Seriously, and back on the subject: This seems like the Australian commission has not read or just is ignoring the part of the U.S. law that is Section 230 of the DMCA; were they a person or a company, their action would likely be smacked-down under that section (as I understand it). Besides, how does a law in one country ever get enforced in another which seems to have the opposite law? (I know, I know–I am not referencing criminal law like murder, kidnapping, etc. here or the various extradition treaties……although it does get interesting with death penalties and such treaties, but that is for another time.)

> First, it’s a complaints based tribunal, not a prosecution.

Nah, it is only the state going up against a person to determine if they ought to be fined, not to compensate the so-called victims, but to punish. The fact that it isn’t technically a criminal prosecution, with the rights that this would grant a defendant, makes it worse, not better.

> I’m sure that its a relief to you that the state does not pick and choose incidents to investigate.

Well, given that rabidly anti-semitic imams are allowed to act with impunity in Canaduh, but Mark Steyn gets in trouble for accurately quoting an imam, nope, not very relieved at all.

> Second, niether the Canada Human Rights Commission nor the BC Human Rights Tribunal did not rule in favour of the complainant.

Yeah, up until then they had a perfect batting record. But Mr. Steyn and Levant exposed the whole ugly business and they ran with their tails between their legs.

The problem is that this won’t necessarily work for the little guy who doesn’t have the resources to fight.

> And I’m calling Godwin’s on the Hitler reference, by the way.

Well, it’s a bogus rule. You have stated that you think what goes on in another country is none of our business. So I am allowed to ask if you really believe that under all circumstances.

You’re just ducking the fact that either 1) you don’t really believe that, or 2) your relativism is so appalling you would have us not even intervene in the face of holocaust. Its called the horns of a dilemma, and you don’t get off it that easily, you petty fascist.

Mark Steyn was prosecuted for anti-muslim “hate speech.”’

Note that you misrepresent the nature of the process, and its disposition, which is pretty, you know, damning.

First, it’s a complaints based tribunal, not a prosecution. I’m sure that its a relief to you that the state does not pick and choose incidents to investigate.

Second, niether the Canada Human Rights Commission nor the BC Human Rights Tribunal did not rule in favour of the complainant.

Do you know if Steyn filed a complaint against the accuser?

And I’m calling Godwin’s on the Hitler reference, by the way.

Mark Steyn was prosecuted for anti-muslim “hate speech.”

His accuser was guilty of anti-jewish hate speech. But he was never prosecuted.

Isn’t that pretty, you know, damning?

> But maybe it has to do with the fact that when Americans rose up against tyranny Canaduh said, “you know, we are just fine with tyranny, thank you.” America was the home of the free and the brave, and Canaduh became the home of the people who just don’t value freedom so much.

> I kinda think you would blow an artery and tell me to mind my own f-ing business.

Actually what I would say is that it is wrong to do so, not mind your own business. The concept of right and wrong does not respect borders.

> I don’t know why Americans expect the legal and cultural landscape in other countries to be the same as theirs

I don’t know why you think that the crossing of an imaginary border makes it suddenly not fascistic to limit speech based on viewpoint.

Seriously, should we have let Germany exterminate the jews because after all that was what their legal and cultural landscape demands?

> The response is so irrational and hyperbolic that it appears you are offended at a moral level

Um, yes, exactly. Fascism is immoral.

> Americans seem to approach their politics with quasi-religious fervour — constitutional rights are more of a moral code for americans than they are for Canadians.

Well, let’s see here. We believe that our rights are “God-given”—you know, endowed by our creator, etc.—so yeah, it is kind of religious for us. And you pragmatically and intellectually think its negotiable. And believing it is negotiable, you are therefore willing to fritter it away. If that is the rational point of view, I am happily irrational.

> Canadians are talking about peace order and good government

Yeah, so did Hitler.

> and reasonable limits that can be justified in a free and democratic society

Sorry, but if you can’t freely discuss the issues, you do not have democracy. Seriously, did you think it was democracy in the soviet union when opposition parties were banned? How is this different except in degree?

How can you possibly say, for instance, that laws on homosexuality are democratic in your country? If you denounce homosexuality, you are tried for hate speech. There is a minister forbidden from reading specific passage of the bible for this reason. How can you say you guys are democratically voting on the issue when only one side can speak freely? Gay people are free to hate so-called Christian fascists, but Christians are not free to “hate” gay people. Although apparently muslims are free to hate gay people, too, so there is that. Apparently there is a muslim exception to your hate laws, amounting to religious as well as viewpoint discrimination.

> The fact is that it is the US that is the exception among western democracies in declining to provide legal tools to address hate speech and discrimination.

Yes, a fact which I am proud of. But maybe it has to do with the fact that when Americans rose up against tyranny Canaduh said, “you know, we are just find with tyranny, thank you.” America was the home of the free and the brave, and Canaduh became the home of the people who just don’t value freedom so much.

> These laws are not that unusual.

Yeah, and in 1776, monarchy wasn’t unusual either.

> You don’t see me shrieking about the right to bear arms and the appalling levels of gun deaths you have, do you?

Yeah, in Chicago, where handguns are banned, out of 412 murders last year, 406 of them were by handguns. Respecting the right to bear arms doesn’t cause crime; it prevents it. If you have a law against the ownership of guns, then all you do is ensure that only those who break the law will be armed.

And seriously what happened to the british empire. Long ago, you guys had values. Maybe not Canaduh, but Britain believed in democracy, and didn’t succumb to this kind of idiot thinking. The british sent out ships to disrupt the slave trade. They stopped the Indians from burning widows alive. I remember Mark Steyn quoting a letter from a british officer. He said (paraphrase), “You say that burning a widow alive is a matter of your culture. Well, in our culture, when a man kills an innocent woman we hang him. So you can build your fire and we will build gallows right next to it, and after you carry out your traditions, we will carry out ours.” There is a lot to criticize in british history, especially as it relates to colonialism, but there was nothing at all wrong with stopping that practice.

But as I end, let me reiterate this point. Are you really such a relativist? Would you have said in 1939, that the holocaust was just a matter of Germany’s legal culture and we should mind our own business? If you are walking through India circa 1850 or so, and they are dragging a woman kicking and screaming toward a bonfire, and an American intervenes and stops it, do you call that person a jerk? Or a hero?

Well, that’s fine. You don’t see me arguing that the US should have hate speech laws do you? I kinda think you would blow an artery and tell me to mind my own f-ing business.

I don’t know why Americans expect the legal and cultural landscape in other countries to be the same as theirs, and why folks like you, AW, get so angry when some other country approaches the regulation of their society in a different way. The epithet “Canuckistan”, for example, is absurd on its face; we are the country most like you in the entire world.

The response is so irrational and hyperbolic that it appears you are offended at a moral level, rather than at a pragmatic or intellectual level. And this is maybe why the dialogue goes off the rails. Americans seem to approach their politics with quasi-religious fervour — constitutional rights are more of a moral code for americans than they are for Canadians. When we talk about free speech, Canadians are talking about peace order and good government and reasonable limits that can be justified in a free and democratic society, while americans are talking about inalienble rights. While we are thinking about legislative policy goals, balancing of interests and reasonable limits, you are talking about the political equivalent of sins against God. But shrieking at people that they are sinners (fascists!) is a terrible way to convert them.

The fact is that it is the US that is the exception among western democracies in declining to provide legal tools to address hate speech and discrimination. These laws are not that unusual. Values differ. Goals differ. You don’t see me shrieking about the right to bear arms and the appalling levels of gun deaths you have, do you?

> Plays to the chorus, I suppose.

No, its a fact. Canuckistan penalizes speech. As in if you speak and they don’t approve of the content of your words, you are penalized.

Simply put, we don’t allow for viewpoint related restrictions on speech. But Canuckistan does. Worse yet, it doesn’t even do it even-handedly. When an imam known to engage in vicious anti-semitism can complain against mark steyn, and never fear persecution himself, you can’t pretend this is all viewpoint neutral. The canadian human rights commission is functionally anti-semitic, if not intentionally so.

I don’t like hate speech any more than you do, but i hate government censorship more.

Plays to the chorus, I suppose.