Disaster: CHRC Free Ride Feeling The Axe

CNW – The Public Service Alliance of Canada condemns the Harper government’s decision to close Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax. The union maintains that the closure of the three offices will make it substantially harder for individuals from marginalized groups to launch human rights complaints.

The three offices slated for closure received 70 per cent of all signed complaints to the CHRC in 2008.

Update: Not what you think.

Sun Writer Mansuir: Resist Temptation

Salim Mansuir – In several of my recent columns published in this paper, I have contended that Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP on trial for hate speech in Amsterdam’s Court of Appeal, has the right to express freely — irrespective of whether I, or Muslims in general, find his views offensive — what he thinks about Muslims, Islam and the Qur’an.

The trial of Wilders in Holland indicates how persistent the temptation is within a liberal society to resort to illiberal means in dealing with situations that might cause some public unease. Complaints against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine before various human rights commissions in Canada are other examples.

Steyn Can Take It, But HRCs Are Sacred

[Media Monitors, Greg Felton] The human rights case against Maclean’s magazine, discussed in my last column, has significance beyond the anti-Muslim defamation that writer Mark Steyn is charged with committing. Of much greater importance is the smear campaign being launched against the country’s human rights tribunals in the mainstream media and by unhinged bloggers.

Steyn’s apologists have concocted a revisionist reality in which po’ li’l Marky is not the bloviating windbag of anti-Muslim paranoia that his writing would seem to suggest;  rather, he is a victim of government censorship and a poster boy for free speech.

…

My book The Host and the Parasite–How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America is available exclusively from GregFelton.com until I can find an honest publisher.

Anningson: What If…?

[Times and Transcript] So what if none of us ever got to say what we thought was important?

What if when I tried to write about vegetarianism the meat lobby had me shut down. What if the coffee federation silenced me when I said we should pay more for a cup of coffee because the labourers don’t make enough? What if the government brought me up on charges when I suggest that detainees are being treated unfairly in military prisons?

If you have been reading Maclean’s magazine this year you will realize that Canada has such a thing as a Human Rights Court, which is not really a court in a standard legal system, but a court where any individual whatsoever can bring charges that you have somehow written or published hate literature against some group.

Burnaby Paper To BC Human Rights Tribunal: Shame On You

[Burnaby Now] The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal members should feel ashamed.

Comedian Guy Earle is now the latest target heading for a showdown at the tribunal over comments Earle allegedly made while at an open microphone during a weekly standup comedy night in March of this year.

The revelation that Earle is now scrambling for legal advice comes just weeks after the human rights tribunal sat for several days to hear a complaint about an article written by journalist Mark Steyn and published in Maclean’s magazine.

The rest.

Columnist Forgets How We Got Here In The First Place

[Vancouver Sun] Maclean’s rejoiced, saying the Steyn article was a “worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.”

That’s a bit rich. Still, I defy anyone to read the piece — “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an excerpt from the right-wing pundit’s book, America Alone — and conclude it’s anything more than an acerbic diatribe.

The rest.

Defy “anyone?” Like, say, three law students, or the head of the CIC, or…

Circle Of Squeal

Spin the Tribunal wheel until you get your day in court.

Regarding the Mark Steyn article in Maclean’s:

Ontario Human Rights Commission (dismissed, but offers opinion):

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.

Canadian Human Rights Commission (dismissed, with a concern about “minimal impairment” to free speech and/or not quite racist enough):

Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.

For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed.

Bingo! British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal:

So we are in, and almost ready to go. As trials of the century/year/week go, this one is decidedly down-market: the courtroom would make a good walk-in closet. Maclean’slegal team is out in force, a phalanx of half a dozen suits. The opposing counsel, by contrast, is one suit and two or three badly-dressed juniors. 

Blinked? Canadian Human Rights Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Maclean’s

[CNW, Press Release] Maclean’s magazine is pleased that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.

Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. 

The rest.

Worthington: The Implications Are Simple

This was originally published by the Sun earlier in the week, but we think it’s cool to see that the small town papers are re-running stories on the issue.

[Welland Tribune] The tragedy of the B. C. Human Rights Tribunal’s case against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine over alleged “hate” mongering because of Steyn’s views on Islam, is that most people don’t give a damn.

Oh, many sympathize with Steyn because the issue seems so silly, but most don’t see the destructive effect of hate legislation, or how it threatens our freedom.

Of all the benefits embodied in our county, free speech is -or should be -among the most precious. Without the freedom to express opinions on any matter, we cease being a free society. The implications are as simple as that.

The rest.

Let’s Go To The Source

If times get tough, there’s always a chance one of us at DWE could get a job editing the Waterloo Record.

[Mohamed Elmasry, The Record, June 25th, 2008] On March 30, 2007, the law students met with Maclean’s senior editors and proposed that the magazine publish a balanced response to Steyn’s article from a mutually acceptable source.

The response was that Maclean’s “would rather go bankrupt.”

vs.

[June 3rd, 2008. Julian Porter cross examining Khurrum Awan, one of the witnesses at the BCHRT hearing, as quoted in Andrew Coyne's live-blog. Emphasis ours.]

1:50 PM Julian Porter begins cross-examining young Awan. He notes off the top that Elmasry’s complaint to the human rights commission was filed April 30, 2007. The meeting with Maclean’s was March 30.

The claim the students have made publicly on a number of occasions, including in their filings to the various human rights commissions to which they took their complaint, is that they had proposed the “reply” to Steyn’s piece be written by a “mutually acceptable” author, the better to show how “unreasonable” Maclean’s had been. Porter rounds on him: “I suggest to you that you never said ‘mutually acceptable’ at that meeting.” He’s caught off guard. He stammers out a concession: they did not.

Kerrannggg!!! As Porter says, “this goes to his credibility.” It’s a peculiarly pointed exchange: Porter was himself at the meeting, as Maclean’s lawyer. So when he says “I suggest you never said” something, the witness is under unusual pressure.

CIC Director: Most People In Democratic Societies Meet With Magazine Editors When Angered By Articles

Wow. They must have big waiting rooms over at Maclean’s and Newsweek.

[Ottawa Citizen] Faced with such content, a group of Muslim law students did what most citizens of a democratic society would do. They met with Maclean’s editors and asked for a response. Varying versions have emerged of what occurred but the crux is that they demanded a response and Maclean’s editors refused to publish one.

The rest.

NY Sun Columnist: Move The UN Headquarters To Canada

[Alicia Colon, New York Sun] I recommend that we evict the Useless Notion and export it to a country that appreciates effete diplomacy. France, which just convicted Brigitte Bardot of inciting Islamaphobia for writing a letter critical of Muslim immigrants, might be a possibility, although President Sarkozy may turn out to be our best ally. Canada’s another choice. The thought police on its Human Rights Commission put Mark Steyn on trial for the same offense because he quoted something that offended the Canadian Islamic community. A Canadian investigator for the commission, Dean Steacy, said: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

The rest.

The Censor’s Dream

More international bad press for Canadian human rights commissions.

[NRO] The human-rights tribunals are a censor’s dream. Under Canada’s human-rights act, commissioners can convict if they believe any published material is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” Since they are “remedial” institutions and not real courts, they need not follow strict legal procedures or grant traditional rights of the accused. No one goes to prison, but the panels can fine and silence people at will — and run up the lawyer bills for years. Truth is no defense, and commissioners are authorized to confiscate a computer without a warrant. Evidence can be woefully flimsy.

The rest.

Huh. Maybe You Don’t Need Human Rights Complaints After All

[Abbotsford Times] Right off the top, I’m going to say that I don’t think Steyn is guilty of any crime, that I don’t think he should be penalized, fined, jailed and not censored for his article or his book.

Free speech is our single most valuable right, and it should not be compromised.

That said, Steyn is dead wrong.

Not a great article, as he winds up saying Steyn’s theories “could” be right (far different from “dead wrong”), but at least he said something without ratting to teacher.

Why Should They Listen? They Aren’t Elected To Anything

[Vancouver Sun, Letters to the Editor] Will human rights commissions across Canada listen to what he’s saying before they stifle freedom of expression, a sign of a healthy, thriving democracy cherished by many immigrants?

The rest.

Mercer: It’s All So Complicated. Someone Get Me A Magic 8-Ball

[Mark Mercer, Ottawa Citizen] Now on the other side, to balance against all this, is harm, the harm that expressions of hate cause vulnerable people. Restrictions on expressions, most of us can agree, though some of us will agree with regret, are justified when they are needed to protect people from harm.

For a restriction on expression to be legitimate, though, there must be good reason to think that its presence will indeed prevent harm. Harm, moreover, that cannot be as efficiently prevented any other way. In addition, there must be good reason to think the restriction will not create more or worse harm than it prevents.

The rest.

BC Reporter: Free Speech Defenders Correct, But Shouldn’t Batter People

[Lillooet News] The hysteria greeting a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing on charges that Maclean’s magazine incited hatred against Muslims is kind of creepy.

The critics of the process are right; it is a threat to free speech. And the issues are important. 
But the rhetoric and the casting of the case as the last battleground in defence of Western civilization has been over the top. By time the hearing concluded, the public battering of the Muslim complainants started to look a lot like a one-sided schoolyard brawl.

The rest.

Buchanan: A New Orthodoxy Is Arising

More international bad press for the Canadian human rights commissions.

[Post Chronicle] Freedom of the press is on trial in Canada.

The trial is before a court with the Orwellian title of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The accused are Maclean’s magazine and author Mark Steyn. The crime: In mocking and biting tones, they wrote that Islam threatens Western values.

The rest.

You Can’t Deny My Right To Be A Paid Journalist

[Toronto Star] Your readers should not be misled into thinking that this issue has anything to do with suppressing freedom of speech; indeed, it has to do with allowing for more free speech – which the complainants were denied.

The rest.

Note: the complainants filed the human rights complaints because Maclean’s would not run an unedited article written by an author of their choosing. They are asking government bodies to force Maclean’s to do this. So the next time you write an article and have it rejected by, say, the Toronto Star, you should file a human rights complaint.

Canadian Lawyer: I’m Embarrassed By Osgoode Graduates

[Toronto Sun, Edward Greenspan] I’ve never before been embarrassed by a fellow Osgoode Hall Law School graduate until now.

My fellow alumni are the three complainants behind the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal complaint against Maclean’s magazine for publishing supposedly “Islamophobic” articles, including columns by Mark Steyn. It is embarrassing that these complainants graduated from Osgoode Hall when it is apparent that their education seems to have lacked any lessons in the true meaning of civil liberty.

The rest.

LA Times Columnist: Welcome To The Kangaroo Court

More international bad press for Canadian human rights commissions.

[Jonah Goldberg] Steyn — a one-man media empire based in New Hampshire — was published a few years ago in Maclean’s. Now the magazine and its editors are in the dock before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on the charge that they violated a provincial hate-speech law by running the work of a hate-monger, namely Mark Steyn. A similar prosecution is pending before the national version of this kangaroo court, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The rest.

Alice In Canada

More bad international press for the Canadian human rights commissions.

[FrontPageMag] The national commission has never found anyone innocent in 31 years. It is set up for classic Alice-in-Wonderland “verdict first, trial later” justice: Canada’s Human Rights Act defines hate speech as speech “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” That language is so capacious and vague that to be accused is tantamount to being found guilty.

The rest.

Open Your Eyes, And Your Mouth

[Toronto Life] This is only one of a related constellation of problems that I hope to address in future posts, but suffice it to say that the unwillingness of our institutions to engage in rough and tumble, open-ended public debate is a problem with the broader Canadian experience. After all, why should we trust a judicial system to dictate what we can and cannot say when we can’t even examine the inner workings of the system itself?

The rest.

Wenatchee World: Unlike Canada, US Still Has Free Press

We did a double-take, too. But apparently Wenatchee World is in Washington.

It couldn’t happen in the United States. Our liberty is protected. We can think, speak and write as we wish, without fear of the proverbial boot in our face. We can be lively, controversial, barbed, pointed, irritating in the extreme, and no matter how much people may disagree, we still have no fear that government will use its power to shut us up. At least, this is what we hope.

The rest.

NY Times Covers Maclean’s Hearing

We asked a while ago what the New York Times would do in Maclean’s position. We figure they’d stand up for themselves, but this staff writer seems to think Canada’s got a pretty good thing going with the censorship idea. Too many conservative blogs and all that. Still, we thought Gratl’s take was interesting.

Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists, which have intervened in the case in support of the magazine, was measured in his criticism of the law.

“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

Many foreign courts have respectfully considered the American approach — and then rejected it.

The rest.