Richards 0 #1 December 20, 2007 http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=175234 In a nutshell, Macleans Magazine printed an article that offended muslims . The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) wrote a five page "Letter to the Editor" in response and Macleans did not publish it. Now the CIC is taking Macleans to the Human Rights Commission to demand that they publish it. The author of the article feels that the CIC is going to win. Is that probable? I hope not. Any lawyer types know if they actually can get away with this? Would this not be a large step in the wrong direction My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 December 20, 2007 I'm offended that the Canadian Islamic Congress is offended. I demand to be allowed to publish a five-page response in their newsletter. http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #3 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteI'm offended that the Canadian Islamic Congress is offended. I demand to be allowed to publish a five-page response in their newsletter. http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ You know. You actually have a great idea there. If people send letters to be published in the CIC publications they can also take them to the HRC and demand that they publish them. Might be interesting to try. I assume that the HRC would apply thier ruling both ways. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 December 20, 2007 I fully support your right to be offended. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #5 December 20, 2007 QuoteI fully support your right to be offended. That offends me My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #6 December 20, 2007 (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 December 20, 2007 Quote hey! it's not a laughing matter it's very offensive ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #8 December 20, 2007 so this.... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #9 December 20, 2007 Quote Quote Quote hey! it's not a laughing matter it's very offensive Suck it up cupcake My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #10 December 20, 2007 Back on track. Any lawyer types know if this legal action will go anywhere? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #11 December 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote hey! it's not a laughing matter it's very offensive Suck it up cupcake Cupcakes are offensive. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #12 December 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote *** Quote Quote hey! it's not a laughing matter it's very offensive Suck it up cupcake Cupcakes are offensive. Dragon avatars make me want to cry. Thus I feel violated and hurt by your avatar. I want compensation damnit! ps Who could possibly be offended by cupcakes? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #13 December 21, 2007 Quote Quote hey! it's not a laughing matter it's very offensive You know what was really offensive? Blitzkrieg.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #14 December 21, 2007 QuoteBack on track. Any lawyer types know if this legal action will go anywhere? You'd have to ask a Canadian lawyer type. Different countries; different standards, laws & rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #15 December 21, 2007 Quote The commission's one-woman panel--a divorce lawyer with no expertise in constitutional rights -- ruled that "the publication's exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter." That was it: Freedom of speech, and of the press, and religion, all of which are called "fundamental freedoms" in our Constitution, now come second to the newly discovered right of a thin-skinned bystander not to be offended. I guess in Canada they don't value their rights. (insert "Blame Canada" song from South Park here)"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #16 December 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteBack on track. Any lawyer types know if this legal action will go anywhere? You'd have to ask a Canadian lawyer type. Different countries; different standards, laws & rules. Is it really a formal legal action? The linked Op-Ed piece contrasted the petition to an actual defamation lawsuit. The Op-Ed notes that the CIC is "submitting" a complaint, which would imply that the complaint has to be accepted for the process to move forward. From what I have read (i.e., thus far only the initial post linked Op-Ed), I (owned very much as my perspective) don't see any merit in the complaint. Otoh, should the group (or any group of citizens) have the right to submit a complaint? Yes. Sounds like it may be tried in the court of public opinion. I am definitely very curious to see how this go forwards. The MacLean's article: "The Future Belongs to Islam" sounds fascinating (to me) and perhaps, intentionally provocative. "The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambitions. The West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it. It's the end of the world as we've known it. An excerpt from 'America Alone'." Where does one person's fact and analysis become another's bias? I wonder how the CIC responded to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #17 December 21, 2007 As the op-ed stated, the problem(s) with these tribunals are the tendency for activists to be named to the positions giving it a bias towards any plaintiff, and the fact that they tend to be so petty so as to not be worth defending. Maclean's magazine may turn out to be the wrong victim. The publisher may well smell the increased circulation of notoriety and hoist themselves upon the pedestal of righteousness. They certainly have deep enough pockets to force this into the proper courts where more legally rigorous precedents can be set. One can hope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #18 December 21, 2007 Quote Is it really a formal legal action? The linked Op-Ed piece contrasted the petition to an actual defamation lawsuit. The Op-Ed notes that the CIC is "submitting" a complaint, which would imply that the complaint has to be accepted for the process to move forward. From what I have read (i.e., thus far only the initial post linked Op-Ed), I (owned very much as my perspective) don't see any merit in the complaint. Otoh, should the group (or any group of citizens) have the right to submit a complaint? Yes. Sounds like it may be tried in the court of public opinion. I am definitely very curious to see how this go forwards. The problem is that this isn't going before a court of law. If I read the article right, this is all going before the "Human Rights Commision" The Commision started started life with good intentions but is now getting used to settle hurt feelings with rulings well outside the law. That the Canadian polititians and/or legal system has let this continue just boggles my mind. As I read the article, it became quite clear that the Commision is being used to censor free speech. You hurt someones feelings and you pay. It's turned into a completely seperate legal system. It's like they are slowly eroding their own constitution."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #19 December 21, 2007 Quote The problem is that this isn't going before a court of law. If I read the article right, this is all going before the "Human Rights Commision" ... It's turned into a completely seperate legal system. It's like they are slowly eroding their own constitution. Not exactly. The HRC is an inferior branch of the judicial system and their rulings are subject to appeals to the regular court system, where previous rulings will have no bearing. If this case goes against Maclean's and is appealed (which I am certain they will do) then the rulings will (may) become binding precedent upon the HRC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
