(Keith) Martin earned the dubious distinction after giving notice that he plans to introduce a private member's motion calling on the government to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Trust me, you don't want your party to be associated with white supremacists and other vile groups:
Victoria MP Keith Martin was praised Friday on stormfront.org, a website that proudly displays the logo "White pride world wide" and links to radio addresses by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
Of course, Mr. Martin has been hearing from people who have "bought" the bullshit line that Ezra Levant and others that it is an "unjust process":
Martin said constituents first brought to his attention concerns that the human rights act is being abused by people who lodge frivolous complaints about something that offends them, sparking lengthy hearings in which the accused are forced to defend themselves at their own expense.
However, as I pointed out back here, the CHRC rejects a sizable proportion of the complaints that are lodged after initial investigation. In fact, the commission's website clearly states that if they determine that a complaint is in fact specious it will be rejected:
384 or 36% were decisions not to deal with a complaint pursuant to section 40/41 of the Act. In 284 of those cases, complainants were asked to first pursue other redress mechanisms. The remaining 100 cases were out of time, out of jurisdiction, or considered trivial, frivolous or vexatious.
It suggest that Mr. Martin should read the CHRC's annual report in some detail before he goes off on tirades about S.13 being "abused".
[Update]:
As one of my commenters points out, Martin is an ex-Reform MP who crossed to sit as a Liberal.
Clearly, he hasn't exactly grown beyond his history as a reformer on some matters.
[/Update]
18 comments:
I think the problem with a lot of people, regardless of political stripe, is that they often fail to grasp the concept of 'due process'. We are just a few generations into the 'TV' generation where in that 'make-believe' world things are resolved in an hour or two.
And like any radical/extremist element in any society, these groups feed on the discontent at perceived or real problems and the ruling body's apparent inability to deal with the problem, offering their own 'solutions' to the situation. The fact that the solution is ultimately worse than the situation is often lost in the confusion.
The government (feds and provinces) have a potential problem on their hands, and it's the problem of getting the information out to the populace in a way that they're willing to hear and learn. And because of this there are elements that are all too willing to utilize this to their advantage, whether it's to just line their pockets at our expense or promote their own self serving agendas to our detriment.
E.
This idiot, Keith Martin, LIBERAL MP is so mis-informed that he claims that all one has to do is be "offended" and one can file a human rights complaint. What absolute BULLSHIT!
There is absolutely no protection in the Canadian Human Rights Act from being "offended". There is, however, protection from being subjected to hate messages which are likely to expose vulnerable minorities to hatred or contempt.
He doesn't understand that HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH.
I have seen no evidence of any Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings which trample on legitimate free speech.
Liberal Martin claims that we fought two world wars to protect free speech. Maybe he should realize that we fought against HATE PROPAGANDA which enabled the holocaust and other crimes against humanity.
NOW, he's the poster boy for the KKK, Nazis, Zundelites, and racist skinheads.
What a disgrace to the LIBERAL PARTY, to Parliament, and to Canadian democracy.
He is now showing his REFORM PARTY routes!
I have to wonder if Keith Martin, LIBERAL MP, former REFORM PARTY MP,is representing his constituents, or responding to Vatican pressure to protect their hate spewing Catholic Insight editor and homo-hater Priest - Alphonse de Valk.
Is anyone else going to protest this Liberal betrayal of Canadian values at their Federal Liberal Party of Canada convention at the Coast Terrace Inn 1316 - 33 st NE, Calgary this weekend?
Anyone who cares about human rights should be there to sent a message that the Liberals have betrayed Canadians by allowing this fascist to attack the Canadian Human Rights Act.
An attack on the Human Rights Act is an attack on all vulnerable minorities.
And by the way, Ezzie's rant against Human Rights is about the Alberta provincial act, and Keith Martin has no control over provincial legislation.
Also, Michael Ignatieff, deputy leader of the neo-Liberal party will be speaking at the convention tonight.
Come join in the protest and take a stand for human rights.
Dear Anonymous:
Who are you?
Hi Grog;; I'm just getting ready to drive down to Calgary from Edmonton to show the two faced LIBERALS what we think of their betrayal of human rights......
Remember Chandler???
Thanks, connection made.
I'm always a little cautious about "calls to arms" from sources I don't recognize readily.
A call to arms? Cool.....
Seriously, our system of government needs a shakeup, from the roots on up. And I mean 'us' when I refer to the roots of our little parliamentary democracy; the past couple of decades have done nothing but generate a lot of people who have grown up with an unrealistic sense of entitlement.
Time to wake up, pay closer attention and start taking part before we are taken apart and sold for spare parts......
E.
The bill is a private member bill. It is Keith Martin's alone. It does not represent the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. Last I read, Stéphane Dion was going to ask Martin to withdraw the bill (or not submit it).
I met Keith Martin once. He seemed like a pretty decent guy. I was glad when he crossed the floor. He was clearly out of step with Reform. I don't know if this is a vestige of his Reform days. Some people are just reluctant to censor others, no matter how vile their speech.
S13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is NOT about censorship.
It exists, as I have argued before, to recognize that the right to "freedom of speech and expression" exists in a state of tension with the rights of others.
In fact, upon reflection, it fills a gap between Libel law (which focuses upon the individual and their reputation) and S318 of the Criminal Code which talks of "hate crime" as an aggravating offense with respect to another crime.
S13(1) exists to provide a recognition that one can publish materials that are discriminatory against a group of people in a way that falls outside of either libel or criminal law.
In particular, consider the Boissoin ruling in Alberta. (Yes, it's Alberta-specific, but I believe that a similar outcome would have been the conclusions had it been heard by the CHRC federally) Boissoin's letter has been "defended" as "political opinion", but if you read the letter itself, it is filled with a plethora of patently false accusations against GLBT people.
Clearly, the letter itself is not a 'hate crime' per se, nor can one claim that it is libelous to an individual either.
However, it is arguably the kind of letter that if repeated on a regular basis could well form a false image of GLBT folk in the popular mind - and in doing so is deeply damaging to the rights of GLBT people with respect to topics such as security of the person.
It is quite appropriate that a recourse exist that is not necessarily bound in the language of criminality.
Respectfull, I disagree that Boission's letter is not a hate crime.
However, it was published prior to sexual orientation being added to the protected classes in section 319 of the Criminal Code.
If he were to publish that letter today, he might well be charged under s. 319 of the Criminal Code.
However, it is difficult to get a conviction under the Criminal Code due to the various defences provided. Further, before any criminal charge can be laid, the approval of the Provincial Attorney General must be obtained. And what Conservative politicial would approve a prosecution against a Christian Pastor for attacking homosexuals in Alberta, even if that Pastor was a convicted criminal who got his correspondence school "Reverend"
title to empower his bullying activities against gays?
What BULLSHIT that a criminal prosecution has to be a Provincial Political and religious disicion!
The Canadian Human Rights Commission's Investigation Report into a complaint that the Chandleristas, - Concerned Christians Canada Inc.had posted Boission's letter on the Internet stated the following:
"Further excerpts in which the language appears to provoke HATRED AND VIOLENCE against an identifiable group are as follow:"
(I'm sure you can understand why I am not posting the quoted excerpts!)
An interesting observation, now that Premier Stelmach has become the target of a hateful flyer campaign by Catholic Homophobe Nutcase, Bill Whatcott, I think that Alberta's PC government has a better understanding of the need for human rights protection from hate propaganda.
Without the mediation and conciliation processes which are available through human rights commissions, radical groups who feel victimized may well end up resorting to more violent recources.
Ezzie's infantile theatrics are an insult to all Albertans. I'm not sure where I stand on the merits of the "Cartoons" complaint - I haven't had the time to study the arguements, nor had access to the representations of both parties.
The Commission is just doing it's legally required duty to investigate the complaint.
Responding to the Commission's investigation is a small price to pay to ensure that such disputes can be resolved in a civilizedd manner. Without this legal process, some may resort to bombs and bullets.
And by the way Justine, if that idiot Keith Martin is just defending free speech, why didn't he stand up in the House of Commons and defend white racists Paul Fromm and Alex Kulbashian when Parliament voted unanimously:
"That this House order that Alexan Kulbashian and Paul Fromm be denied admittance to the precincts of the House of Commons during the present session to preserve the dignity and integrity of the House".
I have emailed Keith Martin and challenged him to provide me with even one example of where section 13.(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been used to trample on legitimate free speech.
Unless he considers Zundel's, Aryan Nations', and their supporters' propaganda to be free speech, I am confident that he will be unable to do so.
I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE FROM HIS OFFICE YET!
As as for his BULLSHIT about the Commission paying the complainant's costs, he doesn't know what he's taling about.
The only legal costs ever paid by the Commission are for their own lawyers who may appear before the Tribunals to represent the public interest. The Complainant pays his own costs.
Respondents (the guys who post the hate messages on the Internet) keep crying about how unfair it is that they have legal costs. WELL, too bad...
FIRSTLY, because Human Rights Tribunals are less formal than the Courts, there is no need for a lawyer. I've attended such hearings where the respondent doesn't have a lawyer and argues his own case. Some have bee represented by White Supremist Paul Fromm, who is not even a lawyer.
SECONDLY, most of these hate mongers try to hire lawyers to challenge the constitutionality of the Canadian Human Rights Act. - A complete waste of money and effort as these issues have long been settled by the Supreme Court in the Taylor case.
I wish I could list some examples of the hate speech propaganda which has been ordered removed from the Internet using section 13.
However, there is already enough of this hate floating in cyberspace.
KEITH MARTIN, LIBERAL M.P. for Esquimault - Juan de Fuca
POSTER BOY FOR NEO-NAZI's. WHITE SUPREMISTS, KLU KLUX KLAN
For the record, I sent a fairly lengthy e-mail to MP Martin, and CC'ed his boss as well.
Good Work, Grog
To be charitable, I hope that Martin's actions were just an ill-informed reaction to the extensive lobbying by the Reigh Wingers.
If he truly supports people like Zundel, White Pride, Aryan Nations etc, then THERE MUST BE A CALL TO ARMS !
Monday morning update:
Keith Martin was interviewed this morning on the CBC Victoria radio program On the Island about this.
He says that anyone who feels "offended" can file a complaint, and claims that the CHRC has a "100% conviction rate" and that it is creating a chill on free speech. He even warned the CBC interviewer that she herself could be hit with a complaint by anyone at any time.
He also made a claim that 50% of all complaints have been filed by one person, who is a former employee of CHRC.
When asked if he has had any response to his proposed bill, he said he has had only ONE negative letter, but has received "dozens" of supportive letters.
Only one negative letter? I can't believe that I'm the only person who wrote to tell him he's full of crap.
Grogs plus mine??
let me see, one plus one...
in Martin's math still equals one
well, perhaps Martin is correct on on small point.
So far, every hate messages complaint referred to the Tribunal has resulted in a determination that there was a discriminatory practice.
However, many complaints are rejected, dismissed, or settled in mediation before they ever get to the Tribunal ( see Chandler for example )
I suggest that this means that the Commission is rejecting too many complaints and only allowing the most outrageous ones to proceed to the Tribunal Hearings.
So, the tribunal is over zealous in protecting free speech, not a threat as MP Keith "Martian" claims.
Post a Comment