Thursday, February 4, 2010

She Wants It Bad and That Ain't Good

Lest you think that, in view of the Parliamentary committee looking into state censorship, Jen Lynch and her censorious crew are getting set to moderate their stance about free speech, the most recent link on the CHRC website puts that puppy to bed, pronto. It's a lengthy elucidation of Section 13, the part of Canada's "human rights" legislation that keeps the censors in business. Here's the latest CHRC spin re who it gets to shut up (my bolds):
5.1 Definition of hatred and contempt - The Commission applies the restrictive definition of hatred and contempt established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Taylor case. Applying this definition ensures that the exercise of the Commission’s mandate does not offend the Charter.
This means that in order to come within the ambit of section 13, the communication that is the subject of the complaint must be so excessive and extreme in nature that it suggests that a given race, sex, religion or other group identifiable in relation to one or more grounds in the CHRA is devoid of any redeeming qualities as human beings. If the message does not meet this threshold, it will not be found to come within the ambit of section 13, notwithstanding that the message is offensive, controversial, shocking or disgusting to some.
Is that so? Then I suppose the writings of Mark Steyn and other "Islamophobic" Maclean's magazine scribblers came within that ambit, since the CHRC was prepared to consider Elmo's complaint about them (before the B.C. show trial exposed the shady racket for what it was and the federal Commissars decided it was wise to lay off, that is).

Why on earth does the CHRC continue to purvey the fiction that it only goes after "the most extreme" speech? May I suggest it's all smoke and mirrors, designed to lull Canadians (who don't really comprende the whole "free speech" thing, at least not in the First Amendment sense of it) into believing that state censorship is okay because it only messes with the most "extreme" utterances--and what nice Canadian wants to sanction that type of nastiness? May I further suggest it's because Jen is determined to hold onto the power that accrues from being able to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech in the land. So forget all that blarney about "ambits" and "thresholds." At the end of the day it's all about power and control--who wields it, and who wants it. And Jennifer Lynch has signalled that she's a chick who wants it--bad.


Jim R said...

"it only goes after "the most extreme" speech"

To a sensitive leftist, all speech you don't agree with is extreme.

scaramouche said...

Exactly. "Hate speech" is whatever I (the virtuous-in-my-own-mind ideologue) says it is.