[mobglob-discuss] Towards McCarthyism: The G8 and beyond

[Macdonald Stainsby]

----- Original Message -----
From: "rick" <rickm at sprint.ca>
> Show me an issue with such things and i will reconsider my
> support for the paper.
>

No problem. I appreciate you putting it this way, because you have been such a
pleasant chap. Let's see how you respond to this particular article published,
written by Paul Fromm. I would never dream of being anywhere near this (Paul
Fromm is one of the leading figures of Neo-Nazi style Holocaust denial, being
involved with people like Ernst Zundel, Doug Collins, etc).

This one was published in the Radical. I urge people to take particular note of
the sixth paragraph.
The article, in all it's xenophobic glory, reproduced:

November 7, 2001

 The federal government has handed the terrorists a cheap victory. A number
of provisions sneaked into C-36, the government's omnibus anti-terrorism
bill now before Parliament, are aimed at gagging political dissent and
subjecting the Internet to the vice of political correctness.

 The government proposes to let a judge, on the basis of a sworn
information, order the deletion of material from any Internet site in
Canada that, "on the balance of probabilities", constitutes "hate
propaganda" -- that is, wilful promotion of  hatred against an identifiable
group (colour, race, religion or ethnic origin). A hearing would be held
within a "reasonable" period of time where the person who posted the
material could advance arguments as to why the material was not "hate
propaganda". If the judge  ruled against the writer, the order would be
permanent. If he ruled the material was not hate propaganda, it could not
be restored "until the time for final appeal has expired." This is carte
blanche for censorship of websites that criticize the government's failed
immigration policy. Material can be ordered removed from websites. There is
no definition of a "reasonable" time within which a hearing must be held.
The judge can order the permanent removal of offensive opinion on mere
probability that it constitutes "hate" against privileged groups, not that
it does so 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Timely material can be ordered
gagged and might not be restored to a website until many months or years
later, after all appeals have been exhausted. Ironically, this is not a war
on terrorism, but a war on free speech.

 If anything, the government's attack on the Internet becomes even more
insidious as it has amended Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Section 13.1 makes it a discriminatory practice to publish anything that is
"likely to expose to hatred or contempt" members of a long list of
privileged groups  (race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age,
 sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or
conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted). Under
Section 13.1, truth is no defence, nor does intention matter.

 The Canadian Association for Free Expression has been an intervenor in the
two attempts thus far to extend Section 13.1, which originally was aimed at
telephone  messages, to the Internet. These were the prosecution of Ernst
Zundel (1996-2001) and John Micka (2001) and in both cases the decisions
have been reserved.

 The Canadian press will be under the gun. Almost all newspapers and
magazines are now "on-line." Presently, newspapers and magazines only have
to worry about Section 319 ("hate propaganda") of the Criminal Code when
writing on controversial matters about ethnic groups or religions -- say,
the role of Islam in the recent terror bombings. Under Section 319, truth
and intention are defences. However, a large number of media may soon find
themselves hauled before human rights tribunals for statements they made
that offended an ethnic or religious group. Truth will be no defence. A
sincere  intention to discuss a problem will be no defence. The
government's justification for its assault on dissent and a free press is
mendacious. The Justice Department asserts: "Following the attack on
September 11, Canadians have called for a renewed commitment to Canadian
values of respect, equality, diversity and fairness and a strong
condemnation of hate-motivated violence that has occurred in Canada and
elsewhere against innocent people."  There has been virtually no "hate
motivated violence" in Canada against  innocent people since September 11.
This is a complete red herring. People are calling for protection from
terrorists not from diversity of opinion.

 On September 11,  nobody died because of the Internet. Over 6,500 people,
including several dozen Canadians died because of the lax
immigration/refugee policies of both the American and Canadian governments.
These anti-free speech measures don't even mention terrorism, defence of
terrorism, or promotion of terrorism. They are aimed  simply at the critics
of the Canadian government's disastrous immigration policy.

 Finally, we wish to protest our being denied the opportunity to present
these views about what we see as a major threat to freedom of speech. On
October 22, I contacted the clerk of the Justice Committee about making a
presentation to the committee. I was told to submit a short overview of our
group. I did so and was informed on October 23 that i was to appear as part
of a panel between 9:30 and 11:30 on October 30. However, on October 24 I
was advised that some members of the committee did not want to hear our
views. We could, nevertheless, submit a written brief as we are now doing.
This exclusion is outrageous. The committee ought to hear from a
cross-section of interested and concerned Canadians. We have unique
expertise in the way Canadian Human Rights Tribunals behave and their
impact on free speech, as we've been an intervenor in the only two cases
under Section 13.1 which have involved the Internet. Our exclusion invites
the view that this is a rush to judgment, where, as all too often happens,
a select establishment-approved few talk to one another.

 The free speech rights of Canadians and the liberating technology of the
Internet are far too important to be so lightly dismissed.