Canada Human Rights Tribunal v Mark Steyn Pt 1

Ok, for those just joining the human race.

Facts:

Mark Steyn is a journalist from Canada, now living in the USA.
He sometimes writes for Maclean's, a magazine in Canada.
Canada, tired of unrestricted Free Speech, wrote a nice little law that makes it a crime to:

7
(1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be
published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice,
sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private

Mark Steyn wrote a book, America Alone

Maclean's published an excerpt of the book

They have been brought in front of the Human Rights Tribunal because they published something that, "is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt"

If you violate this law you can be tried via an executive committee know as a Human Rights Tribunal. (These are executive branch of government organizations, because, well, a Judicial proceeding has to follow those pesky rules of evidence thingys)

Evidence may be admitted to a Tribunal that may not be considered evidence in a court.

If the Tribunal orders it, they may award money to the complainer to compensate for 'injury to dignity, feelings and self respect'

So What? to follow

Mark Steyn's case is just beginning and is being liveblogged.

Not even worth 3/5

Democratic delegates from Florida and Michigan will be seated with 1/2 vote each at the Democratic convention in Denver. Here is what is widely considered the best MSM article about the controversy.

Some key points: Each Delegation will be seated with 1/2 a vote.

Florida Results:

Hillary 105 pledged delegates, Barack 67. Each delegate receives 1/2 a vote.

Michigan:

Facts:
Senator Obama was not on the ballot, Senator Clinton was. She won 55% of the popular vote.
The categories on the ballot were:
Named candidates (Hillary and others except Sen. Obama)
Uncommitted

The decision for Michigan was to count 'uncommitted' as 'Not Senator Clinton' and award them to Senator Obama. The result, 69 delegates for Sen. Clinton, 59 'uncommitted' delegates recommitted for Sen. Obama.

Quote of the Day, from Rep. Robert Wexler, right after he insisted that Florida's delegation should only get 1/2 a vote.

"no one in the state of Florida has championed voters' rights more than I!"

Come again?

Related: Sen. McCain has asked that Florida and Michigan delegation to the Republican National Convention be seated with full votes.

Implications:

Here is a difference between how Political parties perceive themselves and how they really function. In this case, the Democratic Party initially stripped the delegations of Florida and Michigan of their votes as punishment for those states moving their primaries. The Republican Party had the same sentiment and reduced the voting power of each of those delegations by 1/2.

The perception of the national parties is, they are in charge of the election calendar and state parties need to bow to their wishes. This is no longer true. Faced with the prospect of disenfranchising the voters of 2 states, the two parties have currently adopted the same decision; each delegate gets 1/2 a vote.

What will happen in 4 years? Will the states of Florida and Michigan change their calendar back into the good graces of the national party or will other states stake a claim to a different part of the calendar (perhaps in violation of the national party wishes)?

Regardless, the monopoly on power of the national parties has been diminished in this exchange - and it is impossible to close Pandora's box. Which shows us the difference I mention above.

Perception of the National Parties - We are in charge of everything.

The reality - State parties can control their own calendar. What else can they control?

Previous Posts: Here and Here.