Restore common sense to human rights
by Werner Patels
Most Western countries today have multicultural societies, with millions and millions of people of various races, beliefs and other "quirks" interacting, and sometimes clashing, with each other. To ensure a more or less smooth functioning of society, many countries have in place special laws and tribunals to deal with acts of racism, discrimination and reasonable accommodation.
Without any doubt, life would be much easier if everyone were absolutely the same, in almost clone-like fashion, but it would also be a lot duller. But diversity of colour, race and religion is now a fact of life, with all the good and bad this engenders.
Canada is one of these countries that have gone the furthest in looking after minority groups and interests, but in some areas, it has also gone way too far, resulting in ever more friction, conflict and even reduced security for society at large.
The whole world has been following the troubles of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, both of whom have had the "fortuity" of running afoul of Muslim individuals and organizations over what they publish, write or say. In either case, there is no denying the fact that Muslims had a right to feel offended by what these two gentlemen wrote. Everyone has something they feel very strongly about, and any criticism or attack on it, whether real or perceived, can trigger bitter feelings. Conversely, Steyn, for example, is entitled to feeling offended by certain things he has observed in the world and written about in order to vent his frustration.
But should such hurt sensibilities give rise to lawsuits or complaints? Unless it involves defamation, which can result in either civil or criminal charges, or an outright criminal act, such as issuing a public call for an individual or groups of individuals to be physically harmed or even killed, the answer must invariably be a resounding "No". Whereas it is still possible, pending ongoing investigations, that Levant may have defamed one of his opponents personally, an imam in Calgary, Steyn has done no such thing. He says and writes outrageous things and exaggerates his narrative frequently, but none of that is actionable under civil or criminal law – offensive, yes, but not a crime.
It is cases like Levant's and Steyn's that highlight the urgent need for reform of the Canadian Human Rights Act, particularly section 13. Hate crimes, such as the promulgation of White Supremacist messages, are covered under the section, but unnecessarily so, because such acts would almost always result in criminal charges anyway.
The way it stands right now, "[t]o engage in free and wide-ranging discussion on issues of politics, race, religion, terrorism, fanaticism, foreign policy, or domestic policy is to court being stigmatized as a bigot. That risk will chill discussion of the war in Iraq, the push to introduce sharia law in Ontario, Canada's anti-terrorism act, or Québec's reasonable accommodation hearings, to name just a few examples" (Maclean's). As a result, issues and problems are swept under the rug, because certain topics are too hot to handle, and even the highest-ranking politicians refuse to touch them even with a ten-foot pole. The issue of immigration and how it has failed Canadians is probably the prime example: Canada would not sink into a deeper hole every year if it did not have to waste $18 billion a year on those 77% of immigrants who never work or pay taxes and who are nothing but deadweight. If Canadians and their politicians were not muzzled by the Political Correctness Thought Police, this problem, and a score of others, could have been addressed and solved a long time ago.
Liberal MP Keith Martin (a former conservative who has now rediscovered his real roots and therefore does not represent Liberal lore on the subject at all – a move that may have serious repercussions for his future with the Liberal Party) has tabled a motion to have section 13 eliminated. While this is a noble project on his part, it fails to address the real problem in this context. Instead of repealing a section in the Act, Parliament should set down very clear and restrictive rules as to the types of cases that can be brought before a human rights commission. That would do away with all those bogus claims (or attempts at blackmail, as was the case with the law students who went after Steyn).
Cases brought before these commissions ought to be limited to grievances arising from within a business, labour or employment-related context. In one fell swoop, the opportunity for persecuting publishers and writers would be taken off the menu. Under a scenario such as this one, human rights commissions could deal with a landlord who refuses to rent to a black person, or an employer who fired someone simply because he or she happened to be a practising Muslim. Similarly, the law students who complained about Steyn and Maclean's, the magazine that published Steyn's "offending essay", could bring a complaint against the magazine if, say, Maclean's refused to sell them a subscription on the grounds that it was against the publication's established policy to sell subscriptions to Muslims – but they would never have another chance to blackmail the magazine into handing over editorial control over a privately-owned publication.
To be sure, both Levant and Steyn have made some rather major mistakes in the way they handled those complaints and conducted themselves. Levant, in particular, has attracted a following of the racist, White Supremacist and goose-stepping kind – one only needs to look around the blogosphere to see the types of supporters he has recruited among his acolytes. But whether one agrees or disagrees with Levant's and Steyn's actions and words, it must be stated in no uncertain terms that, unless and until being offensive, rude and loud-mouthed is declared to be against the law, neither one is guilty of any crime or even misdemeanour. Nor has any one of the two engaged in hate crimes – some of their supporters have (e.g., by calling for all Muslims to be killed), but not Levant or Steyn.
While both Levant and Steyn have been absolutely the worst possible choices to spearhead the freedom-of-speech movement, as, through their various tactics, they have probably put more people off than they gained for the cause, it still needs to be acknowledged that people are now talking about these issues, and that is a good thing.
The only one who should be brought before a judge – a real judge, not a human rights commissioner – is human rights commissioner Barbara Hall. Even after dismissing the case against Steyn and Maclean's, she gave a press conference in the course of which she slandered and defamed the magazine – without evidence or a hearing whatsoever. Thus, she also violated the code of conduct to which she is subject and which obliges her to be neutral and fair to all parties. Not only should she be removed from her post, but the magazine should consider suing her for malicious defamation. Maybe that would get Parliament's attention and make MPs realize that political correctness has become a terrible disease that is threatening to destroy Canada.













Recent Comments