Ron Paul can do no wrong

So, I know everyone’s pretty excited about the Nazi Leaks. I’ve got the files but haven’t yet managed to figure out how to open them (7zip tells me the files are broken). One thing that’s come out is some degree of connection between Ron Paul’s campaign and organized hate groups (how much connection there is, based on what I’ve seen, is hard to say and I’d encourage fellow people who think Ron Paul’s a scary person to avoid overplaying the hand we’ve been dealt).

Here’s a Canadian connection: some very intelligent young person who the Vancouver Observer may or may not pay to write a blog for them thinks it’s appropriate to compare what’s happening to Ron Paul, with his connections to organized white supremacists (you know, the people who are actually pro-lynching) being revealed to, well, lynching.

Beyond the factual errors (saying the Paul denied knowing about the newsletters without mentioning that he was lying, saying that “Attacks like this one aren’t typical of Anonymous,” when in fact they have a long history of hacking neo-nazi websites, I was really just struck by what a horrific choice of metaphor he chose in the headline. Of course, it’s less overwrought than the one he closes with:

So while the hacking attack was praised earlier this week, it seems like it may not have been a crusade against neo-Nazis.

Instead, it may have been a calculated attempt to crucify Ron Paul.

That’s right, crucifiction. Next time, try throwing in a reference to the holocaust or two.

This is really a pretty typical Ron Paul supporter’s view of the world. If something reflects badly on the good doctor (have I mentioned he’s a doctor?), it must be a deliberate attempt to smear him.

In regard to the whole international same sex marriage thing

From a legal standpoint, I have no idea what’s going on with this, but it’s been really heartening to see the reaction from pretty much everyone that this is ridiculous.

Dealing with comments about Attawapiskat | âpihtawikosisân

Dealing with comments about Attawapiskat | âpihtawikosisân.
I don’t have anything really to add, but this post is really required reading for anyone in Canada.

Another note on section 13

Warren Kinsella, who knows a thing or two about hate groups, seems to agree with me.

He also raises the requirement of the AG consent requirement, which is something I didn’t bring up, and is a good point. I remain unclear on what “enhancements” to the code Bill C-10 actually makes other than the one discussed in yesterday’s post, but I’m skeptical it will do much.

He makes another point, that I think is really worth highlighting:

Offensive expression is offensive – but it isn’t always criminal. The idiots in the Harper government have now created an environment where targets of hateful expression will be obliged to use the criminal law to defend themselves from hate.

The idea that there’s some stuff that’s over the line of being hate speech but not quite so clearly over the line as to merit criminal sanction is an important, nuanced view that, I think, gets lost in the debate. I don’t really think that someone should go to jail, for example, for publishing Hudak’s hate flyers, but I also am not of the view that the Charter gives people the right to publish stuff that is likely to lead to hate violence. Human rights law fills an important gap, here, just as it does in employment law (could you imagine if you had to prove, to a criminal standard, that an employer was discriminating to get any remedy)?

A bit more on Bill C-10

Since I’m actually getting hits from people searching Bill C-10 on Google, let me just say: If you’re doing research on Bill C-10, the place to start is the Canadian Bar Association’s report on the bill.

Hate speech laws

I’m a big supporter of sect 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. What section 13 does is it creates a way for Canadians to enter a complaints-driven, administrative process to deal with hate speech on the internet (or broadcast through other mass-media). The matter will (if it merits it) go before the CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal), which is subject to a level of judicial review that’s pretty appropriate.

Why is this a good idea? Why not let cops deal with hate speech (which is also a crime in the Criminal Code). Well, next time you spot hate speech on the internet, make a call to your local police service (use the non-emergency number, please) and file a complaint. Let me know how it turns out. My experience is that

1. Police can’t be bothered – unless your city is lucky enough to have a dedicated hate crimes division, they simply won’t see this as a priority.

2. The hate speech provisions in the Code make it very difficult to gather enough evidence to successfully charge someone with hate speech.

Human rights Law, on the other hand, carries lower penalties, but also a standard of proof that’s more appropriate to the realities of the internet.

Now, there’s been some talk lately, because it’s looking like the Tories are getting set to repeal section 13.

BigCityLib reacts to the suggestion that the new Omnibus Crime Bill may have a silver lining that, in some ways, might compensate for that loss. I think he`s maybe misunderstanding a big legal difference between the criminal standard of proof and the somewhat modified civil standard of proof to be so optimistic. I think police are far more likely, no matter how you tweak the criminal code, to determine there`s nothing they can do about complaints than the human rights commission. Why, well: 3 reasons:

1. Constitutionally, criminal law requires proof of intent. It`s a principle of fundamental justice that we don`t punish the morally innocent. This is a good thing, but it`s fundamentally different from Human Rights Law, which is concerned with whether or not a violation happened. That`s why you see fairly light penalties for breaking human rights law. It’s also why you see very few prosecutions for the hate speech sections that are already in the Criminal Code. I’d rather see people get hit with fairly light penalties for hate speech than see them get away with it entirely.

Human Rights law starts with a very different set of assumptions: if you’re a publisher or broadcaster (or, in most Human Rights cases, an employer), you have a certain level of responsibility for what you publish or broadcast. As a publisher, you have a certain amount of power and influence, and with that comes a responsibility. If you do publish something that passes a certain threshold in terms of looking like a human rights violation, it’s not unreasonable to reverse the onus, forcing you to actually explain it.This made a lot of sense before the internet made everyone a publisher, but I actually still think it’s a good way for things to work. I don’t think zero cost to publishing means zero responsibility.

2. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means you have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. It`s pretty easy to imagine that, even in cases that look pretty bad, someone could raise a reasonable doubt as to their intentions in linking to hate speech or republishing it.

3. Most Police forces in Canada simply don`t have a lot of expertise on these issues. Remember these comments from the Calgary Police? I honestly don’t trust a police service like that with this kind of responsibility.

BCL also talks about how libel law is dealing with online communication, and asks an interesting question:

My question, though, is how if at all the SC majority decision in the Crookes Case–which seemed to make it OK to link to defamatory speech if the defamation was not repeated in the linking post–will effect this.  After all, one can think of hate speech as group defamation.

The short answer is probably no, although the argument could be made as a sort of analogy. You can conceptualize hate speech as group defamation (and that’s a really useful way to think about it from a freedom of speech perspective), but in a legal sense, I think that you’d be wrong. Civil Defamation law is a common law concept that’s evolved over a couple hundred years, and is largely defined by the courts, not the legislature. Canada’s criminal law is an almost entirely statutory regime. If the statute says publishing a hyperlink is a crime, it’s a crime, whether the court thinks that’s “publishing” or not (I can make an analogy here to drug trafficking laws: it doesn’t matter if a drug dealer has something that would pass legal tests as a binding contract with someone for it to be trafficking). The Court can rule on what level of intent is constitutionally required, and the Crookes decision might be vaguely relevant.

That’s not to say that I can predict how the courts would rule on this sort of thing, but the legal reasoning for any challenge to new hate speech statutes are as likely to come from section 7 challenges  as section 2.

Campaigning

Obama’s ugly options in 2012 – The Washington Post.

Here’s Ezra Klein doing a really smart, data-based takedown of what a lot of commentators are saying about how Obama should approach the 2012 campaign.

My only comment here is that it really seems to me that people want to believe that ideas like empathy and strong narratives win campaigns. The reality is, when you go through the polling that Klein explains here, it really looks like going negative is probably Obama’s best option, and that making the other side look worse is frequently an effective tactic. The fact that Obama ran one of the most successful positive campaigns ever doesn’t mean it’s a feat he’ll be able to pull off as an incumbent.

But nobody wants to have their name in the paper saying “If Obama wants to win, he needs to run the mud-slingingest campaign ever.” It sounds a lot nicer to stay stuff about connecting with Americans.