timeimmortal

So sayeth Ezra Levant to the entire staff of the CHRC.

The reason? Well…it could have something to do with the fact that the CHRC seems to be a state organ devoted to servicing the needs of anti-Christian bigots…

…the bullies at the CHRC have already found that the exact words at the center of this complaint are contrary to the Section 13 “hate speech” provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In CHRC investigation number 2005-2462, you decided that a Christian pastor, Rev. Stephen Boissoin, had contravened the law by publishing the exact same words in an Alberta newspaper.

I republished the same words as Rev. Boissoin and yet you have recommended that the CHRC not proceed against me.

There is only one reason for this: the CHRC is anti-Christian, and thus you excuse in me what you condemned in Rev. Boissoin.

This is not the first indication of a deep-seated bigotry at the CHRC. You have mercilessly persecuted other Christians in Canada for merely expressing their faith, such as Fr. Alphonse de Valk of magazine and Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party to name just two others.

I note that the CHRC has never once prosecuted a “hate speech” complaint against any non-Christian, though there is plenty of non-Christian bigotry in Canada. No Muslim extremist, no Tamil extremist, no Sikh extremist has ever been prosecuted, though those communities are wracked with internecine hates between radical and moderate camps, that sometimes spill over into violence. But you’d rather pick on a seventy-something Catholic priest for publishing a newsletter.

That’s why you’re letting me go — I’m not a weak, penniless Christian clergyman.

This is one of those “I’m glad he’s on our side” moments.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Angelweb posted a copy of a letter received from Rob Nicholson, the Canadian Minister of Justice, over at FreeMarkSteyn.com. The text of the letter is, frankly, damn promising.

Dear [name removed] :

The office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). I regret the delay in responding.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom enshrined in the Canadian , which, in a free and democratic society, may be limited only when such an action is justified.

The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights. To that end, the Government has introduced in Parliament Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which calls for the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to apply equally to all Canadians. Bill C-21 would repeal section 67 of the CHRA, which currently shields some actions of the federal government or First Nations entities from the application of the CHRA. The repeal of Section 67 would extend the rights of First Nations people, primarily those living on reserve, to file complaints with the CHRC.

Canada’s record on human rights is second to none; it is a record of which all Canadians can be proud.

As you may be aware, the CHRC, which administers the CHRA, operates at arm’s length from the Government of Canada and reports to Parliament independently.

However, I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to Section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.

Please be assured that your concerns have been given proper consideration. I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Rob Nicholson

This is, as I said, damn promising — it re-affirms that the Canadian government is coming on-side against the HRCs and their flagrant abuse of (and transgressions against) a fundamental human right that is a cornerstone of every free society: freedom of expression.

Also, I think it’s time to put out a new banner:

(I direct the Reader to the media page)

Mark Mercier, in the Nova Scotia Chronicle-Herald, gives a brief historical refresher on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It’s…rather shameful to have to admit that Canadians should have seen the present HRC fracas coming almost twenty years ago.

Canadians heard a long time ago, at least as long ago as 1990, that they are not free to speak their minds as they see fit. 1990 was the year the Supreme Court of Canada ruled constitutional Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13 says that it is “a discriminatory practice” to communicate “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

…

A person of sense in 1990 could easily have predicted that s. 13 would soon be used, as it has indeed come to be used, to bully people away from saying what sitting commissioners happen not to want to hear.

The Supreme Court had three people of sense on it in 1990. The Court upheld the constitutionality of s. 13 by a mere 4-3 majority.

The Justices who got their way discounted their colleague’s fears. As long as authorities remember that hatred and contempt are extreme feelings, they said, and keep in mind that the purpose of the Act is to overcome discrimination, and not to censor speech, Canadians have no reason to fear that a chilly climate for opinion will descend on the country or that s. 13 will be used to control the expression of opinion and emotion. These Justices neglected the sage advice never to make a law that requires intelligence or goodwill on the part of those who administer it.

Happily, Keith Martin, the member of parliament for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, a riding on Vancouver Island, has introduced into the House of Commons a private member’s motion, M-446, to delete s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Unhappily, the matter of s. 13 hasn’t yet become a political issue. Unless a political party takes it up, M-446 will languish, and unless Canadians make s. 13 a political issue, no party will take up M-446. We need to communicate to politicians our support for M-446.

I don’t think it can be said any clearer than that. If, as Canadians, we value freedom — which means valuing freedom even for those we perhaps find distasteful — then the only option is to support Bill M-446. If we fail to do so, we knowingly abdicate any future claim to be free people.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

That’s Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin’s description for the Canadian government’s lame-duck attempt to justify the legality and necessity of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That’s the same section of the act which, through the human rights commissions, is used as an instrument of Censorship and a weapon against the fundamental human right to freedom of expression in Canada.

Deborah Gyapong has the details:

“Well, there were a lot of things in the Justice Department’s missive which I find absolutely shocking,” said Martin. “Not only that but about blithely talking about restrictions on freedom of expression. That has absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes, nothing to do with hate crimes and nothing to do with hate speech whatsoever. So the Justice Department’s missive really was a trampling of basic human rights, human rights that are enshrined in our Charter and I was very disturbed by their intervention. So I’m hoping that our Justice Committee actually reviews the Commission and hopefully they’ll be able to — that we’ll be able to bring in members from the Justice Department to be able to account for their statements.”

…

“I think Mr. Harper has told Mr. Nicholson, our Justice Minister, to put a muzzle on their MPs. But the Conservative MPs, as many members in my caucus, have expressed deep concerns about where the Canada Human Rights Commission has gone. They have expressed a great deal of support for my motion to remove Section 13-1 from the Act. And I think that’s a fair thing to do would be to have this out and open. Have a public hearing through the Justice Committee and televise it so that Canadians coast to coast can hear those who believe that the status quo is acceptable and those of us who believe that the Human Rights Act has to be amended to ensure that we have freedom of speech because in my view freedom of speech is being trampled in Canada right now.“

I don’t think it can be stressed enough what an important ally in the fight for freedom of expression in Canada Dr. Martin really is. Do be sure to send him a note of thanks, O Reader.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Deborah Gyapong has an excellent report published in the latest edition of the Western Catholic Reporter concerning, of course, Canada’s human rights commissions, this time in light of Pope Benedict XVI’s speech to the UN.

Pope Benedict’s speech to the United Nations last month serves as a reminder to Canada that human rights discourse stems from a world view based on universal truths and an objective notion of right and wrong.

“Either we recover some of these assumptions and make a serious course correction,” McGill University professor Douglas Farrow said, “or we begin to encounter quite rapidly the consequences.”

Farrow sees Canada’s human rights commissions as a sign the country is in a transitional phase, because increasingly the Canadians are seeing human rights as what we say they are.

“Thus laws can be written concerning human rights that have nothing to do with universal standards.”

…

Increasingly, various individuals and groups are using human rights commissions to “generate traction” for that group’s particular construct of rights, he said. This method has often been used to suppress religious freedom, especially that of Christians.

Farrow said the real basis for human rights springs from a world view like that the pope outlined in his speech - a theistic world view that sees a benevolent Creator and human beings made in God’s image, with a capacity to distinguish between good and evil.

The pope exhorted the world body to return to its founding principles as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The declaration is based on “the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations,” Benedict told the UN.

Human rights should mean the fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled, exercised within a framework of obligations and responsibilities, the burden of which all human beings must bear. The notion of human rights, however, has been abgorated and, I would say, abducted by those whose view of rights is that they are a series of entitlements which are accompanied by no reciprocal responsibility whatsoever. Whereas there should be a natural “give and take,” the view of the HRCs and their “clients” increasingly is that rights is all “take” with no “give” reciprocal to it.

To call that immoral, to call it unethical, and to call it a violation of natural law would at once be accurate and an understatement.

I’m no fan of the UN, as the regular Reader will know, but at least the UDHR recognizes that the right to freedom of expression is one of the bedrock principles of human freedom. Yes, there are responsibilities that go along with that right, and yes we do have some legal protections in place in Canada to make sure that freedom of expression does not cross the line to incitement to violence.

But in regard to freedom of expression, it is worth noting two things:

1. it is nowhere written that, included among the responsibilities that accompany the right to freely express one’s opinion, we have a responsibility to avoid hurting people’s feelings or offending people’s sensibilities. Social convention encourages us to be polite even when expressing disagreement, but some ideas cannot easily be expressed in a manner that pays good observance to social convention.
2. it is nowhere written that any of us has the right to not be offended, nor is it anywhere written that any of us has the right to not have our beliefs and views challenged

Perhaps the word “yet” should affixed to the end of both of those points; I don’t know.

The plain fact of the matter is that, through the existence and operation of human rights commissions, specifically in regard to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Canada is going far beyond where it needs to go in order to ensure that so-called “reasonable limits” on freedom of expression exist. There is only one real “reasonable” limit on freedom of expression anyhow, and that is making incitement illegal. Limiting freedom of expression because some things are e.g. hurtful or offensive to others is not a “reasonable” limitation at all — such limitation is, in fact, the antithesis of freedom of expression: it is Censorship.

And as such, it has no business in Canada.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

I’m a day or two behind in writing about Rob Nicholson — the Minister of Justice in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — and the legal brief his office released in favour of keeping Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act intact. Ezra Levant has a pretty handy fisking of the document itself, which is rife with all manner of historical errors and poor logic.

My favourite example:

…history teems with examples of times when lies, distortions and propaganda empowered groups like the Nazis to repress speech…

Read that again. The government is arguing that we should limit speech because we’ve seen how the Nazis could limit speech. Huh?

Setting that aside for a moment, though, what has emerged as the big controversy concerning the brief is that it draws heavily upon the scholarship of one man:

So who is this nut the government keeps quoting?

His name is Alexander Tsesis, a professor at a middling U.S. law school. Tsesis has two political clients: the Canadian Justice Department, and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachussets, tied with [Barack Hussein Obama] as the most left-wing senator in America. Tsesis is a left wing kook — but the Canadian government hangs on his every word.

On that basis alone, it’s not much of a surprise that the government, acting on Tsesis’ scholarship, has come out in favour of Censorship. Most left-wing types seem to be in favour of censoring those with whom they disagree, as I am sure that Tsiesis certainly is, without ever realizing it that once those powers have been granted to government agencies, they cannot reliably be expected to remain…shall we say…pointed in the same direction. The laws that today are being used against the likes of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant may tomorrow be used against the likes of David Suzuki.
Read the rest of this entry »