Ghost of a flea

A bit of hyperbole is necessary

Being a brief, slightly exaggerated and ill timed (my watch is fast) account of my evening with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a voice for freedom in Canadian courtrooms and Canadian law schools. Special thanks to the Flea's Osgoode connect; a member of Clan Lasombra in good standing.

6ish (Remember: Watch fast.): Unanticipated trepidation as belatedly realize this is not a blog meet up but a conference for constitutional law enthusiasts. Canadian constitutional law. I may find this sort of thing fascinating but do I want to be seen entering the hotel?

6.14: Unravel name tag while vaguely wondering how my registration fee is to be refunded.

6.35: Buffet includes vegetables, cheeses and roast beef. Momentary sensation of occupying parallel Tudors reality, hampered only somewhat by inclusion of salmon nibbles on toasted rye seasoned with delicate sauce possibly including dill.

6.40: Employment lawyer at my table sees through my attempt to take in the proceedings incognito. Not that it matters. She has never heard of Kathy Shaidle or Ezra Levant, let alone the Flea. Low profile seems assured.

6.47: Treated to an excursus on piezoelectric flooring by an amateur constitutional law enthusiast. Still wondering where Ezra is at (not that he is billed to attend, just saying we could use the heavy artillery) and why this particular room of legal experts does not seem to be up-to-speed on details of the controversy. We may be doing something wrong.

6.53: Mind wanders from details of piezoelectric flooring in beta testing at some Tokyo subway station. Consider how few people in this country are paying attention to centuries of liberty quashed by socialist drumhead tribunals. Given widespread apathy, consider further how few people it takes to leverage Change. Briefly pause for Hope.

7.10: Andrew Coyne arrives. Party starts.

7.12: Say hey to Andrew Coyne. Coyne introduces me to Philippe, says kind words re The Flea by way of introduction. I remain clueless thereby undermining Coyne's best efforts to make me look good.

7.13: Return to table. Belatedly put two and two together re Philippe Dufresne, Director and Senior Counsel of litigation services for Canadian Human Rights Commission. Had been so intent on friendly face as to engage fail mode re incognito plan. Feel as if have just shaken hands with Mouth of ______.* Also feel Dufresne missed a good chance to star in American daytime soaps or perhaps the Melrose Place reboot: Let the ugly people be lawyers.**

7.15: John Carpay is at the mic. Have you heard the good news about Voltaire? Consider spectre of Voltaire defending me to the death in quest to run dodgy fringe extremist internet site. Strangely reassured by this prospect.

7.24: Karen Selick introduced as moderator. Straight to business. We shall be hearing from Philippe Dufresne, Grant Huscroft and Richard Moon in alphabetical order. Decide to give alphabecentric discourse a pass this time.

7.25: Philippe Dufresne heads litigation for the CHRC. Takes clear stand. Despite what some may believe, and though "one would get the impression" otherwise, "under federal legislation there is no right to be offended." Surely he means no right not to be offended? Cites Taylor 1991. Believe he means 1990.

7.33: More poor planning on my part. Could have had great questions prepared re CHRC's wifi reception. An Ezra, an Ezra, my kingdom for an Ezra! Meanwhile must endure slippery apologetic in silence. Basically, the commissions/tribunals cannot impose criminal justice penalties therefore they should not be required to apply criminal courts standard of evidence, procedural protections, etc. and so forth.

7.36: Besides, Dufresne reassures we peons that even Holocaust deniers need not fear for their free speech (audience strangely reluctant to offer grateful applause on this point). Cites case where the Crown graciously allowed one its subjects to hold an opinion because "it lacked vilification" - and this is (almost) a direct quote - because - "it didn't go so far as to say Jews are sub_____." You can see what I did there. Truth being no defense in Canadian law, quoting the hateful words of others in order to dispute them being no defense in Canadian law, I have redacted the last bit of my direct quote of the CHRC's litigator-in-chief. Suffice to say he crossed the line.

7.39: Dufresne concludes remarks. Fellow next to me offers sarcastic slow clap after rest of room falls silent.

7.42: Grant Huscroft takes the podium (Hotness Total: 1). He is the free speech guy. Informs us "both sides of this debate assume the best and the worst in people." Tells us that "paying attention to the blogs" gives impression of debate with "tendency to demonize both sides." Realize this is going to be a v Canadian panel: Left, lefterer and lefterist.

7.50: "For me, human rights commissions should not have any role in the regulation of speech." That's better. A bit. On the other hand, why only "for me"? Why not for me? It is not as though I can believe in freedom of speech, you can believe speech should be regulated and - on this basis - we can all get along. The problem is precisely when your preferences impinge on my rights. The whole point of this conversation, I would have thought.

7.52: Richard Moon takes the mic. He is right about one thing. We need to debate these issues in Parliament; not just debate the constitutionality of the HRCs.

7.55: Moon claims state censorship of hate speech should be defined in a narrow sense and should be connected in some way to violence (though not requiring this violence to be immanent as per American thinking on the subject; does not elaborate on point, Americaness more than sufficient to act as Q.E.D. for this audience). The man is /fa/. Great shoes which appear to have escaped Bruegel landscape/peasant scene.

7.57: State censorship should apply to the "racist fringe of the internet." Funny, the only people I can thing of who post to racist fringe internet sites are all employed by the Canadian federal government.

7.58: Richard Moon is not wearing a tie. Realize this makes him the cool prof. Relaxed and approachable. Not just some guy in authority, some guy you can really relate to, you dig?

8.02: "The Commission has relied on private complainants." Surely he means complainant. But consider the commitment of such an individual, the time and effort it takes to see a complaint through. This he asks of us. I am not swayed. When I think of true sacrifice all I can think of is Michelle Obama's trip to Copenhagen.

8.03: Moon observes some of the "most vocal and outspoken critics" of the HRCs have engaged in a "smear" campaign. Worse yet, these smears have been reproduced by the mainstream media (this despite well-known, rigorous editorial processes of the MSM). Falsehoods! Spread by right-wing bloggers! The man is turning red in the face. Is that spittle? I stand to get a better view. I think that was spittle. Specific right-wing blogs and specific falsehoods strangely unelaborated upon. Smearer, smear thyself.

8.05 (ish): Rebuttals.

Philippe Dufresne says the system means we can seek reconciliation through the CHRC or through the Criminal Courts. It's all about choice! But come to the CHRC... it will be less pressure!

Grant Huscroft points out the intervention of (presumably right-wing) blogs has been "amazingly effective" in bringing the HRCs into public debate, saying "a bit of hyperbole was necessary for that to happen." Though in a poorly worded aside says "who cares" if the Crown impinges on free speech of fringe internet Nazis. So much for Spectre of Voltaire. This. Is. Canada.

Richard Moon calls for "nuanced" debate. A table at the back slams back a shot in unison (I kid).

Find myself wondering who the hell these guys think they are to debate just how much speech the rest of us should be allowed.

Questions from the floor:

The first questioner has the poor taste to cite the words of an imam who called for the death of gay men (beheading, I believe), suggests apparent bias on the part of an HRC in refusing to contemplate whether these words are hate-speechy (let alone whether they meet Canada's hand-wavy test of immanence re head-chopping violence), and argues the futility of Canada's hate speech laws given the precedent of hate speech laws in Weimar Germany.

Here's your money quote response from Philippe Dufresne: "Whether the (hate speech) laws were effective enough in Germany, I can't speculate."

Yes, that's a direct quote. The outcome being so ambiguous there is so much room left for speculation. But then, my views are less nuanced.

This followed quickly by the Richard Moon money quote of the evening in reply to the same question. In doing his research, Moon became concerned about fringe extremist hate speech sites "I barely knew existed before I wrote my report."

Barely knew existed.

The words speak for themselves.

* Here I include a cutting literary reference. If you insist on imagining what it might be, imagine it is something not actionable.
** Now wondering if back handed compliments are actionable under Section 13.

Related somehow: Contemporary conservatism in the United Kingdom includes piezoelectric flooring.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at October 4, 2009 07:57 AM

Comments

Posted by: The Phantom at October 6, 2009 01:41 PM

Post a comment