Tribunals are not Kangaroo Courts. Here’s a link to BC’s decisions this year: http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca/decisions/2009/oct-nov-dec.htm. You will not find any complaints by Warman (I challenge you to even find a section 13 complaint.) You will not find that the tribunal always sides with the complainant. I don’t know what else to tell you. You’re accusations are unfounded. I’ve provided you with links and arguments showing you why you’re mistaken. There’s very little more I can do. *sigh*

The HRC’s are not human rights in Canada. They’re most like a tumor on human rights in Canada, either harmlessly but uselessly parasitic or possibly malignant. Either way getting right of the kangaroo court tribunals is in no way equivalent to getting rid of human rights in Canada. It would probably enhance human rights in Canada.

Bev and the Supreme Court of Canada would be as bound by the legislation as any other adjudicative body. Many of the cases I’ve seen in BC are women getting fired because they’re pregnant. My favorite case involves a store/post office that didn’t allow strollers. Hardly the scary stuff that Kleyn and co. have you all spooked over. Remember, all of these decision are subject to judicial review. If they are so suspect they would be cake to J.R. These aren’t some kind of Star Chambers that have run amok, as much as some have led you to believe.

We don’t need a tribunal that doesn’t abide by normal rules of jurisprudence and uses secret witnesses. Goodness’ sakes, we oppose systems like that when the US uses them to try terrorists. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad can face a civilian court, but it’s too dangerous to have Ezra Levant do so?

Ditch the thing, end prosecutions for speech on the grounds that it’s offensive or hateful, and try people accused of incitement to violence – which is a reasonable place to draw the line with regards to free speech – in normal courts.

I don’t know about the “politeness” bit, though, and anyone who’s listened to a House of Commons debate should reasonably dispute it. It’s more a dislike of extremism that probably comes from not having to deal (at least in the last decade or so) with any major crises.

Second, don’t you think for such a scary monster, having only thirteen free speech complaints is rather meager? Should we look at the groups that our friend Warman was persecuting? Western Canada For Us, the Canadian Nazi Party, and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team. It seems to me like he plucked some low hanging fruit. Which of his victims would you like to exonerate?

I agree with you that the tribunals should be moved into the courts and judiciary proper where they would have more independence and stronger positions. However, unless the legislation that they rule under changes, where they hold court will solve none of the problems.

I think you’re generally right. But one of the reasons US political debate is more vigorous is that it’s more extreme than in Canada. If you look at the Conservative response to the recession, there’s a general consensus that Keynesian spending is the way to go. The Conservatives participated in the auto bailout, because they knew it would wreck a tremendous number of jobs if they wouldn’t. Politics is relatively pragmatic when it comes to the big issues. People are active in the US partly because Bush was so atrocious and large parts of the right wing are so nuts.

Also, Canadian political participation is typically higher than in the US. The 2008 election saw record low turnout (as in, lower than at any point since the 1890s) – and turnout was 58.8%. That’s higher than any recent US election other than 2008, which was a record high for the US.