Tuesday, November 25, 2008

MOON and the National Post have it right!

[Not only does MOON get it right, but the National Post GETS IT RIGHT! I could not agree more. When unelected 'human rights' boards ignore our most fundamental right in a democracy, that of free speech, then it is time they get their wings clipped if not eliminating them entirely. Since they are not subject to the rules of evidence as in a court, they are open to personal demagoguery and board bias which has absolutely NO PLACE in a democracy. Any totalitarian government that has ever come to power came AFTER limiting the right of free speech! Socialistic, fascist or dictatorships; it does not matter, that is how they all start. Thanks to the NP for airing the truth.]

The National Post editorial board states that "The Moon report gets it right"
Posted: November 24, 2008

‘The principal recommendation of this report is that section 13 be repealed so that the censorship of Internet hate speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law.” We can’t recall the last time reading 28 words gave us such an exquisite frisson.

On Monday, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) released a consultant’s report calling for the federal human rights police to lose their power to censor speech on the Internet and in other forms of media. We wholeheartedly concur, and urge the federal government to pass legislation bringing about this change now, rather than waiting until after the drawn-out public consultation process proposed by the CHRC itself.

We will admit we had concerns initially about the ability of Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor, to conduct an impartial review of the commission’s hate speech powers. He had occasionally in the past expressed what might be described as a collectivist view of freedom of expression — one that appeared to put the desire to protect minorities from insult ahead of the individual’s right to speak his or her mind boldly. Before his selection, Prof. Moon had written that speech has a “social character,” with great “potential for harm.” If left unchecked, “it can cause fear, it can harass and it can undermine self-esteem.”

Since this seemed, superficially at least, to concur with the commission’s own view of free speech — that it is less important than protecting politically favoured groups from criticism — we wrote in an editorial last June that we were hopeful Prof. Moon would be unbiased, but were not holding our breath.

But no such political correctness appears in his final report. Indeed, the only form of government censorship Prof. Moon justifies is that against “extreme expression — which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group.” This type of expression, he notes, is already contrary to criminal law — so in this respect, section 13 is redundant.

On the other hand, he reports, policing expression that merely “stereotypes or defames the members of an identifiable group is not a practical option.” If the commission or the government think reducing mean-spirited remarks against minorities is a noble goal, Prof. Moon explains, they should engage in public education rather than investigating those who use objectionable language or images.

Most, if not all, hate speech complaints should be handled by the courts, according to Prof. Moon. This is significant and sensible, since the courts require high burdens on proof and require a higher standard of evidence than human rights tribunals. Moreover, they are staffed by real lawyers — not civil servants who, as we learned during the recent human rights prosecutions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, have little grasp of Canadian constitutional protections.

Limiting anyone’s free speech should be a last-resort measure in a democracy. Since human rights commissions permit hearsay to be admitted as testimony, and do no guarantee defendants a right to face their accusers or challenge evidence presented against them, they afford insufficient protection of defendants’ rights to justify a punishment as drastic as the loss of free speech.

If Parliament does repeal section 13, it will also close an important shortcut around the judicial and political processes. In recent years, special interest and advocacy groups have realized that, despite their lax evidentiary rules and biased procedures, federal and provincial human rights commissions have roughly the same power to coerce citizens as superior courts. Race- and gender-baiting organizations, not to mention Islamist firebrands, have come to see HRCs as a means to punish opponents, or ram through special treatment for their own members, in a way that would be impossible if they had to go through real courts or Parliament.

However welcome Prof. Moon’s report recommendations are, there are signs the CHRC is already seeking to undermine them. Rather than sending the report directly to Parliament, the commission has called for public consultation followed by its own set of recommendations sometime in the middle of next year. This sounds too much like an attempt to water down Prof. Moon’s conclusions.

What is to prevent the commission from using its consultations as a way to marshal special interest groups to oppose the report? Indeed, the commission is eager to keep its role as speech cop. And special interests are similarly eager to keep using the commission to intimidate their critics into silence.

The government needn’t wait. It should use the occasion of Prof. Moon’s report to axe the CHRC’s power to limit free speech now.

National Post

No comments:

VIDEO:Canada Human Rights

VIDEO of CTV PowerPlay Canada Human? Rights Commission?

Iranian S-Elections?

Evolution / Intelligent Design

Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed

I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?

We have become a nation of beggars

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]

POINTS

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:

Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.

To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.

We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.

Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.

Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.

Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.

At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.

And why not?

Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

Educational Purposes Only

All articles quoted here are for educational purposes only. Canada-For-Truth encourages you to read the original articles on their respective sites.
We do not necessarily agree with all links posted here but we include them to bring balance to an unbalanced media.