timeimmortal

Grace and I went to see the fireworks last night, and while we were waiting (Edmonton fireworks never start on time, except on New Year’s) for the show to begin, we got to talking about the state that Canada was in. In particular, Grace wondered what, exactly, the men and women Canada has sent to fight in e.g. Afghanistan are really fighting for. Obviously, they’re fighting to establish and preserve the Agfhan government…but what is it about Canada that is worth their sacrifice?

There’s a lot about this country that’s pretty great, to be sure. We are (more or less) a democracy, and Canadian citizens enjoy a reasonable degree of freedom, especially when compared to other nations in the world. The climate is decent (it’s been hot, lately, but one expects that in summer…and a couple strategically-placed fans around the apartment seem to at least partially mitigate the worst effects thereof). We are a fairly prosperous nation, with a good economy. And evidently, there must be something about Canada that thousands of immigrants every year see as being worthwhile — why else would they uproot themselves and, in many cases, their families and move here from halfway around the world?

At the same time, though, there’s much about Canada that is anything but great. We are tragically soft on crime, and far too many unborn Canadians never see the light of day due to the fact that abortion law in Canada is practically non-existent; in most jurisdictions, it’s perfectly legal to terminate a baby at pretty much every stage of development prior to actual birth. Our culture, in pace with most Western cultures, has slipped further and further down the well of moral depravity, especially in regard to various sexual “preferences” and “lifestyles”. And while we are ostensibly a free people, that freedom can be (and has been) severely curtailed in many instances — thanks to human rights commissions, even human rights that Canadians supposedly possess as per the Charter that is the foundational document for this nation’s governance have been stripped away to suit the whims and demands of activists and the too-easily-offended.

And Grace and I came to the conclusion, standing there waiting for the fireworks, that about the best we could reasonably say about Canada is that it’s a good place to live, but that it could be better. And we both came away wishing that we didn’t have to think about the country that has been our home in such terms.

Over in Europe, and in the U.S. as well (and probably here in Canada, although it has not yet been publicized to any extent), a “rape epidemic” is in progress, as more and more immigrants from various (primarily Islamic) nations come to the West and attempt to impose their values onto the predominant culture. Most recently in Brussels, Belgium, the example of a woman who was assaulted for not wearing “the veil” (e.g. the hijab) can be found, over and over again. In the U.S., there is the recent example of the Said sisters, two honour killing victims. In Canada, we have the sad case of Aqsa Parvez, also an honour killing victim.

In a way, this sort of thing shouldn’t come as a surprise to us. Beginning with Pierre Trudeau’s attempt to re-invent the image of what Canada was, our societal attitude has moved steadily leftward, toward the socialist and multicultural ideals that are now so pervasive in every aspect of Canadian society. And somewhere along the line, we lost something — we lost confidence and courage, specifically. We now lack the confidence and the courage to say to those who immigrate here that they have come to a nation that does not necessarily follow the ways of “the old country”; indeed, we have bent over backward to reject all the many positive things about Canada’s founding heritages in a misguided (and ultimately false!) effort to pretend that every culture in the world is equal.

And yet we know that not every culture is equal, and that some cultures are, frankly, barbaric or inferior by comparison to our own. Any culture that would give sanction to a father to murder his daughter solely on the basis of her style of dress has no place in Canada, until and unless it is willing to give up that aspect of itself. And people from that culture have no place in Canada until and unless they are willing to give up that aspect of their heritage. To claim that such views can somehow be wedged into the “cultural mosaic” of Canada is, ultimately, to give the culture of Canada over to its destruction.

Even more that just rejecting those imported cultural attitudes that are incompatible with what Canada stands for, however, Canada needs to work to re-elevate itself about the level of “it could be better.” Canadian society needs to stop being so limp-wristed where dealing with crime is concerned. It needs to stop being so permissive where sexual immorality is concerned. It needs to stop encouraging its people to be thin-skinned complainers by providing them a forum (in the HRCs) to effect government-mandated financial ruin on those with whom they disagree. And along the way, it might just do well to add the right of private property into the Charter.

Canada needs to be worth fighting and dying for again — it needs to be more and better than it is now, if for no other reason than to give purpose to the sacrifices it demands of its men and women in uniform. Is it really worth the sacrifice, to die for a country that could be better?

ebt writes in with a short answer to my question about human rights commissions and double jeopardy.

The short answer: no. Double jeopardy applies only to criminal prosecution. The proceedings of HRCs are not criminal in nature. Each government is acting to administer some aspect of its own jurisdiction. Thus the Ontario HRC was acting with respect to a publication in Ontario; the BCHRT with respect to distribution of printed material in B.C.; and the federal HRC in respect to distribution over the internet. Three distinct matters, three distinct actions by three distinct authorities. One stinking scandal.

Well, that does clear things up, and yet fails (at the same time) to reassure. What a bloody mess this HRC setup has turned out to be.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

I wasn’t following the Supreme Court of Canada as it heard arguments for, and decided on, the Rafe Mair/Kari Simpson brouhaha, but I think I have to agree with Ezra Levant: the decision definitely is a shift, in the law, toward greater freedom of speech. It would seem, at least, to expand the “fair comment” provision to such an extent that the advantage in defamation law has shifted to the respondent in any claim.

Which means that defamation law might become, in the future, a more powerful weapon against HRC decisions.

Gotta like the sound of that.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

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!

In yet another response to the CHRC’s proposed self-review, the National Post editorial board delivers a simmering indictment of the whole idea.

…In an interview with the Post on Tuesday, [CHRC Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch] exclaimed, “I’m a free speecher. I’m also a human rightser,” as though the two were separate. No human right is more basic than freedom of expression, not even the “right” to live one’s life free from offence by remarks about one’s ethnicity, gender, culture or orientation. Ms. Lynch seems mistakenly to believe there is a delicate balance between free expression and other, newer human “rights.”

She also tipped her hand about the probable outcome of the review she had initiated: “We have a responsibility to lead the debate on how we can keep our policy up to date to effectively regulate hate on the internet.” Her interest appears to be in not whether to regulate speech, but merely how to do it “effectively.” There seems to be little doubt in her mind that a government agency must have the ultimate say.

Frankly, we doubt the sincerity of Ms. Lynch’s call for review, especially given the timing. The CHRC has recently landed itself in hot water for the overly aggressive methods it appears to have used to investigate white supremacists on the Internet and for investigating Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine over material they published that offended some Muslim law students. It’s a little too precious that the CHRC has chosen now for its self-examination, when a private member’s bill in Parliament would strip it of the right to investigate hate speech allegations altogether.

The only splinter of hope we hold out for the review is that the chief reviewer, University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon, appears to be a fairly impartial expert on the constitutionality of free expression. He has upbraided judges in obscenity trials for trying to impose their personal value judgments simply by “dressing them up in the objective garb of community standards.” Yet at other times, he has appeared favourable to more collectivist notions, writing that speech has a “social character,” with great “potential for harm.” And that expression, if left unchecked, “can cause fear, it can harass and it can undermine self-esteem.”

Sadly, it seems Professor Moon is not all that and a bag of chips, at least as far as his supposed impartiality is concerned. Reading some of his material, it’s hard to tell him apart from an HRC apparatchik.

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!

Stephen Boissoin himself writes in with a comment — and perhaps even a clarification — concerning the letter by him which was cited in this article.

Just so people are aware, that letter was not just some baseless anti-homosexual rant. The newspaper gave it the title and it was published in the middle of the heated gay marriage, hate crimes bill, gay school books being added to the public school curriculum yadayadayada debates all across Canada. Had the gay activist not pushed for so much and destroyed so many or my liberties, that leter would not have been necessary.

In my own Province, the gay group Alberta — PFLAG had received funds from the AHRC, the same group of thugs that prosecuted me, to promote their very biased agenda to young people that homosexuality was “normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years.” To top it off, a pro-gay teacher in my city, same guy who filed the complaint against me, was inviting a gay minister to come into the public school to teach what he called “the pro-homosexual interpretation of the Bible.” He refused to invite a minister that held the traditional view so as to ensure his students had a balanced presentation.

Enough was enough….that letter was written to open the Pandora’s Box. To get people thinking and asking questions about the present imbalance of ‘gay rights’ which are agressively hindering the rights of others.

That letter, though the cause of my present persecution, has done what it was designed to do and I thank God that I had the opportunity to stand for truth and do my part. Had [Darren Lund] not filed that complaint, the letter and my views would have been contained to my Central Alberta community and the debate would have most likely ended in 2002. Instead, the world has access to my letter and I have been provided with a global pulpit for six years going.

Blessings,
Stephen Boissoin

One could not, I think, ask for a better reason to speak out than Pastor Boissoin’s closing paragraph. The issue of homosexuality is a complex one, involving moral theology and natural law as well as many other considerations, and certainly the present progressive tendency to rush in “with guns blazing” to make homosexuality “mainstream” is very concerning. People should have a right to speak out about the issue from every angle, including the moral angle, and in defence of what could be called traditional sexual norms. As Chesterton noted, “progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative”, and progress for its own sake has in all ages of history been ruinous to the societies that have sought after it.

We, as Canadians, should have the right to have heady, long-winded, and powerful debates about matters which affect the fabric of our society, which threaten to alter it in ways that may be destructive to it. We should have had that debate about divorce. We should have had that debate about abortion, common-law partnerships, and a whole host of other things which have chipped away, little by little, and the centrality of the family in stable society. We need to have that debate about homosexuality, if only to avoid repeating past mistakes. When people are silenced, the opportunities for such debates shut down.

But silencing someone only works if a) you kill him or b) he agrees to be silenced. Pace what Ezra Levant noted previously, the one who speaks out anyway, in spite of being ordered to shut up, is something of a dashing rogue…and, as Pastor Boissoin notes above, it is precisely because he was initially silenced that he elected to speak out even louder, spreading his side of the debate much farther than it probably would have gone had events transpired even slightly differently.

It’s things like this which will, in due time, be the end of the human rights commissions — or, at least, the end of the role of HRCs as an office of censorship, both nationally and provincially. More and more, Canadians are beginning to wake up and realize that regardless of what the government says, human beings possess natural human rights that exceed those mere things which governments privelege citizens to do. These rights can’t be taken away by anyone short of God Himself.

So why not speak out? Why not act out? Like the Poles in the 1980s, the moral authority is not possessed by those who would demand order, censorship, and obedience to government stipulations and obscure tribunals. The moral authority belongs to the people who will not give up those rights which are theirs regardless of the government’s opinion. Let us not give that up.

Update: Welcome, Sleepy Old Bear readers, and thanks for the kudos, Stillman! I like that term of yours…”pansexual”. Mind if I borrow it occasionally for future use?

Meet the Update: Welcome, Steynians!

And this homosexual activist group, in denouncing the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s unjust ruling against Christian pastor Stephen Boissoin, reflects that idea better than many of us freespeechers have in the past.

On several occasions, I’ve pointed out that the Alberta government’s persecution of a Christian pastor for writing an anti-gay letter to the editor was not supported by EGALE, Canada’s leading gay rights lobby. As former executive director, Gilles Marchildon wrote when the case was still winding its way through the HRC. An excerpt:

While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.

If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.

Plus, it is far better that Boissoin expose his views than have them pushed underground. Under the glaring light of public scrutiny, his ideas will most likely wither and die.

In fact, his words may serve to increase public education. By more clearly seeing the ugly face of bigotry and prejudice, the need for teaching tolerance in schools becomes obvious.

I’m impressed with that. It’s a call to civic responsibility. Marchildon doesn’t abide Rev. Boissoin’s comments one bit. But instead of asking the nanny state to protect him, instead of outsourcing his civic duties to some HRC, Marchildon wants to engage in a public debate, and use it as a teaching moment. And, as the title of his article, “Freedom for all means freedom for each” shows, Marchildon knows that if an “offensive” Christian activist is censored today, an offensive gay rights activist can be censored tomorrow.

The HRCs in Canada are basically the put-into-practice version of the anonymous “they” in the old saying that begins “First they came for…” And it’s entirely true that an organ of the state such as a human rights commission in Canada can and will, in due time, turn on those it purports to protect. Already, these supposed defenders of human rights are trampling on human rights, by assailing the freedom of expression of those who put forth opinions that some consider distasteful. But in due course, might those same commissions decide to set aside another right in pursuit of granting, to yet another offended party, some undue form of redress?

As much as I realize that Vox Day is being facetious, I feel that I should point out that it’s highly unlikely that Richard Dawkins would ever be hauled before a human rights commission in Canada. Not because he is a foreign national — I’ve no doubt that the commission wouldn’t hesitate to prosecute a case against someone simply because they aren’t a Canadian citizen (I’m half-tempted to file a complaint against Dick Cheney to test this theory) if in fact it fit their agenda — but because, well, it wouldn’t fit their agenda to go after a noted scholar of atheism, especially on behalf of disaffected Christians.

I wonder how long it will be before someone in Canuckistan reports Richard Dawkins to one of these human rights commissions; he has almost surely made far more disparaging remarks about Jews, Christians, and Muslims than Stephen Boissoin ever made about homosexuals or Mark Steyn ever made about Muslims. The whole thing is appalling to anyone who supports human freedom, of course, but it would be extremely ironic to see Dawkins forced to publicly apologize “for his views on Judaism” and refrain from disparaging the religious faithful by a godless secular organization. Perhaps then he might see that connection between atheism and totalitarianism that he just hasn’t been able to locate yet.

The Jewish angle seems more workable, but I still doubt the prospects of succcess; I honestly can’t see such a radical, left-wing organ of the Canadian state as the CHRC (or any provincial HRC, come to think of it) going after a modern champion of secular thought.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Except this one, that is.

I had a wonderfully relaxing weekend, but it’s been non-stop action all day long, so unfortunately I haven’t had time for blogging. Rest assured that there will be fresh content soon, though — in particular, I’ve just seen the latest episode of BSG, and…well…there’s the omnipresent issue of human rights commissions to add more coverage to.

Like my joke about being Lutheran, HRC discussion never gets old!