Humans right tribunal in contempt of court

[Ancalagon]

ha-ha!

despite the date, I've been following this story for a little while, and I think it's legit.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Comic+lawyer+wants+human+rights+tribunal+cited+con tempt+court/2755101/story.html

Comic's lawyer wants human rights tribunal cited for contempt of court


By Keith Fraser, The ProvinceApril 1, 2010


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Comic+lawyer+wants+human+rights+tribunal+cited+con tempt+court/2755101/story.html#ixzz0k9Qqj6T4


A lawyer for standup comedian Guy Earle, who has been accused of making homophobic remarks, has filed a motion in B.C. Supreme Court asking that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal be cited for contempt.

Jim Millar’s motion also asks that the section of the Human Rights Code being applied in the case be declared unconstitutional because it violates Earle’s right to freedom of expression.

The move comes after Millar walked out of a tribunal hearing earlier this week after protesting that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

In his Supreme Court motion, Millar says that a prior court ruling by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Willcock called for the issue of jurisdiction to be dealt with before any hearing proceeds.

He said the decision by the tribunal to hear the jurisdictional issue after hearing the evidence puts it in contempt of court.

Earle was accused of subjecting Lorna Pardy and her same-sex partner to a tirade of homophobic and sexist comments during a performance by Earle at Zesty’s restaurant in Vancouver on May 22, 2007.

A woman answering the phone at the tribunal said the earliest the tribunal could respond would be Tuesday.

[Radu]

Earle was accused of subjecting Lorna Pardy and her same-sex partner to a tirade of homophobic and sexist comments during a performance by Earle at Zesty’s restaurant in Vancouver on May 22, 2007.

So? In theory at least it doesn't matter whether they were subjected to homophobic and sexist commentary. It's his right to say that if he wants. If that sort of commentary isn't what draws crowds, he'll soon be out of work. Citing him with a human rights violation is a bullshit way of dealing with the problem. "I don't like this so I'm going to strip you of your right to say it" is not a good way to go about changing things.

[Ancalagon]

In Canada, there are limits imposed on free speech, and one of them is against hateful speech (inciting hatred). And the hate is only disallowed if you are using it against certain groups, not the individual. So if I call you a worthless idiot who's wasting oxygen and should go jump off a cliff, that's ok. If I say "fags like you should be burned at the stake" then it' isn't.

But there are problems because the line isn't that clear. If I call you a fucking fag - am I inciting hatred against homosexuals, or am I just using it as a convenient insult? Personally, I also wonder about hateful speech against non-protected groups (all gamers should be sterilized!).

So the human rights tribunal has been more and more aggressive with this kind of things, but higher courts are starting to go "wo there, you've gone too far!"

[Radu]

I think this is an example of a good idea in theory taken way too far in practice. You want to limit hate speech-- how about making actions based on hate rhetoric have really harsh punishment then? ACTIONS not WORDS.

I'm not a homophobe by any means, but I get upset when people begin cutting into someone's right to express their opinion, homophobic or not. Have you also ceded the right to leave the room in Canada? If so, I can understand why things like a human rights tribunal should exist. If, by purchasing admission to a comedy club, you were locked in the building for the duration of the set, you'd naturally want to make sure the comedian wasn't going to say things that were hateful, because that'd make for a very unpleasant night.

I'm reminded of a speech Christopher Hitchens gave in Toronto a few years ago:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603#

Edit: I'm an idiot. It's actually Christopher Hitchens, not Sam Harris. I'm not sure how that one got by- I may be remembering two different speeches.

[Ancalagon]

I think the issue is the recognition that there are people who are skilled demagogues, and who will rile up others into taking action. These individuals can have a lot of influence, and are a source of problems.

[Radu]

So deal with them in a manner that won't cut off your nose to spite your face. Where will you run to for protection when you've turned the law into the instrument of your own persecution?

Keep in mind-- I'm not advocating hate speech. I'm advocating the right of anyone to say what they wish at any time in a society which would call itself free. I'm glad to see a bit of push back from the higher courts against this sort of thing, because I think that the idea of "protected groups" or "free* speech" is extremely corrosive to a legitimately free society.


*except against certain defined groups, creeds, and philosophies, of course!

[Radu]

An important thing to note, Anc-- I'm not trying to argue with you, personally. I like you and think you're a pretty cool guy. I find the whole concept of a free speech police to be ludicrous, though. I'm glad to see a push back from higher courts saying "no, you can't do this."

[Freedom Canadian]

So deal with them in a manner that won't cut off your nose to spite your face. Where will you run to for protection when you've turned the law into the instrument of your own persecution?

Yep.

Not to mention that the way human rights tribunals work right now is a horrible travesty of a justice system.

[Ancalagon]

Yep.

Not to mention that the way human rights tribunals work right now is a horrible travesty of a justice system.

Yup - and the current circumstances only illustrate the fact - that's eggs on their faces right there, and I don't think it's a fight they are going to win.

At least I hope not....

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

And this is why laws against "hate" speech are ridiculous.