But is it a crime to publish an opinion, let alone quoting a five year-old article or reposting a research data? Of course it isn't. Even the existing "hate crime" laws (that were tightened in 2004 to severely restrict the debate on homosexual behavior) don't apply in this case. That's why the complaints were submitted to the so called "human rights tribunal". Renown for its Orwellian name, this tribunal gives no value to the freedom of speech (even though it's still in the charter) and has the authority to asses fines of up to $50,000 and incarcerate would-be-haters with no criminal charges laid against them.
And, he [Ron Gray] says, when he had a conversation with a Commission employee, mediator Bob Fagan, about the specifics of the allegation, he was astonished at what he heard.That says it all. The case has nothing to do with "spreading hate", otherwise the accuser could press charges under Section 319 of the Criminal Code. However the truth bashers' goal is not to seek justice but to silence (and make an example of) anyone who dares to denounce the myths they use to sugarcoat their perverse lifestyle. So they'll never agree to an honest debate or to a fair trial for that matter.
"I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: 'But the Human Rights Act is about censorship'. Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breath-taking. For the Human Rights Commission's own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their Act."
No comments:
Post a Comment