# Help Protect Free Speech



## tomahawk6 (1 Apr 2006)

https://www240.ssldomain.com/westernstandard/website/index.cfm?page=donation&CFID=5888098&CFTOKEN=49734736

An islamic cleric has filed suit against the Western Standard in the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Another example of the tolerance of islam and its practioners.


----------



## TheShepherd (1 Apr 2006)

It is rediculous that we can't print a few cartoons without some nut filing a suit against the newspaper, but on the other end of the spectrum, the Western Standard knew what they were getting into when they printed those cartoons.


----------



## x-zipperhead (1 Apr 2006)

hope you don't mind if I wade in here with .02


			
				TheShepherd said:
			
		

> the Western Standard knew what they were getting into when they printed those cartoons.


Very true.  I think the real nut is the editor who decides to print the cartoons after already knowing the reaction of muslims around the world (IMHO).  If they were printing it to make a statement, that's certainly their right, just as it's this imam's right to sue.  I don't think it's abuse of process nor radical.  This is a non violent, perfectly appropriate recourse available to him and his community.   So, the Western Standard now has to pay legal costs to defend themselves.  They could have chosen not to run the cartoons.

I'd be interested to know what specific damages he is seeking and on what grounds?


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Apr 2006)

I think that the rest of the media was cowardly in not running the cartoons. So are we going to avoid controversial topics for fear of being sued ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2006)

Should make for interesting times, if and, when the lawsuit is shot down. Of course, both side have oddles of cash, from various sources, available to them. Watch for this one to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, most of the lieberal appointed judges are gone by then, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Apr 2006)

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> hope you don't mind if I wade in here with .02
> Very true.  I think the real nut is the editor who decides to print the cartoons after already knowing the reaction of muslims around the world (IMHO).  If they were printing it to make a statement, that's certainly their right, just as it's this imam's right to sue.  I don't think it's abuse of process nor radical.  This is a non violent, perfectly appropriate recourse available to him and his community.   So, the Western Standard now has to pay legal costs to defend themselves.  They could have chosen not to run the cartoons.
> 
> I'd be interested to know what specific damages he is seeking and on what grounds?



It's abusive and radical because he's using a process (the Human Rights thing) that has nothing to do with the case. It should have gone to civilian court, using his own money and his community's, not every taxpayers' money. That's like using the Human Rights court because your neighbor's dog took a shit on your grass. Sure, it violates your rights to having a green, unblemished grass, but it's frivolous, ridiculous and the taxpayers' money shouldn't be used for it.

As for grounds, he has none. We're allowed to publish whatever we want as long as it doesn't incite hatred or violence. I haven't seen all the cartoons, but those I did see did not incite me to go killing some Muslims. Frivolous lawsuits like this do piss me off, though.

If you want more details, there are pdf's available on the website detailing the complaint and the response.

Anyone else thinks if someone tried to complain *against* Muslims in a similar case, the case wouldn't even make it to the courts before being thrown out?


----------



## GAP (1 Apr 2006)

Ahh...but the mindset has been established, hasn't it? Between the riots (that everybody ignored the source agitator's of) to now being reasonable and just "suing". Watch what the media does in the next few years with anything that might cause a similar reaction. We've just been stalemated.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Apr 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> It's abusive and radical because he's using a process (the Human Rights thing) that has nothing to do with the case. It should have gone to civilian court, using his own money and his community's, not every taxpayers' money.



If this started in a court of law, the first thing the judge would do is ask "why is this before the court now?" The proper venue of first instance is  the  Human Rights hearing. The decision of the hearing could then be appealed to a court of law.

The complaint will succeed before the Human Rights tribunal. The heads of damages will be exemplary and for humiliation/hurt feelings. The total payable will not be very much. It is likely they are seeking a public apology. 

Western Standard will fight to the last dollar. They will lose. This is Canada. Certain rights of expression are very limted.


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Apr 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The complaint will succeed before the Human Rights tribunal. The heads of damages will be exemplary and for humiliation/hurt feelings. The total payable will not be very much. It is likely they are seeking a public apology.



I suggest everyone read the Western Standard's reply to the complaint. As is pointed out, the complaint was dismissed by the police as frivolous. Also, a lot of what the Muslim guy is bitching about has nothing to do with the Western Standard, so basically he's trying to get someone (in this case, a business) punished for what someone else did.

Also, in this case, the process itself is the punishment (as was pointed out by the WS) because even if the case is dismissed, the defendant has to pay all legal fees and they are NOT reimbursed if the case is declared to be frivolous, while the plaintiff doesn't pay anything. It's abuse of taxpayers' money, plain and simple.

It really sickens me that we live in a society where we claim to allow freedom of speech but limit it when immigrants say they don't agree with what is being said.


----------



## Trinity (2 Apr 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Also, in this case, the process itself is the punishment (as was pointed out by the WS) because even if the case is dismissed, the defendant has to pay all legal fees and they are NOT reimbursed if the case is declared to be frivolous, while the plaintiff doesn't pay anything. It's abuse of taxpayers' money, plain and simple.



Theoretically... if the paper wins... they could sue the cleric for legal fee/damages incurred by a frivolous claim.
Like the cleric has any money personally (not)...


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Theoretically... if the paper wins... they could sue the cleric for legal fee/damages incurred by a frivolous claim.
> Like the cleric has any money personally (not)...



From what I understand, and I might be mistaken, but because the cleric guy took it up to the Human Rights place, the paper basically has no recourse, hence the claim the process itself is the punishment. But then again, it's way above my pay grade and education level.


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Apr 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Western Standard will fight to the last dollar. They will lose. This is Canada. Certain rights of expression are very limted.



You are right there, I forget the case but according the SCC, a business (media included) rights under sect 2 of the charter are not greater then an individual of a protected group.


Got to love how the laws that are supposed to protect our freedoms, can be used to limit them by groups like this. I think the government should amend the Charter be for cleric can get the court to limit them.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Apr 2006)

Hunt v. Southam.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (2 Apr 2006)

Was an "action" started against the Jewish Free Press (I may be mistaken on the name), but it is a small Calgary paper, around 2000-5000 circulation.  I actually believe they printed them first, along with allegedly defamatory cartoons of Jews.

Mr Levant, is a crap disturber.  He has been for as long as I have been aware of him.  To be clear this is not a slag, he has always asked questions of the system.

He is also no stranger to the court system having started various lawsuits of his own, including a monster law suit that grew out of his involvement in the riding of Calgary Southwest and the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.  To quote someone I know who moves in those circles he is "radio active"


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Apr 2006)

William Webb Ellis said:
			
		

> Was an "action" started against the Jewish Free Press (I may be mistaken on the name), but it is a small Calgary paper, around 2000-5000 circulation.  I actually believe they printed them first, along with allegedly defamatory cartoons of Jews.
> 
> Mr Levant, is a crap disturber.  He has been for as long as I have been aware of him.  To be clear this is not a slag, he has always asked questions of the system.
> 
> He is also no stranger to the court system having started various lawsuits of his own, including a monster law suit that grew out of his involvement in the riding of Calgary Southwest and the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.  To quote someone I know who moves in those circles he is "radio active"



So are you saying that the Muslim guy is doing something good by abusing the justice system and using the Human Rights court to sue this paper, having to pay nothing out of his own pocket and preventing the paper from being reimbursed when the case is dismissed, just because Mr Levant "is a crap disturber"?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, uh? Oh how I love our society...


----------



## x-zipperhead (2 Apr 2006)

Freedom of speech is all well and good.  Just because it is your "right" to say something doesn't make it right to say it.  My point is just that this is obviously highly offensive to a large portion of the muslim world so to run it is just inflammatory and dumb business practice which is why most Canadian newspapers chose not to run it.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2006)

Most Canadian and American "MSM" outlets feel quite free to publish things which Christians find offensive (and Christians are a larger part of the population than Muslims in this part of the world).

Perhaps the real reason they won't publish has something to do with the idea that their offices might be firebombed and their staff attacked on the street (something which Christians do not seem prone to do in this day and age)? The staff of the Western Standard, although being persecuted and perhaps having their ability to publish crippled, have at least gotten off lucky this time.

We might get a long term benefit from this entire mess; the ideas that underlay "human rights tribunals" and various laws and regulations associated with this should be thoroughly discredited, and put under review.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (3 Apr 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So are you saying that the Muslim guy is doing something good by abusing the justice system and using the Human Rights court to sue this paper, having to pay nothing out of his own pocket and preventing the paper from being reimbursed when the case is dismissed, just because Mr Levant "is a crap disturber"?
> 
> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, uh? Oh how I love our society...



No what I am saying is he has just started a magazine, and any press is good press, perhaps he has other motives like the bottom line


----------



## x-zipperhead (3 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Most Canadian and American "MSM" outlets feel quite free to publish things which Christians find offensive (and Christians are a larger part of the population than Muslims in this part of the world).


For example?  I am not saying that that is not the case but as a Christian no examples jump to mind that really offended me.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Perhaps the real reason they won't publish has something to do with the idea that their offices might be firebombed and their staff attacked on the street



Quite possible.  I like to think, however, it has more to do with Canada being a moderate and tolerant country that holds respecting others beliefs and dignity higher than exercising what is indeed our "right" to insult those beliefs.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> (something which Christians do not seem prone to do in this day and age)?


I think there are some abortion doctors out there who may disagree with that.  Of course those radical Christians are not representative of all Christians.  Just as there are Muslims who do not respond with violence.  This particular imam for example.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> We might get a long term benefit from this entire mess; the ideas that underlay "human rights tribunals" and various laws and regulations associated with this should be thoroughly discredited, and put under review.



I  personally don't see how this could be a long term benifit.


----------



## x-zipperhead (3 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> It's the interpretations of them that cause problems. Especially when done through the courts/tribunals. Look how the Supreme Court can hold a gov't by it's dangly bits over a law (like the gay marriage issue) and since the Supreme Court is not elected, and neither are the tribunals, we can have things happen all in the name of 'human right's' that ultimately affect the majority. The loudest group gets their way in our court system, no matter how big they are.



If not the courts then who should be interpreting the laws?  The fact that the courts are not elected IMO is a good thing.  They should be non-partisan.  You can start down a slippery slope when a government can interperet laws to suit political ends.  The Supreme Court should be able to hold a government by their "dangly bits" ( I like that one ) should that government be trying to do something contrary to the constitution.  But I digress.....I don't want to get off on a gay marriage tangent here.

What, exactly, has happened in the name of ' human rights' that has negatively affected the majority?



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> Free speech for all. What newspapers publish should not be at the discretion of the courts. This is just IMHO, since I have lost all faith in our courts/tribunals etc.



I don't think the courts are telling any newspaper what they can or cannot publish.  They are hearing a human rights complaint about something that was published.  I don't think those are the same.  That's like saying that because we have laws about libel or inciting hatred that we don't have free speech.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

One or two issues back the "Rolling Stone" magazine had a rapper done up as Jesus Christ on the cover, something many Christians would find offensive if not blasphemous. I am sure many people on this board could come up with any number of examples, my top of the head example would be "Atlantic Monthly", October 2002, "The Next Christianity" by Phillip Jenkins which predicts Christian activism will be the defining crisis of the next century. (This might be excusable if it was published prior to 9/11/2001).

Human rights and human rights tribunals do not operate under the evidentery or procedural rules of a court of law, virtually everything is subjective and in most cases the process is done with the same panel acting as prosecuter, judge and jury. As the publisher of Western Standard notes, the complaint was thrown out by the police as having no basis, but the Human rights tribunal is being harnessed (with the power of taxpayer dollars) to muzzle freedom of expression. There is certainly no reason the complainant could not publish his own views on the matter, and indeed I am sure the publisher of Western Standard would have been more than happy to run the piece. The cartoons are the crux of the news story after all, and in a secular society we should be free to view them or not as WE decide, and debate and come to conclusions about these cartoons. Certainly the Western Standard should publish some of the anti Semitic material emanating from newspapers in the Arab world as a counterpoint; much of it is far more offensive and graphic than any of the "Mohamed" cartoons.

The response of the Islamic community (or at least a portion of it) is not to engage in debate but rather demand submission to their beliefs. In some parts of the world, they engage in brownshirt tactics, here they have discovered how to use "Human Rights" to suppress Freedom of Expression. Since Freedom of Expression is the key element of our political and economic strength, this is a very bad turn of events for all of us in Canada and the West.


----------



## x-zipperhead (5 Apr 2006)

a_majoor, thanks for the example.  I didn't see it but I probably would have found it offensive.  Even as a Christian, still I just don't see it in the same light as the Muslim cartoons. If  Christians around the world voiced their objections only to have Rolling Stone and many more magazine's run it just to thumb their noses at the offended Christians and exercise their freedom of expression, then maybe I might see it in the same light.  This is not even considering the fact, as everone is painfully aware now, it is blasphemous to portray the prophet in any depiction.

I don't see any of this as a threat to our freedom of expression.  That freedom has certain restrictions on it anyway ( and rightly so ).  Nor do I see the Muslim world demanding submission to their beliefs.  They are demanding respect of their beliefs.  And if instead of re-running the cartoon, just to make a point and inflame the situation, the editor had just made a simple apology for offending, I don't think freedom of expression would have been jeopardized at all.

As far as rules of evidence and procedure for a tribunal work, I am going to have to submit to you on that one.  I don't know.  

Could he have published his own rebuttal?  You bet.  Does that mean he has no right to persue his grievance through a Human Rights Tribunal?  No.  Is he abusing the process?  Tough call.  That would depend on his motives.  Do I have sympathy for Western Standard?  No, they chose to run it fully aware of how it would be perceived by Muslim-Canadians.  Now they can stand behind what they publish if it meant so much to them in the first place.  Why am I asking question after question just to answer it myself?  I don't know.  Can I stop? I don't know........


----------



## Guest (5 Apr 2006)

I think we should offer our support to the Western Standard but I ain't sending them no money.  As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't even bother trying to defend themselves.  The law is the law whether it is a HR tribunal or a court of law.  This freakoid still has to establish a case.  He can't.  So eat it and have a nice day.  It would be a fairly effective protest.  I can't imagine an Alberta tribunal giving this dude judgment and damages.  I guarantee you if they have to invent a new rule, they will find a reason to dismiss this case on the first day.  

In any case, they should let the dude win.  Take a lesson from the enemy, martyr yourself, readership will probably go up and maybe it will smack a few people in the face that maybe we've lost sight of some important values.


----------



## x-zipperhead (5 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> it will smack a few people in the face that maybe we've lost sight of some important values.




What values would those be?


----------



## Guest (5 Apr 2006)

freedom of speech.  freedom of the press.  freedom of expression.


----------



## Guest (5 Apr 2006)

What are you? Pink?  ???


----------



## x-zipperhead (5 Apr 2006)

No, I am not a communist.  I value freedom of speech, expression and the press. Since I just don't see those things as being threatened, I truly didn't know which values you were refering to.  I wasn't being smug.....maybe a little dense. :blotto:

I find it interesting that you refer to this guy as the "enemy".  As far as I know he is a Canadian citizen ( I could stand to be corrected ).


----------



## Guest (5 Apr 2006)

Alright, I was a little loose there.  I was plastering all Imams with the same paintbrush.  That was a good catch and I repent.  This guy is not the enemy and I did not realize that my rhetoric led to such a conclusion.  

In regard to your other point, I also share your view that freedom of speech is not threatened in this situation.  I share that view because I have no doubt that this Imam's complaint is going to lead anywhere but the bottom of a waste basket.  If I am wrong, which is of course unlikely, then those freedoms not only are threatened, they have been violated, trampled, pillaged, destroyed and many other bad things.  Of course, not irrepairably, who really cares what an Alberta HR tribunal says about anything?  I imagine they'll shoot the guy at dawn for bringing a frivolous claim in any case.


----------



## x-zipperhead (5 Apr 2006)

Even if he wins his case, I still don't see freedom of expression being trampled.  As a liberal democracy we value our freedoms but with those freedoms come responsibility. 

Freedom of expression is not absolute.  There sometimes are some restrictions on it. This is why we have laws under the criminal code for libel, slander and inciting hate.  One example being to prevent the defamation of an individual or in this case a group.  I realize this is not a criminal case but my point is that  just because he is suing the WS for something they expressed is not necessarily an affront to our freedom of expression.  Just because someone doesn't perceive the defamation the way the complainant does, doesn't mean it is an abuse of process or frivolous.  

That's my take and I realize many may not share my view.


----------



## kcdist (6 Apr 2006)

To wade in here, leading up to the article in question, I was sheepishly sneaking a periodic peek at the Western Standard at the public library.

Following the article, I determined that the Western Standard was the single substantial Canadian news organization to actually have the gonads to publish the interesting details of what morphed into a major world story. I therefore became one of many (I suspect) to commence a subscription to the magazine. 

I haven't been disappointed yet.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2013)

Freedom of expression takes another hit thanks to the Human Rights Star Chamber. This ruling actually threatens all of us, for example the owner of this site, newspapers, radio call in shows or any place where an opinion can be expressed may now be threatenedby anone with malicious intent. I would suggest that *we* do whatever we can to help the Fourniers and get this verdict thrown out, or your and my ability to speak will be under constant threat:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/10/a-sad-day-for-canadas-free-expression.html



> *A sad day for Canada’s free expression rights*
> Published for the Prince Arthur Herald
> 
> Website owners beware: you can be found guilty of libel if your anonymous commenters post “offensive comments” that are not subsequently removed “fast enough.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2013)

Mark Steyn is at it again, or more appropriatly, thin skinned people are running around trying to silence Mark Steyn (rather than engaging with even _better_ speech, although Styne has a pretty brilliant way with words). Once again, attacks on freedom of expression are attacks on us all.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/16/mark-steyn-sticks-and-stones/



> *Mark Steyn: Sticks and stones*
> 
> Mark Steyn, National Post | 16/10/13 | Last Updated: 16/10/13 8:46 AM ET
> More from National Post
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (17 Oct 2013)

Is Section 13 is repealed, can't the Fournier's simply appeal until June 2014 when the law no longer applies?  What will Warman do once Section 13 is gone?


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Oct 2013)

He's not pursuing action under Sect 13, rather under the libel law. The verdict essentially states that website owners are responsible for what 3rd parties say.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Oct 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> He's not pursuing action under Sect 13, rather under the libel law. The verdict essentially states that website owners are responsible for what 3rd parties say.



I wouldn't be surprised if the case ended up in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.


----------



## ARMY_101 (18 Oct 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised if the case ended up in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.



It absolutely needs to go to the highest court in the land, but the Fourniers aren't sure whether they can muster the strength or resources to make it that far.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> It absolutely needs to go to the highest court in the land, but the Fourniers aren't sure whether they can muster the strength or resources to make it that far.



Which is the purpose of Human Rights Tribunals, SLAPP lawsuits etc., to wear down the free speechers until they are no longer able to go on, and to threaten the rest of us with financial ruin so we abandon our free speech rights.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2014)

Another blow against Canadian freedoms. If you cannot help the forniers with a financial donation (they are fighting four SLAPP suits against them) then at least write your MP and MPP to express your support for them and dismay that YOUR legal freedoms are being attacked and eliminated:



> Free Dominion has been CLOSED by Richard Warman
> Hi, FD Friends!
> 
> Once again I'm emailing you with a Free Dominion legal update because you have helped us in the past, and/or you are on our list of friends who are interested in keeping up with our cases. (Please let me know if you no longer want to get these status reports.)
> ...


----------



## kratz (24 Jun 2017)

CBC.ca link

The thread is a bit old, but the topic of free speech keeps returning.



> 'It's about making people think': Trademark ruling on The Slants motivates Canadians
> Free speech often involves protecting the speech of people you find disagreeable, says The Slants founder
> 
> By Jessica Wong, CBC News  Posted: Jun 24, 2017 10:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Jun 24, 2017 10:00 AM ET
> ...



more at Link

I agree with the message in this discussion. Today, people are being shouted down, muted or muzzled if their opinions are contrary to louder elements of society. I have observed this more often through social media, but MSM and education institutes are falling victim to the trend as well.


----------

