Kay: Nevermind Reform, Scrap The Whole Thing

[National Post] These three reforms would be welcome, I suppose. But a far better solution would be to simply get rid of Section 13 of the federal Human Rights Act (and all of its provincial equivalents), which give human rights commissions the power to censor politically incorrect speech. As I (and dozens of other pundits and bloggers) have argued numerous times, human rights commissions should stick to protecting people from bigoted landlords and employers, not acting as thought police on the Internet.

Or Would He Have Said To Forgive Them?

[Canwest] A B.C. man has filed a human-rights complaint alleging religious discrimination after a TV personality flew a plane pulling a “Jesus sucks” banner over Toronto.

Dean Skoreyko of the northern B.C. town of Coldstream filed the complaint against Kenneth Hotz and Showcase TV.

Skoreyko, who viewed the stunt online, said in an online form filed with the B.C. human rights tribunal that “my Christian beliefs and upbringing were publicly ridiculed.”

Canadian Ex-Pat: Thank God I’m Back In Australia

More international bad press for Canadian human rights commissions.

[The Australian] You see, these mickey-mouse pseudo-judges have now moved on to prosecuting a fellow named Guy Earle, a stand-up comedian. Apparently during the course of his act he offended a couple of lesbians. They complained that he responded to their heckling of him in a hateful manner.

So endeth the update of the wonderful state of free speech in my native Canada. I think I need a drink, or I’d have to cry.

On Second Thought, Just Keep Your Mouth Shut

[Canadian Press] A Muslim man of Arab descent has been awarded $11,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal as a result of his co-workers’ paranoia that he helped organize the 9-11 attacks.

Ghassan Asad, who moved to Canada from Saudi Arabia, was questioned by RCMP after co-workers at a high-tech firm reported that he’d visited New York and Washington a few weeks before the terrorist attacks.

vs.

[Canadian Foreign Affairs website] The public is encouraged to use this toll-free number to report any information regarding terrorism, criminal extremism or suspicious activities which could pose a threat to national safety and security. The number is…

Shanoff: Keep The Champagne On Ice

Free speech advocates must be popping champagne corks celebrating two key decisions released this summer.

Within two days in late June the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the concept of fair comment and the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled why no hearing was warranted for the controversial Mark Steyn article published in Maclean’s in October 2006.

Being a pessimist, I’m keeping the champagne in the cooler until I see the practical impact of these decisions.

The rest.

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.

Rex Murphy: The Glorious Insanity Of Canadian Human Rights Commissions

[Globe and Mail] Incidentally, one of them, Syed Soharwardy, withdrew his complaint 2½ years in. Did he get a tap on the wrist for instigating so costly and disturbing a process and then – on a whim? on a soul-awakening? out of boredom? – cancelling it? Of course not.

This is one of the less-noticed glories of the Canadian human-rights insanity. Complainants float unburdened like puffballs in a summer breeze – blowing whither they list. Targets – Catholic bishops, Catholic magazines, fundamentalist pastors, genital surgeons, heckled comedians, school boards, fast-food joints, school-prom nights, Maclean’s magazine – empty bank machines and call in lawyers while the “leisurely” process unfurls in an eerie, Kafkaesque slow motion.

The rest.

BCHRT Member Orders Condo Owners To Spend Cash On New Ramp

Always fun spending money…especially someone else’s money. Besides, only $1000? Those families probably don’t need that cash, anyway.

[Vancouver Sun] The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a resistant strata council to hire an architect to design a ramp that would allow a 91-year-old New Westminister condominium owner to make it up three steps in the building’s lobby.

The tribunal made the order Thursday after Mary Holowaychuk and her daughter Anne Mahoney were defeated in their attempts to have the council install and pay for the ramp.

…

The strata owners opposed to the ramp argued it would be an “undue hardship to the individual owners of the strata because  of the cost involved.”

They said the costs for the ramp – not including architectural costs  and permits – could be $63,000.

Beharrell rejected the “undue hardship” argument. She said a special levy would cost, on average, less than $1,000 a unit.

The rest.

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Goes Into The Health Care Business

[Vancouver Sun] The issue of foreign-trained doctors who are prevented from practising in Canada by Canadian professional bodies refusing to accept their credentials is about to be tested by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

The tribunal has accepted a complaint of discrimination against the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons and the University of British Columbia filed by an Argentine-trained physician, Paola Fauerbach.

The rest.

Panhandlers To BCHRT: Discrimination Is Worth 20 Large

[Vancouver Sun] A program to remove panhandlers and homeless people from streets and parks amounts to “systemic discrimination,” says a complaint filed Thursday with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

…

The complainants ask for $20 in damages for every person affected by the Ambassadors’ conduct, to a maximum of 1,000 people.

The rest.

Post Editorial: Comedy Under Siege

[National Post] If it were only the career of one stand-up that were at stake, the Earle affair might not be so troubling. (Mr. Earle is holding a “Comics for Freedom” benefit on Saturday at Toronto’s Comedy Bar, 945a Bloor Street West.) But if hecklers are legally protected — and stand-ups have to worry about facing legal expenses for having defended themselves verbally on stage from distracting drunks and drama queens — stand-up comedy will die like a fish out of water in Canada. Who would put in the brutal hours needed to master it under such a threat, or dare come to this country to perform? An entire art form will have been euthanized in the name of preventing “offensiveness,” and what others can then regard themselves as safe?

The rest.

US Blogger Looks North, Chews Nails

[Human Events] Many Americans can only shake their heads at the nutty excesses of multiculturalism in Canada. Government investigations for insulting people? That kind of thing could never happen here . . . Right?

Wrong, probably. Multiculturalism may not be as advanced in America as it is in Canada, but it’s on the same path. The U.S. already has a number of federal multicultural policies, most notably the annual Diversity Visa Lottery. However, as the sorry lesson of Canada demonstrates, the key to pushing multiculturalist laws from the level of the mildly ridiculous into the rarified realm of the monumentally stupid is to advance them first on the local level, where action attracts little public scrutiny. 

The rest.

Not Qualified, Or Bigotry? BCHRT To Investigate Medical School

[Vancouver Sun] The issue of foreign-trained doctors who are prevented from practising in Canada by Canadian professional bodies refusing to accept their credentials is about to be tested by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

The tribunal has accepted a complaint of discrimination against the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons and the University of British Columbia filed by an Argentine-trained physician, Paola Fauerbach.

Fauerbach is a radiologist specializing in mammography and breast ultrasound whose qualifications are recognized in the European Union but not in Canada. She came to Canada in 2001 and has Canadian citizenship.

…

Both the college and UBC have tried to have the tribunal throw out Fauerbach’s complaint on the basis they had non-discriminatory grounds to explain their conduct.

Earlier this year, the tribunal rejected the college’s motion for dismissal and now tribunal member Tonie Buharrell has rejected UBC’s motion, opening the way for a hearing into the allegations.

The rest.

Down With Everybody Causes Blog Brawl On…Cricket Website?

[Caribean Cricket – comment] THIS is not a question. Its an insinuation. If you want to play the fool and pretend you don’t know the difference, fine- but if you wanna pretend it isnt there, i will once again ask you to gracefully back away before i deliver the facts yet again.

The rest.

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal: Discrimination In Temple OK

[Vancouver Sun] The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint by two members of the Indo-Canadian community who were denied membership in a Burnaby Sikh temple because of their social ranking in India’s caste system.

…

The 900 members of the Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha Temple belong to the lowest group, Dalits, formerly referred to as “untouchables” and often considered outside the caste system altogether. Sahota and Shergill are from the jat caste, which is traditionally a land-owning class in the Punjab and now makes up much of Metro Vancouver’s Sikh community.

The decision, released this week, was hailed as an affirmation of temple members’ right to gather as a “minority within a minority,” said spokesman Jai Birdi.

“Since the decision has come out, the members are feeling quite empowered by it,” he said. “They’re feeling that this really reinforces their ability to come together as a marginalized community from India to talk about their heritage and historical unresolved issues and come up with some strategies for moving forward.”

The rest.

BCHRT: Bereavement Leave Is A Discrimination Issue

[Car Rentals] A Hertz Rent-A-Car location in Vancouver (Canada) has rejected an employee’s request for bereavement leave, after his wife had a miscarriage. Ali Mahdi wanted to attend his stillborn child’s funeral, but Hertz would not provide him with leave from his job. As such, Mahdi announced that he has filed for legal action through the Human Rights Commission and the car rental giant will now have to answer questions before a British Columbia tribunal.

The rest.

McGill Prof: Canadian Human Rights Commissions An “Unholy Office”

[National Post] Another flashpoint issue, he said, is the controversy over human rights commissions, a free-speech debate in which some say the mores of tolerance are valued over the validity of free expression. “I call them Canada’s unholy office,” Prof. Farrow said.

The rest.

Paper: Free Speech On Ice

More internatinal bad press for Canadian human rights commissions.

[The Oklahoman] Up in Canada, the big birthday celebration is July 1, not July 4. On Canada Day, you might hear the strains of “O Canada,” including the words “God keep our land, glorious and free.”

Mark Steyn has reason to stress the “free” in that stanza. Steyn‘s been on trial for the “crime” of offending Muslims with “hate speech.” Meanwhile back in the United States, some guardians of the First Amendment want journalists to avoid using terms such as “illegal immigrants” and “Islamic terrorist” or anything that might offend Mexicans or followers of the Islamic faith.

Our brave new world has less freedom than we think. Either a government (Canada, in this case) is chilling free speech or political correctness (America, in this case) is putting it on ice.

The rest.

US Papers: Happy 4th, And Give Thanks You Don’t Live In Canada

[Dallas Morning News] On the Fourth of July, the day we celebrate America’s liberty and independence, it’s worth contemplating how much more free America is than most other nations in the West.

Why? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

…

Mr. Steyn and Maclean’s, the top-selling Canadian magazine, have faced human rights charges in British Columbia. Their alleged offense? Maclean’s published a Steyn essay critical of Islam, which prompted Muslim activists to file formal charges accusing the writer and the magazine of violating Canada’s hate-speech laws.

Last Friday, the national Human Rights Commission dismissed the charges, but they’re still pending in front of a provincial panel. The victory is less than what it appears. For one thing, defending against the charges cost the magazine hundreds of thousands of dollars. For another, it is frightening to think that a human rights panel has the right to decide what can and cannot be published in a free country.

+

[Colorado Springs Gazette] In Canada and in much of the rest of the world, certain opinions – of people who claim the Holocaust never happened, pastors who say homosexuality is a sin, Brigitte Bardot saying Muslims are undermining French culture, for example – may not be expressed at all. In Canada strictures against “hate speech,” which arguably could stir up hate against a particular group, have morphed into an entitlement of activist grievance-mongers who seek to forbid speech and writing that they claim to find offensive. The practical result of this is to muzzle opinions some would rather not hear.

+

[Fort Collins Now] Do you want your government to protect your feelings? Here are Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions” which sit in judgment over “allowable” speech.

Paper: Quirky Commissions Have Become Censors

[The Province] As former B.C. journalist Nigel Hannaford points out in a recent paper for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, free speech in Canada is now policed by two parallel justice systems.

One is the regular court system, which administers the anti-hate provisions of the Criminal Code.

The other consists of a number of federal and provincial human-rights commissions, set up in the ’60s and ’70s to deal swiftly with abuses in the areas of employment and accommodation.

Driven by political agendas, these increasingly quirky commissions have now taken on what is, in effect, a censor’s role.

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…

Paper: Beware The Human Rights Mom

More international bad press for Canada’s human rights commissions.

[Citizen-Times] The only “criminalizing” I see going here is against free speech in Canada. You see, in Canada one need not make a false, threatening or slanderous statement to be declared guilty of “hate speech.” A merely offensive statement or one deemed likely to inspire others to hate a certain group will do the trick. Stating verifiable facts and the offendee’s own words of record are enough to get you nailed as a “hate criminal” in Canada if a tribunal subjectively rules that quoting them may in some way turn public opinion against a certain demographic.

It would be no different than being put on trial by your mother because, in any given case, the prosecution’s strongest arguments are, “You hurt his feelings. Now everybody else will hate him!” And, “Because I said so!” Utopianism at its “best.”

The rest.

Calgary Herald: Stand On Guard Against Human Rights Commissions

[Calgary Herald] Today, we celebrate the many gifts this country has given us, and remember what an ultimate privilege it is to be called Canadian. But eternal vigilance is the price we pay for those gifts, and standing on guard must be more than a line in our national anthem. The danger signs are all around — record levels of apathy among Alberta voters, and human rights commissions handing down rulings which, far from protecting rights, trample on the most basic ones such as free speech.

The rest.

Lawyer: Canadian Human Rights Commission Bowed To Pressure

We happen to agree with Joseph on this one. If the CHRC wasn’t in the papers and blogs so much these days, or if Mark Steyn was named Joe Blow, or if Maclean’s was named Macnobody’s, it’s doubtful they wouldn’t have heard the case. As for his assertion of “inappropriate” pressure, well…that’s life, bud.

End result: the commission is worried about their rep and their ass more than they’re worried about their self-styled mandate. And that, too, is nothing new.

[Faisal Joseph] “Based on the Investigator’s findings a hearing was warranted to allow evidence to be presented and arguments to be made,” continued Joseph. “However we are not surprised at the decision in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the Commission and that has prompted the Commission to set up an internal review of its procedures under s. 13(1).”

+

[Commission’s finding] (A)n argument could be made that the material in the complaint bears some of the hallmarks of hate as identified in the Kouba decision, that it does portray persons of the Muslim faith in a negative light based upon broad generalizations, and therefore may expose persons of the Muslim faith to hatred or contempt.

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.