CRTC Seeks More Power

The CRTC is well-known to Canadian Christians. It is not a fond acquaintance. For years the CRTC has done its best to keep Christian programming off Canadian radio and TV, or at least to limit it as much as possible. Numerous applications for Christian-only radio stations and TV channels have been denied for various dubious reasons. Recently, as LifeSiteNews reported, the CRTC denied two applications for Christian radio stations in Ottawa, while approving a TV channel that promised to promote the Canadian pornography industry. This is nothing new for Christians or conservatives, such as those who had to fight to get the CRTC to allow the FOX News channel in Canada, even though it had in principle accepted Al Jazeera TV's application.

The CRTC's position and power are incredible. The Commission (where have we heard that word before?) is essentially promoting some things and censoring - in the true sense of the word - others. Between one Commission and the other, the government now decides what "free" Canadians are allowed to watch, here, say, and write. Now this is not all bad. Pornography, among other things, should be kept off of our TVs. It is a matter of decency. Libel must be prosecuted in the courts. It is a matter of protecting reputations. But censoring political commentary or religious broadcasting is a whole other matter. It is an assault on freedom.

Christians have recently taken to the Internet, where they are free from our eye- ear- and mouth-keepers over at the CRTC. There, radio is uncensored and freely accessible. It's no wonder the CRTC is trying to get its fingers on the Internet, too - see their notice. David Warren points out that the CRTC was not directed by Parliament to do so. No, this Commission, just like the HRC, feels quite comfortable expanding its jurisdiction as it sees fit, unaccountable to those it purports to serve.

That this announcement was made by the CRTC, rather than by Parliament, is an indication of the degree to which the CRTC is a law unto itself.

In the time-honoured, mealy-mouthed way, the CRTC will soon be explaining that its intentions are innocent, that it is merely trying to keep up with the convergence of broadcast and Internet technologies. Only a naive fool will believe that. The regulator has created a strict broadcasting environment in which Christian and all other views that do not conform to political correctness are effectively kept under siege. The left hungers for the ability to create a similar tightly regulated environment on the Internet, to bring the free reporting and opinions of bloggers and other citizen-journalists under its ideological jackboot.

But, just like with the HRCs, the Commission is not solely at fault. Whether it recognizes them or not, it has masters in Parliament, and it is these elected - and to that extent, accountable - representatives that have both the power and responsibility to liberate Canadians again. Their failure to do so is not the CRTC's fault. Both must be held accountable. For Parliament, it would mean functioning as designed. For the CRTC, it would mean a radical overhaul.

Report on HRCs

On February 15, 2006, a complaint was filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Western Standard magazine. The complainant, the leader of a Muslim mosque, alleged that Western Standard's decision to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, exposed him and his family to hate, discrimination and violence. Ezra Levant, the publisher of the magazine, was called to appear before an investigator. As Levant, a lawyer by trade, prepared for the investigation, he realized that something was terribly wrong.

Original Intent of Human Rights Commissions in Canada

Every Canadian province and territory has a Human Rights Commission (HRC) and/or Tribunal as defined by a Human Rights Act. There is also a federal HRC. HRCs were originally created to arbitrate disputes about housing, employment, and similar matters, in which a complainant felt he had been discriminated against on the basis of race or sex, and did not have the means to pursue the complaint legally. The HRC would investigate the complaint at no charge, with the power to reverse an employment or housing decision, or to order financial compensation.

The Substance of Law: Free Speech and Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act

The Canada Human Rights Act includes Section 13 of which subsection 1 prohibits communication of anything likely to expose a person protected from discrimination to hatred or contempt. Under Section 13 – and its counterparts in provincial Human Rights Acts – HRCs across Canada have clamped down on hate speech from various sources. But what is included in the concept of hate speech?

The answer may surprise unsuspecting Christians. In 2001, the Saskatchewan HRC ruled that an ad – four Bible verses relating to homosexuality, and a crossed-out circle with two men holding hands – placed in the Saskatoon Pheonix by Hugh Owens incited hatred against homosexuals. Both Owens and the Pheonix were ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 to each of the three complainants. In June 2002, Pastor Stephen Boissoin wrote a passionate letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate denouncing the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in schools. Boissoin was found to be in violation of the Alberta Human Rights Act in December 2007. In this same month, Maclean's magazine was notified that it was facing complaints with three Human Rights Commissions in Canada due to an issue of the magazine dealing with the threat of radical Islam. The Christian Heritage Party also currently faces complaints before three HRCs.

Respondents in these and other cases have argued that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication...” and that the complaints against them thus amount to censorship and an attack on their fundamental freedoms. But numerous rulings by the HRCs have argued that hatred can not be justified by hiding behind such freedoms.

Many commentators have pointed out that the legal language of the Human Rights Act is vague, so that nearly anything can be considered to pass the test of “likely to expose to hatred or contempt.” Intentions do not matter. The truthfulness of the statement does not matter. The forum for the communication – political dialogue or news reporting included – does not matter. What matters is that the complainant feels that he was “exposed to hatred or contempt”. In Boissoin's case, the report that a homosexual teenager was beaten two weeks after his letter was published was proof enough that his letter was likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt. The panelist who ruled on the case declared that a direct link between the two events did not need to be established. Thus, complainants can in effect be punished for pre-crimes – before any actual crime might take place.

There are reasonable limits on freedom of speech, including fraud, forgery, copyright violation, and defamation, but HRCs have gone far beyond this. They have declared that the “human right” not to be exposed to hatred trumps Charter freedoms of religion, thought and expression. Indeed, this new right not to be offended flies in the face of 800 years of British common law, 250 years of Canadian common law, the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights.

Some have argued that the only reform needed to the HRCs is the removal of Section 13 from the Canada Human Rights Act. There is indeed a problem with the substance of the law, but there is another aspect of the HRCs that is equally problematic: the rule of law.

The Rule of Law: Systemic Problems with Human Rights Commissions

Investigations under sections other than Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, while not as blatantly in conflict with inalienable rights, are nevertheless in conflict with the checks and balances of the legal system. The Constitution deliberately separates the powers of the legislature, courts, and police. Each of these powers is also bound with checks and balances to prevent corruption and ensure equality under the law. In this system, every party has the same benefit and burden under law. But the HRCs are quite different.

By design, complainants to HRCs are not responsible for the legal cost of their complaints – it is covered by taxpayers – whereas respondents must foot the entire bill for their defense. Cases can drag on for years, making the process the more burdensome. The defendant can not apply for dismisal of nuisance lawsuits. Many HRC employees do not have legal training, not least in constitutional law.

The powers of the commissions are frightening. In Levant's case, the investigator had the power to examine his office at any time, without a search warrant. With a court order – of which Levant would not necessarily be notified – the investigator could go to his home. Any documents or computers could be seized. Commissions also hold similar powers over other persons related to the case who refuse to answer questions.

If a Human Rights Tribunal rules against a defendant, it can order the defendant to pay a fine. It can order the defendant to apologize – saying words he doesn't mean. The Alberta HRC even banned Stephen Boissoin from ever publicly expressing anything against homosexuals and homosexuality. At least 35 defendants are under lifetime gag orders. Section 14 of the Canada Human Rights Act also forbids criticism of the complainant after the process is finished.

Investigators and tribunals are not subject to normal legal rules of evidence and procedure or the “burden of proof”. The concept of double jeopardy does not exist – Maclean's magazine faces identical complaints before three different HRCs. Trials can drag on for years – the Boissoin complaint took 5 years to conclude. Members of the defendant's legal counsel and advisors can be limited or barred at the wish of commissions. And Human Rights Acts do not apply to all citizens equally – Natives are exempted from the entire Canada Human Rights Act.

These systemic problems with the HRCs are the more highlighted when the powers and procedures of the HRCs are compared with real courts and investigators. In real courts, each party pays for its own legal fees. If the case is ruled frivolous, the plaintiff may even be responsible for the defendant's legal fees. Investigators and judges are trained in law. Investigators can not search and sieze without a court-approved warrant. Courts can not impose unusual punishments such as forced apologies or lifetime publication bans. Complainants are not immune to criticism. There are strict rules of evidence and procedure, and failing to observe them can result in a mistrial or the case being thrown out of court. Defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty and have the Charter right to a speedy trial. And the laws, rules, and procedures apply equally to everyone.

Clearly HRCs are kangaroo courts, weighted in the favour of the complainants, which can sidestep the checks and balances of the legal system. A ruling in favour of the defendant is no consolation; the process – years' worth of time and legal fees – is the punishment. On the other hand, the HRCs are ripe for abuse. They are a no-cost alternative for complainants who do not want the hassle of the real court system with its balanced, deliberate, and structured approach, or whose case is not strong enough for such courts. In the end, taxpayers are left with their legal bill.

If censorship and a profoundly unbalanced and unchecked system were not enough, the HRCs have overstepped their mandate and become corrupt.

Corruption at the Human Rights Commissions

One example of the corruption of the HRCs is the new “human rights” that they have in effect created by their rulings. The Ontario HRC is considering a complaint against a restaurant owner who tried to stop a man with a medical marijuana permit from smoking it in the entrance to his restaurant. The HRC will decide, in effect, whether the man has a right to smoke pot in the entrance of someone's restaurant. Other "human rights" the HRCs have in effect granted include: the right of Ontario transexuals to not be denied labiaplasty surgery from surgeons who aren't qualified to perform this surgery; the right of male Alberta salon students not to be teased by their female classmates; the right to work in Ontario restaurant kitchens while infected with Hepatitis; the right of B.C. transit workers to miss work 118 days of the year; the right to have manic episodes from bipolar disorder while testing artillery in Ontario; the right of Albertans still living with their mothers to receive government rent subsidies; the right of B.C. McDonald's workers not to wash their hands; the right of Newfoundlanders to be compensated for Newfoundland Employment Insurance by the Northwest Territories Worker's Compensation Board. It is clear that the HRCs have moved on from upholding human rights of citizens according to the law. They are now in the business of legislating new “human rights”.

The corruption goes deeper, and no statistic is as evidentiary as the fact that the federal Human Rights Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate for Section 13 complaints. Not a single defendant under this section has been cleared. But another statistic is equally curious: 26 – nearly 50% - of federal Section 13 complaints have been filed by the same person, Richard Warman, a former employee of the federal HRC. Warman has been awarded at least $ 45,000 in fines as a result of these complaints since 2003, even though he was not the allegedly offended party in many of the complaints.

One of Warman's victims is Mark Lemire, moderator of FreedomSite, an alleged white supermacist internet forum. Lemire decided to fight back against Warman and the HRC, and in the process uncovered apparent abuses of the law and questionable investigational procedures. As a result, a hearing was held on March 25, 2008 at which Lemire's legal team was allowed to cross examine HRC staff on these procedures. The hearing itself demonstrated that the HRC sees itself above the law. After spending thousands of dollars on the investigation, the Tribunal declared that to save money, no legal transcript would be taken of the hearing. The Tribunal chairman allowed continual dilatory objections from HRC lawyers, allowed many answers of “I don't know” under oath, limited the examination time of intervenors, and continually tried to bring the hearing to an end.

Nevertheless, several damning details about the operation of HRC investigators emerged from the hearing and the examinations which preceeded it. Incredibly, HRC employees signed up to Lemire's internet forum and posted hateful messages, ostensibly to use as evidence or to incite the forum participants. They used a private citizen's wireless network without her permission in an attempt to hide this. They monitored other forums in anticipation of complaints against them. Commission investigators also colluded with police forces in order to use powers of police that were not available to them.

Richard Warman filed the complaint against Lemire while he was still employed by the HRC, trained the investigator of his complaint, remained in regular contact with her, instructed her to slow the investigation down and to withhold this information from Lemire, and urged that the complaint go to the Human Rights Tribunal. He also went to HRC offices and was allowed access to some of the information regarding his complaint, as well as the HRC pseudonym and password.

The HRCs, with laws allowing them to censor free thought and speech, and unconstitutional systems and procedures, have now become corrupt - a law unto themselves, and are out of control.

Movement to Fix the Human Rights Commission Problem

Until recently, the overwhelming majority of victims of the HRC process were poor or working class, unrepresented by lawyers, and thus practically unable to fight back. With Lemire's challenge of the HRCs, that tide began to turn.

When Levant was called before an investigator for a hearing in January, he served notice to the Alberta HRC that he would be recording the hearing on video. He then posted those videos on the Internet, where they had over 400,000 views. The videos, along with Levant's spirited defense, highlighted the problem with the commissions. His case got widespread coverage on Internet blogs.

The case broke into the mainstream print media with the complaints against Maclean's. Newspapers and political organizations across the country published opinions and releases against the HRCs – particularly its actions under Section 13. Even Alan Borovoy, who originally helped to found the HRCs, has been outspoken in declaring that the HRCs have overstepped their mandate. The media – although too silent on the issue in general – have helped to denormalize the HRCs and have set the stage for legislative action.

The issue also made its way into Parliament. At the end of January, liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a motion in the House of Commons to delete subsection 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act. Concerned citizens have contacted their MPs and Rob Nicholson, the Justice minister responsible for the Commissions, to press the legislators to act.

Conclusion

The HRCs are clearly a threat to the liberty of Canadians of all kinds. Currently, staffed with liberal activists, they are a particular threat to conservatives and Christians. Moreover, the setup of the HRCs is such that they attract frivolous complaints and are ripe for abuse, both from within and without.

The constitutional rights and body of law are enough to protect Canadians from unlawful discrimination. They deliberately do not include freedom from having one's feelings hurt. There is no need for further legislation. The checks and balance of the legal system are enough to ensure that justice is done according to the law. There is no need for a parallel quasi-judicial body. In fact, supplemental “human rights” legislation and quasi-judicial bodies are a threat to the freedoms protected by their constitutional counterparts.

The HRCs need to be permanently disbanded and the Acts that created them need to be repealed. Canadians of all kinds should put pressure on their representatives in provincial and federal parliament to see that this is done.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 3 of 3)

Continuing Saturday's proceedings, Stephen Pidgeon spoke about the distinct nature of God-given rights in contrast to government privileges. Fundamentally, he said, a government can not grant a right - it can only grant a privilege. Human rights are superior to the authority of government, because God has declared his sovereignty over governments. But governments give privileges - "rights" above those of others - that are inferior to the authority of the state, but superior to those without the privileges. He suggested that the privileged group in Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (CHRA) is actually government broadcasters, who by virtue of Section 13.2 are exempt of its rules. He explained the difference between the legal terms mala in se - crimes based on good versus evil (a moral foundation) - and mala prohibita - acts that are not inherently evil, but are contrary to legislated policy (e.g. traffic laws). The CHRA is in fact not a rights act at all, since its moral foundation is not defined, but rather a government privilege.

After Ron Gray - also under investigation by the HRCs - addressed the conference on the topic of the evolution of politically-correct speech, Al Siebring tackled the issue of media bias. Siebring argued, partially from experience as a journalist, that there is generally not a direct attempt by journalists to "get Christians". Rather, he argued, the bias is in the enterprise itself. The mainstream media is rooted in a particular worldview, and in a particular vision of the purpose of the press, one taken - out of context - from Finley Peter Dunne:

Th newspaper... comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable...

Thus the mainstream media has historically seen itself to be in opposition to "the comfortable", that is, the predominant establishment. For years, that has been the Christian foundation underlying Canadian society - biblical morality and absolute Truth. According to Siebring, this is the bias that is inherent in the enterprise.

Notably, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily fame uses this same quote in his argument that the government is "the comfortable" and that therefore the role of the free press is to be a government watchdog. In Siebring's view, the role of the free press is to speak the truth, whether that be the truth about the government, or about anything else. This understanding matches what Wagner noted about the purpose of freedom of speech, and it seems right to me. Telling the truth about Planned Parenthood, or the UN, or climate change should certainly be a part of the role of the free press. For Christians, of course, we have the added biblical directive to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Tristan Emmanuel had the last word, a treatment of the concept of hate. As with other debates, it is important to define the terms, and Emmanuel did this by consulting Scripture. Psalm 5:4-6 reads:

You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;

  with you the wicked cannot dwell.

The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;

  you hate all who do wrong.

Thus God is the moral authority on what is lawful versus unlawful hate. Emmanuel also noted the inconsistency of moral relativists - they hold that there is (absolutely) no absolute truth, and yet use absolute terms to condemn hate and certain opinions.

After the audience members had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers, the conference was wrapped up. The conference was a great way to be reminded of the fundamental issues and concepts regarding freedom of speech and human rights. Time and again, it was noted that unless you have absolute moral grounding, you have no foundation to condemn or censor speech, to restrict rights or grant privileges. Once you subscribe to moral relativism or post-modernism, you begin to build your ideas and arguments on the shaky foundation of feelings and actualization. My favourite speech was Pidgeon's on rights and privileges, one that hit this point home. It served to underline the fact that Western law and society have a moral basis and foundation that is outside the realm of men. And it clearly showed the foolishness of starting from other so-called foundations.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 2 of 3)

Saturday's conference was opened by Rev. Schouten of the Canadian Reformed Church at Aldergrove, BC. He noted that a large number of Christians seem to be unwilling to stand up for the Truth and for our God-given rights. He suggested that perhaps this is because we have become too comfortable with ourselves and with society - that we have silenced the prophets ourselves by being unwilling to be confronted with the uncomfortable truth about our own lives. He too challenged the attendees to be steadfast in prayer and action.

Michael Wagner took the podium to discuss whether there are legitimate restrictions to freedom of speech. One of his opening points was on the question of censorship: is censorship - state limitation of the communication of ideas - a good or bad thing? Wagner submitted to the audience that censorship itself is neither good nor bad; the question should be: what kind of censorship is good, and what kind is bad? He also rebutted the recent complaints of supporters of film makers that government plans to discontinue funding for Canadian-made films amount to censorship. Not funding something does not mean one is preventing communication.

Wagner proceeded to list several examples of good censorship, such as defamation - whether spoken (slander) or written (libel) - and communication that is subversive to the political order. Finally, he described how the language and philosophy of freedom of communication have changed. The original philosophy - freedom of speech and freedom of the press - was purposeful: to give citizens information to make informed decisions, and to support a search for truth. Of course, in the framework of moral relativism, the concept of truth - and this purpose by extension - have been eliminated. The language has also changed; many people now speak of the vague concept of freedom of expression - a concept that lends itself much more easily to feelings than morals.

Connie Fournier then told her story. She and her husband Mark are the creators and moderators of the largest forum for conservatives in Canada, FreeDominion.ca. They were subject to an investigation at the hands of the so-called Canadian Human Rights Commission. The cause for complaint was not even something hosted at the site - the offensive material was posted elsewhere, and a link to it was posted on the forum. This complaint was eventually dropped, but the process - enormous losses of time and legal fees - was punishment enough. To protect the participants in the forum - the move does not protect the Fourniers - they recently sold the forum to a company in Panama whose corporate mission is:

To buy websites from individuals and corporations living in countries where free speech is under attack, and protect those websites from being shut down or seized by oppressive governments.

It is a telling sign of the state of liberal democracy in Canada.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 1 of 3)

The ECP Centre's Ignite Our Culture conference in Langley, BC took place on March 28-29. Its focus was on freedom of speech and human rights. The speakers were Tristan Emmanuel and Al Siebring from NoApologies.ca;  historian Michael Wagner, author of Standing on Guard for Thee; Ron Gray, national leader of the Christian Heritage Party; Connie Fournier, creator and moderator of FreeDominion.ca; and Stephen Pidgeon, an attorney and expert on human rights and religious freedom.

Wagner began Friday's Townhall session with a survey of the history of the involvement of Canadian Christians in media. He noted that Christians have had to struggle to get access to radio and TV stations. This struggle was most often against the CRTC. The CRTC stated that proposals for religious stations had to have "balanced programming", i.e. they had to include programs for other religions. Other questionable organizations and programming were given the green light, with no such requirements. One of the more telling examples was the success of Playboy TV's application, while applications for Christian-only stations were being denied. Wagner concluded by noting that the struggle has shown the achievement of Christian activism. In this light, the unregulated new media - internet news, blogs, etc. - are an exciting development and opportunity for our cause.

Emmanuel asked the question: Does God desire our freedom? He proceeded to argue from Scripture that, indeed, He does. He challenged the audience to have that same desire and to be active in the struggle that is upon us.

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...

Private Member's Motion M-446

The title of my last post - regarding Keith Martin's Private Member's Motion to delete subsection 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act - ended with a question mark. To be clear, I think it is great news. But I deliberately wanted to indicate some uncertainty about this development. There are uncertainties: on one hand, this is not a sure thing - it is only the beginning of the process; on the other hand, I wondered, if the resulting bill were to be passed, what consequences it would have for provincial HRCs as well as pending and past cases.

One question I haven't heard asked is why subsections (2) and (3) are not included in this motion. Since they both refer back to subsection (1) are they automatically deleted as well?

But there's another question that's nagging me: What is Martin's motivation? Many bloggers have encouraged readers to write a note of thanks and/or encouragement to Martin for taking the initiative on this important matter. But I'm not so sure. My approval is partly dependent on his motivation. I'd be delighted to know that Martin is an advocate and defender of freedom and that this motion is solely an outworking of that conviction. But as the saying goes, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. I can't help but think that Martin is doing this for some political gain. If so, the means does not justify the end, and, though I support the means, I won't thank him for using it for his political gain. At NoApologies.ca, Al Siebring asks some of the same questions.

Nevertheless, all Canadians should write to their MPs in support of this motion. NoApologies and Pundita have some great summary material to help us get started.

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.