Just read your analysis seriously. Fucking sharp thinking dude!! Can I call you next time I am caught with my pants down!?

A situation could easily arise wherein an act which
is part and parcel of a certain culture/ethnicity/
religion elsewhere is a serious crime in Canada, BUT
no one would be allowed to speak out against it, since
it would “offend” its practitioners to mention these
acts in a negative light.

“Honor” killings and stoning of adulterers come to mind.
A guilty verdict could actually enrage an excitable
minority to violence, not to mention the crime of
referring to them as “excitable”.

This is only one of the destructive effects of your
collective tolerance of intolerance.

I stand corrected. By your comment re judicial review I take it Steyn does have a right of appeal?

The **civil claim** in question is brought against Steyn under a hate-speech exception that exists in Canadian law.

Just thought I’d point out that this isn’t a civil claim, because the HRC isn’t a court. There are no rules of evidence, the complainant is wholly state funded, while the defendant receives nothing. It also has a 100% track record of finding against defendants. Truth is not a defence, nor is fair comment.

The only reason this has blown up so badly in Canada (and now globally) is because the complainants have gone after a high profile individual with sufficient funds to protect himself. Previous defendants have been ‘little people’ who have had no recourse against a state-funded juggernaut. In a sense, it would be better for Steyn to lose before the HRC, so that the entire raison d’etre of HRCs and the legislation underpinning them can be exposed to judicial review.

NPOV – You’re talking about incitement, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, although all common law jurisdictions have it. It is generally quite sufficient to deal with genuine incitement. The reason preachers – particularly in the US – don’t get caught by it is that they are expected to engage in high-flown and unbelievable rhetoric. Occasionally KKK/Nation of Islam types get pinged for incitement, but the others are generally left alone.

Yet in the U.S., several preachers have got away with doing exactly that, including one who advocating napalming Wiccans.

I think it’s fairly clear that I’m not advocating Steyn’s execution or other punishment, nor anyone else’s.

As for there not being a “right wing” exception, obviously; Rupert Murdoch roams the earth. Nor should there be a national interest (ie in practice ruling party interest) exception, nor a reasonable view (too subjective) exception.

The **civil claim** in question is brought against Steyn under a hate-speech exception that exists in Canadian law. I don’t presume to speak for Ken but I’d guess that he is against that exception, given the heading of the post. I also understand that the claim has not yet been successful. If it is, Steyn likely has appeal rights.

To me, Steyn’s article doesn’t get to the level where recourse should be had to the courts. Maybe there is no such level, then again I’ve never lived in a society where someone was advocating ethnic cleansing to people who were listening.

And again on executing people, what the plaintiff originally asked for was a printed correction of inaccuracies concerning Islam and a right of reply. For mine the journal in question had the right to refuse that as they did, though they should probably have said yes, subject to fact checking the Islamic council’s complaints about accuracy and its contribution.

I’m sure all of Henson’s models are indeed someone’s own children.

As far as anyone advocating the “decidely generate forms of Muslim laws which undeniably cause incredible harm”, then sure, I think there is a place for classifying this as illegal – certainly when the advocating is being done to those with impressionable minds. Of course I don’t see the need for the word “Muslim” in there. If a Christian preacher was found to be strongly advocating the stoning or burning of prostitutes, witches or homosexuals to a wide audience including children, I would have few qualms with his being fined for doing so. No advantages of maintaining the need for free speech are lost by disallowing authority figures to incite crowds to violent or dangerous behaviour.

(And FWIW, from what I’ve read of Mark Steyn, I can’t see much of a case for classifying his behaviour as an example of such.)

There is a reasonable view that anyone advocating communism is advocating one of the most extreme forms of mass misery ever visited on people – should we execute professed communists? What about Muslims advocating the strict and decidedly degenerate forms of Muslim law which undeniably cause incredible harm to the women, children, gays and simple dissenters who live (or, more to the point, die) under them? Execute them too? Would mere exile suffice?

Ken’s point is that there is no ‘right wing’ exception from free speech. I don’t know anyone who thinks that there is not a ‘child porn’ exception. I have, on the other hand, heard of ‘national interest’ and ‘reasonable view’ exceptions. Silly me though, I thought there was a consensus that they were a bad idea, contrary to any conception of meaningful democracy or freedom and only served to help entrench vested interests.

Just to clarify, the question is not whether child porn is (or should be) protected as free speech, but whether Henson’s work was child porn. On that, the better view would appear to be no, but close to the boundary (unless I’ve misinterpreted the apparent consensus that he could die in a ditch sooner than photograph anyone’s own children).

(OTOH, if Henson’s photos were about the sexualisation of highly obese adults (NSFW!), I wonder what the response would be.)

One person advocates war of aggression to a mass audience, presumed to be mostly sane, on behalf of a very powerful government seeking public support, and attempts to stir up ill-feeling towards Muslims as a group. The other makes art that will probably be misinterpreted by people with a particular mental illness, especially now that the censorious have ensured that it’s been brought to their attention.

And so, if one form of expression is a “child protection issue” then so is the other, since both forms of expression may indirectly cause harm, along with my unpublished opinion on Zimbabwe. I’d say, though, that it’s a longer bow to draw from Henson’s art to actual abuse, than from war advocacy to war, or from bigoted speech to bigoted action, for the reasons of intent and intended audience given above.

Patrick, the “standard for child pornography” has not been met, according to police, the classification review board and prosecutors. The original complaint leading to the investigation was not made by Hetty Johnston, but by enraged 2GB listeners. You should perhaps seek your legal opinions elsewhere before accusing anyone of vacuity.

Its a little surprising that…

I guess now you know why! I think this is another blow to the idea of progressive fusionism spreading beyond the handful of exponents on this blog and Andrew Leigh.

Apart from this article, Steyn has advocated the War in Iraq. With complete foreseeability, thousands of children have been killed or maimed.

You mean, ‘besides the point at present, but…’

In any case, please supply details of whether your positions on aboriginal welfare, homelessness and Zimbabwe, for starters. Bear in mind that any approach is very likely to cause extremely foreseeable harm to many children and adults. Feel free to adopt vacuity as a defense.

Hensons models claim to be absolutely fine, thanks.

Because that’s the standard for child pornography. Who knew?

The latter is a free speech issue; the former a child exploitation issue.

Surely this is fairly clear?

Is it?

Apart from this article, Steyn has advocated the War in Iraq. With complete foreseeability, thousands of children have been killed or maimed.

Henson’s models claim to be absolutely fine, thanks.

The latter is a free speech issue; the former a child exploitation issue.

Surely this is fairly clear?

I do not see a connection between Henson and Steyn. The latter is a free speech issue; the former a child exploitation issue.

Say what?

A complaint was made by Hetty Johnson, the police acted believing that a crime was committed (“publishing an indecent article”) and later ceased actions after taking further advice.

A lot of people wondered about how a parent could let a young girl be photographed naked, people including MPs and Senators yet there was no call for punitive action.