Article

2008-07-20 Great White North

Hold the champagne for Canada's free speech muddle

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2008-07-20 09:14|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Within two days in late June the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the concept of fair comment and the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled why no hearing was warranted for the controversial Mark Steyn article published in Maclean's in October 2006.

OK, then let the recover the costs of lawyers, legal fees, loist time, etc. The state weighed in and attempted to crush them on a bogus complaint brought by axe-grinding muzzies.

Make the muzzies PAY. Personally. For all the fees and costs they caused the defendants to incur.

Fair play.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-20 11:13|| 2008-07-20 11:13|| Front Page Top

#2 This refers to the "Canadian Human Rights Commission" and the proposed hearing concerning Mary Steyn and the Maclean's article. That particular hearing is indeed a dead dog and will not be revived.

HOWEVER . . . . . the "British Columbia Human Rights Commission" hearing continues with Steyn et al waiting to hear the verdict. There may be further hearings in other provincial jurisdictions.

There may also be some . . . . civil . . . . . unpleasantness to follow, depending on the outcome.

There will be no recovery of costs, OS, because the process is INTENDED to be the punishment.

Posted by Canuckistan sniper 2008-07-20 14:51|| 2008-07-20 14:51|| Front Page Top

#3 And there is your problem. McCleans/Steyn ought to sue the government for malicious prosecution,. abrogation of fundamental rights to free speech presen in English Common Law, and so on - and if possible, force the individuals, under civil suit, responsible for the complaints to be brought to the courts and spend money to defend themselves against suits.

Too bad you guys don't have a First Amendment. Nor a Second.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-20 18:43|| 2008-07-20 18:43|| Front Page Top

#4 And yes, I mean litigate the snot out of this, suing individual comissioners, state, local and city government, individual officials from each of those, personally, and suing all the complaintants individuall.

Force them to spend money to defend themselves from claims of fraudulently filing charges.

Break them. Bankrupt them then hound them out of the country.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-20 18:45|| 2008-07-20 18:45|| Front Page Top

23:53 bgrebel
23:43 SteveS
23:37 SteveS
22:52 gromky
22:45 Mizzou Mafia
22:25 bigjm-ky
22:24 AzCat
22:17 Ho Chi Flaiper4630
22:16 bigjm-ky
22:13 Bin thinking again
22:09 Frank G
22:01 RWV
21:51 Anonymoose
21:46 Pappy
21:44 Pappy
21:32 Steve White
21:31 Besoeker
21:25 Frank G
21:22 Brett
21:18 Brett
21:11 eLarson
21:06 Glomomp Smith2601
20:47 a yankee
20:43 a yankee