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!

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!

Since it has been testified under oath, by a Bell Canada employee, that members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission may very well have hacked into a private citizen’s secured wireless network, the RCMP is now investigating the CHRC.

On April 2, 2008, Marc Lemire filed a criminal complaint against the Canadian Human Rights Commission for theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection. In that complaint, Marc Lemire is alleging that:

Dean Steacy and/or other Commission employees willfully connected to the wireless access point owned by Nelly Hechme, in order to hide their online identity. Then impersonating Mrs. Hechme, via her internet connection, browsed to Stormfront.Org website and printed documents that were submitted as evidence of material fact before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

1. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Mischief in relation to data in contravention of Section 430 (1.1) (c)(d) of the Criminal Code.

2. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Unauthorized use of a computer in contravention of Section 342.1 (1) (a)(b) of the Criminal Code.

3. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Theft of telecommunication service in contravention of Section 326 (1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

4. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed Interception of Communications in contravention of Section 184 (1) of the Criminal Code.

5. By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed other Criminal Code violations which this Police Service may deem applicable.

On May 2, 2008 the Ottawa Police Service came to a decision on the criminal complaint. And the decision was to put it onto the RCMP. The RCMP will not directly accept criminal complaints in Ontario. You have to go through a local police service, and according to the rules, the local police service will then forward to the RCMP.

This is good news indeed, although one suspects that the minions of the CHRC have been very good at covering their tracks. Still, there are ways to tell if a computer has been connected to a particular network, and I’m sure that the forensic analysts at the RCMP are quite well-equipped to detect evidence of any such incursion.

The actions of the CHRC are outrageous and shouldn’t fall under the scope of what is permissible, even in the cause of upholding Canadian law. Indeed, had this been a police investigation that had abused a private citizen’s wireless internet access, the evidence procured from it would have been tossed out of court with startling rapidity.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Four years ago, when the RCMP raided ’s house to seize privileged evidence that had been leaked to her, the media went on the warpath for weeks, reporting on the subject and toasting O’Neill as a free speech hero. So said the group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.

I agree that an actual raid on O’Neill’s house to seize documents is indeed a big news story, and it does touch upon issues of the free press. But is not a two-year-long government investigation of the political thoughts of a Canadian publisher newsworthy as well?

The small sliver of opinion on the blogosphere that has spoken out against me on this matter has focused, in the main, on my own personality or political stripe — I can count on two fingers the blog posts that actually support human rights commissions. The bulk of the opposition to me is personal. Is that the same thing in the mainstream media — for personal or political reasons, or competitive reasons, they’re declining to cover a story of government censorship? My interrogation is not as dramatic as a raid on O’Neill’s home for documents, but it is just as troubling. More, even — O’Neill’s “crime” was receiving leaked documents. My crime was having illegal thoughts about poltiical and religious subjects.

Perhaps another reason is that the bulk of the media is rather shy about this entire subject, given that the vast majority of them hid under their desks during the initial cartoon kerfuffle. The Canadian Journalists for Freedom of Expression sure did. When we were taken to the human rights commission, they thought it more important to issue a press release about freedom in Uganda. At least they were better than Amnesty International, which condemned the publication of the cartoons. Like “free speech” advocates who went on vacation, editors and producers who were AWOL — or worse, enforced the cartoon ban in their own media organizations — might not want to remind themselves or their audience of that now.

Another reason might be ongoing fear of human rights complaints against them — the “chill” factor. Best to avoid difficult issues, and focus on happy human interest stories everyone can agree on, including radical Muslim imams.

But the story isn’t about me. It isn’t even about the cartoons or about Islam. It’s about whether or not the government can summon anyone, including a publisher, to an interrogation to answer for their political thoughts.

If I’m fair game today, anyone is fair game tomorrow.

Ezra Levant asks (rightly) just why it is that the story of his struggle with the Alberta Human Rights Commission has not received wider attention in the Canadian media. In the blogosphere and in the American media, the Levant-HRC fracas has been well-documented and has received the attention it deserves — suppression of freedom of expression should be viewed as a serious threat to human liberties in the West, after all.

But in Canada, hardly anyone in the media has said anything about Levant’s case, and Mark Steyn’s case has received only slightly more attention. It is as if the issue of the existence of an organ of the Canadian government which exists solely to trample on the legitimate right of all Canadians to freedom of expression rates a “no, nevermind” from most major media outlets in this nation…which, one would hope, should be the first people to decry even the slightest encroachment on that right.

But I guess the idea of actually standing in opposition to the activist left over an issue such as this just doesn’t fit the narrative.