Duh.
(PS: Looks like Ezra finally got under Hadjis’ skin…)
The Human Rights Act provision permits anyone who objects to even a borderline case of alleged hate speech to expose the author to a costly, cumbersome human rights adjudication process, said Athansios Hadjis – who is presiding over a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against Internet webmaster Marc Lemire.
Citing a recent case in which Maclean’s magazine columnist Mark Steyn defended himself against a complaint from a Muslim group, Mr. Hadjis said it may be all too easy for an individual to be “dragged through the process.”
Mr. Hadjis said that the controversial provision created to combat hate messages left on telephone machines operated by member of the far right — made sense in the past. However, he said that its usefulness may be in the past.
Actually, it didn’t. They didn’t phone you. You had to phone the number and get yourself offended.
Hate messages on telephone message machines tended to be overt, he said, whereas the ocean of opinions on the Internet include many that are borderline cases of hate.
“Maybe the scale is tipping the other way,” Mr. Hadjis interjected during closing submissions at the Lemire hearing. “There is so much grey zone here that it may tip the scale back the other way.”
“Suddenly, the chilling effect catches not only individuals who set up telephone messages…but just about everyone who posts anything on the Internet,” Mr. Hadjis said. “What we have is the reality of the Internet – open to all; everyone participates…” he said.
And remember — truth is no defense in Section 13 cases like this one:
Read More...