The Big City Hypocrite posted on the Lemire case and in his usual fashion couldn't take the heat in the comments. His little favourite, Ti-Guy, had this to say
married a 6 year old girl named Aeysha. He consummated the marriage when she was 9. Many Muslims believe that, as this was the example of the prophet, it is acceptable for Muslims to do the same (There is dispute as to her age but many Muslims believe the writings that list these ages). To most non-Muslims this would be considered pedophilia.
Under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." Stating that some Muslims consider sex with a 9 year old acceptable would be very likely to stir feelings of contempt. Very likely.
So, under section 13 I can now have a complaint lodged against me and I can fully expect to lose despite the fact that everything that I have written above is truthful.
What I really want to know is why BCL deleted my comment, a comment that basically stated the above? Was it because he doesn't like me? Was it because I lied? Or was it because he knows that by hosting that comment he was just as liable to a complaint as I am? Doesn't that seem hypocritical? Well of course it does, but we've come to expect little better from him. So Ti-Guy, maybe you can now ask BCL why truth isn't a defence because he seems to know.
First they came for the neo-Nazis and I said nothing . . .
Who ti-guy? Anyone who is forced to suffer the indignities of a HRC, that's who.
What indignities?
Standard rules of evidence do not apply and the truth may well not be a defence.
What standard rules of evidence?
What standards do apply to quasi-judicial bodies?
How is truth not a defence?