Just So You Know
Just in case Lex happens to miss it, I thought it was only right to let you know.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed a hate speech complaint against Maclean’s magazine on Friday in a decision the complainants blamed on “inappropriate political pressure.”
Just to be clear, that would be the complaint claiming that an article written by Mark Steyn, entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam”, made a number of statements and assertions that were likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt.
So, in other words, the system can and does work, as I’ve said before.
For those interested, you can find the Commission’s entire decision here, courtesy of MacLeans. As best as I can tell, a decision has not yet been rendered in the British Columbia case. You know, the one that was live blogged. So for that, we wait.
Funny, though, I almost think I know that many will be disappointed in the result, despite protesting otherwise. The last thing in the world they want to do is admit that the human rights system can and usually does often work properly. No, they want the worst possible, most outrageous, decisions. To prove their supposed point and have more ammunition in their fight to scrap the entire system. Because, just as many might argue that the Islamers complainants in the Steyn/MacLean’s complaint had their own agenda, so too do they.Â
And if you don’t believe me, try googling the name “Steyn” in the blogosphere today.
Which is why I think that perhaps something else good has come out of this controversy. Apparently an independent review of the Commission’s approach to hate speech on the Internet has been launched by the Commission’s chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch.
And I actually think that is a very good thing:
And so the debate Elmasry sparked has become less about media attitudes toward Islam and more about the balance between free speech and hate speech, and whether Canada’s federal and provincial human rights commissions can rightly weigh it.
The last time Canada’s human rights hate speech law was examined in depth was before the advent of the Internet, in a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision about the operator of a neo-Nazi phone-line. In that case, the prohibition on messages that are “likely to expose” identifiable groups to hatred or contempt was judged to be a reasonable limit on the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. But the extension of the law from telephone lines to the Internet in 2001 has resulted in a whole new ballgame.
So, let’s give it a look, says I. Give it a tweak here and there. Even overhaul the entire system if need be. So that it continues to work as advertised. Namely, to protect the rights of all Canadians not to be discriminated against on the enumerated grounds.
But those with a problem with even the concept that the government should have a role to play in protecting individuals from being discriminated against must realize that that is part and parcel of what makes us Canadian. It’s a choice we have made. No, perhaps not one that all Canadians agree with, but one that, I beleive, the majority of us still do. Which would kind of resemble a democracy, no?
Oh yeah, about that “inappropriate political pressure” comment …
Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the CIC, said the dismissal was predictable, given the political climate and the campaign against the commissions themselves.
“We are not surprised at the decision in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and that has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures under (the hate speech section of the Human Rights Act),” he said.
Well, I guess that’s not surprising, I suppose. After all, they always say the best defence is a good offence.
Posted by Michelle
On June 30th, 2008 under Canada, Gratuitous slap, Human Rights, Politics.
Comments: 6
Comments
Comment from b2
Time: July 1, 2008, 9:08 am
“Commissions”.
Sounds like something out of the Robespierre period of the French Revolution…shudder..
Read this carefully- we may get more like, y’all:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/29/obamas-america-is-canada/
BTW, I agree with it 100%. Being “well-loved” is a desirable state but not necessarily reality…..
Lastly, I read today that B.H.O. is preferable by a majority of Canadians than who is your PM today! Perhaps we could trade if that happens? LOL.
b2
Comment from Michelle
Time: July 1, 2008, 11:43 am
I read that too but no thanks, I don’t particularly want him.
You are welcome to Harper, though. In fact, you would definitely get the best of that trade, you would take him over Obama any day I am sure. He’s a [gasp] Conservative .
Comment from Michelle
Time: July 1, 2008, 12:03 pm
Just read the Washington Post piece. Well, obviously the man must have some good taste. 
Too bad there’s a bit bit of inaccuracy in the article though. We still have the disparities of wealth, a squeezed middle class, overpaid CEOs and an economy that is “out of balance.” Our government doesn’t do much spending for health insurance and we don’t offer any help for homeowners who default on their mortgage … well, except welfare, that is. And there’s no no college tuition in exchange for public service., either. Actually, from what I understand your social welfare system is way more *generous* than ours. Go figure …
And isn’t abortion legal in the US right now? Under your current Republican government? And jus to be clear, I am pretty sure we don’t allow partial-birth abortion.
The Quebecois, BTW, are definitely their own breed. They even have their separate civil law system. So I wouldn’t rely too much on anything they do as depicting how it is here in the Great White Up.
I have to say I am rather a proponent of mutilateral foreign policy and respect for international law, though. Although even I wouldn’t advocate “talking” to America’s enemies. As for that whole “peacekeeping” thing, I think we were much more into that prior to 9/11. Yes, we were (rightfully, I would say) proud of that role, but I don’t think that’s exactly how we see our military anymore. And I think the majority of Canadians likely realize that as “nice” as it would be to be able to return to that role, that’s just not realistic in today’s world.
You know, frankly, I don’t have a lot of trouble with being seen as a gentler, softer and more liberal nation than the US. But just remember, it’s not Canadians who are suggesting that you should be more like us. Personally, I have no need for that, I really don’t care all that much and I think most of my fellow Canucks would share that sentiment.
Happy Canada Day, by the way!
Comment from b2
Time: July 2, 2008, 1:17 pm
Happy belated Canada Day to you, too!
re- “… it’s not Canadians who are suggesting that you should be more like us’
Thankfully, it’s just B.H.O.
re- “And isn’t abortion legal in the US right now? Under your current Republican government?”
Yes. Because Republicans follow the law, too! Despite all the bad press..
re- “The Quebecois, BTW, are definitely their own breed.”
1/4 of me is one of them and thast piece even has a dab of Native in it. Definite “chip on the shoulder” culture..and going south in a hurry..Check out their of wedlock birthrate. Perhaps, if “regular Canadians” had even 1/10 the amount of concern for human rights of these folks 50 or 100 years ago things wouldn’t be so bad nowadays… They may not be reflective of N.S. or the west provinces but they are 1/3 the population of Canada and have 2/3′s the resources. If I were Canadian I would take them very seriously!
IMO, Canada is a microcosym of Europe. Quebec is like France/Germany, BC is Sweden, NS and N.B. are like Lux and Denmark, and the western provinces are like Georgia and the Ukraine! Just kidding. Canada is only “softly Balkanized”! Only where hockey is concerned do they seem to come together!
re- “with being seen as a gentler, softer and more liberal nation than the US.”
That is only made made possible by the fact that the benevolent Superpower, or Dark Star based on your point of view, we have been your peacable neighbor and protector since the 1940′s…
Since British Commonwealth lost all significance as a result of WWII, without the USA as your neighbor to help bind you together, Canada would have drifted apart into different nations decades ago. C. Degaulle himself almost pulled that off.
b2
Comment from Michelle
Time: July 2, 2008, 3:23 pm
Thanks for the chuckle, B2. I always find it amusing when you tell me how I think and feel. I have never called the US the Dark Star and I have never felt that way about it. In fact, sorry to disappoint, but I have always liked the US. And still do.
And, I guess I wasn’t clear in my previous comment, but I completely agree … Canada can be a dove because the US is a hawk. I was just having this same conversation with my brother today (a closet American or should I say a not-so-closeted American wanna-be) … frankly, I think the world needs both hawks and doves. So the fact that Canada can get away with being a dove because the US is a hawk, that’s not something we should bemoan, it’s something to celebrate. The world doesn’t need all hawks. Nor does it need all doves. We need both to make it go around properly.
Sorry if I disappoint. I am what I am. And I don’t think it’s necessarily what you presume me to be.
But I do think you give us less credit than we deserve. Canadians definitely show their patriotism in a different way than Americans, granted, a much less obvious way, but don’t count us out. Just because it looks different doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Other than Quebec, I don’t believe that there has been or will be a question, we would and will hold together., Thanks for your concern, though.
Comment from b2
Time: July 3, 2008, 4:46 pm
Glad to oblige. When I reread what I wrote I scratched my own head.
Actually, I wasn’t directing any of to you per se but to what I consider the average Canadian opinion re the USA. Not really knowing you except for what you write down and, as you point out, can’t ascribe anything particular to you. I actually assume you must like the US because you are always supportive and eager to learn more about what makes us tick.
You must admit many Canadians view us as the Dark Star and they ain’t all from Quebec.
As far as showing patriotism that wasn’t my point. Canada spans a big continent like the US and I’ve seen a lot of it. Vancouver is quite different from Halifax as Toronto is from Quebec City. With the Native Territory up north, the Quebecois and the unique Maritime Provinces, y’all could easily seperate given the temperment of the French Canadians who might bolt at any second. A domino effect could kick in and could easily become a loose confederation.
One characteristic both countries share is the redzone-blue zone split between city/urban folk vs. traditional values of those who live further out. Re that we have a common schism. In fact Canada’s is probably more pronounced.
I can’t bash Quebec though. More from a personal standpoint. In their eyes the “English”, as they call them, oppressed them for centuries. Most in the US don’t know this unless maybe they’ve seen movies about the Dionne Quits or such! Being genetically French (a burden) and holding some significant cards in their hands today, they think they should be calling the shots. While I don’t agree with much they say or do, I do understand where they are coming from. That little piece of my ancestry can trace itself back to Normandy and they were here before those English folks arrived in Massachusetts on the Mayflower! They were the first Europeans, along with the Spanish to settle in North America significantly and in some ways they actually got along better with the Native Americans.
IMO, you “mildly bashing” Quebec is like easterners bashing the fruit & nuts from California or a New Yorker bad mouthing Texans…I don’t think this next generation of Quebecois will be as ‘militant’ as the present. At least I hope so.
BTW, I still think those Commissions smell of something from Robespierre. PC run amok…mind control and re-education camps may not be far behind! What’s wrong with the existing common and criminal law (English and Napoleonic) you already have in place? Aren’t they sort of like 1000 year in the making, “human rights systems”?
Lastly, I’m glad to see you agree that Canada’s ability to play the “Dove”, is at least partially derived from the power of it’s neighbor to the south. A lot of your countrymen don’t share that view at all. As you well know the US is not a nation of Hawks, either..just seems that way because of the folks you hang out with here!
b2
Write a comment