What the hell is a BC tribunal? Seems dangerously close to the inquisition. NO ONE EXPECTS THE BC TRIBUNAL!
Edit: British Columbia human-rights tribunal? Is that right? I take it Canada doesn't have strong protections for political speech then?
Yes, that's correct. I don't know if other provinces have the same sort of set-up but it's kind of an 'extra' sort of judicial extension of the provincial court system. There actually used to be a separate Human Rights Tribunal and a Human Rights Commission, but after the last election the provincial government removed all power from the Commission and probably would have eliminated the Tribunal as well were they not scared of losing the valuable "pussy vote" (it should be noted that both bodies also exist on a federal level as well).
As to your second question; yes, technically the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution actually has some very strong protections for speech, the problem is that there is a conflict between the Charter protected freedom of speech and the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is a little too broad in what it considers discrimination. Well, actually, there's not really all that much of a conflict were people to use common sense, but they don't and many Canadians are notorious pussies who worry about offending other pussies entirely too much. It's a fucked up system for a couple of reasons;
1.) As mentioned in the article, the decisions are legally binding, but not held by precedent like real court decisions. They can basically make you do anything in order to 'right the wrong'.
2.) Fuzzy jurisdiction. Broad complaints can be filed in multiple levels. For instance, recently someone filed a complaint against Maclean's magazine for printing an editorial which reprinted another article with some quote something along the lines of "British are worried about Muslims breeding like rabbits". The issue here is that they simultaneously filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, meaning that the magazine all of a sudden has to fight two battles in two different courts for the exact same infraction within a single country. This is pretty much illegal under any other circumstance. Maclean's got off easy because they are a well known magazine amongst the intelligent, have a lot of coin, and was willing to fight all the way to the end. BC tried them first, and the Canadian court saw how everyone reacted and dropped the case because they pretty much caught wind that win or lose, something in the system would have to be changed. This is currently being investigated.
3.) It's a fucking joke. The expense to defend is often not worth it, especially when you're not being convicted of any real crime, so many just roll over for financial reasons. The defendant always loses once shit goes to court.
4.) It represents a very dangerous deterioration of public support for civil rights. Words written on a constitution are just that unless the people hold the meaning to be true. For the most part, many Canadians (again, and I can't stress this enough - pussies) have decided that one's right to avoid discrimination (remember: too broad) over powers one's freedom of speech or action. Were this particular case go to a real court, it would be thrown out because precedent has been set - freedom of speech overrules in cases like this. However, the entire function of the BCHRT is specifically to make sure you don't get offended and as such this guy is probably hosed unless he wants to spend the money to go all the way to the supreme court. A lot of people are cool with this kind of bullshit and as such are basically allowing their own rights to be violated and eroded because they're either too stupid to notice or freely support a society where censorship trumps freedom of expression. I call these people turncoats and strongly urge them to stop being involved in the political process.
If anyone actually cares, here's the poison in the Charter:
12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or
(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14. [1976-77, c.33, s.12; 1980-81-82-83, c.143, s.6.]
Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
In short, freedom from being offended is being held higher than freedom of speech more and more, and it's really a dangerous thing.
