The Human Rights Commissions are CIVIL bodies, not criminal ones. They have NO power to charge anyone with a crime or to sentence anyone to prison. Private citizens, NOT the state, bring complaints against them in cases of discrimination. In this case, the complaints are against Steyn’s publisher, NOT against Steyn.

Furthermore, the Commissions are, as you note, dismissing the complaints; what is happening is that the Commissions are ruling and recognizing that the regulation of journalistic expression is NOT within their mandate; this is a test case which is establishing that fact.

Please, please, please stop spreading these right-wing falsehoods. Steyn is NOT being prosecuted. He is NOT even a named respondent in the complaints. The HRCs do NOT regulate journalistic expression.

Listen…. I don’t like Bill O’Reilly but my opinions are not even that jaded where I would say that…. I mean that is getting crazy… We all have to stop blaming things like Fox news for all of our problems and issues. I mean….. we are all adults… Simply pick the news that you want to watch. Who cares?

Looks like you are trying to make the issue fuzzy. Blurring legal immigration with illegal immigration.

They are illegal immigrants—not “so-called” illegal immigrants. I don’t see a problem with discussions and commentaries on Fox News about the frustrating issue of illegal immigration. People are concerned. Illegal immigration is a PROBLEM.

Fox News can start by telling Bill O’Reilly himself to stop doing that on his radio program.

Or, they can come out publically and say “yes, we at Fox News encourage our viewers and listeners to attack Muslims, so-called “illegal” immigrants, and anyone else our pundits are told to target on-the-air by Fox management. This is the logical outcome of our Constitutionally-protected right to free speech.”

“Isn’t a little weird that a defender of racists (Jonathan) posts on the SPLC website?”

It’s not weird at all, it’s great fun. You do support exercising the first amendment, don’t you? And I’m sure that you also support a “diversity” of opinions!

Regards.

Anyway, Sean Hannity is old friends with a white supremacist radio talk show host in New Jersey and Bill O’Reilly is a known racist, and anyone who has watched FOX coverage of Barack and Michelle Obama knows they aren’t exactly progressive on racial issues, so this shouldn’t be a surprise.

Typical deranged, leftist thinking by basing laws of “feelings”. How do they measure “hate”, have a bunch of teenage girls tell how they “feel” about the topic at hand?

God help us, having touchy-feelies writing laws!

Who?

If you are referring to Zundel, he was a publisher.

Who?

Who is sitting in a Canadian jail, charged, tried and convicted in a provincial, territorial or federal court for writing letters?

CATHOLIC, a.
1. Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
2. Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man.
3. Liberal; as catholic principles.
Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church.
CATHOLIC, n. A papist.
CCATHOLICISM, n.
1. Adherence to the Catholic church.
2. Universality, or the orthodox faith of the whole church.
3. More generally, liberality of sentiments.
This is the renowned seat of Catholicism.
CATHOLICIZE, v.i. To become a catholic.
CATHOLICLY, adv. Generally; in a catholic manner.
CATHOLICNESS, n. Universality.

LIB’ERALIZE, v.t. To render liberal or catholic; to enlarge; to free from narrow views or prejudices; as, to liberalize the mind.
LIB’ERALIZED, pp. Freed from narrow views and prejudices; made liberal.
LIB’ERALIZING, ppr. Rendering liberal; divesting of narrow views and prejudices.
LIB’ERALLY, adv.
1. Bountifully; freely; largely; with munificence.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. James 1.
2. With generous and impartial regard to other interests than our own; with enlarged views; without selfishness or meanness; as, to think or judge liberally of men and their actions.
3. Freely; not strictly; not literally.
LIB’ERATE, v.t. [L. libero, from liber, free.]
1. To free; to release from restraint or bondage; to set at liberty; as, to liberate one from duress or imprisonment; to liberate the mind from the shackles of prejudice.
2. To manumit; as, to liberate a slave.
LIB’ERATED, pp. Freed; released from confinement, restraint or slavery; manumitted.
LIB’ERATING, ppr. Delivering from restraint or slavery.
LIBERA’TION, n. [L. liberatio.] The act of delivering from restraint, confinement or slavery.
LIB’ERATOR, n. One who liberates or delivers.
LIBERTA’RIAN, a. [L. liber, free; libertas, liberty.]
Pertaining to liberty, or to the doctrine of free will, as opposed to the doctrine of necessity. Remove from their mind libertarian prejudice.
LIB’ERTINAGE, n. Libertinism, which is most used.
LIB’ERTINE, n. [L. libertinus, from liber, free.]
1. Among the Romans, a freedman; a person manumitted or set free from legal servitude.
2. One unconfined; one free from restraint.
3. A man who lives without restraint of the animal passion; one who indulges his lust without restraint; one who leads a dissolute, licentious life; a rake; a debauchee.
LIB’ERTINE, a. Licentious; dissolute; not under the restraint of law or religion; as libertine principles; a libertine life.
LIB’ERTINISM, n.
1. State of a freedman. [Little used.]
2. Licentiousness of opinion and practice; an unrestrained indulgence of lust; debauchery; lewdness.

For one of the previous commenters who missed the point: the subject of this post is not the merit of Canada’s hate speech laws (I’m categorically opposed to them.) The point is that when you bring on Fromm and describe him as a free speech activist without at the least providing in what context he’s an activist for free speech (i.e. that he wants to disseminate white supremacist hate-mongering) you legitimize the man’s message to some extent.

Given that Bill O’Reilly routinely attacks and demonizes people with whom he disagrees by calling them Nazis and Klansmen and attacking persons such as Chris Dodd or Al Gore for ennabling “evil” when they attend Daily Kos conventions, you would think he might be inclined to addresss having Fromm on Fox

Mark….throw that one out there letz see how many respondants to the Post.

Call it ‘ Ken Mier’ Challenges double Medis Standards.

She says Fromm “is” (a white supremicist), “denies”, “has” (a history of extremism). Fromm “mocks”, “calls”, “tells”, “labels”, “tells”, “discusses”, “describes”, “attends”, “runs a group”, “directs a group” that “believes” and “views”, “is a signatory to a protocol” that “calls for”.

On the other hand, people in the Canadian Goverrnment puts people IN JAIL for writing letters.

So we’d all agree here that since Obama went to a “racist” church he’s not qualified to be president?

Or what remains of it, what with no less than 11 radio stations (eight of them being a statewide network across Mississippi) having pulled Mr. Savage’s radio programme in recent weeks after rather smarty remarks about autism-spectrum disorders.