Commissions and the Like
There's an argument in the Blogosphere (say what?) going on RIGHT NOW!! regarding a recently settled case involving hate speech that was brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It involves one Jessica Beaumont and several internet postings she made that were decidely unpleasant:
Between October 2003 and May 2006, Beaumont, writing under the pseudonym "Jessy Destruction," posted more than 1,000 messages on the Canadian forum of Stormfront.org, a U.S. neo-Nazi website. The messages included racial epithets, white supremacist literature and hatred directed against blacks, homosexuals, immigrants and Jews.
I've never been to Stormfront, but I can't imagine, given it's a neo-Nazi website, that MOST posts wouldn't be decidely unpleasant, so, I guess to get singled out as Ms. Beaumont was - is a kind of... distinction.
Of particular note, were the following two Leviticus (he's the guy beside Moses in the funny hat, I think) quotes from the Bible she posted which were decided to be hate speech - against gays. (The Bible is a well-known work of historical fiction. Gays are men who lie with other men as other men lie with women, but not those other men who sometimes lie with women as they would lie with men if they were lying (laying?) with men, I guess):
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.LEVITICUS 18:22
If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
LEVITICUS 20:13
Anyway, Ms. Beaumont was found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and fined, yadda yadda yadda, and the Blogoshere (the Blogosphere is free Punditry on the Internet) exploded with moral outrage because the Right fringe of the blogosphere is defending her right to freedom of speech, and, in particular, her right to religious expression, while the rest of the Blogosphere is saying "If it's hate speech - it's hate speech and we have laws against hate speech".
Which brings us to Sooey's high horse, Dear Reader, a horse so high - no one ever sees us charging out of the Blogosphere until it's too late and - clop, clop... plop - there we are asking: What the hell is up with this?!:
[2] The Canadian Human Rights Commission participated at the hearing and was represented by legal counsel. Mr. Warman and Ms. Beaumont appeared and testified at the hearing. They were not represented by legal counsel, but Ms. Beaumont was assisted by an agent, Paul Fromm, who is not a lawyer. Mr. Fromm indicated at the opening of the hearing that he was offering her "some assistance", having been involved as an intervenor in a number of cases regarding s. 13 of the Act. Mr. Fromm emphasized that he was not in a position to provide Ms. Beaumont with "proper legal counsel". As her agent, he made an opening statement, examined and cross-examined witnesses, and presented final arguments on her behalf.
I dunno, but there's something seemingly unjust about a legal proceeding that has the full weight of the state on the prosecuting side while the defending side doesn't even have legal counsel.
Don't you think? Am I totally out to lunch on this? I mean, this was a pretty easy one, I guess, but isn't that when we should make it a hard one by at least affording the defendant proper legal counsel? I mean - c'mon? Where are we, anyway? Canada? Or stuck in the middle of an Orwell novel?
