View topic - Rights group defends itself (CHRC) - National Post :: Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics

Rights group defends itself
Facing calls for its abolition or reform, commission moves to rebut 'misinformation'

Joseph Brean,
National Post
Saturday, April 05, 2008

By way of introduction in an interview this week, Ian Fine, senior general counsel and director-general of dispute resolution at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, wanted to read out loud some of the nastiest material his staff have dealt with, to prove the seriousness of their mission.

"Savage commie Jews hate European beauty and nobility," he said, quoting a prominent violator of Canada's most controversial hate speech law, and disabled people are "parasites," "incognizant primates," "genetic throwbacks" and "lesser beasts that must be culled from the herd."

He quoted another to the effect that "a nigger will try to kill you just for a slice of pizza or a piece of chicken ... By Aryan standards, negroes are dangerous animals" and should be presumed guilty of crimes.

It was the most bizarre moment in an unusual conference call with three senior CHRC staff, who had mustered for the beleaguered agency's first public relations offensive, a calculated effort to rebut the "misinformation" that is turning some public opinion against them, and inspiring high-level demands that their powers be severely curtailed.

"The reality is we read the papers. We know about the current debate, we know the parameters, if you will," Mr. Fine said. "If you think that we're concerned, upset, from time to time discouraged with some of what we've been hearing and reading in the press, you're right, we are. Because to be quite clear about it, we do believe in what we do. We believe that in our society there should be limits on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, that there is a line, not one that we draw, but one that must be drawn nevertheless. We are comfortable with what we do."

This confident defensiveness was the general tone of the interview with Mr. Fine and his colleagues Monette Maillet, director of legal advisory services and a top Section 13 litigator, and Harvey Goldberg, senior policy advisor on hate speech, disability and First Nations issues.

But to judge from the two times they muted their line for private discussions about what they should or should not say, and from the conspiratorial whispering that could be heard in the background during the call, their confidence masked deep concern for the CHRC's public reputation.

That reputation has taken a beating in the past few weeks. Calls for the abolition or reform of the federal and provincial human rights commissions have grown as hate speech laws designed for racist propagandists have been used against mainstream journalists, notably the staff of Maclean's magazine, who are accused of Islamophobic hate messages by the Canadian Islamic Congress for, among other things, columns and a book review.

Mark Steyn, author of the most controversial Maclean's story, calls the commissions "kangaroo courts." Ezra Levant, who is defending himself against a hate speech charge for publishing the Danish Muhammad cartoons, has been leading a campaign of what he calls "denormalizing" the commissions, making them seem an affront to Canadian values, rather than a buttress.

The debate has even reached Parliament, where Liberal MP Keith Martin has proposed stripping the federal commission of the mandate to investigate hate speech, a goal that is supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

These critics have in turn inspired defenders, some of whom take the same shrill, sarcastic tone as the harshest blogging critics, and others, such as Michael Noonan, CEO of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, who in an earnest op-ed this week took the side of the Maclean's complainants and compared the commissions' work to the liberation of South Africa.

At issue is Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which makes it an offence to communicate by phone or Internet any message that is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

As a workload issue, it is insignificant, making up just 2% of the CHRC's work, far less than employment or housing disputes. As a reflection of the commission's priorities, however, it is top of the agenda, and for critics, it is the thin edge of the wedge.

"Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of any free and open society and the commission embraces freedom of expression," Mr. Goldberg said.

"I think if you remove all the rhetoric, at the base of the debate that's been going on ... is a centuries-old debate about the appropriate role of the state in limiting freedom of expression in certain precise areas."

He said the view of the Supreme Court, which has held that Section 13.1 is a justifiable infringement of the right to free expression, is "actually the predominant view among most of the states of the world. The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."

Vulgar racists of the sort quoted by Mr. Fine are one thing, but main-stream conservative polemicists such as Mr. Steyn or publishers such as Mr. Levant seem to be of a different order, and it is on this point that the commission staff were most evasive.

Calling the CHRC a "creature of statute," Mr. Fine said it can do no more and no less than what the law provides. He suggests any complaints be directed to Parliament.

"Just as Parliament has bestowed on the commission the mandate, in fact the obligation, to deal with Section 13 cases, Parliament can take that power away at any time," he said.

Likewise, the common complaint that respondents are on the hook for their own defence bills, while complainants have their cases argued by the commission, is dismissed as beyond the commission's sphere of influence.

"We don't set the rules. It's for Parliament to decide whether or not respondents should have the ability to recover costs," Mr. Fine said.

Hanging over the entire debate is the spectre of Richard Warman, a former CHRC employee turned activist who was the complainant in all but two of the 13 hate speech cases decided by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which decides cases that cannot be mediated or settled by the commission.

"Anyone can file a complaint, so from our perspective, that's the end of the matter," Mr. Fine said.

"The tribunal decisions speak for themselves."

Ms. Maillet added that the 100% conviction rate for hate speech cases that have reached the tribunal is not a sign of a flawed system, but a testimony to the commission's efficiency.

"To me, it is a sign that we have done a good job in screening complaints, and referring those cases to tribunal that have merit," Ms. Maillet said.

The only question the trio completely rebuffed, because it is the subject of a tribunal hearing, was about the commission's online investigatory techniques. They are the subject of controversy -- even a complaint to police -- after it was revealed last week that CHRC investigators apparently hijacked a private citizen's Internet account to access a Web site they were investigating.

"We believe that the processes we've employed in these cases are appropriate, and that's about all I think I can say on that issue," Mr. Fine said.

Despite the reticence on major questions, it was clear that the free speech criticism is familiar to the CHRC's top operatives, and they are confident their efforts are in line with the modern conception of human rights as interdependent, interrelated, and never absolute. As Mr. Goldberg described it, their work is a "balancing act."

"Hatred is as old as the world," he said. "Hate on the Internet is just one aspect of hate activity that goes on in the world, and it's not something we expect is going to end tomorrow, but that's not a reason why we stop trying to deal with it."

jbrean@nationalpost.com
_________________
"...single men must have access to donor eggs and “gestational carriers.” - David Johnston, Governor General Appointee
(The man Stephen Harper calls "the best of Canada")

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 11:49 am Post subject:

Fine is trying to deep six this as fast as he can.

Sorry, buddy, it ain't going away that easy.

.
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.

Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture!

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 11:53 am Post subject:

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 12:05 pm Post subject:

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 12:16 pm Post subject:

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 1:02 pm Post subject:

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 1:37 pm Post subject:

"We believe that in our society there should be limits on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, that there is a line, not one that we draw, but one that must be drawn nevertheless. We are comfortable with what we do," said Chairman Mao & the Central Committee....

Shocked

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 1:39 pm Post subject:

He said the view of the Supreme Court, which has held that Section 13.1 is a justifiable infringement of the right to free expression, is "actually the predominant view among most of the states of the world. The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."

Oh, geez. Headshake

_________________
The opinions I have just expressed are my own. The owners of Free Dominion are not coercing any particular opinion from me.

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 1:39 pm Post subject:

a centuries-old debate about the appropriate role of the state in limiting freedom of expression in certain precise areas...

Which precludes anything the Magna Carta might say, etc.

d'oh!

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 1:44 pm Post subject:

Ms. Maillet added that the 100% conviction rate for hate speech cases that have reached the tribunal is not a sign of a flawed system, but a testimony to the commission's efficiency.

...yes, efficiency....at ALL costs....

Always the sign of a QUALITY operation.... Hurray

Posted: 04/ 05/ 08 1:55 pm Post subject:

Quote]"He said the view of the Supreme Court, which has held that Section 13.1 is a justifiable infringement of the right to free expression, is "actually the predominant view among most of the states of the world. The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."
________________________________________________________________________

One must assume that the idiot is referring to Europe as "most of the states of the world", and we know how well they are doing Rolling Eyes

It is a given that the most successful and free states on earth were created because of and despite Europe's horrible record while surviving now only because of us their "children". That can only last so long unless people like Geert Wilder pry their eyes open. With equal and honorable mention to the creators of FD and mark Steyn Hurray

_________________
I have no "label" no "sticker" just a hidden price!
A liar will assume you are lying

	The time now is 09/ 02/ 10 10:18 pm
	Home ∴ Forum ∴ Recent ∴ Register ∴ Profile ∴ Log in to check your private messages ∴ Log in FAQ ∴ Search ∴ Donate ∴ Activist's Toolbox ∴ FD Links ∴ FD Swag [ Login to join chat ] FD Arcade - Click Here-->