Can a case be made for censorship?
May 22, 2008
Mark Frieman, writing in the National Post, seems to think so. Jay Currie has the details.
I’m short of time, so here’s the meaty bit out of Jay’s review of/response to the article:
It is a very intelligent and compelling argument and, I suspect, represents the political fallback position of the CHRC and its dwindling band of supporters. Freiman refers to “procedural lapses or errors” and suggest that these should not vitiate the powerful idea that the Canadian telecommunications system should not “be used as a vehicle for hate propaganda“.
Unfortunately, as the CHRC’s investigative methods and total lack of process, discretion and restraint are revealed in the Lemire case and in the Steyn matter, it becomes increasingly apparent the CHRC has long since abandoned any pretense of addressing the concerns the Supreme Court of Canada raised in Taylor. The highhanded conduct of the Member in Lemire, the fraudulent invocation of s. 37 of Canada Evidence Act by the Commission, the attempt on the part of Commission counsel to deny public access in that matter, the lying under oath of CHRC management employees, the arbitrary truncation of proceedings and cross examination based on no law whatsoever and a whole host of other gross violations of natural justice all suggest that the CHRC is not capable of properly and fairly administering s.13(1). In fact, the antics of the CHRC suggest is has become a greater ongoing evil than the de minimus evil it is seeking to suppress.
It’s that last bit that’s really relevant: the damage that the human rights commissions are causing to and in Canada is exponentially greater than the amount of hypothetical damage they might prevent. Hate crimes are a terrible thing, but stripping away — or imposing limits on — a fundamental freedom like the right to expression is actually even worse. Because while hate crimes lash out against groups or individuals, destroying or impairing freedom of speech attacks the nation as a whole.
