I got my latest CHRC newsletter today and it’s chock full of Evil Overlord Propaganda Goodness!
A whole Section 13(1) discussion page has been added to the web site and in standard CHRC fashion it is a deliberately misleading presentation of the facts .
Let’s start here:
No. Although many Canadians are aware of the United States First Amendment, the Canadian approach to freedom of expression issues is different.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
CHRC Propaganda Weasels Spring Into Action:
Jurisprudence of the United States’ courts, including the Supreme Court, severely restricts any state action to suppress free expression, including hate speech or propaganda. For example, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html*, the Supreme Court of the United States found that a municipal law prohibiting the burning of a cross was an impermissible restriction on the First Amendment.
“The effect of the decision was to allow the burning of a cross on the lawn of the first black family to move into an all-white neighborhood.” Read that twice or so.
*(NB. The link provided above by the CHRC to R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul doesn’t work, you’ll see why in a minute😉
The CHRC weasels choice of language virtually implies that the decision itself lead to the burning of the cross on the front lawn or that the decision permitted the burning of the cross. No, didn’t happen that way. But clearly they want you to believe that. All the better to scare you with that Big Bad American 1st Amendment!!!
These are the facts R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota :
In the early morning hours of June 21, 1990, the petitioner, Robert Viktora, and several other teenagers allegedly assembled a crudely made cross by taping together broken chair legs. The cross was erected and burned in the front yard of an African American family that lived across the street from the house where the petitioner was staying. Petitioner, who was a juvenile at the time, was charged with two counts, one of which a violation of the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance.
The Ordinance provided:
Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the count under the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance on the ground that it was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based, and therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment …. The appeal went to the Supremes
The Supreme Courts decision:
The Court recognized 2 final principles of free speech jurisprudence, first, that when “the entire basis for the content discrimination consists entirely of the very reason the entire class of speech is proscribable, no significant danger of idea of viewpoint discrimination exists.”
As examples, Justice Scalia wrote,
A State may choose to prohibit only that obscenity which is the most patently offensive in its prurience — i.e., that which involves the most lascivious displays of sexual activity. But it may not prohibit, for example, only that obscenity which includes offensive political messages. And the Federal Government can criminalize only those threats of violence that are directed against the President, since the reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment (protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur) have special force when applied to the person of the President.
Second, the Court wrote that a valid basis for according different treatment to a content-defined subclass of proscribable speech is that the subclass “happens to be associated with particular ‘secondary effects’ of the speech, so that ‘the regulation is justified without reference to the content of the …. speech'” As an example, the Court wrote that a State could permit all obscene live performances except those involving minors.
Applying these principles to the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, the Court concluded that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional.
Justice Scalia explained the rationale, writing –
“Although the phrase in the ordinance, “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others,” has been limited by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s construction to reach only those symbols or displays that amount to “fighting words,” the remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to “fighting words” that insult, or provoke violence, “on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.”
Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics. Those who wish to use “fighting words” in connection with other ideas — to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality — are not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.”
The Court went on to explain that, in addition to constituting an impermissible content based restriction, the Ordinance amounted to viewpoint based discrimination. Displays containing some words, such as racial slurs, would be prohibited to proponents of all views, whereas fighting words that “do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender — aspersions upon a person’s mother, for example — would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc., tolerance and equality, but could not be used by those speakers’ opponents.” The Court concluded that “St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquess of Queensberry rules.”
The Court concluded by writing “Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.”
So in R.A.V. v The City of St. Paul the CHRC deliberately misleads Canadians by elevating, as a cheap scare tactic, a relatively minor though reprehensible incident to the level of a horrendous hate crime resulting directly from American adherence to 1st Amendment Free Speech Rights. All the while conveniently failing to inform us of the fact that in this case a law every bit as bad and subject to abuse as our own Section 13(1), a law which attempted to legislate opinion, was struck down in the name of preserving the right of Free-Speech. Like section 13 (1), the St.Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was unnecessary, existing statutes dealt with incidents of this type. Each week brings new revelations of the contempt the extremists at the CHRC have for the public, this is just the latest evidence that it is standard CHRC operating procedure to misinform Canadians.
How did extremist ideologues like the Kommissars at the CHRC, people who willfully distort the truth to further their anti-democratic agenda, ever become entrusted with our most precious right? We can be thankful in the knowledge that they are Incompetents and Political Hacks as explained by the Canadian Jewish Congress. They must be exactly as the CJC describes them for having cited a case that makes a perfect argument for deleting Section 13 (1).