The Province: BC Human Rights Tribunal The Poster Girl For Political Correctness

[The Province] Did you hear the one about the two lesbians who walked into a comedy club and started heckling the comedian? He turned the tables on them, so they complained to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. And now the joke is on the taxpayers forced to pay for this kangaroo court.

Well, it was obviously not so humorous when comic Guy Earle got into an ugly exchange with two women at Zesty’s Restaurant in Vancouver in May of last year.

But you get the point: This kind of petty dispute should never have been accepted as legitimate by any government-funded agency, yet alone one that’s become the poster girl for political correctness.

The rest.

The Joke’s On You: Stand-Up Comedian To Face BC Human Rights Tribunal

That sound you hear is comics calling their agents to cancel flights.

Pat yourself on the back yet again for keeping the human rights commissions in business by paying their salaries. Where would they be without you?

The BCHRT is really leading the charge in questioning what people are allowed to say in New Canada. First a magazine, now a stand-up comic. Shakespeare and Twain can’t be far behind.

[Vancouver Sun] A Canadian stand-up comedian will face a human rights tribunal hearing after a woman complained she and her friends faced a “tirade of homophobic and sexist comments” while attending one of his shows.

In a decision released this week, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled there is enough evidence to hear the case of Vancouver woman Lorna Pardy against Toronto comedian Guy Earle. Zesty’s Restaurant in Vancouver, where the May 22, 2007, show took place, was also named in the complaint. The restaurant has since closed.

The rest.

You can read the actual decision here, signed by the chair of the BCHRT herself. The short of it:

[24] I also cannot find that the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code, which are set out in s. 3.  They include fostering a society in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the social and cultural life of British Columbia and promoting a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights.

Look out comedians: no more jokes to anyone, about anything, ever.

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.

Phillips: Canadian Human Rights System “Terrifying”

More international bad press for the Canadian human rights commissions.

[Spectator, UK] Read this article to get a flavour of the terrifying nature of these proceedings, the mixture of gross abuse of power, mad thinking and clownish incompetence which characterises totalitarian regimes and has been playing in a courtroom in downtown British Columbia.

The rest.

Toronto Star Columnist: “Reasonable Limits” Needed For Free Speech

Sounds great. And we will keep holding out breaths until someone tells us a) who decides the definition of “reasonable,” and b) what that definition will be. Still waiting…and waiting…and waiting… 

Canada has followed a different path on free speech than the United States, where there are no anti-hate laws because the U.S. Bill of Rights says “Congress shall make no laws … abridging freedom of speech or of the press.”

The Canadian Charter of Rights, too, guarantees “freedom of the press,” but it places “reasonable limits” on it. That’s why the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the anti-hate provisions of both the Criminal Code and human rights statutes.

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.

US Columnist: Steyn Most Persecuted Writer In Decades

More bad international press for Canadian human rights commissions.

[Daily Inter Lake, Montana] I’ve been called a coward, a moron, a bad journalist, and worst of all a bad writer for having the audacity to express my opinions in this column, but at least I have never been arrested or put on trial for telling the truth.

The rest.

Toronto Star Columnist: Don’t Speak, Or You Could Rupture The Common Good

We’ll hold our breath until Siddiqui tells us which goods are common.

[Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star] [Miller] calls the Maclean’s article “xenophobic,” and says it’s riddled with errors. He ridicules the Canadian Association of Journalists for its knee-jerk defence, given that the article may have violated the association’s own guidelines for fairness, accuracy, access and anti-discrimination.

People will always differ on what constitutes hate or where to draw the line on free speech. But most people would agree that free speech is not a licence to target vulnerable groups, let alone risk rupturing the common good in Canada.

The rest.

Vancouver Sun Continues To Search For Its Balls

[Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun] Still, though, a few brave souls have come to the defence of the tribunal, arguing that some restrictions on free speech are justifiable and that the tribunal, by holding a hearing, was simply fulfilling its statutory duties under the Code.

So who is right here? Is the tribunal guilty of the charges levelled by the media? The answer, it seems, is yes and no — no, the tribunal is not responsible for the statutory regime which prohibits “discriminatory publications,” a regime which is itself troubling. And yes, some past tribunals, at least, are guilty of misinterpreting that law.

The rest.

London Free Press Columnist Slams Human Rights Commissions

[Rory Leishman, London Free Press] The decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to investigate Maclean’s magazine for publishing an article that some Muslims have found offensive is just the latest in a long line of violations by Canada’s so-called human rights tribunals of the historic rights of Canadians to freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

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.

Lawyer: Stop The Vitriolic Attacks

[Vancouver Sun, June 11, 2008] Under our code, and under the circumstances of this complaint, the tribunal had no choice but to give all parties a fair opportunity to be heard, and then proceed to decide whether the article violated the code. That is what the tribunal has done.

The tribunal’s decision, when it comes, will likely be criticized by one side or another, which is fair game. There is, however, nothing in the process that warrants the vitriolic attacks against the tribunal which have appeared in the press.

Donald Crane is a lawyer in Vancouver.

St. Louis Paper: China, Russia, the Middle East…And Canada

More international bad press for the Canadian human rights commissions.

[West County Journal] In the 21st century, freedom of speech, long revered as the cornerstone of democratic thought, slowly but consistently is being eroded worldwide. This troubling pattern is not confined to illiberal places such as China, Russia or the Middle East, but increasingly is showing up in nations once thought to be paragons of liberal democracy — even Canada.

The rest.

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal An Embarrassment To The Nation

[ChronicleHerald] From all accounts, the hearings were an embarrassment – for the tribunal, the government that appointed it and, most of all, for a nation that calls itself a free democracy. So far, however, our political leaders – with a few notable exceptions – seem to hope the courts will ultimately handle this hot potato.

The rest.

Human Rights Tribunals Need To Get Back To Original Mandate

[Times Colonist] Human rights tribunals play an important role in protecting people from acts of discrimination. When someone is denied the chance to rent an apartment or find a job because of skin colour or religion, the tribunals offer effective forums for assessing the complaint, redressing any wrong and imposing appropriate penalties.

But as the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just demonstrated, these bodies should not be imposing penalties because what someone writes could be construed, by some people, as exposing a group to hatred or contempt.

The rest.

Sudbury And Kingston Papers: Abolish Section 13.1

[Sudbury Star, re-running the Whig-Standard’s editorial] If there is any common sense in Ottawa, and that may be asking a lot, then the federal government’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will follow Rick Dykstra’s advice.

The St. Catharines MP has introduced a motion to have the committee review controversial section 13.1 of the Canada Human Rights Act that is at the heart of two recent high-profile human rights cases.

The rest.

Witness In Maclean’s Case: Law Is Practically Useless Because Of Attorney-General Supervision

National Post – [Awan] repeated his complaint that Maclean’s, based in Toronto, does not belong to the Ontario Press Council, and thus there is no authority with the power to “condemn the journalist, condemn the publication, direct them to publish a letter to the editor.”

He said the criminal law against “wilful promotion of hatred” is “practically useless” because prosecutors require the federal Attorney-General’s consent to lay charges.

The rest.

Globe and Mail: Tribunal Should Rule Its Own Code Is Out Of Line

Section 7 of the B.C. Human Rights Code is not compatible with freedom of speech and expression in Canada, and should be struck down by a court, if not by the tribunal.

The rest.