Time Immortal

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!

Today only!

That’s right — any Mark Steyn merchandise or books purchased today will mean money donated to the legal defence funds of Canadian bloggers Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate MacMillan, Mark and Connie of Free Dominion, and National Post columnist Johnathan Kay against the lawsuit filed by Richard Warman. These men and women have been vocal, vital advocates in the cause of freedom of expression rights in Canada, and both need and deserve our support, O Reader.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Monday, counsel will file a motion requiring that Charlie Gillis, yours truly and other Maclean’s staff be admitted to cover the proceedings on the grounds that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are subject to the same rules of openness as any other Canadian court.

Is the secretive, self-protective “human rights” apparatus part of the Canadian legal system and its Common Law inheritance? Or is it, in fact, above the law, and a law unto itself?

Meanwhile, I note that Keith Martin, MP, seems to be moving from proposing a fairly narrow repeal of Section 13 (i) to something closer to a full-scale review of the “human rights” system. Many of us have made the same journey in recent months: the more you look into this racket, the more you repelled you are by its modus operandi.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

MP Dan McTeague has given his support to Dr. Keith Martin’s Bill M-446.

Way to go, Mr. McTeague — thank you for standing up in support of this important human rights issue!

Now, if only a couple of Conservative MPs would follow suit…

Erf writes in with a request for a bit more information about the Facebook group I mention in this article.

Since at least some of your readers (such as myself) aren’t on Facebook and therefore can’t look at the group you linked to, would you mind telling us a little more about them? It sounds like there’s a group of people who oppose government Censorship and are trying to stop such a censorship bill from passing. (I’ve heard about this bill, and it’s pretty bad news for small filmmakers.) What about the group has convinced you that (a) they’re liberals, (b) they’re whiny, and (c) they’d still support stuff like the HRCs? The last in particular sounds like quite a jump. if a bunch of liberals are supporting freedom of speech, I thought you’d be pleased.

While I am generally happy to see people standing up for freedom of expression, I utterly despise people who pick and choose which freedoms of expression to stand up for — on the subject of fundamental human rights, I’m very much “all or nothing” and cannot stand to see a person at one moment advocating for his or her right to speek freely, while in the next breath advocating for some manner of restriction on another person’s right to do same.

And I do happen to think this group, unfortunately, is comprised mostly of people who act in that exact way. I joined the group for all of five minutes and asked, on the group’s “Wall” (sort of an open chatbox concept) whether anyone who opposed Bill C-10 likewise supported MP Dr. Keith Martin’s Bill M-446, which would see subsection 13(1) removed from the Canadian Human Rights Act, ending the particular form of government censorship that we call the human rights commissions.

I’ve left the group already, but I keep checking back on it from time to time. As yet, I’ve yet to receive a reply to my question.

But let’s take Erf’s questions in order, O Reader.

First, why do I suspect that the group is comprised of liberals? Well, apart from the fact that it was founded by a political science professor, and aside from the fact that all of the people on my friends list who have joined are of a liberal political bent, I have no concrete evidence. But gut feeling and experience suggest to me that if one did a survey of the group’s membership, the predominant majority would be of a left-wing bent (especially if the trends I have seen among the people on my own friends list can be taken as any kind of indicator).

Second, why do I classify the group as whiny? Well, let’s begin by taking a look at the group’s “charter”:

http://ualberta.facebook.com/profile.php?id=120403672

WHAT THIS GROUP IS FOR:

This group is for people who are *opposed* to the provisions in Bill C-10 relating to tax credits for film and TV production, and who want to work together fight the Bill. Purposes of this group include:

* Supporting one another in writing letters of protest about Bill C-10 (see info below).

* Organizing demonstrations and other forms of action to oppose the Bill (see Discussion Board).

* Keeping track of the progress of Bill C-10 through the legislative process, so that our activism can be well directed.

WHAT THIS IS GROUP NOT FOR:

This group is not for arguments against public funding of the arts in Canada. It is not for bashing people who oppose Bill C-10. It is not for talking about other issues that people should be concerned about instead of Bill C-10. If you are not sure whether this is the group for you, please see the Terms of Use below.

We don’t want to constrain others’ speech; we just want to be able to use this group to plan political action against C-10, and don’t want to get sidetracked. We’ve created another group if you want to discuss whether C-10 is a good idea, whether the arts in Canada should be funded at all, etc. This group is called “What’s so bad about Bill C-10?” and is at http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=8184619495

WHAT IS BILL C-10?

Bill C-10 is a long, omnibus bill of technical changes to tax laws; but hidden away in there is a provision that would allow the Heritage Minister to withhold tax credits if a production was considered ‘contrary to public policy’. We are opposed to this legislation because:

* IT IS UNDEMOCRATIC: This controversial new provision to screen the content of productions in awarding tax credits was never debated in the House of Commons, because it was hidden away in a long, technical piece of legislation.

* IT WILL HAVE EXTREMELY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE WHOLE CANADIAN FILM AND TV INDUSTRY: Films and TV programs apply for tax credits late in the game, after scripts have been written and principal photography completed. They use the predictability of tax credits to apply for federal subsidies, loans, and Telefilm Canada grants. With the proposed new guidelines, films and TV programs with even a whiff of controversy will become risky for funders, and artists will be under strong pressure to self-censor. Indeed, all productions will find it more difficult to secure financing due to this uncertainty. See these discussions for details: http://facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9036150977&topic=4369 and http://ualberta.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9036150977&topic=4388

* IT FEELS LIKE A COVERT ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE A RIGHT-WING CULTURAL AGENDA ON CANADIAN FILM AND TV: The Tories’ evangelical base is celebrating the new legislation as a victory: the Globe and Mail reports that “Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and ‘numerous’ meetings with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office. ‘We’re thankful that someone’s finally listening,’ he said yesterday. ‘It’s fitting with conservative values, and I think that’s why Canadians voted for a Conservative government.’ ‘There are a number of Conservative backbench members that do a lot of this work behind the scenes,’ he said.”

See Items Posted for links to news stories that will tell you much more about the Bill.

Incidentally, the last point above might also support my theory that the group is predominantly liberal in its outlook. Notice, O Reader, how willing the group is to denigrate Bill C-10 as a method of imposing a “right-wing cultural agenda” — “right-wing” being a negative thing here (and the implication thus being that “left-wing” is preferable).

But let’s unpack the first two claims made about Bill C-10.

First, is it undemocratic? Well, no…it’s not being imposed by a judge, after all (which would truly be undemocratic, since judges are unelected). Instead, it is a bill which must pass through multiple votes in the (elected) Legislative Assembly of Canada — the same Legislative Assembly that was democratically elected by the people of Canada. And even if the bill passes, future governments always have the option to strip out the amendments made in it. There is nothing undemocratic about this bill.

Second, will it have negative effects? Reading through the charter above, one gets the strong sense that the founder of the group feels that Canadian filmmakers are entitled to government funding, but that the government has no business saying what content it feels comfortable funding in Canadian films. That’s a bit of a double standard, methinks. But really, is that not the government’s right? If the government is going to be expected to fork over dollars for the development of television programs and films that do not have enough private funding on their own, shouldn’t the government be able to say whether or not it feels that a television program or film is something it would be comfortable to support? Canadian citizens have that right — we cannot be compelled to hand over money to causes we do not support (I will note that federal funding of abortion is one exception to that statement), nor can we be compelled to pay money to see a movie we would rather not see. That’s one of the cornerstone principles of a free and democratic society: that the people can choose what to support, and what not to support, based on an individual set of criteria.

Why shouldn’t the government of a free and democratic nation have the same right?

I’ve read through the discussions taking place in this Facebook group, and most of them seem to devolve into condemnations of conservative politics and religious belief. One would think, reading some of the comments, that Canada is only a couple of days away from becoming a formal theocracy, and then a fascistic one.

But when I read the actual text of the bill itself, all I see is the government saying that it won’t automatically support all television programs or films produced in Canada, that it would rather not support a Canadian-produced movie like Young Teens F***ing (you think I’m making that up, don’t you?).

These complaints are based on sensationalism and deliberate distortion of the facts. They are, in a word, whiny, and much more than that as well.

Now, in response to Erf’s third question, why I think the group would nevertheless support Section 13 being kept in the CHRA…well, I do seem to have already answered that, and I am still waiting on a reply to my question about Dr. Keith Martin and Bill M-446. But it one takes a stroll through the many and various liberal-minded Canadian blogs out there, one tends to note that in many corners, the response to Bill M-446 is extremely negative, even (and perhaps especially) on blogs that oppose Bill C-10. I would find it difficult to believe that the membership of this group thinks differently about the issue.

I would bet good money that pretty much every member of this Facebook group (”Keep your censoring hands off of Canadian film and TV! No to Bill C-10!”) would nevertheless support keeping subSection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) intact, and would condemn Liberal Party MP Dr. Keith Martin as an associate and abettor of hatemongers and Nazis.

In other words, another pack of whiny little liberals who have the physiological appearance of being all grown up, but who have the capability for rational thought of elementary-level schoolchildren.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!