Still searching for scary Nazis....
...in the age of “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!” Scaramouche rips into the CJC.
...
Update: Bernie's Hate Speech Law Tribute Page is back on line.
....
My original take on the CJC's paean to Section 13 (1):
Oh Lordy, the CEEJ even cites Alexander "Specious" Tsesis, whose junk theories were debunked by Professor Anuj Desai on Bernie's new "Section 13 (1) is Good Cause I Said So" page.
The CJC's new "Hate Speech" page is every bit as specious as the arguments of Mr. Tsesis their legal champion.
First off the Taylor Decision it so righteously cites has been repeatedly abused by the CHRC in it's application of Section 13 (1). The Taylor decision initially saved Section 13 (1) by finding it minimally impaired Canadians’ rights providing the Act’s overriding objective of remediation and conciliation was observed. As the Lemire decision and other case histories have indicated the CHRC has moved well beyond remediation and conciliation in 13 (1)'s application, stretching its interpretation of Taylor from Shield into Sword. Of greater concern is that as the Macleans and Levant cases clearly illustrate Section 13 (1) is open to abuse by those whose goal is to promote a political agenda and limit political speech they disagree with. At further issue is that the HRC's themselves are open to infiltration and a variant of "regulatory capture", Ask EX-CHRC Staffer & current CJC Prez Mark Freiman about that;) Recent history has shown how Section 13 (1) and HRC's in general have been co-opted as dangerous political weapons, these lessons cannot be ignored or fluffed off as mere administrative failings as the CJC would wish.
According to the CJC the matter of Section 13 (1) & Free Speech only became news because of the attempts by various Human Rights Commissions to muzzle the press. The CJC conveniently ignores the attacks on religious freedom that have been conducted by the CHRC and continue to be waged by its provincial counterparts. They imply that because the cases against Mark Steyn/Macleans & Ezra Levant were dismissed that the system "works". Very few possess the resources and fortitude that Macleans and Levant were able to muster in their defense. What the CJC disingenuously fails to mention is that the accused under Section 13 (1) have the full weight of the state levied against them, they are not entitled to legal aid, and truth is not a defense, so onerous is the burden endured by the accused that the process itself is the punishment. That's a fine system - for North Korea and other such ratholes where state oppression is the norm, the CHRC had no right nor any business investigating either case to begin with and it was only when they had their nose bloodied by an outraged public that they decided to back off.
Naturally the CJC would omit mention that support for Section 13 (1) is limited to a very few special interest groups, among them are The Canadian Islamic Congress , a key player in the "political abuse" of Section 13 (1) , and perversely B'nai Brith, itself subject to a 5 year hearing under the "political abuse" of Manitoba's variant of 13 (1). Support for the outright repeal of Section 13 (1) on the other hand encompasses a broad range of institutions spanning the full spectrum of political ideology which includes: The Canadian Civil Rights Association, The BC Civil Rights Association, The Catholic Civil Rights League, The Canadian Constitution Foundation, The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, Pen Canada, The Canadian Association of Journalists, Egale, The Catholic Women's League and virtually any newspaper you care to name. These institutions recognize what the CJC fails to acknowledge, that the danger of this law to our society is inherent to Section 13 (1) itself, that it is anti-democratic and subject to abuse as a bludgeon to silence political & religious belief and that no effort should be made to "tinker" with a statute that should never have been given life to begin with.
I will give the CEEJ credit however, they do a very nice job of laying out the differences between the prosecution of hate speech under the criminal code vs. prosecution of hate speech under Section 13 (1) of the CHRA. Under Section 13 (1) the accused has none of the protections afforded under due process perfectly illustrating that this odious law is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep the legal traditions that have served as the bedrock of democratic society. Thanks for that.
Oh, one other thing the CEEJ gets right - "To compare the situation of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to present-day Canada is ludicrous." Truer words were never spoken.
...
Screenshots of Bernie's Hate Speech Law Tribute Page, lest it go bye bye again
There must be a higher power working today. I glanced over your posts and at the CJC article and then I left - and noticed a Bumper sticker on the car ahead of me that read:
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same people and the same level of thinking that created them!"
I chuckled as I thought of Burny, Len, and Jennifer.
LOL.
I don't think the CJC quite gets the fact that this internet thingie means you get called on rubbish more or less instantly.
Well I hope they have cajones to ressurect the page.
Page be damned - they have an entire Committee to now assist them!
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2009/29/c4149.html
h/t Dr. Dawg
I'll bit Section 13 gets a passing mention.
Actually this has been going on for some time, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism coupled with the efforts to wrest control of Section 13 (1) should send shivers down the spine of the anti-zionist crowd, here's their web site - http://www.cpcca.ca/home.htm
You can't help but note the hypocrisy of certain anti-zionists who on the one hand profess support for 13 (1) and on the other hand scream blue murder about the work of this committee.
It's like I said, 13(1) has nothing to do with hate speech rather it is just another front in the ongoing mid-east conflict.Each side hoping to gain the upperhand in its administration and force its agenda on Canada.
From the page:
Hateful speech has shown itself to be a necessary, if not sufficient precursor to acts of genocide and to the creation of systems of human misery that have spanned continents and generations.
The discourse of intolerance, repeated over generations, caused slavery to be seen as a normal state of affairs. Indeed, in the United States, it took war, not rational argument, to end it.
As for the Nazis, it took generations of repetition and elaboration of antisemitic tropes before they became self-evident.
As Alexander Tsesis has observed, “the ideology was so deeply entrenched that it seemed logical to them to round up Jews, put them in concentration camps and eventually try to exterminate them.” How is it that ideas that seem abhorrent today were the conventional wisdom of a few decades ago?
-i am going to have to get off my ass and blog about this. For starters now, why should we take seriously people who are in a hurry to assimilate slavery to the Holocaust?
Slavery is a very old human insitution that has been practised globally in many places - wherever society advanced beyond the early stage of hunter-gather economics and ethics - and was only ended recently and only in some places. It continues to thrive in parts of the world.
To suggest that slavery came into being because of a "discourse of intolerance", whatever that is, is surely radically ahistorical, regardless of how many slave owners through the ages were somehow, by our standards, "intolerant". "Intolerance" is a modern notion that makes little sense of the globally widespread primitive logic for enslavement, having to do with the fact that slavery was for a long time the only way to tap and transport significant sources of energy, or sexual opportunity, from one place to another, until recent centuries of technological growh; and having to do, with the logic of ritually-bound social orders. In the tightly ritualized world of primitive societies, there is a sense in which everyone is a slave to a ritual order of uniquely correct conduct. The introduction of slavery would have happened in a cultural evolution that did not require some radical break towards "intolerance".
It is the rise of the modern individual who can conceive of a "discourse of intolerance" that needs explaining by some fancy "discourse" theory, and not the age-old slave. And it was just the problem of the modern individual that racked the minds of the Nazis, for whom the symbolic Jew of the marketplace, the enemy of the more heroic or primitive manhood of the martial Nazi, was the scapegoat. The Nazi's "Jew", who secretly and not so secretly controlled the modern world (economic) order, was hardly the figure of a slave. He was much more a bad guy in the way a successful Western corporation or conservative free thinker is the bad guy to the victimary left today.
cont...
When we look at the history of slavery, Westerners are much less quick to be offended by our ancestors' use of it in the ancient world (e.g. in the Athenian world, or the Biblical Israel, the key cultural foundations of the West), or even by the widespread enslavement of Europeans and Africans by Muslims in the much more modern Middle Ages, than we are offended by its existence in 18th and 19th C. America. This is because we recognize that at a certain point the West had reached a level of economic and ethical development in which slavery had become just too morally - and economically - objectionable. But it was just this realization that made the West the leader in the worldwide anti-slavery movement, as it remains today.
So why this need to tar the West with slavery, or more to the point to compare it to the Holocaust? Is the Jewishness of the Holocaust a problem for the CJC?
As for Tsesis, he does not understand the difference between age-old antisemitism and the Holocaust. It was not so "natural" a thing the Holocaust, an event the Nazis found necessary to wrap in secrecy, in hopes of one day forgetting it ever happened. It could not have happened, in the scope and scale it happened, absent the conditions of total war and the Germans putting themselves in a state of fighting for their own national survival and demanding of everyone absolute submission to this fight. In the final analysis, heh heh, Hitler went to global war because it served his primary obsession of finding a way to kill the Jews. If not for this primary obsession, the other victims of the Nazis would not have been caught in the whirlwind.
It's a touchy Jewish question, once again.
The assimilation of the Holocaust to slavery and the lie that it was just a "natural" outcome of some generic hatred, and not an extreme extension of antisemitism reveals something key about the CJC mindset and self-deception: a refusal to come to terms with the specific nature of the specific form of racism we call antisemitism. I won't try to write down all the evidence and implications of this right now, because it deserves a post of its own and will take some time. But suffice to say that the CJC will not become an effective voice countering antisemitism if if feels the need to appease those who need to make a claim on the reigning ideology of the post-Holcaust world - an ideology that is founded in the revelation of what a "Nazi-Jew" difference can lead to - by assimilating slavery (or Palestine, or Iraq, or any other "victim" of Western states and societies) to the Holocaust, to the Nazi's "Jew", or to the specific narrative on "hate speech" that is founded in the reaction to the Holcaust and that can make very little sense of the origins and growth of the institution of slavery (quite aside from the fact that yes, American slaveowners did have a racist ideology), or George Bush's America, etc.
But it is just this same blindness about the unique nature of antisemitism - dare i call it the CJC's own kind of Judeophobia - that makes them incapable of commenting on the larger scene today in which the movement to ban "hate speech" in Europe, at the UN, is clearly part of an Islamist/leftist/PC movement that is inherently antisemitic in nature, and not only in its contest to claim the memory of the Holocaust for all humanity in the role of the universal victim of the leading edge. Accusations of "hate speech" today are overwhelmingly targeted at Jews and now Christians for a reason; and that reflects our postmodern form of hatred for those who today symbolize what Jews symbolized to the Nazis: the leading-edge of a deracinated modernity.
You'll have a field day with Tsesis Tru, his whole justification is riddled with such bunk. I look forward to your post let me know when you have it up.
The Jewish community would be well served by cutting funds to these Turkeys. Like Pamela Geller asks at Atlas Shrugged. What are they trying to do? Commit Jewicide by going after the public idiots with an organ of government while ignoring your real enemies. Who daily call for your extermination?
How to lose credibility while helping your foes.
Islamists are fighting a legal war as well as a bullet one.
Guess who they despise & want to kill first?
Why complain though? The whole Human race has become blind to the real evils of this Age. Hell most don't even acknowledge right or wrong anymore, or have perverted the concepts out of all shape.
JMO
Well Rev, as I see it the CJC and B'nai Brith are fighting the Islamists for defacto control of the CHRC and Section 13 (1). I see nothing wrong with standing up to the Islamists and would gladly assist their efforts were they not directed to so destructive an instrument as 13 (1), which threatens all our liberty and is in fact as Geller points likely "Jewicidal". Both sides but especially the CJC and B'nai Brith think they can control this beast, but demographically the Jewish community is a declining political force. They have in my opinion lost the PR war on so many fronts that now all they can hope for is a successful delaying action before Israel and indeed the worldwide diaspora find themselves marginalized to the point of extinction.
PS. Rev you sent me a CIDA link some time ago, if rumour is true this may blow up in the near future. I will let you know.
successful delaying action before Israel and indeed the worldwide diaspora find themselves marginalized to the point of extinction.
You have a point. They will try but not succeed. Israel is still around. Her ancient foes are not.
I think most diaspora Jews will go back to Israel. Even in the America's. The worm of anti Semitic aggression grows fatter every day.
What I heard about last year in Calgary was disheartening. The police of course took the Islamic side. Your 100% correct about demographics as well.
By the way nice to get my computer back from the shop. I was almost going to rent one from withdrawl pains.
While I suspect this post will have a limited life span one cannot help but note how you have decided who can comment on your site. Trust me its not the end of the world that you have chosen to censor me but if only for a brief moment your hypocracy can be seen that's fine with me.
BTW there are a myriad of ways for me to comment here and short of blocking every ISP i choose you may or may not see more of me. Tata for now.
Mitka I know you are a bit slow on the uptake so I'll make this as easy as I can for you.
You are one of the CJC Trolls who attempted to smear me as an anti-semite. That means you are a despicable piece of human detritus. I do not have to provide human waste such as yourself access to my blog. You lost the free speech war so that ugly smear was all you had left, I understand your desperation. Harry Abrams pulled the same stunt at Jay Curries site, it says everything anyone needs to know about Bernie's supporters.
Barring you from my site is not hypocrisy Mitka nor is it censorship. You are free to voice your opinions anywhere, anytime just not here. This site is my property not yours.
By the way I think it is pathetic that you post under different pseudonyms at different sites. That little revelation explicitly demonstrates how little support Bernie the Censor has.
Later Winnifred/Mitka.
Still waiting to see your proof that I accused you of being an anti-Semite. I suspect I will have a long wait.
Actually Mitka/Winnifred is wasn't you specifically, it was one of your cohort. Just as Harry Abrams attempted to smear Jay Currie and all his readers with the same slur I have chosen to ban all the CJC trolls and that means both of your aliases.
Ltr Winny.
>>