Talk:Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

NPOV

The article sounds like an advocacy piece by the CHRC's critics. 199.212.26.245 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add material that supports the CHRC, feel free too. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

It is more than 6 months since this discussion. Removing NPOV banner. --Fremte (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest edits yet again introduce a lengthy restatement of a National Post editorial as evidence of a controversy. I don't think this approach is compatible with the goal of creating a NPOV article.

A collection of lengthy quotations of criticisms does not result in a dispassionate description of an issue, it results in an essay. Adding in material supporting the CHRC would not remedy the problem. A neutral article is not arrived at by pitting two opposing arguments against each other, but by objectively describing a topic.

I have restored the NPOV banner. Perhaps the Moon report would be a good place to start in terms of providing the article with a strong, objectively descriptive framework; I'll have a look at it.--Trystan (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trystan is incorrect when referring to the latest addition from the National Post as and "editorial" - it is a news article (an editorial would be located in the comment/editorial section of the newspaper). Second, the National Post articles quote both supporters and critics of the HRCs - including HRC commissioners and senior personnel. It's true that critics are cited more often but that alone is not reason to remove this material. If you want, feel free to add citations that express support for the HRCs. Making an NPOV article doesn't mean removing criticisms or support for a topic - rather it aims to present material on a topic that is available through mainstream sources (e.g. a national newspaper). If anyone feels that the information presented in the citations from the National Post are incorrect or are being misconstrued, feel free to correct them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

As I said, I'm not suggesting that we should set out to add material supporting the CHRC, nor am I interested in doing so. Interwoven competing essays do not form a NPOV article. I am also not suggesting that criticisms of the CHRC should be excluded from the article; obviously the criticisms made are relevant to the ongoing debate over the role of HRCs. However, it's not enough, in my opinion, for the article to be a loose collection describing National Post editorials and stories along with out-of-context quotes by prominent people criticizing the CHRC.

What I think the article needs is some kind of structure. There needs to be some sense of chronology. We need to establish why the arguments, quotes, cases and incidents described are included by demonstrating their notability and relevance in proportion to a comprehensive coverage of the topic.

One of the first things I think the article needs is a clear scope. Many of the items included have little or nothing to do with the CHRC, but instead involve cases before provincial Human Rights Tribunals. Is the article about controversies regarding the Canadian Human Rights Commission as the title and lead imply, or about all Human Rights Commissions in Canada, as much of the content deals with? The latter seems like a more natural topic to me.--Trystan (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Which quotes have been taken out of context? And if they have been, feel free to provide the proper context.

But more to the point - this article is about controversies involving Canada's HRCs (which is why it is separate from the article describing the HRCs. Needless to say, that is why this article deals with individual cases which have drawn criticism from the media with regard to the HRC's procedures, decisions and statements. Making this article chronological may be difficult because the timelines of many of the cases discussed here overlap. Its current format, although not perfect, is the best choice for the time being.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

It is interesting to note that 14 of the 33 current references to this page link to National Post. It would seem the whole article is largely about the conservative National Post's negative perspective on CHRC. The paragraph specifically titled "Criticism from the National Post" (though as I say, most of the entire article seems to fall under this heading for all practical purposes) is particularly weak for these reasons: it is an opinion piece, and not a general controversy; the section in this article is almost the same length as the National Post article it claims to summarize. Certainly the CHRC has had criticism and it's great to summarize with references, but this article seems rather extremely biased towards a single source, a source which is practically in the business of attempting to generate controversy on such topics. Coincidence? Tim.middleton (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fred Henry quote is one example. It was in direct response to the Boissoin case, which it makes a passing reference to, but the article offers no details on the case, why it was notable, or why Fred Henry's thoughts on it warrant inclusion in this article. Further complicating the matter is that the Boissoin case was before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, and didn't involved the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which raises the question about the scope of the article that I mentioned above. Reorganizing the article into a description of a series of cases and prominent incidents, with clear dates and events to provide context, would be one example of a framework in which such criticisms (though with less extensive direct quoting) would have clear relevance.--Trystan (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I can see your point that some of the quotes are too long. I've removing some of them and shortened others.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

An objective article on a social phenomenon which is essentially characterized by its controversial nature would simply be inaccurate if it failed to present that controversy. Obviously the controversy has to be presented in a balanced way to be consistent with the neutrality of an encyclopedia-style presentation, but to omit a presentation of the controversy would just falsify what the phenomena of human rights commissions in Canada are today. The suggestion that the government-commissioned whitewashing of the human rights commission abuses by an extreme advocate of speech control such as Richard Moon would be a good source for an objective account just demonstrates lack of familiarity with the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.127.224 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Shiv Chopra

I think the Shiv Chopra section needs to be improved in a couple of ways. First, this is a case that has only been covered in a couple of news articles; it doesn't warrant nearly this much space. There is certainly no reason to reproduce Kay's editorial so substantially. The portion we do keep will need to be edited so as to describe the case as neutrally as possible, rather than reproducing exclusively points which are critical of Chopra.--Trystan (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add more information, feel free. I felt that the length was necessary to provide sufficient context.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Since it's covered in detail at Shiv Chopra, I think it would make sense just to refer to it briefly here and provide the link. Other than one National Post editorial and a CanWest article, it doesn't seem to be a particularly notable case.--Trystan (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Alphonse de Valk

I noticed that there was another controversy about investigations on Father Alphonse de Valk, who was being targeted by the CHRC for having quoted the Bible and the teaching material of the Roman Catholic Church in the context of the legislative debate on same-sex marriage. This particular case could perhaps be included in the article.[1] ADM (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Henry

Another related case is that of Frederick Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, who was investigated by the Commission for having cited the teaching of his own Church against attempts to legislate on gay marriage. The controversy surrounding bishop Henry is rather strange since it involves religious freedom at the highest levels of the Church in the that region of Canada. [2] ADM (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a notable Human Rights Commission story when the complaints were filed. There is a question of its relevance to this article, which I raised above, since the scope of the article is not clear. The complaints made against Henry were to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, not the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I'm not sure if it is technically correct to say Henry was "investigated" by the Commission, since an investigation follows the conciliation stage of the complaint process. I know at least one of the complaints was dropped at the conciliation stage, and I can't find any sources regarding at what stage the other complaint was dropped.--Trystan (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Human Rights Commission controversies in Canada"

I'd like to propose moving this page to Human Rights Commission controversies in Canada. The article currently mixes cases from the Canadian Human Rights Commission with cases from its provincial counterparts. Since all of these commissions have substantially similar jurisdiction, I think the most natural scope for the article is to cover all of them. The renaming would be the first step in clarifying that scope.--Trystan (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. However, since this new article would cover multiple commissions (as opposed to just the Federal one), I would use the plural for the word "Commission" in the title (i.e. Commissions). With regard to removing the term "Free Speech" from the title, it might be a good idea since this article deals with controversies which are not limited in scope to Freedom of Speech. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Support. Do it, be bold. "Controversies" is the general topic as you note. You have the right plan. --Fremte (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought pluralizing "Commission", but singular sounded more correct to me. My grammar on the point is a bit rusty, but I think as a noun adjunct modifying "controversies" it should be singular, even though there is more than one.--Trystan (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's small grammar problems like this that drive me crazy. I think that Commission (singular) should be fine.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

I've moved the article back for three reasons:

1) Hyperionsteel's title made no sense 2) The discussion above is seven months old and stale and also didn't suggest the proposed title. 3) The article is way too long if it's made so broad as to be about all human rights commissions in Canada. Fred the happy man (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Response
  • My title did make sense - Commissions (plural) was meant to refer to the federal and provincial HRCs, all of which are usually grouped under title Canadian Human Rights Commissions.
  • You're right. I didn't suggest a change in the title before. But why does that mean I can't suggest one now?
  • Why is will the article be "way to long" if it includes recent controversies from all of the HRCs as opposed to just the federal one? I disagree on this point - the length of the article was not so long as too be unmanagable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

I never said you couldn't suggest a new title now, just that you shouldn't move the article until a new title was freshly discussed. The part of your title that really didn't make sense was making Canadian plural.

If you're making the article about all 7 or 8 human rights commissions in Canada I think the article is going to end up being much longer than it is now. But in any case, if you actually think such an article is manageable it would be better to call it something like Human Rights Commission free speech controversies in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commissions is confusing because it's too close to Canadian Human Rights Commission) or maybe even Free speech controversies in Canada though that would end up being an even lengthier article. But maybe we can try that one first and if it is too long then create sub articles. Fred the happy man (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I'm not sure what the best course of action is on this - I need time to think about it. In the meantime, I've transfered the section on Sharon Abbott to the Ontario Human Rights Commission page for the time being. I've also moved the section on the 5-year probe of Bnai Brith to the B'nai Brith Canada page.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

Sharon Abbott

I've removed the section on Sharon Abbott since it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the CHRC. The Human Rights Tribunal Ontario is a a provincial body. The CHRC is federal. Including a case that is entirely an HRTO matter in an article on the CHRC is like putting information about TVOntario in the article on the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. Fred the happy man (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Same with the section on 5-year Probe of B'nai Brith Canada which has to do with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, not the CHRC so it's not a "Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy" and does not belong here. Fred the happy man (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of poor sources

I've removed a large amount of quite inappropriate material from the article. Poorly sourced aspersions on BLP subjects are completely inadmissible. We are not the National Post and we don't reprint, for free, every opinion piece they publish; if their criticism is important, a real source will pick it up. Beyond that, they have a repeatedly evident bias and are known to outright fabricate stories on subjects they dislike, so we cannot use them as a source for facts in this article either. If you can find real sources that support some of the material I've removed, that could be helpful. (Indeed, if proper sources were found, we could restore the sections which had to be deleted! Too bad they weren't written with reliable sources to begin with.) There are also some primary sources still in that we should not be relying on.

NB some of the other sources we use are from the same conservative media group (CanWest), but I don't know enough about them to know if they're as notoriously bad as the National Post.

There were also a few things that had been unsourced for 2+ years. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Still obsessed with your hatred of the National Post? I'm sorry, but the Post is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The opinions of a few users (such as yourself) are not sufficient to justify declaring the Post unreliable. There is no consensus in Wikipedia that the Post is unreliable, although there are concerns from some users that the Post is ideologically bias (which it probably is to some extent, just like any other media outlet). Material published in mainstream newspapers is certainly relevant to Wikipedia, which is why it has been included here. If you believe any of the information cited here is inaccurate, please cite a source to indicate this. Otherwise, please stop using your hatred of the Post as an excuse to remove properly sourced information.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

There doesn't need to be consensus that it's unreliable. There needs to be consensus that it is reliable. The burden is on you. Rather than asking in that silly way that users interested in following policy find sources that contradict what the Post says, why don't you find reliable sources that support it - and add them instead? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat Wikipedia's policy: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." This means that the burden is on you to prove that the National Post is unreliable. You can't use your hatred of the Post, based on your own unfounded opinions, to remove citations from it. Your argument is based on one article which was later found to be inaccurate, and the opinions of a few users.

Also, lets look at Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:BURDEN#When_a_reliable_source_is_required. It states that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation...You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." As I have stated, this information does have a reliable source (i.e. the Post), hence my burden is met.

Furthermore, I guess you didn't read the next sections of this article What counts as a reliable source and Wikipedia:BURDEN#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs Newspaper and Magazine Blogs. These sections state that: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." The National Post certainly meets this requirement.

You are the only user who is claiming that everything cited by the Post is unreliable. Your latest accusation regarding the Post, (i.e. "they're not RS on Muslims/other minorities") is once again your own opinion and is unsourced and frankly, incorrect. Please stop removing properly cited material from the Post simply because you keep claiming that it isn't reliable based on a handful of opinions and one incorrectly reported article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

What you appear to be repeatedly failing to understand is that your declaring a source to be reliable or mainstream or (lol) respected does not magically make it so. The Post was specifically founded as a conservative organ, it makes its bias in reporting very clear, and it has a history of fabricating news material to serve that bias that won't go away. (Nor does being widely read automatically make something reliable; we recognize many instances where Fox News is not a good source to cite.) Why are you so afraid to take it to RSN instead of just decreeing over and over that it's reliable because you like it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused - I am not declaring the Post a reliable source - Wikipedia guidelines have - as I have pointed out above - again please read What counts as a reliable source. Since the Post is a nationally published newspaper owned by the largest media conglomerate in Canada, I would say it qualifies as mainstream. If you are suggesting that the Post is not a mainstream news publication, then why? Simply because it is conservative? And Yes, the Post is conservative, just as the Globe and Mail is liberal and the Toronto Star is left wing. Also, you keep repeating your claim that the post has a "history of fabricating news material" - yet you are basing this claim on a single article written by a third party journalists that the post published - as did other media outlets. Again - your claim that this single occurence is evidence to declare the Post unreliable is nonesense (nobody considers CBS unreliable simply because it published false memos about Bush).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Why don't you take it to RSN and see if they feel about it the same way they feel about CBS? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You have either missed the point or are deliberately changing the subject. I was not suggesting that CBS be declared unreliable because a single incorrect story (that would be both cretinous and asinine). Rather, you are claiming that the National Post should be declared unreliable because of a single incorrect story. My challenge to you is that if your interpretation is correct (that one incorrect story automatically makes a source unreliable) why has your logic not been applied to other media outlets? Note: this is a rhetorical question - the clear answer is that you are using this as an excuse to try and ban the Post simply because you don't approve of its political slant. My point is that a single incorrect story doesn't make a mainstream source unreliable, and the fact that you don't like the Post's political slant doesn't make it unreliable either.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC))

• And you know what? It's pretty damned suspicious that the supposed quote from Steacy appears only in sources criticizing it. I will be removing it again along with the other inappropriate slurs against BLP subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll be reverting your edits once again. This information is properly sourced (i.e. from citations that meet Wikipedia's requirements) - yes, Stacey's quote only appears in sources criticizing it - but do you really think there are sources supporting this statement? Please stop removing properly cited material. Also - since I have cited mainstream sources which support Steacy's remark, perhaps you (since you are so "damned suspicious") will kindly cite a single (yes, a single) source that supports your "damn" suspicions? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC))
    • I am not trying to insert any claims into an article. The idea that I should find a source that states that Steacy didn't say the thing is idiotic; if you can't source that he said it, it doesn't go in. Period. WP:BLP is a fundamental content policy and we will not source controversial claims to opinion pieces from his opponents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Give me a break. You claim that "if you can't source that he said it, it doesn't go in." Unfortunately for you, I have cited reliable sources that Stacey made this remark, which is why it has been placed in this article. In contrast, you have stated that your are "damned suspicious" about the accuracy of Steacy's quote, and yet you haven't provided any evidence to support this. I simply asked you to cite a source that supports you suspicions that the quote is fabrictated, misquoted, etc.) How is this idiotic? I realise that asking you to cite actual sources that support your view may be shocking to you, but I hardly feel its too much to ask. I'm sorry, but mainstream sources that meet Wikipedia's RS requirements have been met, meaning that this material will remain.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC))
        • You have not cited reliable sources. Three op-eds and a primary source from an opponent would never be acceptable, even if the op-eds came from much better newspapers. (Incidentally, the Edmonton Journal op-ed also gets the name of Lemire's lawyer wrong.) The quote is said to originate from the hearing transcript (the earliest thing I found that reproduced it was - surprise! - a right-wing op-ed), but a. unless you've got a copy, I'm disinclined to take the word of pieces from an agenda-based source that aren't fact-checked and b. even if a copy can be obtained, we come right back to the issue I already discussed of primary sources and why we include material that reliable news doesn't bother with. (And if we were to do that, we would of course be forced to include, per another primary source, the fact that this was not what Steacy said and all the hand-wringing about the quote has been manufactured by people who oppose the commission's goals anyway [3].) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
          • • I guess you failed to read the article (again). One of the critics of Dean Steacy's remarkable statement on Freedom of Speech is Senator Doug Finley - the source is transcript of the debate in the Senate. Finally, you keep claiming that I should cite "better" newspapers - what newspapers would you consider "better"? Newspapers that better conform to your ideological views. Also, Wikipedia allows op-eds from newspapers to be used as sources - as long as this is properly attributed in the article (e.g. Jonathan Kay wrote in the National Post that...). I will ask you again to stop removing properly cited material simply because of your hatred for the National Post. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
              • Ah yes, because Senate debates are known for being exhaustively fact-checked. How silly of me. And no, WP absolutely does not allow op-eds to be cited for statements of fact. If you want to claim that Steacy said anything, source it first, put in criticism of it second. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
                • Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The National Post is a reliable source for this - Senator's Finley's criticism is just a bonus.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
                  • I'm not sure how much clearer or simpler I can make this for your benefit. In Wikipedia, because opinion pieces are less or not at all fact-checked, we cannot cite them for statements of fact, like "Steacy said X." Whether or not they can be cited for criticism is another matter, but right now, it is impossible to verify that Steacy said the thing he is being criticized for. You need to provide a source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • I've provided four sources, all from different authors, in major newspapers (note: Lorne Gunter was a columnist for the National Post at this time, although this article was published in the Edmonton Jounral (note: both papers are owned by the same media company).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Update - Source found for Dean Steacy Quote

• After doing a bit of research, I've found that a transcript of the hearing in question is available online at DocStoc http://www.docstoc.com/docs/89443391/May_10_2007. This PDF contains pages 4592-4861 of the CHRT hearing - the relevant comments made by Mr. Steacy are on page 4793 of the transcript (lines 4-10) (this is page 205 of 273 of the PDF).

Therefore, it seems that my initial position was correct - Steacy did make this remark, and the newspapers that published columns on this issue (National Post, Globe and Mail, and Edmonton Journal) were correct after all (surprise, surprise). Likewise, it is now clear that Roscelese's numerous allegations, theories, and various statements (e.g. that she was "pretty damned suspicious" about the accuracy of this quote) are now clearly invalid.

I will be reinserting the relevant material soon, but I would like to bring this to everyone's attention on the talk page before taking further action. In the meantime, I welcome any comments or suggestions (even from Roscelese) about this issue. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC))

References

Poorly-written section

The section describing the support supposedly enjoyed by these commissions, entiled Support for Human Rights Commissions, is poorly written, contains irrelevant and contradictory information and reads like it was tacked on at the behest of those who complained this entry was biased in favor of Commission critics. The second paragraph of the section lists multiple individuals who, we are told, support "hate speech laws". So what? Support for so-called "hate speech" laws doesn't necessarily entail support for the Human Rights Commissions or their methods yet they are conflated in that paragraph. Many, if not most, of the individuals who have prominently opposed the Human Rights Commissions(with the obvious exceptions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant)have stated unequivocally that they support "hate speech" laws, IF violations of those laws are handled by legitimate criminal courts. Any statement along the lines of "[X] supports 'hate speech' laws" is irrelevant if it does not also detail that particular individual's support for the Commissions. Moreover, at least one of the individuals named as a supporter of "hate speech" laws in the Support for Human Rights Commissions section, David Matas, is listed as a critic of the Human Rights Commissions in the Criticism subsection entitled "Criticism from civil libertarians, 2008". Does he support the Commissions or not?74.134.128.175 (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106210741/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sunday/2008/03/033008_5.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2008/03/033008_5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106210741/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sunday/2008/03/033008_5.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2008/03/033008_5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What was Section 13(1)?

There is a serious deficiency in the article: it doesn't describe the section that was repealed, not even vaguely. This information should probably be in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.81.202 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite and rescope

I've just completed a major rewrite of the article, including boldly moving it from Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The new scope is clearer and more neutral, and helps give some badly needed structure to the article. I've removed a lot of content that was not about the Canadian Human Rights commission, but about provincial commissions, or freedom of expression generally. I've also trimmed some sections down that were WP:UNDUE deep-dives into single sources.--Trystan (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing and NPOV issues in lead

An editor (AenidBookVI/Abrody) keeps reintroducing this material to the article. It has numerous issues relating to NPOV, lack of any reliable secondary sourcing, and formatting:

• It adds malformed citations and wikicode to the lead.
• It makes an unsupported inference that the repeal was directly tied to the Macleans case and Ezra Levant's criticism of HRCs.
• It adds an unsupported claim about the past application of the section. Cited material on cases where section 13 was applied would improve the body article, but that would need to be added before the lead can summarize those cases.
• It removes the citation for the direct quote in the second sentence.
• It removes information clarifying when the repeal was actually passed by Parliament (2013) and when it took effect (2014).

I've reverted some version of this material three times in the past 6 months, and it keeps getting re-added. Input from other editors would be welcome.--Trystan (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)