Un forum conservateur accusé de propager la haine

Activist's remarks about Islam, sex probed


July 24, 2007

By Pete Vere - SAULT STE. MARIE, Ontario — Organizers of a conservative online forum in Canada say their free-speech rights are under attack after they received a letter saying a complaint has been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The complaint, filed by a private citizen and accepted for further investigation by the commission, protested a critical posting on the forum's Web site regarding Islam and homosexuality.

The remarks were posted on FreeDominion.ca, a sister site to the conservative U.S. forum FreeRepublic, by FreeDominion member Bill Whatcott, a former homosexual prostitute turned outspoken Christian activist.

“I can't figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims,” Mr. Whatcott wrote on the Web site. “After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”

He also attributed the worldwide Muslim fury at the Danish Muhammad cartoons to “violence and discrimination inherent in Islamic theology.”

The complaint, which has not been made public, reportedly said the posting “has a discriminatory content against Muslims, and Free Dominion contributes to disseminating hate literature by allowing it to be on its Web site.”

A spokeswoman with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa said the commission tries to conciliate between a complainant and the accused and only if that fails is a tribunal set up to hear the case.

As a matter of policy, the commission does not discuss details of individual cases before they reach the tribunal stage, which has not happened in the complaint against Free Dominion, said the spokeswoman, Carmen Gregoire.

If the case does reach adjudication, she said, the tribunal would be empowered under the Canadian Human Rights Act to order the Web site to “cease and desist” the publication of hate speech or to impose a monetary fine.

Canadian hate speech laws are more stringent than in the United States and outlaw some remarks that would be protected in the United States by the First Amendment. Miss Gregoire said she was unsure whether a tribunal could order the shutdown of a Web site.

Conservative bloggers across Canada have rallied to the defense of the Free Dominion organizers, who suspect they are being victimized for their conservative leanings.

“I cannot help but think that this is a politically motivated attack on our members' free speech; the commission is behaving like Voldemort's Death Eaters in the new Harry Potter book,” said forum co-founder Connie Wilkins.

“Whatever your political persuasion, you can't possibly condone this attack on free expression by an unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy,” wrote Kathy Shaidle of Toronto, who denounced the complaint as a “secular fatwa” on her widely read Relapsed Catholic blog.

Mrs. Wilkins said she first learned of the matter on July 18 when she received a letter from the commission asking for a response to the complaint that same day. The letter was dated July 16.

She subsequently was told that a letter with details of the complaint had been sent earlier and apparently had gone missing. Only when Mrs. Wilkins' lawyer got involved did the commission agree to fax the details of the complaint, she said.

Mr. Whatcott, for his part, has clashed with Canada's human rights tribunal system before. A tribunal in the western province of Saskatchewan fined him $17,500 in 2005 for distributing leaflets describing homosexual marriage as “sodomite marriage” and using graphic language to describe homosexual acts, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

Mrs. Wilkins said Mr. Whatcott is an active participant at Free Dominion but that she and other members of the discussion board often rebut his views.

http://ciel-bleu.blogspot.com/2007/07/le-site-free-dominion-est-le-sujet-dune.html

1 juillet 2007
Le site Free Dominion est le sujet d'une plainte à la Commission des droits de la personne

Peut-être vous connaissez le site Free Dominion, le site conservateur canadien.

Mercredi, la propriétaire du site, Connie Wilkins, a reçu une lettre Commission des droits la personne lui informant qu'une plainte a été déposée contre elle en tant qu'administratrice du site Free Dominion. La lettre n'avait aucune détail sur la plainte. Le prénom de la plaignante, une dénommée Madame Gentes, n'était pas inclus. La Commission lui signalait qu'elle avait deux jours pour répondre aux allégations-- sans y être informée!

On croyait que c'était peut-être une mauvaise blague. Mais, un appel à la Commission a confirmé qu'il s'agissait d'une véritable plainte. Même après deux appels, Connie n'a pas reçu de détails sur la plainte. Il fallait que le rapport soit faxé à son avocat, et que son bien-aimé Mark Fournier se déplace pour aller chercher une copie.

Alors, cet après-midi, on a pu apprendre l'origine de cette affaire. Le présumé coupable est l'activiste pro-vie Bill Whatcott, renommé pour sa distribution de dépliants graphiques dépeignant l'avortement et les résults médicaux de l'activité sexuelle des gais. Mais cette fois-ci, le texte qui déplaisait portait sur les Musulmans.

La plaignante, Marie-Line Gentes est professeure de science à Vanier College à Montréal. Elle n'est pas musulmane, elle n'a aucun lien musulman. Mais, à quelque part, elle croit que ses droits ont été violés(!!!).

Le texte en question n'avait RIEN de haineux. Il dénonçait la théologie islamique, et la violence islamique, mais l'auteure faisait la distinction entre les islamistes violents et le Musulman moyen.

C'est très effrayant qu'on puisse persécuter des gens pour leur manque de rectitude politique. Il ne faut pas se laisser faire. Il faut s'opposer à ceux qui nous enlèverait notre liberté.

Publié par SUZANNE à l'adresse 7/21/2007 01:28:00 AM

Libellés : forums, liberté religieuse

The False Security of a Silenced Free Dominion


In a modern democracy we are all free to engage in the pursuit of truth, the advancement of social wellbeing and the sharing of knowledge. To do this, we must have the right to question, speculate and comment on any issue without reference to doctrine or approved government policy. These rights are usually expressed as freedom of speech or freedom of expression.

The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In Canada, the right to freedom of speech is limited in both law and practice. An individual has alleged, via the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that Free Dominion, a Canadian conservative web forum promotes “hate speech”. It has cited numerous posts by Bill Whatcott. There is no significant cost to the complainant but Free Dominion may be forced to pay substantial legal fees to respond to the complaint. The web site may also be fined by the CHRC or required to pay the complainant.

Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Canada's constitution but it is limited. The limits appear narrow at first blush but they are quite vague. The right to free speech is “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” What is reasonable may actually prove to be little more than current consensus. Politics is fickle; acceptable speech today may become unacceptable tomorrow. People who take pleasure today in the troubles at FD may themselves be the object of such troubles in the future.

There is no satisfaction to be had here. Silencing Free Dominion or Bill Whatcott will not add to the security of our nation. It will not raise the level of debate. It will just increase the probability that other people will be silenced. If freedom of speech is limited then it is not freedom, it is privilege. What may be said will be subject to the winds of political change.


Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. -
Thomas Jefferson.