Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Aw nuts, we won

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, October 10, 2008 2:34pm - 0 Comments

In the matter of Elmasry and Habib v. Roger’s [sic] Publishing and MacQueen (No. 4), heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal this past June:

More comment to follow once I’ve read the thing, but be clear on this: it is no victory to be told by a shadowy government agency that you will be permitted to publish. This ruling only preserves the tribunal from utterly discrediting itself, and as such keeps alive the possibility that some other complainant can drag Maclean’s or any other media organization through yet another travesty half-a-continent away, at great expense of time and money. It also prevents Maclean’s from appealing the tribunal’s decision to an actual court, wherein it might have had the relevant section of the B.C. human rights laws thrown out on constitutional grounds. (Or does it? Can you appeal when you win?)

So the real fight, that of returning our human rights laws to their original purpose, and permanently clipping the wings of the human rights commissioners, will have to be won in the political arena. Until that day…

NOTE: The foregoing represents the views of the writer only, and should not be mistaken for those of Rogers or Maclean’s, their management, employees, lawyers, shareholders, window-cleaners or bonded couriers.

NOTER: The Tribunal does not appear to have put the decision up on its website as of 2:45 PM Eastern time. I’m assured it’s coming soon. UPDATE: It’s up.

Tags: BC human rights tribunal, free speech, Pyrrhic victories

More by Andrew Coyne

Mike T.

Rational people believe in reasonable limits on free speech. At the edges there may be some legitimate disagreement about what limits are reasonable, but free speech absolutism is vapid.
Francien Verhoeven

This is the saddest thing I will say about our ongoing elections:

when wondering if this issue could be brought up during our current Canadian elections I would have to answer: no.
Francien Verhoeven

“What’s Swiss for insane?”

– comments closed —

THAT is classy!
GMK

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say things about race that might be offensive to some.

As long as one isn’t actively trying to INCITE *VIOLENCE* then its all-clear as far as I’m concerned.

Let dissenting opinions and more sensible voices speak out (without government censorship) against the folks that don’t “get it”. Let the sensible will of the masses prevail. Magazine readers will vote with their dollars.

If you start making restrictions, and you slip to some very dangerous territory.

I always thought that Ezra Levant made a solid point when he published works like “Pisschrist” to demonstrate how selective and thought-police-like the HRC is. Offending Christians is A-OK. Offending Muslims is not. What a double standard! Who got to make those rules. Where are they published? Nowhere. The HRC is a star chamber.

Perhaps the HRC should take on the following racists: Russell Peters (almost all his material), Dave Chapelle when he visits Canada next (bits: the racial drafts!? race’s have their own favourite instruments!?).

Their humour offends many, but that’s also a good deal why so many people find it funny. It unites their fans, and doesn’t tear them apart – just look at their diverse audiences. They aren’t inciting any violence. But they certainly are being “racist”, by definition, and certainly offend some members of the races they target.

The HRC already set a precedent of attacking comedians by going after Guy Earle.

I can’t believe the commenters that say “Mark Steyn is racist and so the HRC was right” believe they are doing good, or leading Canada on a positive path. This is disgusting.
Ben Hicks

“At the edges there may be some legitimate disagreement about what limits are reasonable…”

For libel/slander we have lawsuits. For threats or inciting others to violence, we have the criminal code.

In any free socity, I fail to see how any other state-imposed limits on free speech can be in any way “reasonable.”
Sean S.

“Hate laws”, as applied to speech (I don’t think this case comes close), treat the population like idiots.

Zundel wants to publish that the Holocaust never happened? Let him. Let his ideas be heard, weighed, and judged in the court of public opinion. Trust me, we actually fuel a lot of those fringe racial supremacists by outlawing their writings.

If someone’s words contribute to crimes being committed (where they ought to have known better), then he or she can be charged as an accomplice or inciter of such acts.

Free speech should be absolute. I’ve yet to see a case where limits did much good. (Even libel cases, for that matter, come too late to do much good, and don’t really convince folks unless the “wronged” party has publically explained why the initial words were malicious and did harm.)
Ti-Guy

his books been on the best sellers list for how many months?

So what? Check out what other books make bestsellers lists. It’s tragic.

What fascinates me is the general biliousness of Steyniacs. There’s something revealing in that.
Sean S.

I meant this case doesn’t come close to the typical definition of hate laws adopted and excercised in most countries, with the exception of Germany where they are perhaps the most strict.
Ted B

Actually limited and censored free speech would be vapid (lacking liveliness, animation, or interest. lacking taste, zest, or flavor.)
Francien Verhoeven

““At the edges there may be some legitimate disagreement about what limits are reasonable…”

That statement is what gets us hauled up onto that slipperly slope. One little push and it’s all downhill from there.

Freedom of speech really comes down to an insecurity problem on the part of the supposedly insulted.

That’s why the issue is so touchy. People who are insecure about who they are (either as an individual or as a group) feel left more unstable in the wake of criticism. In order to bring that point across, the “explainer” is seen as someone insensitive (insulting) yet again…..So where to break that cycle?

I would say that the best way to break that cycle is to put emphasis on letting people be who they are by letting them look deeper within.
ErnstG

Mark Steyn is as guilty as Keegstra, Zundel, Sentena-Reis, Ross-Taylor, Malcolm Ross, Doug Collins, and everyone else convicted in the last 40 years under thes tribunals. The only difference is the target of Steyn’s “hate”.

Steyn “hated” Muslims. If Steyn “hated” Jews, and offended Jews in the same matter that Steyn offended Muslims, he’d be homeless, jobless, under a gag order, and facing a 5 year jail term. Like Phd Terry Tremaine, who lost his job for the crime of offending Jews.

There is no difference between Terry Tremaine and Mark Steyn, except who they “hated”.
Francien Verhoeven

ErnstG,

on what ground do you find claims for labeling Steyn to “hate” muslims?
Ben Hicks

So what? Check out what other books make bestsellers lists. It’s tragic.

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/october/1/bestsellers/

Oh yes, I can see that. This year saw Steyn’s book take it’s proper place amongst other vile hate literature like Chertien’s “My Years as PM” and Al Gore’s “Assault on Reason.”

What a disgusting breed we Canadians are. Surely, we need more hate laws to protect us from ourselves.
stewacide

These human rights tribunals are all the more terrible since, once established, they’re so politically difficult to do away with, or alter at all. No government wants to abolish a “human rights tribunal” regardless of the fact it serves to arbitrarily trample on our fundamental rights.

Step 1. to reversing this disaster is renaming the boards. I suggest “political censorship committees” as in “The British Columbia Political Censorship Committee…”
Ti-Guy

Works for me. Vive le fascisme libéral!
ErnstG

Francein Verhoeven writes:

>>>ErnstG,

on what ground do you find claims for labeling Steyn to “hate” muslims?<<<

On the same grounds that Doug Collins was “hating Jews”.

Steyn, and McLean’s magazine, are 100% guilty of the same crime as Doug Collins and North Shore News. The only difference is who they were “hating”.

“Hate” a Jew, go to jail. 100% of the time. “Hate” a Muslim, first acquittal in HRT history.
stewacide

Would I advise an absolute right to free speech in Europe? No. Pluralism and tolerance aren’t deeply enough ingrained and there are relatively fresh historical precedents against. The rest of the world is a total non-starter…

But I think Canadian society – like the United States – is suitably strong, tolerant, peaceful, and sensible that an absolute right to free speech is both workable and desirable. We’re well past the tipping point where letting people say whatever they want can only strengthen our tolerant instincts. We should be proud of that.
Francien Verhoeven

ErnstG,

I am not asking about any other cases for comparison.

I am asking on what grounds does the Steyn example refer to “hating Muslims”
ErnstG

Francien Verhoeven, perhaps you do not understand. Steyn was not guilty. Neither was Doug Collins, or Zundel, or Malcolm Ross, or Bill Noble, or Sentena Reis, or David Ahenekew, or Ross Taylor, or Terry Tremaine, or Brad Love, or numerous other individuals.

But the difference is that all of these people were convicted, some jailed, not for their words, but instead for their target. Steyn wrote about Muslims. The others wrote about Jews.

If Steyn is innocent, so are all the others. If the others are guilty, so is Steyn.
Jack Mitchell

No, Mark Steyn isn’t a racist. He just plays one on TV.
Pete

“Any fool could have seen this decision coming. I certainly did….. (a)nd I DO hope they don’t go back to hiring bottom feeders like Steyn to write for them; it will send their circulation to the bottom of the river until their only readers are Neo Nazis.”

Awesome Bigcitylib. You really think if Maclean’s hadn’t raised such a stink over this, that they would have won? The BC HRT only issued this verdict because they felt uncomfortable with public pressure, as someone else stated above, they prefer going after smaller, easier targets, much like a bully.

I mean, there’s other people, like for example that Reverend Boisson in Alberta, who got fined by the HRT for writing a biblical-based attack on homosexuality in the paper. And he got convicted.

As for Steyn’s “bottom feeding”, as you call it, I’ve always found his willingness to tackle liberal sacred cows refreshing. The article stating “Before the white man came? War.” was particularly great.

Face it, Big City Lib, so-called hate speech codes only serve to promote one group over another, and they serve to codify the superiority of various “victim” groups in law. With this ruling, as the people above have said, people who say bad things about Jews get convicted. People who say bad things about Muslims don’t (especially if Ezra Levant doesn’t get convicted). So, the government has implicitly conveyed greater “victim” status on Jews than Muslims. Is that fair? No?

Then how about abolishing this whole process altogether?

Oh, and everyone who doesn’t agree with your Ultra-PC-vegan-no-fur-arms-are-for-hugging view of the world is a Neo-Nazi, eh? It’s people like you who tempt me into voting Harper.
Francien Verhoeven

ErnstG,

Believe me, I do understand all of that!

But I am trying to catch another point:

I am asking you to define for me what it was that Steyn had said that was/is considered to be ‘hating Muslims’.
Mark

“Speaking of journalism, are any the ones around here following the scandal of the Pentagon financing military experts to appear on US broadcast media to peddle the war?”

I am curious, what exactly does the above quote have to do with Mark Steyn and this case. You may as well have mentioned the price of tea in China. It is just as relevant.
Also Ti-Guy your defense of those who would censor Steyn is far more revealing than the supposed “biliousness” of so-called “Steyniacs”. It is spineless people like that have enabled these tribunals to last as long as they have. Furthermore, defending someone’s free speech rights when they come under attack does not making you an unquestioning disciple of his teachings.

Also I am curious, how exactly is what Mark Steyn wrote hate. Is it hate to point out that the most intolerant countries on the face of the earth are majority-Muslim countries? Is it hate to point out that there are no majority-Islamic countries that are real democracies, unless you consider Indonesia a liberal democracy. Is it hate to point out that Islam does not have what one would usually consider a tolerance of other religions? It is not hate to point out the facts surrounding Islam.
Annie Lessard

Maybe Elmasry and his friends would be more lucky if they would expand their “victim group”. They should go after books promoting atheism, and try to convince a human rights commission that atheism exposes every believer in this country to hatred and contempt, and should be banned.
schneezecake

Excellent point Annie L.

I expect that Mark has a beaut of an article sitting in the hands of Macleans. I predict record sales for the next issue.