There is a chance for freedom of speach in Canada

Ezra Levant: It’s a great day for freedom of speech
Posted: September 03, 2009, 9:00 AM by NP Editor
Ezra Levant,

Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did something its never done in its 32-year history. It acquitted somebody of “hate speech” charges. Until now, the tribunal had a 100% conviction rate.
In a 107-page ruling, tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis didn’t just throw out the case against Marc Lemire, he threw out the law, too, calling it an infringement of the free speech guarantees of the Charter of Rights.

Hadjis is no wild-eyed civil libertarian. In the recent past, he himself has convicted people under this same law. And, before Jean Chretien appointed him to the tribunal, Hadjis was the boss of one of Montreal’s largest multicultural lobby groups, which thrived on ethnic identity politics. But even Hadjis has had enough of the human rights industry and their fetish for political correctness. He ruled that allowing Canadian citizens to express offensive ideas is preferable to living under a government that prosecutes people for expressing those ideas.

As of yesterday, it’s no longer illegal to write politically incorrect things on the Internet. Now it’s illegal to prosecute someone for it.

This will have an immediate impact on the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which maintains a large censorship department and has other cases under investigation. If the CHRC were a real police force, and the tribunal were a real court, all existing censorship cases would be dropped, and anyone who was previously convicted would have their convictions voided. Dozens of lawsuits against the government for wrongful prosecution, and compensation for costs, wouldn’t be far behind.

But the tribunal isn’t a real court, and Hadjis acknowledged that he doesn’t have the power to strike down the law, only to declare it unconstitutional and to refuse to apply it. The CHRC has ignored the tribunal before: In this same case, Lemire was routinely denied his procedural rights by the CHRC, including its outrageous tactic of waiting until the trial was over before disclosing all of its documents to him. Even worse, some bizarre CHRC conduct came to light, including confessions by their staff that they joined neo-Nazi organizations and published bigoted comments on the Internet to entrap their targets. A real court would have thrown the case out years ago, and a real police force would have disciplined such rogue conduct.

Still, it’s a great day for Charter values like freedom of speech. But how long will it last? The human rights industry knew this was an important case, and over the past six years it spent millions of tax dollars fighting Lemire. The federal government had six lawyers on the case–four from the CHRC and two from the Justice Minister’s office. And there were five lawyers intervening on behalf of Canada’s tax-subsidized Jewish groups, the B’nai Brith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC).

Yesterday, the CJC issued a bizarre press release in which it states that, despite the tribunal’s clear ruling, it believes the censorship law “remains constitutional.” In the next few weeks, the CJC and the rest of the human rights litigation industry will clamour for the government to appeal this decision.

It was one thing for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to defend the constitutionality of a government law that was under attack — that’s standard operating procedure. But now that the law has been found to be illegal, it would be quite another thing for Nicholson to positively act to revive such an illiberal law. Nicholson must also put a leash on the disgraced CHRC, and order it not to appeal either. They’ve already done more than enough damage to Canada’s civil liberties, at great expense to taxpayers.

In fact, just leaving Hadjis’s ruling intact isn’t enough–his ruling illustrates a deeper rot in the CHRC. Hadjis found that the CHRC has become much more aggressive and confrontational in recent years, and at the same time it started applying punitive sanctions — such as issuing fines of tens of thousands of dollars. That toxic mix of abusive conduct with criminal-style punishments was specifically forbidden by the Supreme Court when it last reviewed the censorship laws in 1990.
It’s that bullying corporate culture that Nicholson needs to address. Nicholson should start by ordering Jennifer Lynch, the CHRC’s chief commissioner, to stop her expensive campaign of demonization against the commission’s critics. And then he should call in a retired judge — or the auditor-general — to do a thorough biopsy to find out how Canada’s human rights agency became such a threat to our human rights.

National Post
Ezra Levant blogs at ezralevant.com
Check all videos from Ezras youtube channel www.youtube.com/EzraILevant

Jihad Against Free Speech

The UN’s Jihad Against Free Speech
In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/04/spencer-the-un%e2%80%99s-jihad-against-free-speech/

Free Speech Tried, Convicted, and Fined in Finland 
Finnish court that has convicted Helsinki Councilman Jussi Halla-aho of "defamation of religion" -- i.e., blasphemy about Islam -- for criticizing Mohammed/Islam on the councilman's (Finnish) blog Scripta.
What did Halla-aho say? He called Mohammed, a man who married a six-year-old, infamously consumating (if you can call it that) the marriage when the child was nine, a pedophile, and "insulted" the lawlessnes prevalent in Somali immigrant culture.
Finnish population for 2008 is 5,244,749, including some 40 000 Muslims -- less than one percent.
The District court in Helsinki fined the City Councilman to pay 30 day fines amounting to 330 euros. This judgement by the Helsinki District Court violates the very essence of what “Freedom of Speech” stands for; the right to say out loud, that, what people do not want to hear.
Read more about this amazing case.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/08/trial-of-jussi-halla-aho.html
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2009/08/trial-of-jussi-halla-aho-in-court-of.html
http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/03/free-speech-slammed-in-finland-as-politician-is-brought-up-on-blasphemy-charges/

Something new in Holland

From Expatica.com
19/08/2009
Dutch city sacks controversial Muslim adviser
A Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Ramadan is considered one of Europe's leading Muslim thinkers.
The Hague -- The Dutch city of Rotterdam said Tuesday that Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan would no longer serve as an adviser for hosting a programme on a television channel it claims is backed by Tehran.
Rotterdam's Erasmus University has simultaneously dropped him as a guest lecturer on citizenship and identity, said a joint media statement.
"The reason is Tariq Ramadan's involvement with the Iranian television channel Press TV, which is incompatible with his functions.," Ramadan has been an advisor to the mayor of Rotterdam on issues of multi-culturalism since 2007.
"Press TV is a channel that is financed by the Iranian government," said the statement. "We find (his) indirect relationship with this repressive regime, or even the appearance of such, to be unacceptable."

Ramadan said he would take the council to court.
"I am going to sue the municipality. It is a question of honour and dignity," he told public broadcaster NOS.
Ramadan said he took offence to being labelled a supporter of the Iranian government.
"To put me in a position where I am supporting the regime is just unacceptable," he said, adding that his television programme was of a "religious, philosophical" nature.
The dismissal was "more about the political climate in the Netherlands than anything else ," said Ramadan -- referring to the rise of far-right parties in Rotterdam and elsewhere.
A Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Ramadan is considered one of Europe's leading Muslim thinkers.
He is known for promoting a modernised form of Islam and for his opposition to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
Ramadan, whose grandfather was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has been barred from entering US territory since 2004.
AFP / Expatica


But they like Ramadan in England
http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/Oxford-won_t-fire-Rotterdam_s-rejected-advisor_55635.html

Oxford won't fire Rotterdam's rejected advisor
Oxford University says it sees no reason to break off ties with Islamologist Tariq Ramadan, who was fired earlier this week as a community advisor by the city of Rotterdam.
Related ArticlesControversial Muslim advisor under fire for Iran TV job
Rotterdam retains services of Muslim advisorRotterdam - The city government said his work as a presenter of a state-sponsored programme on Iranian television was incompatible with his duties in Rotterdam.

Tariq Ramadan is a professor of Contemporary Islam Studies at Oxford, a post which he has held for the past four years.

The British university said in a statement that freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Yet the university adds that it disagrees with Ramadan's views.

The Swiss-Egyptian islamologist also lost his job as a visiting professor at Rotterdam's Erasmus University.
Ramadan is furious about his dismissal from his jobs in Rotterdam and is taking the city to court. In his view, the decisions were politically motivated and inspired by the current wave of anti-Islamic sentiments in the Netherlands.
Radio Netherlands / Expatica

That is the same England that banned Michael Savage from entering UK.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/michael-savage-banned-fro_n_196631.html
LONDON — Britain on Tuesday published its first list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.
The U.K.'s law and order chief, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, said she decided to publish the names of 16 of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

Muslim's suit over scarves in California

By GILLIAN FLACCUS – 11/03/08

ORANGE, Calif. (AP) — A Southern California county will allow jailed Muslim women to wear headscarves after settling a lawsuit with a woman who claims that deputies violated her religious freedom by making her remove her hijab.

The settlement agreement signed by the county last week and released Monday specifies that Muslim women must be provided a private area to remove their headscarves after arrest and must be provided with county-issued headscarves to cover themselves when they are in the presence of men.

The county, which did not admit wrongdoing, will also pay $45,000 in damages. Plaintiff Jameelah Medina will get $10,000 after subtracting attorney fees, said Hector Villagra, director of the Orange County office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

A spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Department did not immediately return a call Monday from The Associated Press.

Medina, 30, was arrested in December 2005 in Pomona for having an invalid train pass. She spent 12 hours in jail but was never prosecuted.

Medina, a business trainer who lives in Rialto, said that during processing she was forced to remove her headscarf in the presence of a male deputy even though she explained that to do so violated her religious beliefs.

"I felt exposed and vulnerable," she said. "I don't think I could have felt more naked even if I had no clothes on."

Medina and her attorneys said the settlement was important because it addressed the county's concerns about safety while respecting Muslims' religious beliefs.

"We had a concern about religious rights and they had a concern about safety. We met halfway to ensure that nothing like this will ever happen again," Villagra said.

Link: Original article