Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities. Sign up now!
That is the argument currently going on up in Canada, on what appears to be "Criminalize any negative words about Islam" day around the world. There appears to be some good legal work headed toward free speech attorneys in the US if current legal trends around the world hold.
In France famed screen icon Brigitte Bardot was just found guilty of "provoking discrimination and racial hatred" for writing that Muslims are destroying France. Her words were in a letter written to Nicolas Sarkozy, then the interior minister of France and now the president. Bardot stated in that letter that France was "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."
She was fined $23,325 on June 3, 2008, for those comments and also ordered to pay damages to the complainant party, a group known as MRAP. This is Bardot's fifth time to be convicted for anti-immigrant comments. Just comments, mind you — not actions.
Also, currently going on in Canada is the trial of Maclean's magazine, in front of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. The commission, which apparently has recently focused exclusively on "Muslim rights," is trying Maclean's magazine for the content of one of its articles, written by Mark Steyn. The article, which discussed why "The Future Belongs to Islam" and was written about demographics, allegedly subjected Muslims to hatred and contempt, the complainant claims.
This one is a doozy: there is absolutely nothing resembling fairness involved. The jurisdiction appears to rest solely on the mythical grounds that worldwide Islam was offended, as none of the parties involved actually has residence in British Columbia and the human rights commission in Ontario (where they are located) refused to hear the case.
There are no rules of evidence and no disclosure rules. Plus, the defendants always have to pay the costs of the case. The complainants made the argument that indeed, using the word "Mohammedan" incites violence against Muslims and is an example of hate speech and therefore should be banned. The case is ongoing this entire week and is the subject of wide interest as Canada's journalists have sought to intervene to protect their freedom to publish.
What does the complainant want? Why, that any article mentioning Muslims be subject to inspection by this tribunal for "fairness" — i.e., the end of freedom of speech and the press. Judging by the testimony and what has been admitted, magazines are now liable for what others have said about Islam just because they also wrote about it. And history shows that human rights commissions are very likely to side with the complainant, so free speech is at the least under attack. Good news for the speech lawyers!
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out. Sign up now!
