Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two fascinating years in the battle for freedom
Ezra Levant ^ | 2009-12-29 | Ezra Levant

Posted on 12/30/2009 3:36:30 AM PST by Clive

I've been fighting against Canada's censorious and corrupt human rights commissions for nearly four years now; it was in February of 2006 that the print edition of the Western Standard, may it rest in peace, reprinted the Danish cartoons of Mohammed to illustrate a news story. The "human rights" nuisance suits against the magazine, and me as its publisher, began immediately after that. But it wasn't until December of 2007, when Maclean's magazine got swiped by the jihadists at the Canadian Islamic Congress, and January of 2008, with my own interrogation at the hands of Alberta's HRC, that I came to understand the full scope of the problem that these HRCs represent to Canada and our ancient freedoms.

It's been two fascinating years since then. There have been a few stressful times in those years, when the nuisance lawsuits were piling up, but those occasional moments of concern are too few to mention when compared to the constant satisfaction of being part of a global team of freedom fighters -- a grassroots "army of Davids" fighting against the HRC goliath. Not only have I made many friends (and, to my great relief, received financial support to fight the nuisance suits), but I think we've managed to go on the offensive and rekindle a national discussion about freedom of speech.

I remember, back in January of 2008, when I had to scour the news every day just to find some scrap to write about; today there are a dozen bloggers and a half dozen MSM journalists on the beat, full-time. HRCs across the country are now being covered by reporters who used to ignore them -- and who now mine them for the rich stories that you would expect from a kangaroo court. Seriously: when was the last time you saw a news story about an HRC that wasn't goofy, stupid, politically correct or just plain outrageous? They really are a gift to journalism, especially opinion writers, radio talk show hosts and editorial cartoonists. Too bad that gift comes at such a high cost, both in taxes and lost liberties.

Here comes 2010, and our battle for freedom continues -- it always will. I came across this item that I published in the National Post two years ago, on December 18, 2007. I think it holds up pretty well. What's different is that back then, I was writing, as an observer, about censors like Richard Warman and the Canadian Islamic Congress. Now I'm actively battling against them in the courts of law. As I think you can tell, I've loved the fight -- and I love it even more that we're winning!

That's the one thing that I got wrong: I was too pessimistic. Not only did Maclean's magazine beat the HRC rap, but that trial in B.C. did enormous damage to the credibility of all HRCs, in a courthouse packed with angry reporters. And the case of the Christian pastor, of course, was overturned just a few weeks ago by a real court in Alberta. So that's proof that things can get better if we are tenacious. We forget that sometimes, as we battle day by day, inch by inch. But when you stop to look back over two years, you realize how far we have come. Courage!

Here's the Post item from December 2007, that was for me the beginning of many wonderful things:

Censorship in the name of 'human rights'

The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) is taking Maclean's magazine to a human rights commission. Its crime? Refusing the CIC's absurd demand that Maclean's print a five-page letter to the editor in response to an article the CIC didn't like.

It may shock those who do not follow human rights law in Canada, but Maclean's will probably lose.

Forcing editors to publish rambling letters is not a human right in Canada. But that's not how the CIC worded their complaint, filed with the B.C., Ontario and federal human rights commissions. Maclean's is "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" according to a CIC statement. "I felt personally victimized," said Khurrum Awan at the CIC's recent press conference. All this because Maclean's dared to run a column discussing the demographic rise of Islam in the West.

It's a new strategy for the CIC, which in the past has tried unsuccessfully to sue news media it disagreed with -- including the National Post -- using Canada's defamation laws. But Canada's civil courts aren't the best tool for that sort of bullying. In a defamation lawsuit, the CIC would have to hire its own lawyers, follow the rules of court and prove that it suffered real damages -- and the newspapers would have truth and fair comment as defences. Launching a nuisance suit against Maclean's would result in an embarrassing loss for the CIC, a court order to pay the magazine's legal fees and it would deepen the CIC's reputation as a group of radicals who don't understand Canadian values. (Three years ago, Mohamed Elmasry, the CIC's Egyptian-born president, declared that every adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorists).

So civil lawsuits won't work. Criminal charges are a non-starter, too: Canada's hate-speech laws are reserved for extreme acts of incitement, and charges can only be laid with the approval of the justice minister. And in criminal court, the accused must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No chance there.

That's why human rights commissions are the perfect instrument for the CIC. The CIC doesn't even have to hire a lawyer: Once the complaint has been accepted by the commissions, taxpayers' dollars and government lawyers are used to pursue the matter. Maclean's, on the other hand, will have to hire its own lawyers with its own money. Rules of court don't apply. Normal rules of evidence don't apply. The commissions are not neutral; they're filled with activists, many of whom aren't even lawyers and do not understand the free-speech safeguards contained in our constitution.

And the punishments that these commissions can order are bizarre. Besides fines to the government and payments to complainants, defendants can be forced to "apologize" for having unacceptable political or religious opinions.

An apology might not sound onerous, yet it is far more troubling than a fine. Ordering a person -- or a magazine -- to say or publish words that they don't believe is an Orwellian act of thought control. The editor of Maclean's, Ken Whyte, maintains his magazine is fair. But human rights commissions have the power to order him to publish a confession that he's a bigot -- or, as in one Ontario case, even order someone to study Islam. Even convicted murderers cannot be "ordered" to apologize.

Human rights commissions are a relatively new creation, formed in the 1960s and 1970s for political reasons, not legal reasons. The main issues that these commissions were created to address -- such as racial discrimination in rental housing and employment -- were already covered by established landlord and tenant law, as well as labour and employment law. The commissions were supposed to be an informal, sympathetic forum for vulnerable people who needed extra help; and commissions were limited to dispensing a few thousand dollars. It was like small claims court for minorities; a shield to help them against the sword of discrimination.

Few human rights complaints still fall into those categories. A quick canvass of Alberta's cases over the past few years, for example, reveals not a single complaint from someone denied rental housing based on race. The most common cases seem to be employees quitting over squabbles with other staff -- a female backhoe operator claimed her rights as a woman were violated for being called "honey" and other locker-room talk on a construction site; a male hair stylist claimed his rights were violated because the girls at salon school called him a "loser." Another common complaint is sick or injured people being dismissed for not being able to do their jobs anymore, claiming that they have a "human right" not to be fired. In 2004, Albert's Family Restaurant in Red Deer was ordered to pay $4,900 to a kitchen manager who was fired because she had contagious Hepatitis C-- illegal discrimination based on disability, said the commission.

Most cases are not about real rights, and the rulings are wildly inconsistent. The commissions have become a whimsical tax-man, where businesses are charged a few thousand dollars for making the mistake of hiring thin-skinned employees. For most companies, it's not even worth paying a lawyer to contest the complaint, other than on principle.

But besides sorting out office politics, some of Canada's human rights codes cover "publications." Those powers were originally meant to cover things like signs saying No Jews Allowed or Whites Only (in human rights jargon, symbols that "indicate discrimination") or a swastika or burning KKK cross planted on someone's yard.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know that a magazine article is not what the founders of human rights commissions had in mind. As Alan Borovoy, the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- and one of the architects of modern Canadian human rights law -- wrote last year, "during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech." Censoring debates was "hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions."

Borovoy's warning has gone unheeded. The opposite, actually -- it signalled to the CICs of the world that human rights commissions are the perfect instrument to pursue their agenda of censorship. At the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, one single activist -- a lawyer named Richard Warman, who used to work at the commission himself -- has filed 26 complaints, nearly 50% of all complaints under that commission's "hate messages" section. He's turned it into a part-time job, winning tens of thousands of dollars in "awards" from people he's complained about in the past few years. Warman is a liberal activist, who likes to complain against Web sites he calls racist or homophobic. He's had the common sense to stick to suing small, oddball bloggers who can't fight back. But surely the CIC has observed Warman's winning streak, and will use his precedents to go after Maclean's.

An even more terrifying precedent recently was set in Alberta. The case involved a letter to the editor written by a Christian pastor and published in the Red Deer Advocate newspaper. The letter was a zealous, even rude, expression of the pastor's belief that homosexuality was a sin, and that there was a homosexual political "agenda" that had to be stopped. But instead of joining the debate by writing a letter to the editor, a local teacher complained to the human rights commission.

The commission's one-woman panel--a divorce lawyer with no expertise in constitutional rights -- ruled that "the publication's exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter." That was it: Freedom of speech, and of the press, and religion, all of which are called "fundamental freedoms" in our Constitution, now come second to the newly discovered right of a thin-skinned bystander not to be offended.

In a rare move, the Alberta government sent a lawyer to intervene in the case -- against the pastor. The government lawyer argued that "if people were allowed to simply hide behind the rubric of political and religious opinion, they would defeat the entire purpose of the human rights legislation." Borovoy's well-intentioned laws aren't about making sure aboriginals can get taxi rides anymore.

The human rights panellist in question -- Lori Andreachuk, a former Tory riding association president -- wholeheartedly embraces this expansion of the definiton of "human rights." "It is, in my view, nonsensical to enact … human rights legislation, to protect the dignity and human rights of Albertans, only to have it overridden by the expression of opinion in all forms," she wrote. Though no harm was proved to have come from the pastor's letter, it "was likely to expose gay persons to more hatred in the community" -- precisely the same language used by the CIC in their complaint against Maclean's.

In a ruling that spanned some 80 pages, Andreachuk spared just two paragraphs to explain why she was overruling the Charter's guarantee of freedom of speech. In real courts, a demanding legal hurdle called the Oakes Test must be passed before that can be done. The reason for infringing a Charter right must be "pressing and substantial," the infringement couldn't be "arbitrary or irrational" and it must be as "minimal" as possible. None of that analysis was even attempted by Andreachuk -- that's boring legal stuff for real judges in real courts. The Oakes Test was named after David Oakes, a man charged with trafficking of hash oil, who beat the rap using the Charter. Accused drug dealers get the benefit of the Constitution, but not accused pastors.

There will be more human rights complaints like the CIC's, and more staggering rulings like the Alberta decision. It's odd: Mohamed Elmasry, an apologist for Islamo-fascism, using the same tools as an "anti-racist" leftist like Richard Warman. At first glance, they may seem like opposites, but they're actually identical: Both are illiberal censors who have found a quirk in our legal system, and are using it to undermine our Western traditions of freedom. Until last week, I would have thought that Maclean's magazine was too big a fish for them to swallow. I don't think that anymore.



TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: canada; censorship; ezralevant

1 posted on 12/30/2009 3:36:30 AM PST by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: exg; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; Cannoneer No. 4; ...

-


2 posted on 12/30/2009 3:36:58 AM PST by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

Coming soon to a state near you courtesy of AG Holder.


3 posted on 12/30/2009 3:51:13 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

Smells like Hate Crime laws.


4 posted on 12/30/2009 4:05:43 AM PST by RoadTest (Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive; exg; kanawa; backhoe; -YYZ-; Squawk 8888; headsonpikes; AntiKev; Snowyman; ...
Thanks for the ping, Clive.


5 posted on 12/30/2009 4:40:02 AM PST by fanfan (Why did they bury Barry's past?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

I congratulate Mr Ezra Levant and believe me if I had the money I would donate to his cause and spend every day I had in a courtroom fighting the just cause as Mr Levant does every day. I’d be swearing on the bible not the quran I see in canadian courtrooms when I represent myself for one reason or another. The canadian islamic congress should not exist. Should they not be called the canadian jihadist congress?
I am sick and tired of fanatical islam and the terrorists who perpetrated 911 and the most recent detroit attempt. If the nigerian nightmare had not acted like an amateur (and thank God..not allah.. he did) we would be talking about 300 dead innocent civilians. Get rid of multiculturalism in Canada. Nobody wants it. Stop giving refugee payouts and social subsidizing immigrants who come here to suckle the system and not work. I am so glad the PM suspended parliament until March so we don’t have to hear the wailing from the terrorist sympathizing, pro jihadist official oppostiion of iggy and taliban jack. Contrary to what these two A** clowns say the Majority of canadians DO NOT CARE who terrorist detainees are treated by their own people.
God Bless the canadian military and remember the ones who died today over in that hole. Unfortunately we need to take the fight to the scumbag jihadists so they don’t come back here in our own backyard. We don’t want the dirty dogs here


6 posted on 12/30/2009 4:41:22 PM PST by celtictomcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson