech and democracy you would look at the video because the Neocons, on form, are abandoning the Global Project now that they realise it means the dissolution of Israel, just like Thatcher changed her mind when she realised what she had signed onto.

John Fonte’s, Sovereignty or Submission. If you have trouble accessing the video of the Hudson Institute's Center for American Common Culture book discussion of Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? Wednesday, September 21, 12:00 to 1:30 pm. Go to:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=880
and click on the video link to get to: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17416673

Key words:
Democratic Deficit> Post Democracy> Disaggregated State> Supranational> Transnational Progressive> Transnational Pragmatist> Training> Civil Society> Change Agents> The New Class> "Stateless World"> Global Governance.

[John Mc]

15.

Sure, he has a responsibility to his employer and his customers not to be inaccurate, just like all other employees. His employer can sack him and the customers can stop buying the paper. If the media can't afford to make a mistake or express opinion, you don't have freedom of speech.

[Pip]

16.

I agree entirely with your position viz

"Bolt was convicted of being offensive",

not in some objective, universal way, but in the sense that the "personal is political".

Michael Levarche, ex Attorney General in the Keating Government, who wrote the Law himself with his assistant Larissa Behrendt, who he later married, decided that they would test the Law on the basis that Larissa Behrendt claimed to be "personally" offended.

>>Lavarch lives between Brisbane and Sydney with his wife, Indigenous academic, lawyer and writer, Larissa Behrendt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lavarch

Its the first test of these "hate speak" Laws that are set to dominate our lives under Global Governance.

Andrew Marr has said Bolt made a mistake by choosing the wrong examples.

He made a mistake.

We all make mistakes, even Law makers and this is the big problem with Global Governance where it is extremely difficult to repeal Laws and with no Governments to vote out.

The "new class" is going to tie the "old class" up in Laws like Gulliver was tied up in Swift's tale.

[Pip]

17.

Topolski, You are right to champion the courage of the Canadians but do we have the same courage?

Check this out:

November 3, 2011 4:00 A.M.

Ready to Submit?
Or are you in for the fight for sovereignty?

‘We see an epic ideological and political struggle that is global in scope and will last for decades, perhaps for most of the twenty-first century,” John O’Sullivan writes in the introduction to John Fonte’s new book, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others? “The outcome of this struggle is uncertain,” O’Sullivan continues, “but one thing is for sure: like all political conflicts from time immemorial, it will not end in a fashionable non-zero-sum scenario. On the contrary, there will be winners and there will be losers. Particular institutions and individuals — nation-states, subregions, supranational organizations, multinational corporations, international lawyers, soldiers, clerics, U.N. officials, EU commissioners, the judges of the International Criminal Court, American citizens — will either gain more power or lose power. Liberal democracy will either expand or shrink. The idea and practice of a free society will either advance or retreat.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/282080/ready-submit-interview

This book gives explanations and a prognosis for retreiving normative values that have been violated by the Global human rights movement.