The Shotgun Blog
« Iraqi myths blown to pieces | Main | O'Neill on Adler »
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tear down that wall!
The National Post has printed a piece from me on its op-ed pages today, but the item doesn't seem to be posted on the paper's website yet, so I've pasted the full text of the column at the end of this item.
After Ezra's magnificent performance at the Alberta Human Rights Commission a week and a half ago, I realized that, while the issue had generated much interest in the blogosphere, not only had newspapers and TV newscasts ignored the event, but politicians had as well. My piece is a response to the political disinterest. You can read it below.
By TERRY O’NEILL
The free-speech controversies currently swirling around Maclean’s magazine and Alberta journalist Ezra Levant ultimately can be attributed to one thing: the legislation that allows Canada’s human-rights commissions to act as censors. Amend the various human-rights acts blanketing the country and the problem vanishes. Disturbingly, however, the issue does not seem to be on any government’s radar, either in provincial capitals or on Parliament Hill.
The background to the cases in question is fairly well known by now. Maclean’s and its writer, Mark Steyn, are the subjects of complaints filed at the Canadian, Ontario and B.C. human-rights commissions by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The CIC is claiming that Steyn’s writings about Muslims’ high birth rate “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” Levant, my former employer at the now-defunct Western Standard, was taken to the Alberta Human Rights Commission by complainants upset with the magazine’s publishing of the notorious Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.
What is significant here is that each commission is governed by its own unique human-rights act, and that those acts appear to give the commissions varying degrees of power to censor journalists who might have offended some of their readers. Of the above-named jurisdictions, B.C.’s legislation appears to pose the greatest threat to free speech; Ontario’s the least.
Section 7 of B.C.’s human-rights act makes it an offence for any person to publish “any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation” that so much as “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate” against a protected group, or “is likely to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.” No actual discrimination or hatred has to occur for an offence to occur. And, as pointed out on these pages over the past few weeks, truth is not a defence.
Alberta’s law is similar to B.C.’s, but adds an important caveat: “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.” This would seem to give Levant, for example, the ability to trump his critics. But the fact is that last November, in a case involving a Christian pastor who was critical of homosexuality, human-rights panel chair Lori Andreachuk ignored this protection and went so far as to rule that even the right of free speech enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “does not trump the protection afforded [homosexuals] under the Alberta human rights legislation.”
The human-rights act of the last of the three provinces in question, Ontario, contains no provisions similar to B.C. and Alberta’s limitations of speech rights.
Section 12 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, on the other hand, makes it unlawful to publish or display “any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate.” Furthermore, section 13 makes it an offence for anyone “to communicate telephonically [a definition that includes the Internet]…any matter that is likely to expose a person or person to hatred or contempt.”
Human-rights proponents have argued that such restrictions are necessary to protect minorities from language that will lead to their being discriminated against or subjected to hatred and violence. But, as Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, famously observed last year, censoring otherwise free speech was never the intention of activists, like himself, who helped bring human-rights laws into being in the first place.
This may be true in most cases, but in my home province, for example, the B.C. act’s infamous Section 7 was specifically enacted in 1993 by the NDP government of the day to gag cantankerous right-wing columnist Doug Collins (since deceased). In 1998, the NDP considered broadening the act even further at the urging of the pro-choice lobby, which tried to persuade then-attorney-general Ujjal Dosanjh to criminalize criticism of abortionists.
Although the episode was virtually ignored by the mainstream media of the day, I remember it quite well because of the growing threat it posed to free speech. I especially recall that, in writing about the pro-choicers’ demands, I interviewed an erudite and eloquent public-policy expert who spoke passionately about this threat.
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” the man said. “It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this very scary stuff.” That person was the president of the National Citizens Coalition, a politically astute fellow by the name of Stephen Harper, a man who, of course, has now gone onto much bigger and better things.
I don’t think it would be too much to ask of Mr. Harper now that he put his words into action, and move to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to eliminate the commission’s censorious powers. Perhaps such a move would inspire Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell to act similarly.
All three leaders should realize that their governments’ human rights laws are badly flawed, and that the longer they remain unamended, they are, in effect, acting as a barrier separating all citizens from their fundamental right to free speech.
In this light then, we should all exclaim: “Mr. Harper, Mr. Stelmach, and Mr. Campbell: Tear down this wall!”
-30-
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 23, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fef12d68833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tear down that wall!:
Comments
Well said, Terry. I particularly think that arguing for amending "the Canadian Human Rights Act to eliminate the commission’s censorious powers" rather than arguing for the elimination of the Act is important. If you read (as I am sure you did) Ezra's G&M column earlier this week and the response from the four law students a day later, you see a good example of what happens when you make more of a case than needs making. Ezra complains of the hate speech provisions of the Alberta HRA, but he also attacks the very idea of Human Rights Commissions. As a result he makes this more radical suggestion an easy target for the law students, who can sit back and merely argue that human rights are important without addressing the question of why hate speech should be restricted.
As I pointed out in reply to you on this blog before ( http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/01/the-mind-of-an.html ) the hate speech provisions are just one small part of human rights acts, and so they can be eliminated without eliminating the entire acts or their enforcement mechanism. You have wisely restricted your target in the NP column to the hate speech provisions rather than (as you did in the Tri-City News) make a broader case againt human rights tribunals.
Also, you might add Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan, to your list of people who might be inspired to change their human rights acts. Saskatchewan, like BC and Alberta, have a human rights act that restricts hate speech. The other seven provinces do not.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-23 9:58:28 AM
Wrong again FC. The whole so-called HR industry must go. Free speech is either all or not at all. I realise that lefties (statists) cannot grasp the fact that in a truly free society there is no place for big brother to hold your hand and come to your rescue each time you deem your feelings have been hurt.
This is not an area where the government has any business whatsoever. There are already laws to deal with slander, defamation, etc. where rules of evidence and due process apply.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-23 10:27:15 AM
Arnold Toynbee: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
Posted by: winston | 2008-01-23 12:39:55 PM
Alain,
Your reply makes it clear that you have not read any of the human rights acts. Most of the things they deal with have nothing at all to do with speech. In fact, only the hate speech provision that Terry and I have advocated removing deals with speech. The rest of these acts deals with things like store owners who refuse to let black people shop in their stores, employers who refuse to hire Jews, or landlords who refuse to rent to Asians. None of these things is a case of speech and none of them is covered by any other laws. Neither Terry nor I is defending restrictions on speech. You would know that if you read the human rights acts we are talking about before condemning them.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-23 12:57:52 PM
FC - I am well aware of these other provisions in the HR acts, which again is none of the government's business.
A landlord should have the right not to rent or to rent in a free society. The majority simply want to ensure that they are not renting to people who will not pay the rent when due or people who trash the place. As to store owners refusing to let Blacks (or any other group) shop in their store, in a free market and free society store owners are more interested in increasing the number of customers than turning away good money.
Being Jewish I think I can speak to the claim of it protecting us from employers refusing to hire us. This is rubbish. I can say from personal experience that if an employers does not want to hire Jews, they get around it even with the famous HR acts. Frankly in such cases, I would choose not to work for them.
There is no justification whatsoever for any HR act in a free society.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-23 2:08:20 PM
FC - if a person is a known Conservative in the Yukon Park errr territory, you can get fired for getting hurt at work - and not one of the 'rightous' will say a word on your behalf. Oh I forgot to say that I am a redhead, of Scottish ancestory, non Lesbian orientation.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-01-23 2:11:26 PM
FC - if a person is a known Conservative in the Yukon Park errr territory, you can get fired for getting hurt at work - and not one of the 'rightous' will say a word on your behalf. Oh I forgot to say that I am a redhead, of Scottish ancestory, non Lesbian orientation.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-01-23 2:11:44 PM
"The rest of these acts deals with things like store owners who refuse to let black people shop in their stores, employers who refuse to hire Jews, or landlords who refuse to rent to Asians."
The problem here is that denying freedom of association, denies freedom of speech. Association is the first fundamental freedom, thus how can HRC be logically reformed to ensure speech freedom, and then deny freedom of association? Why can't you have the freedom to deal or not deal with an individual for whatever reason or no reason at all? Such freedom existed in Canada before WWII. Why not now?
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-23 2:19:45 PM
Folks,
It seems several of you don't like restrictions on refusals to employ, do business with, or rent to people based on race or religion. So then a sign in a store window that says "No dogs or Jews" should be allowed, according to this line of thinking. I suspect very very few people would agree even going just this far, but the logical extension of the argument is the elimination of a great many other laws.
For example, why not allow defamation, libel and slander? Sure, each of these can result in material hardship, but so can firing someone from their job or evicting them. What about fraud? After all, lying to someone in order to get them to give me their money is just speech, and since material harms (like losing a job or home) are not enough for you to think it worth restricting, then defrauding a person of some money should not be a reason to restrict it either. How about conspiracy to commit murder? If I lie to someone telling him I will pay him a lot of money to kill someone I don't like, then when he does it I turn him in to the police, I should be able to defend myself by saying all I did was talk. I never killed anyone. So free speech should be my defense.
I honesty don't see any real difference in any of these cases - and I could come up with dozens more for you - and the idea of allowing a "No dogs or Jews" sign. I also suspect that enough people agree with me that we never have to really worry that folks like you will eliminate these reasonable laws we have. But on the issue of hate speech - things people like Ezra and David Ahenekew get in trouble for - I think there is a much different case and that a lot of people can be persuaded that there should be no laws against it.
But so long as Ezra and others insist on tying the removal of hate speech laws to the removal of all human rights protections, the issue will get no traction with public support whatsoever. That's just too nutty an idea to take seriously.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-23 2:44:05 PM
FC - you forgot about signs, in the past, banning the Irish - in the Yukon park we get job advertisments stating that some races will be considered before those of other 'colors'. HRC is NOT working because it is NOT Just; time to desband it.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-01-23 3:05:21 PM
"For example, why not allow defamation, libel and slander? Sure, each of these can result in material hardship, but so can firing someone from their job or evicting them. What about fraud?"
The difference being is that you have to prove harm.
"...the logical extension of the argument is the elimination of a great many other laws."
Which is of course nonsense.
"No dogs or Jews" should be allowed..."
Yes, or no whites or blacks/gays/or whatever only. It is much more preferable to be advised that your business is not wanted BEFORE you enter a store, than having to discover through innuendo that the black merchant has no intention of selling this white man a bottle of wine.
How much harm was actually caused? How many Jews couldn't buy a house or groceries or whatever in pre-WWII Canada? Two? Seven? Are we saying the overwhelming majority of blacks or Jews were homeless when free association was legal?
Talk about nutty ideas...
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-23 3:24:22 PM
http://www.630ched.com/dynamic/dynamic_audiovault_process.asp?dt=20080123_13
this is the link to 630ched in edmonton. Sign into the audio vault and go to 2pm.
Posted by: SW | 2008-01-23 3:39:00 PM
a business that would post "No indians, whites, etc." will quickly go OUT of business, in most cases. And that's the best prevention.
A store owner can't prevent someone from entering, and a PO'd bunch of people can cause a lot of grief to an owner.
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2008-01-23 7:49:52 PM
What is amusing with the argument that without HR acts stores and businesses would be refusing to serve customers based on their colour or whatever. Yet we have many places where one cannot enter if not properly attired - mind you I see no problem there. Plus in this area of BC, there are many stores and businesses where all the signage is solely in a foreign language and none of the staff speak English, and all this with our great HR Act. Now it seems clear that such places have enough business from their own not to worry about losing Canadian customers - since they too are in it for the profit. We also have employment discrimination even within the government, both federal and provincial - mainly against white Canadian males.
So the loons peddling all these HR acts claiming they prevent discrimination and ensure equality are either brain dead or liars - take your pick.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-24 12:17:22 AM
What human rights are you talking about people?
As I read these charters it doesn't take a dum dum to realise that the government is the biggest offender of any human rights.
Personaly I applaude Ezra Lavent for the courage of opening his mouth and also for myself have grown very sick and tired of this religion called democracy.It's broken and can't be fixed.
Posted by: Lloyd Albers | 2008-04-15 7:12:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.