The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has once again tarnished academia’s perception of Canada, and they didn’t even do anything this time.
The American Political Science Association (APSA) is planning on holding its next annual conference in Toronto, but a number of its members are launching a petition to the APSA calling for it to be relocated because of the CHRC’s persecution of those practicing freedom of speech. They’re afraid that human rights complaints will be taken to the CHRC, as was the case when Macleans printed a controversial Mark Steyn article, and when Ezra Levant published the Danish Mohamed cartoons. The word irony doesn’t even do justice to the absurdity of a commission designed to stand for human rights standing stridently against one of the most fundamental human rights.
The petition is gaining strong support among APSA members because they, if anyone, know that freedom of expression is necessary for intellectual discussion. Without it, we leave some of the most pressing issues unaddressed, especially ones endemic to much of the APSA’s contemporary discussion – that is, the growing threat of Islamic terrorism and the Muslim world’s neglect to effectively challenge it – a topic that both Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were martyred for.
So once again, the CHRC has embarrassed Canada. One would think that something that stands against itself would self-destruct. Lets hope that this happens soon enough.
For more information on the absurdity of the Canadian Human Rights Commission visit Canadian Human Rights Commission EXPOSED!
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Tyler Handley
- Great article on the importance of Net Neutrality
- Facebook is the new NWO (not the wrestling alliance)
- All Action. No Reason. Starring Michael Bay.
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Value of the Printed Word
- Once an Etiology: a short rant on the Tree of Life
- Beautiful
- Two Ways of Looking at the World
- The Old Africa is a Country Mistake…by an “Almost” Vice President
- Oh how so very true
- Teen Hangs Herself Over Ghost
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Embarassing eh? It seems you don’t fully understand the what the CHRC actualy does, what is has done with other cases, and what kind of power it has over what you might perceive as “censorship”. This seems in line with a lot of misunderstanding about Canada’s own Bill of Right, or in Canadian the Charter of Right and Freedoms. They are essentially the same, that is of course nothing special since the Bill of Right was used as a model. In Canada, our legislation essentially upholds all basic human rights and freedoms as stipulated in the Charter. However, it is allowed not to guarantee these rights under certain circumstances within reasonable limits, this is called…the “reasonable limits” clause. So what does that mean? The clause was put into place, from my understanding, in response to precedences in the United States concerning right and freedoms. In the US, the freedom of expression is total, absolute, anyone can say or write whatever they please (of course within its own loose limitations). Giving rights to people..such as the Westboro Church to tell me I’m going to hell for being a “FAG”, and write it on their blog/newspaper/posters/magazines/blah blah blah. That is far from constructive and intelligent speech. Hateful and possibly hurtful to society? Yes. In Canada, they could be censored. In fact they were barred from entering the country
The Charter can suspend the specific rights of a person(s) if it is deemed, through a very long process to be detrimental to society and or to other people. Does this happen often? NO. In fact there are only a few cases in which the limitations clause in upheld by the courts, AND acted upon by the government (which is doesn’t have to). These issues are often a big deal in the Canadian media.
Now the CHRC is part of the process that examines every Human Rights complaint, and submits its report to the judiciary for review with recommendations, no one is bound by this, not the courts, not the government. Should it self-destruct because of the actions of a few commissioners out of the 200 people that run the CHRC? I wouldn’t go to that extreme. If you would examine many of those that filed complaints about the commission, ie. white supremacist Marc Lemire, Alex Kulbashian, and the Catholic Bishop of Albeta (canada’s Texas), you would think differently. You would also find it interesting that the CHRC also has a history of upholding secular rights, i.e. the operation of businesses on Sundays (under the Lord’s Day Act), in all instances winning. You’ve generalized the CHRC in the worst possible way. In my opinion it is part of a process which includes taking multiple opinions, discussion, research, debate, and consensus. There is no room for generalizations.
There are contradictions in any piece of legislation, and grey areas appear in many cases. Our Charter has embraced it, but it with great caution. The suspension of rights is limited, and often preceded by an enormous amount of debate, and discussion. The Charter allows for greater interpretation, and why shouldn’t it? Not every situation is going to be followed by a clear response, especially in justice. Before you jump to conclusions, about how scary Canada is towards freedoms, look at what has been said, and what actually has been DONE.
and finally…Ezra Levant was never went before the CHRC but the Alberta Human RIghts and Citizenship Commission. The complaint against Levant was dismissed earlier this month. Much like in Mark Steyn’s case where the CHRC deemed his article “not of an extreme nature…” and also dismissed the complaint.
p.s. OMFG? youre defending Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant!? do you know who these people are??
ALSO! Why should an American organization make such rash judgments about a Canadian institution? Granted we do grumble up here about you guys, but seriously…a royal commission? They are afraid of a powerless commission? You would actually think that the government, a Conservative government with Stephen Harper, chummy with Bush, would extradite academic elite Americans? The APSA really need not to worry about anything.
AND ALSO The National Post? Really? That’s your source material? I can excuse you for not being from Canada but the Post really isn’t what you would call…reliable. Please examine other news sources, CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail and many more about the subject.
ok ok…im finished.
ok…ok…just one more thing….i had no reason to believe you were American…but i did. sorry!
and also…you should know better!!
I think what is going on with this topics tells me that leftist political philosophy can go too far.
I don’t know who Mark Stein and Ezra Levant are, but I know the Westboro Baptist Church well, and I do think that having an all out communications campaign that says “God Hates fags” is something that should be protected in society.
Things like the Ku Klux Klan’s right to assemble should be protected, and so should gatherings of the 5th Percent.
I would bet the CHRC would defend the 5th Percent though because it would be liberal chic to do so. The 5th Percent is a black supremacist organization which holds as one of its central tenets that white people were created by an evil mad scientist and have been the cause of all the world’s problems so far.
All of this nonsense should be protected speech, because humanity when it produces a state provides an imperfect filter on whats true.
The numbers of people offended by the Westboro Baptist church in the U.S, are probably a lot smaller than the numbers of people who would be offended if I tell them (as I do) that their brain disproves the soul. While you may disagree with me about this A.H., I don’t think you would want to see it legally condemned, and to be censured.
There are limits to free speech, we can all agree on this. Child pornography is a universal example, so would snuff films.
But on the continuum of what is offensive, we should protect as much offensive speech as we can without crossing into the lines of speech in which people were actually hurt or forced to participate.
I understand how the CHRC works. And yes I know that in many cases they have won battles for the secular side. What I don’t agree with them having the power to do, even when it only happens rarely, is to stifle freedom of expression.
Now, like Rodrigo says below me, you can draw lines in free speech, and it seems that the CHRC has taken it upon itself to do this, but I feel they’ve drawn their line to short. I would agree that snuff material and child porn are outside the limits of free speech and speech that is specifically targeted towards inciting harm to another. Steyn and Levant’s (Alberta Human Rights Commission i know…and Steyn was taken to the BC Human Rights Commission first) lives were nearly ruined from being taken to court (even if u win you still have to pay your legal fees)…and over what? Steyn’s article apparently “enraged” Muslims, but if you read it, it really shouldn’t have…it was not hate speech, it was not Islamophobia. And Levant, he was reacting to the Muslim world going nuts over a series of silly cartoons. Once again, they were not hate speech. People could claim that they could’ve incited violence, but the issue with the Muslim world is much broader because they oppose freedom of speech in the first place. It’s a culture war, and if we don’t stand up for freedom of expression then they are winning. And this is where I see the CHRC failing. They are caving in to Muslim sensitivities – sensitivities that oppose much of what we stand for, specifically the right to freedom of expression, something the CHRC should be defending in the first place.
I agree, National Post, not always reliable. I read a few sources, and that was the last one I read so I just instinctively hyperlinked to it…never really thought about that.
Where you from Rezur?
To the unaware,
“The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” were not Steyn’s words. He quoted Mullah Krekar.
More here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24033
BTW Tyler
Thanks for the link.
I think he typed his name in wrong….as those are the first few letters of his e-mail. He’s also “A.H” in the comments. He’s from Toronto (Montreal originally, but his dad lives in California).
Alright, you are right in the sense that CHRC has some fallacies to it that needs to be taken into consideration. There are a few kinks, given the only nearly 30 year history of the Charter and the existence of the CHRC. But for the most part I truly believe that the system works and is self correcting in many ways, and it has! Re-examination of laws, even the Charter’s definition happen all the time since its implementation and it has, i believe, helped shaped an all inclusive society, no matter who you are. I really don’t think that the CHRC caters to anyone since it does not actively seek out complaints for the most part, and it surely hasn’t in Steyn’s case. It was the Canadian Muslim Congress that submitted the complaint, and they failed at gaining anything, except for a wider audience and a spectacle. Which is not of course not the CHRC fault, I’m sure that the Muslim Congree fully embraced the media when they did this. So who should be looked at here? The CHRC? or the Muslim Congress? Had the CHRC not taken the complaint seriously what would be the repercussion of that action?
Instead of simply saying that the commission is overstepping its limits, please look at what it has actually achieved. Suggest possible improvement on its structure and workings.
The question of what is offensive and dangerous is of course not very clear cut. There are fine lines between what is deemed acceptable and what is’nt, you’re right. But too much of a good thing can sometimes lead to bad consequences, and the limitations that are included in the Charter helps us in that sense. What its also there for is to protect against extremism, Muslim, religious, conservative AND liberal. I often find that the CHRC is often attacked not because it itself a liberal champion, but because the entirety of the Canadian legal system, and maybe the country itself is often deemed to be “liberal” and the commission is simply a part of that. The CHRC fits very well into our legal system, could it be perceived as a wider problem among those that think its simply just leftist philosophy going too far? What is too far? How can we find and define these limits? WHO can define these limits?
“Had the CHRC not taken the complaint seriously what would be the repercussion of that action? ”
Repercussions such as?
Car-b-ques, embassies burned, villages torched, murder????
Heh.
The CHRC should of ignored the complaint at face value. Or at the least after a quick investigation dropped it.
Muslims whine every chance they get. They do not want to hear of any criticism of Islam. Period.
Now I ask is that free speech or the Islamic way?
Bear in mind we are focusing on their expectations of how westerners in the west should behave.
Not muslims under sharia law.
Which brings to mind this quote by Fleming Rose of Danish Mo Toon fame.
The west needs to take a stand before it ends up on it’s knees.
Good points A.H. You’re implying that I’m being harsh on the CHRC, and you’re right, I am. Maybe too harsh, but I still disagree with their recent actions. And about the Muslim Canadian Congress, I thought it was the Islamic Canadian Congress that filed the human rights complaint. It was Mohamed Elmasry who filed it, the same guy who claimed that all Jews over 18 in the West Bank are valid targets for murder because they’re considered “soldiers” to him. The CIC has been using the CHRC to gain a wider audience and spread the mostly false notion of “islamophobia.”
Yes you are right ,i meant the CIR….waaaay on the other spectrum of the CMC
I wasn’t speaking about political repercussion outside of Canada, but repercussions towards the judiciary acting as an impartial, non-partisan, unbiased entity. If it can’t investigate cases which involves a basic freedom, asking itself hard questions pertaining to the limit freedom of speech then it has not done it job, and there wold be no reason for it to exist. To simply ignore the issues and questions is not conducive for ration and reasonable judgment. If you read any of the comments you would see that the CHRC did in fact drop it, after much review and discussion.
It is also interesting that you would use that quote, as the CHRC would most likely agree with you.
In the case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. the CHRC and the Supreme Court upheld secular and non-believer rights and gave a strong precedence. Striking down a law that prohibited businesses from operating on Sundays. Declaring that there was no secular basis to the law. Please don’t make the absolute assumption that an entity protecting religious freedoms does not also protect secular freedoms. The law does not prohibit anyone to use it, in fact I think it speaks volumes that they would use democratic and impartial means to dispute rather than to result to violence and destruction as you have suggested. I personally think that is wonderfully rational and reasonable. Also many Muslims I know, and even in the media are extreme critical themselves of Islam. In fact i often find that they are the ones who make the most noise.
I don’t see many Muslims condemning violence on behalf of the faith, but I think we should strongly support those who are outspoken.
Try this one on for size:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/editorial/story/4219546p-4812904c.html
Structures like the Canadian Human Rights Commission are dangerous because they are inherently political (appointees are often politically connected lay people) and their decisions are not arrived at with reference to juristic principles; thus, their decisions tend to be little more than genuflections to the political zeitgeist backed with threats of State action. They are kangaroo courts where the rules of evidence and procedure are overly malleable, and where there are no consequences associated with spurious complaints, except of course for the respondent who may end up paying for representation. What would the claimant’s costs in a civil action are transferred to the State.
Technically, in this article Steyn also insituates that baseball teams are only for “guys”, literally tells Italians to fuck themselves (albiet through a quote…but the mosquito thing was a quote too), and uses the word “injuns”.
…I heart him.