Another Look at that Forest

In a previous post, I noted that HRCs and their victims are trees in a bigger forest. In that context, I noted the plight of Chris Kempling, whom several organizations have tried to silence, without the help of the HRCs. Here's another tree that indicates the scope and implication of the bigger forest: BBC chief: Reporting on Islam is over-cautious out of fear of offending Muslims.

Speaking at Westminster Cathedral Mr Thompson, a practising Catholic, said there was “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole”.

Many news organizations, pundits, and thinktanks are not going to wait until they have to face a commission or are sued before they begin to censor themselves. Maclean's and Western Standard have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves - without having been found guilty. If reporting of legitimate news items (e.g. Danish cartoons) or publishing of political opinion (e.g. threat of radical Islam) are not protected by law and (real) courts, we will find ourselves wondering what news stories haven't been reported and what insights have been suppressed. Of course, the enemies of free speech are quite satisfied when people pre-emptively censor themselves - it is a step toward owning and controlling all speech. This is the reason that HRCs and the other aspects and implications of their bigger context are so dangerous.

ECP Ignite our Culture Western Conference

I'll be attending the ECP Centre's Ignite our Culture Conference in Langley, BC this weekend. The theme is "New Media and a Christian Perspective on Free Speech". I'll post comments on the conference proceedings here as I find opportunity.

At the heart of this issue in our culture is the concept of human rights. Here's a primer on the biblical basis of human rights courtesy of Michael Wagner at NoApologies.ca:

Under the law, then, a man has a ‘right’ to his life, his limbs, his liberty and his property simply because it is wrong to take them from him except in just punishment for breaking that same law. The law is a closed circle, a complete fence. Within it men are free and have innumerable ‘rights’ if one wants to think of them that way. But these rights appear from the wrongs specified by [God’s] law...

Far Beyond Moral Equivalence

Jihad Watch reports on a recent episode of one of the Law and Order shows: Law and Order shills for Islam. In summary, the episode is about a Christian woman stoned to death for having a Muslim boyfriend.

We need not mention that God does not call for the stoning of adulterers - or, as Robert Spencer points out, that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8).

Spencer observes:

And the subtext of it all, of course, is that those who oppose the global jihad and Islamic supremacism are just another flavor of fanatic, not someone who actually cares about preserving Western (and other non-Muslim) culture and civilization, and safeguarding the equality of dignity and rights of all people. Nope. The two sides are completely equivalent and interchangeable.

Spencer is right that those who oppose the advance of Islamism in the West are painted as fanatics in their own right. But the writers are far beyond moral equivalence here. In fact, the two sides are not being treated equivalently and interchangeably. If that were so, the writers for Law and Order would just flip a coin to determine who would be carrying out the stoning - "Will it be the Christians or the Muslims throwing rocks this time?"

But we are quite unlikely to see an episode telling the story of a Muslim father who kills his daughters because they are dating non-Muslims - even though this very thing has happened and can't even be considered anomalous anymore in the West, including Canada. And we are quite likely to continue to see Christians being painted as dangerous fanatics - even though this depiction is contrary to the theology and practice of the vast majority of Christians.

There are two sides to the coin that is being flipped by writers such as those for Law and Order: on the one hand you have their unwillingness to confront - much less portray - the crimes against Muslim women and non-Muslims that actually happen, continually; on the other hand you have their willingness - even eagerness - to denigrate Christians and Christianity by imagining things that do not happen. 

These are the actions of a suicidal society: attacking the values that established it, and submitting to the values that threaten to destroy it.

A Step in the Right Direction?

Ezra Levant broke news today that Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca (Victoria), gave notice of his Private Member's motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.

It's curious and somewhat disappointing that a Liberal beat the Conservatives to the punch, but as Levant notes, it is also quite advantageous.  It's not the ideal - the entire Human Rights Commission provision has to go. But it is a promising step in the right direction. A few questions come to mind:

• This is a motion in Parliament. What implications would the carrying of the motion have for provincial Human Rights Acts and Commissions?
• What would happen to pending subsection 13 cases?
• What recourse would others have who have lost subsection 13 cases?

In the meanwhile, a few more columns have appeared in the Canadian mainstream media against the HRCs. Among the best is another one from Rex Murphy: 

Mostly I fear, if the HRCs are tied up, Canadians will be reading, unguided, what they choose to read, deciding for themselves what they like and what they don't, will discard a book or pass it to a friend, like a column or curse one - lit only by the light of their own reason. The horror! Before we know it, we'll have an unstoppable epidemic of free speech, free thought, and freedom of the press.

Section 13

The hate crimes complaints against Steyn and Levant are Section 13 complaints, referring to Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Recent damning evidence has surfaced against current and former HRC investigators of Section 13 complaints. See comments on this development from Levant and Steyn.

Meanwhile, the Pundita blog has done some thorough analysis of Section 13, and by extension the state of human rights and liberal democracy in Canada. Pundita also recommends going after the commissions directly rather than waiting for the legislature do it.

Closed Circuit

An amazing story from NoApologies.ca: an assistant to a Federal Conservative MP recently sent colleagues an email that included the following:

I am wondering if someone might be aware of an issue with the Canadian Human Rights Commission??? I have received a few emails from constituents complaining about the HRC and I don't know whether this is just a blanket complaint or whether HRC was recently in the news....?

The cases against Western Standard and Maclean's are among the hottest stories on the entire North American blog circuit - never mind the Canadian conservative blog circuit. How can a Federal Conservative MP's assistant be oblivious to them? As I mentioned earlier, the mainstream media - who should be very interested in these cases - is also far behind on this scoop. Levant makes the same observation.

What consequence does this lack of press have? What has the average Canadian heard of this issue? And how does that translate into public pressure on legislators? As Al Siebring points out, it can't just stay on the blog circuit. Private support for beleaguered publishers must translate into public support before legislators can effectively take action.

Shackling the Citizen

The blog circuit is buzzing with Ezra Levant's video coverage of his appearance at the Alberta HRC. As he reports at ezralevant.com, his videos have been viewed over 200,000 times. They have also been featured on high-profile blogs such as Little Green Footballs. A study in contrast - and dare I say, evidence of their growing irrelevance - is the mainstream media's lack of coverage of the proceedings. One exception is this offering from columnist Lorne Gunter via the National Post, in which he indicates that the shackling of the free press is a symptom of a larger problem:

Gone is the robust belief held by our ancestors for 800 years that the citizen is sovereign, that he is free to do as he wishes unless the state can show unambiguously that there is an overriding need to limit his liberty temporarily. It has been replaced by the continental notion that nothing is allowed unless it is expressly permitted by the state. The belief that the citizen owes the government an explanation of his actions, not the other way around, has gripped our politicians, bureaucrats, judges and professors.

Shackling the Press: Part II

The complaints against Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn are just a few of several notable cases currently before the HRCs. In another strikingly similar case, a magazine - the now-defunct Western Standard - and its editor - Ezra Levant - are being investigated for being offensive.

I am being interrogated for the political crime of publishing the Danish cartoons in the Western Standard nearly two years ago. As a lawyer, I've been in different courts and tribunals, but I've never experienced a kangaroo court first-hand. I will have a more comprehensive report later today.

Of particular interest is his thorough and no-holds-barred response to the complaint against the magazine:

This is a nuisance suit that serves an illiberal agenda, and should the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) not dismiss it forthwith, the AHRCC itself will become a party to it.

Levant's opening statement at the interrogation had the same tone:

It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words. I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me.

Levant, Steyn, and others in their position have been advised not to make their situations worse by attacking the HRCs. But Levant and Steyn are taking the right stance - they have no illusions about the fairness of the HRCs. They are hoping to bring their trials outside of the commissions and into the court of public opinion, since the most important aspect of these complaints is the legitimacy of the commissions themselves. And it is the commissions who are now being put on trial in the court of public opinion.

Update: Levant has posted videos of portions of his interrogation on YouTube. He details the circumstances and considerations of his decision to do so:

But my lawyer and I insisted that we be permitted to record the interrogation, for use when we appeal the commission's decision to a real court. The officer allowed the video camera, but asked that we keep the recording confidential. But, over a year ago, our lawyer served notice on the commission that we reserved the right to publish any communications to or from the commission whatsoever, and that they should govern themselves accordingly. It's not surprising that a censor like the commission would want to do its censorship in the dark.

First, footage of Levant's opening statement:



Second, his strong response to the absurd query of what his intent was in publishing the cartoons. As Mark Steyn writes:

How did it come about in one of the oldest settled democracies in the world that government agencies were given powers to require a "free" press to justify the "intent" behind a particular article?

Update: Levant indicates that he will upload about ten videos to YouTube. You can see them at his website, with relevant commentary.

Update: Shackling the Press

In my previous post on the Human Rights Commission complaints against Maclean's magazine, I noted that the travesty is not the complaints themselves. Free people should be free to complain. The travesty is that the HRCs have agreed to hear the complaints. Mark Steyn agrees:

What's offensive is not the accusations of Dr Elmasry and his pals, but the willingness of Canada's pseudo-courts to take them seriously. So I couldn't care less about the verdict - except insofar as an acquittal would be more likely to bolster the cause of those who think it's entirely reasonable for the state to serve as editor-in-chief of privately owned magazines. As David Warren put it, the punishment is not the verdict but the process.

Maclean's is now in the unenviable position that anything it does to comply with the HRCs in fact legitimizes them.

Shackling the Press

No sooner has Mark Steyn revealed the newly-enshrined right not to be offended than the Canadian Islamic Congress has given a case in point: it has filed a complaint against Maclean's Magazine with three Human Rights Commissions regarding an article by Steyn called 'The Future Belongs to Islam'. Read the complaints at Steyn's website. There are just so many things wrong with this. First, regarding Human Rights Commissions:

• HRCs are not bound to rigorous standards of evidence and procedure.
• HRCs are given power to force compliance and levy fines.
• HRC employees need not have legal training, and appointments are often political in nature.
  
• HRCs are balanced heavily in favour of the complainants, who are not responsible for the legal fees and paperwork that can tie up or cripple the party being investigated.
• By contrast, the complainants can avoid legal fees, time in court, and have the benefit of a lower standard of legal procedure - this makes it an easy system to abuse.
  
• HRCs in Canada have done more stripping of human rights (especially those of freedom of speech and freedom of religion) than upholding them - without the checks and balances of standard legal procedure, the HRCs have given favour to certain rights (or even perceived rights) at the expense of other constitutionally enshrined rights.

Regarding this particular case:

• Why three complaints? The main complainant is filing several complaints in the hopes that one will stick. Even if 2 of 3 complaints are unsuccessful, he is victorious.
  
• The main complainant on all three complaints, Mohamed Elmasry, is a professor of computer engineering at the University of Waterloo. That's in Ontario. So I can buy a complaint with the Ontario HRC or the federal HRC. But how can he file a complaint with the HRC in British Columbia? And how can that commission justify hearing the case? What jurisdiction can it possibly have?
  
• The simplest action for the complainants would be to respond in kind: publish a rebuttal in another paper or magazine. Doubtless there is no shortage of media outfits that sympathize with them and would be glad to be the vehicle for such a rebuttal. The fact that the complainants have chosen the HRCs betrays their disinterest in open and frank debate. Instead, they want to silence detractors. If the complainants are so sure of their position, why not silence them with an unrebuttable rebuttal?
• The complainants are using deceptive - no, outright false - claims.
• One of the quotes listed as a grievance is not even Steyn's - it is directly from a Muslim leader!
  
• This is a bold and direct attack on the freedoms of thought, speech and press, and it is obviously so. It is a travesty that HRCs have even considered hearing these complaints.

Any member of the free press that thinks government control (by HRCs or another arm) will not restrict their journalistic freedom is naive. These complaints are very dangerous in that they could very well be a precedent in that direction. This is the very reason for the First Amendment to the US Constitution with regard to the freedom of the press. Yet, aside from some notable exceptions, the mainstream media, whose future is at stake with Maclean's, has been remarkably silent on the issue.

These complaints have heightened the debate about HRCs, but not enough that Canadians will demand that they be shut down. If the HRCs realize the danger of ruling in favour of the complainants and fail to do so, Maclean's will be off the hook, but so will the HRCs. The best possible outcome may just be that Maclean's loses its fight initially, but is supported by the anger of the free press and freedom-loving Canadians and fights the HRCs off for good.