Cunt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:39 pm
Are you joining the 'HRC can't really do anything' chain?
No, I'm just asking if you have any examples of them prosecuting someone for what they wrote and said (after the repeal of Section 13).
Cunt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:39 pm
They are enforcement - of whatever is on their plate at the moment. I wish you all had taken the time to review Mr. Levants '900 days' vimeo, but I'll find something easier to digest - then leave it.
I watched Ezra Levant's entire interview years ago - however, that's nearly 10 years old. At that time, as I said, the HRC was tasked with investigating hate speech, and you will find examples from 5+ years ago that involve that kind of thing.
However, I don't think there is a hate speech exception to freedom of expression in Canada right now, is there?
Cunt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:39 pm
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alber ... r-boissoin
Boissoin, the full time pastor of a Red Deer youth ministry, wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper in which he said homosexuality is immoral and physically dangerous for those involved in it. Boissoin particularly criticized the homosexual political lobby that worked to teach children in schools about the practices of the “gay lifestyle”.
Boissoin was upset that “children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”
In the extrajudicial courts of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, the complainant’s expenses are paid for by the state, but the defendant must pay for his own defence and the rules of evidence, normal in the regular courts, do not apply. In nearly every case in Canada brought against Christians who criticize the homosexual subculture, the Tribunals have found in the complainant’s favour. A defendant may follow the case up with an appeal to the legal courts, but again must pay his own expenses.
That's another good example - but it's 11 years old. I think there was a major shift in Canadian law when Section 13 went away.
A private member's bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is known as the “hate speech provision,” passed the Senate this week and received Royal Assent. ... But critics of Section 13 said it enabled censorship on the Internet, and are calling its repeal a victory for free speech.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... rights-act
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar