Abhishek has another post on how anti-hate-speech and anti-discrimination laws are being used to curb free speech, particularly in Canada thanks to the hyperactive “human rights” Gestapo – the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission. The commission’s persecution of Christians, conservatives and other far-righters reminds one of the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church under Soviet rule and ironically, the Spanish Inquisition, though the targets are only being harassed mentally and financially, if only for the moment. This is political correctness at its maddest extreme. The commission is correctly referred to as a “kangaroo court”, a court where the verdict is a foregone conclusion, because-
It is increasingly obvious these commissions were set up deliberately to lower the standard of proof and get around rules of natural justice, thereby ensuring people who would never be convicted in court are punished to the satisfaction of the activists and special interest groups that hover around the tribunals.
Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints. Occasionally, the plaintiff has been given access to the commissions’ investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. Truth is not a defence. Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers. Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply. Hearsay is admitted. The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his own and commission investigators may attempt to entrap suspects by getting them to say or do hateful things they might not have done on their own.
No wonder the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate on hate speech complaints.
This is legal terrorism, chilling effect and legally sanctioned criminal intimidation, all rolled into one. And Canada is a “democracy” that supposedly protects “free speech”. The following comment by Schopenhauer against Hegel’s philosophy-
The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity.
fits the Canadian “human rights” system like a glove. It audaciously takes up nonsensical “hurt sentiments” cases and prosecutes them as “human rights” violations, truly belongs in a mad house, and is a monument to Canadian stupidity.
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms,” Voltaire said. And the definition of “human rights” is nothing but a perversion of the concept of “rights”. There is only one kind of “rights” that exists in the “sane” world – “individual rights” – the right to life, and its derivatives – the right to property, free speech and expression. That’s all. But the “modern definition” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) of rights replaces the individual with “human” and gives him some of the strangest rights – “right to social security; the right to work; the right to equal pay for equal work; the right to rest and leisure; the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being; the right to education; and the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.” I am surprised the UN did not add the right to rape women to satisfy a sexual urge, the right to have children, the right to demand a Mercedes Benz, the right to be the President of the United States among such synthetic “rights”. By creating magic rights, the declaration adopted by most countries in the world have devalued “natural rights”. Further, the United Nations admits that the “exercise of a person’s rights and freedoms may be subject to certain limitations, which must be determined by law, solely for the purpose of securing due recognition of the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” So not only do undefinable “human rights” take precedence over the precisely definable “individual rights”, these rights are subject the the whims and fancies of government, society and lunatic human rights activists indulging in vendetta politics.
At the root of the Canadian “human rights” insanity is a section 13.1 of its Human Rights Act, And Alan Borovoy, a lawyer for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who now supports the scrapping of the said section (and who was involved in the agitation to set it up in the first place), says-
“It just never occurred to anybody that this instrument we were struggling to create would ever be used against the expression of opinion.”
“Although it’s true that they have nailed some genuine hatemongers with it, it has nevertheless been used or threatened to be used against a wide variety of constituencies who don’t bear the slightest resemblance to the kind of hatemongers that were originally envisioned: anti-American protesters, French-Canadian nationalists, a film sympathetic to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, a pro-Zionist book, a Jewish community leader, Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and even a couple years ago, a pro-Israeli speaker was briefed about the anti-hate law by a police detective before he went in to make a speech.”
It “did occur” to those who were clamoring for liberty and jurisprudence based on objective laws. We cannot rely on the “good intentions” of either the public or law enforcement as far as complaints and prosecution under any law is concerned. That is why laws have to be “objective” in nature – an individual has to know what action of his will constitute a crime before he performs the act. “[H]urt sentiments” is not the basis for a sound law; nor is something that is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”. Such laws can only be conceived of by idiots who don’t know what “justice” refers to, which unfortunately covers most legal professionals as well as framers of most constitutions. “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value,” Dean Steacy, a Canadian “Human Rights” Investigator is supposed to have said. Why not simply declare freedom to be one as well?
A free society cannot exist without the absolute right to free speech and expression. Idiots and people who suffer from low self esteem cannot be allowed to tamper with it in the name of “human rights” and wars against hate-speech, discrimination etc. People who suffer from frequent bouts of “hurt sentiments” and who take recourse to the law should probably get treated by mental health professionals; a few days in a sanitarium will do them good and also soothe their sentiments. If they don’t agree, the government should forcibly commit them, for their own protection of course! If the “hurt sentimentalists” don’t like something, they should bear this in mind – don’t read it, don’t watch it, don’t hear it, don’t smell it, don’t touch it. They have no “human right” to demand that someone stuff a sock down their throat so that their “hurt sentiments” can be soothed.
Stalin must be laughing his head off – why didn’t I think of that? Using human rights to trample on individual rights! Brilliant!