Notes from Canada

January 5, 2008

Eds: Canadian limits on freedom of speech are startling to Americans unfamiliar with that country. In the forefront of efforts to combat PC restrictions is Paul Fromm’s Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) which has just drawn our attention to a recent entry into the fray by columnist, Mark Steyn, and the Canadian magazine, Maclean’s. The conventional media credentials and considerable renown of these two allies offer hope of a breakthrough against the “human rights” commission racket.

Fromm’s intro, below, is followed by a commentary by Steyn.

The permanent link for this article is Editorial-Steyn.

Journalist Mark Steyn Blasts Warman in his Blog

Paul Fromm

The Canadian Islamic Congress [CLC] recently filed human rights complaints in British Columbia and in Ottawa, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission [CHRC], against Maclean’s magazine for publishing a chapter from neocon journalist Mark Steyn’s book on the threat of radical Islam, particularly its exploding population in Europe which could result in the eventual takeover and Islamicization of the heartland of our civilization.

Steyn may see the complaint as vexatious and frivolous. Of course it is, but that doesn’t matter. Should the CHRC send it to a tribunal, Maclean’s will not be acquitted. As Steyn notes and we have repeatedly pointed out, under this police-state gag law no one, that’s right, no victim in the sordid 29 history of this law, has ever been acquitted.

As only hurt feelings and negative comments about privileged minorities are all that are needed for a guilty finding, Maclean’s goose, quite frankly is cooked.

The law must be overthrown by constitutional challenge, which we and Marc Lemire are attempting to do, or repealed by legislation.

Paul Fromm

Director

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Wise and the ways of the world

Mark Steyn 

Wise and the Ways of the World

SteynOnLine

January 2, 2008

Garry J Wise is a Toronto lawyer who's taken an interest in the [Canadian Islamic Congress's] complaints and has been quoted on the story in The Washington Times. His shtick is very consistent: eminently reasonable, Mister Moderate, nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, folks. "My impression," he writes "remains that the complaints against him are dubious,  politically-motivated and extremely unlikely to succeed." But that's the point: The thing'll work its way through the system, and at some stage toward the end of this year or maybe next year, the Canadian, British Columbia and Ontario "Human Rights" Commissions will all decide that Maclean's and I should be "acquitted", and that will demonstrate that the system "works".

That may make sense from a lawyer's viewpoint. But it's not how the world operates. As evidence of how the process is ultimately "fair", Mr Wise cites a 2002 case from Saskatchewan, in which the [Human Rightrs Commission] ordered both The Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to pay $1,500 to each of three complainants who had objected to the Star Phoenix's publication of an advertisement by Mr Owens. The advertisement quoted some of the sterner Biblical passages on homosexuality. Actually, it didn't "quote" them. It merely listed the relevant chapter and verse: Romans 1:26, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9. Nonetheless, that was enough for the HRC, which relieved the parties of nine thousand bucks for "exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule".

However, as Mr Wise points out, four years later the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, and he evidently regards this as a satisfactory outcome demonstrating the robustness of freedom of expression in Canada. He's right, in an extremely narrow legal sense. But in real terms what's the consequence of Mr Owens' four-year struggle? I would invite Mr Wise to attempt to place the very same advertisement as Mr Owens with The Saskatoon Star Phoenix today. They won't take it. They've learned their lesson. So, regardless of the appeal, the practical consequence of the Owens case has been the shriveling of the bounds of public discourse in Canada. [more]