“Québec Superior Court judge Honourable Carole Julien has rendered a decision that will potentially discourage independent journalists from investigating and reporting on stories and personalities of public interest – while giving mainstream media a better level of comfort when producing their own work… as the judge believes such professional media possess ‘quality control mechanisms’.”
Quality control? In the professional media? What this amounts to is an attempt to inhibit and silence voices that dispute establishment media propaganda. The freedom of speech is under assault everywhere in the West today; this is another victory for its foes.
“$60,000 fine for blogger who reported on Islamic veil activist,” by Raymond Ayas, The Post Millennial, August 4, 2018:
Québec Superior Court judge Honourable Carole Julien has rendered a decision that will potentially discourage independent journalists from investigating and reporting on stories and personalities of public interest – while giving mainstream media a better level of comfort when producing their own work… as the judge believes such professional media possess “quality control mechanisms”.
Philippe Magnan, an internet blogger promoting the separation of religion and state, was accused of defamation in 2014 by the self-styled feminist activist Dalila Awada, who defended her right to wear Islamic clothing without restrictions at the time the government wanted to legislate on a Charter of Values.
Defendant Magnan was found guilty of defamation in a landmark decision rendered July 10, 2018. He was ordered by Judge Carole Julien to pay the accuser Awada $60,000 plus costs.
Why this case particularly concerns independent media
In her decision, the judge recognizes that the digital age has changed the relationship citizens have with media. She states that anyone can improvise himself a purveyor of information while being free from “traditional regulatory mechanisms”, leaving the quality of information unchecked and to the discretion of those who convey it.
Furthermore, the judge believes that while consumers are responsible to ensure the quality of information by checking the sources and qualifications of those who propose it, this task is often difficult.
Then comes the shocker… or rather shockers.
The judge then states that no evidence of expertise was offered during this trial concerning the existence of mechanisms guaranteeing that information available “on the web” is real and valid when it comes from “citizens”.
The Tribunal finds these mechanisms still remain in the niche of “professional” journalism. Judge Julien then cites a decision of the Quebec Press Council as an obvious example of such mechanisms in action, and deems that no such mechanism protects Awada against Magnan’s publications. Only the protection afforded by the courts remains.
It seems like this judge wants to save Democracy from Fake News.
Is the Quebec Press council a “regulatory mechanism” for all mainstream media?
Membership to the Quebec Press Council is on a voluntary basis. In fact, Quebecor’s various media are not currently members (I called, asked, and have it on tape). Therefore, Quebecor media does not have to abide by the Council’s disciplinary decisions.
Doesn’t that qualify Journal de Montréal and TVA Nouvelles as “fake news”?
If they’re not bound by a code of ethics – if they’re not willfully submitting to disciplinary action – what makes these two mass media owned by Quebecor any different from independent bloggers?
Judge Julien is certain about one thing though: that our democracies are based on a free press of quality, among other things. That’s a direct quote (translated) from paragraph 239 of her judgment cited above. In the same paragraph:
Sites that swarm in the margins of quality control mechanisms are likely to spread false news, unverified theories without foundations. The dissemination of false information is a greater danger than the muzzling of the press for our democracies. A good example of this prejudice lies in the factual background of this case.
So, the problem is the facts…
What did Magnan do wrong?
There are three ways to defame someone, as set out by the Supreme Court judgment of Prud’homme vs Prud’homme, quoted by Judge Julien:
- a person maliciously makes unpleasant remarks about another, knowing them to be false and with intention to harm;
- a person spreads unpleasant things about someone else, when he should have known them to be false, i.e. didn’t do the research any reasonable person would have done, because if he doubted the truth of the information he would refrain from giving it out;
- a scandalmonger makes unfavourable – but true – statements about another person without any valid reason for doing so.
I researched a sample of what Magnan produced. From what I saw, this guy is sharp. His work appeared to be equal to or better than any investigative reporting I’ve seen, ever. I’m not contradicting the judge though. I do not have any training in law or journalism, and I did not appreciate the entirety of the evidence like the Honourable Carole Julien could.
However, the judge does recognize that Magnan spent a significant amount – if not all – of his time and energies on this matter. This bars the second situation – not doing enough research.
Although it is possible that Magnan is a complete idiot. He may have researched extensively in good faith, while (being a total idiot) incorrectly interpreting his own discoveries.
Idiot or not, by doing the research he does not qualify for defamation as per situation #2.
It’s not situation #3, either. That case assumes not having a valid reason for spreading nasty truths about someone. He did. That’s because Bill 60 had been tabled by the Quebec government, and that bill specifically addressed the issue of wearing the veil in public (while voting, taking a picture for state-issued identification, etc.). The issue was definitely of public interest, and Awada was the poster-girl for the pro-veil camp. Fair game.
That leaves only one choice: malicious intent to harm knowing that one is spreading lies.
In her ruling, the judge determined that Magnan’s articles were full of lies and half-truths, went beyond the scope of public discussion, attacked Awada personally, and repeatedly discredited and humiliated her.
Bingo.
Magnan’s investigative reporting is not totally a web of lies however
There’s a fair bit of truth in what he reported. I checked it out. I’m not disagreeing with the judge; like I said, I didn’t research everything. There must be a thousand articles to read in there. I picked what caught my eye. Major things, I think.
Magnan related the following verifiable facts:
- By her own admission, Dalila Awada regularly frequented the Centre Communautaire Musulman de Montréal;
- Cheikh Ali Sbeiti, a follower of Ayatollah Khomeini, was the imam of that mosque at that time;
- The mosque became notorious for its veiling ceremonies in which 9 and 10 year-old girls would don the Islamic garb under the acclamations of the Shiite community (EDIT- the holding of veiling ceremonies at said mosque was hitherto unknown to the public; it is through Magnan’s investigation that light was shed on the practice) ;
- Ali Sbeiti gave conferences on “Islamic fundamentals” and the wearing of the veil at the Bridges Association;
- Awada also participated as a speaker at the Bridges Association,
- both Sbeiti and Awada got regular coverage in Sada al-Mashrek, a pro-Khomeini publication which celebrates the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini (see page 29 of link) and the regime of the Ayatollahs. “Sada al Mashrek” means “The Echo of the Levant” and is the very serious paper of Montreal Shiites.
Awada admitted participating in what Magnan alleged but claimed she did it only for the social aspects, and argued she did not pledge allegiance to fundamentalist groups. The judge acknowledges this in paragraph 31 of her judgment.
In essence, Magnan connected Awada with Shiite Islamic fundamentalists and their networks, and the judge took offense to that.
In addition, Magnan considered Awada to be a “midinette” of the Islamic veil. In English, “midinette” translates to “silly young girl”. Although Magnan believes the plaintiff to be sincere in her desire to please God by wearing the veil, he maintains she is being used as an unwitting poster girl of Islam by hidden forces promoting Sharia.
Magnan’s question “who are the the turbans behind these veils” is symbolic of his purpose: to expose the Islamic power networks operating in Quebec by discovering the relationships between few but very influential people.
Clearly, Magnan believes that submitting Western women to the Islamic veil is an easier sell when it comes from a pretty young woman. That she is too naïve to see it makes the sell even more convincing. The judge found this qualification humiliating and sexist.
Legal representation: it’s who you know when you don’t have the dough
While Magnan had a lawyer help him prepare his case, he acted alone during the trial because he could not afford representation, as he declared to me in an interview last week. Awada was represented pro-bono by Me Marie-Hélène Dubé of Goldwater Dubé and Me David Grossman of IMK.
When filing the lawsuit, lawyer and television personality Anne-France Goldwater declared to the media that Awada “demystifies the message that not all Moslems carry bombs on their backs”.
Exactly Magnan’s point.
Awada’s image was to be a recurring theme in the judicial proceedings, as the judge remarked that the young woman is “brilliant, articulate, of remarkable beauty, wearing her colorful and becoming veil with elegance”.
Magnan, for his part, made the case that Awada’s seductive and reassuring image is key in selling the veil as a question of women’s free choice, as opposed to an obligation imposed by the patriarchy of Islamic oppression.
Historical context: the Charter of Values, media, and what Magnan was doing
Religious symbols were polarizing the political landscape in 2013, and Quebec society had not found satisfactory solutions to increasing demands from religious minorities. In order to work out these issues, the government had introduced Bill 60 to the Legislature, titled Charter affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests. In short, this bill was referred to as the Charter of Values.
Dalila Awada was invited to Tout le monde en parle, the most watched television show in Quebec. Her appearance catapulted her into the public spotlight on an issue of public interest. Awada soon became the target of social media commentary and a great many news articles.
One of the websites which took interest in her was postedeveille.ca which was operated by Magnan. The site was developing a map of Islamic networks, a unique endeavor in Québec to this day. As discussed above, his purpose was to identify the power structures within Quebec’s Moslem communities at a time where Sharia law was a daily subject of conversation.
Magnan held a Master’s in Communication from Université de Montréal and was employing an analytical method which distinguished between public speech (words used) and networks which create public works (community centers, schools, mosques, logos).
So what did he do wrong? (bis)
First, I believe Magnan, despite being exceptionally bright, should have hired a lawyer. That is not a reflection on the justice system or his capacity to make an argument. It’s simply a question of measuring up to an opponent employing two extremely talented lawyers. He was not on equal footing.
Second, Magnan, the Master’s degree in Communication, worked as an independent journalist, regardless of the words used… reporter, blogger, journalist, whatever.
That was not enough qualification to poke around, ask questions, and write editorials in a blog. He just wasn’t working for Radio-Canada or another member of the Quebec Press Council.
Maybe the judge is right, and we all need checks and balances. Perhaps all media should be subjected to the Quebec Press Council. We may be horrified or appreciate the idea – but that’s not up to a judge to decide. Judges shouldn’t make laws. That’s what democracy is all about: we vote for people who make laws in Parliament.
Yet, judges do create law through jurisprudence, and that’s why this judgment should trouble the reader of this text: it means any media based out of Quebec – and potentially Canada, if it reports on Quebec issues – can no longer operate without automatically being suspected of being “fake news”.
It means bad reporting from Radio-Canada can go to a disciplinary hearing at the the Press Council for a slap on the wrist, but bad reporting from ThePostMillennial.com or DixQuatre.com goes straight to court.
That’s why Philippe Magnan must appeal this judgment. He has 30 days from July 10th to file. That gives anyone who wishes to encourage him with a few dollars just one week to contribute to his crowd funding campaign. He’s carrying the ball for independent journalism in Canada today. Let’s not leave him hanging out to dry.
mortimer says
The STATE must not be allowed to decide what is true and false … because that ASSUMES that the STATE is INFALLIBLE and it is NOT INFALLIBLE.
A slander case cannot be brought by the STATE on behalf of someone else. It is up to the person allegedly slandered to bring the law suit.
THIS IS A TEST CASE FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES.
This JUDGE is an ENEMY OF FREE SPEECH who should be fired.
Andy says
Greatest freak show on earth.
Gerald Celente Interview: Deep State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ZqweMxCDk
Terry Gain says
Mortimer
You should read this decision before shouting your opinion. The case is a civil case.
gravenimage says
Terry, even in a civil case it is the state that makes the decision.
Terry Gain says
GI
The decision was made by a Judge. Who else would you expect to make the decision in a lawsuit? The Court did not fine the defendant. It awarded damages. The government played no part in the Judge’s decision. As in America, once appointed Judges are indecent of the government. Any attempt at political inference would be considered contempt of court.
No one can offer an opinion as to whether the Judgment was reasonable without reading the case.
Terry Gain says
In my post below the word independent was auto-changed to indecent.
mortimer says
Yes, GI, in Canada the judges are APPOINTED by the PRIME MINISTER. Do not think that they are not POLITICIZED.
J D S says
I know little about the law in this incident but it seems to me that he should be judged by his peers (jury) and the judge should only be a referee and the jury decided not the judge. But when the state is using you..what chance is there.
gravenimage says
Terry, this is still the power of the state. If the state were not involved, then this decision would just be an opinion, and would have no teeth.
Phil Copson says
“…The Court did not fine the defendant. It awarded damages…”
——————————————————————————–
A difference without a distinction; and what possible harm has come to Dalila Awada that merits a $60,000 pay-out – and how will having $60,000 in her bank account restore it ?
The truth is that she and her cause by actually benefited enormously from this case and the restrictions on criticism and open-discussion that the virtue-signalling judge has engendered – so maybe she and her friends should be paying Mr Magnan ?
What “traditional regulatory mechanisms” exist to protect the citizens of Canada from the political philosophies espoused by the Khomeini-supporting Montreal newspaper “Sada al-Mashrek” in which Awada regularly appears ?
What “mechanism” does the judge think will save democracy from it’s followers ?
Support for the murderous theocracy of Iran is no more acceptable than supporting Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin or Chairman Mao – how much more reputational damage has Awada suffered through being featured regularly in such a publication ? How many multiples of $60,000 will she claim from them ?
Still, now that Judge Julien has taken it on herself to protect the good people of Canada from “unverified theories without foundation” – can we expect her to impose financial penalties on people preaching from the Koran ?
Because there’s absolutely no doubt that – to borrow from her own words: “The dissemination of…” – (this particular book of) – “…false information is a …..danger…. for our democracies.”
gravenimage says
Fine post, Phil.
Rarely says
Mortimer.
The STATE did not decide what was true or false — a Justice of the Supreme Court of Quebec did.
Things are a bit different in Quebec since they do not use the Common Law system applicable in the rest of Canada and, I believe, is used in the US.
The Judge made, as a finding of FACT, that there was defamation in this case. Case closed.
The Judge is perfectly correct in being vary wary about the quality of the “news sites” on the Net and the total lack of supervision of them. The distribution of toxic lies, half-truths and ultra-toxic defamatory so-called “opinions” on the Net have reached epidemic proportions.
You bet these sites have to be reined in. Any idiot can create his/her own “news” site.
Every “Freedom” carries with it both responsibilities and restrictions (e.g. one can’t shout “FIRE!!” in a crowded theatre unless there really is one). Laws regarding Defamation and Hate Speech are two examples of the limitations on Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech.
On this site (JihadWatch) we constantly see opinions based on incredible misinformation, idiotic conspiracy theories, personal biblical interpretations and deep vile hatred. An unfettered Internet is way more dangerous than anything the MSM has done.
Personally, I am grateful for these laws (against Defamation and Hate Speech) and welcome ones yet to come that will stop the Internet from being the playground of every bigot and mischief maker.
GrumpyMel says
Sorry the United States is not a totalitarian state and Canada did not used to be one either. If you want live somewhere that the government exercises authority over what can be said and heard… North Korea is -> that way.
Rarely says
Grumpy.
Unfortunately the trouble makers of today (thanks to the Internet) have the ability to do damage that would make Hitler and Attila the Hun envious. Solutions, other than sticking one’s head in the sand, will have to be found. I don’t like it any better than you do.
gravenimage says
Criticizing Islam does not make one a trouble maker.
mortimer says
The Western world has fought SEVERAL WARS over the issue of FREEDOM. We will not give in now to unelected bureaucrats telling us what to read.
I know free speech lawyers who will disagree with the decision, but I am not a lawyer myself. Nonetheless, there are already sufficient laws to protect people from defamation.
The STATE does not have the wisdom to decide what is true. The market place will find the answers to tough questions through vigorous and NON-DEFERENTIAL debate.
In this case, the judge has DEFERRED to supposed PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS, whereas, we can see those JOURNALISTIC PROFESSIONALS have shown EXTREME BIAS, LACK OF PREPARATION and in many cases a complete AVOIDANCE OF COGENT FACTS.
Many in the media should be sued for PROFESSIONAL INCOMPETENCE in the matter of JIHAD TERRORISM.
They have AVOIDED LEARNING ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the ISLAMIC PRIMARY TEXTS that are the source of JIHAD DOCTRINE.
MORE CENSORSHIP IS NOT THE ANSWER … HONESTY IN JOURNALISM should be enforced by the BUYERS … not the JUDGES.
STAY OUT OF THE CENSORSHIP RACKET !!!
Rarely says
You’re saying that the marketplace should determine what is true or false? Honesty in journalism should be enforced by the buyers? And who is going to determine when they are being honest or not? How do the “buyers” know when they’re being lied to?
Maybe you don’t care. Just let misinformation, racist hatred, violence incitement run around unchecked except by the “buyers”. i.e. chaos. Susan B. might believe you’re a front man for the NWO.
mortimer says
Accuracy In Media (AIM) is an American non-profit news media watchdog founded in 1969 by economist Reed Irvine. AIM describes itself as “a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.”
mortimer says
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a media criticism organization based in New York City.[1] The organization was founded in 1986 by Jeff Cohen and Martin A. Lee.[2] FAIR describes itself as “the national media watch group”.[
gravenimage says
Rarely, this judge still represents the power of the state. The judge is not just a private citizen stating an opinion. And the biggest point is that *enforcing* this decision is backed by the power of the state.
This blogger cannot just decide that the verdict is ridiculous and ignore it.
Necrophage says
Ack! You beat me to it.
Rarely says
Gravenimage
As has already been pointed out to you the judge is totally independent of the state. He/she cannot be removed from the bench or otherwise punished or controlled by the government Furthermore superior court judges are not elected but appointed so there is no one to please
You have decided that the “verdict is ridiculous”. So I presume that you have read the judgement and not just the summary by the Post Millenial and that, in light of the law, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Prud’homme case, and with unbiased eyes have concluded that the trial judge was in error.
Maybe you are right and there will be an appeal.. What’s the error?
Necrophage says
I’m sorry, but a judge is most certainly an agent of the State with authority to speak for the State. If they weren’t, no one would have to abide by their decisions.
Rarely says
Not so. They are as totally independent of the state as possible. They have the authority to force the state to enforce their actions. They certainly don’t speak for the state. Period.
PATRICIA KOENIG says
A judge is part of the government…the part called the judicial branch.
gravenimage says
Necrophage and Patricia, you are quite correct.
The judiciary is most certainly part of the government. An independent judiciary just means that other governmental branches cannot meddle in the judiciary–not that it is not part of the government itself.
If you are summoned to appear in court you cannot simply ignore it–and if you try the state will indeed enforce your summons. And if one is found guilty of a crime, the state is going to enforce that sentence, as well.
If they did not, no one would ever go to jail.
Phil Copson says
“…. we constantly see opinions based on incredible misinformation…..”
——————————————————————————————
such as your subsequent comment that: “….trouble makers of today (thanks to the Internet) have the ability to do damage that would make Hitler and Attila the Hun envious.” for instance ?
Seems pretty “incredible” to me….
The Greek says
You are a fool. They’re is no such thing as hate speech. If you are so reviled by Jihad Watch – then do not read it. History is replete with opinions and facts that daring men have come up with. Media is somewhat of a new thing in the scope of humanity. Let us not forget – opinions are like assholes every one hasone. Yours unfortunately falls apart at the way side…
Joe says
So only rich men such as Carlo Slim, owns the New York Times, or Jeff Bezon, owns the Washington Post are allowed to have an opinion? If you believe that, then why do you offer your opinion? Do you have enough money to do that? Have you not seen cases where the MSM distorts the truth? Or better, have you seen a case where they told the truth?
The Judge says that media outlets, who are exclusively controlled by the masters of the universe, is valid news. She says that this guy is not rich enough to have valid news.
The Muslim who won the award says that she is a victim, but she can’t quite put her finger on how she was misrepresented. Yet, you think this is a good decision!
Bob A. Booey says
it’s Carlos, not Carlo and it’s Bezos, not Bezon.- genius
gravenimage says
True, Joe.
KWJ says
Rarely, the mainstream media does lots of damage. They report all sorts of wrong information and don’t always admit their errors. The remedy is worse than the disease.
As far as hate speech, that is ambiguous. What exactly does it refer to? Saying something mean about someone based on any number of things? What about people who falsely accuse people of being racists or Islamophobic when you have a good argument for whatever you’re saying. I saw something in England with ridiculous “signs of hate speech” such as saying Islam is violent, calling Islam an ideology, and so on. It’s tolalitatianism. I was never for labeling crimes as hate crimes since it could lead to many crimes from X person’s perspective. Is rape a hate crime? Likewise with hate speech which is sliding down a slippery slope fast. Both designations should be abolished.
There was a Muslim man I saw on video who spoke before the Quebec parliament and he was advocating for legal punishments for insulting Muhammad. He also complained about all the anti-Islam websites and that should be shut down. Attacking bloggers is what happens in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. In Bangladesh it’s Muslims who attack bloggers-some have gotten their fingers chopped off, they’ve murdered atheists, a music teacher. It’s like blasphemy laws that a government enforces such as in Pakistan which vigilantes “enforce” or lie. By a government supporting these laws it encourages people to lie about whether a person truly did or did not say this or that. People get killed before they even go to court. Sometimes they just don’t like a person.
I see this case as worrisome. There are bloggers who are much better than many mainstream journalists, most of whom are reined in by their company.
How do you propose to rein in, as you say, what people say online? Based on what media companies are doing, it’s pretty clear what the danger is.
mortimer says
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. -Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
gravenimage says
Mortimer, surely you are aware that Muslims have negated every human right–including freedom of speech–with the appalling “The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam”?
mortimer says
The TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT is a PACK of BLATANT HYPOCRITES who forbid the ordinary citizen to criticize Islam, while the Trudeau government is now CRITICIZING SHARIA LAW IN SAUDI ARABIA … the home of Islam and leader of the Islamic world. What a SLAP IN THE FACE FOR ISLAM !!!
HYPOCRITES!
The Trudeau Pollyanna’s believe that “It isn’t ‘Islamophobia’ when WE DO IT.”
However, ordinary citizens who do what TRUDEAU did will be FINED and JAILED.
Rarely says
Mortimer.
This case has nothing – zero, zip, zilch – to do with Trudeau.
SAE says
Québec Superior Court judge Honourable Carole Julien has rendered a decision that will potentially discourage independent journalists from investigating and reporting on stories and personalities of public interest – while giving mainstream media a better level of comfort when producing their own work…
……………………………
Honourable???
Rarely says
SAE.
Honourable? You bet.
The internet permits any idiot to call him/herself an “independent journalist” and publish any garbage he/she wishes. Should this be discouraged? Not just discouraged but criminalized. She is 100% correct here in her comments.
I am in no position to argue whether she was correct in finding that there was Defamation here but I certainly approve of her reasoning.
Terry Gain says
Rarely
You are correct that a lot of nonsense and vicious lies are posted on the Internet. It’s one of the reasons why I think everyone should use their real name.
You are wrong about hate speech. It is s censorship tool of the powerful.
And you are naive about the objectivity and professionalism of the MSM. They obviously have their agendas. Your naïveté is surprising considering that you are Canadian and the CBC spins everything left. And has been doing so for 50 years.
Rarely says
Terry.
I don’t think we fundamentally disagree.
The CBC is a joke. Nuff said.
I am not a great fan of the MSM whose opinions have always been somewhat tainted although usually diverse (one paper is Republican and another is Democrat) but the usual defamation laws can keep them relatively in line. That is, relative to the news sources on the Internet. Is the MSM largely intellectually dishonest and pursue its own agendas? Sure and that’s a problem. But with so many people getting their news off the internet (and it’s increasing dramatically) and the fact that any idiot can claim to be an “investigative reporter” and “report” nothing but lies under a pretty mast head without any scrutiny whatsoever I see that as a greater problem.
“Hate Speech” laws are, as you suggest, dangerous and will inevitably censor more than just true “hate speech” but what do you see as an alternative?
I believe that, unfortunately, the Internet’s breadth and potential must be reined in (likely by redefining Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression) to prevent “fake” news from being the only news.
I don’t really know where I’m going with this but when I see manufactured garbage masquerading as “fact” or “news” coming from Gaza and the easily disseminated hatred the muslim/arab world has plagued the Internet with (as examples) I see us as losing the information war — big time. AND I don’t like it.
Suggestions?
mortimer says
-“The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert H. Jackson, prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials
-Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “…it is enough to point out that the state has no
legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful
to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real
or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
-Justice Frankfurter noted that beliefs that are “…dear to one may seem the rankest ‘sacrilege’ to another,” and added concerning “sacrilegious” speech: “…history does not encourage reliance on the wisdom and moderation of the censor.”
-“We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious right guaranteed by Constitution,” a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said, adding “we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide. We are 1280 million people and there would be 1280 million views. One is free not to accept the view of others”. Also the court said that it is a matter of perception, and a statement objectionable to a person might be normal to another person. – Supreme Court of India
– In Sudan, an article considered offensive to the Prophet in the Al-Wifaq newspaper in 2005 led a Sudanese court to close the publication for three months. On August 6, 2006, Islamists decapitated Al-Wifaq’s editor.
-“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” – Harry S. Truman
-Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err.
– Mohandas Gandhi
-If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell
gravenimage says
Rarely, you want to shut down every blogger? Do you not care that this would silence Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, as well?
I take just the opposite stance.
I think that so long as someone is not inciting violence that the have the right to say whatever they want–even things I completely disagree with and that may be objectively false.
For instance, I find your cavalier support for the state crushing freedom of speech to be both repugnant and quite dangerous–but I fully support your having the right to say it.
In my opinion, the antidote to toxic or false speech is more freedom of speech–that we can counter harmful speech, exactly as I am doing in this post.
Andy says
Freedom of speech
Alex Jones On Michael Savage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhIN6u79DRY
gravenimage says
Yes, Andy–I am no real fan of Alex Jones, who is a 9/11 “Truther” among other things–but I am disturbed to see his freedom of speech shut down. I’ve noted that here before several times in the last few days here.
Andy says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfQvcXkLxfw
Rarely says
gravenimage
What is a 9/11 “Truther”?
Rarely says
Gravenimage.
So I must assume that you would find it permissible to put Mein Kampf on the Internet. It would be perfectly okay to call for the extermination of muslims in America. It would be alright to denigrate blacks, Chinese or whatever as inferior and outrageously fabricate statistics to prove it. It would be perfectly permissible to photoshop a picture showing Trump in bed with a male prostitute or two.
Is there nothing you would ban?
You say as long as they are not inciting violence. So you are in favour of censorship on the Internet. We are just disagreeing on where to draw the line.
mortimer says
RARELY… don’t you know? Mein Kampf is on the internet:
https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt
Rarely says
Mortimer.
Yes I know Mein Kampf is on the Internet AND available in some book stores. It’s the poster boy for hate literature. Personally I believe it should be banned. 50,000,000 to 55,000,000 people would agree if they had survived WWII. Do you???
gravenimage says
Rarely wrote:
gravenimage
What is a 9/11 “Truther”?
……………………….
A 9/11 “Truther” is someone who does not believe–or pretends not to believe–that 9/11 was an act of Islamic terrorism.
While there are variants, the most common scenario is someone saying that George Bush or Mossad pulled off 9/11 in order to make Muslims look bad.
You find claims like the Twin Towers coming down by controlled explosions or no plane hitting the Pentagon.
Some of them don’t believe that Jihad terror exists at all.
I’m surprised you have never heard of this. We get “Truthers” here at Jihad Watch every so often.
More:
Gravenimage.
So I must assume that you would find it permissible to put Mein Kampf on the Internet.
……………………….
I don’t believe that keeping people in utter ignorance of what Fascism was or what it did keeps us safer, as you appear to be advocating.
The fact is that while Mein Kampf is available–albeit rather hard to find–good people regularly condemn its ugly contents. In the same way, I don’t want to see the Qur’an banned or owning it to be criminalized.
In this case, all Infidels would remain in ignorance of what this book says, and people like Robert Spencer–and myself–would wind up in jail.
But Muslims would not care that owning it was illegal, and they would continue to read it.
More:
It would be perfectly okay to call for the extermination of muslims in America.
……………………….
What part of “I think that so long as someone is not inciting violence that the have the right to say whatever they want” did you miss? Of course, this is inciting violence.
More:
It would be alright to denigrate blacks, Chinese or whatever as inferior and outrageously fabricate statistics to prove it. It would be perfectly permissible to photoshop a picture showing Trump in bed with a male prostitute or two.
……………………….
I find all of these things abhorrent, but do not believe that they should be banned–no. Good people can and should counter such falsehoods.
More:
Is there nothing you would ban?
You say as long as they are not inciting violence. So you are in favour of censorship on the Internet. We are just disagreeing on where to draw the line.
……………………….
I made it very clear where my line is–you seem to be in favor of crushing most freedom of speech, including–disturbingly–this blogger for daring to speak out against forced child veiling.
That’s one of the main problem with crushing freedom of speech–is assuming that the authorities will only crush the freedom of speech you yourself disapprove of.
This is rarely the case.
For instance, Nazi Germany heavily censored speech, art, and opinion–but Mein Kampf was readily available.
You may not have realized this, but most societies that heavily censor speech and other forms of expression are not places where most of us would ever want to live.
Nazi Germany is one example, and Shari’ah states are another.
gerard says
WARNING: THIS STUFF IS COMING TO AMERICA.
Bill says
It is here already.. Alex Jones was the first. This site will be gone soon enough. I laugh at this Judge’s presumption about the quality of mainstream news self-regulation. They lie repeatedly. They are negligent, Behind all of this is the supreme elitist mindset of this judge; that somehow an independent person, not affiliated with a corporate or government owned organization, is not capable of observing, finding a fact and reporting on something or construing results from a review of information. No, says the judge, that is something only a professional can do. What nonsense.
Heck, if that is the standard, why not just ditch the jury system?
elee says
Canada has no problem with Muslims calling for the killing of all the Jews in the world but rushes to this jihadist’s aid? And I was just thinking kind thoughts about Canada for standing up to the Saudis.
gravenimage says
I was thinking just the same thing, elee.
Terry Gain says
The article in the Post Millenial refers to a fine of $60,000.00 but I think this is a civil defamation case and the $60,000.00 was a damage award.. The award of costs is indicative of a civil case.
The discussion about the blogger’s credentials and safeguards seems to me irrelevant. The issue is whether his articles were defamatory. One would have to read the case itself to form a reasonable opinion on the matter.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Muslim+woman+sues+damages+after+hateful+messages+over+charter+debate/9809131/story.html
Terry Gain says
I missed this paragraph on first reading.
……..
Defendant Magnan was found guilty of defamation in a landmark decision rendered July 10, 2018. He was ordered by Judge Carole Julien to pay the accuser Awada $60,000 plus costs.
…,,,,,,
This is clearly a civil case.
gravenimage says
It is still enforced by the power of the state.
infidel says
Meanwhile in RUSSIA… ISIS inspired Grand Theft Auto gang members (Muslims), who killed and robbed motorists in the most horrific manner, SENTENCED FOR LIFE… Putin hints at terror angle.
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/moscow-gta-gang-members-sentenced-to-life-for-roadside-murders-62483
gravenimage says
Well, this is a good thing. Unfortunatetly, Putin has also allowed Chechnya to impose brutal Shari’ah law on Russian soil.
infidel says
More on the MOSCOW GTA gang.. Possible ISIS links
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/putin-hints-at-terrorism-media-at-isis-as-roadside-killers-caught-41152
infidel says
In Russia, outside of the North Caucasus, there have been instances of Islamists acting like ‘typical gangsters’ since 2003 — there was a group of jihadists in Ulyanovsk that was robbing truck drivers and killing them, and a similar group around Moscow in 2012 or 2013,” Engelhardt told The Moscow Times, adding that such groups were not unlike the Boston bombers in the sense that they don’t have any particular training or belong to any major terrorist group.
The group mentioned by Engelhardt, which simply called itself “Jamaat,” saw 10 of its members sent to prison in 2005 for various acts of violence against “infidels.”
Engelhardt said the group currently described in Russian media reports as the GTA gang had all the hallmarks of an Islamist religious sect that had successfully radicalized its members.
“This is how it works: The disciples are told that they are surrounded by infidels or ‘bad’ Muslims who aren’t adhering to the requirements of their religion, and attacks on and robberies of infidels are then considered part of fulfilling their religious duty,” Engelhardt said.
As for the earlier reports of the so-called GTA killers stealing objects from their victims, Engelhardt said this was also typical of such groups.
“The activities of the group are considered jihad, and the spoils are their battle trophies,” he said.
gravenimage says
Yes–Jihad is more of a threat all the time in Russia. Very disturbing.
brane pilot says
The UK and W Europe is already down the tubes.
Canada is circling the bowl.
Terry Gain says
Rarely says
Aug 9, 2018 at 1:49 pm
Terry.
I don’t think we fundamentally disagree.
The CBC is a joke. Nuff said.
I am not a great fan of the MSM whose opinions have always been somewhat tainted although usually diverse (one paper is Republican and another is Democrat) but the usual defamation laws can keep them relatively in line. That is, relative to the news sources on the Internet. Is the MSM largely intellectually dishonest and pursue its own agendas? Sure and that’s a problem. But with so many people getting their news off the internet (and it’s increasing dramatically) and the fact that any idiot can claim to be an “investigative reporter” and “report” nothing but lies under a pretty mast head without any scrutiny whatsoever I see that as a greater problem.
“Hate Speech” laws are, as you suggest, dangerous and will inevitably censor more than just true “hate speech” but what do you see as an alternative?
I believe that, unfortunately, the Internet’s breadth and potential must be reined in (likely by redefining Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression) to prevent “fake” news from being the only news.
I don’t really know where I’m going with this but when I see manufactured garbage masquerading as “fact” or “news” coming from Gaza and the easily disseminated hatred the muslim/arab world has plagued the Internet with (as examples) I see us as losing the information war — big time. AND I don’t like it.
Suggestions?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rarely
So long as someone is not threatening someone with violence. or urging others to do so. hate apeech should be allowed. The remedy is better speech. As far as defamation is concerned the civil law is an adequate remedy though i think that in the United States the Sullivan case was wrongly decided.
The best way to eliminate lies is for blogs to require people to use their real names. That of course would reduce traffic.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Terry.
Rarely says
Terry Gain.
It seems that most of us agree that some things (e.g. inciting violence) should be censored. The question is where to draw the line.
It is terribly difficult (almost impossible) to fight a defamation action against something put on the Internet if only because the harmed party is likely in a different jurisdiction than the offending party.
Certainly if everyone used their own names there would be much less offensive garbage on the net. Logistically though it wouldn’t be enough because although there may only be one “Terry Gain” in your town there are likely hundreds in the US alone.
Before the Internet it was somewhat difficult to get bomb making directions. Racist beliefs could be passed on by word of mouth or pamphlets — not very efficient. The same for outrageous conspiracy theories. Now they are the norm and the most despicable garbage can reach millions in a flash and with little , if any, expense.
Inevitably there will be some sort of crackdown. Not very appealing. I have possibly broken Canada’s Hate Speech Laws (they are somewhat draconian) on this site and I can see the Canadian gov’t demanding JW provide them with my identity so they can prosecute. It’s very scary.
Any suggestions?
gravenimage says
Rarely wrote:
Certainly if everyone used their own names there would be much less offensive garbage on the net.
……………………
I’m an artist who draws Muhammed cartoons. Rarely surely knows that those who have done so have been targeted for murder.
Cartoonist Molly Norris, who began “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day”, was told by the FBI that they could not protect her, and she had to change her name and go into hiding.
Is that *really* what you want for those here who are unable to afford round the clock security?
Rarely says
Of course not. And I don’t object to anonymity on the net but it is a two edged sword.
I am pleased with the open discussion we are all having here on the topic of censorship on the Net and hope it will continue. I understand the Freedom of Speech arguments and basically agree with them although it may not appear so. The case at hand illustrates problems with it on the Net. Any self-styled “investigative reporter” can make defamatory comments without much risk. In this case a minor award of $60,000 threatens to make him bankrupt. Any award against the MSM would be enforceable and would likely hurt both reputation and credibility. Also the MSM is easily located and vulnerable to intimidation. They are careful to the point of paranoia. We expect the MSM to show more courage than they do. “If you don’t like the heat stay out of the kitchen”.
Have a nice day.
gravenimage says
Rarely, you say that this blogger made defamatory comments about this Muslimah and that he deserves to be bankrupted by the $60,000 award.
You have never once said why you believe that saying forced child veiling is a bad thing deserves to ruin the critic.
*I* think that forced child veiling is a bad thing–as do, I’m sure, most of us here at Jihad Watch. Do we all deserve to be ruined for daring to speak out against Islamic savagery? Or do you consider forced child veiling a special protected exception? If so, why?
Vicky says
I read the story on The Post Millenial. The link provided for helping to fund his very important appeal (Indiegogo) is non functional.
Anyone who wants to help, even $10 will help, should go to this link: https://www.paypal.me/phmagnan
gravenimage says
Thank you, Vicky.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
I can’t comment. I don’t know the Napoleonic Code.
But tort law defamation should have a strong accent on a defense of the truth. This probably won’t stand up to an appeal, if the poor bugger has the money for one.
gravenimage says
Canada: $60,000 fine for blogger who reported on Islamic veil activist
………………..
This is *appalling*. Being fined by the state for revealing the truth. Crushing of freedom of speech. How Canada has gone astray.
Terry Gain says
GI
It wasn’t a fine. It was a damage award. Robert should update his post to correct it.
gravenimage says
It was still imposed by the state.
James Lincoln says
I believe that the only reason that Muslim women wear the burqa / niqab / hijab in Western countries is to display superiority – and irritate the people of the host country.
And it also keeps them from getting raped by Muslim grooming gangs.
gravenimage says
+1
Terry Gain says
I would imagine they also wear these ugly costumes to demonstrate their piety and please their husband.
gravenimage says
Yes–or just avoid being killed by him. Same applies to Muslim fathers.
Rarely says
Perhaps we should review the law that permits nuns and Hutterites to wear ugly costumes. Come to think of it I don’t like the ugly costumes nurses wear.
Personally I couldn’t care less what they wear as long as the face isn’t covered. It used to be illegal to wear a mask.
gravenimage says
Nuns are not murdered for not wearing the wimple. Muslimahs often are for eschewing the Hijab.
le mouron rouge says
Bay Area Professor Who Assaulted 7 Conservatives with Bike Lock Gets Probation
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/09/bay-area-professor-who-assaulted-7-conservatives-with-bike-lock-gets-probation/
I wonder what the ruling would have been if the situation had been reversed???
Isn’t tolerance wonderful?
gravenimage says
Appalling–I hadn’t even heard about this story, and I live here. He should be fired and serve jail time.
Thanks for the link.
Arthur says
Since time immemorial, people have talked to each other. Whether they speak the truth or lies has always been a point of consideration for the listener. If two people are speaking to you, why would you allow one to have the authority of truth, when it means surrendering your right to decide for yourself?
Now, with electronic media seemingly replacing our mode of communication (speaking), it seems that some people seek to control all discourse between individuals. Perhaps the day is not far off when all speech is recorded and subjected to scrutiny.
Citizens of the former East Germany probably should give us a primer on what it is like to live in a state where one cannot speak anything outside of the government narrative. But it seems that there are too many fools who are rushing right into this trap.
Free speech protects the truth, just as transparency protects against corruption. We seem to be losing both free speech and transparency very quickly now.
gravenimage says
+1
Mike says
And …..Indigo crowdfunding website closed Pilippe Magnan site . So ,Mr Magnan can not anymore fund is sue anymore via Indigo. Anoter way of silencing infidels .
gravenimage says
Appalling, Mike.
Elsa says
There was a crowdfunding attempt to raise money for the appeal. CLOSED by Indiegogo (or whatever). It violates their rules. So, another block against someone struggling for freedom of speech, freedom of thought.
The block from a crowfunding site also happened when the first attempt was made to crowdfund, 2 years ago, for Tommy Robinson to pay for a good lawyer. The fundraising drive did happen – and was successful. But it had to happen outside a crowdfunding site.
gravenimage says
Disgusting, Elsa.
Giacomo Latta says
Some good news from Canada. The Assalam mosque in Ottawa has lost its charitable organization status for having repeatedly preached hate, something such an organization is not permitted to do. Therefore, Canadians will no longer be supporting terrorism worldwide, at least via this mosque. No word yet if Trudeau and company have learned that there is a document called the koran which preaches hate on a continual basis.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re:
3. a scandalmonger makes unfavourable – but true – statements about another person without any valid reason for doing so.
So truth is not a defense to the charges of “defamation” (aka slander; libel; fraud) in Canada.
The only thing that seems to matter, is whether or not your actions (like, say, accusing a criminal of their crimes) might subjectively hurt their precious feelings, no matter how factually true the accusation was.
More, the subjectivity extends to reversing the onus of proof to force one to “prove a negative:”
“You have to prove you DIDN’T hurt my feewings!”
Now, I can see how a non-crime-related “unfavourable” but factually true statement might be a snide personal observation about some aspect of another’s physical appearance (like: “Judy Smith is fat and ugly!”) but the “law” in question doesn’t seem to want to distinguish or discriminate between what a (no doubt also to be subjectively determined on a case-by-case basis by the omniscient court) “valid” reason might and might not be … which would seem to make it an *invalid* “law” to any reasonable person.
UNCLE VLADDI says
On a side note: some people (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/chuck-baldwin/americas-burgeoning-civil-war/) seem to be concerned that Trump’s followers want to empower him to shut down any media site he disagrees with … but he already has that power: Fraud is illegal, as is defamation (aka fraud against the person; libel; slander). They are (allegedly) tasked and have been granted their charters of incorporation to do research in a factually objective manner (hence all those legal protections of freedom of the press) not to be paid propagandists (lying frauds) offering fact-free opinion columns in stead of the facts.
gravenimage says
Actually, neither Trump nor any other American president has the power to shut down media he disagrees with. To his credit, he has never tried to do this.
UNCLE VLADDI says
If he “disagrees” with them for provable criminal FRAUD against the Government, it’s also called “SEDITION” which means that, YES of course he has the power to shut them down and jail their owners publishers editors and writers. ALSO: They are all globalists, (AL media is owned by a loose conglomerate of a mere SIX companies) which by definition means they are traitors to all sovereign nations. And the penalty for treason (rightly) is?
😉
Carolyne says
It is difficult for me to comprehend that many here wish to give the government the power to censor what we say and write. I do not trust the government with this power and neither did the Founding Fathers. That’s why we have freedom of speech, to prevent the government from undermining our Democracy and dictating what is true and what is not. Their truth in many cases is not my truth. And further to trust an entity such as CNN to tell the truth to the exclusion of a citizen who has another and perhaps the real truth is dangerous indeed. The MSN does not hold the key to the truth alone. In fact, most of the stories are written with a leftist slant and take anything with which they do not agree out of context and change the meaning. We see it every day, and yet some would give this power to those who do not wish the US and us its citizens, well. I believe that you will find that the MSN, including newspapers and TV slant stories toward their devout wish for one world with no borders and no nationalities. I will not give them this power. We here at JW exercise this power every day with our opinions, even those who seem to wish they did not have it.