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.