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!

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!

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!

Welcome, CHRC minions!

Number of Entries: 1
Entry Page Time: 14th May 2008 09:19:51
Visit Length: 0 seconds
Browser: MSIE 6.0
OS: Windows 2000
Resolution: 1024×768

Returning Visits: 0
Location: Ottawa Ontario Canada
Hostname: ns.ccdp-chrc.ca (198.103.143.130)
Entry Page:
www.timeimmortal.net/2008/01/30/death- by-a-thousand-cuts-fisking-jennifer-lynch/
Exit Page:
www.timeimmortal.net/2008/01/30/death- by-a-thousand-cuts-fisking-jennifer-lynch/
Referring URL:
blogsearch.google.ca/blogsearch?hl=en&client=news &q=%22jennifer lynch%22&ie=UTF8

Well, don’t I feel special now!