BTW, Canada did back down a bit from this, and no one went to jail, but this is, as liberals put it, "chilling".

1.  There is no jail term for an investigation, which is not a trial.
2.  "Canada" did not do anything - A request by one of its citizens to investigate a concern was honoured.
3.  Canadian Liberals have not expressed any particular emotion as far as I know, and certain not anything as dire as "chill".

The only thing that happened is that a citizen expressed a concern which was looked into.

Maxi

A shallow article that has changed the original printed facts.  The magazine articles are now cartoons.  The HRC is turned into a poor person's rental watchdog.  Give me a break.

Maxi

Some coments on the HRC, from inside and outside Canada (this is from Wikipedia, and I will leave it up to the readers if this is deemed 'deep' enough to believe). Note: this also might be the first time that I have ever agreed with something said by Noam Chomsky:

--------

"The controversy regarding the HRC's practices comes from its enforcement of Section 13.1 of Canada's Human Rights Act, which states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." Critics charge that the HRC adjudicators have limited legal training and poor investigatory resources and the result is that the power of section 13.1 is being abused for nuisance cases that would be rightly tossed out of a real court.[1]

Liberal MP Keith Martin has proposed a private member's bill in Parliament to rescind section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, upon which federal HRC censorship cases are based.[2] Martin described the legal test of "likely to expose" as "a hole you could drive a Mack truck through," and said it is being applied by "rogue commissions where a small number of people [are] determining what Canadians can and can't say."[1]

Martin asserted that some of history's most important ideas "were originally deemed to be sacrilegious and certainly in opposition to conventional wisdom. Who's to say that a commission cannot rule those ideas out of order and penalize people for saying or thinking them?"[1]
Irwin Cotler, a Canadian human rights scholar and former minister of justice, floated (but did not endorse) the idea that section 13.1 cases should require the authorization of the Attorney-General, which is the requirement for criminal prosecutions for inciting violence or promoting hatred.[1]

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has also criticized Section 13.1. He cited an example of the book Hitler's Willing Executioners, which alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust, and said that the thesis is arguably "likely to expose" German people to contempt, and therefore be a violation of Section 13.1.[1]

Borovoy also noted that under Section 13.1, "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."[1]

Linguist and analytic philosopher[3] Noam Chomsky has said about the section, "I think it's outrageous, like the comparable European laws. It's also pure hypocrisy. If it were applied the media and journals would be shut down. They don't expose current enemies of the state to hatred or contempt?"[4]

Perhaps an understanding of the Canadian people should precede a view of the Canadian people.   But above all, a bit of sensitivity might be in order.  You have just celebrated the birthday of your country.  There were the usual "happy birthdays" and a bit of the feeling that the whole world celebrates this national holiday of yours.  Normally I would have joined in my own good wishes.  But this time round, you had previously chosen the day of my country's birthday  portray it in a bad light.  It wasn't even something new happening in the news.  And nobody had been bombed, killed, maimed, jailed, hurt.  Just an old bit of news don the day we were celebrating our country's birthday.

You have July 4.  We have July 1.  On July 4 you have fireworks, celebrate the birth of your country and happily receive the congratuations from the world.  On July 1 it iwas our turn.  We had fireworks, we celebrated, and then this here.  Couldn't it have waited?  On a personal level it was disappointing.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 2:34 PM If so, do the Kazachstanis have the right to sue Sacha Baron Cohen before the Human Rights Commission ? Does every group parodied in that movie have such a right, because he made fun of them and subjected them to ridicule ? And what about the "Brüno" movie ? Should it be banned in Canada ?

I still believe there is not enough freedom of speech in the US, although it is in my opinion the freest place I have known. I think people should be able to say absolutely anything they want: but they should also be allowed to sue anybody for slander, if they have legitimate reasons and can prove that something is a lie said with an intention to defame.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 5, 2009 2:10 PM I still believe there is not enough freedom of speech in the US, although it is in my opinion the freest place I have known.

People somehow forget that the French are now also free to shout "Sarkozy, I can see you!" For whatever reason I cannot find anything in English about the fact that the French just released the teacher who had been arrested for that kind of lèse majesté.

L’homme qui avait crié «Sarkozy, je te vois» à des policiers effectuant un contrôle en gare Saint-Charles en février 2008 a été relaxé, vendredi, par le tribunal de police de Marseille. Le juge de proximité qui présidait le tribunal a estimé que le «tapage injurieux diurne troublant la tranquillité d’autrui» reproché à l’auteur des propos n’était pas constitué. Pour le juge, ces paroles lancées à une heure de pointe peuvent être assimilées à la «rumeur normale» de ce type d’endroit. http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/0101577807-relaxe-pour-le-je-te-vois