Talk:Barbara Hall (politician)

Untitled
This page needs helps. The list of newspapers is a bit of a strange feature, and tying municipal candidates to provincial/federal parties is rather unusual in Canada... Krupo 02:25, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Human Rights complaint against Maclean's
I'm reinserting my contribution which was deleted by CJCurrie. I have removed some of the comments by critics but I believe this section is very important. There is a big debate going on in Canada right now about freedom of speech and about the human rights commissions. Hall's statements and actions on this issue as the chief of the Ontario Human Rights commission has caused considerable debate within Canada.

You will note that all of the comments and statements are properly sourced to mainstream news media. I have also included comments that support and critcize Hall and have provided Hall's response to her critics. I feel it is only fair to post the response from Maclean's Magazine, which Hall claimed was racist.

This issue is very important as it will determine the power of Canada's human rights commissioners to monitor and regulate content in the media. Yes, this issue only came to light in the last year or two but I can't think of a more important issue than freedom of the press and on the limits that should be imposed on it.

As a member of wikipedia, which prides itself on freedom of the press without undue censorship, I would think this issue would be very important.

If you want, feel free to add material that supports or critices Hall. Hall has had a long career, but this issue is perhaps the most important issue Hall has been involved since she was Mayor of Toronto. I believe it deserves a considerable amount of space in this article - as long as the content comes from mainstream and reputable sources (which all of my contributions do.)

I welcome any comments or questions, but don't simply delete it. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I can see a few problems with Hyperionsteel's comments. It's true that Canada has seen its fair share of press controversies in recent months, many involving right-wing editors opposing what they perceive as "radical Islam" (I'm thinking particularly of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, but there have been others too).  I'm not certain that it's entirely fair to frame the debate as being centered around "freedom of speech and the human rights commission", however -- others might suggest that it's also about hate speech, Islamophobia and the idea of an open society.  For this reason, I'd caution other contributors to avoid language which could be perceived as skewed or tendentious, when describing such controversies.


 * I'll also reiterate my concern that there's a disproportionate focus on this particular controversy on Hall's page. CJCurrie (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the importance of this issue/case and its ramifications in Canada, I believe this issue deserves a considerable amount of attention in this article. If this issue involved left-wing (as opposed to right-wing) editors being censored, I would support giving it the same attention.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I believe that you've missed my point. I'm not averse to referencing these events, but I'm quite opposed to (i) devoting a disproportionate level of attention to them based on one editor's perception of "importance", (ii) using the controversy as a soap-box, and (iii) throwing around charges of "censorship" in a fairly straightforward editorial dispute.


 * I'm also a bit concerned that some Wikipedia pages are starting to resemble the editorial pages of the Western Standard. CJCurrie (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Its true that I have used conservative sources (in particular the National Post) that criticize Hall, but I've also included full statements by Hall and her suppporters to explain their point of view on this issue. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

It's completely absurd to have more in this article about the OHRC's dismissal of the Maclean's complaint then about more notable parts of Hall's career such as her term as Mayor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.128.251 (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to remove the comments by Tarek Fatah and Jonathan Kay. However, the responses from Mark Steyn (who wrote the offending article that the complaint was based on) and the response from Maclean's stay in. They are important, relevant and properly sourced.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC))


 * I suppose this constitutes an improvement, but it's still nowhere near acceptable. The entire "Human Rights Complaint" section is merely one plank in a much larger soapboxing effort.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaint is more than just a "plank." This complaint and Hall's and the OHRC's hamdling of it has been a major news story across Canada and has generated considerable debate on censorship, freedom of speech and the role of Canada's Human Rights Commissions. Hall and the OHRC bluntly stated that Maclean's, one of the largest Magazines in Canada, is racist and Islamophobic - this is very serious charge and deserves a lot of attention. This is a very important issue - and it deserves the space that it currently holds in this article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC))


 * It's a significant story, and it deserves a spot in the encyclopedia, but it shouldn't be used to construct a tendentious master narrative (here or elsewhere). Btw, some might regard this controversy as having sparked considerable debate on hate speech, Islamophobia, and the editorial direction of one of Canada's largest magazines.  CJCurrie (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't about hate speech or Islamophobic. This issue is whether or not special interest groups should have the power, through the Human Rights Commissions, to force the media into printing a apology or a counter-argument every time they print something "offensive." Keep in mind that the reason this complaint was filed with the Human Rights Commissions is that this nonesense would never be taken seriously by any criminal or civil court. If this really was "hate speech," the CIC would have filed a criminal complaint or sued Maclean's in civil court.

The Human Rights Commissions, while useful in dealing with discrimination against specific people (such as at places of employment), have expanded their scope to encompass anything that might result in somebody (and it doesn't have to be a specific person) being subject to hate between now and the end of time. This is the issue that is being raised, and that is why is deserves considerable space.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Barbara Hall (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=456006
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=573457

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)