timeimmortal

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dropped the complaint against Maclean’s magazine. This is a good and welcome development in the debate over freedom of expression in Canada, although one is left to wonder at why Jennifer Lynch and her CHRC actually went about dropping the case in the first place.

Mark Steyn notes the official reasoning that was given:

The Steyn article discusses changing global demographics and other factors that the author describes as contributing to an eventual ascendancy of Muslims in the ‘developed world’, a prospect that the author fears for various reasons described in the article. The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

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.

And Maclean’s official statement in reaction to this dismissal (linked to above), notes:

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.

The Maclean’s statement, however, also continues the indictment against the HRCs:

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. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.

The question could be raised as to why the CHRC decided to back down on this issue. Could it perhaps have anything to do with the fact that the RCMP are investigating the Commission (in regard to, among other things, hacking into a private citizen’s wireless network in order to surf white supremacist websites)? Could it be the brutal beating the Commission has taken in the media, and on the blogs? Could the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation have had anything to do with it? Could the attention being given to e.g. Bill M-446 have played a role?

The CHRC has been under a lot of pressure, and one kind of begins to suspect that they may have issued this dismissal in an effort to appear magnanimous. Personally, I don’t buy it for a second — I think they are looking to regroup, but not to fundamentally change anything about the way they operate. This is little more than skin-saving.

Still, a victory is a victory, and good news is good news. This is both, I think.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Ezra Levant has some details on his blog regarding the Conservative government of Canada’s apparent non-concern over the proposed internal review of/by the CHRC.

I don’t think that the folks in the bunker at the CHRC understand the Conservative government at all, and the Prime Minister in particular. I think that of all the political chess moves they could have made, this stunt was perhaps the most foolish and counter-productive they could have chosen.

Until now, they simply stonewalled, brazening it out, denying any wrongdoing whatsoever, even denying the bald facts as revealed in various hearings, under oath. That’s not particularly unusual for decaying bureaucracies.

But [Jennifer Lynch]’s move was different: it was insubordination. It was meddling with politics — meddling with MPs’ turf. In particular, the thought that a third-tier government appointee like Lynch would presume to review her own political mandate, and presume to commission a report on what her job should be — instead of doing the job she was given — is exactly the thing that irritates the PMO.

I am reminded of a story from the first few weeks of ’s tenure as Prime Minister. There had been an election in Belarus, and it was rigged. Harper wanted to issue a critical statement, and he ordered that it be done. The bureaucrats from the Department of Foreign Affairs nodded, but sent back a mealy-mouthed press release about “monitoring the situation”. Harper was frustrated that he was being ignored, so he asked again for a critical release to be drafted. Again, the crats came back with pablum. Enough was enough: Harper literally hand-wrote a scorching press release, and ordered it sent out. “I am shocked that a dictatorial and abusive regime, such as this one, can continue to exist in today’s Europe,” he wrote.

…What’s the point? The point is that Harper probably didn’t care a lot about Belarus. He just wanted a critical release to be issued. But the DFAIT bureaucrats wanted to “Yes, Minister” him. All of a sudden, he cared very much about Belarus. Sure, it was about democracy in an Eastern European country. But it was also about democracy in Canada: who was running the government — him or unelected civil servants? It was their own belligerence that made Harper up the ante.

One is hopeful that the government will look askance at the proposed internal review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and pursue its own review instead, and then more passionately. It’s high time that yet another batch of unelected civil servants be educated about who is, and who is not, running this country.

That’s an interesting way to put it, Ms. Lynch.

“We’ve been working on this for a long time internally,” [Jennifer Lynch] said, adding she identified it as an issue last summer, soon after taking over as chief commissioner [of the CHRC]. [But you just like to hide your light under a bushel huh Jen;) - BCF]

That said, she conceded that the “velocity” of the public debate “took all of us by surprise. It’s clear the public want to have the debate. Our job really is to animate and lead on the debate.” [Uh huh so that's why you appoint a fellow traveller in Richard Moon to conduct your rubber-stamp inquiry. - BCF]

Surprised by the “velocity” of the debate, and presumably the response, eh?

One wonders what Ms. Lynch was expecting to happen once it became common knowledge that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its provincial contemporaries didn’t give a care in the world about the fundamental human right of freedom of expression, which all Canadians are ostensibly ensured by law? Perhaps she was expecting us to be good little Canuckistanis and just roll over to take the medicine the government had for us?

Update: It appears Ms. Lynch has a bit of a problem with the truth as well since, in her words, CHRC investigators have never posted bigoted comments to Internet forums or websites. Despite evidence to the contrary.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

It kind of sounds like an attempt to save face. Of course, it’s easier to save one’s face before one blows it off with a shotgun, but perhaps we won’t tell the CHRC that just yet.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has launched a comprehensive policy review of how best to address hate messages on the internet. Leading constitutional law expert Professor Richard Moon of the University of Windsor will conduct an independent study as an important part of this review.

Speaking today to the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), CHRC Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. said, “The current debate on how to balance freedom of expression with the need to protect Canadians from hate messages in the Internet age is an important one. We are confident that this review will provide insight into the issues and move the discourse one step further.”

Growing public interest and continued advances in technology all point to a need to examine issues surrounding hate on the Internet. The Commission is dedicated to ensuring that the Canadian Human Rights Act remains effective. “Legislation must evolve – when necessary – to respond and reflect changes in society,” said Lynch.

I think one of BCF’s commenters expresses the sentiment that captures the mood of this situation the best: foxes are indeed extremely vigilant when given the opportunity to guard the henhouses. And unless the outcome of this review is the conclusion that the HRCs of the land have no authority to prosecute cases against Internet hate sites (with the government retaining the right to prosecute those site operators whose websites engage in incitement), that’s more or less what will have been achieved in Canada: the foxes of the human rights commissions will have been entrusted to guard the hens that are the rights Canadians are promised in the Charter.

And just like hens, such rights will be eaten up one at a time, when it suits the needs and aims of those in power over them.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Apparently, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been sending private investigators to the house of Ezra Levant’s parents, who demand to speak with Ezra himself. At his parents‘ house.

The good Reader is hopefully aware that Ezra Levant, being a grown man, has moved out of his parents’ house — as he himself notes, he lived there when he was a teenager, but that was in the 1990s. Ezra’s own speculation is that this is the handiwork of Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Giacomo Vigna, whom he has taken to task on several occasions over comments the latter made about not being willing to testify at a hearing because he was “not in a serene state of mind.”

It’s probably just petty harassment, and a case of a government employee abusing government resources in pursuit of a personal vendetta. But I wonder if it also doesn’t tell us something else? After all, why would anyone assume that a grown man and professional lawyer would still live at home…unless the person sending out the goons still lives in his parents’ basement, perhaps?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

As if one needed more evidence of the corruption that has infested the Canadian Human Rights Commission! Still, if one were looking for said evidence, one wouldn’t have to look very far, as new evidence has come to light detailing how the CHRC apparently knowingly falsified a transcript of a proceeding that was released to media.

The removed bit?

An explicit confirmation by Dean Steacy that a certain “someone” knew who had logged in to a website under the pseudonym Jadewarr and printed off excerpts of content from that site — something which said “someone” had denied while testifying under oath.

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)

About bloody time!

The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament’s Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practises of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public “concerns” about the CHRC’s “investigative techniques” and their “interpretation and application” of the Section 13 thought crimes provision.

The resolution, which you can read here in both official languages, was put forward by Rick Dykstra (pictured at left), the Conservative MP from St. Catherines, Ontario, with the knowledge and approval of the Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson. Here is an e-mail from Nicholson, sent to a voter just today, in which you can read his change of approach. An excerpt from Nicholson’s letter:

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.

Smashing news. A little late to the party, but smashing news all the same. This is a much-needed, very welcome reversal on the part of the government.

So that would be the Privacy Commissioner, the RCMP, and now the government of Canada who will be launching investigations into the human rights commissions.

There’s hope.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Apparently, working for the Canadian Human Rights Commission means you don’t have to get a warrant to receive or collect evidence for an ongoing investigation.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Ian Fine, Director General and Senior General Counsel for the Dispute Resolution Branch of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has posted his opening remarks to a panel discussion put on by the Canadian Association of Journalists.

The panel topic? Human Rights and Free Speech: Where are the Limits?

Mr. Fine’s statement is lengthy, and I don’t have much time for analysis myself (I see I am not alone in this), but I wanted to remark on one thing that struck me as odd.

Mr. Fine opens with this observation:

Free speech is also a cornerstone of human rights.

He finishes thusly:

The Commission acknowledges that human rights are not static. They evolve and change with changes in society and the law.

A free and inclusive society must draw a line between free expression and hatred. They are not one in the same.

Free expression is the foundation of a free, open and inclusive society.

Hatred is the poison that erodes the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society committed to the idea of equality.

I am tempted to sing “one of these things is not like the others,” but…instead, let’s take the closing remarks point by point.

1) Firstly, it is the opinion of the CHRC that human rights “are not static” — that is, they can be granted or revoked at the whim of those who have established themselves as overseers of human rights in Canada. Fine attempts to hide this understanding behind the acknowledgement that rights “evolve and change” as society and law change, but this is really nothing more than an artful untruth: the HRCs operate — as Ezra Levant continues to chronicle — well outside of Canadian law, and regard themselves as unaccountable to any court or investigative body.

What is even more damning about Fine’s rhetorical dodge, though, is the way it also abdicates human rights entirely. Should “changes in in society and the law” result, after successive generations of increasingly radicalized Islamic immigrants, in Canada becoming a Sharia state, by his own statement Mr. Fine has no grounds to object to the sudden and dramatic shift in human rights that such a change would effect…even as the burqas are being passed out.

In essence, this is a totalitarian sentiment wrapped in a puffy outer coating of pseudo-tolerant rhetoric. And the orator of such an irrational statement is a twit.

2) It is also the opinion of the CHRC that free people “must draw a line between free expression and hatred,” because the two are not the same. This is false: hateful or bigoted speech and non-hateful or non-bigoted speech are both forms of freedom of expression, and in fact both must be allowed if freedom of expression means anything. If people are only free to express views deemed “acceptable” in public discourse, those people do not have freedom of expression at all.

It’s Henry Ford’s car colours applied to speech, really: you can say anything you like, as long as it’s nice/happy/whatever.

Mr. Fine is ultimately confused: free societies do not need to draw a line between free expression and hatred, but between free expression and incitement to violence. Saying hateful things must be permissible, if distasteful, up to (but not including) the point where that hateful speech crosses the line to incitement to violence and other acts of racial hatred.

In other words: it has to be okay to say that e.g. Jews are reponsible for all the wars in the world. It must not be okay to say that all Jews over the age of 18 are legitimate targets. The former is an ignorant and bigoted statement, but ultimately harmless statement (apart from its potential to cause a few hurt feelings…but it is only a very deluded person who believes that he or she can save people from ever having to experience a hurt feeling). The latter is incitement to violence against a specific category of person.

3) “Free expression is the foundation of a free, open and inclusive society.” This is exactly correct (and hearkens back to Mr. Fine’s opening remark) — it’s just a pity that in the statement before, and the statement after, Mr. Fine undermines the very idea of freedom of expression in Canada. If we are truly an open, free, and inclusive society, then we even have to “include” those whose opinions we find contemptible — we have to be open to everyone, including the Zundels of the world, if in fact we value the freedom to speak that we ostensibly have.

4) Mr. Fine dismisses hatred as “a poison that erodes the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society.” This is exactly backward: if a society is truly tolerant and open-minded, it must (by definition) allow for hatred to be expressed (within the reasonable limits imposed by laws prohibiting incitement) alongside all other viewpoints. “We don’t tolerate intolerance” is not a worldview; it is a nihilism. We must tolerate to hear expressed even those things that are intolerant, or else we must concede that what “freedom” we have to express ideas is ultimately meaningless, since we are all just following a script anyhow.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!