Ezra Levant Calls for the Repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act

Ezra Levant was asked recently what advice he would give the Conservative government and he responded with this piece. I agree with him 100%. Let us hope Stephen Harper is listening.

The Conservative government is getting the big issue of the day right: the economy. Canada leads the G7 nations in almost every measure; we were the last into the recession and the first out, and it was less deep here than in other countries. Not a single Canadian bank failed or had to be bailed out. Contrast that with the ongoing debt crisis in Europe and America's 10 per cent unemployment rate. It's not surprising that Canada's opposition parties and the media have chosen instead to focus on ephemera or spectacles, like the Jaffer-Guergis story.

The government is wise to concentrate on the issues that matter to Canadians and to tune out the chattering class in Ottawa. But there is a policy project they should adopt: reforming the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The CHRC is the largest of Canada's 14 human rights commissions, and it has been the most aggressive censor. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives the CHRC the power to prosecute anyone who publishes anything on the internet that is "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt.” It's an incredibly vague offense, which is why for 32 years the CHRC had a 100 per cent conviction rate on all of their prosecutions, until the law was finally declared unconstitutional last fall. (The CHRC is appealing.)

The government should not wait for the question of political censorship to work its way through the courts. It should act now to repeal Section 13 and to make other badly needed reforms to the CHRC, including bringing in a civil liberties oversight committee to monitor abuses by CHRC staff, who have admitted under oath to publishing anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-gay material themselves in an effort to entrap citizens. A full-scale audit of the CHRC's policies by the auditor general is also in order, especially given the failing grade the CHRC received in a confidential internal government audit.

This is good policy: the CHRC has increasingly used its censorship powers as a political weapon, picking on religious Christians and conservative activists, even as it strenuously avoided prosecuting any politically correct "haters," such as radical Muslims. Simply put, censorship in the age of the internet isn't just ethically inappropriate, it's practically impossible – in other words, a perpetual source of work and expense for empire-building bureaucrats. It should be shut down.

From a political point of view, it's a winner for the government. Standing up for freedom of expression puts the government on the side of groups that traditionally have liberal sympathies, from artists and authors to civil libertarians. Even groups like Egale Canada, the gay rights lobby, have called for the repeal of Section 13, along with the likes of PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists. It would be a win for the government to have them as allies.

Other than those who earn their living from human rights commissions or file complaints there against their political enemies, there are no supporters of Section 13 in the whole political spectrum. I appeared before Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the subject last year, and I was impressed by the concern that all parties had about the abusive censorship of the CHRC. Based on my interactions with various Liberal and NDP MPs, I sense that the opposition would not take a party-line stance against such reforms. Even Ujjal Dosanjh, a left-wing Liberal, hinted to reporters after that meeting that he could be satisfied with repealing Section 13 and keeping the Criminal Code provisions against hate speech, which are not as easily abused.

Repealing Section 13 and deeply reforming the culture of the CHRC is a political winner. It would strengthen the government's civil libertarian bona fides. It would appeal to the party's base, which correctly senses that the CHRC is on an anti-conservative warpath. It would likely garner enough opposition votes to pass – and if an opposition leader insisted on opposing such reforms, it would likely cause splits in those opposition caucuses. (Michael Ignatieff has written against censorship in the past; he would be hard pressed to defend it today.)

Getting the economy right is important. But ending the 33-year record of abuse at the Canadian Human Rights Commission is important, too. It's the right policy decision. It will appeal to the party's base and impress civil libertarians outside the party. It will win support across the aisle – and pose problems for any opposition leader who tries to fight it.

Will Saskatchewan Be the First to Abolish Its Human Rights Tribunal?

The CBC is reporting that the Saskatchewan government is considering abolishing its Human Rights Tribunal and moving the case load to the Court of Queen's Bench.

"The provincial government says it's considering a proposal to have human rights cases handled in the courts instead of before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal.

Justice Minister Don Morgan confirmed in the legislature Thursday he's holding "negotiations and discussions" with the province's Human Rights Commission.

The agency, which is independent from the tribunal, investigates human rights complaints and can send them on to the tribunal for a hearing.

"We have received a recommendation from the chief commissioner that the Human Rights Tribunal matters could better be dealt with in the Court of Queen's Bench," Morgan said."

A National Post editorial says this is the best idea they have heard all week.

"This is the best idea we’ve heard all week: Saskatchewan’s Justice Minister says his province could soon dissolve its Human Rights Tribunal and move its caseload over to the Court of Queen’s Bench. There, defendants would enjoy something that human rights Star Chambers have long denied the accused: due process, including a proper hearing in front of a judge fully trained in Canada’s constitutional traditions.

Human rights, of course, has long been the mother’s milk of Canadian political life. But in recent years, it has become clear that the provincial and federal tribunals that operate under the human rights banner are even more problematic than the waning social ills — racism, sexism, homophobia — they are meant to address. Unlike in a proper civil trial, the accuser in a human rights tribunal proceeding gets his prosecution paid for by the government: He merely has to scrawl out a complaint to get the process going, and then watch his prey squirm under years of costly, often Kafkaesque, prosecution. In censorship cases — involving, most famously, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn — human rights mandarins have made it clear that they have scant regard for free speech.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Re-affirms Free Speech: Boissoin Vindicated!

In another legal setback for the odious kangaroo courts, which are named in true Orwellian fashion, "Human Rights Commissions," the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench late last week overturned the Alberta Human Rights Commission's conviction of the Rev. Stephen Boissoin for speaking out against the homosexual agenda in the schools. Ezra Levant is obviously glad for Boissoin and writes:

"Late last week, the Court of Queen's Bench overturned the Alberta Human Rights Commission's "hate speech" conviction of Rev. Stephen Boissoin.

Long-time readers of this blog, and readers of my book, will know the case of Rev. Boissoin well. He was a youth pastor who wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 that was critical of the "gay agenda". You can read that letter in full here. He was sentenced to a lifetime speech ban, barring him from ever saying anything negative about gays again, in public or private, for the rest of his life. Oh -- and he had to write a false letter of apology, renouncing his faith on the matter.

So here we are, more than seven years later, and Rev. Boissoin has finally been acquitted. And that's if his tormentor, the anti-Christian bigot Darren Lund, doesn't choose to appeal this new ruling."

But Levant is not dancing in the streets just yet. Why not?

"So lesson number one here is that the process is the punishment.

Rev. Boissoin had seven years of his life wasted -- seven years in which he bore the stigma of being called, by the state, an illegal "hater". And Rev. Boissoin had to bear the enormous legal costs -- first, of his kangaroo court trial, then of his appeal -- on his own. (I'm glad to have participated in three fundraising dinners for him this summer.) By contrast, his antagonist didn't have to spend a dime to drag Rev. Boissoin through the mud of the HRC. And note page 37 of the ruling: though Rev. Boissoin's conviction was demolished by the judge, page after page; though Rev. Boissoin was clearly mistreated and abused by the HRC; though the judge's contempt for the HRC's outrageous behaviour is palpable, Rev. Boissoin was denied his request for all his costs to be paid.

In other words: Darren Lund actually won."

Levant is right. This case demonstrates why the HRC's need to be abolished. When this point is raised, defenders of the HRC's argue that if any "mistakes" are made, there is always legal recourse to the courts. So what is the problem? The problem is that the HRC's are a form of legalized intimidation - a shakedown racket (to use Levant's term) - and most prudent people choose to pay them off to go away rather than hire costly lawyers to fight a protracted legal battle and fend off the bad publicity that accrues along the way (a consideration of special concern to business operators). As Levant puts it:

"Yes, yes, I agree with my friend Mark Steyn (who is quoted by the judge on pp. 33-34, if I recall) and Colby Cosh when they point out that the real courts have rebuked the fake courts. But how does that help the 90% of the HRCs' victims who succumb and accept a plea bargain without even a hearing, and the 98% of the rest who are convicted but lack the funds to appeal?

I agree that the courts are better respecters of freedom of speech now than they have been in the past, and I have often said I wished that section 13 would be put to the Supreme Court again, for they would throw this law out for sure. But if it took Rev. Boissoin seven years just to get to the first court, how long would it take him to go all the way to the SCC? And how many people would have given up long before he did?"

The HRC's are tools of ideological indoctrination and have no place in a Western country. They are offensive to freedom-loving people and suitable only for the North Koreas, Cuba and Chinas of the world. They damage the social fabric, promote hatred against Christians and generally accomplish the opposite of their stated goals. It is time for the HRC's to go.

But, having said all that, congratulations are in order to Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who has been vindicated. Like Paul appealing to Caesar, it seems that he has found justice from the secular state - justice that the anti-Christian bigots would deny all of us. May this make all Canadian Christians less prone to self-censorship and bolder to speak up for the truth in love.

Canada Drops to 19th Place in World Rankings of Press Freedom

The Canadian Press reports today that a French watchdog group "Reporters Without Borders" ranked Canada 19th this year, down from 13th the year before, in a list of the countries with the most freedom of the press in the world. As Ezra Levant points out on his blog, this is a disgrace for a country with an 800 year tradtion of freedom of speech. We now rank behind countries recently (less than 20 years ago) set free from Soviet totalitarianism such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Former World War II Axis powers Germany and Japan are now higher than us. Good for them, but why are we not #1? See the whole list here.

Levant points out that many of the questions asked in the survey of journalists focus on areas that have been violated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission during recent years. He documents how the CHRC violates 9 out of the issues covered in the 40 questions and opines that he is surprised that our ranking has not fallen further. I'm sure that if Parliament continues to ignore the out-of-control censors at the HRC's, we will fall futher in years to come.

When liberals become fascists, they are more dangerous than normal fascists because they think they are still liberal and therefore commit their crimes with a clear consscience and a smug sense of moral superiority.

Denial of Free Speech Will Lead to a Backlash and It Won't Be the Fault of Conservatives

Lorne Gunter has a nice piece in today's The National Post on the story from the town near Liverpool, England about the couple who have lost their hotel business and are being charged by the police using "threatening, abusive or insulting words" which were "religiously aggravated." You thought free speech was the law in broken Britain? Ah, no, not unless you are Muslim, in which case you can march and chant death to "X" (i.e. whoever it is this time) whenever you like.

He ends his column as follows:

"Government has no right, none at all, to regulate what free people may say
to one another about faith, politics or other beliefs. There are personal
consequences for what we say and those should be the limits of what any of us
has to endure.

Yet agents of the modern state believe themselves empowered to regulate
free speech all the time, in Canada every bit as much as Britain.

In Saskatchewan, human rights apparatchiks have ruled parts of the Bible
are hate speech. In Alberta, a pastor has been ordered to apologize for expressing views against homosexuality and ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission never to utter those views in public again.

If ordinary citizens don't demand of their politicians that they disband
the political correctness inquisitions, there will soon be Canadian versions of
the Vogelenzangs -- people who are criminally charged for stating their beliefs."

Now, here is the thing I want to point out. As the politically correct police become bolder and as ordinary people have their rights systematically abused, a groundswell of grass roots anger is bound to build. The leftists who advocate curbs on free speech claim that they are doing so in order to maintain social peace and harmony. What is one supposed to make of this claim, when it is obvious that their policies are socially divisive and eventually going to lead to anger, hatred and polarization? Are they sincere? Are they just out of touch? Are they stupid?

It is hard to know, but we know one thing for sure. When people begin to get mad and when antipathy toward immigrants begins to build, the liberals will blame "right-wing expremists" for it. So one wonders if that is their game all along: create intolerable social chaos, wait for the explosion and then use it to demonize the right - while buttresing their own entrenched power positions.

I honestly don't know. As David Brooks recently said: "I don't have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama's critics." (He said this, I'm pretty sure, to make it clear that he didn't have access to the one his fellow New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd apparently owns - you know, the one that allowed her to know that Joe Wilson said "You lie!" but was actually thinking "You lie, boy!")

Anyway, whatever the explanation - evil scheming or just good intentions couples mixed with deplorable short-sightedness - the liberal attempt to link in the public mind these two issues - immigrants and taking away our right to free speech - is going to hurt democracy, hurt people, hurt immigrants and hurt the credibility of all liberal/progressive causes.

Anybody can screw up, but it takes real talent to make that much of a mess with one, single policy. But remember: intolerance, racism and a backlash against immigrants - all this is the result of liberal social policy, not conservative philosophy. If we conservatives had our way on this one, a lot of pain and evil could be avoided.

Macleans Magazine Calls for Reform of the "Human Rights Commissions"

This is a link to a terrific story about the need to repeal Section 13, the hate speech clause, of the Canadian Human Rights Act in Maclean's Magazine (Sept. 20, 2009). This article gives you an excellent introductory overview of the issue if you are not familiar with it. We have gotten ourselves into a real mess with this whacky experiment in adminstrative law that has gotten out of control and morphed into a vehicle for persecution of Christians and busy body bureaucrats poking their noses into the lives of subjects without justification.

The story actually chastises Prime Minister Stephen Harper for not taking the action he knows is necessary to clean up the mess that is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. But the article also takes a run at Michael Ignatief, the Liberal Opposition Leader, for not joining with Harper to make the reform a non-partisan effort.

The Liberals have successfully used the tactic of painting the Conservative Party as neo-cons and, in liberal Canada, that works as a scare tactic. (They see neo-cons under every bed at election time!) So the Conservatives know that the Liberal Party will come after them on the human rights commission issue in an election campaign and that the situation is a bit too complicated to explain in sound bites to the voting public. Apparently, the Conservatives think they have a real shot at a majority and, if they get it, they can move at that time without fear. (The irony is that if the Liberals got a majority, section 13 would likely be history too. Only in a minority Parliament does it linger on like a foul smelling ghost no one can get rid of. But that is Canadian politics for you.) As the article notes: "Even the perennially left-wing editorial board of the Toronto Star has endorsed an end to Section 13, saying it “isn’t salvageable.” And when the Toronto Star, which usually loves all things bureaucratic, jumps off the bus, you know the end is near.

No one understands how precious and fundamental freedom of speech is until you lose or come close to doing so. My own experience with state power outside the rule of law has been one of this factors that has greatly increased my respect for conservative principles like individual liberty, limited government, the division of powers, the rule of law and religious freedom.

HT to Ezra Levant, who keeps beavering away on this topic. He deserves a lot of credit for not letting this thing die.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin Has His Day in Court

The National Post today reports that the Rev. Stephen Boissoin's appeal is underway in the Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary. Fundraising efforts have allowed him to hire a lawyer and mount an appeal to the Alberta Human Rights Commission's attempt to punish and silence him for his politically incorrect views on homosexuality in a letter published in The Red Deer Advocate in 2002.

Ezra Levant, a Jewish, conservative advocate of free speech, who himself endured 900 days of investigation by the same Alberta Human Rights Commission for daring to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, has written a book Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights (McClelland and Stewart, 2009) has led a crusade to restore basic democratic rights in Canada. He has championed Boissoin's cause and has accused the Human Rights Commission of an anti-Christian bias. He notes that the Human Rights Commission has a track record of singling out Christian pastors with few financial resources and a low public profile for persecution. This time, however, it might be different as a growing consensus is developing across the country that the Orwellian, mis-named Human Rights Commissions are out of control.

In a related, recent and most heartening development, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis has declared the use of Section 13 Hate Speech clause to be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The National Post reports:

"Finally, a human rights commission decision that makes sense. Yesterday, a
senior member of Canada's human rights apparatus declared that the power the
Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken on itself to monitor hate speech on
the Internet is unconstitutional.

Ruling in a case against Marc Lemire, webmaster of the extremist freedomsite.org,Canadian Human Rights Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis concluded Sec. 13(1) violates defendants' Charter right to freedom of expression because it gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) authority to impose penalties such as fines on those it finds guilty.

Mr. Hadjis, himself a human rights lawyer, argued that while the Supreme
Court had found the section legal in 1991-- when its strongest provisions merely
compelled the complainant and defendant to mediate their differences -- since
then the addition of monetary penalties and forced apologies has amended the act
to the point where it is no longer in harmony with the Charter.

The opinion does not "strike down" the hate-speech provisions of federal
human rights law, as has been widely reported. The offensive section of the
federal rights legislation is still on the books. But as Mr. Hadjis explained "a
formal declaration of invalidity was not a remedy available" to him. All he
could do under the existing law is "simply refuse to apply these provisions for
the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire." Now it us up to Parliament to
do the right thing: Repeal Sec 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and stop
witch-hunt prosecutions by human rights investigators."

As a recent National Post editorial says:

"This is the second time in under a year that the CHRC (and by extension,
Parliament) has been told that 13(1) is inconsistent with free democratic
debate. Last year, University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon, acting as a
paid constitutional consultant, told the CHRC there was no way it could
investigate and adjudicate hate-speech complaints consistently. Therefore, they
were unable to assure the equal protection of everyone's Charter rights, so they
should stop trying."

Many members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, many newspaper editorial boards accross Canada, PEN, and even the homosexual advocacy group Egale have joined the criticism of the attacks on free speech by the Human Rights Commission. The Provincial Conservative Party in Ontario is on record as wanting to reform the Ontario Human Rights Commission if they win the next election and it will undoubtedly be an issue in the next Federal election. No politician who does not promise to abolish the HRC, or at least repeal Section 13, will ever get my vote.

A group of over-paid, under-qualified, partisan, political appointees to these quasi-legal bodies is able to persecute anyone they wish based on any complaint they wish to accept (or generate themselves) at any time. This is a travesty and a disaster for a country that wishes to remain free. It is time that conservatives and liberals who believe in free speech stand up and demand change.

NOTE: Ezra Levant is speaking in Toronto on Sat. Sept. 26. See here for details.

The Windsor Star Supports the Scrapping of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission

Here is an excellent editorial from The Windsor Star expressing support for the crusade to rid Canada of the oppressive, unjust, Stalinist, "Human Rights" Commissions (I just can't call them that without putting "Human Rights" in brackets since they are such abusers of true human rights themselves. You just can't let the Orwellian mandarins define the words. Words are too important.)

Anyway, here is the editorial with my comments in [bold and square brackets] as usual.

"Just how much power should human rights commissions have? It's a question that's been directed at bodies at both the federal and provincial levels, and most recently at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

At the federal level, we have what amounts to two-tier policing of racism and hate speech in Canada -- one through the courts applying Criminal Code and the other through a human rights act. [No one is for racism or discrimination. The issue is how to address it in accordance with principles of natural justice.]

Critics say the Code is all that's needed. They contend that the CHRC, with a bar set far below criminal standards, often adjudicates trivial complaints and serves as a censor of ideas that are not intended to provoke hatred or violence, but to promote controversy and debate. As well, the commission has an almost never lost a case it's prosecuted. [These are just some of the ways the HRC's fail to uphold natural justice.]

Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, counters that the Code and act "serve useful purposes in protecting Canadians from discrimination in today's society."

Lynch's view of freedom on expression is that the "power of words and ideas) while overwhelming positive, can also be used to undermine democracy, freedom and equality." [If you are going to have government officials deciding when to harrass and fine people based on such gloriously vague criteria, it is conceivable that whole political parties and even newspapers could end up banned. This leaves far too much power in the hands of government censors. See further below.]
However, the problem is that the CHRC is essentially the investigator, prosecutor and judge of complaints of racism and hate speech. The burden of proof under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is also subject to interpretation. It says it's an offence to communicate anything "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt." [All that is needed to get you convicted is that the HRC decides that what you said is "likely" in their opinion to expose a person (any person anywhere - no one in particular) to contempt. Can no one show contempt for anyone anymore? Not even for Wall St. bankers? Not even for George Bush? Or is this vague criteria just a way of putting totalitarian power in government hands?]

Ezra Levant, who was the subject of an unsuccessful complaint before the Alberta after he published controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, says CHRC's standards make it an advocate of censorship. [This is the Orwellian part - usually freedom from censorship is itself considered to be a human right, not the way to ensure human rights!]

"The word 'likely' is amazing. The CHRC doesn't have to prove you've actually done anything, just that you might in the future," says Levant. "And all they have to prove is that you said something that might cause one person to have hard feelings about another." [So, basically, they can harass anyone they want.]

The Criminal Code, meanwhile, has clear sanctions to deal with true hate speech -- which must clearly encourage or incite hatred and violence. This is far different than making individuals account for expressions of thought that are controversial, offensive or deemed to be politically incorrect. [Completely different.]

Last year, an independent report by the University of Windsor's Richard Moon said the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be stripped of its power to investigate online hate messages. That job, says the free speech expert, is best left to police, prosecutors and Internet service providers. [The Canadian HRC paid for this report, didn't get the outcome it wanted and so buried the report.]

"Censorship of hate speech should be limited to speech that explicitly or implicitly threatens, justifies or advocates violence against the members of an identifiable group," Moon said, having concluded that the commission's current mandate to probe Internet postings "likely to expose" complainants to hate was just too broad. The commission didn't agree with Moon's recommendation. [Why not? Unless they are not really committed to human rights.]

In Ontario, new Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is calling for the scrapping of the province's Human Rights Tribunal, which hears complaints similar to the federal CHRC. Hudak also feels the courts are the right place to deal with human rights issues. [Hudak gets my vote in the next election on this issue alone. It is about time. And the Liberals better get onside on this one or they will regret it.]

We agree and, at least Ontario, there is going to be a debate. It's one that should also be going on in Ottawa." [Now if only Ontario's other "Star" could see the light - the Toronto Star. Fat chance of that, I'm afraid. But if the Toronto Star wants to be against human rights in the name of political correctness and statism, well that is its choice. One gets the sense that this issue in not going away.]

The National Post Editorial Board on the HRC Issue

The National Post had a great editorial today on Jennifer Lynch and her hypocritical attack on the free speech of those who disagree with her. It begins this way:

"Monday in Montreal, Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), launched a counterattack against critics who, over the past couple of years, have suggested the commission is out of control and should have its power to investigate alleged hate speech taken away from it. In an address to a conference of other human rights commissioners, an excerpt of which is posted here, Ms. Lynch claimed to welcome debate on the future of human rights legislation no fewer than five times, then proceeded to dismiss anyone who questioned the legitimacy of commissions as unworthy of listening to.

She accused many of her institution’s detractors in “the mainstream media” of clouding the facts about commissions’ roles and tactics in an attempt to discredit them. “Critics of the human rights system are manipulating and misrepresenting information to further a new agenda: one that posits that human rights commissions and tribunals no longer serve a useful purpose.”

But claiming that the commissions have overstepped their original purposes and outlived their usefulness is a legitimate argument. It is clearly one Ms. Lynch disagrees with, but she does not get to be the final arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable in debates about the commissions’ future.

Still, she can be forgiven for believing she is. The CHRC acts as investigator, prosecutor and judge of complaints of racism and hate speech. Moreover, it gets to decide what constitutes hatefulness in print or the spoken word. No wonder Ms. Lynch cannot understand why she should have to tolerate those who advocate the end of human rights commissions. In her daily working life, she gets to define away those she disagrees with, so why not in the broader public debate on rights and who should protect them?

I sense that the tide is turning. The politicians are way behind public opinion on this issue. Read the rest here.

Jennifer Lynch Defends Kangaroo Courts

Note to Readers: If this post and others like it on my blog seems like "inside baseball" to you because you just don't "get" the ins and outs of Canadian politics, I suggest that you read Ezra Levant's Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights and visit his blog at: http://ezralevant.com/ The links there will take you to other blogs. You can find out about the Calgary pastor who was ordered not to say anything about homosexuality in public for the rest of his life because he wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. You can find out about the Catholic priest who was persecuted for saying what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality. You can find out about how Ezra Levant was persecuted for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in his magazine - etc. No, this is not North Korea or Saudi Arabia we are talking about. It is good old Canada. Ezra is a Conservative, but his campaign for change is drawing support from across the political spectrum including PEN, Egale, and other liberal groups, as well as many liberal MP's and Senators. He is a loudmouth; but he is also right on this one.
____________________________

Jennifer Lynch, the head of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission (sic), gave a speech the other day in which she gave indications that she finally is beginning to understand that the HRC's are becoming pariahs in Canada. But she seems unable to comprehend what could possibly be wrong with a little government censorship between friends.

The National Post published part of her speech and here is an excerpt, with [my comments interspersed in bold]. I am doing this partly to raise awareness of creeping totalitarianism in Canada and partly because if nothing changes in a few years I won't be allowed to criticize the bureaucratic nannies this way.

"As personal attacks were made against anyone who tried to correct the record, the number of people willing to make the effort dwindled. There is tangible proof of this: Fifty percent of interviewees for an upcoming book on human rights have stated that they feel "chilled" about speaking up. [Subjective feeling here are taken as "proving" chill. What this proves is that Jennifer Lynch interprets chill in totally subjective terms; it is a feeling. But all kinds of people feel all sorts of ways and it is cheap and easy to say you feel chilled even if nothing has happened to you except that someone has not let you have your own way or argued back against you. This should not be the basis for discriminating against people.]

Ironically, those who are claiming that human rights commissions' jurisdiction over hate speech is "chilling" to freedom of expression have successfully created their own reverse chill. [So reverse chill is bad, but non-reverse chill is good? I'm having a bit of trouble following this. But it seems to come down to this: she equates people expressing a subjective feeling with people being hauled before a tribunal and forced to spend $100,000 defending their right to free speech. Both are "chill." Look, if all Ezra Levant could say was "I feel disagreed with and disparged as a person" would I be concerned about his subjective feelings? No. But the fact that he was hauled in before a tribunal and forced to hire a lawyer at his own expense to defend his right to free speech is not a matter of "subjective feelings" but of "objective persecution."]

Critics of the human rights system are manipulating and misrepresenting information to further a new agenda--one that posits that human rights commissions and tribunals no longer serve a useful purpose. [Well, they don't serve any useful purpose. What would be helpful here would be an argument that they do serve a useful purpose. But she won't argue that - she merely assumes it.]

Because the Maclean's case was about a journalist, it naturally attracted the attention of many other journalists, who quite rightly see their role as a bulwark against incursions on freedom of expression. [No kidding, really?]

But I do believe that some are unwitting accomplices in a gross oversimplification of the issue, who flame the controversy by repeating inaccuracies. [Note that she does not have the nerve to say that the journalists were wrong or that the HRC's were not intruding on freedom of expression. She contents herself with hinting that maybe the journalists were wrong about some minor technicality or other. But so what? Are they threatening freedom of journalistic expression or not? Come on, Jennifer. Engage with the argument. If you think you are not guilty at least say why. Name one inaccuracy. She doesn't because she can't.]

It seems that, fundamentally, detractors do not believe that access to administrative tribunals in search of equality is something that our country should ensure." [Well, at least you have managed to grasp that much.]
____________

Ezra Levant, on his blog yesterday, calls attention to an article on - of all places - The Daily Kos, the extreme liberal blog conglomerate that situates itself somewhere to the left of the Democratic Party close to NDP land. He quotes Sean Parnell, who quotes from The National Post article and concludes by saying that Lynch's thinking is "almost beyond my ability to mock." He also warns that attempts by the left to chill free speech in the US are dangerous and counter-productive. Let's put a mark on the wall: this is the first time I've found something on The Daily Kos to agree with. I just hope this doesn't become a habit.

There is one other quote from her speech that I want to highlight. It wasn't in The National Post but is on the CHR Commission website

"Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada. As all of you will know it is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because no right is absolute, the modern concept of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system."

I agree that no right is absolute, although some are fundamental - which is the point of having the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question is "Who should decide what the limits to freedom of expression are?" We have actual laws in this country against fraud, incitement, libel and other restrictions on absolute free speech and we have real courts to rule on when these laws apply. We have actual defences like truth as well. The key is that someone has to be harmed; then there is a remedy. But Jennifer Lynch wants to restrict free speech whenever she feels like it and someone feels outraged regardless of whether a real law has been broken or anyone actually has been harmed. This is a very, very bad idea. It is, in fact, incompatible with freedom of speech and the rule of law. The rule of law I can take; the rule of lefitist, ideologically-driven busybody bureaucrats with too much power and too big a budget for their own good is quite another thing.
___________
UPDATE 1:
Ezra now has his own analysis of the Lynch speech up on his blog today. I really appreciate his forthrightness about defending conservative Christians. Since he is a Jew it is hard for the opposition to attack him for self-interest in defending Christians. Jews know a thing or two about persecution and it is time for Christians to realize that we need to speak out for our rights while it is still legal to do so. Meanwhile, Ezra is doing what he can to keep our rights safe.

UPDATE 2:
The Toronto Star is doing its best to set the stage for using the HRC's as a wedge issue to discredit the Tories in the 2011 provincial election. All it talks about today in its story on last night's leadership candidates debate is the HRC issue. Hudak and Hilliar want reform of the Ontario HRC and Tribunal as part of the Conservative Party Platform. Elliot and Klees (astonishingly!) don't because they are afraid the liberals will exploit the lack of public understanding of the issues to make the Tories look like they are against human rights. (!) In other words, Orwellian inversion of the truth looks like the winner this year, according to the polls. The Star is not to be trusted on this issue; it has drifted far from its liberal roots and now hews pretty closely to the administrative totalitarian line. This should be a very interesting campaign. At least the Conservative are getting it. In the long run, it will be very interesting to see if the Ontario Liberals actually find that defending the Kangaroo Courts is a winning election issue. I suspect that they might find the electorate of a different mind than the Star.

Ezra Levant Interviewed on TV Ontario

Here is a link to Ezra Levant's blog where he has embedded an interview he did yesterday with TV Ontario on how human rights commissions are undermining human rights. It is 18 minutes long and is an excellent interview with hard-hitting, aggressive questions by Steve Paikin and eloquent and reasonable answers by Levant.

http://ezralevant.com/2009/06/tv-ontarios-the-agenda.html

The funniest moment comes about 5 minutes in or so when Steve Paikin poses a hypothetical question to Ezra saying something to the effect of: "Just suppose you yourself were a member of an identifiable minority and you were the victim of hateful . . ." and Ezra Levant objects "But I am a member of an identifiable minority" and seeing the blank expression on Paikin's face he says "I'm Jewish!" The look on Steve Paikin's face at that point is priceless!

Paikin asks good questions and Levant gives great answers. If you are doubtful about the validity of Levant's crusade, you will find this interview hard to brush aside. (Incidentally, I can't believe something with this much substance actually was on TV. I guess things inevitably slip throught once in a while.)

The National Post on Reforming the Ontario Human Rights Commission

In a thoughtful editorial, the National Post analyzes the positions of the candidates for the leadership of the Ontario Conservative Party on the reform of the Ontario Human Rights Commissions. Randy Hillier, the most right wing (actually libertarian) candidate, has put the issue on the agenda with a clear cut stance of abolishing the HRC. Tim Hudak, the leading candidate, who is identified with the Party's majority right wing (the Harris wing), has moved to secure his flank by picking up the issue and basically agreeing with Hillier. It is not clear whether his position is motivated by a clear understanding of the issue and is a serious matter of principle, as it clearly is with Hillier, or not.

Christine Elliot, has said that the adoption of such a plank would be a gift to the Liberals. She obviously thinks the public would be against abolishing the HRC and that "human rights" is not something the Conservatives want to be perceived as running against. She favors the status quo, injustices and all.

That leaves Frank Klees, who I would have expected to be leading the charge on this one, on the sidelines. If Klees falls into line with Hillier and Hudak and if this issue actually get discussed in detail, it should ensure that the Party makes this a policy position going into the next election. As the National Post editors point out, the public needs more information on this issue and the proposals need to be clarified and fleshed out. People will reasonably ask what mechanism will replace the HRC's and clear answers need to be at hand.

I agree with the National Post, though, handled well this issue could serve the Conservatives well in the next election. With the NDP predictably defending bureaucratic political correctness and the Conservatives gaining support from the left for its defense of free speech, the Liberals may just find themselves squirming and eventually coming over to the point of view that the HRC's need weeding, if not pruning.

Levant's Movement for Human Rights Gathers Steam

This just in from the People's Republic of Canada: Ezra Levant's book Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, sits at #20 on Amazon.ca this morning. Thanks be to God! If you haven't read it, buy it before it is banned!

On his blog, he describes a non-partisan human rights event held on Parliament Hill on May 5th attended by 230 people including many from the Prime Minister's Office, at least 50 MP's and Senators including many cabinet members. Levant describes the nature of the event as being to "to give Members of Parliament, Senators and Hill staff a chance to learn more about Canada's corrupt and abusive human rights commissions, and the a pressing need for change." The event was hosted by Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin and Conservative MP, Rick Dykstra. Some Liberal and Bloc MP's were in attendance as well as Conservatives. (No mention of the NDP - I wonder why!) Listen to this next part where Ezra describes what Senator Jerry Grafstein had to say:

"Sen. Grafstein's comments were touching: he acknowledged that he had personally been involved with the creation of Canada's human rights commissions, and that he regretted their wayward course. He actually said he wished he had lost the debate decades ago. I found that quite touching -- and his criticisms of the radicals who now run the commissions was very powerful, given Sen. Grafstein's impeccable human rights credentials."

It sounds like there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. But as long as government-appointed party hacks on HRC's can fine ordinary citizens, force them to spend a fortune defending themselves against ridiculous charges in long drawn-out procedures with no time limits, order their "re-education" and compel them to shut up in public on certain issues - all for doing nothing more than exercising their right to free speech as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - we can never rest easy.

Canada's Charter has been hijacked by a well-intentioned, but poorly designed, system of Human Rights Commissions - intended as a way of helping immigrants not be denied housing and to settle low-level disputes out of court, but which have now morphed into tribunals enforcing political correctness, policing thought and taking away the right to free speech. These HRC's are the spear tip of the politically correct movement. Freedom is a precarious thing and it is clear that many people in our society hate it with a cold passion that is chilling. Ezra Levant is turning over rocks to expose what many would rather not look at. But that is exactly why we must look and not look away until the mess is cleaned up.

Some people think socialism is benign - that it means something like being nice and sharing like we learned to do in kindergarden. Such people are misty-eyed optimists with little experience of life and too gullible to be trusted with responsbilitity in the real world. The reality, as we have come to see in Canada, is quite different. Socialism is about bureaucrats in some office tower downtown telling you what you can say and what you can think and what opinion you are allowed to express in public - and they will define "public" post facto. It is about a clique of politically-correct, group-thinking civil servants, whose hold on their positions depends on their not rocking the boat, thinking that it is up to them to decide according to what moral code your children will be educated, if your church qualifies for a tax ememption or not and if you should be allowed to hold a meeting on public property or not.

In socialism, the very concept of the public changes. Rather than meaning "that which belongs to all equally" it comes to mean "that which belongs to the majority or the group in power." So students who wish to protest abortion on the University of Calgary campus can be arrested. A student group that wants to hold a prayer meeting can be forced off school property. This sort of thing exemplifies the socialist thinking that reasons: "Since we are the ones in power, public property is for our use and that of those who agree with us."

Ezra Levant is gaining a hearing for reason and common sense. It is about time someone stepped up to challenge those who threaten our basic democratic rights. He needs all the help he can get. Buy his book. Invite him to speak. Pray for him. He is a Jew but he won't mind. He knows that he needs all the help he can get in this fight.

Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights

This is the title of a new bestseller by Ezra Levant published by McClelland and Stewart.

For years, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its provincial counterparts have been acting as "thought police" persecuting ordinary Canadians without regard for the basic principles of Canadian law for their politically incorrect speech. But when they went after Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed cartoons in the Western Standard and then took on MacLean's Magazine for daring to publish exerpts of Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, they found they had overstepped their boundaries and the pushback they received was something they were not used to receiving. The resulting media coverage was a fire storm and brought these commissions under the spotlight for the first time. Eventually, the controversy has made this book a Canadian bestseller.

Here is a clip from the Michael Coren Show that gives you an idea of why the AHRC is now sorry they messed with Ezra Levant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv3gimI2G_A

Both Steyn and Levant eventually had their cases dropped, which is not to say they won exactly. Both had to pay legal costs to defend themselves and neither received any compensation for having been drawn through a wringer. Their cases were atypical because in 91% of these kangaroo court complaints, the target cannot afford a lawyer and the HRC does not provide legal aid. Murderers fare better in our legal system because if they cannot afford a lawyer the court appoints one for them free of charge. This is why most people settle "out of court" even though they are innocent. Its the same reason small business owners pay protection money to the mob. It's not fair, but under an unjust system it is the path of least resistance.

This is exemplified by the contrast between the case of the Calgary pastor, Rev. Stephen Boisson, who was convicted by the Alberta Commission for daring to express an anti-homosexual activity position in a letter to the Red Deer Advocate. He was fined and told never to speak against homosexuality again for the rest of his life. Ezra Levant re-published Boisson's original letter to the editor, in support of Boisson, and literally dared the HRC to charge him. They refused. Levant, who is Jewish, by the way, comments:

"That's a double standard. It's a violation of the rule of law: I shouldn't be above the law, and Reverand Boisson shouldn't be beneath it. If he's guilty, I am too. If I'm free to publish his words, he should be too. That's why this case was the perfect lab experiment: All the factors were 'controlled' except one variable - the political power of the defendant. . . 'There is only one reason for [the discrepancy in treatment]: the CHRC is anti-Christian, and thus you excuse in me what you condemn in Rev. Boisson . . . I note that the CHRC has never once prosecuted a 'hate speech' complaint against any non-Christian, though there is plenty of non-Christian bigotry in Canada. . . . But you'd rather pick on a seventy-something Catholic priest for publishing a newsletter. That's why you're letting me go - I'm not a weak, penniless Christian clergyman.'" (Shakedown, 215-6)

Thankfully, Levant and Steyn have been stirring the pot to the point where some real heat is being put on these obscene parodies of "human rights" commissions. In particular, Section 13 of the legislation on the basis of which they exist, the famous "hate speech" clause, has come in for particular concern, since it has become the basis for prosecuting thought crime.

The mentality of these folks is revealed by a statement made by Dean Steacy, the senior Section 13 hate speech investigator for the CHRC, who said "freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value . . . It's not my job to give value to an American concept." (Shakedown, 201) Perhaps Dean Steacy has never heard of Section 2.b. of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads in context as follows:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

These kangaroo courts are being investigated by the RCMP, the Privacy Commission and Parliament. We are still far from their abolition, but progress is being made. Details are in the book. Buy it. Read it. Make the abolition of these commissions an issue in the next Federal or Provincial election.

Here is Ezra Levant's blog: http://www.ezralevant.com/